FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > The battle of bakhmut.
The battle of bakhmut.
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By *hagTonight OP Man
over a year ago
From the land of haribos. |
Whilst russia resort to use tanks from the 40s, ukraine will get help from the west with brand new advanced tanks called challenger 2, countries such as britain and sweden are sending some, sweden sent 10 to them and it is said that it will be a game changer in the war.
Have you also seen the challenger 2? It looks very impressive indeed  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Bad thing about Challenger it doesn't use standard NATO rounds like Abrahams and the Leopard."
It does mean interopability of rounds isn't there but the British have used rifled guns for accuracy and their preference of HESH over HEAT rounds. To this day that preference hasn't changed. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Bad thing about Challenger it doesn't use standard NATO rounds like Abrahams and the Leopard.
It does mean interopability of rounds isn't there but the British have used rifled guns for accuracy and their preference of HESH over HEAT rounds. To this day that preference hasn't changed."
The challengers would have to stay in the same BG. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago
milton keynes |
"Whilst russia resort to use tanks from the 40s, ukraine will get help from the west with brand new advanced tanks called challenger 2, countries such as britain and sweden are sending some, sweden sent 10 to them and it is said that it will be a game changer in the war.
Have you also seen the challenger 2? It looks very impressive indeed "
I see a video on the challenger 2. Apparently it is now old tech and not as good as the leopard though still a big improvement for Ukraine. Slow rate of fire compared to the best Russian tanks is a problem. On the up side they have a better firing range than most and none have been destroyed in combat to date. They say challenger 3 is not far away from service but no idea what sort of time frame they mean. Hopefully these tanks will be effective but they will need lots |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eavenNhellCouple
over a year ago
carrbrook stalybridge |
The challenger2 will have killed the Russian tank way before it can get within range to return fire superior range superior optics and nightvision .Sweden and other NATO countries are supplying leopard2s which are surplus and inferior to the challenger2 but again superior to all but latest Russian tanks .USA supplied Abrams are a long way off as they are being built brand new tho not to latest spec .the big question is can they be brought into use in time . |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Whilst russia resort to use tanks from the 40s, ukraine will get help from the west with brand new advanced tanks called challenger 2, countries such as britain and sweden are sending some, sweden sent 10 to them and it is said that it will be a game changer in the war.
Have you also seen the challenger 2? It looks very impressive indeed "
Hitler was also impressed by "wunderwaffen"...
Getting a boner over something that is designed to cause death & destruction is extraordinarily sad and pathetic. These war weapons also make a very small number of people extremely wealthy and a very large number of people extremely dead.
Sorry for raining on your circle jerk but you might want to have a word with yourself  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *estivalMan
over a year ago
borehamwood |
"Whilst russia resort to use tanks from the 40s, ukraine will get help from the west with brand new advanced tanks called challenger 2, countries such as britain and sweden are sending some, sweden sent 10 to them and it is said that it will be a game changer in the war.
Have you also seen the challenger 2? It looks very impressive indeed
Hitler was also impressed by "wunderwaffen"...
Getting a boner over something that is designed to cause death & destruction is extraordinarily sad and pathetic. These war weapons also make a very small number of people extremely wealthy and a very large number of people extremely dead.
Sorry for raining on your circle jerk but you might want to have a word with yourself "
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Getting a boner over something that is designed to cause death & destruction is extraordinarily sad and pathetic. These war weapons also make a very small number of people extremely wealthy and a very large number of people extremely dead."
Someone got out of bed on the wrong side today. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Nope... always been anti war. I've always thought that people getting all giddy with excitement at a killing machine is moronic. "
I didn't see anyone getting giddy with excitement. I saw someone saying that the Challenger 2 was an impressive machine. Are you sure you're not misreading the situation? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Well without the aid of video or photographic evidence it's rather difficult to read what expression was apparent.
I would however suggest that by putting at the end of a statement might suggest happiness, glee or perhaps giddiness. Just an opinion. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Well without the aid of video or photographic evidence it's rather difficult to read what expression was apparent.
I would however suggest that by putting at the end of a statement might suggest happiness, glee or perhaps giddiness. Just an opinion. "
What exactly is wrong with saying a piece of machinery is impressive? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *hagTonight OP Man
over a year ago
From the land of haribos. |
"The challenger2 will have killed the Russian tank way before it can get within range to return fire superior range superior optics and nightvision .Sweden and other NATO countries are supplying leopard2s which are surplus and inferior to the challenger2 but again superior to all but latest Russian tanks .USA supplied Abrams are a long way off as they are being built brand new tho not to latest spec .the big question is can they be brought into use in time ."
Yes, those tanks too and as you say challenger 2 is also superior with that, it is also very accurate to locate their target with long distance, it uses a laser rangefinder and it has a range of 200m to 10km, the tank is built by bae systems land system and it is a third generation british main battle tank
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Keep in mind the type of enemy armour these tanks will face, even if they are no longer the latest versions. Russia is now using some T54 tanks, and they came into service just after the second world war, 1949 if we recall.
On that note, its heavy artillery and air launched missiles that modern tanks need to keep an eye out for. Its why US doctrine doesn't involve mass ground forces until they control the sky. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago
milton keynes |
"The challenger2 will have killed the Russian tank way before it can get within range to return fire superior range superior optics and nightvision .Sweden and other NATO countries are supplying leopard2s which are surplus and inferior to the challenger2 but again superior to all but latest Russian tanks .USA supplied Abrams are a long way off as they are being built brand new tho not to latest spec .the big question is can they be brought into use in time .Yes, those tanks too and as you say challenger 2 is also superior with that, it is also very accurate to locate their target with long distance, it uses a laser rangefinder and it has a range of 200m to 10km, the tank is built by bae systems land system and it is a third generation british main battle tank
"
From the bits I have seen they say that so far there has been little tank on tank battles. Maybe that will change but it seems most tank fear is from the air and artillery including rockets |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The challenger2 will have killed the Russian tank way before it can get within range to return fire superior range superior optics and nightvision .Sweden and other NATO countries are supplying leopard2s which are surplus and inferior to the challenger2 but again superior to all but latest Russian tanks .USA supplied Abrams are a long way off as they are being built brand new tho not to latest spec .the big question is can they be brought into use in time .Yes, those tanks too and as you say challenger 2 is also superior with that, it is also very accurate to locate their target with long distance, it uses a laser rangefinder and it has a range of 200m to 10km, the tank is built by bae systems land system and it is a third generation british main battle tank
From the bits I have seen they say that so far there has been little tank on tank battles. Maybe that will change but it seems most tank fear is from the air and artillery including rockets"
Neither side gained air superiority. Russia is not successful at all with SEAD operations. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago
North West |
"The challenger2 will have killed the Russian tank way before it can get within range to return fire superior range superior optics and nightvision .Sweden and other NATO countries are supplying leopard2s which are surplus and inferior to the challenger2 but again superior to all but latest Russian tanks .USA supplied Abrams are a long way off as they are being built brand new tho not to latest spec .the big question is can they be brought into use in time .Yes, those tanks too and as you say challenger 2 is also superior with that, it is also very accurate to locate their target with long distance, it uses a laser rangefinder and it has a range of 200m to 10km, the tank is built by bae systems land system and it is a third generation british main battle tank
From the bits I have seen they say that so far there has been little tank on tank battles. Maybe that will change but it seems most tank fear is from the air and artillery including rockets"
I think you are right. There is no place for tank on tank battles in this war. Drones, UAV’s and ATM’s are the biggest threat to tanks. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *hilloutMan
over a year ago
All over the place! Northwesr, , Southwest |
It's an empty gesture with 0 impact on the conflict. The Challenger 2 uses a rifled gun and therefore cannot even use shells that smooth bore tanks such as the Leapord or T-72 can. Let's not even get into the logistical challenges of keeping this machine properly serviced.
The ATGM Kornet can make mince meat of this tank and has a range of 5-10 miles. Rotary wing aircraft such as the deadly KA-52 or Mi-28 can destroy it. The SU-25 can destroy it. Russia has plenty of real time ISR that can detect it and signal artillary to destroy it.
As for dusting off tanks from the 40's and 50's, yes they did that. They serve as perfectly good fixed guns in a rear defensive role. Have you seen how bad and deep the mud in Ukraine is? There are no tank battles or offensives to speak of happening. You mainly have infantry and artillery slugging it out over an 800 mile long line of contact.
And btw, Bahkmut has all but fallen now. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Nobody wants war (well at least most sane people don't), but on the other hand we know appeasement doesn't work either. Tyrants have to be confronted in the same way as bullies, and that means military hardware. Regrettable, but there it is. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *hagTonight OP Man
over a year ago
From the land of haribos. |
"Nobody wants war (well at least most sane people don't), but on the other hand we know appeasement doesn't work either. Tyrants have to be confronted in the same way as bullies, and that means military hardware. Regrettable, but there it is."
This, also one cant negotiate with putin, because his demands are unreasonable, like parts of ukraine and west have hinted that his proposals are likely to be rejected, he could end the war today if he wanted, so yes, hardware is the only type of response to settle it.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eavenNhellCouple
over a year ago
carrbrook stalybridge |
It's an empty gesture with 0 impact on the conflict. The Challenger 2 uses a rifled gun and therefore cannot even use shells that smooth bore tanks such as the Leapord or T-72 can. Let's not even get into the logistical challenges of keeping this machine properly serviced.
popycock we seemed to be able to manage the logisitics tail from arromanches to the heart of germany of two entirley different armys munitions and equipment during ww2 the same in korea golfwars 1&2 kosovo and the balkans conflicts not to mention afghan . the two systems will no doubt be kept apart and used in autonomus units wuth thier own logistics tail and training nothing i in surmountable .just another one coming out with the if its british its crap mentality if thats the case they wouldnt be clamouring for it . |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The flat, muddy terrain with no cover from view and little cover from direct fire may not suit modern, very heavy tanks. I can see the advantage of using older tanks, which dont need sophisticated maintenance and highly skilled crew. Ukraine will be very reluctant to commit these tanks, if they dont have air superiority.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eavenNhellCouple
over a year ago
carrbrook stalybridge |
"The flat, muddy terrain with no cover from view and little cover from direct fire may not suit modern, very heavy tanks. I can see the advantage of using older tanks, which dont need sophisticated maintenance and highly skilled crew. Ukraine will be very reluctant to commit these tanks, if they dont have air superiority.
"
flat featureless terrain more than suits leopard challenger & abrams with there superior range and targeting optics almost the ground they were designed for .Tank gunners have a saying " if i can see it i can hit it if i can hit it i can kill it " and they can do day night rain or shine well before russian tanks even know they are there .this is why ukrain are so keen to have them that sort of fire power is a pretty good force multiplyer |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Tank gunners have a saying " if i can see it i can hit it if i can hit it i can kill it ""
When tank DRIVERS start saying that is when you really need to worry.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
