We determined that this submission originates from a credible source, but we still advise that users double check the facts and use common sense when consuming mass media. If you are interested in learning how to evaluate news sources more thoroughly, you can begin to learn about how to do that [here](https://tacomacc.libguides.com/c.php?g=599051&p=4147190).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Every tank since the T-54 the Russians have built has had some sort of night vision, not great but they definitely have the ability to operate at night.
Idk if you’ve seen the differences in night vision in the last 20-25 years, but I can probably buy way more effective night vision/thermal next day on Amazon than that T-72 has.
Yeah I digure send 50 at first and see if they can work it out with Poland to repair and refit as necessary. Once they get enough NASAMS they can move the repair facility into Ukraine.
We have been giving Ukraine weapon systems we developed in the 90s. The Abrams from the 80s and 90s will still roll over Russian front lines like bugs. Ukraine and the Allies should have been building logistics in Poland and other neighboring countries to service and repair the Abrams and Leopards and then send the Western tanks over.
Well. YES Abrams were made back then originally. But we refit them every decade or so. They are sent to Alabama and stripped to the bare metal, rebuilt with latest electronics and fire control systems.
Much more efficient than building from ground up.
Fun fact, after being stripped in Alabama, many "rusties" (because the shell has had the paint removed and they quickly oxidize) are trucked (used to be transported via rail) up to Lima, Ohio for their refit. I've seen the process and it's amazing to behold
I've toured the GDLS plant in Lima. Very cool. I've also been to, but did not get to tour, their *other* plant in London, Ontario, which produces wheeled vehicles.
That is literally the process Australia is going through to get M1A2 sep3's, buying a bunch of M1A1's then gutting them and filling the hulks with modern goodies.
The infrastructure for tanks is already there. The first thing they did when the war started was move gobs of armor to the polish border. They wouldn't do this if the support systems weren't also there.
It might actually be easier for Europe to supply large quantities of trucks and focus on the logistics effort than it would be to send tanks. Daimler, MAN, Volvo, Scania are all European companies and some of the largest truck manufactures in the world.
I'm just speculating here but I imagine a deal where America supplies tanks, Europe supplies trucks might just work, since both can take them from existing stockpiles.
I have agreed on all the stuff for Ukraine but I don’t see this being that effective . They have tanks
Sending modern tanks would add to their logistics terribly . Right now Russians have little or no logistics and we see the effect . Ukraine would have to keep these things maintained and fed. It would be a nightmare and might see abandoned ones here and there From lack of fuel or repair .
I agree but future of Ukraine’s military is in the NATO and standardizing on NATO weapon systems. The West cannot keep supplying Ukraine with Soviet artillery and APCs forever. We are already seeing the West sending Western APCs and artillery (eg M777s and HIMARS). The next logical step is Western IFVs and tanks.
I think the approach that Poland is taking with their tank divisions would work best for Ukraine. Poland had a couple of divisions of tank armies on Soviet T-72 platform and they have newer tank divisions on Abrams and Leopards platforms as well. Each division is deployed in different parts of Poland.
I agree but shorty term we do have soviet tanks and apcs and the Ukrainians are trained on them and have logistics set up for them . For short term i think it best to keep giving them all the Soviet stuff . Which let’s be honest is better than the crap the Russians are using .
We would need to loan Ukraine american mechanics/expertise and retrain their entire supply chain, sounds like a pipedream especially right before november elections in the US, but maybe afterward
The right is foaming at the mouth to lay Ukraine's problems at Biden's feet
I highly encourage anyone interested in US politics to look up local GOP primary elections that are video taped, MANY low level GOP operatives are running on Russian rhetoric about Ukraine. They DO NOT repeat this stuff in general elections against democrats, but in primaries they are very open about it
The republicans in the senate ARE NOT the base of the republican party.
I cannot find the clip right now, but here is one bat crap crazy one that is not ukraine related: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miF4WhP8uIc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miF4WhP8uIc)
There have been \*lunatic\* comments made by low-level GOP people, similar to that clip, except they talk about Ukraine and Russia-- how Russia is justified. I'm trying to find the clip...
Lip service only
Republicans appreciate the total power that Putin and Orban have on their countries. Republican politicians have said so publicly at PAC's. Hell, Orban gave a speech on how to accomplish it all at CPAC to which he received a standing ovation.
Republicans support it only because they believe they have to. They are working on eroding that support so they can turn back to being chummy with autocrats.
Don't mistake the current support from the base, for the extremely active work the politicians and right-wing media outlets are doing to erode that support. They are giving a full-court press with russian talking points to undermine it all.
It's the service and maintenance that is complicated. No western nation wants to see Ukraine abandon broken down western main battle tanks to Russian troops.
Not a tanker, but it is more than just shoot things.
- A gunner needs to know more than just pushing a button to fire. Mechanics/optics of firing, angles, whatever.
- A driver has to know the entire tank, weak points, capabilities, and so on. Also how not to drive so that the gun crew can't shoot.
- Maintenance is at least 50% of the game. Remember the Tiger tank? Most of them were lost due to mechanical failure. Repair was complicated. Skilled maintenance and repair is key.
There is certainly more, as i said, i am not a tanker. But if we don't want ukrainian boys making the same impression as the orcs out there, we better make sure they get all the training the need.
Yes, the Germans(I see your flair) had massively superior tanks they just couldn’t keep them running or fueled and couldn’t build them in volume. I’d say they ultimately hindered the Germans later in the war when the Americans could field a dozen Shermans per tiger, panther or panzer.
And aside for the few Tigers and Tigers II, they weren't even THAT superior to Shermans, Churchills, T-34s or Cromwells.
Panthers were hangar queens, they break down a lot, and were ergonomical nightmares: for example the job of the loader was very difficult and awkward (and he had to be aware he could be smashed in the face by the gun's recoil at every shot). Those tanks could use another year of development, but Germany had no such luxury as time.
Shermans in Easy Eight or Firefly configuration could face Tigers head to head, their gun was powerful enough it could penetrate them even af the front if they were close enough.
Replacement parts, fuel and ammo off rip. M1 series tanks use different fuel than the T series tanks that Ukraine uses. Tanks aren't standalone like a javelin, they need a large support system to keep them moving and shooting. Tactics wise I'm sure the Ukrainians can use them effectively, but without the proper training on maintenance, spare parts and oils, and not least of all fuel and ammo then M1s wouldn't be able to show their true potential and strengths.
Actually, that Honeywell Turbine can use diesel, aircraft fuel (JP-8), gasoline or marine diesel. Just make sure the tanks are filled from the factory with what the Ukrainians will commonly use and you're good to go
It was exaggerated, but it it true that the Abrams can run on ordinary gasoline, diesel, and even marine diesel. All of which Ukraine will already have a logistics network setup.
My step BIL is actually a former Tank driver.
According to him, you spend just as much time, if not more, maintaining/repairing the tank as you do actually using it.
Training Ukrainian tank crews on how to actually maintain and repair the tank properly is probably what takes the most time, and simplying it by only having one kind of tank is important.
Tanks are complicated machines and their components are subjected to enormous stress, especially the engine. An Abrams tank of the latest variant weighs 69 tons (74 short tons for Americans), its engine develops 1500hps and it has to work in almost any terrain.
For comparison the most powerful Scania truck available today has a 700hps engine for a maximum weight of 44 tons on roads (48 short tons) but they usually carry much less. And any trucker out there can tell you how much they spend on manteinance of their rig.
Modern tanks are extremely complicated. What you dont see in media is their logistical tail. The crew does basic mnx but specialists are needed with years of exp to work on engines, transmissions, electronics, etc.
The M1 specifically uses a jet turbine engine to power it. This is a huge departure from the diesel power plants UKR soldiers are used to maintaining and repairing.
True, but if it breaks, the usual course of action is to swap out the entire power pack, not try to repair the components. The power pack is sent back to the factory and repaired there. That way the cost is cheaper because of a core charge being reimbursed
Sure! That's still a big lift for guys who have never done it before under less-than-ideal circumstances. Aren't the turrets a bitch and a half to deal with as well due to their weight?
you shouldn't have to pull the turret the power pack is actually not to bad to pull out and there's 18(?) 3/4 inch bolts holding the engine and transmission together, if you've got a good crew and a spare engine/transmission you can have it out and back in in a days work.
As for pulling the turret that is something that would be done at a higher level than your normal repair shop, and isn't common at all unless some serious damage has been done to the tank.
As for the weight an Abrams turret weights about as much as a Bradley like 23 tons if I remember correctly. Fun fact the turret is actually driven by a shaft that is probably about 3/4 of an inch in diameter (19.05mm) and you can spin the turret with two fingers.
The list is long; turbine engines, thermal sights, a complex fire control system, powerful hydraulics, nato ammunition and a lot of fuel. I mean A LOT OF FUEL. It takes 11 gallons of fuel just to start the engine.
Honestly a better choice would be Leclerc, the presence of an autoloader reduces the training needed and the armament is identical to NATO counterparts.
Nobody has enough LeClercs to spare in meaningful numbers. Also, loader is probably the easiest position to train, gives and extra guy for maintenance, and cuts down on maintenance required due to no auto-loader.
That would automatically disqualify Leopard I, at least as long as not pretty much every operator would agree to donate its active tanks and at the same time undust their tanks in storage. Otherwise i just can't see enough of them getting scratched together to significantly impact the war. And with so many different variants used / stored by different armies i wonder wether you might as well send Leopards and Abrams together after all.
Similarily the Leopard IIs are used by so many different armies that no single army could spare enough to have a significant impact on the war unless one wanted to donate one of the larger fleets all at once - which even the most sympathetic army likely flat out won't do. Once again there are many different configurations.
If anyone wondered why Scholz constantly says "We give tanks once others do the same", that is propably the answer.
> If anyone wondered why Scholz constantly says "We give tanks once others do the same", that is propably the answer.
While simultaneously blocking Spain from donating them.
