Ukrainian Tank Options

Status
Not open for further replies.
Are upgraded M60 tank variants, such as the General Dynamics M60-2000 and the Raytheon M60A3 SLEP, also an option for Ukraine?
 
I believe this is an option for some lighter duties, a bit like using updated T55/62 classes. As far as front line service is concerned in that TO, not so much. The M-60 is a tall beast and vulnerable even with SLEP.
 
Hobbes said:
I'm seeing media reports on the tank situation that say the US doesn't want to send Abrams because of their high fuel consumption and maintenance requirements. Found those statements a bit odd (they're basically saying their tank isn't very usable in real-world situations). The armor issue makes more sense.
Click to expand...

They're saying it's a strain that the Ukrainian logistics chain maybe can't support. The US Army has been built around Abrams for decades and has a support infrastructure designed to deal with it.

You can see the concerns the US has looking at items like the 8 M88 ARVs they are sending with those 31 M1A2s. That's a lot of recovery vehicles for a battalion [-] worth of tanks, so I assume they are filling a bigger need than just the US-equipped tank units.

The fuel issue seems overblown to me. Tanks represent a pretty small fraction of vehicles on the battlefield and Abrams doesn't burn that much more than other tanks.
 
Christopher Wang said:
Are upgraded M60 tank variants, such as the General Dynamics M60-2000 and the Raytheon M60A3 SLEP, also an option for Ukraine?
Click to expand...
Theoretically anything is an option but the Ukrainians want vehicles here and now not years in the future which would be the case with either of these given they are not in service already.
 
_Del_ said:
What's all the fuss about? Very smart people here told me recently that the Ukraine had more tanks than they started with because they captured so many, and the Russians are surely out of tanks and missiles and everything else by now.
Click to expand...
And since then we've seen a mobilisation and lots more Russian tanks going into Ukraine, ergo Ukraine needs more tanks too. This is inevitable when a war lasts longer than 3 days.
 
Hobbes said:
I'm seeing media reports on the tank situation that say the US doesn't want to send Abrams because of their high fuel consumption and maintenance requirements. Found those statements a bit odd (they're basically saying their tank isn't very usable in real-world situations). The armor issue makes more sense.
Click to expand...
There's been questions about how heavier tanks will manage in the mud, which there is a lot of.
 
Forest Green said:
There's been questions about how heavier tanks will manage in the mud, which there is a lot of.
Click to expand...
The same way they have for decades...the ground pressure of most tanks, even ones such as Abrams is typically lot less than other vehicles. See here for some examples:

www.mathscinotes.com

Tank Track Ground Pressure Examples

I have been reading some military history on tank operations during the WW2 and the subject of the ground pressure exerted by the tank’s tracks has figured prominently in the discussions on t…
www.mathscinotes.com
 
Forest Green said:
_Del_ said:
What's all the fuss about? Very smart people here told me recently that the Ukraine had more tanks than they started with because they captured so many, and the Russians are surely out of tanks and missiles and everything else by now.
Click to expand...
And since then we've seen a mobilisation and lots more Russian tanks going into Ukraine, ergo Ukraine needs more tanks too. This is inevitable when a war lasts longer than 3 days.
Click to expand...
Weren't the Russians out of tanks like two weeks ago?

Forest Green said:
Russia has even been using the T-90Ss intended for India in Ukraine, such is the shortage.
Click to expand...
 
GTX said:
Forest Green said:
There's been questions about how heavier tanks will manage in the mud, which there is a lot of.
Click to expand...
The same way they have for decades...the ground pressure of most tanks, even ones such as Abrams is typically lot less than other vehicles. See here for some examples:

www.mathscinotes.com

Tank Track Ground Pressure Examples

I have been reading some military history on tank operations during the WW2 and the subject of the ground pressure exerted by the tank’s tracks has figured prominently in the discussions on t…
www.mathscinotes.com
Click to expand...
Very surprised how low the Leopard 2 is.
 
