NATO return to Cold War force structure

[Huba]

I recall it being discussed somewhere in the thread, but it's hard to find due to Twitter's crappiness. IIRC the R-73 were sent too and this entry should actually be written as "AA missiles". In general the main purpose of this sheet was to count the monetary value of PL help instead of enumerating all the items that were sent. It is still useful as a reference, but it wasn't meant to be super accurate, the scarcity of sources does not allow it anyway.

[Pavel Novak]

Thanks for explanation.

[Martineleca]

On 12/28/2022 at 5:34 PM, Stuart Galbraith said:

If their refurbishment/production capacity was anything near good...

Have you heard of the roughly 300 retired Challenger 1 tanks in Jordan, depending on condition could some of them be overhauled at the former Vickers works and sent to Ukraine?

[Stuart Galbraith]

2 hours ago, Martineleca said:

Have you heard of the roughly 300 retired Challenger 1 tanks in Jordan, depending on condition could some of them be overhauled at the former Vickers works and sent to Ukraine?

Ah yes, the famous Vickers works in Newcastle-upon-Tyne...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-18278139

In fairness, part of the site is seemingly owned by a consortium that owns pearson engineering. But ultimately,  we lack the facilities for building or refurbishing tanks, because some really smart people thought tank battles in Europe were a thing of the past. Oops.

Those challengers were at least 10 years old before they went to Jordan. Short of rebuilding them into Challenger 3, id personally. be surprised if anything can be done with them. Its not like you can easily stick a smoothbore in one. The Jordanians already tried that.

 

[Martineleca]

On 1/23/2023 at 5:32 PM, Stuart Galbraith said:

Short of rebuilding them into Challenger 3, id personally. be surprised if anything can be done with them. Its not like you can easily stick a smoothbore in one. The Jordanians already tried that.

 

As far as I know mechanically the Challenger 1 has more in common with the Chieftain than with the Challenger 2, or have more recent modifications brought them closer, common subsystems and fire control?

[Stuart Galbraith]

52 minutes ago, Martineleca said:

As far as I know mechanically the Challenger 1 has more in common with the Chieftain than with the Challenger 2, or have more recent modifications brought them closer, common subsystems and fire control?

As far as the engine and transmission, there are similarities, but the engine has been updated with electronics and iirc there are more gear ratios. The main gun, stab and tis in c1 are all chieftain. The fire control is digitized, but functionally near identical.

Considering how many chieftains seem to be in private hands, usually with spare power-packed, it would probably be easier to reactivate a battalion of Chieftains. You still have the problem of gun and fire control though.

[Martineleca]

22 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

You still have the problem of gun and fire control though.

It's weird that they were simply sold off after their distinguished service during the Gulf War, on par with the Abrams. Would it not have made more sense to keep the Challengers in active reserve with regular maintenance specifically for situations like we have today, was that even considered an option?

Edited January 25, 2023 by Martineleca

[urbanoid]

3 minutes ago, Martineleca said:

It's weird that they were simply sold off after their distinguished service during the Gulf War, on par with the Abrams. Would it not have made more sense to keep the Challengers in active reserve with regular maintenance specifically for situations like we have today, was that even considered an option?

That would make sense. It would make even more sense to keep the... Challenger 2s in active reserve after reductions, as there were almost 400 originally.

[bojan]

1 hour ago, Martineleca said:

It's weird that they were simply sold off after their distinguished service during the Gulf War, on par with the Abrams.

Their FCS was poor (functionally not much improvement over T-72M1 except addition of lead counter) and reliability was pretty poor, at least in ODS/OG. C2 was for all purposes PIP tank that C1 should have been from a get go, and C2 should have been something more modern with CITV, like '90s M1 and Leo 2 upgrades got. Alas.

Pity, since those two are IMO solidly in the best looking tanks ever category.

[urbanoid]

3 minutes ago, bojan said:

Their FCS was poor (functionally not much improvement over T-72M1 except addition of lead counter) and reliability was pretty poor, at least in ODS/OG. C2 was for all purposes PIP tank that C1 should have been from a get go, and C2 should have been something more modern with CITV, like '90s M1 and Leo 2 upgrades got. Alas.

Pity, since those two are IMO solidly in the best looking tanks ever category.

Upgrading FCS and some other features is easier and faster (which matters now) than producing a new tank. It's possible to improve reliability too.

Lack of reserves kinda bit NATO in the ass, especially in Europe, I hope the lesson will be learned AND remembered.

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 hour ago, Martineleca said:

It's weird that they were simply sold off after their distinguished service during the Gulf War, on par with the Abrams. Would it not have made more sense to keep the Challengers in active reserve with regular maintenance specifically for situations like we have today, was that even considered an option?

They were not even sold off, they gave them away. I saw some of them on the back of tank transporters going to the docks in 1996.

I could bore you with the reasons why, suffice to say there people at the MOD fixated on Britain's status as a great maritime nation, and they were determined to get back there. The decision to build two carriers was carried out just two years later.

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

11 minutes ago, bojan said:

Their FCS was poor (functionally not much improvement over T-72M1 except addition of lead counter) and reliability was pretty poor, at least in ODS/OG. C2 was for all purposes PIP tank that C1 should have been from a get go, and C2 should have been something more modern with CITV, like '90s M1 and Leo 2 upgrades got. Alas.

Pity, since those two are IMO solidly in the best looking tanks ever category.

Reliability was something  like 90 percent availability,  but only after picking apart 200 of them in BAOR for spares. In my view the problem was MoD skimping on spares supplies, same as they seemed to do with C2. In itself, it was OK reliability wise, certainly  compared to Chieftain.

C2 was the right tank at the wrong time. But even in the early 80s, MoD was skimping on supplies to BAOR, and it was only by the Army strong arming MoD that Chieftain and Challenger got TOGS at all. So if the cold war had gone on, I'm sure they would have skimped on CITV still, it's in their nature.

[Ssnake]

4 hours ago, urbanoid said:

It would make even more sense to keep the... Challenger 2s in active reserve after reductions, as there were almost 400 originally.

Surely you're jesting!

Sure, the procurement had cost billions, but thousands could be made by selling them off as scrap metal. Don't fall for the sunken costs fallacy. Whitehall has Harvard Business School graduates. They know a penny to be made when they see one.

[Stuart Galbraith]

I can recall seeing the mod in the mid 2006s proposing to sell off Ashchurch, the main mod storage facility for c2, for redevelopment for housing. Fortunately the property market crashed.

We may one day think putting for saving the Royal Armoured Corp. Suddenly a lot of idiots in Whitehall have received a masterclass in why tanks remain useful.

[Martineleca]

On 1/20/2023 at 11:07 AM, Huba said:

In other news, as this topic have more or less become about Poland, here's a breakdown of Polish military help for Ukraine.

With all the confusion around what version of Abrams will be supplied to Ukraine, export model without DU panels it seems, do you think any other European country will be cleared for backfilling with US-spec M1A1s like Poland?

[glenn239]

I doubt it.  Looks like the 105 on the A1 is a bit of a deal breaker.

[urbanoid]

8 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

I doubt it.  Looks like the 105 on the A1 is a bit of a deal breaker.

M1A1 has a 120, always had. And I don't think it would have been a dealbreaker, still a much better option than Leopard 1 with a 105, which Ukraine will most likely get as well.

Edited January 28, 2023 by urbanoid

[bojan]

13 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

...still a much better option than Leopard 1 with a 105, which Ukraine will most likely get as well.

Is it? Both have thermals and FCS, both are vulnerable to almost any APFSDS and ATGM Russians use, and both are vulnerable to arty. M1 is higher weight, thirsty turbine (OK, it is not unfamiliar concept to Ukrainians as they have some T-80s), better post-penetration crew survivability. It is better, no doubt, but "much better" in real life environment of the war in Ukraine is a bit of an overstatement.

Edited January 28, 2023 by bojan

[urbanoid]

2 minutes ago, bojan said:

Is it? Both have thermals and FCS, both are vulnerable to almost any APFSDS and ATGM Russians use, and both are vulnerable to arty. M1 is higher weight, thirsty turbine (OK, it is not unfamiliar concept to Ukrainians as they have some T-80s), better post-penetration crew survivability. It is better, but "much better" is a bit of an overstatement.

Both being vulnerable? Yes, that's true, there are different levels of vulnerability though. And the bolded part is a priority in my book and makes a lot of difference. 

[seahawk]

A M1/M1IP should be a lot better protected than a Leo1A5.

[Martineleca]

3 hours ago, bojan said:

It is better, no doubt, but "much better" in real life environment of the war in Ukraine is a bit of an overstatement.

As I see it the philosophy of the Abrams is survivability in prolonged engagements first, lethality second, pretty much the opposite of the Leopard 1 and as it seems T-type tanks as well, the insistence on mounting a bigger cannon without increasing the weight for sufficient space with that explosive carousel has been taking its toll for over three decades now.

[bojan]

6 hours ago, Martineleca said:

As I see it the philosophy of the Abrams is survivability...

Yes to the point. OTOH, it never got spall liner for example.

There is a one scenario that M1 does job that no other tank fully does - saves crew from ammo propellant fires and even HE deflagration. But that is only one of the things that can happen to a crew of a tank that is hit and penetrated.

IOW, if you have two tanks, one that can be penetrated from all aspects by practically all AT weapons and other that will protect vs old stuff, but not 80% of weapons used, second one is better, but it is not significantly better.

Quote

pretty much the opposite of the Leopard 1 and as it seems T-type tanks as well

Do you actually know why early M1s had 105mm and not 120mm?

Plus, 105mm M1 do not have all ammo isolated from crew compartment. Yes, I know, those are only a few rounds that are not isolated.

 

Edited January 29, 2023 by bojan

[Martineleca]

On 1/29/2023 at 2:35 AM, bojan said:

Do you actually know why early M1s had 105mm and not 120mm?

 

The L7 105mm cannon with DU rounds was a deadly weapon going into the 1980s and arguably still today, on par with the early tungsten ammo fired by the 120mm guns from the Chieftain and Leopard 2. The US Army's priority was to field a tank with stronger armor as soon as possible after the MBT 70 cancellation set them back a decade, up gunning all the original M1s eventually was planned but never carried out due to Cold War ending, in light of recent events this ought to be reconsidered.

Edited January 30, 2023 by Martineleca

[bojan]

Read Hunnicutt again.  

105mm was a budget decision, with room left to upgun M1 ASAP, IOW with funds being available. Which has happened with M1A1. It had nothing to do with "prioritizing armor", since tank was designed to be compatible with 120mm, hence you could not "compromise firepower for better armor and survivability". Also, 105mm armed M1 might have poorer survivability than 120mm as there are (not a lot through) rounds in crew compartment, outside of separate ammo storage. which was a compromise, as  it was only way to get to a desired number of 105mm rounds. Hence you could actually say that crew safety was sacrificed for "battle endurance" to a degree.

BTW, T-xx never compromised armor for firepower, they have compromised other things, like ergonomics (not to a degree it is usually claimed through), survivability (everyone but US did that one also, but Soviets went to extreme end of spectrum) and ease of "big" maintenance (hence relatively difficult engine change etc).

 

 

Edited January 30, 2023 by bojan

[urbanoid]

1 hour ago, bojan said:

Read Hunnicutt again.  

105mm was a budget decision, with room left to upgun M1 ASAP, IOW with funds being available. Which has happened with M1A1. It had nothing to do with "prioritizing armor", since tank was designed to be compatible with 120mm, hence you could not "compromise firepower for better armor and survivability". Also, 105mm armed M1 might have poorer survivability than 120mm as there are (not a lot through) rounds in crew compartment, outside of separate ammo storage. which was a compromise, as  it was only way to get to a desired number of 105mm rounds. Hence you could actually say that crew safety was sacrificed for "battle endurance" to a degree.

BTW, T-xx never compromised armor for firepower, they have compromised other things, like ergonomics (not to a degree it is usually claimed through), survivability (everyone but US did that one also, but Soviets went to extreme end of spectrum) and ease of "big" maintenance (hence relatively difficult engine change etc).

 

 

A 'budget decision' and wanting to have something as soon as possible aren't mutually exclusive when it comes to 105 mm M1. If the Congress didn't want to give more money at the time the option was to either introduce it with a 105 for now or wait until they change their minds and throw more money. Sometimes they are so stingy about approving new equipment that the US military goes around them by making total rebuilds which result in a new vehicle and aren't necessarily cheaper. Happens with M1s or M109s, where the latter got a new chassis, a new turret and might gain a new L52 gun in the future as well. But hey, in theory it's totally a 1970s vehicle, the nameplate with serial number says so.