>

Bacon Leopard and Tomato Holmes!
Happy spring offensive, assholes! >

I’m allowed to have an opinion on Ukraine defending itself against invasion, thank you very much. >

Imagine that... Germany and Poland having the same opinion and intention about where a large batch of tanks should go. >

Germany and tanks is like America and country music >

Germany and tanks is like America and country music....
Nobody does it better. >

I’d take an Abrams over a Leopard any day. >

I know nothing about tanks. That's just what I thought this comment was getting at. >

England is sending Def Leopard. >

And hopefully a couple Led Zeppelins for air support. >

“Never received the original tank request? No worries: we’d like to place a New Order, please.” >

"Russia calls it an 'extremely dangerous decision' "
Yeah, for Russia. >

That head on the thumbnail is terrifying. What is it? >

An Alp presumably, see "Nachtmahr" by Heinrich Fussli (1802) otherwise a crash-test dummy. >

Well, that’s an interesting answer. For anyone wondering, I think this is what’s being referred to. >

Thank you Germany,  it's about damn time. >

Germany always said that 
a)They won’t act alone
b)Other countries have to send requests in writing to the German government if they want to send their own german-bought Leopards to Ukraine 
Not even 24 hours after Poland sent that request, Germany had already approved it and confirmed that they’ll also send some of their own tanks >

Poland wasn’t the first country to offer to send tanks. Germany was also waiting on the US to send Abrams before they’d send or allow to be sent any Leopards >

Offering to send tanks and actually putting in the formal request with the German government are two different things
And my comment that Germany doesn’t wanna act alone refers to your second sentence >

I don't know anything about geo politics so I'm wondering why Germany wouldn't want to act alone? >

Fear of Russian retaliation. Cyber attacks, sabotage of critical infrastructure etc. If all western Allies act in unison, it’s harder for Russia to target them all simultaneously than if a single country acts alone. >

Ah OK that makes sense. >

Also keep history in mind. The last time Germans went to war against Russia , 25 million Russians died. It would be a very bad look if Germans are the first to send tanks to Ukraine that’ll kill Russian soldiers. Acting as part of a broad alliance is vital for Germany. >

While I know this is part of the official reasoning, it also seems like complete bullshit. A good part of the soviet soldiers back then where in fact from the area that is now Ukraine. 
So you could also argue that Germany now fails to protect the people who have helped her being liberated from fascism in their own fight to defend themselves against a dictatorial regime attacking them. 🤷 >

Fair point, but it still looks a little weird that German tanks are about to face Russian tanks in the planes of Ukraine again, where the biggest tank battles of ww2 took place
It’s hard to understand for people who didn’t grew up in Germany just how complicated and delicate the relationship between Russia and Germany is. Also keep in mind that East Germany was part of the eastern bloc until 1989. Older East Germans learned Russian instead of English in school and many still have more sympathy for Moscow than Washington because of it. It’s complicated. >

Damn, they’re getting this and several M1 Abrams while Putin’s minions are still in idk cold war machinery?… >

It's not like germany was a pacifist state. We liked to pretend that we have an obligation because of our past but we didn't had any problem selling heavy weapons to everyone who wanted them. Having a holier than thou attitude now doesn't help anybody. Sure it's good that people took time to analyze the situation but we knew for a long time now that the russian aggression can only be met with force. I don't know if Scholz really played the long game to try to get the USA to send Abrams, I don't believe in it. It's still good that we are sending Leopards now but I hope that future weapon deliveries won't take as long and can be approved quicker. >

When part of your "past" is 2014 and continuing energy purchases past Feb. 6th, it's suddenly a more immediate morality problem. >

The whole of europe has that problem, even poland who somehow act like they never bought gas from russia. That's really not a german problem but a european one. >

Europe's "leader" will not be let off quite so easily. >

Europes leader sits in an office in Brussels >

Let's be honest, the leadership is in Paris and Berlin, for better and for worse >

My friend and I have started calling Macron Jupiter with how he acts. >

Nice!  Fuck you Russia. >

Putin: Day 330 of a 3 day war. I am a master strategist. >

The Engineers for the Leopard and it's successor best be getting their pens and keyboards ready >

They are pretty heavy >

This seems like an elbow in the FA-FO curve for Russia.  Hopefully. >

Drones and grenades have been doing quite a bit so far.  This is going to be interesting. >

Looking forward to seeing Russian military losses in /r/LeopardsAteMyFace >

Main Battle Tanks not heavy tanks, but good news regardless >

What is the difference? >

There really isn't one.
​
Most militaries don't have light/heavy/medium tanks. They just have tanks and they're all pretty fucking heavy.
​
The Leopard is 62 tons and the M1 Abrams series tanks weigh around that also.
​
What people might think of as "light tanks" probably aren't tanks at all, or were tanks in a bygone era.
​
For instance, the US army has the M1 series tanks and that's it. When I served in the army as a tank crewman we didn't call them "Heavy" or "combat" tanks. They were just tanks.
​
There are other vehicles that kind of resemble tanks, but they aren't tanks. They tend to be things like mobile artillery, tank destroyers or some other kind of vehicle with a smaller turret like a Bradley Fighting Vehicle.
​
One of the lightest tanks still in service, I think, is the old soviet T-54/55 and those things still weight in around 36 tons. >

I give this article my “MEOW” of approval. >

They finally broke down 5 hours after the US announced they would send the Abrams. >

"Driving the animals out of their holes, 
To bury them 6 feet below, 
Armoured tanks of mass destruction, 
Killers in the east, 
Rats who dare to stand before us, 
Feel our guns go live!" >

When do we start calling this World War 3?
Edit: why did my question warrant downvotes? What did I do to upset everyone? 
Thank you, armchair generals for your wisdom >

(Proxy) World War 3. >

Does that mean Korea, Vietnam, Soviet Afghanistan, were  ww3, ww4, and ww5? >

You speak the truth, all of those involved active or passive parties on both sides with nukes and never went nuclear, this war will not either >

Seriously, its in no countries interest to go nuclear. >

There’s no right answer here. The Ukrainians are getting fucked by Russia, so the world should help. But we are inevitably creeping toward WWIII. My only question is, which way will China go?Korea is obvious. I like to think India is obvious, but I’m sure it’s not. >

I don't think you meant to use the word "inevitably" by its true meaning.  If that's what you literally meant and it were literally true, then we should launch now.  No.
I believe there's just as much risk of WW3 by not supplying weapons.  Russia has proven to be a dishonest bully.  They'll not stop at Ukraine if they win, and China would also feel emboldened and possibly follow their lead to invade Taiwan.
WW2 could have been avoided if aggression had been better dealt with earlier. >

I agree. What’s inevitable, literally, is the creep. We still may have options to avoid war, but the creep is real. >

What you’re watching is the decline of Russian military strength, as the demonstrate on the world stage how inadequate the Russian military is and how little support they have received from any allies.
They are a laughing stock. 
This absolutely isn’t the precursor to world war. It’s the fall of Russia as a military power. >

I’d agree with you if Putin had no nukes. But he’s vain and desperate. >

He uses a nuke and it becomes very, very, very difficult for those countries still trading with Russia to do so (except maybe north Korea).
It would be a disaster for Russia. >

In my opinion, this is dangerously expanding the proxy war. A worrying development. There has to be a way to de-escalate this situation. >

How? If the world doesn't show a strong front against Russia, other errant countries now know that they can attack someone and get away with it. If we stand up against Russia, the Russians then wave their nuclear dick.
And even if these tanks were superb on the battlefield, then what? Unless Ukraine counter-invades Russia, the bombings on Ukraine will carry on. And if Ukraine invades Russia, we will see Russia's nuclear dick. 
Only the Russians can stop this - just stop the offensive on Ukraine.
Edit: and if Russia succeeds in conquering Ukraine, who's next? Are we then just going to repeat this process again? >

I agree.  This conflict is solely owned by Russia, Putin, and his cocksuckers.   There is no de-escalation.  Only the absolute wholesale slaughter of young Russian men and women on the front lines en masse will have any effect.   It already has.   
If Russia attempts to escalate with chemical warfare, invading Moldova, or some such nonsense, the reaction from the allies will be swift.   
The point here is that until Putin is killed the war continues.    
What really should be done is the assassination of Putin.   It must be done.  Anyone that seeks peace of humanity should accept that fact, support that fact, and at any opportunity kill Putin.  He is the cancerous relic of a long lost authoritarian USSR wet dream.  He has to be removed from humanity.  Not arrested, but outright killed. >

I thought during the entirety of the war that the we (the west) have been saying Tanks are useless in this war, its all about drones and artillery? Now all of a sudden were sending tanks to Ukraine despite the fact weve been saying their useless in this war and were acting like this will make a change, I highly doubt it. >

Surprise.. spring is coming 😉 >

We’re finally getting that giant European east vs west tank battle they’ve always wanted! >


Russia calls it an 'extremely dangerous decision

For Russia, yeah >

Modern tanks require constant maintenance.  I'm afraid they might prove to be more trouble than they're worth. >

I've heard this a number of times.  It's just a matter of training unless you believe Ukrainian tank crews aren't capable of learning. 
You train a few crews and they work with their crews. It's like being a mechanic for GM and then working on Mercedes.  You know the general idea on how something is supposed to work, but you just have to learn the ins and outs of the differences.  Any major service is likely to be shipped back to a NATO base where they'll complete repairs. >

My opionion : Put all political leaders in a room, lock the door and let the rest of the world live a peaceful life. >

Oh wow you're so smart and talented, can you be our new king? Might as well just suggest we all hold hands sing campfire songs, why bother locking the politicians up, were all friends man, we just forgot to remember that we are, right? >

you hope for ww3 i believe. I suggest you join the army and go to ukraine >

I hope for idiots like you to stay far away from any position of authority. >

The first thing I thought of was a Chapelle Show skit. "Hey Holmes! It's Leopaaaaaard!".
I suck. >

okay..what the fuck