Battle of world’s best MBTs begins in Ukraine

[Battlion25]

Interesting keep this thread alive and give us piece for piece information TS.. Add tank battles watch on the title

 

[jhungary]

Few things:

- Ukraine is receiving older Abrams and Leopard 2s that are at least 2 decades old.
- Majority of Russian tanks (T-73B3, T-80BVM) are also just refurbished and upgraded tanks from the 1980's.

Not exactly a high tech battle

Abrams is brand new because they don't have the tank, they can give to Ukraine that can do without the DU armor and pull all the sensitive equipment, they are made to export standard, maybe watered down but it would still on par with Iraqi or even Saudi order, may not be the level of Poland and Australian (the new A2, not the old A1) level.

Like it or not, Western tanks can do. They have superior armour, can operate fully at night, have laser targeting, use an array of missiles depending on the target and are accurate over large ranges, and are accurate whilst on the move. The russian tanks can't do any of that. Plus, they're easy to maintain and repair. And the Leopard 2's armour is far superior to the T72. They're heavy MBT's whereas the T72 is more of a medium tank.

The west, bar from the UK, never looks into Armour in tank, yes, it is enough to take 1 or 2 hit in order to survive, but never being forefront of battlefield technology. Western doctrine called for a maneuver warfare, which is what Combine Warfare being a part of. I have just talked about a lot about Tank and Drone on the other thread about Pakistani Army VT-4, so I am not going to repeat what or why tank is valuable in the west.

The issue here is, can Ukraine pull the doctrine out when they were relatively new to the Western Style doctrine, because if they are using those Leo 2 or Challenger or even Abrams with the old soviet doctrine, it simply wouldn't work. Because it's ALWAYS doctrine vs doctrine but not tank vs tank. It wouldn't matter if Western tank can shoot straight or can shoot longer, it would be pointless if you mass them up like you would when you do armour assault during Soviet Time, it was not designed to do that.

As I said on the other thread, I wish @Davos is still on this forum, that guy is a kangaroo Abrams driver, and he knows shit tons about tanks, I know probably half of what he knew.

 

[kingQamaR]

Abrams is brand new because they don't have the tank, they can give to Ukraine that can do without the DU armor and pull all the sensitive equipment, they are made to export standard, maybe watered down but it would still on par with Iraqi or even Saudi order, may not be the level of Poland and Australian (the new A2, not the old A1) level.


The west, bar from the UK, never looks into Armour in tank, yes, it is enough to take 1 or 2 hit in order to survive, but never being forefront of battlefield technology. Western doctrine called for a maneuver warfare, which is what Combine Warfare being a part of. I have just talked about a lot about Tank and Drone on the other thread about Pakistani Army VT-4, so I am not going to repeat what or why tank is valuable in the west.

The issue here is, can Ukraine pull the doctrine out when they were relatively new to the Western Style doctrine, because if they are using those Leo 2 or Challenger or even Abrams with the old soviet doctrine, it simply wouldn't work. Because it's ALWAYS doctrine vs doctrine but not tank vs tank. It wouldn't matter if Western tank can shoot straight or can shoot longer, it would be pointless if you mass them up like you would when you do armour assault during Soviet Time, it was not designed to do that.

As I said on the other thread, I wish @Davos is still on this forum, that guy is a kangaroo Abrams driver, and he knows shit tons about tanks, I know probably half of what he knew.

Interesting

The western tanks will not be used by themselves…IMO . During WW11 there was a mix of what were termed light and heavy tanks … for example when the M26 Pershing arrived in theatre they were assigned to units with M4 Sherman’s … basically having a ‘ heavy hitter’ when needed. I am guessing that as the western tanks advance they will be accompanied by Ukrainian T-Series tanks… use the western tanks to punch through …use the soviet era tanks to pour through the hole. The western tanks can take on the Russian tanks… and the Soviet era Ukrainian tanks take on the IVFs and infantry supported by the western supplied IFVs Thats is just my opinion

 

[jhungary]

Interesting

The western tanks will not be used by themselves…IMO . During WW11 there was a mix of what were termed light and heavy tanks … for example when the M26 Pershing arrived in theatre they were assigned to units with M4 Sherman’s … basically having a ‘ heavy hitter’ when needed. I am guessing that as the western tanks advance they will be accompanied by Ukrainian T-Series tanks… use the western tanks to punch through …use the soviet era tanks to pour through the hole. The western tanks can take on the Russian tanks… and the Soviet era Ukrainian tanks take on the IVFs and infantry supported by the western supplied IFVs Thats is just my opinion

That's exactly the reason I said what I said. If you use an Abrams and Leo 2 like the way Russian using their T-90, it will end up the same thing, because that's not how we use tank in the west.

Not really remembering alot in tank school after all the year drinking and fking up my mind with all kind of stuff I don't want to talk about, but I do remember one thing, do you know why the symbol of armour in Western Armies are always a triangle?

