The War in the Ukraine

Atomicfrog said:

Going that ways means no more Soviet design available. Strange after and article that Ukraine have more tanks than at the start of the war...

If they do so, they need to put all these in the same unit to have a designated logistic chain for ammo and parts. They cannot spice the front with a small quantity like that. They will need to put them all together.

Adding up Leopard 2 bring the same problems, it don't have the same gun and motive parts too, so if they receive them it would be another designated unit.

If they don't build designated unit it will be hard on logistic for sure.

Click to expand...

Most likely western tanks would be used in the rear to free up soviet designs to fight in the front. This has the effect of PR, less chance of losing them and much shorter supply lines for the complicated maintenance machines.

If the West ever supply enough tanks to form a solid fighting force, It would then make sense for them to form delicated units of western tanks for larger scale offensive manuveres.

tankphobia said:

Most likely western tanks would be used in the rear to free up soviet designs to fight in the front. This has the effect of PR, less chance of losing them and much shorter supply lines for the complicated maintenance machines.

If the West ever supply enough tanks to form a solid fighting force, It would then make sense for them to form delicated units of western tanks for larger scale offensive manuveres.

Click to expand...

The problem is mbt are not very useful at the rear... if it's just for show it's a bit far fletched but it can.

Has there been any documented losses of Challenger 2 btw?

Atomicfrog said:

The problem is mbt are not very useful at the rear... if it's just for show it's a bit far fletched but it can.

Click to expand...

Current batch is just for UK to wedge Germany to allow leopard 2 export, all of NATO is playing a game of chicken for escalation. If Germany opens the flood gates then the UK will also start sending it's 60 odd challengers in storage that they don't need.

So yes, at this moment the tank is symbolic, but may lead to something much bigger.

RottenPanzer said:

Has there been any documented losses of Challenger 2 btw?

Click to expand...

Clearly was not used a lot on the front lines, not many have been build too... They look sturdy but got penetration on the front two times without loss and one destroyed by friendly fire on wiki:

August 2006:

An RPG-29 capable of firing a tandem-charge penetrated the frontal lower underbelly armour of a Challenger 2 commanded by Captain Thomas Williams of The Queens's Royal Hussars south east of al-Amarah, southern Iraq. Its driver, Trooper Sean Chance, lost part of his foot in the blast; two more of the crew were slightly injured. Chance was able to reverse the vehicle 1.5 mi (2.4 km) to the regimental aid post despite his injuries.

The incident was not made public until May 2007; in response to accusations that crews had been told the tank was impervious to the insurgents' weapons, the MoD said "We have never claimed that the Challenger 2 is impenetrable." Since then, the explosive reactive armour has been replaced with Chobham Armour and the steel underbelly lined with armour as part of the Streetfighter upgrade as a direct response to this incident.


6 April 2007:

in Basra, Iraq, a shaped charge from an IED penetrated the underside of a tank resulting in the driver losing a leg and causing minor injuries to another soldier.

RottenPanzer said:

Has there been any documented losses of Challenger 2 btw?

Click to expand...

1 by friendly fire in Iraq and a few more damaged by RPGs.

That said, the Challenger 2 is one of the most outdated western tanks out there, only better than the italian Ariete. Armor wise it hasnt seen major upgrades since it's introduction despite the fact it barely met the protection requirements to the point a T-72B1 could meet them better. So, it kinda makes sense they turn out to be a PR stunt stuck at the rear to be an oligarchs taxi

kokole said:

A Ukranian tank got stuck, another tank came to get it out and got stuck. Another tank came to help and that one got stuck aswell.

Click to expand...

They eat themselves into the mud.

After a while the bottom of the tank will sit on the ground, without a chance to be pulled out.

Would be better if they try to pull it out with inertia,that could snap the cable, but less chance for digging in.

Anlsvrthng said:

They eat themselves into the mud.

After a while the bottom of the tank will sit on the ground, without a chance to be pulled out.

Would be better if they try to pull it out with inertia,that could snap the cable, but less chance for digging in.

Click to expand...

As mentioned by @Stealthflanker , they could have used the logs soviet tanks come with, but I guess the Ukranians are too "nato" now for such a pedestrian and commie tool

sheogorath said:

That said, the Challenger 2 is one of the most outdated western tanks out there, only better than the italian Ariete. Armor wise it hasnt seen major upgrades since it's introduction despite the fact it barely met the protection requirements to the point a T-72B1 could meet them better. So, it kinda makes sense they turn out to be a PR stunt stuck at the rear to be an oligarchs taxi

Click to expand...

I'm somewhat doubtful of the claim that western tanks are less protected than t72 varients, since NATO did design their tank around a defensive doctrine pretty much all mainline mbts are a good 15-20 tons heavier than their Russian counterparts. Especially those with urban combat upgrades which literally have tons of armour welded on top of the original relatively well armoured chassis already.

Well this is a good opportunity to see how those claims hold up.

tankphobia said:

I'm somewhat doubtful of the claim that western tanks are less protected than t72 varients, since NATO did design their tank around a defensive doctrine pretty much all mainline mbts are a good 15-20 tons heavier than their Russian counterparts. Especially those with urban combat upgrades which literally have tons of armour welded on top of the original relatively well armoured chassis already.

Well this is a good opportunity to see how those claims hold up.

Click to expand...

They are bigger than the T72 , means heavier tank doesn't means more protected.

Back on the envelope calculation, if the M1 has two time bigger side area then it needs twice as much armor for the same level of protection.

Example, the extra loader person increase the weight of the tank by 10 5-10 tons.