comment: >
  
  But why I keep reading the same announcements over and over again while nobody delivers?
  Can someone finally deliver those tanks to Ukraine, please?
  Forgive me my ignorance, but is it so hard to send tanks to Ukraine?
context: Western tanks will outclass & outgun anything the Russians can put up against them.. >
  
  They will most definitely perform well but they are not invincible. They have stellar records but there’s a big difference between going up against flimsy Iraqi T-72 exports with undertrained crews in the open desert and going up against the Russian army in the mud and snows of Ukraine without the benefit of total air supremacy. 
  Don’t want to be all doom and gloom, they are good tanks and will do well. But we shouldn’t be overconfident and be fully prepared to see Challengers, Abrams and Leopards be taken out at some point and not let it shock and demoralise us. >
  
  Of course they're not invulnerable, put enough explosive ordnance on any tank and it will be lost.
  ..but the Western MBTs have far superior optics, targeting and gun range & most crucially armour protection. It will be very,very difficult for a Russian tank to take out a Challenger/Leopard in a tank on tank encounter.
  And the Ukrainians manning them will have a far,far better chance of survival/escape from the tank than anything they're using now if they're hit by another tank or a anti tank missile/RPG. Catastrophic instant 'cook offs' like we've seen with so many Russian tanks, would be very unlikely, given the 'blow out' panels and separate ammo storage in Western tanks, designed to stop such a thing from happening.
  Losing the tank but saving the crew to fight another day is a top priority in a war of attrition like we're seeing.
  ..and I've no doubt the Russians will be super eager to secure their first 'kill' of a Challenger, Leopard or any other NATO tank, if for no other reason than the propaganda value. >
  
  These tanks will be a big priority for homing artillery rounds and Russians still have some small stocks left
  Western tanks can deal with Russian MBTs but a hit from a 152mm round has a real chance to knock out any tank. And unlike Western artillery, these tanks will have to get well within range of the enemy artillery.
  They are going to do well, but their impact will be limited until Ukraine gets 100+ more. >
  
  
  They are going to do well, but their impact will be limited until Ukraine gets 100+ more.
  
  I'd argue that throwing numbers here is the wrong play. The Russian play, if you will.
  We would do much better to help Ukraine achieve air superiority and use MBTs for their intended purpose, rather than throwing hundreds of MBTs to solve a problem they weren't designed to solve.
  The US has been training Ukrainian pilots to fly US jets since July (maybe November?) That will be the real game changer. >
  
  Ideally we would do all of those things. It's not like the US doesn't have the inventory lying around. >
  
  Maybe. But given how well Ukrainian soldiers have handled the land war so far, I would hate to be Russia when the first NATO jets do start arriving. I don’t think there will be much left of Russias invasion force after that. >
  
  Tbh, yes. >
  
  Can anyone help me understand, from a tactical point of view, why tanks are so valuable? I mean, I thought they were pretty vulnerable and outdated with drones and artillery in the mix, the tanks themselves having a relatively short range. It feels like the trouble of protecting one is not worth it, but I'm probably missing the point of tanks. Don't you need ground and air protection to go along with it? >
  
  Infantry conquers and holds territory.  Boots on the ground.
  Look at war status maps.  They show the locations where armies hold sway.
  Not drones or planes or missiles or other remote operators. 
  Tanks can potentially lead break-thrus of enemy lines, when protected by infantry, and with combined arms artillery and planes.  With logistics.
  Anti-tank man-portable weapons have made the individual soldier more powerful.  However the classics remain important. >
  
  Western protable anti-tank weapons* - the Russian counterpatrs doesnt match the nlaws and gustafs of the world >
  
  True for now.
  With time, western anti-tank technology nlaws and gustafs will leak into Russia's factories.
  Classified info, Patents and trade secrets should be used.  Just don't be surprised when important or lucrative technology eventually spreads into the world.
  The trick is to keep advancing, be at the fore front. >
  
  Battle doctrine matter more than equipment. Nike's don't magically make kids into Micheal Jordan, but Jordan wearing better gear helps he be a better Micheal Jordan.
  Ukrainian soldiers have better moral and cause worth fighting for, but wars grow longer morale drops. Western tanks, can help that moral and fill in gaps caused by battle losses.
  At the end of the day though, Ukraine is going to have the most complex logistics network to support all this. And logistics wise western tanks need more intensive work shops to repair and refurbish. Easy for western nations, difficult for Ukraine. Soviet tank designs were more field maintenance friendly iirc, but it could just be internalize propoganda. >
  
  Yes I've been wondering about all the logistics of this. British tanks will need their own unique supplies, repair vehicle etc, then throw in Leopard tanks needing their own unique supplies, added to existing Soviet tanks needing their own supplies. I guess western military logistic capabilities and systems will help enormously just to manage all of this. >
  
  That’s part of the issue, not just for tanks. All the donations coming from different countries, ranging from Soviet era stuff to modern weaponry, requires specific training and maintenance. Very fragmented and it must be a logistic nightmare on the ground. I guess Ukraine would rather have the tanks (and the associated maintenance headache) than nothing at all… >
  
  Can someone eli5 why we still haven't sent the god damn tanks yet? >
  
  They've been working behind the scenes for months to set up logistics for tank repairs, crew training, ammunition supply lines, etc in addition to all the red tape and politics involved with handing over some of their biggest weapons for free to a country without a military alliance in place. It should have gone faster but it's not as easy as just sending over some tanks >
  
  Yeah, you’re pretty right on. Except nothing is for free! Trust me, somebody will pay for it. >
  
  Yup, Ukrainians are paying with their lives. >
  
  We could send 10,000 Toyotas as support for these tanks and start another Toyota war.
  In the summer time, on the flat ground of Eastern Ukraine, thousands of new light trucks with guns accompanied by a few tanks would be terrifying. >
  
  Eh, won't work here. As much as the Russians suck, they aren't as bad as the Libyans. The Chadians requested those specifically because it fit their style of warfare and their relative lack of experience in doing maintenance with heavy armor. Ukraine needs a lot more though, plus they're already comfortable with using heavy armor themselves.