comment: >
  
  Just get a house.
context: I still believe it comes down to how logistic and production fare on the battlefield rather than firepower and tactics. Sure these tanks would help however russian logistic is still holding.
  Himars made Kherson possible >
  
  Russian logistics are holding (mostly, the lack of quality steel is really hurting them) at the strategic level, but they're struggling at the tactical level. 
  I don't know if it was by design or not, but NATO slow-walking artillery in stages to the Ukrainians has been devastating to Russian supplies. Every time we roll out a new artillery system that increases the range of Ukrainian fire missions, Russia loses a whole mess of ammo and supply depots and is forced to push them even further back. 
  We can't do much about Russia's ability to railroad in supplies from all over their country, even the far reaches in the east, but it's becoming increasingly hard for Russia to move shells from the unloading points to the front line. It's one of several reasons Russia's artillery usage has fallen off heavily. 
  My worry is that Russia is using this as an opportunity to rework their critically worn barrels. I wish we had some more information on that. We had all kinds of stories in late Q3 and early Q4 of 2022 about Russian artillery barrels reaching end-of-life, but very little since. >
  
  Because those reports ultimately turned out to be erroneous or overblown.
  There have been many other “almost” crises for the Russian military reported by the media that have never come to fruition. I think, despite their early and current failures, we are underestimating Russian endurance in this conflict. >
  
  I guess mainly because Russian tactics don’t take their millitary loss of life (and Ukrainien civilians) into account. This has always been typical Russian doctorine. Which is how they won many battles through history. But that was against opponents who had limited supply. Now is a different story. I mean yes the US has the biggest firepower in the world but their logistics is on another level.
  Edit: added “Ukrainien civilians” >
  
  To be honest neither does Ukrainian tactics. 
  There have been many reports of The UAF using anti retreat troops, the same type we criticized Russia for. Ukraine is also sending poorly trained young men into the Bakhmut meat grinder, while many commanders have been urging them to fall back to another line of defense to prevent further loss of life.
  Ukraine is certainly in the “right” in this conflict, but they share the same Soviet mentality that we so decry the Russians for. They are trying to present an image of themselves to us that we will recognize and want to support, which is understandable in their situation, but we need to understand the different between reality and the image they want to portray on the media.
  They are fighting valiantly, but it isn’t the land of western values, heroism, and tolerance many have come to believe it is. It is a former Soviet country  that deals with extensive corruption, and only began attempting to reform very recently. It isn’t a perfect place, and admitting that doesn’t make you “pro Russia,” just realistic. 
  The fact remains Ukraine is dealing with a lot of the same cultural issues Russia is in this war, we just don’t hear about it or want to think about it.
  That said, if you really want to help Ukraine and the Ukrainian people, you have to seek out the information from soldiers on the ground fighting there, not the MoD, and develop an opinion on the situation from there.
  Additionally, with regard to Ukrainian civilians, I is unfortunate that the UAF has put them in more danger than they need to be in. They were advised to use Molotov cocktails against Russian forces, which forfeits their civilian status. Moreover, it has been admitted by many Ukrainian fighters that weapons and equipment is transported regularly in humanitarian aid vehicles, which in turn makes all such vehicles a target. I understand it is a desperate fight, but some of the actions of the UAF have put civilians in additional danger. >
  
  Don't forget about mine fields Ukraine set up in contrast to the treaty they signed in 97 >
  
  Yeah. 
  I understand why they might do that, given the existential crisis they now face, but it is upsetting how resistant people are to acknowledging the fact that they have broken the terms of their own agreement in using a most horrible weapon system.
  We need to call them out, or we risk supporting a horrible regime in the interest of defeating another horrible regime, like the Cold War. 
  We can support Ukraine but condemn their violation of international law. We can support Ukraine but be realistic about the situation on the ground. Not only can we, but we must. >
  
  I am really curious about when they will start using the Bradley's.  Think those will be a real help in blocking the new Ruzzian attacks. >
  
  Not just Bradleys, there are also light tanks like the CV90 that people are overlooking while focusing on the main battle tanks (Leopard, Challenger, Abrams etc.) Ukraine is getting hundreds new IFVs on top of the tanks. >
  
