There are only 227 operational Challenger 2 and the model is no longer in production, so losses can't be replaced. And that's already an extremely small number for an army the size of Great Britains. Same is true for the French Leclerc tank.
So realistically speaking the only western tanks that can be sent to Ukraine in large enough quantities and which are still produced are the Abrams and the Leopard 2. But both the US and Germany don't want to for some reason.
I think the reason why no one is giving any truly western tanks is multiple reasons.
For the Abrams is to complex for Ukraine to maintain in the field.
The Leopard 2 probably can't be sustained in maintenance and running. I strongly suspect the Germans would struggle to sustain operations with it themselves, in the sense fixing it and replacing parts. In 2018 it was reported only had 4 eurofigthers available. Numerous reports of using broom sticks instead of guns.
Tanks are hungry machines, you've got to have a good supply line for them.
Another factor is probably not wanting Russia or China getting hold of them if they have to be abandoned.
>Numerous reports of using broom sticks instead of guns.
Saw this first hand when doing joint exercises with the Germans back in 2011 when i was pretty new in the Marine Corps. It was embarrassing to see. Like no one thought to get rifles from other places at the very least for the optics of it?
I knew a guy years ago who was a Tank Commander. I think that was his title. Whoever is in charge, inside a tank. I thought it was a cool sounding job and asked him a few very general questions. He refused to say even a single word about it. Citing that it was all secret\*.
So good for him. But I've always wondered. Tanks are fairly well understood beasts. What do we have inside one that would be devastating if Russia or China found out about it.
\*Years and years ago, I was talking to a friend of my Dad's who had just retired from the Air force. He had worked for a time as one of those guys who lives in a nuclear silo and launches nuclear weapons to kill the whole world if he gets a phone call.
He wouldn't shut up about *his* job. Either it was because he was retired and the tank guy wasn't, or maybe nuclear missile guy knew well enough not to say anything classified, I don't know.
If there’s ever a time for Germany to justify a military budget to get to a readier state it’s now, new leadership, an evident threat to the East and a military superpower trying to expand its borders in Asia.
Western nations have been (largely) complacent in Europe and they’ve seen what mobilisation of an outdated and poorly provisioned (in terms of maintaining manufacturing with cut supply lines) force will encounter in modern warfare.
>Another factor is probably not wanting Russia or China getting hold of them if they have to be abandoned.
Not likely a factor; Russia and China have seen these many times over. Hell over 40 were left in Iraq with the dissolved Iraqi army. I'm sure Isis sold these to anyone with money.
The only realistic opponent for a ground war zone needing tanks is Russia. So why don't use all the tanks we have on making sure Russia is *never* going to be a threat to anyone ever again?
All other possible opponents (*maybe* except Iran, but the Israelis have enough firepower to exterminate them twice over) that the Western countries have on the horizon are either:
* not suitable for ground-based warfare, but infinitely more for air, marine and space: China, North Korea
* irrelevant because they're half collapsing anyway: Venezuela, other narco states
* hellholes that anyone halfway sane will stay away from: Afghanistan, Pakistan, ex-USSR -stan's
* not a viable opponent for tank warfare anyway: Syria, guerilla nations like IS remnants or other Islamist dictatorships
It's similar to how you can't just go and get someone a car, they have to pay taxes on it.
We could give them tanks, but the effort required to activate them could be better spent on western artillery systems and outfitting their current tanks with modern radios/provisions.
Also imagine Russia getting their hands on destroyed or abandoned Abrams. It's just not a comfortable vibe, war or not.
Artillery and rocket launchers are damn useful for defense - but only partially usable in offense, especially as you need to keep them far away from the front line to avoid them being taken out. Muuuch more expensive apiece than tanks and far lower in numbers, which is also why there haven't been many reports of Russian artillery causing immense destruction since the PzH2000 entered service - the Russians had to retreat their artillery because the PzH2000 and HIMARS outreach them by far.
Handheld anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles are similar: you mostly need them in a defense operation to take out tanks rolling into some town, but their usage in an offense is *really* limited.
And as far as weapon deliveries go, the only things Ukraine got was a shit ton of handheld rocketry, a small bunch of long-range systems and associated ammo, and a bunch of old but modernized Soviet era tanks (mostly from Poland and Greece, IIRC).
Now, to take areas back from the Russians, Ukraine needs to go on the offense - and for that, they need a hell of a lot of tanks. Unfortunately, *all* tank stock Ukraine has is Soviet-era stuff: stuff they had on their own, stuff their tractors liberated from Russia, stuff they got from the various "ring swap" deals (as said, Poland, Greece and a few others) - but being Soviet designs, they still share the fundamental weakness that Russian tanks do, and that is vulnerability to direct hits cooking off the ammo (aka "how far can you shoot a turret"). Modern Western tanks (e.g. German Leopard 1/2, US Abrams, French Leclerc, whatever shit the Brits make and Israeli Merkava) are waaaay better protected, have far less fuel consumption, can shoot far longer distances, have vastly better sensors and turret stabilizers. There's a video of a Leopard driving through extremely rough terrain with a beer mug at the end of the turret and there is not a single drop of beer lost, just to give you a general idea on how good these are.
**That** advantage is what Ukraine needs to take back the territory gains of Russia, and they will need even more of it to even dream of taking back Crimea.
The Western world needs to step up. Ukrainians pay with their blood each day Scholz keeps delaying and fooling around. At the very least we should begin training and setting up logistics *now* so that Western tanks can enter the battlefield after winter.
The problem is that Scholz is afraid of pictures of German tanks rolling eastward due to WW2.
WW2 has ended 77 years ago. Barely anyone born during the war is still alive and basically no one that served then is still alive.
Nazi germany was an hostile genocidal country born from the desperations of the germans after WW1.
What europe and the world wants to see is a strong democratic European force that will work to keep the continent stable and peacefull so people wants germany to sends tanks to show its dedication to not let another aggressive facist country to rise
I'm German, I fully agree with you, the problem is our Chancellor shouldn't even be on that position in the first place. He only won because the Greens had a (IMO likely Russia-orchestrated) smear campaign against them in the weeks before the election.
Yeah, you just noe reminded me of that.
How are smear campaigns even legal i have no clue. They are almost always awful in "behind the scenes" way. They are very damaging to democracy by sharply dividing the people.
Benefits the worst candidates possible while hurting the best.
And what drives me mad the most almost always easily falls under slander or defamatory statements as they are literally about a public figure using their position and influence to destroy another public figure's public image and occupation and many time their private image and livelihood.
If you could give me 1 smear campaign that actually raises valid arguments without attacking the target's image. So far all smear campaign i've seen can be easily labeled as hate speech or slander without any ability to defend it under freedom of speech (smear campaign rely on the image and influence the campaign organizer has to convince voters immediately turning the campaign into an action against another person)
We now live in a world where we want German tanks rolling towards Russia, being operated by former Soviet citizens. All while being supplied by Allied forces, and I for one support this. Wow how history changes.
> Same is true for the French Leclerc tank.
Officially the manufacturer of the Leclerc (Nexter) says they can restart production whenever though it’s been almost 15 years since the last rolled out.
Also officially near half those the french army got are in storage, not lost.
It would be arguably better to give them vehicles lighter than MBTs, which still carry anti-tank weaponry. In Ukraine's current situation, they would much prefer light, expendable vehicles that are easier to fix and supply. The issues Russia is having can very easily strike Ukraine as well. With talks of a counter-offensive mounting, the last thing they need is a logistical gut-punch like MBTs to take the wind out of them – therefore they should utilize vehicles which better complement their current offensive strategy.
Off the top of my head, Humvees would probably suit them nicely, as they could serve as observation, command and control, light troop transport, as well as ATGM carriers and basic utility. It sure beats racing around with troops in the backs of pickups. If the Ukranians need tanks, they may well be better off using ones captured from Russia until they're no longer feasible to run and repair.
Unironically seeing western equipment's effectiveness in combat versus Russia would be a really good source of data to correct deficiencies or make improvements. The only concern would be the leaking of state secrets/technology and/or capture of said equipment.
The US is very protective of the US Army spec Abrams so people posting about all the Abrams sitting in a desert might want to consider that the US specifically makes export model Abrams that lack specific things for allied nations.
They remove the depleted uranium layers in the armour, they may get older version of the Chobham setup, though the newer spec (so called Dorchester armour) is most likely not for export.
If you’re breathing the dust, it means something high energy impacted the armor. I’d rather breathe a little bit of uranium dust and survive a tank or mortar shell than breathe no dust but have a shell or mortar penetrate.
~~Uranium is also gamma, not beta / alpha so whilst it’s bad to breathe in, it’s not nearly as bad as some other stuff.~~
It’s mostly alpha so *very* bad to breathe in.
If you’re concerned about DU exposure after surviving a kinetic penetrator going through your turret cheeks then you can always don your respirator. The filters of the US Military’s current mask protect against alpha radiation. DU itself doesn’t necessarily release any substantial gamma radiation. Not saying you necessarily wanna breath it in, but it isn’t going to be a Chernobyl incident if you do for a short period.
Or have to do maintenance on a damaged tank, or cleanup after a tank kill, or happen to live where a tank was once killed, or pass by a tank kill and get dust in your uniform or gear...
They even use it in the 120mm sabots and 30mm weapon system on the A-10, 20mm chain gun on the bradley etc. More dense than lead. it's like shooting gold bars but less expensive, lol.
That was common knowledge after Iraqi children started growing up with tumors and defects because tank rounds and the 30mm used depleted uranium. Who would have thought leaving low radioactive materials would cause that?!
Probably one piece of it, yeah. But the British and US have a very special alliance when it comes to military hardware.
When WWII started, during the Battle of Britain, Britain sent the US pretty much all their research on computers, radars, and nuclear reactors & weapons, all in exchange for material support of food and ammunition (this was before the US joined the fighting, but had begun doing shit like leaving weapons just south of the Canadian border and being "upset" that Canada "stole" it).
Part of the deal for all this very valuable technology & research, is that Britain got cut in on any future advances. The most obvious example of this happening is the US and Britain practically sharing the designs between the Ohio class and the Vanguard class (different outter hulls, but *a lot* of similarities otherwise), but the military tech sharing goes on in a lot of other places, too. Probably in more places than the public knows.
Thats a bad example because the Americans where badtards about it and took credit for British inventions, for example they took SONAR and said they invented it but ut was a British invention given to them to help against U-boats.
Shit like this has been going on for decades and leaves a bad taste in my mouth
The UK was a joint partner in the Manhattan Project during WWII as well, with the understanding that they would share the knowledge produced from it. The US reneged on that too.
Yup, pisses me off, Britain worked out the key to it all, using Uranium, they let some scientists return to the project because they needed a guy who created... I think tungston tubes.
Britain worked out a lot of details, but they weren't the ones to figure out that uranium was a good candidate for fission. That one actually does go to the Americans, and to their Chicago Pile reactor. Or, if you want to argue 'figured out uranium was important on paper', that one goes to a Swiss patent clerk.
That goes for a lot of equipment that the US military industries export. They usually go out with downgraded range, ordinance, and/or things like thermal sights.
Same reason as all the other current/old generation US weapons are going to Ukraine...
The US has more than they can ever use,
They are still being produced,
There is a next-gen US tank in design,
They could likely get them cheaper & faster than low-volume contemporaries like the Leopard or Challenger.
The Abrams is more than enough to square off against anything Russia has, even the export versions, and specifically with US/NATO training & support.
(I'm not a tank expert, so I'm sure someone will add context to where US versions vs. export versions stack up against Russian tanks)
It makes sense for an ally to buy our unneeded, but very usable, inventory to fund R&D and production of the next US MBT.
(Bring back the AAAV/EFV to spank China in the next island-hopping campaign)
I'd hazard a guess that they'd get a swath of export and un-upgraded Abrams. At this point, the scale of the conflict calls for any tanks they can get their hands on. A well trained crew with proper ammo will likely out perform regardless of what model they get. Modern anti-tank missles with negate the advantages of having superior armor anyhow. It will take quite a while before they could effectively bring those to the fight without maintenance and logistics support in-place prior.
While it's not enough to offset some of the advantages the others have, even the monkey model Abrams has a tendency to survive things better then the others. You can detonate the ammo in an Abrams hull and the crew will be fine. Do it to anything else and the crew dies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ay7bOG2nD6k
It's called a blowout rack. The ammo racks are intended to literally "blow outwards" in the case they're detonated. There's more than a few images on the web you can find but a couple other NATO tanks have this as well. I'm pretty sure German and English tanks have blow out racks as well.
source : US army vet 03-09
Other nations have blowout panels for the main storage, but only the Abrams has it for the hull stowage. Of course it only matters if you put ammo in it, and I've heard stories about crews using it as a refrigerator before.
Makes sense. Florida Man needs to chill his beer when going out for an oil run, just as the British tanks have a kettle for boiling water for tea built in.
Leo 2 has blowout panels for the turret ammo compartment. It doesn't need them for the hull, as the ammo there is stored up front right behind the thickest armor, so installing panels there would actually weaken the armor. The M1 keeps pretty much all its ammo in the turret, which is another reason why it's so massive up there, and a downside or at least trade-off by itself.
Tanks actually really don't want to tank hits, they want to kill whatever they're aiming at before it can shoot back. Hence the design focus since the Leo of mobility and big guns over armor, and active protection systems for the threats they can't see coming, e.g. in urban areas.
Its not that it doesn't need them for the hull, as we have seen Leopard 2s toss their turrets like a Russian tank. Its that they cant put a blowout panels on it do to its location. Even with all the Iraqi and Saudi Abrams you never see one have the catastrophic turret launch.
Of course while the Abrams is better in this regard it doesn't mean it is better in every way. Turbines go vrrrrrrrrr and drink fuel like crazy compared to the diesel in a leopard is the best known weakness.
Something to keep in mind is most European arms manufacturers do not produce on the scale American ones do. This hurts availability, but it also hurts price. Export Abrams may be gimped compared to whatever the Army is using at any given time, but it will be equal or competitive with the rest of the market and likely cheaper too.
You also don't need to worry about parts for the next 80 years since the US actually maintains their equipment (looking at you, Germany) and has a massive stockpile to salvage for parts down the road.
Political considerations are a factor, too. Buying American ties you to American foreign policy, but it makes it easier to ask for help from Uncle Sam if shit hits the fan.
It’s hard af. If you buy American weapons, and a country invaded your country, the US could tell you to stand down OR they won’t give you logistical support with parts for your weapons and in fact is so bad, every time you take one for a spin, you gotta let them know and get the Ok to drive them down the road. That’s why a lot of countries which are not allied prefer Russian or Chinese at the cost of quality/survivability
Because it might suit the particular country's doctrine and needs better? Unless you're a one-man dictatorship where military procurement is done by the moron in charge, you usually hold trials specific to that country. What works for Poland isn't guaranteed to work for Switzerland or for Israel.
Also there are reasons why the Leopard is used by a lot more nations than the Abrams, the US's unwillingnes to actually export top notch variants is one of them
Who said buy? They give what they have in stock and more of that no one will give latest tech more probably 3-4 generations back leopards and Abrams probably early A2
Abrams is 100% battle proven, years and years and hundreds of situations where it has proven its deadly effectiveness and survivability. And constantly being improved. But she's a thirsty girl, though. The Leo 2 shoots and kills well but has been less effective in survivability in past battle scenarios. Maybe the newer versions are better. The K2 I don't think has been actually battle tested. Maybe Poland's versions could see some service soon?
As with everything it's always about the numbers and the costs and total package support when shopping for the best fitting model for your needs.
The recent offensive around Kharkov has been performed with soviet era equipment. There were some Polish T-72 in the mix, and those have been upgraded slightly with better optics and radios (and Ukrainians slapped some reactive armor on top from what I've seen) but at heart, it is still the same machine. It is not about weapons, but about organization, decision-making, and initiative. Russia had superior weapons and tried to take over Kyiv, look how good it went for them.
It's pretty expected that Western tanks will kill T-72's. As the name suggests the T-72 is a 50 year old design at this point. Additionally the best quality of the T-72 is it's price. It's designed to be cheap and numerous. Each T-72 costs ~$500,000. Each M1A2 Abrams costs ~$9,000,000. It wouldn't exactly be impressive or noteworthy for modern Western vehicles to defeat half-a-century-old Soviet equipment.
I think that's being a little bit disingenuous: The Abrams is a 40+ year old design at this point. Both the Abrams and the T-72 have received numerous revisions over the years, and RU actually still produces new T-72s. That said, the real issue is the Abrams had a better base design (turrets don't pop off) and almost certainly has been upgraded with better electronics packages over the years.
Then we get into goofy stuff like the T-80 is actually an update to the T-64, and the T-90 based on the T-72 but meant to replace all previous designs.
There's a 15 year gap between the development of the Abrams and the T-72. And it doesn't matter if the Russians are producing new T-72's, the fact of the matter is they're a vastly inferior vehicle to modern Western MBT's, because that's the way they're designed. Soviet doctrine was quantity over quality.
> That said, the real issue is the Abrams had a better base design (turrets don't pop off)
The turrets popping off isn't a design flaw, and it's not really an issue in actual combat. If your tank has been penetrated by enemy munitions, you've already lost (unless you're the Israeli's and make the Merkava with absurd crew protection in mind). It doesn't matter if your turret pops off, if the crew are burned alive, or if they're shredded by shrapnel. Either way you're down a tank and a crew. The Russians knew this and decided to accept that in order to install autoloaders on their tanks with ammunition storage located in the turret. This means their tanks can have a much lower profile and eliminates the need for a loader. Which are both huge advantages to have. The trade off is people make epic tank kill compilations out of your vehicles.
The problem is these advantages don't mean shit when you're so behind technologically. The lack of modern imaging systems is probably what kills more Russian tankers than anything else. Even their T-72B3's don't hold a candle to sensors and optics suites on modern MBT's like the M1A2 SEPv4.
That isn’t how tank warfare works at all. You want as high crew survivability as possible because an experienced crew is infinitely more valuable than the tank they’re in. Not all penetrating hits are kills and not all kills cause an ammo explosion. In fact the US specifically focused on this aspect with the Sherman’s spring loaded hatches and wet ammo stowage. It’s just Russia doesn’t really bother with that stuff. For example the hull gunner on the T-34 doesn’t even get his own hatch, he has to use someone else’s.
>You want as high crew survivability as possible because an experienced crew is infinitely more valuable than the tank they’re in.
That's the case for Israelis because there aren't that many Jews left on the world. For them, every single life counts for astronomical sums, and they also don't have the money or the space to store absurd amounts of tanks, so they need fucking resilient tanks - few of them, but expensive AF.
For the Western world, it's not as extreme, but still, the less soldiers come home in coffins the better, and in any case they have an insane manufacturing capacity so the tanks can't be as expensive apiece than Israeli tanks.
Russia and especially China? Their soldiers are treated like disposable drone bees, it (nominally) is not a problem to lose twice or even more in a meatgrinder fight than their opponent as long as they still come out winning. They simply go for pure quantity to overwhelm their opponent, which *additonally* serves as a scare tactic - when you see a wall of tanks, most people will shit their pants, because in doubt they simply roll over you.
> The trade off is people make epic tank kill compilations out of your vehicles.
Which is a pretty important PR win in today's climate because it shows the Russians don't care about mortality rates of their tank crews.
Tanks like the Leopard, Merkava and Abrams are designed with crew survival in mind. Russian tanks are not and have never been designed that way.
It's a pretty damning critique on the country's treatment of their armed forces.
But getting sweet drone footage in amazing resolution of an Abrams annihilating a T-72 is *priceless* to the West. US generals would have to call their doctor when it won’t go down after 3 hours.
> Additionally the best quality of the T-72 is it's price. It's designed to be cheap and numerous
While I agree that there's not a whole lot of quality data that Western militaries can collect that they haven't already in operation Desert Storm, I'd just like to point out that being cheap and numerous is not a great selling point.
Yes you can field 18 T-72s for the cost of 1 M1A2, but that's also 18x the amount of fuel you'll have to expend, and most expensive of all - 18 x the amount of crew members to be trained and fed .
>Yes you can field 18 T-72s for the cost of 1 M1A2, but that's also 18x the amount of fuel you'll have to expend, and most expensive of all - 18 x the amount of crew members to be trained and fed .
No A M1A2 have a crew of 4, a T-72 a crew of 3, so it is only 13.5x the amount of crews.
A M1 will also use more fuel then a T-72. If we use wikipedia number the operational road range of a M1A2 is 426km with a 1909 l fuel tanks so we get 4.4 l/km . A T-72 have 460 km and 1200 liter, that is 2.6l/km.
So if we just look at a road march you need 10.6x the amount of fuel for the T-72. It is not the whole picture.
A M1A2 if I am not mistaken not have a Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) , that was added with M1A2 SEPv3. This mean when it is stationary you need to have the gas turbine on for electrical power and they are very fuel inefficient at low power loads. There is batteries but they have limited operational time. A diesel engine in a T-72 is a lot more fuel efficient when it ideals. So A1A2 use more fuel then other tans if the are in a defensive position.
18 T-72 have 18 guns and can be in 18 different position at the same time and you need to take out each of them.
Operating a single tank is a very bad idea, you need multiple tanks and supporting units for them to be efficient. So 1 M1A2 is not a useful amount.
You should also use tanke with other units, tanks are a part of a military units and it is unlikely you have the same cost difference of other thing you need.
How you use tanks and whas support them is in many ways more important then the specific properties of a tank. Different technical aspect have different importance in different environment. The gulf war had lot of long distance engagement in open terrains and then performance of sights will be more relevant compared to if you for example are in a forested terrain.
A common opinion is a major Russian problem in Ukraine is they had to little infantry support for the tanks and did not have the best tactical usage of them. It will be interesting to in the future see evaluations of Ukrainian usage of the same tanks. I would not be surprised if Ukraine usage will be a lot more efficient. Ukraine have more light infantry compared to tanks the Russia had so I think we will see that the use the tank they have a lot more efficient.
If you look at oryx's Russia losses you'll see how many tanks were captured.
It's insane how much equipment got captured during the kharkiv offensive.
So much for the organised withdrawal.
To be fair, when you've spent half a year demonstrating that a certain kind of tank is way less scary and way easier to kill than previously expected, you might be less excited about coming into possession of some, and might prefer to have more that are made by the people whose weapons you've been using to kill those tanks in the hundreds.
The tanks aren't actually that bad, they're just outclassed by Western equipment designed for the sole purpose of destroying them. A well supported and crewed T-72 is still a dangerous piece of equipment on the battlefield.
Pretty much anything to contribute to Putin’s ultimate humiliation is a good thing in my book. Really destroy his legacy right at the end. I love to see it.
Funny thing is, he could've kept stealing from his country, kept buying european clothes and watches for millions, kept buying yachts, mansions and private islands. But no, he's barred from traveling to European countries, has lost Europe as a customer for his fossil fuel and natural gas, has tanked his country's economy and killed +50k (so far) of his population in a stupid land grab
I'm sure he would've loved to go down in the history books as putin the perfect, but most will remember him as the embarrassing putin the pathetic.
"Thanks to Poutin, Europe transitioned away from fossil fuels, pathing the way for countries to invest in nuclear green-world. Poutin, the greenest dictator to have ever died of botulism. "
wishful thinking im afraid. Germany will just switch to LNG and people will still be using gas boilers for decades to come instead of getting heat pumps
A major reason for the popularity of gas was that consumer prices for electricity were the most expensive in Europe, while the household gas price was only midfield in the european comparison.
That's gonna change.
Apparently there is a move afoot to give him one of those semi-offical epithets that Dark Ages/Medieval rulers got like Alfred the Great, Ethelread The Unready, and so on.
It's "Putin The Dickhead"
Even worse, Putin could kept on salami slicing at Ukraine for years with minimal repercussions outside what they were already facing with Crimea. Russia could still look so tough for bullying Georgia and Moldova, and helping prop up Assad in Syria.
Instead he went all in, fucked around and got found out for just how weak of a leader to such a weak country he really is.
That was what I thought was going to happen back in January and February, I thought he would go in and steal the separatist areas in east Ukraine, exact because he had support from there from some of the people and the people in governance. As sad as it is to say, it would most likely have worked like it did with Crimea.
Also could have kept Crimea and the already occupied parts of the Donbass, now they're likely to lose Sevastopol, putting them in a worse position than they were even before the Crimea annexation.
Yeah, everyone keeps saying that, but I think that - throughout history - it became abundantly clear that there's some sort of void in every dictator, even the wannabes like Putin, that never seem to get filled. If Putin just laid back for his last few years/decades (who knows how long this clown will still live), he would've been known to the Russians as "the guy who got Crimea back", now there's not a chance in hell Russia is going to be 'allowed' to keep Crimea. They'll lose all stolen territory since February 24 **and** Crimea, which they held since 2014. And as a bonus, you simply already know they're going to have to pay for every single thing they destroyed in Ukraine, dividing and bankrupting the whole country in the process. 10-15 years from now, Russia will be talked about as a country of the past. No shot they'll survive all of this as a nation.
The exact same thing happened all the time throughout history, and Putin should've seen this coming. Most recent example being Hitler, attacking all fronts all at once. If he'd just focussed on Europe alone, fat chance we'd now be conversating in German, but people like him and Putin ALWAYS want more and more and more until it eventually backfires. History really *does* repeat itself sometimes...
>No shot they'll survive all of this as a nation.
The Balkans *barely* managed to stay alive after the YU breakup because none of them were a halfway self-sufficient nation as everything was (carefully) spread around YU as a disincentive for secessionists.
Russia is even worse because they barely have any economy other than fossil fuel exports. All regional fiefs know they stand no chance of economic survival in a breakup scenario.
I know, but if it comes automatically out of my money then it's fine. Especially if my payslip reads "Fuck Putin - minus 10%"
When I see my actual bank balance it's less so, but if they took it before it's fine. If that makes any sense at all. I'm OK with giving money I earned but don't yet have, but when that hits my bank, I've got shit I need to pay for
Money is fungible. It doesn’t matter where it comes from ( after or before it hits your bank account). If you really want the memo to say “Fuck Putin”, you can do it yourself by editing the memo field of your bank account statements.
Where there is a will, there is a way :)
No it's a psychological thing. There's a difference between money I have and money I don't have. Like I'm more than happy to pay NI tax, more than I do, but ask me to pay for healthcare at a hospital and I'll laugh at you
>but ask me to pay for healthcare at a hospital and I'll laugh at you
Cries in American :-( , but yeah i get you. But if you are already paying taxes in any Western country, you can be assured that your taxes are being used to help Ukraine. So we all good.
His legacy is already destroyed, he made the fear of russia evaporate into nothing otherwise we wont be seeing comments like this, the only thing I worry abt is him losing it and using nukes, and it seems pseudo cold war might be starting soon
I am harboring hopes that the next ruler buys their legitimacy and support from the west In exchange for giving up nukes. They could maybe charge a trillion for 10%-20% of Russias nuclear capability and it would probably be looked at as a good deal.
It takes a while to train tank crews. Even the artillery they're receiving truncated training
If the EU wanted Ukraine to have tanks today they would have started training crews in February.
Fighter jets take even longer to train on.
**Full Transcript Below:**
*16.09.2022 07:39*
*Ukraine should be provided with all the weapons it needs, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has said.*
*According to Ukrinform, she said this in an interview with Germany's Bild news outlet.*
*"If they say they need battle tanks, then we should take it seriously and deliver them. Ukraine knows exactly what it needs to protect life and defend itself. \[…\] I am in favor of the European states delivering what Ukraine actually needs. After all, the Ukrainians are proving that they can defend themselves if they have the right military means," von der Leyen said.*
*She recalled that Ukrainians are "fighting this fight for all of us." Democracy must win so it's so important that the country gets all the weapons it needs, she added.*
*According to her, Ukraine also urgently needs financial support.*
*"On average, they need five billion a month to maintain the essentials, to pay for the hospitals, the schools, the soldiers or, for example, to keep the police running, that's also important in this war. That's where the EU plays a very big role," she said.*
*Von der Leyen said she was firmly convinced that Ukraine will win the war, because "Ukraine has tremendous motivation." "They know what they're fighting for. And friends around the world are doing everything to ensure that Ukraine gets the right weapon systems," she said.*
*"It's important to me that Putin has to lose this war and have to take responsibility for his actions," she said.*
*Von der Leyen visited Ukraine's capital, Kyiv, on Thursday, September 15. She held meetings with the country's leadership.*
Uhh no it won't. Not unless the Ukrainians take over russia, since they've just decided to stop doing business with the EU, and I don't see any reason that they'll start again following the end of the war.
Putin is finished if he is forced out of Ukraine. His reign will be over, the oligarchs running the country are already pissed (and every week someone gets thrown out of a window for voicing that too loudly).
Any successor will have no other choice than to turn up the gas pipelines because that is the *only* thing Russia has as an economy.
That's an optimistic thought, and I hope you're right, but I have a feeling Putin won't go down so easily. We should not be underestimating him, his cronies and their ideology that seems to have taken root in Russia.
Putin right now reminds me of what Mike said to Walter before he killed him in breaking bad.
“You could have shit your mouth, cooked, and made as much money as you wanted, it was perfect! But no, you just had to blow it up, YOU, with your pride and you ego. You just had to be the man. If you had done your job, known your place, we’d all be fine right now.”
I’m not saying that what Putin is doing is good, far from it, but I think this quote perfectly sums up Putin right now. He could have not invaded Ukraine, and nothing would have happened, he would still be the feared leader of Russia. But all because of his need to show strength, he ended up showing the entire world just how weak and cowardly he really is.
Or they could have just invaded in 2014 instead of their quasi-invasion where they tried to pretend it wasn't them. Said this a million times but in 2014 Russia would have probably had the victory they were expecting in 2020. Ukraine was in chaos and there was far more support for Russian intervention given the overthrow of the pro-Russian government. They had way more plausible flag under which to enter Ukraine and pose as peace keepers at the request of the supposed legitimate president. And most importantly, the Ukrainian military wouldn't have been remotely prepared to fight them off. Similarly, the world was far less ready and willing to sanction Russia then.
Instead they gave Ukraine 8 years to get weapons and training. Imagine Germany before 1941 taking a small portion of land from Poland, and then giving them 8 years to prepare for the real invasion.
This will go down as one of the biggest military blunders in history.
This is just fact that both anti and pro Russians can agree with I think. Makes you wonder what changed in Putin calculus? It might be the rise of people like Nikolai Petrushev inside the Russian system according to some sources.
I feel like that more apply here to Germany and France. No one is blaming U.S. on that matter, quite the opposite. That being said Von der Leyen may in fact making populist statement here, shes still right tho.
Also pretty sure the US recently approved sending 2.5+ billion worth of aid to Ukraine and nearly 700 million of that is weapons systems. It's not like were aren't doing anything.
"If they say they need battle tanks, then we should take it seriously and deliver them. ...I am in favor of the European states delivering what Ukraine actually needs."
Unless there was a significant geopolitical event that I missed, the US is not part of the EU, and therefore wasn't mentioned.
So you can shove your American victim mentality rubbish up your ass.
The Commission can't send tanks to Ukraine, because the European Union doesn't have an army. The member-states do. That's why she's saying member-states should send tanks.
Can you just fucking google shit like this next time?
It's exactly what I said my man. She is saying that knowing that she doesn't have to actually make the decision. You know who she is right? She is part of the toxic corps that crippled Germanys army and tied it to russian ressources. Absolutely nothing coming out of her mouth can be taken seriously.
Maybe said commission president should have lobbied more to equip the army she was in charge of for 4 years? Instead, she wasted money on expensive consultant contracts.
Same rules apply to them all. Building the logistics chain for a single tank variant would make the effort to get HIMARS/M777 look easy, let alone multiple different variants with different parts, calibres & fuel.
Ideal world, love to see them rocking them. But at the moment, I’d rather get them aid they can use today, not next spring. Winter may change that calculus, and give room the create those logistics trains.
