US and German tanks to Ukraine

[Anonymous]

Ukrainian morale is faltering- the tanks are in substantial part a morale booster, or at least intended to be.

[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

This PP is on the mark, particularly w/ respect to the fact that the US donation of M1s unlocks donations from many other countries, which adds up to a significant tank capability with associated logistics and parts and repair network, (which doesn’t really exist on the same scale for the M1 in Europe, although the US does have itself M1 capability in Europe).

Also - don’t forget the *fantastic* Ukrainian rail service. They have done an incredible job getting railway tracks and stations back up and running and they will ensure the tanks get to the front.

As for Russian tanks - yes, they have a lot but they have been poorly maintained and the Russians have and can continue to mobilize large numbers of troops, they have been completely unable to train and equip them. Even Russian soldiers themselves complain that they are simply been thrown into the meat grinder.

Factor in the reach of HIMARs and excellent intelligence about supply depots and rail/road use, and the Russians are facing a grim year. And, IMO, Ukraine is likely to get ATACMS (call for which just supported by bipartisan US senators) which would enable Ukraine to hit all Russian occupied territory, including Crimea. And the discussion is opening for US F-17s and French Mistrals.

Russia cannot and will not win this war; at best they can hope for ceasefire and frozen conflict, which, frankly, would be highly useful for them but hopefully the western allies like FR, US and FRG won’t fall for peace at that price (certainly the Balts, the Poles and the Finns won’t).

BTW, could we stop talking about Ukrainians like they’re idiots comparable to US recruits who train for a year on something? The entire population is highly motivated and highly educated. Prior to the war there were tons of UKR IT people working for major American tech and other companies. Ukrainians have been able to code new systems to integrate incoming intelligence and target extremely quickly. Prior to the war, UKR was a major arms manufacturer. They had a tank factory in Kharkiv for decades, for example, and in Lviv since 2019, and continue to build and innovate in the military space. You PPs above who think the US is using stupid UKR forces to test out new weapon systems have it backwards. Ukraine is improving and improvising systems in ways that the US and NATO never imagined. At the end of this war, Ukraine is going to be the best prepared NATO fighting force in all of Europe - having used practically every type of weapon from every NATO country for reals in battle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Russia already lost a significant percentage of its operable tanks in this war. A large percentage of those 10k tanks in reserve are not operable, are rusted out, were stripped for parts, stolen and sold, and so on, non-functional due to lack of maintenance, poor storage, most of which due to extreme corruption. Many of the newer of the tanks, T-72, T-80 and others have not been able to be repaired for lack of electronic components due to sanctions. It has been documented that Russia has resorted to deploying antiquated T-62 tanks, which are much more vulnerable to anti-tank weaponry. And even there, Russian attempts to retrieve those functional cold war tanks from storage is optimistic if it is in the hundreds, far short of the 10k. All of this also begins to leave Russia vulnerable relative to self defense or its ambitions on the global stage.

[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

This PP is on the mark, particularly w/ respect to the fact that the US donation of M1s unlocks donations from many other countries, which adds up to a significant tank capability with associated logistics and parts and repair network, (which doesn’t really exist on the same scale for the M1 in Europe, although the US does have itself M1 capability in Europe).

Also - don’t forget the *fantastic* Ukrainian rail service. They have done an incredible job getting railway tracks and stations back up and running and they will ensure the tanks get to the front.

As for Russian tanks - yes, they have a lot but they have been poorly maintained and the Russians have and can continue to mobilize large numbers of troops, they have been completely unable to train and equip them. Even Russian soldiers themselves complain that they are simply been thrown into the meat grinder.

Factor in the reach of HIMARs and excellent intelligence about supply depots and rail/road use, and the Russians are facing a grim year. And, IMO, Ukraine is likely to get ATACMS (call for which just supported by bipartisan US senators) which would enable Ukraine to hit all Russian occupied territory, including Crimea. And the discussion is opening for US F-17s and French Mistrals.

Russia cannot and will not win this war; at best they can hope for ceasefire and frozen conflict, which, frankly, would be highly useful for them but hopefully the western allies like FR, US and FRG won’t fall for peace at that price (certainly the Balts, the Poles and the Finns won’t).

