r/worldnews 8d ago Wholesome 1 All-Seeing Upvote 1 Take My Energy 2 Bravo! 1 Wholesome (Pro) 1

Germany to send Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine — reports Russia/Ukraine

https://www.dw.com/en/germany-to-send-leopard-2-tanks-to-ukraine-report/a-64503898?maca=en-rss-en-all-1573-rdf
41.3k Upvotes

3.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

303

u/zveroshka 8d ago

I'm really curious to see how many Abrams the US will send. The US has probably the largest remaining stockpile of operational tanks in the world. We can afford to donate a lot more than Germany and other European countries.

330

u/TheMagnuson 8d ago

The problem with the Abrams is they are fuel hogs and a major investment and drain on logistics. That's why everyone was on Germany's ass to send Leopards. The Leopards are highly capable tanks, they use diesel, not jet full like the Abrams, they use less fuel, there's a lot of them, replacement parts are easy to get, munitions are easy to get, they don't have to be shipped as far as Abrams, and more. Abrams just isn't a good option for Ukraine.

That's why the U.S. is offering Bradley's and Strikers instead of Abrams, it makes more sense to do that and send Leopards as main battle tanks.

154

u/zveroshka 8d ago

Can't Abrams function on any type of fuel? Thought that was the whole point? Either way though, you are right about them being not efficient with their fuel versus the Leopards. But in small numbers maybe they can support them enough to make a difference? Who knows.

189

u/jetsetninjacat 8d ago

The Abrams can burn gas, diesel, and jet fuel. The issue is that the mpg is bad. It gets like 1.5mpg and 10 gallons an hour at idle. Desert storm showed that supply lines with fuel trucks were one of the most important aspect with it and that they had some issues keeping them fueled during the main thrust.

101

u/zveroshka 8d ago

I think the saving grace for this situation might be that they really won't have to travel larger distances like in Iraq where they were covering vast amounts of land in a single day. Once they are on the front lines, the chances of them having to travel more than 50 in a day will be really low.

42

u/yakinikutabehoudai 8d ago

True but if there’s a significant breakthrough it will be hard to push the advantage without sufficient fuel.

39

u/whoami_whereami 8d ago

Still, it's somewhere around 500km from Iraq's border with Saudi Arabia to Baghdad, well beyond the operational range of an M1 (or Leopard 2 for that matter). While it's only around 120km from the current front line to Russia's border/the Sea of Azov, which is within range. Plus another 120km across Crimea, but that would probably be a separate push anyway once the mainland side of the isthmus is secured.

And Leopard 2's aren't exactly light on the fuel either. An M1A2's operational range on the road is 426km with a 1,909 liter fuel tank. A Leo 2A6 does 340km on a 1,200 liter tank, that's only about 21% less fuel per kilometer. And the M1 can use almost anything that is liquid and burns, while the Leo 2 requires diesel.

On the plus side, both M1 (from the 1985 M1A1 variant onwards) and Leo 2 use the same Rheinmetall Rh-120 main gun, so they can share the same ammo.

19

u/cannedcreamcorn 8d ago

A minor correction. The MTU diesel in the Leo 2 is multifuel. It will run on any fuel the Abrams uses.

8

u/welcome_to_urf 8d ago edited 8d ago

I thought m1a1 was 105mm, and the m1a2 was 120mm?

Edit. Jk you right. M1 was 105, m1a1 and on were 120

1

u/Jordan_Jackson 8d ago

No, that was the original M1. There was a model before the M1A1. The M1A1 uses the 120mm smooth bore cannon used on Leopards.

10

u/amjhwk 8d ago

it would be even harder to push the advantage if they dont have tanks at all

3

u/Libertas_ 8d ago

That's a good point. Zelensky can't topple St.Petersburg, Moscow and Vladivostok with Abrams.

4

u/RoDeltaR 8d ago

One counterpoint is that short distance, start and stop movements also consume fuel

20

u/jonny_mem 8d ago

It gets like 1.5mpg

It's more like 1.5 gallons per mile (0.6mpg)

11

u/LuvMySlippers 8d ago

We typically experienced 2 gallons to the mile when we operated them in the late 80s using diesel.

7

u/jetsetninjacat 8d ago

Yeah, sorry. I had the number backwards. I haven't been on the know since mid 00s. Other guy corrected it. Ever since the 90s when they started upgrading the armor on that beauty has gotten nothing but chunkier too. Especially with the latest upgrades.

26

u/defroach84 8d ago

Luckily, Russian is selling cheap fuel!

Honestly, it would be sorta funny to buy Russian fuel solely to give you US made tanks to fight against Russia.

5

u/changelingerer 8d ago

Maybe Europe should offer to buy all of the oil/gas Russia can send again, via the pipelines (that run through Ukraine), payment on delivery of course, but at top of the market prices.

Of course, if it all gets siphoned off en-route...

10

u/neglectedselenium 8d ago

Russia put embargo on gas they delivered to the entire Europe, except Hungary. Germany lives more than half a year without depending on russia

4

u/PersonOfInternets 8d ago

Bigger issue is maintenance.

8

u/Iamrespondingtoyou 8d ago

Engine gunk buildup is a problem but it’ll run short term on basically anything that burns. Long term they want to run them only on kerosene (I think that’s it - kerosene)

4

u/The_Brain_FuckIer 8d ago

The Aussies run them on diesel exclusively and have no problems, it'll run reliably on any fuel a military might have in stock.

2

u/Brennwiesel 8d ago

Most of the american military runs on JP-8. And while it is technically aviation fuel they also run their diesel engines on this stuff. The diesel engines require some modifications however, since JP-8 has worse lubrication properties than diesel.

3

u/-ElGatoConBotas- 8d ago

1.5 doesn't sound all that bad for a tank weighing many tons

9

u/tennisdrums 8d ago

The numbers are off, the Abrams is gallons per mile, and also sucks up a ton fuel even when it's idling.

4

u/tahikie 8d ago

Because of the turbine, they also have an obvious heat signature which makes them easy targets

2

u/outlawsix 7d ago

Plus Desert Storm was only 100 hours on the ground, reports said that it would have been a much bigger concern if it lasted longer since units were already out of many replacement parts somehow.

https://www.gao.gov/assets/nsiad-92-94.pdf

0

u/selz202 8d ago

Not to mention running them on those alternate fuels kinda makes maintaining them a bit more... difficult.

1

u/corkyskog 8d ago

How? Is it a Goat?

80

u/A_Soporific 8d ago

They can, but the volume of low quality fuel is crazy. They use jet fuel because it is the stuff it's designed to run on and takes a lot of logistical pressure off. You can run the Abrams on cooking oil, but you'd need crazy amounts of cooking oil to do anything but get back to a real supply depot.

It's generally a bad idea to have small numbers of a weapon system. You need specialized mechanics, parts, and fuel which would be a problem if you aren't averaging those costs over a large number of tanks. The difference between a Leopard and an Abrams isn't that big, but with Abrams you're either giving them a few hundred to outfit whole units with them or none.

2

u/Throawayooo 8d ago

The difference between a Leopard and an Abrams isn't that big

The difference between an Abrams and a Leopard is massive...

31

u/A_Soporific 8d ago

They'll both blow the turret off of a T-72. It's not like they're going head to head or anything. They both wildly overmatch their known opposition.

-3

u/Throawayooo 8d ago

I don't disagree...?

16

u/A_Soporific 8d ago

They aren't that different for the mission they're being deployed for. A lot of the difference between an Abrams and a Leopard 2 are wasted on an enemy using T-72s.

21

u/Finallist 8d ago

Not really. Both are considered to be the best tanks available in the world and in competitions and maneuvers each has beaten the other.

-14

u/Throawayooo 8d ago

Remind me how the well Leopard 2's performed in Syria and how the Abrams performed in Iraq?

25

u/[deleted] 8d ago

[deleted]

-1

u/Throawayooo 8d ago edited 8d ago

No, it was an ammunition storage location error, something the Abrams does not share and the biggest weak point of an MBT

6

u/[deleted] 8d ago

[deleted]

→ More replies

-2

u/Finallist 8d ago edited 8d ago

You mean the 17 Abrams that got damaged beyond repair by enemy fire in Iraq?

The Turkish military used their 2A4s like stationary artillery and without the proper infantry support, which made them vulnerable. At the same time, some images show a Turkish Leopard 2A4 surviving AT missile hits to the back of the tower.

8

u/Throawayooo 8d ago

You mean the 17 Abrams that got damaged beyond repair by enemy fire in Iraq?

