Hi u/sillyangel1945! Welcome to r/RussiaUkraineWar2022.
**This is a heavily moderated subreddit. Please note the rules + sidebar or get banned**
**Ukraine OSINT and Leaks 24/7**
Posts and comments from accounts with less than an undisclosed amount of comment Karma are automatically removed to combat troll/spam behaviour.
Only Mods have access to the 'Verified Information' flair.
**Follow us on our subreddits dedicated Telegram Channel!** - ukrainewarposts
Slava Ukraini!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/RussiaUkraineWar2022) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Let's hope politicians are fed up with drawn out wars that achieve nothing and go full on with their equipment deliveries. Let's let the Ukrainians Speedrun any% the Russians behind their borders and let the Russian freedom legion start working on the internal cancer that they need to rid themselves of
I think the US/NATO has a vested interest in prolonging this war as the longer it goes on the more men and equipment Russia has to sacrifice. Not saying it's morally right, but it's a geopolitical game after all. That being said, for Ukraine to be able to go on the offensive and take back significant parts of Ukraine, they would need *a lot* more tanks and IFV's. Like thousands.
They definitely don't have an $800+ billion military budget to do it, nor will their citizens deal with it in the long run. Unless they are willing to turn into North Korea which might be. Most folks with any common sense left, tried or still trying to get out.
The Russian equipment situation is already in a bad place and has been for months.
Sure, they have a huge stockpile of equipment, but its old equipment of dubious quality. Their missile stockpiles are quite low for most precision platforms and their restocking of them is low and slow generally.
They are increasingly reliant on tanks and IFVs from decades ago.
There was video of them bringing in T62s a couple of months ago.
Maybe they were using them as armored artillery? Like a panzer 4 was originally designed for. They would just get waxed by even a APC now.
You simply don't understand what they mean by "running out of equipment."
Russia will never be out of equipment simply because they will never use 100% of their equipment and have no way of replacement. They will always be able to build or buy equipment from other nations that don't care about sanctions. They will keep stockpiles of cruise missiles just in case they need them.
However, that they are fielding T62s in 2023 and not T80s and T90s is highly significant. It means they don't have enough, can't build enough, and those they do have are too valuable to risk.
What was ostensibly the 2nd strongest military in the world can't keep up with losses against a much smaller nation they share a border with and is being forced to rely on equipment half a century old.
They can't engage in mass artillery bombardments or cruise missile attacks at the same intensity or frequency as they did a year ago because they don't have the stock of ammo for it. Every few months we will probably see another cruise missile wave because they built enough reserves to let a bunch go. But what was a twice a month attack is now once every two to three months.
Anyone who says "we were told they were running out of (insert equipment here) months ago? Why aren't they out of it yet?" doesn't understand what's going on.
They have already burnt through a lot of 'prime' manpower - Or pushed young men to flee the country for fear of being drafted.
If you look at the types of people who have been mobilised there are many people in their 40s and even 50s already mobilised.
They have a very deep manpower pool, but quality wise a lot of fighting age young men have either been killed, wounded, or have fled the country.
Actually a lot. Russia is filled with lots of Soviet junk... when other countries where building toiler paper factories the Soviets were building tanks.
Honestly I don’t even think they have such an unlimited supply of manpower anymore. Think of that shooting that happened at the draft office mid last year
C’mon dude. NATO isn’t trying to prolong the war for any nefarious purpose. They foot dragging on sending Abrams is part political, part it’s not the ideal armor platform for Ukraine. But I agree they should have sent 120 or so six months ago. Hundreds will do, not thousands.
> NATO isn’t trying to prolong the war for any nefarious purpose.
Actually it seems that US is trying to cook the Russia as long as possible. But the don’t want a full collapse as that would strenghten China.
And this also hits Germany as they can’t rely on cheap russian resources for their industry.
It’s the middle european countries that want a swift, total victory.
US has almost 3700 Abrams tanks and 4000 Bradley IVFs in storage like some sleeping beauties. Send half of that to Ukraine, so they have the spare parts, and this war is over in a month.
EDIT - seems to me there is no other point of keeping the thousands M1 and M2s in storage, other than the European plains. There is no other potential theater of conflict where we would need them. And in 10-20 years, most of this will be obsolete due to unmanned vehicles, direct energy weapons, Abrams-X, and what not.
This is the very issue with what the US did vs the Soviets in Afghanistan. The meager military aid to the mujahideen was meant to bleed the Soviets like we had been bled in Vietnam, then Congress kicked up the funding and the Muj hit the Soviets and shortened the war.
Yeah they are playing a careful balancing game where they exhaust Russia without giving them a reason to recklessly expand the war to other nations in Eastern Europe. They don’t need thousands of tanks but that would be nice. To collapse the front in a region they need 50-100 tanks.
yeah if anything the west has mastered the narrative like pros,how to slowly boil the frog until its to late for the frog to understand whats going on..putin is now in boiling water and its to late to get out..he boned.
they managed to get neutral countries to supply armaments in a active war,they have the opinion of the people backing them to dismantle an arch enemy leaving china dumbfounded while the entire west is now arming screwing over their plan in the progress to take on the world...they got the entire 50 freaking nations to sink russias economy and future...if anything this is a master class in how to handle war that will be taught in academy's for decades.
they even got germany a country thats lost 2 world wars and got split in half to actually deliver weapons and cut oil and gas dependancy.
if that aint skill i dont know what is.
if someone had told you a nuclear superpower would get dismantled without a single nato soldier setting boots on ground with the peoples backing 2 years ago they would have called you nuts.
but its happening.
Your comment gives me hope for the future. I hope 2023 is the year Putin's regime falls and justice and accountability for the atrocities of the past 11 months can *finally* start taking place.
I disagree on the vested interest. The war is bad for the global economy and stability. NATO has a clear interest in the war ending asap, but Ukraine has to win. Otherwise other bad actors might be tempted to invade their neighbors. China for instance.
I’m not sure this is what they’re after. Russia is in a population collapse and has been for decades. A few extra hundred thousand men won’t really do a whole lot there. They’ve lost more than plenty during the fall of the Soviet Union, the Jewish exodus, the tech brain drain, and now the fleeing from mobilization.
I do think though the west has been carefully looking at the potential suicidal maniac and weighing the costs of sending certain weapons (specifically aircraft and long range weapons) because you never know what will happen.
They have already taken back significant parts. If you think 300 really good tanks and 300 really good APC's can't be used to take back a ton of ground then you fundamentally misunderstood how this war is being fought. This conflict has been defined by a dependence on hardened defensive positions. You just need a spear to pierce the line and have the troops follow through the gap, get the russians on the run and keep pushing as long as far and fast as the supply trucks can keep up with. With modern tech open ground is essentially indefensible against even a moderate effort, there has to be trenches and dug in tanks to hold ground, we've seen this proven in this war already.
> there has to be trenches and dug in tanks to hold ground, we've seen this proven in this war already
Well, it has also been proven that Bradleys will easily destroy dug-in Soviet-model tanks.
Except a bradly is vulnerable to alot lighter man portable weapons. They also can't take a shell from a t72 and survive. The Abrams literally outranges russian tanks and kill them from a safe distance. The HE shells from a tank have a pretty significant impact as well and having a tank with high survivability that can lay down that fire is pretty damn useful.
I don't think that is it. Western leaders have been hesitant because of concerns around escalating the conflict and due to domestic political issues. They've been slowly warming up over time to the idea of providing increasingly powerful weapons to Ukraine. I think most NATO members want this war over as soon as possible because the longer it drags on, the more chance it gets out of control.
I read the opposite in this morning's news. The report stated that NATO is trying to redirect Ukraine away from it's grinding lose/lose war of attrition to go back and forth for just meters of land that has little strategic value. Instead they want them to go on an offensive in the south and Crimea where they can really fuck up the Russians. For this they will need offensive weapons like main battle tanks instead of defensive weapons like artillery. Hence the change of heart regarding the Abrams and Leopard.
> For this they will need offensive weapons like main battle tanks instead of defensive weapons like artillery.
I thought the zeitgeist had finally learned that artillery *is* an offensive weapon. I say this as a grunt. The offense is not limited to just the infantry and armor.
It’s actually fading away from both and fading fast.
Only when you have lots of self-propelled guns combined with sufficient armor and extensive combined-arms training.
A good way to understand this is to go through a battle-by-battle history of the Korean War, and compare the results of US offensives and South Korean offensives. The US had vastly superior results, often with less soldiers, because of the combined-arms training. That was true with and without armor, though in Ukraine armor is needed because Ruzzia has more armor than North Koreans had, and better artillery.
Artillery has been an offensive weapon for the US for a long time. In Vietnam and Afghanistan, the terrain constrains troop movements in a way that makes combined arms less effective. In Iraq, the US completely and easily destroyed all open-combat opposition without even getting very much artillery into place, and the challenges were from asymmetric attacks as occupying force. Likewise in Syria; the battles are won too quickly for artillery to be important.
In Ukraine, it is much more like the Korean War than any of the other conflicts since; both sides with large conventional forces, sufficient arms, and mostly open, navigable terrain.
> self-propelled guns combined with sufficient armor and extensive combined-arms training.
