Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Western-made armor isn't working in Ukraine because it wasn't designed for a conflict of this intensity, Ukrainian analyst says:
https://news.yahoo.com/western-made-armor-isnt-working-111700196.html?guccounter=2

So what was Western made armor made for?

It was made for Cold War era Fulda Gap. The M1 and M2/3 families are approaching half a century of service. The same holds true for the British Challenger and German Leopard. The West lost two decades of armor development during GWOT, when the assumption was we’d be fighting low intensity conflicts for a hundred years (and armor isn’t particular useful “hearts and minds” CT/CI operations). However, AT systems used by adversaries did progress to the point that M1s in Iraq were being taken out by insurgents emplying newer model RPG type systems.
Western armor also tends towards the reliance on a very robust logistics trail.
The Polish just selected the ROK Army’s K2 as its next gen main battle tank. That should tell you something.
The Marines have ditched the M1 all together (with no replacement).

Whoever posted this needs to be corrected on two points.
- For a while the Marines toyed with the idea of doing more inland missions (ex. Bosnia). That didn't last long. M1's and ocean / beach don't mix. After that, the Marines needed a replacement that could go amphibious.
- Only seven M1's have ever been destroyed in combat in Iraq; none by enemy fire - all by friendly fire. 14 were damaged by enemy fire (ex. "mobility kill"), but not destroyed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams#:~:text=A%20total%20of%2023%20M1A1s,lost%20to%20enemy%20tank%20fire.

The proper use for the M1's would be for the Ukrainians to disperse them in groups of 3 or 4 to their Mechanized Infantry Brigades as "overwatch" with support from air-defense, thermal-imaging drones, and artillery units. The mech would 'move to contact' then the M1's would target the emplacements or armor from long-range. That ensures that as much as the Russians might try, the M1's would just pick them off before they could even get within range; so it's a good fit for the fields they're trying to recapture now. At night, M1's could 'sniper' the enemy at long-range. True, the M1's can shoot-n-scoot, but that strategy is for "breakthrough" missions without heavy mines.

What the Russian's should be concerned about is that fall / early winter is coming up. Their front-line positions as well as mines will stand out more than usual (mines will show up as either 'hot' or 'cold' spots) making the Russian defenses slightly easier to navigate.

No that is not how you use armor. You use the M1 speed, armor and fire power to punch through their lines by destroying Russian armor as in 73 Easting. Once the break through is made you pour in your Soviet made crap and let them seek out the squishy support units.

Anonymous wrote:Congress will approve no more aid. Jig is up 😆

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Western-made armor isn't working in Ukraine because it wasn't designed for a conflict of this intensity, Ukrainian analyst says:
https://news.yahoo.com/western-made-armor-isnt-working-111700196.html?guccounter=2

So what was Western made armor made for?

It was made for Cold War era Fulda Gap. The M1 and M2/3 families are approaching half a century of service. The same holds true for the British Challenger and German Leopard. The West lost two decades of armor development during GWOT, when the assumption was we’d be fighting low intensity conflicts for a hundred years (and armor isn’t particular useful “hearts and minds” CT/CI operations). However, AT systems used by adversaries did progress to the point that M1s in Iraq were being taken out by insurgents emplying newer model RPG type systems.
Western armor also tends towards the reliance on a very robust logistics trail.
The Polish just selected the ROK Army’s K2 as its next gen main battle tank. That should tell you something.
The Marines have ditched the M1 all together (with no replacement).

Whoever posted this needs to be corrected on two points.
- For a while the Marines toyed with the idea of doing more inland missions (ex. Bosnia). That didn't last long. M1's and ocean / beach don't mix. After that, the Marines needed a replacement that could go amphibious.
- Only seven M1's have ever been destroyed in combat in Iraq; none by enemy fire - all by friendly fire. 14 were damaged by enemy fire (ex. "mobility kill"), but not destroyed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams#:~:text=A%20total%20of%2023%20M1A1s,lost%20to%20enemy%20tank%20fire.

