NATO return to Cold War force structure

[Josh]

His comment was more directed at the feasibility of adapting DU to AMX-40, if I’m not mistaken. Attempting that on platform would probably have…issues.

[kokovi]

NATO is going to rebuild capabilities like all around engineering, army air defense etc. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_211733.htm?selectedLocale=en

[bojan]

2 hours ago, Martineleca said:

...US Army very rapidly outfitted the Abrams of all front line formations with DU inserts over their regular composite armor...

No they did not. A lot of non HA M1A1 were used, and AFAIK even 105mm armed M1s.

Nevermind all M60s with USMC.

Edited February 15, 2023 by bojan

[Martineleca]

7 hours ago, Josh said:

His comment was more directed at the feasibility of adapting DU to AMX-40, if I’m not mistaken. Attempting that on platform would probably have…issues.

Well the AMX 40 late E4 variant developed for Egypt had far thicker frontal armor, shrugging off 105mm sabots and ATGMs, but still not enough since it wasn't procured. Depleted uranium which France had loads of could have tipped the scales in its favour, maybe even for use within NATO?

[bojan]

105mm APDS immunity is early T-64 level, it was not a "good armor" for the second half of 1980s..

DU is not a magic. Itself it can not significantly increase a protection, you need to develop whole array around it*. And none other than US have bothered for some reason.

*Story that "US just welded on DU plates on M1 turret" is just that, a story.

[Martineleca]

On 2/10/2023 at 11:08 PM, James1978 said:

Big assumption that any non-US M1 operators have any interest in parting with their most modern tanks . . .

 

Egypt has a large tank plant that still churns out Abrams tanks, couldn't they be contracted to produce it for export alongside Lima and double output?

[seahawk]

If there is no limitation for one component and if Egypt agrees. Which is unlikely as Egypt needs Russia as a partner.

[Martineleca]

2 hours ago, seahawk said:

Which is unlikely as Egypt needs Russia as a partner.

I think hesitation on procurement of the T-90 would sour bilateral relations more than whether they decide to sell their own product to a third party, the tank would be "laundered" through Poland anyway.

[Martineleca]

On 2/11/2023 at 9:51 AM, Stuart Galbraith said:

Lay money down on the counter, and promise to make it right. Besides, you dont need to take ALL the tanks from any of them.

What about the Leclerc then, France will send some limited number, but the UAE operates a whole 350 units. They've even donated a hundred to Jordan recently, can they be convinced to sell at least as many back with a commitment to receive MGCS tanks in the future? 

[bojan]

You fail to understand that, for better or worse, large chunk of world is not interesting in ruining their relations with Russia.

Edited February 18, 2023 by bojan

[TrustMe]

4 minutes ago, bojan said:

You fail to understand that, for better or worse, large chunk of world is not interesting in ruining their relations with Russia.

That is a good answer. Whenever world politics happens countries are always on their own side and nobody else's.  

[glenn239]

On 2/17/2023 at 7:55 AM, Martineleca said:

I think hesitation on procurement of the T-90 would sour bilateral relations more than whether they decide to sell their own product to a third party, the tank would be "laundered" through Poland anyway.

I wonder at the level of contempt there might be in the streets of Cairo for an alliance that is so pathetic on its face that it could come hat in hand to Egypt, of all places, to do the work that in previous decades the United States could well handle on its own.

[Martineleca]

21 hours ago, glenn239 said:

I wonder at the level of contempt there might be in the streets of Cairo for an alliance that is so pathetic on its face that it could come hat in hand to Egypt, of all places, to do the work that in previous decades the United States could well handle on its own.

Egypt is an arms powerhouse and it is certainly in their favour to find new markets, as of today no such discussions have been held yet and thus no real attempt at diplomatic or economic pressure to see if some agreement can be reached. Also as far as visuals are concerned Russia begging Iran and North Korea for ammo isn't any less pathetic.

[glenn239]

Iran and North Korea are both bitter enemies of the United States with strong national interests in ensuring the Russia does not lose this war.  Of the two, I'm aware of no evidence that North Korea has supplied material, while Iran has supplied drones, (a key sector in which pre-war Russian doctrine and production was quite primitive).  Egypt, in contrast, is not an enemy of Russia and has no national interest in departing neutrality, and strong national interests in remaining neutral.

