>Poland, Taiwan, Australia, Morocco, Egypt and Saudi Arabia and Iraq all can handle the logistics and use of an Abrams

>Poland, Taiwan, Australia, Morocco, Egypt and Saudi Arabia and Iraq all can handle the logistics and use of an Abrams
>but not Ukraine
>no, that's too much
>because it has a turbine
>just like the turbine-engined T-80 tanks they've been using for 11 months straight
>it's too heavy, it weighs 60 metric tons
>just like the PZH2000 and Challenger 2s that are being sent
>the abrams wasn't designed to fight in Ukraine
>it was designed in the mid 1970s when the entire fear was a fight in central/Eastern europe
>t-they won't have any repair facilities, you'll have to ship them to the US
>right across the border in Poland and Germany there are two massive repair depots and Pre-Position stockpiles of fuel, ammo and parts
When will the midwittery around the US not sending Abrams end? When will people acknowledge that this is Biden being a Cold War boomer and afraid to "escalate" the situation too much?

  1. 5 days ago
    Anonymous

    Germany won't allow Leopards to be sent or send their own unless USA sends theirs. Even if USA sends it, the Germans will find a way to wiggle out of sending stuff. They did when UK sent Challys.

    • 5 days ago
      Anonymous

      Imagine being a euro
      >eastern bloc, baltics
      >”germans”, Frencophones, Bulgarians
      >PIGS
      >all members of the same block
      >this is fine

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

      The problem is that the US are also unreliable, there are a bunch of politicians who will try to obstruct aid to Ukraine in the future, for budgetary reasons and ideological ones.
      Anything that relies on long term US support will likely become at risk of becoming a 70 ton paper weight if political winds change.

      The Abrams is also perceived as a big escalation by many, both militarily and budget wise, many think that Europe should solve their own problem and that the US should focus resources on China, this is slightly silly though in context of the Abrams, which is not much use in a Pacific conflict.
      In fact the HIMARS, javelins and air defences actually are draining those stocks, but the image of big tanks matters more apparently.

      It’s really showing the reality of Europe
      >”westerners” are delusional backbiting women
      >southerners are lazy idiots
      >east is poor, monetarily demographically or both

    • 5 days ago
      Anonymous

      Germans and the french really threw their image of leaders of europe out the window with all this.

      • 5 days ago
        Anonymous

        The French have always been too fucked up to ever be "leaders" of Europe, the Germans fucked up when it came to light that a bunch of their politicians were owned by Russia and Trump was right

    • 5 days ago
      T-I-G-E-R-S

      Welp, that aged like milk

    • 5 days ago
      Anonymous

      >Germany won't allow Leopards to be sent or send their own unless USA sends theirs. Even if USA sends it, the Germans will find a way to wiggle out of sending stuff. They did when UK sent Challys.
      Germany gave the OK to Poland.
      12 Challengers have never been relevant for anybody in any consideration.

    • 4 days ago
      Anonymous

      Good because it looks like the US is trying to get Germany fucked up the ass. When I say the US I mean Brandon. Which makes sense when you consider Brandons handler is CCP.

    • 4 days ago
      Anonymous

      >Germans and French cry that they need stronger European initiative, they're too reliant on the US taking the lead
      >the bongs take charge and send Challys
      >*crickets*
      Is this some sort of residual brexit asshurt?

      • 4 days ago
        Anonymous

        It’s a publicity stunt because NHS is collapsing.

  2. 5 days ago
    Anonymous

    Jesus, you are just inching closer to the truth.

    Its not about the fucking maintenance nor about the weight or training. No Nato country wants it meme tanks splatterd by Russian artillery. This is the reason they dont send F35 either. Just imagine Alexander sending his war elephants, just to learn that they are worth shit and every Russian with a long sword owns them. Just think of the demoralizing videos you would have to present your population of your invincible tanks shreddered by a third world army or even worse, be part of a russian victory parade. This is not going to happen. Nato is running out of neat stuff to send. If tanks are sent and obliterated, what else do they have? Nothing. Nato is grasping at straws at this point. Its over for them, they have proven that the combined industrial might of Nato is unable to supply enough weaponry to keep the Russians away. Think about what this means for their article 5 memery. If Russia should ever decide to stomp Polands shit in, there is nothing Nato can do. They will monitor the situation and sent useless material until Poland has burned through all its available man power.

    This is why they dont send tanks. They know that there is nothing these would change and nothing they would gain by prolonging the conflict another 2 weeks. Russia is going to win this, no matter what Nato does.

    • 5 days ago
      Anonymous

      >they have proven that the combined industrial might of Nato is unable to supply enough weaponry to keep the Russians away
      My guy we sent like 1000 armored vehicles in total. Calm your tits

      • 5 days ago
        Anonymous

        Westoids dont understand that this is already more than they can offer. The problem is that you cant send all your stuff to Ukraine, because should Russia ever decide to go further West, there would be nothing in their way due to your idiot government giving it all away to some Slavoids that drove it into Russian artillery range.

        • 5 days ago
          Anonymous

          Yes lad, the West would be absolutely defenceless if Russia suddenly decided to take off the gloves and go to the Atlantic! It just has to defeat
          >298 Patrol Boats
          >153 Mine Sweepers
          >144 Submarines
          >135 Frigates
          >112 Destroyer
          >56 Corvettes
          >17 Aircraft Carriers
          >3,527 fighters/interceptors
          >1,359 combat helicopters
          >1,048 ground attack aircraft
          >1,350,000 troops
          It'll be strudel and cream in Berlin by Tuesday, eclair and coffee in Paris by Thursday and Bakewell tart and tea in London by Sunday!

          • 4 days ago
            Anonymous

            >No morning porridge
            Disgusting

        • 5 days ago
          Anonymous

          >should Russia ever decide to go further West
          You monumental fucking retard, they have been bogged down 20km from the border for a year now, how do you expect them to cross 2000 km? What a disingenuous piece of shit you are lol

          • 5 days ago
            Anonymous

            lmao, you are absolute fucking retards. If you wouldnt be so braindead you would realize that the Russian doctrine is much different than the western approach. They failed with trying something new and now do it the old way. Basic attrition of enemy forces. Simple as and Ukraine has no answer for it. The Russians wouldnt play the same game with Nato, which is why the left Kherson. Now the Ukraine sacrifices hundreds of thousands to keep irrelevant villages under their control. Go ahead. Do that for another year.

            Only absolute seething westoids dont understand this. In their mind even the loss of a single soldier or tank is a near catastrophe that shakes the foundation of their military. Russia doesnt give a shit. Sink their carriers, destroy 90% of their tanks, capture an equal ammount of their vehicles with tractors. All this does not matter to Russia.
            Westoids cant grasp that fact, which is why they think its a big deal Russia loses a tank lol. And they are literally having a hard time making the decision to send 100 tanks. Its pathetic, really.

            • 5 days ago
              Anonymous

              ye not reading your schizo bullshit, dumb vatnik

            • 5 days ago
              Anonymous

              Good points.

        • 5 days ago
          Anonymous

          Man when will you people understand that Russia is physically incapable of invading anyone while fully commited to attacking Ukraine?
          Unironically the best way to stop Russia from attacking the west is to keep them bogged down in Ukraine where they burn through their post soviet shitboxes and manpower.

    • 5 days ago
      Anonymous

      Fuck Ya Mudda

    • 5 days ago
      Anonymous

      Mucho texto.

    • 5 days ago
      Anonymous

      The Bradleys and the Challengers, retard?

    • 5 days ago
      Anonymous

      >prolonging the conflict another 2 weeks
      Based.

    • 5 days ago
      Anonymous

      >shreddered by a third world army
      Russia is the #2 military in the world and economically it is at the strongest it's ever been, even when compared to Soviet times.

      • 4 days ago
        Anonymous

        Anon they were literally economy number 2 in the cold war they have more money today but they are no where near China or Japan or Germany in available spending also that ignores America which has had more money then it did in the entire cold war

    • 5 days ago
      Anonymous

      >No Nato country wants it meme tanks splatterd by Russian artillery.
      Tanks are extremely resistant to nearby artillery strikes

      • 5 days ago
        Anonymous

        >Tanks are extremely resistant to nearby artillery strikes
        Russians have a shit load of guided artillery, saturation AT submunitions, dedicated ATGM TD, etc... and I'm not talking about some russian wonderwaffe, they have had those since the Soviet Union and they've all been designed to kill M1 tanks (whose design hasn't drastically changed from CW version it still has no APS no real ERA/nERA protection, etc...).

        • 5 days ago
          Anonymous

          Pshht, don’t tell them. It will all be a cakewalk.

