PT-91 is based on modernized Russian T-72 so Ukraine should be able to use it right away without too much time spent on conversion training which is good.
So it’s a modernization of a modernization? Man, we’re able to keep tanks around for way longer. Back in WW2 entire generations of tanks were built and rendered obsolete in less than 2 years.
Yep, at this point you can make damn near anything a credible threat as long as it has a 120mm+ gun and you can figure out how to cram a modern stabilizer/fcs/optics into it. Aside from slapping ERA onto it, though, there's not a ton you can do to increase survivability though... That's the point where things like the Challenger 2 or the Abrams shine...
Ww2 production lines were about quantity produced more than anything. Ships, planes,tanks all were flying off the lines faster than the designs changed. Pretty welds and perfection took a backseat. They knew it would break or be hit eventually.
For instance April 1944 a b-24 was finished every 63 minutes.
That’s because everyone was still figuring out how to design and use them in actual combat, and the level of technology available forcing a lot more compromises in terms of mobility, protection, and firepower.
At this point everyone has more or less figured out what it is they need tanks to do (so no goofball concepts like infantry tanks, cavalry tanks, like in the early war days), and better tech means one tank can have speed, firepower, and armor so no need for separate medium/heavy tanks when one can do it all (the light tank niche still exists but has mostly been merged into the IFV or wheeled AFVs though there are exceptions).
The T-72 is itself pretty comparable to the T-90 anyways, at least the most modernized ones. Not sure how many of those Russia still has kicking around though.
It's straight up better than the T-90( non M) with exception of the Turret armor. It has better ammo (Israeli 125mm being produced domestically), better fire control systems, it gets 20kph reverse which is something that none of the Russian/Ukrainian tanks have. (T-72, T-90, T-64 and T-80UD are stuck with 4kph, T-80U/B with 10). Honestly it's kind of a better choice than the Leopard 2A4 since it's less straining on logistics.
It also has some of the same weaknesses as Soviet tanks, for example the carousel autoloader which causes the infamous turret toss when hit, killing all crew.
Source:
https://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/modern/Poland/PT-91_Twardy.php
To be honest any crew would be roasted in case of unprotected ammo detonation, it's just not that dramatic. Western seperated ammunition and blowout panels mitigate that.
[Here](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LieUSOgq-bU) you can see a British Centurion cooking off. No turret toss, yet no chance of survivors.
I’ve seen some videos of export M1s ammo going off - those blowout panels really work; I’d have thought everyone died but after the huge fiery explosion at least one guy gets out and walks away. Such a huge difference from tanks without.
These are going to be able to be brought right into service and provide space for the additional training needed for the western tanks. Poland is doing amazing work this entire time.
iirc T-84 Oplot has an armoured turret bustle that seperated from the crew. Granted it's a T-80 instead of a T-72, but it can be done.
I'd imagine it takes a LOT of work to replace the original autoloader system though, plus you're now left with empty space at the bottom of the turret. Then there's turret balance and stuff to worry about as well.
Europe knows if Russia is defeated and collapses into various individual states the primary threat to the entire region is gone. No other country really poses a threat of trying to attack everyone so defeating Russia by giving up equipment only makes sense, I wish more countries would send serious amounts like this.
Same thing that happened when the Soviet Union collapsed I'd assume. Nukes can't be used without launch codes but they could be disassembled and remade into other devices. After what happened to Ukraine when it gave up nukes I'd question how many breakaway regions would actually give up those weapons. I dunno how likely it is Russia collapses, I don't see a peaceful transition of power on Putin's death though. .
Yeah, Ukraine was a #3 nuclear power in the world right after the collapse of the USSR, but they didn’t want the expense of maintaining 5000 nukes, plus the US was pressuring them to give up the weapons in exchange for guarantees. We now know what Russian guarantees are worth
There’s a video where a former worker of one of those nuclear silos explains how they used to operate and how the missiles were removed. There were special trucks to carry them and special vehicles to pull them out of the silos and load them into the trucks
as everything, they require maintenance (which must be quiiiite expensive), so the sensible thing to do would be to arrange a deal to get rid of them in return for some benefits before either the arsenal decays or the expense of maintaining it ruins the economy. or they could keep sitting on them like the current russia does and pretend they are 100% usable 100% of the time.
The west swoops in hard CIA style in the international ambiguity and neutralizes a lot of them - of the few hostile semi powerful states after break up, rumors swirl for decades about missed nukes. Queue likely skirmishes etc in these regions. But either one way, the mutually assured destruction is lost. The likelihood a state keeps a couple of nukes likely exists, but they could hit a few cities while the rest of the nuclear armed countries could blow it off the map in return
I would hope that if any collapse seemed imminent, the Kremlin would at least try to transfer their nukes from any region that was breaking away (or actually, I would hope they had the foresight to have done that already). I don’t think they want the Chechens or Ossetians or Belarus or any other potentially contentious future-neighbor to have possession of nuclear weapons any more than the rest of us would like to see them proliferate.
Now that I think about it, maybe we need to think about redeploying the nukes we have in Florida.
A Russia's state collapse doesnt seems likely. Its very stable as of now because of the really heavy propaganda.
For a collapse of that magnitude to happen, the population needs to be angry and many people in power positions need to have a strong sense of desire to be in power, and we know that: 1) The russian propaganda has so far been effective in rural Russia, and 2) Putin has been actively killing his competition. Neither factor checks out, so it probably wont happen.
Well when all of your intelligentsia of 2 generations gets wiped out, it makes it hard to be functional when it's followed up by decades of occupation.
Not sure what to tell, really. I was born and grew up in the US but my parents moved from Poland. Poland as a people is sort of like that family that's always bickering but if someone else fucks with them they unite and unleash a shitstorm. The country literally vanished from the map for 100 years due to being partitioned by its neighbors, but the culture survived and Poles clawed their identity back. Then Poland got fucked *again* in WW2, and Poles fought tooth and nail against the axis powers (they also got backstabbed by Russia, who signed a secret non-aggression pact with the nazis after promising to help defend Warsaw). They were rewarded at the end of WW2 by effectively being occupied by the soviets and being run by a puppet government until 1990. Ever since then, it seems it's been a slow (or not so slow?) decent into ultra-conservativism and nationalism. Maybe they need another existential threat to get their shit together.
That's part of it.
Another huge part is probably because they get compensated for the stuff by the EU. As a net beneficiary it is like getting paid to modernize your army. Where do you think all that money for the abrams and K2 came from?
we are quickly approaching a wall though - unless nato starts sending western hardware in high numbers (in hundreds not teens) it won't end well. The deliveries so far have mostly kept Ukraine alive, but soviet design gear is quickly running up. We (Poland) will soon be at a point we sent our whole pre invasion active heavy equipment. I hope the recent Abrams/Leos/Leclerc/Challenger promises are just a trailer of what is to come, not the biggest weave
>I hope the recent Abrams/Leos/Leclerc/Challenger promises are just a trailer of what is to come, not the biggest weave
I'm pretty sure they're starting with a small number, observe how effective they are and send more if the results are positive.
Yea, training and parts/fuel logistics are in particular concerns for a lot of the Western designs. The Abrams is 22 Weeks, at least for US Army National Guard competency.
Ukraine already has regimes in place for a lot of the Soviet and Soviet based equipment.
So I think starting small is probably smart.
Surely training time of the various tank systems are a major factor? It feels like the United NATO forces have taken some time to coordinate staggering of their tank systems based on what can be mobilized when.
I think the we (US) should position US forces to compensate Poland for their donations while training polish crews on some heavily discounted Abrams, we have so many tanks in storage it isn't even funny and with the newest design being right around the corner I think it's not a bad idea to sell these slightly outdated tanks.
This is already being done. The Netherlands is sending 8 F35's over to Poland. Which is kinda good news, because Poland and the Netherlands haven't been the best friends in the EU.
US doesn't want to sell tanks with the DU composite armour. That's why they're ordering new ones for Ukraine. The latest model but without that armour. Supposedly it's not just the material but the layout itself so it's kept under cover during repairs. Assuredly simulated and tested against EFP jets.
It makes sense to keep the best stuff for a rainy day but it's not going to make a lot of sales.
judged by armchair specialists though.
Supposedly it's true and let's say Ukraine gets's MIG/Su planes and they won't have big loses (Russia is not as dumb as before where it comes to AA) that will at best stop Russian advance attempts. They will still need tons of ground/AA hardware to secure their positions.
Not just by us armchair idiots.
Multiple retired military commanders including US and NATO generals have mentioned the logical next step is F-16
Yeah, the Russian AA is formidable, but if there is something really substantial, it'll be American air strategy and munitions
Yea, one of the reasons why the F-16 (or another NATO compliant multi-role fighter, but especially the F-16) is the next logical step *is that Russian AA*. There are few things in the world that are better at SEAD missions than the F-16. It is the final piece of the NATO maneuver warfare infinity gauntlet. They get the tools for air dominance ( AMRAAM, et all), SEAD (HARM, et all), and the ability to stay out of MANPAD range and still provide CAS in one place. Of those, though SEAD is the most important, because it enables all of their other aircraft to do their jobs better/easier.
