Help support TMP


"Bradleys & Other Vehicles for Ukraine" Topic


32 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

Please don't call someone a Nazi unless they really are a Nazi.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Ultramodern Warfare (2012-present) Message Board


Areas of Interest

Modern

Featured Hobby News Article


Featured Recent Link


Featured Ruleset

Pz8 - 1975/2010 Wargame Rules


Rating: gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star 


Featured Showcase Article

Sugar Plum Fairy Set

The Sovereign of Sweets and her entourage take their turn in Showcase.


Current Poll


Featured Book Review


Featured Movie Review


1,054 hits since 10 Jan 2023
©1994-2023 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?


TMP logo

Membership

Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
Personal logo Editor in Chief Bill The Editor of TMP Fezian10 Jan 2023 6:05 a.m. PST

Capabilities in this package include:

50 Bradley infantry fighting vehicles with 500 TOW anti-tank missiles and 250,000 rounds of 25mm ammunition;
100 M113 Armored Personnel Carriers;
55 Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles (MRAPs);
138 High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWVs);
18 155mm self-propelled Howitzers and 18 ammunition support vehicles;
70,000 155mm artillery rounds;
500 precision-guided 155mm artillery rounds;
1,200 155mm rounds of Remote Anti-Armor Mine (RAAM) Systems;
36 105mm towed Howitzers and 95,000 105mm artillery rounds;
10,000 120mm mortar rounds;
Additional ammunition for High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS);
RIM-7 missiles for air defense;
4,000 Zuni aircraft rockets;
Approximately 2,000 anti-armor rockets;
Sniper rifles, machine guns, and ammunition for grenade launchers and small arms;
Claymore anti-personnel munitions;
Night vision devices and optics;
Spare parts and other field equipment.

Department of Defense: link

Titchmonster10 Jan 2023 7:52 a.m. PST

Good

Personal logo Legion 4 Supporting Member of TMP10 Jan 2023 8:55 a.m. PST

Sounds good to me ! Germany is sending Marder IFVs and France AMX-10 Light tanks. The Ukraine is prepping to go on a major offensive(s). To rid their nation of the Russian invaders.

Gray Bear10 Jan 2023 9:02 a.m. PST

More carnage for both sides. Good money after bad.

BattlerBritain10 Jan 2023 9:09 a.m. PST

Apparently there's talk of UK sending Challenger2 tanks as well.

Not sure how many or what type of AP ammo they'll be using but it should be interesting.

Personal logo Legion 4 Supporting Member of TMP10 Jan 2023 9:18 a.m. PST

I had heard the UK sent 70 Challenger IIs to Poland. As Poland sent their upgraded Russian MBTS to the Ukraine. The Ukraine needed no training to use Russian equipment.

It is reported Poland is buying the new ROK K2 Black Panther MBT link and US M1s.

Uesugi Kenshin Supporting Member of TMP10 Jan 2023 9:30 a.m. PST

All good news but only 500 ToWs for Brad's is kinda low. They'll shoot through those quickly.

ROUWetPatchBehindTheSofa10 Jan 2023 11:35 a.m. PST

At the rate Ukraine is going part of its re-construction plan will be hosting a Cold War military museum since they seem to be ending up with examples of pretty much everything… Still I'm sure they can find a use for it all. I think the 25mm chain guns on the Bradleys will probably be their main selling point… Probably more accurate and longer ranged than Russian equivalents and with thermal imaging IIRC?

Challenger 2s would be interesting. Not sure if they're as invulnerable as their legend suggests, but a 120mm gun platform probably isn't to be sneezed at. Given the increasingly dug in nature of Russian troops the ability to spam potential strong points with a shell that big will no doubt find a lot of use. Again I'm guessing the soft factors like ergonomics and onboard equipment will give the Ukrainian crews more of an edge than they have in ex-Soviet kit. As for tank v tank I'm fairly certain against the increasingly museum piece Russian army it wouldn't be fair fight but then that's the point. (In the Steel Panthers modern version against the admittedly very dumb AI Challengers severely messed up Soviet tank rushes)

Prince Alberts Revenge10 Jan 2023 1:33 p.m. PST

I read some "experts" speculate the real value of the Bradleys will be the multiple sight sensor systems, with the ability for its operators to "see" over extended distances.

