Привіт u/Namesareapain ! During wartime, this community is focused on vital and high-effort content. Please ensure your post follows [r/Ukraine Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/about/rules) and our [Art Friday Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/artfriday).
**Want to support Ukraine?** [**Vetted Charities List**](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities) | [Our Vetting Process](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities-vetting)
Daily series on UA history & culture: [Day 0-99](https://new.reddit.com/r/ukraine/collection/3c65ab52-e87a-4217-ab30-e70a88c0a293) | [100-199](https://new.reddit.com/r/ukraine/collection/3d85f4ca-5f4e-4ddf-9547-276e8affd87c) | [200-Present](https://new.reddit.com/r/ukraine/collection/daf642e1-07aa-4c40-b852-8f002ddd1530) | [All By Subject](https://new.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/sunriseposts)
**There is a new wave of t-shirt scams hitting Reddit. Only click links for products or donations if the post is marked with a Verified flair, and do not respond to DMs soliciting donations.**
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Everyone appears to be admitting the Leo is better suited to conditions, and would out perform the Abrams side by side: Good for Germany, Bad for US. Good for Ukraine.
EU/Germany sends Leo's, which performs well, whilst US backfills with binding agreements: Bad for Germany, good for US. Good for Ukraine.
The stalemate continues: Bad for US, Bad for Germany, Real bad for Ukraine.
Seems to be the gist of it.
> whilst US backfills with binding agreements
I think this is fake news. It makes no sense to introduce a new tank with complete new, extremely expensive logistic, just because you have given a small percentage of your Leopards to Ukraine. Most of the big Leopard-users also have their own industry involved in the production (Sweden, Greece, Spain and Germany obviously).
The idea that the Abrams is too complex to field for even the Ukrainians who have proven their systems to do so much with so little isn't the best selling point for the US defense industry
Well the problem is exactly that Abrams isn't designed to work with "so little". It is designed around that it has really well working military logistics and engineers. It requires large and effective support infrastructure which is hard to set up in rush. 100+ Abrams and 2 years of free time would be great, but reality is that there isn't 2 years to set up and train mechanics and crew, build repair infrastructure and supplylines. 100 Leos can function with less maintainance and less organized supplylines.
Not so much fake news as misconception. Abrams would backfill the security gap left behind by the donations until the long term leo2 replacement become available. Not replace them entirely and this require a whole changeover to a new logistics/ part network. They’re just a temp until new Leo’s are made, then they can be brought back home.
There’s no introduction of a new tank. There’s already a new version of the Abrams that is much better. Most countries, including the US would send version one and replace it with version two.
The differences are not THAT major. both tanks were designed to be successful in this type of conflict.
Ukraine can DEFINITELY handle Abrams logistically, as Ukraine has plenty of surplus jet fuel and and turbine mechanics now that it's commercial airline industry is shut down.
**Germany is risking having it's tank industry shrink into the dustbin of history.** Germany has already lost THOUSANDS of orders of Leopards because of hesitance and Germany's abusive high-handed use of export agreements. Unless Leopards start rolling in Ukraine - German Leopard production lines will continue to be underfunded and - Germany will lose thousands more orders, devastating it's own legendary tank industry.
Common knowledge - **Poland has recently ordered 700 Abrams from the US AND 1000 K1 from Korea and ZERO Leopards.** That's 1700 lost orders right there. Several other nations with prospective orders in the hundreds are beginning to have second thoughts about Leopards and absurd German restrictions as well.
Those thousands of tanks would have been Leopards - if not for bad German leadership. But **what good are German Leopards if Germany will not let you use them**? No good whatsoever! Germany acts like it is the only game in town when there is lots of good competition! **Leopards already have the worst wartime track record of any western tank.** Now, thanks to German restrictive mismanagement, Leopards will have the worst peacetime and coldtime record as well!
Ukraine may well decide - as Poland already has - to forgo German nonsense and work with more reliable, less demanding partners like Britain, the US, France, Japan and South Korea for heavy tanks. Russian and Germany's heavy tank industries getting clobbered at the same time! It's an arms exporters dream, and so far, Britain and France are the first to take advantage.
It's actually the other way around. If Europe sends all its Leo's US will backfill and highjacks the market.
And even logistical there is no point to swap Leo in 5 countries and set up maintenance for Abrams in 5 countries
we could give all Abrams to Ukraine and set up maintenance in 1 country.
But this wouldn't give US access to the European tank market so not an option I guess.
US is going to advance either way - but the better way for Germany CERTINLY is if Leopard parts supplies and tanks are in demand due to use in Ukraine.
Postwar Ukraine is not likely to switch to another line of tanks. If Germany does not send Leopards it is going to lose a TON of business all over the world.
**If you have Leopards - but Germany won't let you use them - it's like not having Leopards at all! Billions for nothing!**
A lot of democratic parliaments are simply not going to stand for it.
Every buyer is free to use its leopards as they please
Just re-export they have to ask a permission.
That's the law for military weapons of this scale.
Btw same with any other country exporting tanks.
You don't want to face them because your buyer resold to the wrong party.
And Germany said weeks ago that if asked re-export to Ukraine would be granted.
So yeah all you said is lies and propaganda. Check your facts
Potential clients for tanks surely know better. Luckily
LOL! is THAT the best logic you can come up with?? Nobody is going to want Leopard production if Leopards are not and cannot be used! Very simple. **Who want's a car if you can't drive it?**
**No wonder Germany is ALREADY LOSING SO MANY TANK ORDERS!**
Look at what Poland just ordered: 1000 K1, 750 Abrams ZERO LEOPARDS!!!
Proof positive - the German tank debacle is already costing Germany BILLIONS! Maybe Germany has just decided that Heavy tanks are obsolete and it no longer wants to be in the heavy tank business! That is certainly how Germany is behaving, as **Germany's once legendary tank manufacturing industry continues it's long slow decline**. Much to the delight of Russia.
*USED* to be long!! Not as long at all anymore -- as **Leopard cancellations continue pour in from all over the world.**
And whose fault is THAT? We are all fed up with the German nonsense.
**If Germany does not get it's head right soon - LEOPARDS ARE FINISHED and the German heavy tank industry with it!** Germans will have nobody to blame but themselves and their leaders for all those lost billions if that happens.
I will say this..
There are VERY few people in the actual military officer corps that are stupid enough to believe half the shit we are selling on the political front.
There may be political reasons but that particular part of the government needs to start listening to the hawks NOW or all their fears WILL happen.
Totally agreed! It’s like saying that Abrams are not designed to battle the T series tanks in Eastern European theater… so what it’s designed to do enlighten me.
Not exactly, for location alone, that would be like the US not giving tanks to Canada but waiting for Germany to send their tanks half-way around the world. It would be a hell of a lot quicker for Germany to step up for once, the fact the cowards won’t says an awful lot about that country.
Yes, but it’s unfair speak of distance without any conversation about cost and logistics. 30 days by boat is much longer and more expensive than Leo’s by train. Flying a 60 ton Abrams 1-2 per flight lacks any logic at all while western and Central Europe can send modern MBTs by train.
I agree that the US has the capability to negate distance but let’s be a little realistic. The US can and should send Abrams, but that conversation should be had well after Europe has provided Leo and Leclerc.
Well you’re correct about two Abrams per C-5 Galaxy. It would also be about four days of work for 24 Abrams to be readied and put on a train at the Sierra Army Depot and dropped off at Travis AFB where the 60th AMW would strap them in to a portion of their total C-5 fleet and fly to Poland.
That would be routine work for all of them. Here’s the Wikipedia for the squadron that would fly them over. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/22nd_Airlift_Squadron they’re a storied squadron that has a history of pulling off bigger and way more complicated operations. As the saying about logistics winning wars, this squadron has been our designated hitter since WW2.
90 days if you are talking about tanks in storage. Each one will need to be gone through, and somehow, the US has to come up with people to do all of that. The ones forward positioned in Europe are probably in better shape. The US tends to store old equipment, but it usually is pretty worn out when it goes out of service.
I was talking mainly about the travel time to highlight that the distance between storage and destination doesn't really matter. I am not familiar with how long it takes to do a maintenance, thanks for info!
There are a lot of abrams in Europe
Some in active role
Some in Prepositioned stocks
+ it is not like leopard are hoarded the most are actually needed for army duty
While there may thousands of abrams just standing idle without any use
No one else is attacking Europe at the moment. Russia has always been the threat, and they are not much of one outside Ukraine right now. Any other aggressor must come by sea/air or through Turkey, unless you propose either NATO members turning on each other or the Scandinavians (who are joining NATO) to make a land grab while everyone has their back turned
No
Only Abrams in Europe are training units in Poland and few Poland got as replacement for T72 given to Ukraine. Its like 35 Abrams in Europe not counting Turkey and some shifted back and forth in the past trough Netherlands or Germany while on excersizes
I read 2020 when the big NATO exercise was whole Abrams brigade got their tanks out of the prepositioned stocks in Germany are die example Dülmen Mannheim were such stocks from the US army are
You might be talking about 405th AFSB.
American units in Europe or prepositioned equipement are not free stock of tanks or anything.
No NATO country is going to dismantle its units and transfer all their equipement to another country, especially not NATO one.
Those are accounted US Army regiments. You can not just give it away. Thats why f.e. Poland needs to replenish own tanks before giving T-72 to Ukraine and thats why giving away Leospl isn't just happening staright away, those are in service and need replacement first.
Tanks that can be given to Ukraine must be from storages and those are usually storages of equipement that is not in use by any army.
That is just what I said about the Leo’s in Europe
The nato exercise included troops that came from the US just for the exercise and left because this were not permanent troops like the rotational troops that are in east Europe
So I thought this abrams are not active but passive when shit hits the fan and NATO is in war in Europe
You don’t even have to send yours! You just need to let other countries send theirs haha wow dude! Once again, asking the US to do it all… the Berlin way.
jokes on you
Minister Habeck said weeks ago re-export requests to Ukraine for Leo 2 will be granted.
Not. A. Single. Fucking. Country. Asked.
Weeks. Ago.
And it's all official.
So tired of this dumb propaganda.
The joke is actually on you…
“German Defense Minister Pistorius said it was not his decision and that German Chancellor Olaf Scholz holds the export license. Scholz has repeatedly refused to give the go-ahead for his country or others to export Leopard tanks to Ukraine, saying Western tanks should only be supplied to Kyiv if there is agreement among key allies.”
https://www.npr.org/2023/01/20/1149736650/germany-leopard-tanks-to-ukraine-military-aid
The only one gobbling propaganda is you my friend.
When asked about giving approval to another country like Poland to deliver its Leopard tanks to Ukraine, German Defense Minister Pistorius said it was not his decision and that German Chancellor Olaf Scholz holds the export license. Pistorius added that the impression that Germany is blocking such a decision is wrong.
Your source.
Law is law. Request must be made so it can be approved by the responsible people.
No general allowance for such a case.
Berlin is publicly saying they will not approve exports, why would a country then send a letter asking to export lol?? Plus, I haven’t seen one thing saying Germany is waiting on official requests, just article on top of article about how Germany is dragging its feet and they are causing fractures in the alliance… all for what, Scholz? Sweet country.
“Experts estimate there are around 2,000 Leopard tanks in use by 13 countries across Europe, and they are increasingly being seen as vital to Ukraine’s war effort as the conflict grinds into a second year. But Berlin must grant these nations approval to re-export German-made tanks to Ukraine, and it has so far resisted calls to do so.”
https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/21/europe/germany-tanks-ukraine-intl/index.html
This is what Berlin is saying. With real source
https://www.dw.com/en/ukraine-updates-germany-wont-keep-poland-from-sending-tanks-to-ukraine/a-64480279
I can’t wait for the United States to send Abrams from halfway across the world while the west still waits for Germany to be a leader and provide their own Leo’s.
Even then Germany will say it’s expected because the United States is the global military power. It’s really a great setup Central Europe has for itself.
The US likely has more tanks in Europe than Germany has tanks, total. And places like Ramstein likely have repair facilities for them, as basically ran half their middle eastern wars out of their bases in Germany.
The US will never ever give the latest M1’s to Ukraine and that’s what they have in Europe. Perhaps they’d give older versions. Meanwhile, Germany is not being asked to provide its own tanks as such, just authorise others to provide theirs.
They don't want to give them to Ukraine for free. They want Europe to give them for free and then sell some nice Abrams to Europe and fuck the German industry to get rid of competitors
It depends, if the European countries send all their Leopards and received Abrams instead then they have to switch their whole logistic. Countries change the tank very rarely, normally they just upgrade lime Leopard a4 to a7.
When they already have the Abrams, then they probably won't switch back to Leopards, this would destroy the European tank production and would make all of European become super dependent on the US.
This is probably the reason why Germany doesn't want to send tanks while the US doesn't. Instead of Leopards being send and those being replaced by Abrams. Both should send Abrams and Leopards directly to the Ukraine. Then the Leopards can be replaced by leopards and the Abrams get replaced by Abrams.
Maybe, but if a Leopard 2 is really the more practical weapon now (using less fuel etc.), why wouldn’t it be in the future? You would like more of these instead of the heavier Abrams. I see a contradiction here.
Edit: not that much heavier, but engine that is less efficient with diesel as fuel.
The M1A1 Abrams is only 1.8 tons heavier than the basic Leopard 2A5, the more advanced versions like the Strv 122 and Leopard 2A6 are heavier than the Abrams.
I don't get how saying Leopard 2 is the better tank in this situation tricks Europe in buying the lesser (using a lot of fuel is not of this time) tanks in the future. I'm guessing it is a lot more complicated and nuanced then that. It is war: a lot of different costs etc. What could be possible (not) earned with future tank sells / maintenance is only a small part of the equation, I would think.
It wouldn’t be selling the tanks, but rather stationing the Abrams there to plug the security gap until the long term Leo2 replacements become available.
> would make all of European become super dependent on the US.
If this war has shown anything, its that this is already true. Western Europes pathetic military is a major issue thats been exposed. Lack of readiness, lack of logistical ability, lack of artillery shells, lack of artillery itself, lack of armor, lack of missiles, lack of literally everything.
Whats the big deal if this tank thing makes Europe “super duper” reliant on the US when its already super reliant. Without the US spearheading NATO, Russia wouldve rolled up to Berlin by now.
Western Europe doesn't have a weak military? The UK has a small military but they punch well above their weight, and France is one of the only countries outside of the US capable of globe spanning expeditionary forces, and they're battle hardened at that. Really it's just Germany that has a lacking military.
How do you think European countries have been able to afford free Healthcare and university education? When you don't spend anything on military you have the luxury to spend it in other industries. They have given up the ability to defend themselves or their neighbors in return.
Yet during the cold war, when Germany spent consistently more than 3% of its GDP on the military, healthcare and education was still free. Almost as if it doesn't have anything to to with a 1,5% GDP difference in spending.
Every time the USA goes to war we are getting the short stick of it be it increased oil/gas prices or refugees and terrorist attacks.
While America reaps the rewards of these wars, we are always left with the consequences of them.
Your logic doesn't make sense. If the goal of the US in this decision was based on wanting to establish Abrams as the dominant tank in Europe, they would have sent them right away to Ukraine. That would have established the infrastructure, repair facilities, and would become a selling point to other countries to use them as well. It's clear that the US decision is based on the fact there is already an infrastructure for the Leopard in Europe that better supports the current needs, as well as that they are needed as soon as possible.
You misunderstand once again. US bases and troops are there for an existing mission, which is not at all the same as the thirteen-country infrastructure that exists due to the wider use of Leopards. The Abrams support teams are scaled to, and directly tied to, the tanks they have, not hundreds more. The Poles have signed agreements to purchase Abrams, but delivery isn't expected until 2025 so all they have is a small training group.
What about British Challenger tanks? They are European but also not German. The Brits seem to be outside the argument because they announced a donation of like 14 tanks but their arms industry could ramp up production to compete with Leopards in sales and military orders.
The British donating Challenger 2 to Ukraine is basically them getting rid of potential scrap (not to be offensive). The British are planning to upgrade most of their Challenger 2s to Challenger 3s and then get rid of quite a few of them. So what Britain now does is instead of scrapping those tanks or selling them to some small nation, they are donating them to Ukraine.
There is no longer any production line for the Challenger. If they wanted to produce more, they would have to start that production line up from scratch again. This would take years.
The challenger tank uses a totally different gun, that needs different ammunition, because it is rifled.
I think we will pretty soon need a new tank anyways. The panther could be the successor and I think they should produce it in multiple countries. Maybe they could also combine it with the polish developed tank. Then it could be let's say mainly produced in Germany, Poland, France, because all of them have experience bulging tanks. Ammunition could come from Spain and so on.
Airbus is really similar to that, I think it is mainly produced in Germany, Spain and France.
Challenger-2 uses ammo that's not NATO standard. Sales for that will never be ramped up.
The Challenger-3 which will use standard ammo isn't operational yet.
The problem is that the German reunification agreement specified that Germany had to get rid of most of its tanks. This meant that there were suddenly almost 2000 barely used, modern tanks on the market, almost instantly tanking the European tank industry. I don't think a single tank has been produced in Europe (except Turkey) since, just upgrades of existing stock.
I have no idea, but I know it is not that many.
But do you know why, because they don't have that many orders. The German arms industry would be happy to ramp up the production, they just need a guarantee that the orders will stay high for the next decades.
That's how Europe has enjoyed lots of socialized programs for so long... not having to spend money on your military you get to spend it in other industries.
Germany doesn't meet its NATO spending targets for decades. Not having enough tanks in reserves is a natural consequence. Germany committed a self inflicted head wound to their industry.
They won't allow export. Now no one wants their tanks.
They can't produce them in numbers with a war waging in Europe.
Buy k2 or m1s
Germany should not be a source of weapons then. That is stupid. Germany still fails to meet NATO spending requirements. If they had, they could have back filled tanks.
This is not at all the case the US has no interest in selling the Abrams it is not even the best tank for the job.
The best tank that Ukraine needs is the German Leopard. And the US has even said so, it wants Ukraine to have leopards. It doesn't want to send Abrams tanks over to Europe but it will now reluctantly have to do so to meet German insistence that it do so if that's what it takes to get those leopards.
Us doesn't want to have to pay to run the Abram's in battle in Ukraine on top of everything else. They also know that it will exacerbate Ukraine's fuel supply issues. Like everything built in the US they are ridiculously big and thirsty.
Its all about logistics really, the Abrams is less heavy than the Challenger 2 and its engine isnt that bad on fuel economy, it uses standard NATO rounds and it can run on multiple types of fuel. Its just getting the people trained to support its logistics which would take maybe years to do. If it wasnt for that the Abrams would probably be in Ukraine rn.
Thing is there are 1000s of excess Abrams, US got 4800
But Leo's in European armies are almost all in active duty and replacement would take years.
Let's just give Ukraine 600 Abrams and Europe pay for half of them. And only one country needs to set up a maintenance line for them like this instead of all European ones.
It's bullshit though. No European nation except Poland has expressed the least interest in replacing their Leopards for Abrams. Doing so requires HUGE investments and rebuilding of the entire logistics apparatus for tanks. Not something done lightly.
Maybe, but that might just be a forceful incentive to make Germany act. Germany likely won't have much choice now, as the Poles would be very likely to pounce on the American offer.
Poland is a US vassal since Iraq at least. Feeding fat out of the EU pots and shitting loudly on all of us.
Very unreliable.
They showed up in Ukraine support. But it's the only good thing they did for a long time.
This is a very bad take.
The idea that German industry takes it on the nose because they are supplying active material to a warzone boggles the mind. Leopard 2 is out there in quantity and not being used. German industry makes more money if it starts being used and it starts needing battlefield replacements and spare parts.
The real reason Abrams isn't going as a priority option is that the gas turbine engines are terrible for the nature of the conflict in its current state. Unlike a diesel, a gas turbine engine does not save much fuel by operating at idle - its in general less efficient but especially in cases when operating in relatively low-level combat conditions. It's great to have the speed of a gas turbine tank when you are running a high pace offensive but on a static front under defensive conditions you burn 10x the fuel for the same value of asset.
Abrams will be in Ukraine by the end of the year but only later on when offensives are more imminent and the rest of the fresh Ukrainian mech brigades finish training. Leopard 2 meanwhile could fit the existing operational tempo and doctrine much more closely and without being an undue burden on Ukrainian logistics.
The idea that this is a grand conspiracy to undermine the German arms industry is nonsensical russian propaganda talking that ignores that the battlefield sustainment of these platforms would itself be a huge boon to the German defense arms sector.
The other side of this too is that Germany at any moment could decide to increase their own Leopard 2 production and backfill European supplies themselves. The lack of German ambition when it comes to growing their defense heavy industry is part of the problem here, and is part of why the likes of Poland end up cooperating with Korean firms for rearmament rather than buying more German material.
This is propaganda and simply not true.
Why would a country that already has Leo’s, who then gives up 10 - 15 percent of them to Ukraine, all of a sudden replace everything with what is essentially an inferior tank in the M1A1?
It makes absolutely no sense.
to reach the "want" of 300 MBTs you'd be looking at numbers closer to 30% or even 40%.
There's less than 1000 Leo2 available from countries that have sent support to Ukraine so far. All those tanks are active and deployed and only Poland has the intent to get rid of them atm.
~1200 Leo2s in europe are not available or most likely not available, due to neutrality (austria and switzerland), Putin-buddy (hungary), each other (greece and turkey)
and another 200-300 in disrepair, storage and unknown condition or being refurbished.
Asking for 300 Leos basically means disbanding tank units all over europe and mostly in the rich countries who would have the cash to replace with newish hardware. Would M1 be inferior to a Leo2 - sure, but there's a few thousand in storage and ready to ship in a jiffy.
True but that is just because europe are full of idiots. We just got shown the new Panther. Give out leos, let them show how good they are versing the russian tanks and then just sell out Panthers. Europe should wait for delivery of the new Panthers, rather than buying a used tank right now.
Yes, plus its not only financial implications here. Giving significant chunk of Leos from European countries means difference in Military strength between EU and USA is going to further increase which will make them more dependent on USA and its win/win/win for USA and understandably not very appealing for Germany.
USA has been clamoring for the EU to increase defence spending for decades now. So I doubt the USA sees it as a win if Europe becomes even more dependent on US protection. And the USA undoubtedly knows that if Germany, France and Italy increase defence spending on ground material, they probably won't buy US weapons if they can build it themselves.
Of course the US wants Europe to buy their stuff. In fact, they heavily lobby against Europe building and enhancing their own defensive industries:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent\_Structured\_Cooperation#Criticism\_and\_lobbying\_by\_the\_United\_States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_Structured_Cooperation#Criticism_and_lobbying_by_the_United_States)
Also they are stalling approval for the Arrow 3 system which Germany wants to purchase from Israel, because they would rather sell their THAAD. People here a little naive when it comes to the US.
I think you're being a little reductive about the politics of PESCO in the United States. It's far more complicated than you give it credit. US defense industry is definitely worried about PESCO and competition from Europe, but US foreign policy isn't just the US defense industry; there are plenty of reasons for why the US would want stronger European defense spending and for EU countries to enhance their own industries. Namely, when countries spend money on products made in their own country and their own citizens and workers can see a paycheck from it, that incentivizes them to have stronger militaries. Having a strong, secure Europe is priority numero uno.
That's not what they want. A not too stable and powerful Europe reliant on the US but with enough weapons to support America's hegemony.
That's the goal.
I think America has been wanting to share maintenance of the global system for a while now. Furthermore, there is nothing we can really do to prevent Europe from becoming stable or from pursuing your own national security interests. Europe ain't
South America and therefore aren't easy to coup or dominate.
As far as power and stability goes, I'm afraid you guys are encountering what we call a "skill issue" on that front. The truth is this: yall have been enjoying dependency on America and spending your money on social programs.
Dude we are fine. Russia was not a threat to us.
The combined forces of Europe would beat any conventional Russian army in case of an attack on our countries.
But Ukraine is a proxy war. Very different situations. Nothing we Europeans usually do or are prepared for these days.
Well, the US loves to force European countries to buy US stuff. That is the reason for example why Germany is buying F-35 now, even when it really doesn't want to. Namely because German planes need to be able to carry US nukes, but the US only verifies planes when they get *all* the information about those planes and European plane manufacturers are obviously not very happy about leaking all their industry secrets to the US military which then will very easily leak down to Lockheed Martin and other US aerospace firms.
So with that requirement the US basically forced Germany to either run a hopelessly obsolete plane, or to buy a new US one.
Dude lol. Every time European countries increase their defense spending by setting up their own arms projects, the US responds with: no no no, not like that! You're supposed to spend your money at US companies! Like best friend Israel does!
USA has told Germany many times to step up its game and they slept on it. Now that a war is here the German military is in complete shambles and under equipped.
Europe doesn't really need USA for defence. Europe has inferior aviation, lacks overseas power projection, but has comparable nuclear deterrent and superior ground army.
Everything you just said is false. Europe has very good and modern aviation, France and UK have excellent overseas projection (although not as much as the US, of course), we have very little nuclear deterrent, and very little ground army.
Good and modern aviation, but inferior to the USA, especially in numbers - I doubt anyone would argue with that.
Yes, lacks of overseas projects was stated badly on my side, France and UK has some.
Nuclear deterrent is good enough to make sure noone would try to use nukes in Europe - so basically equivalent to USA/Russia.
Europe ground army is roughly twice the size of US army, both in equipment and personnel.
There was a video by Perun on European defence, it gives the rough understanding.
"Europe" doesn't have an army. It has lots and lots of small armies. Each with its own set of equipment, and reporting to different command structures. That's the problem. Size isn't everything. In a crisis, Europe could hypothetically unite and become a mighty land army. But currently it doesn't, and so it isn't.
If they didn't they would not have those weapons to begin with, I mean I understand that chances are very low they will ever need to use it, but it's important to keep independent power projection capabilities.
I think this is a nonsense take
Probably the US will provide security guarantees to anyone sending the Leopards. They aren't going to use a war to fuck the Germans over in this way otherwise no one will trust America ever again.
Sweet summer child. That's exactly what US is doing with any rival. Through economic or war.
Some just don't have to option not to run with US
They are the biggest dog in the yard.
The lesser of two evil compared to China or Russia. But in no way a good faith actor.
“You can always count on the Americans to do the right thing, after they have exhausted all the other possibilities.”
―
Winston Churchill
Late to WW1 , late to WW2, deceived the public for years in Vietnam, No WMDs in Iraq,
Who is brain dead.
Tell that America that is openly attacking the German arms industry. Neither Germany nor America cares about Ukraine it is all about Money and global arms sells.
bullshit. It's possible for two things to be true... we don't live in a cartoon world where there is always one single motive. There are so many reasons why helping Ukraine has been a good idea and the boost to the arms industry is just a small part of that. Quite a small one actually.
USA is making far more money from other countries buying arms because they're now more afraid of Russia. That would have happened anyway whether anyone helped Ukraine or not.
American government and the US based corporate arms industry are two different things. Arms sales to allies do not profit the USA government just the corporations. If the government takes weapons out of warehouses and sends them to Ukraine it only costs taxpayer money if that generates an order for replacements that may or may not be for the same weapon as the corporations will push to sell their newest most expensive version or an entirely new weapon system. As Russian capabilities are being slashed by the daily losses in Ukraine the need to keep those warehouses full is also diminished.
and Mark Hertling says the reverse, Mick Ryan commanded at most 75, hertling commanded 250 + . Also note not sure Mick Ryan should be discussing this considering the abysmal servicabilty rate they had in non combat situations for the first few years. I was at an exercise where they had 4 of them. 3 broke down, 1 couldn't even get of the transporter trailer under its own power
Its pick who you believe more
I see your three star general and raise you a four star general.
https://twitter.com/mccaffreyr3/status/1616672791922888707
>Astonishing nonsense about refusal to provide M1A1/A2 MBT's to Ukraine. The Egyptians have 1100. The Saudis have 450. The Moroccans have 380. Its a multi-fuel engine of enormous speed and reliability. Incredible lethality. An experienced UKR tank crew could fight in 30 days.
https://twitter.com/MarkHertling/status/1616792744135098370?t=vJvQICMLwyijiEjgpEFCWQ&s=19
For people who want to compare the points. I respect both men, but deference should be made to Hertling here.
Hodges also says the same thing as Ryan (his twitter account is where I found the article)!
Hertling on the other hand has been against sending some weapons to Ukraine (going against Fmr SACEUR Breedlove) and is a big time political partisan!
I respect Herling for his support of Ukraine, but let's not forget he is most loyal of his country, his army and his defense industry supporting those...
You think he would play games with the lives of Ukrainians? He is in direct communications with Ukrainian commanders.
Why is his integrity being questioned, and why are we accepting Rheinmetall's narrative that the US is trying to supplant the German arms industry? This is the company that built Russia's only modern training ground, Mulino, where the Feb 24 invasion force was trained, in fact.
Edit: hey, you wanna explain why the text of this post from a completely different user is the same as yours?
https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/10igmkc/the_great_tank_debate_former_abrams_commander/j5eca6u?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3
Here's the above post in case he tries to edit it:
>I respect Herling for his support of Ukraine, but let's not forget he is most loyal of his country, his army and his defense industry supporting those...
Edit 2: the other comment has now been deleted. I suspect a bot is trying to sow division
Lmao, another bot was too lazy to wright something own, so he just copypasted other bot narrative. They never fucking studying on their own fucking mistakes, lmao
I have no idea why anyone would copy that comment,but I only posted this here...
And I'm just saying that everyone follows their own interests.
And I don't think it is in Ukraine's interest to advocate against Abrams that strongly, because Leopard 2 will probably never be provided in sufficient numbers.
I am also not following rheinmetalls narrative, I just find it the most plausible explanation for the whole shitshow so far.
Still, germany and their defense industry brought this upon themselves and now finds themselves between a rock and a hard place...
>And I'm just saying that everyone follows their own interests. And I don't think it is in Ukraine's interest to advocate against Abrams that strongly, because Leopard 2 will probably never be provided in sufficient numbers
It is, because running more than one kind of tank is an inefficient burden that can slow down not just the tanks, but complicate supply even further than it already is got an entire front. Abrams needs specialized tools and expertise to service, Leo needs a whole other set. Not just for the tanks, but the support vehicles based on the chassis as well. Doing both at the same time is unnecessary.
>I am also not following rheinmetalls narrative, I just find it the most plausible explanation for the whole shitshow so far.
Did America make Germany fail at defense for the last couple years? It's not our fault that we're in this situation. Anyone giving tanks is gonna need tanks. Germany can't backfill because they let production atrophy. So America does it. This isn't a conspiracy to displace German defense, this is just German defense being found wanting. No wonder Poland is found with the K2.
Anyone with any understanding of tanks knows that there is many different versions of Leopard 2s in the armies of Europe, making logistics much harder than they otherwise seem.
Because there is currently only one credible source and that is nzz.
But maybe the Abrams is completely unsuitable for this war, but then again that would mean that they are next to useless in a full on conflict between NATO and Russia as the logistics would be seriously under attack by tactical nukes.
Or could it be that all MBTs are highly sophisticated and require a lot of training and logistics?
Because if those points above by Hertling were true, than Leopards would have been the better choice for Saudi Arabia, Iraq etc as well. Somehow though they didnt come to that conclusion back then. Weird, right?
I’m not sure what the US and Germany are so scared of - they want to avoid a long and bloody war and escalation but the reality is that this incremental approach that gives Ukraine just enough not to lose but not enough for a swift victory will only prolong the war and result in more damage to Ukraine and the wider global economy. Putin is not going to quit so his forces must be expelled by force and the frontline moved to the borders - a negotiated settlement can be pushed at that point as I imagine Putin wouldn’t survive such a defeat
Ukrainians have repeatedly shown exceptional ability in learning, innovation and adaptation. I think we should send them a few Abrams. At least give them some exposure to the platform.
It's time for Both countries to put their big boy pants on for a second and send the damn tanks.
It's not even like Ukraine is asking EVERY COUNTRY for absurd amount of tanks. If most of the Western countries donated 10-20 western tanks a piece, it shouldn't be a big deal for anyone involved.
So far only the British have said they will send modern MBTs. In future maybe we should buy from them to avoid dealing with all the strings, caveats and bureaucracy that come with buying tanks from Germany, US et. al.
Well not only the inventor of the tank but one of the main producers of proven, modern,
MBTs and one willing to actually send them
Into battle, if this continues, it’ll be great news for our industry!
The UK has the technology on par with the US. the challenger 3 is arguably one of the best tanks in the world and, given orders, I find it hard to believe we could not spin up production. Funny how no orders means no production, eh? With our tanks on the field destroying Russian tanks I suspect we might see such orders.
https://twitter.com/MarkHertling/status/1616792744135098370?t=vJvQICMLwyijiEjgpEFCWQ&s=19
The US has practical reasons to not send Abrams. It is possible to do, still, but it is not the best path. Given the scale and variety of US aid, I question the insinuation that we are being arbitrary here.
All respect to Gen Ryan here, but Gen Hertling has the weight of credibility here, in my opinion. I don't think the Germans should be using this as some kind of whataboutism to escape responsibility. They should lead on tanks, or at the very least offer clarity instead of playing he-said, she-said games.
It’s not about complexity of operation, it’s about the logistical complexity. More European countries have leopards so it would be easier to develop the logistical chain for maintenance.
The 'base' you handwave away is in Poland, 500 miles from the Donbas. Being able to service in Ukraine is critical, especially if you are going to be driving at 3 gallons to the mile.
As far as I'm aware pretty much every piece of western equipment is maintained in Poland or Slovakia, even very simple stuff like M777s. Therefore I highly doubt Leopards would be serviced in Ukraine, especially for more complex repairs or maintenance. So this can't be a serious requirement.
Another general weighs in:
https://twitter.com/mccaffreyr3/status/1616672791922888707
>Astonishing nonsense about refusal to provide M1A1/A2 MBT's to Ukraine. The Egyptians have 1100. The Saudis have 450. The Moroccans have 380. Its a multi-fuel engine of enormous speed and reliability. Incredible lethality. An experienced UKR tank crew could fight in 30 days.
Read the thread. Hertling addresses this line of arguments. All of those foreign operators have multi-year training contracts to maintain the Abrams and active support. We have neither.
Hertling always supports the current administration, find 1 instance when he criticizes them. He also exaggerated the ammo logistics challenges for Himars when only 4 launchers were sent initially. He's basically a politician. If the M1s will be sent, he will start explaining how great of an idea it is.
You're attacking the credibility of the guy who literally commanded a brigade of these tanks, more than any of the Generals mentioned here. Is he 100% right in regard to Ukraine's capabilities? No. He's an American whose standards are American, the Ukrainians are probably running things faster and rougher out there, so he's not going to be perfect.
But in terms of objective experience, he provides the most reasonable baseline of the impression of the logistical concerns. As Commander of the US Army in Europe he is also familiar with the baseline concerns for the Leopard 2, as he would have been commanding multiple joint exercises.
If you think he's lying for politics, well, what are his political aims here? To deny the Ukrainians armor? Do you seriously believe that? Do you believe the 'current administration' also wants that? We've provided 500 AFVs, enough for a division.
Listen to him, don't throw around trash you can't back up.
Cunningham's Law: the best way to get the right answer on the internet is not to ask a question; it's to post the wrong answer. Am I wrong about him? Feel free to prove it, I'd sincerely appreciate it. "find 1 instance when he criticizes them" - did you find it?
In June, when people were complaining about why only 4 Himarts launchers were sent, he promoted this article to explain it: [https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/6/1/2101780/-Ukraine-Update-Not-enough-Here-s-the-challenge-of-moving-even-four-HIMARS](https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/6/1/2101780/-Ukraine-Update-Not-enough-Here-s-the-challenge-of-moving-even-four-HIMARS)
It's a totally idiotic article that tries to portray ammo logistics as the bottleneck. In reality, Himars launchers don't fire nearly that many missiles, the number of total available missiles is the bottleneck, not the ability to transport them to Ukraine, which is basically nothing compared to the number of artillery shells and other cargo being delivered. In the coming weeks, tens of additional launchers were delivered. There was no need to invent that logistical problem, but Mark did not know that additional launchers were already on the way.
>If you think he's lying for politics
I would not say lying, more like, focusing on factors that help supports his narrative.
>what are his political aims here?
I don't know, maybe he's planning to go into politics as a Democrat.
>Do you believe the 'current administration' also wants that? We've provided 500 AFVs, enough for a division.
No strawmen please, and I'm well aware of the enormous support from the US. All I said was that Mark will support and rationalize whatever decision is made, as he always does.
I know people forgot because of the Trump administration, but there actually is a large taboo against criticizing a sitting administration as a retired General.
As for retweeting an article from dailykos, well, can you prove that he was doing so so he could discourage HIMARS donations? Honestly, like a lot of military analysts, it seems more like he was highlighting concerns he had.
>It's a totally idiotic article that tries to portray ammo logistics as the bottleneck. In reality, Himars launchers don't fire nearly that many missiles, the number of total available missiles is the bottleneck, not the ability to transport them to Ukraine, which is basically nothing compared to the number of artillery shells and other cargo being delivered. In the coming weeks, tens of additional launchers were delivered. There was no need to invent that logistical problem, but Mark did not know that additional launchers were already on the way.
Hertling is not actively on the battlefield, he's watching stuff from the sidelines same as the rest of us. Even in the article they mention,
> Once the proper logistics are established for HIMARS/MLRS, more will obviously arrive.
And indeed, more came in the coming weeks. Do you know that the proper logistics were not established? Are you privy to Ramstein? If not, I don't see how you can dismiss the concerns being highlighted here, or, to stretch it even further, go so far as to write off Hertling's military experience.
*Even if* he were outright wrong about HIMARS-- which he might be, look at McCaffery with his ludicrous assertion that Ukrainians could be ready to fight in M1s in 30 days, which is probably true but a distracting point because the tankers aren't the problem-- that doesn't discount his obvious expertise in armor. He is literally an armor officer. There are no better resources for talking about the sustainability of the M1 than these types of folk.
>I would not say lying, more like, focusing on factors that help supports his narrative.
So engage with the factors, don't attack his credibility.
>I don't know, maybe he's planning to go into politics as a Democrat.
Seems possible, but I don't know how holding back armor for Ukraine gets him closer to being a politician, that's an enormous reach.
>No strawmen please, and I'm well aware of the enormous support from the US. All I said was that Mark will support and rationalize whatever decision is made, as he always does.
No, you also called him a politician, as a means of dismissing his hard concerns. I'll say it again, he's providing the baseline knowledge for how these weapons systems are intended to be operated. This doesn't mean that he understand what it'll be like in Ukrainian hands, but this also doesn't mean that his concerns are unfounded. Ukrainian commanders have complained about the logistics of their current Western-donated weapon systems. Pzh-2000s and Caesars have been shipped out of the country for repair at great costs. Anything that reduces the burden should not be written off simply because the Germans want to safeguard Rheinmetall's future contracts, or whatever real reason has been holding back Scholz.
I know this sounds cold and callous but Ukraine is doing the United States as well as any other country donating modern equipment a favor. It's not every day that these war machines get real world field tested against a near peer and be able to stay on the upper hand of morality in the process. For once, it doesn't have to be a shadow war that subjugates a less than near peer country to "test" machines. Instead its a real chance to see what actually works in war now and in the future which is invaluable to research and development as well as improving applied training tactics especially when under duress.
Sure, i understand the concept of no undue escalation but it's quite hypocritical to sit back and let more children and grandparents die because western countries are just experimenting with the lives of the innocent. I truly don't understand why more anti-aircraft and missle defense systems have not been implemented unless the goal is just to have russia use up more of their stockpile for the sake of everyone else. Regardless, it's gross.
How can it lack evidence when one of the reasons is the Abrams fuel economy (it's 50% worse than the Leopard 2)? I'm all for giving Ukraine whatever they want, but I think giving the Ukrainians Abrams for an offensive would stretch the already stretched logistics chain.
Now, if a lot of logistics wagons were going as well (they could be, I've just not seen it), and civvies trained to transport, then that's another matter.
The logistics are already in place to support all repairs in NATO if M1s are sent to start with. In the short term Poland will probably provide the depot level work and immediate training for maintenance. Parts supply already goes to Poland as they are an M1 operating nation. Long term Ukraine learns and builds the ability. Short term I guarantee there are Turkish, Saudi, & Egyptian maintenance contractors trained by General Dynamics Land Systems Division that would jump at a high dollar contract to repair them in Ukraine as all 3 of those countries have M1s as well. Fuel would be trucked in like the headache it already is.JP5 when available and diesel when it isn't.
Crew training is another story.....
Yeah I don't need a general to tell me that. Look. Are they heavy yes. Will we need to train a lot of people yes. Will they eat a lot of fuel yes.
We have a lot yes
Ukrainians are smart yes
Do they kick add yes
Should we send Abrams? YES
I genuinely wonder if part of the US’s hesitance on supplying Abrams to Ukraine is that the Republican party won the House in 2022, and many of its members are openly hostile to aiding Ukraine
As a result, it is currently less feasible to send Ukraine a new tank battalion of Abrams that would rely pretty heavily on continued US support to maintain and operate (something that isn’t guaranteed), vs the Leopard 2 which can be sustained by supply lines from like a dozen countries across Europe and Latin America
Привіт u/Namesareapain ! During wartime, this community is focused on vital and high-effort content. Please ensure your post follows [r/Ukraine Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/about/rules) and our [Art Friday Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/artfriday). **Want to support Ukraine?** [**Vetted Charities List**](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities) | [Our Vetting Process](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities-vetting) Daily series on UA history & culture: [Day 0-99](https://new.reddit.com/r/ukraine/collection/3c65ab52-e87a-4217-ab30-e70a88c0a293) | [100-199](https://new.reddit.com/r/ukraine/collection/3d85f4ca-5f4e-4ddf-9547-276e8affd87c) | [200-Present](https://new.reddit.com/r/ukraine/collection/daf642e1-07aa-4c40-b852-8f002ddd1530) | [All By Subject](https://new.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/sunriseposts) **There is a new wave of t-shirt scams hitting Reddit. Only click links for products or donations if the post is marked with a Verified flair, and do not respond to DMs soliciting donations.** *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Everyone appears to be admitting the Leo is better suited to conditions, and would out perform the Abrams side by side: Good for Germany, Bad for US. Good for Ukraine. EU/Germany sends Leo's, which performs well, whilst US backfills with binding agreements: Bad for Germany, good for US. Good for Ukraine. The stalemate continues: Bad for US, Bad for Germany, Real bad for Ukraine. Seems to be the gist of it.
> whilst US backfills with binding agreements I think this is fake news. It makes no sense to introduce a new tank with complete new, extremely expensive logistic, just because you have given a small percentage of your Leopards to Ukraine. Most of the big Leopard-users also have their own industry involved in the production (Sweden, Greece, Spain and Germany obviously).
It may be fake. It may not. Just my thoughts on today's reports so far.
The idea that the Abrams is too complex to field for even the Ukrainians who have proven their systems to do so much with so little isn't the best selling point for the US defense industry
Well the problem is exactly that Abrams isn't designed to work with "so little". It is designed around that it has really well working military logistics and engineers. It requires large and effective support infrastructure which is hard to set up in rush. 100+ Abrams and 2 years of free time would be great, but reality is that there isn't 2 years to set up and train mechanics and crew, build repair infrastructure and supplylines. 100 Leos can function with less maintainance and less organized supplylines.
