r/worldnews • u/boomboss81 • Jan 18 '23
Berlin will allow exports of German tanks to Ukraine if U.S. sends its tanks -source Russia/Ukraine
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/berlin-will-allow-exports-german-tanks-ukraine-if-us-sends-its-tanks-source-2023-01-18/1.3k
u/owen_skye Jan 18 '23
Ah the old “I will if you will” political play. An oldie, but a goodie.
189
→ More replies45
Jan 19 '23
[deleted]
→ More replies39
u/LazyDro1d Jan 19 '23
Abrams is the one that could run off grain alcohol, right? I believe the term is “anything flammable?”
57
u/agamemnon2 Jan 19 '23
The problem is it guzzles that anything at prodigious rates. Armies other than the US would be hard pressed to keep M1s actually running.
→ More replies13
u/ConfessedOak205 Jan 19 '23
There are several militaries that use Abrams. Freaking Morocco has a few hundred
8
458
u/JonnyArtois Jan 19 '23
→ More replies239
u/pm-for-good-time Jan 19 '23
Damn right we are. We literally have the most inconvenient of tanks to send as well. Yet still sending them.
→ More replies50
u/Lovv Jan 19 '23
Why are they inconvenient? 3 I haven't been following
→ More replies151
u/skygs427 Jan 19 '23
I’m not an expert on the maintenance of the Challenger 2 (the UK’s tank), but I do know that it uses a different gun and ammunition type than the rest of NATO. The barrel is rifled while most NATO tanks moved to smoothbore.
→ More replies10
Jan 19 '23
Is smoothbore better than rifled or just easier to maintain?
69
u/VonShnitzel Jan 19 '23
For modern tanks, smoothbore is generally better. Most modern tank ammunition is fin-stabilized so it doesn't need rifling to be accurate like most other guns out there. It's also easier to maintain like you said, and there is a greater variety of ammunition types available.
The reason the Brits have stuck with rifled tank guns for so long is because unlike most nations their 'general purpose' tank round is HESH instead of HEAT (quick, vastly oversimplified summary; HESH is essentially a massive plastic explosive charge, HEAT uses a shaped charge, both are decent enough at killing basically anything on the ground that isn't the front armor of another tank), but due to its nature HESH loses a lot of effectiveness if it isn't fired from a rifled gun as the spin helps the plastique spread over the target before detonation. I've also heard that it may have in part been an attempt to support domestic business as HESH and rifled tank guns are both manufactured in Britain.
That said the Brits are apparently switching over to smoothbore finally, as Challenger 3 is apparently going to be built with the Rheinmettall Rh-120 series of guns used by several other NATO MBTs.
14
u/tough_guy_toby Jan 19 '23
I think there was also the factor that they had a large stockpile of the ammunition, the guns in the cheiftain from the early 70s used the same ammunition.
That's a big part of why they're swapping to the smoothbore now, it's because the factory that makes the ammunition has shut down and they're going to run out eventually
→ More replies31
u/Willow_Wing Jan 19 '23
Rifling is needed for stabilizing a tank shell that actually fills the barrel.
A lot of modern tanks use something called a fin stabilized sabot, this sabot is a dart that is much smaller than the barrel itself and doesn’t need the rifling to stabilize for accuracy because of the fins. .
5.2k
u/Web_Automatic
Jan 18 '23
edited Jan 18 '23
•
It shouldn't matter If the USA or any country is sending tanks or not; your literal continent and ally are under fire by your greatest foe.
→ More replies2.3k
u/Reselects420 Jan 18 '23 edited Jan 18 '23
Germany doesn’t want to escalate and be targeted without the US by its side. I would guess, at least.
Edit: I meant targeted by cyber attacks, sanctions, less fossil fuels flow etc. But I realised that there could also be an escalation in Russian attacks in Ukraine out of spite.
347
u/flopsyplum Jan 18 '23
The U.S. military is already inside Germany (Rammstein AFB).
→ More replies221
u/Aellithion Jan 18 '23
There is also Spangdahlem Air Force Base, in addition to that there are 19 additional bases that are either run by the US Army or Marines jointly with the German military for a total of 21 different locations with U.S. military personnel. This brings the total to over 35,000 people.