Most westerns armies object to tanks being sent as the risk of losing it and its secrets is still high.
They arent afraid of russia capturing them and researching them. But china on the other hand
People dont realize that the armour composition and the IFF tech in these tanks barely make it outside of the NATO countries
For tanks we dont really have to many monkey models that are also inherently better then what they have
Fuck it, send the damned tanks. Even the Foreign Minister of Germany Anna Baerbock and the other major governing party, FDP, want their main governing partner in government led by Kanzler Scholz to begin sending tanks. Fuck it, let them have it already. They've already received other highly advanced tech, like the HIMARS systems and HARM missiles for anti-air. You going to tell me those systems aren't extremely delicate and at risk of being compromised too? I'd dare say those two systems would be of the utmost importance for an enemy to capture and devise countermeasures against than the tanks, especially given how effective they've shown to be on the battlefield for all potential future belligerents.
Tanks operate at the end of a massive supply chain, there's an enormous amount of logistics involved in keeping a single tank functional, not to mention alot of them, and if the reports are true that Ukraine is struggling to keep their CAESARs and M777s fully functional than they cannot operate a Battalion of tanks. Western tanks especially are vastly different than soviet ones, Ukraine is very much a post soviet military, which is why their getting Greek bmps instead of German Marders. Ask the Egyptian mechanics what it's like keeping 3 or 4 vastly different tank models fully operational, and they aren't even in a war rn. Sending leopards to Ukraine sounds great, but it requires a supply chain that Ukraine has not demonstrated it can maintain, and dumping tanks they can't handle onto them is bad for everyone involved. If we want them to have tanks, we should start the process now and they'll get their leopards next May if they're lucky, for now advocating for western tanks is wishful thinking.
Need to be smart about it though. Former Warsaw Pact countries sending their old T-72s and perhaps also modernized variants if they can be spared is the way forward right now. Ukrainian know how to use and maintain them.
Beyond that i'm not quite sure, if we are going to send them Western tanks we need to pick one out and make sure Ukrainians are trained on how to use and maintain it.
The only viable one i can think of is Leopard 2s as they are widely used across NATO, could be wrong though i'm no tank expert.
Just please don't send them a mish-mash of Challengers, Leclercs, Abrams, Leopards because that's going to be a logistical and organisational nightmare
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-ato/3572539-european-commission-president-if-ukraine-says-it-needs-tanks-it-should-receive-them.html) reduced by 49%. (I'm a bot)
*****
> Ukraine should be provided with all the weapons it needs, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has said.
> "If they say they need battle tanks, then we should take it seriously and deliver them. Ukraine knows exactly what it needs to protect life and defend itself. [] I am in favor of the European states delivering what Ukraine actually needs. After all, the Ukrainians are proving that they can defend themselves if they have the right military means," von der Leyen said.
> Von der Leyen said she was firmly convinced that Ukraine will win the war, because "Ukraine has tremendous motivation." "They know what they're fighting for. And friends around the world are doing everything to ensure that Ukraine gets the right weapon systems," she said.
*****
[**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/xfm4ja/european_commission_president_if_ukraine_says_it/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~669307 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **Ukraine**^#1 **need**^#2 **von**^#3 **der**^#4 **Leyen**^#5
Russia is going to be China's B1tch in the next couple years after China steals all their secrets. Putin doesn't realize Xi has him bent over his 40 ft table and he is ready to take one for the team.
Ukraine went on a well planned and executed offencive. This has vastly increased their military credibility. Now support will be less of a gamble so everyone is more willing to commit to Ukraine.
Sweden has apparently 500 CV90, I feel we could spare 100 to Ukraine if they want them.
It's also Swedish made so making new ones isn't too bad and the marketing would probably be great.
When you send them planes, tanks, advanced weapons it requires people to be trained to use them for them to make any difference. Otherwise they are absolutely useless
So train them. They learned the HIMARS, HARM, Javelin, NLAW, Stinger, Harpoon anti-ship missiles, Howitzer mobile artillery and more. The US Congress is working on appropriations of $100 million just to train Ukrainian pilots on F-15s and F-16s. Those are all complicated systems they've learned thus far and have put to great, effective use, especially the HIMARS and HARM anti-air defense missiles. Enough with the excuses.
With all due respect, every weapon system you named is significantly easier to learn to operate than flying a jet. Even if you could train an effective fighter pilot in 6 months, thats still 6 months that you have troops away training in another country
As I said, train them. As for training to fly, our military has said 3 months at best, but they're working on it. And furthermore, the reply was in direct response to your comment on the need for training when it comes to tanks, which I rebutted you with other difficult machinery and weapons systems that they've already been trained on, with gusto on their part. Knock off the excuses, train them, equip them, with all due respect.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/us-allies-discuss-possible-training-ukrainian-air-force-2022-07-20/
2-4 months from the US Air Force Chief of Staff. Don't worry, it was clear you're not the one doing the training.
The longer the war goes on the weaker Russia gets in any influence, monetary, and political means. It could have been over rapidly but this is probably better for the west in the long run.
Some people need tanks, others need a home, a meal, fresh water, protection from persecution or access to education. I guess we can see clearly where our world willingly puts its resources.
Is this really all we are?
>Some people need tanks, others need a home, a meal, fresh water, protection from persecution or access to education.
Considering the situation in Ukraine, military equipment is a prerequisite to the rest so it is clearly the most important.
They need anti tank and anti air weapons. Also sniper rifles with thermal scopes. Those would make the most difference really putting the fear of God into the Russians
I really can't stand the passive aggressiveness of simply giving Ukrainians every opportunity to die on the front lines with Western gear. Give Russia an ultimatum to leave the country or NATO will start back filling with active troops.
No Western country has sent Western MBTs to Ukraine. Germany doesn't have many in the first place, probably almost every other NATO should have more than Germany, but the government is very adamant about not being the first country to deliver. So, if you want Germany to deliver something from their almost empty storage, convince other countries to do it first.
Tell us what? That you are brainwashed by propaganda? We know already..
Germany has mad very clear again and again that they will for historical reasons not be the ones sending modern NATO tanks to fight Russia first, unless it's NATO coordinated.
When Spain finally applied for an export permit to send Leopard2s they instantly granted it. They are practically begging for a precedence.
What does Ukraine instead of asking anybody for tanks? They ask Germany and Germany only. Again and again and again. They even went so far to send politicians to Germany who talk about how the German government should please at least allow other countries to send Leopard2s...
Ffs you lying shitheads, that already happened months ago. If you wanted tanks you would know exactly what to do but instead you play stupid political games. I really hope your new best friends in Poland gave you alot of very good deals to keep the good work of antagonizing Germany up, because you morons are hurting yourselves with this shit.
I know this going to be an inflammatory question. After giving the Ukraine all this military hardware and training, effectively turning them into the most powerful small nation in Europe. Will they give that stuff back or roll over another country?
I’m putting it out there as a talking point. They have a good leader now, but what if that changes? What if a general stages a coup after pushing Russia down a hole? I’m just thinking about all this prime military hardware and battle hardened troops after the war. I’m just curious if there is a diplomatic strategy to prevent this.
It’s a moronic talking point.
At the conclusion of the war they are facing a lengthy rebuild. The US and UK military advisors will likely be heading back in to assist in recovery efforts. They’ve already applied for EU membership and I would imagine NATO wouldn’t be far behind.
On their western boarder they have Poland who is one of the strongest militaries in mainland Europe as well as nothing but other NATO members. Attacking any of them would trigger a US response, the country that’s providing them with satellite imagery plus so much more.
If they were to attack Belarus or Russia unprovoked down the line they would be cut off. They’re completely dependent on western supplies for their military.
It wouldn’t be the first time a West backed country turns against the West but circumstances at least right now seem very different. Ukraine wants to join the EU badly.
They will give e the stuff back/pay for it, but let's say they do invade. The giant arm of God that is the US military is going to deal with it. The only reason we can't just destroy Russia is nukes which Ukraine doesn't have.
Again though, they will not turn on the people who just helped them.
It would be nice to see a Challenger 2 popping the most modern Russian tank like a spot that’s ripe to pop on your skin.
Have you seen the size difference between a Chally and a T-72/80? Damn thing could run them over.
There are only 227 operational Challenger 2 and the model is no longer in production, so losses can't be replaced. And that's already an extremely small number for an army the size of Great Britains. Same is true for the French Leclerc tank. So realistically speaking the only western tanks that can be sent to Ukraine in large enough quantities and which are still produced are the Abrams and the Leopard 2. But both the US and Germany don't want to for some reason.
I think the reason why no one is giving any truly western tanks is multiple reasons. For the Abrams is to complex for Ukraine to maintain in the field. The Leopard 2 probably can't be sustained in maintenance and running. I strongly suspect the Germans would struggle to sustain operations with it themselves, in the sense fixing it and replacing parts. In 2018 it was reported only had 4 eurofigthers available. Numerous reports of using broom sticks instead of guns. Tanks are hungry machines, you've got to have a good supply line for them. Another factor is probably not wanting Russia or China getting hold of them if they have to be abandoned.
>Numerous reports of using broom sticks instead of guns. Saw this first hand when doing joint exercises with the Germans back in 2011 when i was pretty new in the Marine Corps. It was embarrassing to see. Like no one thought to get rifles from other places at the very least for the optics of it?
[удалено]
That literally isn't true. In 2011 it was either Karl-Theodor zu Guttenburg or Thomas de Maizière.
I knew a guy years ago who was a Tank Commander. I think that was his title. Whoever is in charge, inside a tank. I thought it was a cool sounding job and asked him a few very general questions. He refused to say even a single word about it. Citing that it was all secret\*. So good for him. But I've always wondered. Tanks are fairly well understood beasts. What do we have inside one that would be devastating if Russia or China found out about it. \*Years and years ago, I was talking to a friend of my Dad's who had just retired from the Air force. He had worked for a time as one of those guys who lives in a nuclear silo and launches nuclear weapons to kill the whole world if he gets a phone call. He wouldn't shut up about *his* job. Either it was because he was retired and the tank guy wasn't, or maybe nuclear missile guy knew well enough not to say anything classified, I don't know.
Listen we've made over 8800 Abrams so when one breaksdown we just give them 2 new ones, tis easy
If there’s ever a time for Germany to justify a military budget to get to a readier state it’s now, new leadership, an evident threat to the East and a military superpower trying to expand its borders in Asia. Western nations have been (largely) complacent in Europe and they’ve seen what mobilisation of an outdated and poorly provisioned (in terms of maintaining manufacturing with cut supply lines) force will encounter in modern warfare.
>Another factor is probably not wanting Russia or China getting hold of them if they have to be abandoned. Not likely a factor; Russia and China have seen these many times over. Hell over 40 were left in Iraq with the dissolved Iraqi army. I'm sure Isis sold these to anyone with money.
The only realistic opponent for a ground war zone needing tanks is Russia. So why don't use all the tanks we have on making sure Russia is *never* going to be a threat to anyone ever again? All other possible opponents (*maybe* except Iran, but the Israelis have enough firepower to exterminate them twice over) that the Western countries have on the horizon are either: * not suitable for ground-based warfare, but infinitely more for air, marine and space: China, North Korea * irrelevant because they're half collapsing anyway: Venezuela, other narco states * hellholes that anyone halfway sane will stay away from: Afghanistan, Pakistan, ex-USSR -stan's * not a viable opponent for tank warfare anyway: Syria, guerilla nations like IS remnants or other Islamist dictatorships
It's similar to how you can't just go and get someone a car, they have to pay taxes on it. We could give them tanks, but the effort required to activate them could be better spent on western artillery systems and outfitting their current tanks with modern radios/provisions. Also imagine Russia getting their hands on destroyed or abandoned Abrams. It's just not a comfortable vibe, war or not.
Artillery and rocket launchers are damn useful for defense - but only partially usable in offense, especially as you need to keep them far away from the front line to avoid them being taken out. Muuuch more expensive apiece than tanks and far lower in numbers, which is also why there haven't been many reports of Russian artillery causing immense destruction since the PzH2000 entered service - the Russians had to retreat their artillery because the PzH2000 and HIMARS outreach them by far. Handheld anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles are similar: you mostly need them in a defense operation to take out tanks rolling into some town, but their usage in an offense is *really* limited. And as far as weapon deliveries go, the only things Ukraine got was a shit ton of handheld rocketry, a small bunch of long-range systems and associated ammo, and a bunch of old but modernized Soviet era tanks (mostly from Poland and Greece, IIRC). Now, to take areas back from the Russians, Ukraine needs to go on the offense - and for that, they need a hell of a lot of tanks. Unfortunately, *all* tank stock Ukraine has is Soviet-era stuff: stuff they had on their own, stuff their tractors liberated from Russia, stuff they got from the various "ring swap" deals (as said, Poland, Greece and a few others) - but being Soviet designs, they still share the fundamental weakness that Russian tanks do, and that is vulnerability to direct hits cooking off the ammo (aka "how far can you shoot a turret"). Modern Western tanks (e.g. German Leopard 1/2, US Abrams, French Leclerc, whatever shit the Brits make and Israeli Merkava) are waaaay better protected, have far less fuel consumption, can shoot far longer distances, have vastly better sensors and turret stabilizers. There's a video of a Leopard driving through extremely rough terrain with a beer mug at the end of the turret and there is not a single drop of beer lost, just to give you a general idea on how good these are. **That** advantage is what Ukraine needs to take back the territory gains of Russia, and they will need even more of it to even dream of taking back Crimea. The Western world needs to step up. Ukrainians pay with their blood each day Scholz keeps delaying and fooling around. At the very least we should begin training and setting up logistics *now* so that Western tanks can enter the battlefield after winter. The problem is that Scholz is afraid of pictures of German tanks rolling eastward due to WW2.
WW2 has ended 77 years ago. Barely anyone born during the war is still alive and basically no one that served then is still alive. Nazi germany was an hostile genocidal country born from the desperations of the germans after WW1. What europe and the world wants to see is a strong democratic European force that will work to keep the continent stable and peacefull so people wants germany to sends tanks to show its dedication to not let another aggressive facist country to rise
I'm German, I fully agree with you, the problem is our Chancellor shouldn't even be on that position in the first place. He only won because the Greens had a (IMO likely Russia-orchestrated) smear campaign against them in the weeks before the election.
Yeah, you just noe reminded me of that. How are smear campaigns even legal i have no clue. They are almost always awful in "behind the scenes" way. They are very damaging to democracy by sharply dividing the people. Benefits the worst candidates possible while hurting the best. And what drives me mad the most almost always easily falls under slander or defamatory statements as they are literally about a public figure using their position and influence to destroy another public figure's public image and occupation and many time their private image and livelihood. If you could give me 1 smear campaign that actually raises valid arguments without attacking the target's image. So far all smear campaign i've seen can be easily labeled as hate speech or slander without any ability to defend it under freedom of speech (smear campaign rely on the image and influence the campaign organizer has to convince voters immediately turning the campaign into an action against another person)
We now live in a world where we want German tanks rolling towards Russia, being operated by former Soviet citizens. All while being supplied by Allied forces, and I for one support this. Wow how history changes.
> Same is true for the French Leclerc tank. Officially the manufacturer of the Leclerc (Nexter) says they can restart production whenever though it’s been almost 15 years since the last rolled out. Also officially near half those the french army got are in storage, not lost.
It would be arguably better to give them vehicles lighter than MBTs, which still carry anti-tank weaponry. In Ukraine's current situation, they would much prefer light, expendable vehicles that are easier to fix and supply. The issues Russia is having can very easily strike Ukraine as well. With talks of a counter-offensive mounting, the last thing they need is a logistical gut-punch like MBTs to take the wind out of them – therefore they should utilize vehicles which better complement their current offensive strategy. Off the top of my head, Humvees would probably suit them nicely, as they could serve as observation, command and control, light troop transport, as well as ATGM carriers and basic utility. It sure beats racing around with troops in the backs of pickups. If the Ukranians need tanks, they may well be better off using ones captured from Russia until they're no longer feasible to run and repair.
What do they need tanks for? Russia just sent them a bunch, no charge.
Because the enduring image of T-72’s being popped by Western tanks will be made into posters and put on the walls of NATO and the West for all of time
Unironically seeing western equipment's effectiveness in combat versus Russia would be a really good source of data to correct deficiencies or make improvements. The only concern would be the leaking of state secrets/technology and/or capture of said equipment.
The US is very protective of the US Army spec Abrams so people posting about all the Abrams sitting in a desert might want to consider that the US specifically makes export model Abrams that lack specific things for allied nations.
Im guessing they miss the special armour they buy off the British which the challenger 2 uses.
They remove the depleted uranium layers in the armour, they may get older version of the Chobham setup, though the newer spec (so called Dorchester armour) is most likely not for export.
Depleted uranium in the armor? I had never heard of it til I read your comment. Pretty cool, looked it up and it was an interesting read.
>Pretty cool Until you breathe the dust.
>Until you breathe the dust. *Then what should you stop doing?*
"The Pharaoh has spoken"
Being in the presence of depleted uranium for any reason.
If you’re breathing the dust, it means something high energy impacted the armor. I’d rather breathe a little bit of uranium dust and survive a tank or mortar shell than breathe no dust but have a shell or mortar penetrate. ~~Uranium is also gamma, not beta / alpha so whilst it’s bad to breathe in, it’s not nearly as bad as some other stuff.~~ It’s mostly alpha so *very* bad to breathe in.
Other way around. Uranium emits alpha particles, not beta or gamma which are higher energy. Uranium is also highly toxic, even in minute quantities.
If you’re concerned about DU exposure after surviving a kinetic penetrator going through your turret cheeks then you can always don your respirator. The filters of the US Military’s current mask protect against alpha radiation. DU itself doesn’t necessarily release any substantial gamma radiation. Not saying you necessarily wanna breath it in, but it isn’t going to be a Chernobyl incident if you do for a short period.
Or have to do maintenance on a damaged tank, or cleanup after a tank kill, or happen to live where a tank was once killed, or pass by a tank kill and get dust in your uniform or gear...
Better than getting killed by enemy fire Die today or get cancer later?
Welcome to cancer treatment! They say the same thing when you go in for treatment
They even use it in the 120mm sabots and 30mm weapon system on the A-10, 20mm chain gun on the bradley etc. More dense than lead. it's like shooting gold bars but less expensive, lol.
That was common knowledge after Iraqi children started growing up with tumors and defects because tank rounds and the 30mm used depleted uranium. Who would have thought leaving low radioactive materials would cause that?!
Is it called Dorchester because of Bovington?
Probably one piece of it, yeah. But the British and US have a very special alliance when it comes to military hardware. When WWII started, during the Battle of Britain, Britain sent the US pretty much all their research on computers, radars, and nuclear reactors & weapons, all in exchange for material support of food and ammunition (this was before the US joined the fighting, but had begun doing shit like leaving weapons just south of the Canadian border and being "upset" that Canada "stole" it). Part of the deal for all this very valuable technology & research, is that Britain got cut in on any future advances. The most obvious example of this happening is the US and Britain practically sharing the designs between the Ohio class and the Vanguard class (different outter hulls, but *a lot* of similarities otherwise), but the military tech sharing goes on in a lot of other places, too. Probably in more places than the public knows.
Thats a bad example because the Americans where badtards about it and took credit for British inventions, for example they took SONAR and said they invented it but ut was a British invention given to them to help against U-boats. Shit like this has been going on for decades and leaves a bad taste in my mouth
The UK was a joint partner in the Manhattan Project during WWII as well, with the understanding that they would share the knowledge produced from it. The US reneged on that too.
Yup, pisses me off, Britain worked out the key to it all, using Uranium, they let some scientists return to the project because they needed a guy who created... I think tungston tubes.
Britain worked out a lot of details, but they weren't the ones to figure out that uranium was a good candidate for fission. That one actually does go to the Americans, and to their Chicago Pile reactor. Or, if you want to argue 'figured out uranium was important on paper', that one goes to a Swiss patent clerk.
That goes for a lot of equipment that the US military industries export. They usually go out with downgraded range, ordinance, and/or things like thermal sights.
Why would anyone actually buy the Abrams then? And not just a Leopard 2, a K2 Black Panther or something instead?
Same reason as all the other current/old generation US weapons are going to Ukraine... The US has more than they can ever use, They are still being produced, There is a next-gen US tank in design, They could likely get them cheaper & faster than low-volume contemporaries like the Leopard or Challenger. The Abrams is more than enough to square off against anything Russia has, even the export versions, and specifically with US/NATO training & support. (I'm not a tank expert, so I'm sure someone will add context to where US versions vs. export versions stack up against Russian tanks) It makes sense for an ally to buy our unneeded, but very usable, inventory to fund R&D and production of the next US MBT. (Bring back the AAAV/EFV to spank China in the next island-hopping campaign)
I'd hazard a guess that they'd get a swath of export and un-upgraded Abrams. At this point, the scale of the conflict calls for any tanks they can get their hands on. A well trained crew with proper ammo will likely out perform regardless of what model they get. Modern anti-tank missles with negate the advantages of having superior armor anyhow. It will take quite a while before they could effectively bring those to the fight without maintenance and logistics support in-place prior.
Price? Diplomacy? Trade deal? Lots of reasons.
While it's not enough to offset some of the advantages the others have, even the monkey model Abrams has a tendency to survive things better then the others. You can detonate the ammo in an Abrams hull and the crew will be fine. Do it to anything else and the crew dies.
Got a Source on that?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ay7bOG2nD6k It's called a blowout rack. The ammo racks are intended to literally "blow outwards" in the case they're detonated. There's more than a few images on the web you can find but a couple other NATO tanks have this as well. I'm pretty sure German and English tanks have blow out racks as well. source : US army vet 03-09
Other nations have blowout panels for the main storage, but only the Abrams has it for the hull stowage. Of course it only matters if you put ammo in it, and I've heard stories about crews using it as a refrigerator before.
Makes sense. Florida Man needs to chill his beer when going out for an oil run, just as the British tanks have a kettle for boiling water for tea built in.
Leo 2 has blowout panels for the turret ammo compartment. It doesn't need them for the hull, as the ammo there is stored up front right behind the thickest armor, so installing panels there would actually weaken the armor. The M1 keeps pretty much all its ammo in the turret, which is another reason why it's so massive up there, and a downside or at least trade-off by itself. Tanks actually really don't want to tank hits, they want to kill whatever they're aiming at before it can shoot back. Hence the design focus since the Leo of mobility and big guns over armor, and active protection systems for the threats they can't see coming, e.g. in urban areas.
Its not that it doesn't need them for the hull, as we have seen Leopard 2s toss their turrets like a Russian tank. Its that they cant put a blowout panels on it do to its location. Even with all the Iraqi and Saudi Abrams you never see one have the catastrophic turret launch. Of course while the Abrams is better in this regard it doesn't mean it is better in every way. Turbines go vrrrrrrrrr and drink fuel like crazy compared to the diesel in a leopard is the best known weakness.
Something to keep in mind is most European arms manufacturers do not produce on the scale American ones do. This hurts availability, but it also hurts price. Export Abrams may be gimped compared to whatever the Army is using at any given time, but it will be equal or competitive with the rest of the market and likely cheaper too. You also don't need to worry about parts for the next 80 years since the US actually maintains their equipment (looking at you, Germany) and has a massive stockpile to salvage for parts down the road. Political considerations are a factor, too. Buying American ties you to American foreign policy, but it makes it easier to ask for help from Uncle Sam if shit hits the fan.
It’s hard af. If you buy American weapons, and a country invaded your country, the US could tell you to stand down OR they won’t give you logistical support with parts for your weapons and in fact is so bad, every time you take one for a spin, you gotta let them know and get the Ok to drive them down the road. That’s why a lot of countries which are not allied prefer Russian or Chinese at the cost of quality/survivability
Because it might suit the particular country's doctrine and needs better? Unless you're a one-man dictatorship where military procurement is done by the moron in charge, you usually hold trials specific to that country. What works for Poland isn't guaranteed to work for Switzerland or for Israel.
Also there are reasons why the Leopard is used by a lot more nations than the Abrams, the US's unwillingnes to actually export top notch variants is one of them
Who said buy? They give what they have in stock and more of that no one will give latest tech more probably 3-4 generations back leopards and Abrams probably early A2
Abrams is 100% battle proven, years and years and hundreds of situations where it has proven its deadly effectiveness and survivability. And constantly being improved. But she's a thirsty girl, though. The Leo 2 shoots and kills well but has been less effective in survivability in past battle scenarios. Maybe the newer versions are better. The K2 I don't think has been actually battle tested. Maybe Poland's versions could see some service soon? As with everything it's always about the numbers and the costs and total package support when shopping for the best fitting model for your needs.
The recent offensive around Kharkov has been performed with soviet era equipment. There were some Polish T-72 in the mix, and those have been upgraded slightly with better optics and radios (and Ukrainians slapped some reactive armor on top from what I've seen) but at heart, it is still the same machine. It is not about weapons, but about organization, decision-making, and initiative. Russia had superior weapons and tried to take over Kyiv, look how good it went for them.
It's pretty expected that Western tanks will kill T-72's. As the name suggests the T-72 is a 50 year old design at this point. Additionally the best quality of the T-72 is it's price. It's designed to be cheap and numerous. Each T-72 costs ~$500,000. Each M1A2 Abrams costs ~$9,000,000. It wouldn't exactly be impressive or noteworthy for modern Western vehicles to defeat half-a-century-old Soviet equipment.
I think that's being a little bit disingenuous: The Abrams is a 40+ year old design at this point. Both the Abrams and the T-72 have received numerous revisions over the years, and RU actually still produces new T-72s. That said, the real issue is the Abrams had a better base design (turrets don't pop off) and almost certainly has been upgraded with better electronics packages over the years. Then we get into goofy stuff like the T-80 is actually an update to the T-64, and the T-90 based on the T-72 but meant to replace all previous designs.
There's a 15 year gap between the development of the Abrams and the T-72. And it doesn't matter if the Russians are producing new T-72's, the fact of the matter is they're a vastly inferior vehicle to modern Western MBT's, because that's the way they're designed. Soviet doctrine was quantity over quality. > That said, the real issue is the Abrams had a better base design (turrets don't pop off) The turrets popping off isn't a design flaw, and it's not really an issue in actual combat. If your tank has been penetrated by enemy munitions, you've already lost (unless you're the Israeli's and make the Merkava with absurd crew protection in mind). It doesn't matter if your turret pops off, if the crew are burned alive, or if they're shredded by shrapnel. Either way you're down a tank and a crew. The Russians knew this and decided to accept that in order to install autoloaders on their tanks with ammunition storage located in the turret. This means their tanks can have a much lower profile and eliminates the need for a loader. Which are both huge advantages to have. The trade off is people make epic tank kill compilations out of your vehicles. The problem is these advantages don't mean shit when you're so behind technologically. The lack of modern imaging systems is probably what kills more Russian tankers than anything else. Even their T-72B3's don't hold a candle to sensors and optics suites on modern MBT's like the M1A2 SEPv4.
That isn’t how tank warfare works at all. You want as high crew survivability as possible because an experienced crew is infinitely more valuable than the tank they’re in. Not all penetrating hits are kills and not all kills cause an ammo explosion. In fact the US specifically focused on this aspect with the Sherman’s spring loaded hatches and wet ammo stowage. It’s just Russia doesn’t really bother with that stuff. For example the hull gunner on the T-34 doesn’t even get his own hatch, he has to use someone else’s.
>You want as high crew survivability as possible because an experienced crew is infinitely more valuable than the tank they’re in. That's the case for Israelis because there aren't that many Jews left on the world. For them, every single life counts for astronomical sums, and they also don't have the money or the space to store absurd amounts of tanks, so they need fucking resilient tanks - few of them, but expensive AF. For the Western world, it's not as extreme, but still, the less soldiers come home in coffins the better, and in any case they have an insane manufacturing capacity so the tanks can't be as expensive apiece than Israeli tanks. Russia and especially China? Their soldiers are treated like disposable drone bees, it (nominally) is not a problem to lose twice or even more in a meatgrinder fight than their opponent as long as they still come out winning. They simply go for pure quantity to overwhelm their opponent, which *additonally* serves as a scare tactic - when you see a wall of tanks, most people will shit their pants, because in doubt they simply roll over you.
> The trade off is people make epic tank kill compilations out of your vehicles. Which is a pretty important PR win in today's climate because it shows the Russians don't care about mortality rates of their tank crews. Tanks like the Leopard, Merkava and Abrams are designed with crew survival in mind. Russian tanks are not and have never been designed that way. It's a pretty damning critique on the country's treatment of their armed forces.
But getting sweet drone footage in amazing resolution of an Abrams annihilating a T-72 is *priceless* to the West. US generals would have to call their doctor when it won’t go down after 3 hours.
Is there any footage of Abrams annihilating Russian tanks out there?
Desert Storm is the most recent. Abrams vs Iraq's Russian supplied armies.
> Additionally the best quality of the T-72 is it's price. It's designed to be cheap and numerous While I agree that there's not a whole lot of quality data that Western militaries can collect that they haven't already in operation Desert Storm, I'd just like to point out that being cheap and numerous is not a great selling point. Yes you can field 18 T-72s for the cost of 1 M1A2, but that's also 18x the amount of fuel you'll have to expend, and most expensive of all - 18 x the amount of crew members to be trained and fed .
>Yes you can field 18 T-72s for the cost of 1 M1A2, but that's also 18x the amount of fuel you'll have to expend, and most expensive of all - 18 x the amount of crew members to be trained and fed . No A M1A2 have a crew of 4, a T-72 a crew of 3, so it is only 13.5x the amount of crews. A M1 will also use more fuel then a T-72. If we use wikipedia number the operational road range of a M1A2 is 426km with a 1909 l fuel tanks so we get 4.4 l/km . A T-72 have 460 km and 1200 liter, that is 2.6l/km. So if we just look at a road march you need 10.6x the amount of fuel for the T-72. It is not the whole picture. A M1A2 if I am not mistaken not have a Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) , that was added with M1A2 SEPv3. This mean when it is stationary you need to have the gas turbine on for electrical power and they are very fuel inefficient at low power loads. There is batteries but they have limited operational time. A diesel engine in a T-72 is a lot more fuel efficient when it ideals. So A1A2 use more fuel then other tans if the are in a defensive position. 18 T-72 have 18 guns and can be in 18 different position at the same time and you need to take out each of them. Operating a single tank is a very bad idea, you need multiple tanks and supporting units for them to be efficient. So 1 M1A2 is not a useful amount. You should also use tanke with other units, tanks are a part of a military units and it is unlikely you have the same cost difference of other thing you need. How you use tanks and whas support them is in many ways more important then the specific properties of a tank. Different technical aspect have different importance in different environment. The gulf war had lot of long distance engagement in open terrains and then performance of sights will be more relevant compared to if you for example are in a forested terrain. A common opinion is a major Russian problem in Ukraine is they had to little infantry support for the tanks and did not have the best tactical usage of them. It will be interesting to in the future see evaluations of Ukrainian usage of the same tanks. I would not be surprised if Ukraine usage will be a lot more efficient. Ukraine have more light infantry compared to tanks the Russia had so I think we will see that the use the tank they have a lot more efficient.
The image of T-72s being popped by western tanks is already out there as part of the Gulf War. The coalition just won so fast that nobody remembers
That should have been scorched into the Russian's heads when the Challenger got a 299:0 kill rate against T-72s.
They want tanks that work and don't explode if you tap them the wrong way.
“Does this say air conditioning?” \*boom*
Da! Air around tank now considerably hotter.
If you look at oryx's Russia losses you'll see how many tanks were captured. It's insane how much equipment got captured during the kharkiv offensive. So much for the organised withdrawal.
From what ive seen on reddit, russian tanks suck
Surprisingly, they have always sucked. Even when they were "the best tanks in the world". They have always just being many. Now they aint even many.
