Reply to US and German tanks to Ukraine

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "US and German tanks to Ukraine"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Anyone who thinks this is a good idea has never served in a US Army Armored Corps.

Abrams are [i]incredibly[/i] 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.  [/quote]

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).  [b]Third, you failed to mention Abrams have a turbine engine[/b] (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 [/quote]

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

And the proper description of the M1 power unit is a [i]turboshaft[/i] 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. 
[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics