Armchair General's DonbAss Derailed Discussion Thread (Topics Include History, Traps, and the Ongoing Slavic Civil War plus much much more)

[AnimalNoodles]

Russia's in deep shit if we give them Challenger 2's, even ones that had certain technologies/capabilities removed.

There's a reason why it's in the top three tanks of the world, and now that we've switched over to smoothbores? They're gonna be popping Russian armoured targets like an American popping shrimp.

Do you honestly think a small number of tanks is going to make a difference? The Russians are perfectly capable of killing Challenger 2s

 

[Marduk]

Challenger 2 are - if you remove the British propaganda - a meh NATO tank.
Under-powered and with a meh gun.
Granted, they have decent armor, but, that is not enough.
Now, if you - dream on - refit it with a Europower pack (1500+hp versus barely 1200hp) and a Rmt 120l55 (or L55+ or even L55.1) now, we are talking.
Also needs an upgrade on their frankly old sensors...
So - for that conflict is a good tank, but for NATO standards, is a meh, old one.

And, btw, how many exist? About 200...

Armor is the main difference between a MBT and a medium weight fire support vehicle like CV90120 or tank destroyer like Sprut-SD, so i think you're not giving it the proper value.
The gun, we have no specific stats about their newest penetrators, but the last domestic version is from 1999 and uses DU, so it would be probably similar to either M829A2 or A3, and the gun is a L55.
Horsepower is a case of diminishing returns on the levels of modern MBTs, no big deal.
Sensors, yeah, a bit old, but not sure if worse than what's on any other western tank variants that may realistically go to Ukraine, those won't be M1A2SEPv4 or Leopard 2A7+ for sure.

Do you honestly think a small number of tanks is going to make a difference? The Russians are perfectly capable of killing Challenger 2s

And Iraqi army was perfectly capable of killing M1's, as shown by one M1 being lost to an RPG during the second war. But that doesn't mean it was easy for them to do, as implied by the fact that it happened only once. So you can spare us overly simplistic and disorienting statements like that.

 

[paulobrito]

The gun is a rifled one, not a smoothbore - the performance for KE is worse.
By the fabricant very best estimates, L28A2 APFSDS - the latest ammo - is maybe comparable to M829A2.
A difference of 20% of engine power is not small.

 

[Batrix2070]

I understand that there is no shortage of liberal myths in Poland

many people love overeffective private-owned factories that waste resources and ignore the public sector,

I have corrected, and forgive me but I am not a Corvinist. I'm not even a statist but I'm not a liberal, neoliberal (although both should be called lefeserists) I prefer an aideological approach to the economy.

performance of Polish economy is almost a miracle.

This is more a result of the Polish mentality. We achieved this despite the actions of those in power and not because of them. Especially since the fact is that what Balcerowicz did was a disaster for the Polish economy, we have rebounded rather despite these and other brilliant ideas.

Sell even more "Polish national assets" pretty please

Forgive me, I prefer it to be sold with a head. And it was sold to Poles as it already is, not privatized as it has been so far. I understand to like tables, the problem is that tables do not show the whole truth. Especially since many of the companies sold, could be kept alive with good management. (Even if they are in private hands.) But it was simpler not to do it and let it die. Unfortunately, this requires thought and not the ideological blindness of lefeserism.

I like to work in a private enterprise able to produce value, lol.

I, on the other hand, prefer to work in a decent company that is well-managed and I moderately care whether it is private or not, lol. Well-managed will always bring good results.

 

[Zachowon]

Do you honestly think a small number of tanks is going to make a difference? The Russians are perfectly capable of killing Challenger 2s

And Ukraine has the capability to destroy any Russian weapons as well.
So what? China can destroy a carrier supposedly, doesn't mean they actually can or that's its easy

 

[AnimalNoodles]

And Iraqi army was perfectly capable of killing M1's, as shown by one M1 being lost to an RPG during the second war. But that doesn't mean it was easy for them to do, as implied by the fact that it happened only once. So you can spare us overly simplistic and disorienting statements like that.

Newflash, Russia isnt Iraq. Russia has modern optics, laser guided artillery, drones, cruise missiles, good guns and modern anti-tank rockets.

If houthi rebels can kill Abrams, and Kurdish militias can kill Leopard IIs, The russians arent going to be overly bothered by a handful of Challenger monkey models.

 

[Zachowon]

Newflash, Russia isnt Iraq. Russia has modern optics, laser guided artillery, drones, cruise missiles, good guns and modern anti-tank rockets.

If houthi rebels can kill Abrams, and Kurdish militias can kill Leopard IIs, The russians arent going to be overly bothered by a handful of Challenger monkey models.

....most Russians arnt using optics outside of special units.
What laser guided artillery? It hasn't shown up for them at all.
Yes they have drones...
Cruise missiles that are getting shotndown constantly by fucking MANPADS... and you don't use cruise missiles on tanks.
Good guns? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Like what?

And the koronet is the only modern one they have

 

[Marduk]

The gun is a rifled one, not a smoothbore - the performance for KE is worse.
By the fabricant very best estimates, L28A2 APFSDS - the latest ammo - is maybe comparable to M829A2.