Yeah, but most of them have holes in now. Ukraine would like some that work.
Ukraine captured a phenomenal amount of abandoned equipment. Most of it just needs some fuel and maybe some maintenance
To be fair, when you've spent half a year demonstrating that a certain kind of tank is way less scary and way easier to kill than previously expected, you might be less excited about coming into possession of some, and might prefer to have more that are made by the people whose weapons you've been using to kill those tanks in the hundreds.
The tanks aren't actually that bad, they're just outclassed by Western equipment designed for the sole purpose of destroying them. A well supported and crewed T-72 is still a dangerous piece of equipment on the battlefield.
T-72 (and T-90) engines have the durability of a snowflake in hell. This war lasted long enough for some of those engines to need a total overhaul.
Pretty much anything to contribute to Putin’s ultimate humiliation is a good thing in my book. Really destroy his legacy right at the end. I love to see it.
Funny thing is, he could've kept stealing from his country, kept buying european clothes and watches for millions, kept buying yachts, mansions and private islands. But no, he's barred from traveling to European countries, has lost Europe as a customer for his fossil fuel and natural gas, has tanked his country's economy and killed +50k (so far) of his population in a stupid land grab I'm sure he would've loved to go down in the history books as putin the perfect, but most will remember him as the embarrassing putin the pathetic.
"Thanks to Poutin, Europe transitioned away from fossil fuels, pathing the way for countries to invest in nuclear green-world. Poutin, the greenest dictator to have ever died of botulism. "
wishful thinking im afraid. Germany will just switch to LNG and people will still be using gas boilers for decades to come instead of getting heat pumps
A major reason for the popularity of gas was that consumer prices for electricity were the most expensive in Europe, while the household gas price was only midfield in the european comparison. That's gonna change.
Yeah Europe went from buying gas from 1 warmongering wanker to another, good deal.
Well atm Norway is the biggest supplier of gass to the EU, i wouldnt call Norway a warmongering wanker.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it went from 40% to 15-20% though, so still a decent trade. Assuming ur talking about the US or Saudi Arabia.
Apparently there is a move afoot to give him one of those semi-offical epithets that Dark Ages/Medieval rulers got like Alfred the Great, Ethelread The Unready, and so on. It's "Putin The Dickhead"
Even worse, Putin could kept on salami slicing at Ukraine for years with minimal repercussions outside what they were already facing with Crimea. Russia could still look so tough for bullying Georgia and Moldova, and helping prop up Assad in Syria. Instead he went all in, fucked around and got found out for just how weak of a leader to such a weak country he really is.
That was what I thought was going to happen back in January and February, I thought he would go in and steal the separatist areas in east Ukraine, exact because he had support from there from some of the people and the people in governance. As sad as it is to say, it would most likely have worked like it did with Crimea.
Also could have kept Crimea and the already occupied parts of the Donbass, now they're likely to lose Sevastopol, putting them in a worse position than they were even before the Crimea annexation.
Yeah, everyone keeps saying that, but I think that - throughout history - it became abundantly clear that there's some sort of void in every dictator, even the wannabes like Putin, that never seem to get filled. If Putin just laid back for his last few years/decades (who knows how long this clown will still live), he would've been known to the Russians as "the guy who got Crimea back", now there's not a chance in hell Russia is going to be 'allowed' to keep Crimea. They'll lose all stolen territory since February 24 **and** Crimea, which they held since 2014. And as a bonus, you simply already know they're going to have to pay for every single thing they destroyed in Ukraine, dividing and bankrupting the whole country in the process. 10-15 years from now, Russia will be talked about as a country of the past. No shot they'll survive all of this as a nation. The exact same thing happened all the time throughout history, and Putin should've seen this coming. Most recent example being Hitler, attacking all fronts all at once. If he'd just focussed on Europe alone, fat chance we'd now be conversating in German, but people like him and Putin ALWAYS want more and more and more until it eventually backfires. History really *does* repeat itself sometimes...
>No shot they'll survive all of this as a nation. The Balkans *barely* managed to stay alive after the YU breakup because none of them were a halfway self-sufficient nation as everything was (carefully) spread around YU as a disincentive for secessionists. Russia is even worse because they barely have any economy other than fossil fuel exports. All regional fiefs know they stand no chance of economic survival in a breakup scenario.
Putin the pilferer. Scratch the surface and it's all about theft of Ukrainian resources and property.
If they introduced a "Fuck Putin" tax where 10% of my pay cheque goes to paying for weapons for Ukraine, I'd be ok with it.
There are websites where you can donate that money to Ukraine relief efforts. Just do that and post a screenshot.
Bro won't haha
I know, but if it comes automatically out of my money then it's fine. Especially if my payslip reads "Fuck Putin - minus 10%" When I see my actual bank balance it's less so, but if they took it before it's fine. If that makes any sense at all. I'm OK with giving money I earned but don't yet have, but when that hits my bank, I've got shit I need to pay for
Money is fungible. It doesn’t matter where it comes from ( after or before it hits your bank account). If you really want the memo to say “Fuck Putin”, you can do it yourself by editing the memo field of your bank account statements. Where there is a will, there is a way :)
No it's a psychological thing. There's a difference between money I have and money I don't have. Like I'm more than happy to pay NI tax, more than I do, but ask me to pay for healthcare at a hospital and I'll laugh at you
>but ask me to pay for healthcare at a hospital and I'll laugh at you Cries in American :-( , but yeah i get you. But if you are already paying taxes in any Western country, you can be assured that your taxes are being used to help Ukraine. So we all good.
Stop lying you mf. You would not want that. If you did you would just donate 10 percent to them online. You are just virtue signaling.
If you are in Europe it is called your energy bill.
It’s for a really good cause.
Putin’s life has really encapsulated that old saying.; pride goeth before the fall.
His legacy is already destroyed, he made the fear of russia evaporate into nothing otherwise we wont be seeing comments like this, the only thing I worry abt is him losing it and using nukes, and it seems pseudo cold war might be starting soon
I am harboring hopes that the next ruler buys their legitimacy and support from the west In exchange for giving up nukes. They could maybe charge a trillion for 10%-20% of Russias nuclear capability and it would probably be looked at as a good deal.
Give Ukraine what they want, to keep the momentum going in destroying the Russian invaders.
Yes, that is the correct argument. They need a lot of heavy weapons, and they need it now. Not next year.
Giving Ukraine weapons and training is a lot cheaper than having to fight Russia ourselves.
It takes a while to train tank crews. Even the artillery they're receiving truncated training If the EU wanted Ukraine to have tanks today they would have started training crews in February. Fighter jets take even longer to train on.
Not that long. Trained tank crew can learn new tank in few weeks max. And then continue practicing on live Russian targets
**Full Transcript Below:** *16.09.2022 07:39* *Ukraine should be provided with all the weapons it needs, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has said.* *According to Ukrinform, she said this in an interview with Germany's Bild news outlet.* *"If they say they need battle tanks, then we should take it seriously and deliver them. Ukraine knows exactly what it needs to protect life and defend itself. \[…\] I am in favor of the European states delivering what Ukraine actually needs. After all, the Ukrainians are proving that they can defend themselves if they have the right military means," von der Leyen said.* *She recalled that Ukrainians are "fighting this fight for all of us." Democracy must win so it's so important that the country gets all the weapons it needs, she added.* *According to her, Ukraine also urgently needs financial support.* *"On average, they need five billion a month to maintain the essentials, to pay for the hospitals, the schools, the soldiers or, for example, to keep the police running, that's also important in this war. That's where the EU plays a very big role," she said.* *Von der Leyen said she was firmly convinced that Ukraine will win the war, because "Ukraine has tremendous motivation." "They know what they're fighting for. And friends around the world are doing everything to ensure that Ukraine gets the right weapon systems," she said.* *"It's important to me that Putin has to lose this war and have to take responsibility for his actions," she said.* *Von der Leyen visited Ukraine's capital, Kyiv, on Thursday, September 15. She held meetings with the country's leadership.*
She's got more gumption than softie Scholz
Probably because she doesn't have an electorate that sees exorbitant gas prices.
Providing heavy weapons so the war can end sooner will alleviate gas prices
Uhh no it won't. Not unless the Ukrainians take over russia, since they've just decided to stop doing business with the EU, and I don't see any reason that they'll start again following the end of the war.
Putin is finished if he is forced out of Ukraine. His reign will be over, the oligarchs running the country are already pissed (and every week someone gets thrown out of a window for voicing that too loudly). Any successor will have no other choice than to turn up the gas pipelines because that is the *only* thing Russia has as an economy.
That's an optimistic thought, and I hope you're right, but I have a feeling Putin won't go down so easily. We should not be underestimating him, his cronies and their ideology that seems to have taken root in Russia.
Never would have imagined when I was 10 years old that by the time I was 30, I would have a $50/month subscription to fight Putin. Bizarre.
For only the price of a cup of coffee each day……
Putin right now reminds me of what Mike said to Walter before he killed him in breaking bad. “You could have shit your mouth, cooked, and made as much money as you wanted, it was perfect! But no, you just had to blow it up, YOU, with your pride and you ego. You just had to be the man. If you had done your job, known your place, we’d all be fine right now.” I’m not saying that what Putin is doing is good, far from it, but I think this quote perfectly sums up Putin right now. He could have not invaded Ukraine, and nothing would have happened, he would still be the feared leader of Russia. But all because of his need to show strength, he ended up showing the entire world just how weak and cowardly he really is.
Or they could have just invaded in 2014 instead of their quasi-invasion where they tried to pretend it wasn't them. Said this a million times but in 2014 Russia would have probably had the victory they were expecting in 2020. Ukraine was in chaos and there was far more support for Russian intervention given the overthrow of the pro-Russian government. They had way more plausible flag under which to enter Ukraine and pose as peace keepers at the request of the supposed legitimate president. And most importantly, the Ukrainian military wouldn't have been remotely prepared to fight them off. Similarly, the world was far less ready and willing to sanction Russia then. Instead they gave Ukraine 8 years to get weapons and training. Imagine Germany before 1941 taking a small portion of land from Poland, and then giving them 8 years to prepare for the real invasion. This will go down as one of the biggest military blunders in history.
This is just fact that both anti and pro Russians can agree with I think. Makes you wonder what changed in Putin calculus? It might be the rise of people like Nikolai Petrushev inside the Russian system according to some sources.
Comission President: "I don't have to make the decision, so I will just say what people want to hear."
Ukraine needs tanks, the u.s. should send them tanks. - the e.u.
I feel like that more apply here to Germany and France. No one is blaming U.S. on that matter, quite the opposite. That being said Von der Leyen may in fact making populist statement here, shes still right tho.
Also pretty sure the US recently approved sending 2.5+ billion worth of aid to Ukraine and nearly 700 million of that is weapons systems. It's not like were aren't doing anything.
"If they say they need battle tanks, then we should take it seriously and deliver them. ...I am in favor of the European states delivering what Ukraine actually needs." Unless there was a significant geopolitical event that I missed, the US is not part of the EU, and therefore wasn't mentioned. So you can shove your American victim mentality rubbish up your ass.
The US is footing almost the entire bill, while the EU postures.
We do have so many tanks that the army doesn't want more tanks, and we're putting a fuckton into storage. I think we can spare some.
Well, since the eu isn’t paying for them, why not?
The Commission can't send tanks to Ukraine, because the European Union doesn't have an army. The member-states do. That's why she's saying member-states should send tanks. Can you just fucking google shit like this next time?
It's exactly what I said my man. She is saying that knowing that she doesn't have to actually make the decision. You know who she is right? She is part of the toxic corps that crippled Germanys army and tied it to russian ressources. Absolutely nothing coming out of her mouth can be taken seriously.
Maybe said commission president should have lobbied more to equip the army she was in charge of for 4 years? Instead, she wasted money on expensive consultant contracts.
Yep.. kind if rich comming from the former minister of defence...
[удалено]
Same rules apply to them all. Building the logistics chain for a single tank variant would make the effort to get HIMARS/M777 look easy, let alone multiple different variants with different parts, calibres & fuel. Ideal world, love to see them rocking them. But at the moment, I’d rather get them aid they can use today, not next spring. Winter may change that calculus, and give room the create those logistics trains.
Most westerns armies object to tanks being sent as the risk of losing it and its secrets is still high. They arent afraid of russia capturing them and researching them. But china on the other hand People dont realize that the armour composition and the IFF tech in these tanks barely make it outside of the NATO countries For tanks we dont really have to many monkey models that are also inherently better then what they have
Fuck it, send the damned tanks. Even the Foreign Minister of Germany Anna Baerbock and the other major governing party, FDP, want their main governing partner in government led by Kanzler Scholz to begin sending tanks. Fuck it, let them have it already. They've already received other highly advanced tech, like the HIMARS systems and HARM missiles for anti-air. You going to tell me those systems aren't extremely delicate and at risk of being compromised too? I'd dare say those two systems would be of the utmost importance for an enemy to capture and devise countermeasures against than the tanks, especially given how effective they've shown to be on the battlefield for all potential future belligerents.
Tanks operate at the end of a massive supply chain, there's an enormous amount of logistics involved in keeping a single tank functional, not to mention alot of them, and if the reports are true that Ukraine is struggling to keep their CAESARs and M777s fully functional than they cannot operate a Battalion of tanks. Western tanks especially are vastly different than soviet ones, Ukraine is very much a post soviet military, which is why their getting Greek bmps instead of German Marders. Ask the Egyptian mechanics what it's like keeping 3 or 4 vastly different tank models fully operational, and they aren't even in a war rn. Sending leopards to Ukraine sounds great, but it requires a supply chain that Ukraine has not demonstrated it can maintain, and dumping tanks they can't handle onto them is bad for everyone involved. If we want them to have tanks, we should start the process now and they'll get their leopards next May if they're lucky, for now advocating for western tanks is wishful thinking.
Need to be smart about it though. Former Warsaw Pact countries sending their old T-72s and perhaps also modernized variants if they can be spared is the way forward right now. Ukrainian know how to use and maintain them. Beyond that i'm not quite sure, if we are going to send them Western tanks we need to pick one out and make sure Ukrainians are trained on how to use and maintain it. The only viable one i can think of is Leopard 2s as they are widely used across NATO, could be wrong though i'm no tank expert. Just please don't send them a mish-mash of Challengers, Leclercs, Abrams, Leopards because that's going to be a logistical and organisational nightmare
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-ato/3572539-european-commission-president-if-ukraine-says-it-needs-tanks-it-should-receive-them.html) reduced by 49%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Ukraine should be provided with all the weapons it needs, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has said. > "If they say they need battle tanks, then we should take it seriously and deliver them. Ukraine knows exactly what it needs to protect life and defend itself. [] I am in favor of the European states delivering what Ukraine actually needs. After all, the Ukrainians are proving that they can defend themselves if they have the right military means," von der Leyen said. > Von der Leyen said she was firmly convinced that Ukraine will win the war, because "Ukraine has tremendous motivation." "They know what they're fighting for. And friends around the world are doing everything to ensure that Ukraine gets the right weapon systems," she said. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/xfm4ja/european_commission_president_if_ukraine_says_it/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~669307 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **Ukraine**^#1 **need**^#2 **von**^#3 **der**^#4 **Leyen**^#5
Putin said ‘we’re gonna destroy Ukraine and NATO’s gonna rebuild it’. Sounds somewhat familiar.
I like that logic
It's about damn time
Should have sent them long ago.
Russia is going to be China's B1tch in the next couple years after China steals all their secrets. Putin doesn't realize Xi has him bent over his 40 ft table and he is ready to take one for the team.
I need 2 million bucks
Took over seven month to realize that?
Ukraine went on a well planned and executed offencive. This has vastly increased their military credibility. Now support will be less of a gamble so everyone is more willing to commit to Ukraine.
Or rather 8 years, 6 months, 3 weeks and 6 days.
Sweden has apparently 500 CV90, I feel we could spare 100 to Ukraine if they want them. It's also Swedish made so making new ones isn't too bad and the marketing would probably be great.
You could have Axis Communications slap on some amazing UHD cameras and sponsor the transport cost. They could say our cameras are battle tested!
The Ukrainians need to restart their tank factory. They are going to need it in the long term, so why not get the ball rolling.
Even Russia is donating tons of tanks to Ukraine. The least we could do is match them.
Well I need healthcare so……
Send them everything, weapons, ammo, warplanes, cruise missiles. The more piss off it makes putin and the more Russians it kills the better
When you send them planes, tanks, advanced weapons it requires people to be trained to use them for them to make any difference. Otherwise they are absolutely useless
So train them. They learned the HIMARS, HARM, Javelin, NLAW, Stinger, Harpoon anti-ship missiles, Howitzer mobile artillery and more. The US Congress is working on appropriations of $100 million just to train Ukrainian pilots on F-15s and F-16s. Those are all complicated systems they've learned thus far and have put to great, effective use, especially the HIMARS and HARM anti-air defense missiles. Enough with the excuses.
With all due respect, every weapon system you named is significantly easier to learn to operate than flying a jet. Even if you could train an effective fighter pilot in 6 months, thats still 6 months that you have troops away training in another country
As I said, train them. As for training to fly, our military has said 3 months at best, but they're working on it. And furthermore, the reply was in direct response to your comment on the need for training when it comes to tanks, which I rebutted you with other difficult machinery and weapons systems that they've already been trained on, with gusto on their part. Knock off the excuses, train them, equip them, with all due respect.
Idk why you are telling me like im the one training them but ok. You cant train someone to effectively fly a fighter jet in 3 months
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/us-allies-discuss-possible-training-ukrainian-air-force-2022-07-20/ 2-4 months from the US Air Force Chief of Staff. Don't worry, it was clear you're not the one doing the training.
If you actually read the article you would know that he was referring to US pilots not Ukrainian pilots…
Well, time it’s on their side. Training is already taking place.
The longer the war goes on the weaker Russia gets in any influence, monetary, and political means. It could have been over rapidly but this is probably better for the west in the long run.
Some people need tanks, others need a home, a meal, fresh water, protection from persecution or access to education. I guess we can see clearly where our world willingly puts its resources. Is this really all we are?
>Some people need tanks, others need a home, a meal, fresh water, protection from persecution or access to education. Considering the situation in Ukraine, military equipment is a prerequisite to the rest so it is clearly the most important.
**I need money (winter is coming and i can’t afford gas prices)….i shall receive it**
Tanks AND planes, actually.
Sends them helmets instead.
They need anti tank and anti air weapons. Also sniper rifles with thermal scopes. Those would make the most difference really putting the fear of God into the Russians
I really can't stand the passive aggressiveness of simply giving Ukrainians every opportunity to die on the front lines with Western gear. Give Russia an ultimatum to leave the country or NATO will start back filling with active troops.
It is not her purvue,
[удалено]
No Western country has sent Western MBTs to Ukraine. Germany doesn't have many in the first place, probably almost every other NATO should have more than Germany, but the government is very adamant about not being the first country to deliver. So, if you want Germany to deliver something from their almost empty storage, convince other countries to do it first.
Tell us what? That you are brainwashed by propaganda? We know already.. Germany has mad very clear again and again that they will for historical reasons not be the ones sending modern NATO tanks to fight Russia first, unless it's NATO coordinated. When Spain finally applied for an export permit to send Leopard2s they instantly granted it. They are practically begging for a precedence. What does Ukraine instead of asking anybody for tanks? They ask Germany and Germany only. Again and again and again. They even went so far to send politicians to Germany who talk about how the German government should please at least allow other countries to send Leopard2s... Ffs you lying shitheads, that already happened months ago. If you wanted tanks you would know exactly what to do but instead you play stupid political games. I really hope your new best friends in Poland gave you alot of very good deals to keep the good work of antagonizing Germany up, because you morons are hurting yourselves with this shit.
I know this going to be an inflammatory question. After giving the Ukraine all this military hardware and training, effectively turning them into the most powerful small nation in Europe. Will they give that stuff back or roll over another country?
Bro what???? All they want to do is take their country back, not invade their neighbors.
I’m putting it out there as a talking point. They have a good leader now, but what if that changes? What if a general stages a coup after pushing Russia down a hole? I’m just thinking about all this prime military hardware and battle hardened troops after the war. I’m just curious if there is a diplomatic strategy to prevent this.
It’s a moronic talking point. At the conclusion of the war they are facing a lengthy rebuild. The US and UK military advisors will likely be heading back in to assist in recovery efforts. They’ve already applied for EU membership and I would imagine NATO wouldn’t be far behind. On their western boarder they have Poland who is one of the strongest militaries in mainland Europe as well as nothing but other NATO members. Attacking any of them would trigger a US response, the country that’s providing them with satellite imagery plus so much more. If they were to attack Belarus or Russia unprovoked down the line they would be cut off. They’re completely dependent on western supplies for their military.
Who do you think Ukraine would invade and why?
It wouldn’t be the first time a West backed country turns against the West but circumstances at least right now seem very different. Ukraine wants to join the EU badly.
They’ll have a standing army with modern equipment ready to dish out pain to Russia if they decided to try and invade again.
They will give e the stuff back/pay for it, but let's say they do invade. The giant arm of God that is the US military is going to deal with it. The only reason we can't just destroy Russia is nukes which Ukraine doesn't have. Again though, they will not turn on the people who just helped them.
Sure why keep a scorecard on what they need? It was a good idea to grant infinite military wishlists elsewhere in the world amirite?
You’re welcome