The big play are the USA's M2 Bradley and Stryker vehicles, which will effectively mechanize a few battalions of the Ukrainian infantry. Each Bradley can hold 6 troops, each Stryker can hold 9.
The problem: mechanized infantry needs Tanks for support. Early on, France's AMX-10 RC recon vehicle (aka: a light vehicle with a big tank gun on it) was being considered, but it looks like proper tanks have been decided upon.
France is sending those AMX-10 RC vehicles anyway.
-------------
By mechanizing the infantry, they aren't going to be riding in Toyota trucks around the battlefield anymore. They'll have large 25mm Autocannons, medium armor (M2 Bradley) or light armor (Strykers) to protect them.
M2 Bradley have advanced optics that can see 3000 to 4000 meters at night, and gun computers (fire control systems) that can accurately make shots at those distance. And rockets just in case it comes across an enemy tank (though its #1 routine would be to call a friendly tank for backup in that situation).
Ukraine has a significant number of brave troops who are making due with what they got. Just civilian cars and trucks right now. Giving them a proper battlefield taxi (aka: M2 Bradley, Strykers, or Humvees) is a huge step up.
Ukraine does have a mechanized infantry core that's already done some pretty amazing offenses. But Ukraine obviously needs to make that core larger and stronger for the upcoming offensive.
(1) the Western MBTs involved are seen as a big qualitative improvement over the Ukraine’s (and Russias) Soviet (and in Russia’s case, post-Soviet)–design MBTs.
(2) The release of tanks is seen as a harbinger of loosening on a broad category of heavy Western equipment (manned combat aircraft, for instance.)
(3) The release of heavy vehicles in active production, rather than the prior one-time emptying of stocks of soviety-designed vehicles from mostly ex-Warsaw Pact countries (though some MiG-29s for spares came from the US) is seen as sustainable (and thus something Russia is less likely to think they can overcome by a war of material attrition where they equipment runs out.)
> I can’t see few more tanks in the battlefield doing something to shortening this war.
A qualitative improvement without any quantitative change could, but its not “a few more tanks”, the commitment of Western tanks is something like 15%+ of a generous estimate of Ukraine’s total potential tank inventory (which includes non-operational Soviet-design MBTs from before the way that might be brought up to operational status and captured Russian MBTs), from what I can tell (321 new Western tanks pledged, with somewhere around 2,000 tanks potentially available previously.)
It's a big deal because there's many more of these where the one hundred are coming from. If the West sees that these tanks are put to good use (like the HIMARS were), then more will come.
Because it makes it more official, that this war is not simply Ukraine vs Russia, but rather NATO vs Russia. NATO has been funding the war from the Ukrainian side.
Soon, it will expand to include China, because China cannot allow Russia to be defeated, because they would be next.
This actually means that there is absolutely zero chance for peace.
As an ex Challenger 2 crewman, I'm interested to see how this goes. However the UK wont want any damaged ones getting into the hands of the Russians as the Chobham armour is one of the many advantages that the Challenger 2 has over the T series tanks.
> However the UK wont want any damaged ones getting into the hands of the Russians as the Chobham armour is one of the many advantages that the Challenger 2 has over the T series tanks.
This is utter nonsense, Russia simply lacks the manufacturing capability to produce such armour. Having access to a sample of British composite armour will not and can not help them at all, except perhaps in developing munitions to reliably penetrate it.
Honest question: taking in consideration the major busts that are the T14 Armata or the BMPT Terminator programs, would Russia have the know-how in place to do anything with a Challenger?
[+] [-] igortg|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dragontamer|3 years ago|reply
The big play are the USA's M2 Bradley and Stryker vehicles, which will effectively mechanize a few battalions of the Ukrainian infantry. Each Bradley can hold 6 troops, each Stryker can hold 9.
The problem: mechanized infantry needs Tanks for support. Early on, France's AMX-10 RC recon vehicle (aka: a light vehicle with a big tank gun on it) was being considered, but it looks like proper tanks have been decided upon.
France is sending those AMX-10 RC vehicles anyway.
-------------
By mechanizing the infantry, they aren't going to be riding in Toyota trucks around the battlefield anymore. They'll have large 25mm Autocannons, medium armor (M2 Bradley) or light armor (Strykers) to protect them.
M2 Bradley have advanced optics that can see 3000 to 4000 meters at night, and gun computers (fire control systems) that can accurately make shots at those distance. And rockets just in case it comes across an enemy tank (though its #1 routine would be to call a friendly tank for backup in that situation).
Ukraine has a significant number of brave troops who are making due with what they got. Just civilian cars and trucks right now. Giving them a proper battlefield taxi (aka: M2 Bradley, Strykers, or Humvees) is a huge step up.
Ukraine does have a mechanized infantry core that's already done some pretty amazing offenses. But Ukraine obviously needs to make that core larger and stronger for the upcoming offensive.
[+] [-] dragonwriter|3 years ago|reply
Several reasons:
(1) the Western MBTs involved are seen as a big qualitative improvement over the Ukraine’s (and Russias) Soviet (and in Russia’s case, post-Soviet)–design MBTs.
(2) The release of tanks is seen as a harbinger of loosening on a broad category of heavy Western equipment (manned combat aircraft, for instance.)
(3) The release of heavy vehicles in active production, rather than the prior one-time emptying of stocks of soviety-designed vehicles from mostly ex-Warsaw Pact countries (though some MiG-29s for spares came from the US) is seen as sustainable (and thus something Russia is less likely to think they can overcome by a war of material attrition where they equipment runs out.)
> I can’t see few more tanks in the battlefield doing something to shortening this war.
A qualitative improvement without any quantitative change could, but its not “a few more tanks”, the commitment of Western tanks is something like 15%+ of a generous estimate of Ukraine’s total potential tank inventory (which includes non-operational Soviet-design MBTs from before the way that might be brought up to operational status and captured Russian MBTs), from what I can tell (321 new Western tanks pledged, with somewhere around 2,000 tanks potentially available previously.)
[+] [-] unknown|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] credit_guy|3 years ago|reply
It's not just a few. It's close to one hundred.
It's a big deal because there's many more of these where the one hundred are coming from. If the West sees that these tanks are put to good use (like the HIMARS were), then more will come.
[+] [-] ihatepython|3 years ago|reply
Soon, it will expand to include China, because China cannot allow Russia to be defeated, because they would be next.
This actually means that there is absolutely zero chance for peace.
[+] [-] alaurie|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gggggg5|3 years ago|reply
This is utter nonsense, Russia simply lacks the manufacturing capability to produce such armour. Having access to a sample of British composite armour will not and can not help them at all, except perhaps in developing munitions to reliably penetrate it.
[+] [-] simplotek|3 years ago|reply