          • 5 days ago
            Anonymous

            you can head back to /chug/ if you're done dicksucking russia's awful procurement system

            • 5 days ago
              Anonymous

              I think they inherited their variant of DPICM from the USSR, anon. Which would make it something not subject to Russias indeed awful procurement system. Might have a higher dud rate due to age, but is likely still effective.
              Feel free to correct me, I am happy to learn new things.

        • 5 days ago
          Anonymous

          That they spent on blowing up their own tanks captured by the Ukies. Tell me how many images show any Russian unit wielding even simply RPG-7s? They've either used up the bulk of their guided munitions or foolishly sold them pre-war.

        • 4 days ago
          RC-135 Rivet Joint

          The Abrams has always had NERA inserts inside it's composite armor(don't all Chobham armored vehicles?)
          The Abrams has ERA via the TUSK packages
          The Abrams composite armor has been upgraded several times since the 1980s.
          The Abrams have access to the Trophy APS

          • 4 days ago
            Anonymous

            Abrams does not use Chobham, you dumb moron. Stop spreading fuddlore.

            • 4 days ago
              RC-135 Rivet Joint

              I'm a dumb moron spreading fudlore because I used ONE word wrong in my post?

              chill mane chiiillllll.

              • 4 days ago
                Anonymous

                Not correct either Boomer.
                The Abrahams uses special armour. Look it up.

              • 4 days ago
                RC-135 Rivet Joint

                >Boomer
                more snarl words chill dog

                Regardless of the name of the armor it's has NERA elements that all I was trying to say in my first post.

                The Abrams has "special armor" Anon you're right. I love you. chill tf out.

    • 5 days ago
      Anonymous

      mucho texto for mucho cope, prajneesh

      • 5 days ago
        Anonymous

        kek source?

        • 5 days ago
          Anonymous

          Bollywood film called RRR. It is suitably over the top and it is about Indians beating up Bongs (who are mysteriously played by Irishmen). There is a scene where an Indian picks up a motorcycle and uses it as a club. It isn't realistic but it is great.

    • 5 days ago
      Anonymous

      Very true, greetings from Finland oblast

    • 5 days ago
      Anonymous

      Except Iraq lost a bunch of M1s and nobody cared except that Serbian guy with a fetish for blown up American equipment. Thinking it's about "muh optics" is peak midwittery.

      • 5 days ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah but they unironically used the
        >muh monkey model
        cope for those
        can't use that in this case if they get btfo in ukraine, which they will given the intensity of this conflict.
        why no one wants to bite the bullet first on eviscerating the mythical status of their golden cash cow.

  3. 5 days ago
    Anonymous

    The problem is that the US are also unreliable, there are a bunch of politicians who will try to obstruct aid to Ukraine in the future, for budgetary reasons and ideological ones.
    Anything that relies on long term US support will likely become at risk of becoming a 70 ton paper weight if political winds change.

    The Abrams is also perceived as a big escalation by many, both militarily and budget wise, many think that Europe should solve their own problem and that the US should focus resources on China, this is slightly silly though in context of the Abrams, which is not much use in a Pacific conflict.
    In fact the HIMARS, javelins and air defences actually are draining those stocks, but the image of big tanks matters more apparently.

    • 5 days ago
      Anonymous

      The Abrams is even more useless in Asia

      America would instantly get nuked if they land troops in Hong Kong

      • 5 days ago
        Anonymous

        >I'm gonna NOOOK

      • 5 days ago
        Anonymous

        ...And then promptly smash open the Three Gorges Dam and vaporize Beijing because China lacks the capability for MAD.

  4. 5 days ago
    Anonymous

    We Europeans have to take care of our own security, hence the American insistence on European MBTs in Ukraine. That's it

  5. 5 days ago
    Anonymous

    Trend arrow points to Ukraine getting more and more advanced systems over time. Germany is always lagging and people make fun of them (remember when they offered to send 5000 helmets). But eventually they will send the good stuff and so does everyone else. Eventually they have the Abrams tanks and the leopards, short range missiles, helis too and f-16's.
    While more unlikely, I wouldn't even bet against Ukraine at some point having actual Nato troops fighting there, not just volunteers.

