>

Did US send tanks I remember possibly sending Bradley Fighting Vehicles which are not tanks at all
The Russians have seen so many of their tanks burn that now they just believe that all tanks will self immolate upon entering Ukraine. >

It's gotten to the stage where as an uneducated bystander I think tanks explode if you throw a damp cigarette at them. >

“During the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Challenger 2 tanks suffered no tank losses to Iraqi fire. In one encounter within an urban area, a Challenger 2 came under attack from irregular forces with machine guns and rocket propelled grenades. The driver's sight was damaged and while attempting to back away under the commander's directions, the other sights were damaged and the tank threw its tracks entering a ditch. It was hit by 14 rocket propelled grenades from close range and a MILAN anti-tank missile. The crew survived, safe within the tank until it was recovered for repairs, the worst damage being to the sighting system. It was back in operation six hours later. According to British army, one Challenger 2 operating near Basra survived being hit by 70 RPGs in another incident.” 
Not all tanks mate. >

Man, talk about tanking a hit... >

Wait, something more modern than 60's Soviet equipment works pretty well? Since when...? >

To be fair its not like the M1 is a spring chicken. It first came into service in 1980. Its just actually been kept up-to-date unlike Russian improvements that mostly go into someone's pockets. >

We will never see another decade like the 80s where America absolutely jacked their military 10x over lol 
That’s why the M1 is amazing. >

When the next leap like computers comes out, we might. >

By the time that rolls around I figure I’ll be near death lol >

That might be why you're near death.
If the US is spending significantly more on its military than it currently is, something has gone very wrong. >

Took a while but Abrams are about to receive their birth right. >

Them and the Leopards were literally made for this. Storming across the Dnieper to take on the T-72's. Be nice to have several battalions going but if the Battle of 73 Easting is any example, they should run through the 72's. >

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's what the A-10 was designed for as well isn't it? >

Accurate, but the A-10 hasn’t aged very well. It was already not the most effective when introduced, and by now it’s almost more of a liability against any well-equipt enemy >

"well-equipt enemy"
So, it's perfect against the Russians in Ukraine >

Excellent point 
Send em all to Ukraine and let them have at it >

Congress will still requisition more
A-10 "Please, let me die"
Congress "Haha, Abrams and Warthog go brrrt" >

Doesn’t matter if Congress requisitions more. Manufacturer ceased production in 1984, jigs and fixtures used to make them have been disposed of. Manufacturer is defunct as of 2003, successor company was bought out by an Israeli company in 2010. >

The tooling and jigs were not disposed of. Boeing pulled some of them out of type 1000 storage at AMARG to produce the hundreds of new wing sets they built for the A-10C's the past 5 years or so. >

/r/NonCredibleDefense gonna be like
So you're saying... there's a chance? >

Reposting again.
Russian playbook for new weapons introduced to the Ukrainian theater by Western powers:
•   ⁠Russian media warns addition of this weapons system to Ukraine would be a gross escalation of this conflict
•   ⁠Hosts discuss nuclear strikes on western countries supplying weapons systems
•   ⁠Medvedev says Russia will strike these targets as priorities as soon as they’re supplied
•   ⁠Media starts saying that the weapons system is actually garbage. Wont change a thing and will degrade the capabilities of the Ukrainians  <— You are here
•   ⁠Russian military states definitively that they’ve actually destroyed all weapons systems sent to Ukraine, even if they aren’t yet delivered
(Credit to Perun) >

From Dominions 5 videos (great little game) to becoming Youtube's authority on this war's development. That man has gone far. >

Wait this is the same guy I watch for his incredible Terra Invicta (another great niche game) guides! He added so much to the game community the dev even put his name in the game. >

They added his name as he supported the game on Kickstarter. There are several orgs and I think counselors named after backers. >

Burn through russian lines >

How do you say “Sherman’s march, round two” in Ukrainian? >

March to Mariupol. >

The Iraqi information minister came out with some corkers in the Iraq War, things like this:

The fact is that as soon as they reach Baghdad gates, we will besiege them and slaughter them. Until now they have refused to do battle with us. They are just going places. One can describe them as a boa: when it feels threatened, it runs to somewhere else.

or

We made them drink poison last night and Saddam Hussein’s soldiers and his great forces gave the Americans a lesson which will not be forgotten by history. Truly.

