>

Between indicting Donald and now this, I have enough edging for a lifetime
ABRAMS TANKS IN WOODLAND GREEN LETS FUCKING GOOOOO >

Theyve been in a warehouse waiting for a moment like this >

Somewhere in a nondescript office at the National War College, a professor is dusting off classified wargame reports from the 1980s and thinking to himself, "finally". >

Ahhhh yes, the REFORGER battle plans. Many majors died making those things >

Springtime in Hohenfels. >

Oh god...the mud.
Saw an M1A1 there once (was LRS with 3rd ID at the time, would have been around 1988) that had the entire crew standing in the mud just staring at it (I think they were 3rd AD, but it's been a while).  We approached them and asked if they needed a hand.  They had thrown a track, to the inside...well, shit.  So we said we'd help them break track and get it fixed when the driver just laughed and told us we should look at the other side.  Yup, thrown track...to the inside.
Good luck fellla's, we gotta jet. >

Not being a tank enthusiast, I understood absolutely zero of that. ELI5? >

I'm not a tank enthusiast either but I assume that "throwing a track" means that the track came dislodged from the wheels (like a bike chain coming off the gears). Being thrown on the inside means it came off and ended up on the tank side of the wheels, which I assume is much more difficult to fix than if it were on the outside. The outside would mean that it would just be laying on the ground next to the tank. Inside means it's snagged and caught up in all the other moving parts and difficult to access and get a hold of in order to reseat it. Plus it's really heavy. >

My grandad was a quatermaster and used to put old tank treads in the back of his car - they weighed 80 pounds each. >

W… what was he training for? >


The Biden administration is leaning toward sending “a significant number” of M1 Abrams tanks to Ukraine, two U.S. officials said, and an announcement could come as early as this week.
The development comes amid a public standoff with German officials, who are under pressure to send their own Leopard tanks and allow other European countries that operate the German-made vehicles to do so as well.
Last week, Chancellor Olaf Scholz told U.S. lawmakers that Germany would approve the transfer only if the U.S. donated its own tanks first.
The transfer of U.S. tanks would mark a major development in the West’s effort to arm Ukraine. Top Ukrainian officials, including President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, have spent weeks pleading for tanks as Kyiv prepares for fresh Russian offensives in the country’s east.
One of the two U.S. officials said the Biden administration is considering sending 30-50 Abrams tanks.
The Pentagon never took tanks off the table, stressed a third U.S. official, who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the matter ahead of an announcement. But in recent weeks, U.S. officials have publicly cited the difficulties of providing the M1s, the Army’s main battle tank. They have said the Abrams made little operational sense for Ukraine at this moment because they guzzle jet fuel and require long supply lines to maintain.
“The Abrams tank is a very complicated piece of equipment. It’s expensive, it’s hard to train on. It has a jet engine, I think it’s about three gallons to the mile of jet fuel. It is not the easiest system to maintain,” Colin Kahl, the Pentagon’s top policy official, told reporters last week after a trip to Kyiv. “It may or may not be the right system.”
It’s unclear if the United States has struck a deal with Germany linking the transfer of both types of tanks. Poland, which also operates Leopards, officially asked Germany for authorization to transfer the German-made tank to Ukrainian forces on Tuesday.
The developments come after weeks of tense discussions between Washington, Berlin and their European allies. Since Scholz met with U.S. lawmakers last week, the German government has shifted its stance, at one point denying it had linked the transfers of the Abrams and Leopards.
A parade of Democrats and Republicans has pressured the Biden administration to grant Berlin’s request to send U.S. tanks first. “If the Germans continue to say we will only send or release Leopards on the condition that Americans send Abrams, we should send Abrams,” Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), a close Biden ally, told POLITICO a few hours before the Wall Street Journal first broke news of the decision on Tuesday. >

I really hope Germany was making those conditions to pressure the US into also giving Abrams tanks, not primarily to get out of giving/allowing the giving of Leopards. >

most likely also a security play, if Germany sends tanks, they have escalated. But if the USA also does it, it's a unification play and everyone is doing it. >

Is it really though? The only threat Russia poses to NATO are nukes. And if those come flying, it matters not if country sent no tanks to Ukraine or hundreds. >

It’s not for the Russians it’s for the Germans. One of their major parties was essentially pacifist and while they came around to providing weapons to Ukraine they aren’t thrilled about it. Germany is a democracy ignoring a bunch of folks feelings is a great way to lose power, so German politicians have to be cautious about making unilateral moves. The US does it they can sell it as being good global citizens, they send a bunch of tanks on their own it can play out a bunch of ways not all good for the politicians who do it. >

This is simply not true. The German government is currently made up of three parties: social democrats, liberal democrats and greens. While it is true that the greens were very opposed to sending weapons into active warzones in the past, in this case they have been actively pushing to increase military aid and it's been mostly the social democrats opting for a slower pace. >

The Greens have left their peacenik roots behind quite some while ago, Yugoslav wars at the latest ("'never again' means never letting it happen again"). It's not so much that they're opposed to the military or weapons but using them for shenannigans. You'll occasionally hear the term "olive-green" thrown around by left-over peaceniks.
The SPD, well, the SPD... voted to issue war bonds in WWI. But wait that's ancient history, the contemporary issue is not liking to leave the rapprochement legacy behind.
FDP? Well, Rules of Acquisition number 34 and 35. >

TIL Germans are Ferengi? >

FDP are the libertarians basically >

Like I have said from the beginning of the war, this war will be fought until either the Russians are driven out of every inch of pre-2014 Ukraine borders, or until the Ukrainians are driven out of every inch of territory east of the Dnipro River. There are no other conceivable borders where artillery shelling stops, and if shelling never stops, the war will continue.
NATO might as well go all-in at this point. >

Honestly, getting back to the 2014 borders is a big ask.  Russia moved over a million civilians into Crimea over the last 8 years, and just the logistics, not to mention the legal issues, of taking it back without having a continuing conflict for decades is a HUGE problem.  Do you forcibly deport them?  Treat them as refuges?  Impose martial law indefinitely to limit violence? >

I think everyone is massively over-estimating Russia’s commitment to Crimea. Of course Russia wants very much to keep it, even without considering all the issues you brought up about Russia leaving/evacuating from Crimea. However, Russia will not sacrifice its own survival for Crimea. Russia will not cause nuclear war which results in its own demise, for Crimea. And Russia will simply not be able to keep fighting in Ukraine while economic sanctions are slowly but surely pushing it toward economic collapse. Russia moved over a million people into Crimea, so it has the capacity to move them out. In the end, Russia might not have any choice but to give up Crimea. Russia will not die for Crimea >

Russia may not be willing to die for Crimea. But the worry is that Putin would be. >

Putin may have a hard time getting someone to follow orders that will result in mutual destruction. >

Exactly. People generally don’t like the idea of being responsible for the death of themselves and every single person they know. >

Dumb question: can't they haul the equipment in need for maintenance back to the border where they'll be received by western maintenance crews? >

On paper yes, but it wouldn't really be practical. They need regular maintenance, and consistently shipping back and forth would leave them off the battlefield more than on it compared to another tank that can be maintained where it is needed. It also opens the risk that if the means to transport them for maintenance is damaged/destroyed, they all could end up near useless being unable to be maintained then. >

Also it’s hella more expensive to ship it back and forth for maintenance. >

Expensive here means not just money it means:
Time out of service, labour, fuel, opportunity cost on logistics train, lead time for force build up between deployments that exposes them to intelligence analysis etc. >

Nobody thinks of the environment and nature in general when talking about war. I know that all of these are real problems, but also the the amounts of fuel burned, the trees destroyed, the fields burned, and the animals killed in explosions (Russian soldiers probably hurt them for fun too). 
It’s all just such a shame. >

Everyone betting invest into some weapons manufacturers quick because the US and friends will be ready for a new upgrade after they send all their old stuff to Ukraine. >

US already has their next tank. It is an AI enabled, hybrid fueled tank. It can be remotedly operated and run completely silently for a time. Also has a massive advantage in fuel consumption, range, armor, ammo capacity over previous Abrams and has only 3 crew with plans to reduce that to 2. >

It's a little misleading to say we already have the next tank.  The Abrams X is a demonstrator, and the military will have to test it and decide what features they actually want - and whether they want the Abrams X at all.
I don't know anything about this - but the article you link to has quotes from the under secretary of the army indicating that they "don't know what the future tank will be".
But perhaps giving a bunch of this-gen tanks to Ukraine will push them to accelerate the timeline? >

Yes, like the KF-51 Panther, the AbX is just a company prototype. Even if the military likes it, there will probably be a bid time for other entries, as it could be the greatest tank ever made but way to costly as a system. Allowing other participants to bid their models can help correct any crazy high price tags.
They don't normally just select what's available. >

This news made the Russian trolls really angry.  They're swarming this thread with fake concerns like "they use too much fuel" or "they're too expensive to maintain" or other bullshit.  Of course the US is going to provide Ukraine with EVERYTHING it needs to operate the tanks, not just the tanks.  It would be stupid to give Ukraine the tanks without the means to maintain them.  Obviously the US is going to provide that too.  Duh. >

Tbf it's not really a troll take, the logistics requiments are immense and it's also the government's official stance on why we haven't provided any up to this point. The US just had to ensure everything was lined up before they committed to anything publicly. 
On the other hand it's stupid comments like "it doesn't need jet fuel it can literally run on vegetable oil and vodka" that have me dumbfounded. Like, you're begging for Abrams and when you finally get your hands on some you're going to immediately trash them? Dumbest take I've seen here by far.  They absolutely require jet fuel to run optimally, anything less is for immediate emergencies in combat situations. >

A gas turbine will quite happily run on diesel with no modification. >

So we just run them on jet fuel for fun? Yes it'll run on diesel fine for a while, until the carbon deposits foul everything and causes overheating problems. If you don't want massive performance issues down the road you don't want to run it on diesel for too long. >

The engine is literally designed to be multifuel. It'll run on JP, kerosene, diesel, gasoline, ect. >

Multifuel does not mean it doesn't have drawbacks when using the other fuels. They all effect the maintenance schedule >

It's also not an instant death sentence for the equipment. You may lose a couple of hours operating time, but it was designed to reliably function using fuels other than JP. Australia uses diesel as the main fuel for the tank for example. >

It still increases maintenance when using other fuels. >

Seems like  Ukraine can thank Scholz for being stubborn and wanting a NATO move. Now they might get even more (relativly) modern Tanks. >

The only concern now is that they might not have enough tanks and/or trained crews before spring. If they had opened the flood gates earlier, it might have helped. But at this point, I think everyone outside of Russia is just happy the ball is rolling. It should only spur more and more donations of modern MBTs. >

I very much think NATO knows exactly what they are doing and when their deadline is for getting everything ready in time. Do you really think NATO is stupid enough to wait too long so these dont make it?
Its no coincidence these are being sent with a shitton of compatible IFVs and APCs for combined arm warfare. Shit will be ready. >

I feel kinda sorry for the Ukrainian engineers who now have to train up on how to maintain American, French, and German tanks. >

They’re gaining valuable and diverse knowledge and experience, which will ultimately give them expertise and adaptability >

Do those skills include pulling various spare parts from the ass? >

They’re getting a ton of support and being exposed to and trained on a variety of systems gives them an advantage of knowledge that they can use to make parts themselves eventually too >

Sure we'll give 'em.  Easy to say, just like the Germans.  Should have been preparing for this since last February.  How long will it now take to train Ukrainians (though they appear to be quick learners) and get the logistics worked out? >

Logistics is actually relatively easy for Abrams: we have warehouses of them sitting around Europe waiting for cruise to show up and take them out. They've been meticulously maintained by civilian maintenance crews for the last few decades, a relic of that Cold War that never went hot.
Fuel for them is probably in the same depots, as well as spare parts. Bring the majority of the fuel and spare parts to the border with Ukraine, ship the fuel over as required, bring broken tanks back to the border to get fixed up using Western trained maintenance crews who get to use the opportunity for practice. >

That’s what I think would be the best, put it on the border between Poland and Ukraine. That way they get maintenance on them more immediate in Poland because we can use western trained troops. It takes six months to train them on maintenance. They will need those facilities up and running anyway since they are receiving the Abrams as well. Then the Polish and Ukrainians can train on maintenance with Western allies in Poland while they build maintenance yards in Ukraine. >

Anyone that has studied Russian history, knows, only the objective matters. Personnel or other factors are not a consideration >

Just have to keep the meat grinder sharp and fueled long enough for Russia to run out of soldiers to throw into it. >

You have to think the majority of US army’s equipment was literally built to perform against Russia in the Ukraine. Especially the Abrams which was originally designed in 1972 >

Good news everybody! Ukraine is getting some tanks. These new tanks are going to outclass those Russian tanks by a long shot. We’re going to see some turret tosses soon. >

Don’t we build a bunch of tanks that the military specifically says we don’t need every year? If so this should be a non brainer and I wonder why it wasn’t done before. >

Because without training and some plan to support these systems…the abrams is just as likely to be a metal death box as any other vehicle. >

