The War in the Ukraine

SlothmanAllen said:

Didn't they operate them in Iraq and Afghanistan continually for more than a decade? I just cannot see them lacking spares for a tank that has been in service for ages and has been continually updated and refreshed over its service life.

Click to expand...

They do, which is why the argument they can't provide Abrams to Ukraine due to spares and maitenance seems weird unless their Abrams fleet is in worse shape than they care to admit with the most decent tanks being the ones getting sold to Poland.

SlothmanAllen said:

I also don't buy the "afraid of tank" getting destroyed argument when they are providing hundreds of APC and IFVs which will in-fact end up getting destroyed at some point.

Click to expand...

Bradleys haven't been particularly succesful in the export market, though, unlike the Abrams. Since KMW doesn't have the sufficient production capacity at the moment to replace all the Leopards 2 that might get sent to Ukraine, it might open the field for the Abrams even more.

Anlsvrthng said:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1616160298418708480

Translation :
We don't have spares for the tanks, so the best that we can provide is sitting ducks for the Russian ATGMs to have fun to blow up the stationary tanks.

To avoid any embarasment we decided to not to provide any tank

Click to expand...

Is that a fact or your bias opinion? US has thousands of Abrams in storage they can send 200 and another 400 for spare parts. Reason why US doesn't want to send Abrams FOR NOW is because logistic and not some made up fantasy that US doesn't want to see their Abrams blown up that is just childish conclusion.

US would have to set up a huge maitenance hub in eastern Poland and train Ukrainains on tanks that uses a jet engine. Leopards are far more easily maintenance friendly than Abrams especially to Ukraine who has never used a western MBT. Damage Leopards can be taken to Poland and repaired with a quick turn around sice Poland already has a hub to fix damage Leopards.

Anlsvrthng said:

.

Just to see a clear view of the picture :

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

In 2022 dollars the cost of the M1A1 is 344 USD/miles.
Again, single abrams travel 80 km in three hours cost 15000 in spare ,repair without making a shoot.

Means the hourly rate is 5000 USD .

Of course the above data from 1991, at that time the tank was in main production phase.

I am very doubtlfull about any spare manufacutring capacity these days, most likelly if they send any tank to Ukraine then there won't be any operabale Abrams by the end of this year,.

Click to expand...

Lol. Why even post information that is 30+ years old? Come on bruh.

Temstar said:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Bah, cannon fodder talk again, like that ever worked since the invention of the machine gun.
But as we suspected AFU is taking big loses each day around Bakhmut, that big meat grinder is steadily wearing down their manpower. Around the time Soledar fell we saw a lot of blue ribboned troops as well, those should be professional army and not TD and loses of those experienced troops may be hard to replace.

Click to expand...

The new arms package the west is providing is a sign that the Ukraine forces are on its last legs. Ukrainian officials are probably sounding the alarm and that's why they are getting the new toys.

Question for those who know their history: If you had to guess where Russia stands closer to right now? closer to the Russia of russo-japanese war or the Russia of post 1941 war against the Nazis.

SlothmanAllen said:

Doesn't the US have thousands of M1s (of all variants)? Didn't they operate them in Iraq and Afghanistan continually for more than a decade? I just cannot see them lacking spares for a tank that has been in service for ages and has been continually updated and refreshed over its service life.

I also don't buy the "afraid of tank" getting destroyed argument when they are providing hundreds of APC and IFVs which will in-fact end up getting destroyed at some point.

Click to expand...

It's a combination of reasons. 1. Too expensive 2. Bad PR for export business if they get blown up. 3. Too heavy for Ukrainian muddy roads. 4. Eats to much fuel. 5. Untrained Ukrainian engineers. The list goes on...

Lokos said:

The new arms package the west is providing is a sign that the Ukraine forces are on its last legs. Ukrainian officials are probably sounding the alarm and that's why they see getting the new toys.

Click to expand...

Just because all their old stuff is assaulting Vladivostok presently, they need to protect their rear ! It's all going good with the plan. lol !

The arm package is quite large, they will need to man it too. The number they are training with the basics are nowhere near enough and trained enough to use all of these. Good or not, Logistic adequate or not, when and who will be able to use all of these ??

They can sprinkle them like candies but they will be used anything near their capabilities and specifications without good and sound training.

Lokos said:

The new arms package the west is providing is a sign that the Ukraine forces are on its last legs. Ukrainian officials are probably sounding the alarm and that's why they are getting the new toys.

Click to expand...

I think it's probably premature to say "on its last legs". AFU still have some mobile reserves that they're holding back. For example those upgraded T-55 and those T-84 haven't been seen on the battlefield yet even though we know they're there and available.

Maybe there are concerns about Abrams being captured?

If these are from the US stock, they would be the top models and not the nerfed Export versions given to Iraq that were taken out (allegedly/possibly) by HJ-8

SolarWarden said:

Is that a fact or your bias opinion? US has thousands of Abrams in storage they can send 200 and another 400 for spare parts. Reason why US doesn't want to send Abrams FOR NOW is because logistic and not some made up fantasy that US doesn't want to see their Abrams blown up that is just childish conclusion.

US would have to set up a huge maitenance hub in eastern Poland and train Ukrainains on tanks that uses a jet engine. Leopards are far more easily maintenance friendly than Abrams especially to Ukraine who has never used a western MBT. Damage Leopards can be taken to Poland and repaired with a quick turn around sice Poland already has a hub to fix damage Leopards.


Lol. Why even post information that is 30+ years old? Come on bruh.

Click to expand...

Even Leopard is still a problem. Distance from the fronts to Poland is still like 2000 Km round trip. There is nothing quick about travelling that distance

Temstar said:

I think it's probably premature to say "on its last legs". AFU still have some mobile reserves that they're holding back. For example those upgraded T-55 and those T-84 haven't been seen on the battlefield yet even though we know they're there and available.

Click to expand...

We can make jokes but they have certainly a fare amount left of equipments left, don't know how spreaded all over the place they are. Concentration of troops cannot be hidden and near the front they will be targeted for sure. You cannot make an offensives with spreaded equipments. So you spread them on that long front and shuffle it when you need it the most.

Having a second army that can walk in and continue without touching the defensive line is the only way they can do a real mechanised push. If not it's infantry push with some support. That second army need to be sound, with logistic supplies attached and trained. If not you just do replacement of losses. If Ukraine can build that in the rear with the new equipment or their remaining equipment we will see but it will not be in the next 6 months and how know what will happen until then.

This could be the first s-400 launcher ever filmed destroyed in action, allegedly during transit.