>

they have thousands of these things in dry storage. the fuel logistics is the rate limiting factor ignoring politics.
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. >

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? >

On paper yes, but it wouldn't really be practical. They need regular maintenance, and consistently shipping back and forth would leave them off the battlefield more than on it compared to another tank that can be maintained where it is needed. It also opens the risk that if the means to transport them for maintenance is damaged/destroyed, they all could end up near useless being unable to be maintained then. >

Also it’s hella more expensive to ship it back and forth for maintenance. >

Expensive here means not just money it means:
Time out of service, labour, fuel, opportunity cost on logistics train, lead time for force build up between deployments that exposes them to intelligence analysis etc. >

Nobody thinks of the environment and nature in general when talking about war. I know that all of these are real problems, but also the the amounts of fuel burned, the trees destroyed, the fields burned, and the animals killed in explosions (Russian soldiers probably hurt them for fun too). 
It’s all just such a shame. >

Nature’s pretty good at springing back after disaster. Of course the disaster has to end first. >

That’s true but it’s like saying humanity will recover after nuclear war. Just because we left some of their habitat intact, that doesn’t mean we prevented their extinction. >

Everyone betting invest into some weapons manufacturers quick because the US and friends will be ready for a new upgrade after they send all their old stuff to Ukraine. >

US already has their next tank. It is an AI enabled, hybrid fueled tank. It can be remotedly operated and run completely silently for a time. Also has a massive advantage in fuel consumption, range, armor, ammo capacity over previous Abrams and has only 3 crew with plans to reduce that to 2. >

It's a little misleading to say we already have the next tank.  The Abrams X is a demonstrator, and the military will have to test it and decide what features they actually want - and whether they want the Abrams X at all.
I don't know anything about this - but the article you link to has quotes from the under secretary of the army indicating that they "don't know what the future tank will be".
But perhaps giving a bunch of this-gen tanks to Ukraine will push them to accelerate the timeline? >

Yes, like the KF-51 Panther, the AbX is just a company prototype. Even if the military likes it, there will probably be a bid time for other entries, as it could be the greatest tank ever made but way to costly as a system. Allowing other participants to bid their models can help correct any crazy high price tags.
They don't normally just select what's available. >

Like I have said from the beginning of the war, this war will be fought until either the Russians are driven out of every inch of pre-2014 Ukraine borders, or until the Ukrainians are driven out of every inch of territory east of the Dnipro River. There are no other conceivable borders where artillery shelling stops, and if shelling never stops, the war will continue.
NATO might as well go all-in at this point. >

I think you were right, but i don't think that is the case now, I believe that driving Ukrainians behind Dnipro would stop the war anymore. Russia would have to drive them to Poland border. >

First of all, no country is gonna let this stand.. the very thought of full annexation of a country is something no one will get behind in during these times. 
Which is simply why a good amount of nations are squeamish with recognizing taiwan as a bona fide country, no need to rip a painful band aid off without ever applying it
Imagine If ever russia ever announces that this was their final plan for Ukraine, this would be a greenlight for all Friendly or even neutral countries to intervene, might as well even start a world war honestly. With the way things have been going, it might be happening soon in the next few decades or even years >

What. That was 70 years ago >

One could argue that Hong Kong was recently “annexed”. The CCP effectively took over Hong Kong, freedoms curtailed, local government purged, any former sense of “democracy” destroyed - the One Country, Two Systems effectively dead and now just window dressing. >

Hong Kong is a pretty different situation because legally it was a portion of China that was in a lease to the UK, and the lease had ended. It was legally part of China, and while there was some international agreement signed about how it would be governed (that was broken by China's changes), it was realistically largely an internal politics matter of China. Not an invasion of a foreign country. >

This news made the Russian trolls really angry.  They're swarming this thread with fake concerns like "they use too much fuel" or "they're too expensive to maintain" or other bullshit.  Of course the US is going to provide Ukraine with EVERYTHING it needs to operate the tanks, not just the tanks.  It would be stupid to give Ukraine the tanks without the means to maintain them.  Obviously the US is going to provide that too.  Duh. >

Tbf it's not really a troll take, the logistics requiments are immense and it's also the government's official stance on why we haven't provided any up to this point. The US just had to ensure everything was lined up before they committed to anything publicly. 
On the other hand it's stupid comments like "it doesn't need jet fuel it can literally run on vegetable oil and vodka" that have me dumbfounded. Like, you're begging for Abrams and when you finally get your hands on some you're going to immediately trash them? Dumbest take I've seen here by far.  They absolutely require jet fuel to run optimally, anything less is for immediate emergencies in combat situations. >

A gas turbine will quite happily run on diesel with no modification. >

So we just run them on jet fuel for fun? Yes it'll run on diesel fine for a while, until the carbon deposits foul everything and causes overheating problems. If you don't want massive performance issues down the road you don't want to run it on diesel for too long. >

The engine is literally designed to be multifuel. It'll run on JP, kerosene, diesel, gasoline, ect. >

Multifuel does not mean it doesn't have drawbacks when using the other fuels. They all effect the maintenance schedule >

It's also not an instant death sentence for the equipment. You may lose a couple of hours operating time, but it was designed to reliably function using fuels other than JP. Australia uses diesel as the main fuel for the tank for example. >

It still increases maintenance when using other fuels. >

He’s agreeing with you, bro. He literally says it’ll lose operating hours. >

Seems like  Ukraine can thank Scholz for being stubborn and wanting a NATO move. Now they might get even more (relativly) modern Tanks. >

The only concern now is that they might not have enough tanks and/or trained crews before spring. If they had opened the flood gates earlier, it might have helped. But at this point, I think everyone outside of Russia is just happy the ball is rolling. It should only spur more and more donations of modern MBTs. >

I very much think NATO knows exactly what they are doing and when their deadline is for getting everything ready in time. Do you really think NATO is stupid enough to wait too long so these dont make it?
Its no coincidence these are being sent with a shitton of compatible IFVs and APCs for combined arm warfare. Shit will be ready. >

There's sometimes a gap/delay between military brass and bureaucracy/politics. The military will ask for or suggest things and the government can drag their feet sometimes before they approve.
In that regard, it's not unthinkable that sending tanks earlier was requested but not approved until now. It's not a matter of being stupid or not knowing. >

This tank talk has all been orchestrated I think. Abrams and associated logistical systems might be on their way already. >

I feel kinda sorry for the Ukrainian engineers who now have to train up on how to maintain American, French, and German tanks. >

They’re gaining valuable and diverse knowledge and experience, which will ultimately give them expertise and adaptability >

Do those skills include pulling various spare parts from the ass? >

Nations are going to use this as an excuse to rid themselves with their aging battletanks, including their entire stores of reserve parts >

You have to think the majority of US army’s equipment was literally built to perform against Russia in the Ukraine. Especially the Abrams which was originally designed in 1972 >

Don’t we build a bunch of tanks that the military specifically says we don’t need every year? If so this should be a non brainer and I wonder why it wasn’t done before. >

No, 
That issue was isolated to the sequestration years around 2012-2013. 
The Army was focused on COIN operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and were being forced to make budget cuts to meet mission requirements. They requested no new tank upgrades/builds from 2013-2017 as they wanted to cut expenses to focus on light infantry units. 
Congress denied this request because it would have resulted in the shutting down of the GDLS plant in Lima Ohio which builds the Abrams. We would have lost the specialty knowledge and experience to operate that plant and it would have been far more expensive to re-open the plant. 
As of 2018 the Army has been undergoing a massive overhaul in updating both equipment and doctrine. This is the largest transformation since the adoption of the Air-Land battle concept following Vietnam in the 1970-1980s. As part of this transition back to large scale combat operations (LSCO) the army is updating and expanding their Armored formations. They are fielding a new model of the Abrams (M1A2SEPV3) and are in active development of the M1A2SEPV4. And they just adopted a new “light tank” for use by the light infantry/ airborne divisions. 
The army very much wants their new tanks these days. >

This is a war that we all thought had to happen eventually. Now Russia (USSR) is depleted from its former glory. And we get to use all this fancy equipment without putting our own troops in danger. It’s really a phenomenal situation for the west, by providing equipment we have the chance to completely defeat Russia without ever fighting the war. Even if they defeat Ukraine, Russia will be off the threat list for decades. >

People said the same thing about Germany after WWI. And we all know what happened after that.  Unless NATO steps in, Russia won't be fully defeated, just pushed back to their borders and down a couple hundred thousand young men. While I hope you're right, history has shown us repeatedly that if your enemy isn't fully destroyed, the odds are high that they're going to commit to getting revenge by heavily militarizing their population under the "we need to avenge our fallen heroes" propaganda. Which people will rally behind with the same fervor that Hitler inspired in the German population. >

I do agree with the sentiment. But keep in mind at the end of WWI tanks were just beefed up farm equipment, and you could build an airplane in your shed. Germany at the time had the opportunity to be on the cutting edge of military technology, while the rest of the world buried their heads. Current Russia is already several decades behind, and the world climate is a giant tech race. I don’t envision a giant gasp of relief, and slowed military tech innovation at the end of Ukraine. >

Excellent. Glad my tax dollars will be used to stop a fascist pile of poo. >

Finally on something useful >

Good news everybody! Ukraine is getting some tanks. These new tanks are going to outclass those Russian tanks by a long shot. We’re going to see some turret tosses soon. >

The M1 Abrams was purposely designed for WW3 with Russia.  This is what it was made to do.  
Kill ‘em all. >

Anyone that has studied Russian history, knows, only the objective matters. Personnel or other factors are not a consideration >

Just have to keep the meat grinder sharp and fueled long enough for Russia to run out of soldiers to throw into it. >

Jesus christ Ukraine tryna reach moscow or something? >

How many Leopard tanks would be available to be sent? >

Would rather just give Ukraine precision missiles tbh. I don’t see them being able to use these tanks effectively even with training. If we actually had the nextgen tanks ready to go then sure why not give them away but as it stands we still need them >

Tell me you’re declaring war on Russia without declaring war on Russia 🥴 >

Sure we'll give 'em.  Easy to say, just like the Germans.  Should have been preparing for this since last February.  How long will it now take to train Ukrainians (though they appear to be quick learners) and get the logistics worked out? >

Logistics is actually relatively easy for Abrams: we have warehouses of them sitting around Europe waiting for cruise to show up and take them out. They've been meticulously maintained by civilian maintenance crews for the last few decades, a relic of that Cold War that never went hot.
Fuel for them is probably in the same depots, as well as spare parts. Bring the majority of the fuel and spare parts to the border with Ukraine, ship the fuel over as required, bring broken tanks back to the border to get fixed up using Western trained maintenance crews who get to use the opportunity for practice. >

That’s what I think would be the best, put it on the border between Poland and Ukraine. That way they get maintenance on them more immediate in Poland because we can use western trained troops. It takes six months to train them on maintenance. They will need those facilities up and running anyway since they are receiving the Abrams as well. Then the Polish and Ukrainians can train on maintenance with Western allies in Poland while they build maintenance yards in Ukraine. >

Hope these tanks are sent right to the Wagner group for some freedom infusions. Go UA, EU and USA. >

I would just keep sending Bradley’s. They can kill any Russian tank just as well, and are easier to learn and maintain. >

Nah the US should send Abrams to Israel in exchange for Merkavas to Ukraine >

My only reservation with this is whether they can maintain them along with all the other DIFFERENT equipment they have.
I have no concerns over sending these somewhere where information can be stolen because they’re already in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, Morocco and Taiwan (which while very friendly to the US I have no doubt they have their fair share of Chinese spies), so if somebody wanted to steal whatever secrets the M1 Abrams has its already gone. >


My only reservation with this is whether they can maintain them along with all the other DIFFERENT equipment they have.

I trust the government dudes in charge that they wouldn't be going through with this unless they were positive they could. >

After the war Ukraine is going to have the highest per capita population of mechanics and supply line logicians in the world haha >

They will also have the world's largest supply of empty absinthe bottles from copeing with 15 diffrent tank models >

The maintenance requirements for these tanks are massive. I really wonder if it's such a good idea sending them over. They'll probably spend more time working on them than actually using them for what they were intended. >

The government guys handling this are experts in logistics, have decades experience on this sort of thing, and possess far more info than armchair Redditors.
If they say it can be done and are finalizing plans, I'd trust their judgment over people online questioning whether or not it's "really such a good idea" to send them over. >

Generally I agree with that, but the government guys have also proved to be terrible at this kind of thing as well. For instance, leaving billions of dollars in military equipment and weapons for the Taliban to take possession of, going to war in Vietnam, going to war in Iraq, I could go on, but I think you get the idea.
We're all armchair redditors here, and questioning government action is always a good idea. >

"Equipment needs tons of maintenance!"
Also you
"But we left billions of military equipment"
It was left there because it was easier to just ditch a tiny fraction of a fraction of the budget, giving them essentially nothing that they'll never be able to use without access to repairs and logistics. >

Two separate quotes from two separate comments talking about two different things.
As far as the "Equipment needs tons of maintenance!" quote goes, that was specific to the M1 Abrams and it's usage to Ukraine. It's not like we drop off a tank and they go to town with it. It requires, fuel, parts, maintenance, ammo, training, all that logistics stuff. Unless they use it until it's killed or breaks, and then that's it. But, I doubt that's what they want. Providing tanks to Ukraine is likely providing a whole package of support.
As far as my other quote from another comment "But we left billions of military equipment" was in reference to Afghanistan. Yes, some of that equipment will work for a bit and be use-able until it breaks, at which point it will be useless to the Taliban. But, a lot of that equipment, like rifles, machine guns, other small arms and such weapons will be used on their own people, or exported else where where they'll end up being used by terrorists organizations. You're partly right saying it was ditched because it was cheaper to do, but that doesn't mean it was a good idea. I don't think there are many people out there that thinks it's a good idea to leave a mass of small arms for a totalitarian government to assume control and use as they wish just because it was the cheaper thing to do. That is what I was trying to point out, that governments don't always make the best decisions. >

You're doing that thing again where you think the people experienced in making calculated risks know less than you. >

After all this time can we at least have some fun with it? Like a piñata full of tank keys? Or get Opra to do a show and then do her thing? “You get a tank! You get a tank! And you get a tank!” only we don’t fuck them on taxes. >

this is quickly becoming world war 3. >

You can call mr Pootin and tell him to stop any time ;) >

Between indicting Donald and now this, I have enough edging for a lifetime >


indicting Donald

.....What? >

Georgia prosecutor has said that he will make a decision soon on trump election issues during the 2020 election in Georgia.
Pretty much the grand jury provided a report but a judge hasn't made a decision yet.  (This isn't uncommon) >

*She >

can we fund things like Leopard 2s? The abrams works for us because The US Navy and Airforce are logistical gods. They need diesel burning tanks with regional support. They need German tanks. Maybe commit another armored group to defend germany and ask them to send more tanks? >

If the US military will be sending Abrams to Ukraine, the US military will provide for any and all logistical needs to maintain those tanks. It would be pointless for the US to send its main battle tank to Ukraine, only for it to appear inferior or incapable against Russian tanks. The US has a strategic interest in demonstrating the superiority of its weaponry >

We can provide the logistics back bone for German tanks too. Abrams in Germany and Leopard 2s with engines that can be supported locally with us and German logistics behind them can be better in Ukraine.  We don't fight like anyone else besides our Canadian boys. >

So many comments about death and destruction made without a thought for all the lost souls to this war and all previous wars. Have we not learnt anything from the past, or are we just doomed to repeat these human created atrocities? There are no winners in war only suffering. >

Sheeple just repeat what they see in the media. Now Russia BaD!1. Delivering weapons will only prolong the war. Something the USA would love to see happen because it weakens their 'opponent' Russia and benefits their weapons industry.. oh wait.. >

Ignoring the logistics is the Abrams superior enough to make them worthwhile? Are we comparing apples to apples or are we comparing chihuahuas to pit bulls? >

The last time Abrams faced off against Russian T-72s en masse they came out on top by a fairly wide margin. >

The T72s in Iraq were a far cry from the T72s current in Ukraine. But I'd still put my money on the Abrams. 
Either way though, more tanks is good. They don't need to square off with T72s, T80s, or T90s even. Just being able to fire in support of troops is enough. There was even a Ukrainian tanker in an interview who said how much having tanks nearby improves troop morale. Just seeing a big rumbling Abrams has value. >


Just seeing a big rumbling Abrams has value.

Abrams don't rumble, they whine... lol
Turbine engines are actually pretty quiet when the tank is coming towards you. >

Lol fair point >

Oh fuck yes. I can’t wait to see r/combatfootage running those videos >

I'd laugh if it came with the condition of "But you have to buy the fuel from us too!" >

It would run on Sunflower oil. >

Send them I wanna see those puppies in action 💪🏼 >

enlist >

Guys, just think about the future black market after the war ends. >

Let Abraham Go! >

Nice. Your move Russia. Lol >

Fuck yes! higher mutha fuckin gas prices >

Ukraine is about to get a logistical and maintenance headache. In the event they keep them running, they are going to end up with a fuel shortage. The Abrams isn't known for its fuel efficiency. >

We have way more than the army wants or needs send our oldest models for a scrapping >

Is this the new Vietnam? >

Yes, it’s Russia’s Vietnam >

That sounds like an escalation.
Is this an escalation? >

It depends what you mean by escalation. If you mean, Russia’s military situation now looks much shittier, then yeah, it’s an escalation >

This is the problem with many advanced US vehicles - they’re so advanced or complex that training soldiers in a short amount of time is a disadvantage compared to lesser advanced vehicles. Similarly, most US vehicles require constant maintenance, and let’s not get started with manufacturing them in mass. 
This is why the US’s Abrams tanks are not recommended for Ukraine and the Soviet era tanks are encouraged to be sent to Ukraine, even as these relics are still powerful, but extremely vulnerable to RPGs or similar AT weapons. 
And this is the US’s weakness, if a war between China & the US were to break out, both countries will quickly run out of their current stock of weapons and vehicles, but China on the other hand will be able to replace its arsenal a lot quicker, specially with their current infrastructure in mass production and the CCP’s freedom to control the means of production, including its people. >

Shut up with your excellent points we have generals in the thread. >

Sending better tanks than both Poland and Germany.  This will make them both so mad!  Glad the US is the biggest help to the antifa forces of Ukraine against RuSSia! >

In what way are they better? >

They're American made. >

That's not considered a mark of quality outside of USA >

Why is it always the Germans. >

Tick tock said the nuclear armageddon clock >

So the US and Russia are basically at war at this point right? If my troops were getting wrecked by US tanks given to my enemy, that's an act of war in my eyes. The US might not have its own infantry on the ground but propping up Ukraine with supplies and weaponry seems reason enough for Russia to declare war on us directly, no? >

Think Vietnam, The US fought the Russian and Chinese supplied NVA. This is just reversed, as the Russians are fighting the American supplied Ukrainians. >

Just so long as Ukraine can maintain them/we give them the means to maintain them. There is no sense sending them a tank if it's going to be literally disposable because of maintenance issues. >

Pretty soon Ukraine will have more tanks than people who can drive them >

Whole thing sounds silly. Only reason they're doing it is so other countries will send their tanks that the Ukranians can actually use. They should just do what they did in WW2 and send inflatable spoof abrams tanks for Putin to lob missiles at while the Leopard tanks are doing their thing. >

export versions I assume? >

Best testing field the industrial military complex could ask for >

I remember when the pentagon was telling congress it didn’t need more Abrams, and congress ordered them anyway, mostly to keep the supply lines active.  Now I’m glad they did. >

Get on it America… be a leader again >

Fuck it, give em 300 tanks. >

ooooh  closer ,  ooooh significant >

corriendo al infierno >

Approval has been given it’s time to rock ‘n’ roll people Russia must be destroyed >

Curious to know how they intend to keep these running >

When does ukraine get nukes >

I thought they required more technical support >

So will France send their MBT: the Leclerc?
I don't mean France from yesterday when Macron said the DefMin needs to decide.
I mean France today.
Don't make the free world put France through the existential thrashing that Germany got: they still lost some good will and almost lost their defense industry. >

…. Annnd thus making vehicle Identification on the battlefield nearly impossible… >

The real ones or the stripped sheet metal ones we export to some places? >

They better pray none of these go missing or abandoned and get reverse engineered. I’m sure Russia and China would pay a very generously for a unit or two. >

Not a good day to be a russian tanker. >

Why has the world been shitting on Germany for taking a moment to make that decision and at the same time nobody even slightly critizised the USA for doing the same? Instead people are cheering for it. Please somebody ELI5 >

Nice.  Someone bought the expansion pack! >

We have thousands sitting around in the desert >

This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 83%. (I'm a bot)


One of the two U.S. officials said the Biden administration is considering sending around 30 Abrams tanks.
In recent weeks, U.S. officials 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 M1 Abrams tanks currently in the U.S. Army's motor pools would first need to be stripped of sensitive communications and other equipment before being sent to Ukraine, making it an expensive and time-consuming process.


Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: U.S.^#1 Abrams^#2 tank^#3 send^#4 Ukraine^#5 >

This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 83%. (I'm a bot)


One of the two U.S. officials said the Biden administration is considering sending around 30 Abrams tanks.
In recent weeks, U.S. officials 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 M1 Abrams tanks currently in the U.S. Army's motor pools would first need to be stripped of sensitive communications and other equipment before being sent to Ukraine, making it an expensive and time-consuming process.


Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: U.S.^#1 Abrams^#2 tank^#3 send^#4 Ukraine^#5 >

This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 83%. (I'm a bot)


One of the two U.S. officials said the Biden administration is considering sending around 30 Abrams tanks.
In recent weeks, U.S. officials 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 M1 Abrams tanks currently in the U.S. Army's motor pools would first need to be stripped of sensitive communications and other equipment before being sent to Ukraine, making it an expensive and time-consuming process.


Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: U.S.^#1 Abrams^#2 tank^#3 send^#4 Ukraine^#5 >

I know little about military supplies. Is this the best tank we have to offer? >

I wonder how many