>

This happened in WW2, a huge number of Russian commanders got killed by their own troops. It's already happened at least a few times with incidents like the Russian draft hall shooting. I do agree many will be executed and many will go forward but there is a limit.
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 >

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, they are designed for totally different groups. Turbine engine gives the Abrams faster acceleration, maneuverability and potential top speed, but is ridiculous to fuel and maintain. The Leopard is a better tank for the vast, vast majority of nations. The Abrams was designed specifically for a nation that excels primarily in logistics. Resource usage is of no concern, even if it's only a few % better for significantly more cost. Most countries can't sustain that and the leopard is only slightly worse for much cheaper. >

Russian MoD tomorrow: “The Russian army successfully destroyed 65 Abrams tanks, 53 Leopards, 183 Bradley’s, and 16 Challengers”. >

"Our new anti-NATO death laser has destroyed 3 million enemy armor battalions, Putin strongly warns against further involvement from the West" >

Need room in the warehouse for the new model. >

the United States spans a continent. We would just build a new warehouse haha. >

More like United States military spans the entire world. There is a very good logistical reason why US can deploy anywhere in the world in such a short term and be fully ready to fight. Hint: They got logistical hubs all over the world, all filled to the brink with all kind of cool toys. And I'm only counting the active hubs, add inactive ones too and it is really insane capability compared to closest competitor.
Nobody else has this kind of capability. Which is why it is said US is the sole superpower, all alone, at the top. >

And one of the big umbrella projects in the DoD currently is Prompt Global Strike, which has the goal of creating weapons that can project force anywhere on earth within an hour, like an ICBM, but will very clearly not register as ICBMs on missile defense networks. 
Hence projects like the creatively named Hypersonic Technology Vehicle 2 and its successor, Tactical Boost Glide. 
But the US doesn't name its hypersonic weapon projects ridiculous names like SCREAMING DRAGON DESTRUCTO BEAM, so you'll see armchair experts on reddit talking about a nonexistent 'hypersonic missile gap' between NATO and China/Russia. >

Anytime anyone mentions a missile gap and China having hypersonic glide weapons, I come back to the fact that their fighters can't meet their own requirements because they're incapable of making a satisfactory jet engine... >

Cause you can steal a lot of what you need to copy last generation's stealth fighter from the west, but you can't steal a functioning high performance engine industry. 
Don't tell the tankies about that though. Last time I brought it up holy shit did I have a full inbox. That was a year ago, weird how the plane still doesn't have the right engines yet. >

Even the USA had to use a weird ploy to procure the necessary amount of titanium to make the SR71 planes. They set up some fake industrial company to purchase the titanium from Russia to import to the USA. >

That wasn’t because of a technological deficit though, they literally couldn’t source enough raw titanium from the first and third worlds. The processing and other high-tech work was done stateside. >

It’s still funny that we needed to trick our adversary to source the materials needed to spy on them >

It’s not funny, it’s hilarious. >

What's the learning curve on these bad boys?  
Tank personel train for years to become proficient don't they?  Can you just hop into one of these and be effective?  Or have Ukrainians operated something similar before? >

I also would not be surprised if Ukraine has already been training soldiers on these vehicles, or at least getting a head start in simulators, classroom, etc. 
If the US is announcing this shipment to the public today it is not likely the Ukrainian MoD also just learned about it on CNN. >

I'd bet the US has already been training them, much like the rumors of Ukranians being trained on f-16s by the US. >

What's gonna be crazy is that wars 15-20 years from now will be Abrams vs Abrams instead of Abrams vs T72 now that everyone and their mom know how shitty Russian equipment is. >

MIC: rubbing hands >

Excellent >

Plus 80/90 Leopard 2 tanks, that's bad news for the Russians 👌 >

And the 14 challenger 2s >

Not to mention the hundreds of lighter vehicles by Canada, Sweden, France and the US. Damn, this is huge. >

And Slovakia just announced it is ready to give 30 soviet T-72s to Ukraine. Not as good as Western tanks, but still helpful >

soviet tank well maintain is better than soviet tank poorly maintained. 
and intimidate the Russian conscripts just as much. >

I'll bet you the Slovakian-maintained ones have turrets that can turn and stuff, that right there makes them more useful. >

And they'll have fuel in them! >

Man by the end of this Ukraines not only gonna rip Russia a new one but have the most diverse fleet of ground vehicles in Europe >

What I think will be super interesting is how well they hold up the logistics chains for so many different vehicles. It’s one thing to support hundreds of the same tank or IFV. A completely different challenge to support tanks and IFVs from all over the place. >

Germany already said it would perform leopard maintenance so I presume also help them with spare parts logistics and planning in the field. NATO helps with pretty much everything without putting boots on the ground so far... At least officialy perhaps there are some special forces that we don't know of >

Bravo six going dark >

Russian bots gonna make this thread a battlefield since it's the only one they have the technology to fight on anymore. >

Hey, if Russia is so worried about these tanks they can field their super duper advanced T-14 >

First they have to ask Ukraine to give it back. >

lol, did I miss it's deployment and capture already? >

I think the Ukrainians already captured and dragged a lot of Russian equipment back into their lands. >

that I'm aware of, but the T-14 Armata was supposed to be their Abrams killer.
only a few handfuls exist, and it's full extent of capabilities aren't truly known.
there were significant development into them to make them more survivable for the crew, unmanned turret and wet lockers for the ammo storage instead of the turret ring (the reason for the pop the weasel/turret on the T-72s and T-80s)
I also know that they haven't been mass producing them due to budget and lack of orders >

When none of those amazing T-14 tanks are deployed against Abrams tanks, you’ll know their true capabilities. >

I am betting that whatever is on paper won't match reality.
Soviet/Russian equipment gets a bad rep, the issues Russia has with their military are antiquated doctrine, poor logistics, nonexistent maintenance/rotation of stock, and generally lack of training.
they are/were able to make decent weapons systems, they are just terrible in the deployment and appropriate circumstances for operations >

Eh, kinda depends on what your talking about. IMO some of the tech the US has developed since ‘91 would blow their ducking minds >

WILL blow their minds. Literally >

And the Ukrainian army logistics chief descended further into stress induced madness. >

As a ukrainian I would like to say: Thank you, friends. We'll never forget that. >

Hold on, because it's going to be a long time still before Russia quits. They've only lost 100,000 soldiers so far which is nothing to them. Slava Ukraini >

It's also gonna be tough as a Russian commander to ask your troops to make a 50th suicide charge against a wall of western heavy weapons. >

Not really. They'll execute someone who refuses and then tell the rest that's their choice. Execution or fight.