Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar

Status
Not open for further replies.
steve45 said:
We are a LONG way off replacing CR3, we've yet to even get them and still a good few years off.
Click to expand...
YES! Which is why I say, in the circumstances we find ourselves right now, unforseen a year ago, where a democratic country we are supporting faces being overrun unless it gets a supply of modern MBTs that potential major suppliers of Abrams 2s and Leopard 2s are appatently too **** scared to supply, we CANCEL saving them for upgrade (saving us tens of millions to spend on other kit) and send them, as they are now, to Ukraine as they are apparently enough to tip the balance.

The lack of any Challengers in Afghanistan supports my view that are not needed for the UK army to operate in most operations - none in the last 20 years anyway. But even if we HAD sent a few... the few dozen C2s we retain would be enough for that role.
 
ianh said:
Germany has only 40 Tanks more than Britain does (260 vs 220), so I'm not sure why is it that you believe that "their" tanks are enough to do the job but that "our" tanks aren't? Poland, with 850+ tanks for example, is a much better bet to take on the hard work of brunting any Russian attack rather than leaving it to Germany.
Click to expand...
OK.. substitute Poland for Germany in my post. Sorry. But Germany too will presumably be moving their number of MBTs UPWARDS with their increased defence spending, with which they have been relying on others to make up for not spending the full 2% of GDP. We will be moving our numbers DOWN. Even if we upgraded all our C2s (not happening), we cant make any new ones any more.
 
Tony habergham said:
YES! Which is why I say, in the circumstances we find ourselves right now, unforseen a year ago, where a democratic country we are supporting faces being overrun unless it gets a supply of modern MBTs that potential major suppliers of Abrams 2s and Leopard 2s are appatently too **** scared to supply, we CANCEL saving them for upgrade (saving us tens of millions to spend on other kit) and send them, as they are now, to Ukraine as they are apparently enough to tip the balance.

The lack of any Challengers in Afghanistan supports my view that are not needed for the UK army to operate in most operations - none in the last 20 years anyway. But even if we HAD sent a few... the few dozen C2s we retain would be enough for that role.
Click to expand...
The problem then is No CR2 means no CR3. Which leaves us in a hole with limited armour capability and a huge bill to replace them with something else.
As I said before and Ian has also stated Other countries like Poland are in a much better position to bare that burdon.
Afghanistan was an entirely different conflict with different threats! Do not base future threats on our last conflict.
A few dozen wouldnt suffice, we need more not less, and getting rid of what we have is not a cheaper option.
 
steve45 said:
The problem then is No CR2 means no CR3. Which leaves us in a hole with limited armour capability and a huge bill to replace them with something else.
As I said before and Ian has also stated Other countries like Poland are in a much better position to bare that burdon.
Afghanistan was an entirely different conflict with different threats! Do not base future threats on our last conflict.
A few dozen wouldnt suffice, we need more not less, and getting rid of what we have is not a cheaper option.
Click to expand...
My point is... it doen't matter if we've got a hole in our large-scale armour capability, since we dont need one - we lay behind allies who do have a large scale armour capability, can use our limited, and diminishing, funds better elsewhere. We have a GDP barely much bigger than Italy these days - I dont see Italy trying to commit an 'armoured division' to Poland. I simply suggested that our tank force could better be used by others, for an urgent need, right now. Than against the same enemy once the ally that needs them is defeated. Just a suggestion, which seems to be upsetting the entranched tank enthusiasts on here.

As for numbers - todays Guardian states that Germany has 321 leopard 2s in service and a further 200 in storage. Whereas our number of 220 hulls is 'all in', I believe. Leopard 2 tanks: what are they and why does Ukraine want them?
 
Tony habergham said:
My point is... it doen't matter if we've got a hole in our large-scale armour capability, since we dont need one - we lay behind allies who do have a large scale armour capability, can use our limited, and diminishing, funds better elsewhere. We have a GDP barely much bigger than Italy these days - I dont see Italy trying to commit an 'armoured division' to Poland. I simply suggested that our tank force could better be used by others, for an urgent need, right now. Than against the same enemy once the ally that needs them is defeated. Just a suggestion, which seems to be upsetting the entranched tank enthusiasts on here.
Click to expand...
I dont agree with you opinion, this has nothing to do with tank enthusiasm.
To be an effect combined force tanks are an important piece of the puzzle. and it is a capability that has been proven in the ukrainian conflict to still be to this day important. Not on its own but as part of a integrated force.
Again, the conflict in Ukraine proves the folly of relying too much on foreign neighbors for protection.
 
Interesting snippet I just read - when the war kicked off the Ukraine government sent people to find out what houses and apartments, etc. had recently been rented in specific areas and found Russian special forces preparing/operating from quite a few of them.
 
Russia has been sabre rattling about nuclear war ever since they started this stupid invasion, doesn't mean it will come to pass.

They said (paraphrasing) attacks on Crimea would invoke a nuclear response... It hasn't.
 
StriderX said:
Wonder when we'll see 155mm MBT guns?
Click to expand...
Tank gun calibres have been up and down through the years but I doubt we'll see 155 unless they decide to build some sort of theoretical "universal" tank that can fire APFSDS as well as artillery rounds.
155mm rounds are very unweildy, wouldnt like to be the loader that had to load one in a small MBT turret. although an autoloader would solve that. Then you have the reduced ammo capacity with the larger ammunition. I dunno, I just feel 155 is an unecessary step too far. Could be very wrong though.

They have been toying with 130mm for a while now. The tech demonstrator based on the Challenger that Rheinmetall made the other year was fitted with the 130 if I remember correctly.
 
Last edited:
SkodaMart said:
“Defeat in the Ukraine means nuclear war” warns Russia.

Not at all what I said then.
Click to expand...

So we hand over Ukraine to appease them.

Russia: thanks for that, now we're attacking Poland so give it to us or we'll use nukes.

See how this ends if you don't resist?

Call their bluff and carry on I say.
 
Last edited:
HungryHippos said:
So we hand over Ukraine to appease them.

Russia: thanks for that, now we're attacking Poland so give it to us or we'll use nukes.

See how this ends if you don't resist?

Call their bluff and carry on I say.
Click to expand...

The US take Russia's threat of all out nuclear war seriously enough to restrict their aid to Ukraine to an extent that it is damaging ukraine's ability to defend itself.

I have to read the room on this one, as I quite like my kids being alive.
 
potatolord said:
The US take Russia's threat of all out nuclear war seriously enough to restrict their aid to Ukraine to an extent that it is damaging ukraine's ability to defend itself.

I have to read the room on this one, as I quite like my kids being alive.
Click to expand...

And yet they still send a bunch of stuff, I think they're just ramping up by degrees here.

Take it seriously yes, but at the same time, we can't afford to show that we'll collectively just fold to demands.

I doubt Russia is firing nukes over some tanks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom