Why is the challenger 2 stuck in a rear echelon unit like the 82 BDE? It’s the best protected tank in Ukraine and it’s supposed to just protect a bunch APCs and towed artillery?
Why is the challenger 2 stuck in a rear echelon unit like the 82 BDE?
Why is the challenger 2 stuck in a rear echelon unit like the 82 BDE? It’s the best protected tank in Ukraine and it’s supposed to just protect a bunch APCs and towed artillery?
How exactly do you come to the conclusion that 82 BDE is a rear echelon unit?
The small number of tanks, large number of APCs, and only towed artillery. The strykers job is to move troops from the rear to close to the front and then fall back again.
Strikers job is what Ukraine chooses to do with it. Remember TEMPO TEMPO Humvee assaults?
Anything can be a battle steed if you want it enough!
>Verification not required.
Towed artillery (probably by the Marders) means it's meant to be a penetration force with organic closer-in and more expendable artillery. Don't need to shoot and scoot when you have the enemy on the run / in chaos. My bet is 82nd is the tip of the main axis of advance.
> My bet is 82nd is the tip of the main axis of advance.
kek the delusion
>14 tanks
>tip
Yes. As we learned last year 15 tanks are unstoppable according to Russia
And a buttload of Bradley's that are probably superior for penetrating trench lines. Likely better optics on the Bradley's and they can rain down 25mm HE into trenches and other dug in positions.
Re: 105mm artillery, another reason to think the 82nd is the breakthrough unit, since it doesn't need the range and couldn't support the logistics of 155mm.
The bradleys aren’t attatched to the 82nd
>Towed artillery (probably by the Marders)
The list of vehicles won't be exhaustive, there will be prime movers with the artillery just as there will be support vehicles for the tanks that aren't listed. The west has been training the logistics and engineering guys in addition to the combat troops.
Is this honestly what people believe? There’s no chance the 82nd is the tip of an armored assault.
This. Rapid counter assaults as we've seen from Ukraine in the past translate perfectly onto the equipment we see in the 82nd.
Not at all but nice attempt at narrative shaping
>he says having been btfo'd all thread with nothing to support his argument
Cope.
Kherson was almost entirely light Ukranian vehicles moving rapidly into Russian rear areas faster than they could put up defences. Once defensive lines are breached it's all about fast probing attacks.
towed artillery wont be in the tip - looks more like mop-up force to take strong points bypassed by spearhead.
>Towed arty won't be in the tip
Can you read moron?
M117s will likely be towed by HMMWVs, anon. Why would you have IFVs tow arti?
>rear echelon
>90 Strykers
>40 Marders
>rear echelon
Warriortard having a MELTDOWN again.
APCs are for rear echelon units
>40 marders
Even more APCs but an unstabilized 20mm cannon on top.
Marders aren’t the best IFVs in country but they’re still IFVs
>APCs are for rear echelon units
Nah. In this war rear echelon is territorial guard units and they drive SUVs and trucks nit APCs. APCs are essentially ersatz IFVs.
They haven’t had all of these nato toys before. Now there are propper IFVs and APCs in country I expect they’ll fall in line. I doubt there going to use strykers in an IFV role when they have bradleys, marders, and maybe cv-90s
You seem to have a limited understanding of what NATO and Soviet doctrine means for APC's and IFV's in ground warfare.
The unit that breaks a defensive line will be full of tanks, engineering equipment and IFV's, it will be slow. That same unit is not then the one that performs the breakout - that's an additional unit that is kept fresh and then released on breakthrough into the enemy rear to grab and hold objectives. This unit is faster and more self sufficient.
Look at the soviet shock, tank and guards armies or some western ORBAT's for 1991/2003.
I understand your line of reasoning but the breakthrough unit in this case is way too lightly armed. Strykers have a .50 and marders only have a 20mm.
Too lightly armed for what? They are advancing past the broken enemy lines of defense into lightly, or undefended area, they do it fast enough and they take an objective before the enemy can re-position.
It's essentially for probing to see how far you can get before the heavy resistance starts, that's why in 2003 you found light infantry like US marines in Humvee's at the vanguard of most axis of advance.
On the soviet side of things in a shock army (which the Ukrainians would be very familiar with) the main fighting force would have one tank regiment, two BMP regiments and one BTR regiment in the main fighting force. the mix of wheels and tracks to to cover the same sort of role - breakthrough and the breakout. (i've left out all the attached forces like AA and recon)
>Now there are propper IFVs and APCs in country I expect they’ll fall in line.
They haven't enough IFVs at all so APCs would take role of the ersatz IFV.
If you weren’t a tourist you would know that armored personnel carriers are meant to take troops from the rear up to the frontlines. Once the troops reach the frontlines the APCs return to the rear to wait on more troops to shuttle
>if you weren't a tourist
You're the tourist here. If you knew anything about this war you would know that Ukraine used fricking HUMVEES as front line assault vehicles. We have fricking video footage of that. You're so fricking moronic that people didn't even take the time to call you moronic but I sure as frick will.
>Ukraine used hmmvs before anyone donated armor
>this means they will continue to use hmmvs to assault positions because I’m upset that the challenger is stuck with a bunch of APCs and towed artillery
If Challenger 2 is rear echelon what do you call the Abrams that aren't even in Ukraine? super duper rear echelon?
it's an armatard thread idiot nothing is supposed to make sense
What about the thread doesn’t make sense to you?
>it's an warriortard thread
ftfy
but it's not entirely clear if warriortard is just armatard all over again
I wouldn’t call them anything as they’re not in Ukraine
This doesn’t work anymore
>It’s the best protected tank in Ukraine
No, no it is not. The Bongs can certainly be thanked for getting the ball rolling on western MBTs, but the Challenger II is obsolete from its' lack of upgrades over the years while never being very good to begin with.
>Posting frog runes like anyone will care to decipher them
Cmon anon, this is an American board on an American website
NTA but here, I did what I could. I probably made many mistakes, sorry I'm French. Pls don't be mad.
Don't be mad at me anon, i dind't write this shit. There might be some context in the rest of the document.
>Good ballistics calculator (IE fire control system)
>Defective fire control system
Well, which is it?
Probably just that tank they tested had a defective one but was otherwise good.
For the problem, they specifically mention the word "palonnier". I didn't really understand what this was about. I think it might be something about the interface of the fire control for the commander/gunner.
when they did the test they had a merkava there with a female driver and i think a Russian tank. A friend from school had his uncle in the committee and he was all excited about what his uncle told us.
Do you have the Merkava and perhaps russian tank results?
He had said that the Israeli tank was optimized for the desert, or something climate related, so they did not go with it.
A British tank from the late 1990's is significantly more advanced than anything the Russians have on the frontlines.
I don't read Loser, can you translate that to English?
You could argue it's the worst of the modern western tanks, but it is not obsolete.
The frick is a GAP?
Might be "Groupe auxiliaire de puissance" (=Auxiliary Power Unit).
Then it's a load of bollocks because Challenger 2 has always had an APU.
Only difference is in the engine bay, not an external one like Abrams and Leclerc. It's the unit marked Generating Engine in pic related
How is a Leopard 2A5 more protected than a M1A2 abrams?
Doesn't surprise me tbh. The M1A2 was most likely configured with the FMS armor array, same as the A2 variants that Taiwan, Saudi Arabia and others have got. They usually can get parity on electronics and systems but always get gimped armor in export Abrams. There's no info online about what exactly that armor package is, my personal theory is that it likely do not contain DU and probably isn't even the same NERA array as what an American A2 would use. IIRC M1A2 and M1A1HC would both be using HAP-2, FMS may only be using slightly updated BRL arrays and maybe HAP-1 without DU (HAP-1 could very well just be BRL with DU, it's classified so I couldn't say if the key difference is just DU or if the arrays were changed and DU reinforced) if so it would put protection levels somewhere higher than the original M1 to M1IP and below the M1A1HA.
I tried looking at pictures online from the trials to see if I could ID the turret serial number to tell you for sure if it's FMS armor, couldn't find any pics clear enough. If you can find them it will be on the bottom left side of the turret cheeks if you're facing the tank frontally. The serial number should be something like XXXXE for export I think.
>Frog document
>Leclerc is le best, the Bong tank is the worst.
>No, we will not send it, huh huh huh.
The French and the British are the most passive aggressive frenemies in the history of history. Fun fact, no two countries have had more wars with each other or spent more years at war with each other.
>The French and the British are the most passive aggressive frenemies
I know it is >redditball, but it has effort in it.
The large ratio of wheeled vehicles with towed artillery implies that this is a unit for exploiting a breakthrough and then holding ground. Towed guns are also far better at defending an area at close range due to their ability to be placed in built up areas, you get a lot more elevation from a towed gun like that as opposed to an SPG.
Strykers don’t exploit breakthroughs you fricking moron
Large wheeled forces absolutely do, you create a gap in the opponents line and advance into their rear and set up a defense before the enemy can organise a counter attack. From the leaks this is the most infantry heavy force being created, the strykers are like 700 dismounts alone, plus the 40 Marders we have something like 1000 men with 24 105mm guns in close support and a lightened armour element (14 CR2) this will massively reduce the logistics tail and is pretty much ideal for grabbing an objective in the enemy rear like a city and holding it against counter attack.
The most infantry heavy force is the one with exclusively max pros and other personnel carriers.
>exclusively max pros and other personnel carriers.
1. no such unit exists in the documents
2.90 4 seater MRAP's carry less troops than 90 9 seater Stryker + 40 7 seat Marder.
3. that's not how you use the word exclusively
I mean humvees and a balls to the wall attitude already did that. I don’t see why strykers couldn’t.
They are going against the best troops, they are going against drunken conscripts and prisoners. Yes Ukraine isn’t the best trained troops either but they have a reason to fight. gayner troops really don’t
>It’s the best protected tank in Ukraine
I think the leak in the WT forums kind of proved that wrong.
Frick off Warriortard
Every brigade has towed artillery. Those that have SPGs have barely any. 82 is a front line unit and this is shown by the fact that it has the most NATO artillery pieces of all the brigades. Artillery is to be used offensively. These boys will be dropping hundreds of BONUS and Excalibur shells in support of the offensive.
>82 is a front line unit and this is shown by the fact that it has the most NATO artillery pieces of all the brigades
it’s frontline unit because it has the most towed artillery from NATO
Delicious cope
>These boys will be dropping hundreds of BONUS and Excalibur shells in support of the offensive.
Not OP but no they won't, they are 105mm guns, higher trajectories at close range, higher rates of fire, smaller logistics trail, shorter range and obviously a bit less explosive mass.
Crucially, lighter and easily towed into advanced breakthrough positions with a very light logistics chain, not as effective for direct hits but provides consistent suppression support for maneuver armour units.
155 Excalibur's can stay behind your own lines and still have the range for called in support fires as one would call in air (which presently isn't available to ukr)
>breakthrough units towing artillery into gaps
You really want this to be true huh
Why do you think light infantry forces have towed guns and not SPG's? you might have to think real hard.
In 2003 the 1st marine expeditionary force was primarily made up from 1st marine infantry division. (this included 1st recon battalion, which you may know from generation kill). That division took with it 4 regiments of towed 155mm guns a 1 regiment of MLRS. It was responsible for advancing ahead of the tanks and IFV's to probe for the enemy and engage heavier forces than it. They had no Bradleys and primarily advanced in soft trucks and humvees with some LAV's and APC's with a small amount of tank support.
That’s a very small scale example from unit that doesn’t even have IFVs in inventory. Pretty hilarious
>That’s a very small scale example
That's one of the three main advances into Iraq at the start of the war and the one that reached Bagdad first. The others were an armoured thrust into the desert in the west and a British hybrid force that attacked and sized Basra in the east.
You are not well enough read to debate with me.
Yea like I said a small scale force that only encountered lightly armed enemies.