Because the western armour doctrine focusing on 3 principal. Mobility, Protection/Protected, Firepower or otherwise known as MPF

The synergy provided between the 3 factors have to be balanced on each other, which basically means if you are too fast, you loses firepower, if you are too protected, you loses mobility and vice versa. The things with MPF is, after WW2, we know this cannot be achieved by any single armour equipment, not tank alone, not APC alone, not infantry alone, but as a matter of running all the platform together, and have one supporting the other, that is the only way you can achieve a balanced MPF concept.

Tanks was supposed to be used as a small unit, accompanied by artillery, infantry and air support, that operation cycle means the infantry protect the tanks on their flank, filter out or screen out enemy infantry, artillery and air support would then be used to open up enemy line so your tank can move thru. And tank in turn suppress enemy strong point for infantry, provide security with enemy A2AD asset. That is the basis of combine arms operation.

So when Ukraine are going up to the saddle and bat, they would need to be able to operate all element within this combine arms concept, they would have to be able to use their tank to suppress enemy strong point, while having accompanied mechanised infantry to screen out enemy threat, then using artillery or limited airpower to try to blow hole in the line. That is the way we developed to counter static battlefield since WW1.

Whether or not the Ukrainian can pull this off is another matter.

As for what would they do? I don't know, I am not an Ukrainian, I trained solely with Western Doctrine, Ukrainian can and most likely already had combined the Eastern and Western Doctrine into its own mix, so I wouldn't know what the Ukrainian would do. But if it was me. I would probably use the Western Tank what they were supposed to be, ram them up the line with mechanised infantry. And I will use the older soviet era tanks for suppression and infantry support. But that would just be me. I can't say this is what they will do.

 

[Tornado23]

The firing range of the Abrams, as well as the British Challenger and German Leopard, have a far longer firing range than the most modern Russ tank, the Russ T90. When the US faced Russ supplied tanks in IR aq, they didn't even engage, Americans just backed the tanks up out of their range then picked them off one by one. They didn't lose a single tank to enemy fire, and destroyed every one of their tanks as soon as engaged.

Iraqi T72 were equipped with 3BM15 APFSDS which was already obsolete by its time. They had no where near the firepower to deal with the Coalition tanks.

 

[kingQamaR]

Iraqi T72 were equipped with 3BM15 APFSDS which was already obsolete by its time. They had no where near the firepower to deal with the Coalition tanks.

You are right.,
Iraqi tanks T72s had no Fcs and horrendous optics, no way to shoot accurately on the move. M1 tanks had the advantage he was able shoot on the move.

 

[hyperman]

Ukraine is receiving older Abrams and Leopard 2s that are at least 2 decades old.

Germany sending Leopard 2A6 its not all 2A4s. 2A6 is fairly modern.

Tanks aren't that useful in modern combat. Range is too short. Easy target for guided artillery and drones.

Everytime you open your mouth, the world becomes a dumber place.

You are talking about a 200 million population country going up against a 20 million people country.

Ukraine's population is about 40 mill and Russia is about 140mill, Idk where you got your match skills but its insane to Round 140mill to 200 and 40 to 20 mill. Not that any of it matters, the only thing that matters is how much manpower you can currently deploy or a willing to deploy, and I would wager the Russians are not going to deploy their entire population. lol

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

Germany sending Leopard 2A6 its not all 2A4s. 2A6 is fairly modern.

Too few. Only 14. At Kursk Germany deployed thousands of Tiger tanks.

 

[Foinikas]

Russian tanks haven’t done much since the Second World War.
I expect the Armata is another hype train about to be derailed.

I agree.

Everytime you open your mouth, the world becomes a dumber place.

We have to agree there,he just goes on posting threads every day and nobody stops him.

Too few. Only 14. At Kursk Germany deployed thousands of Tiger tanks.

"Thousands" of Tiger tanks? Are you trolling or are you really that ignorant?

 

[Baburfromsarmarkand]

man honestly, tanks always get destroyed, i think ground warfare is obsolete, all ground based fighting ends in stalemates. Its the airforces and navys that make the diffference.

 

[Foinikas]

Iraqi T72 were equipped with 3BM15 APFSDS which was already obsolete by its time. They had no where near the firepower to deal with the Coalition tanks.

You are right.,
Iraqi tanks T72s had no Fcs and horrendous optics, no way to shoot accurately on the move. M1 tanks had the advantage he was able shoot on the move.

 

[Tornado23]

View attachment 926458

T72A was heavily out performed by the Coalition tanks. Coalition tanks had much better FCS, armour, firepower and mobility

 

[Foinikas]

T72A was heavily out performed by the Coalition tanks. Coalition tanks had much better FCS, armour, firepower and mobility

That's what I'm showing you guys,the differences between the models Iraq had and Syria had. Just an old pic I had.

 

[mike2000 is back]

Thousands" of Tiger tanks? Are you trolling or are you really that ignorant?

Ahahah....leave my superboy alone. I enjoy his post. He always makes me laugh and entertained . We need him on this site for fun. Else it's too biring.

 

[truthseeker2010]

In todays combat environment with drones guided artillery CMs ATGMs plus the urban setting of ukraine. I don't think MBT would stand a good chance of survival from either side.