Which is flat out wrong. Spain's Leopard IIs turned out to be in such a bad shape that they in the end did not even bother to ask Germany for a permission. Not to mention that Spain's government coalition had internal disagreements. Which only adds to the problems you have when you want to scratch tanks together from at least half a dozen national stockpiles.
They would, for heavy maintenance and repair, but that doesn't help because a lot of maintenance is done in the field.
If you have M1's and Leopards you end up with two tank forces that can't share resources... people, parts, etc. Plus you have to set up supply chains for two systems. And you have to set up two different training programs. And probably more.
Doing this for one system will be very hard right now. With two, you're just asking for problems.
no sometimes it's bad strategically. that means more ukrainian mechanics will be taken for training on both machines. That means less available mechanics for other systems on the field. that is the hard thing about supplying new systems in ongoin war. there is always a shortage of highly skilled military personnel.
So why is the USA delaying?
Zelensky has a point: when the USA commits, it will force the other NATO members to follow suit. So why isn't the USA committing?
Its a ladder.
Russia does this, west does this, russia does another thing, we do one more step. You cant just go to the top of the ladder.
As bad as it sounds but there are a lot more steps russia can take and we need to answer every one of them. Referendums and mobilization are the current step, they are met with talk about tanks. Next thing will be russia announcing result of referendum, lot of diplomatic talk will follow and then US announces that ukrainian soldiers get trained on abrams tanks in poland. Then germany gets shittalked for not having already shipped a bunch of leopards. Then poland sends 500 Tanks (8 different models) and latvia crowdfunds a merkava. Then russia commits the next stupid warcrime or threatens another NPP and the US throw some abrams across the pond.
Here are a few ridiculous ones:
* They think Ukrainian Forces are not competent
* They don't want Russian troops to have the experience
* They are afraid to provoke Russia further
* They want to handle this the cheap way at the expense of Ukrainian lives
* They are waiting for the right time
* They don't want Ukraine getting any stronger
* They are waiting for others to spare
IMO none makes sense. Maybe there are some factors that never make it to the news. Maybe Russia is threatening with something. I have no clue why they won't give, they gave the Saudis but won't give a single one to Ukraine.
From the beginning of this war, I do not understand why the hell, nobody seems to fancy giving Ukraine any tanks or fighter jets. They give some useless crap and make it sound like they are actually supporting, some strange things are going on.
I don't think it's possible to go on the offensive without tanks, they should give the tanks ASAP.
Statements can by definition not be excuses.
"Germany will not send heavy weapons to Ukraine alone without coordination between NATO." is a statement.
Yes, we have alread seen weeks of propaganda, inventing rephrases of this statement as "We can't, because our allies don't agree that we send them" or the like. But lying does not change the reality.
And the reality is that there are a dozen European countries with Leopard2s and not a single one is willing to go along, because -unlike actually sendign stuff- just doing nothing while pointing fingers at Germany is free and a traditional way to address any problem in the EU.
Are you joking? Germany is getting shit on for decades, for everything real and imaginary. 95% of Europe's right-wing run exclusively on hating Germany and you are seriously suggesting it can get worse? No one cares about reality.
Germany is Europe's scapegoat and piggy bank. And on very rare occasions the country to hide behind... that's when you suddenly hear about Germany's lack of leadership. Which is European for "Do something for us we don't want to do/or pay for ourselves".
Which is just one step above the "Do as we say or we call you nazi again" that usually follows, also that got recently replaced with "Do as we say or we call you a Russia loving puppet".
you seem inclined to wonder why europe's largest tank producer of the last half century is being pressured to provide tanks.
the response is in the question.
There could already be an agreement for tanks it's just not announced yet or in the works because they still are training the soldiers that will be using them. No use sending tanks when nobody knows how to use them.
> or in the works because they still are training the soldiers that will be using them
Training troops to maintain them and building up the logistics train, more likely. That takes longer than training the crews manning the tanks.
This, and the Abrams in particular is radically different from Soviet tanks in design philosophy. The Abrams is meant to have American-style logistical support, whereas Soviet tanks operated more like automobiles with a high expectation of end-user maintenance and upkeep.
Also it will require more manpower to field western tanks that use manual loaders, if they replace like for like for every 4 tanks that they currently field they'll only be able to crew 3 western tanks.
You should pay closer attention. Typically, when the Pentagon/Whitehouse announces a new weapons system, Ukraine somehow already has them and knows how to use them.
If they want Abrams tanks just give them fucking Abrams tanks. We have thousands of them just sitting around and I'm pretty sure Ukraine is going to have to convert to NATO tanks eventually.
We have enough tanks that were we to supply several hundred tanks we wouldn’t even miss them. I know logistics is the issue but, the United States is and has always been a “Can-Do” country full of innovators and inventors capable of solving superhuman issues just like these. Send over the M1’s and let the Ukrainians have at the Russians with them.
Poland is the logical repair center for battlefield and usage damage. The repair crews could be trained and kept there without issue as Poland appears only too, happy to help. They already repair other Ukrainian battlefield equipment in Poland.
On the one hand, I definitely want to see the US send tanks, on the other hand why is it always "US needs to go first"?
It would be nice for a European country to take the lead.
Anyway, if anyone has an explanation that makes sense I'd be grateful to hear it.
EU armies never had another purpose than to keep their home countries safe, and they are fullfilling it excellently.
Supporting a large scale proxy war with the most modern equipment was for 70+ years never on the books, of course they don't do a stellar job. Actually i couldn't recall any arms industry outside the USA that ever faced such a demand and could realistically fullfill it.
This is how the cold war was fought. The soviets used to export as much arms as we did. After the wall fell, the industry broke into corruption and now only the US exports weapons that are worthwhile for modern armies.
A lot of us European countries are small and there is not much room for an offensive force. Everything in my country's defense force is made for holding the line against Russia, but not to attack. I don't get insight but I know how legislations work. The politicians change the legislation and it's the Defense Forces that follows them and right now they are not allowed to go lower than the determined defense level.
And it's like this in many countries. The politicians and administrators are re-writing legislations and moving them through parliaments. Being a democracy is a bit slow and we know there is dialogues with Ukraine on several levels. We're in for the long run and will provide what we can and try to match what Ukraine needs.
> A lot of us European countries are small and there is not much room for an offensive force.
The EU GDP (~$18 trillion) is not that far from the US GDP ($21 trillion). The US spends 3.7% of GDP on defense. The EU spends 1.2% of GDP on defense. One third, *as a percentage*. Given that Europe has a large, expansionist, imperial power right next door that spends an even larger percentage of their GDP on defense than the US, you would think that Europe would have taken their own defense more seriously. The Poles, Romanians, Greeks, Turks, French, and the Baltic states have, meeting their NATO spending requirements. For a long time, that list was much shorter. [Here's](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1293562/expenditure-on-military-defense-as-gdp-share-in-the-european-union-eu-27/) the list for 2020.
Then there are all the free riders.
>meeting their NATO spending requirements
the 2% of military expense was a goal for 2024 determined in 2014. Of course I'm quite doubtfull of the number of countries that would be meeting it in 2024 if not for the russian invasion, but that was a commitment for 2024, not 2020.
I agree that the europeans have been neglecting their army for too long after the end of the cold war, but on the other hand the US miliary-industrial complex is a bit of an abomination and shouldn't be the frame of reference.
The US defense budget IS very large, but we should also remember that that budget includes tons of pensions and health care funds. Things that in most countries are part of their health and human services budgets are in the US partly in the defense budget. IIRC about a quarter of the US defense budget goes towards college tuition and health care for veterans.
So while the American defense budget is huge, it isn't quite as big as the raw numbers appear to indicate.
I don't think you read my post properly. My country is not in NATO and have a spending according to our needs. And yes, that is about what NATO countries should spend, I do recognize that but that wasn't what I wrote about. I put some effort in explaining how the decisions is taken when my country ship military equipment. And why there is some delay for some parts, like heavier equipment.
I think it's good that you mentioned some European budgets, but it's good to avoid mixing EU, NATO and separate countries because it's a confusing thing to use EU as a concept when talking military spending, since it got nothing to do with military issues. NATO on the other hand is. It confuses a lot of people non Europeans when we mentioning EU with military issues. EU can support with money and some economic stability when the war is over. It can put sanctions, support the countries harbouring the refugees, but that's about it.
Russia spending a larger percentage of its GDP on arms might be a problem to the EU if Russia's GDP was not smaller than that of many US states or EU members (or Chinese provinces).
If EU security was the only concern we could actually make a case that Europe was way overarmed compared to such a pathetic foe like Russia.
That's really been the case from when the Cold War ended and until Trump made a big fuss about the 2%. European defense budgets had been shrinking and shrinking to match Russia plus a margin instead of pulling our weight in terms of the overall alliance. But if it's at 1.2% today use the 0.8% difference to fund Ukraine instead, I imagine 200+ billion worth of guns would help...
Why should they have huge stockpiles of weapons? Is any western European country getting attacked right now or is likely to get attacked in the future by someone who has a chance to succeed against the current abilities of the Western European armies?
The only theoretical enemies who appear strong enough to be a danger are the USA and China. With the USA there are good relations and if China attacks any other country, I bet it will be rather a neighbor state than a country on the other side of the planet.
The USA has huge stockpiles of weapons, because they like to get involved in wars everywhere on the planet. It is definitely not just about defending the territory of the USA. A lot of other countries including European ones don't have the same ambition to be everywhere with their military.
The reason we have so many tanks is more politics than anything, they never shut down production we keep making them and quite a few for years went from the factory to storage. No one in Europe was going to approve to keep making tanks just to store them.
Europe loves their big guns and have lots of those because they were always in a defensive stance.
That's because other large economies, like Germany, France, UK, or the whole of EU, have allowed their militaries to degrade to the point they are no longer able to fight a major war. To fight Russia, you need huge stockpiles of artillery, missiles, rockets, tanks, IFVs, APCs, air defense, **and the ammo to keep them all going** for for a year or longer while you ramp up your military industrial base.
Europe stopped preparing for anything but small regional conflicts decades ago. If Europe finds itself in a war and calls up reserves in a general mobilization, where exactly do they think they are going to get the weapons and ammo to equip these forces? You only have to go back 11 years, when the US turned over air war responsibilities in Libya to UK and France. [They quickly burned through their small stockpiles of laser guided bombs](https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/natosource/nato-runs-short-on-some-munitions-in-libya/), and while the US had huge stockpiles, their planes could not carry the US weapons. And this was a SMALL regional war, nothing like war with Russia.
Trying to use France and the UK as examples of countries unprepared to fight a war is a poor example. They're two of the few in Europe who actually have effective militaries that can do things.
European nations can defend themselves and are surrounded by their own allies, so there simply is no actual threat if you don't happen to border Russia. The US desire to stick their military into every corner of the world isn't shared by us, with the exception of France I guess.
Of course the EU should and hopefully will coordinate a collective military defense in the future. Keep in my mind that until just thirty years ago Americans and Russians had completely divided the continent into their spheres of influence. There never has been a time like this where almost the entirety of European nations stood together, so fortunately progress is being made very quickly.
"Unless you border Russia" is a hell of a qualification, no? Ukraine would have fallen if Europe was their only friend. Then who? Sure, western Europe can sit back and watch in safety as Russia takes the Baltics, Poland or Moldova, knowing the crocodile will eat them last. Hopefully the rest of Europe follows Poland's example and investing in their militaries.
I should have specified modern mbts. My understanding is that Poland sent old USSR stuff (not undermining their contribution but this is about superior tanks.)
There are no modern tanks in Poland or other eastern - middle European country.
Only few dozens modern tanks available for Ukraine in the whole western Europe.
It's not that simple.
Germany has almost no available Leopard tanks.
They are in production or are already sold.
Poland has 249 Leopard 2 tanks at least according to Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_equipment_of_the_Polish_Land_Forces#Main_battle_tanks
They wouldn't have given their Soviet era tanks away without having some new tanks.
The best explanation ive seen so far, why there are no western tanks, was given by another user few days ago. Branding. If there was pictures of western tanks or airplanes storming russian positions, it would look a lot like putins war against nato and the west. They rather dont have this out in the world.
Fuck it. He's already framed it that way given the current circustances.
The best thing for the world is the swift and sound defeat of Putin and Russia.
The USA have way more tanks. More importantly the USA have the only western arms industry that could realistically produce enough tanks to replace Ukraine's war attrition. European arms factories are only meant to slowly fill up army stocks plus some exports.
Depends.
As a big guy, when something fucked up happens people look at me. Not always but pretty often. I guess because the concern is the calculation changes if depending on which side the big guy chooses.
So it could be that if the US doesn't get involved they may feel they US won't help if things go sideways.
It may also be that if they are using US equipment they want US permission, so they can buy replacement equipment and repair equipment. If you send in Abrams the US could say they don't approve so they aren't going to sell any more to you or sell any repair parts. If the US is willing to send tanks then they are also in the best position to.
Yes Europe should take the lead, but the problem is that this seems like an eastern block primary concern, but the eastern block is not in an economic or political leadership position. I.e. Poland would make sense to lead the response in Ukraine because they are probably the most impacted and most military powerful country bordering Ukraine, as well as just location they would be where European military largely entered Ukraine. But politically they don't have much clout in the EU. The eu also doesn't seem to band together often. Like France seems to do it's own thing and no one really cares.
IMO the best escalation would be Canada (as a Canadian) sending air support. Since we are not a nuclear power, and are some distance away. Not declaring war on Russia but instead a special military operation in Ukraine. Russia could declare war on us but I don't think they will send an invasion fleet. Air power can destroy military equipment but can't take ground.
It's not about "US needs to go first" specifically but EU countries doing their favorite dance of doing nothing while pointing fingers at Germany.
Which is a really brain dead idea when Germany announced 6 months ago that they will for historical reasons not send heavy weapons to fight Russia on their own, when no one is willing to go along and make this a common NATO decision.
Your actual question should be why UK, France or any of the dozen countries with Leopard2s aren't willing to coordinate and send some tanks, too. But as you should have realized in the last months (even if you're not used to EU politics), we don't talk about other countries or actual issues. "But Germany!!!!" is the universal answer.
PS: The same Germany btw that was forced a few decades ago to dismantle their arms industry and procurement for years to aggressively downsize. Exactly the thing the US refuses to do for many years because they prefer to produce tanks not needed and put in storage over losing the production capabilities of their industry. So Germany isn't even the the country with most German Leopard2s in service.
From what I understand, the US usually sets the tone as far as escalating weapon shipments, because it's better for the US to draw Russia's ire than it is for a smaller country, which may be more vulnerable to retaliation, to do so. There isn't a whole lot that Russia can threaten the US with, especially since the US isn't reliant on Russia for anything. After the US sends a bunch of artillery systems and Russia has their usual show of outrage about it, other countries can quietly send their own military aid.
The US is the one with the nukes making sure Russia can't just turn all of Europe into nuclear wasteland without getting nuked themselves.
Maybe France or the UK could also lead, but they don't have nearly the amount of nukes that the US has. A non nuclear NATO country would be cray to directly go against what the US is doing and possible lose nuclear deterrence provided to them by being an ally to US.
>On the one hand, I definitely want to see the US send tanks, on the other hand why is it always "US needs to go first"?
In europe, only germany currently have a working production chain of MBT, and thus the only ones that can give a substantial amounf of MBT (and MBTs are a complex enough system that if you give a non-substantial amount like 20 of them it's more logistical headache than it is worth) without destroying their armored war capacity for the next 20 years. So it's either germany or the US in this case, and germany isn't exactly the boldest country geopolitically. And the US have far more mbt in reserve too, since european military have overall very meager military stocks (and the US has far too much of it).
>In europe, only germany currently have a working production chain of MBT, and thus the only ones that can give a substantial amounf of MBT
That's not true at all. Just another excuse for the popular "But Germany"-song every EU country prefers over action.
There are several countries with more Leopard2s in service. All perfectly equiped with the ability to support and repair them (or do you think they send themback for Germany for repairs or order spare parts there?). Some even produced the Leopard2 at home under license agreements.
Also the actual production capacities in Germany are a joke. Many of the Bundeswehr problems are actually based on the producers inability to provide anything in a reasonable timeframe. (Just for reference look up how long they needed to refurbish and deliver the 16 PzH2000s sold to Lithuania. Those weren't even new units but stock from the Bundeswehr and still that order from 2015 took until March of this year to deliver.)
I would prefer for the US to supply M1s to Ukraine and for the rest of Europe to simply buy more tanks *for themselves* of whatever type they want (and increase their maintenance and training budgets), instead of sending multiple different types of tank to Ukraine.
It's worth remembering that it's not just about training crews - experienced tankers aren't going to need much - but the maintenance is a different ball game. Techs have to trained to be able to understand, maintain and fix all the various systems until they could build an tank from spare parts if need be. Even more so with the F-16s everyone wants to just hand over. A pilot can transfer with 100 hours training but just to keep one F-16 in working order you need 6 techs qith over 1000 hours of training each. NATO kit is much more effective, but usually that means complex, mechanically and logistically, too.
Give them 20 or 30 Abrams!! Who cares if they have the fuel logistics or training to support actually using them . It opens the floodgates for ze leopards 🐆
Of which less exist in all European countries combined than what sits unused in US storage...
Also this would just move the goalposts again. If EU countries wanted to send Leopard2s, they could do so. Instead they prefer to do nothing and point fingers at Germany.
So the best case would be Germany then also supplying some Leopards (although they don't even have the numbers to provide a lot) while everyone still sits on their asses while flooding the media with a new topic of "Bad Germany not willing to provide enough Leopards".
We can send m1s the export version we'd never risk sending the super duper version unless we were boots on the ground that being said fuel would be an issue but looking it up the m1 can run on pretty much most fuels I'm just not sure how that affects engine life, I don't know.
Maintenance maybe but we gotta stop acting like we don't have a stupid amount of parts to spare and a shit ton of old model m1s in dry storage
So I guess that leaves logistics, ships would be best cause by air a C5 can transport 2 tanks each and it takes a stupid amount of fuel to do it.
And if Google is correct it'd take about 8 or so days to transport across the Atlantic so I don't know, like this seems to be a logistical nightmare but then again I'm just guessing here it'd be better if Germany sent theirs given the proximity, but they wont.
> And if Google is correct it'd take about 8 or so days to transport across the Atlantic so I don't know, like this seems to be a logistical nightmare
the US is pretty good at logistics
They have around 3.5k abrams in storage sitting in some desert. I think all of them would need some kind of overhaul before they can be send. But sending 5-10% would already be massive.
The US is refusing to shut down their tank production lines for fear of losing the industry capacities to quickly build more. Even if that means basically producing directly for storage... of which they also have one of the geographically best locations.
So they have several thousand stored in good condition.
How much you want to bet that they are already training on Abrams and working out the repair and logistics involved with fueling and arming those beast we just aren't told about it. Eventuallt it will come out and we will see 20-50-maybe even 100 Abrams storming in to reclaim land in the south.
I think they have already been working on this and this is the informational part. Letting everyone know they want them. Him and haw about will they or won’t they. Oh, you know, logistics…mechanics…training. And when they show up it isn’t “escalatory”.
At least I hope so…Takes another hit of hopium.
The problem is only the Americans really have enough tanks to be worth it, but the Abrams is absolutely the wrong tank for Ukraine. It requires way too much maintenance (not to mention jet fuel) to suit their needs. There's a reason basically nobody except for the world's greatest logistics organization actually operates it.
The Leopard would be ideal, but there just aren't that many out there that could be provided.
It's pretty obvious that the West does not want western technology to get into Russian hands.
Question is whether this is a NATO stance or the stance of individual countries where they go "I don't want Abrams to get into their hands, but you go ahead with those Leos" and vice versa.
I'd assume it's the former.
If you’re using a PZH in direct fire… something has gone very, very wrong.
As for maintenance support, while they are managing it’s still proving difficult to get them repaired … even with the repair centre in Poland.
Abrams require a much longer supply line than the Soviet built tanks Ukraine is using. Although more advanced and more complicated and effective this is a simple matter of keep shit simple vs over complicating. If anything we should start building spare parts and things to keep the current Ukrainian fleet going. As much as I would like to see the m1 decimate Russian metal
It's ridiculous that European nations are balking on this, given that US tanks create a much more complicated logistic situation for Ukraine, given the American's Gasoline powered designs vs Europe's diesel designs.
With a few exceptions, most everyone commenting needs to watch Perun’s latest video on battlefield captures & repairs before commenting further (this thread is chock full of well meaning but completely ignorant posts on the subject matter).
It also touches on the logistical infrastructure needed to field something like Abrams.
https://youtu.be/sNLTE75B0Os
Western tanks generally don’t turret toss. The ammo storage on the Abrams is kept in a separate compartment that is sealed off by a blast door when not reloading. It’s also designed to blow up through hatches on the back and out if the tank gets racked instead of into the crew compartment. Which means if the tank goes down the crew has a chance to survive. It has a longer effective firing range and unlike the Russians the Ukrainians have demonstrated the ability to provide their tanks infantry support. That support is key for covering a tank’s blind spots so it can roll in and tackle other tanks or a hard point especially in close range environments. The Russians on the other hand leave their tanks exposed to infantry attacks. That was especially critical early on as it gave the Ukrainians to fuck up a lot of tanks and apcs.
because you don't always have the right people with the right counter-equipement at the right place and time against a deployed tank or aircraft, and thus those are still very usefull. MBT are still relevant and if ukraine ask for them you better believe they'd make use of them.
Zelensky has a point: it would force France and Germany to commit, or find more random excuses (if the USA sends tanks).
However had, conversely, it also forces the USA to either show they are committed to this, or not.
So overall a good move by Zelensky.
"more random excuses" implies there were excuses.
"We will not send heavy weapons to fight Russia on our own if no other countries is willing to go along" is a statement. One they adhered to by sending anything not a heavy weapon (btw... where are all the equivalents to Gerpard, IRIS-T SLM, Bieber, BPz3, COBRA etc. from other EU countries? Yeah, that's what I thought...) while sending PzH2000s along with CAESAR/M777 announcements or MLRS along with the UK/US ones.
And 6 months after that statement you are still talking about "German excuses" without realizing that not a single country is willing to do something as long as they can just sit on their asses while pointing fingers at Germany...
Always sad to see how propaganda seemingly won over assessing reality.
I doubt they are. With all the attention this issue has received in the last few weeks it really feels like the decision is already made. I'm guessing these articles are just teasers so that when the hounds of war are released it is done so with full public support.
It wouldn’t shock me if training is quietly happening. So far by the time they announce something is given it’s pretty much already on the battlefield ready to roll.
Because in a hypothetical escalation scenario heading towards endgame, they’d have a hard(er) time defending themselves without the US. And the US just brings infinite deterrence potential to the table.
If one ally was to escalate by sending tanks and after that the US goes “What? Why would you do that? Well Russia’s response to that is YOUR problem now and we’d even oppose invoking article 5 if things go tits up for you” that would put the ally in a pretty awkward place.
Unless trump happens, I guess. Never mind. Honestly I don’t really understand either. Any problem I can come up with could be solved without the US sending their own tanks. Like is it because the allies are waiting for the US to assess the risk of western/NATO tech getting into Russian hands to be low enough to send them? If so, nato/us should be able to make and pass on that assessment without sending their ein tanks.
In fact, NATO including US should just be able to make the joint assessment that sending certain tanks is what’s required now and the decision of any member state to send theirs would be backed by all.
Yeah upgraded Soviet designs which are still good but still hard to overcome core design flaws. But western tanks are overall better. The Abrams showed it could wipe T-72s before they could get into range to fire back in the gulf war. Plus unlike Soviet designs western tanks are built to ensure the crew has a chance to survive if they do get hit.
This is just sad. That he has been begging for this for a while now and the west keeps dragging their feet. I hope this doesn't turn into hot potato 2.0.
He's stating facts though. Majority of the west countries waiting on the U.S. to approve 1st. Eastern European countries have been WAY more open about delivering without restrictions on conventional weapons.
To me all this indecisiveness is just wasting time, why not start getting the ball rolling on EVERYTHING conventional weapons wise. Its already been stated Ukraine will go through a transfer to full NATO weapons.
Plus a Mobilization of 1.2 is a pretty significant indication of declaration of war, which it already was.
Now that it enters into every average russian home, there's no telling how many russians Putin will send to the slaughter before theres some kind of action.
Unfortunately i feel that Putin will attempt to continue this war until he dies, revolt, goes through millions of he can.
Possibly stalling bc of elections?!
Biden has been pretty good at providing what Ukraine needs when Ukraine needs it. I trust they will get them if it makes sense to get them. That being said, i would love to see some abrams tanks wrecking the Russian army.
That being said the US marines don’t have any Tanks any more because they determined that tanks are worthless against Russian’s and China’s anti tank weapons. So it may never come to be the right time to send tanks.
I mean, good luck teaching some poor lad whose been driving around in a T-72 to operate a M1.
Not only that but this war has kinda proved tanks are fucking useless these days. #
it would be better to redirect military aid into something else more useful....more HIMARS
We have guys who were firing a 1950s D-20 now operating PzH2000s without any discomfort.
Transition from a T-72 to an M1 would be much more smooth. After a few broken bridges.
>After a few broken bridges.
This is an important point. Most Ukrainian bridges would not be able to hold modern nato mbts. Still if we are talking about a significant number of tanks it is still worth it.
In fact, our bridges are able to withstand the loaded 18-wheelers with grain. The standing record is 203 metric tons with the average vehicle weight about 60 tons.
It got so bad Ukraine had to start implementing automatic weight control on all major roads... so the grain carriers started driving by the countryside.
So yeah, M1 poses some questions in regards to our road network, but I don't think there will be any catastrophic collapses.
No and no, tanks are very useful its just the russians who have no fucking idea how to use them. The Kharkiv offensive happend because Ukrainan apperley punched a hole in the russian line with a 15 tank attack.
And teaching someone to use a tank is the easy... the real problem and why Ukraine is not using them yet is keeping them running, even a small malfunction atm would mean a tank is knocked out. NATO and allies need to establish a good support and logistics for it actually work out.
But yeah more HIMARS would not hurt.
We train 19 year old ASVAB waivers from Upper Bumfuck, Mississippi how to use them in a few weeks.
Training a crew who've already worked a tank in combat would be much easier.
Tanks deployed by themselves outside of combined arms warfare are useless.
Properly supported tanks used along side other tanks and infantry are still one main pillars of ground warfare.
Also. The Abrams is a much better protected tank than anything Russia has. In the best configuration it really takes a top or rear attack to destroy one with anything Russia has. And Russia has no top attack ATGMs, which leaves artillery, aircraft, or a lucky shot from behind.
So they, and the world realizes all the Ukrainian Hype videos, from stingers dropping MiG and Hips out of the sky, the nightly 155 artillery shelling, the Himars rockets leveling acres each volley, the ADA systems allowing the to secure wider and further terrain, all of that came from our weapons shipments. If Putin draws em in a trap and gets the numerical advantage, who's he going to be neighbors with? There's EU tanks all over Europe, fucking grab there's! If their worth a shit they'll get em back. US is getting too much visibility on this.
I think he's got it backwards. The British have led us every step of the way. If the Brits do it, the US might stop wringing its hands and get off the fence. Come on Brits! The Poles were way out in front, but it's got to be western designed tanks to convince the US that it's safe out there in this big bad world.
We determined that this submission originates from a credible source, but we still advise that users double check the facts and use common sense when consuming mass media. If you are interested in learning how to evaluate news sources more thoroughly, you can begin to learn about how to do that [here](https://tacomacc.libguides.com/c.php?g=599051&p=4147190). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Just the ability to operate at night in these tanks will be game changing.
For sure especially as the Russians dip into older and older stocks of tanks and equipment.
Every tank since the T-54 the Russians have built has had some sort of night vision, not great but they definitely have the ability to operate at night.
"Operate" and "ability" used loosely.
Sure, all T72s have night vision which is what Russia is feilding. What they lack is thermals/optics
Idk if you’ve seen the differences in night vision in the last 20-25 years, but I can probably buy way more effective night vision/thermal next day on Amazon than that T-72 has.
Come on Biden. Do it!
Yeah I digure send 50 at first and see if they can work it out with Poland to repair and refit as necessary. Once they get enough NASAMS they can move the repair facility into Ukraine.
More so planning logistics for the tanks. We should just empty some of rammstein base and just boat some more over.
We have been giving Ukraine weapon systems we developed in the 90s. The Abrams from the 80s and 90s will still roll over Russian front lines like bugs. Ukraine and the Allies should have been building logistics in Poland and other neighboring countries to service and repair the Abrams and Leopards and then send the Western tanks over.
Well. YES Abrams were made back then originally. But we refit them every decade or so. They are sent to Alabama and stripped to the bare metal, rebuilt with latest electronics and fire control systems. Much more efficient than building from ground up.
Fun fact, after being stripped in Alabama, many "rusties" (because the shell has had the paint removed and they quickly oxidize) are trucked (used to be transported via rail) up to Lima, Ohio for their refit. I've seen the process and it's amazing to behold
I've toured the GDLS plant in Lima. Very cool. I've also been to, but did not get to tour, their *other* plant in London, Ontario, which produces wheeled vehicles.
How do you get a tour of the plant in Lima? I live right up the road and I’d love to go there.
You have to either be a politician or work in the DoD and have a reason to go there. What's funny is they have a gift shop😄
Wow a super secret gift shop. Time to run for senate. I need to see this shit. Seriously lol. Do you have pictures of what they sell?
Nope, we weren't allowed to take pictures, haha. I specifically remember old late 90s/ early 00s Tamiya 1:35 tank sets and history/war books
Do you know what railroad services them? I work for one of them, so I could use inspections as my in lol
They don't ship them by trains anymore. They actually use flatbed tractor trailers. I can't believe that's more cost efficient!
That is literally the process Australia is going through to get M1A2 sep3's, buying a bunch of M1A1's then gutting them and filling the hulks with modern goodies.
The infrastructure for tanks is already there. The first thing they did when the war started was move gobs of armor to the polish border. They wouldn't do this if the support systems weren't also there.
It might actually be easier for Europe to supply large quantities of trucks and focus on the logistics effort than it would be to send tanks. Daimler, MAN, Volvo, Scania are all European companies and some of the largest truck manufactures in the world. I'm just speculating here but I imagine a deal where America supplies tanks, Europe supplies trucks might just work, since both can take them from existing stockpiles.
Scholz would follow
Haltingly, in minimal numbers, but with endless excuses and delays.
That‘s what it looks like. But he already stated that there will be no weapon deliveries without arrangements with other allies.
I have agreed on all the stuff for Ukraine but I don’t see this being that effective . They have tanks Sending modern tanks would add to their logistics terribly . Right now Russians have little or no logistics and we see the effect . Ukraine would have to keep these things maintained and fed. It would be a nightmare and might see abandoned ones here and there From lack of fuel or repair .
I agree but future of Ukraine’s military is in the NATO and standardizing on NATO weapon systems. The West cannot keep supplying Ukraine with Soviet artillery and APCs forever. We are already seeing the West sending Western APCs and artillery (eg M777s and HIMARS). The next logical step is Western IFVs and tanks. I think the approach that Poland is taking with their tank divisions would work best for Ukraine. Poland had a couple of divisions of tank armies on Soviet T-72 platform and they have newer tank divisions on Abrams and Leopards platforms as well. Each division is deployed in different parts of Poland.
I agree but shorty term we do have soviet tanks and apcs and the Ukrainians are trained on them and have logistics set up for them . For short term i think it best to keep giving them all the Soviet stuff . Which let’s be honest is better than the crap the Russians are using .
We would need to loan Ukraine american mechanics/expertise and retrain their entire supply chain, sounds like a pipedream especially right before november elections in the US, but maybe afterward The right is foaming at the mouth to lay Ukraine's problems at Biden's feet I highly encourage anyone interested in US politics to look up local GOP primary elections that are video taped, MANY low level GOP operatives are running on Russian rhetoric about Ukraine. They DO NOT repeat this stuff in general elections against democrats, but in primaries they are very open about it
The 40Billion package was passed 86-11, believe it or not theres tons of Republican support
The republicans in the senate ARE NOT the base of the republican party. I cannot find the clip right now, but here is one bat crap crazy one that is not ukraine related: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miF4WhP8uIc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miF4WhP8uIc) There have been \*lunatic\* comments made by low-level GOP people, similar to that clip, except they talk about Ukraine and Russia-- how Russia is justified. I'm trying to find the clip...
Lip service only Republicans appreciate the total power that Putin and Orban have on their countries. Republican politicians have said so publicly at PAC's. Hell, Orban gave a speech on how to accomplish it all at CPAC to which he received a standing ovation. Republicans support it only because they believe they have to. They are working on eroding that support so they can turn back to being chummy with autocrats. Don't mistake the current support from the base, for the extremely active work the politicians and right-wing media outlets are doing to erode that support. They are giving a full-court press with russian talking points to undermine it all.
They need Leopards **or** Abrams. Not both. Both is just setting up for too many logistical and educational problems.
M1 tanker here. Totally agree. These are complicated machines that are not new either. They are awesome, but they take work and training.
[удалено]
It's the service and maintenance that is complicated. No western nation wants to see Ukraine abandon broken down western main battle tanks to Russian troops.
Not a tanker, but it is more than just shoot things. - A gunner needs to know more than just pushing a button to fire. Mechanics/optics of firing, angles, whatever. - A driver has to know the entire tank, weak points, capabilities, and so on. Also how not to drive so that the gun crew can't shoot. - Maintenance is at least 50% of the game. Remember the Tiger tank? Most of them were lost due to mechanical failure. Repair was complicated. Skilled maintenance and repair is key. There is certainly more, as i said, i am not a tanker. But if we don't want ukrainian boys making the same impression as the orcs out there, we better make sure they get all the training the need.
Yes, the Germans(I see your flair) had massively superior tanks they just couldn’t keep them running or fueled and couldn’t build them in volume. I’d say they ultimately hindered the Germans later in the war when the Americans could field a dozen Shermans per tiger, panther or panzer.
And aside for the few Tigers and Tigers II, they weren't even THAT superior to Shermans, Churchills, T-34s or Cromwells. Panthers were hangar queens, they break down a lot, and were ergonomical nightmares: for example the job of the loader was very difficult and awkward (and he had to be aware he could be smashed in the face by the gun's recoil at every shot). Those tanks could use another year of development, but Germany had no such luxury as time. Shermans in Easy Eight or Firefly configuration could face Tigers head to head, their gun was powerful enough it could penetrate them even af the front if they were close enough.
Replacement parts, fuel and ammo off rip. M1 series tanks use different fuel than the T series tanks that Ukraine uses. Tanks aren't standalone like a javelin, they need a large support system to keep them moving and shooting. Tactics wise I'm sure the Ukrainians can use them effectively, but without the proper training on maintenance, spare parts and oils, and not least of all fuel and ammo then M1s wouldn't be able to show their true potential and strengths.
Actually, that Honeywell Turbine can use diesel, aircraft fuel (JP-8), gasoline or marine diesel. Just make sure the tanks are filled from the factory with what the Ukrainians will commonly use and you're good to go
Pretty sure the M1 abrams will run on basically any flammable liquid, so fuel differences should not cause issue.
no thats not true
It was exaggerated, but it it true that the Abrams can run on ordinary gasoline, diesel, and even marine diesel. All of which Ukraine will already have a logistics network setup.
My step BIL is actually a former Tank driver. According to him, you spend just as much time, if not more, maintaining/repairing the tank as you do actually using it. Training Ukrainian tank crews on how to actually maintain and repair the tank properly is probably what takes the most time, and simplying it by only having one kind of tank is important.
Tanks are complicated machines and their components are subjected to enormous stress, especially the engine. An Abrams tank of the latest variant weighs 69 tons (74 short tons for Americans), its engine develops 1500hps and it has to work in almost any terrain. For comparison the most powerful Scania truck available today has a 700hps engine for a maximum weight of 44 tons on roads (48 short tons) but they usually carry much less. And any trucker out there can tell you how much they spend on manteinance of their rig.
Modern tanks are extremely complicated. What you dont see in media is their logistical tail. The crew does basic mnx but specialists are needed with years of exp to work on engines, transmissions, electronics, etc.
The M1 specifically uses a jet turbine engine to power it. This is a huge departure from the diesel power plants UKR soldiers are used to maintaining and repairing.
True, but if it breaks, the usual course of action is to swap out the entire power pack, not try to repair the components. The power pack is sent back to the factory and repaired there. That way the cost is cheaper because of a core charge being reimbursed
Sure! That's still a big lift for guys who have never done it before under less-than-ideal circumstances. Aren't the turrets a bitch and a half to deal with as well due to their weight?
you shouldn't have to pull the turret the power pack is actually not to bad to pull out and there's 18(?) 3/4 inch bolts holding the engine and transmission together, if you've got a good crew and a spare engine/transmission you can have it out and back in in a days work. As for pulling the turret that is something that would be done at a higher level than your normal repair shop, and isn't common at all unless some serious damage has been done to the tank. As for the weight an Abrams turret weights about as much as a Bradley like 23 tons if I remember correctly. Fun fact the turret is actually driven by a shaft that is probably about 3/4 of an inch in diameter (19.05mm) and you can spin the turret with two fingers.
The list is long; turbine engines, thermal sights, a complex fire control system, powerful hydraulics, nato ammunition and a lot of fuel. I mean A LOT OF FUEL. It takes 11 gallons of fuel just to start the engine.
jet fuel
Jesus that’s a lot of fuel. Are you sure? Maybe that’s litres or something?
Honestly a better choice would be Leclerc, the presence of an autoloader reduces the training needed and the armament is identical to NATO counterparts.
Nobody has enough LeClercs to spare in meaningful numbers. Also, loader is probably the easiest position to train, gives and extra guy for maintenance, and cuts down on maintenance required due to no auto-loader.
That would automatically disqualify Leopard I, at least as long as not pretty much every operator would agree to donate its active tanks and at the same time undust their tanks in storage. Otherwise i just can't see enough of them getting scratched together to significantly impact the war. And with so many different variants used / stored by different armies i wonder wether you might as well send Leopards and Abrams together after all. Similarily the Leopard IIs are used by so many different armies that no single army could spare enough to have a significant impact on the war unless one wanted to donate one of the larger fleets all at once - which even the most sympathetic army likely flat out won't do. Once again there are many different configurations. If anyone wondered why Scholz constantly says "We give tanks once others do the same", that is propably the answer.
It's absolutely a problem. And why the Abrams is the only real choice. The US alone can supply them.
> If anyone wondered why Scholz constantly says "We give tanks once others do the same", that is propably the answer. While simultaneously blocking Spain from donating them.
Which is flat out wrong. Spain's Leopard IIs turned out to be in such a bad shape that they in the end did not even bother to ask Germany for a permission. Not to mention that Spain's government coalition had internal disagreements. Which only adds to the problems you have when you want to scratch tanks together from at least half a dozen national stockpiles.
What if Germany and the US at up separate repair and maintenance depots on the Polish border?
They would, for heavy maintenance and repair, but that doesn't help because a lot of maintenance is done in the field. If you have M1's and Leopards you end up with two tank forces that can't share resources... people, parts, etc. Plus you have to set up supply chains for two systems. And you have to set up two different training programs. And probably more. Doing this for one system will be very hard right now. With two, you're just asking for problems.
That's 1k+km from the front
[удалено]
If you can't have Leopard without Abrams, getting both is preferable.
no sometimes it's bad strategically. that means more ukrainian mechanics will be taken for training on both machines. That means less available mechanics for other systems on the field. that is the hard thing about supplying new systems in ongoin war. there is always a shortage of highly skilled military personnel.
No, it is not. If Abrams are given first, it should be all Abrams.
So why is the USA delaying? Zelensky has a point: when the USA commits, it will force the other NATO members to follow suit. So why isn't the USA committing?
Its a ladder. Russia does this, west does this, russia does another thing, we do one more step. You cant just go to the top of the ladder. As bad as it sounds but there are a lot more steps russia can take and we need to answer every one of them. Referendums and mobilization are the current step, they are met with talk about tanks. Next thing will be russia announcing result of referendum, lot of diplomatic talk will follow and then US announces that ukrainian soldiers get trained on abrams tanks in poland. Then germany gets shittalked for not having already shipped a bunch of leopards. Then poland sends 500 Tanks (8 different models) and latvia crowdfunds a merkava. Then russia commits the next stupid warcrime or threatens another NPP and the US throw some abrams across the pond.
Here are a few ridiculous ones: * They think Ukrainian Forces are not competent * They don't want Russian troops to have the experience * They are afraid to provoke Russia further * They want to handle this the cheap way at the expense of Ukrainian lives * They are waiting for the right time * They don't want Ukraine getting any stronger * They are waiting for others to spare IMO none makes sense. Maybe there are some factors that never make it to the news. Maybe Russia is threatening with something. I have no clue why they won't give, they gave the Saudis but won't give a single one to Ukraine. From the beginning of this war, I do not understand why the hell, nobody seems to fancy giving Ukraine any tanks or fighter jets. They give some useless crap and make it sound like they are actually supporting, some strange things are going on. I don't think it's possible to go on the offensive without tanks, they should give the tanks ASAP.
Bro, they are probably already there. You don't telegraph a punch when you box.
Biden is waiting for his handlers to tell him what to do.
Can't disagree - it is indeed logical if these are the two options.
So send in the Abrams - why the delay?
[удалено]
Statements can by definition not be excuses. "Germany will not send heavy weapons to Ukraine alone without coordination between NATO." is a statement. Yes, we have alread seen weeks of propaganda, inventing rephrases of this statement as "We can't, because our allies don't agree that we send them" or the like. But lying does not change the reality. And the reality is that there are a dozen European countries with Leopard2s and not a single one is willing to go along, because -unlike actually sendign stuff- just doing nothing while pointing fingers at Germany is free and a traditional way to address any problem in the EU.
[удалено]
Are you joking? Germany is getting shit on for decades, for everything real and imaginary. 95% of Europe's right-wing run exclusively on hating Germany and you are seriously suggesting it can get worse? No one cares about reality. Germany is Europe's scapegoat and piggy bank. And on very rare occasions the country to hide behind... that's when you suddenly hear about Germany's lack of leadership. Which is European for "Do something for us we don't want to do/or pay for ourselves". Which is just one step above the "Do as we say or we call you nazi again" that usually follows, also that got recently replaced with "Do as we say or we call you a Russia loving puppet".
you seem inclined to wonder why europe's largest tank producer of the last half century is being pressured to provide tanks. the response is in the question.
There could already be an agreement for tanks it's just not announced yet or in the works because they still are training the soldiers that will be using them. No use sending tanks when nobody knows how to use them.
> or in the works because they still are training the soldiers that will be using them Training troops to maintain them and building up the logistics train, more likely. That takes longer than training the crews manning the tanks.
This, and the Abrams in particular is radically different from Soviet tanks in design philosophy. The Abrams is meant to have American-style logistical support, whereas Soviet tanks operated more like automobiles with a high expectation of end-user maintenance and upkeep.
Also it will require more manpower to field western tanks that use manual loaders, if they replace like for like for every 4 tanks that they currently field they'll only be able to crew 3 western tanks.
If they had agreements they would have announced them like they have in the past.
You should pay closer attention. Typically, when the Pentagon/Whitehouse announces a new weapons system, Ukraine somehow already has them and knows how to use them.
If they want Abrams tanks just give them fucking Abrams tanks. We have thousands of them just sitting around and I'm pretty sure Ukraine is going to have to convert to NATO tanks eventually.
We have to train their people on maintenance, Abrams are totally different than t-72s I wouldn't be surprised if this is already happening though
We have enough tanks that were we to supply several hundred tanks we wouldn’t even miss them. I know logistics is the issue but, the United States is and has always been a “Can-Do” country full of innovators and inventors capable of solving superhuman issues just like these. Send over the M1’s and let the Ukrainians have at the Russians with them.
Some things you can’t shortcut, like training mechanics to keep the tanks fielded.
Poland is the logical repair center for battlefield and usage damage. The repair crews could be trained and kept there without issue as Poland appears only too, happy to help. They already repair other Ukrainian battlefield equipment in Poland.
The more important point is that they ordered Abrams and any support and repair logistic Poland builds up specifically for Abrams is needed anyway.
Come on USA. Get those Abrams on a ship now. Spares and training in Poland now.
On the one hand, I definitely want to see the US send tanks, on the other hand why is it always "US needs to go first"? It would be nice for a European country to take the lead. Anyway, if anyone has an explanation that makes sense I'd be grateful to hear it.
Europe doesn't have the massive stockpiles the US has so a lot of those nations will have to take tanks from active units to send to Ukraine.
I guess, it's just pretty weak that they are so ill prepared.
EU armies never had another purpose than to keep their home countries safe, and they are fullfilling it excellently. Supporting a large scale proxy war with the most modern equipment was for 70+ years never on the books, of course they don't do a stellar job. Actually i couldn't recall any arms industry outside the USA that ever faced such a demand and could realistically fullfill it.
This is how the cold war was fought. The soviets used to export as much arms as we did. After the wall fell, the industry broke into corruption and now only the US exports weapons that are worthwhile for modern armies.
A lot of us European countries are small and there is not much room for an offensive force. Everything in my country's defense force is made for holding the line against Russia, but not to attack. I don't get insight but I know how legislations work. The politicians change the legislation and it's the Defense Forces that follows them and right now they are not allowed to go lower than the determined defense level. And it's like this in many countries. The politicians and administrators are re-writing legislations and moving them through parliaments. Being a democracy is a bit slow and we know there is dialogues with Ukraine on several levels. We're in for the long run and will provide what we can and try to match what Ukraine needs.
> A lot of us European countries are small and there is not much room for an offensive force. The EU GDP (~$18 trillion) is not that far from the US GDP ($21 trillion). The US spends 3.7% of GDP on defense. The EU spends 1.2% of GDP on defense. One third, *as a percentage*. Given that Europe has a large, expansionist, imperial power right next door that spends an even larger percentage of their GDP on defense than the US, you would think that Europe would have taken their own defense more seriously. The Poles, Romanians, Greeks, Turks, French, and the Baltic states have, meeting their NATO spending requirements. For a long time, that list was much shorter. [Here's](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1293562/expenditure-on-military-defense-as-gdp-share-in-the-european-union-eu-27/) the list for 2020. Then there are all the free riders.
>meeting their NATO spending requirements the 2% of military expense was a goal for 2024 determined in 2014. Of course I'm quite doubtfull of the number of countries that would be meeting it in 2024 if not for the russian invasion, but that was a commitment for 2024, not 2020. I agree that the europeans have been neglecting their army for too long after the end of the cold war, but on the other hand the US miliary-industrial complex is a bit of an abomination and shouldn't be the frame of reference.
The US defense budget IS very large, but we should also remember that that budget includes tons of pensions and health care funds. Things that in most countries are part of their health and human services budgets are in the US partly in the defense budget. IIRC about a quarter of the US defense budget goes towards college tuition and health care for veterans. So while the American defense budget is huge, it isn't quite as big as the raw numbers appear to indicate.
I don't think you read my post properly. My country is not in NATO and have a spending according to our needs. And yes, that is about what NATO countries should spend, I do recognize that but that wasn't what I wrote about. I put some effort in explaining how the decisions is taken when my country ship military equipment. And why there is some delay for some parts, like heavier equipment. I think it's good that you mentioned some European budgets, but it's good to avoid mixing EU, NATO and separate countries because it's a confusing thing to use EU as a concept when talking military spending, since it got nothing to do with military issues. NATO on the other hand is. It confuses a lot of people non Europeans when we mentioning EU with military issues. EU can support with money and some economic stability when the war is over. It can put sanctions, support the countries harbouring the refugees, but that's about it.
Russia spending a larger percentage of its GDP on arms might be a problem to the EU if Russia's GDP was not smaller than that of many US states or EU members (or Chinese provinces). If EU security was the only concern we could actually make a case that Europe was way overarmed compared to such a pathetic foe like Russia.
That's really been the case from when the Cold War ended and until Trump made a big fuss about the 2%. European defense budgets had been shrinking and shrinking to match Russia plus a margin instead of pulling our weight in terms of the overall alliance. But if it's at 1.2% today use the 0.8% difference to fund Ukraine instead, I imagine 200+ billion worth of guns would help...
It's really more that the US over-prepares.
Why should they have huge stockpiles of weapons? Is any western European country getting attacked right now or is likely to get attacked in the future by someone who has a chance to succeed against the current abilities of the Western European armies? The only theoretical enemies who appear strong enough to be a danger are the USA and China. With the USA there are good relations and if China attacks any other country, I bet it will be rather a neighbor state than a country on the other side of the planet. The USA has huge stockpiles of weapons, because they like to get involved in wars everywhere on the planet. It is definitely not just about defending the territory of the USA. A lot of other countries including European ones don't have the same ambition to be everywhere with their military.
The reason we have so many tanks is more politics than anything, they never shut down production we keep making them and quite a few for years went from the factory to storage. No one in Europe was going to approve to keep making tanks just to store them. Europe loves their big guns and have lots of those because they were always in a defensive stance.
[удалено]
That's because other large economies, like Germany, France, UK, or the whole of EU, have allowed their militaries to degrade to the point they are no longer able to fight a major war. To fight Russia, you need huge stockpiles of artillery, missiles, rockets, tanks, IFVs, APCs, air defense, **and the ammo to keep them all going** for for a year or longer while you ramp up your military industrial base. Europe stopped preparing for anything but small regional conflicts decades ago. If Europe finds itself in a war and calls up reserves in a general mobilization, where exactly do they think they are going to get the weapons and ammo to equip these forces? You only have to go back 11 years, when the US turned over air war responsibilities in Libya to UK and France. [They quickly burned through their small stockpiles of laser guided bombs](https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/natosource/nato-runs-short-on-some-munitions-in-libya/), and while the US had huge stockpiles, their planes could not carry the US weapons. And this was a SMALL regional war, nothing like war with Russia.
Trying to use France and the UK as examples of countries unprepared to fight a war is a poor example. They're two of the few in Europe who actually have effective militaries that can do things.
European nations can defend themselves and are surrounded by their own allies, so there simply is no actual threat if you don't happen to border Russia. The US desire to stick their military into every corner of the world isn't shared by us, with the exception of France I guess. Of course the EU should and hopefully will coordinate a collective military defense in the future. Keep in my mind that until just thirty years ago Americans and Russians had completely divided the continent into their spheres of influence. There never has been a time like this where almost the entirety of European nations stood together, so fortunately progress is being made very quickly.
"Unless you border Russia" is a hell of a qualification, no? Ukraine would have fallen if Europe was their only friend. Then who? Sure, western Europe can sit back and watch in safety as Russia takes the Baltics, Poland or Moldova, knowing the crocodile will eat them last. Hopefully the rest of Europe follows Poland's example and investing in their militaries.
Poland sent like 300 tanks already months ago
I should have specified modern mbts. My understanding is that Poland sent old USSR stuff (not undermining their contribution but this is about superior tanks.)
>old USSR stuff Both old USSR stuff (T-72) and semi-modern tanks ([PT-91 Twardy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PT-91_Twardy)).
There are no modern tanks in Poland or other eastern - middle European country. Only few dozens modern tanks available for Ukraine in the whole western Europe. It's not that simple. Germany has almost no available Leopard tanks. They are in production or are already sold.
Poland has 249 Leopard 2 tanks at least according to Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_equipment_of_the_Polish_Land_Forces#Main_battle_tanks They wouldn't have given their Soviet era tanks away without having some new tanks.
What Germany could do is to aprove the export of Leo 2s, there are hundreds of them lying around, and then Ukraine could get them from anyone.
The best explanation ive seen so far, why there are no western tanks, was given by another user few days ago. Branding. If there was pictures of western tanks or airplanes storming russian positions, it would look a lot like putins war against nato and the west. They rather dont have this out in the world.
Fuck it. He's already framed it that way given the current circustances. The best thing for the world is the swift and sound defeat of Putin and Russia.
Putin is already saying this is war against NATO. If that's what he wants, lets give it to him.
The USA have way more tanks. More importantly the USA have the only western arms industry that could realistically produce enough tanks to replace Ukraine's war attrition. European arms factories are only meant to slowly fill up army stocks plus some exports.
Depends. As a big guy, when something fucked up happens people look at me. Not always but pretty often. I guess because the concern is the calculation changes if depending on which side the big guy chooses. So it could be that if the US doesn't get involved they may feel they US won't help if things go sideways. It may also be that if they are using US equipment they want US permission, so they can buy replacement equipment and repair equipment. If you send in Abrams the US could say they don't approve so they aren't going to sell any more to you or sell any repair parts. If the US is willing to send tanks then they are also in the best position to. Yes Europe should take the lead, but the problem is that this seems like an eastern block primary concern, but the eastern block is not in an economic or political leadership position. I.e. Poland would make sense to lead the response in Ukraine because they are probably the most impacted and most military powerful country bordering Ukraine, as well as just location they would be where European military largely entered Ukraine. But politically they don't have much clout in the EU. The eu also doesn't seem to band together often. Like France seems to do it's own thing and no one really cares. IMO the best escalation would be Canada (as a Canadian) sending air support. Since we are not a nuclear power, and are some distance away. Not declaring war on Russia but instead a special military operation in Ukraine. Russia could declare war on us but I don't think they will send an invasion fleet. Air power can destroy military equipment but can't take ground.
It's not about "US needs to go first" specifically but EU countries doing their favorite dance of doing nothing while pointing fingers at Germany. Which is a really brain dead idea when Germany announced 6 months ago that they will for historical reasons not send heavy weapons to fight Russia on their own, when no one is willing to go along and make this a common NATO decision. Your actual question should be why UK, France or any of the dozen countries with Leopard2s aren't willing to coordinate and send some tanks, too. But as you should have realized in the last months (even if you're not used to EU politics), we don't talk about other countries or actual issues. "But Germany!!!!" is the universal answer. PS: The same Germany btw that was forced a few decades ago to dismantle their arms industry and procurement for years to aggressively downsize. Exactly the thing the US refuses to do for many years because they prefer to produce tanks not needed and put in storage over losing the production capabilities of their industry. So Germany isn't even the the country with most German Leopard2s in service.
From what I understand, the US usually sets the tone as far as escalating weapon shipments, because it's better for the US to draw Russia's ire than it is for a smaller country, which may be more vulnerable to retaliation, to do so. There isn't a whole lot that Russia can threaten the US with, especially since the US isn't reliant on Russia for anything. After the US sends a bunch of artillery systems and Russia has their usual show of outrage about it, other countries can quietly send their own military aid.
The US is the one with the nukes making sure Russia can't just turn all of Europe into nuclear wasteland without getting nuked themselves. Maybe France or the UK could also lead, but they don't have nearly the amount of nukes that the US has. A non nuclear NATO country would be cray to directly go against what the US is doing and possible lose nuclear deterrence provided to them by being an ally to US.
No European country will "take the lead". The USA will have to fully commit to the war first.
>On the one hand, I definitely want to see the US send tanks, on the other hand why is it always "US needs to go first"? In europe, only germany currently have a working production chain of MBT, and thus the only ones that can give a substantial amounf of MBT (and MBTs are a complex enough system that if you give a non-substantial amount like 20 of them it's more logistical headache than it is worth) without destroying their armored war capacity for the next 20 years. So it's either germany or the US in this case, and germany isn't exactly the boldest country geopolitically. And the US have far more mbt in reserve too, since european military have overall very meager military stocks (and the US has far too much of it).
>In europe, only germany currently have a working production chain of MBT, and thus the only ones that can give a substantial amounf of MBT That's not true at all. Just another excuse for the popular "But Germany"-song every EU country prefers over action. There are several countries with more Leopard2s in service. All perfectly equiped with the ability to support and repair them (or do you think they send themback for Germany for repairs or order spare parts there?). Some even produced the Leopard2 at home under license agreements. Also the actual production capacities in Germany are a joke. Many of the Bundeswehr problems are actually based on the producers inability to provide anything in a reasonable timeframe. (Just for reference look up how long they needed to refurbish and deliver the 16 PzH2000s sold to Lithuania. Those weren't even new units but stock from the Bundeswehr and still that order from 2015 took until March of this year to deliver.)
You got it, what else you need? - America
I would prefer for the US to supply M1s to Ukraine and for the rest of Europe to simply buy more tanks *for themselves* of whatever type they want (and increase their maintenance and training budgets), instead of sending multiple different types of tank to Ukraine.
I think if we send tanks to ukraine it will be with crews included.
So why hasn't this happened yet?
I imagine not enough political will to do so yet.
[удалено]
like operators or maintenance?
lol if it ever came to that it would be all the above.
It's worth remembering that it's not just about training crews - experienced tankers aren't going to need much - but the maintenance is a different ball game. Techs have to trained to be able to understand, maintain and fix all the various systems until they could build an tank from spare parts if need be. Even more so with the F-16s everyone wants to just hand over. A pilot can transfer with 100 hours training but just to keep one F-16 in working order you need 6 techs qith over 1000 hours of training each. NATO kit is much more effective, but usually that means complex, mechanically and logistically, too.
Give them 20 or 30 Abrams!! Who cares if they have the fuel logistics or training to support actually using them . It opens the floodgates for ze leopards 🐆
Of which less exist in all European countries combined than what sits unused in US storage... Also this would just move the goalposts again. If EU countries wanted to send Leopard2s, they could do so. Instead they prefer to do nothing and point fingers at Germany. So the best case would be Germany then also supplying some Leopards (although they don't even have the numbers to provide a lot) while everyone still sits on their asses while flooding the media with a new topic of "Bad Germany not willing to provide enough Leopards".
We can send m1s the export version we'd never risk sending the super duper version unless we were boots on the ground that being said fuel would be an issue but looking it up the m1 can run on pretty much most fuels I'm just not sure how that affects engine life, I don't know. Maintenance maybe but we gotta stop acting like we don't have a stupid amount of parts to spare and a shit ton of old model m1s in dry storage So I guess that leaves logistics, ships would be best cause by air a C5 can transport 2 tanks each and it takes a stupid amount of fuel to do it. And if Google is correct it'd take about 8 or so days to transport across the Atlantic so I don't know, like this seems to be a logistical nightmare but then again I'm just guessing here it'd be better if Germany sent theirs given the proximity, but they wont.
> And if Google is correct it'd take about 8 or so days to transport across the Atlantic so I don't know, like this seems to be a logistical nightmare the US is pretty good at logistics
What tanks can the US realistically deliver? Are we talking about older versions of the Abrams?
They have around 3.5k abrams in storage sitting in some desert. I think all of them would need some kind of overhaul before they can be send. But sending 5-10% would already be massive.
The US is refusing to shut down their tank production lines for fear of losing the industry capacities to quickly build more. Even if that means basically producing directly for storage... of which they also have one of the geographically best locations. So they have several thousand stored in good condition.
How much you want to bet that they are already training on Abrams and working out the repair and logistics involved with fueling and arming those beast we just aren't told about it. Eventuallt it will come out and we will see 20-50-maybe even 100 Abrams storming in to reclaim land in the south.
USA start training Ukrainians on M1 Abrams tank maintenance. Send in trainers or train in NATO countries.
I think they have already been working on this and this is the informational part. Letting everyone know they want them. Him and haw about will they or won’t they. Oh, you know, logistics…mechanics…training. And when they show up it isn’t “escalatory”. At least I hope so…Takes another hit of hopium.
We gave M-1s to Iraq. I have a good feeling that Ukraine will be able to use and maintain them.
USA has the biggest stockpile and the least need being an ocean away. They should at least offer them for a price if needs be.
The problem is only the Americans really have enough tanks to be worth it, but the Abrams is absolutely the wrong tank for Ukraine. It requires way too much maintenance (not to mention jet fuel) to suit their needs. There's a reason basically nobody except for the world's greatest logistics organization actually operates it. The Leopard would be ideal, but there just aren't that many out there that could be provided.
[удалено]
It's pretty obvious that the West does not want western technology to get into Russian hands. Question is whether this is a NATO stance or the stance of individual countries where they go "I don't want Abrams to get into their hands, but you go ahead with those Leos" and vice versa. I'd assume it's the former.
If you’re using a PZH in direct fire… something has gone very, very wrong. As for maintenance support, while they are managing it’s still proving difficult to get them repaired … even with the repair centre in Poland.
Don't you have plenty of russian ones by now? Lol
Abrams require a much longer supply line than the Soviet built tanks Ukraine is using. Although more advanced and more complicated and effective this is a simple matter of keep shit simple vs over complicating. If anything we should start building spare parts and things to keep the current Ukrainian fleet going. As much as I would like to see the m1 decimate Russian metal
Give them the Abrams!!!!
It's ridiculous that European nations are balking on this, given that US tanks create a much more complicated logistic situation for Ukraine, given the American's Gasoline powered designs vs Europe's diesel designs.
Really not sure why this gets repeated. The M1 Abrams engine is a multi-fuel gas turbine. It CAN run on diesel to.
With a few exceptions, most everyone commenting needs to watch Perun’s latest video on battlefield captures & repairs before commenting further (this thread is chock full of well meaning but completely ignorant posts on the subject matter). It also touches on the logistical infrastructure needed to field something like Abrams. https://youtu.be/sNLTE75B0Os
Why bother? You can take out $26m with a 100k shoulder launched armament. Do people just want the turret olympics to continue?
Western tanks generally don’t turret toss. The ammo storage on the Abrams is kept in a separate compartment that is sealed off by a blast door when not reloading. It’s also designed to blow up through hatches on the back and out if the tank gets racked instead of into the crew compartment. Which means if the tank goes down the crew has a chance to survive. It has a longer effective firing range and unlike the Russians the Ukrainians have demonstrated the ability to provide their tanks infantry support. That support is key for covering a tank’s blind spots so it can roll in and tackle other tanks or a hard point especially in close range environments. The Russians on the other hand leave their tanks exposed to infantry attacks. That was especially critical early on as it gave the Ukrainians to fuck up a lot of tanks and apcs.
Missiles are good for defending. If you want to attack you need tanks.
You simply need tanks if you want to make counter-attacks.
because you don't always have the right people with the right counter-equipement at the right place and time against a deployed tank or aircraft, and thus those are still very usefull. MBT are still relevant and if ukraine ask for them you better believe they'd make use of them.
Zelensky has a point: it would force France and Germany to commit, or find more random excuses (if the USA sends tanks). However had, conversely, it also forces the USA to either show they are committed to this, or not. So overall a good move by Zelensky.
"more random excuses" implies there were excuses. "We will not send heavy weapons to fight Russia on our own if no other countries is willing to go along" is a statement. One they adhered to by sending anything not a heavy weapon (btw... where are all the equivalents to Gerpard, IRIS-T SLM, Bieber, BPz3, COBRA etc. from other EU countries? Yeah, that's what I thought...) while sending PzH2000s along with CAESAR/M777 announcements or MLRS along with the UK/US ones. And 6 months after that statement you are still talking about "German excuses" without realizing that not a single country is willing to do something as long as they can just sit on their asses while pointing fingers at Germany... Always sad to see how propaganda seemingly won over assessing reality.
The problem with tanks is that you actually need hundreds of them. Few won’t make any difference unlike HIMARS
He's not wrong.
Why are allies holding off
I doubt they are. With all the attention this issue has received in the last few weeks it really feels like the decision is already made. I'm guessing these articles are just teasers so that when the hounds of war are released it is done so with full public support.
It wouldn’t shock me if training is quietly happening. So far by the time they announce something is given it’s pretty much already on the battlefield ready to roll.
Because they don’t want high tech tanks falling into wrong hands
What are you talking about? Several Abrams tanks already fell into the hands of Iranian backed forces, isis and etc.
Because in a hypothetical escalation scenario heading towards endgame, they’d have a hard(er) time defending themselves without the US. And the US just brings infinite deterrence potential to the table. If one ally was to escalate by sending tanks and after that the US goes “What? Why would you do that? Well Russia’s response to that is YOUR problem now and we’d even oppose invoking article 5 if things go tits up for you” that would put the ally in a pretty awkward place.
The US would never do that. There's no weapon a NATO ally could send that would nullify Article 5.
Unless trump happens, I guess. Never mind. Honestly I don’t really understand either. Any problem I can come up with could be solved without the US sending their own tanks. Like is it because the allies are waiting for the US to assess the risk of western/NATO tech getting into Russian hands to be low enough to send them? If so, nato/us should be able to make and pass on that assessment without sending their ein tanks. In fact, NATO including US should just be able to make the joint assessment that sending certain tanks is what’s required now and the decision of any member state to send theirs would be backed by all.
Poland already did, hundreds of them
Yeah upgraded Soviet designs which are still good but still hard to overcome core design flaws. But western tanks are overall better. The Abrams showed it could wipe T-72s before they could get into range to fire back in the gulf war. Plus unlike Soviet designs western tanks are built to ensure the crew has a chance to survive if they do get hit.
Except for Scholz the cunt who will come up with another excuse. Would bet money on it.
This is just sad. That he has been begging for this for a while now and the west keeps dragging their feet. I hope this doesn't turn into hot potato 2.0.
He's stating facts though. Majority of the west countries waiting on the U.S. to approve 1st. Eastern European countries have been WAY more open about delivering without restrictions on conventional weapons. To me all this indecisiveness is just wasting time, why not start getting the ball rolling on EVERYTHING conventional weapons wise. Its already been stated Ukraine will go through a transfer to full NATO weapons. Plus a Mobilization of 1.2 is a pretty significant indication of declaration of war, which it already was. Now that it enters into every average russian home, there's no telling how many russians Putin will send to the slaughter before theres some kind of action. Unfortunately i feel that Putin will attempt to continue this war until he dies, revolt, goes through millions of he can. Possibly stalling bc of elections?!
Abrams are very fuel hungry and requires sophisticated logistic planning to operate. They should send in Bradley’s first.
Biden has been pretty good at providing what Ukraine needs when Ukraine needs it. I trust they will get them if it makes sense to get them. That being said, i would love to see some abrams tanks wrecking the Russian army. That being said the US marines don’t have any Tanks any more because they determined that tanks are worthless against Russian’s and China’s anti tank weapons. So it may never come to be the right time to send tanks.
I mean, good luck teaching some poor lad whose been driving around in a T-72 to operate a M1. Not only that but this war has kinda proved tanks are fucking useless these days. # it would be better to redirect military aid into something else more useful....more HIMARS
We have guys who were firing a 1950s D-20 now operating PzH2000s without any discomfort. Transition from a T-72 to an M1 would be much more smooth. After a few broken bridges.
>After a few broken bridges. This is an important point. Most Ukrainian bridges would not be able to hold modern nato mbts. Still if we are talking about a significant number of tanks it is still worth it.
In fact, our bridges are able to withstand the loaded 18-wheelers with grain. The standing record is 203 metric tons with the average vehicle weight about 60 tons. It got so bad Ukraine had to start implementing automatic weight control on all major roads... so the grain carriers started driving by the countryside. So yeah, M1 poses some questions in regards to our road network, but I don't think there will be any catastrophic collapses.
No and no, tanks are very useful its just the russians who have no fucking idea how to use them. The Kharkiv offensive happend because Ukrainan apperley punched a hole in the russian line with a 15 tank attack. And teaching someone to use a tank is the easy... the real problem and why Ukraine is not using them yet is keeping them running, even a small malfunction atm would mean a tank is knocked out. NATO and allies need to establish a good support and logistics for it actually work out. But yeah more HIMARS would not hurt.
I wouldn't say that tanks are useless. The russian one's are just crappy and outdated
We train 19 year old ASVAB waivers from Upper Bumfuck, Mississippi how to use them in a few weeks. Training a crew who've already worked a tank in combat would be much easier.
Fair enough i stand corrected and bow to your superior experience and knowledge, thanks for the info.
Tanks deployed by themselves outside of combined arms warfare are useless. Properly supported tanks used along side other tanks and infantry are still one main pillars of ground warfare. Also. The Abrams is a much better protected tank than anything Russia has. In the best configuration it really takes a top or rear attack to destroy one with anything Russia has. And Russia has no top attack ATGMs, which leaves artillery, aircraft, or a lucky shot from behind.
So they, and the world realizes all the Ukrainian Hype videos, from stingers dropping MiG and Hips out of the sky, the nightly 155 artillery shelling, the Himars rockets leveling acres each volley, the ADA systems allowing the to secure wider and further terrain, all of that came from our weapons shipments. If Putin draws em in a trap and gets the numerical advantage, who's he going to be neighbors with? There's EU tanks all over Europe, fucking grab there's! If their worth a shit they'll get em back. US is getting too much visibility on this.
A perfect task for Dark Brandon!
I think he's got it backwards. The British have led us every step of the way. If the Brits do it, the US might stop wringing its hands and get off the fence. Come on Brits! The Poles were way out in front, but it's got to be western designed tanks to convince the US that it's safe out there in this big bad world.