>

Turkey and Hungary will probably say no.
What I find really strange is that we are back to Tanks and Trenches. 
I remember chatting with my US Mil roommates, and the Airforce dude would always brag AF get the most girls and Army/Marine/Navy guys are just sitting ducks in a future war. 
And here are Ukraine and Russia reenacting WW1.5. >

Airforce dude never fought a military with anti-air defense. >

Iraq had one of the world's most powerful air defense nets. The US destroyed it from the air. >

Iraq was fighting modern US aircraft, Ukraine is shooting down 20-30-year-old Soviet planes >

That’s not true in the least bit. Ukraine has downed plenty of modern Russian planes >

It was an overstatement. But even modern Russian planes don't come close to US aircraft, or Ukraine would have been in so much more trouble. >

A lot of russ8an jets are pretty equivalent.
It's down to doctrine and decision making >

The only Russian jet that comes close to being an equivalent to the f35 is the su-57 and it turns out that "stealth" fighter has a bigger radar signature than the f35 which isn't even called a stealth fighter. The 57 doesn't even come close to the same universe as the f22. Oh and the US has made around 900 f35s. Russia has maybe twenty su-57s and half of them were testing airframes. They're also afraid to fly the 57 into Ukrainian airspace cuz it'll get swatted out of the sky so they're just lobbing missiles from a hundred kilometers beyond the Russian boarder. The Russian air force and their planes are a laughing stock compared to the US. Remember, the second largest air force in the world is the US Navy. And the third is the US Army if you count rotary aircraft. >

I still believe it comes down to how logistic and production fare on the battlefield rather than firepower and tactics. Sure these tanks would help however russian logistic is still holding.
Himars made Kherson possible >


Kyiv plans to launch a major counteroffensive to recapture swathes of territory taken by Russia in the south and east of the country.
The United States has told Kyiv to hold off on those plans until Western military assistance has arrived in Ukraine.

So when we look at something like liveuamap.com and see Russia being the only one making gains right now this is why? >

To make "gains" right now you have to be willing to commit large numbers of mostly unsupported infantry into the teeth of a settled defence. This results in massive casualties, but does result in gradual taking of territory.
Then the ground freezes, and the other side attack with a combined-arms force of tanks, IFVs and supporting infantry and artillery and you lose it all in a week. >

It's less throwing masses of infantry into the defenses to try to break them and more throwing masses of infantry at the line to figure out where the defenses aren't so you can make your actual attack there. >

It's a bit of both but more so it's the first one >

It's really not.  Wagner's infiltration assault tactics are pretty well documented at this point. >

Of course they film their successes. If you watched any Ukrainian video or photo from bakhmut you'll see them attack over several dead bodies. I'm pretty sure there are two videos of them attacking from the same gas station with the previous attack's bodies laying there
Russia really turned up the propaganda machine these days huh? >

Pardon my asking. It is known that the US had or still has Abrams mothballed. Thousands supposedly. Because congress kept forcing tanks on the army they didn't need. What's stopping the US from simply dusting them off and sending a sizeable quantity of these tanks over?
Also, considering how little the number of tanks supporting countries are sending Ukraine, is the military readiness of these countries in question? I know Germany probably doesn't even know how many functional tanks they have but come on, I'd expect that the countries in Europe should priorities military readiness. France for example would have run into deep embarrassment in Libya if the US hadn't stepped up. We must not forget that the only reason why Ukraine seems to have some air behind their sails now is because Joe Biden defeated Trump by less than 70,000 votes across battle ground states. If Trump had won, Europe would have been left on their own to Marshall resources for Ukraine. And we know it is easier to herd cats than it is to get Europe to agree on anything when the US is not in the picture. >

I've already seen announcements that the 31 tanks they will be getting in like a year the latest version fresh from the factory with DU and all.
Edit: never kind, I looked it up and it looks like the story had been updated to sau ukraine is getting the latest M1s but with out the DU armor. >

That will make an impact and give them some quick feedback about how well they work in Ukraine with today's weather and how well the soldiers handle them. >

It's not WW3, it's a special WW Operation >

Lol >

[ELI5:] I'm still confused by what the "expected impact" of more tanks, etc will have on the front lines.  No matter -what- you're shooting with, even slingshots and rocks, you still have to have something to shoot at -- you have to know WHERE your targets are located/hiding.
Does Ukr actually know this?  Are there groups of Russian soldiers, depots of tanks and trucks, whose location is known but just can't be reached with current weapons??  What changes on the ground when a Challenger or Leopard enters the picture?  How will this "turn the tide" for Ukraine? 
I fear an excess of optimism here. >

Ukr knows a shit ton. They’re getting absolute top notch intel from the entire west. 
They don’t have the VOLUME of mechanized combat units to take advantage of it. 
Sure, they have some HIMARS. Like, 12 or 24. When you’re covering thousands of kilometers of front, with thousands of Russian tanks and artillery, one or two dozen fancy long range rocket artillery aren’t going to turn the tide on their own. 
It doesn’t matter if I know Russia has a tank depot here, and a battalion of BMP’s here, if I don’t have the hardware to actually go do something about it.
So you’re asking “do they know where something to shoot at is?” And the answer is absolutely. The question most of the time now is “do we have something appropriate to shoot with right here and now?” And the answer is often, no. >

OK, that's the kind of detailed answer I was hoping for.  Thanks! >

The sooner the better. >

good. can russia now kindly take the hint instead of pursuing the sunken cost fallacy to the bottom of the Mariana trench >

I am really curious about when they will start using the Bradley's.  Think those will be a real help in blocking the new Ruzzian attacks. >

Another 18 months ?  They have to be made without the spent uranium armour that current ones have. Ukrainians have to be trained.  Supply chains of tanks and parts have to be arranged. Maintenance depots, parts storage, training have to be built and arranged. Oh, where do we put all these ? Location, location, location. >

The "Tank Coalition"?!
Really? >

That's gonna sting. >

Ghost division starts playing in the background >

Ukraine should just take those tanks and start invading Russian soil >

That would likely start a nuclear war. >

14 tanks here and there does not make 140 >

14 from UK, 14 from Germany, 14 from Poland, 8 from Norway, 20 from Spain, 18 from Netherlands makes for 88. Poland additionally provides 70 ish modernised T72s and PT 91s. These are meant for the first wave mentioned in the title, without accounting for Abrams, and Leos from reserves that need more time. >

I have not seen an official number from Norway, it certainly won't be 8 in the first wave, the number 4 circulated in norwegian media a few days ago. >

Yes, it's not all set în stone. The goal was for two batalions of 62 - 80 tanks in the first wave. Scholz said two vacations. That's 88 tanks for German battalions or 62 for Ukrainean doctrine. Command, support and recovery vehicles would have to be included here. >

Perfect, Im so glad that more people can die now
The War must go on !!! There is definitely no other way >

Oh yes, Reddit armchair general, please give us your extremely in-depth solution that doesn't allow Russia to walk in and kill civilians en masse unchecked like they've been doing since the beginning of their illegal invasion. I'm sure you won't sound like an uninformed, unintelligent moron in the slightest! >

Where are you from? >

What a waste. >

So, if Russia is kicked out of Ukraine and the war is over (whatever "over" means), will Ukraine more or less be obliged to join NATO?