The idea is that the Ukrainians could use the Bradleys to laser targets and deliver GPS coordinates for artillery strikes.

I don't know enough of Bradleys or their potential use in artillery operations to know if this is an accurate assessment.

Bunkermeister Supporting Member of TMP10 Jan 2023 3:55 p.m. PST

Russia out of Moldova, Chechnya, and Ukraine. Give up their nuclear weapons, and pay reparations for the reconstruction of Ukraine. Stop the reconquest of the old Russian empire.

50 Bradleys is only a battalion and alone is not much. But yes, use them in teams of about four to provide ATGM, and night vision for other units.

The US has thousands of Abrams and other armored vehicles in storage. Giving these vehicles away to Ukraine is much cheaper then the aid figures really show.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek

Personal logo Legion 4 Supporting Member of TMP10 Jan 2023 4:16 p.m. PST

I read some "experts" speculate the real value of the Bradleys will be the multiple sight sensor systems, with the ability for its operators to "see" over extended distances.


The idea is that the Ukrainians could use the Bradleys to laser targets and deliver GPS coordinates for artillery strikes.

Plus their 25mm cannon that can fire both AP & AT along with their TOWs will do a lot of damage to Russian Infantry and AFVs. And of course, they can call-in FA like many modern US AFVs.

I had heard Germany and another NATO(?) nation is thinking about giving the Ukraine Leopards too but not the newest version, IIRC. Either way they could be effective vs. the Russians. Many Russian AFVs that were abandoned, etc. have been repair and sent back into action by the Ukraine.

50 Bradleys is only a battalion and alone is not much.
Yes, they will work with the other AFVs from other nations to create Combined Arms TFs, etc. Plus, the M2s and Ukraine crews are superior to most of what is left of the Russian armor and troops. Again the Ukraine fights combine arms … the Russians not at all.


The US has thousands of Abrams and other armored vehicles in storage.
Yes, a year or two back the USMC gave up their 200 M1s. We have a lot AFVs, etc., in mothballs.

BattlerBritain11 Jan 2023 7:52 a.m. PST

It's not the tanks that cost but the ammunition.

And is it wise to let Ukraine use the latest and greatest gun AP ammo?

I'm talking tank ammo here.

Do they need the latest or would older stocks do?

Personal logo Legion 4 Supporting Member of TMP11 Jan 2023 8:29 a.m. PST

It's not the tanks that cost but the ammunition.
A na AFV without ammo is a big paperweight. Based on my time working it Log with the US Army.

And is it wise to let Ukraine use the latest and greatest gun AP ammo?
As I have said many times before … as a Grunt it's not the weapon system but the crew behind the weapon.

I'm talking tank ammo here.
Again any AFV needs ammo. In large amounts. That is a given.

they need the latest or would older stocks do?
Comes down to what ammo is NATO willing to give as well.

And what threat the current Russian MBTs available pose.

How much fully mission capable armor do the Russians have ?

Will they use it any better than before?

Unlikely they have learned any lessons.

As we see their current limited attacks with mostly Infantry with 2 weeks of training.

Of course, the short answer is any type of ammo that can kill Russians MBTs. Regardless of types/age.


----------------------------------------------------------------

Ukraine troops go to Oklahoma for Patriot training. Maybe they will get to see the musical too !

link

ROUWetPatchBehindTheSofa11 Jan 2023 9:15 a.m. PST

120mm is a NATO standard as is the 105mm for the AMX10 so stocks should be available. I'd guess that we may not be awash with the flashier rounds made out of exotic materials.

As for numbers the Ukrainians have repeatedly demonstrated in this invasion that quality can have quantity of its own….

How much fully mission capable armor do the Russians have?

That is a very interesting question. 50 Bradley's looks way more impressive if your opponent has TOEs that look like they came out of the back of the Twilight 2000 RPG!

