Mighty_Zuk Posted September 7, 2024 Posted September 7, 2024 11 hours ago, RETAC21 said: This is so only if your air force can operate, if the enemy IADS denies the use of the airspace without incurring a disproportionate cost in lost airframes and there are no replacement aircraft available (which is a situation in which all European air forces find themselves nowadays), then artillery is the weapon of choice. If due to drone proliferation, conventional tube artillery cannot operate in range of the target (as it takes longer to set up than a MLRS or a SRBM), the only option are missiles and guided rockets. Israel solutions cannot be extrapolated to Poland. If your argument is they're needed for tactical reasons, then a BM force is logical in the high hundreds to low thousands across all variants and ranges, and only as a supplement and not a replacement for an air force. If your argument is cost-driven, then they're not a viable alternative to an air force in any case.
RETAC21 Posted September 8, 2024 Posted September 8, 2024 13 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said: If your argument is they're needed for tactical reasons, then a BM force is logical in the high hundreds to low thousands across all variants and ranges, and only as a supplement and not a replacement for an air force. If your argument is cost-driven, then they're not a viable alternative to an air force in any case. You are thinking of big ballistic missiles, but you also need to take into account smaller guided rockets (see the panoply the South Koreans have): And yes, you will need more than a handful and across all ranges, but with more of on the lower range. And from the cost PoV, they are the only available solution if your air force isn't big enough to defend its own airspace AND strike in depth at the enemy - which is where Poland finds itself (and most European countries) if they cannot rely on US airpower (which is a possibility nowadays)
Damian Posted September 8, 2024 Author Posted September 8, 2024 On 9/7/2024 at 4:11 PM, old_goat said: Very interesting! Does this also mean that polish companies can develop and install upgraded armor packages in the future? And btw, now that the army now has two advanced tanks in service (M1 & K2), what is the point of keeping the Leopards? What is the plan for them? 1. I do not know, I have no access to the agreement text. However Polish Army as a new member of Abrams Tank users club, will participate in annual conferences, where they will share their experiences and ideas how to further improve the tank. 2. Leopard 2's will serve as long as there won't be enough new tanks to replace them. For example we would need to procure around 250 additional M1A2SEPv3's, to rearm 11th Armored Cavalry Division, so we can replace Leopard 2's.
Markus Becker Posted September 8, 2024 Posted September 8, 2024 1 hour ago, Damian said: 2. Leopard 2's will serve as long as there won't be enough new tanks to replace them. For example we would need to procure around 250 additional M1A2SEPv3's, to rearm 11th Armored Cavalry Division, so we can replace Leopard 2's. We'll dump Leo 2 as soon as we can replace it! How the once mighty have fallen.Â
Damian Posted September 11, 2024 Author Posted September 11, 2024 Another batch of vehicles and weapon systems from Republic of Korea arrived to Poland. x5 K2 x12 K9A1 12x Homar-K (K239 Chunmoo) launcher modules. This means that Polish Army have now 56 K2's, 96 K9A1 and 38 Homar-K MLRS.
RETAC21 Posted September 12, 2024 Posted September 12, 2024 Can't find a K1 thread so this may be pertinent here: Korean penetration trials vs K1A1: https://circulotrubia.blogspot.com/2024/09/pruebas-de-resistencia-del-k1a1.html
alejandro_ Posted September 12, 2024 Posted September 12, 2024 On 9/6/2024 at 9:20 PM, bojan said: That is manufacturing price with zero profit for factory however. But even if commercial price is 2-3 times higher (volume of manufacture would favor it to be closer to x2), almost any target, including individual modern artillery pieces are higher than that. HIMARS launcher is what, ~3-4mil $ on the market? PzH was 5+mil $? For Russia commercial price would be way cheaper. Russian MIC often complains that financial gains with MoD contracts are very low, which can cause losses if project is delayed or even inflation/material cost grow more than expected
Rick Posted September 12, 2024 Posted September 12, 2024 On 9/8/2024 at 2:59 PM, Damian said: 1. I do not know, I have no access to the agreement text. However Polish Army as a new member of Abrams Tank users club, will participate in annual conferences, where they will share their experiences and ideas how to further improve the tank. 2. Leopard 2's will serve as long as there won't be enough new tanks to replace them. For example we would need to procure around 250 additional M1A2SEPv3's, to rearm 11th Armored Cavalry Division, so we can replace Leopard 2's. Why the Abrams instead of the Leopard?