 

Edited February 19, 2023 by glenn239

[bojan]

2 hours ago, Martineleca said:

...Russia begging Iran and North Korea for ammo...

Any actual proof?

[Martineleca]

16 hours ago, bojan said:

Any actual proof?

Multiple sources including the Center for Strategic and International Studies have reported that what started out as a limited purchase of vintage tactical ballistic missiles, has now grown into a regime of non-stop shipment of armaments. With train traffic between the two countries more than doubling in the span of a few months, it is estimated the DPRK has supplied over five million artillery shells and rockets so far.

[bojan]

1 hour ago, Martineleca said:

... have reported...

I don't think you know what "proof" actually is.

So far zero NK shells found.

Edited February 20, 2023 by bojan

[Strannik]

2 hours ago, Martineleca said:

Multiple sources including the Center for Strategic and International Studies have reported that what started out as a limited purchase of vintage tactical ballistic missiles, has now grown into a regime of non-stop shipment of armaments. With train traffic between the two countries more than doubling in the span of a few months, it is estimated the DPRK has supplied over five million artillery shells and rockets so far.

[Martineleca]

On 2/11/2023 at 9:51 AM, Stuart Galbraith said:

I warrant its going to be a lot quicker than dearmouring M1A2's and refitting them. Which I strongly suspect is just a canard for not sending tanks.

Perhaps realising half a year is far too long the Pentagon now seems to be considering transferring M1A1 tanks to Ukraine directly from US stocks, apparently their DU technology is not as advanced as on later variants and less of a security risk if captured. Would you be surprised if they actually went through with this?

Edited February 21, 2023 by Martineleca

[Josh]

26 minutes ago, Martineleca said:

Perhaps realising half a year is far too long the Pentagon now seems to be considering transferring M1A1 tanks to Ukraine directly from US stocks, apparently their DU technology is not as advanced as on later variants and less of a security risk if captured. Would you be surprised if they actually went through with this?

I think the bigger issue is nuclear material being made available to other countries, not the secret of the armor package. I'd be surprised to see any DU exported to anyone; to date the US has never allowed it. I've heard that Poland might get DU armor packages but I've not seen it confirmed. If so, they would be the first (or perhaps Ukraine will?).

[Ssnake]

I strongly encourage rogue states and Russia to try and extract fissible material from dU armor of captured M1s. It'd be a win-win-win-win-win-win:

- first they need to go up against M1s to capture them. That's going to get a few of them killed (win)

- then they need to extract the dU. That's going to get captured M1s destroyed for good, rather than used against us (win). There's a small but non-zero chance that some of our enemies poison themselves in the process (win)

- the actual extraction is going to be extremely time consuming (win), super uneconomical (win), probably not leading anywhere, and therefore a net delay on any kind of bomb making program (win)

[Josh]

Practically, trying to pull Uranium out armor is hard and pointless. Legally however I think it might technically be a nuclear proliferation treaty issue.

[Martineleca]

On 2/21/2023 at 6:23 PM, Josh said:

I'd be surprised to see any DU exported to anyone; to date the US has never allowed it. I've heard that Poland might get DU armor packages but I've not seen it confirmed. If so, they would be the first (or perhaps Ukraine will?).

Australia has operated them for a while, but more importantly if the transfer of M1A1s comes to pass it could possibly open the floodgates to supplying not just Poland, but every other East European country that has donated tanks to Ukraine. For instance in Bulgaria right now there is strong debate why they haven't sent almost any armored vehicles when they've got at least a hundred if not more T-72s in storage and they are still desperately needed at the front, despite a 200 million dollar equipment pledge so far the pro-Russian president has claimed that absent force modernization the vehicles cannot be provided, if Abrams tanks are actually guaranteed for backfill I can't possibly see how he can maintain his position and not reach a deal to the benefit of both countries.

[seahawk]

In NATO, you could lease out the US tanks. They would technically be owned by the US, but operated by Bulgaria or Romania.

[Stuart Galbraith]

'The Hertz M1A2 Abrams, rent one today!'

Subject to normal Terms and Conditions, no guarantees as per future illness including all forms of cancer, we accept not responsibility for contributing to the Greenhouse effect, Greta Thunburg is not subject to this time limited offer,only national Armies need apply.