Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 7,159
- Points
- 1,160
or 3 Tigers to one Sherman Joe Ekins - WikipediaMyth?
Ukraine - Superthread
- Thread starter CougarKing
- Start date
MilEME09
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 4,758
- Points
- 1,090
technically it was, reason being is that tigers operated individually mostly, but shermans operated in platoons, so you'll always have 5 to 1.
watch below and skip to 28 minutes
FJAG
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 7,817
- Points
- 1,040
Did you notice that the vast number of quotes in that article comes from our own @Old Sweat's "No Holding Back"?
MilEME09
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 4,758
- Points
- 1,090
Looks like nets will be common for arty I'm the future, seem to work well against loitering munitions. Low tech solutions
MilEME09
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 4,758
- Points
- 1,090
Videos like this should be on every news broadcast in the west, you want to understand the Russian mentality? Here it us, the genocide of Ukrainians.
- Reaction score
- 1,124
- Points
- 1,060
its really crazy to think about especially when there is supposed to be this slavic brotherhood. But is part of this just the result of the jingoism of the war effort exacerbating normal levels of prejudice?
- Reaction score
- 6,348
- Points
- 1,160
Meanwhile the Germans debate....
www.telegraph.co.uk
Leopard tank dilemma as Germany tears itself in two over Ukraine
In the Reichstag and Federal Chancellery, Putin has them quaking in their boots
ByDaniel Johnson22 January 2023 • 6:00am
For the past week, all eyes have been on Germany. Would Berlin allow its allies to send German-made Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine? The answer could be decisive for the outcome of Putin’s genocidal war.
Yet the only answer that new German Defence Minister, Boris Pistorius, could give was “maybe”. He could not say when a decision would be made on the tanks, he told Friday’s meeting of 50 defence ministers at the US airbase in Ramstein.
Pistorius said he had ordered an inventory of Leopard 2 tanks so that he could act immediately if a green light came from his government. “I am very sure that there will be a decision in the short term,” he said. However, he admitted: “I don’t know how the decision will look.”
Pistorius’s shilly-shallying was in defiance of Volodymyr Zelensky, who had earlier appealed to the meeting to “speed up” on the question on tanks, but also US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin.
“This is not a moment to slow down,” General Austin said. “It’s a time to dig deeper. The Ukrainian people are watching us. History is watching us.”
At Ramstein air base on Friday, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin refused to comment on Germany's reluctance to give Ukraine tanks CREDIT: Thomas Lohnes/Getty
At a press conference later, he refused to comment on Berlin’s refusal to release its Leopards.
The wrangling over tanks for Ukraine is emblematic of the identity crisis gripping Berlin as Germany shifts from decades of relative pacifism to a war-ready footing. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz is talking the talk, but struggling when it comes to walking the walk.
Clearly, neither Austin, nor the other NATO defence ministers, could break the deadlock on tanks. Germany seems determined to ignore appeals not only from Ukraine but from the entire Western world. The indecision of Scholz, it seems, is final. Does he even know there’s a war on?
Scholz has not only refused to give German Leopard 2s to Kyiv, but has so far refused permission for any of the 2,000 German-made Leopards owned by other NATO members to be sent. Those who ignore this contractual obligation put future military trade deals with Berlin at risk.
This prospect does not trouble Poland’s Mateusz Morawiecki, whose relations with Scholz are in deep freeze anyway. The Polish PM has dismissed the German veto as irrelevant and threatened to send 14 Polish Leopards to Kyiv.
The spectacle of Germany stymying not only Ukraine but its allies too is deeply damaging, both diplomatically and morally. Olaf Scholz doesn’t seem to care that Germany is now seen as the sausage dog in the manger.
Despite the fiasco in Ramstein, a blast of realpolitik is blowing through Berlin. Almost a year ago Putin’s onslaught on Ukraine forced Germany to rethink its role as the West’s leading “civilian power”.
Today, the debate has moved on from the days when Scholz seemed to dither about taking sides at all. But the painfully slow shift to a war footing is tearing the country — and its centre-Left coalition — in two.
Despite Chancellor Scholz's early fighting talk, Ukraine has been left bitterly disappointed CREDIT: SERGEY DOLZHENKO/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock
“We are living through a watershed era (Zeitenwende),” Chancellor Olaf Scholz told his petrified compatriots within 48 hours of the invasion last February. “The issue at the heart of this is whether power is allowed to prevail over the law… whether we have it in us to keep warmongers like Putin in check. And that requires strength of our own.”
