Not if your SOP is to kill all the locals and move your own people in (at gunpoint if necessary) when you're done.
Ukraine
- Thread starter Silvanus
- Start date
It's not even a regiment-strength deployment of main battle tanks that are infamous for the logistic burden they impress on the force using them...for a country that's had a bit of a problem protecting its supply chain since the Russians started slinging cruise missiles. Best-case scenario, the Ukrainians just got themselves a commitment of 45 pillboxes for the same cost as probably a few hundred miles' worth of HESCO walls -- and the HESCO walls would probably have been a far bigger value-add for the Ukrainians.
And if the United States sends M1A1's, instead of making the mind-bogglingly stupid decision to send A2's or A2 SEPv3's, we're sending them vehicles with a well-established track record for being transformed into $10 million paperweights when set against the almighty IED. So there's that.
Is this a question you are seriously asking?
Were I you, I'd be asking if getting those tanks was worth it in the first place. It's pretty obvious in retrospect taking care of that teeny little embezzlement problem was a precondition for the tanks, and in circumstances like these, you should probably ask yourself who had political ties to whom.
Not everyone is a military tech enthusiast, Eac. Its actually not a very widely shared field of interest or knowledge.
Honestly, dude, you really don't need to be a military tech or military history junkie to reason out whether 45 tanks is going to single-handedly dictate the course of a war that has three distinct fronts over several hundreds of miles, with an estimated million armed belligerents involving dozens of billions' worth of materiel already.
Indeed, which is why that wasn't the question I asked.
Military analysts have been saying ~100 would be enough to have an impact at present. Those 45 are not all-- we know they'll be almost certainly be backed up by 10s more from Eastern Europe. And it comes very soon on the heels of the Patriot systems.
It seems quite feasible that can translate to "reclaimed territory", which is what I actually said, not "single handedly dictate the course of the war" or whateverthefuck.
Tell me about it, i think it's uncanny that so many people here are. It's just ungraspable stuff to me, like kings and queens and stuff.
I'm sure military analysts have said that. Quite frequently. The issue is figuring out which of those have or want a job at General Dynamics, have General Dynamics in their stock portfolios, and who's speaking through news outlets from which General Dynamics buys ad space.
(General Dynamics makes the damn things.)
Because, Wall Street seemed to love the speculation Abrams tanks might get sent to Ukraine at some indefinite point in one of many potential futures, but now they're being committed? Eh...
Comparing that to BAE Systems (which makes the Bradley IFV), things get interesting.
If I had to make a wager on it, two regiments' worth of third-gen MBT's dropped in Ukraine's lap would likely to do more to hinder its warfighting capacity as it struggled to shoulder the logistic burden, than help. Of course by then the tanks have already been purchased, packaged, and shipped, so "military analysts" primary expectation and goal would already have been well-met.
Sure, the analysts could stand to gain somehow, we can speculate on that. Its probably true to some extent. Edit: though it's not true of this one, at least with regards to General Dynamics.
But then, how much more trustworthy are the predictions of armchair generals on forums?
Anyway, some meat to the promises from other countries, now the German veto is gone:
Poland: 14 (Leopard)
Britain: 14 (Challenger 2)
Norway: 8 (Leopard)
Puts it over 90.
Netherlands, Finland, Denmark and Spain have also said they will provide some. France has said it might provide some (Leclerks).
Last edited:
Ukraine should have hundreds of tanks (not least because I believe Russia involuntarily donated it a few hundred during panicked retreats), so those 45 are being added to the existing stock. Given the length of the frontline, the distribution of troops is on average very thin. Assuming they are significantly superior, those extra 45 tanks with force concentration is credibly enough advantage to achieve a critical breakthrough that could end up with substantial territorial recovery.
I also don't see exactly what the alternative is in the long run. Tanks are still useful and they are gradually going to be knocked out and need replacing. Plenty of countries have stocks of old Soviet models like T-72s but that doesn't mean they are available or useful to hand over, so I severely doubt that Ukraine can meaningfully replace its armour without Western tanks in the long run. It certainly can't rely on Russia gifting it even more with continued gross incompetence.
The problem is that many of them are in "slightly used" condition.
Might make a killing in a scratch-and-dent sale, though.
That's what we in the used tank business call a "Fixer Upper". Just put some bondo and WD-40 on it and it'll be fine.....The problem is that many of them are in "slightly used" condition.
Might make a killing in a scratch-and-dent sale, though.
As you rather conveniently seem to have forgotten (hardly unsurprising, given unabashed Orwellianism has dominated this thread and war at large), this was the entire reason the Pentagon and White House have argued against the deployment of Abrams tanks in the first place. Repeatedly, for months.
At this point, by your illogic either the entire American military leadership are internet armchair generals, or they've managed to rather convincingly lie for months...all while Abrams performance across two wars in Iraq and one in Afghanistan somehow perfectly matched the lie. I'm eager to hear which you believe, with citation, thank you.
My unwillingness to uncritically believe forum commentators means I... must also think the Pentagon are either wrong or lying about their own ability?
Nope, sorry, logic doesn't follow. I didn't take any issue with your opinion that the tanks wouldn't make a difference. I specifically asked for opinions on that very thing, and that may well be true. I took issue with the standard condescending attitude, that anyone even asking the question must be an idiot because blah-de-blah.
(Putting aside the fact that the Abrams comprise less than a third of the overall package announced, and that people with a great deal more expertise than you have said >100 can make a difference).
Portugal is sending a few, though apparently it has not specified how many.
Portugal prepares to send Leopard tanks to Ukraine
Portugal prepares to send Leopard tanks to Ukraine; “We are contributing to defeat of Russia” - foreign affairs minister
www.portugalresident.com
We'll come back to this.
Yes, that would be in fact how informal logic -- in this case the almighty hypothetical syllogism -- works. If those saying the Ukrainian government is unable to handle the logistic burden of Abrams tanks are internet armchair generals, and spokespeople for the White House and DoD said as much, then they must be internet armchair generals. Or they're lying. You said so, so defend your point.
You asked a dumbass question anyone with a basic grasp of how this war has played out over the past in the past year could reason out, let alone for someone who's fed this thread incessantly for a year who damn well ought to know the answer by now -- especially for one with such outspoken opinions on the other wars in which the Abrams tank has played a central role, over the years. The only opinions you were actually looking for, were of the "confirming my biases" flavor.
My opinion, by the way, was that sending Abrams would be counterproductive to the Ukrainian war effort. You know, what the US government had been saying, right up until the point we announced we were sending them anyways. And by inference, the main reason we're sending them opposed to any prevailing strategic concern, is to make sure General Dynamics gets a bigger paycheck. At least get the point I was making right.
Y'know, just for funsies I decided to look for a citation for that number that's kept popping up over the last page. It wasn't hard to find that citation, it only happened on the last page.
So here's you uncritically believing a forum commentator, because it's from someone you like, posting something you agree with (MOAR TANKZ 4 YUKE-RAIN!).
Oops.
Last edited:
This is absolutely bollocks logic. I never said "those saying X...." are necessarily armchair generals; many of them aren't.
You are, though. Not because you're saying that: all of those on the various subreddits, loudly and confidently claiming that this will turn the tide, are armchair generals too. The differentiating factor is a lack of direct experience/ expertise coupled with extreme and unwarranted confidence.
I'd have been perfectly happy to receive answers about how it wouldn't affect the situation. But you-- as you always do-- barrelled into the discussion attempting to loudly establish yourself as the smartest person in the room. The condescension, aggression, and arrogance with which you approach any given discussion is the defining feature here.
That number has been widely quoted in surrounding discussion for about a week now, ever since Ukraine originally requesting ~300; most people following the discussion surrounding the war will have seen it before Agema posted it. Hell, what's particularly funny about this feeble little bite is the fact I was the one who provided a link to its origin.
Eh, even if Abrams are totally unsuitable for the war effort as such, Ukraine still needs vehicles to train with far from the lines. Be rather odd to use modern expensive MBTs for that, though.
Aber, das glorreiche Russische Reich braucht mehr Lebensraum.