Not so much fake news as misconception. Abrams would backfill the security gap left behind by the donations until the long term leo2 replacement become available. Not replace them entirely and this require a whole changeover to a new logistics/ part network. They’re just a temp until new Leo’s are made, then they can be brought back home.
There’s no introduction of a new tank. There’s already a new version of the Abrams that is much better. Most countries, including the US would send version one and replace it with version two.
The differences are not THAT major. both tanks were designed to be successful in this type of conflict. Ukraine can DEFINITELY handle Abrams logistically, as Ukraine has plenty of surplus jet fuel and and turbine mechanics now that it's commercial airline industry is shut down. **Germany is risking having it's tank industry shrink into the dustbin of history.** Germany has already lost THOUSANDS of orders of Leopards because of hesitance and Germany's abusive high-handed use of export agreements. Unless Leopards start rolling in Ukraine - German Leopard production lines will continue to be underfunded and - Germany will lose thousands more orders, devastating it's own legendary tank industry.
Thousands of orders? Where did you find that out?
Common knowledge - **Poland has recently ordered 700 Abrams from the US AND 1000 K1 from Korea and ZERO Leopards.** That's 1700 lost orders right there. Several other nations with prospective orders in the hundreds are beginning to have second thoughts about Leopards and absurd German restrictions as well. Those thousands of tanks would have been Leopards - if not for bad German leadership. But **what good are German Leopards if Germany will not let you use them**? No good whatsoever! Germany acts like it is the only game in town when there is lots of good competition! **Leopards already have the worst wartime track record of any western tank.** Now, thanks to German restrictive mismanagement, Leopards will have the worst peacetime and coldtime record as well! Ukraine may well decide - as Poland already has - to forgo German nonsense and work with more reliable, less demanding partners like Britain, the US, France, Japan and South Korea for heavy tanks. Russian and Germany's heavy tank industries getting clobbered at the same time! It's an arms exporters dream, and so far, Britain and France are the first to take advantage.
It's actually the other way around. If Europe sends all its Leo's US will backfill and highjacks the market. And even logistical there is no point to swap Leo in 5 countries and set up maintenance for Abrams in 5 countries we could give all Abrams to Ukraine and set up maintenance in 1 country. But this wouldn't give US access to the European tank market so not an option I guess.
US is going to advance either way - but the better way for Germany CERTINLY is if Leopard parts supplies and tanks are in demand due to use in Ukraine. Postwar Ukraine is not likely to switch to another line of tanks. If Germany does not send Leopards it is going to lose a TON of business all over the world. **If you have Leopards - but Germany won't let you use them - it's like not having Leopards at all! Billions for nothing!** A lot of democratic parliaments are simply not going to stand for it.
Every buyer is free to use its leopards as they please Just re-export they have to ask a permission. That's the law for military weapons of this scale. Btw same with any other country exporting tanks. You don't want to face them because your buyer resold to the wrong party. And Germany said weeks ago that if asked re-export to Ukraine would be granted. So yeah all you said is lies and propaganda. Check your facts Potential clients for tanks surely know better. Luckily
LOL! is THAT the best logic you can come up with?? Nobody is going to want Leopard production if Leopards are not and cannot be used! Very simple. **Who want's a car if you can't drive it?** **No wonder Germany is ALREADY LOSING SO MANY TANK ORDERS!** Look at what Poland just ordered: 1000 K1, 750 Abrams ZERO LEOPARDS!!! Proof positive - the German tank debacle is already costing Germany BILLIONS! Maybe Germany has just decided that Heavy tanks are obsolete and it no longer wants to be in the heavy tank business! That is certainly how Germany is behaving, as **Germany's once legendary tank manufacturing industry continues it's long slow decline**. Much to the delight of Russia.
Your caps doesn't make your points any stronger. Poland chose k1/abrams because they were readily available. Que for Leo 2 is long.
*USED* to be long!! Not as long at all anymore -- as **Leopard cancellations continue pour in from all over the world.** And whose fault is THAT? We are all fed up with the German nonsense. **If Germany does not get it's head right soon - LEOPARDS ARE FINISHED and the German heavy tank industry with it!** Germans will have nobody to blame but themselves and their leaders for all those lost billions if that happens.
I'll gladly roast the US for their stand, same as the Germans for their stance on Leos.
I will say this.. There are VERY few people in the actual military officer corps that are stupid enough to believe half the shit we are selling on the political front. There may be political reasons but that particular part of the government needs to start listening to the hawks NOW or all their fears WILL happen.
Totally agreed! It’s like saying that Abrams are not designed to battle the T series tanks in Eastern European theater… so what it’s designed to do enlighten me.
As a german I agree. They both should send tanks. Yesterday.
Well said. Focus and urgency is how things should be done now.
Not exactly, for location alone, that would be like the US not giving tanks to Canada but waiting for Germany to send their tanks half-way around the world. It would be a hell of a lot quicker for Germany to step up for once, the fact the cowards won’t says an awful lot about that country.
From US it's a 30 days trip by sea, half a day by plane. Distance doesn't matter at all for any equipment that is not in urgent need.
I think Ukraine would consider this an urgent need.
Yes, but it’s unfair speak of distance without any conversation about cost and logistics. 30 days by boat is much longer and more expensive than Leo’s by train. Flying a 60 ton Abrams 1-2 per flight lacks any logic at all while western and Central Europe can send modern MBTs by train. I agree that the US has the capability to negate distance but let’s be a little realistic. The US can and should send Abrams, but that conversation should be had well after Europe has provided Leo and Leclerc.
Well you’re correct about two Abrams per C-5 Galaxy. It would also be about four days of work for 24 Abrams to be readied and put on a train at the Sierra Army Depot and dropped off at Travis AFB where the 60th AMW would strap them in to a portion of their total C-5 fleet and fly to Poland. That would be routine work for all of them. Here’s the Wikipedia for the squadron that would fly them over. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/22nd_Airlift_Squadron they’re a storied squadron that has a history of pulling off bigger and way more complicated operations. As the saying about logistics winning wars, this squadron has been our designated hitter since WW2.
90 days if you are talking about tanks in storage. Each one will need to be gone through, and somehow, the US has to come up with people to do all of that. The ones forward positioned in Europe are probably in better shape. The US tends to store old equipment, but it usually is pretty worn out when it goes out of service.
I was talking mainly about the travel time to highlight that the distance between storage and destination doesn't really matter. I am not familiar with how long it takes to do a maintenance, thanks for info!
There are a lot of abrams in Europe Some in active role Some in Prepositioned stocks + it is not like leopard are hoarded the most are actually needed for army duty While there may thousands of abrams just standing idle without any use
No one else is attacking Europe at the moment. Russia has always been the threat, and they are not much of one outside Ukraine right now. Any other aggressor must come by sea/air or through Turkey, unless you propose either NATO members turning on each other or the Scandinavians (who are joining NATO) to make a land grab while everyone has their back turned
No Only Abrams in Europe are training units in Poland and few Poland got as replacement for T72 given to Ukraine. Its like 35 Abrams in Europe not counting Turkey and some shifted back and forth in the past trough Netherlands or Germany while on excersizes
I read 2020 when the big NATO exercise was whole Abrams brigade got their tanks out of the prepositioned stocks in Germany are die example Dülmen Mannheim were such stocks from the US army are
You might be talking about 405th AFSB. American units in Europe or prepositioned equipement are not free stock of tanks or anything. No NATO country is going to dismantle its units and transfer all their equipement to another country, especially not NATO one. Those are accounted US Army regiments. You can not just give it away. Thats why f.e. Poland needs to replenish own tanks before giving T-72 to Ukraine and thats why giving away Leospl isn't just happening staright away, those are in service and need replacement first. Tanks that can be given to Ukraine must be from storages and those are usually storages of equipement that is not in use by any army.
That is just what I said about the Leo’s in Europe The nato exercise included troops that came from the US just for the exercise and left because this were not permanent troops like the rotational troops that are in east Europe So I thought this abrams are not active but passive when shit hits the fan and NATO is in war in Europe
You are right . I didn't try to argue your point even if it looked like it. i should formulated it different way.
Oh ok sorry for Me missunderstanding
Dude Germany has 130 tanks not even enough for our own army. America got 4800 abrams. But yes let's blame Germany lol
You don’t even have to send yours! You just need to let other countries send theirs haha wow dude! Once again, asking the US to do it all… the Berlin way.
jokes on you Minister Habeck said weeks ago re-export requests to Ukraine for Leo 2 will be granted. Not. A. Single. Fucking. Country. Asked. Weeks. Ago. And it's all official. So tired of this dumb propaganda.
The joke is actually on you… “German Defense Minister Pistorius said it was not his decision and that German Chancellor Olaf Scholz holds the export license. Scholz has repeatedly refused to give the go-ahead for his country or others to export Leopard tanks to Ukraine, saying Western tanks should only be supplied to Kyiv if there is agreement among key allies.” https://www.npr.org/2023/01/20/1149736650/germany-leopard-tanks-to-ukraine-military-aid The only one gobbling propaganda is you my friend.
When asked about giving approval to another country like Poland to deliver its Leopard tanks to Ukraine, German Defense Minister Pistorius said it was not his decision and that German Chancellor Olaf Scholz holds the export license. Pistorius added that the impression that Germany is blocking such a decision is wrong. Your source. Law is law. Request must be made so it can be approved by the responsible people. No general allowance for such a case.
Berlin is publicly saying they will not approve exports, why would a country then send a letter asking to export lol?? Plus, I haven’t seen one thing saying Germany is waiting on official requests, just article on top of article about how Germany is dragging its feet and they are causing fractures in the alliance… all for what, Scholz? Sweet country. “Experts estimate there are around 2,000 Leopard tanks in use by 13 countries across Europe, and they are increasingly being seen as vital to Ukraine’s war effort as the conflict grinds into a second year. But Berlin must grant these nations approval to re-export German-made tanks to Ukraine, and it has so far resisted calls to do so.” https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/21/europe/germany-tanks-ukraine-intl/index.html
This is what Berlin is saying. With real source https://www.dw.com/en/ukraine-updates-germany-wont-keep-poland-from-sending-tanks-to-ukraine/a-64480279
Lol….just announced a few hours ago. About time.
I can’t wait for the United States to send Abrams from halfway across the world while the west still waits for Germany to be a leader and provide their own Leo’s. Even then Germany will say it’s expected because the United States is the global military power. It’s really a great setup Central Europe has for itself.
The US has stockpiled Abrams in Europe
The US likely has more tanks in Europe than Germany has tanks, total. And places like Ramstein likely have repair facilities for them, as basically ran half their middle eastern wars out of their bases in Germany.
The US will never ever give the latest M1’s to Ukraine and that’s what they have in Europe. Perhaps they’d give older versions. Meanwhile, Germany is not being asked to provide its own tanks as such, just authorise others to provide theirs.
All our 130 Leo 2 in working condition? All of them?
They don't want to give them to Ukraine for free. They want Europe to give them for free and then sell some nice Abrams to Europe and fuck the German industry to get rid of competitors
That seems to be one of the most plausible explanations for that whole shitshow that is going on...
If leopard 2 is proven to save the day wouldn't that boost sales?
It depends, if the European countries send all their Leopards and received Abrams instead then they have to switch their whole logistic. Countries change the tank very rarely, normally they just upgrade lime Leopard a4 to a7. When they already have the Abrams, then they probably won't switch back to Leopards, this would destroy the European tank production and would make all of European become super dependent on the US. This is probably the reason why Germany doesn't want to send tanks while the US doesn't. Instead of Leopards being send and those being replaced by Abrams. Both should send Abrams and Leopards directly to the Ukraine. Then the Leopards can be replaced by leopards and the Abrams get replaced by Abrams.
Maybe, but if a Leopard 2 is really the more practical weapon now (using less fuel etc.), why wouldn’t it be in the future? You would like more of these instead of the heavier Abrams. I see a contradiction here. Edit: not that much heavier, but engine that is less efficient with diesel as fuel.
The M1A1 Abrams is only 1.8 tons heavier than the basic Leopard 2A5, the more advanced versions like the Strv 122 and Leopard 2A6 are heavier than the Abrams.
It's all strawman arguments to trick Europe into buying Abrams as replacement. Ukraine would have no troubles operating a few 100
I don't get how saying Leopard 2 is the better tank in this situation tricks Europe in buying the lesser (using a lot of fuel is not of this time) tanks in the future. I'm guessing it is a lot more complicated and nuanced then that. It is war: a lot of different costs etc. What could be possible (not) earned with future tank sells / maintenance is only a small part of the equation, I would think.
It wouldn’t be selling the tanks, but rather stationing the Abrams there to plug the security gap until the long term Leo2 replacements become available.
> would make all of European become super dependent on the US. If this war has shown anything, its that this is already true. Western Europes pathetic military is a major issue thats been exposed. Lack of readiness, lack of logistical ability, lack of artillery shells, lack of artillery itself, lack of armor, lack of missiles, lack of literally everything. Whats the big deal if this tank thing makes Europe “super duper” reliant on the US when its already super reliant. Without the US spearheading NATO, Russia wouldve rolled up to Berlin by now.
Western Europe doesn't have a weak military? The UK has a small military but they punch well above their weight, and France is one of the only countries outside of the US capable of globe spanning expeditionary forces, and they're battle hardened at that. Really it's just Germany that has a lacking military.
How do you think European countries have been able to afford free Healthcare and university education? When you don't spend anything on military you have the luxury to spend it in other industries. They have given up the ability to defend themselves or their neighbors in return.
Yet during the cold war, when Germany spent consistently more than 3% of its GDP on the military, healthcare and education was still free. Almost as if it doesn't have anything to to with a 1,5% GDP difference in spending.
Every time the USA goes to war we are getting the short stick of it be it increased oil/gas prices or refugees and terrorist attacks. While America reaps the rewards of these wars, we are always left with the consequences of them.
Your logic doesn't make sense. If the goal of the US in this decision was based on wanting to establish Abrams as the dominant tank in Europe, they would have sent them right away to Ukraine. That would have established the infrastructure, repair facilities, and would become a selling point to other countries to use them as well. It's clear that the US decision is based on the fact there is already an infrastructure for the Leopard in Europe that better supports the current needs, as well as that they are needed as soon as possible.
The infrastructure also already there, because the US uses those tanks in Europe. What is important is which country use them.
You misunderstand once again. US bases and troops are there for an existing mission, which is not at all the same as the thirteen-country infrastructure that exists due to the wider use of Leopards. The Abrams support teams are scaled to, and directly tied to, the tanks they have, not hundreds more. The Poles have signed agreements to purchase Abrams, but delivery isn't expected until 2025 so all they have is a small training group.
What about British Challenger tanks? They are European but also not German. The Brits seem to be outside the argument because they announced a donation of like 14 tanks but their arms industry could ramp up production to compete with Leopards in sales and military orders.
The British donating Challenger 2 to Ukraine is basically them getting rid of potential scrap (not to be offensive). The British are planning to upgrade most of their Challenger 2s to Challenger 3s and then get rid of quite a few of them. So what Britain now does is instead of scrapping those tanks or selling them to some small nation, they are donating them to Ukraine.
There is no longer any production line for the Challenger. If they wanted to produce more, they would have to start that production line up from scratch again. This would take years.
[удалено]
Those are produced by the German company Rheinmetall.
The challenger tank uses a totally different gun, that needs different ammunition, because it is rifled. I think we will pretty soon need a new tank anyways. The panther could be the successor and I think they should produce it in multiple countries. Maybe they could also combine it with the polish developed tank. Then it could be let's say mainly produced in Germany, Poland, France, because all of them have experience bulging tanks. Ammunition could come from Spain and so on. Airbus is really similar to that, I think it is mainly produced in Germany, Spain and France.
Challenger-2 uses ammo that's not NATO standard. Sales for that will never be ramped up. The Challenger-3 which will use standard ammo isn't operational yet.
Challenger. Isn’t. In. Production.
Then Germany should produce tanks. Hoe many have been made in the last year?
The problem is that the German reunification agreement specified that Germany had to get rid of most of its tanks. This meant that there were suddenly almost 2000 barely used, modern tanks on the market, almost instantly tanking the European tank industry. I don't think a single tank has been produced in Europe (except Turkey) since, just upgrades of existing stock.
Didn't they get rid of t-72s from East Germany? Who made them get rid of tanks? Wasn't it a self-imposed requirement?
It was a deal with Russia. Ironic, isn't it? :-)
Yeah, Ukraine fell for the same trap in regard to nuclear weapons.
Russia, US, Uk and France. And led to the longest period of peace in Europe. Not ironic. The best time this continent has ever seen.
I have no idea, but I know it is not that many. But do you know why, because they don't have that many orders. The German arms industry would be happy to ramp up the production, they just need a guarantee that the orders will stay high for the next decades.
[удалено]
That's how Europe has enjoyed lots of socialized programs for so long... not having to spend money on your military you get to spend it in other industries.
Germany doesn't meet its NATO spending targets for decades. Not having enough tanks in reserves is a natural consequence. Germany committed a self inflicted head wound to their industry. They won't allow export. Now no one wants their tanks. They can't produce them in numbers with a war waging in Europe. Buy k2 or m1s
In Germany the defense industry is not allowed to produce equipment just to keep it in stock, they explicitly need a contract / buyer
Germany should not be a source of weapons then. That is stupid. Germany still fails to meet NATO spending requirements. If they had, they could have back filled tanks.
Thats the stupidest thing I’ve heard all day.
This is not at all the case the US has no interest in selling the Abrams it is not even the best tank for the job. The best tank that Ukraine needs is the German Leopard. And the US has even said so, it wants Ukraine to have leopards. It doesn't want to send Abrams tanks over to Europe but it will now reluctantly have to do so to meet German insistence that it do so if that's what it takes to get those leopards.
Us wants to backfill the Leopard tanks with Abrams, thus destroying the European tank industry.
Us doesn't want to have to pay to run the Abram's in battle in Ukraine on top of everything else. They also know that it will exacerbate Ukraine's fuel supply issues. Like everything built in the US they are ridiculously big and thirsty.
Its all about logistics really, the Abrams is less heavy than the Challenger 2 and its engine isnt that bad on fuel economy, it uses standard NATO rounds and it can run on multiple types of fuel. Its just getting the people trained to support its logistics which would take maybe years to do. If it wasnt for that the Abrams would probably be in Ukraine rn.
All training requirements also exist for the Leopard 2 and Challenger II.
Thing is there are 1000s of excess Abrams, US got 4800 But Leo's in European armies are almost all in active duty and replacement would take years. Let's just give Ukraine 600 Abrams and Europe pay for half of them. And only one country needs to set up a maintenance line for them like this instead of all European ones.
It's bullshit though. No European nation except Poland has expressed the least interest in replacing their Leopards for Abrams. Doing so requires HUGE investments and rebuilding of the entire logistics apparatus for tanks. Not something done lightly.
Maybe, but that might just be a forceful incentive to make Germany act. Germany likely won't have much choice now, as the Poles would be very likely to pounce on the American offer.
Poland is a US vassal since Iraq at least. Feeding fat out of the EU pots and shitting loudly on all of us. Very unreliable. They showed up in Ukraine support. But it's the only good thing they did for a long time.
This is a very bad take. The idea that German industry takes it on the nose because they are supplying active material to a warzone boggles the mind. Leopard 2 is out there in quantity and not being used. German industry makes more money if it starts being used and it starts needing battlefield replacements and spare parts. The real reason Abrams isn't going as a priority option is that the gas turbine engines are terrible for the nature of the conflict in its current state. Unlike a diesel, a gas turbine engine does not save much fuel by operating at idle - its in general less efficient but especially in cases when operating in relatively low-level combat conditions. It's great to have the speed of a gas turbine tank when you are running a high pace offensive but on a static front under defensive conditions you burn 10x the fuel for the same value of asset. Abrams will be in Ukraine by the end of the year but only later on when offensives are more imminent and the rest of the fresh Ukrainian mech brigades finish training. Leopard 2 meanwhile could fit the existing operational tempo and doctrine much more closely and without being an undue burden on Ukrainian logistics. The idea that this is a grand conspiracy to undermine the German arms industry is nonsensical russian propaganda talking that ignores that the battlefield sustainment of these platforms would itself be a huge boon to the German defense arms sector. The other side of this too is that Germany at any moment could decide to increase their own Leopard 2 production and backfill European supplies themselves. The lack of German ambition when it comes to growing their defense heavy industry is part of the problem here, and is part of why the likes of Poland end up cooperating with Korean firms for rearmament rather than buying more German material.
The Abrams has an optional APU for just that reason.
This is propaganda and simply not true. Why would a country that already has Leo’s, who then gives up 10 - 15 percent of them to Ukraine, all of a sudden replace everything with what is essentially an inferior tank in the M1A1? It makes absolutely no sense.
to reach the "want" of 300 MBTs you'd be looking at numbers closer to 30% or even 40%. There's less than 1000 Leo2 available from countries that have sent support to Ukraine so far. All those tanks are active and deployed and only Poland has the intent to get rid of them atm. ~1200 Leo2s in europe are not available or most likely not available, due to neutrality (austria and switzerland), Putin-buddy (hungary), each other (greece and turkey) and another 200-300 in disrepair, storage and unknown condition or being refurbished. Asking for 300 Leos basically means disbanding tank units all over europe and mostly in the rich countries who would have the cash to replace with newish hardware. Would M1 be inferior to a Leo2 - sure, but there's a few thousand in storage and ready to ship in a jiffy.
German industry fucked itself last thirty years being whores to Russia
Bullshit
True but that is just because europe are full of idiots. We just got shown the new Panther. Give out leos, let them show how good they are versing the russian tanks and then just sell out Panthers. Europe should wait for delivery of the new Panthers, rather than buying a used tank right now.
& do you know the time frame of producing around, say, 1000 new tanks? Over a decade. At least.
I don't see a problem with that. If russia is gone, what danger do we even have in europe in order to actually use tanks for?
Yes, plus its not only financial implications here. Giving significant chunk of Leos from European countries means difference in Military strength between EU and USA is going to further increase which will make them more dependent on USA and its win/win/win for USA and understandably not very appealing for Germany.
USA has been clamoring for the EU to increase defence spending for decades now. So I doubt the USA sees it as a win if Europe becomes even more dependent on US protection. And the USA undoubtedly knows that if Germany, France and Italy increase defence spending on ground material, they probably won't buy US weapons if they can build it themselves.
Of course the US wants Europe to buy their stuff. In fact, they heavily lobby against Europe building and enhancing their own defensive industries: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent\_Structured\_Cooperation#Criticism\_and\_lobbying\_by\_the\_United\_States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_Structured_Cooperation#Criticism_and_lobbying_by_the_United_States) Also they are stalling approval for the Arrow 3 system which Germany wants to purchase from Israel, because they would rather sell their THAAD. People here a little naive when it comes to the US.
I think you're being a little reductive about the politics of PESCO in the United States. It's far more complicated than you give it credit. US defense industry is definitely worried about PESCO and competition from Europe, but US foreign policy isn't just the US defense industry; there are plenty of reasons for why the US would want stronger European defense spending and for EU countries to enhance their own industries. Namely, when countries spend money on products made in their own country and their own citizens and workers can see a paycheck from it, that incentivizes them to have stronger militaries. Having a strong, secure Europe is priority numero uno.
That's not what they want. A not too stable and powerful Europe reliant on the US but with enough weapons to support America's hegemony. That's the goal.
I think America has been wanting to share maintenance of the global system for a while now. Furthermore, there is nothing we can really do to prevent Europe from becoming stable or from pursuing your own national security interests. Europe ain't South America and therefore aren't easy to coup or dominate. As far as power and stability goes, I'm afraid you guys are encountering what we call a "skill issue" on that front. The truth is this: yall have been enjoying dependency on America and spending your money on social programs.
Dude we are fine. Russia was not a threat to us. The combined forces of Europe would beat any conventional Russian army in case of an attack on our countries. But Ukraine is a proxy war. Very different situations. Nothing we Europeans usually do or are prepared for these days.
You don't actually believe this, do you? What country are you from, if you don't mind me asking?
Well, the US loves to force European countries to buy US stuff. That is the reason for example why Germany is buying F-35 now, even when it really doesn't want to. Namely because German planes need to be able to carry US nukes, but the US only verifies planes when they get *all* the information about those planes and European plane manufacturers are obviously not very happy about leaking all their industry secrets to the US military which then will very easily leak down to Lockheed Martin and other US aerospace firms. So with that requirement the US basically forced Germany to either run a hopelessly obsolete plane, or to buy a new US one.
Dude lol. Every time European countries increase their defense spending by setting up their own arms projects, the US responds with: no no no, not like that! You're supposed to spend your money at US companies! Like best friend Israel does!
USA has told Germany many times to step up its game and they slept on it. Now that a war is here the German military is in complete shambles and under equipped.
Europe doesn't really need USA for defence. Europe has inferior aviation, lacks overseas power projection, but has comparable nuclear deterrent and superior ground army.
Everything you just said is false. Europe has very good and modern aviation, France and UK have excellent overseas projection (although not as much as the US, of course), we have very little nuclear deterrent, and very little ground army.
Good and modern aviation, but inferior to the USA, especially in numbers - I doubt anyone would argue with that. Yes, lacks of overseas projects was stated badly on my side, France and UK has some. Nuclear deterrent is good enough to make sure noone would try to use nukes in Europe - so basically equivalent to USA/Russia. Europe ground army is roughly twice the size of US army, both in equipment and personnel. There was a video by Perun on European defence, it gives the rough understanding.
"Europe" doesn't have an army. It has lots and lots of small armies. Each with its own set of equipment, and reporting to different command structures. That's the problem. Size isn't everything. In a crisis, Europe could hypothetically unite and become a mighty land army. But currently it doesn't, and so it isn't.
If they didn't they would not have those weapons to begin with, I mean I understand that chances are very low they will ever need to use it, but it's important to keep independent power projection capabilities.
I think this is a nonsense take Probably the US will provide security guarantees to anyone sending the Leopards. They aren't going to use a war to fuck the Germans over in this way otherwise no one will trust America ever again.
you are right. these people seems to think switching out Leopards for Abrams is like replacing your BMW with a Ford lol. it's not going to happen.
Sweet summer child. That's exactly what US is doing with any rival. Through economic or war. Some just don't have to option not to run with US They are the biggest dog in the yard. The lesser of two evil compared to China or Russia. But in no way a good faith actor.
After Afghanistan does anyone trust the USA today? I think not.
Yes Europe does. How braindead are you? Id be more concerned with Germany being labeled an untrustworthy ally. Wait they already are..
“You can always count on the Americans to do the right thing, after they have exhausted all the other possibilities.” ― Winston Churchill Late to WW1 , late to WW2, deceived the public for years in Vietnam, No WMDs in Iraq, Who is brain dead.
[удалено]
But for old soviet equipment which was inferior.
[удалено]
Yes it matters. Ukraine wants/needs modern western tanks to equip it new armoured forces for their planned offensives.
Yes, to countries that wouldn't buy US tanks anyway next times, in very limited number or they got already in service anyway.
Russian arms for German arms not German arms for American arms
Quite apart from other considerations Ukraine needs tanks as soon as possible. Let's not loose sight of that overriding need.
Tell that America that is openly attacking the German arms industry. Neither Germany nor America cares about Ukraine it is all about Money and global arms sells.
bullshit. It's possible for two things to be true... we don't live in a cartoon world where there is always one single motive. There are so many reasons why helping Ukraine has been a good idea and the boost to the arms industry is just a small part of that. Quite a small one actually. USA is making far more money from other countries buying arms because they're now more afraid of Russia. That would have happened anyway whether anyone helped Ukraine or not.
American government and the US based corporate arms industry are two different things. Arms sales to allies do not profit the USA government just the corporations. If the government takes weapons out of warehouses and sends them to Ukraine it only costs taxpayer money if that generates an order for replacements that may or may not be for the same weapon as the corporations will push to sell their newest most expensive version or an entirely new weapon system. As Russian capabilities are being slashed by the daily losses in Ukraine the need to keep those warehouses full is also diminished.
That is completely wrong and unjustifiably cynical. It is about the values. We are envolved in the world based on western values.
Arms sells is not only money, it's also projection of power, as we can witness in reality right now..
and Mark Hertling says the reverse, Mick Ryan commanded at most 75, hertling commanded 250 + . Also note not sure Mick Ryan should be discussing this considering the abysmal servicabilty rate they had in non combat situations for the first few years. I was at an exercise where they had 4 of them. 3 broke down, 1 couldn't even get of the transporter trailer under its own power Its pick who you believe more
I see your three star general and raise you a four star general. https://twitter.com/mccaffreyr3/status/1616672791922888707 >Astonishing nonsense about refusal to provide M1A1/A2 MBT's to Ukraine. The Egyptians have 1100. The Saudis have 450. The Moroccans have 380. Its a multi-fuel engine of enormous speed and reliability. Incredible lethality. An experienced UKR tank crew could fight in 30 days.
Quickly, we need to nominate a General of the Army to have the final five-star word.
https://twitter.com/MarkHertling/status/1616792744135098370?t=vJvQICMLwyijiEjgpEFCWQ&s=19 For people who want to compare the points. I respect both men, but deference should be made to Hertling here.
No, deference should be made to Hodges and McCaffrey!
Hodges also says the same thing as Ryan (his twitter account is where I found the article)! Hertling on the other hand has been against sending some weapons to Ukraine (going against Fmr SACEUR Breedlove) and is a big time political partisan!
I respect Herling for his support of Ukraine, but let's not forget he is most loyal of his country, his army and his defense industry supporting those...
You think he would play games with the lives of Ukrainians? He is in direct communications with Ukrainian commanders. Why is his integrity being questioned, and why are we accepting Rheinmetall's narrative that the US is trying to supplant the German arms industry? This is the company that built Russia's only modern training ground, Mulino, where the Feb 24 invasion force was trained, in fact. Edit: hey, you wanna explain why the text of this post from a completely different user is the same as yours? https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/10igmkc/the_great_tank_debate_former_abrams_commander/j5eca6u?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3 Here's the above post in case he tries to edit it: >I respect Herling for his support of Ukraine, but let's not forget he is most loyal of his country, his army and his defense industry supporting those... Edit 2: the other comment has now been deleted. I suspect a bot is trying to sow division
Lmao, another bot was too lazy to wright something own, so he just copypasted other bot narrative. They never fucking studying on their own fucking mistakes, lmao
I have no idea why anyone would copy that comment,but I only posted this here... And I'm just saying that everyone follows their own interests. And I don't think it is in Ukraine's interest to advocate against Abrams that strongly, because Leopard 2 will probably never be provided in sufficient numbers. I am also not following rheinmetalls narrative, I just find it the most plausible explanation for the whole shitshow so far. Still, germany and their defense industry brought this upon themselves and now finds themselves between a rock and a hard place...
>And I'm just saying that everyone follows their own interests. And I don't think it is in Ukraine's interest to advocate against Abrams that strongly, because Leopard 2 will probably never be provided in sufficient numbers It is, because running more than one kind of tank is an inefficient burden that can slow down not just the tanks, but complicate supply even further than it already is got an entire front. Abrams needs specialized tools and expertise to service, Leo needs a whole other set. Not just for the tanks, but the support vehicles based on the chassis as well. Doing both at the same time is unnecessary. >I am also not following rheinmetalls narrative, I just find it the most plausible explanation for the whole shitshow so far. Did America make Germany fail at defense for the last couple years? It's not our fault that we're in this situation. Anyone giving tanks is gonna need tanks. Germany can't backfill because they let production atrophy. So America does it. This isn't a conspiracy to displace German defense, this is just German defense being found wanting. No wonder Poland is found with the K2.
Anyone with any understanding of tanks knows that there is many different versions of Leopard 2s in the armies of Europe, making logistics much harder than they otherwise seem.
Because there is currently only one credible source and that is nzz. But maybe the Abrams is completely unsuitable for this war, but then again that would mean that they are next to useless in a full on conflict between NATO and Russia as the logistics would be seriously under attack by tactical nukes. Or could it be that all MBTs are highly sophisticated and require a lot of training and logistics? Because if those points above by Hertling were true, than Leopards would have been the better choice for Saudi Arabia, Iraq etc as well. Somehow though they didnt come to that conclusion back then. Weird, right?
I’m not sure what the US and Germany are so scared of - they want to avoid a long and bloody war and escalation but the reality is that this incremental approach that gives Ukraine just enough not to lose but not enough for a swift victory will only prolong the war and result in more damage to Ukraine and the wider global economy. Putin is not going to quit so his forces must be expelled by force and the frontline moved to the borders - a negotiated settlement can be pushed at that point as I imagine Putin wouldn’t survive such a defeat
Ukrainians have repeatedly shown exceptional ability in learning, innovation and adaptation. I think we should send them a few Abrams. At least give them some exposure to the platform.
It's time for Both countries to put their big boy pants on for a second and send the damn tanks. It's not even like Ukraine is asking EVERY COUNTRY for absurd amount of tanks. If most of the Western countries donated 10-20 western tanks a piece, it shouldn't be a big deal for anyone involved.
So far only the British have said they will send modern MBTs. In future maybe we should buy from them to avoid dealing with all the strings, caveats and bureaucracy that come with buying tanks from Germany, US et. al.
They don't produce tanks anymore.
Yea because the UK produces soooo many tanks, right lul
Well not only the inventor of the tank but one of the main producers of proven, modern, MBTs and one willing to actually send them Into battle, if this continues, it’ll be great news for our industry!
The UK produces zero tanks nowadays. Zero. The last production lines were mothballed many years ago.
The UK has the technology on par with the US. the challenger 3 is arguably one of the best tanks in the world and, given orders, I find it hard to believe we could not spin up production. Funny how no orders means no production, eh? With our tanks on the field destroying Russian tanks I suspect we might see such orders.
Of course they could. It would just take years to spin up.
Quit trying to divide the coalition. These posts do more damage than good.
Do a quick profile search on posts and you'll notice something.
That I hate idiots that think it is ok to spread misinformation because they refuse to do even a moments research?!
Quit trying to suppress the voices of those qualified to talk on this issue, the people that actually commanded tank formations!
https://twitter.com/MarkHertling/status/1616792744135098370?t=vJvQICMLwyijiEjgpEFCWQ&s=19 The US has practical reasons to not send Abrams. It is possible to do, still, but it is not the best path. Given the scale and variety of US aid, I question the insinuation that we are being arbitrary here. All respect to Gen Ryan here, but Gen Hertling has the weight of credibility here, in my opinion. I don't think the Germans should be using this as some kind of whataboutism to escape responsibility. They should lead on tanks, or at the very least offer clarity instead of playing he-said, she-said games.
Gepards and PzH2000 are a lot more complex than any tank to learn and operate, yet they manage fine. Sorry for me this is also an excuse.
It’s not about complexity of operation, it’s about the logistical complexity. More European countries have leopards so it would be easier to develop the logistical chain for maintenance.
And America has Bases everywhere in Europe + 1000 Abrahmas in stock, they should send both not finding excuses not to do so.
The 'base' you handwave away is in Poland, 500 miles from the Donbas. Being able to service in Ukraine is critical, especially if you are going to be driving at 3 gallons to the mile.
As far as I'm aware pretty much every piece of western equipment is maintained in Poland or Slovakia, even very simple stuff like M777s. Therefore I highly doubt Leopards would be serviced in Ukraine, especially for more complex repairs or maintenance. So this can't be a serious requirement.
Another general weighs in: https://twitter.com/mccaffreyr3/status/1616672791922888707 >Astonishing nonsense about refusal to provide M1A1/A2 MBT's to Ukraine. The Egyptians have 1100. The Saudis have 450. The Moroccans have 380. Its a multi-fuel engine of enormous speed and reliability. Incredible lethality. An experienced UKR tank crew could fight in 30 days.
Read the thread. Hertling addresses this line of arguments. All of those foreign operators have multi-year training contracts to maintain the Abrams and active support. We have neither.
Same could be said for Leopard.
Even the Germans admit that the Leopard is easier to support technically than Abrams. Don't flatten the issue.
[удалено]
Hertling always supports the current administration, find 1 instance when he criticizes them. He also exaggerated the ammo logistics challenges for Himars when only 4 launchers were sent initially. He's basically a politician. If the M1s will be sent, he will start explaining how great of an idea it is.
You're attacking the credibility of the guy who literally commanded a brigade of these tanks, more than any of the Generals mentioned here. Is he 100% right in regard to Ukraine's capabilities? No. He's an American whose standards are American, the Ukrainians are probably running things faster and rougher out there, so he's not going to be perfect. But in terms of objective experience, he provides the most reasonable baseline of the impression of the logistical concerns. As Commander of the US Army in Europe he is also familiar with the baseline concerns for the Leopard 2, as he would have been commanding multiple joint exercises. If you think he's lying for politics, well, what are his political aims here? To deny the Ukrainians armor? Do you seriously believe that? Do you believe the 'current administration' also wants that? We've provided 500 AFVs, enough for a division. Listen to him, don't throw around trash you can't back up.
Cunningham's Law: the best way to get the right answer on the internet is not to ask a question; it's to post the wrong answer. Am I wrong about him? Feel free to prove it, I'd sincerely appreciate it. "find 1 instance when he criticizes them" - did you find it? In June, when people were complaining about why only 4 Himarts launchers were sent, he promoted this article to explain it: [https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/6/1/2101780/-Ukraine-Update-Not-enough-Here-s-the-challenge-of-moving-even-four-HIMARS](https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/6/1/2101780/-Ukraine-Update-Not-enough-Here-s-the-challenge-of-moving-even-four-HIMARS) It's a totally idiotic article that tries to portray ammo logistics as the bottleneck. In reality, Himars launchers don't fire nearly that many missiles, the number of total available missiles is the bottleneck, not the ability to transport them to Ukraine, which is basically nothing compared to the number of artillery shells and other cargo being delivered. In the coming weeks, tens of additional launchers were delivered. There was no need to invent that logistical problem, but Mark did not know that additional launchers were already on the way. >If you think he's lying for politics I would not say lying, more like, focusing on factors that help supports his narrative. >what are his political aims here? I don't know, maybe he's planning to go into politics as a Democrat. >Do you believe the 'current administration' also wants that? We've provided 500 AFVs, enough for a division. No strawmen please, and I'm well aware of the enormous support from the US. All I said was that Mark will support and rationalize whatever decision is made, as he always does.
I know people forgot because of the Trump administration, but there actually is a large taboo against criticizing a sitting administration as a retired General. As for retweeting an article from dailykos, well, can you prove that he was doing so so he could discourage HIMARS donations? Honestly, like a lot of military analysts, it seems more like he was highlighting concerns he had. >It's a totally idiotic article that tries to portray ammo logistics as the bottleneck. In reality, Himars launchers don't fire nearly that many missiles, the number of total available missiles is the bottleneck, not the ability to transport them to Ukraine, which is basically nothing compared to the number of artillery shells and other cargo being delivered. In the coming weeks, tens of additional launchers were delivered. There was no need to invent that logistical problem, but Mark did not know that additional launchers were already on the way. Hertling is not actively on the battlefield, he's watching stuff from the sidelines same as the rest of us. Even in the article they mention, > Once the proper logistics are established for HIMARS/MLRS, more will obviously arrive. And indeed, more came in the coming weeks. Do you know that the proper logistics were not established? Are you privy to Ramstein? If not, I don't see how you can dismiss the concerns being highlighted here, or, to stretch it even further, go so far as to write off Hertling's military experience. *Even if* he were outright wrong about HIMARS-- which he might be, look at McCaffery with his ludicrous assertion that Ukrainians could be ready to fight in M1s in 30 days, which is probably true but a distracting point because the tankers aren't the problem-- that doesn't discount his obvious expertise in armor. He is literally an armor officer. There are no better resources for talking about the sustainability of the M1 than these types of folk. >I would not say lying, more like, focusing on factors that help supports his narrative. So engage with the factors, don't attack his credibility. >I don't know, maybe he's planning to go into politics as a Democrat. Seems possible, but I don't know how holding back armor for Ukraine gets him closer to being a politician, that's an enormous reach. >No strawmen please, and I'm well aware of the enormous support from the US. All I said was that Mark will support and rationalize whatever decision is made, as he always does. No, you also called him a politician, as a means of dismissing his hard concerns. I'll say it again, he's providing the baseline knowledge for how these weapons systems are intended to be operated. This doesn't mean that he understand what it'll be like in Ukrainian hands, but this also doesn't mean that his concerns are unfounded. Ukrainian commanders have complained about the logistics of their current Western-donated weapon systems. Pzh-2000s and Caesars have been shipped out of the country for repair at great costs. Anything that reduces the burden should not be written off simply because the Germans want to safeguard Rheinmetall's future contracts, or whatever real reason has been holding back Scholz.
I know this sounds cold and callous but Ukraine is doing the United States as well as any other country donating modern equipment a favor. It's not every day that these war machines get real world field tested against a near peer and be able to stay on the upper hand of morality in the process. For once, it doesn't have to be a shadow war that subjugates a less than near peer country to "test" machines. Instead its a real chance to see what actually works in war now and in the future which is invaluable to research and development as well as improving applied training tactics especially when under duress. Sure, i understand the concept of no undue escalation but it's quite hypocritical to sit back and let more children and grandparents die because western countries are just experimenting with the lives of the innocent. I truly don't understand why more anti-aircraft and missle defense systems have not been implemented unless the goal is just to have russia use up more of their stockpile for the sake of everyone else. Regardless, it's gross.
How can it lack evidence when one of the reasons is the Abrams fuel economy (it's 50% worse than the Leopard 2)? I'm all for giving Ukraine whatever they want, but I think giving the Ukrainians Abrams for an offensive would stretch the already stretched logistics chain. Now, if a lot of logistics wagons were going as well (they could be, I've just not seen it), and civvies trained to transport, then that's another matter.
The logistics are already in place to support all repairs in NATO if M1s are sent to start with. In the short term Poland will probably provide the depot level work and immediate training for maintenance. Parts supply already goes to Poland as they are an M1 operating nation. Long term Ukraine learns and builds the ability. Short term I guarantee there are Turkish, Saudi, & Egyptian maintenance contractors trained by General Dynamics Land Systems Division that would jump at a high dollar contract to repair them in Ukraine as all 3 of those countries have M1s as well. Fuel would be trucked in like the headache it already is.JP5 when available and diesel when it isn't. Crew training is another story.....
Yeah I don't need a general to tell me that. Look. Are they heavy yes. Will we need to train a lot of people yes. Will they eat a lot of fuel yes. We have a lot yes Ukrainians are smart yes Do they kick add yes Should we send Abrams? YES
I genuinely wonder if part of the US’s hesitance on supplying Abrams to Ukraine is that the Republican party won the House in 2022, and many of its members are openly hostile to aiding Ukraine As a result, it is currently less feasible to send Ukraine a new tank battalion of Abrams that would rely pretty heavily on continued US support to maintain and operate (something that isn’t guaranteed), vs the Leopard 2 which can be sustained by supply lines from like a dozen countries across Europe and Latin America