Markus Becker Posted September 12, 2024 Posted September 12, 2024 The M1 is available in large numbers from US depots. Germany in general and Rheinmetall in particular were/still are on Poland's shit list.Â
Damian Posted September 12, 2024 Author Posted September 12, 2024 6 hours ago, Rick said: Why the Abrams instead of the Leopard? Very bad experience with Rheinmetall. I talked with people from PGZ, general feeling is that Rheinmetall is "toxic". Besides that, M1 have superior crew survivability, which become very important aspect for Polish Armed Forces. And then there are production capabilities. We ordered 116 M1A1FEP's from US which we received ahead of schedule. It also seems that 250 new build M1A2SEPv3's will also be delivered ahead of schedule. This is 366 modern MBT's delivered very quickly. Then look how long it takes for KNDS to deliver 44 Leopard 2's for Hungary or over 50 Leopard 2's for Norway. So instead of a battalion in circa 5 years, Poland will receive 6 tank battalions + some small reserve in circa 4 years. There are many other reasons, like interoperability with US etc. Similar arguments when it comes to K2's, we receive only new build vehicles, in very short time.
Markus Becker Posted September 12, 2024 Posted September 12, 2024 Re: The toxicity of German arms industry. The headlights or indicators of the Leo's got often damaged in exercises, so the Poles welded a guard rail over them. When the German reps saw this they demanded the removal because that was a modification of the tank and only they could do it. Off course they could provide an official upgrade kit. In many months and for a price several orders of magnitude higher.  Â
Damian Posted September 12, 2024 Author Posted September 12, 2024 1 hour ago, Markus Becker said: Re: The toxicity of German arms industry. The headlights or indicators of the Leo's got often damaged in exercises, so the Poles welded a guard rail over them. When the German reps saw this they demanded the removal because that was a modification of the tank and only they could do it. Off course they could provide an official upgrade kit. In many months and for a price several orders of magnitude higher.   Yeah, I heard that story from our tank crews. This was the problem with Leopard 2A4's and Leopard 2PL's. Interestingly, Leopard 2A5's have protection guards over turn indicators that are most often damaged.
Damian Posted September 30, 2024 Author Posted September 30, 2024 Polish MoD and Korean DAPA, MoD and industry are further discussing procurement and technology transfer to Polish industry. When it comes to AFV's procurement, right now priority have next executive agreement for another batch of K2 tanks, this time in K2PL variant. So next agreement is about procuring second batch of 180 tanks and 80 support vehicles like ARV's, AVLB's and CEV's based on K2 MBT. Signing of this agreement is expected to happen this year in coming months.
Damian Posted October 1, 2024 Author Posted October 1, 2024 K2PL program is slowly but steady moving forward, despite all problems it faced. Photos made by Tomasz Kwasek. Â Â
Damian Posted October 4, 2024 Author Posted October 4, 2024 Another batch of 6 K2's was delivered to Poland. This means that Polish Army so far received 62 K2 tanks, 22 left to be delivered to the end of this year for total of 84 K2's, and 96 more in 2025.
old_goat Posted October 23, 2024 Posted October 23, 2024 2 hours ago, urbanoid said: And a 35 mm AD system prototype. But why on an ordinary, low mobility truck with zero armor? At least they should put it on a Rosomak... Wheeled IFVs (especially overly heavy western ones) have subpar offroad mobility, but they are still much better than trucks. One of the lessons of ukraine war is that wheeled vehicles are no go... You need only a little rain, and this thing will be helpless like a beached whale.