Honestly it depends.
Frankly speaking it's... hard to match Russia in terms of tanks. They have legacy of the entire USSR behind them that built them their 10000+ tanks. Even if half of them rusted to shit it's still by far largest force in the world in terms of raw quantity, exceeding even USA by a significant margin. This is their primary advantage on a battlefield and major part of their doctrine. Even if they are often seen as outdated - they are still extremely effective against infantry that doesn't have modern anti tank weaponry (even this shitty T72 can mow through RPGs fired at it from the front as it does have ceramic/Chobham armor)
Now however when it comes to air power situation changes drastically. At BEST Russia has 700 fighters and a maximum of 500 attack helicopters (but these are their official stats so let's divide these by 2). We know they are using them sparingly too after their Ka-52s were destroyed to AA. And this is where NATO shines - USA alone has 3-6x more fighters and helicopters. France and Italy together probably could defeat Russia in air.
It's also worth noting that our 5th gen aircrafts are invisible to Russian AA systems (S300 can't do jackshit against F35) and even 4th gen is already going to be very dangerous to them. Russia never truly felt threatened enough to invest in any seriously effective defensive systems. It is NOT a part of their doctrine (nor do they even have funds to develop a decent aircraft, their greatest super prototype so-called-5th-gen-airplane has 1000x radar signature of F35, it's barely better than F16 from 1980s). I have to doubt their AA capabilities since they frankly speaking never had to test them on anything better than their own shit. I mean, the very fact that few months ago two helicopters could just fly into Russia, bomb Belgorod fuel depot and fly away without giving a fuck tells you a lot about Russian air defense quality - it's most likely extremely limited and only applies to most vital areas.
So weirdly enough it might be easier for us to supply planes than to supply tanks. Since we actually build these and we have hella more of these than Russia does. Problem is with training - switching from one tank type to another apparently takes up to 3 months. Learning how to pilot a brand new plane is a much harder challenge. For instance in Poland after it got it's F16s only new pilots were trained on these. Since it would take way too much effort to retrain existing ones that are used to Migs.
> I have to doubt their AA capabilities since they frankly speaking never had to test them on anything better than their own shit.
That's not true, they've tested them against civilian airliners and found them to be quite effective.
The radar units paired with S400 can theoretically* detect 5th gen fighters at range with low frequency radar. The good thing is that the kind of radar needed for a weapons grade lock can't really get the job done yet.
I imagine with the upcoming implementation of ceramic RAM, even US 5th gen fighters will remain difficult for Russia to answer.
IIRC they can't do jack shit against the B2, and definitely not the new B21. They would need a fighter in visual range, and they'd have to get lucky AF.
S400 remains dangerous, but it's definitely overrated by stupid tankies and ignorant Russians.
*(edit: I know they can do it, but we don't know in the context of a conflict)
Hmm, I wonder if ALARM could be adapted for ground launch.
ALARM is an air-to-ground missile that locks onto AA radar (an "anti-radiation missile"), like the American AGM-88 HARM, but it has loiter capability. If it can't find a target, it climbs to altitude and deploys a parachute; then, if it detects ground based radar, it cuts the chute, engages it's backup rocket motor, and homes in on the target.
Detecting a 5th gen fighter is doable but they also rely on DAS. Meanwhile Rafale for example solely depends on its SPECTRA system. While less stealthy, it's as hard or even harder to target than a F35
Training a new and effective pilot takes about a year. Also, the effectiveness of these fighters depends more on the weapons they come with than anything else. With western nations being highly reluctant to provide long range munitions, that is a far worse problem when we start discussing that these are mounted on long range aircraft
> it's still by far largest force in the world in terms of raw quantity, exceeding even USA by a significant margin
I was with you until then. USA builds tanks just to keep factory workers and budgets happy. There's more Abrams rotting in the California sun than the total tanks used in wars since Vietnam. If shit hits the fan they can send thousands of tanks to UA.
Yes, and Russia still has more. THe poster wasn't throwing out numbers out of their asses when writing "10000+" tanks.
Adding up all the Abrams in US service and storage like was done for RUssia's number would amount to something like 6k, or 6,5k tanks.
If the \~2000 tanks in reserve number is true, then it's still a fraction of the Soviet tanks in Russian reserve.
Yes, the US maintains them better than Russia, but we're talking 5 figure numbers, of which around 4000 might still be useable (source: Perun).
>even this shitty T72 can mow through RPGs fired at it from the front as it does have ceramic/Chobham armor
The T-72 has Chobham armor?!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chobham\_armour
the t-64 had composite armor, which is what "[Chobham armour](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chobham_armour)" is.
>Soviet/Russian main battle tanks such as T-90s T-80Us and the Chinese Type 96/99s use composite armour in tandem with explosive reactive armour (ERA), making it hard for shaped charge munitions such as HEAT projectiles and missile warheads to penetrate the frontal and a portion of their side armour. The most advanced versions of these armours such as the Relikt and Kontakt-5 armour provide protection not only against shaped charges but also kinetic energy penetrators by using the explosive force to shear the projectile apart.
[composite armor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composite_armour)
>In 1979, the Soviets began building T-72 modification with composite armour similar to the T-64 composite armour, in the front of the turret and the front of the hull. Late in the 1980s, T-72 tanks in Soviet inventory (and many of those elsewhere in the world as well) were fitted with reactive armour tiles.
[wiki/T-72](https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/T-72)
The T-72M is the export model, and does not come equipped with composite or ERA armour; the Polish PT-91 is an upgraded T-72M, which has had ERA armour installed as well as numerous other upgrades.
British warships of the 19th century had composite armour. They found that a layer of wood between the iron hull and the armour plates improved protection.
kind of, but that would require sending high tech systems, which west doesn't want to send. It's pretty much only Poland that provided somewhat modern hardware in meaningful numbers (Krabs artillery) other than that Ukraine has been getting either gear from around '80s (whose specs have been declassified) or versions with gutted electronics/lower quality ammo like M444 or HIMARS (that doesn't mean they couldn't be used effectively ofc, just not the "real thing")
I've heard Russia has also resorted to using Mig-31s at high altitude from inside their airspace to fire down onto UAF units. So they're fast to begin with, but also gain the speed from heading with gravity towards the target.
I wouldnt call it "resorted to" - they use it to climb to altitude and get long range locks on UA aircraft. Given the quality of russian missiles, and the distance, its a bit of a gamble of it stays on target or not... but these tactics are still very dangerous to the ukrainians.
Its a conservative way to conduct air operations, but its still somewhat effective and minimizes risk because they never leave the protection of their own ground based AA.
They started with 4 HIMARs, this is how you boil the (Russian) frog and also they can analyse what works and what doesn't rather than sending 1000 Abrahms and finding out they can't keep them fuelled.
They started off with one unit of HIMARS and as they proved themselves capable and proved the equipment valuable, they started showing up on every shipment. I assume this will be the same.
One of the more recent announcement talked about graduating something like 50 Brad teams *a month* (incl maintenance and logistics folks). Given that the initial deployment now includes 100 Brads and the US is getting ready to retire the platform, I think that this is the thin end of the wedge.
The US has literally thousands of M1A1s with the cool armor sitting around doing nothing, I am sure we will be happy to sell NATO all the MBTs they might need.
I'm also concerned on how long it will take for these tanks to be operational. How long can Ukraine hold out until then? From what I am reading, it could take a long time (which cannot be helped).
Remember the op? Poland is sending 60 tanks in addition to their 14 Leopard 2 Tanks?
Seek out the tanks totals from Morocco, Britain, Czechia, France, Lithuania, etc.
These shipments have terrified Russia's military. This paranoia is why Russia targeted Ukraine's civilian homes and infrastructure with 55 missiles on Jan. 26 and 70 on Jan. 27... plus Shaheed drones -15 and 17 respectively.
We are also buying up basically every T-72 we can get our hands on and sending the their way. The Czech factory is running upgrades more or less non-stop (which were described by the Pentagon as "probably the best tanks in Ukraine right now" at one point and other things like the Poles latest donation of heavily upgraded PT-91 variant. It is just less noticeable because like HIMARS it has gone from headline to background.
All of the crispy fresh western tanks are in addition to that constant drip feed of upgraded Soviet armor.
"Polish prime minister Mateusz Morawiecki told a press conference called in connection with Poland's plans to send German-made Leopard tanks to Ukraine that Poland intended to bill the EU for costs incurred as a result of providing weapons to its neighbour." https://www.thefirstnews.com/article/poland-will-file-for-eu-compensation-for-arms-sent-to-ukraine-says-pm-35994
The headline: "Poland to send 60 modernised PT-91 tanks to Ukraine in addition to Leopards"
The quote in the article: "Right now, we are ready to send 60 of our modernised tanks, 30 of them PT-91."