BTW, could we stop talking about Ukrainians like they’re idiots comparable to US recruits who train for a year on something? The entire population is highly motivated and highly educated. Prior to the war there were tons of UKR IT people working for major American tech and other companies. Ukrainians have been able to code new systems to integrate incoming intelligence and target extremely quickly. Prior to the war, UKR was a major arms manufacturer. They had a tank factory in Kharkiv for decades, for example, and in Lviv since 2019, and continue to build and innovate in the military space. You PPs above who think the US is using stupid UKR forces to test out new weapon systems have it backwards. Ukraine is improving and improvising systems in ways that the US and NATO never imagined. At the end of this war, Ukraine is going to be the best prepared NATO fighting force in all of Europe - having used practically every type of weapon from every NATO country for reals in battle.

WTH is a “US F-17”?

[Anonymous]

Oh please, you all. We will send mercenaries that know how to fix and operate the tanks.
Germany having a military has never been a good idea, and they are shoring it up as best as they can. Before you know it Ukraine will be under German occupation. But, this will be a willing one, just like the last time.

[Anonymous]

And none of you cares that our money is paying for the purchase of all this and linking hr pockets of the military-industrial complex and their CEOs..again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And none of you cares that our money is paying for the purchase of all this and linking hr pockets of the military-industrial complex and their CEOs..again.

I have a problem with the industrial military complex sucking up taxpayer dollars when they are not needed, or worse, used to arm police departments to the teeth (and used against an unsuspecting American public), or get used in fake wars started with fake information.

Ukraine? Bring it on, baby. This is the kind of legitimate use of military weaponry we can all stand behind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And none of you cares that our money is paying for the purchase of all this and linking hr pockets of the military-industrial complex and their CEOs..again.

I have a problem with the industrial military complex sucking up taxpayer dollars when they are not needed, or worse, used to arm police departments to the teeth (and used against an unsuspecting American public), or get used in fake wars started with fake information.

Ukraine? Bring it on, baby. This is the kind of legitimate use of military weaponry we can all stand behind.

Why though? Were you ok with trillions of our money being in pockets of CEOs too?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh please, you all. We will send mercenaries that know how to fix and operate the tanks.
Germany having a military has never been a good idea, and they are shoring it up as best as they can. Before you know it Ukraine will be under German occupation. But, this will be a willing one, just like the last time.

Wow. So much deeply opinionated but quite wrong in this post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And none of you cares that our money is paying for the purchase of all this and linking hr pockets of the military-industrial complex and their CEOs..again.

I have a problem with the industrial military complex sucking up taxpayer dollars when they are not needed, or worse, used to arm police departments to the teeth (and used against an unsuspecting American public), or get used in fake wars started with fake information.

Ukraine? Bring it on, baby. This is the kind of legitimate use of military weaponry we can all stand behind.

Why though? Were you ok with trillions of our money being in pockets of CEOs too?

At least our oligarchy isn't (yet) anywhere near as bad as Russia's oligarchy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh please, you all. We will send mercenaries that know how to fix and operate the tanks.
Germany having a military has never been a good idea, and they are shoring it up as best as they can. Before you know it Ukraine will be under German occupation. But, this will be a willing one, just like the last time.

Wow. So much deeply opinionated but quite wrong in this post.

Lol, only ignorant American would be unconcerned about Germany.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh please, you all. We will send mercenaries that know how to fix and operate the tanks.
Germany having a military has never been a good idea, and they are shoring it up as best as they can. Before you know it Ukraine will be under German occupation. But, this will be a willing one, just like the last time.

Wow. So much deeply opinionated but quite wrong in this post.

Lol, only ignorant American would be unconcerned about Germany.

Oooga booga. This "ignorant American" lived in Germany for over a decade. I know more about Germany than you ever will.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
BTW, could we stop talking about Ukrainians like they’re idiots comparable to US recruits who train for a year on something? The entire population is highly motivated and highly educated.

There is no such thing as a country where the ENTIRE population is highly educated. I mean who do you think mops the floors there? Paints houses? Carries bricks? Cleans streets? Come on.

[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

This PP is on the mark, particularly w/ respect to the fact that the US donation of M1s unlocks donations from many other countries, which adds up to a significant tank capability with associated logistics and parts and repair network, (which doesn’t really exist on the same scale for the M1 in Europe, although the US does have itself M1 capability in Europe).

