>

It’s not so much that it’s almost as good — it’s that it’s got the same gun and modern electronics and optics, in a platform that’s less complex and less expensive and less challenging to maintain. The Leopard is a diesel engined tank. You can train a bus or truck mechanic to fix one pretty quickly. The Abrams is turbine engined — it’s basically got an jet engine in it, and it takes a jet engine mechanic to fix it.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 73%. (I'm a bot)


The Biden administration has approved sending 31 M1 Abrams tanks to Ukraine as international reluctance to send tanks to the battlefront against the Russians begins to erode.
The news came after Germany confirmed it will make 14 of its Leopard 2A6 tanks available for Ukraine's war effort, and give partner countries its permission to re-export other battle tanks to aid Kyiv.
The US has resisted providing its own M1 Abrams tanks to Ukraine, citing extensive and complex maintenance and logistical challenges with the hi-tech vehicles.


Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Ukraine^#1 tanks^#2 Abrams^#3 send^#4 more^#5 >

I find it annoying that they specify the A6 variant of the Leopard 2, but they don't tell us which M1 Abrams they're getting.  1a1?  1a2?  Fancy upgrade kits? >

We probably won’t see one in action until late spring-early summer at the earliest since they will have to train crews for the tanks >

Not even then. They aren't giving them tanks out of the current stock -- they are building them. From WaPo:

The U.S. tanks — to be purchased from manufacturers rather than transferred from existing American military stockpiles — will not arrive for months, if not years. Administration officials have emphasized that the M1s are part of long-range planning for Ukraine’s armed forces rather than weapons that will be put to immediate use. >

We have stock piles of tanks sitting in the desert brand fucking new because congress refused to listen to the army to stop making them. >

I mean, just look at Europe, they've suddenly realized they don't have enough tanks or shells to sustain a modern defensive campaign. >

We continued to make them because it was jobs and money going to particular areas... we could have shifted that to produce what we really needed.
That's the past... now we are acting like we don't have the tanks to give? We are purposely delaying... >

We are purposely giving handouts to General Dynamics and whatever other defense companies we're ordering brand new equipment from rather than sending already stockpiled equipment that likely isn't going to be needed. 
I was only in a reserve unit, but we only used like half of the hmmwvs we had in the motor pool. The rest just sat around. Probably until they're replaced by the new general purpose truck. >

Go Abrams. Go do what you were originally disigned to do. >

Abrams tanks: "Brothers, we are free to perform our prime directive. Onwards!" >

Idk why I read this in a Dalek voice but now I can’t change how I read it >

Nah that’s an Adeptus Astartes voice >

FOR THE EMPEROR!
Leeman russ barrels through enemy lines >

So they now have Abrams, Chally 2s, Leo 2s, CV90s and Bradleys. 
Oh boy. Russia is not gunna have a fun time. >

I don’t envy the Ukrainian maintenance crews that have to learn to repair all of those. But yeah, hopefully it’ll all be worth it. >

Just think about how marketable the maintenance guys are going to be after this. Lol >

Poland and Ukraine will be the tank depots of Europe after this. >

and after this war having all that equipment and knowledge should help Ukraine's case to be a part of NATO.  They will know how to use, equip and maintain high end NATO equipment
Being invaded also helps their case infinitely >

As much as I hate the idea, Ukraine will have a future for being the source of valid modern-day warfighting experience and training for the next generation or two because of this war, and from there can build up to become a fearsome military power in the region.
And farmers, dont forget Ukraine's one of the major bread baskets of the world. >

This is not unlike Israel’s rise as the pre-eminent warfighting experts at opposing soviet doctrine and equipment in the late 20th century. There’s a reason the most kills by F-15s and F-16s belong to the IAF. >

I never wondered why Israel of all places were war fighting experts but that makes a lot of sense. >

Israel regularly fight hamas and went into wars in the 70s-2000s. Many people who fought are still alive today. Also their espionage is considered best in the world. >

Can someone who has experience in this explain to me why it is such a game changer, compared to the equipment they currently have? Sorry for my ignorance. >

One of the main things is range. A commander can spot a group of enemy tanks far beyond their sight with thermal imaging. He can task each shot in quick succession, and the gunner (pun intended) executes those tasks. This occurs outside of the engagement range of russian tanks. 
In addition theres a stabilizer for the barrel, allowing the Abrams to fire reliably and accurately while mobing quickly over rough terrain. For a Russian tank, in comparison, to reliably and accurately hit, it will need to stop. It can run and attempt to hit, but any deviation in the land under its tracks will mean a deciation of the barrel, altering the flight path of the shell. 
Also, the armor. T- series tanks have less armor on the top and more on the sides. They also keep ammo in the same compartment as the crew. So, a javelin coming down on the tank will not only penetrate, but also ingnite the ammo. This is why we see the new Roscosmos Tank Turret Program videos. Their turrets go sky high with a complete loss of crew. The Abrams however has more armor on the top and does not have ammo stored in the crew compartment. In addition, its armor is fundamentally different. The newest ones have depleted uranium armor, but i doubt we'll  send that. We'll probaby send the composite armor that has compressed ceramic tiles inside. The armor on those, while dated, is still extremely good. An RPG or a Javelin will be a non-lethal hit, and will only give away the position of troops, earning the ire of the crew. 
Last but not least, the engine. People seem to think the engine runs on jet fuel. That is not the case. It has a turbine engine. These can run on basically any fuel, although fuel types will alter service intervals. You could fuel the damn thing up at speedway if you wanted. The US Army only uses jet fuel because literally anything in their military can run on it. Its easy to use one type of fuel for everything. 
Basically, these tanks were designed specifically to counter Russias current stockpile. When used in conjunction with Bradleys and all the other wonderful toys we've given, like HIMARS and Javelins, theyll be a potent fighting force. The last stone Ukraine is missing in it's military infinity gauntlet is modern air support. If they receive f-15s or f-16s (which i would expect to hear in the coming months, as their were rumblings of Ukrainians being trained on them in the US a few months back) then theyll have a full complement of combined arms. What happened in desert storm would happen again, albeit on a smaller scale. History doesn't repeat, but it sure as hell rhymes. >

This is my favorite for most detailed answer. Thank you for some of this clarification. >

Thanks. I've spent entirely too long reading up on this, and what the hangups are on sending Abrams. Most likely a good portion of the software will be stripped, so Im not 100 percent certain that the Abrams will retain its full combat capability. Even then, itll still be a very potent tank. Its also worth noting we can send a lot of these over the next few months. The US has about 8000 Abrams, which will be phased out as the new Abrams X enters production and ramp up. >

Also think about how this sounds to Russia, getting their ass kicked already and then finding out one of the best tanks is going to be on your front doorstep next week. Really makes you want to stop fighting >

It won't make Russia want to stop fighting, but when they see that the aging US hardware being sent to Ukraine is stomping their ass and being replaced by newer, better hardware, it oughta make everyone feel a little better about the future outcome (except Russia). >

Or that there are another 8000 where these 31 came from >

Hopefully it'll be like how we shipped APCs. Started as a trickle and once they proved proficient, it turned into a torrent. >

I would assume that will be what happens. 31 tanks aren't really going to make a dent in this war. They will however be a valuable training tool for Ukraine to prepare to recieve more Abrams later on.
If Ukraine can get trained crews and sufficient logistical support for a few hundred Abrams, then they could really do some damage. >


31 tanks aren't really going to make a dent in this war.

Zelensky apparently said he needs 300 Western tanks to mount an effective counter offensive.
Honestly, between the 31 Abrams, Germany's 14 Leopards, Britain's 14 Challengers and the other 66 tanks that the rest of Europe has pledged (along with the 90 rebuilt T-72s the US and Netherlands are also sending), I don't think it's a stretch to conclude that the Russians won't be able to keep Melitopol, and if the Russians lose Melitopol, they lose Crimea. >

Is 31 a lot? >

In one battle in the Gulf war, 9 M1A1 tanks killed 28 tanks, 16 IFVs, and 30 trucks in 23 minutes with no losses. 
It's the tank with the best combat record of the modern age. >

In other words: it’s the tank. When you’re thinking about tanks, you’re thinking about the Abrams. >

Someone made a convincing argument that leopards are almost as good as Abrams. So it’s more that Russian shit is shit