Modelling > Scenarios
More Challenger 2s for Ukraine?
GTX_Admin:
--- Quote from: Old Wombat on January 22, 2023, 03:43:50 PM ---put pressure on the armaments manufacturers to streamline their production & R&D;
--- End quote ---
The pressure is there already I can assure you. It doesn't happen by magic though. Business is in it for business and without orders or funding nothing happens - harsh reality but still the reality.
--- Quote from: Old Wombat on January 22, 2023, 03:43:50 PM ---punish those who are pork-barrelling
--- End quote ---
Nice sentiment but remember that those responsible for punishing will also be the same ones guilty of the pork-barrelling.
--- Quote from: Old Wombat on January 22, 2023, 03:43:50 PM ---; buy in bulk, not piecemeal dribs & drabs; increase your defence spending to a significant percentage of GDP (5% minimum);
--- End quote ---
There are not bottomless pits of funding available. Also 2 - 2.5% of GDP is seen as a 'health investment. The only major Western investments doing more than that that I am aware of are:
USA: ~3.5% GDP
Poland: ~2.5% a draining for 5% but this is generally not seen as realistic
South Korea: ~2.8%
--- Quote from: Old Wombat on January 22, 2023, 03:43:50 PM ---increase recruiting &, if that doesn't boost defence personnel numbers enough, re-introduce National Service.
--- End quote ---
Easy to say...difficult in reality.
Frank3k:
Beyond fuel types and logistic issues, the NATO alliance has to get down to the basic requirement: overkill Russian "military" as quickly and efficiently 9or not) as possible. End of story. Russia is well on it's way to a population collapse and irrelevance and the quicker we can accelerate the pace, the better for the rest of the world. They will eventually become China's problem.
Kerick:
Also, firm action from NATO allies here will go a long way towards deterring China from aggression in the Pacific. Waffling around will just encourage them.
apophenia:
Wow! Thanks for all the responses folks :smiley:
--- Quote from: kim margosein on January 22, 2023, 12:21:52 PM ---I don't know if the Abrams is really to complex or if that is just an excuse. First, where are the Challengers that the UK gave to Ukraine now, and who is driving them?...
--- End quote ---
1) Doubtless the M1 is complex but really this is code for 'most armies aren't used to maintaining turbine engines'. Turbines are, of course, simpler in concept and parts-count than ICE but still maintenance-intensive.
Being ignored in the West is that UA designs and builds its own turbine engines for aircraft. If the ZSU had trouble maintaining AGT1500s, it would be in the field. Motor Sich alone could provide a host of highly experienced technicians for any 'heavy' engine maintenance.
--- Quote from: kim margosein on January 22, 2023, 12:21:52 PM ---... You will have Challengers, and Leopards in a couple of flavors. ...
--- End quote ---
My assumption here was the Challengers being sent essentially as-is. So, to a typical CR2 TES standard - as currently serving RTR, QOH, and KOH - with as few 'sensitive' bits of kit removed as possible. I've shown the CR2 TES with a pruned 'antennae farm' and sans-Barracuda nets. The emphasis is on speed of delivery.
--- Quote from: kim margosein on January 22, 2023, 12:21:52 PM ---... Assuming a three month training period ...
--- End quote ---
The ZSU has shown repeatedly that it can field modern equipment far quicker than peacetime western armies can. Unfortunately, Ukrainian tankers are now highly experienced. ZSU crews are already at Bovington and I would not be surprised if the switch-over to CR2s could be done in 3 weeks (partly due to intense motivation, partly to increased risk tolerance).
In the end, western armies are going to be learning at least as much from the Ukrainians as the professionals have to teach the ZSU.
--- Quote from: kim margosein on January 22, 2023, 12:21:52 PM ---... these tanks have to be in Ukranian hands NOW...
--- End quote ---
That is certainly the messaging. But Kyiv's urgency is partly based on the often glacial pace of western decision-making. But any major, pre-'rasputitsa' UA combined arms offensive may be off the table anyway - with prep time running out and the Winter having been very mild by regional standards. Still, there is time for CR2s to be deployed for a later Spring offensive. The question is: In what numbers?