>inb4 a couple of dudes with javelins killed some t-55s
The 2003 invasion of iraq is not very similar to the war in Ukraine
>guys the marines used humvees in iraq so APCs will lead the advance in Ukraine!
you don’t even know what kind of rounds the guns you’re talking about can fire.
Look at the pictures of them in Ukraine, they were sent without all the add on armor for the hull making them worthless for offensives.
The obvious spearhead unit is the one with 32 leopard 2s
Probably because there are so few of them, they have no capacity to sustain losses, so will be kept for propaganda purposes, expect some token combat footage from low intensity areas. The Challenger is more than up to cracking open any Slavshit tank in theatre, but there's only 14 of them, which amounts to nothing in the grand scheme of things. And if they were used in heavy combat, and inevitably eventually wiped out, they would have served more as a morale boost for Russian forces than anything else. Realistically Germany needs to make with the Leos.
Because there are so few with no prospect of many more is exactly why the Challys will be considered expendable and will lead the advance. At the end of the war Ukraine wants to have hundreds of Leopard 2s, the Challengers are to be used up to get there. The Brits are bloodthirsty buggers and will be happy for that to happen.
how is 130 APCs/ IFVs + tanks rear echelon lol
the rear echelon ones have majority MRAPs
Because it’s 90 APCs, 40 lightly armed IFVs, 14 tanks, and towed arty. They can transport a ton of infantry to the front and that’s exactly what they will do.
Are marders really that much more lightly armed compared to other IFVs in theater.
Their armament is ok. It could never hurt to have an extra 20mm chaingun chewing up infantry, concrete, or suppressing trenches. That said the Bradley is a whole tier above it. The 25mm cannon can kill any vehicle short of a MBT and its dual TOWs can kill any MBT. Just the optics suits on the vehicles are a huge capability.
ah, you've outed yourself warriortard
He's not wrong, the Bradley is a more capable fighting vehicle.
>Making true statements is now warriortard posting.
I haven’t seen a single mention of the warrior until your post
What he said is 100% true. He listed off facts between 2 vehicles
No one using using western APC's and IFV's for something that an unarmoured truck will do. These are combat formations for a reason.
An unarmored truck won’t stand up to artillery splinters while ferrying troops from the rear to the front
Even the longest ranged Russian artillery can't threaten like 98% of the trip from the rear to the front.
Sure it can threaten beyond the front lines. Who wants to ride in an unarmored truck when artillery is a threat
You live in a bizarre world where Ukraine has such a surplus of armoured vehicles that they are using them to ride around when not under threat.
>talking about artillery splinters near the front
>not a threat to unarmored vehicles
Troops aren't moved to the "front" and given to their combat units in range of enemy artillery idiot. I swear you're some kind of brainded wanabe of a ww1 general.
Troops are taken from the rear areas where they are safe to train/be housed be soft vehicles, they are then grouped with their units in muster areas out of range of fun artillery from which those units then move forward to the front and engage in combat.
literally fricking no one on earth is using combat brigades as logistical units to ferry troops forward.
Your entire thread has been about pushing this dumb narrative that a mixed force of IFV's APC's and fricking tanks and towed guns are actually intended to be some kind of logistics service. You're painting yourself as a moron for everyone to see.
No he’s right APCs are used to transport troops from the rear to the front, they’re not meant to linger at the front
Only in your limited understanding of combined arms warfare where "the front" is two opposing sets of defences. Have fun working out why IFV and APC's are in mixed unit formations with that double digit IQ.
Easy, the IFVs fight with the tanks and APCs are used to shuttle infantry to the front. The world isn’t as linear as you think. Just because APCs and IFVs are in the same unit does not mean they get on line and do the same things. Your neverserved is really starting to show
>Your neverserved is really starting to show
The irony is off the charts. You literally can't even comprehend how APC's are used in combined arms warfare on the fontlines in advance of IFV's or operating alongside them.
You seem to think every forward movement from your last position has to be a full strength armoured infantry assault.
>I’m right
>I just can’t show how I’m right
again you’re neverserved is apparent
I literally already told you, multiple times. in
You didn’t say anything except alluding to the fact that people send APCs out in front of their IFVs and tanks (they don’t)
>You didn’t say anything except alluding to the fact that people send APCs out in front of their IFVs and tanks (they don’t)
History proves you wrong. You're no longer worth my time, you're too stubborn to educate and too stupid to comprehend that not every forward movement is an armoured assault. to the next terrain feature.
>History proves you wrong
>refuses to elaborate
I’m sorry you’re taking this so hard but it’s really not a big deal. When m1113s start leading armored assaults I’ll apologize
to elaborate
so you can't read?
>It's essentially for probing to see how far you can get before the heavy resistance starts, that's why in 2003 you found light infantry like US marines in Humvee's at the vanguard of most axis of advance.
>On the soviet side of things in a shock army (which the Ukrainians would be very familiar with) the main fighting force would have one tank regiment, two BMP regiments and one BTR regiment in the main fighting force. the mix of wheels and tracks to to cover the same sort of role - breakthrough and the breakout.
he's baiting you, moron
He's not, he's genuinely stupid.
None of this proves your point.
>in 2003 humvees were used to find heavy resistance in a COIN environment
>just listing off soviet units
None of that is relevant to the upcoming counteroffensive in which tanks and IFVs will form and armored assault. Because you say so the role of APC will change from battle taxi to recon by fire element.
>the 2003 invasion was a COIN environment
Why are you so eager to keep outing yourself as an idiot? While there was asymmetrical combat it was in no way a COIN war until much much later.
>Because you say so the role of APC will change from battle taxi to recon by fire element.
Now post the others.
>posts tow variant
>posts MGS
Didn’t Ukraine only receive basic b***h APCs
They received several variants including the recon M1127 which is arguably the best recon vehicle the US has.
Can you source that? I’ve been trying to find which variants they received for months
There is no official statement breaking it down, only what we've seen coming off planes.
>https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2023/03/07/ukraines-new-stryker-recon-vehicles-can-see-six-miles-away-and-call-in-mortars-and-missiles/?sh=5e65e8b3534e
Would be cool if there were some Stryker MGS in there too although i think that's unlikely. There are 105mm guns in the unit already although i wouldn't imagine the rounds are compatible.
>still thinking IFVs and APCs have a clear doctrinal distinction
>in 2023
>with 80 years of counterexamples in every war that featured APCs/IFVs of any kind
This fricking midwit meme needs to die
> Troops aren't moved to the "front" and given to their combat units in range of enemy artillery idiot
Bait or stupidity?
>he doesn’t know about combat teleportation platoon
>blocks your path
I like how wikipedia is like “the RPG29 is so good it can even make a hole in and lightly injure the crew of a western tank, wow!” That’s the standard for russian shit that just falls apart instantly
Where the frick are these things???
I remember them causing a brief inconvenience for coalition forces in like 2008 but have been totally absent from wars since, save for something like Syria but I don’t really pay attention to dune coon wars.
>it's the rear echelon meme again
Warriortard get a hobby.
Really weird that you replied to the OP randomly and the poster count on the bottom of the page didn’t rise.
>mentions warriortard
Ahh it’s the obsessed moron
>the poster count on the bottom of the page didn’t rise
Except it did you blind c**t.
>obsessed moron
Uh huh, nothing to do with you shitting the board up incessantly for months (at least).
NATO at war
OP should kill himself already. Simple as.
Knowing british military equipment, they have probably all broken down by now.
Are people still pretending those "leaks" were anything other than an autists larp and that he made up 90% of it to impress children?
Like why the frick would the Ukrainian TOE be distributed to an air national guard unit?
Who do you think puts these docs together?
Those documents? I think he put them together to bolster his larping as a Secret Agent Man to the other children. Some of it's made up, some of it's legit and and some of it is what he deduced from OSINT. He used templates and other stuff he found to make it look legit.
