So with all the MBTs, IFVs, APCs, self propelled howitzers, MLRS, HIMARS, and all of the other stuff the Ukrainians already have and what they are expecting to get. Are the Ukrainians plan to use them in a brigade battlegroup to counter attack in the south to cut of the Russian supply lines to Crimea or will they use them in Donbas? Another option is in the north of Donbas. The Russian seem to be preparing for a major push, but can they do that? The artillery (HIMARS, MLRS) have smashed the Russian supply hubs before prior their offensives in the Kherson region and in the Kharkiv region.

Crimea is more vulnerable than the Donbas if the Ukrainians are able to hit the Russian supply lines across the Kerch bridge and the supply routes from Donbas to Crimea

Originally Posted by I3BrigPvSk

The major issue I have with giving the Ukrainians all three different tanks is the Ukrainians get a logistical nightmare and with all the different IFVs and APCs they get add to the problems. But the Ukrainians have been pretty to adjust and use western made weapons. The Challenger doesn't have the same maingun and the Abram and Leo, which means it cannot fire the same ammunition, that is a logistical problem.

The German military has been underfunded since the end of the cold war and it will take a very long time for the German armed forces to recover from it. The Ukrainians have a really good army, but it was helped by the incompetence by the Russian forces, The Ukrainians have something to fight for, the Russians have not.

Abrams major problem is the turbine engine, it is a multi-fueled engine, but it creates logistical problems. The US forces got fuel problems during the second Gulf war, they managed to solve it, but it took time for them to fix it. Besides that, it is a good MBT and it has been tested during the dual gulf war when it faced T-72s

I have wondered what the Ukrainians will do with the tanks. Will they use the Leopards, the Challenger, and the Abrams in one unit or will they operate separate, the latter would be better for the supplies. They will also get Bradleys and they will most likely be the mech inf with the tanks. They will also get the CV90 and they have already different western APCs

Something I noticed when I saw the Russian tanks is several of them have IR instead of termistic sights. IR sights were obsolete in the 1980s. Another bad thing with Russian tanks is the slow reverse speed, which making shoot and regroup more difficult

I've been out of touch with the various militaries for a few years now and have therefore lost a lot of up to date knowledge. I was however, surprised to hear that the Challenger 2 main gun doesn't fire the same ammunition as the Leopard2 and Abrahams, I've always thought such an alliance are equipped with same calibre/type ammunition, someone dropped the ball or was it deliberate.

It would make sense from a logistics point of view that Challenger2 and other Leopards and Abrahams types fights as a unit, unencumbered with other types ammunition/fuel/stores.

I actually wonder if Ukraine will apply to join NATO when the dust has settled.

Originally Posted by BritinBritain

I've been out of touch with the various militaries for a few years now and have therefore lost a lot of up to date knowledge. I was however, surprised to hear that the Challenger 2 main gun doesn't fire the same ammunition as the Leopard2 and Abrahams, I've always thought such an alliance are equipped with same calibre/type ammunition, someone dropped the ball or was it deliberate.

It would make sense from a logistics point of view that Challenger2 and other Leopards and Abrahams types fights as a unit, unencumbered with other types ammunition/fuel/stores.

I actually wonder if Ukraine will apply to join NATO when the dust has settled.

I don't know why the Challenger has a rifled maingun while the Abrams and the Leos have smoothbore guns. The Challenger uses HESH rounds to destroy other vehicles. The HESH round doesn't penetrate the target's armor, instead it smears a plastic explosives on the vehicle which generate a shockwave through the armour and creates fragments inside the vehicle.

The Challenger tank was a good tank during the first Gulf war and a C1 has the world record of the longest tank vs tank kill. The first gulf war was a huge logistical undertaking to transport all the American and the British equipment from Europe to Saudi Arabia.

Is the tank obsolete? If tanks operate without infantry, artillery, air defense, air support the tanks will pay dearly for it. The Russian have learned it the hard way, but they should have learned before this war. They did the same during the wars in Chechnya and in Georgia. The Turks did the same mistake in Syria. Tanks have been the main attacking force with support of the infantry and the artillery. I think the doctrine has now changed to be back to what tanks did during the first world war, supporting the infantry. The Chinese had an exercise with tanks, mech inf, and artillery. They had changed the MO during the exercise.

The western made tanks will contribute to the Ukrainian military, but the IFVs, APCs, and the artillery provided will also contribute to the UKrainians war effort.

I was watching a documentary on TV regarding the Challenger 1 and Challenger 2. Apparently the Challenger 2 is such a different vehicle to the Challenger 1, Challenger 2 should have been given a totally new designation. I am aware that Challenger 2 is going to be either replaced or upgraded to Challenger 3 with a 120mm smooth bore gun state-of-the-art, firing multi-purpose and programmable ammunition.

Its getting even more scary then in my day. In my day if the enemy couldn't see you, theres a good chance they couldn't kill you, today its getting bloody silly

Originally Posted by BritinBritain

I was watching a documentary on TV regarding the Challenger 1 and Challenger 2. Apparently the Challenger 2 is such a different vehicle to the Challenger 1, Challenger 2 should have been given a totally new designation. I am aware that Challenger 2 is going to be either replaced or upgraded to Challenger 3 with a 120mm smooth bore gun state-of-the-art, firing multi-purpose and programmable ammunition.

Its getting even more scary then in my day. In my day if the enemy couldn't see you, theres a good chance they couldn't kill you, today its getting bloody silly

The Challenger 3 will be competitive to the Leos and after the reluctance of the German government to allow other countries to send the Leos to Ukraine the C3 will be an alternative. I have always liked the Israeli Merkava when it is a combination between a MBT and an IFV. That is a tank that prioritize protection and the survivability of the crew.

Originally Posted by I3BrigPvSk

The Challenger 3 will be competitive to the Leos and after the reluctance of the German government to allow other countries to send the Leos to Ukraine the C3 will be an alternative. I have always liked the Israeli Merkava when it is a combination between a MBT and an IFV. That is a tank that prioritize protection and the survivability of the crew.

I think the C3 competitiveness will depend on the UK's readiness to let people ship its tanks around and I still regard the Merkava as untested, it is impossible to rate it against combat tested tanks when it hasn't seen any significant combat of its own.
I don't think you can consider Palestinian kids throwing rocks, the odd RPG round and one or two 50 year old Soviet ATGMs as a true test.

Originally Posted by MontyB

I think the C3 competitiveness will depend on the UK's readiness to let people ship its tanks around and I still regard the Merkava as untested, it is impossible to rate it against combat tested tanks when it hasn't seen any significant combat of its own.
I don't think you can consider Palestinian kids throwing rocks, the odd RPG round and one or two 50 year old Soviet ATGMs as a true test.

Even if the Norwegians bought the Leo2 recently. The German reluctance to allow other countries to send weapons made in Germany to Ukraine can ruin their own defense industry. The C3 can be an alternative to the Leo.

The Merkava is interesting when it is a combination, the Mark I faced Syrian T-72s in the Bekaa Valley, but that was in the early 1980s. The Mark IV and V will most likely never meet other modern MBTs. The Egyptians have a version of the Abrams so theoretically the two can meet one day. It is more likely the Israelis will meet the Syrians again and they have more modern Russian MBTs. The Russian tanks have the design flaw, but they have decent IFVs and APCs. The older versions of them have problems with the transmission.

I read the Ukrainians get new munition to the HIMARS and MLRS which can reach further. I also think the Ukrainian war effort will benefit a lot with the Bradleys and the CV90 working side by side with MBTs and modern artillery

Originally Posted by I3BrigPvSk

Even if the Norwegians bought the Leo2 recently. The German reluctance to allow other countries to send weapons made in Germany to Ukraine can ruin their own defense industry. The C3 can be an alternative to the Leo.

The Merkava is interesting when it is a combination, the Mark I faced Syrian T-72s in the Bekaa Valley, but that was in the early 1980s. The Mark IV and V will most likely never meet other modern MBTs. The Egyptians have a version of the Abrams so theoretically the two can meet one day. It is more likely the Israelis will meet the Syrians again and they have more modern Russian MBTs. The Russian tanks have the design flaw, but they have decent IFVs and APCs. The older versions of them have problems with the transmission.

I read the Ukrainians get new munition to the HIMARS and MLRS which can reach further. I also think the Ukrainian war effort will benefit a lot with the Bradleys and the CV90 working side by side with MBTs and modern artillery

I am not certain how much faith I would have in an export version of a Russian tank with inherent design flaws, put it this way, if that was my choice I would be volunteering for the artillery as soon as possible.

Is Norway really tank country?
My very short visit a few years ago didn't extend to the great plains of Norway, my impression is that they could get away with shouting really loudly and burying the opposition in avalanches.

Originally Posted by MontyB

I am not certain how much faith I would have in an export version of a Russian tank with inherent design flaws, put it this way, if that was my choice I would be volunteering for the artillery as soon as possible.

Is Norway really tank country?
My very short visit a few years ago didn't extend to the great plains of Norway, my impression is that they could get away with shouting really loudly and burying the opposition in avalanches.

Red is probably better to answer that question, but I would say Norway isn't suited for tanks. Norway will give some of their Leos to Ukraine

British short of ammo, hollow force. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...cb146231b38454