Going back to training, the UK has another CR2 option. BATUS has 22 x CR2s which are not used for British Army training between November and April. So, another what-if: Co-ordinate with Canada to use CFB Suffield to train ZSU crews in combined arms on British equipment. Along with CR2s, BATUS has CVR(T)s and Bulldogs - both latter types promised or supplied to UA. Add to that a similarity in terrain. Another advantage of using BATUS is a comparatively large Ukrainian-Canadian population in Alberta [1] - a useful source of support, translators, and freshly-made pyrohy and borshch ;)
___________________________________
[1] There are ~1.36M Ukrainian-Canadians (with about 370k in AB) of which around 144,000 know the language. Translators may also be found amongst the 20,000 Ukrainian refugees in Canada (most living around Calgary - only 260 km from CFB Suffield).
apophenia:
--- Quote from: GTX_Admin on January 23, 2023, 02:15:32 AM ---... I think there is a lot to do with the poor readiness of the Bundeswehr as a whole ...
--- End quote ---
Absolutely. And it is hard to separate this from a perceived need to use the 'Peace Dividend' to help balance the high costs of unification. We can't completely discount Scholtz' Zeitenwende but I think it is fair to say that, on average, SPD members are conflicted-through-to-hostile on/to defence spending. CDU members generally make more supportive noises but, in the past, that hasn't often translated into higher spending ... let alone more sensible procurement policies.
At least some of this stems from legal issues with stockpiling BW equipment. That, in turn, is a result of the Grundgesetz ('Basic Law') which can be seen (like the Japanese constitution) as an artifact of Allied victory in 1945. It's not an excuse but the Grundg does complicate matters for German policy-makers.
--- Quote from: GTX_Admin on January 23, 2023, 02:15:32 AM ---... Note that both sides of politics in Germany are responsible for this and the issues probably go back for 20 - 30yrs...
--- End quote ---
Agreed that both sides (and their coalition governments) are responsible. And there's been a lot of 20/20 finger-pointing over Ostpolitk. Assumptions were made about an emerging Russian leadership that would make choices which would seem rational to westerners. That didn't pan out and now UA pays the price in blood while Germany pays in Euros and reputation.
--- Quote from: GTX_Admin on January 23, 2023, 02:15:32 AM ---... Getting the Abrams is not so easy. For one, you would want them in service before giving up the Challengers...
--- End quote ---
I was thinking more of phased BA withdrawl, training (BA & US), and service entry.
Sunak started this by taken one squadron's worth of CR2s out of BA service for UA. I was imagining an extension of that concept, going something like this:
C Sqn QRH deploys to Poland as an extension of OP Harfa. At the end of the exercise, C Sqn turns its CR2s over to ZSU crews (who have completed their CR2 training at Bovington or Suffield). C Sqn then returns to Tidworth to begin conversion training for Abrams. Once training Abrams arrive in the UK, C Sqn QRH goes to Bovington to complete on-vehicle conversion.
Meanwhile, RTR 'Dreadnaught' has deployed to Poland as part of OP Harfa. Upon completion of Ex, D Sqn returns 'tankless' to Hampshire to repeat that Abrams conversion as the next tranche in the training process. So, the US would need to provide a dozen or so 'M1Ax' for Bovington followed by 14 x operational Abrams by the time each British squadron completes its conversion to the type. Not a small undertaking but, then again, not unfamiliar practices for USA depots/conversion centres or for Military Sealift Command.
Also, to state the obvious, it would also speed up matters if the USA (or USMC?) was willing to second Abrams training staff to Bovington.
--- Quote from: GTX_Admin on January 23, 2023, 02:15:32 AM ---... I understand that the ex-USMC Abrams are already earmarked for/physically being updated to M1A2 SEP v3s and are part of those going to both the US Army, Australia and Poland...
--- End quote ---
Now that is a fly in the ointment (and point taken about Poland's K2 purchase as well). As mentioned in the original post, one option would be a UK lease of Abrams. In that case, the question becomes: Would the USA, ADF, or SZ RP be willing to defer M1A2 SEP v3 deliveries while the British Army fielded the erstwhile Marine M1A1 HAs?
--- Quote from: GTX_Admin on January 23, 2023, 02:15:32 AM ---BTW ANAD is not so much a storage depot as much a full overhaul depot - in fact, that's where the majority of the world's Abrams get overhauled.
--- End quote ---
Thanks for that - an important distinction!
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version