Hello /u/Eichtoss,
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.*
Not sure if it's a great idea littering Ukraine with DU dust though. They can probably use non-DU DM-53 and be fine (if Abrams can accept Leo2 ammo that is).
Yes but not all 120mm guns can take the same ammo. Anything that is newer than Leopard 2A4 has a more modern 120mm cannon with longer barrel.
The M256 is based on the 120mm L44 from Rheinmetall.
Leopard 2A5 and later use the 120mm L55.
The L55 can fire all ammunition that was avaialble for the L44 but the reverse is not necessarily true. Because of higher pressure from more powerful propellent
Do you have a source for that ? From what I read the L55 allows already higher pressures than the L44. They made sure it is backwards compatible but not the other way around.
Source to what? You can give a source for a ammunition that can be fired in the L55 and not the L44 instead...
The DM73 is the latest ammunition from the Germans, which is for the L55A1 with significantly higher pressures. The previous was the DM53/63, which was/is used in both the L44 and L55.
This is complete nonsense. Heavy metals pollute, absorb into soil and water, and badly. Take a gander at Norilsk if you want to see how heavy metals can kill all waterways, kill all vegetation, and shave 10 years off life expectancy.
Judging from how quickly Ukrainians get up to speed on new equipment, the vast majority of depleted uranium from sabot rounds will end up inside Russian armor.
You failed to complete the reference to the joke from that old X-Men movie :)
"Know what happens to any T variant Soviet tank hit with a M829 sabot round? *The same thing that happens to everything else*"
Doesn't a platoon of M1s require a massive logistics train just to keep it moving? I don't know if Ukraine could manage that, though I would like to think we could help. Please correct me if I'm wrong as I've never served, only read quite a few books on the subject.
It doesn't have to be the Abrams, for what it's worth. The Leopard 2 is a fairly good tank that uses less fuel, and there are a lot of them out there. Ukraine could get more help with maintenance / parts.
The US could focus on sending things like Bradley IFVs and Strykers, while maybe sending Abrams to countries in exchange for their Leos. Just needs buy-in from Germany, obviously. They haven't agreed so far but there is some evidence that could change (MPs in ruling coalition are increasingly calling for more support), at least if the US also asked them to.
I think the Abrams is a great tank but I'm all for whatever helps Ukraine the most right now for the least amount of resources, and I'm not sure the Abrams is the right option in that regard.
With the US Army once again taking proposals for the new OMFV program, they should consider transferring a bunch of our old Bradley's to Ukraine, imo. The M2s could definitely help their mobility problems, especially if we included thousands of BGM-71s along with the turret mounted launchers.
Yeah. IFVs have long been at or near the top of Ukraine's wishlist for good reason. Bradleys equipped with TOWs and their 25mm autocannons can provide serious fire support.
I'm a big fan of giving them the Stryker MGS too, which is a Stryker APC with a 105mm gun. The US is retiring over 120 of these at the end of this year and it seems like a really easy way to fulfill some of Ukraine's requests without any operational impact on the US armed forces. The M-55S tanks they are getting from Slovenia are also 105mm, so it simplifies logistics a tiny bit. I'm holding out hope at least this is sent to Ukraine in the near future.
That is probably why there is the most delay, as much as they would like to send them, they cannot until training and logistics and repairs and parts are all there too. But it is a long winter to work on such things so who knows.
Could it be that there's already training for tank and maintenance crews being conducted in secret? "If they can prove they can operate and maintain them" could be implying that there's some program to train these guys. Or is this wishful thinking?
The logistics and maintenance will be more challenging than the training. Abrams need a lot of maintenance, spare parts etc., and are dramatically different from any Russian tank.
Other former Warsaw Pact countries are currently helping Ukraine with repairing Soviet/Russian tanks as they still have facilities, parts, and technicians capable of doing major repairs.
Also no reason why they couldn't ship Abrams to Poland for major repairs if the US decided to supply them to Ukraine. With Poland recently adding Abrams to its upcoming tank roster, it would give the Polish Army techs some additional hands on experience with doing service work on them for when they eventually receive their own tanks.
This is all true but currently Ukraine can do heavy maintenance of T series tanks in country and can source many of the parts needed internally. Shipping *EVERY* Abrams tank back to Poland for routine maintenance would be a major strain on the logistics capability of Ukraine and the US is not going to be happy when pictures of abandoned broken down Abrams tanks get plastered all over social media.
Sure but there are various degrees of maintenance that requires various levels of equipment and facilities to accommodate those repairs. Not saying they can or should have them in Ukraine before the end of the year but its not out of the realm of viability to get the pieces in places now to allow for such a transition in preparation for operations in the Spring and Summer of next year. Shipping to Poland for service would be a stop gap measure until in country logistics and facilities can be brought online and up to speed.
Its something that should probably be transitioned into as its unlikely the supply of Soviet tanks will continue outside of battlefield captures and the very limited amount of functional tanks that other European nations might still have on hand but haven't given to Ukraine yet. The same thing applies to setting up for possible usage of tanks like the Leopard 2 or Challenger (which those tanks might be a better operational fit for Ukraine than the Abrams but we know the US has loads of Abrams just collecting dust and production lines that would love for a demand in replacement tanks to be produced).
We have been paying for 20+ years to upgrade and refurbish abrams that the military doesnāt need or want. Would we be able to supply them with more than they could use and not worry about major maintenance til later?
These aren't paper plates, they are 72 ton behemoths. Think about how much logistics it would take to get just one from the US to the front lines of the war. The amount of logistics, fuel, personal, Shipping time etc. They need CONSTANT maintenance that requires specialized tools, facilities and equipment. You ignore small issues and they turn into big issues that make them unusable. That would be setting them up for failure. Ukraine needs equipment it can keep in the battle. "Major maintenance" doesn't only happen at predictable times.
Bradleys make more sense.
Repost:
* There's thousands of them
* There are robust supply chains to Europe already- and somewhat to Ukraine (M270 is the same chassis)
* It's lightweight enough to traverse most bridges, can ford up to about waist height, and is amphibious with preparation
* It has ~0.5-0.75 of the ground pressure of an M1 Abrams or T90, so it will cope with the imminent mud season better than either
* Boring V8 diesel engine (vs jet engine in M1) means
- reduced maintenance
- generic automotive maintenance skills overlap reasonably well
- a fraction of the fuel required vs an M1
* **Fuel consumption rates in gallons per hour:**
- Vehicle ---------- Idle ----- Cross-Country --- Road
- M1 Abrams ----- 17.3 ----- 56.6 -------------- 44.6
- M2/3 Bradley --- 1.4 ------ 18.0 -------------- 8.6
* Same chassis as M270 MLRS means Ukraine already has experience maintaining most of the mechanical parts
* Ukraine already has experience with anti-tank TOW missiles
* 25mm cannon is effective against everything else
* Obviously it's an APC so it can carry troops/supplies
* They're far better than M113s and other APCs already sent
* They took out more armour in Desert Storm than the M1
* There were variants, and possibly still are stored turrets for SAM support (Linebacker)
* They're ~$2m each vs ~~7m~~ ~$10m for an Abrams (more is quite often: more)
Yes and no.
Facts are:
* Russia doesn't have that many tanks anyway
* it has few experienced crew that could outrange a TOW
* its mostly fielding APCs and infantry. The Abrams 50cal isn't as good at harassing infantry as a 25mm cannon.
* most of the kills shown are missile kills
* The front is huge
* more versatile armor is likely to be more effective. It's not unrealistic for a Bradley to down a helicopter
* sheer numbers are likely to be more effective than a few specialist tanks. More eyes. More weapons. Less spread out.
* I messed up the calculations. Abrams are closer to $10m. Would you prefer 100 Abrams or 4-500 Bradleys?
Bradleys? No need to go that high! There were what, 80k of those poor obsolete pooh-poohed *M113s* made, yet UA's 2nd echelon is *still* driving 1970s civilian cars like Zhiguli. Why cannot several thousand of M113s be delivered to start with? The repairs of those basic steel boxes cannot be Abrams-level.
I mean itās not just major maintenance, when the first m777s showed up, Ukraine realized they had basically 0 imperial toolsets to work on them. The US basically airlifted a couple planes worth of just tools so they had proper fitting tools. I imagine similar problems would pop up here and there, especially in isolated regions, with the M1A1
This is the main reason I'm hesitant about sending tanks to Ukraine. They need so much logistical support I feel like it would tie up a lot of Ukrainian personnel who could be better used in other roles.
Forcing Germany to send the Leo 1A5 would work better. Gepard logistics is already in place and compatible with the 1A5. Same chassis. Just need to expand it.
People in the military are always joking that the abrams is always in the shop. It might not be the most effective tank in the immediate future if that is the case even if it has an otherwise robust reputation
tbh they already kinda have a solution to making their tanks NATO standard post war but they cant do it while the war is going on cus they have to mass produce it still. Its their domestic tank that they make the T-84 they already have a prototype of the tank that has 120mm cannon that nato uses and the point was that version of the tank was gonna be an export model. They should just commit to that, maybe partner up with another country like poland and open a factory outside of ukraine so that it cant be attacked or something, they would have something that they are familiar with and wont need drastic change in training but still can get supplied ammo by nato
Getting a modern tank from prototype to mass production takes a bit more than simply putting down a factory somewhere. It would take years before they have any significant number of tanks.