CJGibson said:
I have to ask. Why did Jordan have 400 Challenger 1s? And what have they been replaced with?

www.express.co.uk

UK warned it is sending 'wrong tanks' to Ukraine

Robert Clark, director of defence and security at Civitas and a former British Army soldier, says Challenger 1 tanks should be sent to Ukraine, not the Challenger 2.
www.express.co.uk www.express.co.uk

Chris
Click to expand...
They were sold to them in the 90's, some of them were given local upgrade packages to the armour and sighting systems, with one even being given the Falcon unmanned turret. As far as I know, they are being replaced by Leclercs which were donated by the UAE
 
_Del_ said:
Weren't the Russians out of tanks like two weeks ago?
Click to expand...
They are unable to fill the backlog of damaged/destroyed vehicles with new ones, which is why they keep bringing ones out of storage or just take what they can
 
This war will be worth the price of admission if it ends up with weaponized John Deere tractors, equipped with miniguns, drone launchers, NLAWs and Javelins, taking out a bunch of damn near century-old doubtless Mad Maxified T-34's.

af7b5a8c-4e9a-4dbc-9423-9a4fb1de738c_text.gif
 
how feasible would it be for South Korea to send tanks?
they have some T-80s received from Russia
maybe the older K1 models?
 
helmutkohl said:
how feasible would it be for South Korea to send tanks?
they have some T-80s received from Russia
maybe the older K1 models?
Click to expand...
Logistics would be insane, moreso than the current crop, K2s would be easier since the Poles are planning to build them.
 
Moose said:
helmutkohl said:
how feasible would it be for South Korea to send tanks?
they have some T-80s received from Russia
maybe the older K1 models?
Click to expand...
Logistics would be insane, moreso than the current crop, K2s would be easier since the Poles are planning to build them.
Click to expand...
i would imagine the T-80s at least, should be easier on logistics since Ukraine used to produce them
I think the South Koreans have about 30?
I dont know if they are still used, but IRC, in the 2000s they were intended as some kind of aggressor training role
 
helmutkohl said:
Moose said:
helmutkohl said:
how feasible would it be for South Korea to send tanks?
they have some T-80s received from Russia
maybe the older K1 models?
Click to expand...
Logistics would be insane, moreso than the current crop, K2s would be easier since the Poles are planning to build them.
Click to expand...
i would imagine the T-80s at least, should be easier on logistics since Ukraine used to produce them
I think the South Koreans have about 30?
I dont know if they are still used, but IRC, in the 2000s they were intended as some kind of aggressor training role
Click to expand...
As far as I know, the ROK has 33 T-80Us and 2 T-80UKs (not the monkey models but ex-Soviet army stock instead). Similarly, Cyprus has 54 T-80Us and 28 T-80UKs. Both also have BMP-3s (ROK: 33, Cyprus: 43). The ROK has been reluctant to send its T-80s in fear of Russia providing modern weapons to the DPRK in retaliation, but with the DPRK apparently selling artillery ammunition and other war materiel to Russia and likely getting something in exchange, this point might become moot. Cyprus has recently anounced its openness to deliver its Russian-made AFVs to Ukraine, but it demands a comparable number of Western equipment as a compensation due to a threat of a Turkish attack. So, it is possible, that the ZSU might soon get 87 T-80Us, 30 T-80UKs and 76 BMP-3s from "an unknown source".
 
Back in April last year, the Ukrainians did enquire about the South Korean T-80s - example seen below:

30167795_1827246607334076_9043181173641815035_o.jpg


english.khan.co.kr

Ukraine Asked South Korea for the Russian T-80 Tank Surprising the South Korean Military

The T-80U tank used as part of the opposition unit at the Korea Combat Training Center (KCTC). Kookbang Ilbo On April 14, it was confirmed that Uk···
english.khan.co.kr english.khan.co.kr

To date they have only supplied clothing and some MANPADs.

Even some of their 1500 odd K1E1/K1A2 would be welcomed I am sure though I somehow doubt it will occur.
 
Moose said:
helmutkohl said:
how feasible would it be for South Korea to send tanks?
they have some T-80s received from Russia
maybe the older K1 models?
Click to expand...
Logistics would be insane, moreso than the current crop, K2s would be easier since the Poles are planning to build them.
Click to expand...
Somewhat meaningless given the Polish plans won't see anything real for years.

As for the logistics burden, yes there is one, but no more so than everything else that is causing a burden to Ukraine given the hotch-potch they have now. That said, they are in this for the here and now not the multi-year scenario. Once Ukraine wins the war then they will decide what to keep and what to dispose of (or put on mounts).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cjc
TsrJoe said:

Homepage

moderndiplomacy.eu moderndiplomacy.eu
Click to expand...
Please do not dig up old articles without facts in an attempt to derail discussion. All the reports I have seen alleging such have been proven later to be false. For example:

www.bbc.com

Undercover with Russia’s fake arms dealers

Russian media claims Ukraine is selling arms on the dark web, but the evidence suggests the ads are fake.
www.bbc.com

If anything this is deliberate Russian misinformation - please do not be a unwitting aid in spreading such.
 
