>

Dumb question: can't they haul the equipment in need for maintenance back to the border where they'll be received by western maintenance crews?
ABRAMS TANKS IN WOODLAND GREEN LETS FUCKING GOOOOO >

Theyve been in a warehouse waiting for a moment like this >

Somewhere in a nondescript office at the National War College, a professor is dusting off classified wargame reports from the 1980s and thinking to himself, "finally". >

Ahhhh yes, the REFORGER battle plans. Many majors died making those things >

Springtime in Hohenfels. >

Oh god...the mud.
Saw an M1A1 there once (was LRS with 3rd ID at the time, would have been around 1988) that had the entire crew standing in the mud just staring at it (I think they were 3rd AD, but it's been a while).  We approached them and asked if they needed a hand.  They had thrown a track, to the inside...well, shit.  So we said we'd help them break track and get it fixed when the driver just laughed and told us we should look at the other side.  Yup, thrown track...to the inside.
Good luck fellla's, we gotta jet. >

Not being a tank enthusiast, I understood absolutely zero of that. ELI5? >

I'm not a tank enthusiast either but I assume that "throwing a track" means that the track came dislodged from the wheels (like a bike chain coming off the gears). Being thrown on the inside means it came off and ended up on the tank side of the wheels, which I assume is much more difficult to fix than if it were on the outside. The outside would mean that it would just be laying on the ground next to the tank. Inside means it's snagged and caught up in all the other moving parts and difficult to access and get a hold of in order to reseat it. Plus it's really heavy. >

My grandad was a quatermaster and used to put old tank treads in the back of his car - they weighed 80 pounds each. >

W… what was he training for? >


The Biden administration is leaning toward sending “a significant number” of M1 Abrams tanks to Ukraine, two U.S. officials said, and an announcement could come as early as this week.
The development comes amid a public standoff with German officials, who are under pressure to send their own Leopard tanks and allow other European countries that operate the German-made vehicles to do so as well.
Last week, Chancellor Olaf Scholz told U.S. lawmakers that Germany would approve the transfer only if the U.S. donated its own tanks first.
The transfer of U.S. tanks would mark a major development in the West’s effort to arm Ukraine. Top Ukrainian officials, including President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, have spent weeks pleading for tanks as Kyiv prepares for fresh Russian offensives in the country’s east.
One of the two U.S. officials said the Biden administration is considering sending 30-50 Abrams tanks.
The Pentagon never took tanks off the table, stressed a third U.S. official, who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the matter ahead of an announcement. But in recent weeks, U.S. officials have publicly cited the difficulties of providing the M1s, the Army’s main battle tank. They have said the Abrams made little operational sense for Ukraine at this moment because they guzzle jet fuel and require long supply lines to maintain.
“The Abrams tank is a very complicated piece of equipment. It’s expensive, it’s hard to train on. It has a jet engine, I think it’s about three gallons to the mile of jet fuel. It is not the easiest system to maintain,” Colin Kahl, the Pentagon’s top policy official, told reporters last week after a trip to Kyiv. “It may or may not be the right system.”
It’s unclear if the United States has struck a deal with Germany linking the transfer of both types of tanks. Poland, which also operates Leopards, officially asked Germany for authorization to transfer the German-made tank to Ukrainian forces on Tuesday.
The developments come after weeks of tense discussions between Washington, Berlin and their European allies. Since Scholz met with U.S. lawmakers last week, the German government has shifted its stance, at one point denying it had linked the transfers of the Abrams and Leopards.
A parade of Democrats and Republicans has pressured the Biden administration to grant Berlin’s request to send U.S. tanks first. “If the Germans continue to say we will only send or release Leopards on the condition that Americans send Abrams, we should send Abrams,” Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), a close Biden ally, told POLITICO a few hours before the Wall Street Journal first broke news of the decision on Tuesday. >

I really hope Germany was making those conditions to pressure the US into also giving Abrams tanks, not primarily to get out of giving/allowing the giving of Leopards. >

Germany just doesn't want to be singled out politically, but as the article says Abrams make no sense for us to send, the Leopard 2 at least is a V12 Internal Combustion engine, I'd bet the mechanics Ukraine has the have only worked Soviet made shit can more easily transfer their skills to that new engine type but expecting them to quickly learn how to operate and maintain turbine engines. Not to mention the need for Jet fuel complicates supply lines.
A great tank, for the US which is all about diminishing returns on investment for top notch stuff, but we have an entire military structure to back it up. We are sending Bradleys though which I bet will leave many Russian BMP's knocked out cold >


Not to mention the need for Jet fuel complicates supply lines.

I am pretty sure the Abrams can use almost any liquid hydrocarbon fuel (gas, diesel, jet, cooking oil, etc) iirc, so long as you have a lot of it.
The jet fuel concern is more of a political invention for why we shouldn't send them, not a real logistical concern.
But then again, I've never even seen an Abrams in person, so I am just another redditor talking out of my rear. >

Yea but the US only supplied it jet fuel according to some tankers and there has to be a reason for that, efficiency or engine degradation >

It was mostly logistics. The idea was to have everything… tanks, helicopters, HMMWVs all burning JP-5. Then you only have to haul around a single fuel. >

JP-8 is the single fuel for US Army and Air Force applications. JP-5 is common for applications such as shipboard use, but is not a US military common fuel. >

Well, shipboard is usually F44 for aviation, and F75 for marine propulsion. But I'm undoubtedly wrong about the army fuel. >

Exactly, JP-5 for shipboard aviation use. F44 is the NATO designation for JP-5. I’m not familiar with F75. >

F75 is marine propulsion fuel, what actually drives the ships.