WSJ reports US leaning toward providing Abrams tanks to Ukraine

[BabyBoomer50s]

By all accounts, Abrams tanks are not well-suited for the task in Ukraine but if sending some will break the logjam over sending German Leopards there I’m all for it.

WASHINGTON—The Biden administration is leaning toward sending a significant number of Abrams M1 tanks to Ukraine and an announcement of the deliveries could come this week, U.S. officials said.

 

[Rightguide]

It will be a maintenance disaster for Ukraine. There have to be in place extensive maintenance resources in the field to keep the Abrams running. They require a lot of support and I doubt Ukraine can afford it or have the time to put it all in place. Proper maintenance would require the US Army to put our personnel and systems in the field.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

It will be a maintenance disaster for Ukraine. There have to be in place extensive maintenance resources in the field to keep the Abrams running. They require a lot of support and I doubt Ukraine can afford it or have the time to put it all in place. Proper maintenance would require the US Army to put our personnel and systems in the field.

Yes, that seems to be the consensus among US military leaders. It looks the purpose of sending some anyway is more of a diplomatic measure to get other countries to deliver the German Leopards which are believed to be more effective and necessary for this situation. Scholz is dithering which is causing friction among allies as well as many leaders within Germany.

 

[Rightguide]

Yes, that seems to be the consensus among US military leaders. It looks the purpose of sending some anyway is more of a diplomatic measure to get other countries to deliver the German Leopards which are believed to be more effective and necessary for this situation. Scholz is dithering which is causing friction among allies as well as many leaders within Germany.

It doesn't make sense to provide technology that cannot be supported and maintained locally. maintenance on the Abrams requires months of training to gain proficiency and extensive support facilities not found in Ukraine. I'm not sure how safe our technology is in Ukraine against Russian capture either.

 

[ll74]

It doesn't make sense to provide technology that cannot be supported and maintained locally. maintenance on the Abrams requires months of training to gain proficiency and extensive support facilities not found in Ukraine. I'm not sure how safe our technology is in Ukraine against Russian capture either.

Russia can't even maintain their own shit. They certainly aren't going to attempt to add ours.

 

[Rightguide]

Russia can't even maintain their own shit. They certainly aren't going to attempt to add ours.

No, but if captured they could glean more about our technology. They'd love to get their hands on some of the technology we've provided the Ukrainians with.

 

[icanhelp1]

It will be a maintenance disaster for Ukraine. There have to be in place extensive maintenance resources in the field to keep the Abrams running. They require a lot of support and I doubt Ukraine can afford it or have the time to put it all in place. Proper maintenance would require the US Army to put our personnel and systems in the field.

I'd rather give them A-10s. We have a couple of thousand older model M1s in the cal desert, just need to be retrofitted with 120 mil OR SENT AS IS! Dead set against sending A2s or the SEPv3 models.

 

[ll74]

Looks like it's official now

U.S., Germany to send scores of tanks to help Ukraine fight Russian invasion​

 

[ll74]

No, but if captured they could glean more about our technology. They'd love to get their hands on some of the technology we've provided the Ukrainians with.

Of course they would. But they won't

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Of course they would. But they won't

The Abrams tanks have been deployed around the world since the 80s. Hard to imagine the Russians haven’t gotten their hands on more than a few over the years.

 

[ll74]

The Abrams tanks have been deployed around the world since the 80s. Hard to imagine the Russians haven’t gotten their hands on more than a few over the years.

I would guess that to be true. My statement was that they would not get them from Ukraine.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

I would guess that to be true. My statement was that they would not get them from Ukraine.

Understood.

 

[coati]

It will be a maintenance disaster for Ukraine. There have to be in place extensive maintenance resources in the field to keep the Abrams running. They require a lot of support and I doubt Ukraine can afford it or have the time to put it all in place. Proper maintenance would require the US Army to put our personnel and systems in the field.

You're not very bright, are you? If you can't keep up with the complex world of political alliances, go back on one of your extended vacations, or maybe check into a nursing home to get some assistance.

