- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #6,461
But there are M1s in storage in the US. There aren't large stockpiles of Leo-2s available.
The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread
- Thread starter Feanor
- Start date
I'm no expert either but I will give my uninformed opinion. I just think Germany has such a big export market for the Leo 2 that they don't want to lose the esteem that the Leopard tank is held in by allies when the inevitable turret tossing starts. I know in Canada if we donated, which we should, our Leopards and people started seeing them on the news getting destroyed we would have a hard time convincing the public of the need to replace them. I think Germany feels that if Abrams tanks were also finding misfortune on the battle field then it wouldn't reflect as badly on any future sales for the Leo 2's. Of course all kinds of equipment is being destroyed but the turret tossing tanks seems to draw the most media interest.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Very true but some nations could donate some of their inventory ( Canada, Denmark, Netherlands, perhaps others). Certainly M1s together with the necessary logistics kit would be welcomed by Ukraine.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Like you I am no expert and I agree a bunch of Leo2s getting destroyed would be welcomed as a great excuse to abandon MBTs by the anti-military fools here in Canada. The commercial consequences is a likely a concern for Germany ( and the US ) but realistically Ukraine knows how to deploy tanks with infantry support and to my knowledge both tanks should fare equally against Russian kit (again, my assumption). Also, anti-tank kit available to the Russians is a question mark wrt both performance and availability.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #6,465
~100 tanks aren't enough. Ukraine needs hundreds over the year to make up for losses and be able to launch offensive operations. I believe there are two options to move forward, either provide last generation tanks (Leo-1s where available, M-60s more likely) or provide M1s.
Update on Zaporozhye.
We have continued reports of Russian forces advancing mainly around Orekhov and Gulyapole, with the villages of Maliye Scherbaki (the next door village of Scherbaki is contested), Lobkovo, Novoadreevka, Novodanilovka, Malaya Tokmachak, and Belogorye changing hands. Note we are talking about very small villages. Note there are no significant urban centers between the current front line and Zaporozhye city. And by "no significant" I mean the towns-villages are all 5-15k inhabitants (pre-war). Note we have very little footage from this action, suggesting that the fighting is relatively low scale. Additionally we don't have confirmation from inside any of the villages in question. It seems likely to me that this is indeed the consequence of Ukraine having to pull units to Artemovsk/Bakhmut, which is an indirect confirmation of heavy Ukrainian losses.
Colonelcassad
Владимир Рогов сообщает https://t.me/vrogov/7245 о переходе под наш контроль сразу нескольких поселков в Запорожской области. Помимо ранее взятого Лобкового - Малые Щербаки, Щербаки, Новоандреевка, Новоданиловка, Малая Токмачка, Белогорье. Ждем фото/видео подтверждений + противник наверняка...
t.me
Colonelcassad
Битва за Орехов обстановка к исходу 20 января 2023 года На Ореховском участке после освобождения Лобкового российские войска с наскока взяли соседнюю деревню Малые Щербаки, выбив оттуда сводные силы противника. ▪️Сразу же после ВС РФ смогли закрепить успех, заблокировав украинские...
t.me
VK.com | VK
vk.com
Leopard 2s have been destroyed in action by anti-tank missiles, on the Turkey/Syria border. The turrets didn't fly. Turret-tossing seems to be a Soviet/Russian speciality.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #6,467
It has to do with large quantities of ammo being stored inside the turret. Of course this one tossed the turret. Maybe not as far, weak pitching arm I guess. Not sure that matters to the ultimate outcome for the tank.
EDIT: Hey, what do you know? They also have issued with ammo storage causing problems.
If Turkey had been using Leopard 2A6s in Syria, would they have fared better? Is the Leopard 2 a flawed design or was the 2A4 model simpl...
Answer (1 of 5): Probably not. Yes this has a lot to do with tactics but it also has to do with design. The primary culprit here is the front ammo storage. The Leopard 2 design places a large ammo rack of 27 rounds in the front of the hull inside the crew compartment. This layout is extremely c...
EDIT2: I guess this one doesn't count as turret-tossing. But only because there isn't a turret left in one piece to toss. I suspect this isn't really an improvement.
Terran
Well-Known Member
Leo 2A5 is the most likely suspect for donation. Turkish military leo 2A5 took losses in Syria.
Most of the Leo2 sales happened during the draw down of German unification. When two armies became one, the boarders moved east then more east. The Germans basically sold off huge stocks of A5s for bargain basement prices. That’s how they got so wide spread. The now western half of Germany was a vibrant western economy the now Eastern half was a collapsed Soviet socialist basket case. The Germans set to drag the East to the 21st century by export markets.
:: corrected:: (I was under the impression that only the Leopard 2HEL was in active production. )
This said Germany in the last decade started reigning in military exports. This is why in small arms Sig Sauer closed up its German operations shifting more and more resources to the US and Swiss, H&K has expanded more of its American operations. In heavy defense equipment more and more for export firms like Rhinemetall seeking to license products or build outside of Germany, Less strict regulation. Poland in particular seems to have intended to divest from Leopard 2 as although they were modernizing to the Leopard 2P, there purchasing of Abrams, K2 and longer run K2PL was part of a plan to completely eliminate T72 and Leopard 2 from their arsenals.
The fact is Tanks can be destroyed. That doesn’t mean they are obsolete. Infantry can be destroyed yet they are still used. What makes a military class of weapons obsolete is when some other asset emerges that can perform the same tasks at higher survival rates and for better price. The Battleship wasn’t doomed by the aircraft it was the aircraft in combination with destroyers, cruisers, frigates, submarines and corvettes suddenly has weaponry available to them that was far superior to the big guns at fractions of the price. I mean for the cost of the Yamato you could field a whole task force. The Same isn’t true for the Tank. Their isn’t anything that does what the tank does. Nor is there likely to be that isn’t just a repackaged Tank. The USMC divested from tanks as if they need them the Army could attach some.
The Ukrainians magic number was 300 MBT. Poland has made 200 available, 90
From the Czech Republic, 14 Challanger 2 and hundreds captured from Russia in varying degrees of repair.
M60 and Leopard 1 models face the problem that in NATO states they have almost universally been mothballed or boneyarded or just scrapped. The stocks that might be more available are in active users or the Middle East which means negotiations of a trade questions as to serviceability but that’s after the Russian question. Much of the Middle East has been happy to draw from the teets of East and west. Tanks to Ukraine would likely spur the milk from Moscow.
Easiest supplies would be direct from the west American prepositioned M1A1 but have to convince Washington to go that route.
Last edited:
Ah, I missed that one.It has to do with large quantities of ammo being stored inside the turret. Of course this one tossed the turret. Maybe not as far, weak pitching arm I guess. Not sure that matters to the ultimate outcome for the tank.
EDIT: Hey, what do you know? They also have issued with ammo storage causing problems.
If Turkey had been using Leopard 2A6s in Syria, would they have fared better? Is the Leopard 2 a flawed design or was the 2A4 model simpl...
Answer (1 of 5): Probably not. Yes this has a lot to do with tactics but it also has to do with design. The primary culprit here is the front ammo storage. The Leopard 2 design places a large ammo rack of 27 rounds in the front of the hull inside the crew compartment. This layout is extremely c...www.quora.com
EDIT2: I guess this one doesn't count as turret-tossing. But only because there isn't a turret left in one piece to toss. I suspect this isn't really an improvement.
It's not just in the turret, but how much & how it's stored. M1 has ammo in the turret - but in a bustle with armour doors & blow-off panels. I've seen a picture of an M1 which had its turret blown off, but that was the blast of the IED which wrecked it, not from its ammunition exploding.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #6,470
I'm not a big believer in magic. Ukraine is asking for a number that's more then what they're offered but plausible enough to work as a stretch goal. I suspect they will end up needing 1000+ tanks before all is said and done.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I was under the impression the US had quite a few M-60s in storage. This is the stockpile I'm referring to. This war will require some mobilization efforts. It can't just be fought with readily available surplus and some new production.
I think this too would make sense.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
It makes the most sense if the logistical support is included for the M1s. Given the availability issue, the M1 may be the only option if the assumed quantity required is correct.
Metka made the hulls & turrets for Qatar's Leopard 2s, & got the contract for the hulls of Hungary's, but just the steel. KMW does the rest in Germany. Gun, drive chain, electronics, etc. - not Greek, not fitted in Greece.
That would probably have been called making the tanks at one time, but now I think that steel work is a relatively small part of the value & relatively low tech. It could be moved pretty easily & quickly, I think.
[Edit]
P.S. It looks as if the contract for the hulls for Qatar was about 5% of the total value. I was a bit surprised it was that low, but the contract seems to have included some support & other extras.
Last edited:
If the argument for the tanks from Americas point of view on the Abrams was the complexity of logistics and Maintenace would an upgraded m-60 tank be practical
Sabra M60A3 Main Battle Tank Upgrade - Army Technology (army-technology.com)
Sabra M60A3 Main Battle Tank Upgrade - Army Technology (army-technology.com)
Terran
Well-Known Member
The Jack in the Box effect in Soviet MBT is the Grand Finale of the Land Viking funeral of the Tank crew. That funeral pyre having started once the penetration into the tank filled the fighting compartment with super heated blast effects. Most Russian tanks stow extra rounds not in the automatic loader around the turret. Under chairs along bulkheads and the like.
Leopard 2, Leclerc and K2 have a ready rack in a bustle compartment similar to Abrams the only big difference being it’s either a bunker compartment or a automatic loader. However they also have a secondary magazine in the hull. This sits just outside the turret ring and is more or less just a rack.
Now Abrams also has a secondary magazine in the hull however it’s compartmented and sits normally empty under the turret floor.
The US like Germany did a draw down on its forces in the 1990s with something like 3000 Abram in A1 and A2 in storage Those would be the first to be drawn.
Leopard 2, Leclerc and K2 have a ready rack in a bustle compartment similar to Abrams the only big difference being it’s either a bunker compartment or a automatic loader. However they also have a secondary magazine in the hull. This sits just outside the turret ring and is more or less just a rack.