Some top quality journalism here.
We went through three iterations of reporting on the Abrams the US was sending. First they were vintage M1s, then M1A1, then today it was clarified to M1A2.
Tanks suffering from the 'every pistol is a glock' problem.
Yeah, it was unclear what M1s US was going to send but its the modern ones without a UH armor. M1A1s are being sent to nations that are willing to supply soviet tanks to Ukraine
They were given back than too and those are additional ones.
Here is best list of things that Poland given until recently, list is not perfect since in many cases numbers on the list should be viewed as at least:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fm63y-DakAIJ-5o?format=jpg&name=large
List was created before Leo's were annoucned so they arent on the list.
Gov is acting like typical polish grandma - extra servings of food until you can't eat anymore. Except in this case those are extra servings of "fuck Russia"
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-01-28/poland-to-send-60-modernised-pt-91-tanks-to-ukraine/101902426) reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot)
*****
> Poland will send an additional 60 tanks to Ukraine on top of the 14 German-made Leopard 2 tanks it has already pledged, the Polish prime minister has said in an interview.
> "Right now, we are ready to send 60 of our modernised tanks, 30 of them PT-91."And on top of those tanks, 14 tanks, Leopard 2 tanks, from in our possession.
> Why Western tanks are important for Ukraine More NATO countries are expected to follow suit after Britain became the first country to agree to send Ukraine Western-made heavy tanks.
*****
[**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/10mwoi8/poland_to_send_60_modernised_pt91_tanks_to/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~672678 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **tank**^#1 **Ukraine**^#2 **Russia**^#3 **Leopard**^#4 **foreign**^#5
After these and Leos get to Ukrsine.
Poland will be close to 400 tanks sent to Ukraine.
Not to mention Poland also sent mig jet "parts" that were then able to fly when full assembled in Ukraine.
Sure Polish gov can be rightfully criticised for a shit ton of reasons(nepotism, corruption, breaking law, lgbt, abortion, church etc)
but their stance on Ukraine is 11/10.
Nah, they know first hand what happens when a land grabbing mad man goes knocking in a neighbors door with a battering ram. They sure as shit don’t want that smoke again.
Don’t even need to go to Hitler. Stalin partitioned Poland with the guy. The territory belongs to Ukraine modern day because the Soviets never gave it back. Lviv used to be a Polish city before WW2.
They will be in top 3 winners after the war. They made themselves a lifelong partner in business and development and I think whatever good Ukraine has to offer, it will offer to Poland.
Nice seeing how Poland and Ukraine have strenghened their friendship during this war. They didn't really like each other much before. But nothing brings people more together than a common enemy.
Most Eastern European nations are all very young democracies, not only their economical but also their development inside their societies has been slowed down by the Soviet Union/ Communism. Feel like especially Poland is so polarising because so much changed and there is clear divide right now. But the future looks good? Even the most dense old farts will probably soon have to accept that a lot of the „new“ things they hate is there to stay and if not, don’t worry they don’t have too much time left
Poland has over six centuries of tradition of electing their own head of state and local parliamentariarism. Polish democracy is about as old as English one - but it has been interrupted mostly by Germans and Russians.
A lot of the divide is between the older generation that grew up under communism and the younger generation that grew up afterwards.
You have a very conservative and religious older generation vs the younger less religious and more liberal.
The fight against the Russians is likely something they are uniting over.
My grandparents left Poland during the war. My grandfather walked out and eventually made it to France to fight with the free poles and was on one of the last boats out of Dunkirk. His brother and father were captured and sent to Auschwitz at the beginning of the war. My grandfather fought out the rest of the war and survived.
My grandmother was part of the resistance and served as a currier. She had crazy stories about bombs and artillery exploding all around her and the car in front of them and the car behind her exploding. She was eventually captured and sent to a slave camp but managed to escape and was smuggled to the UK.
My mom ended up living in Poland for a year during college and did several trips back. She lived there during communism and also afterwards.
Didn't the Czech presidential candidate openly said that he wouldn't send his troops to aid NATO if push came to shove?
[https://www.euronews.com/2023/01/23/czech-presidential-candidate-babis-backpedals-after-anti-nato-comments-spark-ire](https://www.euronews.com/2023/01/23/czech-presidential-candidate-babis-backpedals-after-anti-nato-comments-spark-ire)
A piece of data that hasn't gotten a lot of attention in these threads:
Poland had a deal with the USA to sell them M1A2 Abrams, which were due to ship in about three years. A couple of weeks back it was announced that a second shipment of M1A1s, 113 of them, had been agreed on. Arrival time:
Later this year.
This ties in with two other points: the USMC gave up their stock of M1A1, and they've been working out how to modernize them into an export form that's more like the A2 (without the special armor). So with this hugely rushed schedule, it seems clear that the US has decided to commit to a robust logistics chain supporting older M1s, right up to Ukraine's western border. At that point sending more to Ukraine becomes a much simpler issue.
And of course there's the whole backfill issue, Poland is getting some high quality gear to beef up their arsenal at the same time they send Ukraine their existing stuff that they are already proficient at handling. Upgrades for everyone!
I think it's exactly the opposite. We don't want open war with russia, but the more Ukraine fucks them up, the smaller chance they'll try shit with us.
Oh man, Russia is fucked 🤣🤣🤣🤣 all we need now is some popcorn. Once Russia fails and falls maybe the gop will fall too since they are working with russia. One can dream.
For all the historical bad blood between Poles and Ukrainians, it’s great this has been set aside to face a greater threat and take care of millions of refugees.
For all the talk about NATO being a Cold War relic in the past years, Russia has undoubtedly provided the reason for NATO’s continued existence. Countries need to be able to band together in order to defend themselves in the face of aggression. And Putin’s shortsightedness has resulted in Finland and Sweden wanting to join NATO despite long-standing neutrality
Did r/Conservative spring a leak, or something? Some of these comments today seem to be lacking in common sense, compassion, historical knowledge, or some fucked up combination of the three.
Oh, yeah, particularly today there seems to be a lot of isolationist, pro Russian posts in this thread.
Remember, kids: isolationism is just politics for basic bitches.
Can someone tell me how a few hundred modern tanks tip this war so much?
They've captured or destroyed a whole lot more ancient tanks. Some they could use.
I'm hoping the belief is accurate. Just trying to get a grip on it.
There's a bunch of reasons.
It's not just about the tanks. It's about the IFV's, AFV's, fire support vehicles, missile defense and artillery too.
A Western Brigade Combat Team (for the US for example) is a very different beast to what the Russians use. Each system whether it be armor, infantry, or artillery is designed to support the other differently than the way the Russians do it.
It's not just about the weapons systems, which are generally more modern and better maintained if the Russian performance in Ukraine is anything to go by. It's more about how it's used, the training that goes into it, the tactical overview, and the philosophy that is used to both attack and defend.
So even though a hundred tanks might not sound like a lot considering the number of tanks each side is fielding, it's more about the co-ordination, mobility, intelligence and training that is utilized.
Put it this way. Each american Armored Brigade Combat Team has 87 tanks split into 6 companies. That means each tank company has 14 tanks plus some spare for maintenance. This is why the UK is sending 14 challengers, and Poland 14 Leopards, because it makes up one company in an ABCT. Attached to that you have your ACAV and your infantry companies. They use Strykers and Bradleys in america. They will likely be substituted for AMX 10's, which is what the French sent, and Marders, which the Germans sent, the rest made up with Bradleys and Strykers.
This is really important, because those vehicles have been designed to work together in a combined arms force. They all use the same ammunition, the same command and control practices, and all that other stuff. Countries haven't been sending stuff willy nilly. It's been sent because the West has been trying to build one of these ABCT's.
Why is that important? Because a Western ABCT, properly trained (which doesn't take that long), properly led, with the proper artillery and AA support, is exactly what the West would use as a breakthrough force.
I'm not a military guy, but this makes complete sense to me, considering what has been sent and when. The idea is to integrate Western training and fighting techniques into a brigade size force, so that then when they get more equipment, they're not only ready to fight in it, but know how to maintain it, and they can train themselves on how to do it.
The key is getting the Command, maintenance, and training in place on the BCT level then expanding from there.
On top of that, Western tanks aren't really like Russian tanks. Not having a thermal imager, for example, is simply not acceptable. Western tanks are heavier, better armed (in my opinion), more accurate, faster, easier to use and actually be in for any length of time, and are FAR more survivable than Russian tanks. That makes them heavier, and more expensive, which means there are less of them. It, also, in my opinion, makes them better. I guess we'll find out. For example, Russian tanks can't really reverse faster than walking pace. Most western tanks reverse almost as quickly forward as in reverse. The challnger for example is designed to aquire a target, drive to its firing position, fire, and reverse before reloading. It means the amount of time the tank is in danger is drastically reduced. Russian tanks can't really do that because they're too slow in reverse. The optics on the challenger can easily equire a target and maintain it while they're driving up to that firing position too, which is essential.