Why does all these articles about the Abrams say they have to run on JP-8 jet fuel.
I thought they were multi-fuel. It also appears that the Russians aren't happy with the
sub caliber sabot rounds for the Leopard. They didn't mention the Abrams that
uses that same round.
 
GTX said:
If anything this is deliberate Russian misinformation - please do not be a unwitting aid in spreading such.
Click to expand...
As opposed to posting about the 2019 acquisition of historical vehicles from Laos as current events and evidence of a tank shortage wholly condoned by moderation.
 
muttly said:
Why does all these articles about the Abrams say they have to run on JP-8 jet fuel.
I thought they were multi-fuel. It also appears that the Russians aren't happy with the
sub caliber sabot rounds for the Leopard. They didn't mention the Abrams that
uses that same round.
Click to expand...
No idea. The whole point of using turbines is that they can run on just about anything. I suspect that most hear turbine and think it's a jet engine out of an aircraft or something.

The Russians are not happy about the potential use of depleted uranium rounds. Frankly, nobody should, especially the Ukrainians. It's horribly toxic stuff and using it as a high velocity penetrator means a cloud of depleted uranium inevitability gets distributed on and around the target after each shot.

Honestly think it should be prohibited as is the use of expanding bullets.
 
Last edited:
jeffb said:
muttly said:
Why does all these articles about the Abrams say they have to run on JP-8 jet fuel.
I thought they were multi-fuel. It also appears that the Russians aren't happy with the
sub caliber sabot rounds for the Leopard. They didn't mention the Abrams that
uses that same round.
Click to expand...
No idea. The whole point of using turbines is that they can run on just about anything. I suspect that most hear turbine and think it's a jet engine out of an aircraft or something.

The Russians are not happy about the potential use of depleted uranium rounds. Frankly, nobody should, especially the Ukrainians. It's horribly toxic stuff and using it as a high velocity penetrator means a cloud of depleted uranium inevitability gets distributed on and around the target after each shot.

Honestly think it should be prohibited as is the use of expanding bullets.
Click to expand...
As far as I know, the other alternative material for sabot rounds, tungsten carbide, is nearly as nasty as DU if not even nastier. It is also a highly toxic heavy metal which creates a very carsinogenic cloud of particles on and around a target after a hit. Dense materials tend to be toxic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cjc
jeffb said:
muttly said:
Why does all these articles about the Abrams say they have to run on JP-8 jet fuel.
I thought they were multi-fuel. It also appears that the Russians aren't happy with the
sub caliber sabot rounds for the Leopard. They didn't mention the Abrams that
uses that same round.
Click to expand...
No idea. The whole point of using turbines is that they can run on just about anything. I suspect that most hear turbine and think it's a jet engine out of an aircraft or something.

The Russians are not happy about the potential use of depleted uranium rounds. Frankly, nobody should, especially the Ukrainians. It's horribly toxic stuff and using it as a high velocity penetrator means a cloud of depleted uranium inevitability gets distributed on and around the target after each shot.

Honestly think it should be prohibited as is the use of expanding bullets.
Click to expand...
With respect the Russian government and military are not happy about the supply of modern western tanks to the Ukraine because it weakens their military position.

In that context the Russian government and military don’t remotely care about the long term effects of depleted uranium rounds used by these tanks or the potential impact on Ukrainians (they are currently quite busy bombarding Ukrainian civilians In contravention of international law).
In this context such claims of concern are a pure propaganda talking-point and repeating it without putting it into it’s actual context is naïveté/ stupidity at best.
 
_Del_ said:
GTX said:
If anything this is deliberate Russian misinformation - please do not be a unwitting aid in spreading such.
Click to expand...
As opposed to posting about the 2019 acquisition of historical vehicles from Laos as current events and evidence of a tank shortage wholly condoned by moderation.
Click to expand...
Addressed - you could have used the Report function though!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cjc
GTX said:
Let's not post silly ones such as this - these were purchased to be used during the WW2 Victory Parades in various cities of Russia, for updating museum exhibits, as well as for making historical films.
Click to expand...
TBH though, against almost any kind of modern anti-tank weapon, does T-34 vs T-64 make any difference.
 
Forest Green said:
GTX said:
Let's not post silly ones such as this - these were purchased to be used during the WW2 Victory Parades in various cities of Russia, for updating museum exhibits, as well as for making historical films.
Click to expand...
TBH though, against almost any kind of modern anti-tank weapon, does T-34 vs T-64 make any difference.
Click to expand...
T-64 at least has composite armor, it might be marginally more survivable than a T-34-T-62. It can also go faster in reverse.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom