NATO return to Cold War force structure

[bojan]

You have missed that my reply was to @Martineleca who has said:

Quote

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.

It implies that they chose 105mm intentionally because "putting survivability first". No, they did not, again, 105mm in fact had compromised post-penetration survivability compared to 120mm, due the need to have additional ammo in crew compartment, because w/o that there would not be enough "stowed kills". Hence 105mm was purely budgetary choice that in fact compromised post-penetration survivability of M1.

Also, M1, since it was designed to be able to mount 120mm from the beginning w/o significant weight change had to have whole tank designed around that 120mm gun. Hence all compromises that he implies that bigger gun brings were (wisely) made (with prospect of future growth), despite a fact that it has mounted smaller gun.

Also comparing Leo 1 and T-72 design philosophy is... stupid. Leo 1 was vulnerable to WW2 weapons frontally to extended range, and to anything over 12.7mm from the sides. Compare to T-72 that had one of the best armor protections in the world, resistant to the majority of condemnatory weapons (frontally) when introduced in 1974.. Hence hardly comparable at that moment. Today, they are much more comparable (along with original armor package M1 and Leo 2) as they are all more-less "wet cardboard" to a majority of AT weapons in Ukraine. Yes, there is some difference, but we are talking about few % here and there, nothing really vastly different.

 

Edited January 30, 2023 by bojan

[Martineleca]

16 minutes ago, bojan said:

It implies that they chose 105mm intentionally because "putting survivability first". No, they did not, again, 105mm in fact had compromised post-penetration survivability compared to 120mm, due the need to have additional ammo in crew compartment, because w/o that there would not be enough "stowed kills". 

Fact is Army command accepted the new MBT starting production with the M60s armament, but no way would the green light have been given without incorporating much thicker composite armor. Also I'm not sure the T-72 would have been any less vulnerable back then than it is today, heavy ATGMs already existed and testing had to have revealed the compromised design of the autoloader where any serious penetration ends with catastrophic detonation.

[bojan]

38 minutes ago, Martineleca said:

Fact is Army command accepted the new MBT starting production with the M60s armament, but no way would the green light have been given without incorporating much thicker composite armor.

Ofc they did, gun was much easier to change later than armor, since M1 was designed with 120mm in mind. Simply put M1A1 is what US army wanted, M1/105 is what they got due the budget reasons. IOW they made what they thought was best balance of the time (and it was very good choice), then they had to compromise with keeping 105mm.

Quote

....heavy ATGMs already existed

T-72 hull protected vs basic TOW (430mm penetration) which was just introduced to US army service few years before T-72. Turret was not, but not by the great margin and non-optimal hits might not penetrate it. No tank is invulnerable. Thing is in what % of weapons you are most likely to encounter you can withstand.

Also, look at how many heavy ATGMs were there in the average NATO Rgt/Bde before mass introduction of IFVs.

 

Quote

 and testing had to have revealed the compromised design of the autoloader where any serious penetration ends with catastrophic detonation.

Autoloader low in the hull was perfectly OKish design choice at that moment, just as Leo 2 hull ammo storage was (now, 40 years later in "oh so great" K2 and Leo 2A6/7... I am not so sure). Again, watch this pretty good Nick's video:

 

Edited January 30, 2023 by bojan

[Martineleca]

On 1/25/2023 at 11:18 PM, Stuart Galbraith said:

Suddenly a lot of idiots in Whitehall have received a masterclass in why tanks remain useful.

I've read that years ago serious consideration was given to procuring the Abrams, but they correctly decided to support local industry by going with the Challenger series. But if a need for hundreds of new tanks suddenly arises, imagine a British Army of the Donets deterrence force, with the original production facility closed realistically is there any alternative to adopting the Abrams alongside existing tanks?

Edited February 4, 2023 by Martineleca

[BansheeOne]

On 11/6/2022 at 1:34 PM, BansheeOne said:

Conscription definitely makes sense for smallish countries with immediate hostile neighbors, to increase their standing forces quickly in times of crisis and fend off a possible initial attack. For bigger second- and third-line nations, not so much in view of Russian performance in Ukraine and the abovementioned perspective for them to rebuild. Even in the 80s, some in NATO were suggesting that the US and UK should bring back the draft to counter the Red Hordes which would pour into Western Europe, but looking at it now it doesn't seem necessary to mobilize all of Europe against the Russian threat. Bringing the existing forces up to speed and either forward-deploy them or ensure they're rapidly deployable to back up the frontline countries seems much more important.

Despite everything, there is indeed a bit of a conscription debate in Germany currently after new defense minister Boris Pistorius said in a sideline that he always thought abolishing the draft was a mistake. He later clarified that didn't mean it should be brought back, and it wouldn't help the Bundeswehr within the next two or three years anyway - but was promptly joined in the basic statement by other, mostly conservative politicians, while liberals and leftists rejected it; FDP head Christian Lindner called the whole thing a "ghost debate".

Nonetheless, the last to come out in favor is the Inspector of the Navy, who said we should do it like Norway where he was impressed with it during his time at a NATO command - rather than asking where to put an entire class of young men, everyone turning 18 gets evaluated, then the military says which fraction they need to be drafted, and "nobody talks about equal treatment". The last bit makes the whole suggestion a pious wish for Germany with its obsession of Wehrgerechtigkeit of course, otherwise I would agree.

As it is, with force strength stuck around 183,000 for more than three years now, COVID no longer an excuse for lack of recruiting drives and no apparent motivation push from the war in Ukraine, we might need to live with the gap between this reality and the 203,000 envisioned for 2031. Which is already tight for the planned level of ambition and has led to some parts of the force structure recast as manned by reservists.

I suspect we might have to do even more of that, or else trim the entire structure down to size. For all the justified complaints of money still being short despite the grandiose promises, it could be come up with more easily than the inconveniently middling number of additional warm bodies, so maybe we should concentrate on fully equipping a slightly smaller force well.

[Martineleca]

4 hours ago, BansheeOne said:

As it is, with force strength stuck around 183,000 for more than three years now, COVID no longer an excuse for lack of recruiting drives and no apparent motivation push from the war in Ukraine, we might need to live with the gap between this reality and the 203,000 envisioned for 2031.

While recruitment and reinstating conscription are certainly important issues, force efficiency is even more crucial. Some time ago I made the comparison that at 62 000 servicemen the Heer is equal in size to the Polish Army, however the Germans operate just half the equipment, there appears to be a lot of slack in non-active units, maybe get some of those guys off their desks and into tanks?

[Stuart Galbraith]

On 2/4/2023 at 5:02 AM, Martineleca said:

I've read that years ago serious consideration was given to procuring the Abrams, but they correctly decided to support local industry by going with the Challenger series. But if a need for hundreds of new tanks suddenly arises, imagine a British Army of the Donets deterrence force, with the original production facility closed realistically is there any alternative to adopting the Abrams alongside existing tanks?

Let's just say I think Whitehall and the army are getting an attitude adjustment on the utility of tank,  and not before time. Where we get them is academic, finding the money unfortunately  is not.

[Mike1158]

When we have the spherical objects to properly equip armoured units and build at home, we will find more of the money gouing into UK jobs and then directed back into the home economy.  Where it properly belongs.

We know how to do this so the question is why are we not going ahead and promoting the positives?

[Stuart Galbraith]

I quite agree. Like I say, I think attitudes  are changing. Fear tends to do that.

[Martineleca]

22 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Where we get them is academic, finding the money unfortunately is not.

But it is interesting to contemplate, at one point the UK would probably have taken part in the MGCS project, but with the slow development process and Franco-German domination of requirements it's a no go. Italy offered Poland to jointly build an advanced up-armored variant of the Ariete, the latter instead chose the K2 tank, maybe Britain should explore both options as they offer industrial cooperation with important allies.

[Stuart Galbraith]

C3 Turret, K2 hull with hydrogas suspension. Bish bash bosh.

I don't wish to be cynical, but with the truly stupid decisions made by MOD and Treasury over the last 20 years, its hard not to be.

[Martineleca]

15 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

C3 Turret, K2 hull with hydrogas suspension.

That's actually a very realistic proposition, the Koreans seem to make very strong chassis, which is why Poland selected the K9 to underpin their Krab SPG rather than going with the full AS-90.  But what happens when the Challenger turrets run out, simply move on to K2?

[Stuart Galbraith]

AFAIK, the turrets are new builds. They did have an intent to use new armour, but I think even that was revised. Its only the hulls that are reused as best I can tell.

There is a claim that its a Leopard 2 turret in a new turret framework. As far as the components thats probably true, but it doesnt seem, according to some guys on arrse who looked at it, to be a Challenger 2 turret base. Its something new.

I concede, Imight be wrong about , but I dont think so. If its true, it means we can build half a tank. If we could just figure out how to build the rest of the bugger, id be a lot happier.

 

 

 

[bojan]

42 minutes ago, Martineleca said:

That's actually a very realistic proposition...

Look at the weight of K2 vs C3 turret before making WoT Frankenstein's monsters.

PS. Ariete is subpar compared to all other tanks of it's generation. Apparently any tank I consider good looking turns to be at least partially a lemon.  

Edited February 7, 2023 by bojan

[Huba]

3 hours ago, bojan said:

Look at the weight of K2 vs C3 turret before making WoT Frankenstein's monsters.

PS. Ariete is subpar compared to all other tanks of it's generation. Apparently any tank I consider good looking turns to be at least partially a lemon.  

If K2PL materializes as re-designed, 7-roadwheel long version, then it might very well be technically possible. But there's hardly a chance that such chassis will be available earlier than in 2027, if ever.

[Martineleca]

13 hours ago, Huba said:

If K2PL materializes as re-designed, 7-roadwheel long version, then it might very well be technically possible.

Isn't the Turkish Altay MBT exactly that as well, just with slightly different turret?

Edited February 8, 2023 by Martineleca

[Martineleca]

On 1/24/2023 at 7:33 PM, Stuart Galbraith said:

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.

On the subject of tanks for Ukraine, since the US is at this time only willing to offer export-spec Abrams which they don't keep in storage, wouldn't it be possible to source them from a third country? Egypt is the largest operator of this variant and still produces it, Morocco has already supplied T-72s so there is a precedent for further talks on sending some of their existing Abrams now in exchange for newly built examples later on.

Edited February 9, 2023 by Martineleca

[Stuart Galbraith]

I think this shows the problem is NOT acquiring the tanks. The problem is Biden clearly doesnt want them to have tanks, because reasons.

[Josh]

51 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

I think this shows the problem is NOT acquiring the tanks. The problem is Biden clearly doesnt want them to have tanks, because reasons.

I think the DU armor is the major stumbling block.

[glenn239]

On 2/8/2023 at 2:47 PM, Martineleca said:

On the subject of tanks for Ukraine, since the US is at this time only willing to offer export-spec Abrams which they don't keep in storage, wouldn't it be possible to source them from a third country? Egypt is the largest operator of this variant and still produces it, Morocco has already supplied T-72s so there is a precedent for further talks on sending some of their existing Abrams now in exchange for newly built examples later on.

Theoretically yes, practically no.  African states in general are not that interested in the war in Ukraine.  My impression being that war is more common in their parts, so they do not have any sense of urgency for a white on white war in Eastern Europe.  Egypt in addition has a serious national interest in neutrality in that they are dependent on grain imports from Russia and Ukraine.

[seahawk]

Most African nations support Russia in the conflict against the West. 

[Pavel Novak]

12 minutes ago, seahawk said:

Most African nations support Russia in the conflict against the West. 

Shouldn't you mark your special posts in some way to distinguish them from your normal posts? Or vice versa? Not that it is important but I could start to read your special posts in hitlerite voice.

[Stuart Galbraith]

3 hours ago, Josh said:

I think the DU armor is the major stumbling block.

As has been pointed out, if they want Abrams, they can buy them back from several places. The armour is an excuse, because I don't personally believe its much more advanced in that area.than Challenger 2.

[seahawk]

Does the Challenger have DU armour?

[bojan]

We don't know, but probably no.