Can't think why that paragon of truthfulness suddenly came to mind... >

Good ol’ Baghdad Bob >

We used to laugh, but dude was just ahead of his time. Today he'd be presidential material >

Wait a minute…remove the mustache and beret, bleach his hair, and orange foundation/spray tan?  Sunnofa… >

I love when playground shit talking gets reported as serious news. >

Reuters "Kremlin Said" Special >

Kremlin taddles on US for not sharing tanks equally >

I thought they gave up the equal sharing thing in ‘91? >

Holy shit. That’s incredible. >

Me when I know nothing about tonks >

I’m going to take a guess and say Russia will announce in the next few days that they destroyed twice as many tanks as have been said are being sent even before they arrive. >

"11,000 of the 31 Abrams have been destroyed. Glory to Russia!" >


Kremlin says U.S.-supplied tanks will 'burn' in Ukraine

Oh rubbish. You have no power here. Be gone before somebody drops a house on you too! >

Putin looks up at the sky in fear. “Okay I will bide my time.” >

Biden’s voice bellows back at him from the skies, “you’ll Biden your time, boy!” >

Burn fuel to reach your positions >

And lots of it lol. Less than half a mile a gallon and it uses jet fuel haha. >

It runs on diesel.
Edit: I understand it runs on a bunch of stuff. I'm pointing out that the "it requires jet fuel" comments are misinformed or misleading. It's making the average redditor think the tank requires some super special fuel, when that's the opposite of the truth. >

The Abrams runs on anything that burns haha. Diesel, petrol, kerosene etc >


The Abrams runs on anything that burns haha. Diesel, petrol, kerosene etc

...Russian aircraft carriers, Russian fuel depots, Russian tanks... >

Russians. >

Vodka wasn't mentioned >

The Kremlin is that kid in middleschool who talks a whole lot of shit but can't fight >

Don't know about everyone else but personally at this point I'm so sick of their shit it's surreal. Yes yes, you'll nuke us or whatever, just shut up and get your piece in silence already. >

Sure the US fought in a few illegal wars recently as well, but at least we weren't embarrassed on the world stage. >

It's not about embarrassment at all. The US didn't threaten european countries with obliteration via nuclear weapons every other week (and central/southern/eastern europe specifically, we got threats before it was cool). They didn't fetishize our destruction on pathetic TV shows. They didn't arrest and jail the protesters when they disagreed with the actions in the middle east and they didn't generally act like bullies.
I can only wish Russia treated it's neighbors the way the US treats theirs (even building a huge wall would be a god-sent).
This is more like we've already been subjected to so many threats and abuse that they lost meaning. Fucking nuke us. I don't have formal military training but I became an IT person when my computer needed fixing, I became a mechanic when my car needed fixing and I have no issues becoming a soldier to continue the work our grandfathers that shot fascists did when the time arises. We are simply just done. >

To add to your point, the US was the only nation with nukes during Korea and allowed a draw rather than use them or threaten to use them.
The US has been the sole nuclear power in tons of conflicts and never once resorted to nukes as a threat. The US is by no means perfect, but we wield our nuclear arsenal as a responsible power should. >

Regardless of how they were initially used, president Truman was good leader with a good moral compass that understood the destructive power of these weapons, the consequences that came with them and the ethics behind using such destructive power. I think his efforts and many more like him were essential in establishing a strict code of use. I'm European and I wish we had more politicians like him nowadays in Europe.
That being said, Russia is a special kind of ignorance. Their politicians threaten nuclear devastation on a whim as an average work day, which emboldens thier media and propaganda machine to do it even more irresponsibly. The only country that you can compare them to in this regard is NK.
Even China being China isn't that irresponsible. They whine and threaten but I have not seen them fantasizing about turning eastern Europe or even the US for that matter into a crater. Those people are sick, full stop; and you don't negotiate with sickness. You get rid of it. >

Agreed. Russia has entered into the “misused their toys and get them taken away” zone.
They’ve proven they can’t handle the responsibility, and we can’t allow this misuse to set new precedent. 
If new precedent is going to be set, which is unavoidable at this point, it should be that any nation will be held to a certain expectation by the world community if they chose to shoulder the responsibility of a nuclear arsenal >

President Biden’s response when asked about Russia’s warning to the US about providing “an offensive threat” to Russia:
“This is not an offensive threat to Russia. There is no offensive threat to Russia if Russian troops return to Russia, where they belong” >

Most likely every us tank before burning going to ignite multiple russian tanks. >

The kill count in Iraq was 400 to 1. And Iraq was using Russian gear. Multiple is putting it lightly. >

Who the fuck cares what Russia says about anything anymore? They spew so much hot air that they're probably one of the leading contributors to global warming right now. >

“How dare you provoke us by sending tanks! This is an escalation! 
Oh also, these will do absolutely nothing and will burn…” 
The Kremlin is so fkin stupid >

"Then we'll fight in their warm glow" - Ukrainians probably. >

Love it >

I don't think so!⚡️
The M1 Abrams was designed SPECIFICALLY for fighting Russian tanks in an Eastern European battlefield. It will actually be fighting in the original context for which it was designed.
It will really help Ukraine save their people. >