→ More replies27
u/smellygooch18 Jan 19 '23
People often forgot the massive military alliance between Germany and the US.
→ More replies1.0k
u/Web_Automatic Jan 18 '23
They have the USA on their side literally European Union has a deal with the USA if they attack the EU the USA will step in. Same thing with nato
→ More replies466
u/AndringRasew Jan 18 '23
The US has substantial amounts of armoured/mechanized vehicles in storage in Europe in my understanding, mostly left over from the Iraq offensive tens of years ago. It wouldn't surprise me to see the US start slinging ample numbers of M2A2 Bradley's to match any tank donations.
Abrams are a bit harder to send just because of the sheer amount of logistics involved in their usage. But Bradleys should be significantly less overhead since there are hundreds (maybe a thousand or more) just sitting in storage.
If we had the Bradley working alongside the Leopard 2, it'd be a pretty interesting combination.
213
u/bubleve Jan 18 '23
They are?
Just two weeks after the administration of U.S. president Joe Biden announced it would donate 50 M-2 Bradley fighting vehicles, a Ukrainian army brigade has begun training on the vehicles.
107
u/AndringRasew Jan 18 '23
The first 50 only though. There are hundreds more in storage within Europe, and thousands more in the states.
→ More replies108
187
u/_TheNorseman_ Jan 19 '23
I used to be on a Bradley crew.
They are not that complicated to learn to use, but are badass on the battlefield.
I used to show up drunk and drive one around. Your tax dollars at work; you’re welcome.
→ More replies44
u/AndringRasew Jan 19 '23
Yeah, I think I was told they take about 2 months of training to master and are built to be mostly intuitive. Also apparently the thermals are super detailed.
146
u/_TheNorseman_ Jan 19 '23
They are SUPER detailed. The first time I drove at night and used the FLIR monitor, I saw a fucking field mouse run across the road, and could see its individual legs and tail, and it was like 30 feet ahead of me.
29
7
→ More replies5
12
u/lochlainn Jan 19 '23
I drove a Bradley once during ROTC officer training. If you can drive a car, you can drive a Bradley. The driver's position, at least, is super intuitive. We got less about 10 minutes of training on how to start it, how to make it go, turn, and stop, and how to turn it off, then I drove it for a mile or so.
Like all AFV's, the hard parts of training are optics, sighting, and of course, routine and battlefield maintenance. That's where you spend the meat of your time, because that's where you learn the things that keep you alive and in fighting shape. It doesn't matter if it takes 10 minutes to learn to drive if you don't know how to fix tracks or make your weapons accurate.
I also got to play with the optics of an artillery forward observer vehicle(M981 FISTV). Talk about optics. You could see a mouse at a kilometer with that thing. I watched a guy walk out to take a piss with a moth fluttering around his head; I could zoom in and see its antenna at a couple hundred meters. I could see the heat of his footsteps.
However, those things were rolling deathtraps. A distinct vehicle whose sole purpose is to bring down fire from the heavens that has no appreciable armor is just asking for it.
I eventually settled on a nice safe tank as a military occupation.
→ More replies8
u/RustedCorpse Jan 19 '23
Funny I worked on the thermals. Two more peeps and we're ready to go.
→ More replies65
22
u/Tomon2 Jan 18 '23
I believe news has come out that Ukrainian troops are already training on Bradleys as we speak/type.
23
u/psymble_ Jan 18 '23
It is kind of cool that the US intends to hybridize the Abrams, as that would be a logistical game-changer (as well as going a long way towards normalizing alternatives to fossil fuels along certain populations of the US)
29
u/oldsecondhand Jan 19 '23
It would also dramatically improve their "idle" fuel usage which is pretty atricious for turbines.
→ More replies→ More replies21
u/anothergaijin Jan 19 '23
Silent MBT sounds terrifying. It’s a fascinating new concept
17
u/epic_chewbacca Jan 19 '23
While it would make less noise, the tracks would still be quite loud when the tank is moving.
22
u/InfernalCorg Jan 19 '23
Any serious amount of movement's going to involve them firing the turbine up anyway, but the ability to idle silently while still being 100% ready to go is a game changer.
11
u/AdmiralPoopbutt Jan 19 '23
Turbines take a couple minutes to start up even in the best of circumstances. Any serious tank specification is going to require the ability to sprint to max speed and maintain that until the turbine can come online. Can a tank accommodate that much battery weight and volume? I'm not so sure and leaning towards no.
→ More replies→ More replies6
→ More replies5
u/Uromastyx63 Jan 19 '23
Silent but Deadly. It's an ancient concept with a new twist!
→ More replies→ More replies65
u/SomeGuyNamedPaul Jan 18 '23
Ukraine already deals with captured T-80s that have turbines. This isn't a stretch for them, all indications are that they're quite capable.
87
u/Windmillskillbirds Jan 19 '23 edited Jan 19 '23
It's more the supply chain needed to run tanks. Just a platoon (4 tanks) is normally followed by 5 or so trucks and a recovery vehicle. Each truck is loaded down with parts, ammo, one or two for fuel that can easily get fully burned in a single day, water, and food. Tank usage is normally more of a very slow trot followed by a balls to the wall sprint then a short rest then a slow trot. The technical side isn't that hard, the administrative for getting them places is hell. The Bradley's are a bit easier to send out and let them do their thing. Fuel consumption is better, they can store more ammo, food, and water, and their repair vehicles max speed isn't 25mph
→ More replies34
u/bad_at_smashbros Jan 19 '23
you’re telling me that because of the small amount of T-80s Ukraine has captured (in usable condition no less) is proof that they can field a fleet of Abrams? bro, the logistical requirements of fielding an M1 is wayyyyyy steeper than some shitty T-80BVM. never mind the fact that all of the domestic T-80/T-84s that Ukraine uses are diesel only. if they tried to use Abrams in any capacity it would put huge strain on their logistics, especially since their mechanics only know how to work on diesel engines.
→ More replies13
u/madvlad666 Jan 19 '23
Ukrainians manage to operate jet aircraft and turboshaft helicopters just fine.
And besides, out of 100 typical maintenance hours on an m1 tank, I would be surprised if more than 1h has anything to do with the engine beyond changing the oil and filters. Turbines are expensive, but reliable.
The rest of the 10,000 parts of the tank on the other hand…they were made by Chrysler…
→ More replies→ More replies155
u/Golda_M Jan 18 '23
They literally have the US Air Force in their country + NATO Intelligence HQ + 10s of thousands of US' best equipped, most battle ready troops. How much more "got your back bro" do you need.
But sure, for the sake of it. The US should send all of their horrible stryker light tanks. Send whatever Ukraine doesn't want to France. Those things belong in Europe. They're easy to field, so should be useful. Just very ugly and lame.
→ More replies47
u/xlDirteDeedslx Jan 18 '23 edited Jan 18 '23
There's a lot of M60A3s still in service around the world, trade some weapons for the most serviceable ones and send them to Ukraine. One country you could make a deal with would be Taiwan, they have 800 M60A3s in different modernized variants still in service. Send them a few hundred Abrams tanks for the 800 M60s and send them to Ukraine ASAP.
If you could get 500-1,000 of them on the ground it would make a MASSIVE difference old or not. An old tank can still defend a position better than a human with an AK can. The M60A3 is a very capable and reliable tank, it would do fine smashing old Russian garbage. It can also do indirect fire and act as makeshift artillery, much needed by Ukraine.
→ More replies46
u/majestyne Jan 19 '23
Thank you for the links. This paragraph from the last reference was very interesting to me:
The ease of maintenance and unflinching reliability of the M60A3's engine are substantial, and has proven advantageous in several conflicts. For example, US M60A1 RISEs and M60A3s deployed to the Persian Gulf in 1990-91 only required 15 minutes of preventative maintenance each day, which were performed with the engine running. They also suffered no sand ingestion problems and required no air filter changes in the entire campaign, owing not only to the sand tolerance of their engines, but also that air fed into the engine was drawn through the fighting compartment. Engine of the M60A3 can be replaced in field conditions within 4 hours.
Newer M1 and M1A1 tanks were an entirely different matter; halts for maintenance occurred over either 30 miles traveled or 3-5 hours of constant operation, and were each over an hour long. Heat from the M1/M1A1's turbine also required a cooldown period (the operating temperature of an M1's engine compartment is in excess of 926°C) longer than the entire daily maintenance regimen of the M60A3, and even then all personnel handling parts in and from the tank were required to wear special heat-resistant gloves. The M1 could also only draw air from the outside, due to the suction force of its AGT1500 gas turbine engine (gas turbines are basically helicopter engines). Special (and very expensive) air cleaning filters eventually had to be installed in all of the M1 Abrams variants in later years, to reduce their reliance on constant filter changes in dusty environments, but the M60A3 with its diesel engine never needed them.
→ More replies
2.5k
u/MrPillowpantz Jan 18 '23
It’s funny that Germany says that the EU shouldn’t rely on the US, but at the same time openly relying on the US
939
u/Moifaso Jan 18 '23
To be fair it's really mostly France saying that, not Germany
→ More replies459
u/jermkfc Jan 18 '23
I think Germany is a bit worried about their reputation on the world stage. They have no exactly been the good guys in most European conflicts. If the U.S. does it first, it won't look like they are trying to start WW3.
565
u/ComfortableMenu8468 Jan 18 '23
Its political, not historical.
The current coalition can't be the one escalating after running on the promise of no-weaponry exports to non-nato countries.
Joining an ally in their support of ukraine is easier to sell the populus.
→ More replies191
u/-PM_Me_Dat_Ass_Girl- Jan 18 '23 edited Jan 19 '23
Are the German people really against sending their tanks to Ukraine?
I was under the impression they support the struggle and that it's been the government who are nervous about appearing to escalate against Russia.
243
u/omaca Jan 19 '23
German people are, as I understand it, rather cautious about offensive military policies and actions.
So yeah, whilst not anti Ukraine at all, they are probably more subtly and organically anti-conflict; especially military conflict outside their borders.
97
u/OldManMcCrabbins Jan 19 '23
This is understandable, just to be honest.
→ More replies108
u/jorbleshi_kadeshi Jan 19 '23
It makes sense.
Up until you look past the surface and see that the entire reason Germany got their checkered background is because the rest of the world failed to act when they had the chance.
Modern Germany should look at Russia and have some uncomfortable recognition. And then they should take steps to correct the mistakes of the past.
→ More replies→ More replies23
u/Oerthling Jan 19 '23
Generally true. In addition it was official policy for decades to not send weapons into active conflict zones.
That policy was dropped last year. People outside Germany don't fully understand how much of a change that was.
Rumors about Germans being pro Russian are complete BS. On the contrary, there is widespread support in favor of Ukraine.
Nobody here likes Ex-Chancellor Schröder. His own Party tried to kick him out last year.
→ More replies86
u/Dunkelvieh Jan 19 '23
As a German: no. We are not. At least in my bubble, there's strong support for sending whatever we have. I personally don't see a reason to hold anything back. We're embedded in a block of allies, were got massive US presence here, and if we send our stuff, that stuff will fight against the ONLY enemy on this planet that can possibly even attempt an attack on us. Not even China would be able to threaten us in central Europe
8
u/T1B2V3 Jan 19 '23
China could threaten the EU and Germany economically but it would hurt them too and China isn't as stupid as Russia (I hope)
→ More replies13
u/Agasthenes Jan 19 '23
I thought too that everyone was for helping Ukraine, but i saw recently some polls that this opinion is not nearly as universal as i thought.
→ More replies31
u/RyukoEU Jan 19 '23
In a recent poll ive seen about half of germans were against sending tanks. So pretty devided.
→ More replies→ More replies30
u/photofluid Jan 18 '23
Supporting an idea is very different from also supporting all the secondary consequences of an idea becoming a reality.
→ More replies→ More replies91
u/cat-head Jan 18 '23
That's just not true. We're happily selling arms to the Saudis so they can murder Yemenis with them.
→ More replies→ More replies48
u/notehp Jan 18 '23
Wouldn't donating lots of German tanks result in the exact opposite? If a sizeable amount of German tanks is supplied to Ukraine - donating countries will want to restock their tank fleets, don't you think? So who'll they turn to to buy tanks (at full price no less)? Has the German arms industry lots of tanks to sell or will the even bigger winner in this war be the US arms industry?
35
u/fordfan919 Jan 18 '23
I think it's good for all western arms companies as they get to use up old stock and send some new things for real world testing. I'm not sure which company/country will profit the most though. Would be nice if this war could end soon and Ukraine has their territory back.
→ More replies→ More replies21
u/photofluid Jan 18 '23 edited Jan 18 '23
The full price part is probably where things get a bit murky.
The fairness of pricing is very subjective. What German feels is fair could be considered profiteering for another country.
A good example right now would be the price of US LNG in Europe.
That's probably the actual reason Germany wants US to also send tanks. So when a pricing negotiation happens US would be on the same side of the table.
→ More replies
955
Jan 18 '23
[deleted]
264
u/Bill_Chak Jan 18 '23
Why would they rot in a warehouse?
→ More replies845
u/estoka Jan 18 '23
Ukraine can't keep them fueled or repaired. And Abram's tank uses 1.8 gallons of kerosene to travel one mile.
592
u/spoogekangaroo Jan 18 '23
The Abrams will run on damn near anything resembling fuel.
615
u/guynamedjames Jan 18 '23
Sure, because it runs on a gas turbine. But as someone who used to fix power generation gas turbines for a living fuel quality has a HUGE impact on your maintenance cycles and service life. Yeah it'll run on vodka (literally) but there's a reason they don't
159
u/Immelmaneuver Jan 18 '23
More get in there and clean out the gunk kind of impacts, or * the gaskets are dissolving* impacts?
328
u/guynamedjames Jan 18 '23
Kinda both. The gunk build up causes stuff to clog and heat up unevenly. So you start with "hey, my performance is worse" and then over time it starts burning through parts because your cooling holes are blocked.
I've seen parts just straight up gone because an engine ran in a sandstorm and the sand melted to glass as it exited the cooling loop, then it blocked the cooling holes.
96
→ More replies65
Jan 19 '23
[deleted]
60
u/guynamedjames Jan 19 '23
Yup! And since putting water into an air inlet makes it colder (and denser) as the water evaporates in the compressor a garden hose makes a tank go faster!
→ More replies→ More replies38
u/caspy7 Jan 19 '23
A sandblaster is technically an everything weapon with enough time.
→ More replies6
24
u/PumpkinEqual1583 Jan 18 '23
Im no expert but my best guess would be more of the former, but for a turbine engine that would possibly entail cleaning the blades which i imagine can't be a fun task
→ More replies54
u/Trest43wert Jan 19 '23
My employer makes gas turbines and we had a project with the Saudis that involved using natural asphalt as fuel. It caused coking issues in the fuel system on a frequency that was undesirable, but even getting that far with asphalt is bonkers.
60
u/guynamedjames Jan 19 '23
My old company used to burn straight crude in some of our Saudi engines. It TORE through parts, they were getting maintenance all the time, but labor is cheap there and they decided that constantly buying more parts was worth it when the price of fuel was "go send Amir to open the valve a little more"
27
u/Trest43wert Jan 19 '23
Yes, they were basically burning stuff that they couldn't otherwise market. It made sense to try to do it.
42
→ More replies36
u/sb_747 Jan 19 '23
We have a least a thousand tanks the military doesn’t even want on order just to keep the plants open because it cheaper than restarting them.
We can send them spares when they break
→ More replies7
u/SexySmexxy Jan 19 '23
I mean it does make sense….
You don’t want your manufacturing to have to restart back up when you need it for something so crucial
→ More replies58
u/Strange_Temperature Jan 18 '23
Would probably even run on hair spray tbh...
→ More replies23
14
u/bombayblue Jan 18 '23
Look at a map of the fighting in Ukraine right now. Even a ten mile advance against Svatove or Kremmina would give Ukraine a massive advantage against Russia. This isn’t a true world war one conflict with multiple lines of trenches stretching thousands of miles staggered behind one another with millions of men manning them.
Luhansk is a prime example of this. If Ukraine can break through Svatove and Kremmina the Russians will need to retreat to the Starobilsk line. Small advances can lead to major strategic changes.
Plus the Abrams will run on anything resembling fuel. They’ll be fine
159
u/Rustyflyntlock Jan 18 '23
Yea, it's hard to get people to understand that so much of American hardware is dependent on American logistics. I don't know how well that can be translated over. I don't think it's impossible, but I don't know how much additional hardware and infrastructure would need to be implemented.
→ More replies88
u/wanderingpeddlar Jan 18 '23
And in the case of the Abrams the engines are a nightmare to maintain.
The tank claims its place in the top baddest tanks being made but you had better be able to support it in the field. They just can't support them in the field. And then you get to needing extra engine packs to keep them in the field. And the maintenance depots to over haul the engines. They would get more benefits out of Strikers and Bradleys. That have proven track records of hunting T-72s.
→ More replies96
u/AftyOfTheUK Jan 18 '23
And in the case of the Abrams the engines are a nightmare to maintain.
The entire powertrain can be removed and replaced with a fresh unit in less than 2 hours. That removed powertrain can be sent to Poland or Germany on trucks for US personnel to service, on the back of a regular truck. It can be turned around in a few days, and has about a day of shipping each way, tops.
You can expect 40 days of operation (on proper fuel) before a full rebuild is scheduled.
For every 100 tanks in the field, you'd need about 15 spare power units being ferried back and forth - doesn't seem insurmountable to have a dozen trucks doing that, and a few hundred contractors or US Army personnel doing the repairs.
22
u/wanderingpeddlar Jan 19 '23
Your numbers are not wrong except for the number of spare engine packs. I am no tanker but with the tempo they are going to be used at I would suggest 1 spare per two tanks. Your point about a remote maintenance depo is well put however.
Hell for all of me we can give them 300 tanks and 150 spare power packs. Pack it up with 20k rounds of APFSDS and 10k of HEAT and get them there as fast as possible. I just think the Ukrainians would get more use out of Strikers and Bradley's. They have shown they can kill everything the Russians are putting in the field and are faster moving around and they have tons of 30mm and 105s.
Tell you what lets meet in the middle. They get the Abrams and the Strikers and the Bradley's and we can count which had more effect when Russia has tucked tail.
→ More replies7
u/AftyOfTheUK Jan 19 '23
Your numbers are not wrong except for the number of spare engine packs. I am no tanker but with the tempo they are going to be used at I would suggest 1 spare per two tanks.
Thank you, I appreciate that. I should have clarified that the number I suggested would be an absolute bare minimum, and that were I planning any kind of op, I'd probably want an enormous safety factor on top of that minimum number.
I just think the Ukrainians would get more use out of Strikers and Bradley's.
I think you're probably right in terms of bang for buck, and I wasn't arguing for Abrams over them - personally, I'd give 'em the lot, ASAP.
→ More replies→ More replies17
u/275MPHFordGT40 Jan 19 '23
They should just make a export Abrams with a Diesel.
24
u/ClubsBabySeal Jan 19 '23
Diesel Abrams has been considered before. They never made them. Same with the autoloader version, although obviously that was even less likely to be made.
12
u/Lemdarel Jan 19 '23
The tech demonstration “Abrams X” uses the new 12L Cummins ACE diesel, but if I remember correctly it should be backwards compatible with the original Abrams hull. It would be interesting to see if the improvement in fuel economy was is drastic as the General Dynamics says it is.
→ More replies10
u/VulkanLives19 Jan 19 '23
The funny part is when the DoD was trying to get bids for companies to build their tanks, GM did make a diesel version that performed better than Chrysler's turbine version. Chrysler still got the contract because the government specifically said it wanted a turbine powertrain, and apparently GM didn't really want the contract enough to actually compete.
56
u/SJC_hacker Jan 18 '23 edited Jan 18 '23
The M1A1 uses only about 2x as much fuel as the T-72
Fuel capacity Range Fuel T-72 1,200 L 460 km 0.38 km / L M1A1 1,909 L 426 km (road) 0.22 km / LSo I guess the question is would Ukraine prefer to field half as many M1A1s as they could T-72, given equal logistics. I think the answer to that queston is yes, because the Abrams was designed to beat the SU tanks despite having inferior numbers.
62
17
→ More replies26
u/teszes Jan 18 '23
The T-72 does not have equal maintenance requirements to US tanks. It's more than a difference in fuel, the M1A1 is made with US logistics in mind. It has a turbine for an engine for example, etc.
That said I don't think UA would refuse it. Let them say if they need it.
→ More replies→ More replies59
u/Osbios Jan 18 '23
For the Europeans:
~5,08 liter per kilometer
→ More replies53
u/PuzzleheadedEnd4966 Jan 18 '23
Leopard 2: 3.4 liter on road, 5.3 liter offroad, 4.1 liter on average.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopard_2#Technical_data
I think the "massive fuel consumption" point is overplayed. All tanks use a lot of fuel. Yes, the Abrams uses a bit more but the difference is not THAT huge.
→ More replies50
u/Doggydog123579 Jan 19 '23
The meme came around do to older Abrams not having an APU. Without it they had to keep the turbine running to power the hydraulics and electronics, and the result was it having some hilariously bad fuel usage while stationary. When they were moving it was comparable to everything else.
With the APU its just slightly above average fuel consumption
8
18
u/beamrider Jan 19 '23
No reason to be THAT extreme. If they can't operate Abrams operationally due to high fuel consumption, they'd use them in locations that don't require much fuel- guarding Kiyv, and other cities, and at likely invasion routes along borders. Frees up the more fuel-efficient tanks for use on the front lines.
→ More replies9
u/Jimbojauder Jan 19 '23
Pick up all the tanks from the local VFWs and send them over
→ More replies→ More replies184
u/AftyOfTheUK Jan 18 '23
The US can just give Abrams to Ukraine and they can rot in a warehouse. Done deal.
I see you've bought into the Reddit meme of the Abrams somehow being unservicable, unmaintanable, unreliable and also unsuited to Ukraine. Congratulations, the Russian bots have claimed another victim.
The Abrams has an entire hotswappable power train that can be pulled out and replaced in a couple of hours by junior mechanics, and less than 30 minutes by experienced mechanics. These can be transport on regular trucks out of the country to be serviced by US or 3rd party personnel in Poland.
Now, besides blowing that bullshit out of the water, consider just how bad old Soviet tanks are going to be, compared to a more modern Abrams. In comparison the T-80 is literally a joke, needing a rebuild in every second village it passes.
→ More replies40
u/Graywulff Jan 19 '23
Yeah people are saying the engine is a huge pain to maintain but I didn’t hear of them breaking down before. Is it harder to keep them running than a leopard? Everyone says they’d be better off with the leopard on these threads but as I understand it we have a ton of extra m1a1/m1a2 tanks bc pork barrel politics… (its in a powerful senators district) so they built more tanks than then military asked for im told.
So do we have a ton of extra ones to send? Could they be quickly trained to maintain them? I guess the marines just put 100 m1a1 in storage to move to the newer version of the m1a2.
I suppose if they can figure out the ah64 they can figure out a tank.
→ More replies19
u/AftyOfTheUK Jan 19 '23
Yeah people are saying the engine is a huge pain to maintain
It's a gas turbine engine... the same class of engine inside the T-80 which funnily enough is already in use on both sides in Ukraine.
→ More replies
695
u/0nnyx Jan 18 '23
I find these hesitations / misunderstandings make NATO partnership looks weak. They should discuss these agreements internally and not expose everything to the public
450
u/somedoofyouwontlike Jan 18 '23
From another point of view this is what makes the west so strong, that everyone has a voice and no single entity rules supreme even if it's just a facade.
Transparency is the opposite of the Russian and Chinese models and that's not a bad thing.
→ More replies44
u/KRCopy Jan 18 '23
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that what's happening here? They didn't announce any of this, a source has told reporters about what deals are being made behind the scenes, away from the public.
6
u/Armadylspark Jan 19 '23
Leaks are just unofficial press releases. Government is the only ship that leaks from the top.
→ More replies71
u/Um_swoop Jan 18 '23
Yes and no. Transparency for the people is a very important part of democracy and democratic socialism. It's all a game of politics.
→ More replies
97
u/Commission1888 Jan 18 '23
We have more than enough sitting and rotting.
The issue isn't the m1a1abrams, it's the logistics behind it that also has to be supplied. Otherwise Ukraine will have the same issue Russia had.. tanks that don't move.
→ More replies
190
43
u/ccommack Jan 19 '23
American here. Happy to hand over whatever is needed for Ukraine to win. But if they're not trained up on Abrams or otherwise can't use them right now for whatever reason, I am also happy to find a symbolic dozen busted M1A1s and drag them over the border where they can rust in a Ukrainian warehouse instead of a Belgian one, if that's what it takes to get the SPD to get its collective head out of its ass.
282
221
u/Asleep_Pear_7024 Jan 19 '23 edited Jan 19 '23
Germany: we will not be the first to send tanks!
Poland: we sent 240 T72 main battle tanks LAST APRIL
Germany: those don’t count. They are Polish owned and manufactured in Poland, but we insist they also have to be Western designed. Not just Western owned.
France: fine, we will send AMX-10 tanks. They have a 105mm cannon, bigger than the minimum 75mm requirement to qualify as a tank under the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe.
Germany: we don’t care. Those are light tanks. We meant Western designed heavy main battle tanks. We won’t be the first.
Finland and Poland: ok fine, we will join a coalition with you to send Leopard 2 tanks together so you won’t be the first.
Germany: but but, we’d still be tied for first.
UK: ok fine we will send our British designed Challenger main battle tanks first.
Germany: err, no. We change our mind. We won’t do jack shit as usual until daddy USA approves and sends its own tanks
→ More replies62
u/mutantredoctopus Jan 19 '23
USA: Glances at U.K with baffled expression.
U.K: Rolls eyes and shakes head in disbelief
USA: leans in
Germany:……
USA: (whispers) Your terms are acceptable.
→ More replies
24
u/Gyrant Jan 18 '23 edited Jan 19 '23
The wording of this article is very confusing.
Does Germany have the power to veto other countries delivering Leopard 2 tanks? Even if EDIT: Germany has the right to veto the re-export of Leopard 2s, but why would they?
Is Germany just saying "we won't send OUR Leopards unless the US backfills us with Abrams to keep our asses covered"? Because that would mean a significant logistics pivot to using Abrams.
Are they instead saying "we won't send Leopards until the US sends Abrams to Ukraine also"? Because that would mean Ukraine then has to manage both types of tank, which would kinda suck for them. Besides which, why would the US sending one type of tank to Ukraine be a necessary condition for Germany to send another?
I really don't know what Reuters is getting at here.
EDIT: I think this "German government source" actually said something like "We would send our own Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine if the US sent us Abrams" and the media is interpreting this as an ultimatum when it really isn't. There is also nothing to support the implication that Germany would prevent other countries (Finland and Poland have expressed interest) from sending their Leo2 tanks to Ukraine unless the US sent Abrams tanks.
→ More replies18
u/Admirable-Cobbler501 Jan 18 '23
Ofc they have and they do so. It's called Kriegswaffenkontrollgesetz. But that's not specific for Germany. Switzerland produced the ammunition for the Gepard and has forbidden Germany to send this ammunition to the Ukraine. Same goes for all Leo 2 in Europe (and whole Europe uses Leo2)
→ More replies
94
u/prismstein Jan 19 '23
Shifting the goalpost again eh? Guess UK and Poland aren't "ally" enough. I'm starting to get sus about this Olaf Scholz...
53
u/ItsPiskieNotPixie Jan 19 '23
For all the UK gets shit upon for Brexit etc, they are always the European country that most puts its money and troops where it's mouth is for the common European defense. Whether that's protecting Belgium in WW1, Kosova and Bosnia in the 1990s or Ukraine now.
→ More replies→ More replies19
u/Slusny_Cizinec Jan 19 '23
Yeah, it is the 3rd time already. "Not before NATO tanks" -- Poland supplied their tanks; "Not before western-designed tanks" -- UK promises Challengers; now it is "Not before Abrams".
→ More replies
26
u/gosseux Jan 19 '23
What kind of a dumbass condition is this? US is helping much more than Germany already. Germany only has to authorize exports from other countries and even this, it make them shit in their pants. This makes me sick.
→ More replies
4.0k
u/jphamlore Jan 18 '23
Trying to maintain at the same time German, British, and American tanks, and old Soviet era tanks, is going to be a logistical nightmare?