US and German tanks to Ukraine

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who thinks this is a good idea has never served in a US Army Armored Corps.

Abrams are incredibly maintenance intensive systems. And they consume huge amounts of fuel. And presumably all of the current tech within them will have to be removed - everything from the armor, comms, TA and FC equipment. Basically we’ll be sending them functional hulls with operable main guns and little else. And the power unit will be totally unfamiliar to people who come from a knowledge base centered around diesel engines. Turbo shaft engines are totally alien to folks who are used to pistons and fuel injectors.

We can spare the tanks of course, we have over 3,000 M1’s sitting in storage in the California desert. But what we’d be sending them won’t be a game changing weapon system.

I never crewed in an Abrams, I was in Bradley’s. But we operated with Abrams in combined cavalry/armor units pretty often, and it will be interesting to see how 40 year old M1’s do in a European theater. I’ve only seen them in deserts- a place they were not initially designed for. They were actually created to fight of the flat farmlands of Western Europe, and Ukraine is a pretty reasonable facsimile of that terrain. So we’ll finally get to see if our 80’s era tanks can hack it in the theater they were designed for.

Something interesting I noticed - this article just says “tanks”. Nothing else? No bridging gear? No mine clearing? No extraction units? No lowboy haulers? No trucks? No fuelers? Armor doesn’t go to war all by itself. Tanks don’t operate very long without support equipment and support vehicles. And there’s no mention of that. I’d like to believe that’s just sloppy journalism, but nothing would surprise me these days. But if they just sent tanks, that’s a huge oversight. And it’s an indication that the White House isn’t listening to the Pentagon.

Who do you think are making these decisions? It is laughable that you think know one but yourself has thought about logistics. The US military is incredibly good at logistics.

Let’s talk some facts, M1 can run on diesel or any type of fuel. It gets about .5 mpg. The t-84 get about 1 mpg. Yes tanks and aircraft really any military vehicle have low fuel efficiency specially armor’s vehicles. The Ukraine will use the western tanks to spear head an attack with their other tanks used to exploit the gap. They are not going to adopt nato doctrine because they do not have the nato’s capabilities.

The M1 engine is really a modified helicopter engine. The in filed service and maintenance are fairly easy. Major repairs are usually switch outs which the Ukraine have the capability to do. They have been salvaging Russians from the beginning of the war. So the Ukrainians have the equipment to transport and move heavy tanks. There will be private contractors for major repairs at the regimental or higher repair areas.

They are not going to strip the tanks of their system. If they did that they would be useless. You act like the US military logistical planners are a bunch of morons. They are not. They are paying professional with years of experience.

The Ukes have never even seen an Abrams power unit. They’re used to soviet-era diesel technology. The transmission and reduction gearbox is another thing they’ve never seen before, too. The training pipeline for techs that maintain turbine engines is about 20 months long. But you go ahead and tell us what you know, lolz!


The unfortunate reality here is that y’all don’t even know enough to know what you don’t know. That’s why is so difficult for you to understand this stuff. And why you think you understand more than you do.

The only thing you’re correct about is our military being very good at logistics. We are. Logistics are what allow something as complex and maintenance intensive as an M1 to stay in service.

You know what isn’t being included in this shipment of tanks?

The entire logistical tail to keep them working.


Carry on.

Lol sure the M1 is so sophisticated an army can not maintain it. You really do not understand how these vehicles are maintenance and repaired. You have no understanding of the logistics required but keep posting because it is entertaining. How many moving parts does a AGT-1500 gas turbine engine vs t84’s Diesel engine? Do you know?

It seems like you are unable to comprehend how an army works. MOS 91A is a 24 week course and does not require a high school degree. It you are already a mechanic you most likely could be trained up in a week or so. The basics of the tanks are the same. The M1 has computer and diagnostic system. If a system goes bad you replace the components. You you lose a track you put it back on like you would another tank or bulldozer. Hydraulics leaks you replace the hoses. Electronic goes bad you replace the components.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think Ukrainians have been training in the U.S. for a while, no? How much time would be needed to help the Ukrainians get up to speed on these tanks? They strike me as a superbly capable people.

You can be capable, but US equipment is notoriously complicated and I doubt any of the manuals are in Ukrainian. It will take months to even get the tanks close to be able to be deployed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who thinks this is a good idea has never served in a US Army Armored Corps.

Abrams are incredibly maintenance intensive systems. And they consume huge amounts of fuel. And presumably all of the current tech within them will have to be removed - everything from the armor, comms, TA and FC equipment. Basically we’ll be sending them functional hulls with operable main guns and little else. And the power unit will be totally unfamiliar to people who come from a knowledge base centered around diesel engines. Turbo shaft engines are totally alien to folks who are used to pistons and fuel injectors.