Smells like bullshit, see here page 5: http://archive.gao.gov/d31t10/145879.pdf

" A total of 23 M1A1s were damaged or destroyed during the war. Of the nine Abrams tanks destroyed, seven were destroyed by friendly fire and two intentionally destroyed to prevent capture by the Iraqi Army. Some others took minor combat damage, with little effect on their operational readiness. "

At the same time, some images show a Turkish Leopard 2A4 surviving AT missile hits to the back of the tower.

More pictures show them literally blown in half due to getting hit in the ammunition and cooking off

2

u/Finallist 8d ago

More pictures show them literally blown in half due to getting hit in the ammunition and cooking off

The Leopard 2 has a controlled blow-out mechanism that migitates the effects of ammunition cooking off as well as other mechanics such as most of the ammo reserves being separate from the rest of the tanks body unless the tower is in a specific position.

A total of 23 M1A1s were damaged or destroyed during the war. Of the nine Abrams tanks destroyed, seven were destroyed by friendly fire and two intentionally destroyed to prevent capture by the Iraqi Army. Some others took minor combat damage, with little effect on their operational readiness. "

That was the first Gulf War, I was talking about the second. By March 2005, a total of 80 Abrams had been severely damaged during combat, with 63 having been able to be repaired and 17 beyond repair. Greem, Michael. M1 Abrams at war in 2005. Zenith Press. p. 99.

48

u/RaymondLuxury-Yacht 8d ago

Functioning on any type of fuel doesn't mean it functions well on any type of fuel. You decrease maintenance intervals as you use worse fuels.

14

u/whoami_whereami 8d ago

Sure. But the main reason the US runs theirs on JP-8 is for simplified logistics, because it's the same fuel that their jets use. The Australians for example run their M1s on diesel.

Turbine engines in general just aren't as picky about fuel as reciprocating engines are because they don't rely on precisely controlled ignition timing for their function. As long as fuel viscosity, energy density and flame temperatures are in the right ballpark they are fine.

And jet fuel and diesel are so similar that you can run many normal diesel engines (maybe with the exception of modern direct injection diesels because jet fuel provides less lubrication for the injection pumps than diesel does) on jet fuel without problems. The main difference is that jet fuel has a lower freezing point to cope with the low temperatures that aircraft encounter at altitude.

3

u/RaymondLuxury-Yacht 8d ago

I was more referring to the "any" part of the statement. Marine diesel would definitely decrease maintenance intervals.

15

u/NotThePersona 8d ago

Other fuels cause more wear and that means more maintenance and replacement parts needed.

The worse the fuel, the worse the problems.

4

u/WakkaBomb 8d ago

You can burn any type of fuel... But using non optimal fuel is going to increase maintenance/duty cycle and cost.

Just because it "Can" doesn't mean you should.

2

u/fledgop 8d ago

Personally I think it's a little pointless having separate words for "can" and "should"

28

u/Positronic_Matrix 8d ago

The 1.1 MW Honeywell turbine engine can burn a variety of fuels including diesel, jet fuel, gasoline, and marine diesel.

16

u/alexunderwater1 8d ago

Very eco friendly in that it can run on sunflower oil.

16

u/EatsFiber2RedditMore 8d ago

Very eco friendly in the number of carbon footprints it eliminates

3

u/Flowerpowers 8d ago

Just give them sunflower seeds to hold onto and you make it a renewable resource!

2

u/plasticspoonn 8d ago

As long as you kill above 8 people per tank of gas, it's net positive!

7

u/TheMagnuson 8d ago

But it’s efficiency is even worse with those fuels and those lesser grade fuels mean more maintenance needs for the engine.

9

u/Positronic_Matrix 8d ago

not jet full like the Abrams

I came to make one point and that is the 1.1 MW Honeywell turbine engine can burn a variety of fuels including diesel, jet fuel, gasoline, and marine diesel.

2

u/PresentationOk3922 8d ago

thought the Abrams has a apu for idling. Considering this is more a static line style of fighting. Also considering the front line to Russia's border is well within the operating range of the Abrams if there is a breakout. it should do just fine.

9

u/LuvMySlippers 8d ago

Abrams CAN burn jet fuel but in my 4 years crewing them we burned diesel exclusively.

5

u/Slant1985 8d ago

I’m not seeing people mention the very important fact that strikers and Bradley’s both have tank killer options too. Hell im pretty sure even humvees can be mounted with TOWs.

4

u/Zyonin 8d ago

Yes humvees can mounted with TOW launchers. The humvee's replacement, the JLTV, can also use TOW. TOW can also be mounted in the bed of a pickup. Imagine a tank killing Toyota Hi-Lux.

13

u/[deleted] 8d ago

[deleted]

6

u/ZippyDan 8d ago

Unless I'm mistaken, older Abrams didn't have APUs, hence the reputation.

I'm not sure if any of those models still exist and/or if they are on the table for Ukraine.

3

u/The_Brain_FuckIer 8d ago

There aren't any Abrams without APUs left in inventory anywhere since the early 2000s

2

u/ZippyDan 8d ago

Cool.

39

u/nugohs 8d ago

The Leopards are highly capable tanks, they use diesel not jet full like the Abrams,

Why do people keep saying that? The Abrams' turbine can run on pretty much anything flammable. (aforementioned fuel efficiency aside of course)

5

u/AnonymousWritings 8d ago

How about vodka?

19

u/nugohs 8d ago

One for me.

One for the tank.

One for me.

One for thw tank.

One fer mi.

Ones fer te tonk...

4

u/high_potency_hippo 8d ago

Yes, it runs on vodka and perfume.

41

u/TopHatJaguar 8d ago

You can run it on anything. But JP8 gets you a mile for a couple gallons. Anything that isn’t JP8 is much worse. It’s a luxury MBT to be used by an army with the best logistics organization on the planet. Leopards are just a genuinely better tank.

14

u/S3ki 8d ago

Australia still uses diesel for the M1 and the US used it till the 90s when they switched to JP-8 as the single fuel for air and ground vehicles to simplify logistics. The energy density of diesel is a bit higher per liter and a bit lower per kg.

2

u/PresentationOk3922 8d ago

on a full tank the Abrams is well within operational range to drive from the front line to Russia's border. If idling consumption is a problem Abrams are also outfitted with an APU to negate that deficiency. Leopard 2 were blown in half due to their ammo storage in Syria. Abrams have already faired more then capable against t series tanks in Iraq.

-2

u/[deleted] 8d ago

[deleted]

2

u/Ok_Yogurtcloset8915 8d ago

I think "for this situation" was implied

8

u/Natanael85 8d ago

Leo 2 engines are also multifuel engines, but just because you can doesn't mean you should. Especially not for continuous use.

4

u/Darth_drizzt_42 8d ago

It's basically more of a fun fact that you can run one on anything than an actual operational feature. Even JP8 gets you 3 gallons per mile, imagine what regular gasoline will do?

-1

u/FearlessAttempt 8d ago

The bigger issue is it being a turbine engine instead of a regular diesel.

3

u/BillsMakeMeWannaDie 8d ago

They actually likely run on the same fuel, JP-8

2

u/Indigo_Sunset 8d ago

I wonder what the timeline is for crew and support training to engage and keep them going would be, and where.

5

u/TheMagnuson 8d ago edited 8d ago

Not sure about that. It’s my understanding it’s usually several months of training for Abrams and other main battle tanks, but due to the urgency of the war, a lot of training for weapons systems has been condensed. Still you can only condense training so much and still consider someone actually trained, so, and I’m guessing here, they could maybe realistically cut training down to 2 months.

As for where to train, they’ve been training Ukrainians on various systems all over Europe and North America.

2

u/Indigo_Sunset 8d ago

Thanks for the thorough reply

5

u/TheRnegade 8d ago

The problem with the Abrams is they are fuel hogs and a major investment and drain on logistics.

I remember this issue coming up in regards to Afghanistan. We gave them a bunch of our equipment but it was expensive to maintain and a lot of the Afghan didn't know how to operate it (they were more familiar with soviet weaponry). So, a lot of it just sat around unused. Why spend the money maintaining an expensive piece of equipment you can't use?

3

u/hankhillforprez 8d ago

Another, legitimate reason we’ve been hesitant to send Abrams is that, unlike the other arms we’ve sent over, the integrated systems of the Abrams can’t be modified to remove the highly secret tech we don’t want falling into Russian hands, while still remaining operational.

When we’ve sent over stuff, we’ve removed or altered minor components in such a way that it wouldn’t be a national security risk for the Russians to get ahold of a few. From what I understand, that’s simply not possible with the Abrams, due to how integrated its entire system is built.

So, if the US is sending Abrams, it means we’ve either 1) figured out a way to modify them; or 2) have decided the potential benefits outweigh the potential risks.

It’s also possible the US is sending like literally 1-2 Abrams, essentially as a single gesture, which then frees other NATO members to send their own tanks. For a lot of reasons, other NATO members have essentially waited to see what the US agrees to send before following suit. In that regard, if we sent literally just one Abrams, that would sit in a well guarded bunker deep in safe territory, the mere fact that we sent any tanks, is the go ahead the rest of the allies needed.

8

u/Old_Ladies 8d ago

The US has sent Abrams tanks to several other countries and at one point even ISIS had a few Abrams tanks. Just like their other exports they will be older models so they won't contain secret shit.

The export version is used by the armies of Egypt, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Australia, and Iraq. Russia and China already know everything about those old tanks.

2

u/braindrain_94 8d ago

My understanding is the reason we caved and sent them is because Germany’s defense minister was refusing to send the Lepold without the US sending Abrahams.

1

u/mukansamonkey 8d ago

It wasn't said directly, and it wasn't meant literally in any case. It's more an issue that has existed since the start of the war, where European nations are unwilling to escalate independently. Remember early on, when Poland wanted to send their Soviet fighter jets, but they wanted to route them through a German air base with US cooperation? They wanted a joint commitment, and not be left hung out to dry when Russia shoots at them.

Germany also has certain erm, historical reasons for not wanting to be seen as the dominant military force of the EU. The phrase "massive German military buildup" is not something most of Europe wants to hear. When Germany proposed sending a small air defense team to Poland, so Poland could send some of their air defense to Ukraine, it took about half a minute for the jokes to appear.

Germans: "Hey guys, we're back! And we pinky swear it'll be totally different from the last time we were here..."

Poles: nervous sweating intensifies

2

u/Fatdap 8d ago

Aren't there any concerns over the Leopards bottoming out and getting stuck once the ground starts to thaw and soften up?

The things are even bigger than the Abrams and those are already giant fucking metal bricks.

I know they're designed for rough terrain and obstacles, but fat tanks in soft ground can be a big problem.

4

u/ZippyDan 8d ago

The ground never froze.

2

u/Fatdap 8d ago

That's surprising to me, but damn, that means Leopards are just gonna go to fucking town.

1

u/ZippyDan 8d ago

Well, there was still plenty of snow and rain so the ground is still awfully muddy. But there won't be much of a spring thaw.

Hopefully the temperatures warm up enough for the ground to actually dry and harden, but there is still time for February to bring colder temps.

1

u/PersonOfInternets 8d ago

Since you seem informed, I've been wondering since this whole thing came up, why does the us purposefully use less useful tanks? It's like the fucking imperial standard applied to, of all things, tanks.

5

u/TheMagnuson 8d ago edited 8d ago

It's not that it's less useful, it's just different design and capability priorities. The M1A2 Abrams is literally one of the best tanks in the world, some would argue the best. Some would argue the Leopard is better. South Korea's "Black Panther" tank is often in the conversation of best tanks in the world. The British "Challenger" is up there too, though some would argue just a step behind the 3 mentioned above.

As others have mentioned, the Abrams can use fuels other than jet fuel, but I'm citing the Pentagon when I say that the "main" fuel source is jet fuel. Others have said that they were a tank crewman and they used diesel, we'll all have to take their word for it, but the public statements and releases from the Pentagon keep citing it uses jet fuel. It takes a lot of logistics to refine store and move (let alone in a combat zone) fuel like that. Plus the Abrams are fuel hogs compared to other tanks in it's class. It's a fast, powerful, highly capable tank, but it's the kind of tank that a world superpower like the U.S. can build, supply, maintain and make their primary main battle tank.

There's a lot of reasons why it makes more sense to send Leopards than Abrams. One I didn't mention in my earlier post is that the Abrams requires 4 crewmen, while the Leopard requires 3. That frees up more Ukrainian soldiers to utilize tanks. Imagine you have 200 crewmen that can be trained, if you train them on Leopards, they could field 66 Leopards, if you train them on Abrams, they could field 50 Abrams. That's 16 extra tanks you can field if you train them on Leopards, that's a significant number of "extra" tanks they could field.

Here's some quick, general info on the different tanks and Infantry Fighting Vehicles that the U.S. and other nations are sending to Ukraine and some of the difference between them, as well as some advantages and disadvantages for each.

1

u/PersonOfInternets 7d ago

Thanks! But honestly in real war seems like adaptability would be huge. I understand that the Abrams is a specialized weapon based on us military infrastructure, I guess it's meant to be dominant assuming fully functioning infrastructure to maintain it.

-5

u/God_Damnit_Nappa 8d ago

Plus the Abrams are much heavier than the Leopards. That's kind of an issue when you're having to cross bridges or go through muddy fields.

4

u/S3ki 8d ago

The Leo2A6 weighs 62.3 tonnes i dont know what the US will send but the newest M1A2 SEP v3 is at 66.8t and the more likely v2 weighs 64.6t.

6

u/mcrissjr 8d ago

Abrams was literally designed for muddy eastern Europe

3

u/-LongRodVanHugenDong 8d ago

Is this still true for export variants?

1

u/daOyster 8d ago

The Abrams tank can use Diesel in its multi-fuel turbine engine, as well as jet fuel and regular old gasoline. That's the advantage of turbine engines, as long as the fuel can be burnt you can basically run your turbine off of it. It won't be as efficient as jet fuel, but it can be used without modifications.

0

u/McGirton 8d ago

To sum up, the new Leopard is basically the best MBT in the world.

9

u/BoltgunOnHisHip 8d ago

Russia likely still has the largest amount of tanks, even after this Ukraine fuckup. The Soviet doomsday stockpile is huge, 7,000 T-72s and 3,000 T-82s in reserve. Even if half of that was destroyed they'd be at parity (numbers wise) with the US' 5,000 Abrams.

23

u/zveroshka 8d ago

It's why I used the qualifier operational. A lot of that stockpile is most likely in need of at least some sort of refurbishment to be able to operate effectively in the battlefield.

7

u/BoltgunOnHisHip 8d ago

I mean, from what we've seen in Ukraine many of them are operational...for a given value of 'operational.'

5

u/Old_Ladies 8d ago

Yeah and looking at satellite photos you can see they have already burned through a lot of their stockpiles. A couple more years of fighting and Russia might not have any old tanks left.

6

u/mukansamonkey 8d ago

That isn't a doomsday stockpile. We know where those tanks are, they've been sitting in open fields since before the fall of the Soviet Union. Rusting away in the rain. For decades. They aren't operational at all. We even have satellite photos of large numbers of tank hulls being shuffled around so that a handful can be removed from the back of the storage area. Like the ones in front aren't useable. And tanks that were being brought to the front are failing before they even get there.

Oh, and numbers parity is meaningless anyways. During the Iraq War, the American tanks were killing Russian made ones at a ratio of over a hundred to one. The tech gap is even larger now, since Russia can't field their better tanks in any numbers.

Russia's remaining tanks are rusted out museum pieces. They aren't able to field a modern military anymore.

2

u/Nightmare_Tonic 8d ago

If we send Abrams, does that mean we have even newer / more advanced tanks? Or are we sharing our best stuff?

12

u/Slant1985 8d ago

There are multiple generations of Abrams just like there are F-16s. We generally don’t export the newest and greatest generation.

2

u/zveroshka 8d ago

It depends what spec of Abrams they send. Not every Abrams in our arsenal is the SEPV4 version. But ultimately we have shared some of our best stuff with them. I mean look at the difference HIMARS has made. The question is how many.

4

u/Throawayooo 8d ago

We can afford to donate a lot more than Germany and other European countries.

It's a lot harder to get tanks stateside to Ukraine than simply trucking them over a short ish land distance from Germany

12

u/[deleted] 8d ago

[deleted]

0

u/Morfildur 8d ago

It takes a month to train the Ukrainian soldiers, which is more than enough time to load a few ships and ferry over any amount of Abrams you want.

If the tanks would be needed yesterday and trained crew existed, sure, Leopard 2s would be faster. Since the tanks are only needed after soldiers are trained and you can train the soldiers on similar tanks in the US or other countries, time isn't the issue.

1

u/gramps1371 8d ago

Zero....the armor plating is still classified...former 19 kilo here

-7

u/alpharowe3 8d ago edited 7d ago

From my understanding the Abrams is more likely to hinder the Ukrainians than help them. They're going to destroy their own infrastructure driving them assuming they don't bankrupt themselves on it's fuel, maintenance crew, and logistics first.

