>

I'm not an expert in military equipment, just an interested amateur, but I feel like there must be something that I am missing? 
It seems like all the coverage of Leopards and Abrams that are or aren't being sent to Ukraine has drowned out the news that the USA is sending 50 Bradley IFVs.
I want to give the M1A1 Abrams it's due; by most accounts it's the most advanced tank that exists in any appreciable numbers. But that's also it's biggest downside. Advanced is great, but it's also complex. It requires more crew training, maintenance, and logistics. The jet fuel it runs on isn't magic, it's kerosene with some additives. But kerosene isn't diesel, and it isn't gasoline, and the Abrams needs a lot of it.
The United States has no problem supplying jet fuel to the front line. They have 11 of the worlds 21 aircraft carriers. They have nearly 400 KC-135 Stratotankers in service, a plane that's only combat duty is mid-air refueling of other aircraft, a tanker plane that is being phased out in favor of the pegasus. 400 of one type of tanker plane with little to no armament compared to the 225 active aircraft that the entire Ukrainian military had at the start of the war. Moving jet fuel from point A to point B is almost trivial for the USA, but for Ukraine it's an additional logistical burden on a system that would probably be better off focusing on diesel, gasoline, water, food, and ammo. (And that's just fuel, spare parts and trained mechanics are yet more of a burden.)
Bradley's are by no means simple  but they are simpler than the Abrams, and that means they'll reach the front lines sooner. Given the state of the war, I think there's a significant difference between a capacity that can be deployed weeks sooner than another. 
Abrams also cost about 50% more than a Bradley, factor in logistics and maintenance and you're probably looking at two Bradleys per Abrams. So in terms of bang-for-the-buck, how does the top end tank stack up against the top end "not a tank"?
Both seem pretty badass. If I were on the Russian front lines I certainly wouldn't want to have to face an Abrams, but would I rather face 2 Bradleys? From the other perspective, would I rather ride to the front lines as part of an Abrams crew or in a Bradley? I think the Abrams will do great one on one vs any Russian tank. But the Bradley has a TOW missle launcher, (and they're being sent with 500 TOW missles), the optics on the Bradley can spot the enemy at 1-2 kilometers further that they can be spotted, and if all else fails, the Bradley carries 6-7 troops to the Abram's 0, with enough extra room that they can bring a Javelin or 2, and they seem to be pretty good with those Javalins. The Abrams heavier armor is much better against air strikes, but there doesn't seem to be much use for that in this conflict and the Bradley seems to be on par with the Abrams in most other situations, (and at half the cost.)
As a last point, while the USA has lost a number of Bradleys in combat, their crews generally survived. While the west may or may not continue to supply equipment, they will never supply boots on the ground. If the only thing that the Bradley does is save the lives of 9-10 soldiers, that may be worth it on it's own. Wars require both metal and manpower, Bradleys supply them with one and preserve the other.
While Ukraine could use more of everything, what they need more is those things that are fit to purpose. 
As a crude analogy I offer this: Ukraine probably needs more medical equipment. The most advanced piece of  medical equipment is probably an MRI machine. But for the price of one MRI machine you can probably train, supply and support 100 top-tier combat medics for 6-12 month. Sending M1A1 Abrams tanks seems to me to be as foolish as sending MRI machines. It would help, but it's not the help they need, nor the most efficient way to send help.
Am I way off base? Do I have a blind spot that just doesn't allow me to see what a game changer the Abrams would be?
It says a lot about Russia that these scumbags are getting released after 6 months of not being dumb enough to die, while volunteers and conscripts are having their contracts force renewed. >

They have military experience now.  I bet it’s a matter of time before mobilization. >

Why do you think he left for Turkey >

Estimated Russian losses from 24.02.2022 to 25.01.2023 (Day 336):
It was a good day for Ukraine.  
|Category              |Change*|Total     |
|:---|:---|:---|
|Personnel             |+910      |123080    |
|Tanks                 |+9      |3161      |
|APVs                  |+23     |6307      |
|Artillery             |+6     |2154      |
|MLRS                  |+2      |450       |
|Anti-aircraft Systems |-      |220       |
|Aircraft              |+1      |290       |
|Helicopters           |-      |281       |
|UAVs                  |+5    |1902      |
|Missiles              |-      |749       |
|Warships / Boats      |-      |18        |
|Other Vehicles        |+23      |4967      |
|Special Equipment     |-      |194       |
*Change since the previous day.
Source: The General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine >

Does losses for personnel here mean total casualties including dead, wounded, missing and captured? >

Nope >


Jason Jay Smart
@officejjsmart
·
2h
Putin considering another wave of mobilizations of up to 200,000 people, CNN writes, citing US officials familiar with the intelligence.
The draft would be done “quietly” to not upset the population.
The initial invasion, almost a year ago, included less than 150k troops.

Any creative ideas on how Putin could go about conducting a quiet mobilization? >

Ivan hops onto the train for his morning commute to work. It takes him a little longer than it should to realize he got on the wrong train when he notices the view out of the window is different. He gets up to go ask what's going on when government officials in plain clothes tell him to sit back down. When the train does stop he finds himself at a military training camp. Not soon after, the doors open and the shouting starts. >

There was someone posting here recently from Moscow who did say he heard they were grabbing people in metro stations so you probably aren't far off. >

Lol if you want to know what Russia will do next, just think of what stupid idea would have severe unintended consequences. In this case it's grabbing the people headed to work. Make sure you kill off the people working the blue collar jobs that keep the country running and making the others stop going to work when they realize people are being grabbed on their way to work. >

Narrator, "Kyiv expressed interest" >

🍆 >

Happy birthday Mr President. The worlds gift to you will be one day soon the defeat of Russian pigs >

And maybe a hundred tanks as well! >

Place your bets on how many copies of The Sims 3 will be found next to his body. >

“We overdid it last time, this time sims 2” >

Nah, they only do that for foreigners.
This will be a case of shooting himself three times in the back of the head and then jumping out of a window.
If anyone has any concerns call lifeline. >

It has to look like Ukraine did it, they'll plant that one byraktar wreck they have next to his body. >

Nah, Russians think killing their own makes them look strong.
Even if Ukraine did kill him, there is no way the Russians would give them the credit. >

Wonder if it was just to knock out command structure or if it was an Intel grab too" >

Both, as reported by GUR. russians thought that it was a full on assault and have sent aviation and other reinforcements, enabling Ukraine to get their counts and other info >

“I’ve got the moves like Jaga.” >

Russia: We don't care if you send tanks...it means nothing to us.
Germany sends tanks
Russia:  REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE >

Why do they have their own cemetery? >

I'd guess a lot of them, being convicted criminals, are not wanted in their family or town graves >

Also captured one soldier as well >

Donate directly to the Ukrainian government (for defence, medical aid, rebuilding efforts) via United24
Or look into other ways to help >

"Russia has worked to prepare a small number of T-14 Armata main battle tanks for the type’s first operational deployment in Ukraine. However, in recent months, deployed Russian forces were reluctant to accept the first tranche of T-14 allocated to them because the vehicles were in such poor condition. It is unclear exactly what aspects of the vehicles prompted this reaction, but within the last three years, Russian officials have publicly described problems with the T-14’s engine and thermal imaging systems."
Russia is just a big Siberian paper tiger. The T-14 was supposed to be the most technically  advanced mbt, not usable in combat though...
Source: UK ministry of defence >

(my opinion on Armata)
T-14 is a tank designed for parades, not for combat. Whatever can be seen is perfect and pristine; whatever is inside, or even not used for parades and demonstrations either works half the time, or doesn't work, or is not present at all. >

Any basis for the opinion? >

This entire shitshow? >

Fair enough I guess the tanks just seem to be fine from what we know of them except that very few of them are thought to exist.
So I was wondering if there was a source on the comment or some basis or such. >

I want to drive to work in a Leopard Tank… >

Your patients would shit their pants! Lol >

So I just watched another video on the YouTube channel 1420. There the term Russophobia came up again and the term just irks me. In what world do some Russians live that they think they are entitled to frame the justified fear of citizens of their neighboring countries as irrational? Have they seen how Grozny looked once Putin was done with it? Aleppo? Mariupol? Did they go house to house in Bucha offering warm chocolate cookies, or were they committing war crimes after war crimes there? I currently live in Italy for some months and got to know some Poles that work here. Older ones. They got some stories about our Russian friends, I can tell you, and it is not good. The other day I saw an article about a girl from Kazakhstan making bulletproof vests for Ukraine as she was convinced her country is possibly next. The fear these people from neighboring countries have is not irrational, but build up through experience and confirmed by current events. Framing the negative perception of neighboring countries of Russia as a phobia is just a way to not have to look at their own behavior and make amends for it. It is just a way to continue your abusive behavior, by making others feel like there is something wrong with them, not with the crazy aggression of their country. That is just another bullying tactic. It also makes Russia bigger than it is. As if people would care a shit about Russia if it was not threatening them. The country is basically a gas station run by mobsters these days. I don’t think I use a single product or service from Russia (outside of fossil fuel that my country still imports, maybe? idk), meaning that if Russia would quit their war crimes and daily threats of nuking the west, I would simply not have a single thought about them. Russia would not be important enough to have strong emotions about. >

It becomes more infuriating when you realize they're not upset that you disapprove of them, that's not it. They're furious you don't respect them and their innate right to behave like this in an unchallenged manner.
Russiaphobia is the equivalent of an abusive father feeling entitled to never having to justify his abhorrent and arbitrary behavior -- I am dad, that means I can smack you when I want.
Telling Russia that's bullshit and we'll fight it is Russiaphobia. >

This is such a good and insightful additional comment. I had not even considered it from this angle. Thank you. >

You have to add Poles into that mix. Seriously - I saw in my job what Ukrainian-Polish team can do when project went sideways, 8 weeks run time was reduced to 4 days due to RU customs screwing up with hardware prototypes (not kidding). How the heck they pulled it off - no idea. I know that at the end of day 4 I had all deliverables in front of me and I was presenting them to the customer. >

That's the E4 Mafia working at its best. >

I'm sure Russia's new strategy of deploying Ghosts, Hunters, and Phantoms to the battlefield will in no way be impeded by recent announcements. >

Proton Packs with unlicensed nuclear accelerators in the next arms package. >

Don't cross the streams! >

Just finished the new Frontline about Putin bamboozling Bush, Obama, and Trump. Old man Biden really was that guy and Putin played his hand disastrously. At best Russia will have burned itself down for a few thousand square kilometers of Ukraine >

Joe Biden, when he was a 30 year old freshman Senator, jumped straight in to the nuclear-arms reduction talks with the USSR as one of his primary focuses. Joe was going toe-to-toe with frickin’ Brezhnev in frickin’ 1974. Joe has been butting heads with Russians for almost 50 years. He defines old cold-warrior. >

As well as being on the foreign relations committee for decades with access to us intelligence >

Times like these I'm REALLY fucking glad he's President. He actually knows what to do and how to do it. >

Yep, he was there when the textbook was written. Guys like Blinken are quite literally the best there is. >

Russians see life as zero-sum. So they see the deaths as “would otherwise be me” and rationalise it that way.
It’s abhorrent >

too much money in the London financiary system ? >

Hasn't Stopped us arming and training Ukrainian forces. >

You can want Russia to lose and still accept their money. >

So almost a year to get tanks and Patriots, what is the next step up? F-16’s? >

I don't think there's anything else (apart from helicopters, i.e. Apache), at least for near-mid term. Navy is in co-operation with Turkey and the UK.
I guess, after aircraft the focus would shift to sustainment, maintenance and NATO integration >

I don't know that I see them getting Apaches any time soon. Ukraine would need complete air superiority and very good suppression of enemy air defenses to use them, and that's not going to be very easy for them. Even Russia couldn't do it at the start of the war. I think Ukraine would need to be much closer to NATO levels of superiority to make it work.
I know they're using the Russian equivalents but seeing Apaches getting swatted out of the sky isn't something the supplying country would want.
Their levels of control are better than they were, and if they can do it then I'm all for it, but it's not clear they can do it now. >

With drones and precision Arty I'm curious what roles attack heilos will find themselves in at this rate >

They'll still be relevant. Drones have a very limited payload and cannot provide direct fire support all too well. They're better for intentional strikes/minor loitering support rather than prolonged fire missions. Artillery, for all thats its worth, is cumbersome and needs to be setup/guided in order for it to work well.
With a helicopter (Apache), you have access to a 30mm chaingun and rockets that can wipe out hostile emplacements with precision due to its human crew, and it can communicate with forces on the ground much more efficiently than other platforms. Plus, it can easily relocate wherever the hell it wants to go.
Basically, drones are your always available fire support, especially with stealth technology, but they're only got a few good punches in them. Planes carry the really heavy shit, but have to setup for runs. Helicopters can just sit there and fuck people up, or they can fly low and act like pseudo-airplanes for a fraction of the cost. Thats the real strength of helicopters, their adaptability. >

and zero heavy armor at range. >

Day CCCXXXVI, Part I.  Thread CDLXXVII. >

So what caused the tanks to be sent now? I wonder what the impetus was to finally crack the floodgates. >

It probably was only a matter of time. I think first Western allies wanted significant AA in place first to protect troop concentrations and high value assets. Now that's in place it's safer to bring in significant new assets. I think the next step will be fighter jets. It will take combined arms to force Russia out. >

It is actually quite shocking that Russia seems incapable of combined arms tactics. Like, this is the 21st century, and they're relying on human-wave strategy. How is that even possible? >

Because it's not a professionalism and military tradition based meritocratic army, it's purely a loyalty based one, so all the command structure literally doesn't know shit about warfare. >

Obligatory Fuck Putin >

Fuck Putin! >

Remember those articles saying how the West is running out of ammunition?
Yeah, lol. >

Remember when all of Europe would freeze and starve due to Putins genius move to cut energy supplies to them? >

They even took time to make those funny videos with families eating pets and having their windows covered with blankets, and all that fiction.
They really went all in on the idea Europe will freeze, they had to make sure we understand that.
Sure, likely it was mostly done for their internal consumption, but still, the Kremlin decided we would freeze.
What's that? The price of gas is lower than pre-war values? Whoops! >

Maybe be so the greed price gouging is still here though