"Marders, AMX10RC, Bradley, Challenger 2...Logistics" Topic

Ukraine is getting a real smorgasbord of equipment from the West. Just a few are:

AMX10RC
Marder
Bradley
Challenger 2

Various Mobile and Towed Artillery Guns

And now Germany says that they will allow Leopard IIs to be sent to Ukraine if the US gives Abrams.

All good kit, for sure.

But are we really helping Ukraine with this wild shopping list of stuff, or handing them a logistics nightmare? Various ammunition from various sources, various equipment from very different sources, and a headache of maintenance and training.

Will this help Ukraine? Or make their logistical issue so complex to actually hurt their ability to coordinate and attack? How can they mitigate the issues that will arise?

Of course it will help but I agree, the logistics… I am glad Iīm not in charge of logistics in Ukraine. What a nightmare to match specific items to specific units in a huge country at war. Imagine getting specific air filters to an M113 in Soldedar from , basically, a depot in the US…

I wish the west could come to an agreement that, for example, UK supplies MBT:s and US IFV:s and Germany howitzers.

It would make it alot easier if there were 300 Challenger MBT:s, 600 Bradleys and a few PZHB2000 than 30 Challys, 45 LEO2, 50 AMX10RC… you get the point.

Someone suggested that the 400 Challenger 1 that the Jordanians are about to retire would make a lot of sense if the deal could be done. Better than the current smorgasbord

DBDD

Yes, the "Iron Monsters" require maintenance & logistic support. Been there done that. All those AFVs, etc. should come with Prescribed Load List, etc. of parts & accessories, etc. The Log guys will or will have to set up a Forward Log Support base/Field Trains in Poland. The same they will have to do for ammo, etc. Again, been there … done that.

I was a Mech Bn and then later Mech Hvy Bde Motor Officer. As well as a Mech Bn Log Officer[S-4] then Asst Bde S-4. Yes, I was a Grunt but you don't get to choose where higher thinks you need to go. If NATO and the US gets/has their 💩 together the various maint., parts, all Classes of Supply should be available. They may have to do a "push package" initially to get all the supplies, etc. in Poland. NATO is supposed to have interoperability … or they will learn very quickly if not …

You can't imagine all the parts & Classes of supplies a Mech Bn and Mech Hvy Bde that are required. Again, been there done that. The US & NATO have done it before in Iraq and A'stan. Poland is a much better location than those for a number of reasons.

It would make it alot easier if there were 300 Challenger MBT:s, 600 Bradleys and a few PZHB2000 than 30 Challys, 45 LEO2, 50 AMX10RC…

There are or will be some PZHB2000 in the Ukraine. Pretty sure I saw some footage of one of them firing on the news last night in the Ukraine.

FWIW – Interestingly, I think I saw it on one of Perun's videos. That the M2 Bradleys in Iraq had killed more enemy AFVs with it's TOWs than the M1. Of course, I think there were more M2s there on the ground than M1s ?

I was taught that those TOWs on the M2 were there to cover your , and get you out of trouble. Not go Tank Hunting. However, reports from Iraq, IIRC said they were actually using M2s like Tanks/Tank Destroyers. Some even are referring to the M2 as a "Tank Hunter" now. Even if it is an IFV.

Of course, we know how good the TOW is at killing AFVs. And again, the Ukrainians will have the advantage of being generally superior to the Russians in combat. The M2s should be very effective killing enemy AFVs. And bunkers, etc.

IIRC, they saw the M231 Firing Port Weapons System was a bust. [We thought so as soon as we were briefed on it, but we were still using M113s] Removed it and covered the ports, flanks etc. with more real armor. To improve survivability. IIRC the did the same with the Stryker & even the USMC LAVs.

You can see all the armor added on to M2A3. Don't think the Ukraine is getting these ? link

IIRC in Iraq the M1A2 got an upgrade – TUSK: Tank Urban Survival Kit. link AFAIK at this time no M1s going to Ukraine, as we have discussed before.

FWIW – Interestingly, I think I saw it on one of Perun's videos. That the M2 Bradleys in Iraq had killed more enemy AFVs with it's TOWs than the M1. Of course, I think there were more M2s there on the ground than M1s ?

From Perun, M2/M3 Bradley chapter.
"* Fewer Bradleys deployed than Abrams (1,730 vs 2,024)
*
* Often stated that Bradley destroyed more Iraqi tanks in Desert Storm than the Abrams"

Druzhina
Illustrations of Costume & Soldiers

There it is thanks ! And I mixed up the M2 to M1 ratio. DOH ! 😯 Guess I'm biased being an old M113 Mech Co. Cdr !

Thanks for the correction.

Saw today on the news, the US is sending 90 Strykers to the Ukraine too. The US deactivated a Stryker unit in Alaska recently. And made that unit a Bde or two the 11th ABN Div. Which was used in the PTO during WWII. Those might be the Strykers from the deactivated unit. I don't know if that will include any of the Strykers that have the 105mm cannon.

I've long thought there's a strong argument for the light tank in western armies.
Cheap, light, medium sort of he orientated gun, couple of missiles for AT.

A big gun is nice but a 75mm to lob HE rounds is sufficient for anti infantry. Some Hesh for light armour like BMP. Maybe mostly hesh since it's pretty good for taking out walls.

Bar armour for rpg.

Maybe an active anti missile gun.

The bar armour is your main defence against rpg anyhow.

Where enemy mbt are around in quantity then they'd need some support or numbers. But you could afford numbers. I would think getting the things to distant lands would be far easier than mbt.

I've long thought there's a strong argument for the light tank in western armies.
Cheap, light, medium sort of he orientated gun, couple of missiles for AT.

That is kind of what an M2 Bradley has morphed into. Besides carrying Infantry. Which has to be part of the Combined Arms Tm. The M2 has 2 sponson mounted TOW missiles, and a 25mm auto cannon which at a flip of a switch can fire AT or APERs rounds.

A big gun is nice but a 75mm to lob HE rounds is sufficient for anti infantry.

Too small of a blast radius, it is not that big. Having a large caliber cannon that can fire both AT & APERs rounds. Plus, the .30 & .50s on most AFVs will do a job on Infantry as well. Look at the M1A2 TUSK and the M2A3. I linked GHQ pics in a post above. More Armor protection and the M1A2 has an extra .50. A .50 will take out a BMP on the flank & rear.

The bar armour is your main defence against rpg anyhow.

Bar and/or slant armor and in closed terrain or in an ambush the RPG has proven deadly at close range. To use recon by fire or FA H&I fires, etc. could help suppress RPGs, etc. But you have to be concerned about CD as always.

I would think getting the things to distant lands would be far easier than mbt.

Yes & no, you can load an MBT or IFV/APC, etc. fairly easily at a near railhead[still a PIA!].

Load AFVs, etc. at near railhead.

Railhead to port. Then download …

Load onboard ship.

Ship goes to port on the other side of ocean.

Download at railhead near port.

Then upload on rails, send those AFVs, etc. to far Railhead to link up with crews & troops.

Again, Been there … done that.

It would be nice if you could fly everything into an airfield, etc. Some AFVs, etc. we can. But if you have IFVs/APCs they have to be supported by MBTs & vis versa. As well as FA, ADA, etc.

That is the way e.g. Poland will get it's M1s & K2s, etc. And the Ukraine is getting many AFVs, etc. from not just the US but NATO, Australia, etc.

The US went thru a period where they were going with lighter AFVs for mobility. To project strength, etc. But as I posted, once the M1, M2, Stryker and LAVs got on the ground. The US ended up having to add, etc. armor to all those AFVs, IIRC.

As we know, the balancing act with AFVs. Is to trade off armor & firepower with mobility and deployability. You have to get a good mix based on your requirements.

Isn't the redback supposed to be the favourite in the omfv assessment for Bradley replacement?

Still think that has not been decided yet ? FWIW – link

Saw this online too, we discussed this a bit before.

Did the M2 Bradley destroy the M1 Abrams?
The M2 Bradleys actually outperformed the M1 Abrams tank and destroyed more Iraqi armored vehicles. However, in the Iraq War the Bradley proved to be vulnerable to improvised explosive device (IED) and rocket-propelled grenade (RPG) attacks and in 2007, the Army stopped using the Bradley in combat in favour of the MRAPs.

That TOW is a long range badd Mutha' ! But by 2007 how many Iraqi AFVs were still around ? Of course the TOW can do a job on structures, bunkers, etc., too.

Like this new one…

Discover BAE Systems CV90120 light tank offering firepower of tank with a weight of fewer than 40 tons

link

Hope to see it Ukraine too…

Armand

Oh I do like that !