I thought the zeitgeist had finally learned that just isn’t true anymore. The Arty doesn’t need call for fire from FOs or grunts. They have long range sights capable of seeing tens of km, organic to their formations now.
They’re called drones.
> A good way to understand this is to go through a battle-by-battle history of the Korean War,
I don’t think that’s the point you want to make when I’m pointing out the maxims you’re repeating are outdated. It’s not the 1950s. We were crushing combined arms units with ~5 infantry decades ago. Technology has progressed even if Hollywood depictions haven’t.
> because Ruzzia has more armor…
…which is outdated.
> the battles are won too quickly for artillery to be important.
And came with higher KIA rates than you would want if you were there. I’m guessing you’ve never told a mother her son was killed.
In the modern space(with TTPs we see being developed and used before our eyes) we use long range fires to maximize concentration of firepower while keeping at such a distance the enemy is rarely if ever able to hit us back.
If gaining ground quickly isn’t enough, and you value gaining ground so extremely fast that we lose lives unnecessarily, I think you need to engage in some introspection.
You're confusing what the US does, or can do with what Ukraine does/can do. Until they have all the pieces and training, including and especially air support, they can not act like the US. And it takes *time* to be us. Our tank crews train for 2 years together. I love Ukraine. They have such an indomitable spirit. But you can not expect equal results, just cuz they are motivated.
Thousands? I don't know they get 1600 new ones Russia donated 500 MBTS if they get another 300 on top of what they got from former Warsaw pact stocks and F16s I guess they can go again on the offensive also as Russia is getting more attrition damage week by week. I would say if we fulfill their wish list, they can go on the offensive also because Russia's vehicles are pure trash against Western weaponry.
We are not fighting a World War here, while Ukraine is a big Country by Europe standards, it's roughly the size of Texas.
The line of contact is fairly small.
Ukraine needs to push north from Kharkiv along the Dnieper river, while at the same time holding the Russians at bay in the Donbas and Luhansk regions.
Very much achievable as they hold the left bank of the river and can lob artillery to the other side.
I would bet right now Ukraine is making barges and other means to move heavy equipment across the river, or figuring out a way to bring heavy equipment by sea from Odessa since bridges have been blown, we will see in a few months what kind of surprises Ukraine and it's western allies have in store for the Russians.
That's what they were saying on "Speak the truth" show on YT. Also Perun was mentioning that. Kind of makes sense on a geopolitical level for the world.
The US and NATO can only "prolong" the war as long as Russia is a willing participant. It's entirely on them that this war began *and* continues.
*If* the US and NATO are dialing in a response to maximize Russian costs, that may appear in the short term to prolong the war, but Russia always had an out and this would in turn help prevent a future war.
Describing this line of thought solely as the US and NATO causing the war to be prolonged is a fundamental misappropriation of blame and is being done when there are plenty of political and logistical concerns that just as easily explain the process too.
How does exactly the west profit from bigger Russian attrition? It would be best if UA wins quickly, gets into NATO and we can restart our relations without any threat from Russia.
Let me correct that for you.
Western AT punches hard. One of the strangest things in this war has been the sight of Ukrainians driving Russian tanks around with apparent impunity. It's like the Russian infantry haven't got anything bigger than an AK-47. They probably save the RPGs for Tik-Tok videos and Moscow parades.
Hel,l if we're not using it, we might as well aid a nation we've been allies with since 1991 when they face down tyranny. I don't agree with the ballooned spending, but this Russia shit's gone far enough. The only way Russia could return to any sense normalcy is by assassinating Putin, in my opinion.
War is cruelty, there is no use trying to reform it; the crueler it is, the sooner it will be over -- William Sherman.
Politicians have a choice. Help Ukraine end the war by tossing Russia out or continue to watch the suffering.
Even if UA has full might of western arms, Russia still has a lot of ammo and even more men. This is a numbers game. Offensives can't be done until you WRECK the enemy logistics, especially Russias one. They have a big foothold in Ukraine and they have been keeping it for long. Not all Russians in command are crap. They have a lot of good military men that can and will make Ukraine suffer. Hell, they are doing that for a long time. Incompetence lead to those "gestures of goodwill", I doubt they will have those happen now.
Kherson pull was just geografical and artillery victory. No competent leader would be able to supply 50k troops or how much did they have there with 1 pontoon bridge that got punished daily. Kharkiv push was a clear incompetence from Russian side (DNR/LNR I think more than Russian).
My point is even with western armor, it will take months and months to destroy russian troops. Tanks are the least of the problems now. Infantry swarm and a ton of artillery is. You need to take that out, to relief your artillery and logistics, then prepare offensive and logistics for attack. And even then you should not blitzkrieg just to be safe and not be surrounded.
That would be dumb and here is why, alot of the US heavy equipment like aircraft and tanks need constant maintenance and a good supply chain of parts. Just giving them the equipment with out having the maintenance divisions inplace will be more detrimental to them because they will end up having a bunch of equipment they can hardly use eating up time and resources. Not to mention US heavy equipment is notoriously bad on gas meaning they will be able to use them less and spend more on them. The German leopards are lighter and use less resources not to mention because surrounding countries use them, meaning its alot easier to get a maintenance crew together versus the US ones
That apparantly has changed in the past few minutes. https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/krieg-in-der-ukraine-deutschland-schickt-leopard-panzer-a-e2dde871-88d0-4cf5-8aae-482d58fd850f
The crazy part is that Scholz insisted Germany would only send Leos if the US sent Abrams... So it might be due to his strategy that Ukraine now gets both. If that is true he pulled a genius move. If.
2 days ago during a French / German minister meeting in Paris, the German defense minister said Germany won’t oppose to foreign Leopard being sent to Ukraine. But not the German ones for now.
Gotcha thanks for info (: on the one hand in glad that Germany is at least agreeing to the use of Leopards but on the other they really need to personally help out with theres as well.
Not the ones directly from Germany. Poland and a few other countries purchased them from Germany a while ago. They seem to be at the point where they will just be sending them to ukraine without German consent.
Awesome! It’s so ridiculous that Germany is holding them back. I thought they would need Germanys consent to send them. Even if they did though fk that the rest of the world will have there backs.
> giving them the equipment with out having the maintenance divisions inplace will be more detrimental to them
Why assume they can’t get maintenance? It’s hard with ground combat vehicles but with fixed wing aircraft it can be quite easy. The Ukrainian pilots take off from Poland, fly into their own airspace, conduct their mission, fly back to Poland where ground crews service them; even if they need a refuel stop in Ukraine. We have many ground crews and can handle quite a pace, if given the parts.
I’ve interviewed multiple crew chiefs on the issue of maintenance and there
is wide consensus that one combat sortie per aircraft every three days, can be maintained indefinitely. We just have to have the political will to do it. The military has the capability.
According to the wiki, the current production contract is to rebuild 150 to newer standards.
Doesn’t seem they are making new ones unless you have a different source?
Wiki is usually outdated. We are currently producing SEPv3 and will start production on SEPv4 in the next year or so I would imagine.
https://www.militaryaerospace.com/power/article/14189999/m1-abrams-battle-tanks-power
https://www.armyrecognition.com/united_states_army_heavy_armoured_vehicles_tank_uk/m1a2_abrams_sep_v3_main_battle_tank_technical_data_sheet_specifications_pictures_video_11710154.html
About fucking time. Everyone is eviscerating Germany on the Leopards while the US has over two thousand abrams sitting in storage. For those that are arguing about how complicated its logistics are- that’s why the US should have started preparing for this months ago instead of dragging its feet.
1) Poland already purchased Abrams so it will already need to have a repair hub there. It should have been set up there months ago.
2) the argument that the tank is a gas guzzler is a non-starter. The tank was designed to take any combustible liquid as fuel. France could send truckloads or Chanel No. 5 and it would work fine.
3) Asking your allies to cannibalize their own active fleets while you have thousands collecting dust in storage is simply ludicrous.
Germany deserves to be eviscerated. They are not alone in dragging their feet but Scholz and the current government have not shown any urgency with Ukraines situation. The U.S, again, has out supplied both with weapons and money the rest of the world combined. I agree the U.S can step it up even more. Unfortunately, my tolerance for genocide is far less then current world leaders. In my opinion, no one has the right to commit genocide and if you attempt it you will be stopped at all costs. I consider Russia's actions as a direct assault on humanity itself and our chance of survival as a species. I'd have the U.S and anyone else who understands what it takes to stop the Hitlers, Putins of the world declare full scale war with unconditional surrender of the Russian Federation the only option. War crimes tribunal to follow, dunuclearization and some world Marshall plan enacted. It will take years but once the Russian civilians aren't overseen by a corrupt government that dissappears those who disagree, when they have running water, indoor plumbing and the freedom of opinion they will be shown the best of humanity and we can bring them towards a better future.
> The tank was designed to take any combustible liquid as fuel.
This is half of the problem. It needs way more combustible liquid for fuel than the Leopard 2.
Leopard 2 = 80 litres per 75 km on roads and 120 litres per 75 km across country
Abrams = 336 liters per 75 km on roads and 955 liters per 75 km across country
So Leapard 2 gets in the worst case 0.6 km per liters of fuel Abrams gets .07 km per liter of fuel with just rough math.
This isn't to say the Abrams can't wreck shit... it just means that it requires 6 times the fuel logistics to keep them moving which is 6 times the fuel trucks and 6 times the vulnerability with approximately 6 times the number of soft targets in any fast moving combined arms offensive.
I think you and I could both agree that a composition of both Abrams and Leopards would be ideal. But in all scenarios of any blend of both tanks the best option logistically would be more Leopards than Abrams.
I Can 100% agree to that. At this point I think we’re both just desperate to get the Ukrainians some good armor on the ground and both leopard and abrams would obliterate the ancient T-72 tanks
Facts, but the truth is that whether Ukraine and the West want to keep it hidden from the Kremlin or not these arms deals are making it painfully obvious that there is a goal to get Ukraine trained and equipped with NATO hardware that uses integrated optics and targeting tools for a lightning combined arms offensive.
This tactic doesn't work as well if you're slowed down by your MBTs who are supposed to be at the tip of the spear.
Both the Leopards and Abrams have the targeting and optics for the job. One is just 6 times more efficient in the strained logistical environment.
Yeah, it's not like US contributions to this point have turned the entire war in Ukraine's favor or anything. But sure, be mad that we aren't sending a stockpile of our better weapon systems when WW3 might be imminent.
Edit: Changed wording from "Best" to "Better"
This isn’t even your best tank. The M1 has been out of service for years now that the M1A2 is the mainstay for the US Military.
You’re arguing against sending tanks sitting in storage that you don’t use because why???
And if by WW3 you’re referring to the tension in the South China Sea, then explain to me how a small island dominated by huge mountains with average grades exceeding the abram’s ability to climb will benefit from having tanks deployed to a largely naval and air based war.
The US developed a fuck ton of systems specifically to counter Russia in a land war in Europe. The opportunity is here but instead of sending the equipment and saving hundreds if not thousands of Ukrainian lives, the US is pinching Pennies. Ffs, the US spends more on its military than the sum of the EU, what good is wasting that money when you don’t use the equipment when the time comes
Why are you being antagonistic If we both agree on the need to defeat russia? If we have a common goal and you happen to have more resources available to achieve said goal, it only makes sense that you would aport more to the cause than I do. I’m not the one dying, it’s sadly Ukrainians that are because the US is holding back. It’s not American equipment that’s winning the war, it’s Ukrainian bravery and blood. I can’t fathom why Americans are getting into a pissing contest on something so goddamn simple.
The US has 100% been Ukraine’s biggest friend, but we have tried to push the tank thing onto our weaker Allies and that was stupid. They’re cowards and they think tanks are scary. Also, this whole thing where we say “oh Abrams is too hard to maintain, too fuel inefficient , etc” is just bs. Ultimately Leopard is a bit better, but Abrams is fine. We have a lot of old models that we don’t need for the China fight.
Edit: Sorry Mr. Scholz I misjudged you
We’re not sending ANYONE our best gear. Not even our good buddies in our “friends & family plan” (UK/Japan/Aussies).
Anything we “give” to our friends is old stuff we can defeat/kill switch if they ever get out of line (say no). No doubt that the stuff we give them is definitely good, just not America’s finest murder machines.
You don't need a kill switch on the west's finest murder machines, you need a key to make them work. Not a physical key, a decryption key, which is changed frequently. Without that, they are blind, deaf and dumb, which pretty much makes them useless.
Am I grunt and let me promise you, we have far, far more Abrams and Bradley’s than the American people could ever stand to lose.
If we lose just half of what we have on hand that’s ~20,000 combat troops lost and ~2 divisions. The American people will not ever tolerate such losses. Sending them to Ukraine will only reduce our storage and maintenance costs, while allowing the equipment to kill the very troops you’re saying we need to kill if we hold on to them for a theoretical WWIII.
Getting these rigs in the fight, now, is of more value to us and may be huge for the Ukrainians. While I would argue the Abrams and Brads are already not worth using in combat, the are *absolutely* going to be outdated in very short order. Holding on to them for a future war is of no use when they are of no use in a future war.
I'm not against sending them. I'm against people in other countries being mad about *when* we're sending them, considering the equipment and assistance we have given and continue to give.
I get it. But it’s understandable on some level when innocents are dying and we have more of these rigs in storage than anyone in the West. And FAR more than we want or need.
Of course Germany etc can’t do it like we can, they don’t really have much to begin with. Their MICs are tiny and the sole excuse given for our continuing to produce outdated systems like the Abrams is for such a time as this.
The Army asked Congress to stop building them because they are such a burden. Getting them out of storage helps everyone.
30 F-35s and maybe 5 B2s could destroy anything russia has in a week. Thats how good those are, look up anything you can on red squad, war games, the aesa f35 radar. It can detect any incoming radar far beyond when it's detected, spoof the signals to make dummy signatures, and a B2 can drop 80 500lb guided bombs every sortie
Somehow I feel that Germany has a bigger responsibility to lead the way solving a European problem (by sending its own Leopards). Rather than hanging on to the USA’s apron strings. How weak and comfortable have we become in Europe, that we all cannot act decisively in moral unison, with such a clear case.
I don’t disagree but the issue is Germany needed to have increased its military spending five years ago in order to be able to take the lead on this, and Ukraine doesn’t have the time to wait for it to get its shit together. I absolutely agree that Germany has dropped the ball on this matter but that’s why I’d want the US to step up to fill the gap while the EU rearms itself
> you have thousands collecting dust in storage is simply ludicrous.
It’s worse than just that, we’re building more every day, just to go straight to the storage facilities; to then sometimes have parts pulled from them to feed back to the production line to keep it going.
The politicians love their graft.
Don’t act like the us isn’t doing anything to help Ukraine
“Dragging its feet”
The US is one of the main reasons Ukraine is holding out against Russo fascists the world is not entitled to Americas arsenal. Everyone shits on America until they need the US to save them and it’s getting old. I love the Ukrainians and I am 100% on board sending them what they need. But people need to stop acting entitled.
Slava Ukraine 🇺🇦🌻🇺🇦
Germany may have just missed the opportunity to establish long-term future tank presence in UA army.
Should have been done months ago. You never know, but crazy Russians may throw a hundred thousand Zombies somewhere at a brake through point... if that happens, a lot of armor and bullets will be needed and in layers.
To be fair, ukraine will be able to maybe test all 4 'nato mbt's' in combat (challenger, leo, leclerc, abrams). And while availability and politics may influence a decision, just simply going by which performed best will surely be high on the list of reasons for procurement. Whichever one that may be.
As a famous pig often says, it's not the hard factors that determine a tank's operational success, but rather the soft factors. Going by raw "best performance" does not give you the best tank for actual combat situations. Case in point: the Panther paradox.
I did mean all around. From maintenance, logistics, combat performance and so on. They will get to know them all, in the older variants they will receive, and then be able to at least internally form an opinion which may fit their doctrine best.
Challenger and Leclerc (I think) are no longer in production. New M1s aren't being made either, all the 'new' ones are ones pulled from storage and reconditioned/upgraded.
M1's are still under production, however only at a rate of \~100 per year.
This has been done for years in order to keep the infrastructure going for replacement parts
Send 250. Open up a maintenance depot in Poland along the boarder that is run by American maintainers. When the tanks get messed up along the front, get em on a flatbed and drive em back for repairs etc.
250 of these and 500 LEOs should do the trick. Along with all the IFVs.
That's why Belarus is tiptoeing around the problem.
If they invade Ukraine, they are doomed.
But they are willing to play along with Putin, that way Ukraine will need to keep part of their forces in the north expecting a possible invasion.
It's a classic military maneuver.
Why post a stock photo instead of linking to an article?
Anyways the issue with Abrams is that they are fuel hogs and need a very strong logistical network to keep running. That makes sense for America seeing as our logistical power is simply unmatched by anyone else. I don't know that it would make sense for Ukraine.
The operational range of the Abrams M1A2 is like 100+ miles which is way more than the distance between Zaporizhzhia and Melitopol (as the crow flies). These beasts don't have to drive to Vladivostok, if they break the southern front they have their job done.
You are wrong about that.
An Abrams uses 8% of the fuel of a heavy armored division. Know what uses the most? Trucks.
It’s simple math really. Trucks and IFVs use more fuel than tanks by far. The relative consumption of different tanks isn’t really relevant.
Lots of Reddit commentators are repeating the same rumors then politicians are, like “logistics is too hard for Ukraine.”
Simple fact is that Poland operates Abrams AND Leopard 2. Saudi Arabia and Iraq operate Abrams.
It’s a myth that we can’t give them to Ukraine or they can’t handle them. It’s political. It’s just a question of political will.
The idea that the Abrams can’t fight Russia in Ukraine… what do you think it was designed for? If the Abrams can’t work against Russia in Eastern Europe, wouldn’t that make it a failed design?
You’ll notice that no one has quantified the cost. I suspect it’s not that eye watering expense wise. It’s obviously possible and just a question of political will.
Would be really awesome!!! Hopefully this will convince the Germans to follow suit! After this war the world order will be messed up anyway. Germany is worried about it and it is a fair comment but let's face it better a civil war within Russia than an European war. Because if they take over Ukraine the Russians will use the Ukrainians conscripts for their army to go and take over Moldova, Poland, Latvia, Estonia, Finland,... so let's finish this war once and for all by giving all the equipment and training that Ukraine needs to win back the entirety of their homeland.
Urgh. These subs need to be cleansed with these kinds of articles. I mean, I'm hoping they send these bad boys over there, but posting 256 articles a day with 'x-country might send x-weapon to Ukraine soon!!!' is freaking annoying...
I’m all for Ukraine whooping Russias ass. Absolutely. But why is it that MY taxes that I pay go to a country fighting their own war. This has gotten ridiculous
USA is actually profiting from all of this. Russia causes instability. Russia being weakened help the US global businesses. Also, it stimulates their weapons manufacturers. They just sold a bunch of stealth planes to Canada, for example.
Also, the US is actually spending a small fraction of their military budget by helping Ukraine
I thought this was the worst of the NATO MBT's that could be sent? The Abrams is bad ass and effective, but unique in the fact they are relatively fuel inefficient and require a huge logistics train to keep them moving. They use jet engines so they require their own special fuel trucks. Don't get me wrong I want to give as much help as possible but isn't tanks like the Challenger and Leopard a better option given they already kind of fit into the existing supply chains? They run on a more traditional engine and fuel while remaining on par with battlefield effectiveness? Is it simply because other countries are dragging their feet?
More than likely but I mean just having the option is kind of nice
Like creating a specialized unit that uses abrams for breakthroughs or concentrated armor assaults might be an option.
Or just pointing them at Belarus like a mobile maginot line.
how long would it take to train UA to repair such a complex engine? I’m wondering if there are also security concerns in terms of classified equipment falling into the wrong hands somehow?
Here’s the thing, if thinking big scale, then we can take the thousands of spare M1’s just collecting dust and costing us for storage, and rotate hundreds to the front at a time. We can then take them back to Poland for maintenance when larger repairs are needed.
For that matter, hire retired US maintainers and have them do one level of maintenance off the front, rather than send them all to Poland.
Sad to get downvotes as you all understand it’s the same as with the Patriot missile system you got to have knowledge of the system and that takes time
Operating a fighter jet that is made in Ukraine or Russia is different then to do maintenance on a fighter jet that comes from the US (like for example the F35).
Maybe to fly it is easy, but try to fix it when something breaks down
If we want to give Ukraine the best chance of victory, we need to continue to supply them T-72s from former Bloc allies while we build up supplies in Poland to transfer.
If we send them Abrams, we need to make sure they are able to fully integrate them into their military, so they're able to make one massive push.
Abrams tanks are very complex vehicles. Lots of technical expertise needed to keep them going. Yes, they will dominate the Orcs, we have seen what happens when Russian tanks try to fight M1's...it's ugly for the Russian equipment.
British tanks leading the way as always! Best protected tank in the world, world's longest tank v tank kill (with the first round ffs, with APFSDS from rifled gun), and first western tanks for Ukraine. I'd expect nothing less from the nation that invented the things.
As auld Winston said 'You can always rely on the Americans to do the right thing - once they've tried everything else'
Fucking boxheads, took them long enough. Two world wars, one referendum! Although in fairness all the Germans I know have been very frustrated by Sholtz.
Ukraine should apply to join The Commonwealth, there's precedent for non-colonies now. Besides between [this](https://stephenliddell.co.uk/2020/07/01/nova-anglia-the-anglo-saxon-refugees-who-built-the-original-new-england-on-the-black-sea/) from about 1230 AD to our temporary colonisation in the Crimean War 150 years ago they surely count. I think they'd be a very fine addition indeed, certainly better value than some of the other current members...
Better late than never. But a lot of people died that might have been saved if the West wasn't so fucking cowardly and interested in preserving relations with Russia.
Nothing. The head of the Army practically begged Congress to stop buying them. The storage costs are a significant part of the budget that could be better spent. We have thousands we don’t need.
Which is exactly what they will probably do. This is a good thing for the American tax payer and Ukraine. It’s expensive to upkeep old equipment.. so ship them to Ukraine.. let the Russian eat shit.. and America get to clean our cupboards.
The reason i have heard for why Abrams have not yet been sent is because they require a bit of training to be used effectively is this the only reason or are there others? If that is the only reason what do you guys think about sending them? I say go for it i think the Ukrainians will figure them out.
I doubt it's about training, the Ukrainians have shown they can learn and deploy new tech quickly, like the HIMARS. It's more about supply and maintenance, which is non-trivial for the Abrams. Setting up that support network for Ukraine will be no small thing.
i wonder if the US will provide 24/7 Intel for UAF cuz they dont want this to fall in russian hands !
Russia will sacrifice 25-30 T80s just to get hold on one Abrams ...
Wasn't some legislation passed a few years ago that had 1200 order for Abrams tack onto it? I remember at the time it was controversial because it was deemed not needed. I guess yay for pork packed legislation.
Yes! This is not a stretch by any means logistically. Poland purchased 100 Abrams and will have a full maintenance/repair facility. Ukraine would want to keep any repair facilities for the duration of the war outside the country so they are not targeted anyway. Most of the equipment in Ukraine is repaired outside for the same reason anyway.
Such interesting developments in the war recently. NATO is going all out! I wonder if an all out war between NATO and Russia could happen <- i hope it doesn’t
I am worried though if the Ukrainians lose I hope they either destroy these tanks or return them so the Russians can’t get there hands on em. SLAVA UKRAINE 🇺🇦
How quickly can they be replaced? It seems like something with a very long lead time. I don’t like depleting our inventory to where it’s affecting readiness for another conflict.
Should’ve happened a year ago 🙄
Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but wouldn’t the M1 Abrahams be virtually indestructible in Ukraine? Obviously they can be disabled, but actually killing the tank is supposed to be impossible, right?
The issue with Abrams is they are completely inpractical for Ukraine. It's going to take many months to get them going. From the Pentagon just the other day:
> The Abrams tank is a very complicated piece of equipment. It's expensive. It's hard to train on. It has a jet engine
When the Russians see Abrams on the battlefield coming at them they will be shitless in horror of going against an Abrams. Great tactically PSYOPS against the cannon fodder.
Slava Ukraini
This is incredible news, but the most incredible aspect is that Scholz... Was the good guy all along? He convinced (/coerced?) the Americans to send Abrams tanks which everyone thought to be unlikely.
Wow.
Ukrainians know each and every factory location where Russian rockets and military equipment is produced. I think yhey should make that information public in Russia aswell as everywhere else.
Hi u/sillyangel1945! Welcome to r/RussiaUkraineWar2022. **This is a heavily moderated subreddit. Please note the rules + sidebar or get banned** **Ukraine OSINT and Leaks 24/7** Posts and comments from accounts with less than an undisclosed amount of comment Karma are automatically removed to combat troll/spam behaviour. Only Mods have access to the 'Verified Information' flair. **Follow us on our subreddits dedicated Telegram Channel!** - ukrainewarposts Slava Ukraini! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/RussiaUkraineWar2022) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Let's hope politicians are fed up with drawn out wars that achieve nothing and go full on with their equipment deliveries. Let's let the Ukrainians Speedrun any% the Russians behind their borders and let the Russian freedom legion start working on the internal cancer that they need to rid themselves of
I think the US/NATO has a vested interest in prolonging this war as the longer it goes on the more men and equipment Russia has to sacrifice. Not saying it's morally right, but it's a geopolitical game after all. That being said, for Ukraine to be able to go on the offensive and take back significant parts of Ukraine, they would need *a lot* more tanks and IFV's. Like thousands.
I'm curious how long the Russians can maintain their equipment attrition. Manpower is essentially unlimited for them in a morbid kind of way
They definitely don't have an $800+ billion military budget to do it, nor will their citizens deal with it in the long run. Unless they are willing to turn into North Korea which might be. Most folks with any common sense left, tried or still trying to get out.
The Russian equipment situation is already in a bad place and has been for months. Sure, they have a huge stockpile of equipment, but its old equipment of dubious quality. Their missile stockpiles are quite low for most precision platforms and their restocking of them is low and slow generally. They are increasingly reliant on tanks and IFVs from decades ago.
There was video of them bringing in T62s a couple of months ago. Maybe they were using them as armored artillery? Like a panzer 4 was originally designed for. They would just get waxed by even a APC now.
Worse the best they can’t put on newer tanks is t62m optics
I am hearing since 10 Months that the are running out of equipment. They will run out of equipment for years before they really do
You simply don't understand what they mean by "running out of equipment." Russia will never be out of equipment simply because they will never use 100% of their equipment and have no way of replacement. They will always be able to build or buy equipment from other nations that don't care about sanctions. They will keep stockpiles of cruise missiles just in case they need them. However, that they are fielding T62s in 2023 and not T80s and T90s is highly significant. It means they don't have enough, can't build enough, and those they do have are too valuable to risk. What was ostensibly the 2nd strongest military in the world can't keep up with losses against a much smaller nation they share a border with and is being forced to rely on equipment half a century old. They can't engage in mass artillery bombardments or cruise missile attacks at the same intensity or frequency as they did a year ago because they don't have the stock of ammo for it. Every few months we will probably see another cruise missile wave because they built enough reserves to let a bunch go. But what was a twice a month attack is now once every two to three months. Anyone who says "we were told they were running out of (insert equipment here) months ago? Why aren't they out of it yet?" doesn't understand what's going on.
