Polish Armoured Vehicles And Their Modernizations.

[Damian]

We actually might purchase a second type tank in future, as WWB "Gepard" program will most likely be closed.

 

Such purchase however would mean that T-72M1's would be completely withdrawn from service, and PT-91's moved to reserve or Territorial Defense Forces.

 

What we would really need is ~250 Leopard 2's used like right now by 10th and 34th ACB's, and we would need around ~250 more tanks for two more ACB/AB's, and right now the only tank avaiable and that can be considered is M1.

 

So a mix of 250 Leopard 2's and 250 M1A2's is not a complete fantasy + 230 PT-91's, this would give us a pretty nice fleet of 730 MBT's.

 

I can actually imagine that we could make some deal with US that we could loan US Army's M1A2SEPv2's stored here, and then overtime just purchase them (maybe with some long term payment period).

 

Most of you are probably not even aware how close and closer cooperation between Poland and US is. For example as a supplier of APFSDS rounds, very often mentioned is ATK.

 

Another thing is that from our point of view, a more diverse suppliers of weapons systems is more healthier.

[Laser Shark]

and Norway has 12 that never entered service.

 

Slight correction, the 12 MLRS did serve for a few years before they were mothballed. That said, I agree that handing them over to someone who might actually put them to good use like Poland would be preferable to just having them sit around in some storage somewhere in Norway.

Edited March 18, 2016 by Laser Shark

[JasonJ]

If many more tanks are needed, maybe there are plenty of M1A1s in storage still that the US can sell. Taiwan had a plan for 200 M1A2s but their budget limits forced to change the plan to 120 M1A1s. Gun and accuracy on those might still make them good enough to compliment Leo2s.

[Damian]

M1A1's upgraded to M1A1SA standard would be good enough, tough preffarable would be M1A2SEP.

[bojan]

 

So a mix of 250 Leopard 2's and 250 M1A2's is not a complete fantasy + 230 PT-91's, this would give us a pretty nice fleet of 730 MBT's.

 

3 types of tanks? Madness.

[Simon Tan]

Not madness when the Russians......the Russians!

[Chris Werb]

 

 

So a mix of 250 Leopard 2's and 250 M1A2's is not a complete fantasy + 230 PT-91's, this would give us a pretty nice fleet of 730 MBT's.

 

3 types of tanks? Madness.

 

 

Plenty of countries have had at least three types of tank in Service at the same time. just off the top of my head, Egypt, Greece, Turkey, Russia, Japan, China and India.

[Simon Tan]

Do the Polish PT-91s have the Renk ESM 350 transmission?

[Panzermann]

 

 

 

So a mix of 250 Leopard 2's and 250 M1A2's is not a complete fantasy + 230 PT-91's, this would give us a pretty nice fleet of 730 MBT's.

 

3 types of tanks? Madness.

They are running 2 1/2 at the moment with T-72, PT-91 and Leo2. So not that crazy I think.p

[Damian]

Do the Polish PT-91s have the Renk ESM 350 transmission?

 

No, they use old planetary gearboxes from T-72M1, although reinforced AFAIK, because of tanks greater weight and stronger 850HP S-12U engine.

 

As for 3 types of tanks. Remember that I said, that if we would purchase ~250 M1's to complement ~250 Leopard 2's, T-72's would be completely withdrawn from service, and PT-91's would most likely end in reserve and would be assigned for Territorial Defense Forces, which means most of the time they would just sit inside garages, so regular army would use two tank types in reality, compared to 3 types of tanks right know, or even four, because besides T-72M1 and PT-91 in between which there is little commonality left, there are also Leopard 2A4's and Leopard 2A5's which also do not have all components common.

 

I would say it's rather current situation with signs of madness.

Edited March 19, 2016 by Damian

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

 

 

Woot. Buy as many of those as you like, NATO needs some decent depthfire capablity.

I think France had something like 54 M270MLRS launchers and now fields 13(!). We also must have a few spare as we only upgraded c. 36 of a similar quantity and converted about half a dozen to ARVs. The Germans are meant to have a significant surplus of M270s in store (are only keeping 38 active), and Norway has 12 that never entered service. Why not just GIVE them to Poland to let them spend their defence budget on other stuff their armed forces really need?

Yes I noticed that the other day on Norway when I was reading up on GMLRS. I quite agree, NATO doesnt do nearly enough donation of equipment. I mean we SOLD CVRT to Latvia. Less fastidious nations might have noted they were little better than scrap value and donated them for free.