But how much worse? For one it is a L55. M829A2 is still one hell of a round.

A difference of 20% of engine power is not small.

Not when we are talking of a vehicle with the power/weight ratio of modern MBTs, they hardly ever need to make use with more than half anyway, things like torque and transmission are more important variables here. Ironically T-90s have similar p/w ratio to Challenger 2, varying with models, yet no one goes around calling them underpowered.

Newflash, Russia isnt Iraq. Russia has modern optics, laser guided artillery, drones, cruise missiles, good guns and modern anti-tank rockets.

In advertising catalogues, sure. On the frontline, these are nowhere near as common nor high quality as they would wish them to be.
Also vast majority of their tanks don't have good enough guns against Challenger 2's frontal armor. The latest upgrades of T-72/T-90 that can take extended length APFSDS are the only ones that may have a chance.
Also who uses cruise missiles against tanks LMAO.

If houthi rebels can kill Abrams, and Kurdish militias can kill Leopard IIs, The russians arent going to be overly bothered by a handful of Challenger monkey models.

These aren't monkey models, but UK's line tanks.

And yes, anyone with properly used half decent infantry anti-tank weapons *can* kill any tank, but the *can* metric is for practical purposes of little value.
Likewise T-72B3's *can* be killed with a WW2 style anti tank grenade, properly applied in the perfect circumstances of course, no need for even a bulky RPG, if we are going to have an exchange of pointless disingenuous arguments.
But that doesn't mean at all it's easy or that it will happen often, like you are doubling down on here.
Even 50 or so of them will make one hell of a breakthrough battalion.

 

[paulobrito]

Not only the T72 - in 'perfect' / scripted cases - any tank, even the latest variant of the M1 can be killed by an RPG, if fired at the precise location.
Of course, that is a one in a million in combat conditions, but you get that from time to time - just ask the HMS Hood.

About tanks - one of the reasons of so many losses in this conflict is the absence of infantry support. Time and again the basics are forgotten and some poor sods pay the ultimate price.
You see several videos on Youtube where so many doctrine/implementation of said doctrine is lacking that the instructor are in tears.

 

[Marduk]

Not only the T72 - in 'perfect' / scripted cases - any tank, even the latest variant of the M1 can be killed by an RPG, if fired at the precise location.
Of course, that is a one in a million in combat conditions, but you get that from time to time - just ask the HMS Hood.

Exactly - the difference between a good tank and obsolete tank is that the former requires perfect circumstances and a "golden bullet" level aim to get such a hit, while on the latter it can be pretty easy and work from any aspect.

About tanks - one of the reasons of so many losses in this conflict is the absence of infantry support. Time and again the basics are forgotten and some poor sods pay the ultimate price.
You see several videos on Youtube where so many doctrine/implementation of said doctrine is lacking that the instructor are in tears.

Yup, tanks, especially in less than completely open terrain, need well trained infantry in support for properly coordinated combined arms operations.

 

[Aldarion]

Exactly - the difference between a good tank and obsolete tank is that the former requires perfect circumstances and a "golden bullet" level aim to get such a hit, while on the latter it can be pretty easy and work from any aspect.

I still think the difference between a good tank and an obsolete tank is IR imaging system.

Also, from what I have found, nearly every tank in existence is detonated relatively easily if hull is penetrated. M1 Abrams is the only tank out there that has entirety of its ammunition separated from the crew and protected by blowout panels. So if we use your measure, every single tank design in the world other than M1 Abrams is obsolete.

But if every single tank is obsolete, can we really say they are obsolete?

 

[paulobrito]

Not so simple.
Abram, if the connection between the ammo and the rest of the turret is open and is penetrated at the wrong angle also suffers from a catastrophic explosion.
Yes, the probability is way lower than in a T-72, but still exists.
And modern propellants are inert / not susceptible to these kinds of incidents.
Is a constant evolution after all.

 

[Megadeath]

Newflash, Russia isnt Iraq. Russia has modern optics, laser guided artillery, drones, cruise missiles, good guns and modern anti-tank rockets.

If houthi rebels can kill Abrams, and Kurdish militias can kill Leopard IIs, The russians arent going to be overly bothered by a handful of Challenger monkey models.

Have you not been paying much attention? The Russians are "overly bothered" by Ukrainian armed forces without the tanks. They're hardly going to be less of a problem if they get a dozen or so tanks better than any they have already. More importantly, a dozen or so tanks from England makes for ice breaker for getting them a couple dozen from Germany, and maybe from America too.

Keep in mind also that Russia are reactivating and using tanks that, to describe it as charitably as possible, quite certainly are not as good as Challenger's.

 

[Marduk]

Not so simple.
Abram, if the connection between the ammo and the rest of the turret is open and is penetrated at the wrong angle also suffers from a catastrophic explosion.
Yes, the probability is way lower than in a T-72, but still exists.

It basically requires not only the perfect hit but also perfect timing for the perfect hit, crews are trained to keep the ammo storage open for the minimum time necessary.

And modern propellants are inert / not susceptible to these kinds of incidents.
Is a constant evolution after all.

Umm, they are not inert, this is exactly why T-72 turrets fly, and why Abrams style ammo storage is such a big deal. Intermediate solutions also help, obviously not as much. The HE shells are somewhat more inert than in past ages, but that's it.
Challenger 2 is a case of intermediate solution, with the sensitive propellant charges being stored in armored bins, not sure if with a water jacket, sources i saw vary.

Also K2PL design has fully separated ammo storage too.

I still think the difference between a good tank and an obsolete tank is IR imaging system.

At night more than day and only to a degree, overall fire control and sensors much more, but still being able to hit and pierce enemy armor is a pretty big deal.

Also, from what I have found, nearly every tank in existence is detonated relatively easily if hull is penetrated. M1 Abrams is the only tank out there that has entirety of its ammunition separated from the crew and protected by blowout panels. So if we use your measure, every single tank design in the world other than M1 Abrams is obsolete.

But if every single tank is obsolete, can we really say they are obsolete?

There are also other, less effective but still better than nothing ways of securing ammo from detonation, like the famous WW2 wet storage.
Even lesser variations of ammo basket like Leo 2 statistically lower chances of ammo detonation, as less ammo stored in hull means lesser chance of it getting hit in case of a penetration.

 

[Aldarion]

There are also other, less effective but still better than nothing ways of securing ammo from detonation, like the famous WW2 wet storage.
Even lesser variations of ammo basket like Leo 2 statistically lower chances of ammo detonation, as less ammo stored in hull means lesser chance of it getting hit in case of a penetration.

But looking at the links, issue with Russian tanks seems to be not the autoloader itself, but rather the ammunition outside the autoloader. IIRC, Ukrainian tank crews right now go into combat with just the 22 rounds in the carousel for precisely that reason.

Of course, there is the issue that if you want more than 22 rounds, you have to scatter them all around the tank, which is still worse than having a central hull storage like Leopard or Leclerc.

 

[Marduk]

But looking at the links, issue with Russian tanks seems to be not the autoloader itself, but rather the ammunition outside the autoloader. IIRC, Ukrainian tank crews right now go into combat with just the 22 rounds in the carousel for precisely that reason.

Of course, there is the issue that if you want more than 22 rounds, you have to scatter them all around the tank, which is still worse than having a central hull storage like Leopard or Leclerc.

Which is a way to partially negate the problem at the price of half the normal combat load, to basically get the level of protection similar to the least protected western tanks with full load.
Plus a bit of an effect of hoping that the autoloader may be mostly empty by the time a hit happens.
The autoloader combined with overall compact interior are also the reason why it's near impossible to improve the situation with gizmos like protective boxes for the external ammo which protect from shrapnel and fire for long enough that the crew can escape.
Meanwhile Leopard 2 with reduced ammo load is about as well protected as Abrams.

 

[Aldarion]

Which is a way to partially negate the problem at the price of half the normal combat load, to basically get the level of protection similar to the least protected western tanks with full load.

That would depend on the threat, but Leclerc hull ammo rack actually looks less protected than Russian autoloader:

Of course, if you remove it, and remove Russian "just throw it wherever" ammunition "stowage", then Leclerc still has a major advantage in that the ammunition actually in the autoloader separate from the crew compartment.

 

[WolfBear]

Interesting long thread:




Thankfully rather pessimistic about Russia's chances.

 

[Husky_Khan]

Pro-Russian but Patriotic Ukrainian Expat Gonzalo Lira aka Coach Redpill had a deep in depth discourse with two NATO Supporters in the form of 'Destiny'/Steven Bonnell whose a pretty famous progressive internet commentator/debater and 'LazerPig' whose a military YouTuber.

The "Roundtable Discussion" was in the classic format of the Host presented ten Powerpoint slides with 'True/False' Statements to Discuss in unmoderated format.



The first ten minutes is Gonzalo Lira babbling about stuff. Then what follows is about ninety minutes of very rigorous ah debate and discussion and you'll undoubtedly learn a lot.

That is then followed by ninety minutes of Gonzalo Lira offering his concluding remarks after they've "left."

Also there is a live chat which oddly... forbid anyone who hadn't subscribed to his YouTube Channel a week prior from commenting in said Live Chat.

 

[Tiamat]

Pro-Russian but Patriotic Ukrainian Expat Gonzalo Lira aka Coach Redpill had a deep in depth discourse with two NATO Supporters in the form of 'Destiny'/Steven Bonnell whose a pretty famous progressive internet commentator/debater and 'LazerPig' whose a military YouTuber.

The "Roundtable Discussion" was in the classic format of the Host presented ten Powerpoint slides with 'True/False' Statements to Discuss in unmoderated format.



The first ten minutes is Gonzalo Lira babbling about stuff. Then what follows is about ninety minutes of very rigorous ah debate and discussion and you'll undoubtedly learn a lot.

That is then followed by ninety minutes of Gonzalo Lira offering his concluding remarks after they've "left."

Also there is a live chat which oddly... forbid anyone who hadn't subscribed to his YouTube Channel a week prior from commenting in said Live Chat.

It’s a pity we don’t have a “facepalm” emoticon.