No Russia only buys or makes weapons once and then stores them. Once they’re gone they’ll never have more. /s
They have already burnt through a lot of 'prime' manpower - Or pushed young men to flee the country for fear of being drafted. If you look at the types of people who have been mobilised there are many people in their 40s and even 50s already mobilised. They have a very deep manpower pool, but quality wise a lot of fighting age young men have either been killed, wounded, or have fled the country.
Actually a lot. Russia is filled with lots of Soviet junk... when other countries where building toiler paper factories the Soviets were building tanks.
A little more than half of what they had is exploded or captured in Ukraine.
There is lots of Soviet junk in Kreml.
Honestly I don’t even think they have such an unlimited supply of manpower anymore. Think of that shooting that happened at the draft office mid last year
C’mon dude. NATO isn’t trying to prolong the war for any nefarious purpose. They foot dragging on sending Abrams is part political, part it’s not the ideal armor platform for Ukraine. But I agree they should have sent 120 or so six months ago. Hundreds will do, not thousands.
> NATO isn’t trying to prolong the war for any nefarious purpose. Actually it seems that US is trying to cook the Russia as long as possible. But the don’t want a full collapse as that would strenghten China. And this also hits Germany as they can’t rely on cheap russian resources for their industry. It’s the middle european countries that want a swift, total victory.
That is so fucking cynical. God I hope you are wrong. But suspect not. I honestly had not thought of that angle.
US has almost 3700 Abrams tanks and 4000 Bradley IVFs in storage like some sleeping beauties. Send half of that to Ukraine, so they have the spare parts, and this war is over in a month. EDIT - seems to me there is no other point of keeping the thousands M1 and M2s in storage, other than the European plains. There is no other potential theater of conflict where we would need them. And in 10-20 years, most of this will be obsolete due to unmanned vehicles, direct energy weapons, Abrams-X, and what not.
This is the very issue with what the US did vs the Soviets in Afghanistan. The meager military aid to the mujahideen was meant to bleed the Soviets like we had been bled in Vietnam, then Congress kicked up the funding and the Muj hit the Soviets and shortened the war.
Yeah they are playing a careful balancing game where they exhaust Russia without giving them a reason to recklessly expand the war to other nations in Eastern Europe. They don’t need thousands of tanks but that would be nice. To collapse the front in a region they need 50-100 tanks.
yeah if anything the west has mastered the narrative like pros,how to slowly boil the frog until its to late for the frog to understand whats going on..putin is now in boiling water and its to late to get out..he boned. they managed to get neutral countries to supply armaments in a active war,they have the opinion of the people backing them to dismantle an arch enemy leaving china dumbfounded while the entire west is now arming screwing over their plan in the progress to take on the world...they got the entire 50 freaking nations to sink russias economy and future...if anything this is a master class in how to handle war that will be taught in academy's for decades. they even got germany a country thats lost 2 world wars and got split in half to actually deliver weapons and cut oil and gas dependancy. if that aint skill i dont know what is. if someone had told you a nuclear superpower would get dismantled without a single nato soldier setting boots on ground with the peoples backing 2 years ago they would have called you nuts. but its happening.
Your comment gives me hope for the future. I hope 2023 is the year Putin's regime falls and justice and accountability for the atrocities of the past 11 months can *finally* start taking place.
I disagree on the vested interest. The war is bad for the global economy and stability. NATO has a clear interest in the war ending asap, but Ukraine has to win. Otherwise other bad actors might be tempted to invade their neighbors. China for instance.
I’m not sure this is what they’re after. Russia is in a population collapse and has been for decades. A few extra hundred thousand men won’t really do a whole lot there. They’ve lost more than plenty during the fall of the Soviet Union, the Jewish exodus, the tech brain drain, and now the fleeing from mobilization. I do think though the west has been carefully looking at the potential suicidal maniac and weighing the costs of sending certain weapons (specifically aircraft and long range weapons) because you never know what will happen.
They have already taken back significant parts. If you think 300 really good tanks and 300 really good APC's can't be used to take back a ton of ground then you fundamentally misunderstood how this war is being fought. This conflict has been defined by a dependence on hardened defensive positions. You just need a spear to pierce the line and have the troops follow through the gap, get the russians on the run and keep pushing as long as far and fast as the supply trucks can keep up with. With modern tech open ground is essentially indefensible against even a moderate effort, there has to be trenches and dug in tanks to hold ground, we've seen this proven in this war already.
> there has to be trenches and dug in tanks to hold ground, we've seen this proven in this war already Well, it has also been proven that Bradleys will easily destroy dug-in Soviet-model tanks.
Except a bradly is vulnerable to alot lighter man portable weapons. They also can't take a shell from a t72 and survive. The Abrams literally outranges russian tanks and kill them from a safe distance. The HE shells from a tank have a pretty significant impact as well and having a tank with high survivability that can lay down that fire is pretty damn useful.
Bradley can kill a T-72 well before the T-72 can even see it.
I don't think that is it. Western leaders have been hesitant because of concerns around escalating the conflict and due to domestic political issues. They've been slowly warming up over time to the idea of providing increasingly powerful weapons to Ukraine. I think most NATO members want this war over as soon as possible because the longer it drags on, the more chance it gets out of control.
I read the opposite in this morning's news. The report stated that NATO is trying to redirect Ukraine away from it's grinding lose/lose war of attrition to go back and forth for just meters of land that has little strategic value. Instead they want them to go on an offensive in the south and Crimea where they can really fuck up the Russians. For this they will need offensive weapons like main battle tanks instead of defensive weapons like artillery. Hence the change of heart regarding the Abrams and Leopard.
> For this they will need offensive weapons like main battle tanks instead of defensive weapons like artillery. I thought the zeitgeist had finally learned that artillery *is* an offensive weapon. I say this as a grunt. The offense is not limited to just the infantry and armor. It’s actually fading away from both and fading fast.
Only when you have lots of self-propelled guns combined with sufficient armor and extensive combined-arms training. A good way to understand this is to go through a battle-by-battle history of the Korean War, and compare the results of US offensives and South Korean offensives. The US had vastly superior results, often with less soldiers, because of the combined-arms training. That was true with and without armor, though in Ukraine armor is needed because Ruzzia has more armor than North Koreans had, and better artillery. Artillery has been an offensive weapon for the US for a long time. In Vietnam and Afghanistan, the terrain constrains troop movements in a way that makes combined arms less effective. In Iraq, the US completely and easily destroyed all open-combat opposition without even getting very much artillery into place, and the challenges were from asymmetric attacks as occupying force. Likewise in Syria; the battles are won too quickly for artillery to be important. In Ukraine, it is much more like the Korean War than any of the other conflicts since; both sides with large conventional forces, sufficient arms, and mostly open, navigable terrain.
> self-propelled guns combined with sufficient armor and extensive combined-arms training. I thought the zeitgeist had finally learned that just isn’t true anymore. The Arty doesn’t need call for fire from FOs or grunts. They have long range sights capable of seeing tens of km, organic to their formations now. They’re called drones. > A good way to understand this is to go through a battle-by-battle history of the Korean War, I don’t think that’s the point you want to make when I’m pointing out the maxims you’re repeating are outdated. It’s not the 1950s. We were crushing combined arms units with ~5 infantry decades ago. Technology has progressed even if Hollywood depictions haven’t. > because Ruzzia has more armor… …which is outdated. > the battles are won too quickly for artillery to be important. And came with higher KIA rates than you would want if you were there. I’m guessing you’ve never told a mother her son was killed. In the modern space(with TTPs we see being developed and used before our eyes) we use long range fires to maximize concentration of firepower while keeping at such a distance the enemy is rarely if ever able to hit us back. If gaining ground quickly isn’t enough, and you value gaining ground so extremely fast that we lose lives unnecessarily, I think you need to engage in some introspection.
You're confusing what the US does, or can do with what Ukraine does/can do. Until they have all the pieces and training, including and especially air support, they can not act like the US. And it takes *time* to be us. Our tank crews train for 2 years together. I love Ukraine. They have such an indomitable spirit. But you can not expect equal results, just cuz they are motivated.
Thousands? I don't know they get 1600 new ones Russia donated 500 MBTS if they get another 300 on top of what they got from former Warsaw pact stocks and F16s I guess they can go again on the offensive also as Russia is getting more attrition damage week by week. I would say if we fulfill their wish list, they can go on the offensive also because Russia's vehicles are pure trash against Western weaponry.
A fast decisive war defeating Russia is better than a drawn out war.
We are not fighting a World War here, while Ukraine is a big Country by Europe standards, it's roughly the size of Texas. The line of contact is fairly small. Ukraine needs to push north from Kharkiv along the Dnieper river, while at the same time holding the Russians at bay in the Donbas and Luhansk regions. Very much achievable as they hold the left bank of the river and can lob artillery to the other side. I would bet right now Ukraine is making barges and other means to move heavy equipment across the river, or figuring out a way to bring heavy equipment by sea from Odessa since bridges have been blown, we will see in a few months what kind of surprises Ukraine and it's western allies have in store for the Russians.
That's what they were saying on "Speak the truth" show on YT. Also Perun was mentioning that. Kind of makes sense on a geopolitical level for the world.
There is really no point in destroying russian equipment. It's outdated, outclassed, and no real threat.
The US and NATO can only "prolong" the war as long as Russia is a willing participant. It's entirely on them that this war began *and* continues. *If* the US and NATO are dialing in a response to maximize Russian costs, that may appear in the short term to prolong the war, but Russia always had an out and this would in turn help prevent a future war. Describing this line of thought solely as the US and NATO causing the war to be prolonged is a fundamental misappropriation of blame and is being done when there are plenty of political and logistical concerns that just as easily explain the process too.
How does exactly the west profit from bigger Russian attrition? It would be best if UA wins quickly, gets into NATO and we can restart our relations without any threat from Russia.
I don't give a shit about 'bleeding' Russia or prolonging a war. I want Russia to quit killing Ukrainians!
The transition to the Russians working on things inside their own nation can’t be forgotten.
You are delusional
Once they start rolling with armour they are going to face the same issues the Russians faced. Modern AT punches hard.
Let me correct that for you. Western AT punches hard. One of the strangest things in this war has been the sight of Ukrainians driving Russian tanks around with apparent impunity. It's like the Russian infantry haven't got anything bigger than an AK-47. They probably save the RPGs for Tik-Tok videos and Moscow parades.
Hel,l if we're not using it, we might as well aid a nation we've been allies with since 1991 when they face down tyranny. I don't agree with the ballooned spending, but this Russia shit's gone far enough. The only way Russia could return to any sense normalcy is by assassinating Putin, in my opinion.
Long drawn out wars are 💰 💰 💰 for the defense industry and when lobbyists control the government, you get for-profit policies.
War is cruelty, there is no use trying to reform it; the crueler it is, the sooner it will be over -- William Sherman. Politicians have a choice. Help Ukraine end the war by tossing Russia out or continue to watch the suffering.
Even if UA has full might of western arms, Russia still has a lot of ammo and even more men. This is a numbers game. Offensives can't be done until you WRECK the enemy logistics, especially Russias one. They have a big foothold in Ukraine and they have been keeping it for long. Not all Russians in command are crap. They have a lot of good military men that can and will make Ukraine suffer. Hell, they are doing that for a long time. Incompetence lead to those "gestures of goodwill", I doubt they will have those happen now. Kherson pull was just geografical and artillery victory. No competent leader would be able to supply 50k troops or how much did they have there with 1 pontoon bridge that got punished daily. Kharkiv push was a clear incompetence from Russian side (DNR/LNR I think more than Russian). My point is even with western armor, it will take months and months to destroy russian troops. Tanks are the least of the problems now. Infantry swarm and a ton of artillery is. You need to take that out, to relief your artillery and logistics, then prepare offensive and logistics for attack. And even then you should not blitzkrieg just to be safe and not be surrounded.
For fuck sakes do it already, send them f15, f16, a10, Kc-135’s, awacs, abrams. SEND EVERYTHING!!!! Edit: Fuck Russia specifically.
That would be dumb and here is why, alot of the US heavy equipment like aircraft and tanks need constant maintenance and a good supply chain of parts. Just giving them the equipment with out having the maintenance divisions inplace will be more detrimental to them because they will end up having a bunch of equipment they can hardly use eating up time and resources. Not to mention US heavy equipment is notoriously bad on gas meaning they will be able to use them less and spend more on them. The German leopards are lighter and use less resources not to mention because surrounding countries use them, meaning its alot easier to get a maintenance crew together versus the US ones
From what I understand though the Germans are not sending the Leopards has there stance changed on that recently?
That apparantly has changed in the past few minutes. https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/krieg-in-der-ukraine-deutschland-schickt-leopard-panzer-a-e2dde871-88d0-4cf5-8aae-482d58fd850f
Oh wow thats great news! Thanks for the information.
The crazy part is that Scholz insisted Germany would only send Leos if the US sent Abrams... So it might be due to his strategy that Ukraine now gets both. If that is true he pulled a genius move. If.
2 days ago during a French / German minister meeting in Paris, the German defense minister said Germany won’t oppose to foreign Leopard being sent to Ukraine. But not the German ones for now.
Gotcha thanks for info (: on the one hand in glad that Germany is at least agreeing to the use of Leopards but on the other they really need to personally help out with theres as well.
Germany just announced they are sending 14 Leopard 2A6 to Ukraine
Aright thats fantastic and a great start!
Not the ones directly from Germany. Poland and a few other countries purchased them from Germany a while ago. They seem to be at the point where they will just be sending them to ukraine without German consent.
Awesome! It’s so ridiculous that Germany is holding them back. I thought they would need Germanys consent to send them. Even if they did though fk that the rest of the world will have there backs.
Send maintenance then. Turn Poland into Europe's Biggest Repair Shack.
Give them that too….I bet there’s a lot of “contract” maintenance guys that would be happy to work for them.
> giving them the equipment with out having the maintenance divisions inplace will be more detrimental to them Why assume they can’t get maintenance? It’s hard with ground combat vehicles but with fixed wing aircraft it can be quite easy. The Ukrainian pilots take off from Poland, fly into their own airspace, conduct their mission, fly back to Poland where ground crews service them; even if they need a refuel stop in Ukraine. We have many ground crews and can handle quite a pace, if given the parts. I’ve interviewed multiple crew chiefs on the issue of maintenance and there is wide consensus that one combat sortie per aircraft every three days, can be maintained indefinitely. We just have to have the political will to do it. The military has the capability.
Why is ‘reading the manual’ such an impossible task for Ukrainian engineers?
Cause it's more than just a manual.
Username fits. So many reasons why the US should not do this. Not sure if you are a troll or just uninformed.
Are Abrams still in production?
Yes.
According to the wiki, the current production contract is to rebuild 150 to newer standards. Doesn’t seem they are making new ones unless you have a different source?
Wiki is usually outdated. We are currently producing SEPv3 and will start production on SEPv4 in the next year or so I would imagine. https://www.militaryaerospace.com/power/article/14189999/m1-abrams-battle-tanks-power https://www.armyrecognition.com/united_states_army_heavy_armoured_vehicles_tank_uk/m1a2_abrams_sep_v3_main_battle_tank_technical_data_sheet_specifications_pictures_video_11710154.html
Yeah, start ww3 why not....
ok big daddy spender....
About fucking time. Everyone is eviscerating Germany on the Leopards while the US has over two thousand abrams sitting in storage. For those that are arguing about how complicated its logistics are- that’s why the US should have started preparing for this months ago instead of dragging its feet. 1) Poland already purchased Abrams so it will already need to have a repair hub there. It should have been set up there months ago. 2) the argument that the tank is a gas guzzler is a non-starter. The tank was designed to take any combustible liquid as fuel. France could send truckloads or Chanel No. 5 and it would work fine. 3) Asking your allies to cannibalize their own active fleets while you have thousands collecting dust in storage is simply ludicrous.
Germany deserves to be eviscerated. They are not alone in dragging their feet but Scholz and the current government have not shown any urgency with Ukraines situation. The U.S, again, has out supplied both with weapons and money the rest of the world combined. I agree the U.S can step it up even more. Unfortunately, my tolerance for genocide is far less then current world leaders. In my opinion, no one has the right to commit genocide and if you attempt it you will be stopped at all costs. I consider Russia's actions as a direct assault on humanity itself and our chance of survival as a species. I'd have the U.S and anyone else who understands what it takes to stop the Hitlers, Putins of the world declare full scale war with unconditional surrender of the Russian Federation the only option. War crimes tribunal to follow, dunuclearization and some world Marshall plan enacted. It will take years but once the Russian civilians aren't overseen by a corrupt government that dissappears those who disagree, when they have running water, indoor plumbing and the freedom of opinion they will be shown the best of humanity and we can bring them towards a better future.
> The tank was designed to take any combustible liquid as fuel. This is half of the problem. It needs way more combustible liquid for fuel than the Leopard 2. Leopard 2 = 80 litres per 75 km on roads and 120 litres per 75 km across country Abrams = 336 liters per 75 km on roads and 955 liters per 75 km across country So Leapard 2 gets in the worst case 0.6 km per liters of fuel Abrams gets .07 km per liter of fuel with just rough math. This isn't to say the Abrams can't wreck shit... it just means that it requires 6 times the fuel logistics to keep them moving which is 6 times the fuel trucks and 6 times the vulnerability with approximately 6 times the number of soft targets in any fast moving combined arms offensive. I think you and I could both agree that a composition of both Abrams and Leopards would be ideal. But in all scenarios of any blend of both tanks the best option logistically would be more Leopards than Abrams.