SBminisguy11 Jan 2023 9:41 a.m. PST

Sure glad that the Biden Admin is confident that the US won't need these hundreds of vehicles to deal with say, the collapse of the failed Mexican Narco State, or responding to a conflict with China or some other threat.

Of course the Defense Contractors are happy to get more $$$ to replace these generous donations, eh? Happily, the current SecDef made $7 USD Million after retiring from active duty for sitting on "who's who" of Defense Contractor Boards, like Raytheon, Pine Island Investments, Booz Allen Hamilton, UTC, Nucor (naval ships), and even the Carnegie Corporation where he became friends with the Kennedy clan…

Personal logo Legion 4 Supporting Member of TMP11 Jan 2023 10:17 a.m. PST

ROU +1

SBminis +1

ROUWetPatchBehindTheSofa11 Jan 2023 10:28 a.m. PST

I wasn't aware Bradley's had an aeroGavin kit for going over the Pacific!

And why do the US and UK,and pretty much any other, militaries deploy MRAP vehicles rather than CW era IFVs during insurgence campaigns?

Personal logo Legion 4 Supporting Member of TMP11 Jan 2023 10:53 a.m. PST

I wasn't aware Bradley's had an aeroGavin kit for going over the Pacific!
Nor was I … ? However, I believe the US Army units in the PTO have M2s by now, e.g. the 2ID in the ROK, not sure about the 25ID in Hawaii ? They have undergone some TO&E changes. The USMC does not use Bradleys
or M1s …


And why do the US and UK,and pretty much any other, militaries deploy MRAP vehicles rather than CW era IFVs during insurgence campaigns?
The MRAP[Mine Resistant Ambush Protected] were really meant to replace lighter wheeled vehicles. Like the flat-bottomed HMMWV.

In Iraq the Iranian supplied AT mines to the Shia militias made a mess out of M2s. In A'stan and even Iraq MRAPs saved a lot lives. That if they were in e.g. HMMWVs they'd be dead. In A'stan the insurgents were not using much armor, but a lot of IEDs.

In combat as I have been told, there are few guarantees, all you can do is limit being a static using equipment properly and sound tactics. If you want a guarantee, go to Walmart.

We see that is happening to the Russians in the Ukraine. The don't use anything that looks like sound, proven tactics.

dogtail11 Jan 2023 11:48 a.m. PST

Well done, PotUS

ROUWetPatchBehindTheSofa11 Jan 2023 2:04 p.m. PST

That if they were in e.g. HMMWVs they'd be dead.

The UK had the snatch landrover – I know some might say mobility is armour but not so much where mines are involved.

(Part of the problem we face now, probably mostly a European one, is the assumption that those Western forces with expeditionary capability would find themselves largely engaged in insurgency and police actions and tailored to fit over the last couple of decades – part peace dividend, part politics and part situational. And then an actual conventional land war kicks off and public start asking questions they normally don't like do have enough artillery ammunition and tanks… The cynic in me says we'll re-equip for a more conventional land conflict and then a decade down the line they'll be some bush fire wars / insurgencies and then the public will be asking why their army doesn't have enough MRAPs etc)

Personal logo Legion 4 Supporting Member of TMP11 Jan 2023 2:22 p.m. PST

I know some might say mobility is armour but not so much where mines are involved.
An old Ranger school saying I was told was "Speed is security". That has some credence in both dismounted Infantry and even vehicle movement. But again, as always it comes down to terrain and situation.

we'll re-equip for a more conventional land conflict and then a decade down the line they'll be some bush fire wars / insurgencies and then the public will be asking why their army doesn't have enough MRAPs etc)
A well-equipped Army should have a range of vehicles both armored and soft skins. That may cost more, however. Regardless the US military left some MRAPs behind in Iraq and of course A'stan. Even gave some to Law Enforcment. Our local Police have an MRAP. I saw it when it was still desert tan. Before it was painted Flat Black to be used by SWAT.

However, in a conventional war IMO an MRAP would still be useful. As mines & IEDs can be use in any type of conflict. Having MRAPs and other soft skins are not that well armored. If at all. So again, you have to have situational awareness. Whether dismounted or in an AFV, etc. Sometimes easier said than done. Bottom line an Army must be trained in both conventional and irregular warfare. I know we were at Squad up to Co.

