Putin vs Ukraine.

[ExtraSlow]

[Buster]

Those tanks went RNM on BaT

[kertejud2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Didn't congress want to stop M1 production at one point due to way too many and useless in modern battlefield?

Was the other way around.

The Army/DOD doesn't want or need them, but congress keeps making them buy more (gotta keep those jobs).

https://www.businessinsider.com/cong...-tanks-2012-10

[ExtraSlow]

Either way, they don't need 'em, best to dump them offshore.

[ZenOps]

USA never invested much in tanks. The chances of Russia doing a Normandy type landing in Florida is slim to none.

[littledan]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I want to see Putin try to sink the ship before it even hits Europe. Its going to be impossible to hide it.

They will use strategic air lift, not a boat

[ExtraSlow]

Will they? I think they can only fit 1 M1A per Globemaster. Loota avgas, which I can get behind.

[ZenOps]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

They will use strategic air lift, not a boat

I guess thats why they are doing less than a hundred. Although arguably if you ask any Ukranian, a shoulder mounted tank buster can take one out in a matter of minutes.

It would probably help greater Europa if the USA simply shipped an extra load of firewood.

[BerserkerCatSplat]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

And here I thought tanks were kindof a joke against anything resembling a modern threat.

Fine for intimidating goat farmers and stuff but against a country with an Air Force?

Hopefully this is all just hardware no one wants anymore and saves us the decommissioning costs.

Tanks are still integral to combined arms doctrine, it's just that the Russians were so monumentally shit at combined arms (and support logistics) early in the war that they managed to make MBTs look useless.

[ZenOps]

Tanks are important symbols of conquering. If the US only used aircraft and bombed from 20,000 feet - is it really a victory? In the case of Vietnam, no.

You must place a flag upon it, or park a tank on it for anyone to believe you actually did anything at all. It is expensive AF to fly a tank in though. Arguably more expensive than a made for purpose aircraft carrier with "light" F-35s.

[spike98]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

And here I thought tanks were kindof a joke against anything resembling a modern threat.

Fine for intimidating goat farmers and stuff but against a country with an Air Force?

As i understand it (for some armchair generals on tic tok) is that the Russian air force is having a tough time keeping up with maintenance on their air fleet and munitions supply. What also gives the Abrams an advantage is the arm type/location to protect against air attach or javlin. On the offensive side, the range of the abrams exceeds Russians current typical ground defence. That with the ability for the abrams to move while shooting (and accurately) gives it a huge edge in ground combat.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Didn't congress want to stop M1 production at one point due to way too many and useless in modern battlefield?

I'm sure US gov would be charged to remove any sensitive equipment on them anyway other than engine and gun. Probably cheaper to send them inflatable dummy ones and work just as well.

The need to make room for the Abrams X which is the next revision coming down the pipe. So instead of scrapping these, they are sending them to russia. The hardware will all stay the same, its the software that will be neutered and likely result in some loss of capability.

[BerserkerCatSplat]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The need to make room for the Abrams X which is the next revision coming down the pipe. So instead of scrapping these, they are sending them to russia. The hardware will all stay the same, its the software that will be neutered and likely result in some loss of capability.

Just a point of clarification - the Abrams going to Ukraine in this wave are not the mothballed ones in the States as those are US Army models that still contain classified systems and depleted uranium armour. The ones being provided are export models that are being refurbished and sent over as apparently that was faster/cheaper than downgrading the Army models to export spec - for now, at least.

[spike98]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Just a point of clarification - the Abrams going to Ukraine in this wave are not the mothballed ones in the States as those are US Army models that still contain classified systems and depleted uranium armour. The ones being provided are export models that are being refurbished and sent over as apparently that was faster/cheaper than downgrading the Army models to export spec - for now, at least.

Thats right! They will be sending ones with the composite armour.

[jutes]

Im surprised we found 4 tanks in operational condition, they are in worse shape than our fighters.

[Yolobimmer]

"Oh, look, Russia will start losing any minute now".

Lol

[ZenOps]

Getting real. Since the US and Germany have decided to give Ukraine tanks, Putin is threatening to give Iran a single nuke.

[ExtraSlow]

So, I guess all the hardware USA is sending over will be new builds and NOT from existing stockpiles. What a huge order for the contractors, and a waste of taxpayer money.

[Buster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

So, I guess all the hardware USA is sending over will be new builds and NOT from existing stockpiles. What a huge order for the contractors, and a waste of taxpayer money.

The first few dollars of taxes you pay aren't wasted. The rest of it is.

Tax dollars reach the law of diminishing returns very quickly.

[jutes]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

So, I guess all the hardware USA is sending over will be new builds and NOT from existing stockpiles. What a huge order for the contractors, and a waste of taxpayer money.

Still cheaper than actually fighting the war.

[BerserkerCatSplat]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Still cheaper than actually fighting the war.

This. Even building shiny new jobs-program Abrams is still a bargain for the US to continue to destabilize Russia.