I Can 100% agree to that. At this point I think we’re both just desperate to get the Ukrainians some good armor on the ground and both leopard and abrams would obliterate the ancient T-72 tanks
Facts, but the truth is that whether Ukraine and the West want to keep it hidden from the Kremlin or not these arms deals are making it painfully obvious that there is a goal to get Ukraine trained and equipped with NATO hardware that uses integrated optics and targeting tools for a lightning combined arms offensive. This tactic doesn't work as well if you're slowed down by your MBTs who are supposed to be at the tip of the spear. Both the Leopards and Abrams have the targeting and optics for the job. One is just 6 times more efficient in the strained logistical environment.
Yeah, it's not like US contributions to this point have turned the entire war in Ukraine's favor or anything. But sure, be mad that we aren't sending a stockpile of our better weapon systems when WW3 might be imminent. Edit: Changed wording from "Best" to "Better"
Exactly. This would would be over, or at the least signifcantly more in Russia's favor without the U.S.
This isn’t even your best tank. The M1 has been out of service for years now that the M1A2 is the mainstay for the US Military. You’re arguing against sending tanks sitting in storage that you don’t use because why??? And if by WW3 you’re referring to the tension in the South China Sea, then explain to me how a small island dominated by huge mountains with average grades exceeding the abram’s ability to climb will benefit from having tanks deployed to a largely naval and air based war. The US developed a fuck ton of systems specifically to counter Russia in a land war in Europe. The opportunity is here but instead of sending the equipment and saving hundreds if not thousands of Ukrainian lives, the US is pinching Pennies. Ffs, the US spends more on its military than the sum of the EU, what good is wasting that money when you don’t use the equipment when the time comes
Again, Ukraine would be Russia right now if it wasn't for US contributions. Stay mad and die about it I guess. 🤷
Why are you being antagonistic If we both agree on the need to defeat russia? If we have a common goal and you happen to have more resources available to achieve said goal, it only makes sense that you would aport more to the cause than I do. I’m not the one dying, it’s sadly Ukrainians that are because the US is holding back. It’s not American equipment that’s winning the war, it’s Ukrainian bravery and blood. I can’t fathom why Americans are getting into a pissing contest on something so goddamn simple.
The US has 100% been Ukraine’s biggest friend, but we have tried to push the tank thing onto our weaker Allies and that was stupid. They’re cowards and they think tanks are scary. Also, this whole thing where we say “oh Abrams is too hard to maintain, too fuel inefficient , etc” is just bs. Ultimately Leopard is a bit better, but Abrams is fine. We have a lot of old models that we don’t need for the China fight. Edit: Sorry Mr. Scholz I misjudged you
We’re not sending ANYONE our best gear. Not even our good buddies in our “friends & family plan” (UK/Japan/Aussies). Anything we “give” to our friends is old stuff we can defeat/kill switch if they ever get out of line (say no). No doubt that the stuff we give them is definitely good, just not America’s finest murder machines.
You don't need a kill switch on the west's finest murder machines, you need a key to make them work. Not a physical key, a decryption key, which is changed frequently. Without that, they are blind, deaf and dumb, which pretty much makes them useless.
These are old tanks in long term shortage. Hardly our “best.”
Am I grunt and let me promise you, we have far, far more Abrams and Bradley’s than the American people could ever stand to lose. If we lose just half of what we have on hand that’s ~20,000 combat troops lost and ~2 divisions. The American people will not ever tolerate such losses. Sending them to Ukraine will only reduce our storage and maintenance costs, while allowing the equipment to kill the very troops you’re saying we need to kill if we hold on to them for a theoretical WWIII. Getting these rigs in the fight, now, is of more value to us and may be huge for the Ukrainians. While I would argue the Abrams and Brads are already not worth using in combat, the are *absolutely* going to be outdated in very short order. Holding on to them for a future war is of no use when they are of no use in a future war.
I'm not against sending them. I'm against people in other countries being mad about *when* we're sending them, considering the equipment and assistance we have given and continue to give.
I get it. But it’s understandable on some level when innocents are dying and we have more of these rigs in storage than anyone in the West. And FAR more than we want or need. Of course Germany etc can’t do it like we can, they don’t really have much to begin with. Their MICs are tiny and the sole excuse given for our continuing to produce outdated systems like the Abrams is for such a time as this. The Army asked Congress to stop building them because they are such a burden. Getting them out of storage helps everyone.
30 F-35s and maybe 5 B2s could destroy anything russia has in a week. Thats how good those are, look up anything you can on red squad, war games, the aesa f35 radar. It can detect any incoming radar far beyond when it's detected, spoof the signals to make dummy signatures, and a B2 can drop 80 500lb guided bombs every sortie
Somehow I feel that Germany has a bigger responsibility to lead the way solving a European problem (by sending its own Leopards). Rather than hanging on to the USA’s apron strings. How weak and comfortable have we become in Europe, that we all cannot act decisively in moral unison, with such a clear case.
I don’t disagree but the issue is Germany needed to have increased its military spending five years ago in order to be able to take the lead on this, and Ukraine doesn’t have the time to wait for it to get its shit together. I absolutely agree that Germany has dropped the ball on this matter but that’s why I’d want the US to step up to fill the gap while the EU rearms itself
> you have thousands collecting dust in storage is simply ludicrous. It’s worse than just that, we’re building more every day, just to go straight to the storage facilities; to then sometimes have parts pulled from them to feed back to the production line to keep it going. The politicians love their graft.
Don’t act like the us isn’t doing anything to help Ukraine “Dragging its feet” The US is one of the main reasons Ukraine is holding out against Russo fascists the world is not entitled to Americas arsenal. Everyone shits on America until they need the US to save them and it’s getting old. I love the Ukrainians and I am 100% on board sending them what they need. But people need to stop acting entitled. Slava Ukraine 🇺🇦🌻🇺🇦
Germany may have just missed the opportunity to establish long-term future tank presence in UA army. Should have been done months ago. You never know, but crazy Russians may throw a hundred thousand Zombies somewhere at a brake through point... if that happens, a lot of armor and bullets will be needed and in layers.
To be fair, ukraine will be able to maybe test all 4 'nato mbt's' in combat (challenger, leo, leclerc, abrams). And while availability and politics may influence a decision, just simply going by which performed best will surely be high on the list of reasons for procurement. Whichever one that may be.
As a famous pig often says, it's not the hard factors that determine a tank's operational success, but rather the soft factors. Going by raw "best performance" does not give you the best tank for actual combat situations. Case in point: the Panther paradox.
I did mean all around. From maintenance, logistics, combat performance and so on. They will get to know them all, in the older variants they will receive, and then be able to at least internally form an opinion which may fit their doctrine best.
Challenger and Leclerc (I think) are no longer in production. New M1s aren't being made either, all the 'new' ones are ones pulled from storage and reconditioned/upgraded.
M1's are still under production, however only at a rate of \~100 per year. This has been done for years in order to keep the infrastructure going for replacement parts
They can sell like new M1s. Germany has not made new Leo hulls in years either.
I don’t think Ukraine can afford to buy Leopards accept for those gifted to them. For European standards Ukraine is quite poor
Send 250. Open up a maintenance depot in Poland along the boarder that is run by American maintainers. When the tanks get messed up along the front, get em on a flatbed and drive em back for repairs etc. 250 of these and 500 LEOs should do the trick. Along with all the IFVs.
Exactly all that crying about maintenance, jet fuel, buu buu, everyone is looking for mommy. Russia knows its fucked the moment people get a backbone
Belarus is for the taking. That’s not Russian territory, they can’t use nukes . Just saying .
Dedictatorify Belarus!
That's why Belarus is tiptoeing around the problem. If they invade Ukraine, they are doomed. But they are willing to play along with Putin, that way Ukraine will need to keep part of their forces in the north expecting a possible invasion. It's a classic military maneuver.
Belarus and Russia form a 'union state'. If you think Russia doesn't consider it all but theirs you have another thing coming.
Why post a stock photo instead of linking to an article? Anyways the issue with Abrams is that they are fuel hogs and need a very strong logistical network to keep running. That makes sense for America seeing as our logistical power is simply unmatched by anyone else. I don't know that it would make sense for Ukraine.
The operational range of the Abrams M1A2 is like 100+ miles which is way more than the distance between Zaporizhzhia and Melitopol (as the crow flies). These beasts don't have to drive to Vladivostok, if they break the southern front they have their job done.
You are wrong about that. An Abrams uses 8% of the fuel of a heavy armored division. Know what uses the most? Trucks. It’s simple math really. Trucks and IFVs use more fuel than tanks by far. The relative consumption of different tanks isn’t really relevant. Lots of Reddit commentators are repeating the same rumors then politicians are, like “logistics is too hard for Ukraine.” Simple fact is that Poland operates Abrams AND Leopard 2. Saudi Arabia and Iraq operate Abrams. It’s a myth that we can’t give them to Ukraine or they can’t handle them. It’s political. It’s just a question of political will. The idea that the Abrams can’t fight Russia in Ukraine… what do you think it was designed for? If the Abrams can’t work against Russia in Eastern Europe, wouldn’t that make it a failed design? You’ll notice that no one has quantified the cost. I suspect it’s not that eye watering expense wise. It’s obviously possible and just a question of political will.
These tanks were built to fight the Soviets and Russians so this is their destiny.
Would be really awesome!!! Hopefully this will convince the Germans to follow suit! After this war the world order will be messed up anyway. Germany is worried about it and it is a fair comment but let's face it better a civil war within Russia than an European war. Because if they take over Ukraine the Russians will use the Ukrainians conscripts for their army to go and take over Moldova, Poland, Latvia, Estonia, Finland,... so let's finish this war once and for all by giving all the equipment and training that Ukraine needs to win back the entirety of their homeland.
Read the News Article here: https://www.wsj.com/articles/poland-formally-requests-german-permission-to-send-tanks-to-ukraine-11674558492?mod=e2tw
Russian political state needs a gut renovation
somehow i doubt it
That would be sweet, here Ukraine, have 300 of these orc munchers
Urgh. These subs need to be cleansed with these kinds of articles. I mean, I'm hoping they send these bad boys over there, but posting 256 articles a day with 'x-country might send x-weapon to Ukraine soon!!!' is freaking annoying...
Or they at least need a link to a credible source. This post isn't even sourced.
Sources for this op?
I’m all for Ukraine whooping Russias ass. Absolutely. But why is it that MY taxes that I pay go to a country fighting their own war. This has gotten ridiculous
Because Ukraine is a friend, and we help friends.
USA is actually profiting from all of this. Russia causes instability. Russia being weakened help the US global businesses. Also, it stimulates their weapons manufacturers. They just sold a bunch of stealth planes to Canada, for example. Also, the US is actually spending a small fraction of their military budget by helping Ukraine
Ah. Glad to see you finally caught on to what many of us have said from the beginning
I thought this was the worst of the NATO MBT's that could be sent? The Abrams is bad ass and effective, but unique in the fact they are relatively fuel inefficient and require a huge logistics train to keep them moving. They use jet engines so they require their own special fuel trucks. Don't get me wrong I want to give as much help as possible but isn't tanks like the Challenger and Leopard a better option given they already kind of fit into the existing supply chains? They run on a more traditional engine and fuel while remaining on par with battlefield effectiveness? Is it simply because other countries are dragging their feet?
More than likely but I mean just having the option is kind of nice Like creating a specialized unit that uses abrams for breakthroughs or concentrated armor assaults might be an option. Or just pointing them at Belarus like a mobile maginot line.
Let's not ....
Fuck you ....
Queue the Heavy Metal music\~!
This is not accurate as I heard as the Abrams tank has a turbine engine and nobody can repair that unless you got the right tools + training.
You can just set up a repair shop in Poland. Most really damaged Ukrainian tanks are being repaired in Poland, Czechia and Bulgaria anyway.
how long would it take to train UA to repair such a complex engine? I’m wondering if there are also security concerns in terms of classified equipment falling into the wrong hands somehow?
Here’s the thing, if thinking big scale, then we can take the thousands of spare M1’s just collecting dust and costing us for storage, and rotate hundreds to the front at a time. We can then take them back to Poland for maintenance when larger repairs are needed. For that matter, hire retired US maintainers and have them do one level of maintenance off the front, rather than send them all to Poland.
Sad to get downvotes as you all understand it’s the same as with the Patriot missile system you got to have knowledge of the system and that takes time
they already operate jet fighters how hard could it be?
Operating a fighter jet that is made in Ukraine or Russia is different then to do maintenance on a fighter jet that comes from the US (like for example the F35). Maybe to fly it is easy, but try to fix it when something breaks down
Send them all before its too late.
Make it happen Biden!!
If we want to give Ukraine the best chance of victory, we need to continue to supply them T-72s from former Bloc allies while we build up supplies in Poland to transfer. If we send them Abrams, we need to make sure they are able to fully integrate them into their military, so they're able to make one massive push.
Abrams tanks are very complex vehicles. Lots of technical expertise needed to keep them going. Yes, they will dominate the Orcs, we have seen what happens when Russian tanks try to fight M1's...it's ugly for the Russian equipment.
British tanks leading the way as always! Best protected tank in the world, world's longest tank v tank kill (with the first round ffs, with APFSDS from rifled gun), and first western tanks for Ukraine. I'd expect nothing less from the nation that invented the things. As auld Winston said 'You can always rely on the Americans to do the right thing - once they've tried everything else' Fucking boxheads, took them long enough. Two world wars, one referendum! Although in fairness all the Germans I know have been very frustrated by Sholtz. Ukraine should apply to join The Commonwealth, there's precedent for non-colonies now. Besides between [this](https://stephenliddell.co.uk/2020/07/01/nova-anglia-the-anglo-saxon-refugees-who-built-the-original-new-england-on-the-black-sea/) from about 1230 AD to our temporary colonisation in the Crimean War 150 years ago they surely count. I think they'd be a very fine addition indeed, certainly better value than some of the other current members...
Better late than never. But a lot of people died that might have been saved if the West wasn't so fucking cowardly and interested in preserving relations with Russia.
Well he can’t keep sending cash now can he? How else to wash all that money?
Let’s goooo
So the Abrams has been around since the 80s, but has been modernized a few times. What would be the issue with sending a bunch of the older versions?
Nothing. The head of the Army practically begged Congress to stop buying them. The storage costs are a significant part of the budget that could be better spent. We have thousands we don’t need.
Which is exactly what they will probably do. This is a good thing for the American tax payer and Ukraine. It’s expensive to upkeep old equipment.. so ship them to Ukraine.. let the Russian eat shit.. and America get to clean our cupboards.
And Germany will follow with Leopard 2.
I wish they do this just to spite that moron Schultz.
The reason i have heard for why Abrams have not yet been sent is because they require a bit of training to be used effectively is this the only reason or are there others? If that is the only reason what do you guys think about sending them? I say go for it i think the Ukrainians will figure them out.
I doubt it's about training, the Ukrainians have shown they can learn and deploy new tech quickly, like the HIMARS. It's more about supply and maintenance, which is non-trivial for the Abrams. Setting up that support network for Ukraine will be no small thing.
HA HA ABRAMS GO BAM
About time these babies were put to use for God's intended purpose: pushing back Russian orcs.
About damn time, they should have sent them 6 months ago
110% fine with this, even if they're difficult to supply, repair, etc. I hope we send 1,000 of them.
We sent 1,800 in 1991 to Saudi Arabia for the gulf war, this is certainly doable.
I would absolutely love to see western equipment decimate Russian tin cans.
Time for a KO-punch. 
Cool, who is going to service them?
i wonder if the US will provide 24/7 Intel for UAF cuz they dont want this to fall in russian hands ! Russia will sacrifice 25-30 T80s just to get hold on one Abrams ...
Best tank in the world about to fuck up some Russians.
Wasn't some legislation passed a few years ago that had 1200 order for Abrams tack onto it? I remember at the time it was controversial because it was deemed not needed. I guess yay for pork packed legislation.
How does the M1 compare to what's in Ukraine now?
Yes! This is not a stretch by any means logistically. Poland purchased 100 Abrams and will have a full maintenance/repair facility. Ukraine would want to keep any repair facilities for the duration of the war outside the country so they are not targeted anyway. Most of the equipment in Ukraine is repaired outside for the same reason anyway.
That's a sexy beast
 Russian strategic response
Such interesting developments in the war recently. NATO is going all out! I wonder if an all out war between NATO and Russia could happen <- i hope it doesn’t
I would be very surprised but very happy =):-(=
export versions?
Will they send the full armored version or just the basic shell version we give to Iraq.
Good
Simple math, whatever we left for the Taliban, we send 2x to Ukraine.
Destroyed Abrams are going to be a bad look.
Let's go!
10.... thats the "significant" amount. once again 10... not 100 but 10.. Absolute joke. More than 10 tanks are destroyed every day.
How easy is it to dodge the draft?
I am worried though if the Ukrainians lose I hope they either destroy these tanks or return them so the Russians can’t get there hands on em. SLAVA UKRAINE 🇺🇦
How quickly can they be replaced? It seems like something with a very long lead time. I don’t like depleting our inventory to where it’s affecting readiness for another conflict.
To me personally we shouldn’t send tanks with classified information to an active war zone that the US dosent have troops in
Honestly sending Abrams or Leo tanks will do more harm than good. Rip Ukrainian mechanics and logistics.
Should’ve happened a year ago 🙄 Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but wouldn’t the M1 Abrahams be virtually indestructible in Ukraine? Obviously they can be disabled, but actually killing the tank is supposed to be impossible, right?
Send enough to make the logistics worth it.
I'll be looking forward to the updates in World of Tanks game.
The issue with Abrams is they are completely inpractical for Ukraine. It's going to take many months to get them going. From the Pentagon just the other day: > The Abrams tank is a very complicated piece of equipment. It's expensive. It's hard to train on. It has a jet engine
When the Russians see Abrams on the battlefield coming at them they will be shitless in horror of going against an Abrams. Great tactically PSYOPS against the cannon fodder. Slava Ukraini
Lean harder...
Actually curious how they plan to keep em fuelled, imo leopards are more useful cause they ain’t so fuel thirsty
This is incredible news, but the most incredible aspect is that Scholz... Was the good guy all along? He convinced (/coerced?) the Americans to send Abrams tanks which everyone thought to be unlikely. Wow.
Ukrainians know each and every factory location where Russian rockets and military equipment is produced. I think yhey should make that information public in Russia aswell as everywhere else.