Ukraine

[uglymoney]

Counting active and all M1 variants in storage that will never be used by the US again I've heard the 10k number tossed around a lot. Even if it isn't that high, we have tanks to burn, literally. Sending these tanks will not degrade our military...at all. There is zero non political reason not to send them.

Sent from my SM-G991U1 using Tapatalk

[alpinevibes]

Good chance that's propaganda and they'll be ready to kill Russians in 90 days.

This. If you base your outlook and beliefs of American military strategies and operational capabilities are, solely from press releases, media hubbub and soundbites, you should just leave the room now. War is a big game and no one shows all (or most of) their cards if they can.

[MultiVerse]

By law the United States cannot export domestic U.S. military M1s because the armor metallurgy is classified. Only M1s built for foreign markets can be sent to Ukraine. So unless an ally agrees to give up their M1s, they all must be built from scratch.

FWIW, one of the ways the current admin helped grease the wheels for LEOs is by offering to send M1s, including service and support, to replace existing LEO stock sent to Ukraine. Unless Germany was willing to essentially lose its export market for LEOs, they had to allow the handover.

[Cisco Kid]

This explains

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/0...tanks-00079648

[Cono Este]

I looked for confirmation of that claim and came up empty. There are plenty of M1A1s sitting in EU warehouses that can be replaced.

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/3...rams-tank/amp/

I can’t do everything for you A holes, I’ve got work to do.

[skaredshtles]

I looked for confirmation of that claim and came up empty. There are plenty of M1A1s sitting in EU warehouses that can be replaced.

Did you check Newsmax and OANN?

[Bunion 2020]

The Pentagon intends to procure the tanks through the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (USAI), meaning it will buy the Abrams directly from its maker General Dynamics to then be shipped to Ukraine, a process that “is going to take months,” Singh said.

No where in that article does it state 6-9 months.

Did you check Newsmax and OANN?

Yep, even Zero-Hedge

[Cono Este]

My god, i do have to do everything

[cspringsposer]

No where in that article does it state 6-9 months.

And dont forget, Rod and Cono, the primary goal was to get Ukraine Leopard 2 tanks, which committing to send Abrams will do. While the Abrams are very effective, the Leopard is intended to be the primary MBT Ukraine will use for upcoming offensives

[Cono Este]

I imagine the Abraham’s are to support the bradley’s. A bradley platoon usually has an m-1 with it. Plus artillery, you got combined arms for big pushes.

[Core Shot]

30 tanks. 3 months. 3 years? Whatever.
What difference does it make anyways?

[MultiVerse]

Welcome to convo, cono. Late to the party but at least you're not arguing main battle tanks are obsolete. Because of their armor tanks provide battlefield mobility. Even though an APC is faster, its armor is too light to protect the crew near the front.

A main battle tank supported/protected by a combination of infantry, artillery, air-defense (and ideally close air support) is used to breach an enemies front lines ahead of a faster penetration force. Tanks are also useful as closer in field artillery and in urban environments.

30 tanks. 3 months. 3 years? Whatever.
What difference does it make anyways?

Each Leopard is equivalent to 2.5-4 Russian tanks, and each Abrams worth 3-5, because of their superior firepower and ability to accurately hit targets while moving fast. Ideally, Ukraine would have 400 Western tanks, but the 250 or so they'll have around May will make a big difference.

[mcphee]

I love sending Abrahams to Europe.

[cspringsposer]

Welcome to convo, cono. Late to the party but at least you're not arguing main battle tanks are obsolete. Because of their armor tanks provide battlefield mobility. Even though an APC is faster, its armor is too light to protect the crew near the front.

A main battle tank supported/protected by a combination of infantry, artillery, air-defense (and ideally close air support) is used to breach an enemies front lines ahead of a faster penetration force. Tanks are also useful as closer in field artillery and in urban environments.

Unless something has changed with new variants, Abrams were definitely faster than a Bradley.

Bradley is fucked in a fight with heavy armor, but it usually has a big brother lurking with sabo rounds to cover it's ass.

[MultiVerse]

Bradley is fucked in a fight with heavy armor.

Doesn't it depend on the targeting capability of Russian armor? During both Iraq invasions Bradleys outperformed Russian T-72 tanks, and Abrams at killing them, b/c of their maneuverability, range, optics, TOW missiles, etc. Crews said its 25mm cannon rounds punched through both hulls of Russian APCs killing infranty using them for cover due to shoddy Russian metallurgy.

[LongShortLong]

This explains

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/0...tanks-00079648

No it doesn't. It retreads the political arguments, excuses, and inertia. It notably does not mention how many M1 tanks we have, nor how many M60s. Nor is there any mention of the battlefield opportunity that exists now before Russia trains a bunch more recruits for the meatgrinder. The longer we drag out this war, the greater the chance for something worse to happen. We built the tanks for this, use them.

[Bunion 2020]

And dont forget, Rod and Cono, the primary goal was to get Ukraine Leopard 2 tanks, which committing to send Abrams will do. While the Abrams are very effective, the Leopard is intended to be the primary MBT Ukraine will use for upcoming offensives

Don't wreck the narrative he is building by watching You-Tube experts.

I love sending Abrahams to Europe.

Maybe throw in some Issac's and a couple of Daniel's and Job's while we are at it.

[Cono Este]

30 tanks. 3 months. 3 years? Whatever.
What difference does it make anyways?

I don’t know man, these Ukranian CPA’s and Veterinarians can make a lot happen with very little. I bet they fix our tanks faster in the field than we do.

[riser4]

Hopefully the Russians get M1A1 suppositories real soon.

[Core Shot]

Hitler had 1,400 tanks invading Normandy.

Montgomery had 400 going after Rommel

But yeah. 30 Abrahams are going to change everything. In the age of satellite views and guided missiles.

Ok boomers. Good luck with that.

[Adolf Allerbush]

Hitler had 1,400 tanks invading Normandy.

Montgomery had 400 going after Rommel

But yeah. 30 Abrahams are going to change everything. In the age of satellite views and guided missiles.

Ok boomers. Good luck with that.

Great logic here. So the Russian tanks are useless as well, if what you state is correct.

[Core Shot]

Great logic here. So the Russian tanks are useless as well, if what you state is correct.

Yes. If we were fighting directly we would satellite and drone and guided missile so easily.
As they will to our 30 abrams.

Tanks are useless in modern warfare if you go high tech scorched earth. I’m an armchair non expert. But this ain’t ww2

[Cisco Kid]

At this stage of the war it is.

[Core Shot]

Why don’t we send some darpa robot dogs to Ukraine?

Those are fucking scary.

[cspringsposer]

Doesn't it depend on the targeting capability of Russian armor? During both Iraq invasions Bradleys outperformed Russian T-72 tanks, and Abrams at killing them, b/c of their maneuverability, range, optics, TOW missiles, etc. Crews said its 25mm cannon rounds punched through both hulls of Russian APCs killing infranty using them for cover due to shoddy Russian metallurgy.

The 25mm and TOW rockets are for use against other APCs and to try to survive an engagement with a tank. No Bradley TC is going to go looking for a fight with a modern MBT, that's what the Abrams and Apache escorts are for.

I'm sure there have been instances when a Bradley took out a T-72, but I would almost guarantee it was out of necessity to survive because the T-72 engaged the Bradley and not because the Bradley was looking for a fight with the T-72.