Ukraine and the Russian invasion, 2022-24

[JimW]

Could really do with some sort of Top Gear/AutoCar type comparison of these tanks including delivery times , cost availability of spares, servicing and training.

We could just chuck Clarkson out of a copter over Donbas and see what he comes up with.

 

[Rob Ray]

I read on Twitter that the Abrams tanks have jet engines and a astronomical fuel consumption - somewhere in the region of 3 gallons to the mile whereas the Leopard tanks have diesel engines. It would seem the latter in terms of maintenance would be more sensible.

490 gallon capacity tank, 265 mile range. So just over half a mile per gallon. But they can run on gasoline, diesel fuel or jet fuel.

 

[steveo87]

In a phrase I never thought I'd say, the I have you covered-

How the different tanks sent to Ukraine could help to win the war against Russia

Defence experts say main battle tanks are the 'armoured fist of combined arms assault'

inews.co.uk

 

[Elpenor]

Could really do with some sort of Top Gear/AutoCar type comparison of these tanks including delivery times , cost availability of spares, servicing and training.

Get the A team to modify the tank

 

[Crispy]

So the Abrams deal is not "have these tanks we already built, now" it's "you can have some brand new tanks, when we make them."
It's deliberately structured to give Scholz the excuse he needs to say "it's not just us!" and so unlocks all the Leopards.

WRT fuel consumption, the Abrams can run on literally any liquid fuel, and the efficiency is in the same range as other tanks. But the base model needs the turbine to be running full tilt nearly all the time, so it's easy to run out of fuel just sitting there. Newer models (which this deal covers) have an auxilliary power generator that keeps the tank powered up while idle. Ukraine won't be getting them for at least a year.

 

[Fez909]

The biggest issue with the Abrams is that the US uses depleted Uranium armour on theirs, which they do not use in "export models" as it's their secret sauce. So they need to modify their stock or build news ones, hence the long delivery time.

The fuel thing is not really an issue.

 

[The39thStep]

What a merry go round, the Yanks and the Dutch are now buying tanks off Morocco who presumably bought them off Russia?

Morocco Supports Ukraine With Tank Sale - Africa Defense Forum

ADF STAFF Morocco will become the first African nation to offer military support to Ukraine with the sale of T-72 tanks. Under the deal, the United States and Netherlands will buy 90 T-72B main battle tanks from Morocco with an option to add 30 tanksto the sale in 2023, according to Nigerian...

adf-magazine.com

 

[nogojones]

When I see these kinds of accusations against people on here, when they clearly refer to some kind of previous history that I don't know about and can't form my own judgement on, I generally simply disregard them.

If you're referring to AA I think the thread in question was This one

There were a few wow! posts from AA there, but the one that produced a collective "FUCKING HELL!" from the boards was this one (#8) talking about a bunch of kids that had died who's parents were orthodox jews

They're not just religious, they're religious fundamentalists and bigots, and though it is sad that children have died, to be realistic they would have likely grown up to be hate-filled bigots.

Unless I've read your post wrong and you're talking about the allegation that A380 is a running dog of capitalism and war criminal. Then sorry I can't find any evidence that he isn't one.

 

[nogojones]

Could really do with some sort of Top Gear/AutoCar type comparison of these tanks including delivery times , cost availability of spares, servicing and training.

And how many shells it takes to kill Jeremy Clarkson

 

[kebabking]

Funny thing - Abrams will run on Chanel No5.

It'll just cost about £3million a go...

(Nicked off a reasonably reliable bloke off twitter - Nick Drummond. Ex Cav bloke, now works for KMW who make the leopard. Knows his tank shit.)

 

[The39thStep]

And how many shells it takes to kill Jeremy Clarkson

Careful, a lot of posters liked his farming programme

 

[existentialist]

Funny thing - Abrams will run on Chanel No5.

It'll just cost about £3million a go...

(Nicked off a reasonably reliable bloke off twitter - Nick Drummond. Ex Cav bloke, now works for KMW who make the leopard. Knows his tank shit.)

I wonder how he found that out

 

[nogojones]

Careful, a lot of posters liked his farming programme

I'm sure there's a joke in here somewhere about tanks and tractors, but I can't be arsed.

 

[UnderOpenSky]

And how many shells it takes to kill Jeremy Clarkson

Just one

 

[MickiQ]

And how many shells it takes to kill Jeremy Clarkson

Clarkson is the ultimate survivor drop him in the middle of the battle and he will walk out without a scratch whinging about it.

 

[Supine]

Careful, a lot of posters liked his farming programme

True, but it has been cancelled. So fire him off asap.

 

[Pickman's model]

And how many shells it takes to kill Jeremy Clarkson

you can kill him with a barnacle shell with a bit of thought

 

[Pickman's model]

Clarkson is the ultimate survivor drop him in the middle of the battle and he will walk out without a scratch whinging about it.

depends how high you are, your altitude, when you drop him

 

[A380]

If you're referring to AA I think the thread in question was This one

There were a few wow! posts from AA there, but the one that produced a collective "FUCKING HELL!" from the boards was this one (#8) talking about a bunch of kids that had died who's parents were orthodox jews


Unless I've read your post wrong and you're talking about the allegation that A380 is a running dog of capitalism and war criminal. Then sorry I can't find any evidence that he isn't one.

Sorry, but I don't think this thread is the right place for this discussion.

(Obviously I am a running dog of capitalism. Actually I wouldn't mind a war crimes allegation; I have had judgements against my work in both the European Court of Human Rights and, completely unrelated, the Central Court or the European Union so it would be nice to complete the set with a hearing at the Hague.)

 

[ska invita]

Is 100 tanks , whenever they arrive, going to make any substantial difference? From what I've read of analysts last 24 hours, no.
So comes back to the question of what is NATO doing here. The suggestion that it's military support is enough only for a stalemate that slowly drains Russia is the only conclusion that makes sense.

Its possible to see the NATO logic of this: an outright potentially successful push against Russian forces is much more likely to escalate the war beyond Ukraine and also go nuclear.
Not arming Ukraine at all will give Russia the green light and likely move on Kiev.
So this midway ground is a seemingly necessary compromise, and the hope is, slowly weakens Putin and Russias capabilities. Good outcome for NATO.

But it is also a betrayal and game playing with Ukraine. It drags the war on for years and sacrifices Ukrainian lives for no territorial gain. If they don't regain the occupied territories then better for Ukrainians to have peace talks, acknowledge the loss of territory, set up a protected border and stop the war. Instead NATO will dangle support like a carrot, seemingly indefinitely, knowing it is not actually sufficient.

That's how it looks to me anyhow. Anyone disagree?

 

[strung out]

What a merry go round, the Yanks and the Dutch are now buying tanks off Morocco who presumably bought them off Russia?

Morocco Supports Ukraine With Tank Sale - Africa Defense Forum

ADF STAFF Morocco will become the first African nation to offer military support to Ukraine with the sale of T-72 tanks. Under the deal, the United States and Netherlands will buy 90 T-72B main battle tanks from Morocco with an option to add 30 tanksto the sale in 2023, according to Nigerian...

adf-magazine.com

Think the Moroccan tanks came from Belarus.

 

[strung out]

Anyone disagree?

Yes

 

[ska invita]

Yes

How? You think NATO is arming Ukraine enough for an outright win?

 

[LDC]

Is 100 tanks , whenever they arrive, going to make any substantial difference? From what I've read of analysts last 24 hours, no.
So comes back to the question of what is NATO doing here. The suggestion that it's military support is enough only for a stalemate that slowly drains Russia is the only conclusion that makes sense.

Its possible to see the NATO logic of this: an outright potentially successful push against Russian forces is much more likely to escalate the war beyond Ukraine and also go nuclear.
Not arming Ukraine at all will give Russia the green light and likely move on Kiev.
So this midway ground is a seemingly necessary compromise, and the hope is, slowly weakens Putin and Russias capabilities. Good outcome for NATO.

But it is also a betrayal and game playing with Ukraine. It drags the war on for years and sacrifices Ukrainian lives for no territorial gain. If they don't regain the occupied territories then better for Ukrainians to have peace talks, acknowledge the loss of territory, set up a protected border and stop the war. Instead NATO will dangle support like a carrot, seemingly indefinitely, knowing it is not actually sufficient.

That's how it looks to me anyhow. Anyone disagree?

I have a read a few things that suggested that 100 working and well crewed tanks (including the logistics to keep them working) is the minimum that would make a significant difference. If I get a chance I'll look for where I read that. I have no idea of the logistical/production problems that might restrict the number of MBTs available though, so that might be a factor as much as some more political/strategic decision to drain the Russian military but not enable a clearer Ukrainian advantage or risk 'escalation' as you suggest.

 

[T & P]

Could really do with some sort of Top Gear/AutoCar type comparison of these tanks including delivery times , cost availability of spares, servicing and training.

Now, that's a Top Gear Challenge I'd watch.... Clarkson, Hammond and May racing from London to Kyiv in a Challenger II, Abrams and Leopard II hoping to make it in one piece. Bring it on

 

[ska invita]

Now, that's a Top Gear Challenge I'd watch.... Clarkson, Hammond and May driving respectively a Challenger II, Abrams and Leopard II from London to Kyiv on one tank of fuel. Bring it on

London to Kyiv? Fuck that, Kyiv to Sevastapol

 

[JimW]

Now, that's a Top Gear Challenge I'd watch.... Clarkson, Hammond and May racing from London to Kyiv on a Challenger II, Abrams and Leopard II hoping to make it in one piece. Bring it on

Each gets to choose their own perfume as fuel.

 

[editor]

OK, I'll continue to derail this thread then. I don't know how to tag so I'll copy and paste :

"I presume your defence of the Putin regime is because it shares your long established on here anti-semitism?"

Its more the antisemitism accusation that bothers me and I've addressed it on here enough times before if you ask me, but it keeps resurfacing. I'm knackered now so I'm off to bed soon.

No you fucking won't. You're banned from this thread for a week.

 

[A380]

Each gets to choose their own perfume as fuel.

It's going to be Brut 33 for all of them though, or perhaps Denim, isn't it.

 

[T & P]

It's going to be Brut 33 for all of them though, or perhaps Denim, isn't it.

Drakkar Noir.