Polish Armoured Vehicles And Their Modernizations.

[Markus Becker]

12 minutes ago, bojan said:

1948 CG is not really compatible with later ones. It is more less RPG-2/RPG-7 relation, newer models are evolution of basic design, but are not same thing.

The launcher isn't the same thing other than the reduced weight? 

[bojan]

1948. model uses only own ammo. 1960s M2 is the one that brought it fame and is basis of development for later ones.

 

[Perun]

Poland to buy missiles from U.S. in $3.7B sale

...

The approved sales, which include air-to-air and air-to-surface missiles, mark a strategic enhancement of Poland’s defense arsenal. The potential sales include 821 AGM-158B-2 air-to-surface missiles, 232 AIM-9X Block II Sidewinder air-to-air missiles, and 745 AIM-120C-8 air-to-air missiles. These missiles, along with associated equipment and logistical support, will be provided to Poland under the agreement.

...

https://defence-blog.com/poland-to-buy-missiles-from-u-s-in-3-7b-sale/

[Mighty_Zuk]

On 3/7/2024 at 6:36 PM, bojan said:

Question is why does Poland need heavy attack helicopter?

They can provide the mobility a ground maneuvering unit doesn't have - obviously, and the persistence that their not so large air force is still not geared to provide.

Aside from classic missions like CAS, helicopters can provide valuable gap-fillers in an air defense network. It's very common for the IDF to use helicopters to shoot down drones coming from Syria and Lebanon.

Such a large helicopter fleet can be highly disruptive to enemy strike planners.

If you asked why specifically a dedicated attack helicopter and not, say, a modified UH-60 variant or something like that, then I assume this may have to do with fleet management or system integration. If Poland wants to get in on a new helicopter-borne system acquired by the US, it's likely going to get it much sooner as an Apache user.

For Israel I think maybe it's time to start retiring dedicated attack helicopters in favor of repurposed utility helicopters. It integrates local systems on a large scale anyway.

[On the way]

On 3/13/2024 at 10:35 AM, Markus Becker said:

 

And in top of that the CG pre-dates the RPG-2. Is there any other launcher from the same period still in use? Other than by small and underfunded forces? 

Not that I know off. Pretty amazing and innovative for a company (prior to the Saab takeover) that was essentially a one product company. The product sales person was talking about how they can hit an APC at 1000m or more. And then when the infantry dismounts from their damaged vehicle, they can hit it again with an airburst round to kill the infantry. Not even a modern RPG can do that.

[On the way]

23 hours ago, Markus Becker said:

The launcher isn't the same thing other than the reduced weight? 

It's essentially the same, made with lighter weight alloys and  fitted with a (IIRC) a 3X scope. In fact, the salesperson told me that all current ammo can be used in the older Mk2. that is absolutely amazing. 

[On the way]

23 hours ago, bojan said:

1948. model uses only own ammo. 1960s M2 is the one that brought it fame and is basis of development for later ones.

 

The Mk 2 can use any ammo today.

[Interlinked]

Howitzers with geared controls and a higher magnification direct fire sight, firing subsonic shells out of a rigid barrel, aren't expected to hit a vehicle-sized target at 1 km with even the second shot. The M47 Dragon, fired from the shoulder but with a monopod, was considered to have a <50% hit probability at 1 km.

Carl Gustaf, on the other hand, is so supernaturally accurate beyond 1 km that every grenade it fires is basically an unguided top-attack missile 🤣

[On the way]

13 hours ago, Interlinked said:

Howitzers with geared controls and a higher magnification direct fire sight, firing subsonic shells out of a rigid barrel, aren't expected to hit a vehicle-sized target at 1 km with even the second shot. The M47 Dragon, fired from the shoulder but with a monopod, was considered to have a <50% hit probability at 1 km.

Carl Gustaf, on the other hand, is so supernaturally accurate beyond 1 km that every grenade it fires is basically an unguided top-attack missile 🤣

Yeah, that's well put. The accuracy is one thing, and I am sure the new scopes they have on it has a lot to do with it. We used an iron sight on the Mk2, and it had a crappy range. Beyond that, the types of ammo they have developed for it is something else. Think about it. An 84mm tandem warhead grenade weighing a total of 1.8kg can blow off the tank's reactive armor and then proceed to penetrate 500mm RHA. There are early 105mm tank ammo that couldn't do that. 

[Sardaukar]

15 hours ago, Interlinked said:

Howitzers with geared controls and a higher magnification direct fire sight, firing subsonic shells out of a rigid barrel, aren't expected to hit a vehicle-sized target at 1 km with even the second shot. The M47 Dragon, fired from the shoulder but with a monopod, was considered to have a <50% hit probability at 1 km.

Carl Gustaf, on the other hand, is so supernaturally accurate beyond 1 km that every grenade it fires is basically an unguided top-attack missile 🤣

Didn't M47 Dragon have unsatisfactory minimum engagement range, within which enemy tanks on fast speed could easily get? Obviously then you needed more close-up AT weapons. 

[Damian]

Some videos from Polska Zbrojna.
 

 

 

[Rick]

On 3/14/2024 at 4:26 PM, On the way said:

Not that I know off. Pretty amazing and innovative for a company (prior to the Saab takeover) that was essentially a one product company. The product sales person was talking about how they can hit an APC at 1000m or more. And then when the infantry dismounts from their damaged vehicle, they can hit it again with an airburst round to kill the infantry. Not even a modern RPG can do that.

The ex-sailor is skeptical. What size A.P.C.? Front or side? Moving? Moving fast and swerving? Is the A.P.C. shooting back? Covered in smoke?

[Damian]

Quick update on the state of the Polish Armed Forces Tank Fleet. Today we received information, that with todays batch, Poland received additional 18 K2's this year. This means that for today which is 19.03.2024 Polish Ground Forces tank fleet consists of:

1. 69 M1A1FEP,

2. 46 K2,

3. 105 Leopard 2A5,

4. 128 Leopard 2A4/Leopard 2PL

5. 172 PT-91,

6. ≤111 T-72.

In total : 631 Main Battle Tanks of which 348 are modern 3rd generation western MBT's.

In 2024 Polish Ground Forces will receive additional 47 M1A1FEP's and 38 K2's, this means that at the end of 2024, our fleet of modern 3rd generation western MBT's fleet will increase to 433 tanks. These batches will probably allow to transfer more T-72's to Ukraine.

In 2025 till the end of 2026 250 M1A2SEPv3's will be delivered per known official schedules, also in 2025 96 K2's will be delivered, this means that in circa 2027 our fleet of modern 3rd generation western MBT's fleet will increase in size to 779 tanks, and will allow to completely withdraw from service all T-72's and PT-91's, and send them to Ukraine.

As a side note, I hope that at least 2-3 T-72M1/T-72M1R and 2-3 PT-91's will be preserved in Museums, right now in our Museums we only have T-72 Ural and T-72M tanks.

@urbanoid@sunday@Markus Becker@Perun@Stuart Galbraith

[Perun]

5 hours ago, Damian said:

Quick update on the state of the Polish Armed Forces Tank Fleet. Today we received information, that with todays batch, Poland received additional 18 K2's this year. This means that for today which is 19.03.2024 Polish Ground Forces tank fleet consists of:

1. 69 M1A1FEP,

2. 46 K2,

3. 105 Leopard 2A5,

4. 128 Leopard 2A4/Leopard 2PL

5. 172 PT-91,

6. ≤111 T-72.

In total : 631 Main Battle Tanks of which 348 are modern 3rd generation western MBT's.

In 2024 Polish Ground Forces will receive additional 47 M1A1FEP's and 38 K2's, this means that at the end of 2024, our fleet of modern 3rd generation western MBT's fleet will increase to 433 tanks. These batches will probably allow to transfer more T-72's to Ukraine.

In 2025 till the end of 2026 250 M1A2SEPv3's will be delivered per known official schedules, also in 2025 96 K2's will be delivered, this means that in circa 2027 our fleet of modern 3rd generation western MBT's fleet will increase in size to 779 tanks, and will allow to completely withdraw from service all T-72's and PT-91's, and send them to Ukraine.

As a side note, I hope that at least 2-3 T-72M1/T-72M1R and 2-3 PT-91's will be preserved in Museums, right now in our Museums we only have T-72 Ural and T-72M tanks.

@urbanoid@sunday@Markus Becker@Perun@Stuart Galbraith

Thanks mate

[sunday]

Thanks!

Let's hope the pace of new equipment arrivals is quick enough.

[alejandro_]

10 hours ago, Damian said:

5. 172 PT-91,

6. ≤111 T-72.

@urbanoid@sunday@Markus Becker@Perun@Stuart Galbraith

Thank you, I thought by this time all the PT-91s and T-72s would be gone.

[urbanoid]

More than 300 of both (mostly 72s with ~60 PTs) already went to Ukraine, we can't give away everything before the replacement comes.

[Markus Becker]

T(h)ank you very much for the update! 

[Damian]

38 K2's from this year batch will be delivered in second half of 2024.

[Markus Becker]

9 hours ago, urbanoid said:

More than 300 of both (mostly 72s with ~60 PTs) already went to Ukraine, we can't give away everything before the replacement comes.

I get it. Otoh, it's if the Ukrainians use them up, it's probably a lot better than if you have to. 

[Damian]

1 hour ago, Markus Becker said:

I get it. Otoh, it's if the Ukrainians use them up, it's probably a lot better than if you have to. 

There is a strategic decision made by MoD and Polish Armed Forces, to gradualy withdraw from service all vehicles with soviet and warsaw pac heritage. They become more and more obsolete, but the main reason is fact, that maintaining them in battle worthines is becoming more and more difficult and expensive.

[alejandro_]

16 hours ago, Damian said:

38 K2's from this year batch will be delivered in second half of 2024.

Damian, now that the Polish Army is using tanks with turbines and diesels, have you come across any comment on the Abrams fuel consumption and logistics when compared to diesel tanks?

[Damian]

7 hours ago, alejandro_ said:

Damian, now that the Polish Army is using tanks with turbines and diesels, have you come across any comment on the Abrams fuel consumption and logistics when compared to diesel tanks?

Yes. Nothing new really, yes gas turbine uses more fuel, but as I talked with guys from 1st Armored Brigade, and asked them about it, they do not see it as a huge issue, as they joked "Army does not pay for fuel".

Jokes aside, obviously more fuel efficent engine would be seen as better option, but untill US Army won't start engine replacement program, we stick with AGT1500, because of huge US Army and US industry logistics chain. And AGT1500 will be maintained in WSK PLZ Kalisz facility.

Video from Dragon-24 excercises.

And update on Borsuk IFV.

I think I can share now some informations about Borsuk development. Main phase of qualification tests had been completed and 4 prototypes will be handed to the Army for final phase in so called operational environment.

However more important informations is, that for several months now, HSW at it's own cost and risk, is producing first low rate initial production batch of 18 Borsuk IFV's. HSW is also building new facility where Borsuk IFV's production line will be placed.

With 6 prototypes, these 18 LRIP Borsuk IFV's will allow Polish Army to form nearly 2 full mechanized infantry companies.

Edited March 21, 2024 by Damian

[Markus Becker]

20 hours ago, Damian said:

There is a strategic decision made by MoD and Polish Armed Forces, to gradualy withdraw from service all vehicles with soviet and warsaw pac heritage. They become more and more obsolete, but the main reason is fact, that maintaining them in battle worthines is becoming more and more difficult and expensive.

Yes, someone mentioned that wrt the adoption of the 84mm Carl Gustav. 

My point was that Poland won't have to use it's tanks in anger as long as Ukraine doesn't fall. So there's no loss in parting with the least capable ones right away. 

[Perun]

52 minutes ago, Damian said:

Yes. Nothing new really, yes gas turbine uses more fuel, but as I talked with guys from 1st Armored Brigade, and asked them about it, they do not see it as a huge issue, as they joked "Army does not pay for fuel".

Jokes aside, obviously more fuel efficent engine would be seen as better option, but untill US Army won't start engine replacement program, we stick with AGT1500, because of huge US Army and US industry logistics chain. And AGT1500 will be maintained in WSK PLZ Kalisz facility.

Video from Dragon-24 excercises.

And update on Borsuk IFV.

I think I can share now some informations about Borsuk development. Main phase of qualification tests had been completed and 4 prototypes will be handed to the Army for final phase in so called operational environment.

However more important informations is, that for several months now, HSW at it's own cost and risk, is producing first low rate initial production batch of 18 Borsuk IFV's. HSW is also building new facility where Borsuk IFV's production line will be placed.

With 6 prototypes, these 18 LRIP Borsuk IFV's will allow Polish Army to form nearly 2 full mechanized infantry companies.

Are those a rubber tracks