AnimalNoodles
Well-known member
does it matter? a refurbed tank is better than the no tanks at all being made by NATO isnt it?
peter Zeihan 2020
- Thread starter Cherico
- Start date
does it matter? a refurbed tank is better than the no tanks at all being made by NATO isnt it?
Vyor
My influence grows!
Not if they kill their occupants like their old WW2 tanks did.
strunkenwhite
Well-known member
Refurbished tanks depend on a finite stockpile. Also, no tanks at all, really?
I litterally just printed out thing that lists relatively current Nato Tank strength.
America has more then 4,000
Turkey has over a 2,000
and Greece over a 1,000
and then you get into the range of hundreds until you get sweeden with around 120, and this is the current stuff you add in refurbished moth ball stuff and then start really prepping and those numbers go up.
Once again while Russia is a strong regional power, their quite degraded from where they used to be and corruption and imcompentence has eaten up a lot of their strength even before the Ukraine war. With said war? Their losing a lot of men and a lot of material in what really should have been a cake walk for them.
If Ukraine of all places is giving them trouble then a united nato would basically just obliterate them in a conventional war.
strunkenwhite
Well-known member
He means production so listing stockpiles does no good; however, he said that in all of NATO, not only are there no new tanks being built but there are also no old tanks being refurbished, which is pretty laughable.
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
The Abrams alone, more than 10,000 were made, and only a handful have ever been lost in combat.
Only a fraction of these have been upgraded to modern standards, but unlike Russia, the US military has pretty stringent storage standard for equipment put into mothballs, and the base chassis is just better than anything the Russians have made in the first place.
The Lima plant, from what I understand, doesn't produce new hulls, instead being fully dedicated to refurbishing work, and there's good reason for that. Modern improvements in tank design and effectiveness are almost all about sensors, active defense systems, and modernizing weapons, not new hull plans with completely different armor schemes or drive trains.
Why keep producing fresh hulls, when you can much more cost-effectively upgrade old ones you have in storage?
Of course, unlike Russia, there's reasonable assurance at those hulls are actually there in the first place, that they haven't been looted to line officers pockets, that crappy storage protocols haven't caused them to corrode away into nothingness, etc. The US and NATO militaries aren't perfect, there's going to be some issues, but as the shit-show in Ukraine has demonstrated, the Russian military is abysmal at things taken for granted in most western militaries.
Of further significance if you want to compare the capabilities of nations, both in 'what can you field right now?' and 'what can you spin up for getting more hulls ready for battle in a reasonable time-frame?' is that a lot of Russia's reserves are crappy mid and early Cold War relics.
They've long since been seen pulling T-62's/63s out, and we've even seen some use of 50's-era equipment. T-72s are fossils by modern standards, T-80's aren't much better, and T-90's are the only thing the Russians field that may reasonably be thought of as competing with NATO 80's and 90's era tanks. The Russians are severely hampered by the fact that their design philosophy has always been to use a larger number of cheaper, less-capable tanks, to try to overwhelm their adversaries with quantity instead of quality.
NATO's reserves, on the other hand, are basically all Abrams, Challenger/2's, and Leopard/ 2's. If we need to start rolling out refurbished war machines ASAP, we're going to be fielding entirely 80's-era and more recent hardware, which upgrade packages to bring them to fully modern standards exist for, and aren't dependent on importing key advanced electronic systems from the enemy in order to fully equip.
Given Russian loss ratios for military vehicles in Ukraine seem to range between 6:1 and 11:1, I'm not particularly worried about the Russian military-industrial complex overwhelming what NATO is currently fielding, much less a mobilized and refurbished reserve stockpile.
Only a fraction of these have been upgraded to modern standards, but unlike Russia, the US military has pretty stringent storage standard for equipment put into mothballs, and the base chassis is just better than anything the Russians have made in the first place.
The Lima plant, from what I understand, doesn't produce new hulls, instead being fully dedicated to refurbishing work, and there's good reason for that. Modern improvements in tank design and effectiveness are almost all about sensors, active defense systems, and modernizing weapons, not new hull plans with completely different armor schemes or drive trains.
Why keep producing fresh hulls, when you can much more cost-effectively upgrade old ones you have in storage?
Of course, unlike Russia, there's reasonable assurance at those hulls are actually there in the first place, that they haven't been looted to line officers pockets, that crappy storage protocols haven't caused them to corrode away into nothingness, etc. The US and NATO militaries aren't perfect, there's going to be some issues, but as the shit-show in Ukraine has demonstrated, the Russian military is abysmal at things taken for granted in most western militaries.
Of further significance if you want to compare the capabilities of nations, both in 'what can you field right now?' and 'what can you spin up for getting more hulls ready for battle in a reasonable time-frame?' is that a lot of Russia's reserves are crappy mid and early Cold War relics.
They've long since been seen pulling T-62's/63s out, and we've even seen some use of 50's-era equipment. T-72s are fossils by modern standards, T-80's aren't much better, and T-90's are the only thing the Russians field that may reasonably be thought of as competing with NATO 80's and 90's era tanks. The Russians are severely hampered by the fact that their design philosophy has always been to use a larger number of cheaper, less-capable tanks, to try to overwhelm their adversaries with quantity instead of quality.
NATO's reserves, on the other hand, are basically all Abrams, Challenger/2's, and Leopard/ 2's. If we need to start rolling out refurbished war machines ASAP, we're going to be fielding entirely 80's-era and more recent hardware, which upgrade packages to bring them to fully modern standards exist for, and aren't dependent on importing key advanced electronic systems from the enemy in order to fully equip.
Given Russian loss ratios for military vehicles in Ukraine seem to range between 6:1 and 11:1, I'm not particularly worried about the Russian military-industrial complex overwhelming what NATO is currently fielding, much less a mobilized and refurbished reserve stockpile.
True.If USA do not gave Central Europe soviets for notching again.They are ruled by demorats,after all.
And Poland now is ruled by german agent,and germans are soviet allies.
Europe is getting screwed on energy, Peter explains:
-Russia used to be biggest natural gas exporter
-Natural gas is harder to ship around, can't be done without infrastructure China and Russia lack
-No connection between the western and eastern Russian natural gas pipelines
-Need the largest pipeline in human history to connect them, would require a decade to build due to physics
-Russians always assume that the other guy will pay for things
-Europeans whittling down the Russian income streams
-Russian natural gas to Europe has gone off the market
-Hard cash is coming from a limited number of sources, less than a 1/4 as large as the European market
-The Italians get natural gas via pipe from North Africa
-Algeria hates France, not a reliable long term producer, need to keep their natural gas
-Libya is the other major source, most stable supply despite being in constant civil war
-Italians have to send people and money into Libya to stabilize things, OR find another source of energy
-Nuclear power is only real option
-Have to start from scratch, but might be better than invading Libya
-Russia used to be biggest natural gas exporter
-Natural gas is harder to ship around, can't be done without infrastructure China and Russia lack
-No connection between the western and eastern Russian natural gas pipelines
-Need the largest pipeline in human history to connect them, would require a decade to build due to physics
-Russians always assume that the other guy will pay for things
-Europeans whittling down the Russian income streams
-Russian natural gas to Europe has gone off the market
-Hard cash is coming from a limited number of sources, less than a 1/4 as large as the European market
-The Italians get natural gas via pipe from North Africa
-Algeria hates France, not a reliable long term producer, need to keep their natural gas
-Libya is the other major source, most stable supply despite being in constant civil war
-Italians have to send people and money into Libya to stabilize things, OR find another source of energy
-Nuclear power is only real option
-Have to start from scratch, but might be better than invading Libya
AnimalNoodles
Well-known member
One of the things france is absolutely right on is nuclearization and we really should have followed their lead on that.
SoliFortissimi
Well-known member
No, just to own Russia. And it's not suicide, considering their economy is no more or less dead than it was since the 80s, but rather a long awaited shock treatment.
Europe must nuclearize. The market has spoken.
PeaceMaker 03
Well-known member
And how many are plain puff dreams on a spread sheet to cover for graft and corruption?
According to the Russian books thousands of tanks had been mothballed ready to be fueled and Ammo’d ready for railhead.
All the money spent for ”maintenance” went into pockets because many of the tanks had been looted for parts and sold off.
The irony is Ukraine made a large minority of the key components Russia needs to spin up their aerospace, missile, and armor lines.
Russia can not even find enough trucks for logistic support. So I can not believe your math on what Russia can produce. If they could the war would be over already.
I mean, you said zero when you meant hundreds to thousands of tanks the Russians would have, I think we can forgive a little bit of hyperbole/imprecision, that he also mean "few tanks" when he says none.
Obviously, the important part of this on tanks is less how many tanks the west currently is producing, but how many they are willing to send. My info is most certainly out of date, but last I heard the number of Abrams sent was something under a 100? If Ukraine is to go on big offenses and absorb the necessary casualties, your at least talking hundreds of tanks, probably at least 1-2 thousand necessary. Probably need something like 10,000+ AFV overall needed, to have properly equipped offensive formations. A single Armor Brigade is at least 300 armored vehicles. So, an armored core of 10 brigades of about 50k would be about 3,000 front line armored vehicles, and you would likely need more to fill out rear line taxi duties and other support. Easily another 7,000 for other forces/casualty replacement.
Russia isn't going to run out of tanks to refurbish (tank recovery from battle damage/captures alone is going to keep those factories busy for some time, let alone stockpile) for several years by most estimates, plus new build, which is still likely at least hundreds possible.
Its not going to be a finite stockpile unless Ukraine pushes to the Urals, which would require much more commitment from the west to pull off. And this is before foreign suppliers they can draw on.
Otherwise, most reports seem to suggest Russia currently is able to bring back a few thousand AFVs per year, the current stockpiles are still going to last for another year or two, and with steadily ramping up production a 1,000+ new builds, especially 2-3 years down the line if stocks are drying up, seems an exceedingly conservative estimate, not a very optimistic one.
Last edited:
strunkenwhite
Well-known member
Fission is a good hedge bet, but it looks like perhaps fusion might be an option going forward.
Why only count Abrams? The total committed as of January seems to have been close to 600 MBTs; I don't know what it is up to now. Certainly more needs to be sent to keep up with Russian reinforcements even at the disproportionate loss rates we've been seeing.
When I speak of finite stockpiles I mean the (quickly diminishing) mountain of Cold War stuff Russia is sitting on; unless the Red Alert parallels extend all the way to time travel shenanigans those stockpiles are indeed finite. Obviously new production can be considered as adding to "stockpiles" which are thus indefinite, but you should know very well what I meant considering you meant the exact same thing when you said, "Russia currently is able to bring back a few thousand AFVs per year, the current stockpiles are still going to last for another year or two."
If you want to get pedantic, I did not in fact say zero (until you brought up that word). What I said was that the Russians would have a hard time adapting to fighting without tanks. If the Russian army has to deal with a sharply contracting supply of tanks, it is likely that many units that could formerly enjoy the use of tanks will be denied them, and will thus be forced to adapt to fighting without tanks. That this would not be the universal experience of every Russian soldier would not change that fact.
Why only count Abrams? The total committed as of January seems to have been close to 600 MBTs; I don't know what it is up to now. Certainly more needs to be sent to keep up with Russian reinforcements even at the disproportionate loss rates we've been seeing.
When I speak of finite stockpiles I mean the (quickly diminishing) mountain of Cold War stuff Russia is sitting on; unless the Red Alert parallels extend all the way to time travel shenanigans those stockpiles are indeed finite. Obviously new production can be considered as adding to "stockpiles" which are thus indefinite, but you should know very well what I meant considering you meant the exact same thing when you said, "Russia currently is able to bring back a few thousand AFVs per year, the current stockpiles are still going to last for another year or two."
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
You're basically just making a bunch of naked assertion here, can you justify these kinds of numbers? Why would it take thousands upon thousands of tanks and AFVs for 'properly' equipped offensive formations? What are you basing that on?
Ukraine isn't going to push to the Urals. Ukraine's win condition for the war is either causing Putin enough humiliation that he gets couped out and the Russian government implodes, or pushing Russia out of their 2014 borders so that they can join NATO.
There are no serious expectations that the Ukrainians will ever make major inroads into Russia; they have no path to victory there, and do not want to push Russia into defensive use of nuclear weapons.
SoliFortissimi
Well-known member
The main problem is that Ukraine's patrons are morons and it's enemies are insane.
So were in agreement then that refreshments + new builds will be able to add over a thousand vehicles a year for at least the next 2 years, more or less, and then its a question of how much new builds ramp up in 2 years, assuming the war continues on for another two years?
A 1,000+ construction per year, 2 years from now, seems like it would be a conservative estimate. That's a very long time to ramp up, and Russian new build seems to be steadily increasing right now, not decreasing, even if most effort goes to refurbishment. We can see in the continued existence of mass civilian auto manufacture in Russia that there is a lot of remaining slack they could transfer over if they really needed to ramp things up later.
I mean, I lightly justified it there: 10 Armored brigades would be 3,000 armored vehicles alone equipped to US levels. That would be a force of about 40-50k, which seems like something of a minimal scale force to do a major breakthrough, such as what was attempted in the prior offensive. Having another offensive like that which can actually break through Russian lines probably requires a force at least on that scale. About a 1,000 of those would be tanks, the rest IFV and self propelled artillery.
I don't see a much lighter force being able to do a major push through the Russian lines without losing steam before penetration. And you still need to have enough armored vehicles to keep such a breakthrough supplied through artillery and infantry ambushes. You can't really sustain a breakthrough if all your infantry have to dismount from their trucks 1-10 km back and walk in because of artillery and terrain situations. That requires a lot of APCs and IFVs.
Not trying for another breakthrough, more Kherson attritional grind than maneuver breakthrough, you might be able to get away with less at at a time (though over time the attrition also probably adds up).
Vyor
My influence grows!
... Ukraine hasn't ever had that many tanks available to them at once. You expect that to be a rather minor gain???
strunkenwhite
Well-known member
Yes, I'm arguing about future new build capacity. I agree that two years is a good long ramp, if Russia indeed has the capacity to take advantage of it and does so. But I don't think it can be assumed.
One thing I'm not really aware of is how transferable modern civilian auto manufacturing infrastructure is to modern tank production. And then again, the Russian definition of "modern tank" might be considerably more flexible than what prevails in the west. (Ditto modern civilian autos, come to think of it.) Certainly I would expect the workforce to be relatively transferable with that kind of retraining time potentially available.
AnimalNoodles
Well-known member
it doesnt transfer well. Modern auto factories are highly automated with specialised robots, software and lines optimised to produce vehicles that weigh a couple of tonnes. most of the that equipment would be useless to make tanks.
Tank manufacturing requires its own specialised plant with more manual work. In the old days, they used factories from heavy industries like tractor production and locomotive production to build tanks in.
Last edited: