Tanks

quote:

---

Tanks

---

You’re welcome

quote:

---

You’re welcome

---

The German tanks are apparently pretty simple to learn and relatively simple to maintain

The Abrams is not and has additional logistical challenges for them to use it

It is very expensive virtue signaling

quote:

---

The German tanks are apparently pretty simple to learn and relatively simple to maintain

---

quote:

---

German

---

quote:

---

simple

---

quote:

---

simple to maintain

---

quote:

---

German

---

I still don't understand why we have to send them armor.

1. We we're told that the anti-tank weapons were working brilliantly. Why would we waste money on armor when we can buy more rockets?

2. Surely there are plenty of T-72's across the planet we can acquire so we can give them a more familiar and easily maintained system.

Armored units aren't just about training to use the equipment. majority of the time is spent on maintenance. there is a popular term in the Army called motorpool Mondays. motorpool is where you park your Victors(Vehicles) and where the mechanics are located.

you will be a master at filling out forms. you will log almost 1000 hours PMCS(preventing and managing crisis situations) or PMCSing your victor. just know that whenever you have faults and fill out a 5988 the mechanics will tell your vehicle is deadlined and go pound sand.

quote:

---

It's like they are prepositioning the weapons closer to the battlefield knowing full well they might need NATO/American tank crews and support troops to utilize them effectively. That decision is down the road but at least they will have the equipment in theater

---

I don't think they'll put Americans in thise tanks, but it certainly seems like the very first step to make Ukraine a NATO country that will have American "defensive" weapons like nukes

Based on what we’ve seen in this war, particularly in it’s early stages while the Russkies were on the road to Kiev, tanks are not necessarily much more than targets. (Note: I do realize that the M1 Abrams is a better tank than a a T-72.)

US Army 19K training is ten weeks after basic, which has nothing to do with tanks. That's ten weeks from "I was just doing ollies on my skateboard," and now I'm a loader and can help repair tracks.

Leopards, Challengers, and Abrams, except at the bleeding edge, are not all that different from each other. They're different than a T-64, sure, but German/Brit/American last gen are generally the same.

If you're taking someone that has driven or maintained any kind of tank before, that's BS. There is a fueling issue (most Euro armor seems to run on diesel, whereas certain models of the M1 run on multiple fuels, which are foreign to other militaries,) but the complication isn't in operation, but in maintenance and fuel. I am not a tanker, but spend way too much time paying attention to shite like this.

I just thought of this, you said "simple to maintain" on the country that builds Benz, BMW, and Audi?

quote:

---

The Abrams is not and has additional logistical challenges for them to use it

---

The Abrams is powered by a jet engine. It’s a maintenance nightmare. There’s a reason everyone else in the world uses diesel. The Soviets played with the concept with the T-80, because WE were doing it with the Abrams, then quickly abandoned the idea.