>

The Abrams is in a class by itself as a main battle tank. 
The M1 MBT is very thirsty — requiring considerable fuel and logistics that the US pocketbook can afford, but not likely a cost-effective tool for Ukraine.
The Abrams also requires much more mechanical and electronic technology repair training and support than any other tank produced today.
"The leader of Europe" my ass >

The Germans were effectively neutered in '45.  Partially by being occupied by the Soviets and the Western Allies, but mostly by having a lot of young men lying dead between Berlin and Moscow.  
Modern Germany couldn't lead a Girl Scout Troop across a playground.  They're a has-been power like Spain and the Netherlands, whose primary national defense is the United States.  What Germany says carries the weight of a pillow. >

Germany had 4,500 tanks in 1990, with heavy tanks about 2,000. Today there are 220 heavy tanks, half of them defunct. What do you suggest? >

Invest in defense.
The best time to build a modern army was 20 years ago, the second best time is today. >

100 billion Euros are there now, in addition to the 50 billion per year for defense. US companies are jus to raising their export prices.
Ordered Chinooks: 3 billion Dollars, suddenly now 6 billion. How come? 😉 >

Ah, of course it's the US' fault! >

Not fault. US companies are as greedy as always. That is their business model.
And Americans are very touchy to critics. 😉 >

Not as touchy as Germans being asked to meet their NATO spending requirements 😉 >

Only if Germany matches the US commitment 1:1 >

The US has 3.5k M1's in long term storage.
Germany can barely keep its own military funded and running and says it won't be able to meet NATO GDP requirements set in 2014 until 2031.
They're bitches who expect everyone else to pony up but won't do it themselves. >

This isn't about stockpiles or military readiness, it's about political will. Germany is merely being asked to approve Leopard export from allied nations as well as supply a symbolic number of them. In practical terms this is extremely easy to make happen, the only barrier to doing so is cowardice and indecision from German policy makers. >

You are too emotional her, I guess. Couch potato in war topics?
Sending heavy tanks means building up a huge supply and maintenance structure in Ukraine. Even in Germany many of the Leopards are not working for maintenance reasons.
Simple solutions are not always solutions. >

So maybe I am missing something but why is Germany demanding a match. Germany has supplied barely a fraction of military aid compared to the US. Really seems like Germany needs to step it up a bit on the support...Or am I just naive? >

you're being a bit naive because the entire world has only sent a fraction of what the US has sent >

True, but that absolutely shouldn’t be the case. Germany has much more to fear from Russian expansionism in Europe. >

the US spends 3x more on defense than the entire EU combined, they aren't ever gonna be able to match us. >

Yeah. Trumpists (cough cough) were right about one thing: the US needs to stop being the security guard for Europe on US taxpayers’ dime. It’s been 78 years since the end of WWII, and it’s time for Germany (in particular) to stop free-riding on the US security umbrella. >

Or at the least if they could stop crapping on us it'd be nice.