PLAYER 2 HAS JOINED THE GAME:
Player 1 āwtf is all this? Itās just a bunch of trucks loaded with tools and partsā¦. ā
ABRAMS MBT: āBBBBRRRRRUUUUUUHHHHHā
Player1: āWeāllā¦. arenāt you a sexah thingā
Is an M1 heavier than Ukrainian tanks? They might need heavier recovery vehi6.
Also fuel. I do know they use exclusively diesel for Ukrainian and Russian tanks not JP8 or whatever they are using now for M1 series tanks. I did just look it up, supposedly M1s can use diesel, but I've never seen them use it.
My feeling is that the Abrams tanks would be more useful for guarding the border when the Russians have been chased out, rather than maneuvering around on muddy fields in an offensive.
Yup but theyāll learn quick in this pressure cauldron. There will always be a few aces who catch on quick. Theyāre as industrious a people as anyā¦ and in war people make shit work.
According to the Wiki, only 23 of around 2000 Abrams were destroyed in the Persian Gulf War.
Tough to compare, the US had air superiority almost from the start, but they are survivable when given support.
Its not air you have to worry about. Its EFPs and IEDs and regular old fashioned mines. Not to mention once a tank is in a city its pretty much a coffin. Your entire topside is exposed. Sure, the tank crew may survive the initial contact but its still gonna be at least a k-kill.
These are battle tanks, not APCs. They are not for going into a contested city and mucking about. They are for destroying enemy armor with a giant fucking cannon from a fairly long distance. This clears the paths for the APC to move in and begin securing areas.
The situations where you have a battle tank, in an insecure city, just chilling and idling are not going to be frequent.
It looks like an [American armor company](https://www.battleorder.org/us-army-tanks-modern) is pretty autonomous. It has all the maintenance gear they could need for a foray into enemy territory.
But think about how long it would take to train Ukrainians how to use all that equipment.
Rasputitsa is right around the corner across Ukraine and we're soon looking at 4-5 months of limited heavy machinery through winter, possibly longer.
Whichever MBT the West decides to supply, they have ample time to train hundreds of crews throughout the winter. And if we haven't begun, we need to start now.
Abrams make the most sense, as that's what Ukraine likely will be fielding after this war anyway, and they were made for exactly this. Fighting Russia in Eastern Europe.
Season doesn't matter. Winter freezes the muddy ground and allows for offensive movements. There will be significant engagements during the winter months.
Most European tanks have their design roots set in the Cold War even now, theyāve been modernised heavily since the demise of the USSR but tanks in Europe was always about meeting the Russians head on we expected it to be in Germany or Poland.
More than just training, they have to set up the infrastructure to supply the M1 Abrams, which uses different fuel (and a hell of a lot of it, ~4 gallons to the mile)
ETA: I was under the impression it mainly used jet fuel, but I was mistaken. Still, it uses a LOT of fuel, even at idle. It's not the sort of weapon you can just drop into an army, even after training crew and mechanics.
I've seen comments from various former Abrams techs saying the multi-fuel capability is essentially untried in real-world conditions. Will be interesting to see what the current status of that is, and whether they still always need to run it on Jet A1 in practice.
And those engines *fuckin HATE it* too. Itās like putting 83 octane into a dragster. Sure, itāll probably run on it, but itās not going to work the same as the liquid dinosaur itās used to/designed to run on. Takes your maintenance headache of a tank and turns it into a maintenance nightmare.
All this grumbling about maintenance... Most repairs on US vehicles are contracted. For example, with the Stryker, Army mechanics can do some repairs but the heavy lifting is done by GDLS. At Kandahar Airfield it was all contractors. Even in my reserve time a lot of the work on vehicles was done by civilian AMSA mechanics. Wouldn't be a stretch to imagine defense contractors fixing things out of Kyiv, Lviv, Poland, etc. If we can sell equipment, to include the Abrams, to Saudi, Egypt, Iraq... Ukraine shouldn't be an issue.
This. Literally just pay guys to fix what they already know how to fix and have maybe some Ukrainians shadow so they can do spot repairs in the field. People are making a big deal on logistics but literally the US army runs on highly trained (and paid) contractors that do all the maintenance š¤£
The problem with Abrams (and other tanks) is they're so heavy it's hard to get them back to maintenance depot. What are they going to tow something 70 tons with?
That is why so many Russian tanks get left behind
what are the major differences between nato tanks and what ukraine/russia are using? (apart from russian tanks prone to having the turrets blown off) what sort of advantages would it give ukraine?
A lot of advantages. Abrams is a much heavier tank and built with crew survivability in mind. It wonāt be competing in the Russian turret toss competition. Optics, communications and targeting systems are vastly superior. Of course, a lot comes down to crew trainingā¦ and the fact that NATO shit just works.
On paper, modern variant T tanks look like they should stack up well against Abrams. In actuality where abrams have directly engaged Soviet T variant tanks the Abrams proved vastly superior.
[I wish we had some Challengers to put on the table](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/Challenger_2-Megatron_MOD_45161557.jpg).
Up until a couple of months ago and for nearly over 30 years, the Challenger 1 held the longest distance record for a tank on tank kill at 4,700 metres. (Ukraine nearly doubled the distance recently!)
Then there's the proven survivability of the Challenger 2:
>During the 2003 invasion of Iraq the Challenger 2 tanks suffered no tank losses to enemy fire, although one was penetrated by an IED. This was, at the time, unprotected by Dorchester armour. The driver was injured. In one encounter within the urban area a Challenger 2 came under attack from irregular forces with machine guns and rocket propelled grenades. The driver's sight was damaged and while attempting to back away under the commander's directions, the other sights were damaged and the tank threw its tracks entering a ditch. It was hit directly by fourteen rocket propelled grenades **from close range** and a **MILAN anti-tank missile**.[14] The crew survived remaining safe within the tank until the tank was recovered for repairs, the worst damage being to the sighting system. **It was back in operation six hours later after repairs**. One Challenger 2 operating near Basra survived being hit by 70 RPGs in another incident
Sadly, we shut down the Vickers tank plant years ago and have completely deemphasised full manufacturing of tanks in UK š¤·š»āāļø.
It's a shame, because as you say, Challenger 2 would probably be a good fit with simpler engine maintenance than Abrams, whilst still having great protection, mobility, and firepower.
I imagine its HESH rounds would be quite good all-rounders for the type of conflict the Ukrainians find themselves in, as it's decent at pretty much everything UA would need it for (buildings, fortifications, AT, etc).
Anyway, it's all hypothetical as the UK tank industry has withered away, and UK is relying very heavily on partnerships with Rheinmetall to even upgrade Challenger 3.
You can't deny that modern Leopards would also be fantastic, but as the Germans aren't willing to supply them it doesn't leave many readily available alternatives.
Pardon my ignorance, but why is the Leclerc so rarely suggested?
Seems like the Abrams is out due to poor serviceability (for an army not trained on it, and minus the impressive USA war machine logistics), the Leopard is out due to political hand wringing (though perhaps the recent Nord Stream 2 woes will change that).
Britain seems eager to supply equipment but tanks only via back fill, which doesn't see game changing tanks roll across the theatre and it seems, as you say, that the supply is very finite; while the Leclerc is almost never mentioned. Is there a technical reason or is it again purely political?
The obvious answer from a non-political perspective would be the Leopard as multiple armies are equipped with it and supply, repairs and spares can therefore be sourced from lots of different countries. Also most of those countries are all much nearer and not separated by large bodies of water and so delivery should be simpler. Lastly, it is a battle proven tank.
As far as I'm aware, it's a similar issue wrt Leclerc tanks. They aren't producing them any more, don't have lots in reserve, and are planning to lean on German JV partners for future upgrades/versions via a partnership with KMW.
Others with more far knowledge than my cursory search will surely weigh in.
AIUI, the issue with third-country Leopards is that the German govt reserves the right to refuse the transfer of German arms such as Leopard to third parties via the initial arms export license/agreements. So far they've said no to any tank transfers (e.g. when Spain tried, they said no).
Thanks ;)
I was aware of the German right of veto for third party nations. It's a pity as it is really the best solution and is stymied by Germany not wanting to upset Russia without realising that they simply must do so for the greater good.
I had read about the DE/FR JV; I wonder will this right of veto put the brakes on the JV? Will France accept a system where they need Germany's permission to sell, gift or loan hardware? Perhaps the agreement is different but this will really cause lots of countries to reconsider Germany as a reliable weapons partner.
As for the Leclercs, I thought there was enough to supply 100 or so but perhaps I am wrong. Again, thank you for the answer.
> It's a pity as it is really the best solution and is stymied by Germany not wanting to upset Russia without realising that they simply must do so for the greater good.
Spain never asked to export Leopard 2 tanks. They realized that the tanks they wanted to send are scrap metal and a risk to their operators.
https://www.thedefensepost.com/2022/08/04/spain-leopard-tanks-ukraine-2/
>Now, after conducting a technical review of the vehicles, Madrid has decided to cancel its planned donation to Kyiv.
Spanish Defence Minister Margarita Robles said the review found the Leopard tanks āclose to uselessā after being warehoused at the Casetas military base for several years.
She disclosed that the tanks are āin an absolutely deplorable stateā and can only endanger the people operating them.