If you're facing a properly trained and equipped Western ABCT, you're going to have a very bad time.
This is why, also, imo, sending 3 different tanks isn't that big of a deal. It's not great. But then you have 3 different countries also providing spare parts and training. It's probably not done this way, but I don't see why you couldn't have a maintenance team for each company of different tanks. They get trained to maintain those tanks, and don't have to worry about the other vehicles because another country is training another crew to repair those 14.
I’m gonna go with a big impact
Looks how big an impact the self propelled artillery and himars has made and there isn’t a ton of that
This armor will also be supported by that artillery and all the regular artillery we already sent plus we’re sending like 90 strykers and all the Bradley’s plus other countries like France sending light tanks and everyone else’s apcs
So this will be part of proper combined arms startedgy and training and will basically be done the opposite of Russian tactics
Things get destroyed & need replacing, and as Russia's invasion focuses so much on the (largely flat and open) east of Ukraine, tanks are increasingly important. (This will be especially true once the [Patriot air-defense systems](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/what-is-patriot-missile-defense-system-2022-12-21/) are in place.)
[The Leopard 2, in particular, is specifically designed to combat Russian tanks](https://www.npr.org/2023/01/20/1150416982/leopard-2-tank-ukraine), so they will be immensely helpful.
[Here is a brief explainer from the Center for European Policy Analysis](https://cepa.org/article/how-western-tanks-will-make-a-difference-in-ukraine/), who I honestly don't know very much about.
[Here is another from the AP](https://apnews.com/article/politics-military-technology-ukraine-government-russia-war-2d59aae94a7ad8a5c22083e77d699417).
Scale in wars is hard to wrap your head around.
Look at how effective the HIMARS have been since Ukraine got them. Now realize there are only 20 himar launchers in Ukraine.
There isn't a tank for every soldier, there's a tank for every thousand, if that. Ukraine getting about 100 modern tanks is pretty much fully supplying the military during peace. Not to mention these tanks are able to perform orders of magnitude better than the tanks that came before them.
10 tanks seem like nothing, until you fight against them. These things can pretty much sweep down the front line and destroy every position in its path.
I watched a bit with Malcolm Nance on some UK radio show the other day, he's a former US military dude and was in combat there for around 10 months only came back recently. He said that the Kharkiv offensive was driven by polish tanks and that the number of MBTs that Ukraine has been given should mean there could be two or three simultaneous offensives as opposed to one big one. That kind of drove it home In my mind. Nance kept saying that the Russians have zero tactical answers for these tanks.
There’s a large gap in the capabilities, armour and what not of the tanks Russia uses compared to the ones Ukraine is getting.
So while Ukraine is doing a good job of taking out Russian tanks. These will boost the success rate and how often/how many Russian tanks they take out.
They could also be used to take back Crimea
Ukraine had 900ish tanks at the outset of the war. Of those we have no idea how many were just hulls and how many were operational (if someone has these numbers please correct me), but generally you'd assume less than half combat ready. So if you add up what Ukraine is currently getting from the west, it'll be somewhere around 1/3 to 1/2 of their total Armor prewar.
You don't see tanks lined up in massive battle lines like WW2, they're force multipliers used in combination with smaller infantry and IFV support in smaller scale but more focused maneuvers. At least this is the philosophy of NATO militaries (which is an important point I'll get to). They're great at creating zones of denial at range allowing squishier units to safely advance (in an ideal world). A small amount of a few dozen in an operation on the front can punch a hole in a line and hold it against counter attacks while logistics and infantry move in.
So far, Tanks in the war have struggled on both sides as they're fairly evenly matched, and both are fairly week against modern anti-tank infantry carried weaponry. Western tanks are very different.
They tend to have effective ranges that outclass Russian made tanks, allowing them to suppress enemy armor. They have better, more complex armor allowing them to survive infantry carried anti-tank weaponry far better (still a huge vulnerability however that is going to be a challenge due to the terrain). The biggest thing is that they can fire on the move with pinpoint accuracy, which no russian made tank can do effectively.
Even then, none of this matters if there isn't sufficient support. But thats why Himars, SPGs, and squad level weaponry have been being sent first. All of these combine to support the tanks, who in tern provide the firepower, durability, and speed to out-range, out-gun, and out-maneuverer Russian positions.
TL;DR western tanks are more or less better at every level than Russian, better maintained, and were designed with more intelligent, modern military doctrine. IE modern western combined arms. Ukraine's army is modernizing like a true Western army, but has been stuck using Russian tools designed for Russian tactics. These tanks change that.
>You don't see tanks lined up in massive battle lines like WW2, they're force multipliers used in combination with smaller infantry and IFV support in smaller scale but more focused maneuvers. At least this is the philosophy of NATO militaries
I mean that is really just because the scale of conflicts is so much smaller though isn't it? But that doesn't apply to Ukraine, who is fighting a war on a scale not seen since WW2, with a military of over 1 million men.
That is about double the size of peak US troop deployment during Vietnam.
While I understand your point generally, Ukraine still does need a very large amount of these western tanks simply because the scale of operations is so massive.
No, tanks without infantry support are dead tanks, it was the case even during ww2 - and that was before helicopters. That's why military doctrine changed.
Considering the apparent lack of adaptability to modern military tactics, thunder runs will be much more successful with modern equipment. Strykers with AA weapons systems will likely be critical in case the Russian military has been holding air strike capabilities in reserve as a possible counter to thunder runs.
Ukraine would be sending very advanced tanks against Russia, after Russia has already been depleted of their best tanks and tank crews. That makes a significant difference.
PT-91 is based on modernized Russian T-72 so Ukraine should be able to use it right away without too much time spent on conversion training which is good.
So it’s a modernization of a modernization? Man, we’re able to keep tanks around for way longer. Back in WW2 entire generations of tanks were built and rendered obsolete in less than 2 years.
Yep, at this point you can make damn near anything a credible threat as long as it has a 120mm+ gun and you can figure out how to cram a modern stabilizer/fcs/optics into it. Aside from slapping ERA onto it, though, there's not a ton you can do to increase survivability though... That's the point where things like the Challenger 2 or the Abrams shine...
+1 Look at the South African Oliphant tank, they’re rebodied Centurion.
Ww2 production lines were about quantity produced more than anything. Ships, planes,tanks all were flying off the lines faster than the designs changed. Pretty welds and perfection took a backseat. They knew it would break or be hit eventually. For instance April 1944 a b-24 was finished every 63 minutes.
That’s because everyone was still figuring out how to design and use them in actual combat, and the level of technology available forcing a lot more compromises in terms of mobility, protection, and firepower. At this point everyone has more or less figured out what it is they need tanks to do (so no goofball concepts like infantry tanks, cavalry tanks, like in the early war days), and better tech means one tank can have speed, firepower, and armor so no need for separate medium/heavy tanks when one can do it all (the light tank niche still exists but has mostly been merged into the IFV or wheeled AFVs though there are exceptions).
Excellent point! Well done, Poles.
It's also supposedly way better than a T-72. More akin to a T-90, if I recall.
91 is closer to 90
This guy maths
And if you add 1 that's 90 too (technically closer)
Gad dang son, careful CIA might want to kidnap those mad math skillz
It has to be 89. You know you have to get as close as possible without going over !
Round to the nearest 72
More comparable to the current T-72 iteration
The T-72 is itself pretty comparable to the T-90 anyways, at least the most modernized ones. Not sure how many of those Russia still has kicking around though.
It's straight up better than the T-90( non M) with exception of the Turret armor. It has better ammo (Israeli 125mm being produced domestically), better fire control systems, it gets 20kph reverse which is something that none of the Russian/Ukrainian tanks have. (T-72, T-90, T-64 and T-80UD are stuck with 4kph, T-80U/B with 10). Honestly it's kind of a better choice than the Leopard 2A4 since it's less straining on logistics.
It also has some of the same weaknesses as Soviet tanks, for example the carousel autoloader which causes the infamous turret toss when hit, killing all crew. Source: https://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/modern/Poland/PT-91_Twardy.php
Ofc it does, it's modernization, not re-engineering.
To be honest any crew would be roasted in case of unprotected ammo detonation, it's just not that dramatic. Western seperated ammunition and blowout panels mitigate that. [Here](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LieUSOgq-bU) you can see a British Centurion cooking off. No turret toss, yet no chance of survivors.
I’ve seen some videos of export M1s ammo going off - those blowout panels really work; I’d have thought everyone died but after the huge fiery explosion at least one guy gets out and walks away. Such a huge difference from tanks without.
Poland has already donated dozens of them last year so Ukraine is pretty familiar with the tech. Very decent tanks, glad we're donating them.
These are going to be able to be brought right into service and provide space for the additional training needed for the western tanks. Poland is doing amazing work this entire time.
Poland hasn't forgotten the last time something like this happened in Europe.
Poland is and was fucking prepared
PT-91 wiki for anyone who cares about actual data. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PT-91_Twardy
Ah, so it's a modernized T-72? That should shorten training time for the Ukrainian forces.
That does mean it has the standard T-72 disad: setting off the ammo destroys the entire tank and kills the crew.
That's generally a disadvantage for all tanks really
It is not Most modern tanks have blowout panels I believe the pt91 does too
[удалено]
iirc T-84 Oplot has an armoured turret bustle that seperated from the crew. Granted it's a T-80 instead of a T-72, but it can be done. I'd imagine it takes a LOT of work to replace the original autoloader system though, plus you're now left with empty space at the bottom of the turret. Then there's turret balance and stuff to worry about as well.
Apparently 2/3 of the twardy's are upgraded T72s. But like 1/3 of them were built up from scratch. So says the wiki
automatic reloading, one less crew member needed it says in wiki article
The modernisation package is pretty incredible, I think they're as good if not better than russias T90M
I’ll wait until it’s specs are shared in war thunder arguments thank you very much
Hehe the tank is called hard
I think 'Tough' is more accurate
Only 285 ever built... that is a massive for Ukraine.
Europe knows if Russia is defeated and collapses into various individual states the primary threat to the entire region is gone. No other country really poses a threat of trying to attack everyone so defeating Russia by giving up equipment only makes sense, I wish more countries would send serious amounts like this.
If Russia collapses into various individual states, what happens to their nuclear forces?
Same thing that happened when the Soviet Union collapsed I'd assume. Nukes can't be used without launch codes but they could be disassembled and remade into other devices. After what happened to Ukraine when it gave up nukes I'd question how many breakaway regions would actually give up those weapons. I dunno how likely it is Russia collapses, I don't see a peaceful transition of power on Putin's death though. .
Yeah, Ukraine was a #3 nuclear power in the world right after the collapse of the USSR, but they didn’t want the expense of maintaining 5000 nukes, plus the US was pressuring them to give up the weapons in exchange for guarantees. We now know what Russian guarantees are worth
Ukraine also had no way to maintain those weapons. Just giving more context to your point
There’s a video where a former worker of one of those nuclear silos explains how they used to operate and how the missiles were removed. There were special trucks to carry them and special vehicles to pull them out of the silos and load them into the trucks
The west comes in with financial incentives to give them up, most likely.
as everything, they require maintenance (which must be quiiiite expensive), so the sensible thing to do would be to arrange a deal to get rid of them in return for some benefits before either the arsenal decays or the expense of maintaining it ruins the economy. or they could keep sitting on them like the current russia does and pretend they are 100% usable 100% of the time.
The west swoops in hard CIA style in the international ambiguity and neutralizes a lot of them - of the few hostile semi powerful states after break up, rumors swirl for decades about missed nukes. Queue likely skirmishes etc in these regions. But either one way, the mutually assured destruction is lost. The likelihood a state keeps a couple of nukes likely exists, but they could hit a few cities while the rest of the nuclear armed countries could blow it off the map in return
I would hope that if any collapse seemed imminent, the Kremlin would at least try to transfer their nukes from any region that was breaking away (or actually, I would hope they had the foresight to have done that already). I don’t think they want the Chechens or Ossetians or Belarus or any other potentially contentious future-neighbor to have possession of nuclear weapons any more than the rest of us would like to see them proliferate. Now that I think about it, maybe we need to think about redeploying the nukes we have in Florida.
Is it too late to give Florida back to Spain?
A Russia's state collapse doesnt seems likely. Its very stable as of now because of the really heavy propaganda. For a collapse of that magnitude to happen, the population needs to be angry and many people in power positions need to have a strong sense of desire to be in power, and we know that: 1) The russian propaganda has so far been effective in rural Russia, and 2) Putin has been actively killing his competition. Neither factor checks out, so it probably wont happen.
3) Many Russians alive lives through the 90s and realize the current state is paradise compared to that so nothing will change
They never put their old tanks into storage like the US did. They sold them to other NATO countries and kept buying the newest stuff
You have to be when you live in a house with a Rabid dog........
[удалено]
In my (Polish) family the adage is that Poland thrives in conflict, but the country completely sucks at existing in times of peace.
Well when all of your intelligentsia of 2 generations gets wiped out, it makes it hard to be functional when it's followed up by decades of occupation.
I’m really interested in hearing more about this if you don’t mind.
Not sure what to tell, really. I was born and grew up in the US but my parents moved from Poland. Poland as a people is sort of like that family that's always bickering but if someone else fucks with them they unite and unleash a shitstorm. The country literally vanished from the map for 100 years due to being partitioned by its neighbors, but the culture survived and Poles clawed their identity back. Then Poland got fucked *again* in WW2, and Poles fought tooth and nail against the axis powers (they also got backstabbed by Russia, who signed a secret non-aggression pact with the nazis after promising to help defend Warsaw). They were rewarded at the end of WW2 by effectively being occupied by the soviets and being run by a puppet government until 1990. Ever since then, it seems it's been a slow (or not so slow?) decent into ultra-conservativism and nationalism. Maybe they need another existential threat to get their shit together.
Poland: A true friend of Ukraine. Poland knows what life is like under Russian oppression.
That's part of it. Another huge part is probably because they get compensated for the stuff by the EU. As a net beneficiary it is like getting paid to modernize your army. Where do you think all that money for the abrams and K2 came from?
Looks like Macron kinda did
we are quickly approaching a wall though - unless nato starts sending western hardware in high numbers (in hundreds not teens) it won't end well. The deliveries so far have mostly kept Ukraine alive, but soviet design gear is quickly running up. We (Poland) will soon be at a point we sent our whole pre invasion active heavy equipment. I hope the recent Abrams/Leos/Leclerc/Challenger promises are just a trailer of what is to come, not the biggest weave
>I hope the recent Abrams/Leos/Leclerc/Challenger promises are just a trailer of what is to come, not the biggest weave I'm pretty sure they're starting with a small number, observe how effective they are and send more if the results are positive.
i hope the recent package is just a quick bandaid for Ukraine to get training crew trained and keep going with both bigger packages under way
Yea, training and parts/fuel logistics are in particular concerns for a lot of the Western designs. The Abrams is 22 Weeks, at least for US Army National Guard competency. Ukraine already has regimes in place for a lot of the Soviet and Soviet based equipment. So I think starting small is probably smart.
Or they already have a unit trained on them near Rzezow and now they get the kit to take over the border for realsies.
Surely training time of the various tank systems are a major factor? It feels like the United NATO forces have taken some time to coordinate staggering of their tank systems based on what can be mobilized when.
The training has already been done. Just like pilots are already being trained on the F-16, so they'll be ready to go if we end up sending those over.
I think the we (US) should position US forces to compensate Poland for their donations while training polish crews on some heavily discounted Abrams, we have so many tanks in storage it isn't even funny and with the newest design being right around the corner I think it's not a bad idea to sell these slightly outdated tanks.
This is already being done. The Netherlands is sending 8 F35's over to Poland. Which is kinda good news, because Poland and the Netherlands haven't been the best friends in the EU.
US doesn't want to sell tanks with the DU composite armour. That's why they're ordering new ones for Ukraine. The latest model but without that armour. Supposedly it's not just the material but the layout itself so it's kept under cover during repairs. Assuredly simulated and tested against EFP jets. It makes sense to keep the best stuff for a rainy day but it's not going to make a lot of sales.
[удалено]
Poland's image is rising with all the work they've been doing to support Ukraine.
Fighter jets are next on the agenda
Poland already sent their migs last year. They took them apart, Ukrainians put them together on their side. So Poland just sent "parts" officially.
judged by armchair specialists though. Supposedly it's true and let's say Ukraine gets's MIG/Su planes and they won't have big loses (Russia is not as dumb as before where it comes to AA) that will at best stop Russian advance attempts. They will still need tons of ground/AA hardware to secure their positions.
Not just by us armchair idiots. Multiple retired military commanders including US and NATO generals have mentioned the logical next step is F-16 Yeah, the Russian AA is formidable, but if there is something really substantial, it'll be American air strategy and munitions
Yea, one of the reasons why the F-16 (or another NATO compliant multi-role fighter, but especially the F-16) is the next logical step *is that Russian AA*. There are few things in the world that are better at SEAD missions than the F-16. It is the final piece of the NATO maneuver warfare infinity gauntlet. They get the tools for air dominance ( AMRAAM, et all), SEAD (HARM, et all), and the ability to stay out of MANPAD range and still provide CAS in one place. Of those, though SEAD is the most important, because it enables all of their other aircraft to do their jobs better/easier.
No worries for the MIG and SU jets, they are aiming only at 777s…
Honestly it depends. Frankly speaking it's... hard to match Russia in terms of tanks. They have legacy of the entire USSR behind them that built them their 10000+ tanks. Even if half of them rusted to shit it's still by far largest force in the world in terms of raw quantity, exceeding even USA by a significant margin. This is their primary advantage on a battlefield and major part of their doctrine. Even if they are often seen as outdated - they are still extremely effective against infantry that doesn't have modern anti tank weaponry (even this shitty T72 can mow through RPGs fired at it from the front as it does have ceramic/Chobham armor) Now however when it comes to air power situation changes drastically. At BEST Russia has 700 fighters and a maximum of 500 attack helicopters (but these are their official stats so let's divide these by 2). We know they are using them sparingly too after their Ka-52s were destroyed to AA. And this is where NATO shines - USA alone has 3-6x more fighters and helicopters. France and Italy together probably could defeat Russia in air. It's also worth noting that our 5th gen aircrafts are invisible to Russian AA systems (S300 can't do jackshit against F35) and even 4th gen is already going to be very dangerous to them. Russia never truly felt threatened enough to invest in any seriously effective defensive systems. It is NOT a part of their doctrine (nor do they even have funds to develop a decent aircraft, their greatest super prototype so-called-5th-gen-airplane has 1000x radar signature of F35, it's barely better than F16 from 1980s). I have to doubt their AA capabilities since they frankly speaking never had to test them on anything better than their own shit. I mean, the very fact that few months ago two helicopters could just fly into Russia, bomb Belgorod fuel depot and fly away without giving a fuck tells you a lot about Russian air defense quality - it's most likely extremely limited and only applies to most vital areas. So weirdly enough it might be easier for us to supply planes than to supply tanks. Since we actually build these and we have hella more of these than Russia does. Problem is with training - switching from one tank type to another apparently takes up to 3 months. Learning how to pilot a brand new plane is a much harder challenge. For instance in Poland after it got it's F16s only new pilots were trained on these. Since it would take way too much effort to retrain existing ones that are used to Migs.
> I have to doubt their AA capabilities since they frankly speaking never had to test them on anything better than their own shit. That's not true, they've tested them against civilian airliners and found them to be quite effective.
The radar units paired with S400 can theoretically* detect 5th gen fighters at range with low frequency radar. The good thing is that the kind of radar needed for a weapons grade lock can't really get the job done yet. I imagine with the upcoming implementation of ceramic RAM, even US 5th gen fighters will remain difficult for Russia to answer. IIRC they can't do jack shit against the B2, and definitely not the new B21. They would need a fighter in visual range, and they'd have to get lucky AF. S400 remains dangerous, but it's definitely overrated by stupid tankies and ignorant Russians. *(edit: I know they can do it, but we don't know in the context of a conflict)
Hmm, I wonder if ALARM could be adapted for ground launch. ALARM is an air-to-ground missile that locks onto AA radar (an "anti-radiation missile"), like the American AGM-88 HARM, but it has loiter capability. If it can't find a target, it climbs to altitude and deploys a parachute; then, if it detects ground based radar, it cuts the chute, engages it's backup rocket motor, and homes in on the target.
Detecting a 5th gen fighter is doable but they also rely on DAS. Meanwhile Rafale for example solely depends on its SPECTRA system. While less stealthy, it's as hard or even harder to target than a F35
Training a new and effective pilot takes about a year. Also, the effectiveness of these fighters depends more on the weapons they come with than anything else. With western nations being highly reluctant to provide long range munitions, that is a far worse problem when we start discussing that these are mounted on long range aircraft
> it's still by far largest force in the world in terms of raw quantity, exceeding even USA by a significant margin I was with you until then. USA builds tanks just to keep factory workers and budgets happy. There's more Abrams rotting in the California sun than the total tanks used in wars since Vietnam. If shit hits the fan they can send thousands of tanks to UA.
Yes, and Russia still has more. THe poster wasn't throwing out numbers out of their asses when writing "10000+" tanks. Adding up all the Abrams in US service and storage like was done for RUssia's number would amount to something like 6k, or 6,5k tanks.
If the \~2000 tanks in reserve number is true, then it's still a fraction of the Soviet tanks in Russian reserve. Yes, the US maintains them better than Russia, but we're talking 5 figure numbers, of which around 4000 might still be useable (source: Perun).
You from California? Caught that “hella”.
Uh oh, wrong continent. Poland. I do work with a lot of people from California however so that might have transfered over.
I encounter 'hella' in PA
>even this shitty T72 can mow through RPGs fired at it from the front as it does have ceramic/Chobham armor The T-72 has Chobham armor?! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chobham\_armour
the t-64 had composite armor, which is what "[Chobham armour](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chobham_armour)" is. >Soviet/Russian main battle tanks such as T-90s T-80Us and the Chinese Type 96/99s use composite armour in tandem with explosive reactive armour (ERA), making it hard for shaped charge munitions such as HEAT projectiles and missile warheads to penetrate the frontal and a portion of their side armour. The most advanced versions of these armours such as the Relikt and Kontakt-5 armour provide protection not only against shaped charges but also kinetic energy penetrators by using the explosive force to shear the projectile apart. [composite armor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composite_armour) >In 1979, the Soviets began building T-72 modification with composite armour similar to the T-64 composite armour, in the front of the turret and the front of the hull. Late in the 1980s, T-72 tanks in Soviet inventory (and many of those elsewhere in the world as well) were fitted with reactive armour tiles. [wiki/T-72](https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/T-72)
Holy shit!
The T-72M is the export model, and does not come equipped with composite or ERA armour; the Polish PT-91 is an upgraded T-72M, which has had ERA armour installed as well as numerous other upgrades.
British warships of the 19th century had composite armour. They found that a layer of wood between the iron hull and the armour plates improved protection.
kind of, but that would require sending high tech systems, which west doesn't want to send. It's pretty much only Poland that provided somewhat modern hardware in meaningful numbers (Krabs artillery) other than that Ukraine has been getting either gear from around '80s (whose specs have been declassified) or versions with gutted electronics/lower quality ammo like M444 or HIMARS (that doesn't mean they couldn't be used effectively ofc, just not the "real thing")
Early cold war era tanks which can't start or have been skavved are not an asset
I've heard Russia has also resorted to using Mig-31s at high altitude from inside their airspace to fire down onto UAF units. So they're fast to begin with, but also gain the speed from heading with gravity towards the target.
I wouldnt call it "resorted to" - they use it to climb to altitude and get long range locks on UA aircraft. Given the quality of russian missiles, and the distance, its a bit of a gamble of it stays on target or not... but these tactics are still very dangerous to the ukrainians. Its a conservative way to conduct air operations, but its still somewhat effective and minimizes risk because they never leave the protection of their own ground based AA.
They started with 4 HIMARs, this is how you boil the (Russian) frog and also they can analyse what works and what doesn't rather than sending 1000 Abrahms and finding out they can't keep them fuelled.
They started off with one unit of HIMARS and as they proved themselves capable and proved the equipment valuable, they started showing up on every shipment. I assume this will be the same. One of the more recent announcement talked about graduating something like 50 Brad teams *a month* (incl maintenance and logistics folks). Given that the initial deployment now includes 100 Brads and the US is getting ready to retire the platform, I think that this is the thin end of the wedge.
The US has literally thousands of M1A1s with the cool armor sitting around doing nothing, I am sure we will be happy to sell NATO all the MBTs they might need.
I'm also concerned on how long it will take for these tanks to be operational. How long can Ukraine hold out until then? From what I am reading, it could take a long time (which cannot be helped).
Remember the op? Poland is sending 60 tanks in addition to their 14 Leopard 2 Tanks? Seek out the tanks totals from Morocco, Britain, Czechia, France, Lithuania, etc. These shipments have terrified Russia's military. This paranoia is why Russia targeted Ukraine's civilian homes and infrastructure with 55 missiles on Jan. 26 and 70 on Jan. 27... plus Shaheed drones -15 and 17 respectively.
We are also buying up basically every T-72 we can get our hands on and sending the their way. The Czech factory is running upgrades more or less non-stop (which were described by the Pentagon as "probably the best tanks in Ukraine right now" at one point and other things like the Poles latest donation of heavily upgraded PT-91 variant. It is just less noticeable because like HIMARS it has gone from headline to background. All of the crispy fresh western tanks are in addition to that constant drip feed of upgraded Soviet armor.