50 years later, yeah. :D >

Good thing the Russians are using fifty year old equipment. >

If those tanks cause more damage than their worth, they will have done their job. >

U.S. Tanks will burn Russians out. >

Doesn't he say that about any weapon supplied to Ukraine?
​
AFTER complaining about how much the West wants to destroy Ruzzia?
What a circus clown he is >

They did destroy all 40 of 30 HIMARS /s >

Weird. Seems like it's mostly Russian crap that keeps burning >

To be fair, those modernized T62's ukraine has were made by russia and they're pretty good for what they are. >

referring mostly to the Russian military themselves and the losses they've suffered. >

These tanks were literally designed to battle Warsaw pact tanks on the Ukrainian fields, let’s see how it rolls >

Cause they'll be playing my mixtape. >

USA: K, good luck with that >

There was a comment on another thread about tanks going to Ukraine that I loved.  The Abrams is an amazing tank, likely could beat out any other tank in the world roght now 1v1, and it is a major show piece of American technological power.  Even if all they do is train the Ukrainians to drive the thing and refuel it, there's a non negligible chance that Russia would designate an inordinate amount of ordinance and focus on taking those tanks out no matter what that it could become a moronic game of whackamole with Russian artillery, wasting time and ordinance and maybe even exposing artillery sites for counter attacks.
Probably not actually going to be what happens, but that thought of an Abrams with Benny Hill music driving back and forth avoiding explosions makes me weirdly happy. >

Let’s be real. I’m sure lots of the western tanks will be destroyed, but such is war. At least western tanks won’t be made into a compilation to see which turret flies off the highest >

Exactly this. No weapon system is indestructible. We will see Abrams, and Leopard destroyed. And then some idiot will crow about how Russia destroyed NATO super weapons, and we'll all be like, "dude it's just a tank." >

Exactly. Just a tool to help them fight the good fight >

From the creators of "We've destroyed 176 HIMARS launchers" >

Just another empty threat from Russia. It is the Russian tanks that are burning. >

I mean it is war. A few probably will. But way more Russian tanks will burn in the meantime so I see it as a good trade. >

Go, Abrams. Fulfill your birthright. >

These things were designed to kill Russians in Eastern Europe. They are finally fulfilling their destiny. >

Honestly they deserve to after so many years. >

Losses are inevitable.  We have all seen pictures and videos of these tanks burning when mis-used.  They are not invincible, and those of us that have operated with or near them know that.
EDIT: But man, I can't wait to see the UAF just utterly wipe their own ass with the Russian forces even further with these tanks.  The Russians have absolutely no answer to them, if the UAF use them with the right tactics with infantry and IFV's. >

I bet not as long as Putin will burn in hell. >

Kremlin says 😆 >

They're right. They're going to burn Russian tanks in Ukraine. >

Sure, but you have to find them first with your Soviet era tanks with nasty habit of jack-in-the-box explosion. >

burn through ammunition, maybe >

bruh russians can't even defeat drones with tiny bombs how can they talk negatively about anything at all >

Russia would know all about tanks burning in Ukraine. >

Nobody cares about what Russia thinks. >

They will burn diesel as they kill Russian tanks. >

I love how every time we're about to give Ukraine something, Russia is like "if you do this it will be Armageddon!" Then we do it anyway and they're like, "yea, well, we're not worried anyway." >

If by "burn" you mean light your ass up, then right you are, Vlad. >

Oh shoot, this is awkward... They think we're giving the tanks to them... >

What "The Kremlin" says is irrelevant. 
They are untrustworthy. 
Russia needs to be broken up. >

They've already claimed to have destroyed 100  Abrams in Ukraine. >

Yeah, f*ck the Kremlin. >

Just remember guys, when we deployed the Abrams for the first time in Desert Storm, the Soviet Union was so stunned by their effectiveness but they came to the conclusion that they would need tactical nuclear ordinance to stop them. >

really the only thing Ukraine doesn't have is air support. >

Russia is not wrong, vehicles in battle do burn, but unlike Russian tanks, American tanks can keep fighting while Burning >

If by “burn” the Russians mean ”burn through gallons of fuel while liberating thousands of kilometres from the Russian horde” then they are correct. 
Russia has bitten off more than they can chew in Ukraine and I hope the Abrams kicks their fucking teeth in. >

My babies are gonna unleash hell on those poor conscripts...the Abrams are incredibly, god awfully powerful beasts >

They can't even change the script a little.
"Supplying (weapon) to Ukraine risks expanding and prolonging the war, and may trigger a response from Russia against NATO."
"(Weapon) is trash anyway, Russian version is much better."
"(Weapon) has already been destroyed by Russian missile strike."
"(Weapon) was used in an act of terrorism against the Russian people ~~by attacking a legitimate military resource, not a residential block like we do~~!" >

Burn these nuts >

I DUNNO THEY ARE SOME BIG FUCKING TANK BEASTS KNOWN AS THE BEST TANK IN THE WORLD it is able to shoot putin in the balls from 3km away >

Shooting putin needs a Yosemite Sam photo >

Russia are full of shit.. in Europe pre Ukraine invasion we used to fear Russia now they are just a laughing stock. No one really knew how crap they are. >

They only have ONE aircraft carrier and it is a rusted hulk that has sat at the dock in the water for 14 years.
Losers!
putin believed his own lies that they are still a superpower that is feared by the world. >

I saw an info graphic recently which showed they had the most tanks in the world, and I wonder how many are actually combat ready tanks, and how many are just rusted hunks of metal. >

The M1 is the greatest ground combat vehicle the human race has ever created. 
And it is based on pretty old technology. Is a nightmare to logistically support and takes a lot of training to operate at 100%. Even with all that, 1 Abrams probably equals the combat power of 20-30. T-90 or T-72s. 
The Abrams combined with the Stryker fighting vehicle has the potential to decimate any other modern ground fighting platform. The fire control systems these vehicles have is extraordinary. They fight in a manner mostly people can’t really understand without seeing it. When confronted with multiple targets the M1 is preparing to kill the second and third target before it has even fired at the first. And it can do this while driving pretty much at top speed. >


The M1 is the greatest ground combat vehicle the human race has ever created

The Abrams is on-par with other western MBTs. The "multiple targets" system you're speaking of is called hunter killer capability and every modern MBT has the same capabilities. 
The Abrams has competed in 3 Strong Europe Tank Challenges. In the most recent event the Abrams finished 2nd to last place among European tanks only beating out the T-84. The Leopard 2 has dominated these challenges and is generally considered the world's best MBT.
The T-14 doesn't really qualify because Russia hasn't been able to mass produce them. The Type 99 looks like a very formidable MBT. It appears to be a legitimate contender against Abrams/Leopard 2/Challenger 2. But China has kept most of it's specifications top secret so we don't really know just yet. >

proof. 
leopard 2 beer test. >

Do tanks need a burn in period? >

I guess we will find out soon enough huh? >

You betcha they're gonna burn you, buddy. >

Sure, there are always casualties in war. I'm sure tanks and crews will be killed. Question is, how many Russians will die first. My money is on a lot of them. >

Kremlin isn’t processing the fact that usa will just build 100 more with no problem, almost 1 trillion military budget can do LOTS >

Don’t even need to build more, we’ve got over 10,000 of them. Probably going to start phasing them out in the next 8-10 years anyway. >

Burn…through tons of ammunition blowing shit up >

Some of them, yes. They're good, not invincible. >

Damn now Ukraine has more 4rh gen tanks than Russia. Fucking crazy. If any russophiles think the Abrams will burn they are kidding themselves >

They will punch thru Russian lines like a hot knife in butter. Better back up with fuel trucks keep feeding the beast. I wish we could give them high tech air tech. Ukraine would be marching into Moscow in no time. >

Burn fuel as they crush the Russian front lines, yes. >

... right through our miserable, ill-equipped conscripts. >

So they're admitting those areas are a part of Ukraine, then? >

Aren’t the Russians basically fielding the same tanks that got smoked by Abhrams tanks in Iraq decades back? 
Not sure id put money down on that one Vlady. >


"US tanks are weak and we can destroy them easily"

vs

"This is an escalation that can lead to WW3"

They cant even pick a story to stay with. >

Yea burnin gas while smacking Russian ass. >

No they won’t. >

The Kremlin isn't very accurate. According to the news, the US Abrams tanks and the German Leopards can out gun any or almost any Russian tank on the battlefield many thanks to they're longer-ranged gun barrels and thicker armor. Also, the Russians is currently having a slight problem when it comes to out-of-date weaponry, low manpower and shorter ammo supply (which is why they've been turning to their allies such as North Korea for help). >

I'll serve again if we go against Russia , fuck Putin. Bald headed prick >

I spent my entire military career as a 63H.  These were my bread and butter.  Russia is in deep shit. >

It makes sense that the Kremlin thinks all tanks sent to Ukraine will burn. 
All of the the tanks they sent to Ukraine burned. 
Although some were snatched by tractors. >

Good to see the 'brothers' Abrams and Leo fighting together, given they have the same heritage (Panzerkampfwagen 70) >

Burn through the bitches, slam through the ditches and crush in the back of my A-Bra-Ham! >

Ohh, you mean like how those t-72s burned? >

No Elon musk didn't build them. >

More Russian bluster. They’re full of Bravo Sierra! >

Burn through ammo....