Now Abrams also has a secondary magazine in the hull however it’s compartmented and sits normally empty under the turret floor.
In bone yards stripped and mothballed last updated for the Gulf war. To make them ready would take time and resources that aren’t needed yet.
The US like Germany did a draw down on its forces in the 1990s with something like 3000 Abram in A1 and A2 in storage Those would be the first to be drawn.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #6,475
Please correct me if I'm wrong, not my area of expertise, but aren't many of the "new" M1s sold in the past 20 years drawn from that stockpile? In other words, there aren't 3000 still there. Prime example, Poland just purchased quite a few M1s to free up T-72s to send to Ukraine. How many are still left? How many is the US willing to feed into the war and thus deplete their own stocks?
A quick bit of googling pointed to the Sierra Army Depot as a decent competitor to AFB. here
Not sure if there are others. If you Google maps/earth 74 Currant Street, Herlong, CA 96113, USA you can find a bunch of equipment parked nearby if someone wanted to do some analysis. Although I'm on my mobile so I can't tell the date when it was taken (need pc app for that I think).
The marines dumped around 450 M1s not long ago which I think went to the army but may have caused a surplus for a little while. (Times may have changed though as you say with the recent demand).
Not sure if there are others. If you Google maps/earth 74 Currant Street, Herlong, CA 96113, USA you can find a bunch of equipment parked nearby if someone wanted to do some analysis. Although I'm on my mobile so I can't tell the date when it was taken (need pc app for that I think).
The marines dumped around 450 M1s not long ago which I think went to the army but may have caused a surplus for a little while. (Times may have changed though as you say with the recent demand).
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
I recall watching a TV documentary on M1s being remanufactured in Ohio. The hulls are sand blasted and cleaned then new stuff is installed. Can’t remember how the turrets are processed.
Is there any explanation for these attacks in Open Fields without any support? I don't get what exactly Russia is trying to accomplish with these foolish attacks that expose their soldiers.
Matsimus talks here about the upgrading of tanks, especially continual upgrading. He argues that the hulls eventually succumb to old age because of the stresses placed on them, regardless of whether or not they see combat service. He also makes a good point about how the armour is weakened due to holes being drilled in it or it being subject to blunt force trauma.
I think that the suggestion of upgraded M-60s has problems because of what Matsimus has said. The M-1 Abrams being sent to Ukraine isn't a good idea either because of its maintenance and fuel requirements. If this was peacetime, then yes because the Ukrainians would have time to induct it properly with maintenance, spares, etc., being taken care of. In wartime it's far to much of an issue because the Ukrainians don't have the required time. If it had a diesel powerpack then the powerplant maintenance wouldn't be such an issue.
In my view the Leo2s are the best option because of their powerpacks and the closeness to support for them. I regard the arguments about Germany not wanting to send them to Ukraine because of the suggested bad look of flying turrets would be harmful to sales opportunities as somewhat spurious and ill considered. If anything, the Leo2s performance against a near peer enemy would enhance its sales potential, if it performed well. Tanks are bought to go into battle and do unto the enemy before the enemy gets a chance to do unto them. They aren't acquired to sit on a parade ground and look good. If you acquire tanks purely because of the ascetics, then you have more money than brains.
IMHO Germany is reticent about their tanks being used because of WW2 guilt. Their history has produced a blind spot which they adhere to with stubborn determination. The sight of German built tanks fighting Russians scares them because of they don't want a repeat of images of German tanks racing across the Russian steppe. It's a psychological thing that has a hold on their political elite. Yes, in WW2 Germany did some terrible things, but todays Germany isn't that Germany.
I think that the suggestion of upgraded M-60s has problems because of what Matsimus has said. The M-1 Abrams being sent to Ukraine isn't a good idea either because of its maintenance and fuel requirements. If this was peacetime, then yes because the Ukrainians would have time to induct it properly with maintenance, spares, etc., being taken care of. In wartime it's far to much of an issue because the Ukrainians don't have the required time. If it had a diesel powerpack then the powerplant maintenance wouldn't be such an issue.
In my view the Leo2s are the best option because of their powerpacks and the closeness to support for them. I regard the arguments about Germany not wanting to send them to Ukraine because of the suggested bad look of flying turrets would be harmful to sales opportunities as somewhat spurious and ill considered. If anything, the Leo2s performance against a near peer enemy would enhance its sales potential, if it performed well. Tanks are bought to go into battle and do unto the enemy before the enemy gets a chance to do unto them. They aren't acquired to sit on a parade ground and look good. If you acquire tanks purely because of the ascetics, then you have more money than brains.
IMHO Germany is reticent about their tanks being used because of WW2 guilt. Their history has produced a blind spot which they adhere to with stubborn determination. The sight of German built tanks fighting Russians scares them because of they don't want a repeat of images of German tanks racing across the Russian steppe. It's a psychological thing that has a hold on their political elite. Yes, in WW2 Germany did some terrible things, but todays Germany isn't that Germany.