Hans van Zijst

Hans van Zijst

hans@social.woefdram.nl

Professional nerd and grammar nazi, writes in Dutch and English. Can read some German, French and Spanish too. Learning русский.

Location:: Netherlands

Wed, 25 Jan 2023 13:34:03 +0100

Hans van Zijst

hans@social.woefdram.nl

Jetzt geht's los!

Germany confirms it will send Leopard tanks to Ukraine

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/01/25/world/russia-ukraine-news

#ukraine #leopard2

ukraine

show all 22 comments

Wed, 25 Jan 2023 13:52:23 +0100

Hans van Zijst

hans@social.woefdram.nl

Now, when are we donating a bunch of F16's?

Wed, 25 Jan 2023 13:56:31 +0100

Tom Grzybow

tomgrzybow@diaspora.freifunk-naila.net

It's kind of amusing the statements the US makes about the Abrams tank. It comes across as not being a generally useful weapon. Not a way to sell more of these - or win a war with them, if true.

Wed, 25 Jan 2023 14:09:08 +0100

Hans van Zijst

hans@social.woefdram.nl

@Tom Grzybow Bit weird indeed, but they may have a point. The Abrams is a complicated machine, needs quite a technical crew for maintenance and is incredibly expensive to operate. You don't want it to be abandoned because of a break down, to be captured by the Russians.

But of course, that goes for the Leopard too.

Wed, 25 Jan 2023 14:12:37 +0100

Tom Grzybow

tomgrzybow@diaspora.freifunk-naila.net

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams#Chrysler_is_chosen

By spring 1976, the decision to choose the GM design was largely complete. In addition to offering better overall performance, there were concerns about Chrysler's engine both from a reliability and fuel consumption standpoint. The GM program was also slightly cheaper overall at $208 million compared to $221 million for Chrysler. In July 1976, Lt. Colonel George Mohrmann prepared a stack of letters informing Congress of the decision to move ahead with the GM design. All that was required was the final sign-off by the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld.[15] On 20 July 1976, United States Secretary of the Army Martin Hoffman and a group of generals visited Deputy Defense Secretary Bill Clements and Director of Defense Research and Engineering Malcolm Currie on their decision. They were surprised when Clements and Currie criticized their decision and demanded the turbine be selected. Donald Rumsfeld heard arguments from both in the afternoon and asked for twenty-four hours to review the issues. The Army team spent the night writing briefs and presented them to Rumsfeld the next morning, who then announced a four-month delay.[15]

The tank we see was based largely upon a political decision.

Wed, 25 Jan 2023 14:15:03 +0100

Monkeymind

monkeymind@pod.geraspora.de

Apart from the aspect that the Ukrainian army will probably find a use for these tanks, and it will hopefully get this terrible war over sooner than without them...

... their performance agaonst the competitor's products will be closely monitored, and will feature in the manufacturer's sales material.

Wars tend to drive economies. Not that of Ukraine, in this case, of course.

Wed, 25 Jan 2023 14:21:31 +0100

Kenny Chaffin

kennychaffin@diasp.org

Good.

Wed, 25 Jan 2023 14:26:46 +0100

Kenny Chaffin

kennychaffin@diasp.org

If they don't want them captured then they need a built-in self-destruct, eh?

Wed, 25 Jan 2023 14:27:39 +0100

Kenny Chaffin

kennychaffin@diasp.org

All the big guns should have been brought out by the world against Putin when he invaded Crimea!

Wed, 25 Jan 2023 14:31:18 +0100

Hans van Zijst

hans@social.woefdram.nl

@Kenny Chaffin Agree! He should have been kicked back into Russia as soon as he seized it. With his so-called referendum...

Wed, 25 Jan 2023 14:33:36 +0100

Tom Grzybow

tomgrzybow@diaspora.freifunk-naila.net

"Initiating self-destruct sequence... 10... 9... 8..."

Hal? WTF???

Wed, 25 Jan 2023 14:35:20 +0100

Tom Grzybow

tomgrzybow@diaspora.freifunk-naila.net

He should have been kicked back into Russia as soon as he seized it. With his so-called referendum…

Appeasement never works. On the other hand, we were not ready for war at that point in time. It's only recently that we have begun dumping more and more massive amounts of funds into the military budget.

Wed, 25 Jan 2023 18:31:47 +0100

Isaac Kuo

isaackuo@diaspora.glasswings.com

The original M1 had some shortcomings, but by the M1A2 revision these were addressed. The result is an excellent Main Battle Tank that has a big edge over other tanks proven in combat. It's not just the superior defensive armor and offensive punch, but also the superior optics, situational awareness, and command and control.