>t. Stupid civilian
Guard intel has access to this information
>82nd Air Assault brigade
>rear echelon unit
the air mobile/ air assault brigades are elite frontline units. They are relatively light on metal because they are an air assault unit, not a mechanised one, but because of that they get the best armour to ensure that they succeed. All the older air assault units were some of the few Ukranian units equipped with T-80's instead of T-64's, and the new unit has now been supplied with some of their toughest new tanks. However the next Ukranian offensive goes, you can be sure these guys will be at the front.
Also, Air assault units only have a single platoon of tanks in their TOE, and the Brits only sent a single platoon, so using them like this makes sense.
the air mobile/ air assault brigades are elite frontline units
This is just something you have to tell yourself.
It’s pretty embarrassing how hard you need this to be the case. Challengers are in a rear unit because the Brits didn’t send enough.
>Challengers are in a rear unit because the Brits didn’t send enough.
This makes no sense if you have even the slightest knowledgeability on logistics.
Another episode of anon pretends he’s smarter than everyone but cant elaborate.
>small quantity
>unlikely to get more
>uses different ammo
>vehicles like Abrams and Leopards will be received in higher quantities
>and as such will make up the bulk of western MBTs in Ukraine post war
They're inherently more expendable because they're inherently less desirable long term options. They're scarce, logistically challenging and offer the same capabilities as other MBTs. It's senseless making a special effort to conserve them.
(you)'d for truth.
Dont confuse them with facts, anon.
Its basically a clone of 25th Airborne, trading BMDs and BTR-Ds for Marder, BTR for Stryker, T80BV for CR2 and D30 for M119. Its a major upgrade over the 25th in terms of equipment.
Warriortard seething for the 26th consecutive day this month.
>47bde Weak and Slow
>82bde Hard and Fast
Why are you obsessed with some random dude
Why would warriortard be mad at the 82? Most of the 82nd combat power comes from American vehicles
Warriortard is German
Is this the newest meme? The 47th is more heavily armed.
It’s just one guy that’s really into the challenger.
>T-55's
LMAO
MAO
AO
O
Not the t-55s the bradleys. 100 bradleys is a lot more firepower than 14 challengers and 40 marders. I’m not trying to rain on your parade but you just sound stupid when you post stuff like
. If that’s not a seethe post idk what is
>everyone who thinks I'm dumb must be one person
You are the only constant.
>turns wifi on and off
You know what a T-55 and a Bradley have in common? Both can be popped by an RPG-7.
Sadly Satan is correct
An rpg will pop marders and strikers too
Proof? I've only seen the hundred or so popped Bradley's
>90 Strykers = 810 dismounts
>40 Marders = 240 dismounts
Vs
>99 Bradley = 594 dismounts
47bde is lacking firepower, it's a slow moving under armored brigade with legacy equipment. Basically the Boomer Brigade.
>200 TOWs at the ready
>100 chain guns
Vs
>14 120s
>40 unstabilized 20s
Yea like I said the 47th has a lot more mobile firepower
>like I said more "mobile power"
Kek why are you lying when your original post just said firepower and never mentioned mobility.
It's a slow unprotected legacy element with less infantry support. Also you can't fire the legacy TOW on the move, which you didn't know kek.
When you realize the APC unit has more infantry
Check out the moron that's going to clear trenches with a slow underarmored box kek
Bradleys would suppress a trench just fine. Better than marders for sure
It may not be assaulting but I guarantee we will get challenger kino sniping vehicles.
Is it really the best protected tank in country? It’s really hard to find divinities answers on the subject
I like how you guys think of the "front" in the terms of WW1 trench lines. Understandable given that’s what this "war" has devolved into. But, in the modern context between nations with mechanized, combined arms, maneuver etc capabilities, the front is as amorphous, indistinct zone of fighting. There aren’t so many trench lines and more staging areas for specific operations. These armed APC are more than battlefield taxis, they may be tasked to provide fire support; not only for patrols but also for offensive operations — depending on the parameters of the operation. Western nations don’t acquire these systems because sone general thinks having a gun on an APC is cool, everything is based on doctrinal requirements defined over long periods of study and experiences.
There are clear fronts in this war. Trench lines and all. I’m sorry you had to find out like this