Re: [提問] M1給烏軍用真的有那麼難嗎

※ 引述《leom1a210343 (小黃)》之銘言： : 基本上烏克蘭本土沒有北約戰車保修能力 : 壞掉的北約坦克只能拉到大後方 : 不管是豹 挑戰者 M1 都需要北約盟國幫助 : 豹式北約歐洲國家都有用 保修比較近 : 有人說M1有保修問題 但是M1在歐洲已經40年 : 美軍在歐洲駐軍也不少 後勤搬到波蘭境內也可 : 且連挑戰者二都要給烏軍了 沒理由M1不行啊 : 油 板車 戰車回收車 相關配套美國一定能做到 : 是真的M1不適合 還是M1坦克這名詞太敏感呢 : PS: 如果我是俄軍 : 寧願美國給烏軍50台M1 : 也不要面對5台海馬斯 : ----- : Sent from JPTT on my iPhone 英國給挑戰者政治意義遠大於實質意義， 畢竟只有14輛，構不成戰力只能丟著不動... 唯一價值就是可以放在低威脅區域，例如白俄邊界， 並且把該區域的俄系坦克抽調出來送到前線。 如果把挑戰二丟到戰場，不出一星期就失去戰力了。 你自己都是裝甲兵出身，應該知道維持裝甲部隊運作要花費多大資源， 板車、裝甲救濟車自己也需要後勤維修， 進一步惡化後勤壓力。 送到波蘭維修更不可能，光是聶伯羅洲就距離波蘭邊境1000公里了。 https://i.imgur.com/wDOrv3T.jpg 所以西方援助的裝甲車輛幾乎都是一次性消耗品， 大多是操到壞掉直接報廢... 畢竟俄系裝備妥善率也沒多高， 前幾天才有BMP-2用推發引擎的影片。 https://fb.watch/i9Nc1DL_Yv/ 西方裝甲車輛妥善率更不用說，壞一台少一台。 澳洲援助的Bushmaster裝甲車應該是消耗差不多 M113數量援助龐大，構造簡單，教一下烏克蘭人自己應該會維修， 但是維修零件提供還是大麻煩，妥善率應該會持續下滑。 甚至美國乾脆不給M113，改給史崔克了... 這樣搞似乎惡化烏克蘭後勤壓力(之前是給M113，現在換成史崔克) 但是反過來意思就是.... 『你也別修了！直接操到爛吧！！！』 美國援助的史崔克應該早期版本， 現在美軍已經在使用第二代(DHV)、第三代(DHV A1)史崔克。 第一代史崔克已經被美軍汰除存封，有一部分低價出售給泰國， 給烏克蘭消耗不痛不癢。 布雷德利戰鬥步兵車也是， 援助的是早期M2A2版本，現在美軍已經在用M2A3。 2017年美國還拿M2A2軍援黎巴嫩不收錢。 同樣給烏克蘭直接操到爛掉不心疼... 但是坦克就不一樣，坦克維修頻率極高， 例如這篇文章開頭就有提到： https://qr.ae/prFpUh M1A1操作1小時，就需要2小時進行維護保養。 (原文是8個工時，但是由4個人分攤大概要花上2小時， 如果換成自動填裝改為三人的話....) 而且就算是美軍，零件供應鏈出狀況和缺料還是很常見.. 重點是他提到， 在沒有維修零件的情況下，M1A1只能維持數天的運作， 運氣好可以撐到一、兩星期，然後開始各種故障... 這邊附上原文 This is my number one complaint when I see movies that are using military aircraft, tanks or complicated equipment in a ‘post-apocalyptic’ environment. Where are they getting their parts?? The general rule is that for one hour of operations an M1A1 will need 8 hours of maintenance. This is ‘man-hours’, so a crew of four will need to conduct 2:1 maintenance to operation. Much of this maintenance is preventative in nature; checking and changing oils and fluids, track-tension and adjustment, verifying optics are still functioning properly, etc. A lot of preventative maintenance is actually checking for parts that are wearing out or failing, but haven’t caused a system to fail yet; and then replacing them. So without any parts, most tanks could probably operate for a few days, assuming you had the necessary oils and fuels to keep the tank running. Maybe a week or two if you are lucky. At some point systems will start to fail. The Abrams have back-up mechanical fire control systems, and the tank can continue to run with certain failed systems, but sooner or later, you are gonna need to pull off the duct tape and throw in a new part. But tanks carry lots of spare parts on board, and higher echelon maintenance units will carry larger and more expensive parts. The US Marine Corps and other branches have extremely complex logistic supply chains that stretch all around the world and move parts continuously from factories, stores, and supply hubs to military units that are training and deployed to combat zones (with preference going to units that are deployed to combat areas… obviously). These systems were recently digitized, but even so it is fairly normal to have supply chain failures and be “short parts” even when they are working well. The M1A1 is a massively complex piece of machinery. If you ever poke your head down the turret and look inside as the turret turns, you can see all the incredibly complex spider webs of hydraulics, electronics, optics, and weaponry that it hosts. All of these things have parts that can fail for all sorts of reasons. The last thing to mention is that if your crew is mechanically inclined and there are other non-functioning tanks in the area, most parts can be harvested from another tanks to make your tank work. This is not a good practice, though, as it means you do not have an effective and sustainable logistics supply chain. -- ※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc), 來自: 114.26.98.90 (臺灣) ※ 文章網址: https://www.ptt.cc/bbs/Military/M.1674188242.A.341.html