However, the M1A2 demands a lot of logistical support, which is why Leopard 2 looks favorable. Experience with Ukrainian use of 155mm artillery systems is that they spend a lot of down time being sent back to Poland for repair/maintenance and getting sent back to the front. This isn't going to work for the M1A2, because they require far more continuous logistical support.

So that's why we've been taking so much time figuring out how to make supplying M1 to Ukraine even work.

This aspect of the M1 isn't really the fault of any political decision. Developing a tank is complex, and the end results are inevitably hit-and-miss. Sometimes you get lucky with an end product that requires less maintenance and is very reliable under rough conditions. Sometimes you don't.

Wed, 25 Jan 2023 19:31:45 +0100

Monkeymind

monkeymind@pod.geraspora.de

You all realize we're not comparing the latest smartphone toys here, right?

Wed, 25 Jan 2023 19:59:45 +0100

Tom Grzybow

tomgrzybow@diaspora.freifunk-naila.net

Sometimes you don’t. Well, it was the turbine idea which was seemingly most imposed.

As for the weight and complexity, maybe it's time for a complete re-design? How 'bout one made mostly of aluminum and titanium - with the active armor on top of that? If the machine is lighter, it also does not need quite as large an engine, and will get better mileage. Or is gross mass an inherent part of the safety-design?

Wed, 25 Jan 2023 20:12:59 +0100

Hans van Zijst

hans@social.woefdram.nl

Sounds a bit like the Korean K2 Black Panther ;-)

Wed, 25 Jan 2023 23:10:05 +0100

Isaac Kuo

isaackuo@diaspora.glasswings.com

The K2 Black Panther is the most expensive and complex MBTs out there. Is it worth costing even more than an M1A2? Maybe? It has some interesting capabilities, as well as being the only MBT so far capable of firing indirect fire anti-tank ammo. And even if it's on the expensive side, the geopolitical advantages of not depending on others to supply South Korea their tanks might be worth the higher price tag.

Anyway, the most plausible M1A2 replacement would be something like the M1 AbramsX, which exists in prototype demonstrator form. It is indeed lighter than the M1A2, features a new more efficient hybrid power pack, unmanned turret, and a whole bunch of fancy new capabilities and systems. If the US Army goes ahead with it, not all of these systems may be used, and/or they may be significantly modified.

For example, the 30mm chain gun towers above the turret - it's very visible and vulnerable. But battlefield experience in Ukraine suggests some sort of anti-drone armament may be a good idea.

But in the meantime, the M1A2 is really at the top of its game. It doesn't have any flaws which have the US Army in any sort of "panic mode" looking for a replacement.

Thu, 26 Jan 2023 02:09:25 +0100

Tom Grzybow

tomgrzybow@diaspora.freifunk-naila.net

more efficient hybrid power pack

Let's go full-electric!

Thu, 26 Jan 2023 02:11:37 +0100

Tom Grzybow

tomgrzybow@diaspora.freifunk-naila.net

It doesn’t have any flaws which have the US Army in any sort of “panic mode” looking for a replacement.

Except that it is (or was) inappropriate for use in Ukraine.

Thu, 26 Jan 2023 02:38:57 +0100

Isaac Kuo

isaackuo@diaspora.glasswings.com

Oh, it would utterly wipe the floor with the Russian invasion forces in Ukraine. Like, it would be a cakewalk for the US Army, seriously.

The US Army's priority is - correctly - what military systems work well within the context of their own military force structure and logistical infrastructure. They don't concern themselves with what equipment is most suitable for supplying to others, and rightly so.

Thu, 26 Jan 2023 02:40:35 +0100

Tom Grzybow

tomgrzybow@diaspora.freifunk-naila.net

Good point.

Thu, 26 Jan 2023 02:42:40 +0100

Isaac Kuo

isaackuo@diaspora.glasswings.com

And when I say it would be a cakewalk, it's not just a matter of great technological and logistical advantages. The US Army's forces are just numerically ridiculous also.

The original Russian invasion force was also numerically formidable, but the Ukrainians have massively downgraded those numbers through a year of high intensity combat. I mean, the Russian command also had something to do with it, what with their repeated throwing of Russian forces into the same kill zones over and over again.

Thu, 26 Jan 2023 03:30:37 +0100

Tom Grzybow

tomgrzybow@diaspora.freifunk-naila.net

When the Russians had trouble moving down the f'n highway, no one could understand. I myself thought they were somewhat competent.