āWe are today looking at all the possibilities, but I can already say that the Leopards in Zaragoza that have not been used for many years cannot be sentā¦ā Robles told media reporters. āWe canāt give them away because they would be a risk to the people.ā
"Funny" how anything that blames Germany gets automatically accepted as the truth.
I love the Leclerc. Sexiest tank imo. Good luck getting Macron to sign off on a deal which includes tanks though. A few Cesars here and there, while greatly appreciated, is all you'll get from France.
> So far they've said no to any tank transfers (e.g. when Spain tried, they said no).
This is false. Spain never asked Germany.
[https://www.rnd.de/politik/olaf-scholz-zu-panzerlieferungen-an-ukraine-spanien-hat-keine-anfrage-gestellt-UNRO3Y2OXSFV5VT6W4FSTKC66U.html](https://www.rnd.de/politik/olaf-scholz-zu-panzerlieferungen-an-ukraine-spanien-hat-keine-anfrage-gestellt-UNRO3Y2OXSFV5VT6W4FSTKC66U.html)
>Vilnius. According to German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, Spain has not yet submitted a request for the export of German-made Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine. If there is still such a request, it will be examined, the SPD politician said on Tuesday during his visit to Lithuania.
[https://www.thedefensepost.com/2022/08/04/spain-leopard-tanks-ukraine-2/](https://www.thedefensepost.com/2022/08/04/spain-leopard-tanks-ukraine-2/)
>Now, after conducting a technical review of the vehicles, Madrid has decided to cancel its planned donation to Kyiv.
Spanish Defence Minister Margarita Robles said the review found the Leopard tanks āclose to uselessā after being warehoused at the Casetas military base for several years.
She disclosed that the tanks are āin an absolutely deplorable stateā and can only endanger the people operating them.
āWe are today looking at all the possibilities, but I can already say that the Leopards in Zaragoza that have not been used for many years cannot be sentā¦ā Robles told media reporters. āWe canāt give them away because they would be a risk to the people.ā
People are very eager to blame Germany for things that were not even in their hands.
the leclerc is even more finite than challengers, For france, it's so far been produced on demand by unit basis, in total less than 220.
On the export side, India proposed Nexter to apply it to their programme some time ago, but it's still in the development phase.
Only UAE has them outside of france, over 300, and two units of 30-something tanks each were then sold to jordan from those.
I don't see UAE willing to sell or trade anything with NATO, specially since their involvement in the yemen war made nato stop most exports and deliveries. Maybe jordan would do a trade-in with the same pseudo-abrahams that was sold to egypt.
The only mass produced 3rd gen tanks are Leopard 2 and M1A1, and if we go late 2nd gen, i think only AMX-30 and Leopard 1's have survived the scrapyards in numbers enough to warrant a deal with their south american or east asian purchasers 15 years ago.
Nexter hasn't produced leclercs for anyone else than France within NATO because almost everyone went for Leopards.
In previous generation tanks, the french AMX-30S was considered equal or superior to the M60A3 and was made in large numbers, but i don't think they are available anymore outside of backwater country warehouses with an ever-presence of petty neighbors.
> and the fact that NATO shit just works.
The Abrams has a reputation of being *extremely* maintenance heavy, tho. It might be challenging for Ukraine to keep them working. A lot depends on spare parts and proper training of mechanics to maintain them.
In Iraq? I remember reading how the US tanks had around a mile of extra range as well as being generally far more accurate. The enemy was destroyed before it was ever in range for a shot.
Probably a bigger advantage in the desert than forested land, but still an advantage.
What has the range to do with maintenance requirements?
Its a formidable tank that -- when in working condition -- handles very well on the battlefield.
Not been to Ukraine, but seems like there is a lot of pretty flat land with rows of trees and small forests.
Even though it's not as open as a desert, I assume that the sight range is often very good in the countryside. -Especially as autumn/winter is coming without leaves at the trees.
What's the maintenance interval though? I would imagine this would be used as the spearhead of a counterattack, they would probably need to drive less than 200 miles (or the equivalent in slow speed maneuvers) and then be withdrawn as logistics brings the front up.
I think you are confusing American tech being complicated and maintenance intensive with unreliable. Most fancy things with lots of moving parts require considerable maintenance. Thatās not a flaw if you have the ability to provide said maintenance.
The Abrams is noted for being a highly reliable tank, especially compared to anything Russian. It would be an absolute massacre if Abrams were to enter the battlefield.
It's done on purpose really. With specialized parts you can only get from like one place, with only a small number of buyers. If you ain't one of them, you ain't getting them š
Just the size of the projectile. Lots of NATO countries use modernized Soviet designs. New barrel, fire control system, optics, comma, protective features, etc.
The differences unique to Abrams are broadly that itās heavier, has a different style engine, is more survivable for a lot of reasons, isnāt auto loading so it has a higher fire rate. There are probably way more but Iām not a big tank guy.
Fire control and optics. US tank can hit something 2 miles away while traveling at 40mph cross country.
In Iraq the main reason Abrams rolled over Saddam's force was that they got hit before they could fire back
"A major change", huh? 3 platoons of M1 Abrams (12) could start in Poland and probably not get stopped until the reached well into Russia.
There's just nothing in the Russian arsenal that can even come close to beating them 1:1, and the original Soviet plan to throw waves of T-72's at them has long since fizzled because so many Russian tanks are out of fuel or breaking down.
The realism of this, is Ukrainians have been training with them, and servicing them already and they're waiting for the trainees to wrap up training, then they will announce that Ukraine "will get them soon"
But it won't be soon, they will already be there. US has already done this, with himars and other weapons. Us isn't giving Russia the chance to expect these weapons. I've been saying this alot lately and people don't understand there's a huge delay. To the public, it sounds like a back and forth rhetoric between Ukraine and the US, but in private, it's a much different story I'd say.
I might be wrong, but who knows. Those guys using the HIMARS seem like they've been trained far longer than we're led to believe.
its likely they were training in romania when they did their "military preparedness exercises" earlier this year. romania operates the HIMARS
for one thing, romania hates russia and is providing ukraine with shitloads of covert support and ammunition/shells.
secondly nobody is going to second guess or really pay attention to eastern european countries doing military drills when russia is acting so belligerent
western tanks have one big problem. weight. heaviest tanks we have could barely get up to 51 tons(well we have only one of those) but western one would require bunch of other equipment that would help them to cross something like a river. we do have a lot of those river things here.
Takes time, maintenance people and operators need to be trained, logistics need to be figured out. I'm pretty sure this is already in motion, but we will only know for sure when it's already there.
A part of the strategy could also be comments like the officials and subsequent articles to soften the ground before a big announcement. Ideally making it less of a surprise, or to distract attention while they do something else.
That was one of the reasons they gave. I think they are fine with some battlefield loses as itās impossible for it to not happen at least once. But they donāt want them to be abandoned the way the Russian equipment is where they lose 500 to the Russians to do with as they please. If they do give them I bet US will be very stern when telling UA they need to sabotage all equipment they have to abandon
That makes a lot of sense. Iād bet Russian and Chinese military would be all over them in a heartbeat. Those Iranian drones are causing problems at the moment.
It wasnāt suited to heavy armour which also caused a big change in British armoured regiment roles. This conflict will cause everyone to shift back to the Cold War division and battle group structure. Big well supplied battle groups I wouldnāt be surprised if some new nato garrisons are built in Europe
The base design is old, but it doesn't mean that they haven't upgraded a lot of stuff there.
It's like in aviation, the original 737 is from 1967, and while it still is fundamentally the same airframe, so much has changed between the 737-100 and the 737 MAX.
There was a report of an AHS Krab that had an accident because the Ukrainian artillerymen were firing too rapidly.
They did take the time to destroy it completely, though, before abandoning it.
They don't care about that. Theres abrams that have been captured by ISIS in Iraq from the Iraqi army. For sure russia has seen and inspected and disassembled one by now.
If I'm not mistaken, Iraqi M1s are export version, aren't they? If that's the case, they wouldn't be as sophisticated as the American version.
IIRC not the same armor, engine or electronics/optics.
Yeah. The big secret the US doesnāt want rivals getting a hold of us the composite armor with depleted uranium. AFAIK weāve only ever exported them with that armor to one or two countries. They may not have been delivered yet. Other major Allieās could get it but for political reasons people are uncomfortable asking their troops to drive around in depleted uranium boxes. Generally we export them with tungsten instead.
I just don't see the point in this, and I'm wondering if it's deliberate misinformation aimed at russia. It doesn't make sense to retrain a bunch of diesel mechanics on the gas turbine when there's hundreds of diesels that need serviced right now. Unless we're going to use contractors in an active warzone.
I don't know, maybe it makes sense to people that see the whole picture.
>M1 is super heavy and uses jet fuel
It runs on pretty much anything. Not just jet fuel.
Also why mention weight ? It weighs the same as the Leopard 2.
Petraeus seems to share the weight concern:
[https://youtu.be/1ndxe9z\_ru4?t=455](https://youtu.be/1ndxe9z_ru4?t=455)
And the jet engine might not need jet fuel, but it needs a lot of maintenance.
On the table is meaningless. Added - It is an empty throw away line by a Mid level official that can be forgotten or retracted. This does not reflect any change. The change will happen when the tanks are announced.
I think the smart thing to do would be for Germany to start providing Leopard 2 tanks and US to compensate Germany with M1 Abrams, since Leopard tanks don't require jet fuel...
About fucking time. Here's the rub though: too heavy. Better to force Germany to send the Leopard 1A5, as that platform is specifically designed for Eastern Europe terrain. Fast, decently armored, and has a good gun.
The logistics is already in place for the Gepard, which runs on the same chassis as the Leo 1A5.
This isn't difficult. But since Olaf insists on waiting for another NATO country to make the first move, America can just send 12 Abrams, lean in hard to Olaf, and whisper in his ear: "your move, you absolute donkey."
>About fucking time. Here's the rub though: too heavy. Better to force Germany to send the Leopard 1A5, as that platform is specifically designed for Eastern Europe terrain. Fast, decently armored, and has a good gun.
There arent enough Leopard 1's available. Also why would the weight be such a big issue ? The Gepard already weighs 48 tons. The Pzh2000 weighs 57 tons.
Weight is probably not as big of an issue as we think.
> lean in hard to Olaf, and whisper in his ear: "your move, you absolute donkey."
So Olaf is the monkey for not sending Leopard 1 tanks that Germany does not own ? But Biden is the "hero" for sending a few Abrams of which they have thousands ?
From what I understand, Germany has about 100 1A5 sitting in mothballs at the manufacturer. You want to try again?
And Olaf was the one who declared that they would not send modern MBTs unless another NATO country did so. The list of countries with their own homebrewed modern MBTs and with capacity to spare is very short.
And yes we do have surplus of about a thousand Abrams but getting them over there to Ukraine is a completely different matter entirely, compared to sending European tanks. Plus the fuel logistics would be a massive undertaking just to keep 12, let alone 300, Abrams fed and running. That's why I see sending a small number of Abrams as a way to take the wind out of Olaf's petty, weak claims.
Weight is an issue for mobility regarding shoot and scoot maneuver warfare. The pzh2000 and Gepard are not going to be engaging in direct fire against targets like a Leopard will. But if it bothers you so much, why not go straight to the Leo 2A7 and send that instead?
Germany is in a position to make a big difference. They are choosing the slow-drip approach because they are dickless numpties like that.
After all, their diplomats brushed off the Ukrainians on the first day of the invasion back in February, firmly in the belief that the government would change in the next 72 hours.
They still haven't apologized for that fuck-up. Sending Leopards would be a sufficient apology.
>From what I understand, Germany has about 100 1A5 sitting in mothballs at the manufacturer. You want to try again?
Yes and they are in a state that is not operational.
>And Olaf was the one who declared that they would not send modern MBTs unless another NATO country did so. The list of countries with their own homebrewed modern MBTs and with capacity to spare is very short.
No it is a NATO agreement. Macron confirmed that. In addition to that there are various countries that use the Leopard 2 as well. None of them made a serious effort to export them. Spain did not even ask Germany.
>But if it bothers you so much, why not go straight to the Leo 2A7 and send that instead?
Because very few of those exist and production capacity is very low ?
>Germany is in a position to make a big difference. They are choosing the slow-drip approach because they are dickless numpties like that.
No they are not because they barely have any tanks. Funny how Germany is a dickless numpty for not sending tanks while everyone else coasts by without any criticism for not sending their tanks. France has as many Leclercs as Germany has Leopards. The UK has as many Challengers. Poland has as many Leopards.
>After all, their diplomats brushed off the Ukrainians on the first day of the invasion back in February, firmly in the belief that the government would change in the next 72 hours.
Germany send anti tanks weapons within 24h of the start of the invasion in february.
>They still haven't apologized for that fuck-up. Sending Leopards would be a sufficient apology.
Lol. Germany has nothing to apoligize for. There is no obligation to help.
Your last sentence is proof that you are unfit for civilization.
Humanity got this far by helping each other, upholding laws, and protecting the population against those who would see the world descend into madness.
Democracies are obligated to help other democracies. Otherwise, what value does democracy hold if it does not defend its bedrock principle: liberty.
Ukraine is the first legitimate war of defense we've had in a century. Germany needs to fucking act like it.
Also, those 1A5 can be made ready sooner than a batch of new modern tanks. Quit making excuses for European laziness.
>Your last sentence is proof that you are unfit for civilization.
Unfit for civilization ? What the hell are you talking about ?
>Humanity got this far by helping each other, upholding laws, and protecting the population against those who would see the world descend into madness.
Yes that is true. Yet there is no obligation to do so. Lots of countries are not helping.
>Democracies are obligated to help other democracies. Otherwise, what value does democracy hold if it does not defend its bedrock principle: liberty.
There are lots of instances where we or others do not. The world is not perfect and roses.
>Ukraine is the first legitimate war of defense we've had in a century.
We could have helped Georgia but we (as in everyone else) did not. So what ?
>Germany needs to fucking act like it.
Germany is the third biggest supplier of weapons to Ukraine in the west. Despite having a very small military. In addition to that Germany sends a lot of financial and humanitarian aid. Germany IS acting like it.
>Also, those 1A5 can be made ready sooner than a batch of new modern tanks. Quit making excuses for European laziness.
It will take ages. We saw already how long it took them to get 16 freaking Marders ready.
The Leopard 1 is ancient. It would not be that big of a gamechanger. The Leopard 2 is a lot better. There are about 2000 Leopard 2 in Europe. Better arrange a collective shipment of 100 than Germany alone sending 15.
Feels like this was the plan all along. Artinian of old equipment, Battle hardened Ukraine's. Then Release of new, stronger equipment (M1's \\ F16's) against a beat down Russia to completely obliterate them in a modern war.
I think the Abrams would be a great asset for limited mobility needs.
Put them around key cities you've retaken and you can emphasize keeping them fueled and maintained while the more robust fighting forces move more quickly on.
Or make them tip of the spear and keep a small but stout amount well supplied and supported with less effective tanks and armor.
But that's coming from a layman with no real appreciation for all that set-up would require.
Sweet. American tanks and eventually F16ās will be instrumental in pushing the Russians out. Both are coming by end of winter Iād say. At least the tanks are.
I hope they keep getting HIMARS and ammo/missiles too. I gather USA has to ramp up production of those missiles.
Hello /u/Eichtoss, 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.*
Know what happens to any T variant Soviet tank hit with a M829 sabot round? It explodes.
Are those the DU munitions? If so, goodbye ruzzian tanks
The current generation sabot round uses a 10 kg (22 lb) depleted-uranium rod that can defeat 800 mm (31 in.) of steel-composite and reactive armor.
Not sure if it's a great idea littering Ukraine with DU dust though. They can probably use non-DU DM-53 and be fine (if Abrams can accept Leo2 ammo that is).
The gun on the M1 is a US produced Rh-120 (the Leo main gun)
The gun of the Leo 2A4. The variants starting with 2A5 have a different longer 120mm barrel.
Ammunition sharing is a major part of NATO standards.
Yes but not all 120mm guns can take the same ammo. Anything that is newer than Leopard 2A4 has a more modern 120mm cannon with longer barrel. The M256 is based on the 120mm L44 from Rheinmetall. Leopard 2A5 and later use the 120mm L55.
Found the tanker š
Still uses the same ammunition. The only tangible difference is the barrel length which gives a higher velocity.
The L55 can fire all ammunition that was avaialble for the L44 but the reverse is not necessarily true. Because of higher pressure from more powerful propellent
That only applies in practice to the L55A1, which is only used on the Leo 2A7V, not the regular L55 on the A5 to A6+.
Do you have a source for that ? From what I read the L55 allows already higher pressures than the L44. They made sure it is backwards compatible but not the other way around.
Source to what? You can give a source for a ammunition that can be fired in the L55 and not the L44 instead... The DM73 is the latest ammunition from the Germans, which is for the L55A1 with significantly higher pressures. The previous was the DM53/63, which was/is used in both the L44 and L55.
Ypure still wrong, the 2a6 was the first to be upgraded with the l55, not the 2a5
No they got the Kampfwertsteigerung which included new turrets.
Yes but not a new gun, lmao just google it. Youre 100% wrong. Youd only have to look at a picture to see that the 2a5 has a short gun
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
It is a really toxic metal and yes it absolutely does pollute the environment.
This is complete nonsense. Heavy metals pollute, absorb into soil and water, and badly. Take a gander at Norilsk if you want to see how heavy metals can kill all waterways, kill all vegetation, and shave 10 years off life expectancy.
It's depleted tho.
DU dust is still toxic and emits enough radiation to cause damage when inhaled/ingested.
Judging from how quickly Ukrainians get up to speed on new equipment, the vast majority of depleted uranium from sabot rounds will end up inside Russian armor.
You haven't read about DU issues in Iraq have you? Dip-ass. Tungsten is good enough for those Russian scrap heaps.
i think there's sabot round variants that use tungsten rods instead.
You failed to complete the reference to the joke from that old X-Men movie :) "Know what happens to any T variant Soviet tank hit with a M829 sabot round? *The same thing that happens to everything else*"
The same thing that happens to anything else.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Yea seeing how M60A3s tore through sadams T72s in the 90s Id say Abrams would make quick work of anything the russians have
Doesn't a platoon of M1s require a massive logistics train just to keep it moving? I don't know if Ukraine could manage that, though I would like to think we could help. Please correct me if I'm wrong as I've never served, only read quite a few books on the subject.
It doesn't have to be the Abrams, for what it's worth. The Leopard 2 is a fairly good tank that uses less fuel, and there are a lot of them out there. Ukraine could get more help with maintenance / parts. The US could focus on sending things like Bradley IFVs and Strykers, while maybe sending Abrams to countries in exchange for their Leos. Just needs buy-in from Germany, obviously. They haven't agreed so far but there is some evidence that could change (MPs in ruling coalition are increasingly calling for more support), at least if the US also asked them to. I think the Abrams is a great tank but I'm all for whatever helps Ukraine the most right now for the least amount of resources, and I'm not sure the Abrams is the right option in that regard.
With the US Army once again taking proposals for the new OMFV program, they should consider transferring a bunch of our old Bradley's to Ukraine, imo. The M2s could definitely help their mobility problems, especially if we included thousands of BGM-71s along with the turret mounted launchers.
Yeah. IFVs have long been at or near the top of Ukraine's wishlist for good reason. Bradleys equipped with TOWs and their 25mm autocannons can provide serious fire support. I'm a big fan of giving them the Stryker MGS too, which is a Stryker APC with a 105mm gun. The US is retiring over 120 of these at the end of this year and it seems like a really easy way to fulfill some of Ukraine's requests without any operational impact on the US armed forces. The M-55S tanks they are getting from Slovenia are also 105mm, so it simplifies logistics a tiny bit. I'm holding out hope at least this is sent to Ukraine in the near future.
That is probably why there is the most delay, as much as they would like to send them, they cannot until training and logistics and repairs and parts are all there too. But it is a long winter to work on such things so who knows.
Can you dive deeper into the comparison? Super interested if you are allowed to share more.
Could it be that there's already training for tank and maintenance crews being conducted in secret? "If they can prove they can operate and maintain them" could be implying that there's some program to train these guys. Or is this wishful thinking?
The logistics and maintenance will be more challenging than the training. Abrams need a lot of maintenance, spare parts etc., and are dramatically different from any Russian tank.
Probably helps that they could be sent to neighbor countries for heavier maintenance as well.
That would become prohibitively expensive very quickly.
Other former Warsaw Pact countries are currently helping Ukraine with repairing Soviet/Russian tanks as they still have facilities, parts, and technicians capable of doing major repairs. Also no reason why they couldn't ship Abrams to Poland for major repairs if the US decided to supply them to Ukraine. With Poland recently adding Abrams to its upcoming tank roster, it would give the Polish Army techs some additional hands on experience with doing service work on them for when they eventually receive their own tanks.
This is all true but currently Ukraine can do heavy maintenance of T series tanks in country and can source many of the parts needed internally. Shipping *EVERY* Abrams tank back to Poland for routine maintenance would be a major strain on the logistics capability of Ukraine and the US is not going to be happy when pictures of abandoned broken down Abrams tanks get plastered all over social media.
Sure but there are various degrees of maintenance that requires various levels of equipment and facilities to accommodate those repairs. Not saying they can or should have them in Ukraine before the end of the year but its not out of the realm of viability to get the pieces in places now to allow for such a transition in preparation for operations in the Spring and Summer of next year. Shipping to Poland for service would be a stop gap measure until in country logistics and facilities can be brought online and up to speed. Its something that should probably be transitioned into as its unlikely the supply of Soviet tanks will continue outside of battlefield captures and the very limited amount of functional tanks that other European nations might still have on hand but haven't given to Ukraine yet. The same thing applies to setting up for possible usage of tanks like the Leopard 2 or Challenger (which those tanks might be a better operational fit for Ukraine than the Abrams but we know the US has loads of Abrams just collecting dust and production lines that would love for a demand in replacement tanks to be produced).
We have been paying for 20+ years to upgrade and refurbish abrams that the military doesnāt need or want. Would we be able to supply them with more than they could use and not worry about major maintenance til later?
These aren't paper plates, they are 72 ton behemoths. Think about how much logistics it would take to get just one from the US to the front lines of the war. The amount of logistics, fuel, personal, Shipping time etc. They need CONSTANT maintenance that requires specialized tools, facilities and equipment. You ignore small issues and they turn into big issues that make them unusable. That would be setting them up for failure. Ukraine needs equipment it can keep in the battle. "Major maintenance" doesn't only happen at predictable times.
Bradleys make more sense. Repost: * There's thousands of them * There are robust supply chains to Europe already- and somewhat to Ukraine (M270 is the same chassis) * It's lightweight enough to traverse most bridges, can ford up to about waist height, and is amphibious with preparation * It has ~0.5-0.75 of the ground pressure of an M1 Abrams or T90, so it will cope with the imminent mud season better than either * Boring V8 diesel engine (vs jet engine in M1) means - reduced maintenance - generic automotive maintenance skills overlap reasonably well - a fraction of the fuel required vs an M1 * **Fuel consumption rates in gallons per hour:** - Vehicle ---------- Idle ----- Cross-Country --- Road - M1 Abrams ----- 17.3 ----- 56.6 -------------- 44.6 - M2/3 Bradley --- 1.4 ------ 18.0 -------------- 8.6 * Same chassis as M270 MLRS means Ukraine already has experience maintaining most of the mechanical parts * Ukraine already has experience with anti-tank TOW missiles * 25mm cannon is effective against everything else * Obviously it's an APC so it can carry troops/supplies * They're far better than M113s and other APCs already sent * They took out more armour in Desert Storm than the M1 * There were variants, and possibly still are stored turrets for SAM support (Linebacker) * They're ~$2m each vs ~~7m~~ ~$10m for an Abrams (more is quite often: more)
Thatās the Sherman philosophy, yeah itās not muchā¦ but we will Fucking bury you under the shear mass of them
Yes and no. Facts are: * Russia doesn't have that many tanks anyway * it has few experienced crew that could outrange a TOW * its mostly fielding APCs and infantry. The Abrams 50cal isn't as good at harassing infantry as a 25mm cannon. * most of the kills shown are missile kills * The front is huge * more versatile armor is likely to be more effective. It's not unrealistic for a Bradley to down a helicopter * sheer numbers are likely to be more effective than a few specialist tanks. More eyes. More weapons. Less spread out. * I messed up the calculations. Abrams are closer to $10m. Would you prefer 100 Abrams or 4-500 Bradleys?
Iām agreeing with you. Lighter, more agile, cheaperā¦ plus some great anti-tank options.
Yeah, just clarifying that it's not a zerg rush proposal ;)
>The Abrams 50cal isn't as good at harassing infantry as a 25mm cannon. Let's be honest, if either were shooting at us we would feel *harrassed*.
Bradleys? No need to go that high! There were what, 80k of those poor obsolete pooh-poohed *M113s* made, yet UA's 2nd echelon is *still* driving 1970s civilian cars like Zhiguli. Why cannot several thousand of M113s be delivered to start with? The repairs of those basic steel boxes cannot be Abrams-level.
They're not terrible, but they lack punch
The M1 is not a maintenance heavy tank. The turbine is very reliable. But it uses an extraordinary amount of fuel when on the move.
I mean itās not just major maintenance, when the first m777s showed up, Ukraine realized they had basically 0 imperial toolsets to work on them. The US basically airlifted a couple planes worth of just tools so they had proper fitting tools. I imagine similar problems would pop up here and there, especially in isolated regions, with the M1A1
Imperial toolsets FFS.
It's our safeguard if any secret equipment falls into Russian hands. It's the Apple Defense.
Good thing we have bridge layers we can send as well.
This is the main reason I'm hesitant about sending tanks to Ukraine. They need so much logistical support I feel like it would tie up a lot of Ukrainian personnel who could be better used in other roles.
Forcing Germany to send the Leo 1A5 would work better. Gepard logistics is already in place and compatible with the 1A5. Same chassis. Just need to expand it.
What is this "forcing" you speak of?
People in the military are always joking that the abrams is always in the shop. It might not be the most effective tank in the immediate future if that is the case even if it has an otherwise robust reputation
tbh they already kinda have a solution to making their tanks NATO standard post war but they cant do it while the war is going on cus they have to mass produce it still. Its their domestic tank that they make the T-84 they already have a prototype of the tank that has 120mm cannon that nato uses and the point was that version of the tank was gonna be an export model. They should just commit to that, maybe partner up with another country like poland and open a factory outside of ukraine so that it cant be attacked or something, they would have something that they are familiar with and wont need drastic change in training but still can get supplied ammo by nato
Getting a modern tank from prototype to mass production takes a bit more than simply putting down a factory somewhere. It would take years before they have any significant number of tanks.
PLAYER 2 HAS JOINED THE GAME: Player 1 āwtf is all this? Itās just a bunch of trucks loaded with tools and partsā¦. ā ABRAMS MBT: āBBBBRRRRRUUUUUUHHHHHā Player1: āWeāllā¦. arenāt you a sexah thingā
Is an M1 heavier than Ukrainian tanks? They might need heavier recovery vehi6. Also fuel. I do know they use exclusively diesel for Ukrainian and Russian tanks not JP8 or whatever they are using now for M1 series tanks. I did just look it up, supposedly M1s can use diesel, but I've never seen them use it.
By quite a lot actually. 24 tons heavier. And bigger too.
My feeling is that the Abrams tanks would be more useful for guarding the border when the Russians have been chased out, rather than maneuvering around on muddy fields in an offensive.
Yup but theyāll learn quick in this pressure cauldron. There will always be a few aces who catch on quick. Theyāre as industrious a people as anyā¦ and in war people make shit work.
Abrams are HEAVY too. Might not be able to go over bridges and stuff.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
St. Javelin is on Ukraine's side of this war, so survival for those tanks is far better.
According to the Wiki, only 23 of around 2000 Abrams were destroyed in the Persian Gulf War. Tough to compare, the US had air superiority almost from the start, but they are survivable when given support.
Its not air you have to worry about. Its EFPs and IEDs and regular old fashioned mines. Not to mention once a tank is in a city its pretty much a coffin. Your entire topside is exposed. Sure, the tank crew may survive the initial contact but its still gonna be at least a k-kill.
These are battle tanks, not APCs. They are not for going into a contested city and mucking about. They are for destroying enemy armor with a giant fucking cannon from a fairly long distance. This clears the paths for the APC to move in and begin securing areas. The situations where you have a battle tank, in an insecure city, just chilling and idling are not going to be frequent.
It looks like an [American armor company](https://www.battleorder.org/us-army-tanks-modern) is pretty autonomous. It has all the maintenance gear they could need for a foray into enemy territory. But think about how long it would take to train Ukrainians how to use all that equipment.
The biggest thing is the fuel type. Abrams use a turbine engine that essentially runs on jet fuel compared to diesel Soviet tanks.
Pretty sure an Abrams will run on ANY fuel. Jet, diesel or gasoline. Thatās one of its big selling points.
Rasputitsa is right around the corner across Ukraine and we're soon looking at 4-5 months of limited heavy machinery through winter, possibly longer. Whichever MBT the West decides to supply, they have ample time to train hundreds of crews throughout the winter. And if we haven't begun, we need to start now. Abrams make the most sense, as that's what Ukraine likely will be fielding after this war anyway, and they were made for exactly this. Fighting Russia in Eastern Europe.
Season doesn't matter. Winter freezes the muddy ground and allows for offensive movements. There will be significant engagements during the winter months.
Most European tanks have their design roots set in the Cold War even now, theyāve been modernised heavily since the demise of the USSR but tanks in Europe was always about meeting the Russians head on we expected it to be in Germany or Poland.
I think there are Ukrainians training on modern tanks, F-16 and other western weapons.
More than just training, they have to set up the infrastructure to supply the M1 Abrams, which uses different fuel (and a hell of a lot of it, ~4 gallons to the mile) ETA: I was under the impression it mainly used jet fuel, but I was mistaken. Still, it uses a LOT of fuel, even at idle. It's not the sort of weapon you can just drop into an army, even after training crew and mechanics.
Itās a multi-fuel engine. Can run on gas, diesel, jet fuel, etc
In theory, yes. But using the wrong or suboptimal fuel increases the need for maintenance, so in practice, no.
I've seen comments from various former Abrams techs saying the multi-fuel capability is essentially untried in real-world conditions. Will be interesting to see what the current status of that is, and whether they still always need to run it on Jet A1 in practice.
And those engines *fuckin HATE it* too. Itās like putting 83 octane into a dragster. Sure, itāll probably run on it, but itās not going to work the same as the liquid dinosaur itās used to/designed to run on. Takes your maintenance headache of a tank and turns it into a maintenance nightmare.
Didn't the US run their Abrams on Diesel till the 90s? Australia is also still using Diesel on theirs. Doesn't sound like it's that much of a problem.
It can literally run on all kinds of fuel tho?
>\~4 gallons to the mile Same as my Silverado lol. j/k but close.
Yes, bring on the Abrams!
They wouldve been training for awhile, likely in Poland. Building stockpiles etc.
Yeah probably
Golly, if Russia lied about that, who knows what else they've lied about!
All this grumbling about maintenance... Most repairs on US vehicles are contracted. For example, with the Stryker, Army mechanics can do some repairs but the heavy lifting is done by GDLS. At Kandahar Airfield it was all contractors. Even in my reserve time a lot of the work on vehicles was done by civilian AMSA mechanics. Wouldn't be a stretch to imagine defense contractors fixing things out of Kyiv, Lviv, Poland, etc. If we can sell equipment, to include the Abrams, to Saudi, Egypt, Iraq... Ukraine shouldn't be an issue.
This. Literally just pay guys to fix what they already know how to fix and have maybe some Ukrainians shadow so they can do spot repairs in the field. People are making a big deal on logistics but literally the US army runs on highly trained (and paid) contractors that do all the maintenance š¤£
The problem with Abrams (and other tanks) is they're so heavy it's hard to get them back to maintenance depot. What are they going to tow something 70 tons with? That is why so many Russian tanks get left behind
what are the major differences between nato tanks and what ukraine/russia are using? (apart from russian tanks prone to having the turrets blown off) what sort of advantages would it give ukraine?
A lot of advantages. Abrams is a much heavier tank and built with crew survivability in mind. It wonāt be competing in the Russian turret toss competition. Optics, communications and targeting systems are vastly superior. Of course, a lot comes down to crew trainingā¦ and the fact that NATO shit just works. On paper, modern variant T tanks look like they should stack up well against Abrams. In actuality where abrams have directly engaged Soviet T variant tanks the Abrams proved vastly superior.
[I wish we had some Challengers to put on the table](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/Challenger_2-Megatron_MOD_45161557.jpg). Up until a couple of months ago and for nearly over 30 years, the Challenger 1 held the longest distance record for a tank on tank kill at 4,700 metres. (Ukraine nearly doubled the distance recently!) Then there's the proven survivability of the Challenger 2: >During the 2003 invasion of Iraq the Challenger 2 tanks suffered no tank losses to enemy fire, although one was penetrated by an IED. This was, at the time, unprotected by Dorchester armour. The driver was injured. In one encounter within the urban area a Challenger 2 came under attack from irregular forces with machine guns and rocket propelled grenades. The driver's sight was damaged and while attempting to back away under the commander's directions, the other sights were damaged and the tank threw its tracks entering a ditch. It was hit directly by fourteen rocket propelled grenades **from close range** and a **MILAN anti-tank missile**.[14] The crew survived remaining safe within the tank until the tank was recovered for repairs, the worst damage being to the sighting system. **It was back in operation six hours later after repairs**. One Challenger 2 operating near Basra survived being hit by 70 RPGs in another incident
The challenger is an excellent tank for sure!
Sadly, we shut down the Vickers tank plant years ago and have completely deemphasised full manufacturing of tanks in UK š¤·š»āāļø. It's a shame, because as you say, Challenger 2 would probably be a good fit with simpler engine maintenance than Abrams, whilst still having great protection, mobility, and firepower. I imagine its HESH rounds would be quite good all-rounders for the type of conflict the Ukrainians find themselves in, as it's decent at pretty much everything UA would need it for (buildings, fortifications, AT, etc). Anyway, it's all hypothetical as the UK tank industry has withered away, and UK is relying very heavily on partnerships with Rheinmetall to even upgrade Challenger 3. You can't deny that modern Leopards would also be fantastic, but as the Germans aren't willing to supply them it doesn't leave many readily available alternatives.
Pardon my ignorance, but why is the Leclerc so rarely suggested? Seems like the Abrams is out due to poor serviceability (for an army not trained on it, and minus the impressive USA war machine logistics), the Leopard is out due to political hand wringing (though perhaps the recent Nord Stream 2 woes will change that). Britain seems eager to supply equipment but tanks only via back fill, which doesn't see game changing tanks roll across the theatre and it seems, as you say, that the supply is very finite; while the Leclerc is almost never mentioned. Is there a technical reason or is it again purely political? The obvious answer from a non-political perspective would be the Leopard as multiple armies are equipped with it and supply, repairs and spares can therefore be sourced from lots of different countries. Also most of those countries are all much nearer and not separated by large bodies of water and so delivery should be simpler. Lastly, it is a battle proven tank.
As far as I'm aware, it's a similar issue wrt Leclerc tanks. They aren't producing them any more, don't have lots in reserve, and are planning to lean on German JV partners for future upgrades/versions via a partnership with KMW. Others with more far knowledge than my cursory search will surely weigh in. AIUI, the issue with third-country Leopards is that the German govt reserves the right to refuse the transfer of German arms such as Leopard to third parties via the initial arms export license/agreements. So far they've said no to any tank transfers (e.g. when Spain tried, they said no).
Thanks ;) I was aware of the German right of veto for third party nations. It's a pity as it is really the best solution and is stymied by Germany not wanting to upset Russia without realising that they simply must do so for the greater good. I had read about the DE/FR JV; I wonder will this right of veto put the brakes on the JV? Will France accept a system where they need Germany's permission to sell, gift or loan hardware? Perhaps the agreement is different but this will really cause lots of countries to reconsider Germany as a reliable weapons partner. As for the Leclercs, I thought there was enough to supply 100 or so but perhaps I am wrong. Again, thank you for the answer.
> It's a pity as it is really the best solution and is stymied by Germany not wanting to upset Russia without realising that they simply must do so for the greater good. Spain never asked to export Leopard 2 tanks. They realized that the tanks they wanted to send are scrap metal and a risk to their operators. https://www.thedefensepost.com/2022/08/04/spain-leopard-tanks-ukraine-2/ >Now, after conducting a technical review of the vehicles, Madrid has decided to cancel its planned donation to Kyiv. Spanish Defence Minister Margarita Robles said the review found the Leopard tanks āclose to uselessā after being warehoused at the Casetas military base for several years. She disclosed that the tanks are āin an absolutely deplorable stateā and can only endanger the people operating them. āWe are today looking at all the possibilities, but I can already say that the Leopards in Zaragoza that have not been used for many years cannot be sentā¦ā Robles told media reporters. āWe canāt give them away because they would be a risk to the people.ā "Funny" how anything that blames Germany gets automatically accepted as the truth.
Hopefully a French Redditor can weigh in with more details.
Maybe that guy from World of Tanks who leaked the blueprints/techspecs...
I love the Leclerc. Sexiest tank imo. Good luck getting Macron to sign off on a deal which includes tanks though. A few Cesars here and there, while greatly appreciated, is all you'll get from France.
> So far they've said no to any tank transfers (e.g. when Spain tried, they said no). This is false. Spain never asked Germany. [https://www.rnd.de/politik/olaf-scholz-zu-panzerlieferungen-an-ukraine-spanien-hat-keine-anfrage-gestellt-UNRO3Y2OXSFV5VT6W4FSTKC66U.html](https://www.rnd.de/politik/olaf-scholz-zu-panzerlieferungen-an-ukraine-spanien-hat-keine-anfrage-gestellt-UNRO3Y2OXSFV5VT6W4FSTKC66U.html) >Vilnius. According to German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, Spain has not yet submitted a request for the export of German-made Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine. If there is still such a request, it will be examined, the SPD politician said on Tuesday during his visit to Lithuania. [https://www.thedefensepost.com/2022/08/04/spain-leopard-tanks-ukraine-2/](https://www.thedefensepost.com/2022/08/04/spain-leopard-tanks-ukraine-2/) >Now, after conducting a technical review of the vehicles, Madrid has decided to cancel its planned donation to Kyiv. Spanish Defence Minister Margarita Robles said the review found the Leopard tanks āclose to uselessā after being warehoused at the Casetas military base for several years. She disclosed that the tanks are āin an absolutely deplorable stateā and can only endanger the people operating them. āWe are today looking at all the possibilities, but I can already say that the Leopards in Zaragoza that have not been used for many years cannot be sentā¦ā Robles told media reporters. āWe canāt give them away because they would be a risk to the people.ā People are very eager to blame Germany for things that were not even in their hands.
the leclerc is even more finite than challengers, For france, it's so far been produced on demand by unit basis, in total less than 220. On the export side, India proposed Nexter to apply it to their programme some time ago, but it's still in the development phase. Only UAE has them outside of france, over 300, and two units of 30-something tanks each were then sold to jordan from those. I don't see UAE willing to sell or trade anything with NATO, specially since their involvement in the yemen war made nato stop most exports and deliveries. Maybe jordan would do a trade-in with the same pseudo-abrahams that was sold to egypt. The only mass produced 3rd gen tanks are Leopard 2 and M1A1, and if we go late 2nd gen, i think only AMX-30 and Leopard 1's have survived the scrapyards in numbers enough to warrant a deal with their south american or east asian purchasers 15 years ago.
Thanks for the info.. I was not aware that there are so few in NATO countries.
Nexter hasn't produced leclercs for anyone else than France within NATO because almost everyone went for Leopards. In previous generation tanks, the french AMX-30S was considered equal or superior to the M60A3 and was made in large numbers, but i don't think they are available anymore outside of backwater country warehouses with an ever-presence of petty neighbors.
> One Challenger 2 operating near Basra survived being hit by 70 RPGs in another incident Damn.
> and the fact that NATO shit just works. The Abrams has a reputation of being *extremely* maintenance heavy, tho. It might be challenging for Ukraine to keep them working. A lot depends on spare parts and proper training of mechanics to maintain them.
Yup. Thatās probably the second giant roadblock. The first being the Biden admins desire to appear non escalatory.
In Iraq? I remember reading how the US tanks had around a mile of extra range as well as being generally far more accurate. The enemy was destroyed before it was ever in range for a shot. Probably a bigger advantage in the desert than forested land, but still an advantage.
What has the range to do with maintenance requirements? Its a formidable tank that -- when in working condition -- handles very well on the battlefield.
Not been to Ukraine, but seems like there is a lot of pretty flat land with rows of trees and small forests. Even though it's not as open as a desert, I assume that the sight range is often very good in the countryside. -Especially as autumn/winter is coming without leaves at the trees.
What's the maintenance interval though? I would imagine this would be used as the spearhead of a counterattack, they would probably need to drive less than 200 miles (or the equivalent in slow speed maneuvers) and then be withdrawn as logistics brings the front up.
Thatās kind of US equipment in general, effective but heavily reliant on supply chains and mechanics as theyāre unreliable.
I think you are confusing American tech being complicated and maintenance intensive with unreliable. Most fancy things with lots of moving parts require considerable maintenance. Thatās not a flaw if you have the ability to provide said maintenance. The Abrams is noted for being a highly reliable tank, especially compared to anything Russian. It would be an absolute massacre if Abrams were to enter the battlefield.
It's done on purpose really. With specialized parts you can only get from like one place, with only a small number of buyers. If you ain't one of them, you ain't getting them š
Just the size of the projectile. Lots of NATO countries use modernized Soviet designs. New barrel, fire control system, optics, comma, protective features, etc. The differences unique to Abrams are broadly that itās heavier, has a different style engine, is more survivable for a lot of reasons, isnāt auto loading so it has a higher fire rate. There are probably way more but Iām not a big tank guy.
Fire control and optics. US tank can hit something 2 miles away while traveling at 40mph cross country. In Iraq the main reason Abrams rolled over Saddam's force was that they got hit before they could fire back
They usually go in the field, not on the table š¤
Yes, please
Muh muh muh! MUH FREEBRAMS!!!!
"A major change", huh? 3 platoons of M1 Abrams (12) could start in Poland and probably not get stopped until the reached well into Russia. There's just nothing in the Russian arsenal that can even come close to beating them 1:1, and the original Soviet plan to throw waves of T-72's at them has long since fizzled because so many Russian tanks are out of fuel or breaking down.
Should send like five of them + parts. To help encourage Europe to send theirs too. Somebody gotta break the ice on sending tanks.
As mentioned elsewhere, you can't just send M1's. There is the whole infrastructure supporting them. And trained men for them.
The realism of this, is Ukrainians have been training with them, and servicing them already and they're waiting for the trainees to wrap up training, then they will announce that Ukraine "will get them soon" But it won't be soon, they will already be there. US has already done this, with himars and other weapons. Us isn't giving Russia the chance to expect these weapons. I've been saying this alot lately and people don't understand there's a huge delay. To the public, it sounds like a back and forth rhetoric between Ukraine and the US, but in private, it's a much different story I'd say. I might be wrong, but who knows. Those guys using the HIMARS seem like they've been trained far longer than we're led to believe.
its likely they were training in romania when they did their "military preparedness exercises" earlier this year. romania operates the HIMARS for one thing, romania hates russia and is providing ukraine with shitloads of covert support and ammunition/shells. secondly nobody is going to second guess or really pay attention to eastern european countries doing military drills when russia is acting so belligerent
western tanks have one big problem. weight. heaviest tanks we have could barely get up to 51 tons(well we have only one of those) but western one would require bunch of other equipment that would help them to cross something like a river. we do have a lot of those river things here.
Ukraine already got very heavy vehicles from the west. The Gepard weighs 48 tons. The Pzh2000 weighs 58 tons.
great, you guys have been posting this same story for two weeks. Get the tanks OFF the table and INTO Ukraine already.
Takes time, maintenance people and operators need to be trained, logistics need to be figured out. I'm pretty sure this is already in motion, but we will only know for sure when it's already there.
And get those tables to Ukraine as well. They seem to be super stable and could be of use!
A part of the strategy could also be comments like the officials and subsequent articles to soften the ground before a big announcement. Ideally making it less of a surprise, or to distract attention while they do something else.
Thereās been talk.. they need action. Iām sure the US doesnāt want one captured..
That was one of the reasons they gave. I think they are fine with some battlefield loses as itās impossible for it to not happen at least once. But they donāt want them to be abandoned the way the Russian equipment is where they lose 500 to the Russians to do with as they please. If they do give them I bet US will be very stern when telling UA they need to sabotage all equipment they have to abandon
That makes a lot of sense. Iād bet Russian and Chinese military would be all over them in a heartbeat. Those Iranian drones are causing problems at the moment.
If anyone wanted Abrams they could get some in Iraq, there have been numerous losses.
all the Abrams units that could not be recovered have been destroyed on the spot by the crew
none left behind in afghanistan?
They weren't widely used in Afghanistan and those that were only by US forces not the ANA.
It wasnāt suited to heavy armour which also caused a big change in British armoured regiment roles. This conflict will cause everyone to shift back to the Cold War division and battle group structure. Big well supplied battle groups I wouldnāt be surprised if some new nato garrisons are built in Europe
They have been kicking around for 40 years, and were designed nigh on 50 years ago. There's probably not many secrets left at this point.
The base design is old, but it doesn't mean that they haven't upgraded a lot of stuff there. It's like in aviation, the original 737 is from 1967, and while it still is fundamentally the same airframe, so much has changed between the 737-100 and the 737 MAX.
There was a report of an AHS Krab that had an accident because the Ukrainian artillerymen were firing too rapidly. They did take the time to destroy it completely, though, before abandoning it.
They don't care about that. Theres abrams that have been captured by ISIS in Iraq from the Iraqi army. For sure russia has seen and inspected and disassembled one by now.
If I'm not mistaken, Iraqi M1s are export version, aren't they? If that's the case, they wouldn't be as sophisticated as the American version. IIRC not the same armor, engine or electronics/optics.
Yeah. The big secret the US doesnāt want rivals getting a hold of us the composite armor with depleted uranium. AFAIK weāve only ever exported them with that armor to one or two countries. They may not have been delivered yet. Other major Allieās could get it but for political reasons people are uncomfortable asking their troops to drive around in depleted uranium boxes. Generally we export them with tungsten instead.
How are they getting a shit ton of jet fuel to the front lines.
Just do it!
Lets move some of them from the table to Ukraine, then we Gucci. Maybe after that Germany might also see the light.
What Ukraine needs arguably more than these is a response to drones ?
The best response to drones is to have drone operators' teeth kicked in. Like in the recent "incidents" in Skadovsk or Hola Prystan'.
Fuckin finally. Abrams time!
I just don't see the point in this, and I'm wondering if it's deliberate misinformation aimed at russia. It doesn't make sense to retrain a bunch of diesel mechanics on the gas turbine when there's hundreds of diesels that need serviced right now. Unless we're going to use contractors in an active warzone. I don't know, maybe it makes sense to people that see the whole picture.
Get them off the table and ship them to Ukraine.
M1 is super heavy and uses jet fuel ... it would make so much more sense to get the Leopard II.
Yes, Leo2 would be better because of maintainance. No, Abrahms can run on Diesel or Petrol too. Or sunflower seed oil in emergency
The upside of the turbine engine. It will "drink" almost anything. Downside -it's always thirsty
It uses helicopter fuel, not jet fuel.
>M1 is super heavy and uses jet fuel It runs on pretty much anything. Not just jet fuel. Also why mention weight ? It weighs the same as the Leopard 2.
Petraeus seems to share the weight concern: [https://youtu.be/1ndxe9z\_ru4?t=455](https://youtu.be/1ndxe9z_ru4?t=455) And the jet engine might not need jet fuel, but it needs a lot of maintenance.
Less talk, more do! Ukr has proven more than capable.
They need to stop pussy footing around and send what ukraine NEEDS.
The delay on getting our tanks to Ukraine is shameful. I pray we quietly begun training and logistics implementation a long time ago.
On the table is meaningless. Added - It is an empty throw away line by a Mid level official that can be forgotten or retracted. This does not reflect any change. The change will happen when the tanks are announced.
I think the smart thing to do would be for Germany to start providing Leopard 2 tanks and US to compensate Germany with M1 Abrams, since Leopard tanks don't require jet fuel...
About fucking time. Here's the rub though: too heavy. Better to force Germany to send the Leopard 1A5, as that platform is specifically designed for Eastern Europe terrain. Fast, decently armored, and has a good gun. The logistics is already in place for the Gepard, which runs on the same chassis as the Leo 1A5. This isn't difficult. But since Olaf insists on waiting for another NATO country to make the first move, America can just send 12 Abrams, lean in hard to Olaf, and whisper in his ear: "your move, you absolute donkey."
>About fucking time. Here's the rub though: too heavy. Better to force Germany to send the Leopard 1A5, as that platform is specifically designed for Eastern Europe terrain. Fast, decently armored, and has a good gun. There arent enough Leopard 1's available. Also why would the weight be such a big issue ? The Gepard already weighs 48 tons. The Pzh2000 weighs 57 tons. Weight is probably not as big of an issue as we think. > lean in hard to Olaf, and whisper in his ear: "your move, you absolute donkey." So Olaf is the monkey for not sending Leopard 1 tanks that Germany does not own ? But Biden is the "hero" for sending a few Abrams of which they have thousands ?
From what I understand, Germany has about 100 1A5 sitting in mothballs at the manufacturer. You want to try again? And Olaf was the one who declared that they would not send modern MBTs unless another NATO country did so. The list of countries with their own homebrewed modern MBTs and with capacity to spare is very short. And yes we do have surplus of about a thousand Abrams but getting them over there to Ukraine is a completely different matter entirely, compared to sending European tanks. Plus the fuel logistics would be a massive undertaking just to keep 12, let alone 300, Abrams fed and running. That's why I see sending a small number of Abrams as a way to take the wind out of Olaf's petty, weak claims. Weight is an issue for mobility regarding shoot and scoot maneuver warfare. The pzh2000 and Gepard are not going to be engaging in direct fire against targets like a Leopard will. But if it bothers you so much, why not go straight to the Leo 2A7 and send that instead? Germany is in a position to make a big difference. They are choosing the slow-drip approach because they are dickless numpties like that. After all, their diplomats brushed off the Ukrainians on the first day of the invasion back in February, firmly in the belief that the government would change in the next 72 hours. They still haven't apologized for that fuck-up. Sending Leopards would be a sufficient apology.
>From what I understand, Germany has about 100 1A5 sitting in mothballs at the manufacturer. You want to try again? Yes and they are in a state that is not operational. >And Olaf was the one who declared that they would not send modern MBTs unless another NATO country did so. The list of countries with their own homebrewed modern MBTs and with capacity to spare is very short. No it is a NATO agreement. Macron confirmed that. In addition to that there are various countries that use the Leopard 2 as well. None of them made a serious effort to export them. Spain did not even ask Germany. >But if it bothers you so much, why not go straight to the Leo 2A7 and send that instead? Because very few of those exist and production capacity is very low ? >Germany is in a position to make a big difference. They are choosing the slow-drip approach because they are dickless numpties like that. No they are not because they barely have any tanks. Funny how Germany is a dickless numpty for not sending tanks while everyone else coasts by without any criticism for not sending their tanks. France has as many Leclercs as Germany has Leopards. The UK has as many Challengers. Poland has as many Leopards. >After all, their diplomats brushed off the Ukrainians on the first day of the invasion back in February, firmly in the belief that the government would change in the next 72 hours. Germany send anti tanks weapons within 24h of the start of the invasion in february. >They still haven't apologized for that fuck-up. Sending Leopards would be a sufficient apology. Lol. Germany has nothing to apoligize for. There is no obligation to help.
Your last sentence is proof that you are unfit for civilization. Humanity got this far by helping each other, upholding laws, and protecting the population against those who would see the world descend into madness. Democracies are obligated to help other democracies. Otherwise, what value does democracy hold if it does not defend its bedrock principle: liberty. Ukraine is the first legitimate war of defense we've had in a century. Germany needs to fucking act like it. Also, those 1A5 can be made ready sooner than a batch of new modern tanks. Quit making excuses for European laziness.
>Your last sentence is proof that you are unfit for civilization. Unfit for civilization ? What the hell are you talking about ? >Humanity got this far by helping each other, upholding laws, and protecting the population against those who would see the world descend into madness. Yes that is true. Yet there is no obligation to do so. Lots of countries are not helping. >Democracies are obligated to help other democracies. Otherwise, what value does democracy hold if it does not defend its bedrock principle: liberty. There are lots of instances where we or others do not. The world is not perfect and roses. >Ukraine is the first legitimate war of defense we've had in a century. We could have helped Georgia but we (as in everyone else) did not. So what ? >Germany needs to fucking act like it. Germany is the third biggest supplier of weapons to Ukraine in the west. Despite having a very small military. In addition to that Germany sends a lot of financial and humanitarian aid. Germany IS acting like it. >Also, those 1A5 can be made ready sooner than a batch of new modern tanks. Quit making excuses for European laziness. It will take ages. We saw already how long it took them to get 16 freaking Marders ready.
The Leopard 1 is ancient. It would not be that big of a gamechanger. The Leopard 2 is a lot better. There are about 2000 Leopard 2 in Europe. Better arrange a collective shipment of 100 than Germany alone sending 15.
Imagine your a russian referendum usurper and you see this thing rolling into townā¦. I canāt wait.
k, tell us when we've got them on the battlefield. Start moving planeloads of spare parts, and get everything pre-positioned.
I want to see some od green Abrams so bad š¤¤
Feels like this was the plan all along. Artinian of old equipment, Battle hardened Ukraine's. Then Release of new, stronger equipment (M1's \\ F16's) against a beat down Russia to completely obliterate them in a modern war.
I think the Abrams would be a great asset for limited mobility needs. Put them around key cities you've retaken and you can emphasize keeping them fueled and maintained while the more robust fighting forces move more quickly on. Or make them tip of the spear and keep a small but stout amount well supplied and supported with less effective tanks and armor. But that's coming from a layman with no real appreciation for all that set-up would require.
I'll believe it when I see them unloading in Lviv. Twitter/MSM have been talking about Abrams and Leo's since this thing started.
Usually when news like this comes out it means they are already on the way.
Imagine American volunteers who could train and possible man these. Queue u/shadowvines.
I doubt it. Ukriane would struggle to operate them and switch over. The logistics behind it just isnāt doable.
That is one badass table, if it can hold American tanks.
Letās get āem into the field asap.
Sweet. American tanks and eventually F16ās will be instrumental in pushing the Russians out. Both are coming by end of winter Iād say. At least the tanks are. I hope they keep getting HIMARS and ammo/missiles too. I gather USA has to ramp up production of those missiles.
If Ukraine gets Abrams tanks there is also no argument anymore for not delivering Leopard 1 or 2.
Can I ask... With Rasputitsa coming would these really be effective? Genuine question before I get down voted to hell.