Russia on brink of ... NOPE! Russia INVADES Ukraine!

[igor_kavinski]

I'm sure half is true, and half is BS, but WTF.

So they are not really donating them but really, generously getting rid of them so they can then ask Congress for something better

 

[Bitek]

A regular US army brigade has about 80-90 main battle tanks. If Ukraine had a mix of around 80-100 modern Main Battle Tanks along with the Infantry fighting vehicles that would allow them to well equip one brigade with this equipment which isn't bad. In suitable ground the Abrams and Leopards should make short work for any Russian T-series tanks. Maybe have supporting Ukraine T-series tanks to go in close and flush out the Russia tanks while the western tanks hang back and support and use their long range capabilities to pick off the Russian tanks.

Was wondering, thanks for explaining?

Had anyone seen any credible estimates of what a full compliment should be to get the job done? What's the number we should be targeting?

 

[pmv]

Sheesh, politics is complicated. Erdogan uses Islamic fundamentalist fervour exactly the same way that the Western far-right and Putin use Christian fanaticism. They're pretty much the same creatures, all of them are fascist (and all of them are supported by a good proportion of the plutocrat class - cf the Murdoch press's past sympathetic treatment of Erdogan - the only "Islamists" they ever had a good word to say about).

Just slightly different flavours of fascism - yet they can make use of the fact that their respective followers hate each other to manipulate them all the more effectively.

 

[rommelrommel]

The whole bluster about the Abrams just makes it sound like a terrible vehicle, the engineers incompetent, and the army are fools for commissioning it.

The centerpiece of the armored land forces is a glorified base queen that constantly breaks, is picky on fuel and ammo, and is difficult to repair?
Does General Dynamics print that in the brochure?

I'm sure half is true, and half is BS, but WTF.

Abrams is kind of a race car if you were to map it over. The US Army doesn’t like to fight fair, they like to have as much technical edge as possible regardless of cost. Not all that dissimilar to the capabilities the Navy and Air Force also like to have.

 

[Zorba]

The whole bluster about the Abrams just makes it sound like a terrible vehicle, the engineers incompetent, and the army are fools for commissioning it.

The centerpiece of the armored land forces is a glorified base queen that constantly breaks, is picky on fuel and ammo, and is difficult to repair?
Does General Dynamics print that in the brochure?

I'm sure half is true, and half is BS, but WTF.

Let me tell you about the F-22... Or B-2.

We can operate equipment that is a logistics hog because we've got the logistics. The equipment can be expensive and picky and still kick ass.

 

[K1052]

Hmm

https://twitter.com/x/status/1618465834929893377

 

[pmv]

Let me tell you about the F-22... Or B-2.

We can operate equipment that is a logistics hog because we've got the logistics. The equipment can be expensive and picky and still kick ass.

That's probably true. Furthermore the US has always made a special effort with logistics because the facts of geography means it's always had to. Other countries can just trundle their equipment out of the factory gates and the war is right there, the US usually has to ship vast amounts of stuff overseas if it wants to join in a war.

 

[Bitek]

Let me tell you about the F-22... Or B-2.

We can operate equipment that is a logistics hog because we've got the logistics. The equipment can be expensive and picky and still kick ass.

Yep, actually kinda feel like a lot of the equipment is like that.

When they were discussing the Patriot missile systems, it was shocking the number of support personnel and systems that were required for just one battery.

 

[Brainonska511]

ftfy

We don't make dive bombers anymore, because the concept is dated.

With the rise of precision guided munitions, and the challenges of having to operate in contested air space or over areas with lots of portable air defense, having planes like the A-10 starts to become a substantial operating liability.

They work great when working in uncontested spaces fighting against people with pick-up trucks.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Let me tell you about the F-22... Or B-2.

We can operate equipment that is a logistics hog because we've got the logistics. The equipment can be expensive and picky and still kick ass.

i just watched a quick youtube clip on the B2 and the quoted maintenance rate was something like 130hrs per flight hour

 

[Meghan54]

We don't make dive bombers anymore, because the concept is dated.

With the rise of precision guided munitions, and the challenges of having to operate in contested air space or over areas with lots of portable air defense, having planes like the A-10 starts to become a substantial operating liability.

They work great when working in uncontested spaces fighting against people with pick-up trucks.

Then why deny them from Uk? That is the debate, not if they're worthy fighting planes...they are indeed.

 

[RnR_au]

The US Army doesn’t like to fight fair, they like to have as much technical edge as possible regardless of cost.

"If you are in a fair fight, you planned it wrong." - unknown

First heard this quote back in my Eve Online days

 

[Meghan54]

Abrams is kind of a race car if you were to map it over. The US Army doesn’t like to fight fair, they like to have as much technical edge as possible regardless of cost. Not all that dissimilar to the capabilities the Navy and Air Force also like to have.

And that's a bad thing? LOL

 

[cytg111]

You misunderstand. Paludan was influenced by a Swedish journalist with heavy Russian links;

https://twitter.com/x/status/1618187472286134274

Erdogan is just taking advantage of the situation.

Oooooooooohhh. Russian psyops influencing campaign. No bigger useful idiot than Paludan, thats for sure. Someone should have a talk with this journalist and persuade him to get asylum on the Russian conscript front.

 

[Perknose]

That's probably true. Furthermore the US has always made a special effort with logistics because the facts of geography means it's always had to. Other countries can just trundle their equipment out of the factory gates and the war is right there, the US usually has to ship vast amounts of stuff overseas if it wants to join in a war.

Or start one.

But, yeah, we are unparalled in the world for our long range lift and supply capability. Neither the Russians nor the Chinese nor GB or France or anyone else can do what we can do. Remember GB having to use a civilian liner to get their troops to the Falklands?

 

[Brainonska511]

Then why deny them from Uk? That is the debate, not if they're worthy fighting planes...they are indeed.

Probably doesn't help that in the last 10 years, Congress has consistently included appropriation language to keep the A10 in active use under the USAF.

 

[cytg111]

Or start one.

But, yeah, we are unparalled in the world for our long range lift and supply capability. Neither the Russians nor the Chinese nor GB or France or anyone else can do what we can do. Remember GB having to use a civilian liner to get their troops to the Falklands?

Was it on here I read that the B-52 had its service contract extended so that it basically will have had a 100 year service window when it finally comes to a close?

 

[Pens1566]

Was it on here I read that the B-52 had its service contract extended so that it basically will have had a 100 year service window when it finally comes to a close?

Not sure where you heard it from, but the sentiment is true. They're projected to be in use through at least the 2050s as of right now.

 

[Zorba]

i just watched a quick youtube clip on the B2 and the quoted maintenance rate was something like 130hrs per flight hour

Yeah they are hangar queens (low flight hours) and very hard to work on anything to do with the outside.

As with all numbers like that you have to realize that's a fully burdened number, where the majority is fixed not variable. The aircraft will go through depot at set calendar times, so regardless of the number of flight hours it'll go get 50,000+ hours of mx done to it on that fixed interval.

Basically the more you fly, the cheaper it is per flight hour. This is how airlines are in ~4-5 mx hour per flight hour range while the DOD is always in the 40+ range.

 

[Zorba]

Was it on here I read that the B-52 had its service contract extended so that it basically will have had a 100 year service window when it finally comes to a close?

The current economic life numbers of the B-52 are into the mid 2050s, which would put the airframe at more than 100 and the youngest aircraft at about 93. The number is heavily influenced by usage amount, type of usage, and base location.

 

[Brovane]

Or start one.

But, yeah, we are unparalled in the world for our long range lift and supply capability. Neither the Russians nor the Chinese nor GB or France or anyone else can do what we can do. Remember GB having to use a civilian liner to get their troops to the Falklands?

Well don't laugh but decades ago, using civilian liners to move troops about was fairly common. The SS United States was largely funded by the US government so it could act as a troopship carrier in times of need. However now we just use civilian airliners to move troops around as part of the Civil Reserve Air Fleet. https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104583/civil-reserve-air-fleet/

 

[K1052]

Well don't laugh but decades ago, using civilian liners to move troops about was fairly common. The SS United States was largely funded by the US government so it could act as a troopship carrier in times of need. However now we just use civilian airliners to move troops around as part of the Civil Reserve Air Fleet. https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104583/civil-reserve-air-fleet/

Yeah Sealift Command still has to charter lots of civilian vessels if there is going to be a major thing an ocean away that requires a large deployment of ground equipment.

 

[K1052]

Your periodic reminder that the biggest barrier to any negotiated peace in Ukraine is Putin because nobody trusts him. Especially not the Ukrainians with good reason.

Bilateral military treaties that precede NATO/EU membership is probably the only way this really ends instead of lingering on for years at perhaps lower intensity combat.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1618623852380319745

 

[K1052]

Ah Poland did supply Mig-29s to Ukraine.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1618574243121496065

 

[Indus]

The whole bluster about the Abrams just makes it sound like a terrible vehicle, the engineers incompetent, and the army are fools for commissioning it.

The centerpiece of the armored land forces is a glorified base queen that constantly breaks, is picky on fuel and ammo, and is difficult to repair?
Does General Dynamics print that in the brochure?

I'm sure half is true, and half is BS, but WTF.

As the Abrahams is jet fuelled and it's a fact is uses twice the volume of a diesel MBT, I googled to find the answer and stumbled across this:

Author:

Michael O'Malley

Following 25 people. Asked 13 questions. Wrote 81 answers.

www.quora.com

How come only the US Army decided to use a gas turbine for its M1 Abrams main battle tank despite its advantages while all other countries chose diesel engines?

Despite?

The first thing that must be understood about the Abrams, the one piece of perspective that makes everything else about it make sense, is this:

In 1970s, the United States decided it was possible to defeat the Warsaw Pact in conventional battle in Europe.

That's it. That's the show.

From 1950–1970, the Soviet juggernaut was considered invincible. Mutually Assured Destruction was the strategy.

If the USSR had gone West in 1965, the NATO allies would have used up their available ground forces, then plastered most of everything from the Netherlands to Switzerland, Bonn to Moscow, with thermonuclear fire, then retreated to a handful of facilities and waited for the Soviet bombs to drop.

Nuclear Armageddon. The 7th Angel pouring their bowl forth. Game over, man.

Something weird happened in the 1970′s, though. The Space Race began to alter how the US saw itself, especially in comparison to the USSR.

Remember, the West knew diddly-squat about the true state and power of the Communist East… until Apollo straight up left the Soviets eating dust.

The West also started to get better intelligence assets. Not Human ones, those had always been in the game, and by necessity taken with a grain of salt.

No, the West started getting pictures from satellites. Started tapping in on phones with microwave antennas far above the Earth.

Started to find out that the Red Army was mostly a paper tiger.

In addition, Vietnam had really rattled a lot of American cages. It had become clear that draftees just… weren't good enough anymore.

Not the levels of patriotism or verve the vast majority of draftees brought to the Service, but the time needed to make a modern warrior.

A proper Infantryman now took nearly 18 months to train correctly. Tankers, aviators, sailors in Nuclear powered ships, they needed even longer to train.

And so the United States and much of NATO (not all), went to volunteer units, who stayed in at least 4 years instead of 2.

The Soviets didn't.

A strange thing happens with volunteer forces. By virtue of greater practice and training, not to mention lots of people wanting a second hitch, or even a career, you start developing a really professional fighting force that knows what it is about. They can handle weapons systems that drafted Soldiers simply cannot learn in time to be useful.

And so weapons develop in complexity and power.

This brings me back to the Abrams. Its turbine was adopted at a time when Abrams was a lot lighter, and was governed to 50mph, not that much faster than other NATO tanks of the day.

However, my father trained the 3rd Infantry Division's maintenance guys on their new Abrams back in the 80′s.

In a pinch, a real pinch, that governor came right off and the engine worked just fine without it, allowing the Abrams to sprint at far greater speeds and still hit T-72 size targets at 1,000 meters or more.

See, the German Bundeswehr had to, for obvious reasons, defend every inch of their soil.

Can't very well just allow the Soviets to march all the way to the Rhine and then start resisting. However, even the mighty US Army was not going to stop the whole Soviet Army right on the border, so the idea was this:

Set up in a line, foxholes, artillery aiming points, close air support to include A-10s, Apache helicopters, and F-16s, and wait.

The Soviets would attack in Echelon, one regiment following the next. Remember, simpler tactics because their guys have not practiced as much.

The NATO, especially American and British, units, were to rip the faces off that first echelon, kill as many Soviets as possible, and then disappear.

Pull back a kilometer or two, and get set in the same sort of positions. Do this again and again and again until the spearpoint of the Soviet Army, equipped by 1985 with T-62, T-72, and T-80 tanks, was destroyed.

The Soviets would increasingly place their Category B divisions (broadly equivalent to US Army Reserve formations) in the field with older equipment.

And NATO would push into the attack.

The Abrams-equipped US Army would race forward, supported by British, French, and West German troops, would begin a blitzkrieg style assault across Germany, aiming generally at Moscow.

Here, again, the turbine engine if the Abrams would shine once more, outpacing anything the enemy could throw up, annihilating support and maintenance battalions, and making further resistance by Soviet front line troops untenable.

Eventually, the Soviet Army or the Soviet leadership would collapse. Most leading thinkers on the subject figure the Soviet Union would release Nuclear weapons against a single target, probably in England, and then the United States would respond from Minuteman silos in the Continental United States to make the point- yes, MAD is still in effect.

At which point, the current Soviet leadership would likely be overthrown and executed, and the matter settled at the conference table.

All of this to say that the US picked a turbine engine because blitzkrieg remains the best way to defeat Russia, and the United States does blitzkrieg better than anyone else.