  6. 5 days ago
    Anonymous
    • 5 days ago
      Anonymous

      shut up retard, those tanks aren't going to pay for new infrastructure

    • 5 days ago
      Anonymous

      >boomer meme avatarfagging with d-fens
      poetic

  7. 5 days ago
    Anonymous

    >Australia can handle the logistics and use of an Abrams
    Hahahahaha.
    t. aussie

  8. 5 days ago
    Anonymous

    >Poland, Taiwan, Australia, Morocco, Egypt and Saudi Arabia and Iraq all can handle the logistics and use of an Abrams
    >but not Ukraine
    Correct. Each and every one of those countries had time during peace to build up entire logistical structures to support their new tanks, while abandoning older vehicles so they don't have to maintain two entirely different fleets at once. Ukraine does not have this liberty. Ukraine has a pre-existing system for supporting T-series Soviet tanks and to alongside them support also Abrams, they would either need to construct an entirely new one, or find enough contractors to do it for them. These contractors are to a great extent already employed by militaries, so you would either have to poach them or have the time to train entirely new ones.

    For it to be feasibly worthwhile to send Abrams into Ukraine, the entire infrastructure and possibly hundreds of the tanks would need to be sent to the country. This is where the boomer fear of escalation kicks in.

    • 5 days ago
      Anonymous

      and this wasn't a problem with Challengers because...?

      Westoids dont understand that this is already more than they can offer. The problem is that you cant send all your stuff to Ukraine, because should Russia ever decide to go further West, there would be nothing in their way due to your idiot government giving it all away to some Slavoids that drove it into Russian artillery range.

      yeah dude our entire stockpile is being sent, we're practically naked here, glorious rossiya is winning, two more weeks to Washington

      • 5 days ago
        Anonymous

        >and this wasn't a problem with Challengers because...?
        It's a massive problem with the Challengers. The Brits are either sending in contractors or they've trained Ukrainian mechanics in the UK to maintain the Challengers they have, probably also some rear-line contractors. Same thing with the rumored Apaches.
        Even then, the Challengers are pretty much just a token effort, likely to challenge the Germany obstinance against sending Leopards. The non-EU UK is sending their relatively few MBTs while the EU leaders are twiddling their thumbs.

        • 5 days ago
          Anonymous

          >Challengers are pretty much just a token effort
          UK likely will send about 40 more eventually - the planned 'retired' amount.

          • 5 days ago
            Anonymous

            Then it's not a token effort and they absolutely have trained Ukrainians to maintain them. Abrams face the issue that they haven't been training Ukrainians in the US for their employment and there's probably a lot of political obstacles against sending contractors to die in Ukraine. Any Abrams sent will need to be a full-scale infrastructure deployment, at which point you're so deep into the war you might as well just send in everything.

            • 5 days ago
              Anonymous

              There were thousands of Ukrainians training in UK for months. I am sure some got taught on tanks - just in case :^)

            • 5 days ago
              Anonymous

              So why did the US send Bradleys? You think they didn't train Ukrainians on them and just sent them with an instruction manual?
              They've probably been training people for just such an occasion.

              • 5 days ago
                Anonymous

                Bradleys are more simple to maintain, 12 months of training vs an Abrams 24 months for military levle maintenance. Have a far smaller logistical footprint as well.
                The US is most likely building up those logistical capabilities and as they slowly gain reliability are sending the systems the Ukrainians are capable of maintaining.

              • 5 days ago
                Anonymous

                Can you delve further into this? What's the school length for M2 vs M1 maintainer?

              • 5 days ago
                Anonymous

                I don't know anywhere near enough to add any depth to what I already wrote.
                Bradley maintainers have 12 months of AIT, Abrams maintainers have 24 months of AIT and they don't even work on the engines after that. Basically double the training and the serious stuff dealing with the gas turbine is handled primarily by contractors even then. 91Ms can at least work on the engine on the Bradley, but if something goes wrong with the GT there's practically nothing they can do in the field and far as I know, they don't even train them for the possibility.
                Not an easy thing to just conjure up into existence in Ukraine.

              • 5 days ago
                Anonymous

                So how was this planned to work in a WW3 scenario?

                >USA drops a Cummings turbo-diesel into abraps just to mog Germans
                >GD gets orders for thousands of export abraps from every nation in the world
                lmao

                no export abrams has ever had a diesel

              • 5 days ago
                Anonymous

                >no export abrams has ever had a diesel
                They soon will, and Leopard 2 will have zero export market because nobody wants trash

              • 5 days ago
                Anonymous

                So what about the 8-9 countries that use the M1 with a turbine?

              • 5 days ago
                Anonymous

                either keep using turbine or switch to diesel
                leopard 2 is for shitter countries that can't afford better

              • 5 days ago
                Anonymous

                >So how was this planned to work in a WW3 scenario?
                Don't know. WW3 would have been nuclear with rapidly moving mechanized forces with barely any frontlines to speak of, so realistically a lot of vehicle abandonment until and if the frontlines stabilize somewhere. The Gulf and Iraq war serve as good examples of lack of recovery and repair capability. Abrams gets mobility killed or otherwise disabled? Just destroy it.

              • 5 days ago
                Anonymous

                I have a feeling you have no idea what you're talking about because the US didn't destroy very many M1s in either Gulf War or Iraq

              • 5 days ago
                Anonymous

                I might be talking out of my ass, but the US destroyed more Abrams than the enemy did, did they not?

              • 5 days ago
                Anonymous

                dude, they repaired M1s in the field and depots during both wars.
                Part of the design of the turbine was so that it could burn any fuel (diesel, gas, JP-8) and so that it could be serviced quickly. this is part of why the army was willing to accept the trade-offs of a turbine

              • 5 days ago
                Anonymous

                >dude, they repaired M1s in the field and depots during both wars.
                Yes, of course. You're correct and it wasn't my intention to deny that. I was trying to make a point that the two wars give good examples of
                >lack of recovery and repair capability.
                in that there were many situations where it simply didn't exist and so the local forces had to resort to simply destroying the tanks. This would have been extremely common in WW3, in a contaminated battlefield with no real frontlines.
                I never intended to imply that it was the norm in the Gulf and Iraq wars and that was my failure.

              • 5 days ago
                Anonymous

                They certainly did with Bradley's. 3 lost to enemy fire, 17 to friendly fire and like 20 or so to malfunctions (and then repaired I assume).

              • 5 days ago
                Anonymous

                Pisses me off how theres so many cool camos for the abrams but majority of them are just painted tan.

                Even the ones not operating in the desert are still painted tan because military are too lazy to paint it anything else

              • 5 days ago
                Anonymous

                WW3 scenario was always
                >get our asses kicked in mainland europe.
                >If possible maintain a bridgehead in the netherlands.
                >fortify england into a giant aircraft carrier.
                The US plan was more or less a redo of 1939-1940 or 1950 in Korea. At no point no one envisaged WINNING against the PACT on the ground. Best case scenario was a rearguard fighting hoping US reinforcement could be shipped fast enough.

                It's the reason why NATO ship lanes control and air power doctrine was so important.
                It's the reason why the french were so adamant in getting their own nukes and especially nukes to glass soviet formations while still in Germany.

              • 5 days ago
                Anonymous

                >French plan was glassing Germany

              • 5 days ago
                Anonymous

                based frogs solving the german question

              • 5 days ago
                Anonymous

                >first strike nuclear "defense" policy to this day in response to territorial invasion
                >their "warning shot" is a 300kt missile that can be carried by any Rafale
                >RoE for said firecracker is even looser than their actual first strike policy
                Their modern policy is just as based.

              • 4 days ago
                Anonymous

                based frogs solving the german question

                Proof actual skitzo policy trumps modern war doctrine

              • 4 days ago
                Anonymous

                It just fucks with the enemies risk model.

        • 5 days ago
          Anonymous

          My guess is that they will just run them into the ground cutting every corner they can
          But yes, also this:
          >Even then, the Challengers are pretty much just a token effort, likely to challenge the Germany obstinance against sending Leopards.

  9. 5 days ago
    Anonymous

    The point is to dry out the European fleet of Leopard so they can be replaced with us equipment

  10. 5 days ago
    Anonymous

    Honestly I'd rather have 109 Bradleys than 109 Abrams. Abrams is great, don't get me wrong, but all its special snowflake shit it has has got to be annoying as fuck for maintenance and supply in a real war unless your country has USA's +100 racial to logistics. Plus Bradleys just love killing Russian tanks: it's where they're happiest and I feel like they deserve to live their best life.

    • 5 days ago
      Anonymous

      What special snowflake shit? Can you identify anything or is this just "it is, okay"?

      • 5 days ago
        Anonymous

        A gas turbine, anon. It's not something you can reliably have your maintenance troops repair in the field. It's got large fuel consumption. It's pretty much the worst possible choice if you want to rapidly arm a sub-standard military with Western weapons.

        • 5 days ago
          Anonymous

          So, like the T80 tanks they already have?

          >Poland, Taiwan, Australia, Morocco, Egypt and Saudi Arabia and Iraq
          All countries that don't have a fuel shortage because all of their fuel depots got hit by Russian missiles.

          Ukraine has a fuel shortage? news to me.

          • 5 days ago
            Anonymous

            >So, like the T80 tanks they already have?
            One gas turbine is not the same as the other. Ukraine most likely is already overtaxing their mechanics just maintaining their own T80s and the ones they've captured. None of those mechanics are trained or capable of operating Abrams alongside what they're already doing.

            • 5 days ago
              Anonymous

              >their own T80s and the ones they've captured
              AFAIK ukraine only operates T-64 and T-72. Their supply of T-80 is unusable due to the gas turbine.

              • 5 days ago
                Anonymous

                What posters keep missing is that the majority of Ukraine's T-80 tanks are NOT gas turbine (besides the captured Russian ones), they run diesel engines and most were built as T-80UD.

          • 5 days ago
            Anonymous

            Pretty sure the Ukes tried desperately to move there T80s to diesel because it was to much of a hassle beforehand

            • 5 days ago
              Anonymous

              Nope. The only Diesel T-80s are operated by Pakistan. The T-84 which is a development by T-80UD is operated by Thailand and a handful are in Ukraine (less then 10).
              Every T-80 in service pre-war were T-80BVs operated by Air Assault and Marine Brigades, and during the war every T-80B and U captured have gas turbines

          • 5 days ago
            Anonymous

            >So, like the T80 tanks they already have?
            Most of their T-80s are diesels.

            • 5 days ago
              Anonymous

              the ones they captured are entirely turbine engine'd, and I'd love a source on that claim.

              • 4 days ago
                Anonymous

                They probably ate them for parts amon one t80bvm they captured was abandoned after they canablized it for parts

            • 5 days ago
              Anonymous

              This is just wrong
              The only T-80 variant with a diesel is the T-80UD which neither Russia or Ukraine operate

          • 5 days ago
            Anonymous

            You mean the T-80 tanks they converted to Diesel engines? Also the same tanks that the ukies sold en masse to other countries in years in between independence and when war occurred in 2014?

  11. 5 days ago
    Anonymous

    >When will people acknowledge that this is Biden being a Cold War boomer and afraid to "escalate" the situation too much?
    kek, thats a good joke. during the cold war they actually werent fucking pussies, "instructors" flyed planes all the time

    • 5 days ago
      Anonymous

      >flyed
      Flew.

      • 5 days ago
        Anonymous

        ESLbros...its over

        • 5 days ago
          Anonymous

          >its
          it's.

  12. 5 days ago
    Anonymous

    > The reasons against this have less to do with the Ukraine and more to do with Lloyd Austin, the USA and their national interests: the Americans are just waiting for the Europeans to give their Leopard 2 to the Ukraine. **Because then they can offer their own tanks as a replacement.** The Ukraine war offers the USA a unique opportunity, after helicopters, fighter jets and rockets, to gain a foothold in the European armaments market with armored vehicles and to oust the German competition. They don't want to miss this opportunity.

    https://archive.is/vRa6G

    • 5 days ago
      Anonymous

      Honestly it's Germany's own fucking fault. They need to ramp up production but they don't do it.

      • 5 days ago
        Anonymous

        >ramp up production

        for whom?

        The leopard 2 is an old outgoing model, it's switching to Panther production among other things.

      • 5 days ago
        Anonymous

        You do understand that the german government does not build the tanks themselves, right?
        The tanks get built by a company that will only increase output if there is a massive influx of orders. Are you going to order 800 hulls so KMW builds a new production line?

  13. 5 days ago
    Anonymous

    >Poland, Taiwan, Australia, Morocco, Egypt and Saudi Arabia and Iraq
    All countries that don't have a fuel shortage because all of their fuel depots got hit by Russian missiles.

  14. 5 days ago
    Anonymous

    Stop promoting wars. I live in Central eu and I have this close to execute people from usa

    • 5 days ago
      Anonymous

      >i habe no gunz but i'm going to kill the people with over a billion civilian gunz
      Good luck with that

      • 5 days ago
        Anonymous

        You won't do shit. Fed morons fuck your ass and actual morons fuck your white snowbunny crush ass

      • 5 days ago
        Anonymous

        If he's from the Czech Republic, he has better gun laws than USA.

    • 5 days ago
      Anonymous

      do it gay

    • 4 days ago
      Anonymous

      I also live in central Europe oblast

  15. 5 days ago
    Anonymous

    fuck ukraine, why should we send them anything?

    • 4 days ago
      Anonymous

      >fuck ukraine, why should we send them anything?
      because its best time to attack Russia, you gotta think of your own benefit, and this is it

  16. 5 days ago
    Anonymous

    While this reads like a g*erman cope post, you are unironically correct.

  17. 5 days ago
    Anonymous

    >USA drops a Cummings turbo-diesel into abraps just to mog Germans
    >GD gets orders for thousands of export abraps from every nation in the world
    lmao

  18. 5 days ago
    Anonymous

    , Taiwan, Australia, Morocco, Egypt and Saudi Arabia and Iraq all can handle the logistics and use of an Abrams
    Like half of those literally can't though.

  19. 5 days ago
    Anonymous

    It’s the fuel consumption retard, we’d rather them get Leo’s since they get better milage comparable to their current vehicles. That way they don’t have to triple up their fuel logistics train and can put more metal in the front line.

  20. 5 days ago
    Anonymous

    of course you are right. just look at the chuggie reee going on in this bread alone to see how much of a fear there is for this actually modern heavy machinery going in to wreck stronk rasha. Unlike the T-series trash that has the closest equivalents to us machines from the 60s and 70s

  21. 5 days ago
    Anonymous

    They should be honest for once and say they are too scared of Monke. Westerners are so weak, the sole idea of losing comfort, their plastic trinkets and mind rotting entertainment makes them piss themselves in abject terror.
    Westerners are Eloi, russians are morlocks, Ukranians are suffering in the middle.

  22. 5 days ago
    Anonymous

    they're not giving Abrams because America wants to sell them to countries that give their Leopards to Ukraine

  23. 5 days ago
    Anonymous

    They will have to send them in anyway eventually if this war keeps going. European tank stockpiles are running out and since Germany keeps being squeamish about Leopards the US is the only country left with a fuckton of tanks to spare.

  24. 5 days ago
    Anonymous

    They will need to set up those logistics before getting the tanks. You forgot to mention that the americans trained them and helped prepare the logistics/maintenance for them to operate.

  25. 5 days ago
    Anonymous

    >promotes chud garden gnome shit
    Hurry up and win Russia. Nuke Europe please.

    • 5 days ago
      Anonymous
  26. 5 days ago
    Anonymous

    >Evil NATO that provokes us has spent everything they got while we're not even using our final form
    >And this is all according to our initial plan
    Hilarious

    • 5 days ago
      Anonymous

      (denied)

  27. 5 days ago
    Anonymous

    https://twitter.com/jacksonhinklle/status/1616932542367793153

  28. 4 days ago
    Anonymous

    I think that the west doesnt want to help Ukraine to take back Crimea (which tanks would be useful for) because they would(?) oust the naval base too, and that's probably the reason Russia took all of Crimea in the first place. Unclear if sevastopol has nukes or not. Ukraine hasn't touched Russia yet, but that would change with Sevastopol. Moreover, the recent Ukrainian laws would cause a shitshow to the majority russian crimean population and would be bad optics. It's kinda like the emancipation proclamation that obviously didn't free any slave in the confederacy - they're making anti-russian laws, yet they dont actually control areas that have the most russians. Would they even find enough teachers etc to fill the public sector jobs in Crimea after booting every russian out who doesnt speak ukrainian? Or would those laws not apply to autonomous crimea - if that would still exist? Anyway, Ukraine's retaliation to Crimeans will be funny to see.

  29. 4 days ago
    Anonymous

    Why don't Americunts help a country that they pushed into a self destructive war?
    There's literally thousands of Abrahams sitting in deserts while Ukrops are getting turned into a bloody muddy pulp on trenches with no armor support...

    Why are Amwrimorons like this bros?

    • 4 days ago
      Anonymous

      Because the war is not about Ukraine or its people.

      • 4 days ago
        Anonymous

        yeah just as it started to seem US has its eye on the ball we went right back into the dementia fever dream

  30. 4 days ago
    Anonymous

    What is the official reason for mutts refusing to gib tanks but asking the germs to do so?

  31. 4 days ago
    Anonymous

    Didn't they have like barley any t80s before this ?

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