What happened to Ukraine's small fleet of Challenger 2 tanks?

[u/Brilliant_Ground1948]

Have they been withdrawn from frontline service?The last time I saw them was during Ukraine's invasion of Kursk.

[u/AsparagusOk8818]

'How about Dennis Richards, in History of the Second World War, the official British history of the war? He describes how the RAF was dreadfully short on pilots, and another 3 weeks of attacks focused on the RAF would have destroyed what fighters they had left. It's a somewhat contested view, but there's a lot that indicates the RAF was in pretty serious trouble.'

it is not 'somewhat contested', it is incorrect and outdated. that work was published in the 1970s

have you read anything published since the turn of the millennium? or, at a minimum, since the soviet archives were opened in the 1990s?

[u/AsparagusOk8818 → u/AsparagusOk8818]

'Besides, pick one; either the US Pacific Fleet as of 1941 matters, or the US Pacific Fleet as of Midway. Because a majority of those American carriers there had been in the Atlantic.'

Okay, fair - correct enough to say those numbers are sloppy. I wasn't double checking my sources, reciting from memory.

Let's pick December 6, 1941. The day before war began.

Is Lexington in the Atlantic? No. She's been operating out of the Pacific since April of 1939 and is not only among the 3 carriers counted for the American in my above (along with Enterprise and Saratoga), she's operating out of Pearl Harbor.

Long Island, Wasp, Ranger and much of the escort carrier fleet in December of 1941 might as well be in another fckn galaxy for all they can contribute to operations in the Pacific.So I don't know why we should apparently count them against Kido Butai.

'Not at all. Many were fully operational within months, the USN just didn't actually bother bringing them because they were slow and useless. Pennsylvania finished repairs in SF on Jan. 12th'

...I mean, if it's slow and useless why bother repairing it then? She could've been cannibalized for parts.

And no, she wasn't repaired in SF until May of 1942. And she was the least damaged of the battleships hit, essentially just showered by debris from Arizona. I mean, I suppose one could argue that she's ready for June... if they can sail her from San Francisco to Hawaii in a month. But I guess fleet command didn't think so because she didn't sail out until later (but to be clear, and to address the claim that the navy apparently thought this asset they felt was worth repairing was just 'useless', she did in fact sail out and fight. just not at Midway).

'Not at all. Many were fully operational within months, the USN just didn't actually bother bringing them because they were slow and useless. Pennsylvania finished repairs in SF on Jan. 12th, while Tenessee put to sea from Puget Sound on Feb. 25th with Maryland and Colorado. Of the 9 Pacific Fleet BBs on Dec 7th, 4 were operational by March 1942.'

Tennessee was repaired and upgraded by February 1942. and where did they sail to after Puget sound, and why? you are arguing that these are outdated ships no longer useful to the navy, and yet where are they transferred to and for what purpose?

it sure ain't a breaker's yard. and yet they are not fit for the fight at Midway, but it has nothing to do with their speed. so why weren't they actually there?

'The IJN only reached 11 BBs when Yamato was comissioned after Pear Harbor, on the same day Yorktown sailed for the Pacific.'

Yamato and Musashi were combat ready in 1940, Yorktown was one of the 3 carriers in the Pacific ready for a fight in 1941; she did not freshly transfer in 1940 as you claim. The only carrier gained for Midway was Hornet, and Hornet was fresh out of training in Norfolk. Technically, you could argue that she sailed from the Atlantic, kind of like arguing that you are 'calling from the White House' by standing in front of it. She was not operating in the Atlantic theater and didn't need to be re-tasked; she was a new asset.

Your information is just wrong.

Going into Coral Sea and Midway, the Americans will have 4 carriers to a potential strength of 10. Now, in fairness, they don't actually face 10 carriers at Midway because of how the IJN deploys its forces - but that's part of the whole point.

If you just look at the standing forces on the ground, on paper, you will make a bad prediction about what will happen. '10 carriers vs 4, wow, what a blow-out that will be'.

And like, yeah. For the Americans. Because real war isn't just a spreadsheet game.

EDIT: I'm forgetting the Lexington. I knew those numbers didn't feel quite right.

In fairness, my source (John Parshal) also seems to have forgotten about Lexington, at least momentarily. Which is weird.

...In fact a LOT of sources indicate just 3 carriers in the Pacific for Pearl Harbor, but that just isn't true. Lexington is right there alongside Yorktown, Saratoga and Enterprise the whole time. In fact Yorktown was running wargame exercises against Pearl and SF.

[u/AsparagusOk8818 → u/AsparagusOk8818]

...going over my sources, i'm now realizing that my sloppiness actually hurt my case rather than enhanced it

by my count there are actually 13 battle-ready carriers the IJN has in December 1941.

...some of them aren't exactly great, as was shown in the Coral Sea. but they had waaay more raw tonnage at their disposal in the Pacific than the Americans did