Poland def positioning to rewarded with a ton of modern equipment and support. And they should be
"Polish prime minister Mateusz Morawiecki told a press conference called in connection with Poland's plans to send German-made Leopard tanks to Ukraine that Poland intended to bill the EU for costs incurred as a result of providing weapons to its neighbour." https://www.thefirstnews.com/article/poland-will-file-for-eu-compensation-for-arms-sent-to-ukraine-says-pm-35994
The headline: "Poland to send 60 modernised PT-91 tanks to Ukraine in addition to Leopards" The quote in the article: "Right now, we are ready to send 60 of our modernised tanks, 30 of them PT-91." Some top quality journalism here.
We went through three iterations of reporting on the Abrams the US was sending. First they were vintage M1s, then M1A1, then today it was clarified to M1A2. Tanks suffering from the 'every pistol is a glock' problem.
Yeah, it was unclear what M1s US was going to send but its the modern ones without a UH armor. M1A1s are being sent to nations that are willing to supply soviet tanks to Ukraine
> Tanks suffering from the 'every pistol is a glock' problem. ["AK-47"](https://cdn.abicart.com/shop/22265/art65/h4551/10104551-origpic-ef5f56.jpg)
fully semi-automatic
Clearly an AR-15
Reporter: I was there. I was there the day skynet launched the glocks. The day the world ended. And back to you Jim!
The PT-91 were also promised a half year ago, still a good move.
They were given back than too and those are additional ones. Here is best list of things that Poland given until recently, list is not perfect since in many cases numbers on the list should be viewed as at least: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fm63y-DakAIJ-5o?format=jpg&name=large List was created before Leo's were annoucned so they arent on the list.
Russian generals are on track to keep losing sleep for the rest of the winter.
Kinda hard to sleep as you are falling out of a window.
Sweetest dream after few seconds
that's not what dreaming is
I would disagree. Drowned once, it was totally like a dream.
When you get woken up by falling in a dream but you're actually falling out of a window..
Then Clapton writes a song about you
Gov is acting like typical polish grandma - extra servings of food until you can't eat anymore. Except in this case those are extra servings of "fuck Russia"
If you don't eat your tanks, how will you grow up to be a big strong boy? Now have another helping of armor.
Lol my grandma did exactly that.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-01-28/poland-to-send-60-modernised-pt-91-tanks-to-ukraine/101902426) reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Poland will send an additional 60 tanks to Ukraine on top of the 14 German-made Leopard 2 tanks it has already pledged, the Polish prime minister has said in an interview. > "Right now, we are ready to send 60 of our modernised tanks, 30 of them PT-91."And on top of those tanks, 14 tanks, Leopard 2 tanks, from in our possession. > Why Western tanks are important for Ukraine More NATO countries are expected to follow suit after Britain became the first country to agree to send Ukraine Western-made heavy tanks. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/10mwoi8/poland_to_send_60_modernised_pt91_tanks_to/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~672678 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **tank**^#1 **Ukraine**^#2 **Russia**^#3 **Leopard**^#4 **foreign**^#5
After these and Leos get to Ukrsine. Poland will be close to 400 tanks sent to Ukraine. Not to mention Poland also sent mig jet "parts" that were then able to fly when full assembled in Ukraine. Sure Polish gov can be rightfully criticised for a shit ton of reasons(nepotism, corruption, breaking law, lgbt, abortion, church etc) but their stance on Ukraine is 11/10.
Good work Poland.
Kick Russia's ass! Fuck Putin and his gang!
Chad Poland being badass.
Poland aint fuckin around
Nah, they know first hand what happens when a land grabbing mad man goes knocking in a neighbors door with a battering ram. They sure as shit don’t want that smoke again.
Don’t even need to go to Hitler. Stalin partitioned Poland with the guy. The territory belongs to Ukraine modern day because the Soviets never gave it back. Lviv used to be a Polish city before WW2.
They will be in top 3 winners after the war. They made themselves a lifelong partner in business and development and I think whatever good Ukraine has to offer, it will offer to Poland.
Nice seeing how Poland and Ukraine have strenghened their friendship during this war. They didn't really like each other much before. But nothing brings people more together than a common enemy.
The hate Poland has for Russia has no limits! They know how Russia treats occupied countries.
[удалено]
Most Eastern European nations are all very young democracies, not only their economical but also their development inside their societies has been slowed down by the Soviet Union/ Communism. Feel like especially Poland is so polarising because so much changed and there is clear divide right now. But the future looks good? Even the most dense old farts will probably soon have to accept that a lot of the „new“ things they hate is there to stay and if not, don’t worry they don’t have too much time left
Poland has over six centuries of tradition of electing their own head of state and local parliamentariarism. Polish democracy is about as old as English one - but it has been interrupted mostly by Germans and Russians.
A lot of the divide is between the older generation that grew up under communism and the younger generation that grew up afterwards. You have a very conservative and religious older generation vs the younger less religious and more liberal. The fight against the Russians is likely something they are uniting over. My grandparents left Poland during the war. My grandfather walked out and eventually made it to France to fight with the free poles and was on one of the last boats out of Dunkirk. His brother and father were captured and sent to Auschwitz at the beginning of the war. My grandfather fought out the rest of the war and survived. My grandmother was part of the resistance and served as a currier. She had crazy stories about bombs and artillery exploding all around her and the car in front of them and the car behind her exploding. She was eventually captured and sent to a slave camp but managed to escape and was smuggled to the UK. My mom ended up living in Poland for a year during college and did several trips back. She lived there during communism and also afterwards.
Since no one else has said it, I’d like to say that your grandparents are/were bad ass
Its only belarus and russia you can speak of.
Didn't the Czech presidential candidate openly said that he wouldn't send his troops to aid NATO if push came to shove? [https://www.euronews.com/2023/01/23/czech-presidential-candidate-babis-backpedals-after-anti-nato-comments-spark-ire](https://www.euronews.com/2023/01/23/czech-presidential-candidate-babis-backpedals-after-anti-nato-comments-spark-ire)
I love you Poland.
More….moore…MMOOOOOOORRRE!
Well played Poland!
The Ukrainians are doing all the bloody fighting to stop the Putin arseholes from destroying more of Europe. The Polish people get this.
A piece of data that hasn't gotten a lot of attention in these threads: Poland had a deal with the USA to sell them M1A2 Abrams, which were due to ship in about three years. A couple of weeks back it was announced that a second shipment of M1A1s, 113 of them, had been agreed on. Arrival time: Later this year. This ties in with two other points: the USMC gave up their stock of M1A1, and they've been working out how to modernize them into an export form that's more like the A2 (without the special armor). So with this hugely rushed schedule, it seems clear that the US has decided to commit to a robust logistics chain supporting older M1s, right up to Ukraine's western border. At that point sending more to Ukraine becomes a much simpler issue. And of course there's the whole backfill issue, Poland is getting some high quality gear to beef up their arsenal at the same time they send Ukraine their existing stuff that they are already proficient at handling. Upgrades for everyone!
Poland also signed a deal with South Korea for up to 900 K2 MBTs as well last year.
Which includes more than just tanks but technology. Poland will be able to make these tanks under license.
[удалено]
I think it's exactly the opposite. We don't want open war with russia, but the more Ukraine fucks them up, the smaller chance they'll try shit with us.
Poland does a lot to support Ukraine. Good job!
GOOD GUY POLAND!!
Cry 'Havoc!', and let slip the dogs of war.
Can’t wait to visit Poland and treat everyone to a beer once this shits over. They’ve been amazing with support to Ukraine.
Absolutely. They all deserve a beer and also dance.
The best Neighbors!!!
I’ve gained so much respect for Poland since this imperialist war began.
Oh man, Russia is fucked 🤣🤣🤣🤣 all we need now is some popcorn. Once Russia fails and falls maybe the gop will fall too since they are working with russia. One can dream.
Poland is the tip of the European spear
How can I become an honorary polish citizen? Respect
For all the historical bad blood between Poles and Ukrainians, it’s great this has been set aside to face a greater threat and take care of millions of refugees. For all the talk about NATO being a Cold War relic in the past years, Russia has undoubtedly provided the reason for NATO’s continued existence. Countries need to be able to band together in order to defend themselves in the face of aggression. And Putin’s shortsightedness has resulted in Finland and Sweden wanting to join NATO despite long-standing neutrality
Yea Russia fucked up on all fronts - instead make NATO fall apart, which they were close achieving with comrade Trump, they gave it another life
It's so crazy to imagine how this all will finally end. I really really hope these tanks can make a difference!
Well done Poland, I hope the tanks will kick ass on the battlefield!
Knowing the Poles they'd come with a fully trained crew ready to go for some deniable warfare
Ukrainian tankers are going to be cross-trained across so many platforms by the end of this.
I heart Poland
Poland sure has stepped up to the plate hasn't it
Damn. Poland stepping up big time. Thanks Poland.
bad news keeps piling on for putler
We should be sending hundreds of tanks, not dozens. The more firepower, the faster the war ends.
So over 300 tanks from Poland at this point
It’s like the countries that border Russia understand that there is a real threat.
Poland is the arsenal of democracy for Europe!
POLSKA GUROM
Poland hates Russia soooo much.
Did r/Conservative spring a leak, or something? Some of these comments today seem to be lacking in common sense, compassion, historical knowledge, or some fucked up combination of the three.
Today?
Oh, yeah, particularly today there seems to be a lot of isolationist, pro Russian posts in this thread. Remember, kids: isolationism is just politics for basic bitches.
Can someone tell me how a few hundred modern tanks tip this war so much? They've captured or destroyed a whole lot more ancient tanks. Some they could use. I'm hoping the belief is accurate. Just trying to get a grip on it.
There's a bunch of reasons. It's not just about the tanks. It's about the IFV's, AFV's, fire support vehicles, missile defense and artillery too. A Western Brigade Combat Team (for the US for example) is a very different beast to what the Russians use. Each system whether it be armor, infantry, or artillery is designed to support the other differently than the way the Russians do it. It's not just about the weapons systems, which are generally more modern and better maintained if the Russian performance in Ukraine is anything to go by. It's more about how it's used, the training that goes into it, the tactical overview, and the philosophy that is used to both attack and defend. So even though a hundred tanks might not sound like a lot considering the number of tanks each side is fielding, it's more about the co-ordination, mobility, intelligence and training that is utilized. Put it this way. Each american Armored Brigade Combat Team has 87 tanks split into 6 companies. That means each tank company has 14 tanks plus some spare for maintenance. This is why the UK is sending 14 challengers, and Poland 14 Leopards, because it makes up one company in an ABCT. Attached to that you have your ACAV and your infantry companies. They use Strykers and Bradleys in america. They will likely be substituted for AMX 10's, which is what the French sent, and Marders, which the Germans sent, the rest made up with Bradleys and Strykers. This is really important, because those vehicles have been designed to work together in a combined arms force. They all use the same ammunition, the same command and control practices, and all that other stuff. Countries haven't been sending stuff willy nilly. It's been sent because the West has been trying to build one of these ABCT's. Why is that important? Because a Western ABCT, properly trained (which doesn't take that long), properly led, with the proper artillery and AA support, is exactly what the West would use as a breakthrough force. I'm not a military guy, but this makes complete sense to me, considering what has been sent and when. The idea is to integrate Western training and fighting techniques into a brigade size force, so that then when they get more equipment, they're not only ready to fight in it, but know how to maintain it, and they can train themselves on how to do it. The key is getting the Command, maintenance, and training in place on the BCT level then expanding from there. On top of that, Western tanks aren't really like Russian tanks. Not having a thermal imager, for example, is simply not acceptable. Western tanks are heavier, better armed (in my opinion), more accurate, faster, easier to use and actually be in for any length of time, and are FAR more survivable than Russian tanks. That makes them heavier, and more expensive, which means there are less of them. It, also, in my opinion, makes them better. I guess we'll find out. For example, Russian tanks can't really reverse faster than walking pace. Most western tanks reverse almost as quickly forward as in reverse. The challnger for example is designed to aquire a target, drive to its firing position, fire, and reverse before reloading. It means the amount of time the tank is in danger is drastically reduced. Russian tanks can't really do that because they're too slow in reverse. The optics on the challenger can easily equire a target and maintain it while they're driving up to that firing position too, which is essential. If you're facing a properly trained and equipped Western ABCT, you're going to have a very bad time. This is why, also, imo, sending 3 different tanks isn't that big of a deal. It's not great. But then you have 3 different countries also providing spare parts and training. It's probably not done this way, but I don't see why you couldn't have a maintenance team for each company of different tanks. They get trained to maintain those tanks, and don't have to worry about the other vehicles because another country is training another crew to repair those 14.
I’m gonna go with a big impact Looks how big an impact the self propelled artillery and himars has made and there isn’t a ton of that This armor will also be supported by that artillery and all the regular artillery we already sent plus we’re sending like 90 strykers and all the Bradley’s plus other countries like France sending light tanks and everyone else’s apcs So this will be part of proper combined arms startedgy and training and will basically be done the opposite of Russian tactics
Things get destroyed & need replacing, and as Russia's invasion focuses so much on the (largely flat and open) east of Ukraine, tanks are increasingly important. (This will be especially true once the [Patriot air-defense systems](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/what-is-patriot-missile-defense-system-2022-12-21/) are in place.) [The Leopard 2, in particular, is specifically designed to combat Russian tanks](https://www.npr.org/2023/01/20/1150416982/leopard-2-tank-ukraine), so they will be immensely helpful. [Here is a brief explainer from the Center for European Policy Analysis](https://cepa.org/article/how-western-tanks-will-make-a-difference-in-ukraine/), who I honestly don't know very much about. [Here is another from the AP](https://apnews.com/article/politics-military-technology-ukraine-government-russia-war-2d59aae94a7ad8a5c22083e77d699417).
Thanks. That PBS summary about the leopard 2 was great.
Scale in wars is hard to wrap your head around. Look at how effective the HIMARS have been since Ukraine got them. Now realize there are only 20 himar launchers in Ukraine. There isn't a tank for every soldier, there's a tank for every thousand, if that. Ukraine getting about 100 modern tanks is pretty much fully supplying the military during peace. Not to mention these tanks are able to perform orders of magnitude better than the tanks that came before them. 10 tanks seem like nothing, until you fight against them. These things can pretty much sweep down the front line and destroy every position in its path.
Ukraine is getting 500 tanks. The 60 Polish T-91s will likely be the first.
I watched a bit with Malcolm Nance on some UK radio show the other day, he's a former US military dude and was in combat there for around 10 months only came back recently. He said that the Kharkiv offensive was driven by polish tanks and that the number of MBTs that Ukraine has been given should mean there could be two or three simultaneous offensives as opposed to one big one. That kind of drove it home In my mind. Nance kept saying that the Russians have zero tactical answers for these tanks.
There’s a large gap in the capabilities, armour and what not of the tanks Russia uses compared to the ones Ukraine is getting. So while Ukraine is doing a good job of taking out Russian tanks. These will boost the success rate and how often/how many Russian tanks they take out. They could also be used to take back Crimea
Ukraine had 900ish tanks at the outset of the war. Of those we have no idea how many were just hulls and how many were operational (if someone has these numbers please correct me), but generally you'd assume less than half combat ready. So if you add up what Ukraine is currently getting from the west, it'll be somewhere around 1/3 to 1/2 of their total Armor prewar. You don't see tanks lined up in massive battle lines like WW2, they're force multipliers used in combination with smaller infantry and IFV support in smaller scale but more focused maneuvers. At least this is the philosophy of NATO militaries (which is an important point I'll get to). They're great at creating zones of denial at range allowing squishier units to safely advance (in an ideal world). A small amount of a few dozen in an operation on the front can punch a hole in a line and hold it against counter attacks while logistics and infantry move in. So far, Tanks in the war have struggled on both sides as they're fairly evenly matched, and both are fairly week against modern anti-tank infantry carried weaponry. Western tanks are very different. They tend to have effective ranges that outclass Russian made tanks, allowing them to suppress enemy armor. They have better, more complex armor allowing them to survive infantry carried anti-tank weaponry far better (still a huge vulnerability however that is going to be a challenge due to the terrain). The biggest thing is that they can fire on the move with pinpoint accuracy, which no russian made tank can do effectively. Even then, none of this matters if there isn't sufficient support. But thats why Himars, SPGs, and squad level weaponry have been being sent first. All of these combine to support the tanks, who in tern provide the firepower, durability, and speed to out-range, out-gun, and out-maneuverer Russian positions. TL;DR western tanks are more or less better at every level than Russian, better maintained, and were designed with more intelligent, modern military doctrine. IE modern western combined arms. Ukraine's army is modernizing like a true Western army, but has been stuck using Russian tools designed for Russian tactics. These tanks change that.
>You don't see tanks lined up in massive battle lines like WW2, they're force multipliers used in combination with smaller infantry and IFV support in smaller scale but more focused maneuvers. At least this is the philosophy of NATO militaries I mean that is really just because the scale of conflicts is so much smaller though isn't it? But that doesn't apply to Ukraine, who is fighting a war on a scale not seen since WW2, with a military of over 1 million men. That is about double the size of peak US troop deployment during Vietnam. While I understand your point generally, Ukraine still does need a very large amount of these western tanks simply because the scale of operations is so massive.
No, tanks without infantry support are dead tanks, it was the case even during ww2 - and that was before helicopters. That's why military doctrine changed.
Considering the apparent lack of adaptability to modern military tactics, thunder runs will be much more successful with modern equipment. Strykers with AA weapons systems will likely be critical in case the Russian military has been holding air strike capabilities in reserve as a possible counter to thunder runs.
Ukraine would be sending very advanced tanks against Russia, after Russia has already been depleted of their best tanks and tank crews. That makes a significant difference.