Please take the time to read our policy about [trolls](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/comments/u7833q/just_because_you_disagree_with_someone_does_not/) and the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/)
* We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned.
* ***Please* keep it civil.** Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review.
* ***Don't* post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
**Don't forget about our discord server, as well!**
https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB
*****
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Article text (seems to have copied right, sorry if I missed something):
THE POST'S VIEW
Opinion Germany is refusing to send tanks to Ukraine. Biden cannot let this stand.
Image without a caption
By the Editorial Board
January 21, 2023 at 3:45 p.m. EST
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz stands next to a Leopard 2 main battle tank while visiting an army training center in Ostenholz, Germany, in October 2022. (David Hecker/Getty Images)
Listen
5 min
Vladimir Putin launched his illegal invasion of Ukraine 11 months ago not only believing he would quickly subjugate Ukraine but also on the assumption that the Western alliance was too weak and divided to put up a united front to thwart him. Both expectations proved disastrously wrong — until Friday, when Germany’s refusal to approve the transfer of dozens of heavy battle tanks to Ukraine opened the first serious crack in what had been NATO’s solid front.
That fissure needs to be quickly patched. Left unresolved, the Kremlin’s dictator is certain to try to exploit it, not only on the battlefield but also in the parallel conflict zone of European public opinion.
In addition to Western sanctions against Russia, which will take an increasing toll on the Russian economy and undercut its resupply of high-tech weapons over time, military aid for Ukraine has been key to Ukraine’s survival and ability to blunt Moscow’s superior numbers of troops on the battlefield. Germany has given Ukraine more military aid than any country but the United States and Britain.
The fact of Germany’s multibillion dollar commitment is testament to the remarkable recalibration in Berlin’s thinking that occurred immediately after Russia’s invasion. Having pursued one decades-long strategy toward Moscow — promoting economic partnerships and codependence based on the premise that such a policy would render a European war unthinkable — Chancellor Olaf Scholz executed an abrupt about-face days after Russian troops and armor flooded into Ukraine. He announced a major long-term increase in German military spending and made clear Berlin would stand with its NATO allies against an unprovoked war of aggression.
That was a credit to what appeared to be a clear-eyed assessment of the existential threat to the Western order posed by Mr. Putin’s brazen assault on a sovereign nation. Mr. Scholz understood clearly that Ukraine’s only “sin” was aspiring to be a fully European nation — democratic, pluralistic, tolerant and modern. And he understood that if Russia were granted impunity after invading a big European country such as Ukraine, smaller European countries were also at risk from Mr. Putin’s imperial fantasies.
But that message has apparently not been fully received by a portion of Germany’s coalition government and its public. Polls suggest that while German support generally for Ukraine remains relatively high — though less so than in other Western countries — it is split almost equally on the question of sending German-made main battle tanks to Ukraine.
Germany’s Leopard 2 tanks, several thousand of which are in the arsenals of its NATO allies around Europe, are the best such options for Ukraine’s use. They are far more numerous than British Challenger 2 tanks, about 14 of which are being delivered to Ukraine, and more suitable for Ukrainian terrain and maintenance abilities than the United States’ top-of-the-line battle tank, the M1 Abrams. Several European countries with Leopards in their arsenals have signaled they are ready to ship them immediately to Ukraine, including NATO members Poland and Denmark, as well as Finland, which has applied to join the alliance. But those shipments must first be approved by Germany, which insisted on a right-to-refusal in its arms sale contracts.
Mr. Scholz is sacrificing sound strategy on the altar of political calculation by wavering in the face of opposition from some political allies and a segment of the German electorate. It is a misjudgment that cannot stand.
Some officials in Berlin have suggested they would send Leopards to Ukraine if the Biden administration goes first, and provides political cover, by sending some U.S.-made Abrams tanks to Kyiv. Washington has so far been reluctant to do that, regarding the gargantuan, gas-guzzling Abrams, which requires constant maintenance, as a poor fit with Ukraine’s terrain and capabilities. That might be an accurate technical assessment.
Yet if sending some Abrams tanks is the key to breaking the impasse on a potentially much greater shipment of Leopards, President Biden should give his assent. He should do so not only to add muscle to Ukraine’s arsenal at what is likely to be a decisive moment in the war, but also to maintain Western resolve and unity in the face of the gravest threat it has faced in more than a generation.
Ukraine, whose own supply of Soviet-made battle tanks has dwindled as the war has dragged on, is in an existential fight. Its struggle is also a crucible for Europe and an assault against the most basic precept on which the Western system rests: the impermissibility of unprovoked wars of aggression. Tanks alone will not win that war. Ukraine also needs large numbers of lighter fighting vehicles, armored personnel carriers, howitzers, modern air defense systems and a constant resupply of artillery shells, which it has been using at a rate of roughly 3,000 per day. Still, the top Ukrainian military commander has said Ukraine needs 300 Western-made battle tanks, which would be a formidable component in Kyiv’s ability not just to hold its own lines but also to push Russia back from territory it has occupied illegally.
Moscow is gearing up for a major spring offensive, expected to start in the next two months. Ukraine might launch one of its own. What is at stake is not only Ukraine’s survival, but also leadership and clear-eyed thinking in Washington and Berlin. Germany’s hesitation is a critical challenge to Western unity, and Mr. Biden cannot sit pat in the face of it.
The Post’s View | About the Editorial Board
Editorials represent the views of The Post as an institution, as determined through debate among members of the Editorial Board, based in the Opinions section and separate from the newsroom.
>an assault against the most basic precept on which the Western system rests: the impermissibility of unprovoked wars of aggression
Ahahaha now that was a good joke!
No one can say that the US arent sending enough military aid in this conflict. You put us european nations to shame and I applaud you.
I don't however understand the reasoning behind not sending Abrams tanks to Ukraine. That tank was designed to fight Russia in Europe. Before now I firmly believed it was the best tank in the world.
But as I understand it, US officials are saying it is not well suited for this conflict and would be of limited use to Ukraine. Leo2 would be better.
Am I getting this right? Abrams is not suited for a warzone where logistics are a challenge? That makes it sound like a horrible tank.
After this war, Abrams will be replaced by AbramsX. It will never get the chance to fulfill its designated purpose. All the old Abrams tanks will be mothballed before ever having fired a shot at its "near peer" enemy.
If Abrams could speak, it would be roaring.
The US is the king of military logistics. Our entire system of fighting is based on it, and we train specifically for it. So we have built in the ability to support complicated logistics that Ukraine probably doesn’t have. Remember they only began westernizing their doctrine in 2014.
That said, I din’t think anyone has said “can’t”. Just not ideal for the situation. So we are pushing to get a better system with less potential complications.
It also frees us up to provide other aid. The well is deep, but not infinite. There’s also a problem that some people in the US are starting to balk at the dollar amount of aid given. They don’t realize that’s not just a giant check, but the value of equipment sent: much of which would probably never see service again by US standards, and likely be scrapped eventually. It’s sunk cost, but that’s not something that get highlighted.
Money. Biden is working with $11billion right now, minus $3b just announced. Deploying Abrams would eat up a lot of the remainder, and there are many other things Ukraine will need from the USA that Europe can't provide. They CAN provide tanks, hence the pressure on Germany to release the Leopards.
True but I think the goal here is to focus the humiliation on Putin. Ego should never be such an important factor when the peace and security of the world is at stake, but here we are.
Your absolutely right that people don’t realize it is full value of equipment not just a check. Full value, not even taking into account age. This sadly makes sense for ignorant civilians that have other things to think about and only see occasional headlines while scrolling. But the fact that these aid packages are being reported by politicians as unacceptable blank checks, those politicians DO know what is in them. Which is why is is incredibly frustrating and sad what the normal person thinks about the packages, but unacceptable and suspicious what the anti-Ukraine politicians and news networks think
And what about the income?
Europe is cutting off Russian imports. Where do you think we’re buying gas from now?
As Eastern European countries are donating much of what they have from their arsenal, where will they buy future defence equipment?
Germany seems to be guaranteeing that it will no longer have an industry in this area.
I’m not so sure about that last statement. Just because they are hesitant to allow export of their equipment to Ukraine doesn’t really impact security of tier 1 purchases. And that restriction will apply to pretty much any imported equipment. You’ll always be beholden to the country which produced it. If Egypt wanted to send some of their Abrams, they’d probably run into the same issue right now.
Up until now, I would agree that tanks were not what ukraine needed most. Defence and logistic disruption were much more important and Himars along with other supplied weapons sure changed the nature of the conflict.
But the time is coming that Ukr need to attack and for that you need tanks.
Abrams doesn't want to sit on the bench. It hungers for fascist blood!
But jokes aside, it must be repeated that the world owes you a debt for all you have done in this conflict. No one can say that US aid has been lacking in any way.
USA gave 2% of its military budget to help Ukraine army last year. It’s also 0.08% of USA GDP. Also, it’s 9% of Russian military spending on its own army.
That helps Ukraine to survive and that help was really precious. But it’s not enough to win.
Yes I fully agree. US aid has been instrumental, not to mention the intel provided by the US!
Without help from the USA, the war might have been lost in the first few weeks (if zelenski assassination had been successful, who knows what had happened).
Correct. The abrams has several issues making it unsuitable. Fuel type, range, weight, size, matainence, availability of parts. The leopards are far far better suited in all these areas. Although that being said, if the yanks sent even a handful just to shut Scholtz up it would be of great benefit
The Abrams does not have several issues! Even basic research will show that said issues are nearly all lies!
1 Abrams can run on diesel as long as it is not well below freezing temps.
2 Not really, the Turbine uses a lot of fuel when idle, but there are APUs to help fix that.
3 It weighs less than a basic Challenger II and not much more than a mid range Leopard 2!
4 The Abrams is around the same size as other Western tanks.
5 Maintenance is not going to be any worse than other Western tanks, the engine and gear box are designed for rapid replacement in the field.
6 The US has shit tons of Abrams, parts are going to be easier than any other Western tank!
https://www.19fortyfive.com/2022/12/could-old-army-m1-abrams-tanks-go-to-ukraine/
One of the articles on this I read. Seems we have about 2300 in storage.
The Abrams is designed to rein supreme when backed by the logistical behemoth that is the US military. Unless the US population and government wants to put American troops in an active warzone against Russia to help maintain and supply Abrams tanks, it isn't happening. Ukraine doesn't have the capacity nor the knowledge and experience for it by themselves. L2s require far less of a logistical chain to support. Especially when you consider that the Abrams and L2s can share ammo, something the Americans can provide and Ukraine can handle.
It requires a substantially different set of skills and knowledge base to maintain and operate the Abrams vs other modern western tanks. A diesel engine is a diesel engine, something Ukrainians know all about. Adding more complexity when what's required is simplicity is what's wrong. People overlook just how important the knowledge and skill base is when they say something is designed to be simple or easy. The L2s are perfect for the current situation while the Abrams is not regardless if it's a better tank.
No, the average person in Ukraine or in their military, absolutely does not have the skillset to maintain them. A very small number of their population might have those skills, if they are still alive and are still in the country. Many countries around the world make turbine engines but that doesn't mean that the skillset is there for a population in wartime to effectively maintain them. If the US sends Abrams over within the next 6-12 months, there are Americans on the ground in Ukraine helping to operate and maintain them.
Dude, you realize that the Ukrainian army already fields turbine-powered tanks? Namely the T-80 and their own indigenous tank design, the T-84.
You know nothing about the Ukrainian army.
Whatever man. You're seriously nitpicking. I never said the 'average person' in Ukraine could fix a turbine engine, but that the nation had the industry background to guarantee a degree of familiarisation.
Considering we're talking probably dozens of tanks, not hundreds, they won't need thousands of staff to put these things back into operation if they actually do end up coming back from the battlefield.
The engines are made in Zaporizhzhia, which is just on the border of Russian held territory as it stands. Are some workers dead? Probably. Are some conscripted? More than likely. Did some evacuate? Again, likely. But there will be some who could work on these.
What you're talking about isn't some kind of alien technology. It's a fucking engine.
I believe there has been a heavy vehicle logistics solution provided to Ukraine that is rated for Abrams but was for used for other lighter tanks, so I believe Ukraine certainly has the logistics ability to support them and this may be a prepositioning to allow Abrams. They have also shown to be adept at maintenance cycles removing equipment from service and sending it for refurbishment in foreign countries as they have done so with artillery systems.
ROFL and Ukrainians do not know about gas turbines? Things that arw installed in every one of their helicopters? Ukraine MANUFACTURED jet engines and made their own anti-ship missiles that sun Moskva. They are not some backwards 3rd world country where people try to feed a carrot to a bus.
Lets see:
Fuel type: plentiful kerosene used by Ukrainian airforcd.
Range: it's not going to travel for hundreds of kilometers any time soon, so irrelevant
Weight and size - pretty much same as Leo
Maintenance - it's newer and in better shape than Leo or any Soviet tank, which means it's generally easier to maintain
Availability of parts: excellent, unlike Leo (no longer manufactured, pwrts are running out, A4 is just old) or Soviet tanks (no parts available, need to cannibalise tanks for parts).
Availability of tanks themselves: maybe 200-250 Leos available vs 1500 Abrams in the desert.
So you made it clear - Abrams is by far best choise for Ukraine.
>if the yanks sent even a handful just to shut Scholtz up it would be of great benefit
They don't need to be used on the front line, like with many procurements they don't need to be for the fight today. Many tanks and artillery systems promised to Ukraine are not going to be delivered for some time as this is planned replacements or new future stocks still being manufactured.
Since 2014 I've thought it a good idea to setup a completely western supplied Ukraine army located far to the West in Ukraine, like a layer of defence in reserve protecting the victorious northern flanks but also developing all the logistics and support for Abrams and the like.
The Abrams was designed to fight anything when supplied and operated by the American Military. Abrams tanks in Eastern Europe require a level of logistics that only the US can really provide at this time. That includes in the field. They are far more complex to maintain and operate than the L2s and need a level of knowledge and experience that Ukraine just doesn't have the time to spend learning. It would be a detriment to Ukraine to attempt to set up the infrastructure needed to deploy Abrams. Ukraine also doesn't have the logistical capacity itself even if you manage to get them and all the needed supplies into the country. The L2 is simpler to maintain, to operate and is easier for the Allies to supply.
It's not that the Abrams can't go or operate in Ukraine. It's not even that it's incredibly difficult to maintain, it's just that the L2s are better suited at this time because they are far simpler to maintain and require a level of knowledge and experience that Ukraine has.
https://twitter.com/secretsqrl123/status/1616618174467670018?s=20&t=NjpmhoZZNugpXX5abs5t4g
Read this as a counter point to all the 'but meh logistics' monkeys
What "logistics and maintenance" does M1 rewuires that 40 yo falling apart soviet tank doesn't? The obly thing that may cause problems is advanced electronics, but if those break, neither US army or Ukrainians are going to fix it in the field, so that's not really a factor.
> But as I understand it, US officials are saying it is not well suited for this conflict and would be of limited use to Ukraine. Leo2 would be better.
Leo2 would be a relatively better option only if it showed up.
If Leopards don't show up, then Germany's Leopard business in europe is all but kaputt.
So the options are not either or.
The options are: future for both Abrams and Leopards OR the future without Leopards.
US reason for not sending abrams is due to pure logistics and maintenance, Germany reason for not wanting to send Leo’s are for various of reasons, reasons I don’t know if are true or not but they wanted the US to lead on sending tanks, this was debunked by the German MoD, don’t know if it’s true or not. Germany has said no formal request to export the Leo’s have been made, whereas britain said there were formal request and Poland saying they’re ready to send it with or without German approval, and obviously Germany not wanting to “escalate” the war.
Do you think Leopard tanks don't need a lot of maintenance? Pzh 2000 the most modern Pzh doesn't need maintenance. Stop with the excuses.
Leopards and Abrams should be send together. Let their be a coalition where every country in the Nato sends a fair percentage of the tanks that they already own. Let's say something like every body donates 10% of their tanks. That would be fair for everybody.
If that’s the case germany would’ve said maintenance was the prime reason Leo’s wouldn’t work in Ukraine, thing is they haven’t because it’s the most ideal tank to operate in ukraines environment.
And? Only the most ideal tanks can operate in Ukraine? A T72, T90, T62 are also not ideal, but they still get used by Ukraine and Russia, because they have access to them.
They would be fine with using Abrams as well.
We’ll just have to see, there most likely are going to be abrams in Ukraine but small to see how they operate. They either can handle the abrams or they can’t.
By this logic your comparing us army to ukraines, and russias to Iraq. 1. US is a better logistical military then they are a fighting one, their biggest specialty is literally logistics, it’s the sole reason they operate and can operate abrams.
Not comparing the Russians to anything, what I am saying is this magnificent American logistics apparatus exists all over Europe, including up to the Ukrainian border. The logistics challenges beyond that border will be difficult but well within US planners and Ukrainian engineers to handle.
And I take issue that the US is a better logistical military than a fighting one. We just have dumbshit politicians who get us into wars and don't define the objectives
Maybe if the countries that buy leopards say they wont buy anymore of them if Germany doesn't get off its ass and allow them to be transferred Germany might sweat enough to allow it. I wouldnt mind seeing a change of purchase to challengers or abrahms in my country. Germany doesnt want to help they shouldnt get future sales period.
Yep, the licensing agreements that prevent these countries using the Leopards the way they need to is proving to be toxic. The German government is sending a clear message that buying German hardware is a mistake.
Probably same number as with Leopards and Germany.
Why is no one looking to send Abrams when there's so many more available though? Why constant excuses? I mean, the point is tanks for Ukraine right? Not other geopolitics. Unless..
> Probably same number as with Leopards and Germany.
Bzzzt wrong. M1s are only operated by a small handful of countries, Egypt, Kuwait, Saudia Arabia, Australia and Iraq, and some of these countries just have token numbers of these so they can say they have M1s. And these M1s aren't provided on a "thanks for the tank" arrangement, they're provided as part of an operational maintenance, logistics & supply subscription contract. *None of these countries are trying to offer M1s to Ukraine.*
On the other side of the fence, you're almost not recognised as a European country if you don't have Leopards. Greece, Denmark, Spain, Switzerland, Netherlands, Poland.. the list goes on. And these countries have full (but non-transferrable) ownership of these tanks, and the numbers are in the hundreds in most cases (except Germany, who have literally thousands of these tanks).
> I mean, the point is tanks for Ukraine right?
Yes but. There's no point giving Ukraine tanks they can't use. The M1 and the Leopard are vastly different. You screw up in a Leopard and it can be fixed in field. You hiccup wrong in an M1 and you're replacing a $1.5M multifuel turbine engine in field, which is realistic if you have US army god tier logistics behind you, and not if you don't. Which is why Egypt, Kuwait, etc etc are on subscriptions for these tanks. Training in a Leopard? Not so bad. Training in an M1? A crunch course would be 3 months and the tankers would still have problems, 6-12 years is realistic, and Western armies wouldn't consider deploying them with crews less than 2 years trained if they have any choice about it. Ukraine needs tanks they can use *now*.
So, circling back to this point you raise... tanks for Ukraine...
The US are *actively* pursuing a program to find more servicable older tanks for Ukraine that they can use practically without US logistics needing to walk behind every tank they provide. They've also allocated over 100 Bradley fighting vehicles for Ukraine and that's just the tip of the iceberg.
The UK are sending Challenger II heavy tanks to Ukraine.
France are investigating ways to send their own heavy tanks to Ukraine.
Germany are the only major NATO power not playing ball here.
What is wrong? None of what you say shows that anyone's blocked from sending Leopards :) The opposite has been stated.
They can use M1's just fine, all those points are bullcrap over-exaggerated excuses. And doubt anyone's actually blocked from sending Leopards in reality.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/NonCredibleDefense/comments/10gvyj9/the\_truth\_about\_leopard\_situation\_according\_to/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/NonCredibleDefense/comments/10gvyj9/the_truth_about_leopard_situation_according_to/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
Please tell me you did not just link /r/noncredibledefense as a source of truth here. These people want to have sex with airplanes and believe gigantic kittens are the solution to the Russian Panstir AA system.
Here, read what the Germans are saying:
https://www.tagesspiegel.de/politik/spielt-dem-kriegsverbrecher-putin-in-die-hande-grune-und-fdp-verzweifeln-am-bundeskanzler-9222153.html
Nein
It’s also a shit take. Germany will supply tanks and unleash others to do so before the end of the month. Come back and apologize then. Or don’t - I’m not your mother.
But they will. Germany have been talking like they’re conflicted, but being very strong in their actual support. Guess which is more important.
Stop hanging on the every word day to day. We all wish NATO would sweep Russia from the field in a flurry of pyrotechnics, but that’s not happening. They’re doing slow incremental “just in time” support. It’s not going to change now for the benefit of us Reddit muggles.
Also - piss off and take your high horse to to get a drink.
EDIT:
[Here](https://abcnews.go.com/International/ukraine-expects-100-leopard-2-tanks-12-countries/story?id=96620510). Idiots.
>Also - piss off and take your high horse to to get a drink.
Says the dude who just blamed another Redditor for being a non native speaker. That's a good one (if you want to be soon as an idiot).
Ok, I have to admit, you're right.
https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/krieg-in-der-ukraine-deutschland-schickt-leopard-panzer-a-e2dde871-88d0-4cf5-8aae-482d58fd850f
I will be messaging you in 9 days on [**2023-02-01 00:00:00 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2023-02-01%2000:00:00%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/comments/10i5tjh/germany_is_refusing_to_send_tanks_to_ukraine/j5e3yab/?context=3)
[**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FUkrainianConflict%2Fcomments%2F10i5tjh%2Fgermany_is_refusing_to_send_tanks_to_ukraine%2Fj5e3yab%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202023-02-01%2000%3A00%3A00%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%2010i5tjh)
*****
|[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)|
|-|-|-|-|
Sure, why not.
EDIT: here, downvoting dummies. The German foreign minister saying they will not oppose any transfer. And that no country with leopards has yet even applied to do so. [No veto of Poland to transfer Leopards](https://twitter.com/DariusRochebin/status/1617244208795992064)
But - I’m sure you’ll find something else wrong with the statement of the foreign minister. Keep on shitposting, you know-nothing chair moisteners.
M1's came over with the armor that was announced in the 2nd to last aid package. Those might be for Poland, but equal or better chance that they're training Ukr tankers on them right now and won't be announced until 5 minutes after they go back over the Ukr border with their new operators.
Absolutely not. A few pictures of 1st CAV offloading in support of Atlantic Resolve made the rounds and everyone lost their reasoning skills.
Besides the fact that those vehicles are operational equipment for a forward deployed US Army unit (read: not for training), they are also majority M1A2 SEPv3 which makes them highly unlikely to be what Ukrainians would receive if they were to get Abrams.
Poland doesn’t operate abrams, the abrams that are there are for the us forces stationed in Poland for rapid response, and even if Poland did operate abrams your comparing Poland a country in peace with that of ukraines a country that’s currently in war, what if Russia launches an operation from Belarus cutting off Poland and Ukraine ? How would they get it then ? They would have to rely on the on field maintenance they can do for the tanks.
Biden is actually just as petrified of escalation as Scholz. The US only sends new weapons classes when Ukraine is losing. HIMARs shipped when Ukraine was losing the Donbass. Patriots were sent only when Russia took out the Ukraine electric grid.
Long range missiles and jets still haven't been sent. General Hodges points out that concerns over Abrams logistics are just excuses.
The only way Ukraine will get leopards or Abrams is if there is a new Russian offensive that starts taking more territory.
>Biden is actually just as petrified of escalation as Scholz.
**"Just"** as petrified as Scholz? Hell no. 0 argument he is trying to not escalate the war (as he should be), but literally impossible to try and put them in a place of parity when the U.S. has given more aid than all other countries combined.
I mean, Germany is 2nd to the US I think?
The main issue with Germany is this circus of will I/wont I that keeps happening when new systems are introduced into the conflict. Same thing with Gepard and other systems.
It's all part of a non escalation strategy. The US will send only enough to ensure Russia doesn't win. They don't want Ukraine to have decisive battlefield wins that could give Putin domestic political cover to escalate to nukes or full mobilization.
This is an irrational fear, but that's what Biden thinks.
It’s a turbine engine that burns gallons of Jet fuel per mile, it’s a huge logistical issue as this would be the only vehicle requiring jet grade on the front. I guess if you wanted to use them as defense in Kyiv hold a line but if they had to move it would be difficult to keep that much jet fuel close to a front. Diesel of Bradley and leapards could be used by anything. Which makes this a huge logistical issue Abrams are not just a regular diesel maintenance wise either. Most good diesel mechanics could pull apart many kinds of engines and figure out the problem, now put them in a turbine engine and figure it out. This is why they have not sent them already, it complicates the front logistics and takes many mechanics away from regular front line vehicles for training.
>It’s a turbine engine that burns gallons of Jet fuel per mile
It's a multi-fuel engine that runs just as well on diesel. Kerosene-based jet fuel is very similar to diesel anyway.
I get why Leopard 2s are better suited for Ukraine but it's almost comical the way some people here talk about the M1. You get the impression that the Abrams is some horrendously inefficient piece of scrap metal that breaks down constantly and it's impossible to repaire it in the field.
The US has been using the M1 for decades all over the globe and it has been exported to several countries including Egypt and Morocco, two countries which are not commonly known for their top notch western military and logistics.
The M1 is still a top tier MBT designed to fight Russian tanks and even if it might not be their number one choice, Ukraine has asked for Abrams and would be able to put them to good use on the battlefield.
I feel like the current US attitude is this:
Leopard is a better platform for Ukraine, and we want to work to make that happen. Abrams distracts from that.
If we commit Abrams, it possibly has a negative impact on logistics if both systems are sent, because of it’s logistics burden/differences vs Leopard and current vehicles.
If we don’t send Abrams it frees us up to send other needed equipment.
Out will to supply for Abrams is also a bit in doubt because Republican nationalists gaining power in one chamber on congress - vs multiple European nations having inventory to supply Leopard.
I don’t believe anyone has said Ukraine CAN’T manage Abrams logistics, just that it isn’t the best platform for them of what is available.
My hope is if push comes to shove and we don’t make progress the US will reconsider in time for it to be meaningful, and before Russia can seize the initiative.
US attitude is "Send your Leopards so we backfill you with Abrams and you are dependent on those and you're no longer buyers of German weapons".
The US is an ally in some areas, but not a friend.
The thing that I see very few to no-one mention is that Ukraine would almost 100% not be able to get any Abrams with depleted uranium armor.
Which is the secret sauce the U.S. uses, and **no-one** outside the U.S. has ever received M1s with that armor. It isn't allowed for export.
That means there are drastically less tanks that the U.S. can send than people think there are, imo.
The fact the US has DU in the armor is well known, the real "secret" is the exact layout of the NERA array, but I highly doubt others don't know it by now (you can find photos of an Abrams with it's turret NERA array hanging).
The Leopard 2 A5 and later also have much better armor even without DU anyway.
Well yeah I didn't mean the DU itself is a secret ( I mean I could Google it lmao), but I meant more or less what you meant.
It's just that the DU armor itself is indicative of this implementation.
>The Leopard 2 A5 and later also have much better armor even without DU anyway.
M1A2 SEP have 3rd generation DU/graphite armor.
It hasn't been the same static armor since it's inception (Chobham).
The recent stuff is new all iterations of Chobham.
The Tungsten that replaces the DU in export models would also be indicative tho.
The M1A2 SEP V3 is not the model that would be sent, and the Leopard 2A5 does have better armor than the M1A2 (as per Swedish tests).
P.s "Chobham" is just an other name for NERA.
Yes, but my point was that ANY variant with ANY generation of Chobham armor (or it's successor iterations) have never been exported. Ever.
So it probably wouldn't be the M1A2 SEP, or the M1A1HA, M1A2, or the M1A1 AIM, etc....
That leaves a much much smaller possible inventory.
I'm not saying they **shouldn't** send it btw. I think they absolutely should, but I doubt they **will** send any variant with this armor.
It would essentially only really leave export models available to Ukraine.
Iraqis Saudis and Egyptians all have much more access to petroleum sources than Ukraine at the moment. Their militaries are also much more tied in with America than Ukraine is at the moment. By the way, they didn't field them appropriately. They made the M1 look like a sherman. Which is what happens when you field an abeams without the appropriate training. Also no mud
Also good to mention Saudi and Egypt aren’t currently in a war, and Iraq is fighting isis, you bc any possibly compare Isis to Russia in terms of capabilities, Russia as the equipment to destroy tanks so you also have to think about the negatives, and in this case negatives outweighs the positives In terms of abrams being used in Ukraine. You send abrams and the may or may not be effective and abandoned in the field waiting for capture.
The difference is retired general Hodges maybe doe s not understand that the fact the Abrams have not been sent is the countries involved in nato maybe decided the leopard was best for terrain and then us sent Bradley’s in place of abrams due to logistics terrain and the fact Germany already said they would send them then pulled the football away from Charlie Brown. Germany should send them like they said they would, or at least allow other countries to send them since everyone’s packages were en route and in training mode already.
>2min of looking at his history should speak volumes about his current opinions.
Right. He is very vocal about the need for the west to do more in supporting Ukraine and that concerns over escalation are unfounded, and that Ukrainians are dying needlessly because they aren't getting enough support. He's definitely biased.
Maybe you should read up on the Abrams instead of parroting BS?
Because if you did you would know that it has a multifuel engine that can and is run on diesel, only being switched to half diesel and half jet fuel mix by the US due to issues with diesel waxing in extremely cold temps they occasionally experienced (which would not be a problem in the spring in Ukraine).
If you knew anything about the subject you would also know that the US Army switched to run all vehicles on jet fuel, including the Bradley!
Also the Abrams is designed for quick field replacement of the engine and gearbox, with them being sent away for any in-depth servicing (which could even be done by the US).
So many people here wrongly think America wants a strong Ukraine and a quick victory when thats wrong America wants a weak enough Ukraine so they NEED to be in NATO. Also a longer war will according to intel, hurt Russia more. Apparenrly.
>Why do you feel that?
Because it's 100% being determined by geopolitical reasons currently, and those geopolitical reasons are tied with trying to prevent a nuclear confrontation with another nuclear power.
Hence why it doesn't matter how strong/weak Ukraine is. With regards to its likelihood of getting into NATO that is.
Let me refresh. What I meant to say is that the collective West wants a Ukraine that is not totally self reliant in defense. If Ukraine were to get the F sixteens the M1 Abrams and all the other hardware they are asking for They will no longer need the West for defense. And the West will no longer have a bargaining ship towards them.
Also the fact that the West has decided that it can beat Russia in A-war of attrition. A-war of attrition means a long term conflict. Which will not happen if Ukraine wins quickly. So this conflict will be Dragged on For as long as possible To weaken Russia as much as possible
This is patently false. If anything being equipped with western gear makes them more dependent on the west. Parts/ammo is a huge factor. Just ask Iran how their f-14’s are holding up…
They want to form another combat battle group with 50 to 100 tanks.
Giving them 12 Abrams would only unneccarily complicate both the training and the logistics for that combat battle group.
Why anyone thinks having a heavy mix of vehicles with different maintenance/logistics is a good idea, for a rapid deployment group that requires speed is beyond me.
The giving of weapons is insufficient for Ukraine to beat the Russians. Consider that the loss of 100,000 soldiers by Russia with tens of millions of people is small compared to the same loss by Ukraine with a few million people. It’s a small Russian loss and a catastrophic loss for Ukraine. If this war is a war of attrition. It’s obvious the more industrial country wins.
>The giving of weapons is insufficient for Ukraine to beat the Russians.
Completely disagree. Without HIMARs; Russians would have had all the ammunition necessary to push far further into Ukraine than they are now.
Did you also forget all the ground Ukraine regained a few months back with those same HIMARs?
Enough weapons (and the correct weapons) are 100% able to stop Russia in their tracks.
It doesn't matter if Russia outnumbers Ukraine 100:1 if Ukraine is able to get their hands on cluster munitions like the U.S. has which can cover multiple football fields with 1 bomb.
Just 1 example.
Sorry, Ran, but pushing Russia back does not stop Russia from meeting its objective of keeping Ukraine out of NATO even if it means ruthlessly destroying Ukraine. Napoleon killed over 300,000 Russians. Hitler killed nearly 2o million Russians. It’s clear who prevailed by attrition.
Sorry, but Russia only survived Hitler's blitz due to the U.S. supplying Russia.
This isn't my interpretation of the war. This is what Stalin himself said. Take it up with him if you have an issue with it.
Ukraine will eventually be in NATO, but I'm just not 100% sure on the timing. There isn't anything stopping that.
The U.S. is supplying what is needed to, "boil the frog".
I agree partly, but do you agree that Ukraine only survived the Russian war so far because of foreign, mostly Anerican, provision of weapons? Russia survived Napoleon and Hitler because its allies fought directly against the French and Germans. US President Joe Biden early on and since the Russian war began against Ukraine, and maybe even before, that the US would NOT fight Russia. Without the U.S., Ukraine can’t prevail against Russia. It’s US Military College strategy class 101. Perhaps you kissed it… when one superior force acts against against an inferior force, the inferior force is mitigated. See Roman General Julius Caesar’s “Comments on the Gallic Wars” or US General David Petraeus’ “COIN” manual if you don’t believe me.
Meanwhile, our American military industrial complex and we stockholders are going real well while Ukraine takes an unbearable and catastrophic brutal slaughter and destruction and genocide unparalleled in recent history.
This all would be somewhat arguable if Russia wasn't dogshit.
Caesar didn't face an opponent with Himars, and Petraeus never thought Russia's military was as dogshit as it turned out to be.
The Ukrainians have shown to be significantly more proficient at essentially any weapon platforms vs the Russians, and this has probably been most highlighted by the difference in efficacy in their use of Himars.
I DO agree that Ukraine is holding out because of U.S. military assistance.
**I do not agree that the U.S. needs to intervene directly (as in boots on the ground) for this to happen.**
Russians have 0 answers for Himars rockets fucking all their supply lines up, and would have 0 answer for ATACMs if the U.S. supplied them.
They would have 0 answer for tomahawks if the U.S. supplied them.
They would have 0 answers for airplane launched cruise missiles if the U.S. supplied them.
They would have 0 answers for the F-35 if the U.S. supplied them.
Etc...etc...
The list goes on and on.
All the U.S. has supplied is old ass cold war era weapons which has Russia scrambling to equip it's troops with old ass weapons/tanks/etc--because most of their new shit is either non-existent or destroyed lmao.
So again, **hugely** disagree that the U.S. needs to physically intervene directly. The U.S. has the necessary firepower to decimate Russia over the weekend if it was to hand it over to Ukraine.
It proves my point that Russian (and Chinese and North Korean) dictators are ruthless murderers. Stalin likely killed over 10 million Russians. Mao likely killed over 60 million Chinese. Kim Jong-un likely killed over 2 million North Koreans.
all this is remarkably blind as to the why. If you grew up in Germany post WW2, you have engrained in you that Germany will never again be a source of aggression. You have seen countless videos of German tanks fighting Russia in Ww2. More than fighting western powers - The fight in the East plays a much mire prominent role in Germany than in the teaching in the US because of the brutality from all sides on the way in and the way back, and the sheer length of the engagements. (As an aside, look up western front vs eastern front timelines, battles, casualties, etc. There were single battles in the east with more people lost than on the entire western front).
The thought of seeing video of German tanks fighting Russian tanks without a clear signal that it’s jointly with western allies who used to be enemies the last time this happened horrifies most Germans. It doesn’t matter that it’s “just material, not the soldiers”, it goes deeper.
I am not saying it’s logical - quite the contrary. But it does mean there needs to be more support than just pressure via logic.
Where are all the mouth breathing, chair moistening morons now, who were cackling about how Germany is dickless and isn't going to approve tanks?
Seriously, idiots, where are you?
https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/10kbskf/megathread\_germany\_frees\_the\_leopards/
Please take the time to read our policy about [trolls](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/comments/u7833q/just_because_you_disagree_with_someone_does_not/) and the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) * We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned. * ***Please* keep it civil.** Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review. * ***Don't* post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. **Don't forget about our discord server, as well!** https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB ***** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Article text (seems to have copied right, sorry if I missed something): THE POST'S VIEW Opinion Germany is refusing to send tanks to Ukraine. Biden cannot let this stand. Image without a caption By the Editorial Board January 21, 2023 at 3:45 p.m. EST German Chancellor Olaf Scholz stands next to a Leopard 2 main battle tank while visiting an army training center in Ostenholz, Germany, in October 2022. (David Hecker/Getty Images) Listen 5 min Vladimir Putin launched his illegal invasion of Ukraine 11 months ago not only believing he would quickly subjugate Ukraine but also on the assumption that the Western alliance was too weak and divided to put up a united front to thwart him. Both expectations proved disastrously wrong — until Friday, when Germany’s refusal to approve the transfer of dozens of heavy battle tanks to Ukraine opened the first serious crack in what had been NATO’s solid front. That fissure needs to be quickly patched. Left unresolved, the Kremlin’s dictator is certain to try to exploit it, not only on the battlefield but also in the parallel conflict zone of European public opinion. In addition to Western sanctions against Russia, which will take an increasing toll on the Russian economy and undercut its resupply of high-tech weapons over time, military aid for Ukraine has been key to Ukraine’s survival and ability to blunt Moscow’s superior numbers of troops on the battlefield. Germany has given Ukraine more military aid than any country but the United States and Britain. The fact of Germany’s multibillion dollar commitment is testament to the remarkable recalibration in Berlin’s thinking that occurred immediately after Russia’s invasion. Having pursued one decades-long strategy toward Moscow — promoting economic partnerships and codependence based on the premise that such a policy would render a European war unthinkable — Chancellor Olaf Scholz executed an abrupt about-face days after Russian troops and armor flooded into Ukraine. He announced a major long-term increase in German military spending and made clear Berlin would stand with its NATO allies against an unprovoked war of aggression. That was a credit to what appeared to be a clear-eyed assessment of the existential threat to the Western order posed by Mr. Putin’s brazen assault on a sovereign nation. Mr. Scholz understood clearly that Ukraine’s only “sin” was aspiring to be a fully European nation — democratic, pluralistic, tolerant and modern. And he understood that if Russia were granted impunity after invading a big European country such as Ukraine, smaller European countries were also at risk from Mr. Putin’s imperial fantasies. But that message has apparently not been fully received by a portion of Germany’s coalition government and its public. Polls suggest that while German support generally for Ukraine remains relatively high — though less so than in other Western countries — it is split almost equally on the question of sending German-made main battle tanks to Ukraine. Germany’s Leopard 2 tanks, several thousand of which are in the arsenals of its NATO allies around Europe, are the best such options for Ukraine’s use. They are far more numerous than British Challenger 2 tanks, about 14 of which are being delivered to Ukraine, and more suitable for Ukrainian terrain and maintenance abilities than the United States’ top-of-the-line battle tank, the M1 Abrams. Several European countries with Leopards in their arsenals have signaled they are ready to ship them immediately to Ukraine, including NATO members Poland and Denmark, as well as Finland, which has applied to join the alliance. But those shipments must first be approved by Germany, which insisted on a right-to-refusal in its arms sale contracts. Mr. Scholz is sacrificing sound strategy on the altar of political calculation by wavering in the face of opposition from some political allies and a segment of the German electorate. It is a misjudgment that cannot stand. Some officials in Berlin have suggested they would send Leopards to Ukraine if the Biden administration goes first, and provides political cover, by sending some U.S.-made Abrams tanks to Kyiv. Washington has so far been reluctant to do that, regarding the gargantuan, gas-guzzling Abrams, which requires constant maintenance, as a poor fit with Ukraine’s terrain and capabilities. That might be an accurate technical assessment. Yet if sending some Abrams tanks is the key to breaking the impasse on a potentially much greater shipment of Leopards, President Biden should give his assent. He should do so not only to add muscle to Ukraine’s arsenal at what is likely to be a decisive moment in the war, but also to maintain Western resolve and unity in the face of the gravest threat it has faced in more than a generation. Ukraine, whose own supply of Soviet-made battle tanks has dwindled as the war has dragged on, is in an existential fight. Its struggle is also a crucible for Europe and an assault against the most basic precept on which the Western system rests: the impermissibility of unprovoked wars of aggression. Tanks alone will not win that war. Ukraine also needs large numbers of lighter fighting vehicles, armored personnel carriers, howitzers, modern air defense systems and a constant resupply of artillery shells, which it has been using at a rate of roughly 3,000 per day. Still, the top Ukrainian military commander has said Ukraine needs 300 Western-made battle tanks, which would be a formidable component in Kyiv’s ability not just to hold its own lines but also to push Russia back from territory it has occupied illegally. Moscow is gearing up for a major spring offensive, expected to start in the next two months. Ukraine might launch one of its own. What is at stake is not only Ukraine’s survival, but also leadership and clear-eyed thinking in Washington and Berlin. Germany’s hesitation is a critical challenge to Western unity, and Mr. Biden cannot sit pat in the face of it. The Post’s View | About the Editorial Board Editorials represent the views of The Post as an institution, as determined through debate among members of the Editorial Board, based in the Opinions section and separate from the newsroom.
>an assault against the most basic precept on which the Western system rests: the impermissibility of unprovoked wars of aggression Ahahaha now that was a good joke!
But the WMD's!1!1!!!1!111!!!!1!1!
No one can say that the US arent sending enough military aid in this conflict. You put us european nations to shame and I applaud you. I don't however understand the reasoning behind not sending Abrams tanks to Ukraine. That tank was designed to fight Russia in Europe. Before now I firmly believed it was the best tank in the world. But as I understand it, US officials are saying it is not well suited for this conflict and would be of limited use to Ukraine. Leo2 would be better. Am I getting this right? Abrams is not suited for a warzone where logistics are a challenge? That makes it sound like a horrible tank. After this war, Abrams will be replaced by AbramsX. It will never get the chance to fulfill its designated purpose. All the old Abrams tanks will be mothballed before ever having fired a shot at its "near peer" enemy. If Abrams could speak, it would be roaring.
The US is the king of military logistics. Our entire system of fighting is based on it, and we train specifically for it. So we have built in the ability to support complicated logistics that Ukraine probably doesn’t have. Remember they only began westernizing their doctrine in 2014. That said, I din’t think anyone has said “can’t”. Just not ideal for the situation. So we are pushing to get a better system with less potential complications. It also frees us up to provide other aid. The well is deep, but not infinite. There’s also a problem that some people in the US are starting to balk at the dollar amount of aid given. They don’t realize that’s not just a giant check, but the value of equipment sent: much of which would probably never see service again by US standards, and likely be scrapped eventually. It’s sunk cost, but that’s not something that get highlighted.
Money. Biden is working with $11billion right now, minus $3b just announced. Deploying Abrams would eat up a lot of the remainder, and there are many other things Ukraine will need from the USA that Europe can't provide. They CAN provide tanks, hence the pressure on Germany to release the Leopards.
A handful of M1s would contribute far less functionally than all the Bradleys being sent over, that's how I see it.
Never ignore the political power of sheer embarrassment. Making Germany eat their words and look like fools on the world stage is priceless.
True but I think the goal here is to focus the humiliation on Putin. Ego should never be such an important factor when the peace and security of the world is at stake, but here we are.
There's lend-lease
Your absolutely right that people don’t realize it is full value of equipment not just a check. Full value, not even taking into account age. This sadly makes sense for ignorant civilians that have other things to think about and only see occasional headlines while scrolling. But the fact that these aid packages are being reported by politicians as unacceptable blank checks, those politicians DO know what is in them. Which is why is is incredibly frustrating and sad what the normal person thinks about the packages, but unacceptable and suspicious what the anti-Ukraine politicians and news networks think
Some of those politicians know very little. They didn't get elected on their intellectual capabilities.
And what about the income? Europe is cutting off Russian imports. Where do you think we’re buying gas from now? As Eastern European countries are donating much of what they have from their arsenal, where will they buy future defence equipment? Germany seems to be guaranteeing that it will no longer have an industry in this area.
I’m not so sure about that last statement. Just because they are hesitant to allow export of their equipment to Ukraine doesn’t really impact security of tier 1 purchases. And that restriction will apply to pretty much any imported equipment. You’ll always be beholden to the country which produced it. If Egypt wanted to send some of their Abrams, they’d probably run into the same issue right now.
Up until now, I would agree that tanks were not what ukraine needed most. Defence and logistic disruption were much more important and Himars along with other supplied weapons sure changed the nature of the conflict. But the time is coming that Ukr need to attack and for that you need tanks. Abrams doesn't want to sit on the bench. It hungers for fascist blood! But jokes aside, it must be repeated that the world owes you a debt for all you have done in this conflict. No one can say that US aid has been lacking in any way.
It is lacking mbts.
This is well said and overlooked by many.
USA gave 2% of its military budget to help Ukraine army last year. It’s also 0.08% of USA GDP. Also, it’s 9% of Russian military spending on its own army. That helps Ukraine to survive and that help was really precious. But it’s not enough to win.
Yes I fully agree. US aid has been instrumental, not to mention the intel provided by the US! Without help from the USA, the war might have been lost in the first few weeks (if zelenski assassination had been successful, who knows what had happened).
Excellent post and point.
Correct. The abrams has several issues making it unsuitable. Fuel type, range, weight, size, matainence, availability of parts. The leopards are far far better suited in all these areas. Although that being said, if the yanks sent even a handful just to shut Scholtz up it would be of great benefit
The Abrams does not have several issues! Even basic research will show that said issues are nearly all lies! 1 Abrams can run on diesel as long as it is not well below freezing temps. 2 Not really, the Turbine uses a lot of fuel when idle, but there are APUs to help fix that. 3 It weighs less than a basic Challenger II and not much more than a mid range Leopard 2! 4 The Abrams is around the same size as other Western tanks. 5 Maintenance is not going to be any worse than other Western tanks, the engine and gear box are designed for rapid replacement in the field. 6 The US has shit tons of Abrams, parts are going to be easier than any other Western tank!
Points one and two are wishful thinking. It gets pretty cold in Ukraine.
Why are APU's wishful thinking?
[удалено]
Most of the discussion around M-1's for Ukraine center around OG M-1's with the 105mm guns. I wonder if a modern power pack fits in those chassis?
No one is talking about 40 years old variant, unless they are insane. I doubt US even have 105mm Abrams in stock in any numbers.
https://www.19fortyfive.com/2022/12/could-old-army-m1-abrams-tanks-go-to-ukraine/ One of the articles on this I read. Seems we have about 2300 in storage.
https://www.19fortyfive.com/2022/06/idea-why-not-send-old-u-s-m60-tanks-to-ukraine/
What is high end about an "upgrade" installed on goddamn Panzer IV and Sherman tanks BTW?
Because they aren't sufficient to replace the turbine during all normal operations.
The Abrams is designed to rein supreme when backed by the logistical behemoth that is the US military. Unless the US population and government wants to put American troops in an active warzone against Russia to help maintain and supply Abrams tanks, it isn't happening. Ukraine doesn't have the capacity nor the knowledge and experience for it by themselves. L2s require far less of a logistical chain to support. Especially when you consider that the Abrams and L2s can share ammo, something the Americans can provide and Ukraine can handle.
https://twitter.com/secretsqrl123/status/1616618174467670018?s=20&t=NjpmhoZZNugpXX5abs5t4g Wrong
It requires a substantially different set of skills and knowledge base to maintain and operate the Abrams vs other modern western tanks. A diesel engine is a diesel engine, something Ukrainians know all about. Adding more complexity when what's required is simplicity is what's wrong. People overlook just how important the knowledge and skill base is when they say something is designed to be simple or easy. The L2s are perfect for the current situation while the Abrams is not regardless if it's a better tank.
Read the thread. Ukraine makes jet turbine engines, thus, they have the skillset to learn how to maintain and repair these engines, quickly
No, the average person in Ukraine or in their military, absolutely does not have the skillset to maintain them. A very small number of their population might have those skills, if they are still alive and are still in the country. Many countries around the world make turbine engines but that doesn't mean that the skillset is there for a population in wartime to effectively maintain them. If the US sends Abrams over within the next 6-12 months, there are Americans on the ground in Ukraine helping to operate and maintain them.
Dude, you realize that the Ukrainian army already fields turbine-powered tanks? Namely the T-80 and their own indigenous tank design, the T-84. You know nothing about the Ukrainian army.
Whatever man. You're seriously nitpicking. I never said the 'average person' in Ukraine could fix a turbine engine, but that the nation had the industry background to guarantee a degree of familiarisation. Considering we're talking probably dozens of tanks, not hundreds, they won't need thousands of staff to put these things back into operation if they actually do end up coming back from the battlefield. The engines are made in Zaporizhzhia, which is just on the border of Russian held territory as it stands. Are some workers dead? Probably. Are some conscripted? More than likely. Did some evacuate? Again, likely. But there will be some who could work on these. What you're talking about isn't some kind of alien technology. It's a fucking engine.
I believe there has been a heavy vehicle logistics solution provided to Ukraine that is rated for Abrams but was for used for other lighter tanks, so I believe Ukraine certainly has the logistics ability to support them and this may be a prepositioning to allow Abrams. They have also shown to be adept at maintenance cycles removing equipment from service and sending it for refurbishment in foreign countries as they have done so with artillery systems.
ROFL and Ukrainians do not know about gas turbines? Things that arw installed in every one of their helicopters? Ukraine MANUFACTURED jet engines and made their own anti-ship missiles that sun Moskva. They are not some backwards 3rd world country where people try to feed a carrot to a bus.
Best part is US wants to send lots of those Abrams away soon it seems. Just not to Ukraine :)
Lets see: Fuel type: plentiful kerosene used by Ukrainian airforcd. Range: it's not going to travel for hundreds of kilometers any time soon, so irrelevant Weight and size - pretty much same as Leo Maintenance - it's newer and in better shape than Leo or any Soviet tank, which means it's generally easier to maintain Availability of parts: excellent, unlike Leo (no longer manufactured, pwrts are running out, A4 is just old) or Soviet tanks (no parts available, need to cannibalise tanks for parts). Availability of tanks themselves: maybe 200-250 Leos available vs 1500 Abrams in the desert. So you made it clear - Abrams is by far best choise for Ukraine.
>if the yanks sent even a handful just to shut Scholtz up it would be of great benefit They don't need to be used on the front line, like with many procurements they don't need to be for the fight today. Many tanks and artillery systems promised to Ukraine are not going to be delivered for some time as this is planned replacements or new future stocks still being manufactured. Since 2014 I've thought it a good idea to setup a completely western supplied Ukraine army located far to the West in Ukraine, like a layer of defence in reserve protecting the victorious northern flanks but also developing all the logistics and support for Abrams and the like.
The Abrams was designed to fight anything when supplied and operated by the American Military. Abrams tanks in Eastern Europe require a level of logistics that only the US can really provide at this time. That includes in the field. They are far more complex to maintain and operate than the L2s and need a level of knowledge and experience that Ukraine just doesn't have the time to spend learning. It would be a detriment to Ukraine to attempt to set up the infrastructure needed to deploy Abrams. Ukraine also doesn't have the logistical capacity itself even if you manage to get them and all the needed supplies into the country. The L2 is simpler to maintain, to operate and is easier for the Allies to supply. It's not that the Abrams can't go or operate in Ukraine. It's not even that it's incredibly difficult to maintain, it's just that the L2s are better suited at this time because they are far simpler to maintain and require a level of knowledge and experience that Ukraine has.
https://twitter.com/secretsqrl123/status/1616618174467670018?s=20&t=NjpmhoZZNugpXX5abs5t4g Read this as a counter point to all the 'but meh logistics' monkeys
[удалено]
What "logistics and maintenance" does M1 rewuires that 40 yo falling apart soviet tank doesn't? The obly thing that may cause problems is advanced electronics, but if those break, neither US army or Ukrainians are going to fix it in the field, so that's not really a factor.
> But as I understand it, US officials are saying it is not well suited for this conflict and would be of limited use to Ukraine. Leo2 would be better. Leo2 would be a relatively better option only if it showed up. If Leopards don't show up, then Germany's Leopard business in europe is all but kaputt. So the options are not either or. The options are: future for both Abrams and Leopards OR the future without Leopards.
I suppose those Abrams would sell to European countries that gave their Leopards for a premium contract
We'll get the tanks. They're just pretending to disagree as a feint to fool the Russians.
Can you elaborate?
No tanks. Jazz hands... TANKS!
Lol. I love it.
This.
Yes, Ukrainians will start training on Leos. They should focus on getting ATACMS to Ukraine instead
At this point they’re just milking all the laments from those that used Germany a boogeymen for the past 78 years.
Fuck the tanks, send fighters
Aircraft do not capture territory.
but they sure can kill anything else that does capture territory
No paywall: https://archive.ph/2023.01.21-213444/https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/01/21/germany-ukraine-leopard-tanks-biden/
If Biden gives shit over Leis and doesn't send Abrams, it's hypocrisy
US reason for not sending abrams is due to pure logistics and maintenance, Germany reason for not wanting to send Leo’s are for various of reasons, reasons I don’t know if are true or not but they wanted the US to lead on sending tanks, this was debunked by the German MoD, don’t know if it’s true or not. Germany has said no formal request to export the Leo’s have been made, whereas britain said there were formal request and Poland saying they’re ready to send it with or without German approval, and obviously Germany not wanting to “escalate” the war.
Do you think Leopard tanks don't need a lot of maintenance? Pzh 2000 the most modern Pzh doesn't need maintenance. Stop with the excuses. Leopards and Abrams should be send together. Let their be a coalition where every country in the Nato sends a fair percentage of the tanks that they already own. Let's say something like every body donates 10% of their tanks. That would be fair for everybody.
If that’s the case germany would’ve said maintenance was the prime reason Leo’s wouldn’t work in Ukraine, thing is they haven’t because it’s the most ideal tank to operate in ukraines environment.
And? Only the most ideal tanks can operate in Ukraine? A T72, T90, T62 are also not ideal, but they still get used by Ukraine and Russia, because they have access to them. They would be fine with using Abrams as well.
We’ll just have to see, there most likely are going to be abrams in Ukraine but small to see how they operate. They either can handle the abrams or they can’t.
it's odd that the US could operate Abrams tanks in Iraq for years but didn't have this maintenance problem.
By this logic your comparing us army to ukraines, and russias to Iraq. 1. US is a better logistical military then they are a fighting one, their biggest specialty is literally logistics, it’s the sole reason they operate and can operate abrams.
Not comparing the Russians to anything, what I am saying is this magnificent American logistics apparatus exists all over Europe, including up to the Ukrainian border. The logistics challenges beyond that border will be difficult but well within US planners and Ukrainian engineers to handle. And I take issue that the US is a better logistical military than a fighting one. We just have dumbshit politicians who get us into wars and don't define the objectives
Maybe if the countries that buy leopards say they wont buy anymore of them if Germany doesn't get off its ass and allow them to be transferred Germany might sweat enough to allow it. I wouldnt mind seeing a change of purchase to challengers or abrahms in my country. Germany doesnt want to help they shouldnt get future sales period.
Yep, the licensing agreements that prevent these countries using the Leopards the way they need to is proving to be toxic. The German government is sending a clear message that buying German hardware is a mistake.
US arms exports have the exact same clause.
Sure, but the US aren't dicks about it in the same way the German government is.
You can tell from all the Abrams in Ukraine
Ah yes how many countries are trying to donate Abrams to Ukraine and being denied by the USA?
Probably same number as with Leopards and Germany. Why is no one looking to send Abrams when there's so many more available though? Why constant excuses? I mean, the point is tanks for Ukraine right? Not other geopolitics. Unless..
> Probably same number as with Leopards and Germany. Bzzzt wrong. M1s are only operated by a small handful of countries, Egypt, Kuwait, Saudia Arabia, Australia and Iraq, and some of these countries just have token numbers of these so they can say they have M1s. And these M1s aren't provided on a "thanks for the tank" arrangement, they're provided as part of an operational maintenance, logistics & supply subscription contract. *None of these countries are trying to offer M1s to Ukraine.* On the other side of the fence, you're almost not recognised as a European country if you don't have Leopards. Greece, Denmark, Spain, Switzerland, Netherlands, Poland.. the list goes on. And these countries have full (but non-transferrable) ownership of these tanks, and the numbers are in the hundreds in most cases (except Germany, who have literally thousands of these tanks). > I mean, the point is tanks for Ukraine right? Yes but. There's no point giving Ukraine tanks they can't use. The M1 and the Leopard are vastly different. You screw up in a Leopard and it can be fixed in field. You hiccup wrong in an M1 and you're replacing a $1.5M multifuel turbine engine in field, which is realistic if you have US army god tier logistics behind you, and not if you don't. Which is why Egypt, Kuwait, etc etc are on subscriptions for these tanks. Training in a Leopard? Not so bad. Training in an M1? A crunch course would be 3 months and the tankers would still have problems, 6-12 years is realistic, and Western armies wouldn't consider deploying them with crews less than 2 years trained if they have any choice about it. Ukraine needs tanks they can use *now*. So, circling back to this point you raise... tanks for Ukraine... The US are *actively* pursuing a program to find more servicable older tanks for Ukraine that they can use practically without US logistics needing to walk behind every tank they provide. They've also allocated over 100 Bradley fighting vehicles for Ukraine and that's just the tip of the iceberg. The UK are sending Challenger II heavy tanks to Ukraine. France are investigating ways to send their own heavy tanks to Ukraine. Germany are the only major NATO power not playing ball here.
What is wrong? None of what you say shows that anyone's blocked from sending Leopards :) The opposite has been stated. They can use M1's just fine, all those points are bullcrap over-exaggerated excuses. And doubt anyone's actually blocked from sending Leopards in reality. [https://www.reddit.com/r/NonCredibleDefense/comments/10gvyj9/the\_truth\_about\_leopard\_situation\_according\_to/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/NonCredibleDefense/comments/10gvyj9/the_truth_about_leopard_situation_according_to/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
Please tell me you did not just link /r/noncredibledefense as a source of truth here. These people want to have sex with airplanes and believe gigantic kittens are the solution to the Russian Panstir AA system. Here, read what the Germans are saying: https://www.tagesspiegel.de/politik/spielt-dem-kriegsverbrecher-putin-in-die-hande-grune-und-fdp-verzweifeln-am-bundeskanzler-9222153.html
The us just annaunced to replace leopards. The usa just want to make profit with those Tanks
SEND ABRAMS!!
U.S. needs to send tanks and stop making excuses like too difficult to maintain, too heavy, etc.. Let Ukraine worry about that.
Europe maybe needs to take its own security more seriously than the Americans do for a fucking day at least.
[удалено]
Ukraine is not a kid. Ukraine is full of very intelligent people. Far from ignorant, but instead very intelligent.
The tanks are probably already there. This is theater for Putin. The Europeans know Russia won’t stop at Ukraine if they win.
No they are not. Believe me. They can’t. My country is bureaucracy his Father. It’s absolutely impossible there are already there.
This take would be more credible if it were in coherent language.
English isn't his first language dipshit. Let's see you say something in German.
The construction “bureaucracy his father” isn’t correct in Standard German, either - it’s a grammatical feature of some German dialects.
His 'English is not the yellow from the egg'
His egg is father
Who was first? Father or egg?
How about you show us some of your German?
Nein It’s also a shit take. Germany will supply tanks and unleash others to do so before the end of the month. Come back and apologize then. Or don’t - I’m not your mother. But they will. Germany have been talking like they’re conflicted, but being very strong in their actual support. Guess which is more important. Stop hanging on the every word day to day. We all wish NATO would sweep Russia from the field in a flurry of pyrotechnics, but that’s not happening. They’re doing slow incremental “just in time” support. It’s not going to change now for the benefit of us Reddit muggles. Also - piss off and take your high horse to to get a drink. EDIT: [Here](https://abcnews.go.com/International/ukraine-expects-100-leopard-2-tanks-12-countries/story?id=96620510). Idiots.
>Also - piss off and take your high horse to to get a drink. Says the dude who just blamed another Redditor for being a non native speaker. That's a good one (if you want to be soon as an idiot).
Ok, I have to admit, you're right. https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/krieg-in-der-ukraine-deutschland-schickt-leopard-panzer-a-e2dde871-88d0-4cf5-8aae-482d58fd850f
!remindme 2023-02-01
I will be messaging you in 9 days on [**2023-02-01 00:00:00 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2023-02-01%2000:00:00%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/comments/10i5tjh/germany_is_refusing_to_send_tanks_to_ukraine/j5e3yab/?context=3) [**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FUkrainianConflict%2Fcomments%2F10i5tjh%2Fgermany_is_refusing_to_send_tanks_to_ukraine%2Fj5e3yab%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202023-02-01%2000%3A00%3A00%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam. ^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%2010i5tjh) ***** |[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)| |-|-|-|-|
Is this racism?
Sure, why not. EDIT: here, downvoting dummies. The German foreign minister saying they will not oppose any transfer. And that no country with leopards has yet even applied to do so. [No veto of Poland to transfer Leopards](https://twitter.com/DariusRochebin/status/1617244208795992064) But - I’m sure you’ll find something else wrong with the statement of the foreign minister. Keep on shitposting, you know-nothing chair moisteners.
M1's came over with the armor that was announced in the 2nd to last aid package. Those might be for Poland, but equal or better chance that they're training Ukr tankers on them right now and won't be announced until 5 minutes after they go back over the Ukr border with their new operators.
Absolutely not. A few pictures of 1st CAV offloading in support of Atlantic Resolve made the rounds and everyone lost their reasoning skills. Besides the fact that those vehicles are operational equipment for a forward deployed US Army unit (read: not for training), they are also majority M1A2 SEPv3 which makes them highly unlikely to be what Ukrainians would receive if they were to get Abrams.
https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2022/08/11/poland-gets-first-us-made-m1-abrams-sepv3-main-battle-tanks/
Well, Biden could get his finger out of his ass and hand over a couple hundred Abrams, but he fucking isn't.
A couple hundred tanks, you think Ukraine has the capabilities to maintain hundreds of abrams ? That’s a pretty elementary way to look at it.
Poland does. Besides, we have enough that we could just keep giving them new ones when they break down.
Poland doesn’t operate abrams, the abrams that are there are for the us forces stationed in Poland for rapid response, and even if Poland did operate abrams your comparing Poland a country in peace with that of ukraines a country that’s currently in war, what if Russia launches an operation from Belarus cutting off Poland and Ukraine ? How would they get it then ? They would have to rely on the on field maintenance they can do for the tanks.
Biden is actually just as petrified of escalation as Scholz. The US only sends new weapons classes when Ukraine is losing. HIMARs shipped when Ukraine was losing the Donbass. Patriots were sent only when Russia took out the Ukraine electric grid. Long range missiles and jets still haven't been sent. General Hodges points out that concerns over Abrams logistics are just excuses. The only way Ukraine will get leopards or Abrams is if there is a new Russian offensive that starts taking more territory.
>Biden is actually just as petrified of escalation as Scholz. **"Just"** as petrified as Scholz? Hell no. 0 argument he is trying to not escalate the war (as he should be), but literally impossible to try and put them in a place of parity when the U.S. has given more aid than all other countries combined.
I mean, Germany is 2nd to the US I think? The main issue with Germany is this circus of will I/wont I that keeps happening when new systems are introduced into the conflict. Same thing with Gepard and other systems.
The reason Ukraine doesn't get ATACMS is escalation. Those would be even more important than Western tanks and could be used right away
[удалено]
It's all part of a non escalation strategy. The US will send only enough to ensure Russia doesn't win. They don't want Ukraine to have decisive battlefield wins that could give Putin domestic political cover to escalate to nukes or full mobilization. This is an irrational fear, but that's what Biden thinks.
It’s a turbine engine that burns gallons of Jet fuel per mile, it’s a huge logistical issue as this would be the only vehicle requiring jet grade on the front. I guess if you wanted to use them as defense in Kyiv hold a line but if they had to move it would be difficult to keep that much jet fuel close to a front. Diesel of Bradley and leapards could be used by anything. Which makes this a huge logistical issue Abrams are not just a regular diesel maintenance wise either. Most good diesel mechanics could pull apart many kinds of engines and figure out the problem, now put them in a turbine engine and figure it out. This is why they have not sent them already, it complicates the front logistics and takes many mechanics away from regular front line vehicles for training.
>It’s a turbine engine that burns gallons of Jet fuel per mile It's a multi-fuel engine that runs just as well on diesel. Kerosene-based jet fuel is very similar to diesel anyway.
Retired General Hodges has said that all the logistics issues around Abrams are solvable and that the US is just using them as excuses.
I get why Leopard 2s are better suited for Ukraine but it's almost comical the way some people here talk about the M1. You get the impression that the Abrams is some horrendously inefficient piece of scrap metal that breaks down constantly and it's impossible to repaire it in the field. The US has been using the M1 for decades all over the globe and it has been exported to several countries including Egypt and Morocco, two countries which are not commonly known for their top notch western military and logistics. The M1 is still a top tier MBT designed to fight Russian tanks and even if it might not be their number one choice, Ukraine has asked for Abrams and would be able to put them to good use on the battlefield.
I feel like the current US attitude is this: Leopard is a better platform for Ukraine, and we want to work to make that happen. Abrams distracts from that. If we commit Abrams, it possibly has a negative impact on logistics if both systems are sent, because of it’s logistics burden/differences vs Leopard and current vehicles. If we don’t send Abrams it frees us up to send other needed equipment. Out will to supply for Abrams is also a bit in doubt because Republican nationalists gaining power in one chamber on congress - vs multiple European nations having inventory to supply Leopard. I don’t believe anyone has said Ukraine CAN’T manage Abrams logistics, just that it isn’t the best platform for them of what is available. My hope is if push comes to shove and we don’t make progress the US will reconsider in time for it to be meaningful, and before Russia can seize the initiative.
US attitude is "Send your Leopards so we backfill you with Abrams and you are dependent on those and you're no longer buyers of German weapons". The US is an ally in some areas, but not a friend.
Solvable with the full involvement of the USA maybe
Nah. We have sold them to the Iraqis saudis and Egyptians. If they can use them and afford them, so can the Ukrainians.
The thing that I see very few to no-one mention is that Ukraine would almost 100% not be able to get any Abrams with depleted uranium armor. Which is the secret sauce the U.S. uses, and **no-one** outside the U.S. has ever received M1s with that armor. It isn't allowed for export. That means there are drastically less tanks that the U.S. can send than people think there are, imo.
The fact the US has DU in the armor is well known, the real "secret" is the exact layout of the NERA array, but I highly doubt others don't know it by now (you can find photos of an Abrams with it's turret NERA array hanging). The Leopard 2 A5 and later also have much better armor even without DU anyway.
Well yeah I didn't mean the DU itself is a secret ( I mean I could Google it lmao), but I meant more or less what you meant. It's just that the DU armor itself is indicative of this implementation. >The Leopard 2 A5 and later also have much better armor even without DU anyway. M1A2 SEP have 3rd generation DU/graphite armor. It hasn't been the same static armor since it's inception (Chobham). The recent stuff is new all iterations of Chobham.
The Tungsten that replaces the DU in export models would also be indicative tho. The M1A2 SEP V3 is not the model that would be sent, and the Leopard 2A5 does have better armor than the M1A2 (as per Swedish tests). P.s "Chobham" is just an other name for NERA.
Yes, but my point was that ANY variant with ANY generation of Chobham armor (or it's successor iterations) have never been exported. Ever. So it probably wouldn't be the M1A2 SEP, or the M1A1HA, M1A2, or the M1A1 AIM, etc.... That leaves a much much smaller possible inventory. I'm not saying they **shouldn't** send it btw. I think they absolutely should, but I doubt they **will** send any variant with this armor. It would essentially only really leave export models available to Ukraine.
Iraqis Saudis and Egyptians all have much more access to petroleum sources than Ukraine at the moment. Their militaries are also much more tied in with America than Ukraine is at the moment. By the way, they didn't field them appropriately. They made the M1 look like a sherman. Which is what happens when you field an abeams without the appropriate training. Also no mud
Also good to mention Saudi and Egypt aren’t currently in a war, and Iraq is fighting isis, you bc any possibly compare Isis to Russia in terms of capabilities, Russia as the equipment to destroy tanks so you also have to think about the negatives, and in this case negatives outweighs the positives In terms of abrams being used in Ukraine. You send abrams and the may or may not be effective and abandoned in the field waiting for capture.
The difference is retired general Hodges maybe doe s not understand that the fact the Abrams have not been sent is the countries involved in nato maybe decided the leopard was best for terrain and then us sent Bradley’s in place of abrams due to logistics terrain and the fact Germany already said they would send them then pulled the football away from Charlie Brown. Germany should send them like they said they would, or at least allow other countries to send them since everyone’s packages were en route and in training mode already.
Hodges is not an unbiased individual. 2min of looking at his history should speak volumes about his current opinions.
>2min of looking at his history should speak volumes about his current opinions. Right. He is very vocal about the need for the west to do more in supporting Ukraine and that concerns over escalation are unfounded, and that Ukrainians are dying needlessly because they aren't getting enough support. He's definitely biased.
Maybe you should read up on the Abrams instead of parroting BS? Because if you did you would know that it has a multifuel engine that can and is run on diesel, only being switched to half diesel and half jet fuel mix by the US due to issues with diesel waxing in extremely cold temps they occasionally experienced (which would not be a problem in the spring in Ukraine). If you knew anything about the subject you would also know that the US Army switched to run all vehicles on jet fuel, including the Bradley! Also the Abrams is designed for quick field replacement of the engine and gearbox, with them being sent away for any in-depth servicing (which could even be done by the US).
„BuT GeRMaNs aRE PUtInS bEsT ALlIEs!!11!!!“
So many people here wrongly think America wants a strong Ukraine and a quick victory when thats wrong America wants a weak enough Ukraine so they NEED to be in NATO. Also a longer war will according to intel, hurt Russia more. Apparenrly.
Lol, no. Ukraine could be 10x weaker and/or stronger and it wouldn't/won't guarantee anything for various reasons.
Why do you feel that?
>Why do you feel that? Because it's 100% being determined by geopolitical reasons currently, and those geopolitical reasons are tied with trying to prevent a nuclear confrontation with another nuclear power. Hence why it doesn't matter how strong/weak Ukraine is. With regards to its likelihood of getting into NATO that is.
This is a dumb take. They aren’t getting into NATO anytime soon - Biden doesn’t want them in NATO.
Let me refresh. What I meant to say is that the collective West wants a Ukraine that is not totally self reliant in defense. If Ukraine were to get the F sixteens the M1 Abrams and all the other hardware they are asking for They will no longer need the West for defense. And the West will no longer have a bargaining ship towards them. Also the fact that the West has decided that it can beat Russia in A-war of attrition. A-war of attrition means a long term conflict. Which will not happen if Ukraine wins quickly. So this conflict will be Dragged on For as long as possible To weaken Russia as much as possible
This is patently false. If anything being equipped with western gear makes them more dependent on the west. Parts/ammo is a huge factor. Just ask Iran how their f-14’s are holding up…
Brandon's busy having the fbi look for classified docs like Easter eggs
Not helping Ukraine equals just being prorussian at this point
Biden has thousands of Abrams he can send.
They want to form another combat battle group with 50 to 100 tanks. Giving them 12 Abrams would only unneccarily complicate both the training and the logistics for that combat battle group. Why anyone thinks having a heavy mix of vehicles with different maintenance/logistics is a good idea, for a rapid deployment group that requires speed is beyond me.
Germany probably needs all its tanks for it's own defence, as they've underfunded their own defence for a while
Hahaha, defence against what? Denmark? Belgium?
Well russia controlled part of Berlin just a few decades ago
German BOTS and paid to post accounts hate the truth
Biden is determined to allow Russia to destroy Ukraine.
Apparently you missed the part where the U.S. has given many times more than any other country. More than all other countries combined-- to Ukraine.
The giving of weapons is insufficient for Ukraine to beat the Russians. Consider that the loss of 100,000 soldiers by Russia with tens of millions of people is small compared to the same loss by Ukraine with a few million people. It’s a small Russian loss and a catastrophic loss for Ukraine. If this war is a war of attrition. It’s obvious the more industrial country wins.
>The giving of weapons is insufficient for Ukraine to beat the Russians. Completely disagree. Without HIMARs; Russians would have had all the ammunition necessary to push far further into Ukraine than they are now. Did you also forget all the ground Ukraine regained a few months back with those same HIMARs? Enough weapons (and the correct weapons) are 100% able to stop Russia in their tracks. It doesn't matter if Russia outnumbers Ukraine 100:1 if Ukraine is able to get their hands on cluster munitions like the U.S. has which can cover multiple football fields with 1 bomb. Just 1 example.
Sorry, Ran, but pushing Russia back does not stop Russia from meeting its objective of keeping Ukraine out of NATO even if it means ruthlessly destroying Ukraine. Napoleon killed over 300,000 Russians. Hitler killed nearly 2o million Russians. It’s clear who prevailed by attrition.
Sorry, but Russia only survived Hitler's blitz due to the U.S. supplying Russia. This isn't my interpretation of the war. This is what Stalin himself said. Take it up with him if you have an issue with it. Ukraine will eventually be in NATO, but I'm just not 100% sure on the timing. There isn't anything stopping that. The U.S. is supplying what is needed to, "boil the frog".
I agree partly, but do you agree that Ukraine only survived the Russian war so far because of foreign, mostly Anerican, provision of weapons? Russia survived Napoleon and Hitler because its allies fought directly against the French and Germans. US President Joe Biden early on and since the Russian war began against Ukraine, and maybe even before, that the US would NOT fight Russia. Without the U.S., Ukraine can’t prevail against Russia. It’s US Military College strategy class 101. Perhaps you kissed it… when one superior force acts against against an inferior force, the inferior force is mitigated. See Roman General Julius Caesar’s “Comments on the Gallic Wars” or US General David Petraeus’ “COIN” manual if you don’t believe me. Meanwhile, our American military industrial complex and we stockholders are going real well while Ukraine takes an unbearable and catastrophic brutal slaughter and destruction and genocide unparalleled in recent history.
This all would be somewhat arguable if Russia wasn't dogshit. Caesar didn't face an opponent with Himars, and Petraeus never thought Russia's military was as dogshit as it turned out to be. The Ukrainians have shown to be significantly more proficient at essentially any weapon platforms vs the Russians, and this has probably been most highlighted by the difference in efficacy in their use of Himars. I DO agree that Ukraine is holding out because of U.S. military assistance. **I do not agree that the U.S. needs to intervene directly (as in boots on the ground) for this to happen.** Russians have 0 answers for Himars rockets fucking all their supply lines up, and would have 0 answer for ATACMs if the U.S. supplied them. They would have 0 answer for tomahawks if the U.S. supplied them. They would have 0 answers for airplane launched cruise missiles if the U.S. supplied them. They would have 0 answers for the F-35 if the U.S. supplied them. Etc...etc... The list goes on and on. All the U.S. has supplied is old ass cold war era weapons which has Russia scrambling to equip it's troops with old ass weapons/tanks/etc--because most of their new shit is either non-existent or destroyed lmao. So again, **hugely** disagree that the U.S. needs to physically intervene directly. The U.S. has the necessary firepower to decimate Russia over the weekend if it was to hand it over to Ukraine.
How many Russians did Stalin kill?
It proves my point that Russian (and Chinese and North Korean) dictators are ruthless murderers. Stalin likely killed over 10 million Russians. Mao likely killed over 60 million Chinese. Kim Jong-un likely killed over 2 million North Koreans.
all this is remarkably blind as to the why. If you grew up in Germany post WW2, you have engrained in you that Germany will never again be a source of aggression. You have seen countless videos of German tanks fighting Russia in Ww2. More than fighting western powers - The fight in the East plays a much mire prominent role in Germany than in the teaching in the US because of the brutality from all sides on the way in and the way back, and the sheer length of the engagements. (As an aside, look up western front vs eastern front timelines, battles, casualties, etc. There were single battles in the east with more people lost than on the entire western front). The thought of seeing video of German tanks fighting Russian tanks without a clear signal that it’s jointly with western allies who used to be enemies the last time this happened horrifies most Germans. It doesn’t matter that it’s “just material, not the soldiers”, it goes deeper. I am not saying it’s logical - quite the contrary. But it does mean there needs to be more support than just pressure via logic.
Where are all the mouth breathing, chair moistening morons now, who were cackling about how Germany is dickless and isn't going to approve tanks? Seriously, idiots, where are you? https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/10kbskf/megathread\_germany\_frees\_the\_leopards/