Americans backpedal as usual... lmao. It's just a tank. Why is it so expensive to run??

Americans backpedal as usual... lmao

It's just a tank. Why is it so expensive to run??

  1. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Yeah

  2. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Fuel is the real expense as it's amazingly thirsty.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      lol yea its like 40 gallons per mile.... you read that right.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        But how do they carry enough

      • 7 days ago
        Anonymous

        4, not 40, retard

        • 7 days ago
          Anonymous

          oh yea, you're right. Sorry it's been like 15 years since i was in one
          no need to be rude though

    • 7 days ago
      Anonymous

      Does it matter when ukraine gets 18billion checks every month?

      • 7 days ago
        Anonymous

        it's not about money, it's about the burden of getting the fuel where it needs to go while doing everything else

        • 7 days ago
          Anonymous

          no amount of money makes transporting fuel any eaiser especially in a country as huge as ukraine

          youre expecting a vatnik to understand how logistics work?

      • 7 days ago
        Anonymous

        no amount of money makes transporting fuel any eaiser especially in a country as huge as ukraine

  3. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Gas turbine is a maintenence cunt

    • 7 days ago
      Anonymous

      Turbines are easy and less complex than piston diesels, especially complex tank diesel power packs. Abrams guzzle fuel tho.

  4. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Gas turbine engine
    Same problem as the T-80 for the Ukrainians and the reason why their T-80s get re-engined with a diesel instead.

  5. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Half of Europe use Leo-2 and have logistic for it, while no European contry use Abrams. So yeah this is the problem

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Americans already have maintenance shops in Europe for Abrams. They are not a country in Europe, but they have the same capabilities as a country in Europe to operate them.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        It isn’t and servicing the tanks in Poland wouldn’t even be an issue. The US does not want to tap into strategic reserves and drop serious money on the conflict. Tanks burning in the steppes cannot be used to buy influence around the world and deter China. Gas burnt in turbines cannot be used to boost the economy.

        This.

        If you do not run the JP logistics chain the M1 is not a good choice.

        Extending the line to the border is not a logistical challenge. It is just the point where the entire thing gets really expensive. It is the point where the US would need to tap into the national reserve to fuel the war rather than the economy. And uncle Joe doesn’t like that idea.

        • 7 days ago
          RC-135 Rivet Joint

          JP is a fuel type anon. If you don't run the JP log chain the M1 isn't a good choice. The Turbine can run on diesel iirc but with way worse performance and fuel system maintenance goes way up.

          • 7 days ago
            Anonymous

            Crazy that the Australians run it every day on diesel then, almost like this is bullshit.

            • 7 days ago
              RC-135 Rivet Joint

              you can run the turbine on diesel with worse performance all day long. cursory googling on the Honeywell turbine shows they did tests with marine diesel,blended fuels etc etc and chose the JP blend Because it's the superior fuel and we could afford the cost of it.

              Aussies being cheap an the exception to the rule doesn't disprove me Anon.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >you can run the turbine on diesel with worse performance all day long
                I'm sure the Ukies are concerned about the MPG they're getting.

          • 7 days ago
            Anonymous

            You dumb moron it runs on almost any flammable liquid, that is why the turbine was chosen. The issue with sending the Abrams is the fuel burn rate, Ukraine does not have the logistical capacity to sustain the rate at which the Abrams Burns fuel. The US can damn near outrun our own logistical chains as seen in OIF.

            • 7 days ago
              Anonymous

              So let's start helping Ukraine build T-84s already. They know the design and it doesn't tax their logistics as much.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                We should build higher quality Armata knock offs, and then send them to Ukraine. just to fuck with them.

      • 7 days ago
        Anonymous

        >letting the guy down the street use your tools just because you loaned him an old handgun after his lunatic neighbor kicked in his front door.
        No thanks.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Apparently Egypt doesn't count as an European country.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        It obviously doesn't..

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          You might want to look up what continent the Sinai belongs to.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Asia?

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Asia

            Well until now poland had acquired them plus ausies run them but yes abrams are very maintenance heavy but my god its a death mashine when it in the field

            >Well until now poland had acquired them
            Not delivered. There is cupule rented tanks for training first crews and that all

      • 7 days ago
        Anonymous

        No, it doesn't. It is African.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Well until now poland had acquired them plus ausies run them but yes abrams are very maintenance heavy but my god its a death mashine when it in the field

    • 7 days ago
      Anonymous

      The Abrams was LITERALLY DESIGNED to kill Russians in Europe.
      What is this impotent coping about it not being able to do the one job it was made for?

      • 7 days ago
        Anonymous

        Because the US realized it's a wunderwaffen, aka impossible to use in practice if you don't have the entire US military logistic behind?

        • 7 days ago
          Anonymous

          >tank designed to fit US doctrine and US logistics
          >"why can't this tank work with my shit logistics"

      • 7 days ago
        Anonymous

        Because American weapons assume American logistics, and the American government does not want to get in direct war with Russia. People mention forward logistics but even those are in neighboring countries that'd likely cuck out if we said we were going to cycle vehicles needing to be repaired/refitted through them.

        • 7 days ago
          Anonymous

          Ugh. Wish we could just get Ukraine's tank production into high gear again.

          • 7 days ago
            Anonymous

            The US theoretically could just supply Abrams with minimal ability to sustain them and hope humiliation would actually get the Germans to honor their word (lol), but I don't think our leaders are willing to do that for whatever reason.

            • 7 days ago
              Anonymous

              No. We need to get Ukraine's tank production back into gear. This is fucking ridiculous.

              If we can't supply tanks to Ukraine, we'll MAKE the fucking things on site.

              Look over the T-84s and tweak the design.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >yeah lets just get tank production up and running again!
                >why has no one thought of this?

                They've thought of it moron, if they haven't then they ukies deserve to lose.

            • 7 days ago
              Anonymous

              that would be a massive waste, they dont make new hulls for the m1 anymore.

        • 7 days ago
          Anonymous

          >People mention forward logistics but even those are in neighboring countries that'd likely cuck out if we said we were going to cycle vehicles needing to be repaired/refitted through them.
          That's literally happening with every other piece of western gear right now so it's no excuse.

    • 7 days ago
      Anonymous

      >have logistic for it,

      You don't even know what that means.

  6. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    gtfo you tourist moron.

    • 7 days ago
      Anonymous

      Tourist?

      So not one of the many globohomo-cum-sucking dipshits on this board day in day out gargling the jism of their oligarchy? All proud of how THEIR badass 32 trillion in debt war machine can just keep pouring more weapons into the fight to keep Ukraine safe for usury and sodomy--oops, "freedom."

  7. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >muh turbine
    >muh fuel
    >muh heavy
    >muh expensive
    >muh difficult to train
    Why do americans even operate it if it's such a piece of shit.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      They operate it because they can afford and mitigate the downsides in exchange for recieving the advantages.

      Generally speaking assume American defence needs are fundamentally different to their near peers purely because of the sheer scale of American defence needs and their economy.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      That's the point, it's not a piece of shit, it's amazing if you can keep it running.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Maybe they should try it then with Ukraine

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      It works great, its just also incredibly expensive. America discovered an unlimited money exploit so they get to have whatever they want.

    • 7 days ago
      Anonymous

      It's great if you have fuel and maintenance to run it right.

      • 7 days ago
        Anonymous

        I posted about the downsides of Abrams for Ukraine, but it needs to be said that there are advantages that the USA enjoys in exchange for burning money:
        1. The turbine engine is terrible for fuel consumption, but if you're the USA and you need to fight wars all around the world but never at home, being able to burn literally anything as fuel is a huge benefit. Germanys only have diesel? Cool. Some African shithole only uses some weird leaded fuel? Awesome. Only have jet fuel? Equally good. The simplicity is awesome if you don't care about money buy you do care about having access to fuel to use the things to fight.
        2. Turbines have high torque at low speed so they can easily creep a big vehicle along and do a lot of start and stops which is good for a tank. It also speeds up very fast which is also a benefit for combat.
        3.Turbines are also very small compared to other engines of equal power so it offers more room in the tank for the same horsepower. This is important because the Abrams is already a big, heavy, tank compared to a Russian tank. The engine also it to be more heavily armoured without losing speed OR interior space.

    • 7 days ago
      Anonymous

      Because we are the only ones capable of handling logistics. If you can afford to run it, then it's incredible

      • 7 days ago
        Anonymous

        There is nothing incredible about Abrams. Just about everyone who tested it ranked it on par with Leopard or worse, and on par with Leclerc but needing one more caveman to reload rounds.

        • 7 days ago
          Anonymous

          >ask me how I know you've never worked with tank units
          It's called whispering death because the high-frequency turbine noise carries poorly over a distance compared to a diesel.

    • 7 days ago
      Anonymous

      lobbying few years ago some department of the us army said hey stop making these dam things we have plenty. but was ignored now are they able to take on a vatnig tanks head on...yes

    • 7 days ago
      Anonymous

      because quality of quantity works better sometimes

    • 7 days ago
      Anonymous

      By this logic then all tanks are bad retard. Might as well switch to bicycles with moron-rigged metal plates if you cant afford costs of operating and training.

  8. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    didn't the goddamn fuckin Iraqi Army get to use abrams tanks

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      even the low-IQ Egyptians and Saudi morons can run it. To some degree

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >even oil rich muslims can run the 60 ton gas guzzler

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          Saudi logistics must be worse than vatmorons and Egypt has no oil at all...

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          Are you implying that cost is an issue here? Ukraine quite literally has a blank check from the EU and US.

          • 7 days ago
            Anonymous

            Cost is not just cash anon. Every 40gal/mile has to be bought (cash) moved (logistics vehicles), stored (logistic bases) and protected. They might have unlimited cash but not everything else.

    • 7 days ago
      Anonymous

      Because America had already brought them over. And look how the sand monkeys wasted them against ISIS.

    • 7 days ago
      Anonymous

      oil and refineries plentiful in Iraq and Saudi Arabia
      cost to operate would be much lower than for ukraine who has to import most its petrochemicals

  9. 1 week ago
    RC-135 Rivet Joint

    If you do not run the JP logistics chain the M1 is not a good choice.

    • 7 days ago
      Anonymous

      >

      https://i.imgur.com/j1mX5Vk.jpg

      Americans backpedal as usual... lmao

      It's just a tank. Why is it so expensive to run?? (OP) #
      >If you do not run the JP logistics chain
      Wait is that not a standard worldwide?

      • 7 days ago
        Anonymous

        It is and there is plenty of it.

  10. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    the Abrams is a ridiculous device. Germany already knew the US wouldn't send them for mentioned reasons and is using it as a convenient excuse to pussy out

  11. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    "lol, any green ally nation that isnt third world tier can run an Abrams or finnicky non-allweather F-35 that needs permanent shelter"
    t.gay retards

    • 7 days ago
      Anonymous

      bro Iraq runs the abrams

      • 7 days ago
        Anonymous

        The USA gave Iraq the capability to run Abrams and has since talked about what a chore it was.

  12. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Too heavy, hungry, and blows up just as good as a T-72, they'll not face goatherders with AKs there.

  13. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Why the fuck should we deliver our tanks while mutts refuse to deliver their own.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      because you're a vassal, you exist to be a vassal, and america doesn't want to bail out europe again using human lives

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      because you're a vassal, you exist to be a vassal, and america doesn't want to bail out europe again using human lives

      >le organic d/c posts

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >divide and conquer is when I dislike your opinion
        Germany deserves to be an American colony because of their obstinance and failure to deal with the Russian menace. You are unable to comprehend it's far easier to pay a financial cost than human lives, which is the historical precedent - the world saving the inbreds that stayed in Europe after the best went to the New World. perpetually cleaning up a fucking mess.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Be a good puppet and stop complaining.

    • 7 days ago
      Anonymous

      Because you people expecting us to do literally everything and always demanding we bear the heaviest burdens while also calling us imperialist world police is getting tiresome. Pull your own weight for fucking once.

      • 7 days ago
        Anonymous

        >why can't other people pay to advance American interests?!
        Lmao

        • 7 days ago
          Anonymous

          Yeah we in germany literally offered to deliver our tanks together with mutts. Its obvious that for muts its much easier and cheaper to deliver their tanks, but they refuse to deliver even a single one. They just want us to get rid of all our tanks and force us to buy their shitboxes for double the price, like they are already trying with the chinooks

      • 7 days ago
        Anonymous

        Fuck off, globohomoist. You are destroying this country with your constant wars.

        • 7 days ago
          Anonymous

          which country

          • 7 days ago
            Anonymous

            Which country is constantly warring? Do you live in a cave?

            • 7 days ago
              Anonymous

              Russia? We know.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                So you do live in a cave.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                Concession accepted I guess?

      • 7 days ago
        Anonymous

        The German IDF will now post the Ukraine Donation tracker where it includes their EU contributions to prove they're helping!

    • 7 days ago
      Anonymous

      >be the cause of all the shitshows in the modern era
      >get saved from being sent back to the 1700s and de-industrialized by sheer goodwill of the Allied(later NATO) top dogs and even gets Marshall Plan'd
      >get asked for once in centuries to do something for the good of the entire European continent
      >can't even do a tenth of it without bitching this much
      Not depopulating Germany is the biggest mistake of the 21st century.

      • 7 days ago
        Anonymous

        You mean 20th but yeah. Western values and spirit of democracy is a curse sometimes.

  14. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    I mean, it's actually true though.

  15. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >Why is it so expensive to run??
    Because its American and if an American isn't driving something that consumes the energy equivalent of a third world country every hour they just dont feel right you wouldnt understand.

  16. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Because America isn't dumb enough to bust our nut so early.

  17. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Do you really unironically believe west is helping Ukraine out of good will or something?
    Besides they know better how to operate their own tanks and Ukraine isn't desert at all.

  18. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Why can't the US just order the Krauts to deliver the leopard?

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Krauts are still frustrated about the pipeline. Give them time and then will obey like a good boy.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      No, they cannot. What are they going to do, threaten to not deliver F35?

      • 7 days ago
        Anonymous

        They can threaten to cut off gas sales or raise the price. Right now US gas is a lifeline to the krauts

        • 7 days ago
          Anonymous

          That would be the most retarded move possible. It would make the US into Russia 2.0 and blow up a significant part of their network of alliances. Germany would always call the bluff and the US is not trading world hegemony for this. It would literally end Pax Americana and drive a lot of countries into Chinas open arms.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Pretending to have the moral high ground over Russia

  19. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >backpedal
    America never said anything about sending Abrams. It's only the Germans who said they should, because they're too scared how it will look when they get BTFO again like Turkey's did in northern Syria

    • 7 days ago
      Anonymous

      Turkey captured a territory size of Israel by losing like 10 tanks. Old model leopards still did insanely well by vatmoron standards

  20. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    It gets 0.6 miles per GALLON, almost exactly 4 litres of fuel for every kilometer. You lose multiple gallons of fuel just starting it. Ukraine is the second biggest country in Europe. The distances they have to travel and refuel them on a battlefield are huge. There is no trains close enough to the front to enable rapid redeployment and no air superiority to ensure they can be easily resupplied. If America has to send Abrams, they will also have to send dozens of fuel trucks and thousands upon untold thousands of litres of fuel for fuel depots that Ukraine will have to build and hide from the Russians. That doesn't even cover maintenance, which is apparently a lot of extra work too. The USA is focused on sending Ukraine arms that are:

    1. Easy to maintain and supply. You need to keep logistics burden low because Ukraine is poor and needs a lot of aide to build capacity.
    2. Cheap, so that each aide package is effective on the battlefield. There is also no point in sending 1,000 artillery pieces if you can't also supply 1M shells for them too.
    3. Effective, by picking weapons that will have an outsized impact on fighting compared to alternatives.
    4. Share as many commonalities as possible with other NATO offerings and allied supplied weapons.

    The Abrams are none of that. They have a huge logistics burden. They are expensive, so they are never going to be a good bet from a cost-effective POV. No one else is sending Abrams, so it would just add to the number of systems Ukraine has to maintain. There are alternatives from other NATO countries that are better fits and are able to be supplied as an alternative. It would be like giving a 120K Porsche to a guy who lives in a trailer when he really just needs a Honda Civic to drive to work instead. He's have no way to pay for it, no way to repair it, and the benefits would be completely wasted on him.

    • 7 days ago
      Anonymous

      >It gets 0.6 miles per GALLON, almost exactly 4 litres of fuel for every kilometer. You lose multiple gallons of fuel just starting it.
      Burgers absolutely mogging the world with fuel consumption.

      • 7 days ago
        Anonymous

        It’s ok to be jealous

    • 7 days ago
      Anonymous

      >make tank to fight commies in Europe
      >can't actually use it because muh fuel
      Great going, mutts.

      • 7 days ago
        Anonymous

        That's amerifats and their obsession for nazy military and their weapons.
        >let's make something expensive as shit, that has absolutely no autonomy at all and that you can't maintain!
        >but it's super-mega powerful on paper!

        • 7 days ago
          Anonymous

          the m1 was designed to fit into the US army logistics system.

  21. 7 days ago
    Anonymous

    fucking k doesn't know
    about tank transporters

  22. 7 days ago
    Anonymous

    Remind me again why out of all countries, POLAND bought Kr*ut tanks?

    • 7 days ago
      Anonymous

      They're collecting all tanks like a pokemons.

  23. 7 days ago
    Anonymous

    Europe can likely only send 200-300 leopards.
    Abrams is the only realistic long term solution if this war drags on, because the US has 3000 in storage and 2500 in active service.
    If the US donated the same percentage of their active tank force as Poland, Ukraine's armor would be completely re-supplied to a high standard.

    IMO 200 leopards now and 100 Abrams now would be a good solution, with any future NATO MBT deliveries being mostly re-activated Abrams.

    • 7 days ago
      Anonymous

      >only send 200-300 leopards.

      that's kind of a lot lad.

    • 7 days ago
      Anonymous

      >Europe can likely only send 200-300 leopards.
      Wrong. There are 2000 Leopard 2 tanks in service throughout Europe. That's currently on active duty, not including what's been mothballed/stored is under maintenance, etc.

      If Germany gives the word to go, there could be 500 Leopards in Ukraine before the one-year anniversary of Putin's Folly on 24 Feb. There could be another 200-300 (or more) by april 1st.

      Trained crews and other logistics are the bottleneck ... after the general hand-wringing and retardation is suffocated in its bed.

      • 7 days ago
        Anonymous

        Why would NATO weaken their own units when some conflict isn't unlikely?

  24. 7 days ago
    Anonymous

    The more I read about the abrams, the more it feels like some wunderwaffen tier-shit which could have been designed by nazy germany.

  25. 7 days ago
    Anonymous

    It must be the 12 time today i have read that the M1 only runs on JP-8 lmao.

  26. 7 days ago
    Anonymous

    Send Ukraine like 200 leopards 2s and ~1000 M60A3s.

    These will fuck any vatmoron offensive to halt

  27. 7 days ago
    Anonymous

    >oh no, we'll have to charge money

    That's why wars exist, to make money. Probably more money in extending the war I guess.

  28. 7 days ago
    Anonymous

    >High maintenance costs

    America, pay the damn bill and kill Russians!!! Ninja kick the damn rabbit!

    https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/32102df4-ca19-465d-bc4a-c1b80b3110f2

  29. 7 days ago
    Anonymous

    For fuck's sake, this is why we need a LOW-COST export tank for the fucking poverty-stricken customer.

  30. 7 days ago
    Anonymous

    The US has more $$$ sent to Ukraine than every other country combined, and over three times the runner-up, especially when you factor in value-added stuff like 8 years of intel-sharing and training.

    IMO we should send Abrams with American volunteer crews and logistics and simply lie about doing so, though. Kinda like the Rusmorons did in Korea and Vietnam.

    • 7 days ago
      Anonymous

      Why don't you globohomos take up a collection and pay for it?

  31. 7 days ago
    Anonymous

    >Americans do more than everyone else combined several times over
    >"Why aren't the Americans doing more?"

  32. 7 days ago
    Anonymous

    >designed to kill russian in Europe
    Whilw true, the abrams is reliant on american logistics. Giving it to other countries would be detrimental to their logistics because the U.S. is not directly Inside the country providing logistical support. High maintenance and high fuel consumption isn't advantageous for a country that does not have a proper logistical chain to maintain it.
    The germans are absolutely retarded if they think abrams would be good because of the maintenance and logistical burden that the tank has. The leopard is good because every country nearby has leopards and can spare parts or repair hubs. People tend to forget that the Abrams is reliant on american logistics to work properly.

    • 7 days ago
      Anonymous

      >High maintenance and high fuel consumption isn't advantageous
      It's shit. No matter how you try to turn things around, it will always be a huge con for any military weapon.

      • 7 days ago
        Anonymous

        it's shit for ukrainians who don't have the logistics or fuel to support as many abrams as they can other tanks, hence why europeans are sending their tanks as they are more suited to a poor country like ukraine

        it's intelligent decision making, but you are only here to seethe about the US so you'll ignore that part

      • 7 days ago
        Anonymous

        Its shit for a country that doesn't have a proper structure to maintain the tank. No nearby country uses the abrams and its just better to use the leopards because of accessibility and ease of maintenance. If an Abrams gets badly damaged, it will have to be sent back to the U.S. along with the U.S. will have to travel across the ocean to provide them sufficient parts and maintenance for the vehicles. It will also take a while to set up people to check on the abrams for problems on the battlefield. Its a good tank, but without proper logistics and maintenance, it will not do good. The leopard is the same, but nearby countries already use the leopards and can provide support and more training compared to the abrams where no European country operates them.

        • 7 days ago
          Anonymous

          But the Germans won't send or allow Leopards to be sent unless USA sends Abrams. Knowing that USA won't. So they don't have to.

    • 7 days ago
      Anonymous

      So we need to make a new tank for Ukraine's needs?

  33. 7 days ago
    Anonymous

    It’s funny how nobody points out that when operating at 100% the turbine is roughly on par with diesel fuel consumption

    • 7 days ago
      Anonymous

      That would be really good if the tanks spent 100% of their time going at maximum speed.

      • 7 days ago
        Anonymous

        god i fucking wish

    • 7 days ago
      Anonymous

      Turbines are actually more efficient than Ice engines above 80% load, the issue being is that very little time is spent above 80% load which is why turbines are more suited to applications like baseline load generators for grids and hospitals than vehicles.

  34. 7 days ago
    Anonymous

    they can send a small number of units and have them build up over time to protect the Ukrainian capital. this would free up the tanks around kyiv for the front lines well keeping the heavy maintance required Abrams close to the needed supply and refuel stations. protect the capital and north border from russian counter attack, free up other lower cost tanks for the front line. plus more good PR for the Ukrainian people seeing American uber tanks in the streets of their capital

  35. 7 days ago
    Anonymous

    Just send one Abrams. Why are Amerimutts so afraid. Just a single Abrams is enough.

    Bitch ass pussy muttmericans

    • 7 days ago
      Anonymous

      >Just send one Abrams. Why are Amerimutts so afraid. Just a single Abrams is enough
      Because that's not true and as brits have found out war is not a video game where you can cheat by abusing nonsensical rules.

  36. 7 days ago
    Anonymous

    not enough moron trannies in ukraine to maintain it. Judging by the US army ads it seems to be a main ingredient in US warfare

  37. 7 days ago
    Anonymous

    >maintenance and training.

    suppose that i need to replace an armor plate of reactive armor, how do I do that?
    >how do I check the oil?
    >how do I maintance the barrel of the gun?
    >how about the loading procedure
    >what if a track breaks?
    >which of these leavers makes the throttle of the turbine open up?
    >I was suppose to check the blinker fluid, I didn't know the Abrams had blinker fluid!?
    >where are the grid squares?
    >I need chem-light batteries!?
    >optical viewing device 3 inches from the ... wait there are CIA agents watching me watch Russian lesbian porn? they need to pay out to my only fans!!

  38. 7 days ago
    Anonymous

    The US has already sent tanks to Ukraine

    • 7 days ago
      Anonymous

      i wish someone could swat him already, he's insufferable

  39. 7 days ago
    Anonymous

    I hate Amerimutts so fucking much bros. Worse than Germans.

    • 7 days ago
      Anonymous

      We’d probably hate you right back if your country was even relevant enough for us to bother thinking about.

  40. 7 days ago
    Anonymous

    I mean, that's true. Each new type of tank requires full new maintenance chain, and Ukraine already had few of them just for soviet tanks. Sending both leos and abramses is just schlong saying "uh, yeah, we won't let you fly the plane because you refused ride the train" like, yeah, moron, I chose one type of transportation instead of other, the fuck are you forcing me into both?

    • 7 days ago
      Anonymous

      read behind the lines.

      Germany is pointing out that Poland's insignificant number of promised MBTs is pointless and wants a bigger coalition.
      US is basically saying the same: it's pointless to join a coalition that only wants to supply a limited number of MBTs, maintenance alone will make it not worth it.

      No one wants to play Poland's games where in the end Germany and the US shoulder most of it -- not Poland.

      • 7 days ago
        Anonymous

        Well I guess that's it then, no Abrams, no Leopards. There's nothing left except challengers and leclerc. Frenchies aren't going to their shit and there aren't enough challengers to make a difference.
        It's over.

        • 7 days ago
          Anonymous

          Who even moved the goalpost to MBTs?

  41. 7 days ago
    Anonymous

    tanks are pointless in a this stagnant trench warfare hellhole anyway. you think they will break through? they wont. Ukraine needs commando raids, CAS, artillery, and a navy to take back Crimea

    • 7 days ago
      Anonymous

      Russia cannot supply Crimea by sea.
      If UKies can sever the land connection, it's over for Crimea.

    • 7 days ago
      Anonymous

      Weren't tanks literally designed to break the stalemate of trench warfare?

      • 7 days ago
        Anonymous

        Yes. It was secret project too and the reason why the tank name stuck

    • 7 days ago
      Anonymous

      They won't be much use for crimea but they've already made breakthroughs elsewhere in this war and taking crimea is almost certainly last on the to do list

  42. 7 days ago
    Anonymous

    We don't need to because Europe is sending the leopard

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *