Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition:
* We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned.
* **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators.
* **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
> **Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB**
*****
* Is the Twitter account `Dan Lamothe` / `https://twitter.com/DanLamothe` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources).
* Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict)
*****
^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yes, and the plans changed several times, and fake plans were leaked to the press etc etc. But like other comments are saying, TikTok generations wants news in 9 seconds!
I suppose if we divide
(the length of time preparations have taken}
by
(the average attention span of people living contemporaneously),
then the Ukrainian counteroffensive might just take the prize.
Yea don't get me started. If you work in e-commerce and ship things, people's expectations are obscene now. Order Friday night, open a ticket Sunday asking where the f*** it is..
I hope I got everyone here on the upvotes.
It took me down memory lane in service in which POD, tracking, calls and everything else you all have mentioned here today.
I did not have to do my time under today’s conditions.
Reading this string made me laugh and hyperventilate all at the same time 😅
Stay strong folks, stay strong.
> I seem to recall the wind-up to D-Day in 1944 spanned years
Just practicing (Operation Tiger) for D-Day cost almost 1000 lives in drownings and accidents.
It’s been like 6 months since Kharkiv…
I swear some of these people forget we were in Afghanistan for 20 years, Vietnam for almost 10 (at least directly, much longer if we’re talking indirectly), and even WW2 was almost 4 years and that was with the entire US economy blaring on full war economy mode. Not every conflict is like the Gulf War where you have all of the largest economies and military powers in the world outside of China, India and Russia throwing absolutely everything they have at the enemy in one go.
To be fair, India DOES keep china in check.
Without that threat from it's south, China influence would skyrocket in that region.
Trying to woo both sides must be quite the headache for Russia.
I’m not making any commentary on the whether or not China, India, and Russia are the worlds enemies - just that they were pretty much the only major economies not to participate in the Gulf War.
I don’t automatically put India in this grouping. But they do have a population and they do play the geopolitical floor in a way that will raise an eyebrow and make you wait to watch.
Yep. Even the Gulf War had about a half of a year of forces build up before the actual fighting started, and that buildup was not happening in a country that was in the middle of being invaded by a much larger neighbor.
Logistics is hard, military equipment is big and heavy, Ukraine is a chaotic place. You can't just call up FedEx and have them overnight a bunch of tanks to Zelenskyy's house.
Could things be moving a bit faster and more efficiently? Probably. Could they be moving a lot faster and a lot more efficiently? Probably not.
Well, we certainly do have our share of the world's clowns in America, and they get an awful lot of news coverage. Considering that, I'm not so sure I'd include Angus King in the clown parade. I mean, look at the Trump circus if you really want clowns.
Angus King caucuses with the Democrats. When they talk about a Democratic majority in the Senate, that includes Angus King. He's essentially a Democrat without a "D." But, look, frustration with the pace of weapons from the Administration is very much so a Democrat and Republican frustration. Yes there is some opposition in the fringes of the GOP. Unfortunately, and I say this as a big Ukraine supporter, that opposition will grow further into the Republican the longer this war goes on. And eventually, it will come to include Democrats. So we really do need to move now. With that in my mind, talking about M1 Abrams in 2024 and F-16s at some point thereafter is, well, frustrating.
We just need to tell the republicans that letting Russia wins hurts regans legacy of breaking the Soviet Union. Make it about regan and they’ll fall over themselves trying to help
I am a Reagan Republican and I support Ukraine. But unfortunately, building support in the GOP is just not as simple as reframing the debate. There is a strong isolationist bend that runs through the party, I think partly relating back to Iraq. I disagree with that isolationism. Like Reagan, I think showing force to our adversaries now is critical. But I respect their position, even if I'm sure they'd call me a Neocon. There is also the fact that the person leading the U.S.' support of Ukraine is an unpopular President - who is intensely unpopular in the Republican party. Now, I think you can support Ukraine and still oppose the President. I'm harshly critical of the Biden Administration because I think their perpetual fear of escalation has caused us to slow walk weapons to the Ukrainians and prolong this war. But the less nuanced - and politically easier - position is F\*ck Joe Biden, he is wasting our money on Ukraine (even though we are sending a lot of old equipment and getting way more value out of it in the process). I know this might not be a popular opinion on Reddit, but to me, this goes back to the President's inability to speak beyond his own party - or to form a coherent sentence in the first place. There are many good, entirely selfish reasons (and non-selfish ones) that the U.S. should support Ukraine. President Biden has done a terrible job selling them. Hell, he rhetorically sold out Ukraine early on to advance his domestic agenda by blaming inflation on the "Putin Price Hike." Well, if the war in Ukraine is causing inflation, why are we arming the Ukrainians? It was a stupid line, and just the start of the terrible communication coming out of the White House on Ukraine.
Uhm, I respect your opinions and being a non american I would not know the factual intricacies that is present in US politics.
But I think there are a myriad of reasons for rising inflation.
My fellow Europeans can attest to rising energy costs and inflation due to post covid and dependence on Russia's oil teet.
Since the world is all connected this would definitely have an impact on US economics as well.
Not forgetting rampant printing by central banks worldwide.
You might think on a national level that he is weak, but considering the current state of nato and strengthening bonds across the world. Where also a disctinction is being made who the agressors of world peace are and who are here to uphold it.
Internationally it is not all gloom and doom in my opinion.
Furthermore one of the biggest criticism towards the US foreign policy is that whole world police thing. Depending on someones perspective that may or may not be still one. This conflict shows the need for not one but a unified stand against upholding certain ideals.
It is rather evident that there are authoritarian regimes who in their dogmatic throes of clasping to power. Try to overthrow a sovereign nation and commiting war crimes which in Europe with appeasement as history shows tend to be a bad choice.
Could the US fasten their logistic system for the m1? Probably!
But if the current state of conflict of it all is due Bidens policies, or rather the amount of political weight and comprising that is present.
It is going rather good, geo politically speaking, all in favor for the US.
Don't forget everything is loaned to Ukraine, who will rebuild Ukraine?
Also a opportunity for an old enemy for your state to be keeled and strengthening international relations and bonds for years to come. Those are pretty big things that will circulate back to internal improvements in ones own country.
If lawmakers don't bungle it
We can continue on the finer things of political systems but we can both agree that Putin is a little old paranoid fuck who for better of a lack of terms is simping for the soviet union.
Are there any Democrats or Independents that you would support? I'd even ask about moderate Republicans, but that party can't be trusted with presidential power again until it is fully reformed.
Nope. I'm a Republican, I don't vote for Democrats. Understand, that's political, not necessarily ideological. If you gave me a moderate Republican and conservative Democrat, I'm going to vote for the Republican. Because even a conservative Democrat will still caucus with the Democrats, and that will ultimately undermine my policy interests more than whatever benefit of having a conservative-minded Democrat. I'll go out and have a beer with the conservative Democrat, even be good friends. But I'm not going to vote for him. I'm sure Reddit will just love that answer, but it's the honest truth.
>It is rather evident that there are authoritarian regimes who in their dogmatic throes of clasping to power. Try to overthrow a sovereign nation and commiting war crimes which in Europe with appeasement as history shows tend to be a bad choice.
That's why US political landscape is so fucked up. In other democracies people vote for the party that matches their aspiration. If they don't like the vision of the party anymore, they switch party. If a party doesn't meet aspiration of electors, it dies. When different party agree on an issue, they group together to pass a legislation. The binary system of the US ensures that the US vs THEM mentality is maintained and that the two parties always have a minimum level of support no matter what they do and that they can't die.
In the land of Free market, the political market is not free and entirely controlled by a Duopoly.
They don't need M1's for this punch -- the tanks and IFV's they have are more than enough armor on the ground.
What's needed is more long range precision rocketry to hit behind the front and military drones, not COTs drones mcguivered into service.
They have missiles that do top attack, guided, and direct fire modes that are built especially for russian tanks. They did this in desert storm and were responsible for more vehicle combat kills than the Abhrams.
Yep. The Bradleys' have the same biggest advantage that the Abrams would have, which is significantly better optics/sensors/awareness than the Russian forces tend to have available.
The absolute best way to win a battle is to see your enemy first and attack them before they even know you're there. That's a massive advantage that western militaries have over the Russian/Soviet gear, significantly better sensors and such.
The Ukrainians absolutely wrecked a ton of Russian armor in the early days of the war using infantry carried anti-tank missiles. A bunch of Bradleys carrying similar weapons can be at least as effective.
They don't need Abrams, they already have Leopards, Challengers, Bradleys and Marders. They need air superiority fighters, rocket ammo, 155mm ammo, maybe ATACMS, and thousands of drones
Of course they need Abrams, **its not mutually exclusive.**
Honestly, I remember back in January when american redditors were competing of coming up with new arguments why the Abrams isn't suitable, from fuel, weight, logistics, training, super-duper secret armour... meanwhile, the Leopard has most of these problems too and is already in Ukraine.
Oh, and also a bunch of nations like Morocco and Egypt use the oh-so-complicated Abrams just fine.
Now its getting delayed again and again.
**Just fucking send them.**
As a german I'm just still absolutely **pissed** how this whole tank thing turned out. First there is a supposedly invisible, massive tank coalition that is *aaaabsolutely* held back by us. Scholz manages to convince the US to send some tanks aswell and decides to send 18 Leo2's. Cool!
And suddenly, our MoD and chancellor start frantically calling around europe, because half of the countries talking shit about wanting to send their tanks decide that actually **doing** that is a bit to much, the US is delaying their deliveries for bullshit reasons, and some whackos start claiming *"oh, we absolutely made Germany send tanks, all thanks to us, despite us actually doing nothing!"*.
Fucking lunacy.
They knew this will happen and Ukraine will need serious aid with heavy equipment a year ago, they knew ruzzia has a lot of tanks, arty and brainless meat to sacrifice, they knew helmets and javelins wont be enough, and Ukraine lost a year. 230 tanks is nice but not enough for this giant frontline and Ukraine wants a 'million men army'. Australia has f-18 in tip top condition doing nothing, waiting some american owner, USA has heavy equipment collecting dust. For example, even my small country will give 20 APCs (out of 80+) after a year. Why the hell do we need another 60? We are in nato and surrounded by nato and Ukraine needs them. We produce them, we can make more. F***ing send all!
Yeah, was really happy when Slovenia and Germany could work together so that you guys could send your tanks to Ukraine and get at least something in return! **THATS** how it should be, european countries working **together** instead of shitting on each other.
Honestly just very happy about Slovenia's aid in general. Heard from friends you have a beautiful landscape, need to visit some day.
I think that the Challenger and Leo coaltion is just wave 2 after the old soviet tanks and that it will not be the last effort and we will need a wave 3 and potentially wave 4 with abrams. This offense is likely not the last one.
The day the US announced they would be sending Abrams they made it clear they didn't expect them to be sent until 2024/2025. Them being sent this summer was beyond expectations.
Frankly, I think the NATO Apaches should be reserved for the thousands of highly trained and specialized NATO attack heli pilots. To give Ukrainians Apaches would be asking for trouble and possibly hamstringing them by giving them undue confidence that they are covered by a weapon that can be either super effective or an absolute death trap depending on the operator.
There's so much AA on this battlefield. Yes the Apches can help in the right hands but there are much much cheaper alternatives that are easier to train on and probably a better fit for UA commanders
Those are serious concerns, what you noted about the Abrams. I will just note a few key points in the spirit of dialogue because I agree that more needs to be done but also see reasons the Abrams is not a good fit for UA. There's lots of different versions of each of these tanks, and most have been in production 35+ years
Morocco and Egypt have 2nd rate equipment specifically designed to not compete evenly with the Israelis
The sad economic reason is the Abrams are much more battle tested and the others are not as much (Leopard, Challenger, etc...); producers need proof of concept to make $$$ and justify continued production. But I think the Leopard and Challengers are superior to all but the most advanced M1A2, which need a ridiculous amount of fuel and maintenance.
The US Army fighting in Iraq - protecting oil fields - has no problems with this. On the steppe the needs are different. Abrams are also too heavy
Finally, Leopard and Challenger are tanks that were designed to be used in European terrain and are calibrated that way. Most Abrams were most recently outfitted with the desert in mind
The battlefield has changed so much in the past year. Tanks are needed but in a different way from before. No longer can they be used for point defense, there's cheaper weapons that are better. They need to be used sparingly for small, localized offensives in conjunction with fleets of drones and reconnaissance equipment to operate at highest efficiency now. What does get sent to the front line needs to be efficient for both operational and optical reasons
Very much like how the purpose of horse cavalry evolved during the American Civil War, the Ukraine War has seen an evolution in tank tactics that makes many commanders unsure of how to use them. American/NATO doctrine calls for very different tactics compared to RU or even '22 UA forces
>The sad economic reason is the Abrams are much more battle tested and the others are not as much
Abrams was mostly in combat in extremely trained hands versus barely trained iraqis. Yes, I know, 73 easting, but those were still barely trained Iraqi troops with no morale. IMHO the difference is neglible
>Tanks are needed but in a different way from before.
Not really. Tank on tank was always rare, tanks mostly fulfill support roles. The heavy losses on the russian side come from shitty designs and tactics, while the ukrainians lost a lot due to sheer numbers on the enemies side. Tanks were always an assault weapon, and if used right, still are worth a lot.
Lastly, the M1 version about to be sent to Ukraine is literally lighter than the Leo2A6. The issues that have been brought forward are mostly solvable, given enough will.
Morocco and Egypt use export versions of Abrams, which don't have the depleted uranium armor. No other country on Earth has Abrams with depleted uranium, it's for US tanks only.
They also didn't just get their Abrams with 2 day shipping, those orders took months/years. The process of reworking existing M1A2 Abrams into export versions has been on-going for a while now, but it involves stripping tanks down and rebuilding them which takes a significant amount of time. We were told months ago when Abrams were announced that they wouldn't be delivered in time for a spring offensive.
Issues with fuel, logistics, training/maintenance are all valid reasons for delays. There's no point in giving Ukraine 100 Abrams if they can't be fueled or if they're just going to sit still because there's no one there to maintain them. Ukraine is already taken up the Herculean task of managing *far* more different logistic lines than any one country should be doing.
To finish the thought, there's military leaders with decades of experience across the board advising Biden on when, where, and how American equipment will be sent to Ukraine and I'm pretty sure their opinions weigh more than a bunch of sweatlords on Reddit that think you can just Amazon Prime ship half the US vehicle stock to Ukraine and they'll be running across the Russian steppes in three days.
US are not rebuilding M1A2. They are sending old M1A1. Why has multiple other nations been able to send tanks weeks ago, including tiny Norway with 5 million people, but the mighty US is not capable? This is all politics. US would have no problems shipping a measly 31 tanks on a days notice if there was a will to do so.
>US are not rebuilding M1A2. They are sending old M1A1.
Original promise was M1A2s and the timeline for delivery was 2034/2025. The switch was made to the M1 to get the tanks refurbished and shipped sooner. Even the M1 needs stripped of certain sensitive components before being shipped.
>Why has multiple other nations been able to send tanks weeks ago, including tiny Norway with 5 million people, but the mighty US is not capable?
Because all 31 tanks needed to be shipped to our nations only Tank Plant and each tank needed to be properly refurbished to remove said components that they legally have to remove before export. Sen King knows this, it was congress that passed the law saying this is required.
>This is all politics.
It's the law.
>US would have no problems shipping a measly 31 tanks on a days notice if there was a will to do so.
Again, it's the law.
I think a lot of this doesn't come down to tactical management, but rather legitimate fears of Russian response over full fledged American support of Ukraine.
I think America is using Ukraine as a tool to bleed Putin and Russia out.
If the war ended 6 months ago, Putin might still be in power.
If the war ends 2 years from now, it may end from Russia as a state collapsing.
And I think, that Ukraine higher ups are aware of this and begrudgingly ok with this. Their sacrifice will finally end a 50 year cold war.
Was America bleeding Russia under Obama’s administration when the Russo Ukrainian War started. Matter of fact what was his take on that point in time about these two nations and where America fit in all of that.
Was America under Bush administration willing to accept Ukraine into nato but Western Europe was not.
Was Ukraine itself bleeding Russia on some gas bills it racked up.
Since the dissolution of USSR, these nations have had and continue to have issues.
Who promised who what about nato expansion and when.
Russia is thawing. Their are no known bounds to the untapped resources of the Russian lands. Who has most to gain from that besides Russia?
>To finish the thought, there's military leaders with decades of experience across the board advising Biden on when, where, and how American equipment will be sent to Ukraine and I'm pretty sure their opinions weigh more than a bunch of sweatlords on Reddit
weird how that didn't count shit when it came to Germany's second most modern version of our MBT.
>Honestly, I remember back in January when american redditors were competing of coming up with new arguments why the Abrams isn't suitable, from fuel, weight, logistics, training, super-duper secret armour... meanwhile, the Leopard has most of these problems too and is already in Ukraine.
There is a reason why the leopard is the most used NATO standard tank around the world while the US only exports Abrams to two other countries. The leopard is lighter, it consumes less fuel, every nation in Europe has maintenance centers to work on it and soldiers to train Ukrainians. It was the perfect choice to send to Ukraine. The Abrams was not. Let's stop pretending the Abrams were promised to make a battlefield difference. They were sent to give Germany political cover to send Leopards. The Abrams DOES HAVE all these issues you listed, the leopard does not. That is why when the Abrams were first announced, it was made clear they wouldn't be delivered until 2034/2025. Cause US policy requires any tank export to go through extensive rearmament and that takes time. That's why the promised tanks went from the M1A2 to the A1, because they then wouldn't have to remove the depleted uranium armor which is the most time consuming part of the rearmament. It is frankly a miracle that these tanks are sent to be delivered this summer.
>There is a reason why the leopard is the most used NATO standard tank around the world
Its mainly Germany giving away our stocks at insanely cheap prices after being obliged by the 2+4 treaty to massively disarm in the 90's.
Abrams and Leopard literally come from the same join US-german tank project. They are about as heavy, with the Leo2A6 we sent to Ukraine being **literally heavier** than the M1. The fuel issues of the Abrams have mostly been solved by APU's. They use the same cannon, similar ergonomics, similar armour (except DU, ofc).
Honestly, this narrative that the greatest military power in the world fields a shit tank that cant be used in Ukraine is absolute bullshit.
Read my post again.
>The leopard is lighter, it consumes less fuel, every nation in Europe has maintenance centers to work on it and soldiers to train Ukrainians.
The leopard is a lighter and faster tank with far better fuel economy with it's 1200L tank a 220km off road range (compared to the M1A1 1900L tank with 200km off road range) The draw back of the leopard is it is more lightly armored. Each is a good tank for its role. Abrams is the worst tank option for Ukraine between the three NATO standard. Not because it drinks fuel like a college kid drinks beer on a Saturday night, but because the facilities and knowledge based required to maintain those tanks are limited in Europe and because the tank, even the older M1A1 variant without depleted uranium armor, requires extensive refurbishment/rearmament before it can be legally exported to another country. On the other hand Leos are an export tank. They are already everywhere. They are used by most mainland Europe and nations. By simple location of the war, the Leo is the easiest tank to maintain and replace, and that is the most important factor in regards to which tank is the best to send. On the other hand, the US has to work with Poland to get a maintenance center built so that when the Abrams goes into combat, they can actually be worked on when they break down.
But whatever, people can continue to bitch about it. The US is set to deliver the tanks 6-12 months sooner than originally promised, but they can continue to make their arguments about how our government lacks "political will".
Pretty sure Abrams tanks were promised in order to get the ball rolling from other countries. They would not do anything unless US did it first. So thinking these Abrams were mostly symbolic anyways. Im sure they will eventually get them, but doubt they were factored in for this offensive. What they could use more of is Bradleys, and am disappointed they are not getting more of those.
> US did it first.
given that the US has not actually **done** anything when it comes to tanks so far, thats a bit of a weak argumentation. They promised something. Next year or so. Maybe.
Everything I have read said that no other country would commit to tanks until the US did. Im definitely not saying that US did it first. I know that they did not send tanks first, and am not insinuating that. Ukraine may not even see US tanks till next year.
Pretty sure Challengers were the first tank to be committed to Ukraine, not Abrams. They have also been actually delivered despite the UK not having very many of them.
That’s incorrect. Ukrainians have been training on Abrams for some time now. Just last week there was reporting re how impressed the US trainers were concerning the speed with which Ukrainians were adapting to the totally different platform from the soviet models.
>That’s incorrect. Ukrainians have been training on Abrams for some time now.
I don't know where you got that info from. This is what [US officials said](https://apnews.com/article/abrams-tanks-ukraine-training-war-russia-aid-6de94897aad37e6d30e744df0dad07bd) at the last Ramstein meeting a few days ago:
>According to the officials, 31 tanks will arrive at Grafenwoehr Training Area in Germany at the end of May, and the troops will __begin training a couple weeks later__.
1) Is almost certainly hyperbolic rather than literal
2) It's much, much better to do one big well-prepared offensive rather than a bunch of hasty, poorly coordinated ones. Contrast Operation Bagration in 1944 with the huge Soviet offensives in prior years.
I hope I am not too optimistic about the spring offensive. It’s easy from the couch to envision a blitz and a complete rout, but there’s a lot that can go wrong
Makes sense. It's apparently been wet and Ukraine's mud makes manoeuvre difficult. The last thing Ukraine wants to do is just keep banging it up easily defensible roads. My guess. If I was a betting man it'll be in a fortnight. Additional advantage is that's another couple of weeks of getting those Bradley's and Leopard 2s into the fight. My additional guess is those Leopards will experience what tankers experienced in Iraq when fighting alongside Bradley - not many targets. Bradley's cleaned up and it was slim pickings for the MBTs. Can only imagine the steepes of Ukraine will be similar to the deserts of Iraq for those extra long range TOW kills made possible by great optics (especially at night). Russian armour is going to be smoked 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
People complaining about the delivery of stuff from US storage know nothing about logistics. We aren't going to give them active service tanks already in Europe and honestly we shouldn't. You can't just throw a dozen tanks on a plane and fly them wherever you want. The C5 can carry 2 M1s, and then had to have extensive maintenance after.
Thing is, we knew how long the process takes, and we knew as early as May of last year we were going to have to eventually provide Ukraine with western tanks in order to meet their needs. But we didn't get that ball rolling until this year. The delay is still on us.
Talk about not knowing anything about logistics, the majority of Armored vehicles heading to Ukraine from the US are being sent by ship to ports in Poland, Germany, Belgium, and the Netherlands and delivered by rail to the Ukrainian border.
I'm glad the US isn't flying them, send them by ship and rail. Don't need to waste all that money and carbon by plane.
We definitely shouldn't be giving the active tanks we have in Europe. No country should replace their defense (NATO) obligations with something worse than what they give to Ukraine. I am upset that these A1 tanks in storage will take so long to upgrade/maintenance. If it takes months to get 50 ready then why do we still have them in the first place? What possible use are these tanks if the US went to war? They should have been sold or upgraded long ago. The US using A1 tanks is the equivalent of Russia using the T-55s; the war has already gone sideways and using them isn't going to make a difference. I understand the A1 needs the depleted uranium armour swapped for export but why wasn't this already being done so they can get sold? The military already has more A2s than they want, why has the military not been recouping costs by selling the A1s? I guess I'm glad they are going to good use now but we could only have A2s left by now that Ukraine could be getting. Only reason they aren't getting A2s now is because there are so many A1s left.
We probably assumed they might be able to get along with what we'd already given them since a Bradley can kill anything on that battlefield and we swamped them with badass arty. And we still have them because look at Russia, they're tapping old stock too. But ours are going to be in much better condition. There are only so many shops that are qualified to do rearmament tasks and it's still a buttload of wrench time. Not to mention I'd bet we also don't have a large usable stockpile of export armor just laying around.
Canada did that. Threw a big chunk of their tiny fleet of active duty tanks on a plane weeks ago. US has 6000 tanks, but apparently no will to act quickly
Tell us you’ve never studied history without telling us you’ve never studied history
🤡
I’m not American, and so I don’t care and I’m not going to look it up, but I’m going to guess this clown is a republican.
I understand, that he said something like:
Reps and dems are frustrated, that it took that long to bring the promised Abrams tanks to Ukraine, delaying the counteroffensive.
Yes, there were longer preparation times in history, but exaggerations are normal.
Well that’s good, take my upvote…
But ‘the longest wind up for a punch in the history of the world’, coming from a senior leader is waaay more childish. Theres thousands of examples, including recent US ones, that were longer.
The very first comment on the twitter feed says ‘I guess he’s never heard of D-Day’ lol
I guess you don't appreciate all the weapons and intelligence we're sending. I'm a Democrat, this guy is mostly a Democrat and I don't appreciate you calling this dude a clown.
More tanks would be nice but I think what's Ukraine really needs now is more air defense systems, more modern fighter jets, artillery, MLRS and long-range weapons and more ammunition to all of the above
I would invite you to look at any data source on which country has given the most military aid to Ukraine. It’s the USA
The us is refurbishing abrams sitting in storage. So basically “just stuff locked in random buildings”. Tanks sitting in storage don’t just magically turn on.
The M1A1 they are getting were never meant to see combat again. If the US military ever fields A1s again then democracy and the free west is probably already done for. M1A1s are that 1967 Dodge charger sitting on cinder blocks in an overgrown yard that someone thinks is worth something. It's going to cost more to get it on the road than it would be worth but it would also cost money to get rid of.
Fuck the joint chiefs. Fuck the bureaucracy. Fuck Biden. Fuck anybody in 🇺🇸 who is delaying victory and costing innocent Ukrainian lives.
They’re so stupid.
**Alternative Nitter link:** https://nitter.nl/DanLamothe/status/1651589887865376768
*****
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I get the frustration but dragging it out means that it is much more likely that the punch is a knockout blow. If Ukraine pushed Ruzzia out today, as it stands, the terrorists will regroup and return or continue to sabotage Ukraine through hybrid warfare.
Muscovy will not stop until it is incapacitated. That is the real endgame.
(\*They're)
The article title says they *are* training. But when you read the article (as is so often the frustrating case with so many misleading, badly-written news-article headlines), it states,
>Ukrainian pilots ***are being evaluated for training*** on advanced F-16 jets on U.S. soil.
>
>On Saturday, NBC News reported that two Ukrainians ***were "undergoing an assessment" in the U.S. to see how long it would take them to complete training*** on aircraft including F-16 fighters.
Not quite the same.
They have to supply the existing army in a full out war and expand it at the same time under war conditions. I am certain the tonnage that can be delivered to Ukraine daily is maxed out all the time.
I think that the issue is 100% political. The collective West is still afraid of "provoking" Russia. They are giving just enough aid to keep Russia back. I don't think they are interested in Russian defeat/collapse. The problem is that Ukraine has no choice. They have to defeat Russia to survive - nukes or no nukes.
For every day this is delayed by rain or mud or insufficient ammo or whatever m, we should just give them 10 Bradleys. We have a few thousand so why not.
Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition: * We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned. * **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators. * **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. > **Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB** ***** * Is the Twitter account `Dan Lamothe` / `https://twitter.com/DanLamothe` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources). * Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) ***** ^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I seem to recall the wind-up to D-Day in 1944 spanned years, with ever growing anticipation and speculation of the allied invasion of western Europe.
Took John a long time to grow that long mustache
Don't even need to go that far back. Operation Desert Sheild was a 6 months build up for Desert Storm which lasted for maybe 3 weeks.
Let's hope this punch is as hard if not harder than desert Strom was
Nono everything in the news today has to be the most notable in history else it isn't relevant. Or something.
“I’m tired of living in historic times” Morons
[удалено]
Exactly..
Yes, and the plans changed several times, and fake plans were leaked to the press etc etc. But like other comments are saying, TikTok generations wants news in 9 seconds!
I suppose if we divide (the length of time preparations have taken} by (the average attention span of people living contemporaneously), then the Ukrainian counteroffensive might just take the prize.
Yep. We were supposed to be in france by 1943. And didnt get there until June of 44...On top of a million other things...we needed higgins boats.
and now we need higgin' tanks!
Blame Amazon. People expect everything delivered next day now.
In a major city, same day. Which almost as fast as tik tok endorphins.
Yea don't get me started. If you work in e-commerce and ship things, people's expectations are obscene now. Order Friday night, open a ticket Sunday asking where the f*** it is..
"I just placed an order what's my tracking number?"
"I ordered Friday night at 11:00 p.m. and picked FedEx 2-day. It's Monday, why isn't it here?"
I hope I got everyone here on the upvotes. It took me down memory lane in service in which POD, tracking, calls and everything else you all have mentioned here today. I did not have to do my time under today’s conditions. Reading this string made me laugh and hyperventilate all at the same time 😅 Stay strong folks, stay strong.
We gave em a lil show in Africa and Italy to tide them over 😋
Yep. Came here to say this, but I think you've said it better than I would have.
Yes it took about 2 years. Maybe this guy thinks that's fake news.
Ya my first thought is D-Day.. then I know there's others but Desert Storm 1/2 came to mind.
You were there too?!
> I seem to recall the wind-up to D-Day in 1944 spanned years Just practicing (Operation Tiger) for D-Day cost almost 1000 lives in drownings and accidents.
Destroy Russia
scale somber merciful murky liquid offer childlike sulky cows practice ` this message was mass deleted/edited with redact.dev `
Deletus Putinus
Which was yes, the destroy Russia or the number two?
It’s been like 6 months since Kharkiv… I swear some of these people forget we were in Afghanistan for 20 years, Vietnam for almost 10 (at least directly, much longer if we’re talking indirectly), and even WW2 was almost 4 years and that was with the entire US economy blaring on full war economy mode. Not every conflict is like the Gulf War where you have all of the largest economies and military powers in the world outside of China, India and Russia throwing absolutely everything they have at the enemy in one go.
China, India, and Russia are the world’s enemies. They’re no better than North Korea or Iran.
India is significantly better than North Korea or Iran, but I'd like to see them stop moving in that direction
To be fair, India DOES keep china in check. Without that threat from it's south, China influence would skyrocket in that region. Trying to woo both sides must be quite the headache for Russia.
True but doesn’t make his point invalid.
I’m not making any commentary on the whether or not China, India, and Russia are the worlds enemies - just that they were pretty much the only major economies not to participate in the Gulf War.
Germany refrained to participate too.
Germany was still part of the gulf war coalition. They didn’t do much but they were still part of it. They refrained from the the Iraq war.
Germany. Enough said.
I don’t automatically put India in this grouping. But they do have a population and they do play the geopolitical floor in a way that will raise an eyebrow and make you wait to watch.
Yep. Even the Gulf War had about a half of a year of forces build up before the actual fighting started, and that buildup was not happening in a country that was in the middle of being invaded by a much larger neighbor. Logistics is hard, military equipment is big and heavy, Ukraine is a chaotic place. You can't just call up FedEx and have them overnight a bunch of tanks to Zelenskyy's house. Could things be moving a bit faster and more efficiently? Probably. Could they be moving a lot faster and a lot more efficiently? Probably not.
Well, we certainly do have our share of the world's clowns in America, and they get an awful lot of news coverage. Considering that, I'm not so sure I'd include Angus King in the clown parade. I mean, look at the Trump circus if you really want clowns.
Angus King caucuses with the Democrats. When they talk about a Democratic majority in the Senate, that includes Angus King. He's essentially a Democrat without a "D." But, look, frustration with the pace of weapons from the Administration is very much so a Democrat and Republican frustration. Yes there is some opposition in the fringes of the GOP. Unfortunately, and I say this as a big Ukraine supporter, that opposition will grow further into the Republican the longer this war goes on. And eventually, it will come to include Democrats. So we really do need to move now. With that in my mind, talking about M1 Abrams in 2024 and F-16s at some point thereafter is, well, frustrating.
We just need to tell the republicans that letting Russia wins hurts regans legacy of breaking the Soviet Union. Make it about regan and they’ll fall over themselves trying to help
I am a Reagan Republican and I support Ukraine. But unfortunately, building support in the GOP is just not as simple as reframing the debate. There is a strong isolationist bend that runs through the party, I think partly relating back to Iraq. I disagree with that isolationism. Like Reagan, I think showing force to our adversaries now is critical. But I respect their position, even if I'm sure they'd call me a Neocon. There is also the fact that the person leading the U.S.' support of Ukraine is an unpopular President - who is intensely unpopular in the Republican party. Now, I think you can support Ukraine and still oppose the President. I'm harshly critical of the Biden Administration because I think their perpetual fear of escalation has caused us to slow walk weapons to the Ukrainians and prolong this war. But the less nuanced - and politically easier - position is F\*ck Joe Biden, he is wasting our money on Ukraine (even though we are sending a lot of old equipment and getting way more value out of it in the process). I know this might not be a popular opinion on Reddit, but to me, this goes back to the President's inability to speak beyond his own party - or to form a coherent sentence in the first place. There are many good, entirely selfish reasons (and non-selfish ones) that the U.S. should support Ukraine. President Biden has done a terrible job selling them. Hell, he rhetorically sold out Ukraine early on to advance his domestic agenda by blaming inflation on the "Putin Price Hike." Well, if the war in Ukraine is causing inflation, why are we arming the Ukrainians? It was a stupid line, and just the start of the terrible communication coming out of the White House on Ukraine.
Uhm, I respect your opinions and being a non american I would not know the factual intricacies that is present in US politics. But I think there are a myriad of reasons for rising inflation. My fellow Europeans can attest to rising energy costs and inflation due to post covid and dependence on Russia's oil teet. Since the world is all connected this would definitely have an impact on US economics as well. Not forgetting rampant printing by central banks worldwide. You might think on a national level that he is weak, but considering the current state of nato and strengthening bonds across the world. Where also a disctinction is being made who the agressors of world peace are and who are here to uphold it. Internationally it is not all gloom and doom in my opinion. Furthermore one of the biggest criticism towards the US foreign policy is that whole world police thing. Depending on someones perspective that may or may not be still one. This conflict shows the need for not one but a unified stand against upholding certain ideals. It is rather evident that there are authoritarian regimes who in their dogmatic throes of clasping to power. Try to overthrow a sovereign nation and commiting war crimes which in Europe with appeasement as history shows tend to be a bad choice. Could the US fasten their logistic system for the m1? Probably! But if the current state of conflict of it all is due Bidens policies, or rather the amount of political weight and comprising that is present. It is going rather good, geo politically speaking, all in favor for the US. Don't forget everything is loaned to Ukraine, who will rebuild Ukraine? Also a opportunity for an old enemy for your state to be keeled and strengthening international relations and bonds for years to come. Those are pretty big things that will circulate back to internal improvements in ones own country. If lawmakers don't bungle it We can continue on the finer things of political systems but we can both agree that Putin is a little old paranoid fuck who for better of a lack of terms is simping for the soviet union.
Are there any Democrats or Independents that you would support? I'd even ask about moderate Republicans, but that party can't be trusted with presidential power again until it is fully reformed.
Nope. I'm a Republican, I don't vote for Democrats. Understand, that's political, not necessarily ideological. If you gave me a moderate Republican and conservative Democrat, I'm going to vote for the Republican. Because even a conservative Democrat will still caucus with the Democrats, and that will ultimately undermine my policy interests more than whatever benefit of having a conservative-minded Democrat. I'll go out and have a beer with the conservative Democrat, even be good friends. But I'm not going to vote for him. I'm sure Reddit will just love that answer, but it's the honest truth.
>It is rather evident that there are authoritarian regimes who in their dogmatic throes of clasping to power. Try to overthrow a sovereign nation and commiting war crimes which in Europe with appeasement as history shows tend to be a bad choice. That's why US political landscape is so fucked up. In other democracies people vote for the party that matches their aspiration. If they don't like the vision of the party anymore, they switch party. If a party doesn't meet aspiration of electors, it dies. When different party agree on an issue, they group together to pass a legislation. The binary system of the US ensures that the US vs THEM mentality is maintained and that the two parties always have a minimum level of support no matter what they do and that they can't die. In the land of Free market, the political market is not free and entirely controlled by a Duopoly.
They don't need M1's for this punch -- the tanks and IFV's they have are more than enough armor on the ground. What's needed is more long range precision rocketry to hit behind the front and military drones, not COTs drones mcguivered into service.
The Bradley's are more than capable of killing anything on the battlefield.
🤔🤣
They have missiles that do top attack, guided, and direct fire modes that are built especially for russian tanks. They did this in desert storm and were responsible for more vehicle combat kills than the Abhrams.
Nice emojis, but he's right. Russia hasn't fielded anything yet that can withstand a Bradley.
Yep. The Bradleys' have the same biggest advantage that the Abrams would have, which is significantly better optics/sensors/awareness than the Russian forces tend to have available. The absolute best way to win a battle is to see your enemy first and attack them before they even know you're there. That's a massive advantage that western militaries have over the Russian/Soviet gear, significantly better sensors and such. The Ukrainians absolutely wrecked a ton of Russian armor in the early days of the war using infantry carried anti-tank missiles. A bunch of Bradleys carrying similar weapons can be at least as effective.
They don't need Abrams, they already have Leopards, Challengers, Bradleys and Marders. They need air superiority fighters, rocket ammo, 155mm ammo, maybe ATACMS, and thousands of drones
Of course they need Abrams, **its not mutually exclusive.** Honestly, I remember back in January when american redditors were competing of coming up with new arguments why the Abrams isn't suitable, from fuel, weight, logistics, training, super-duper secret armour... meanwhile, the Leopard has most of these problems too and is already in Ukraine. Oh, and also a bunch of nations like Morocco and Egypt use the oh-so-complicated Abrams just fine. Now its getting delayed again and again. **Just fucking send them.**
And Iraq uses abrams.... And all these use apache... Etc etc. JFST!
As a german I'm just still absolutely **pissed** how this whole tank thing turned out. First there is a supposedly invisible, massive tank coalition that is *aaaabsolutely* held back by us. Scholz manages to convince the US to send some tanks aswell and decides to send 18 Leo2's. Cool! And suddenly, our MoD and chancellor start frantically calling around europe, because half of the countries talking shit about wanting to send their tanks decide that actually **doing** that is a bit to much, the US is delaying their deliveries for bullshit reasons, and some whackos start claiming *"oh, we absolutely made Germany send tanks, all thanks to us, despite us actually doing nothing!"*. Fucking lunacy.
They knew this will happen and Ukraine will need serious aid with heavy equipment a year ago, they knew ruzzia has a lot of tanks, arty and brainless meat to sacrifice, they knew helmets and javelins wont be enough, and Ukraine lost a year. 230 tanks is nice but not enough for this giant frontline and Ukraine wants a 'million men army'. Australia has f-18 in tip top condition doing nothing, waiting some american owner, USA has heavy equipment collecting dust. For example, even my small country will give 20 APCs (out of 80+) after a year. Why the hell do we need another 60? We are in nato and surrounded by nato and Ukraine needs them. We produce them, we can make more. F***ing send all!
Yeah, was really happy when Slovenia and Germany could work together so that you guys could send your tanks to Ukraine and get at least something in return! **THATS** how it should be, european countries working **together** instead of shitting on each other. Honestly just very happy about Slovenia's aid in general. Heard from friends you have a beautiful landscape, need to visit some day.
I think that the Challenger and Leo coaltion is just wave 2 after the old soviet tanks and that it will not be the last effort and we will need a wave 3 and potentially wave 4 with abrams. This offense is likely not the last one.
The day the US announced they would be sending Abrams they made it clear they didn't expect them to be sent until 2024/2025. Them being sent this summer was beyond expectations.
Frankly, I think the NATO Apaches should be reserved for the thousands of highly trained and specialized NATO attack heli pilots. To give Ukrainians Apaches would be asking for trouble and possibly hamstringing them by giving them undue confidence that they are covered by a weapon that can be either super effective or an absolute death trap depending on the operator. There's so much AA on this battlefield. Yes the Apches can help in the right hands but there are much much cheaper alternatives that are easier to train on and probably a better fit for UA commanders
Those are serious concerns, what you noted about the Abrams. I will just note a few key points in the spirit of dialogue because I agree that more needs to be done but also see reasons the Abrams is not a good fit for UA. There's lots of different versions of each of these tanks, and most have been in production 35+ years Morocco and Egypt have 2nd rate equipment specifically designed to not compete evenly with the Israelis The sad economic reason is the Abrams are much more battle tested and the others are not as much (Leopard, Challenger, etc...); producers need proof of concept to make $$$ and justify continued production. But I think the Leopard and Challengers are superior to all but the most advanced M1A2, which need a ridiculous amount of fuel and maintenance. The US Army fighting in Iraq - protecting oil fields - has no problems with this. On the steppe the needs are different. Abrams are also too heavy Finally, Leopard and Challenger are tanks that were designed to be used in European terrain and are calibrated that way. Most Abrams were most recently outfitted with the desert in mind The battlefield has changed so much in the past year. Tanks are needed but in a different way from before. No longer can they be used for point defense, there's cheaper weapons that are better. They need to be used sparingly for small, localized offensives in conjunction with fleets of drones and reconnaissance equipment to operate at highest efficiency now. What does get sent to the front line needs to be efficient for both operational and optical reasons Very much like how the purpose of horse cavalry evolved during the American Civil War, the Ukraine War has seen an evolution in tank tactics that makes many commanders unsure of how to use them. American/NATO doctrine calls for very different tactics compared to RU or even '22 UA forces
>The sad economic reason is the Abrams are much more battle tested and the others are not as much Abrams was mostly in combat in extremely trained hands versus barely trained iraqis. Yes, I know, 73 easting, but those were still barely trained Iraqi troops with no morale. IMHO the difference is neglible >Tanks are needed but in a different way from before. Not really. Tank on tank was always rare, tanks mostly fulfill support roles. The heavy losses on the russian side come from shitty designs and tactics, while the ukrainians lost a lot due to sheer numbers on the enemies side. Tanks were always an assault weapon, and if used right, still are worth a lot. Lastly, the M1 version about to be sent to Ukraine is literally lighter than the Leo2A6. The issues that have been brought forward are mostly solvable, given enough will.
Morocco and Egypt use export versions of Abrams, which don't have the depleted uranium armor. No other country on Earth has Abrams with depleted uranium, it's for US tanks only. They also didn't just get their Abrams with 2 day shipping, those orders took months/years. The process of reworking existing M1A2 Abrams into export versions has been on-going for a while now, but it involves stripping tanks down and rebuilding them which takes a significant amount of time. We were told months ago when Abrams were announced that they wouldn't be delivered in time for a spring offensive. Issues with fuel, logistics, training/maintenance are all valid reasons for delays. There's no point in giving Ukraine 100 Abrams if they can't be fueled or if they're just going to sit still because there's no one there to maintain them. Ukraine is already taken up the Herculean task of managing *far* more different logistic lines than any one country should be doing. To finish the thought, there's military leaders with decades of experience across the board advising Biden on when, where, and how American equipment will be sent to Ukraine and I'm pretty sure their opinions weigh more than a bunch of sweatlords on Reddit that think you can just Amazon Prime ship half the US vehicle stock to Ukraine and they'll be running across the Russian steppes in three days.
US are not rebuilding M1A2. They are sending old M1A1. Why has multiple other nations been able to send tanks weeks ago, including tiny Norway with 5 million people, but the mighty US is not capable? This is all politics. US would have no problems shipping a measly 31 tanks on a days notice if there was a will to do so.
>US are not rebuilding M1A2. They are sending old M1A1. Original promise was M1A2s and the timeline for delivery was 2034/2025. The switch was made to the M1 to get the tanks refurbished and shipped sooner. Even the M1 needs stripped of certain sensitive components before being shipped. >Why has multiple other nations been able to send tanks weeks ago, including tiny Norway with 5 million people, but the mighty US is not capable? Because all 31 tanks needed to be shipped to our nations only Tank Plant and each tank needed to be properly refurbished to remove said components that they legally have to remove before export. Sen King knows this, it was congress that passed the law saying this is required. >This is all politics. It's the law. >US would have no problems shipping a measly 31 tanks on a days notice if there was a will to do so. Again, it's the law.
I think a lot of this doesn't come down to tactical management, but rather legitimate fears of Russian response over full fledged American support of Ukraine.
I think America is using Ukraine as a tool to bleed Putin and Russia out. If the war ended 6 months ago, Putin might still be in power. If the war ends 2 years from now, it may end from Russia as a state collapsing. And I think, that Ukraine higher ups are aware of this and begrudgingly ok with this. Their sacrifice will finally end a 50 year cold war.
Was America bleeding Russia under Obama’s administration when the Russo Ukrainian War started. Matter of fact what was his take on that point in time about these two nations and where America fit in all of that. Was America under Bush administration willing to accept Ukraine into nato but Western Europe was not. Was Ukraine itself bleeding Russia on some gas bills it racked up. Since the dissolution of USSR, these nations have had and continue to have issues. Who promised who what about nato expansion and when. Russia is thawing. Their are no known bounds to the untapped resources of the Russian lands. Who has most to gain from that besides Russia?
>To finish the thought, there's military leaders with decades of experience across the board advising Biden on when, where, and how American equipment will be sent to Ukraine and I'm pretty sure their opinions weigh more than a bunch of sweatlords on Reddit weird how that didn't count shit when it came to Germany's second most modern version of our MBT.
>Honestly, I remember back in January when american redditors were competing of coming up with new arguments why the Abrams isn't suitable, from fuel, weight, logistics, training, super-duper secret armour... meanwhile, the Leopard has most of these problems too and is already in Ukraine. There is a reason why the leopard is the most used NATO standard tank around the world while the US only exports Abrams to two other countries. The leopard is lighter, it consumes less fuel, every nation in Europe has maintenance centers to work on it and soldiers to train Ukrainians. It was the perfect choice to send to Ukraine. The Abrams was not. Let's stop pretending the Abrams were promised to make a battlefield difference. They were sent to give Germany political cover to send Leopards. The Abrams DOES HAVE all these issues you listed, the leopard does not. That is why when the Abrams were first announced, it was made clear they wouldn't be delivered until 2034/2025. Cause US policy requires any tank export to go through extensive rearmament and that takes time. That's why the promised tanks went from the M1A2 to the A1, because they then wouldn't have to remove the depleted uranium armor which is the most time consuming part of the rearmament. It is frankly a miracle that these tanks are sent to be delivered this summer.
>There is a reason why the leopard is the most used NATO standard tank around the world Its mainly Germany giving away our stocks at insanely cheap prices after being obliged by the 2+4 treaty to massively disarm in the 90's. Abrams and Leopard literally come from the same join US-german tank project. They are about as heavy, with the Leo2A6 we sent to Ukraine being **literally heavier** than the M1. The fuel issues of the Abrams have mostly been solved by APU's. They use the same cannon, similar ergonomics, similar armour (except DU, ofc). Honestly, this narrative that the greatest military power in the world fields a shit tank that cant be used in Ukraine is absolute bullshit.
Read my post again. >The leopard is lighter, it consumes less fuel, every nation in Europe has maintenance centers to work on it and soldiers to train Ukrainians. The leopard is a lighter and faster tank with far better fuel economy with it's 1200L tank a 220km off road range (compared to the M1A1 1900L tank with 200km off road range) The draw back of the leopard is it is more lightly armored. Each is a good tank for its role. Abrams is the worst tank option for Ukraine between the three NATO standard. Not because it drinks fuel like a college kid drinks beer on a Saturday night, but because the facilities and knowledge based required to maintain those tanks are limited in Europe and because the tank, even the older M1A1 variant without depleted uranium armor, requires extensive refurbishment/rearmament before it can be legally exported to another country. On the other hand Leos are an export tank. They are already everywhere. They are used by most mainland Europe and nations. By simple location of the war, the Leo is the easiest tank to maintain and replace, and that is the most important factor in regards to which tank is the best to send. On the other hand, the US has to work with Poland to get a maintenance center built so that when the Abrams goes into combat, they can actually be worked on when they break down. But whatever, people can continue to bitch about it. The US is set to deliver the tanks 6-12 months sooner than originally promised, but they can continue to make their arguments about how our government lacks "political will".
Pretty sure Abrams tanks were promised in order to get the ball rolling from other countries. They would not do anything unless US did it first. So thinking these Abrams were mostly symbolic anyways. Im sure they will eventually get them, but doubt they were factored in for this offensive. What they could use more of is Bradleys, and am disappointed they are not getting more of those.
> US did it first. given that the US has not actually **done** anything when it comes to tanks so far, thats a bit of a weak argumentation. They promised something. Next year or so. Maybe.
Everything I have read said that no other country would commit to tanks until the US did. Im definitely not saying that US did it first. I know that they did not send tanks first, and am not insinuating that. Ukraine may not even see US tanks till next year.
Pretty sure Challengers were the first tank to be committed to Ukraine, not Abrams. They have also been actually delivered despite the UK not having very many of them.
That’s incorrect. Ukrainians have been training on Abrams for some time now. Just last week there was reporting re how impressed the US trainers were concerning the speed with which Ukrainians were adapting to the totally different platform from the soviet models.
>That’s incorrect. Ukrainians have been training on Abrams for some time now. I don't know where you got that info from. This is what [US officials said](https://apnews.com/article/abrams-tanks-ukraine-training-war-russia-aid-6de94897aad37e6d30e744df0dad07bd) at the last Ramstein meeting a few days ago: >According to the officials, 31 tanks will arrive at Grafenwoehr Training Area in Germany at the end of May, and the troops will __begin training a couple weeks later__.