The proper use for the M1's would be for the Ukrainians to disperse them in groups of 3 or 4 to their Mechanized Infantry Brigades as "overwatch" with support from air-defense, thermal-imaging drones, and artillery units. The mech would 'move to contact' then the M1's would target the emplacements or armor from long-range. That ensures that as much as the Russians might try, the M1's would just pick them off before they could even get within range; so it's a good fit for the fields they're trying to recapture now. At night, M1's could 'sniper' the enemy at long-range. True, the M1's can shoot-n-scoot, but that strategy is for "breakthrough" missions without heavy mines.

What the Russian's should be concerned about is that fall / early winter is coming up. Their front-line positions as well as mines will stand out more than usual (mines will show up as either 'hot' or 'cold' spots) making the Russian defenses slightly easier to navigate.

No that is not how you use armor. You use the M1 speed, armor and fire power to punch through their lines by destroying Russian armor as in 73 Easting. Once the break through is made you pour in your Soviet made crap and let them seek out the squishy support units.

Ukrainians will never have sufficient armor to fight like this. They also lack the C2 capacity and logistics to employ armor in this fashion.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Western-made armor isn't working in Ukraine because it wasn't designed for a conflict of this intensity, Ukrainian analyst says:
https://news.yahoo.com/western-made-armor-isnt-working-111700196.html?guccounter=2

So what was Western made armor made for?

It was made for Cold War era Fulda Gap. The M1 and M2/3 families are approaching half a century of service. The same holds true for the British Challenger and German Leopard. The West lost two decades of armor development during GWOT, when the assumption was we’d be fighting low intensity conflicts for a hundred years (and armor isn’t particular useful “hearts and minds” CT/CI operations). However, AT systems used by adversaries did progress to the point that M1s in Iraq were being taken out by insurgents emplying newer model RPG type systems.
Western armor also tends towards the reliance on a very robust logistics trail.
The Polish just selected the ROK Army’s K2 as its next gen main battle tank. That should tell you something.
The Marines have ditched the M1 all together (with no replacement).

Whoever posted this needs to be corrected on two points.
- For a while the Marines toyed with the idea of doing more inland missions (ex. Bosnia). That didn't last long. M1's and ocean / beach don't mix. After that, the Marines needed a replacement that could go amphibious.
- Only seven M1's have ever been destroyed in combat in Iraq; none by enemy fire - all by friendly fire. 14 were damaged by enemy fire (ex. "mobility kill"), but not destroyed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams#:~:text=A%20total%20of%2023%20M1A1s,lost%20to%20enemy%20tank%20fire.

The proper use for the M1's would be for the Ukrainians to disperse them in groups of 3 or 4 to their Mechanized Infantry Brigades as "overwatch" with support from air-defense, thermal-imaging drones, and artillery units. The mech would 'move to contact' then the M1's would target the emplacements or armor from long-range. That ensures that as much as the Russians might try, the M1's would just pick them off before they could even get within range; so it's a good fit for the fields they're trying to recapture now. At night, M1's could 'sniper' the enemy at long-range. True, the M1's can shoot-n-scoot, but that strategy is for "breakthrough" missions without heavy mines.

What the Russian's should be concerned about is that fall / early winter is coming up. Their front-line positions as well as mines will stand out more than usual (mines will show up as either 'hot' or 'cold' spots) making the Russian defenses slightly easier to navigate.

No that is not how you use armor. You use the M1 speed, armor and fire power to punch through their lines by destroying Russian armor as in 73 Easting. Once the break through is made you pour in your Soviet made crap and let them seek out the squishy support units.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Western-made armor isn't working in Ukraine because it wasn't designed for a conflict of this intensity, Ukrainian analyst says:
https://news.yahoo.com/western-made-armor-isnt-working-111700196.html?guccounter=2

So what was Western made armor made for?

It was made for Cold War era Fulda Gap. The M1 and M2/3 families are approaching half a century of service. The same holds true for the British Challenger and German Leopard. The West lost two decades of armor development during GWOT, when the assumption was we’d be fighting low intensity conflicts for a hundred years (and armor isn’t particular useful “hearts and minds” CT/CI operations). However, AT systems used by adversaries did progress to the point that M1s in Iraq were being taken out by insurgents emplying newer model RPG type systems.
Western armor also tends towards the reliance on a very robust logistics trail.
The Polish just selected the ROK Army’s K2 as its next gen main battle tank. That should tell you something.
The Marines have ditched the M1 all together (with no replacement).

Whoever posted this needs to be corrected on two points.
- For a while the Marines toyed with the idea of doing more inland missions (ex. Bosnia). That didn't last long. M1's and ocean / beach don't mix. After that, the Marines needed a replacement that could go amphibious.
- Only seven M1's have ever been destroyed in combat in Iraq; none by enemy fire - all by friendly fire. 14 were damaged by enemy fire (ex. "mobility kill"), but not destroyed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams#:~:text=A%20total%20of%2023%20M1A1s,lost%20to%20enemy%20tank%20fire.

The proper use for the M1's would be for the Ukrainians to disperse them in groups of 3 or 4 to their Mechanized Infantry Brigades as "overwatch" with support from air-defense, thermal-imaging drones, and artillery units. The mech would 'move to contact' then the M1's would target the emplacements or armor from long-range. That ensures that as much as the Russians might try, the M1's would just pick them off before they could even get within range; so it's a good fit for the fields they're trying to recapture now. At night, M1's could 'sniper' the enemy at long-range. True, the M1's can shoot-n-scoot, but that strategy is for "breakthrough" missions without heavy mines.

What the Russian's should be concerned about is that fall / early winter is coming up. Their front-line positions as well as mines will stand out more than usual (mines will show up as either 'hot' or 'cold' spots) making the Russian defenses slightly easier to navigate.

Anonymous wrote:Are the "Ukraine is totally going to win with this one weird trick" crew essential workers or will they get furloughed too?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Western-made armor isn't working in Ukraine because it wasn't designed for a conflict of this intensity, Ukrainian analyst says:
https://news.yahoo.com/western-made-armor-isnt-working-111700196.html?guccounter=2

So what was Western made armor made for?

It was made for Cold War era Fulda Gap. The M1 and M2/3 families are approaching half a century of service. The same holds true for the British Challenger and German Leopard. The West lost two decades of armor development during GWOT, when the assumption was we’d be fighting low intensity conflicts for a hundred years (and armor isn’t particular useful “hearts and minds” CT/CI operations). However, AT systems used by adversaries did progress to the point that M1s in Iraq were being taken out by insurgents emplying newer model RPG type systems.
Western armor also tends towards the reliance on a very robust logistics trail.
The Polish just selected the ROK Army’s K2 as its next gen main battle tank. That should tell you something.
The Marines have ditched the M1 all together (with no replacement).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Western-made armor isn't working in Ukraine because it wasn't designed for a conflict of this intensity, Ukrainian analyst says:
https://news.yahoo.com/western-made-armor-isnt-working-111700196.html?guccounter=2

So what was Western made armor made for?

These are the same people who said Russia would over run Ukraine in a day. The problem is the piecemeal approach taken by the US. 31 M1s really will not do much but it does allow the Russians time to adapt to the new tank. This has been to process from the start.

Anonymous wrote:Western-made armor isn't working in Ukraine because it wasn't designed for a conflict of this intensity, Ukrainian analyst says:
https://news.yahoo.com/western-made-armor-isnt-working-111700196.html?guccounter=2

So what was Western made armor made for?

Anonymous wrote:Western-made armor isn't working in Ukraine because it wasn't designed for a conflict of this intensity, Ukrainian analyst says:
https://news.yahoo.com/western-made-armor-isnt-working-111700196.html?guccounter=2

So what was Western made armor made for?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone has Ukraine fatigue it seems: https://edition.cnn.com/2023/09/26/opinions/challenges-for-ukraine-russia-war-andelman/index.html

Support for Ukraine is highest among people that don't bear any burden. As soon as they do, the enthusiasm goes away.

McConnell says out loud what others only whisper: it's not about helping Ukraine, it's about degrading Russia. He'd be okay with total destruction and death in Ukraine as long as it helps degrade Russia. He's entitled to his views but it's important for Ukraine to be clear-eyed about what their value is to the West, and that it's not at all about their commitment to democracy or any such myths.