What was the reasoning behind leaving the top of these things exposed anyways? Planes exists, artillery existed (not that a top would help against most rounds, really) and outside of "saving materials" or "ease of egress" I cannot understand this design.
Wait till you learn that all Russian tanks follow the Soviet doctrine of having the hatches open so the commander and driver can see. >inb4 no dats false!
We have dozens of webms supporting this of drones dropping grenades in tanks a few yards from a trench
it certainly can be if something happens to turn the joke around.
as some other anon said that one has been around for a long time.
longer than the internet
>160 m777
this fricking bothers me
US has 1.5k+ of M198 howitzers, recently retired
Ukraine needs thousands of atry.
What is the problem here? why gib the most expensive and latest and simultaneously complain "we don't have enough for ourselves" and "they are expensive"
160 howitzers is literally nothing in that war. russia looses that many in a week.
Every gun you put on the field is another source of strain on logistics and manpower. So you give the most expensive and latest because it will have the most efficient result possible, and if the Ukrainians experience any shortage of artillery moving forwards, the US will dump another round of guns.
The issue isn't artillery, but shells. Literally everything that has been donated to Ukraine is based on their ability to make use of it. Giving Ukraine 5000 Bradley's is useless if there isn't support for 5000 Bradley's, crews for 5000 Bradley's, ammo for 5000 Bradley's, parts for 5000 Bradley's and so on.
this strategy has been called "3 teaspoons twice a month" by OSINT gays and clearly illustrates to me that america is only giving enough to not look complicit in Ukraine's eventual defeat.
merica been de-arming Ukraine for 25 years: you all heard about nooks, but also almost all of ukie t80 fleet that was cut to scrap in exchange for $gibs, all bombers and other aviation, ballistic missiles, etc.
now when it's time to honor the security guarantees, they go "we dont have it"
it's been 414 days. if they wanted, they would have produced all the shells ukraine need or will ever need in that time
my personal opinion
yes it does.
Ukies are fricking awesome
Ukie win and subsequently strong Ukraine is not in American interest apparently.
The situation when Russia is bleeding resources, manpower, credibility, and destroying its economy in the process is the strategic goal for America.
America is not Ukraine's friend. there's no such thing as friends. America is looking out for itself.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>Ukie win and subsequently strong Ukraine is not in American interest apparently.
I agree with everything except this. A strong Ukraine (and a strong, free, Eastern Europe) is 1000% in America's interest. An aligned military power keeping Europe safe from Asiatic hordes, while simultaneously countering the Germans/French who are just itching to get rid of the American influence in Europe. No one knows better than the Ukrainians and Polish that Germany cannot truly be trusted; they are the truest of American allies.
I dont even see how someone might perceive it differently.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>A strong Ukraine is 1000% in America's interest.
America had been actively disarming Ukraine from 1991 to 2014. explain that
1 year ago
Anonymous
Because from 1991 to 2014 the US believed that it could appease Russia and was more focused on nuclear non-proliferation and stability than in the potential scenario where a moronic autocrat takes over Russia then fails miserably at conquering its direct neighbor within a reasonable timeframe.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Because it was literally part of the nuclear disarmament treaty that the US, Ukraine, Russia & China had signed and the West usually tries to abide by agreements. Of course, with countries like Russia and China, the agreements aren't worth more than the paper they're written on, but still the West has to appear to be the "good" guys when there is no such thing as a truly good country in this world, nor will there ever be.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>USSR gone >the fewer nations have nukes / missiles / etc. the better >we all live happily every after
That was the hope. It was wrong
1 year ago
Anonymous
*happily ever after
1 year ago
Anonymous
Because it was literally part of the nuclear disarmament treaty that the US, Ukraine, Russia & China had signed and the West usually tries to abide by agreements. Of course, with countries like Russia and China, the agreements aren't worth more than the paper they're written on, but still the West has to appear to be the "good" guys when there is no such thing as a truly good country in this world, nor will there ever be.
i was not talking about the nooks
Ukraine cut hundreds of t80s for scrap for merican $gibs. lowering mil budget was also condition for $gibs. Desctuction of Tochka ballistic missiles, etc.
Because it was literally part of the nuclear disarmament treaty that the US, Ukraine, Russia & China had signed and the West usually tries to abide by agreements. Of course, with countries like Russia and China, the agreements aren't worth more than the paper they're written on, but still the West has to appear to be the "good" guys when there is no such thing as a truly good country in this world, nor will there ever be.
>West usually tries to abide by agreements.
kek, budabest memorandum memory-holed
1 year ago
Anonymous
>Budapest Memorandum >The Ukrainians had raised security guarantees or assurances earlier with U.S. officials during the Bush administration > once Kyiv acceded to the NPT as a non-nuclear weapons state, it would automati-
cally receive a “negative security assurance” from Washington, i.e., the United States had stated that it would not use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear weapons state that was a party to the NPT unless that state was attacking the United States or a U.S. ally in conjunction with a state armed with nuclear weapons >Baker agreed, again since these were not new commitments. These included commitments to respect Ukraine’s independence, sovereignty and existing borders, to refrain from the threat or use of force, and to refrain from economic coercion. >State Department lawyers thus took
careful interest in the actual language, in order to keep the commitments of a political nature. U.S. officials also continually used the term “assurances” instead of “guarantees,” as the latter implied a deeper, even legally-binding commitment of the kind that the United States extended to its NATO allies
Unless you buy into absurd conspiracy theories about muh CIA coup, the US didn't violate the Budapest Memorandum and specifically outlined that a security assurance does not equal a security guarantee.
1 year ago
Anonymous
John from Montana Oblast here agreeing withs every word!
I would agree that all the up until the war, the US completely fumbled the ball in Ukraine in every conceivable way. We had a consistent policy of appeasement towards Russia for over a decade because America Bad was a popular school of thought after the GWOT debacle. And when we finally shook that off, we worked with the assumption that Ukraine stood no chance anyway and the war would be an insurgency instead. Not to mention our focus had shifted towards Asia and our foreign policy became schizophrenic during Trump. That being said, the support given during the war itself has a different thought process behind it than "give the bare minimum". Initially, we assumed that Russia was just experiencing some speedbumps on their way to Kiev, that the Russians would get their shit together, and that the prolonged invasion was a nice little treat before the insurgency actually began. When it became clear that Ukraine and Russia were peers, the US wanted to have a global face to the aid given to Ukraine for a number of reasons. And as other anons already pointed out, we can't just dump a Christmas list of items on Ukraine and expect them to be used efficiently. So it is more that the US is going to respond to the needs to Ukraine ad hoc, look to Europe to see if they want to cover the fun things, then cover the boring socks and underwear aid that nobody really gets excited for.
I really can't decide for certain where the glowies truly expected Russia to be this incompetent or if it took them completely by surprise. I mean it's not the first time that Russia's incompetence has been made public, such as the debacle with the MiG-25, but regardless, I wonder what those higher ups in the FBI and CIA truly thought after Russia literally got stalled by pre-Western aid Ukraine.
1 year ago
Anonymous
My guess is they weren't entirely sure how it was gonna go down. Personally I've never completely bought into the idea that the US was fully expecting Ukraine to fold that quickly and support the resulting insurgency, just based on how thoroughly the CIA had infiltrated the Russian army. On paper the Russians should have won, sure, but Russian corruption is a motherfricker and who knows that better than the glowies?
That's a bunch of bullshit, though if those guys are your primary source of info, you think that by design. Most of them aren't even really aware what they're doing. But yeah, NATO could clear out russoids in about a week tops.
The issue isn't artillery, but shells. Literally everything that has been donated to Ukraine is based on their ability to make use of it. Giving Ukraine 5000 Bradley's is useless if there isn't support for 5000 Bradley's, crews for 5000 Bradley's, ammo for 5000 Bradley's, parts for 5000 Bradley's and so on.
M777's might be closer to the area, available sooner. M777 is rather mediocre artillery piece when it comes to everything else except mobility, it sacrifices range and rate of fire to be light weight, even air mobile it necessary.
[...]
[...]
[...]
this strategy has been called "3 teaspoons twice a month" by OSINT gays and clearly illustrates to me that america is only giving enough to not look complicit in Ukraine's eventual defeat.
merica been de-arming Ukraine for 25 years: you all heard about nooks, but also almost all of ukie t80 fleet that was cut to scrap in exchange for $gibs, all bombers and other aviation, ballistic missiles, etc.
now when it's time to honor the security guarantees, they go "we dont have it"
it's been 414 days. if they wanted, they would have produced all the shells ukraine need or will ever need in that time
my personal opinion
>if they wanted, they would have produced all the shells ukraine need or will ever need in that time
Do not underestimate incompetence or greed here. French, Krauts, Italians and Spanish might be looking supporting Ukraine completely thru lens of supporting their own industry instead of getting shit done. Preferably having other European countries to foot as big part of the bill instead doing shit themselves. According to CEO of one of the largest ammunition producers in Europe. Remember, whenever a French politician is saying something that Europe should be more independent form America when it comes to defense industry, they are actually saying to rest of Europeans that they should frick their own industry and simply buy French.
Serious answer:
Because the infrastructure for supporting Leopards in action already exists in europe.
If it was just a matter of dropping tanks over, USA could do that in 12 hours or less. However, there is nothing over in Europe to fricking maintain those Abrams, so they would end up being deadweights and overall net loss.
>If it was just a matter of dropping tanks over, USA could do that in 12 hours or less. However, there is nothing over in Europe to fricking maintain those Abrams, so they would end up being deadweights and overall net loss.
What do you think all the US bases in Germany are for? Since the end of the Cold War shit has been there for logistics support of everything going on in the sand box.
>Those 31 tanks? Uhh, yeah we were gonna send those but we were sending all that other stuff first.
moron. Abrams have not been sent because they circle jerked around with a very unrealistic expectation that new manufacture export model M1A2s would be sent in time to be of any use at all. Finally Ukraine got frantic enough that the U.S. changed the plan to refurbishing M1A1s and sending those instead. Who knows what the timeline actually is on those.
>31 Abrams
May I see them?
>>31 Abrams >May I see them?
it's REALLY not that funny when you re-use someone else's jokes
>not that funny when you re-use someone else's jokes
Get the frick out and do not return plebbitor. That joke is probably older than you are, and re-using other people's jokes in an unfunny manner is all you homo's do. Every use of the joke is a re-use since it is from Simpson's writers, moron. Can't wait for this fake and gay conflict to end so the tourists can frick off.
Abrams with its DU armour is too sekrit to send.
The volume of armor, M113s, Bradleys, etc is so great that sending it via ship is much more cost effective.
>the US is not sending old tanks. >they are building building entirely new ones with shittier armor. >they are afraid of their armor tech being captured.
Sorry that's already several months out of date, they're no longer getting new M1A2's next year and are instead getting M1A1's this year.
(OP)
the US is not sending old tanks.
they are building building entirely new ones with shittier armor.
they are afraid of their armor tech being captured..
you're a few months out of touch, they'll be pulling old tanks to be refurbished
(OP)
the US is not sending old tanks.
they are building building entirely new ones with shittier armor.
they are afraid of their armor tech being captured..
The USA's secondary goal this war is crippling Europe as a whole, they are not interested in commiting their economy to the war, leos will be burning before abrams even get close to ukraine because for the USA there is no difference between allies and enemies they want Europe in debt as much as they want Russia to lose
The USA only cares about the USA and by USA I don't mean the redneck gunowners in this board but millionaire bi costal elites only
>bilateral trade with Europe disproportionately benefits the wealthy coastal elite >but at the same time they want to damage the very partnership that this bilateral trade rests on
I disagree.
Serious answer:
Because the infrastructure for supporting Leopards in action already exists in europe.
If it was just a matter of dropping tanks over, USA could do that in 12 hours or less. However, there is nothing over in Europe to fricking maintain those Abrams, so they would end up being deadweights and overall net loss.
bro you are fricking RUNNING OFF with the goalposts at this point, there's been a repair depot in germany since the cold war, and there's one in poland now too.
Oh damn that one's broken they put the turret on backwards:(
its a special low profile stealth variant
no it's meant for running away, they have assault tanks thats a retreat tank
>Tenet tanks
It's over for Vatnik's when Ukraine launches the Spring temporal pincer
They're just learning from ww2
What was the reasoning behind leaving the top of these things exposed anyways? Planes exists, artillery existed (not that a top would help against most rounds, really) and outside of "saving materials" or "ease of egress" I cannot understand this design.
Better crew visibility. The archer wasn't a tank so much as it was a self-towing towed anti-tank artillery gun.
both visibility, but also ease of movement and ventilation.
Wait till you learn that all Russian tanks follow the Soviet doctrine of having the hatches open so the commander and driver can see.
>inb4 no dats false!
We have dozens of webms supporting this of drones dropping grenades in tanks a few yards from a trench
omg is it okay
do you have any idea how long it takes to drive a tank from the U.S. to Ukraine?
Because america still needs to strip its tanks of classified material.
USA already decided to give M1A1 to speed up transfer of tanks. No need to pull anything from them
They're not stripping anything. They're flat out building new ones WITHOUT DU armour. So that's why it won't be there until 2024.
Yea, and the U.S. also has backlogs of orders. They cannot screw their customers, so Ukraine still has to sit at the back of the line.
More like federal law forbids the government from exporting tanks with DU armor.
Because Canada sent only 8 tanks (lol)
Meanwhile the US is sending all of his shit.
Picrel is just ground vehicles alone
>31 Abrams
May I see them?
It's pledged, so no, you can't.
it's REALLY not that funny when you re-use someone else's jokes
it certainly can be if something happens to turn the joke around.
as some other anon said that one has been around for a long time.
longer than the internet
>160 m777
this fricking bothers me
US has 1.5k+ of M198 howitzers, recently retired
Ukraine needs thousands of atry.
What is the problem here? why gib the most expensive and latest and simultaneously complain "we don't have enough for ourselves" and "they are expensive"
160 howitzers is literally nothing in that war. russia looses that many in a week.
Every gun you put on the field is another source of strain on logistics and manpower. So you give the most expensive and latest because it will have the most efficient result possible, and if the Ukrainians experience any shortage of artillery moving forwards, the US will dump another round of guns.
this strategy has been called "3 teaspoons twice a month" by OSINT gays and clearly illustrates to me that america is only giving enough to not look complicit in Ukraine's eventual defeat.
merica been de-arming Ukraine for 25 years: you all heard about nooks, but also almost all of ukie t80 fleet that was cut to scrap in exchange for $gibs, all bombers and other aviation, ballistic missiles, etc.
now when it's time to honor the security guarantees, they go "we dont have it"
it's been 414 days. if they wanted, they would have produced all the shells ukraine need or will ever need in that time
my personal opinion
>anime homosexualry instead of an answer
figures
So does this mean Russia is losing against a country that is being purposefully sabotaged by the strongest military alliance on the planet?
yes it does.
Ukies are fricking awesome
Ukie win and subsequently strong Ukraine is not in American interest apparently.
The situation when Russia is bleeding resources, manpower, credibility, and destroying its economy in the process is the strategic goal for America.
America is not Ukraine's friend. there's no such thing as friends. America is looking out for itself.
>Ukie win and subsequently strong Ukraine is not in American interest apparently.
I agree with everything except this. A strong Ukraine (and a strong, free, Eastern Europe) is 1000% in America's interest. An aligned military power keeping Europe safe from Asiatic hordes, while simultaneously countering the Germans/French who are just itching to get rid of the American influence in Europe. No one knows better than the Ukrainians and Polish that Germany cannot truly be trusted; they are the truest of American allies.
I dont even see how someone might perceive it differently.
>A strong Ukraine is 1000% in America's interest.
America had been actively disarming Ukraine from 1991 to 2014. explain that
Because from 1991 to 2014 the US believed that it could appease Russia and was more focused on nuclear non-proliferation and stability than in the potential scenario where a moronic autocrat takes over Russia then fails miserably at conquering its direct neighbor within a reasonable timeframe.
Because it was literally part of the nuclear disarmament treaty that the US, Ukraine, Russia & China had signed and the West usually tries to abide by agreements. Of course, with countries like Russia and China, the agreements aren't worth more than the paper they're written on, but still the West has to appear to be the "good" guys when there is no such thing as a truly good country in this world, nor will there ever be.
>USSR gone
>the fewer nations have nukes / missiles / etc. the better
>we all live happily every after
That was the hope. It was wrong
*happily ever after
i was not talking about the nooks
Ukraine cut hundreds of t80s for scrap for merican $gibs. lowering mil budget was also condition for $gibs. Desctuction of Tochka ballistic missiles, etc.
>West usually tries to abide by agreements.
kek, budabest memorandum memory-holed
>Budapest Memorandum
>The Ukrainians had raised security guarantees or assurances earlier with U.S. officials during the Bush administration
> once Kyiv acceded to the NPT as a non-nuclear weapons state, it would automati-
cally receive a “negative security assurance” from Washington, i.e., the United States had stated that it would not use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear weapons state that was a party to the NPT unless that state was attacking the United States or a U.S. ally in conjunction with a state armed with nuclear weapons
>Baker agreed, again since these were not new commitments. These included commitments to respect Ukraine’s independence, sovereignty and existing borders, to refrain from the threat or use of force, and to refrain from economic coercion.
>State Department lawyers thus took
careful interest in the actual language, in order to keep the commitments of a political nature. U.S. officials also continually used the term “assurances” instead of “guarantees,” as the latter implied a deeper, even legally-binding commitment of the kind that the United States extended to its NATO allies
Unless you buy into absurd conspiracy theories about muh CIA coup, the US didn't violate the Budapest Memorandum and specifically outlined that a security assurance does not equal a security guarantee.
John from Montana Oblast here agreeing withs every word!
friendly fire, friend
No because Russia is winning
I would agree that all the up until the war, the US completely fumbled the ball in Ukraine in every conceivable way. We had a consistent policy of appeasement towards Russia for over a decade because America Bad was a popular school of thought after the GWOT debacle. And when we finally shook that off, we worked with the assumption that Ukraine stood no chance anyway and the war would be an insurgency instead. Not to mention our focus had shifted towards Asia and our foreign policy became schizophrenic during Trump. That being said, the support given during the war itself has a different thought process behind it than "give the bare minimum". Initially, we assumed that Russia was just experiencing some speedbumps on their way to Kiev, that the Russians would get their shit together, and that the prolonged invasion was a nice little treat before the insurgency actually began. When it became clear that Ukraine and Russia were peers, the US wanted to have a global face to the aid given to Ukraine for a number of reasons. And as other anons already pointed out, we can't just dump a Christmas list of items on Ukraine and expect them to be used efficiently. So it is more that the US is going to respond to the needs to Ukraine ad hoc, look to Europe to see if they want to cover the fun things, then cover the boring socks and underwear aid that nobody really gets excited for.
I really can't decide for certain where the glowies truly expected Russia to be this incompetent or if it took them completely by surprise. I mean it's not the first time that Russia's incompetence has been made public, such as the debacle with the MiG-25, but regardless, I wonder what those higher ups in the FBI and CIA truly thought after Russia literally got stalled by pre-Western aid Ukraine.
My guess is they weren't entirely sure how it was gonna go down. Personally I've never completely bought into the idea that the US was fully expecting Ukraine to fold that quickly and support the resulting insurgency, just based on how thoroughly the CIA had infiltrated the Russian army. On paper the Russians should have won, sure, but Russian corruption is a motherfricker and who knows that better than the glowies?
>the US wanted to have a global face to the aid given to Ukraine
What
That's a bunch of bullshit, though if those guys are your primary source of info, you think that by design. Most of them aren't even really aware what they're doing. But yeah, NATO could clear out russoids in about a week tops.
It's about shell/arty balance.
Ukraine needs more ammo than it needs tubes.
The issue isn't artillery, but shells. Literally everything that has been donated to Ukraine is based on their ability to make use of it. Giving Ukraine 5000 Bradley's is useless if there isn't support for 5000 Bradley's, crews for 5000 Bradley's, ammo for 5000 Bradley's, parts for 5000 Bradley's and so on.
I'm taking away your apostrophe licence, m8.
M777's might be closer to the area, available sooner. M777 is rather mediocre artillery piece when it comes to everything else except mobility, it sacrifices range and rate of fire to be light weight, even air mobile it necessary.
>if they wanted, they would have produced all the shells ukraine need or will ever need in that time
Do not underestimate incompetence or greed here. French, Krauts, Italians and Spanish might be looking supporting Ukraine completely thru lens of supporting their own industry instead of getting shit done. Preferably having other European countries to foot as big part of the bill instead doing shit themselves. According to CEO of one of the largest ammunition producers in Europe. Remember, whenever a French politician is saying something that Europe should be more independent form America when it comes to defense industry, they are actually saying to rest of Europeans that they should frick their own industry and simply buy French.
>If it was just a matter of dropping tanks over, USA could do that in 12 hours or less. However, there is nothing over in Europe to fricking maintain those Abrams, so they would end up being deadweights and overall net loss.
What do you think all the US bases in Germany are for? Since the end of the Cold War shit has been there for logistics support of everything going on in the sand box.
>Those 31 tanks? Uhh, yeah we were gonna send those but we were sending all that other stuff first.
moron. Abrams have not been sent because they circle jerked around with a very unrealistic expectation that new manufacture export model M1A2s would be sent in time to be of any use at all. Finally Ukraine got frantic enough that the U.S. changed the plan to refurbishing M1A1s and sending those instead. Who knows what the timeline actually is on those.
>>31 Abrams
>May I see them?
>not that funny when you re-use someone else's jokes
Get the frick out and do not return plebbitor. That joke is probably older than you are, and re-using other people's jokes in an unfunny manner is all you homo's do. Every use of the joke is a re-use since it is from Simpson's writers, moron. Can't wait for this fake and gay conflict to end so the tourists can frick off.
Abrams with its DU armour is too sekrit to send.
The volume of armor, M113s, Bradleys, etc is so great that sending it via ship is much more cost effective.
the US is not sending old tanks.
they are building building entirely new ones with shittier armor.
they are afraid of their armor tech being captured.
>the US is not sending old tanks.
>they are building building entirely new ones with shittier armor.
>they are afraid of their armor tech being captured.
Sorry that's already several months out of date, they're no longer getting new M1A2's next year and are instead getting M1A1's this year.
you're a few months out of touch, they'll be pulling old tanks to be refurbished
(OP)
the US is not sending old tanks.
they are building building entirely new ones with shittier armor.
they are afraid of their armor tech being captured..
No one is building new hulls. Learn how Abrams production works.
swarm is better. McCarthur wanted many small ships instead of few big one
Canada is closer
>globetard
don't western tanks outrange t-72s anyway?
The USA's secondary goal this war is crippling Europe as a whole, they are not interested in commiting their economy to the war, leos will be burning before abrams even get close to ukraine because for the USA there is no difference between allies and enemies they want Europe in debt as much as they want Russia to lose
The USA only cares about the USA and by USA I don't mean the redneck gunowners in this board but millionaire bi costal elites only
>bilateral trade with Europe disproportionately benefits the wealthy coastal elite
>but at the same time they want to damage the very partnership that this bilateral trade rests on
I disagree.
moron
Serious answer:
Because the infrastructure for supporting Leopards in action already exists in europe.
If it was just a matter of dropping tanks over, USA could do that in 12 hours or less. However, there is nothing over in Europe to fricking maintain those Abrams, so they would end up being deadweights and overall net loss.
bullshit, the US has bases all over Europe the infrastructure absolutely exists
>However, there is nothing over in Europe to fricking maintain those Abrams
>just strip active bases for stuff, what could go wrong?
bro you are fricking RUNNING OFF with the goalposts at this point, there's been a repair depot in germany since the cold war, and there's one in poland now too.
Someone doesn't know how the US Supply system works and that's you, tardBlack person.
>Moron Air Base
Probably because the US is sending more important shit. Lack of tanks has not been the problem for Ukraine
Food for thought.
Ukraine sent tanks to US faster than US sent any to Ukraine.
We're maintaining them but aren't using them. Easy to pack up.