  The Bradleys themselves are scarier than most light tanks. Bradleys scored more confirmed T72 kills during the Gulf War than any other platform by a HUGE margin. They are also incredibly robust and easier to maintain in the field than MBTs which gives them unparalleled versatility. They can also provide their own infantry support unlike most MBT platforms. Bradleys are not a threat to be taken lightly. >
  
  What I find really strange is that we are back to Tanks and Trenches. 
  I remember chatting with my US Mil roommates, and the Airforce dude would always brag AF get the most girls and Army/Marine/Navy guys are just sitting ducks in a future war. 
  And here are Ukraine and Russia reenacting WW1.5. >
  
  Both Ukraine and Russia have militaries with Soviet heritage, meaning that they’re focused more on air defense than air offense. The end result is that neither side is able to deploy their air assets effectively due to large amounts of effective AA 
  You could argue that drones have filled the gap but they are still in a somewhat developmental phase >
  
  Ukraine also doesn't have the advantage of having spent decades developing offensive air platforms and doctrines that can trivialize Soviet air defense. >
  
  For a country Ukraine's size I don't think that would be possible no? >
  
  I don’t think that either Russian or Ukrainian AA would be considered trivial to any country other than the US >
  
  huehuehues in American
  Take that public education and healthcare. We've trivialized air defenses across the world. Who needs smart people when you can bomb other country's smart people? >
  
  We still have smart people making and designing the weapons. I think your logic is off. >
  
  Having some still =! Losing future generations due to education quality decline.
  You provided a false equivalency. >
  
  That’s okay, the US can just steal smart people from other countries. Time for operation paperclip 2 >
  
  Around 5-10% of students in Ivy League schools are international students. Also, maybe try harder to retain those smart people. Plenty come here for education and go back. >
  
  Well, if I recall correctly, Russia wanted to make sure their Western border was "safe", and so needed a "buffer" of land, which is their excuse for invading Ukraine.  Well, now Ukraine will be heavily armed and is apparently difficult to invade, so Russia now has their buffer in the form of a heavily fortified Ukraine to protect them from invading land forces.  Mission accomplished? >
  
  a ukraine that also plans on joining NATO once the war is over, so its an even worse situation. >
  
  
  Kyiv plans to launch a major counteroffensive to recapture swathes of territory taken by Russia in the south and east of the country.
  The United States has told Kyiv to hold off on those plans until Western military assistance has arrived in Ukraine.
  
  So when we look at something like liveuamap.com and see Russia being the only one making gains right now this is why? >
  
  To make "gains" right now you have to be willing to commit large numbers of mostly unsupported infantry into the teeth of a settled defence. This results in massive casualties, but does result in gradual taking of territory.
  Then the ground freezes, and the other side attack with a combined-arms force of tanks, IFVs and supporting infantry and artillery and you lose it all in a week. >
  
  Yeah it's kind of funny that people are calling expending 10,000 soldiers to take a salt mine "gains".
  That sounds like a catastrophic failure to me, but then, I am not Russian. >
  
  That allows Putin to not have to worry about running out of salt for his chips though. Therefore, 10k mobiks is a sacrifice he's willing to make them pay. >
  
  good. can russia now kindly take the hint instead of pursuing the sunken cost fallacy to the bottom of the Mariana trench >
  
  mmmmmmmmmm best I can I do is WWIII >
  
  Pardon my asking. It is known that the US had or still has Abrams mothballed. Thousands supposedly. Because congress kept forcing tanks on the army they didn't need. What's stopping the US from simply dusting them off and sending a sizeable quantity of these tanks over?
  Also, considering how little the number of tanks supporting countries are sending Ukraine, is the military readiness of these countries in question? I know Germany probably doesn't even know how many functional tanks they have but come on, I'd expect that the countries in Europe should priorities military readiness. France for example would have run into deep embarrassment in Libya if the US hadn't stepped up. We must not forget that the only reason why Ukraine seems to have some air behind their sails now is because Joe Biden defeated Trump by less than 70,000 votes across battle ground states. If Trump had won, Europe would have been left on their own to Marshall resources for Ukraine. And we know it is easier to herd cats than it is to get Europe to agree on anything when the US is not in the picture. >
  
  There are a lot of reasons.
  
  
  Abrams are complex machines with specific material and fuel needs. The Ukrainian military needs to have access to these materials and the knowledge to make repairs, so there's a lot of logistics and training involved. Sending thousands of mothballed tanks to a country that doesnt have the tools or knowledge to maintain them, or possibly even store them properly, is not helping. It is a hurtful drain on resources.
  
  
  There's training for the troops to actually use them. Its not a car, you can't just hop in and go. It is full of sensitive electronics and machinery. You have to train the soldiers in addition to the mechanics and electricians. 
  
  
  if you don't have the people trained to maintain and use the Abrams properly then they are sitting in lots and fields somewhere. That takes up maintenance time to keep them in working order, pulling resources from immediate combat needs.
  
  
  It also opens them up to espionage. You don't think Russian agents would be eyeballing a horde of tanks not actively being used? that the russian government wouldn't like details and information on one of the most advanced tanks on earth, specifically designed to counter their own armor?
  
  
  There are genuine diplomatic and security concerns around escalating NATO involvement in the war. The more NATO gets involved the more Russia will feel the need to escalate. Reddit is impatient and wants the war to be over quickly but are way too eager to casually overlook just how much worse things can get if every step of escalation isn't carefully considered.
  
  
  What about domestic politics? Even in the US there's a decent-sized political wing that thinks we're already sending too much. You have to pay attention to that, what kind of leverage they wield, gauge the political risks of a massive escalation of support and do your due political diligence around it. 
  
  
  Reddit loves the idea that we can all just throw hardware at the problem and it will all be over. That we should just throw as much armor support at the Ukraine as possible, as quickly as possible. Nobody ever wants to think about the logistics of doing that, the time and training it takes, the security risks of sending sensitive equipment over that need to be addressed, the diplomatic challenges both international and domestic, or anything of the sort. Every nation sending supplies to the Ukraine is dealing with their own complex web full of unique variables. This is not an easy problem to solve, especially when the country that needs help isn't NATO or EU so there's no diplomatic obligation to do so. >
  
  If Russia didn't have nukes Ukrainians would be cruising in US armor right now. The problems are political, not logistical. >
  
  If russia didn't have nukes, Americans would be cruising through Russia right now >
  
  The sooner the better. >
  
  It's not WW3, it's a special WW Operation >
  
  It's only a World War if it's started by the Germany region of Europe. Otherwise it's just a sparkling military operation. >
  
  Ghost division starts playing in the background >
  
  The "Tank Coalition"?!
  Really? >
  
  That's gonna sting. >
  
  Anybody ever wondered why Dwight Eisenhower never tried to take on and invade Russia. Now we know it's a logistical nightmare covering ground, to enter Russia , and to deal with unstable footing with heavy equipment. >
  
  So, if Russia is kicked out of Ukraine and the war is over (whatever "over" means), will Ukraine more or less be obliged to join NATO? >
  
  Turkey and Hungary will probably say no. >
  
  We should probably just make a new NATO, and not let them in. Particularly Turkey. >
  
  Turkey is only in because of their location and to try and stop them from threatening war with Greece all the time >
  
  That will make an impact and give them some quick feedback about how well they work in Ukraine with today's weather and how well the soldiers handle them. >
  
  Tanks in the modern day just seem like a sort of cost inefficient thing to me. If your $7 million tank can get knocked out by a dude with a handheld missile launcher that fires $20,000 missiles, is it even worth it? 
  Uneducated comment, genuine question. >
  
  Yes and no. 
  You need mobility when you go on the offensive. It might be "cost efficient" to charge with Toyota Pickup trucks, but you might lose 50% of your men. 
  It might be "cost inefficient" to take the same number of tanks and lose 20% of your men. 
  Question comes down to, do you have big enough wallet to slap your enemy and conserve your manpower even when you are losing hundreds of expensive equipments that are worth millions of dollars a piece. >
  
  This whole thread sounds like robots. Why tanks? That's just wwII stuff. Are bots just talking to each other? >
  
  Yeah pretty much >
  
  This war has proven how bad modern Russia weapons are. 
  Before Russia only exported monkey models of their bmps and tanks with even worse optics, equipment, ammo and less armor.  
  The battles of Iraq war isn’t a good comparison because of these monkey models.So we never really had a strong data of their modern weapons, until now. 
  If export versions of nato tanks and armor can easily defeat the non export of Russian vehicles, then oh yeah it’s game over for them >
  
  If NATO flooded Ukraine w/ tanks and F16s 6 months ago, this war would be over already. >
  
  Well maybe NATO wanted this war to happen, who knows🤷‍♂️ >
  
  Please explain. >
  
  Tank you, Ukraine! 💪 It's time to beef up your defense with some heavy artillery. Let's hope these tanks bring some heat to the battlefield and give your enemies something to think about! 🔥🛡️💥 #TankPower >
  
  One thing I'm really confused about: When do people stop calling this the Ukraine-Russia war, and when will they call it the next World War? >
  
  Once another front opens up and brings in another country, not Belarus though. >
  
  140 tanks against 20.000
  Lol >
  
  When put into perspective its like 140tanks against. 20000 trojan horses with spear throwers >
  
  [ELI5:] I'm still confused by what the "expected impact" of more tanks, etc will have on the front lines.  No matter -what- you're shooting with, even slingshots and rocks, you still have to have something to shoot at -- you have to know WHERE your targets are located/hiding.
  Does Ukr actually know this?  Are there groups of Russian soldiers, depots of tanks and trucks, whose location is known but just can't be reached with current weapons??  What changes on the ground when a Challenger or Leopard enters the picture?  How will this "turn the tide" for Ukraine? 
  I fear an excess of optimism here. >
  
  Ukr knows a shit ton. They’re getting absolute top notch intel from the entire west. 
  They don’t have the VOLUME of mechanized combat units to take advantage of it. 
  Sure, they have some HIMARS. Like, 12 or 24. When you’re covering thousands of kilometers of front, with thousands of Russian tanks and artillery, one or two dozen fancy long range rocket artillery aren’t going to turn the tide on their own. 
  It doesn’t matter if I know Russia has a tank depot here, and a battalion of BMP’s here, if I don’t have the hardware to actually go do something about it.
  So you’re asking “do they know where something to shoot at is?” And the answer is absolutely. The question most of the time now is “do we have something appropriate to shoot with right here and now?” And the answer is often, no. >
  
  OK, that's the kind of detailed answer I was hoping for.  Thanks! >
  
  Not a large amount by modern standpoints but when used with combined arms tactics that the Russians STILL lack will be a fantastic force multiplier >
  
  It's a good start, learn to use them and then deliver more of what works. Same with Bradleys. >
  
  Pain Train arriving on platform 1-10 >
  
  Are the easy to learn to pilot and be effective with? >
  
  No yes no >
  
  I just hope when it’s all said and done, they remember all the countries and people, and demographics that came to aid in their hour of need. From what remember, they didn’t give a fk about anyone else till now, when life was good pre-war. >
  
  Seems like a number you'd want to be exact about >
  
  Just about the time when there's nothing left of the country . >
  
  I would not be surprised if a wave of tanks and support vehicles cut their way from Bakmat to Mariupol in order to sever supply routes to half of the Russian war effort as well as creating a profound victory for Ukraine.  I don’t believe Putin would survive that kind of loss. >
  
  I wonder if these numbers are accurate.
  I mean I would always claim to send a much lower number, then send more.
  Eg 
  uk claims to send 24 tanks sends 48 instead woops. >
  
  More arty especially long range is going to starve the Russian front lines. Start hammering railway bridges and crucial crossings. But it doesn’t take a general to see that so I am sure there is more to it. >
  
  Ukraine receives 140 tanks
  Russia: "we have destroyed all 500 tanks sent to Ukraine!" >
  
  Won’t be much of war if NATO gets involved. Russia have struggled to take on one country. They won’t be able to do shit against most of Europe and US. They’ll get bitch slapped back to their frozen shit hole. >
  
  While thousands of Americans are homeless.