This sounded like fighting talk. Yet Scholz’s much-vaunted Zeitenwende has bitterly disappointed the Ukrainians. Early in the conflict, Volodymyr Zelensky told the German Parliament that a new Berlin Wall had been erected in his country. By now it is clear that the German government has no desire to tear down that wall, as long as the Germans are on the right side of it.
What Ukrainians thought they heard from Scholz last February was a commitment to help them to turn the tables on the Russian invaders. Instead, the Zeitenwende turned out to be yet another chapter in the endless debate about German identity that has raged since 1945 — fascinating for pundits and academics, but hardly relevant to a people fighting for their lives.
Now, after eleven months and up to quarter of a million dead on both sides, the Ukrainians have been disappointed by the Germans yet again.
The phenomenon that has prevented Scholz from authorising the use of Leopards has already acquired a characteristically German moniker: “escalation angst” (Angst vor der Eskalation). This term denotes the fear that military assistance to Ukraine risks “provoking” Russian escalation of the war, potentially including the use of nuclear weapons — a fear shared by a majority of the public in the Federal Republic.
The latest poll shows that 46pc of Germans oppose sending Leopard 2s to Ukraine, with 43 per cent in favour.
Boris Johnson might have had Germany in mind when he told the plutocrats in Davos last Thursday that Vladimir Putin “is like the fat boy in Dickens — he wants to make our flesh creep”. For when the Russian leader rattles his thermonuclear sabre, he has one destination above all in mind: Berlin.
The Kremlin constantly exploits German escalation angst. The latest piece of Russian megaphone diplomacy in Germany was timed to coincide with Lloyd Austin’s visit from Washington. Putin’s spokesman issued dire, though vague, threats of nuclear retaliation against conventional attack “when the very existence of the state is threatened”.
He was echoing Dmitry Medvedev, deputy head of Putin’s national security council, who wrote that if Russia were to lose the war in Ukraine, “this could trigger a nuclear war”. He added: “Nuclear powers have never lost major conflicts on which their fate depends.” This former Russian President has forgotten about the Afghan war, which proved fatal to the Soviet Union.
Such rhetoric hits home at one address in particular: the Reichstag and, on the other side of the River Spree, the German Federal Chancellery. There, in Europe’s largest seat of government, a monumental building bequeathed by Angela Merkel, they are quaking in their boots.
What Scholz has failed to grasp, let alone to explain to his compatriots, is that Putin is escalating the war all the time — regardless of the West. The longer hostilities continue, the greater the danger of escalation.
A stalemate leading to a ceasefire, followed by a “frozen conflict”, is a recipe for Putin to escalate at a time that suits him. The only way to forestall and prevent Russian escalation is to give Ukraine the tanks and other hardware that are needed for victory.
Scholz has been visibly reluctant to send military support into a war zone, though in recent months Germany has stepped up both the quantity and quality of its equipment — including Patriot air defence missiles. The Chancellor still often speaks of “differences of opinion” with Moscow, as though a ceasefire might be enough to normalise relations with a regime that is led by men wanted for war crimes, including Putin himself.
Last week, Zelensky let his frustration show. On German television, he lost his temper, giving Scholz a blunt public ultimatum: “In plain language: can you deliver Leopards or not? Then hand them over!”
The Ukrainian leader’s exasperation is understandable. However many victories it wins, his army has hitherto been denied the tools it needs to finish the job. Zelensky has asked for 300 main battle tanks. So far he has been offered a tenth of that number by the UK and Poland. From Germany? None.
Scholz has drawn different lessons from history than his political counterparts in Britain and America. The latter are invariably conscious of the fatal consequences of appeasement. By contrast, Germans of Scholz’s postwar generation tend to focus more on the risk of militarism and the danger of “going it alone”. Ironically, his refusal to budge on the Leopards has isolated Germany as seldom before in the history of NATO.
On the key question of whether to give Zelensky the Leopards, Scholz demands that the US give him Abrams M1 tanks too, so that Germany in general and he in particular cannot be solely blamed for the consequences.
It was not enough that Rishi Sunak had already announced a week ago that the UK would lead the way by sending 14 Challenger 2 tanks to Kyiv. Nor did Berlin listen to Ben Wallace’s appeal from Estonia, where he led a group of nine countries that co-signed “The Tallinn Pledge” to step up support for Kyiv. The Defence Secretary said that sending tanks was not “remotely escalatory” because in Ukrainian hands they would be “a defensive weapon”.
Ben Wallace in Tallinn last week where he led a group of European countries pledging weapons to Ukraine CREDIT: Pavel Golovkin/AP
Even though the war is taking place in Europe, Scholz insists that Biden should take the lead. At Ramstein, Lloyd Austin announced a new $2.5 billion package for Ukraine, bringing US military aid to $26.7 billion. But Abrams M1s were conspicuous by their absence. Washington says that this is because they run on jet fuel, which would be impractical for Kyiv.
Ukraine agrees — and hasn’t actually asked for M1s. The only reason they are under discussion is that Berlin hinted that it might agree to send German tanks if American ones were on the table. It turns out to have been just another excuse for inaction by the Scholz government.
Why then have the German Leopards become so symbolic? For one thing, the fact that they are plentiful in Europe means that spare parts are quickly and easily accessible. The most recent versions of the Leopard 2 are among the best tanks in the world: more than a match for all but the most recent Russian models.
On the eve of Friday’s Ramstein meeting, Moscow deployed its latest T14 tanks in a show of strength designed to deter Berlin. But experts believe that the Russian army has only a handful of these new tanks, which have been plagued by technical problems.
The underlying problem for Germany is that Scholz has prioritised domestic politics over international relations. He believes that by refusing to send his country’s panzers into battle against Russia, he is in tune with German public opinion.
'Berlin’s policy towards Russia, especially after its first invasion of Ukrainian territory in 2014, was tantamount to appeasement' CREDIT: CLEMENS BILAN/EPA
Given Germany’s appalling history over the last century, one cannot lightly dismiss its aversion to militarism and war. One lesson of that century, however, is that appeasement and disarmament are a fatal combination.
Berlin’s policy towards Russia, especially after its first invasion of Ukrainian territory in 2014, was tantamount to appeasement. And the chaotic state of the German armed forces, only fully apparent since the second invasion of Ukraine last year, shows that Berlin had continued to disarm despite the writing on the wall.
Against the odds, Zelensky and his intrepid troops have outfought their opponents at every stage. Despite the strategic and tactical skill that enabled Ukraine to repel Russian attacks on the major cities of Kyiv and Kharkiv, and to regain many others including Kherson, the human and material cost has been horrific.
In order to mount the major offensives that will be needed to recapture all of the Ukrainian territory occupied by Russian forces, Zelensky needs an even larger and more modern arsenal — above all tanks.
Only now, after a rapidly rising death toll that already surpasses all other European conflicts since 1945, are German elites waking up to the new facts on the ground.
It has taken them longer — much longer — than their English-speaking counterparts to come to terms with this new reality on the battlefield. This has been symbolised by the contrast between the defence ministers of Britain and America with those of Germany.
Until the last few days, the political leader of the German armed forces was Christine Lambrecht, the gaffe-prone Defence Minister whose idea of deterrence on the eve of war was to send 5,000 helmets to Kyiv.
Her tone-deaf New Year’s Eve message a few weeks ago was the last straw: the conflict had given her “a lot of special experiences”, she said bizarrely, plus “many encounters with great and interesting people”. With evident reluctance, Scholz had to sack his loyal but incompetent lieutenant.
Boris Pistorius, left, has been plucked from obscurity to replace gaffe-prone Christine Lambrecht, right CREDIT: Liesa Johannssen-Koppitz/Bloomberg
Yet to say that Lambrecht’s replacement was underwhelming would be an understatement. Until a few days ago, Boris Pistorius was an obscure interior minister in the state of Lower Saxony. Even compared to such predecessors as Ursula von der Leyen, who ordered her troops on exercises to use broomsticks as rifles, Pistorius looks like a lightweight.
Compare him with Lloyd Austin, the US Secretary of Defense, a four-star general who led troops in combat in Iraq and as head of US Central Command. Or consider Ben Wallace, the British Defence Secretary: though a civilian now, he served in the Scots Guards during the 1990s. As a captain in Northern Ireland, he was mentioned in dispatches for capturing an IRA unit engaged in a bombing operation.
At their first meeting in Berlin on Thursday, Austin joked about how Pistorius had only been in office for an hour.
Is it reasonable to expect men with such distinguished records of military service to have much respect for a provincial politician of the calibre of Pistorius? Apart from doing national service during the Cold War and sitting on parliamentary committees, he has zero experience of defence.
It is hardly the fault of the new German Defence Minister that he is too young to have seen action in the Second World War, like Helmut Schmidt, who made his mark at the Defence Ministry before becoming Chancellor. Another remarkable holder of the office was Manfred Wörner, the first and so far only German to serve as NATO Secretary General.
Among German ministerial posts, however, defence is often nicknamed “the ejector seat” because it has a reputation as the graveyard of political careers, as in Lambrecht’s case. Many are bound to wonder: what could be the button that sends Pistorius into oblivion?
There are suggestions that the new Defence Minister might not always have been as critical of the Kremlin as he now claims to be. He was until recently a member of a parliamentary German-Russian Friendship Group before it was dissolved.
While unthinkable now, a group like this typifies the German approach to Russia until the outbreak of the war. For nearly three decades, Germany was Russia’s biggest trading partner, ever more reliant on imported gas and oil in exchange for the cars and other well-engineered goods craved by the new Russian bourgeoisie.
A self-serving consensus emerged after the fall of the Berlin Wall: not US-led deterrence, but German-led Ostpolitik had won the Cold War. A peaceful end to the division of Germany and Europe had vindicated the dogma of Wandel durch Handel (“change through trade”).
Defence and security, the Germans assumed, could safely be left to those who cared about such things — chiefly the Americans — while Europe pursued its destiny. That destiny was pacifist.
A key component of the European mission, zealously propagated by Berlin’s political and business elites, was the integration of Russia into the EU economy.
For 16 years until the end of 2021, Angela Merkel and Vladimir Putin presided over this seemingly mutually beneficial rapprochement. Neither trusted the other, but the former East German physicist chose to turn a blind eye to the ex-KGB colonel’s unreformed habits — incarcerating or liquidating his opponents and destabilising or invading his neighbours.
Walking through the ruins in Toretsk, a few miles from the front line of the battle in eastern Ukraine CREDIT: Spencer Platt/Getty Images Europe
In fact, German reliance on Russian gas grew steadily over the past three decades, even after Putin’s mask slipped in 2014. By doggedly denying the strategic significance of energy projects such as the Nordstream pipelines to Moscow, successive German Chancellors were dragging Europe down the path of appeasement.
Last February, three months after Angela Merkel had left the scene, came the rude awakening — a blitzkrieg followed by a genocide. Many Germans are still in denial about the fact that this war of annihilation is taking place in some of the same cities and fields where their grandfathers executed their own crimes against humanity.
The German economy was, and is, so much bigger than Russia’s that many were shocked by the revelation that their true power relationship, hitherto obscured by design, was one of near total dependency on Russian energy.
It is true that Berlin has taken drastic and, for some, painful steps to wean the economy off Russian gas. A huge effort has been devoted to creating storage capacity for liquid gas imported from elsewhere, although high prices mean that Putin is still raking in more German and EU cash than ever before. These energy profits have financed Russia’s war of annihilation.
A striking aspect of the energy crisis is that it shows how rapidly a joint effort by Germany’s corporate and state authorities can transform Europe’s largest economy. No such effort has been devoted, however, to rebuilding the arms industry on the scale required to enable Ukraine to expel the Russians from their sovereign territory.
Unlike Russia, Germany still doesn’t have anything like a war economy, even at the peacetime level of 1989, because it doesn’t want one. Instead, the politicians have concentrated on drawing and redrawing their red lines about what may or may not be exported to Ukraine.
The prospect that terrifies them is of Germany once again being accused of causing a European conflagration. The last time a Social Democrat-led German government faced a comparable dilemma was in the early 1980s, over the stationing of US Cruise and Pershing nuclear missiles. This provoked mass protests, secretly orchestrated by the KGB and Stasi. The then Chancellor, Helmut Schmidt, was unable to hold his coalition together. In 1982 he resigned. The Social Democrats were out of office for 16 years.
Protests in Berlin urging the German government to send Leopards to Ukraine CREDIT: Maja Hitij/Getty Images Europe
This time, the coalition Cabinet is also split on sending Leopard 2s, with the Greens led by Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock and Vice-Chancellor Robert Habeck in favour, while many of Scholz’s Social Democrats are against. As in 1982, this has the potential to destroy the coalition.
The stakes could hardly be higher, both for Germany and for the West. On the Leopard 2, Olaf Scholz needs to change his spots. Otherwise he risks not only political oblivion for himself, but moral ignominy for his country.
Leopard tank dilemma as Germany tears itself in two over Ukraine
In the Reichstag and Federal Chancellery, Putin has them quaking in their boots
www.telegraph.co.uk
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 7,159
- Points
- 1,160
No, this is years and years of this stuff. Some of it goes back centuries.
MilEME09
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 4,758
- Points
- 1,090
This particular individual, the part of the video that shows him in a suit is from 2015, he is a far right ultra nationalist, and his position is very much the standard. Russia for hundreds of years seen Ukraine as "little russians" or inferior Russians that need russias protection whether they want it or not, and if not come down violently to remove nationalist sentiment
- Reaction score
- 6,348
- Points
- 1,160
Pressure building?
www.telegraph.co.uk
Especially given this level of "escalation"
www.thedrive.com
news.yahoo.com
news.yahoo.com
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/HLUDJAT7TZK4XLSTG6OPBD5PHI.jpg)
www.reuters.com
www.dvidshub.net
F16 Weaponry Options
Notably the Netherlands is talking about buying Leopards from Germany. It actually operates a company of Leopards as part of tank battalion in the Dutch-German brigade.
en.wikipedia.org
US reads ‘riot act’ to Germany over refusal to send Leopard tanks to Ukraine
Poland suggested it and other Nato allies may organise their own ‘tank alliance’ without Germany
www.telegraph.co.uk
Especially given this level of "escalation"
Next Ramstein will be aviation - Zelenskyy's Office. Espreso
The next Ramstein format meeting, scheduled for mid-February, will focus on aviation
global.espreso.tv
Dutch Open To Transferring F-16 Jets To Ukraine (Updated)
Ukrainian pleas for modern Western fighter jets have so far come to nothing, but the Dutch now say they're open to giving them F-16s.
www.thedrive.com
Ukrainian Air Force selects pilots ready to train on foreign fighter jets
VALENTYNA ROMANENKO - SATURDAY, 29 OCTOBER 2022, 16:11 The Ukrainian Air Force has selected a group of pilots who can start training on modern foreign fighter jets. Now Western partners must decide on the types of planes they can supply Ukraine with.
Zelenskyy's Office confirms US plans to train Ukrainian fighter pilots on F-15, F-16 fighter jets
The United States plans to train Ukrainian fighter pilots on the F-15 and F-16 fighter jets, Andriy Yermak, head of the President's Office, said in a Telegram messenger post on July 15.
U.S., allies discuss possible training for Ukrainian air force
The United States and allies are starting to examine possible training for Ukrainian pilots as part of a long-term effort to potentially help Kyiv build a future Ukrainian air force, Air Force Chief of Staff General Charles "CQ" Brown told Reuters.
www.reuters.com
The CA ANG and Ukraine Conquer Another First!
The California Air National Guard and Ukraine achieved another first during a State Partnership Program training event in September at the 144th Fighter Wing, Fresno, California.
F16 Weaponry Options
Notably the Netherlands is talking about buying Leopards from Germany. It actually operates a company of Leopards as part of tank battalion in the Dutch-German brigade.
414 Tank Battalion - Wikipedia
Skysix
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 1,160
- Points
- 810
Nope. Was stated by many very early in the invasion and all their actions lean towards it. Listen to some of the telephone intercepts. Line level troops, especially the Rosgvardia. The elimination of Ukraine as a state and any of the population unable/unwilling to assimilate, removal of children to be "Russified" and exploitation of resources needed by Russia.
- Reaction score
- 6,348
- Points
- 1,160
One of the reasons Ukrainians don't like The Ukraine is that historically it was equivalent to The Borders between England and Scotland or The Marches between England and Wales. It was a region to be fought over by a bunch of claimants, including Russia.
The Ukrainians have been asserting their own identity in that region since before Ivan the Terrible cast off the Tatar Yoke from Muscovy. The Crimean Tatars are the last remnants of those Tatars that Ivan ejected.
- Reaction score
- 6,348
- Points
- 1,160
Report from a Brit vet (16 years a Fusilier) enlisted with Ukraine's 131st Special Reconnaissance Unit....
Sounds like vehicles are critical....
www.express.co.uk
Sounds like vehicles are critical....
British ex-soldier fighting in Ukraine hails UK for sending tanks
EXCLUSIVE Former British army soldier said he was "absolutely over the moon" to hear UK Challenger II tanks being sent to Ukraine
www.express.co.uk
Skysix
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 1,160
- Points
- 810
Just a thought. Impossible now as none are flying, but I wonder what a SQN or 3 of Corsairs or Bearcats or Skyraiders could do in the CAS role in Ukraine. Not sure how trackable they would be by manpads, although Russian AA and smallarms groundfire might not be much of an issue in much of the front.
FormerHorseGuard
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 338
- Points
- 760
Other than looking at the Leopards on display at Petawawa Memorial Garden, the War Museum, and other display units. I know very little.
What is the training time given to Canadian crew member to learn his job?
Gunner?
Driver?
Crew Commander
loader?
Now compared to the M1A2 or what ever the last update is called, how long to train?
Gunner
Driver
Crew commander
Loader
I am guessing because of the turbo engine on the M1 Series tanks there is a lot more maintainer work compared to the Leo series.
Spare parts issues
So if the Ukraines were to get modern NATO tanks, how long would it take for them to start shooting Russian Tanks?
some website report 2300 M1 tanks in storage in the US. So there is a supply available. The USMC had 452 tanks.
Our Leopards are reported to be in need of service and upgrades.
But there are a lot out there with various NATO countries.
So I am just curious. Any answers
What is the training time given to Canadian crew member to learn his job?
Gunner?
Driver?
Crew Commander
loader?
Now compared to the M1A2 or what ever the last update is called, how long to train?
Gunner
Driver
Crew commander
Loader
I am guessing because of the turbo engine on the M1 Series tanks there is a lot more maintainer work compared to the Leo series.
Spare parts issues
So if the Ukraines were to get modern NATO tanks, how long would it take for them to start shooting Russian Tanks?
some website report 2300 M1 tanks in storage in the US. So there is a supply available. The USMC had 452 tanks.
Our Leopards are reported to be in need of service and upgrades.
But there are a lot out there with various NATO countries.
So I am just curious. Any answers
- Reaction score
- 3,295
- Points
- 1,160
You could make a pretty competent Leo driver in 3 weeks if push comes to shove, dunno about the turret posns.
FJAG
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 7,817
- Points
- 1,040
Can't talk about the current Canadian training but the US Army's training is 22 weeks of One Station Unit Training. (It used to be 15 weeks but they increased it dramatically across the board for all combat trades a few years ago).
OSUT has two components; BCT and AIT.
Basic Combat Training (BCT) lasts ten weeks and is essentially the US Army's recruit course which takes a recruit up to a common soldier standard which includes typical basic recruit things to a multitude of weapons, rifles, grenades, grenade launcher, machine guns (M240, M249 and M2) and anti-armour weapons and fieldcraft training. Its like a combination of our BMQ and BMQ-L combined.
After BCT, OSUT US soldiers pass on to Advanced Individual Training (AIT) for M1 crewman that's 12 weeks (same for infantry but 14 weeks for artillery) during which they learn all the crewman positions in the tank and tank maintenance, operation and live firing. There's a further tank commanders course.
BCT and AIT is the same for US Army Active Army and ARNG and USAR soldiers.
FJAG
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 7,817
- Points
- 1,040
A lot of things can be sped up but leave out some of the more important esoteric skills. On my basic artillery officers course we learned the M109 in five days. That included driving, all crew positions (including det commander) and finished with a day of live fire. Mind you we had previously had three weeks of the C1 and L5 howitzer before we graduated to the M109. None of the M109 training included its maintenance other than post-firing barrel and breech cleaning, fueling it, and checking and topping up fluid levels.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 7,159
- Points
- 1,160
Likely they send experienced tankers trained on T-series. They will understand how to tank, just need to learn how the Western tank works. The only guy who is going to be new is the loader, unless trained on a T-55/62
Zipperhead99
Member
- Reaction score
- 150
- Points
- 580
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/K7W2GIHXTRLRDNZIDXQCRRWUTQ.jpg)
Germany would not block Poland from sending tanks to Ukraine, minister says
Berlin has so far held back from sending them or allowing other NATO countries to do so.
www.reuters.com
Similar threads
