abrandt
23032
The main guns are the same between the two. From what I can find the fire control systems are comparable too. So I suspect they are both similarly accurate on the move.
Thank God this scumbag isn’t President.
abrandt
23034
DJT is advocating for giving nukes to Ukraine? That’s bold!
jpinard
23035
You have got to be f*ing kidding me.
I see he’s back to being Russia’s biggest sponsor.
Strollen
23036
The new one I’m seeing is that all these tanks (31 right) will make harder for the US to defend itself. Seemly ignoring the question defending ourself from whom, the Canada and Mexican armies? While also ignoring that we gotten rid of a two tank division, and plenty of mechanized brigades and now have 8,000 in storarge and only 5K, deployed.
The UA’s lack of knowledge is going to be technical, not tactical. They might accidentally wreck some gunsights or blow up some engines while learning how to use their new toys. But they’ve been operating armoured units for a long time. I mean yes, they will of course take losses. But more modern tanks means lower losses, and I think we can trust them not to throw them away.
vyshka
23038
I see reporting on CNN site that DoD has stated that it is M1A2s going to Ukraine, not A1s so that is good for Ukraine.
This is interesting. At least a portion of the mobilised got better training and were integrated into an existing formation. Russia doing things right, boo, hiss.
Remember that 300K mobilization? Russia threw half of those directly into the battlefield as canon fodder to plug the line. The remaining half was kept back for training and rebuilding units. It’s discussed in Ward Carroll’s discussion today.
Always a possibility. Those tanks though are designed specifically for this level of lethality. The fact that the Ukrainians are still operating many much less capable Soviet-era tanks in this conflict seems to indicate that vehicles far more capable than what they have now will perform quite well.
Any system facing hostile fire over time is going to be attritted. You will take losses, from accidents and mishaps at the very least. Tanks tend to die from a lot of things not even involving hostile action: falling off of transports, driving into bogs and rivers, fire during maintenance, you name it. The fact remains though that both sides are currently using tanks, in large numbers, and those tanks positively pale in comparison to modern front-line MBTs like M1A2s and Leopard 2A5/6s.
The fact the Turks lost some to insurgents tells you more about their tactical employment than anything else. Tanks are terrible at fighting guerilla wars in general. The best tanks in the world are nigh on useless if you trundle them around where guys with short-ranged weapons can get behind or above you, and where you don’t have proper infantry and sensor support.
The tanks Ukraine will be getting are far better than anything in theater right now. They are not wonder weapons or magic bullets, but they are extremely powerful and potentially transformative additions to Ukraine’s arsenal. A lot depends on how many tanks, level of crew training, and tactical deployment of course, but tanks designed to fight and survive in a Warsaw Pact attack on NATO scenario should stand a good chance of doing very well in this war IMO.
Canuck
23042
We’ve only sent 4 tanks, so with your 31 gone you’ve totally screwed yourselves!
(Just kidding, we only sent 4 because the other 78 don’t work).
Well, trying to run them on maple syrup was, in retrospect, perhaps not the best idea?
Houngan
23045
I also wonder how much the tanks are crippled for secrecy, the targeting package is the special sauce for the Abrams, I’m not sure if that would be included or if it’s already known across the world.
Things like this we simply don’t know at this point, so we’ll have to see I guess. I do not know how modular these things are, in terms of swapping this or that in or out, and I also don’t know whether that sort of tech is the sort that would be a boon for the Russians to get their hands on. It certainly seems that these days it’s the know-how to make rather than the ideas or principles behind stuff that matters, but again, who knows in this case.
As I’m sure most of you know, during WWII, Frank Capra produced 7 part films series called “Why We fight.”
Mitt Romney has a mighty fine 21st-century version.
KevinC
23048
Well said. We’d be a lot better off if Mitt Romney was the norm for Republicans instead of whatever the fuck the party is now.
Yeah, I’m often blown away by American takes that come down to “why can’t we just sit there and reap the benefits of being a world hegemony and abandon our hegemony status refusing to support it”. I can see someone arguing for hegemony not being worth it all, but it looks like people think we all speak English and drink Coca Cola and know what our national currency is worth in dollars (and thus play by the rules USA wants) because of the ingenuity of the creative American spirit, not because USA gets stuff done in any point of the world with minimal casualties.
Sorry, this is just hilarious to read. Iraq much? Rethoric is bullshit. Russia is a strategic adversary that borders strategic allies. It is convenient to see Russia suffer. We will make Russia suffer so they can’t project power for a few decades. Profit.
I’m not saying we should not support Ukraine. I just dislike this flag of virtue, it’s for the peanut gallery. We are perfectly willing to ignore or even abet genocidal behavior when we don’t have “interests”.