 

Ditto Tornado. When we remove our fleet from the inventory, why not donate those to Poland? They cant be any more beat up than their Su22's. Sea King to help out their maritime aviation which is reputedly in a bad way?

 

We will spend billions trying to achieve a capability to defend Eastern Europe, and scrap millions which would with more consideration help them defend themselves. Potty.

Edited March 19, 2016 by Stuart Galbraith

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

 

 

Do the Polish PT-91s have the Renk ESM 350 transmission?

No, they use old planetary gearboxes from T-72M1, although reinforced AFAIK, because of tanks greater weight and stronger 850HP S-12U engine.

 

As for 3 types of tanks. Remember that I said, that if we would purchase ~250 M1's to complement ~250 Leopard 2's, T-72's would be completely withdrawn from service, and PT-91's would most likely end in reserve and would be assigned for Territorial Defense Forces, which means most of the time they would just sit inside garages, so regular army would use two tank types in reality, compared to 3 types of tanks right know, or even four, because besides T-72M1 and PT-91 in between which there is little commonality left, there are also Leopard 2A4's and Leopard 2A5's which also do not have all components common.

 

I would say it's rather current situation with signs of madness.

 

I think I read somewhere that T72Mz is due to be pulled sometime around 2018, is that right?

[Damian]

Yep, T-72M1's are scheduled to end their service around 2018-2020. Army officials are pretty clear about them, their usefullnes on real battlefield is close to 0. And it was pretty obvious nobody will spend more money on them anymore.

 

Of course if someone want to, we can sell them, and even upgrade to PT-91 standard, it's just that Polish Army do not want them anymore, especially after our own experiences with Leopard 2's, and also when our guys were able to take closer look to M1A2SEPv2's, Challenger 2's and Leclerc's that were here in Poland for excercises.

 

I think that after Anakonda-2016 excercises it may be even more obvious for decision makers, hell we have signs that even army concrete in general staff is starting to change their mind, just recently informations/rumors about new IFV appeared that they might resign from amphibious capabilities for better armor protection, and to make things faster, even just purchase license for a ready chassis, just to modify it and mate with our unmanned turret ZSSW-30.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Might be an option to pass them onto the Baltic states, though one gets the impression they dont really seem very keen on acquiring MBTs.

 

 

[Damian]

Yep, that would be an option but I assume Baltic States are more in to replacing all Soviet legacy weapons and equipment with NATO types.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Shame Germany didnt have any Leopard1's left. Refitted with a 120mm gun (as they were proposing to do) it would be near ideal. Bit long in the tooth admittedly.

 

Real problem is NATO just doesnt have anything like the 2S25. Which considering how much expeditionary work we do compared to Moscow is just a bit silly when you think about it.

[Damian]

You can create light tanks based on IFV chassis, besides this US is ressurecting M8 light tank for their airborne troops.

 

Tough I agree it would be neat if NATO would have a BMD series equivalent for airborne troops.

[urbanoid]

I, for one, would be all for upgrading both PT-91s and some of the T-72M1s to a better, common standard. What we would need is:

 

-ammo (license)

-RENK-Scania powerpack* (license or purchase),

-new FCS (domestic)

-ERA (domestic),

-gun with stabilisation (Ukraine? Slovakia? license?)

-TI (domestic)

-APU (same as in Pendekar)

 

With some ~400 of those (including reserves) and 247 Leo2PL we can close the chapter 'tanks' for some 10-15 years and concentrate on more pressing needs (BMP-1 replacement and A2A). T/PT upgrade would be much faster and cheaper than either adopting M1s, let alone waiting for some FSV abomination based on APC/IFV hull.

 

*http://www.renk-france.fr/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/RENK-France-New-Powerpack-350S.pdf

[urbanoid]

Ditto Tornado. When we remove our fleet from the inventory, why not donate those to Poland? They cant be any more beat up than their Su22's. Sea King to help out their maritime aviation which is reputedly in a bad way?

 

Because they would be too old and too expensive to operate even today? Because they are by no means multirole? Because they would have to be retired soon?

 

Now that would be a deal:

http://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/indonesia-regeneration-and-upgrade-f-16cd-block-25-aircraft

 

USD 750 million for 24 refurbished, early F-16C/Ds - count me in anytime. If it could be 32 or (a masturbatory fantasy) 64 we could retire Su-22s or both Su-22s and MiG-29s respectively and wait for 5th gen replacement with a more or less unified a/c inventory. And the one that has a lot more punch than a current one.

Edited March 19, 2016 by urbanoid

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

Ditto Tornado. When we remove our fleet from the inventory, why not donate those to Poland? They cant be any more beat up than their Su22's. Sea King to help out their maritime aviation which is reputedly in a bad way?

 

Because they would be too old and too expensive to operate even today? Because they are by no means multirole? Because they would have to be retired soon?

 

Now that would be a deal:

http://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/indonesia-regeneration-and-upgrade-f-16cd-block-25-aircraft

 

USD 750 million for 24 refurbished, early F-16C/Ds - count me in anytime. If it could be 32 or (a masturbatory fantasy) 64 we could retire Su-22s or both Su-22s and MiG-29s respectively and wait for 5th gen replacement with a more or less unified a/c inventory. And the one that has a lot more punch than a current one.

 

Well not much different from an Su22 then, and at least it can carry Brimstone and other standoff weapons. And im not sure its that unreliable. I kind of wonder if the real issue is maintenance staff being cut and they dont have enough hours in the day to keep them all stood up.

 

The RAF ones were plumbed to be capable of antiship work with Sea Eagle. Long since retired, but it wouldnt surprise me if you could refit them to loft Harpoon.

 

We were talking about retiring the first gen Typhoons, which we have now rethought. When the Chancellor wants to reduce costs again I strongly suspect that subject is going to come up again, which again would be another good option.

[urbanoid]

All those 'deals' are incomparably worse than used, refurbished F-16s. I'd even take AM/BM over any Tornado, early EF or Mirage. There's a reason why the former are popular as second-hand a/c and all the latter are not.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Yes, but there isnt many F15s that come up on the second hand market, and its not because they arent any good.

[Panzermann]

Shame Germany didnt have any Leopard1's left. Refitted with a 120mm gun (as they were proposing to do) it would be near ideal. Bit long in the tooth admittedly.

 

~180 Leopard 1 were reported last year to arms control. iirc.

 

But I think instead of tanks the baltics should put their budget in trenches, bunkers, prepared positions, road blocks... and well trained infantry artillery to make it as costly as possible to any attacker and with the option to go guerilla/partisan.

 

Real problem is NATO just doesnt have anything like the 2S25. Which considering how much expeditionary work we do compared to Moscow is just a bit silly when you think about it.

It's all medium weight troops now. Didn't you attend the last power point meeting?

[Stuart Galbraith]

Thats interesting. Presumably they were retained for conversion into other roles, ie Biber?

 

Medium weight without the fire-power. I mean even MGS has only 105mm, and the update of Stryker is 'just' to add 30mm. Whats wrong with carting around a 120mm on a light chassis? The Russians can make it work, no reason why cant.

 

I know medium brigades have TOW. The problem is with Arena and other modern reactive armour updates, there must surely be the penny dropping in NATO that is it is not necessarily going to work fliging TOW, or perhaps even hellfire if some of the more elaborate Russian claims turn out to be correct. These are after all systems the Russians feel comfortable selling to anyone who will have them, which means the chance of meeting them on the battlefield is growing.

 

Whatever one might say about a tank gun, its perishingly hard to jam or shoot down.

Edited March 19, 2016 by Stuart Galbraith

[Chris Werb]

Stuart, the problem with our Tornado fleet (or at least A problem) is that the planes that already had the most recent upgrades were inevitably the ones that received the next upgrade because it would be cheaper than upgrading other aircraft from an earlier standard. That meant as our fleet shrank, the aircraft upgraded to the latest standard became fewer in number and were worked harder and harder. They're essentially shagged.

 

Given that the Poles would be fighting defensively (and barring their airfields being taken out, which seems almost inevitable) it seems far better to have a swing-role fighter like the F-16C than a strike/recce focused one. That and they would achieve fleet and ordnance commonality to a good degree with their current F-16C/D fleet.

 

As for anti ship missiles, they are going with truck mounted NSM - a wise choice IMHO! They can essentially cut off the Baltic with that system (to get around it, ships would have to go far into Swedish territorial waters) - this is good for NATO since Denmark did away with subs, land based Harpoon and FACs over a decade ago. I just hope they don't park all their NSM launchers in one shed in a known location....