We can spare the tanks of course, we have over 3,000 M1’s sitting in storage in the California desert. But what we’d be sending them won’t be a game changing weapon system.

I never crewed in an Abrams, I was in Bradley’s. But we operated with Abrams in combined cavalry/armor units pretty often, and it will be interesting to see how 40 year old M1’s do in a European theater. I’ve only seen them in deserts- a place they were not initially designed for. They were actually created to fight of the flat farmlands of Western Europe, and Ukraine is a pretty reasonable facsimile of that terrain. So we’ll finally get to see if our 80’s era tanks can hack it in the theater they were designed for.

Something interesting I noticed - this article just says “tanks”. Nothing else? No bridging gear? No mine clearing? No extraction units? No lowboy haulers? No trucks? No fuelers? Armor doesn’t go to war all by itself. Tanks don’t operate very long without support equipment and support vehicles. And there’s no mention of that. I’d like to believe that’s just sloppy journalism, but nothing would surprise me these days. But if they just sent tanks, that’s a huge oversight. And it’s an indication that the White House isn’t listening to the Pentagon.

Who do you think are making these decisions? It is laughable that you think know one but yourself has thought about logistics. The US military is incredibly good at logistics.

Let’s talk some facts, M1 can run on diesel or any type of fuel. It gets about .5 mpg. The t-84 get about 1 mpg. Yes tanks and aircraft really any military vehicle have low fuel efficiency specially armor’s vehicles. The Ukraine will use the western tanks to spear head an attack with their other tanks used to exploit the gap. They are not going to adopt nato doctrine because they do not have the nato’s capabilities.

The M1 engine is really a modified helicopter engine. The in filed service and maintenance are fairly easy. Major repairs are usually switch outs which the Ukraine have the capability to do. They have been salvaging Russians from the beginning of the war. So the Ukrainians have the equipment to transport and move heavy tanks. There will be private contractors for major repairs at the regimental or higher repair areas.

They are not going to strip the tanks of their system. If they did that they would be useless. You act like the US military logistical planners are a bunch of morons. They are not. They are paying professional with years of experience.

The Ukes have never even seen an Abrams power unit. They’re used to soviet-era diesel technology. The transmission and reduction gearbox is another thing they’ve never seen before, too. The training pipeline for techs that maintain turbine engines is about 20 months long. But you go ahead and tell us what you know, lolz!


The unfortunate reality here is that y’all don’t even know enough to know what you don’t know. That’s why is so difficult for you to understand this stuff. And why you think you understand more than you do.

The only thing you’re correct about is our military being very good at logistics. We are. Logistics are what allow something as complex and maintenance intensive as an M1 to stay in service.

You know what isn’t being included in this shipment of tanks?

The entire logistical tail to keep them working.


Carry on.

Lol sure the M1 is so sophisticated an army can not maintain it. You really do not understand how these vehicles are maintenance and repaired. You have no understanding of the logistics required but keep posting because it is entertaining. How many moving parts does a AGT-1500 gas turbine engine vs t84’s Diesel engine? Do you know?

It seems like you are unable to comprehend how an army works. MOS 91A is a 24 week course and does not require a high school degree. It you are already a mechanic you most likely could be trained up in a week or so. The basics of the tanks are the same. The M1 has computer and diagnostic system. If a system goes bad you replace the components. You you lose a track you put it back on like you would another tank or bulldozer. Hydraulics leaks you replace the hoses. Electronic goes bad you replace the components.

“I googled an MOS and looked up the wiki specs of an Abrams and now I’m an expert!”


My MOS was 19Delta. Look that up.

[Anonymous]

Man I wish I could post more.

The M1 platform is LITERALLY 50 years old. It took that long to get it where it is today. It is well documented for training and servicing but, for the most part; it is aircraft maintenance on a terrestrial platform.

It is not as bad as amphibious equipment- the absolute worst for maintaining operational status.

It is a long lead item for Ukraine. 12 months or more for operations in theatre.

[Anonymous]

We seriously should have told Germany to F off. I absolutely support Ukraine and support us helping them but Germany is way out of line making these types of demands. Ultimately we’re doing them a massive favor by getting involved at all to keep peace in their region and for them to be making us send our not ideal tanks before they’d send their ideal tanks a much closer distance is really outrageous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An m1a2 weighs 55 tons
A leopard 2 is over 69 tons.

A t-72 is like 42 tons.

When the advanced t-90/armada broke down in a parade is sat in middle of Moscow for weeks as they could not find anything to tow it out with.
It only weighs 52 tons and they relied on trains to get them to the parade.
Ukraine will rely on trains to move the bigger tanks around. If Russia was struggling to move theirs I doubt Ukraine has any way to move them.

Tanks are like toddlers - plop and play for short periods of time and modern tanks make the tiger tank look like a Toyota for repair and maintenance.

Ehhh just leave it to creative Ukrainian farmers. At this point they probably know more about moving heavy military equipment than most militaries do.

You should see the roads at Ft. Bragg where tanks cross.

There are warning signs that say “tanks have right of way”. Then your car goes over where tanks have passed rips your undercarriage off.

Main battle tanks are cool to see in a museum or a movie; you want to be on another continent when they are in operation.
No farmer is moving them; nothing is is moving them other than massive kinetic energy that I do not want to be within 10
Miles of. I’m

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who thinks this is a good idea has never served in a US Army Armored Corps.

Abrams are incredibly maintenance intensive systems. And they consume huge amounts of fuel. And presumably all of the current tech within them will have to be removed - everything from the armor, comms, TA and FC equipment. Basically we’ll be sending them functional hulls with operable main guns and little else. And the power unit will be totally unfamiliar to people who come from a knowledge base centered around diesel engines. Turbo shaft engines are totally alien to folks who are used to pistons and fuel injectors.

We can spare the tanks of course, we have over 3,000 M1’s sitting in storage in the California desert. But what we’d be sending them won’t be a game changing weapon system.

I never crewed in an Abrams, I was in Bradley’s. But we operated with Abrams in combined cavalry/armor units pretty often, and it will be interesting to see how 40 year old M1’s do in a European theater. I’ve only seen them in deserts- a place they were not initially designed for. They were actually created to fight of the flat farmlands of Western Europe, and Ukraine is a pretty reasonable facsimile of that terrain. So we’ll finally get to see if our 80’s era tanks can hack it in the theater they were designed for.

Something interesting I noticed - this article just says “tanks”. Nothing else? No bridging gear? No mine clearing? No extraction units? No lowboy haulers? No trucks? No fuelers? Armor doesn’t go to war all by itself. Tanks don’t operate very long without support equipment and support vehicles. And there’s no mention of that. I’d like to believe that’s just sloppy journalism, but nothing would surprise me these days. But if they just sent tanks, that’s a huge oversight. And it’s an indication that the White House isn’t listening to the Pentagon.

This has been discussed intensely at the government level. The US is also sending military to train Ukraine on maintaining them. I heard this earlier in the week being addressed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who thinks this is a good idea has never served in a US Army Armored Corps.

Abrams are incredibly maintenance intensive systems. And they consume huge amounts of fuel. And presumably all of the current tech within them will have to be removed - everything from the armor, comms, TA and FC equipment. Basically we’ll be sending them functional hulls with operable main guns and little else. And the power unit will be totally unfamiliar to people who come from a knowledge base centered around diesel engines. Turbo shaft engines are totally alien to folks who are used to pistons and fuel injectors.

We can spare the tanks of course, we have over 3,000 M1’s sitting in storage in the California desert. But what we’d be sending them won’t be a game changing weapon system.

I never crewed in an Abrams, I was in Bradley’s. But we operated with Abrams in combined cavalry/armor units pretty often, and it will be interesting to see how 40 year old M1’s do in a European theater. I’ve only seen them in deserts- a place they were not initially designed for. They were actually created to fight of the flat farmlands of Western Europe, and Ukraine is a pretty reasonable facsimile of that terrain. So we’ll finally get to see if our 80’s era tanks can hack it in the theater they were designed for.

Something interesting I noticed - this article just says “tanks”. Nothing else? No bridging gear? No mine clearing? No extraction units? No lowboy haulers? No trucks? No fuelers? Armor doesn’t go to war all by itself. Tanks don’t operate very long without support equipment and support vehicles. And there’s no mention of that. I’d like to believe that’s just sloppy journalism, but nothing would surprise me these days. But if they just sent tanks, that’s a huge oversight. And it’s an indication that the White House isn’t listening to the Pentagon.

WIth due respect, you are woefully wrong here.

First off, the US is sending recovery vehicles along with the Abrams. Second, already staged and ready in Europe are U.S. military repair, maintnance, and service depots in Germany and now Poland (with ample spare parts). Third, you failed to mention Abrams have a turbine engine (just like the Russian T-64, while the '62, the 72, and the T-80 use diesels, as does the Leopard). The Abrams turbine runs not only on JP 4, but regular gas and a variety of other fuels.

But that is not even relevant, since tanks never drive long distances on their own in Europe; they are transported by rail to a railhead near the front (this is why the ground lines of communication are so crucial in this war).

The most surprising thing lacking in your post is lack of knowledge of the reality on the ground in Ukraine: they already have over 1000 tanks: a mix of mostly T-72s of various versions, T-62, a few T-64s, and some captured T-80s. The token US and German tanks might seem small, but the German decision unlocks Leopard donations from half a dozen other countries, totaling close to 300 Leopards - no small number (especially considering Western tanks easily demolished T-72s in combat in Iraq, while suffering insignificant loses). Obvioulsy Ukrainian's 1000 T-72 tanks are equal to Russian T-72 (they came from the exact same factories).