I understand that. Are you telling me they have now been trained so we are sending the tanks?
Nothing you said really explains why we’re just getting to this now. >

Idk. At least a plan is likely in place to close these training/logistical gaps. >

Excellent. Glad my tax dollars will be used to stop a fascist pile of poo. >

This tank talk has all been orchestrated I think. Abrams and associated logistical systems might be on their way already. >

The M1 Abrams was purposely designed for WW3 with Russia.  This is what it was made to do.  
Kill ‘em all. >

Let Abraham Go! >

How many Leopard tanks would be available to be sent? >

Send them I wanna see those puppies in action 💪🏼 >

enlist >

Guys, just think about the future black market after the war ends. >

Hope these tanks are sent right to the Wagner group for some freedom infusions. Go UA, EU and USA. >

My only reservation with this is whether they can maintain them along with all the other DIFFERENT equipment they have.
I have no concerns over sending these somewhere where information can be stolen because they’re already in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, Morocco and Taiwan (which while very friendly to the US I have no doubt they have their fair share of Chinese spies), so if somebody wanted to steal whatever secrets the M1 Abrams has its already gone. >


My only reservation with this is whether they can maintain them along with all the other DIFFERENT equipment they have.

I trust the government dudes in charge that they wouldn't be going through with this unless they were positive they could. >

After the war Ukraine is going to have the highest per capita population of mechanics and supply line logicians in the world haha >

They will also have the world's largest supply of empty absinthe bottles from copeing with 15 diffrent tank models >

The maintenance requirements for these tanks are massive. I really wonder if it's such a good idea sending them over. They'll probably spend more time working on them than actually using them for what they were intended. >

The government guys handling this are experts in logistics, have decades experience on this sort of thing, and possess far more info than armchair Redditors.
If they say it can be done and are finalizing plans, I'd trust their judgment over people online questioning whether or not it's "really such a good idea" to send them over. >

Generally I agree with that, but the government guys have also proved to be terrible at this kind of thing as well. For instance, leaving billions of dollars in military equipment and weapons for the Taliban to take possession of, going to war in Vietnam, going to war in Iraq, I could go on, but I think you get the idea.
We're all armchair redditors here, and questioning government action is always a good idea. >

"Equipment needs tons of maintenance!"
Also you
"But we left billions of military equipment"
It was left there because it was easier to just ditch a tiny fraction of a fraction of the budget, giving them essentially nothing that they'll never be able to use without access to repairs and logistics. >

Two separate quotes from two separate comments talking about two different things.
As far as the "Equipment needs tons of maintenance!" quote goes, that was specific to the M1 Abrams and it's usage to Ukraine. It's not like we drop off a tank and they go to town with it. It requires, fuel, parts, maintenance, ammo, training, all that logistics stuff. Unless they use it until it's killed or breaks, and then that's it. But, I doubt that's what they want. Providing tanks to Ukraine is likely providing a whole package of support.
As far as my other quote from another comment "But we left billions of military equipment" was in reference to Afghanistan. Yes, some of that equipment will work for a bit and be use-able until it breaks, at which point it will be useless to the Taliban. But, a lot of that equipment, like rifles, machine guns, other small arms and such weapons will be used on their own people, or exported else where where they'll end up being used by terrorists organizations. You're partly right saying it was ditched because it was cheaper to do, but that doesn't mean it was a good idea. I don't think there are many people out there that thinks it's a good idea to leave a mass of small arms for a totalitarian government to assume control and use as they wish just because it was the cheaper thing to do. That is what I was trying to point out, that governments don't always make the best decisions. >

You're doing that thing again where you think the people experienced in making calculated risks know less than you. >

Ignoring the logistics is the Abrams superior enough to make them worthwhile? Are we comparing apples to apples or are we comparing chihuahuas to pit bulls? >

The last time Abrams faced off against Russian T-72s en masse they came out on top by a fairly wide margin. >

The T72s in Iraq were a far cry from the T72s current in Ukraine. But I'd still put my money on the Abrams. 
Either way though, more tanks is good. They don't need to square off with T72s, T80s, or T90s even. Just being able to fire in support of troops is enough. There was even a Ukrainian tanker in an interview who said how much having tanks nearby improves troop morale. Just seeing a big rumbling Abrams has value. >


Just seeing a big rumbling Abrams has value.

Abrams don't rumble, they whine... lol
Turbine engines are actually pretty quiet when the tank is coming towards you. >

Lol fair point