 

[Rightguide]

You're not very bright, are you? If you can't keep up with the complex world of political alliances, go back on one of your extended vacations, or maybe check into a nursing home to get some assistance.

Much smarter than you:

Main battle tanks

The M1 Abrams and the Leopard 2 are both considered "main battle tanks," which signifies that they can play multiple roles on the modern battlefield. Experts told VOA that they are two of only three models of tank that rank as the most advanced in the arsenals of the U.S. and its NATO allies, the other being the British-made Challenger 2.

M1-Abrams, while arguably the most advanced of the three, poses particular maintenance challenges because it is powered by a jet-like turbine engine requiring special fuel and repair skills, whereas the Leopard uses a simpler diesel engine.

https://www.voanews.com/a/nato-s-mo...nge-the-course-of-war-in-ukraine/6932891.html

I'm at a least as smart as top military leaders in the US, ya stupid SOB.

"Asked Friday about sending Abrams tanks to Ukraine, Biden was noncommittal. “Ukraine is going to get all the help they need,” he said.

But both Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley have recommended against sending M1 Abrams tanks to Ukraine, the three U.S. officials said.

Milley and Austin have cited how long it takes to train personnel to operate the tanks and how difficult the tanks are to maintain. They also have argued they are not the right vehicles for the fight in Ukraine right now, according to the officials.

One U.S. official said Austin has argued the training to operate and maintain the tanks would take months, and even though the Ukrainians have proven adept at learning many new platforms, he continues to resist sending the Abrams."

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/na...icials-dont-want-give-ukraine-tanks-rcna66753

 

[icanhelp1]

The Abrams tanks have been deployed around the world since the 80s. Hard to imagine the Russians haven’t gotten their hands on more than a few over the years.

The M1 series tanks are monsters and so aren’t Russian tanks, the training makes the difference. We also have a *fix as close to the battle area* as possible doctrine. Proficiency in maintenance support is just as important as tactical proficiency. Combat tactics, combat support and combat service support all work like a well lubricated machine. Our biggest advantage is the satellite uplink, the ability to communicate from tank to tank, tank to air, inter communication to all commanders within the battle space down to the each tank, M2 and Striker vehicle, all interconnected. Combat vehicles share battle space info so that what one tank has on visual can be shared with all ancillary vehicles, Apache’s, as well as fixed wing assets. I believe the capability exist now for one asset to direct fire from another source (F-35/15s/18s AH64s ect) using satellite uplinks. Russians lack tactical proficiency as was witnessed with bottlenecked convoys where had they went against western military units they would have been destroyed in a mat of days.

The old saying goes ‘train how to fight and fight how you were trained‘. IMHO

 

[Lazaran]

“Right”Guide



The mere announcement / commitment that the US is EVENTUALLY sending the M1 Abrams bolsters NATO , our allies, and Ukraine, (while simultaneously demoralizing Russian forces) and makes the IMMEDIATE deployment of the Leopard II / Challenger II units an easier proposition for our allies.

“Right”Guide

 

[Rightguide]

The M1 series tanks are monsters and so aren’t Russian tanks, the training makes the difference. We also have a *fix as close to the battle area* as possible doctrine. Proficiency in maintenance support is just as important as tactical proficiency. Combat tactics, combat support and combat service support all work like a well lubricated machine. Our biggest advantage is the satellite uplink, the ability to communicate from tank to tank, tank to air, inter communication to all commanders within the battle space down to the each tank, M2 and Striker vehicle, all interconnected. Combat vehicles share battle space info so that what one tank has on visual can be shared with all ancillary vehicles, Apache’s, as well as fixed wing assets. I believe the capability exist now for one asset to direct fire from another source (F-35/15s/18s AH64s ect) using satellite uplinks. Russians lack tactical proficiency as was witnessed with bottlenecked convoys where had they went against western military units they would have been destroyed in a mat of days.

The old saying goes ‘train how to fight and fight how you were trained‘. IMHO

It's quite likely we'll see Leopard tanks along with M2s and Strikers, MRAPS , if our top military leaders get their way. Germans are trying to hold things up demanding Abrams and Leopards be deployed.