Also - don’t forget the *fantastic* Ukrainian rail service. They have done an incredible job getting railway tracks and stations back up and running and they will ensure the tanks get to the front.

As for Russian tanks - yes, they have a lot but they have been poorly maintained and the Russians have and can continue to mobilize large numbers of troops, they have been completely unable to train and equip them. Even Russian soldiers themselves complain that they are simply been thrown into the meat grinder.

Factor in the reach of HIMARs and excellent intelligence about supply depots and rail/road use, and the Russians are facing a grim year. And, IMO, Ukraine is likely to get ATACMS (call for which just supported by bipartisan US senators) which would enable Ukraine to hit all Russian occupied territory, including Crimea. And the discussion is opening for US F-17s and French Mistrals.

Russia cannot and will not win this war; at best they can hope for ceasefire and frozen conflict, which, frankly, would be highly useful for them but hopefully the western allies like FR, US and FRG won’t fall for peace at that price (certainly the Balts, the Poles and the Finns won’t).

BTW, could we stop talking about Ukrainians like they’re idiots comparable to US recruits who train for a year on something? The entire population is highly motivated and highly educated. Prior to the war there were tons of UKR IT people working for major American tech and other companies. Ukrainians have been able to code new systems to integrate incoming intelligence and target extremely quickly. Prior to the war, UKR was a major arms manufacturer. They had a tank factory in Kharkiv for decades, for example, and in Lviv since 2019, and continue to build and innovate in the military space. You PPs above who think the US is using stupid UKR forces to test out new weapon systems have it backwards. Ukraine is improving and improvising systems in ways that the US and NATO never imagined. At the end of this war, Ukraine is going to be the best prepared NATO fighting force in all of Europe - having used practically every type of weapon from every NATO country for reals in battle.

WTH is a “US F-17”?

They meant F-16. https://www.politico.com/news/2023/01/28/pentagon-send-f-16s-ukraine-00080045

But I think the 321 heavy tanks is a game changer as well. To understand why, take a look at this:
https://twitter.com/golub/status/1583002109485940736

See how low and fast that helicopter is flying to avoid being shot down? That means the Russians may try to use Frogfoots (e.g. jets), which aren't as effective in many cases as helicopters are in the anti-tank role. It's just really, really difficult to (a) acquire a target in a fast moving plane, and (b) hit the target before the target hits you. What that means is it is very unlikely the Russians can muster a significant air-based anti-tank capability.

Russia most likely also can't whip up significant infantry support (ex. heavy tanks / artillery / advanced ATGM's) to counter or at least slow down 321 heavy tanks. Infantry without support vs heavy tanks are a bad match up. The heavy tanks wouldn't even need to use an HE - coax is fine unless it's a bunker. Add the Bradleys and new AA's from Germany into the mix and you've got some nice drive-up perimeter security. Even if Russian infantry set up defenses or try to go anti-tank, the tanks just needs to pick them off from long range - remember it's cold now and western tank thermals are really, really good.

Even if the Russians had sufficient anti-tank units / weapons lying around and could drop it all in overnight, their current offensives are burning up so much ammo and personnel that heavy tanks showing up on their flanks would be bad news. The Russian Army would probably need to commit whatever reserves they have to stop a breakthrough. That means the Russians would also be forced to close in to try to take out the tanks before a defensive location is wiped out. At that point, the Ukrainians would have even more targets to shoot at. That would make the Russians vulnerable on even well defended positions in their rear areas.

Plus there's also the morale factor. There's just something special about heavy tanks like the M1 and German Leopards that's hard to explain in words. They both have "presence". Seasoned troops would be fearful going up against them, let alone conscripts. A sane person would run like hell, and even then, if you saw the tank with your eyeballs; it's probably too late.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And none of you cares that our money is paying for the purchase of all this and linking hr pockets of the military-industrial complex and their CEOs..again.

I have a problem with the industrial military complex sucking up taxpayer dollars when they are not needed, or worse, used to arm police departments to the teeth (and used against an unsuspecting American public), or get used in fake wars started with fake information.

Ukraine? Bring it on, baby. This is the kind of legitimate use of military weaponry we can all stand behind.

+1