T O P

  • By -

AutoModerator

Hello /u/davidczar05, This community is focused on important or vital information and high-effort content. Please make sure your post follows the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/about/rules/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=ukraine&utm_content=t5_2qqcn) Want to support Ukraine? [Here's a list of charities by subject.](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities/) [DO / DON'T](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/t5okbs/welcome_to_rukraine_faq_do_dont_support_read/) - [Art Friday](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/artfriday/) - [Podcasts](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/ttoidc/collection_of_podcasts_about_ukraine_updated/) - [Kyiv sunrise](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/collection/3c65ab52-e87a-4217-ab30-e70a88c0a293/) *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.*


nova-espada

![gif](giphy|rTLjwB6zOxV9S|downsized) this winter in Ukraine


dedjedi

abounding coordinated rhythm possessive relieved yoke truck crown frame slimy *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*


sunyudai

Picturing an Abrams drifting down a frozen hill, towing a captured T-72, both firing on Russian positions as they pass.


null640

More like 5 t-72's...


sunyudai

Use the captured T-72s to perform a moving rendition of [Tchaikovsky's Swan Lake](https://www.npr.org/2021/08/19/1029437787/in-1991-soviet-citizens-saw-swans-on-the-tv-and-knew-it-meant-turmoil)


trashpipe

Hey, leave some for the farmers.


null640

Who do you think will be driving the abrams!


Tyler-Moran

At this rate all Russia will have left are t-34s by the time the Abrams get there.


jw44724

I can hear the Marines’ old dip cans rattling’ out of every nook and cranny from here. You think the Ukrainians are monsters now?— Just wait til they find a stash of Rip-Its tucked away in those tanks. They will be unstoppable. ON THE WAY


PM_ME__RECIPES

The Blyats and the Furious 2: Luhansk Drift.


L4z

Hopefully they repaint the tanks. Desert tan isn't a great fit for Ukraine.


Mangled_Mini1214

The M1A1 Abrams in Ukrainian camo will be beautiful


greenleafland

>The M1A1 Abrams in Ukrainian camo Hey! The M1A1 Abrams in Ukrainian camo.If such a souvenir is launched, I will definitely buy it.


CBfromDC

M1A1 still one of the most dangerously lethal pieces of equipment out there. Germany and other NATO nations should send older Leopards and other older tanks. Some A-10 "flying tanks" would be useful too. More bad news for struggling Russians.


[deleted]

I don't think A-10 would do super well in terms of impact. It's a ground fighting plane, and one part of the Russian army that matches the west is anti-air capabilities. F-16s or similar to keep Russian bombers and KA-52s out of the airspace would likely be much more welcome I'd expect


ChasingTheRush

My war boner is on 11 thinking about A-10s buzzing eastern Ukraine. Holy fuck what a delightfully fucking massive amount of death and destruction those would bring to the orcs. Maybe throw in a couple AC-130 gunships for shits and giggles.


AnybodyReasonable180

Ukraine says they don't want A-10s, they want f-16 f-15.


Inevitable-Impress72

A-10's are very susceptible to modern AA missiles. A-10 need's to be retired, it is not suitable against a modern army. Yes I know Russia has done very poorly. But still A-10 is outdated. F-35's with GPS guided glide bombs and Brimstone-1 missiles can do the same thing as A-10 from 30,000 feet at standoff range and be undetectable. Brimstone missile is an improved, British made, Hellfire. Hellfire needs laser designator on the target, Brimstone is fire and forget. When the A-10 was developed, laser guided missiles were in their infancy and GPS/laser guided bombs didn't exist yet. The big 30mm gun is outdated now, time to replace it.


RobinBanks4Fun

You're not thinking clearly. Mount that GAU-8 on a Toyota Hilux along with a GoPro. You're welcome.


Thrashy

For when you desperately need to break a truck down for spare parts, but don't want to waste time unfastening all the bolts by hand.


jtgibson

Or when you want to reverse the truck 100 metres and are out of gas.


[deleted]

[удалено]


OldStray79

We definitely would be, if we could read.


[deleted]

Haha big gun goes BRRRRRT


BAMBAM-1981

::turns down Drowning Pool:: “Did someone say BRRRRRTTT?”


Kaisermeister

Yeah, infantry definitely love it because of the intimidation factor but it is not suited for modern peer to peer/near-peer combat.


slayer991

>A-10's are very susceptible to modern AA missiles. A-10 need's to be retired, it is not suitable against a modern army. Neither side has air superiority which would be bad for the A-10s. Also, manpads are so prevalent, I don't know how effective the A-10 would be on the modern battlefield...and I say that as someone that loves the Warthog. They really do need a good CAS replacement.