The public being so self-involved, unaware etc. will say a lot of things they know little of or care about. In some cases, especially the media. Recently here a post said the US Military was inept at unconventional warfare. Again, someone who maybe unaware of the reality, etc.? However, that is an inaccurate description. But that is another conversation for another time …

Personal logo Legion 4 Supporting Member of TMP11 Jan 2023 3:37 p.m. PST

Errata: I said "Recently here a post said the US Military was inept at unconventional warfare." I was wrong … The quote was:

starting another war in someone else's backyard. America has already proven itself inept at that.
Which is still inaccurate … 'nuff said …

BattlerBritain11 Jan 2023 3:56 p.m. PST

UK 120mm is not the same as US or WG 120mm.

Hence it's not 'NATO' 120mm.

So will they be supplying L14, L23 or L26?

Personal logo Legion 4 Supporting Member of TMP11 Jan 2023 4:11 p.m. PST

I would think the logistic types would have already thought this thru. I hope so, regardless, if they have not, they better get on it now. But they don't tell me what they are doing … I'm way out of the loop … ⚪

I was a Mech Bn and Asst Mech Hvy Bde Log Officer probably before some of them were born. old fart

Heedless Horseman Supporting Member of TMP11 Jan 2023 6:32 p.m. PST

"Owt is better than nowt"
But spare parts/replenishing all the varied kit will mean a lot of Bald Ukranian supply officers!
Still, all to the Good!

Personal logo Legion 4 Supporting Member of TMP11 Jan 2023 7:39 p.m. PST

Been there … done that … 😎

ROUWetPatchBehindTheSofa12 Jan 2023 8:41 a.m. PST

UK 120mm is not the same as US or WG 120mm.

My bad.

Looked it up and seems horribly confusing with some newer British rounds being backwards compatible with the older version of the 120mm…. And for the Challenger 3 we are moving to the Rheinmetall L/55.

Personal logo Legion 4 Supporting Member of TMP12 Jan 2023 12:00 p.m. PST

Like I said, I think the Logisticians have looked at this Ammo situation … or they are not doing their jobs.

Andy ONeill13 Jan 2023 5:23 p.m. PST

I'm pro west and pro USA generally. There have been some pretty bad decisions involving other back yards though.

Personal logo Legion 4 Supporting Member of TMP13 Jan 2023 6:06 p.m. PST

Well seems some e.g. NATO were not prepared to support a war ! But we knew that ! 😎

ROUWetPatchBehindTheSofa14 Jan 2023 6:24 a.m. PST

To be fair NATO isn't structured to support a third-party war but rather fight its own. I suspect that Ukraine might have been in better place awhile back had NATO's military planners been the sole decision makers rather than politicians continually looking over their shoulders to public opinion and their special advisors. Personally I'm actually glad NATO never went toe to toe with todays Russian army in the Baltics I think that the outcome would have been sufficiently one-side to frighten Putin into doing something very stupid.

Personal logo Legion 4 Supporting Member of TMP14 Jan 2023 11:49 a.m. PST

NATO was to be prepared to fight USSR/WP … Most let their militaries downsize, spend money of other things than defense, etc., etc. They no longer saw Russia a threat.

Frankly I'm not giving NATO a pass, their militaries' we not combat ready. Regardless of the situation.

Also note: NATO charter, Article 5 An attack on one is an attack on all. That is why we saw many NATO nations and some others were with the USA in A'stan. After 9/11 … To hunt down and kill UBL, AQ, Taliban, etc., etc.

All that being said, thank the gods that NATO vs. USSR/WP. It would have been very messy, etc. However, based on Russia's performance currently in the Ukraine … If they were as incompetent during the Cold War as they are now. Think NATO would have whipped'm. However, the fear is always Russia using WMDs. Their FMs include using tac nukes as SOP.

Again, thank the gods this never occurred, and we never had to find out if the Cold War Russians are as poor as they are now.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.