urbanoid Posted October 23, 2024 Posted October 23, 2024 3 minutes ago, old_goat said: But why on an ordinary, low mobility truck with zero armor? At least they should put it on a Rosomak... Wheeled IFVs (especially overly heavy western ones) have subpar offroad mobility, but they are still much better than trucks. One of the lessons of ukraine war is that wheeled vehicles are no go... You need only a little rain, and this thing will be helpless like a beached whale. I think we might be putting pretty much all of the new AD, whether gun or missile-based, on trucks. It's not like trucks like that wouldn't be used for different applications anyway, including near-frontline. Remember that we're not planning a Barbarossa in the Ukrainian steppe or Belarusian marshes and the terrain in Poland is a lot more suited to trucks, the road network is incomparably better too. Compared to e.g. S-60 guns which we had in the inventory until... 2023, when the guns and 70k pieces of ammo were transferred to Ukraine, a gun that is actually on a truck instead of towed behind it is still a luxury. Given how big are the current plans of the ground forces, we may not be able to afford to 'waste' the precious production capacity of 'proper' armored vehicles for applications that may not require them. Then there are the costs, both of purchase and maintenance, the PZA Loara program (same 35 mm gun x2 + T-72 chassis) was killed more than a decade ago due to an absolutely ridiculous price - PLN 66 million (~EUR 15 million) per piece. Although the producer did say that the new system can use a different chassis if needed, either Rosomak or a Korean one (the same one that Krab uses).
Rick Posted October 23, 2024 Posted October 23, 2024 So Poland is not using any ex Soviet vehicles or other equipment?
urbanoid Posted October 23, 2024 Posted October 23, 2024 23 minutes ago, Rick said: So Poland is not using any ex Soviet vehicles or other equipment? Still quite a few, but much less than before the war, as a lot of them were donated to Ukraine and we're in the process of getting replacements.Â
Rick Posted October 23, 2024 Posted October 23, 2024 6 minutes ago, urbanoid said: Still quite a few, but much less than before the war, as a lot of them were donated to Ukraine and we're in the process of getting replacements. I presume the replacement vehicles and equipment for these ex-Soviet items be N.A.T.O and S. Korea items?Â
urbanoid Posted October 23, 2024 Posted October 23, 2024 18 minutes ago, Rick said: I presume the replacement vehicles and equipment for these ex-Soviet items be N.A.T.O and S. Korea items? Not as much 'NATO' as specifically the US (366 M1s, HIMARS, Patriot) with a side of UK (short and medium range air defense, 'tank destroyers' - 6x Brimstone on a 4x4) plus South Korea (tanks, SP artillery, MLRS) plus domestic stuff (artillery, IFV Borsuk, lower range air defense, more Rosomaks).Â
old_goat Posted October 24, 2024 Posted October 24, 2024 18 hours ago, urbanoid said: Remember that we're not planning a Barbarossa in the Ukrainian steppe or Belarusian marshes and the terrain in Poland is a lot more suited to trucks, the road network is incomparably better too. The exact same is true for Hungary. Still, we'll put the Skyranger 30 on a Lynx... But while this is an exception, other users of this system still use wheeled APC/IFV chassis (Boxer, Piranha) instead of very low mobility trucks. And since Poland manufactures the Rosomak, thats why I find this a strange decision...
Damian Posted October 24, 2024 Author Posted October 24, 2024 I think you do not understand one thing. SA-35 might not be designed to protect Armor-Mechanized formations, but rear logistics units and also various bases + Air Forces instalations. On the other hand, the turret system itself and sensors, might find their way on different platforms, within Sona program. And Sona was intended to use different platforms, like trucks, 8x8 APC's and tracked chassis. Sona program is still work in progres.
old_goat Posted October 24, 2024 Posted October 24, 2024 31 minutes ago, Damian said: I think you do not understand one thing. SA-35 might not be designed to protect Armor-Mechanized formations, but rear logistics units and also various bases + Air Forces instalations. Thanks for the explanation! Now that makes sense. BTW, are the self propelled AA guns, (at least their weapon system) on the picture based on the K30?
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now