This is intended for people interested in the subject of military guns and their ammunition, with emphasis on automatic weapons.
Latest 17:27 by Farmplinker
Latest 16:58 by schnuersi
Latest 6:41 by autogun
Latest 6-Dec by Mr. T (MrT4)
Latest 5-Dec by gatnerd
Latest 4-Dec by stancrist
Latest 4-Dec by gatnerd
Latest 2-Dec by smmheart1
Latest 1-Dec by EmericD
Latest 30-Nov by Refleks
Latest 26-Nov by stancrist
Latest 25-Nov by autogun
Latest 23-Nov by Farmplinker
Latest 23-Nov by Refleks
Latest 22-Nov by stancrist
Latest 17-Nov by PRM2
Latest 17-Nov by TonyDiG
Latest 16-Nov by Mr. T (MrT4)
Latest 16-Nov by gatnerd
Latest 15-Nov by Mr. T (MrT4)
Latest 15-Nov by TarheelYank
Latest 14-Nov by JPeelen
Latest 13-Nov by DavidPawley
Latest 10-Nov by Lorrybaker
Latest 9-Nov by gatnerd
Latest 9-Nov by gatnerd
Latest 7-Nov by Mr. T (MrT4)
Yes its all over the news and the Internet.
Its not correct though. The UA has ofgicially reported some issues and requested spare parts.
The PzH2000 delivered have not been new. These are the same guns used to train the UA crews. So they saw more use in the last couple of weeks than in all the years befor. It also seems that the delivery of PzH2000 did not include a complete package of spares and replacement parts.
Since the PzH2000 has never been used like this, the way it was originally intended, bevor there are no experience what will wear out how fast.
The footage of PzH2000 in use in UA I have seen all show the Rubber pads of the tracks are worn down. The tracks themself are silvery like polished. These are signs of intense use. During my service time i have seen comparable wear only once. During a four week high intensity training campaign with large scale excercise in Canada. At this point stuff starts to break down and needs replacement. Once the parts are replaced the reliability goes up significantly. The long times of standing around and low intensity use are poison for a lot of parts. Especially non wear and tear parts.
I wonder who the generous donor of absolute antique was - FIM-43 Redeye production of which ended in '69
I wonder if it's still functional!
I am kind of fascinated by the explosions in Krim. That is impressive coordination between govt and sf and guerilla.
Crimea now has an open flow of people and goods with Kherson 25+K folks per day ,so its much easier to move about than any time in past 8years and folks moving about are Ukrainans so its also easier to carry out sabotage and if you have ever seen open air depos in eastern Europe these things are not really guarded much. They just had one go tits up in Bulgaria as well plus these days you don't need to sneak in and place a charge you fly in a Mavic and do the job .
For same reason Ukainans have Mikolaiv under lockdown and are looking for Russian 'sympathizers' door to door , things keep blowing up on the other side as well only the delivery of HE might be in the form of a cruise missile.
I've been wondering about UA's tank conundrum. It has been reported that Western tanks are too heavy for the existing infrastructure. Would something like the Lynx FSV be an option?
An option for what exactly? Providing direct fire support to UA infantry units? Maybe if this capability is required.
The problem is not the infrastructure alone. Its part of the problem. The entire UA logistics, maintenance, recovery and support organisation and equipment is layed out to support vehicles of the 40 t class of soviet origin. Even giving them 40 t Western equipment is problematic. The more the new equipment differs from the old the more problematic it gets. Just Look how much troubles the PzH2000 create. These are only a handfull and not really being shot at. Delivering tanks is much more problematic.
The UA asked for Leo 1 for a reason. These would be available in significant and usefull numbers quickly once refurbishing starts. Spares are available as well. The tank is in the same weight range as their soviet equipment and Leo 1 is a vehicle family which includes support assets like ARV and AVLB. So they could create fully equiped formations based on Leo 1. Which would still mean more complicated logistics but it would be contained in so specific units.
In the long run it makes little sense to go for stuff like Lynx FS as MBT replacement. It can only be long run since the production of a usefull Nummer of Lynx would take years anyways. Better to get a fleht of proper western MBTs while adjusting the infrastructure and support. Would be far more effective.
So the way to go would be refurbishment of Leo1s, possibly with a new turret too? How many does Germany have kicking around? And if the order for 100 PzH 2000 did actually happen and is approved, surely buying Leo1s should not be a problem anymore?
Would there be a point to giving them new turrets? And what, apart from the failures we already discussed are the issues with P2k? I you can share them of course. The problems that I see with infrastructure is retaking territory.
there are hundreds of Leo 1 around. Most are in the posession of the defense industry. Only some are left in government posession. Most oft the stocks in government posession have been destroyed by now. I don't know the exact numbers though.
I really don't see the point in a new turret. The original ones work fine and are at least ay available ay the hulls.
I can not say anything about if Leo 1 would be approved or not. I simply can not fathom the decision making process of the german government. My guess is nobody really can. So my guess is ay good as anyones.
My assesment is that the 100 PzH have been approved because most likely they will be delivered after the war. So they are concidered less problematic. Which means this is not precedent for delivering weapons to be used now.
The Gepards and the current in use PzH and all other weapons have been delivered into an active war so i really do not see the difference. Either delivering weapons is a problem or its not. But arguing around on specific weapon types makes no sense to me. There has been an almost legendary Video with the german secretary of defensed being questioned about this exact issue... its a failure of epic proportions, highly embarrasing and would be hillarious if it wasn't such a serious issue.
As mentioned befor there are no failures with the PzH2000. Just some problems with maintenance and repair. Most is propably allready adressed by now. Some issues came up because of the high intensity use. Again nothing special or really problematic. Some problems and inconveniences. In general the PzH work great and do what they are supposed to.