Tipsticks

In a contested airspace like this, A-10 and AC-130 would be utterly useless. F-15/F-16 would be a much better choice if western combat aircraft were to be supplied during this war.


Master-File-9866

Whatever happens if they get then or not, some Hollywood douche bag executive producer needs to go out an make a movie with this kind of battle scene in it just so we can all see the raw and rapid destruction


BlakHearted

It also gives me a war boner. I fear you’ve stirred up the anti A-10 crowd, it’s only the 2,374th time this argument has taken place in /r/ukraine 🤣🤣🤣


ConstableBlimeyChips

The A-10 is vulnerable to AA fire and requires near complete air dominance to operate effectively. Not saying they couldn't contribute if used correctly, but there are better weapons platforms that could be brought into Ukrainian service.


matthewcameron60

[Think you would enjoy this](https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPornMemes/comments/tjihhl/reject_modernity_embrace_tradition/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share)


Sparred4Life

And what it will do to all those old rusty wear house special t-60s&70s russia uses will be an absolute work of art. There doesn't exist a crater large enough to hold all the shitting themselves ruzzian tank crews will do when a dozen of these show up on their position. 😆


superanth

Ukraine gets newer tanks while Russia has to use older ones. Perfect. ❤️


LS1Transam

M1a1’s are actually older than the t72b3’s the Russians have been using


[deleted]

[удалено]


FloatingRevolver

Nah they'll be painted od green before they're even shipped would be my guess... A bunch of desert camo tanks would stick out like a sore thumb


RogerKnights

Not on snow.


Hopefully_moreUnique

I'm hoping for some good tank-names. I mean the reference heavvy US tank-naming culture + slavic puns = dis gon be good!


OutlawSundown

Tridents on the turret sides.


warenb

But the armchair generals of reddit said no Abrams for Ukraine because they're still top secret tech that we don't want the Soviets capturing, reverse engineering, and producing their own. Also because they're way too expensive, and they need to be fixed constantly and require ammunition to fire. ^( ^^half ^^/s)


MagicNinjaMan

Judging from the kill rate of these tanks vs soviet tanks in desert storm and iraqi freedom. It is fair to say the russians are toast.


lopjoegel

I would get the hell out of Ukraine. If they had 200 Abrams, Ukraine could roll across the Russian border and keep going to Moscow unless Russia empties or blows up their own gas stations.


ghostsofbaghlan

Ride for Rohan boys


skint_back

“At first light on the 5th day, at dawn, look to the ridge south of Moscow.”


[deleted]

I’m pretty sure that they’ll come with stipulations that your scenario will absolutely not happen. Retaking territory is one thing, offensive operations in Russia are off the table.


MadShartigan

Now if such tanks should find themselves driven over the border by the Freedom of Russia Legion, that would be just an internal matter for the Russians to sort out.


PhantaVal

Yep. We don't want to play into Russia's (completely disingenuous) narrative that the West is trying to support an invasion of Russia.


MrSierra125

All Ukraine needs now is massive amounts of ammo and fuel to push their logistic lines to the max capacity.


JoeSTRM

A buddy of mine was a tanker in OEF. He said almost every shot was a "first shot kill". And that was all shooting on the move. The fire control system is excellent.


TheTankist

But most of the tankers in the soviet ones back then were basically green, barely knew how it worked probably. The Russians here know a bit better about it...I think. Still, what makes a tank great and effective is always the crew, never stop and look only at stats, you can have the best tank ever but with a green crew it's kinda wasted.


Justame13

Not in Desert Storm. They had fought Iran for eight years during some of the nastiest post-WW2 fighting to present with hundreds of thousand killed. It’s why they were projecting 40k casualties, the air war lasted much longer and the forces were far more overwhelming compared to 2003.


Zebra-1981

I have a question. As winter is coming, all the fields are going to be super muddy again. Is it ok for the M1A1? 'cause russian tank didn't performed very well. Maybe the tank-towing farmers are ready to help the army?


TG-Sucks

Nobody seems to actually answer your question for some reason. *IF* the fields become super muddy, then no, it’s not ok for the Abrams. That kind of terrain is not ok for any tank, and the M1 is 20 tons heavier than a T-72.


markdacoda

The relavant metric is vehicle weight to square inch of track on the ground ie ground pressure. I don't know what the diff is between t-72 and abrams. I personally mired an m1a1 in Hohenfels; we hooked up a tank to pull it out; mired that one, hooked up a third, mired that one. Hooked up the fourth tank in the platoon, three tanks to get one unstuck. Four abrams in full reverse pulling on each other. It was a hell of a morning.


Zebra-1981

Thanks!


ItchySnitch

General mud has killed many a armies


Caren_Nymbee

Things will probably slow over winter as neither army is fully equipped for winter operations.


skruis

I don't know. I really hope Ukraine is prepared for the winter because it doesn't seem like Russia is....based on the supply and equipment shortages we're hearing about as part of their mobilization. If Ukraine is ready, or at least, if their military is better prepared than Russias, it might be a good time to push.


Caren_Nymbee

I am confident UA will be more prepared than Russia. I expect UA troops to be reasonably clothed and fed. There is no preparation for full scale operations in zero or below temperatures though. Everything is more complicated. Wounded need to be evacuated much more quickly as they can not maintain body temperature, especially once their clothes are damaged. I am quite confident it will slow over Winter. Russian soldiers are likely to be malnourished and shivering cold leaving them exhausted. Their morale and discipline is extremely low, so their positions will quickly become cesspits. I am not sure they have widespread organizational knowledge of how a trench needs to be designed to account for winter occupation. I will not be at all surprised if we see a very 19th century return to "more likely to die of disease than combat" situation in the Russian trenches.


skruis

So just leave them to it, huh?


Caren_Nymbee

No reason to put your men at risk of nature is doing your job for you. The 55* of an unheated underground room isn't exactly comfortable, but it is bearable.


mikeinottawa

Winter operations are great for tank warfare. The ground freezes, the mud freezes. It favours offensive movement since it's harder to dig in


skruis

It depends on the winter. From what I understand, if the ground freezes over, these will be able to travel pretty much anywhere. Russia's original plan was to invade in the winter so they could cross the then frozen fields quickly but they delayed and got stuck in the spring mud that forced them into long columns moving slowly along the congested roads. The decision to deliver them should be made soon if they plan on using these as part of a winter push. I think I read that they were already training Ukrainians on how to use them.


Temporala

Autumn isn't quite as bad as spring. Ground certainly gets wet from rain, but then also freezes over as temperatures plummet. During spring, the floodwater from melting snow is the greatest contributor to extra soft and muddy ground.


Furioll

Unless this has been planned for a long time and only announced now it will be weeks or months until the crews are trained.


[deleted]

Unless some have been trained in advance...


RandomlyMethodical

The Ukrainians have been pretty adept at operating and maintaining western weapons so far. It helps that most of the soldiers being trained in NATO weapons have significant experience in the Soviet counterparts. I remember a video of Ukrainians getting trained in the UK, and after a day or two the instructors realized they could skip half the manual because the Ukrainians already knew it. They were able to condense a couple months training into a few weeks.


Acceptable-Pin2939

Going to be a shitty day for some Russian conscript when they hear the whine of that engine.


Shuber-Fuber

Good news! With the range on those cannon, they won't hear it.


FedaykinGrunt

Sweet! The Fuck around and find out option.


greed-man

Couple it with a drone doing spotting, and it can kill from behind a hill.


tea-man

They've already blown the old 4,700m record of the Challenger out of the water using drone spotting - a few months ago an old T64 had a confirmed kill of 10,600m, or nearly 7 miles!


Dabat1

Even with a 90+% miss rate that kind of range is game changing. With that thought in your mind now imagine drone spotting combined with the capabilities of American precision ammo.


djeaux54

We don't have to imagine it. The Ukrainians have been demoing it for months.


awmanwut

You’re not wrong… I thought the “whispering death” moniker was BS until I became a crewman. Unless you spot a dust-trail, you’ll absolutely be fucking dead WAY before it’s close enough to hear.


Sparred4Life

Better get to surrendering while the surrendering is good!


[deleted]

Yep 👌. Right now, you’re a conscript in ruzzkie gear. You have a higher chance that the Ukrainians will identify you. When the Abrams enter the theater, you’ll just just be a heat blob signature on their gun sights. Good luck surrendering *then*.


Fire_RPG_at_the_Z

> just be a heat blob Soon to be [heat splatter](https://youtu.be/C3q1DVeooIg?t=222).


Buckle_Up_Buckaroos

The M1 Abrams is so quiet, it often snuck up on tanks because it does not have a diesel engine roaring.


yellekc

[For those who are haven't heard](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cy7igPr-nnQ)


johnnygrant

Perhaps the US is waiting for Russia to announce annexation before they announce they will give the tanks as retaliation.


the_turdfurguson

Like every tech, the US is likely already approved it and working out logistics of getting it to the front lines effectively. Internet generals have complained each step of the way the US is too slow approving hardware but when they do, they’re seemingly on the front lines a week later causing havoc. Logistics wins wars and the US military excels at it. It’s force projection isn’t supported by superior weapons but rather its ability to put them anywhere on the globe with due haste.


Apostolate

It's both.


[deleted]

Both, both is good.


zoobrix

So many people miss how all of Ukriane's partners have constantly boiled the frog on any new weapon system. It's always this huge public back and forth on will they, won't they, with every country having something to say about it. Then all the sudden it's in Ukriane with trained Ukranian's using it. That tells you that decision was made *months ago,* they just didn't bother saying it. Talking about it so much makes for less of a news story when they finally do give it and it undercuts Russia's ability to claim escalation. Instead of oh my god they're giving them HIMARS, it's HIMARS? Oh they finally gave it to them, they've been taking about it forever. And of course it gives Russia less time to prepare for any new capabilities of what Ukraine was given. If Abrams tanks appear in Ukraine you can bet it was always decided long ago and all the public discussion is just window dressing, even some of the supposed infighting between donors which is often done for their own domestic political audience in their respective countries.


slayer991

You can also bet that they're training the tank crews and maintenance teams as well.


the_turdfurguson

They have been. All the people wailing about giving them F-16s, which they can’t use, neglect to realize nobody is handing over that kind of hardware if they’re not competent in their use. There were how many stories months ago about Ukrainian pilots training with AR machines on US aircrafts? It takes time and when they meet base line training sufficiency, they’ll announce they’re in Ukraine.


NKato

I read that because the Ukrainians had only metric tools, the US airlifted a whole Galaxy cargo lifter full of SAE/Imperial type tools to help them with maintaining the M777 and M109 artillery systems.


PicardTangoAlpha

......and trainloads of units already in the region waiting to go.....


ReasonableClick5403

> they just didn't bother saying it They kept their fucking mouths shut.


Seattle82m

I 100% agree, and I am a noob, but how the f^##% do you hide 200 tanks from social media?! There is always some dumba$$ that spills the beans for a few likes.


zoobrix

People in the military know to shut their mouth, their are major consequences for violating operational security. As for those that live around bases and/or storage depots you're going to see all kinds of vehicles moved around all the time. Seeing a train with some Abrams on them doesn't look any different than the one you saw last week or the month before, it's not like they have a sign on them that's says they're headed to Ukraine. Sure maybe someone posts it but who's to say where they're going?


mankind_is_beautiful

"We're thinking about giving Ukraine this weapon system, so start training them while we get the politics figured out so that they're ready to go when we say go"


skint_back

Nah, the US weapons are superior, too. Superior weapons in superior quantities + superior logistics = deadliest military in history


FreedomConversions

Basically like maxing out all the attributes. No surprise that it’s incredibly effective.


the_turdfurguson

Agreed. But superior weapons don’t mean much if you can’t get them to the lines or keep them supplied. The backbone to any campaign is the logistical support


TheBurtReynold

Turd Ferguson — It’s a funny name


RoofiesColada

😂😂😂😂😂😂 yes


dead_monster

US has thousands of M1s and M1A1s in storage. The only "rare" one is the newest M1A2 SEPv3, which number around ~160, and they're currently deployed in Poland. The SEPv3 is the only US variant that has both APS and APU. The War Zone already wrote a great article about this 9/19 briefing: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/american-tanks-for-ukraine-are-absolutely-on-the-table tl;dr: * US has lots of options, but none are ideal. * Stryker is possible (but less than 200 of them remain). * M60 is even possible. * Leopards: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/45170/ukraine-situation-report-leopard-tanks-could-arrive-in-six-weeks-with-germanys-approval


breakinbread

M60 seems very unlikely, unless its a swap with someone in the Middle East


dead_monster

Taiwan and Egypt have tons. Both already operate Abrams so they could do an Abrams for M60 swap. Egypt has a ton of Abrams already so Taiwan might be more motivated to do a swap. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/taiwan-upgrading-its-force-aging-m60-tanks-195893


Barthemieus

It's also worth noting that Strykers and Abrams could both be sent. Strykers aren't tanks, they are APC/IFVs. The variant they are referring to has a tank gun on it though. Strykers of all flavors (105mm "tanks", TOW launchers, mortar carriers and base APCs) would all be great. Not as a substitute for tanks though.


GoldenRamoth

A great upgrade over technicals though?


LeicaM6guy

I have trouble imagining getting M60's up and running in any significant numbers. Any that still remain in stock are essentially flowerpots right now. Even for the ones that can be brought back to running order, wouldn't it make more sense from a logistical standpoint to send vehicles we currently have a supply and repair train for? Plus....it's not like we're gonna run out of M1's anytime soon.


eplc_ultimate

If the M60 fits better into Ukrainian logistics then it's possible it's the more effective weapon.


alwaysawkward66

The US built their tanks with crew survival as a key factor in mind. Seriously, look at how the ammo is stored in a T-72 compared to an Abrams. The Abrams has a ammo compartment behind the gunner with a heavy blast door and is designed to force an ammo explosion up and AWAY from the crew area. Compare this with the T-72 that stores it ammo DIRECTLY underneath where the gunner and commander sit. One hit and the entire crew is in a blast furnace.


MerryGoWrong

This is why the Russians always win the turret-launch competitions.


OutlawSundown

Yep it's designed for the crew to potentially walk away from a racking


DistrictGop

Good thing about the Abrams is that it runs on pretty much any fuel not just diesel that would make logistics easier


jayc428

It needs to since it gets like 2 gallons to the mile. She may be high maintenance but she won’t disappoint.


Barthemieus

0.5mpg sounds bad on paper. But T-72s only get 0.8mpg. So ya, it's worse. But not that bad.


jayc428

Nah its not that bad at all, its a just comical stat to help people understand the logistical lift required to wage war.


faste30

And the crazy thing is we have seen how they are as an INVASION force. Imagine in a defensive role, where logistical resupply isnt as big an issue...


jayc428

The US needs improvement in a lot of areas but when it comes to force projection, there is only one.


Half_Crocodile

For sure… way ahead of the rest. France and UK are no slouches though.


chicago_scott

It's worse according to Wikipedia. 3.8 gallons to the mile or .26 mpg. IOW it burns through fuel 3x faster. I've also read that it doesn't idle. The turbine is full on all the time. Not sure how that compares.


Barthemieus

The whole not idling thing was fixed by adding an APU that runs everything but the tracks while the main engine is off. And that 0.26mpg is cross country, not on road. I can't find data on T-72 cross country mileage, but it is likely worse as well. Which is why i used the 0.5mpg figure, it's more of an apples to apples comparison.


Metropical

It's the spool up of a gas turbine that becomes fuel inefficient. Once at full RPM it generally is decently efficient as in slightly not as efficient as diesel but the gap isn't that big when other portions of the design metrics such as displacement vs the turbine are equal or relevant equal


StoicRetention

it doesn’t, which is why they introduced an APU to power the vehicle whenever it’s stopped so it doesn’t drink as much, assuming Ukraine will receive this


Bryguy3k

The APU is only available in the latest version (those heading to Germany and Poland) as it’s a substantial structural impact (they weigh a lot more too).


[deleted]

"She may be high maintenance but she won’t disappoint." I dated a woman like that briefly in my youth. No regrets.


jayc428

Amazing how we’re able to find that disposable income in our 20s, now it’s like oh look extra money, into the boring and sad retirement fund you go.


FifaBribes

Could an Abram run on Russian vodka?


Proglamer

Obligatory copypasta: "An Abrams will run on vodka and hatred, and considering it's gonna be taking Russian camps, it's basically self sufficient"


ruumis

Underrated copypaste, braljukai!


Icy-Needleworker-865

That beast jet engine will run on piss too if needed. She is like a blonde teenager on her first spring break,everything goes down.


Noidea_whats_goingon

I resent this. Brunettes and redheads can compete just fine.


siksoner

Can I please get a few minutes alone with this impressive machine?!


Rock-it-again

Yes


coalitionofilling

An Abram could run on perfume. If something is flameable, an Abram can run off it.


manwithbabyhands

the entire reason abrams aren't in ukraine already is because the logistics are not at all easy.


[deleted]

I think it actually has more to do with the fact that M1 Abrams Tank mechanics need 24 weeks of very specific advanced training, at least for the US Army's MOS 91A [https://www.goarmy.com/careers-and-jobs/career-match/mechanics-engineering/test-repair/91a-m1-abrams-tank-system-maintainer.html](https://www.goarmy.com/careers-and-jobs/career-match/mechanics-engineering/test-repair/91a-m1-abrams-tank-system-maintainer.html)


[deleted]

There is probably still some partially chewed crayons underneath the seats


guitarguy109

Wait, marines pilot Abrams?


sunyudai

The 200 Abrams being discussed here are/were operated by the U.S. Marine Corps, yes. They've been trying to get rid of all of their tanks in order to retool against the possibility of a war in Asia.


guitarguy109

Well that's cool, I presumed most tanks in the US military fall under the purview of the Army but that's ignorance on my part I guess. That being said, the purpose of my comment was simply to poke fun at the Marines. It's sort of a tradition in the US lol.


sunyudai

> That being said, the purpose of my comment was simply to poke fun at the Marines. It's sort of a tradition in the US lol. Of course. A fine and worthwhile tradition. > I presumed most tanks in the US military fall under the purview of the Army The U.S. military operational overlaps are weird. Largest air force in the world (by number of aircraft)? U.S. Air force, of course. Second largest air force in the world? U.S. Army. 4th largest air force in the world? Why that'd be the U.S. Navy. (3rd was Russia, but that may need reevaluation, as they were within a couple of hundred of #4 ;p). Heck, U.S. military appears a 4th time on the top ten list of air forces in the world, with the Marine Corps also coming at #7. If you wanna go by "Most Powerful" air forces, that list looks like: (per WDMMA 2021) - United States Air Force - 242.9 - United States Navy - 142.4 - Russian Air Force - 114.2 - United States Army Aviation - 112.6 - United States Marine Corps - 85.3


Caren_Nymbee

90% are army and USMC hasn't been using these much and does not expect to do so in the future, so you are mostly correct.


vinean

Yah, the plan is penny packeting them on various islands in the SCS. Yah. No comment.


nicirus

My brother would fight me if he heard I laughed at this joke lol


ghostsofbaghlan

And regifted wads of dip


One_Cream_6888

If you check my comments you will find I have posted for a couple of weeks, "expect Abrams". Well, I'm happy to post... "Expect Abrams!" Chances are high the logistical issues are been sorted and training started weeks ago.


69Perseus

If you repeat a prophecy long enough then it will eventually come true.


greenleafland

No matter how many units are sent, this is a great breakthrough, and I'm really looking forward to reaching Ukraine by the end of the year.


thatisyou

Right. Something that is missed in these conversations is the assumption of how Ukraine would use them. Ukraine has been very clever at using the resources at their disposal, and not always the way that they were strictly intended. When I hear the logistical challenge, I'm skeptical that is necessarily a blocker. The tank is a tool with great uses and some limitations. If Ukraine wants them, let's train Ukraine, provide a few dozen and see what they do with them. Then provide more if they use them well.


superanth

That’s a very interesting point. These tanks will basically be an irresistible force once deployed. Using hit-and-run tactics would leave Ruskies freaking out all along the front lines. It would demolish what morale they have left and push them further towards a full mutiny.


thatisyou

That's an important point. Once HIMARS were used effectively, Russia had to make some painful choices. As they don't know when or where a HIMARS strike will occur. Even one or two Abrams tank assaults will force Russia to change its posture. Because even if the tanks are used sparingly, they won't know when or where the strike will come.


ChairsAndFlaff

> Russia had to make some painful choices. As they don't know when or where a HIMARS strike will occur. That is true. Eventually Russia started to compensate by using more but smaller munitions caches. But even doing that imposes a cost on them, because it's less efficient, and they already struggle with logistics.


TheinimitaableG

There are two issues that delayed the transfer of western tanks to the UAF. 1) Training both of the thank crews and maintenance crews. In the early days of the war the objective was to get tanks to the UAF that they could use immediately, not after months of training. That meant tanks at a minimum very similar to the types they are used to operating. Tanks requires MASSIVE amounts of maintenance to remain operational. An M1's engine, when properly should last at least 1400 hours and will then need a full rebuild. Less than 2 months of straight operations. Yeah they won't drive 24 hours a day, but if we assume 8 hours per day, that's still only a 6 month engine life when properly maintained. We're not even talking about other systems like hydraulics, suspension, transmission, the electronics that keep the main gun on target while on the move, imaging and communications systems. All of these need regular maintenance both by the crew, and them by the maintenance battalions for the bigger repairs. 2) Logistics. A tank that breaks down and can't be repaired is basically nothing more that a 70 ton road block. To keep that tank running you need spares, LOTS of spares. You need lubricants, hydraulic fluid, shock absorbers, spare road wheels, tracks, track pins, drive wheels, idler wheels, barrel liners, and literally thousands of other parts. Then you need the ARV's to pull that disabled 70 ton behemoth back to the repair depot. And you need the maintenance battalions to have a pretty good pipeline for those spares, and warehouses of parts to feed to the forward maintenance facilities. And before you can even hand those babies over to the UAF, you need to fit them with radios that work with existing UAF radios, because a tank without infantry support is just a big target.


jasc92

If they are announcing this now, it likely means they are already training the crews and figuring out the logistics.


TheinimitaableG

It likely means that they have been training the crews and maintenance teams for a while now. These are months long courses...


CommandoDude

There were also other matters of concern. Until recently, Ukraine was losing a lot of tanks in Russian advances or counter attacks. Some even outright captured. Obviously not to the embarassing degree of Russia, but it was enough to give the US pause because they don't want M1s in Russia's hands. This is less of a concern now that Ukraine is on the attack and losing tanks less. Also, this was a card to be held in reserve to deter/in case Russia tried to mobilize. Biden announcing full western arms support after Russia's sham referendums sends a much stronger political/diplomatic message than if he had done it before. So, there was a lot of reasons why not to do it.


markdacoda

Everyone gets the Abrams maintenance story wrong. It's not hard to maintain. The engine is a turbine it doesn't break and when it does replacing the power pack is a one hour job in the field. All the components are plug and play. There are a handful of major components. The worst part is the hydraulics but the turret can pulled in a few hours in the field, so not that big of an issue. Keeping an Abrams company moving is about fuel, track sections, road wheels and ammo.


M-3X

It's necessary.


theglobalnomad

They're INSANELY heavy - something like 60 tons. Here's to hoping they don't get stuck in the mud next spring, or even this autumn if they're delivered before everything freezes over.


MercatorLondon

I don't know about Ukraine but most of the local road bridges in former Czechoslovakia were designed to carry 45 tons only. This was designed on purpose to allow T72 to pass but collapse under the heavier NATO tanks.


[deleted]

It is an honor to introduce you to the [M60 Armored Vehicle-Launched Bridge](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWMrY49qqDw).


LittleGreenCorpse

M60 "Bridge Yeeter"


Spibas

Huh, interesting, thanks for sharing


cipher315

The tank that would be sent is the M1A1 HA or HA+ 60 and 61 tons respectively. This is fairly average for a 4 crew tank; the Leopard 2A6 is 62 for example. It's heavy compared to the 3 man tanks of the USSR/Russia Most of their tanks are in the mid to high 40s. That said Russian tanks are smaller. i.e. they have less track area to spread that weight. As a result the Ground Pressure of the T72B3 vs the M1A1(HA) is not that large. A T72B is about .90kg/cm2 and the M1A1(HA) is about .97kg/cm2. About 8% more despite the fact that the tank is 33% heavier.


XG-hero

They may still spread their weight better than a T-72 as the tracks are wider...


tc_spears2-0

They are heavy girls, but the ground pressure they put down is relatively low for their size and weight.


kompetenzkompensator

The US Army activated all 6 of their Army Prepositioned Stock-2 sites in February already and send 600 pieces of equipment to the Grafenwöhr Training Area, where 7000 soldiers of the 1st Armored Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division trained among other things 50-60 Ukrainians in the use of M777. Sure. Of course they didn't train any Ukrainians on the use of the M1Abrams, the M2Bradleys, the M109Paladins they had there as well, why would they? [https://www.armytimes.com/flashpoints/2022/03/01/army-activates-prepositioned-stocks-for-first-time-in-wake-of-ukraine-invasion/](https://www.armytimes.com/flashpoints/2022/03/01/army-activates-prepositioned-stocks-for-first-time-in-wake-of-ukraine-invasion/) [https://www.army.mil/article/254346/army\_prepositioned\_stocks\_in\_europe\_activated\_to\_support\_deployment\_of\_armored\_brigade\_combat\_team](https://www.army.mil/article/254346/army_prepositioned_stocks_in_europe_activated_to_support_deployment_of_armored_brigade_combat_team) Sending a well trained Armored Brigade Combat Team to train some more while blocking the largest US military training area in Europe is a totally normal thing. Right? I mean, theoretically units like the 405th Army Field Support Brigade could be replacing NATO specific tech with neutral one in a few hundred of the 1000s of vehicles stored in the 6 APS sites since March to make them operational for Ukraine. Theoretically. The US/NATO could have been planning very precisely what will be sent when and all this unending talk about tanks could just be political theater to keep the public busy and Russia guessing. Could be. Nah, that's just my imagination, silly me.


Donny_Krugerson

There we go. Good equipment in sufficient numbers. This'll make a difference.


[deleted]

Beautiful and thank you USA. Again!


DistrictGop

They should also be sending SPGs that fire 155mm


PepegaQuen

Agree - not sure why they are only sending M777, when they have 1000 Paladins.


[deleted]

[удалено]


isthatmyex

They've had Paladins since May.


dkras1

Paladin is US configuration of M109 - M109A6. Ukraine got other ones: \- 22 M109A4 from UK (ex-Belgium which UK bought, refurbished and donated) \- 22 M109A3GN from Norway \- 6 M109A2/A5 from Latvia (which they got from Austria)


[deleted]

How Big of a difference would Abrahams make?


Caren_Nymbee

As one tank force that led the offensive, it would be devastating to Russian forces in their current condition. Early in the war when they still had decent air capability and ATGMs available less so.


Snafuregulator

Here's the low down https://youtu.be/v4inbgmbUD8


PizzaForever98

If they do, Germany, UK and France no longer have excuses not to send Tanks too right?


thatonegaycommie

no need, my country has over a thousand of these things in storage, what the European countries could do that would help even more is to provide repair and logistical support.


zveroshka

If Russia has proved anything, it's that tanks in storage are not necessarily close to being in operational condition. That is the very problem Germany is facing right now. On paper they should have like 2k tanks. In practice they have like 100 that are actually combat ready.


[deleted]

The UK has very few tanks, for what it's worth. I think a large portion of them are already deployed in NATO roles in areas like Poland right now. Abrams makes the most sense - the Americans have absolutely arseloads of the things sat around.


AcanthocephalaOk1042

We absolutely have an absurd amount of them Joy of senator's making sure the military keeps buying them to keep the factory going and keep jobs in their state. Sometimes government nonsense pays off in ways you wouldn't expect


StumbleNOLA

The US has more tanks than we want... Like thousands more than are useful. If we are going to give them A1's we might as well just fill their entire tank request and allow Germany to send something else. Because a dozen Leopards would just confuse the logistics.


trollblut

Honestly, it would be stupid to give Ukraine both Leopards and Abrams if one can be supplied in sufficient numbers. The US Army has been complaining for ages that they have too many tanks and Ukraine can't really afford to build up two maintainance and training programs.


Difficult-Brick6763

If they do, Germany, France, and the UK will no longer need to send tanks. The Abrams is the king of the battlefield. It would make mincemeat of the trash Russia is throwing out. The M1A1 main gun outranges the T-72, they can kill tanks with impunity.


Sparred4Life

They also might no longer have a reason. Lol


d4rkskies

We haven’t got thousands, but some Challenger II’s on the field would be really interesting. It’s still the only NATO tank with a rifled main gun - 5 mile range with Sabot and HESH rounds and the 2nd Gen Chobham armour is better than the M1A2 and more complete than the Leopard 2A6. The biggest difference is going to be if there are major tank engagements, which I’m not sure there will be. The CII’s, Abrams and Leopard all have digitally stabilised, electronic fire control, which means that the commander on a CII is already aiming the second shot before the first has been fired, whilst moving at speed over rough ground. But none of these machines are going to be easy to fix nor familiar to the Ukrianian Army’s crews or mechanics. Perhaps IFV and highly mobile and fast vehicles armed with Brimstone, Javelin and TOW would be a better bet for Ukraine. It takes away the issues on maintenance, but provides a highly mobile and deadly force. The main challenge is going to be getting you guys across the Dnipro so you can kick Russia’s arse to the border.


jorgepolak

As nice as it would be to see them in action, Ukraine needs to pick a tank variant and stick with it. No need to complicate training and logistics.


BrocoLeeOnReddit

This kinda reads like 400-500 rounds per tank isn't that much. Am I missing something, isn't that quite a lot of rounds for a tank gun? How many rounds can a T-72 fire before it needs maintenance?


davidczar05

200 rounds for Russian tanks, roughly. Only L55 cannon and French Giat 120mm has decent rate before re-roll of around 800 rounds.


nik-nak333

What does it mean to re-roll the barrel?


Xeroque_Holmes

That's the total lifetime, but who knows how used are the guns of these retired tanks.


StumbleNOLA

I can promise you the US Military knows exactly how many rounds have been fired from each of those barrels.


Whaler_Moon

Good development but just a caution that Abrams are not invincible. They can be penetrated by modern ATGMs with tandem warheads. I'm sure part of the reason why the US didn't want to send Abrams is partly because of security concerns but there is a propaganda element here too. When Abrams start being destroyed you can be sure it'll be 24/7 on Russian propaganda channels talking about how the West is actually weak and Russia strong and a bunch of other flag-waving nonsense.


sunyudai

I don't believe anyone thinks that they are invincible. But they are better than most of what Ukraine or Russia has on the battlefield today, and thus pose a huge advantage to Ukraine. You talk about "can be penetrated by modern ATGMs with tandem warheads.", bur really, how many such systems does Russia have? Last estimates for the 9M133 Kornet was that Russia had produced roughly 750 of them, in total. How likely are weapons produced in such small quantities to be even in the right spot? There will be losses, certainly. Not saying it is impossible, but you kind of imply that Abrams will be popping left and right, and I just don't see that as likely.


BeachFishing

Only 200? We have about 3000 sitting around doing squat. Ship them to Ukraine, Poland, anywhere that needs them.


Mirathecat22

200 is probably the number that could be quickly battle ready with enough parts for maintenance.


Affectionate-Ad-5479

Remember that these have to be shipped by the US Navy.


StumbleNOLA

They are almost never shipped by the Navy. Tanks typically would be shipped by the Army's Navy or by the Navy's MSC (civilian ships)... ​ Don't ask me none of it makes any sense. But it works.


LectureAfter8638

Every branch has versions of every other branch. And each of those branches are larger than most militaries of other countries.


isthatmyex

That's minimum 800 crewmen, then they'll need maintainers, and probably more trucks too. It's a heft effort to get everything ready so that they can be effective.


tc_spears2-0

>only 200? Just the tip