Posted on 01/24/2023 7:32:40 AM PST by SpeedyInTexas
That statement is simply not true.
The M1A2C is currently in production.
The Army plans to retire all M1A1SAs by 2025. These would be ideal to send to Ukraine.
The Nationalinterest.org article explains it all.
Here's an article: US Army 3rd Brigade Combat Team Receives New M1A2C Main Battle Tank .
There’s a new tank being built for the U.S. Army. The old M1 will be fine for the Ukrainian forces, and there’s plenty of support in the countries of nearby neighbors. There’s no need for U.S. soldiers in Ukraine. Ukrainian soldiers are doing just fine and are highly motivated to learn.
“I’ll restate the obvious: these endless transfers of US/NATO equipment wouldn’t be necessary if Ukraine was winning.”
Obvious nonsense. If your car is moving forward does that mean it never needs to be refueled?
Whatever equipment we give the Ukraine we will not get back and the equipment will end up in the Russian and Chinese arsenals.
Zalinsky is a dictator. He looked down the Russian Orthodox Church. He may be a more despicable character than Putin.
At some point Putin is going to escalate this to a level no one wants...NukeS.
Our upping the supply of more sophisticated weapons to Ukraine is moving us closer to it.
Then What???
“Then What???”
Little Pukin dies.
M1A1’s weight is probably not “too high” for primary roads & bridges in Ukraine, and really not hugely higher than the Leopards (depending a bit on which Leopard variant.) M1A2’s weight otoh IS problematic, but SFAIK no one is talking about sending A2’s. Still, the best bet might be to use the M1’s primarily as a deterrent against Russia attacking Kyiv, with the now “freed up” Leopards out in the fields, so to speak, in the east and south. That helps with maintenance and fuel consumption. Ukraine’s air defenses are probably good enough at this point to keep Russian aircraft at bay (current situation) unless Pooty decides considerable aircraft losses are acceptable. Long range missiles are not much good vs. tanks, but drones can be a problem (for both sides).
You know more than you think you do! Combined arms training in the US Army at the Battalion/Brigade level takes years of both field and classroom education. By the time an officer commands a battalion he usually has 15-20 years’ service. If they are training to just be ‘good enough’ to rolll out of the laager and come online long enough to plink a few Russian targets, it can be done more quickly by cutting corners.
Also, the tanks we might ‘loan’ them will almost certainly be ‘monkey models’ minus most of the sophisticated stuff, therefore easier to train. We’ve been down this road before training the Iraqi Army on the Abrams, and I’m sure we learned all the lessons we need to train these non-English speaking 3rd worlders just as well as the Iraqi’s (sarcasm alert).
Your assessment of logistics are also spot on. Military Classes of supply are very different from country to country. The only similarity may be the main gun ammo: standard NATO 120mm rounds should fit any NATO tank.
You were pretty close on the roles of the Americans on the battlefield. They won’t (by and large) be soldiers, rather, an army of contractors will maintain/repair and service the beasties. Some fun facts about the Abrams: Fuel Capacity: 503 gallons. It burns 5 gallons just to hit the starter. MPG: 0.6. Type of fuel: Generally JP-4 (mostly kerosene), but it is supposed to be a ‘multi-fuel’ engine so you can run diesel or regular gasoline, but all the fuel filters will have to be replaced each time they switch. Planning figures: 60 gallons per hour in the field and will need approximately 300 gal of fuel every eight hours. That’s just one tank. A US tank company consists of 14 tanks (and a bunch of other thirsty support vehicles).
The Leo and Chally units will face similar issues. If this happens, my faith in the senior leadership of the army will be completely crushed. They have to know this is a bad idea, (for many reasons) but no one will fall on their sword. And if they don’t know, then they don’t deserve to be in a position to risk American soldiers in a war that isn’t ours.
(Rant off) Cheers!
From supposition to fact in one day.
Proving gooberments can screw up at the speed of light and never get around to doing the right thing.
I am sending back your text with a slight change of a couple of words or so :
‘’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’
“Russia will suffer at least 5 million dead before this is over. 3-5% of a total population killed is kind of a statistical minimum before a country completely loses the will and ability to fight.
Russia is governed by Soviet ideologues who are the sorts that would rather see everyone dead before they surrender.
The USA is prepared to give Ukraine money and weapons to bleed Russia out of its last Wagner convicts.
Russia is prepared to make it happen.”
“I think he’s speaking in code to create pressure for the US to send Abrams M1A1’s which (fortunately) our government has felt (so far) that its advanced technology should not be shared with anyone in that part of the world. Linda is so fired up in his panties about Ukraine beating the Russians, I’m sure he has no problem giving away the store.”
****************************************************************************
I think you have the flaccid Volcel Linda figured out. I, for one, would love to have that lifelong REMF involuntarily transported and placed in the forward trenches on the most active Ukraine front.
Thanks. REMF? Should I even ask?
Zelensky, that grifting little weasel will sell the things to the highest bidder so his wife can go to Paris on a shopping spree.
Cogent
They don’t care
Damn the torpedoes or “geranium drones”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.