"Western Tanks in Ukraine - any good?" Topic

There was a lot of fanfare as Challengers, Abrams, Leopards etc, were sent to Ukraine, but how are they doing? Have they really been significant at all?
It seems as though drones are the great leveller, and if the multitude of videos are to be believed, as soon as any tank exposes itself, whack!

I have seen a lot of videos about tanks… Leopards majority… they performance so well… supporting infantry attack … killing Russian tanks and armoured convoys… blasting russian artillery… etc.

Saying that… the Bradley is the top armoured vehicle of this war…

Armand

Again, in this case as in many any weapons systems is only as good as the crew's training, capabilities and leadership …

Of course, modern combined arms doctrine includes Infantry and MBTs working closely together. Generally based on terrain and situation as always. E.g. The US Army has moved the Armor Training Center from Ft. Knox, KY to Ft. Moore[was Benning]GA. Where The Infantry Training Center is. Now they train and work together as SOP.

I also as an M113 Mech Co. Cdr, '87-'89. My Mech Co. was often cross attached to a Tank Bn. The tactic standardized by Combined Arms/Air-Land Battle Doctrine … I.e. Infantry & Armor working together as a Combined Arms Tm.

The M2 Bradley was also the biggest AFV killer in Iraq. The TOW in the M2s turret mounted sponson can engage and kill targets at over 3700+ms. While most MBTs' main gun can really only effectively take out targets at around 2500ms + or – … At least at this time. Future tech may change that to a longer effective range.

I also believe the TOW is going to be replaced by a newer AT Missile or possibly upgraded again.

The M2's 25mm Auto Chain gun can fire both AT & APERS Rds at quite a high ROF. Easily changing from one type of round to the other. Giving it additional capabilities in combat.

With the introduction of more modern Infantry AT weapons, e.g. the US Javelin. AFVs have to use terrain masking, Indirect Fire Support, etc. to improve survivability. Is more importantly than ever before.

The US sent 31 Abrams to Ukraine. Not a war winning number no matter how good they are.
We sent 600 M113 and at least 1/2 are gone now, I read recently.
We sent 300 Bradleys to Ukraine.

Fewer than a 1,000 armored vehicles over a period of three years. One per day.

In WWII we made 50,000 Shermans, and 50,000 halftracks in four years.

It's just like Vietnam. Send only enough to keep the war going but not enough to win.

Mike

True. But vehicles cost a lot more now than they did in WW2. Then, if we had sent over tons of vehicles, we would those saying we have left the US defenseless and we were sending too much money supporting Ukraine. So…

It's just like Vietnam. Send only enough to keep the war going but not enough to win.

What I've been saying here for ages. It's IMMORAL! All we're doing is enabling killings. And nothing is resolved.

US defenseless because of some thousands of armour vehicles and tanks?… really?

Among that… who is going to invade USA?…

Armand

No invasion is necessary Armand. We have a large and ready Fifth Column.

Depends how they are used.

The Ukrainians briefly tried using armored formations on the offense, and got hit hard.

They initially used the Abrams without any drone protection.

Now they are using tanks (and Bradleys) often solo, quick response in problem areas, with drone protection.

The US sent 31 Abrams to Ukraine. Not a war winning number no matter how good they are.

That number was agreed upon by that was the number in 1 Ukrainian Tank Bn. Based on Russian TO&Es or were at one time …

We sent 600 M113 and at least 1/2 are gone now,

We sent/sold M113s to almost everyone. Really an older design first saw action in Vietnam. The are an APC not an IFV like an M2. Mechanically reliable, easy to repair, both lightly armed[M2 .50 cal.] and armored[could stop most shrapnel/secondary missiles/small arms fires.

Generally, uses terrain to its advantage to improve survivability on the modern battlefield. Fairly fragile and easily KO'd with a HMG, or RPG on up. Primarily designed to allow Infantry to keep pace with MBTs.

The IDF still uses them. But really were only deployed as transport to get the Infantry as close to the last covered and concealed position, before the assault. Dismounting 9 of the 11-man squad. Two of the Squad remains in the Track as Driver & TC. The M113 remains behind cover and possibly provide covering fires with .50 cal. mounted on the TC's hatch.

Old tech that really has seen better days. As with more modern tech it is easy KO'd. Possibly KIA & WIA many/most inside. Sandbags were used in certain locations to improve its thin armor. But only proved to be of minimal effectiveness.

So if the Ukraine lost about 1/2 of their M113s is not really that surprising. Alsos the M113 very vulnerable to mines, IEDs/Booby Traps.

As I said, as a Mech Co Cdr assigned 14 M113A1s, we always practiced dismounting at the halt. If at all possible, when moving with MBTs, etc. Plus again remain behind cover based on terrain and situation.

Left about 69 M113s in A'stan that the ANA was trained to used. Now those still operable are in the hands of the Taliban. But seems they prefer Pick-up Trucks and HMMWVs.

We have 2,000 Abrams in storage and thousands more on active service. We could have sent 500 or a thousand without any effect on our own safety. 31 was never enough to make any difference.
600 M113 in three years, again is not enough to matter. How many were in an old armored division? Probably that many.
They mostly used them as armored ambulances from some articles I have seen.
But the real point is if you send the aid in piecemeal you won't win, you will only prolong the war.
And Ukraine keeps having ammo shortages. Just like in WWI and WWII and Korea and Vietnam. No one wants to build ammo factories or store ammo, but every war we run low or run out.
If the West can't even support Ukraine how could we fight a major land war ourselves?
Bunkermeister

sent 300 Bradleys to Ukraine.

The M2 Brad being an IFV armed with both a 25mm Chain Gun in the turret + 2 TOWs mounted in a sponson on the side of the turret. The TOW proved to be a bigger Tank Killer than MBTs in Iraq. As the TOW could KO MBTs/etc. at over 3700ms. Which an MBT's main gun could only effectively engage target out to about 2500ms.

We saw a number of times the M2s in Ukraine damaged or KO'd Russian MBTs. Sometimes with just the 25mm.

Fewer than a 1,000 armored vehicles over a period of three years. One per day.

Reports are the Russian's have lost about 50% of their armored forces. Based on their inability to use combined arms tactics. Along with having poorly trained and lead crews.

Plus a very poor logistics chain/tail. In some cases, if a Russian AFV broke down in stayed that way. And many were recovered, repaired and used against their former owners by Ukrainian tank crews…

have 2,000 Abrams in storage

Including about 200 the USMC turned in. As their last Commandant thought they were too heavy for the Corp's new mission. The jury is still out on that decision, IMO and many others …

We could have sent 500 or a thousand without any effect on our own safety.

To send that many would violate the last POTUS/Admin's SOP to drag its feet. Not sending what the Ukraine really needed to give them a better chance to push the Russians off their land.

The last POTUS/Admin did not want to send high numbers of MBTs, etc. and in a timely manner. As again he/they were risk adverse and feared escalation. Putin saw this and took advantage of it. This last Admin's performance in A'stan demonstrated to Putin and our other enemies. That Biden et al. didn't have the right stuff to be effective in this type of geopolitical situation. Or as time went on, we saw any situation …

Which insured that Putin would invade Ukraine. As this admin would be no real threat. To thwarting Putin's plans. Or even Iran's, Hamas's, etc. intentions.

600 M113 in three years, again is not enough to matter. How many were in an old armored division? Probably that many.

Depending on the TO&E in effect at the time those numbers would vary. And M113s in the US Army and others were used not only for Infantry transport, but Medics, Maint. Recovery, etc. And the chassis was also used for AT, ADA, etc. AFVs.

But the real point is if you send the aid in piecemeal you won't win, you will only prolong the war.

One of many things the Biden Admin missed besides not understanding history. But ignoring his Military and intel advisors. His appointed unelected staff, etc. proved to be those behind the curtain. And although knowing more than Biden, they should have stayed in the classroom. Or places they won't be able to get anyone killed. Plus Biden never trusted the military if the reports are correct. From what I've seen that seems to be accurate.

No one wants to build ammo factories or store ammo, but every war we run low or run out.

Well like many things it was not a priority. We talked about in OPD classes, etc. That if WWIII broke out. Besides the losses could be extreme. For all involved. Supplies of all types would possibly run short along with everything else in e.g. 6-8 months. If the pace of modern mobile combined arms maneuverer warfare was as we trained and believed it would be. And of course, if it didn't go nuclear/massive use of WMDs.

US defenseless because of some thousands of armour vehicles and tanks?… really?

Among that… who is going to invade USA?…

Well if a conventional invasion was planned it would be doomed to failure for a number of reasons. Least of which there are more firearms in civilian hands than people in the US population.

But what some have to remember. The USA is the most deployable force on the planet. Which projecting power is a standard. And again no one else has that ability.

But yes we have no fear of Mexico or Canada or both will invade. If for no other reason, there is no other reason. Mexico may be on the pointing end of drones, TLAM, etc. strikes. In the near future? If that appears to be the only way to stop the cartels and gangs trying to smuggle in drugs, etc. into the US. And killing thousands of Americans.

Albeit we seem to have shut down the border and start deporting in matter weeks. Something the previous POTUS/Admin/Dems, etc. said it couldn't be done, etc., etc., for various reasons … Were they lying or just stupid or it didn't fit their agenda ?… I'll leave it up for others to decide for themselves …

No invasion is necessary Armand. We have a large and ready Fifth Column.

Bingo !

Depends how they are used.

Yes again terrain and situation

The Ukrainians brie.fly tried using armored formations on the offense, and got hit hard.

Were not experience in combined arms operations and the learning curve is step. However, the Russians proved to be even less effective on the offensive. But they seem to do better on the Defense.

They initially used the Abrams without any drone protection.

As with much new tech used in actual combat. The Drone turned out to be a new killer on the battlefield. E.g. the aircraft required designed and dedicated ADA systems. As did AFVs … i.e. AT weapons …

Again, the learning curve can be steep …

With this new drone tech. There are new effective anti-drone devises and tech being fielded and developed currently.

Now they are using tanks (and Bradleys) often solo, quick response in problem areas, with drone protection.

Lessons learned … with more to come … Although it is always a good SOP to have a designated reserve/QRF. To plug up holes, respond to attacks, etc.

Send only enough to keep the war going but not enough to win.

Well, aerospace and defense stocks seem to have done OK during the Ukraine war, so it's not all bad, is it?

link

(Set the chart to 5 years.)

"War is good for business … War is bad for business … but no matter how bad it gets … someone makes a profit."

"No invasion is necessary Armand. We have a large and ready Fifth Column."

Too right. Did you see that treasonous mob that stormed the seat of democracy a few years back?

Or the BLM and Antifa riots in the summer of 202O… destroying public and private property. Attack LEOs, their vehicles, precincts, etc. … Now that was a treasonous mob. Of course some in the biased news media said these were mostly peaceful protests. As buildings and LEO vehicles burned. Whole city blocks burned down …

The Jan 6 riot was very unfortunate. It should never have happened. Even though that POTUS asked the Speaker of the House who is in charge of defending the Capital, and Mayor of DC to bring in the NG. At least 3 days before the 6 Jan riot. They both said no. The Speak said it would be bad options, etc. Even though later her daughter cell phoned her say she knew it was her fault. That is available online if anyone cares to look it up.

No matter what, the POTUS never said to attack anyone. The riot got out of control. They never should have attacked and entered the Capital. Albeit most in the area had nothing to do with it. What could anyone do ?

Now if this type of event was a situation on an FTX, test, etc. At Benning, etc. The best solution would probably have been to deploy the NG. But it generally takes about 3 days to mobilize and deploy the NG. That had to be a consideration.

Or send in the 3d Rgt of Infantry, the Old Guard to protect the Capital. Would there be enough ? Probably no but they are there in DC. As well as a USMC barracks is in DC. Would both + local LEOs be enough ? Maybe ?

Or the Army's 82d, 101 and Rangers have units on stand-by as part of the RDF. Their lead elements could have been there a matter of hours. I know … when I was an Plt Ldr in the 101 we had that mission. When it rotated to our Bde. To deploy to somewhere in the USA[by helicopters, etc.]near our location. For Riot Control duties. We trained for it just like the many missions we were expected to execute.