Look up the Wiki on the Bradley fighting vehicle you trained on: even though it was only supposed to "follow behind" the Abrams as a mere troop carrier, Wiki's source states the Bradley destroyed even more T-72s than the Abrams. On the ground in Ukraine, all western weapons have proven vastly supperior to what the Russians currently possess. It is not even close. Western tanks are a big deal. A counter offensive is comming, and then you will see.

The

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who thinks this is a good idea has never served in a US Army Armored Corps.

Abrams are incredibly maintenance intensive systems. And they consume huge amounts of fuel. And presumably all of the current tech within them will have to be removed - everything from the armor, comms, TA and FC equipment. Basically we’ll be sending them functional hulls with operable main guns and little else. And the power unit will be totally unfamiliar to people who come from a knowledge base centered around diesel engines. Turbo shaft engines are totally alien to folks who are used to pistons and fuel injectors.

We can spare the tanks of course, we have over 3,000 M1’s sitting in storage in the California desert. But what we’d be sending them won’t be a game changing weapon system.

I never crewed in an Abrams, I was in Bradley’s. But we operated with Abrams in combined cavalry/armor units pretty often, and it will be interesting to see how 40 year old M1’s do in a European theater. I’ve only seen them in deserts- a place they were not initially designed for. They were actually created to fight of the flat farmlands of Western Europe, and Ukraine is a pretty reasonable facsimile of that terrain. So we’ll finally get to see if our 80’s era tanks can hack it in the theater they were designed for.

Something interesting I noticed - this article just says “tanks”. Nothing else? No bridging gear? No mine clearing? No extraction units? No lowboy haulers? No trucks? No fuelers? Armor doesn’t go to war all by itself. Tanks don’t operate very long without support equipment and support vehicles. And there’s no mention of that. I’d like to believe that’s just sloppy journalism, but nothing would surprise me these days. But if they just sent tanks, that’s a huge oversight. And it’s an indication that the White House isn’t listening to the Pentagon.

WIth due respect, you are woefully wrong here.

First off, the US is sending recovery vehicles along with the Abrams. Second, already staged and ready in Europe are U.S. military repair, maintnance, and service depots in Germany and now Poland (with ample spare parts). Third, you failed to mention Abrams have a turbine engine (just like the Russian T-64, while the '62, the 72, and the T-80 use diesels, as does the Leopard). The Abrams turbine runs not only on JP 4, but regular gas and a variety of other fuels.

But that is not even relevant, since tanks never drive long distances on their own in Europe; they are transported by rail to a railhead near the front (this is why the ground lines of communication are so crucial in this war).

The most surprising thing lacking in your post is lack of knowledge of the reality on the ground in Ukraine: they already have over 1000 tanks: a mix of mostly T-72s of various versions, T-62, a few T-64s, and some captured T-80s. The token US and German tanks might seem small, but the German decision unlocks Leopard donations from half a dozen other countries, totaling close to 300 Leopards - no small number (especially considering Western tanks easily demolished T-72s in combat in Iraq, while suffering insignificant loses). Obvioulsy Ukrainian's 1000 T-72 tanks are equal to Russian T-72 (they came from the exact same factories).

Look up the Wiki on the Bradley fighting vehicle you trained on: even though it was only supposed to "follow behind" the Abrams as a mere troop carrier, Wiki's source states the Bradley destroyed even more T-72s than the Abrams. On the ground in Ukraine, all western weapons have proven vastly supperior to what the Russians currently possess. It is not even close. Western tanks are a big deal. A counter offensive is comming, and then you will see.

The

I saw that the US is also sending well over a hundred logistics vehicles with the Abrams - lowboy transporters and recovery etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who thinks this is a good idea has never served in a US Army Armored Corps.

Abrams are incredibly maintenance intensive systems. And they consume huge amounts of fuel. And presumably all of the current tech within them will have to be removed - everything from the armor, comms, TA and FC equipment. Basically we’ll be sending them functional hulls with operable main guns and little else. And the power unit will be totally unfamiliar to people who come from a knowledge base centered around diesel engines. Turbo shaft engines are totally alien to folks who are used to pistons and fuel injectors.

We can spare the tanks of course, we have over 3,000 M1’s sitting in storage in the California desert. But what we’d be sending them won’t be a game changing weapon system.

I never crewed in an Abrams, I was in Bradley’s. But we operated with Abrams in combined cavalry/armor units pretty often, and it will be interesting to see how 40 year old M1’s do in a European theater. I’ve only seen them in deserts- a place they were not initially designed for. They were actually created to fight of the flat farmlands of Western Europe, and Ukraine is a pretty reasonable facsimile of that terrain. So we’ll finally get to see if our 80’s era tanks can hack it in the theater they were designed for.

Something interesting I noticed - this article just says “tanks”. Nothing else? No bridging gear? No mine clearing? No extraction units? No lowboy haulers? No trucks? No fuelers? Armor doesn’t go to war all by itself. Tanks don’t operate very long without support equipment and support vehicles. And there’s no mention of that. I’d like to believe that’s just sloppy journalism, but nothing would surprise me these days. But if they just sent tanks, that’s a huge oversight. And it’s an indication that the White House isn’t listening to the Pentagon.

WIth due respect, you are woefully wrong here.

First off, the US is sending recovery vehicles along with the Abrams. Second, already staged and ready in Europe are U.S. military repair, maintnance, and service depots in Germany and now Poland (with ample spare parts). Third, you failed to mention Abrams have a turbine engine (just like the Russian T-64, while the '62, the 72, and the T-80 use diesels, as does the Leopard). The Abrams turbine runs not only on JP 4, but regular gas and a variety of other fuels.

But that is not even relevant, since tanks never drive long distances on their own in Europe; they are transported by rail to a railhead near the front (this is why the ground lines of communication are so crucial in this war).

The most surprising thing lacking in your post is lack of knowledge of the reality on the ground in Ukraine: they already have over 1000 tanks: a mix of mostly T-72s of various versions, T-62, a few T-64s, and some captured T-80s. The token US and German tanks might seem small, but the German decision unlocks Leopard donations from half a dozen other countries, totaling close to 300 Leopards - no small number (especially considering Western tanks easily demolished T-72s in combat in Iraq, while suffering insignificant loses). Obvioulsy Ukrainian's 1000 T-72 tanks are equal to Russian T-72 (they came from the exact same factories).

Look up the Wiki on the Bradley fighting vehicle you trained on: even though it was only supposed to "follow behind" the Abrams as a mere troop carrier, Wiki's source states the Bradley destroyed even more T-72s than the Abrams. On the ground in Ukraine, all western weapons have proven vastly supperior to what the Russians currently possess. It is not even close. Western tanks are a big deal. A counter offensive is comming, and then you will see.

The

I spent 6 years trooping a Bradley. I love how you seem to think you’re telling me things I don’t know


And the proper description of the M1 power unit is a turboshaft engine, not a turbine. I think that’s what confused you, because you wouldn’t know the difference between the two if they were sitting in front of you.

And M3’s have Cummins multi-fuel power units, btw, not turboshafts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who thinks this is a good idea has never served in a US Army Armored Corps.

Abrams are incredibly maintenance intensive systems. And they consume huge amounts of fuel. And presumably all of the current tech within them will have to be removed - everything from the armor, comms, TA and FC equipment. Basically we’ll be sending them functional hulls with operable main guns and little else. And the power unit will be totally unfamiliar to people who come from a knowledge base centered around diesel engines. Turbo shaft engines are totally alien to folks who are used to pistons and fuel injectors.

We can spare the tanks of course, we have over 3,000 M1’s sitting in storage in the California desert. But what we’d be sending them won’t be a game changing weapon system.

I never crewed in an Abrams, I was in Bradley’s. But we operated with Abrams in combined cavalry/armor units pretty often, and it will be interesting to see how 40 year old M1’s do in a European theater. I’ve only seen them in deserts- a place they were not initially designed for. They were actually created to fight of the flat farmlands of Western Europe, and Ukraine is a pretty reasonable facsimile of that terrain. So we’ll finally get to see if our 80’s era tanks can hack it in the theater they were designed for.

Something interesting I noticed - this article just says “tanks”. Nothing else? No bridging gear? No mine clearing? No extraction units? No lowboy haulers? No trucks? No fuelers? Armor doesn’t go to war all by itself. Tanks don’t operate very long without support equipment and support vehicles. And there’s no mention of that. I’d like to believe that’s just sloppy journalism, but nothing would surprise me these days. But if they just sent tanks, that’s a huge oversight. And it’s an indication that the White House isn’t listening to the Pentagon.

WIth due respect, you are woefully wrong here.

First off, the US is sending recovery vehicles along with the Abrams. Second, already staged and ready in Europe are U.S. military repair, maintnance, and service depots in Germany and now Poland (with ample spare parts). Third, you failed to mention Abrams have a turbine engine (just like the Russian T-64, while the '62, the 72, and the T-80 use diesels, as does the Leopard). The Abrams turbine runs not only on JP 4, but regular gas and a variety of other fuels.

But that is not even relevant, since tanks never drive long distances on their own in Europe; they are transported by rail to a railhead near the front (this is why the ground lines of communication are so crucial in this war).

The most surprising thing lacking in your post is lack of knowledge of the reality on the ground in Ukraine: they already have over 1000 tanks: a mix of mostly T-72s of various versions, T-62, a few T-64s, and some captured T-80s. The token US and German tanks might seem small, but the German decision unlocks Leopard donations from half a dozen other countries, totaling close to 300 Leopards - no small number (especially considering Western tanks easily demolished T-72s in combat in Iraq, while suffering insignificant loses). Obvioulsy Ukrainian's 1000 T-72 tanks are equal to Russian T-72 (they came from the exact same factories).

Look up the Wiki on the Bradley fighting vehicle you trained on: even though it was only supposed to "follow behind" the Abrams as a mere troop carrier, Wiki's source states the Bradley destroyed even more T-72s than the Abrams. On the ground in Ukraine, all western weapons have proven vastly supperior to what the Russians currently possess. It is not even close. Western tanks are a big deal. A counter offensive is comming, and then you will see.

The

I spent 6 years trooping a Bradley. I love how you seem to think you’re telling me things I don’t know


And the proper description of the M1 power unit is a turboshaft engine, not a turbine. I think that’s what confused you, because you wouldn’t know the difference between the two if they were sitting in front of you.

And M3’s have Cummins multi-fuel power units, btw, not turboshafts.

DP... I'm puzzled, that's a weird distinction that you're making about the M1 power unit. A turboshaft engine is driven by a turbine. The only difference between a jet engine and a turboshaft engine is that in the former, the turbine is used to generate jet thrust, whereas in the latter, the turbine is used to turn a drive shaft. But it remains that both are turbine-driven. It is not at all incorrect to refer to the M1as having a turbine for a power plant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who thinks this is a good idea has never served in a US Army Armored Corps.

Abrams are incredibly maintenance intensive systems. And they consume huge amounts of fuel. And presumably all of the current tech within them will have to be removed - everything from the armor, comms, TA and FC equipment. Basically we’ll be sending them functional hulls with operable main guns and little else. And the power unit will be totally unfamiliar to people who come from a knowledge base centered around diesel engines. Turbo shaft engines are totally alien to folks who are used to pistons and fuel injectors.

We can spare the tanks of course, we have over 3,000 M1’s sitting in storage in the California desert. But what we’d be sending them won’t be a game changing weapon system.

I never crewed in an Abrams, I was in Bradley’s. But we operated with Abrams in combined cavalry/armor units pretty often, and it will be interesting to see how 40 year old M1’s do in a European theater. I’ve only seen them in deserts- a place they were not initially designed for. They were actually created to fight of the flat farmlands of Western Europe, and Ukraine is a pretty reasonable facsimile of that terrain. So we’ll finally get to see if our 80’s era tanks can hack it in the theater they were designed for.

Something interesting I noticed - this article just says “tanks”. Nothing else? No bridging gear? No mine clearing? No extraction units? No lowboy haulers? No trucks? No fuelers? Armor doesn’t go to war all by itself. Tanks don’t operate very long without support equipment and support vehicles. And there’s no mention of that. I’d like to believe that’s just sloppy journalism, but nothing would surprise me these days. But if they just sent tanks, that’s a huge oversight. And it’s an indication that the White House isn’t listening to the Pentagon.

WIth due respect, you are woefully wrong here.

First off, the US is sending recovery vehicles along with the Abrams. Second, already staged and ready in Europe are U.S. military repair, maintnance, and service depots in Germany and now Poland (with ample spare parts). Third, you failed to mention Abrams have a turbine engine (just like the Russian T-64, while the '62, the 72, and the T-80 use diesels, as does the Leopard). The Abrams turbine runs not only on JP 4, but regular gas and a variety of other fuels.

But that is not even relevant, since tanks never drive long distances on their own in Europe; they are transported by rail to a railhead near the front (this is why the ground lines of communication are so crucial in this war).

The most surprising thing lacking in your post is lack of knowledge of the reality on the ground in Ukraine: they already have over 1000 tanks: a mix of mostly T-72s of various versions, T-62, a few T-64s, and some captured T-80s. The token US and German tanks might seem small, but the German decision unlocks Leopard donations from half a dozen other countries, totaling close to 300 Leopards - no small number (especially considering Western tanks easily demolished T-72s in combat in Iraq, while suffering insignificant loses). Obvioulsy Ukrainian's 1000 T-72 tanks are equal to Russian T-72 (they came from the exact same factories).

Look up the Wiki on the Bradley fighting vehicle you trained on: even though it was only supposed to "follow behind" the Abrams as a mere troop carrier, Wiki's source states the Bradley destroyed even more T-72s than the Abrams. On the ground in Ukraine, all western weapons have proven vastly supperior to what the Russians currently possess. It is not even close. Western tanks are a big deal. A counter offensive is comming, and then you will see.

The

I spent 6 years trooping a Bradley. I love how you seem to think you’re telling me things I don’t know


And the proper description of the M1 power unit is a turboshaft engine, not a turbine. I think that’s what confused you, because you wouldn’t know the difference between the two if they were sitting in front of you.

And M3’s have Cummins multi-fuel power units, btw, not turboshafts.

I don't think anyone here ever suggested that Bradleys have turboshafts. But you do you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who thinks this is a good idea has never served in a US Army Armored Corps.

Abrams are incredibly maintenance intensive systems. And they consume huge amounts of fuel. And presumably all of the current tech within them will have to be removed - everything from the armor, comms, TA and FC equipment. Basically we’ll be sending them functional hulls with operable main guns and little else. And the power unit will be totally unfamiliar to people who come from a knowledge base centered around diesel engines. Turbo shaft engines are totally alien to folks who are used to pistons and fuel injectors.

We can spare the tanks of course, we have over 3,000 M1’s sitting in storage in the California desert. But what we’d be sending them won’t be a game changing weapon system.

I never crewed in an Abrams, I was in Bradley’s. But we operated with Abrams in combined cavalry/armor units pretty often, and it will be interesting to see how 40 year old M1’s do in a European theater. I’ve only seen them in deserts- a place they were not initially designed for. They were actually created to fight of the flat farmlands of Western Europe, and Ukraine is a pretty reasonable facsimile of that terrain. So we’ll finally get to see if our 80’s era tanks can hack it in the theater they were designed for.

Something interesting I noticed - this article just says “tanks”. Nothing else? No bridging gear? No mine clearing? No extraction units? No lowboy haulers? No trucks? No fuelers? Armor doesn’t go to war all by itself. Tanks don’t operate very long without support equipment and support vehicles. And there’s no mention of that. I’d like to believe that’s just sloppy journalism, but nothing would surprise me these days. But if they just sent tanks, that’s a huge oversight. And it’s an indication that the White House isn’t listening to the Pentagon.

WIth due respect, you are woefully wrong here.

First off, the US is sending recovery vehicles along with the Abrams. Second, already staged and ready in Europe are U.S. military repair, maintnance, and service depots in Germany and now Poland (with ample spare parts). Third, you failed to mention Abrams have a turbine engine (just like the Russian T-64, while the '62, the 72, and the T-80 use diesels, as does the Leopard). The Abrams turbine runs not only on JP 4, but regular gas and a variety of other fuels.

But that is not even relevant, since tanks never drive long distances on their own in Europe; they are transported by rail to a railhead near the front (this is why the ground lines of communication are so crucial in this war).

The most surprising thing lacking in your post is lack of knowledge of the reality on the ground in Ukraine: they already have over 1000 tanks: a mix of mostly T-72s of various versions, T-62, a few T-64s, and some captured T-80s. The token US and German tanks might seem small, but the German decision unlocks Leopard donations from half a dozen other countries, totaling close to 300 Leopards - no small number (especially considering Western tanks easily demolished T-72s in combat in Iraq, while suffering insignificant loses). Obvioulsy Ukrainian's 1000 T-72 tanks are equal to Russian T-72 (they came from the exact same factories).

Look up the Wiki on the Bradley fighting vehicle you trained on: even though it was only supposed to "follow behind" the Abrams as a mere troop carrier, Wiki's source states the Bradley destroyed even more T-72s than the Abrams. On the ground in Ukraine, all western weapons have proven vastly supperior to what the Russians currently possess. It is not even close. Western tanks are a big deal. A counter offensive is comming, and then you will see.

The

I spent 6 years trooping a Bradley. I love how you seem to think you’re telling me things I don’t know


And the proper description of the M1 power unit is a turboshaft engine, not a turbine. I think that’s what confused you, because you wouldn’t know the difference between the two if they were sitting in front of you.

And M3’s have Cummins multi-fuel power units, btw, not turboshafts.

DP... I'm puzzled, that's a weird distinction that you're making about the M1 power unit. A turboshaft engine is driven by a turbine. The only difference between a jet engine and a turboshaft engine is that in the former, the turbine is used to generate jet thrust, whereas in the latter, the turbine is used to turn a drive shaft. But it remains that both are turbine-driven. It is not at all incorrect to refer to the M1as having a turbine for a power plant.

Compressor and combustor stages are very different. Turboshaft engine also has no bypass after the first compressor stage. It’s akin to saying all Otto-cycle engines are the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who thinks this is a good idea has never served in a US Army Armored Corps.