 

[icanhelp1]

Much smarter than you:

Main battle tanks

The M1 Abrams and the Leopard 2 are both considered "main battle tanks," which signifies that they can play multiple roles on the modern battlefield. Experts told VOA that they are two of only three models of tank that rank as the most advanced in the arsenals of the U.S. and its NATO allies, the other being the British-made Challenger 2.

M1-Abrams, while arguably the most advanced of the three, poses particular maintenance challenges because it is powered by a jet-like turbine engine requiring special fuel and repair skills, whereas the Leopard uses a simpler diesel engine.

https://www.voanews.com/a/nato-s-mo...nge-the-course-of-war-in-ukraine/6932891.html

I'm at a least as smart as top military leaders in the US, ya stupid SOB.

"Asked Friday about sending Abrams tanks to Ukraine, Biden was noncommittal. “Ukraine is going to get all the help they need,” he said.

But both Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley have recommended against sending M1 Abrams tanks to Ukraine, the three U.S. officials said.

Milley and Austin have cited how long it takes to train personnel to operate the tanks and how difficult the tanks are to maintain. They also have argued they are not the right vehicles for the fight in Ukraine right now, according to the officials.

One U.S. official said Austin has argued the training to operate and maintain the tanks would take months, and even though the Ukrainians have proven adept at learning many new platforms, he continues to resist sending the Abrams."

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/na...icials-dont-want-give-ukraine-tanks-rcna66753

Training to be a cohesive combat unit takes a lot of time. If they’re not used properly they become a big paper weight.

 

[Rightguide]

Training to be a cohesive combat unit takes a lot of time. If they’re not used properly they become a big paper weight.

Very true and Abrams would present significant logistics problems with just fuel alone, but Coati knows better.

 

[icanhelp1]

It's quite likely we'll see Leopard tanks along with M2s and Strikers, MRAPS , if our top military leaders get their way. Germans are trying to hold things up demanding Abrams and Leopards be deployed.

If I remember correctly M2s killed more Iraqi tanks than M1s. And I think about all those MRAPS left in Afghanistan, sad, awesome vehicles.

 

[Rightguide]

If I remember correctly M2s killed more Iraqi tanks than M1s. And I think about all those MRAPS left in Afghanistan, sad, awesome vehicles.

Yep, Biden made sure the Chinese and the Russians would get their hands on those when he abandoned them in Afghanistan. All of our enemies can now bid for them on the Taliban weapons market.

 

[Lazaran]

The Ukrainian forces are already positioning, utilizing, and repositioning Howitzers, and HIMARS, etc.

It isn’t a great leap to believe they can be brought up to speed on the Leopard II in short order (Poland is already training Ukrainian crews), and eventually the Challenger II and M1 Abrams.

The logistics for supplying and maintaining the new equipment will undoubtedly follow the current system that is in effect.

One would also have to imagine that there are more than a few “special operatives” inside Ukraine “assisting” Ukrainian forces in the fight.

RWCJ



Edit: A total of 70 MRAPS were left behind in Afghanistan in various states of operation.

They definitely would be a “game changer” in Ukraine

Not to mention the impracticality of their extraction from Afghanistan at the time.

RWCJ

 

[icanhelp1]

Very true and Abrams would present significant logistics problems with just fuel alone, but Coati knows better.

1s and 2s work best under the air land battle doctrine which includes air superiority.

 

[Rightguide]

1s and 2s work best under the air land battle doctrine which includes air superiority.

I'm not confident that Joe Biden is can keep our troops out of Ukraine as he continues to escalate our involvement. I don't trust him at all to do what is best for America. I believe He's compromised and unknown others are running the White House.

 

[Lazaran]

“Right”Guide keeps the laughs coming.

“Right”Guide



Note to ineedhelp1:

Circumstances don’t need to be optimal to have an effect / be effective.

See: Ukraine’s effective use of HIMARS and Howitzers, etc, minus air superiority.

ineedhelp1