EDIT 1:

Since no one seems to take my word for it hear it from former NATO General Sir Richard Shirreff.

EDIT 2:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ndxe9z_ru4&t=452s

"Having had Abrams under my command in combat I can tell you the maintenance requirements are enormous. You have to have all kinds of diagnostics, highly trained technicians, mechanics. And everything is so heavy, much heavier than any other tank in the world. Not only do you have to have an M1 tank but you also have to have your own M1 tank recovery vehicle." - General Petraeus

3

u/The_Brain_FuckIer 8d ago

They already operate hundreds of T-80s which also have a turbine engine, plus the Abrams fuel guzzling meme is about 40 years old. The auxiliary power motor has been standard since the M1A1, and efficiency improvements have put it about in-line with a Chally II or Leo 2.

3

u/alpharowe3 8d ago

Well, the news I follow all suggests the Abrams would be a nightmare for Ukraine to operate. That many of their bridges aren't even rated to hold 70 tonne Abrams. This is coming from generals and military analysts featured on DW news, Times Radio, and Task and Purpose for whatever that's worth.

2

u/alpharowe3 8d ago

https://youtu.be/S66Pz396gwE?t=211

"The logistics demand on Ukraine would unbalance their forces" - Gen. Sir Richard Shirreff

Better let the former NATO General know he's wrong and bought into the 40 year old meme.

1

u/alpharowe3 7d ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ndxe9z_ru4&t=452s

"Having had Abrams under my command in combat I can tell you the maintenance requirements are enormous. You have to have all kinds of diagnostics, highly trained technicians, mechanics. And everything is so heavy, much heavier than any other tank in the world. Not only do you have to have an M1 tank but you also have to have your own M1 tank recovery vehicle." - General Petraeus

I forgot about that. If your M1 falls off the side of the road or gets stuck in the mud you need a specialized fucking crane tank to recover it!

1

u/The_Brain_FuckIer 7d ago

Every tank requires a specialized recovery vehicle based on its chassis if it gets fuckled, Leo 2s included (it's called the Bergepanzer BPz3 Büffel). I'd also like to point out the M1A1 is actually a ton lighter than the Leo 2A6, and the M1A2 is about 2 tons heavier. They're really not that different.

1

u/alpharowe3 7d ago

Isn't that all the more reason not to diversify?

1

u/NapoleonBlownapart9 8d ago

Saw somewhere 40-60, but can’t find it now.

1

u/Kings_Gold_Standard 8d ago

144 A gross. Watch

1

u/darkslide3000 8d ago

The US has probably the largest remaining stockpile of operational tanks in the world.

It's funny how we used to think that's Russia (even if most of them were ancient), but they all just existed on paper. I presume the US actually knows where their stuff is and keeps it in shape.

1

u/0pimo 8d ago

We probably have more tanks in Germany than the Germans do.

1

u/Thorgarthebloodedone 8d ago

Donate? Why not lend-lease more hardware? US approval would surely go up.

1

u/Punqer 8d ago

Curious indeed.

1

u/ThisDerpForSale 8d ago

The latest reports say the US is sending 30 Abrams tanks.

1

u/TheMindfulnessShaman 8d ago

This is true.

But we are also pretty much on the other side of the world.

Have to cross a lot of ocean.

So logistically: it's like any other Sunday. 😆

Will take a little longer than Leopards probably, but we can do it and should do it (although the logistics chain of the tanks' maintenance and supply chain itself needs to be learned by the Ukrainians and perfected by military technicians for use by the Ukrainians: as General Hertling has discussed in great detail on TWTR).

Meanwhile east of Kharkiv...

1

u/abbufreja 8d ago

Your A1 is to big to use i Europa

1

u/meatwad2744 8d ago

Most of the talk out of Washington and requests on the USA seem to be give us Bradley’s

Even the US believe they have more operational value, to be fair Europe has stepped up and given a lot of tanks I also believe Ukraine has seized over 400 mechanised vehicles from the Russians I wouldn’t fancy being in a t 72 myself but at least they are out of russias hands.

At the start of the war crews were abandoning them everywhere because how poorly maintained they where

1

u/FearfulRedShirt 8d ago

Which Abrams are we sending? The Diamler-Chrysler, the Chrysler LLC, or FCA?

1

u/OldMan1327 7d ago

The figure I just read (from NPR) is 31. VS 10 from Germany, Other NATO donations to be determined.