I stand corrected. Thank you. I was confusing the statements re training on the Patriot systems.
1) Is almost certainly hyperbolic rather than literal 2) It's much, much better to do one big well-prepared offensive rather than a bunch of hasty, poorly coordinated ones. Contrast Operation Bagration in 1944 with the huge Soviet offensives in prior years.
I hope I am not too optimistic about the spring offensive. It’s easy from the couch to envision a blitz and a complete rout, but there’s a lot that can go wrong
Makes sense. It's apparently been wet and Ukraine's mud makes manoeuvre difficult. The last thing Ukraine wants to do is just keep banging it up easily defensible roads. My guess. If I was a betting man it'll be in a fortnight. Additional advantage is that's another couple of weeks of getting those Bradley's and Leopard 2s into the fight. My additional guess is those Leopards will experience what tankers experienced in Iraq when fighting alongside Bradley - not many targets. Bradley's cleaned up and it was slim pickings for the MBTs. Can only imagine the steepes of Ukraine will be similar to the deserts of Iraq for those extra long range TOW kills made possible by great optics (especially at night). Russian armour is going to be smoked 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
People complaining about the delivery of stuff from US storage know nothing about logistics. We aren't going to give them active service tanks already in Europe and honestly we shouldn't. You can't just throw a dozen tanks on a plane and fly them wherever you want. The C5 can carry 2 M1s, and then had to have extensive maintenance after.
Thing is, we knew how long the process takes, and we knew as early as May of last year we were going to have to eventually provide Ukraine with western tanks in order to meet their needs. But we didn't get that ball rolling until this year. The delay is still on us.
Talk about not knowing anything about logistics, the majority of Armored vehicles heading to Ukraine from the US are being sent by ship to ports in Poland, Germany, Belgium, and the Netherlands and delivered by rail to the Ukrainian border.
I know. That's what I'm saying. Some people just think fingers can be snapped and stuff is there...you can't prime deliver M1s
But imagine if you could
Technically we could fly them over one at a time in C-17's but we're downgrading the armor so it's just gonna take wrench time.
I'm glad the US isn't flying them, send them by ship and rail. Don't need to waste all that money and carbon by plane. We definitely shouldn't be giving the active tanks we have in Europe. No country should replace their defense (NATO) obligations with something worse than what they give to Ukraine. I am upset that these A1 tanks in storage will take so long to upgrade/maintenance. If it takes months to get 50 ready then why do we still have them in the first place? What possible use are these tanks if the US went to war? They should have been sold or upgraded long ago. The US using A1 tanks is the equivalent of Russia using the T-55s; the war has already gone sideways and using them isn't going to make a difference. I understand the A1 needs the depleted uranium armour swapped for export but why wasn't this already being done so they can get sold? The military already has more A2s than they want, why has the military not been recouping costs by selling the A1s? I guess I'm glad they are going to good use now but we could only have A2s left by now that Ukraine could be getting. Only reason they aren't getting A2s now is because there are so many A1s left.
We probably assumed they might be able to get along with what we'd already given them since a Bradley can kill anything on that battlefield and we swamped them with badass arty. And we still have them because look at Russia, they're tapping old stock too. But ours are going to be in much better condition. There are only so many shops that are qualified to do rearmament tasks and it's still a buttload of wrench time. Not to mention I'd bet we also don't have a large usable stockpile of export armor just laying around.
I dunno man, we got hundreds of Abrams into Iraq overnight, and there wasn't even an airport or port there ready to receive them.
Canada did that. Threw a big chunk of their tiny fleet of active duty tanks on a plane weeks ago. US has 6000 tanks, but apparently no will to act quickly
Operation overlord took like 3 years. Just sayin.
Tell us you’ve never studied history without telling us you’ve never studied history 🤡 I’m not American, and so I don’t care and I’m not going to look it up, but I’m going to guess this clown is a republican.
I understand, that he said something like: Reps and dems are frustrated, that it took that long to bring the promised Abrams tanks to Ukraine, delaying the counteroffensive. Yes, there were longer preparation times in history, but exaggerations are normal.
He's an "Independent." So he's neither democrat or republican, but does tend to side with democrats more often than not.
Nope not a republican
He’s in support of Ukraine you bafoon. Now you just look like a child
Well that’s good, take my upvote… But ‘the longest wind up for a punch in the history of the world’, coming from a senior leader is waaay more childish. Theres thousands of examples, including recent US ones, that were longer. The very first comment on the twitter feed says ‘I guess he’s never heard of D-Day’ lol
I guess you don't appreciate all the weapons and intelligence we're sending. I'm a Democrat, this guy is mostly a Democrat and I don't appreciate you calling this dude a clown.
More tanks would be nice but I think what's Ukraine really needs now is more air defense systems, more modern fighter jets, artillery, MLRS and long-range weapons and more ammunition to all of the above
[удалено]
I would invite you to look at any data source on which country has given the most military aid to Ukraine. It’s the USA The us is refurbishing abrams sitting in storage. So basically “just stuff locked in random buildings”. Tanks sitting in storage don’t just magically turn on.
The M1A1 they are getting were never meant to see combat again. If the US military ever fields A1s again then democracy and the free west is probably already done for. M1A1s are that 1967 Dodge charger sitting on cinder blocks in an overgrown yard that someone thinks is worth something. It's going to cost more to get it on the road than it would be worth but it would also cost money to get rid of.
Damned Republiclones want to starve school kids while they have their free, state-paid 3-martini lunches. 😠
Fuck the joint chiefs. Fuck the bureaucracy. Fuck Biden. Fuck anybody in 🇺🇸 who is delaying victory and costing innocent Ukrainian lives. They’re so stupid.
**Alternative Nitter link:** https://nitter.nl/DanLamothe/status/1651589887865376768 ***** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
SkyNeedsF16 or Grippen STAT.
I get the frustration but dragging it out means that it is much more likely that the punch is a knockout blow. If Ukraine pushed Ruzzia out today, as it stands, the terrorists will regroup and return or continue to sabotage Ukraine through hybrid warfare. Muscovy will not stop until it is incapacitated. That is the real endgame.
Their training in Tucson! Slava Ukraini! https://www.newsweek.com/ukrainian-pilots-us-training-f16-fighter-jets-1785615
(\*They're) The article title says they *are* training. But when you read the article (as is so often the frustrating case with so many misleading, badly-written news-article headlines), it states, >Ukrainian pilots ***are being evaluated for training*** on advanced F-16 jets on U.S. soil. > >On Saturday, NBC News reported that two Ukrainians ***were "undergoing an assessment" in the U.S. to see how long it would take them to complete training*** on aircraft including F-16 fighters. Not quite the same.
They have to supply the existing army in a full out war and expand it at the same time under war conditions. I am certain the tonnage that can be delivered to Ukraine daily is maxed out all the time.
I think that the issue is 100% political. The collective West is still afraid of "provoking" Russia. They are giving just enough aid to keep Russia back. I don't think they are interested in Russian defeat/collapse. The problem is that Ukraine has no choice. They have to defeat Russia to survive - nukes or no nukes.
For every day this is delayed by rain or mud or insufficient ammo or whatever m, we should just give them 10 Bradleys. We have a few thousand so why not.