The rub is, however, there are certain criteria for a federal unit to deploy in the US. Where the NG is under control of state authority. Until those criteria are met, where then the Federal authority takes over and the NG falls under the National Command Authority.

So where was the weak link ? How could this have been prevented ? Unless one believes Trump told the rioters to do what they did. IMO and others this did not happen. Could have Trump handled this differently ? Probably … But hindsight is 20/20.

Again, the authority to defend the Capital is the responsibility of the Speaker of the House. Yes, could the POTUS at that time done more ? Probably … yes …
But bottom-line Trump did not order anyone to riot, he did ask/ recommend to the Speaker to deploy the NG 3 days before 6 Jan. And US LEOs/Intel agencies said there was chatter about there may a problem. Seems that was ignored by those who should have taken some actions … I guess ?

But the actual first line of defense is the Speaker of the House … And again, she was recorded by her daughter saying she should have had the NG come … Too late … But the damage was done. You can't rewrite history, especially today with all the ways modern tech can record … well … everything …

Many fingers to point, but those go both ways. 👈👉☝👆👇🤘🖖

The Ukrainian (Ukr.) army keeps asking for them, and love the Bradley and the older German tanks (Leopard 1s), so I'd assume they are more effective than we believe, or see on the various news feeds. They are fighting a high intensity conflict with new modes of warfare; of course loses are going to be high, no matter how awesome the hardware is…

on a side note….

Ignoring the fact that most Western countries saw/see the Ukraine war as a good proxy to drain the Russian state by using Ukrainian bodies-let's say the West delivered 1000 tanks, 500 fighters, and millions of rounds of high tech ammo-the question then becomes: what bodies does Ukraine use to drive/shoot/fly them with?

There are over 700K Ukr. persons under arms, in a nation of less than 30m citizens. Without drastic measures they seem loathe to actually do, they are close to their limit on viable manpower, while maintaining the rest of the country. Over 2m fled the country; by all reports most of military age. The reported average age of Ukr. soldiers is in the mid-40's….that's right, mid-40's. Literally an "old man's army."

So, even if the West delivered "war winning" numbers of arms/equipment, and if the Ukr. army had the requisite skill to use them in large combined arms maneuvers (they've not shown that particular skill any better than the Russians)-they likely don't have the people power to actually do it without a drastic (and note-very unpopular in Ukr. itself….) draft of ALL military age people, which would then have a highly negative effect on the remainder of the countries industry and services.

Ukr. can't win with what they have without literally breaking their country. General Pyrrhus, reporting for duty…

The Ukrainian (Ukr.) army keeps asking for them, and love the Bradley

The Bradley after it was up armored, covered the Fire Ports and dumped the FPWS. It really is probably one of the best IFVs on the battlefield. But is a bit old and will probably be replaced. As time goes on and tech improves.

Initially we didn't like it. Of course, we were still using the M113A1 in the ROK and again later when I got back to Benning[now Moore]. The units in [West] Germany were getting the M2s. They would meet the USSR & WP in combat. In the ROK back then the North were mostly a Light Infantry Army. With a lot of FA of all types. But limited AFVs of all types.

We didn't like the M2s reduced dismounts to only 6. With the Squad being reduced to 9 from 11 in the M113. As the M2 not only had a TC and Driver, but a gunner. Vs. the M113 only had a TC and driver.

The M2 is an IFV with better armor and better armed than the M113 as is an APC. Lightly armored and armed with only a .50 cal.

But we thought the TOWs really shouldn't be on an IFV. However, as we saw the TOW killed more Iraqi AFVs/MBTs than our MBTs. As the TOW out ranged the main gun of the MBTs.

They are fighting a high intensity conflict with new modes of warfare; of course loses are going to be high, no matter how awesome the hardware is…

Very true. With the lethality of modern weapons systems just keep getting more deadly.

(they've not shown that particular skill any better than the Russians)

As we see the Ukr. forces seem better trained, lead and very motivated. As for the most part are fighting on their home turf. They have hated the Russians for a very long time. And the Russians were/are the invaders/aggressors. The Russians were rated as marginal by many GENs., etc. at best. It appears when fighting modern warfare that is the case. That really gave the Ukr. forces an edge. Home field advantage, and highly motivated plus hating an old enemy …Even if the Ukr forces were not expert at combined arms modern warfare. But they certainly seem to learn albeit that learning curve is steep. It does seem the Russians have not evolved much since the start of the war.

The Ukr. had bested the Russians in almost all engagements. Especially in the first couple years of the war. But now the long war of attrition, which seems to be what their plans became as the Russian losses mounted including about losing 1/2 on their AFVs. They are operating at almost a WWI 2.0 level.

But the Russian[and their allies] numbers now seem to be telling. They always outnumbered the Ukr. forces. Even with the high kill ratio of Ukr vs Russian losses. Ukr is starting to show it just does not have the bodies the Russians do. Never did … And Putin and Un don't care how many troops they feed into the meatgrinder. Their loses albeit heavy … they just keep coming. Regardless of how many bodies are used up …

We did discussed this at OPD, course classes, etc. at Benning, Campbell, Bragg, Leavenworth, etc. If WWIII broke out, e.g. with the USSR & WP flooding across the IGB. Even back then in the '80s we knew that the losses would be high and huge amounts of ammo along with all the other classes of supply would be used up fairly quickly. Modern warfare is very expensive in not only blood but in treasure. Modern high-tech weapons as very expensive. Even back in the '80s …

Trump's incitement of Capitol riots interests me. That and the tribalism of democrats Vs republicans, us Vs them.

Here's a balanced article.
link

If Trump didn't incite legally, he sailed pretty close to the wind in my opinion. I think it clear he was morally responsible for the outcome with his obvious lies about a stolen election. Fight like mad. That's non violent fighting?

If Trump didn't incite legally, he sailed pretty close to the wind in my opinion. I think it clear he was morally responsible for the outcome with his obvious lies about a stolen election. Fight like mad. That's non violent fighting?

You see what you want to see. He clearly called for peaceful protest, and his "fight like mad" is no different than many other politicians calling to "fight" -- indeed, there is much clearer direct violent rhetoric from the Democrats.

The riot itself is very odd. On the East side of the Capitol Building (which is massive, btw) there was a peaceful walkthrough that was separate from the riot on the other side 125 yards away through cement and brick and marble. Police *opened the doors* and people mostly wandered around taking selfies, if you view the security footage the so-called "QAnon Shaman" was actually ESCORTED through the building to the Senate chamber, where he thanked them, called on those around to show respect, prayed, and left.

On the West side we have a riot, which police body cam and security cam footage indicates was sparked by the Capitol Police. The footage shows a noisy crowd, but not one trying to surge forward, that exploded into action when an impatient Cop decided to unilaterally open fire on the crowd with tear gas, encouraging is fellows to "get those F---ers!" They opened fire at point blank with pepper balls and rubber bullets, shredding people's faces, and one cop launched a tear gas round right into the police line at the barricade forcing them to retreat just as the crowd panicked and reacted. Many people who "breached the barrier" were just swept up in the crowd's stampede.

So there's more at play with that day -- like why did the Mayor of DC and the House and Senate Sgts at Arms refuse National Guard support offered by the Trump admin before Jan 6? The Capitol Hill PD Chief of Police is on record saying he request this support but was denied -- and the House Sgt At Arms ultimately reported to Pelosi? And why was the Capitol Architects' Office, which reports to the Speaker and Senate Majority Leader, ordered to remove security barriers before Jan 6?

SBm +1

All those names you mentioned hold some if not all of the responsibility … Yes, Not just Trump, if some want to mention that …

Yes, could he have done somethings differently ? Yes, hindsight is 20/20. The same is said for other leaders involved.

Wait ? But … What does this have to do with Western Tanks in Ukraine ? 🤔

Returning to the topic of the thread:

link

Sweden Just Made Ukrainian Tanks INVISIBLE

YouTube link

Armand