Abrams are incredibly maintenance intensive systems. And they consume huge amounts of fuel. And presumably all of the current tech within them will have to be removed - everything from the armor, comms, TA and FC equipment. Basically we’ll be sending them functional hulls with operable main guns and little else. And the power unit will be totally unfamiliar to people who come from a knowledge base centered around diesel engines. Turbo shaft engines are totally alien to folks who are used to pistons and fuel injectors.

We can spare the tanks of course, we have over 3,000 M1’s sitting in storage in the California desert. But what we’d be sending them won’t be a game changing weapon system.

I never crewed in an Abrams, I was in Bradley’s. But we operated with Abrams in combined cavalry/armor units pretty often, and it will be interesting to see how 40 year old M1’s do in a European theater. I’ve only seen them in deserts- a place they were not initially designed for. They were actually created to fight of the flat farmlands of Western Europe, and Ukraine is a pretty reasonable facsimile of that terrain. So we’ll finally get to see if our 80’s era tanks can hack it in the theater they were designed for.

Something interesting I noticed - this article just says “tanks”. Nothing else? No bridging gear? No mine clearing? No extraction units? No lowboy haulers? No trucks? No fuelers? Armor doesn’t go to war all by itself. Tanks don’t operate very long without support equipment and support vehicles. And there’s no mention of that. I’d like to believe that’s just sloppy journalism, but nothing would surprise me these days. But if they just sent tanks, that’s a huge oversight. And it’s an indication that the White House isn’t listening to the Pentagon.

WIth due respect, you are woefully wrong here.

First off, the US is sending recovery vehicles along with the Abrams. Second, already staged and ready in Europe are U.S. military repair, maintnance, and service depots in Germany and now Poland (with ample spare parts). Third, you failed to mention Abrams have a turbine engine (just like the Russian T-64, while the '62, the 72, and the T-80 use diesels, as does the Leopard). The Abrams turbine runs not only on JP 4, but regular gas and a variety of other fuels.

But that is not even relevant, since tanks never drive long distances on their own in Europe; they are transported by rail to a railhead near the front (this is why the ground lines of communication are so crucial in this war).

The most surprising thing lacking in your post is lack of knowledge of the reality on the ground in Ukraine: they already have over 1000 tanks: a mix of mostly T-72s of various versions, T-62, a few T-64s, and some captured T-80s. The token US and German tanks might seem small, but the German decision unlocks Leopard donations from half a dozen other countries, totaling close to 300 Leopards - no small number (especially considering Western tanks easily demolished T-72s in combat in Iraq, while suffering insignificant loses). Obvioulsy Ukrainian's 1000 T-72 tanks are equal to Russian T-72 (they came from the exact same factories).

Look up the Wiki on the Bradley fighting vehicle you trained on: even though it was only supposed to "follow behind" the Abrams as a mere troop carrier, Wiki's source states the Bradley destroyed even more T-72s than the Abrams. On the ground in Ukraine, all western weapons have proven vastly supperior to what the Russians currently possess. It is not even close. Western tanks are a big deal. A counter offensive is comming, and then you will see.

The

I spent 6 years trooping a Bradley. I love how you seem to think you’re telling me things I don’t know


And the proper description of the M1 power unit is a turboshaft engine, not a turbine. I think that’s what confused you, because you wouldn’t know the difference between the two if they were sitting in front of you.

And M3’s have Cummins multi-fuel power units, btw, not turboshafts.

DP... I'm puzzled, that's a weird distinction that you're making about the M1 power unit. A turboshaft engine is driven by a turbine. The only difference between a jet engine and a turboshaft engine is that in the former, the turbine is used to generate jet thrust, whereas in the latter, the turbine is used to turn a drive shaft. But it remains that both are turbine-driven. It is not at all incorrect to refer to the M1as having a turbine for a power plant.

Compressor and combustor stages are very different. Turboshaft engine also has no bypass after the first compressor stage. It’s akin to saying all Otto-cycle engines are the same.

It's still a turbine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I understand that, after so many discussions, both the US and Germany are sending tanks to Ukraine. i was just surprise to learn that apparently the US is sending 31 tanks, and Germany initially 15 if I am correct. I knot nothing about war and combat but I thought that tanks are used in the hundreds on the battlefield and I am not sure how such a small number of tanks is going to make any difference. Can anybody who understand this stuff explain to know-nothing like me who would like to understand? TIA

It's complicated. Our tanks are objectively better than the Russians' tanks, ours, and the Leopards and some of the other Western ones now making their way to Ukraine were specifically designed to hunt and kill the Russians best tanks, and to be resilient against them. They are much more sophisticated, they are faster, more accurate, computerized, and so on. Each one of our tanks is worth several of theirs on the battlefield.

They might be, but how will ~50 western tanks fair against the 10k or so tanks that Russia still has left.