Thomas C. Theiner Profile picture
Jan 27, 2023 26 tweets 13 min read Read on X
Soon Challenger 2, Leopard 2A5/6 and M1A1/2 Abrams will roam across the Ukrainian steppe to hunt and destroy russian armor.

All three are leagues better than what the russians field, but tanks on their own are useless. So, an easy to understand thread about combined arms 🧵:
1/n Image
Western tanks like the M1A1/2 Abrams, Challenger 2, Leopard 2A5/6/7, Leclerc, Ariete AMV, Merkava IV, K2 Black Panther have way better armor than russian tanks.

An M1A2 Abrams is visibly larger than i.e. a T-72 or a T-80, and weighs (depending on model) 15-20 tons more.
2/n ImageImage
That extra weight is mostly armor. russian tanks are not able to penetrate the front armor of modern Western tanks at distances of 2 km (because the armor is twice as thick as what russian APFSDS projectiles can penetrate).

Photo of a Strv 122 APFSDS training round, which
3/n Image
in its non-training version will smash through all russian tanks' frontal armor with ease.

More importantly Western tanks have way better optics, which means Western crews will see russian tanks first and from further away. And thanks to ballistic computers, which use laser
4/n
rangefinders, wind sensors, cant sensors, boresight data, ammo, barrel and air temperature, barometric pressure, tank and target speed etc. Western tank guns never miss a shot.

Photos of a USMC M1A1 FEP AIDATS commander's station, vs. a russian T-90 commander's station.
5/n ImageImage
But the biggest advantage of Western tanks are their far superior thermal sights.

At night russian tankers won't even see Western tanks, while Western tanks will see, target and destroy russian tanks from distances of up to 5km. russian tank crews will only survive if they
6/n
jump out and run, because with reverse speeds of 4 km/h (T-72), 10 km/h (T-80), and 6 km/h (T-90) there is no escape for russian tanks from Western APFSDS rounds.

In this video a Finnish T-72 reverses at maximum speed... and if a russian tank does a U-turn, then the APFSDS
7/n
will punch through the russian tanks thinly armored side or rear.

The only danger Western tanks will encounter in Ukraine is russian infantry or helicopters with anti-tank guided missiles (ATGM). As expected the russians are technologically 20 years behind and so don't have
8/n Image
Fire and Forget ATGMs like the Javelin, Spike or Akeron and no top-attack ATGMs, and no overfly top attack ATGMs.
russian anti-tank teams have to see the target and aim at it from launch until impact, which means they are immobile... and that firing smoke grenades can defeat
9/n Image
incoming russian missiles.
But the best way to defeat enemy infantry is infantry paired with infantry fighting vehicles (IFV) like the Bradley, CV90, etc.
Let me compress this info in a very simplified way: IFVs and the infantry they carry protect tanks from enemy infantry,
10/n Image
while tanks protect IFVs and the infantry they carry from enemy tanks.

The tanks' 120mm tank gun is used to destroy enemy tanks and bunkers.
The IFVs 25-40mm autocannon is used to destroy enemy infantry and light vehicles.
The infantry is used to clear enemy positions and
11/n Image
enemy-held buildings.
As said: this is very simplified. If you attack just with infantry, or only with tanks - you will get your troops massacred and tanks destroyed, as russia shows us every day again and again and again.
But tanks, IFVs, and infantry are still not enough
12/n Image
for a successful armored attack formation. Armored recovery vehicles, armored engineer vehicles, armored bridgelayers, and self-propelled anti-aircraft gun are required or an combined arms attack will bog down and be defeated.
13/n ImageImageImageImage
Armored Recovery Vehicles (ARV) are needed to recover damaged tanks and IFVs before the enemy can destroy or capture them. Modern ARVs like the German Bergepanzer Büffel (pictured) on a Leopard 2 chassis can recover damaged tanks while the crew remains inside the vehicle.
14/n Image
All modern Western ARVs: American M88A2 Hercules, British CRARRV, French DNG/DCL, German Büffel, include a crane to help repair damaged tanks in the field.
No ARV means every damaged tank is lost, and even if you can recover one, without the crane you can't repair it.
15/n ImageImageImageImage
Germany sent 15 older Leopard 1 based Bergepanzer 2A2 ARVs, which are much less armored than the eight M88A2 Hercules the US sent. Still more are needed.

Armored Engineer Vehicles (AEV) are needed to remove obstacles like anti-tank ditches and to open lanes in minefields.
16/n Image
Without AEVs an armored attack will be stopped by the obstacles it encounters, but with AEVs:
if there is a minefield send i.e. a Leopard 2 based AEV3 Kodiak or an Abrams based M1150 Assault Breacher Vehicle with a mine plow forward to clear a lane, while the tanks,
17/n ImageImage
IFVs, and infantry cover the AEVs. If an anti-tank ditch is the problem send i.e. a Leopard 2 based Wisent 2 or a Challenger 2 based Trojan forward to fill it in.

So far only five older Leopard 1 based Dachs 2A1 have been delivered, so far more are needed.
18/n ImageImage
To clear a lane through a minefield the M1150 Assault Breacher Vehicle can also launch two line charges, which when detonated will destroy the buried mines and thus clear a lane for the attack to continue.

19/n ImageImageImageImage
Armored bridgelayers allow the crossing of streams, brooks, etc.
Without bridgelayers an armored attack must either ford a river (risky because of the mud) or move around it.
Germany sent 16 Biber bridgelayers, which are Leopard 1 based and can't be used with Leopard 2 or
20/n Image
M1A1/2 Abrams or Challenger 2, as the maximum weight the bridge can carry is 55 tons.

Therefore either American M1074 JAB, British Titan, American M104 Wolverine, or German Leguan bridgelayers are needed (the latter two are best, as they offer a much smaller silhouette when
21/n ImageImageImageImage
deploying the bridge.

Self-propelled anti-aircraft guns (SPAAG) are needed to shoot down enemy drones and helicopters... but only Finland built a SPAAG on a modern tank chassis: the Leopard 2 Marksman. But only seven pieces were built.

Other NATO members use the Stinger
22/n Image
with the US using a Bradley variant called M6 Linebacker that carries four Stinger missiles. Good against helicopters, but pricey when used against drones.
Luckily Ukraine received 37 Leopard 1 based 7 Gepard SPAAGs. Ukraine can pair the Gepard with their armored spearheads,
23/n ImageImage
unless Sweden includes the better Luftvärnskanonvagn 9040 in their CV90 donation.

This almost concludes this combined arms thread. I focused on the key systems: tanks, IFVs, and tank based armored support vehicles, BUT combined arms also includes reconnaissance, artillery,
24/n Image
helicopters, logistics, a lot of IFV based support vehicles, and so on and on.

russia has shown again and again that it is incapable of combined arms, and Ukraine now gets the tools for it - but training will take some time. And then Ukrainian forces will be unstoppable.

25/n Image
PS: an armored attack with all the armored support vehicles is stopped by nothing, not even a forest as this video of a Bergepanzer 2 shows (watch until the end).

26/end

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Thomas C. Theiner

Thomas C. Theiner Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @noclador

May 12
In February 2022 putin declared war on Europe & his army marched on Kyiv.
Since then European EU/NATO nations have added and/or are forming these active (!) battalions to their armies:
(Worst 2 countries are of course the two loudmouths)

🇵🇱 +44 (3 recon, 4 tank, 12 infantry
1/14 Image
2 anti-tank, 6 artillery, 5 air defence, 4 engineer, 1 signal, 1 CBRN defence, 1 transport, 5 logistic)
🇸🇪 +22 (10 infantry, 3 artillery, 2 engineer, 1 signal, 1 EW, 1 intelligence, 1 transport, 3 logistic)
🇷🇴 +10 (2 infantry, 3 drone, 3 engineer, 1 signal, 1 logistic)
2/n Image
🇧🇪 +7 (1 recon, 1 drone, 1 cavalry, 1 artillery, 1 engineer, 1 logistic, 1 transport)
🇦🇱 +5 (4 infantry, 1 air defence)
🇩🇪 +4 (3 artillery, 1 air defence)
🇭🇺 +4 (1 cyber, 1 mechanized, 1 engineer, 1 logistic)
🇸🇰 +4 (1 paratrooper, 1 drone, 1 engineer, 1 signal)
3/n
Read 14 tweets
May 8
Europe has to realize that there are two global military powers that it will have to find an arrangements with to safeguard its future security:
🇺🇸 the US
🇺🇦 Ukraine

These two have the highest defence materiel production output, and troops from these two are present in the
1/9 Image
highest number of nations around the globe (Ukrainian troops are fighting russians in every nation, where russia has allied with the regime; a will to fight our enemies that is sorely lacking in the rest of Europe).
Minor powers like the UK or middling powers like France,
2/9
can't provide as much security (troops, defence equipment, tech innovation, will to fight, etc.) as Ukraine or the US.
While Ukrainians fight, innovate and produce vast amounts of war materiel, Europe continues to fiddle as the fire of war spreads across the continent.
3/9
Read 9 tweets
May 2
Fellow Europeans on here claiming that Europe doesn't need the US to fight off russia are delusional:

Does Europe have enough cruise missiles? No.
Is Europe investing to fix this? Also no.
Does Europe have enough tanker aircraft? No.
Is Europe investing to fix this? Also no.
1/6
Does Europe have enough maritime patrol aircraft? No.
Is Europe investing to fix that? Also no.

Does Europe have any ballistic missiles? No.
Is Europe investing to fix that? Also no.

Does Europe have enough SEAD/DEAD aircraft? No.
Is Europe investing to fix that? Also no.
2/6
Does Europe have enough logistic units aircraft? No.
Is Europe investing to fix that? Also no.

Does Europe have enough air defence? No.
Is Europe investing to fix that? Also no.

Does Europe have enough recon satellites? No.
Is Europe investing to fix that? A bit.
3/6
Read 6 tweets
Apr 25
On 2 April 1982 Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands.
3 days (!) later a 🇬🇧 Royal Navy task force left the UK to retake the islands.
That task force included: 2× aircraft carriers, 8× destroyers, 16× frigates, 6× attack submarines... a fleet bigger than today's Royal Navy.
1/8 Image
22 Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships provided logistic support... in total 127 ships sailed, and the Royal Navy still (!!) had enough destroyers, frigates, submarines to fulfil its NATO obligations.
It was an awesome display of military power, professionalism, courage and grit.
2/n Image
On 28 February 2026, after weeks of tension, the Iran War began... and even though the UK had been asked by the US for bases weeks earlier, the Royal Navy was caught wholly unprepared... and then it took the Royal Navy 10 days (!) to get 1× destroyer out of port, which after
3/n
Read 8 tweets
Mar 17
To give you an idea, why European militaries prefer US-made weapons to European-made weapons:

Europe militaries urgently need a ground launched cruise missile capability... the US already had such a (nuclear) capability in 1983, then dismantled all of its BGM-109G Gryphon
1/10 Image
ground launched cruise missiles after signing of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty.
russia of course broke this treaty after putin came to power and after 15 years of ignoring russia lying about it Trump finally ordered to withdraw from the treaty in August 2019.
2/n
Just 16 days after withdrawing from the treaty the US Army began to test launch Tomahawk cruise missiles form land (pic) and in June 2023 (less than 4 years later) the US Army formed the first battery equipped with the Typhon missile system.
And as Raytheon has a production
3/n Image
Read 10 tweets
Mar 8
These are the 🇬🇧 UK's HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales aircraft carriers.

First, as you can see in this picture, only one actually carries aircraft. The UK barely had enough money to buy the F-35B for one. For the other the Blairites expected the US Marine Corps
1/9 Image
to provide the required aircraft, because the two carriers were bought so the Royal Navy could fight alongside the US Navy against China in the Pacific.

But the US does NOT want the British carriers anywhere near its carrier strike groups, because the UK carriers would slow
2/9
down a US carrier strike groups, as the UK did not have the money for nuclear propulsion.
And as the UK doesn't have the money for the ships that make up a carrier strike group (destroyers, frigates, submarines) the UK expected the US Navy to detach some of its destroyers and
3/9 Image
Read 9 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(