1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    That's an official account
    These morons are teasing us. They obviously know that they will get MBTs and Ukrainian crews are already training

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      "Official" ukranian account, so no issues guzzling American jizz and spouting lies

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You can look at it that way, you can also look at it historically, they've teased HIMARS, Krabs, M777s way before they were officially announced, and as we found out later on, as they were already training on those systems in secret. So yeah

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >guzzling American jizz
        brown shit detected

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >a serb talking about cum

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        post passport

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Hilarious, coming from someone guzzling russian jizz almost a year straight after vatniks invading another country to steal its clay
        >kosovo is serbia but donbas is not ukraine
        Hypocrites lol

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Both

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      +1

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Both is good.

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Leclerc

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Leopard ls because of ease of logistics and supplies. Abrams would be more difficult in the long run, especially if they need serious repairs.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Couldn't they just send the Abrams back to Poland for repairs?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        They don't have the infrastructure to do maintenance for abrams yet.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      holy fucking shit dog, I'm so tired of the
      >le logistics
      meme about the m1, either tell us what exactly is difficult to work on with the abrams or what makes it a bad design or fuck off

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I think he means half of Europe is already using the Leopard while absolutely no one is using the Abrams so all of the infrastructure needed to use and maintain Leopards is already here, hence it being a better choice

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          For one, the abrams will have to be sent back to the U.S. for serious repairs. Leopard 2s can be sent to Poland or other nations that operate leopard 2s.

          there is infrastructure to maintain the Abrams IN EUROPE
          there are fucking repair depots right across the border in Germany and Poland, there's preposition stocks with hundreds of spare abrams tanks
          for fucks sake

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah but, American thing bad European thing good

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              I agree, but American thing abundant and convenient. So let's use it.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >Yeah but, American thing bad European thing good
              Oh lawd American McCowboy from Oblast Oblast here ur so right joorops hate us so much better stop supporting ukraine. Im demoralized

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            ok, what about other nations? How many maintenance hubs are there for Leopard 2s than abrams?

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Compare the scale. West Euros have been reducing their budgets and trying to sell off their few Leos to authoritarian shitholes in the Middle East

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            and the fucking Iraqis were even given Abrams after the US pulled out(which they abandoooned the second IS rolled up)

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              It's really funny to watch the Iraqi government go from "go away, America, I show my shoe to you" to "AAAAAAAAA HELP US AMERICANS."

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        For one, the abrams will have to be sent back to the U.S. for serious repairs. Leopard 2s can be sent to Poland or other nations that operate leopard 2s.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Maintenance aside, since I'm not familiar enough with the intricacies of tank maintenance, the Abrams guzzles fuel like a motherfucker even on idle. Leopard would be the better choice in that respect as it gives it more flexibility. That being said, it's not infeasible for the Ukrainians to operate the Abrams given they already operate the T-80 which, while less fuel guzzling than the Abrams, is also turbine powered. Doesn't make Abrams bad, it's just more suited for the US's autistically good logistics.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The engines have been rebuilt with better parts over the years as part of PROSE and APUs have been available since the Gulf War, either under armor, in the turret external bustle or on the taillight

          Perun is onto something here. Even if Ukraine takes combat damage to its potential fleet of Abrams tanks, thr US has thousands of them in storage and can just send more when combat casualties becomes an issue. There is on the other hand not enough Leopard 2s in europe that any single nation could do that without depleting their own army.

          this

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Modern Abrams tanks doesnt use much more fuel when in operation then a MTU diesel. (The older ones did however). But when it comes to beeing idle, the turbine do indeed consume a lot of fuel (hence why the new variants the US Army operates has an APU in ordet to be able to shut down the turbine when on overwatch duties etc)

            Yeah, modern variants sure, but not the ones in storage AFAIK, and those would be the ones sent. In any case, my point is not that Abrams would be impossible to supply logistically, even without APUs given that the Ukrainians are capable of supplying their T-80s but that Leopard would be more flexible due to its lower fuel consumption.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Anon, the Abrams tanks in storage ARE the modern ones. The only variants in service are the M1A1 SA, M1A2 SEPv2 and V3

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I didn't know the A1 SAs had an APU.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                they've been externally added on the turret or the taillight since GW1

                https://i.imgur.com/lpe7C7B.jpg

                The engines have been rebuilt with better parts over the years as part of PROSE and APUs have been available since the Gulf War, either under armor, in the turret external bustle or on the taillight
                [...]
                this

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Modern Abrams tanks doesnt use much more fuel when in operation then a MTU diesel. (The older ones did however). But when it comes to beeing idle, the turbine do indeed consume a lot of fuel (hence why the new variants the US Army operates has an APU in ordet to be able to shut down the turbine when on overwatch duties etc)

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Perun is onto something here. Even if Ukraine takes combat damage to its potential fleet of Abrams tanks, thr US has thousands of them in storage and can just send more when combat casualties becomes an issue. There is on the other hand not enough Leopard 2s in europe that any single nation could do that without depleting their own army.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The US is not going to give away it's inventory of Abrams to the Ukies. They will send close to 100 tanks and they will not send more without a ton of Congressional discussion. Which means the Ukies will need to maintain them or lose their fleet. Abrams are not impossible to maintain, but the Ukies will need parts, recovery vehicles, and mechanics. Parts and mechanics aren't hard, recovery vehicles could be, but given the old Soviet stores they'll probably replace our domestic options with whatever the hell they can find. Ammo is a whole other issue

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            so uh, about that...

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >Iraqi forces we've worked with for 20 years with direct US forces within 100 miles at all times means we will send over 100 tanks to a country with no direct involvement
              >Additionally pic related

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Poland already has a few SEPv2 training tanks, M1A1 FEPs as part of another deal, and they've had a repair depot for Abrams tanks in US Armored divisions stationed in Poland + Germany

                >vatnik can't comprehend that Western vehicles are designed to not instantly kill their entire crew when damaged

                dennis isn't a vatnik, he's a half german half mongoloid creature who lives on this website because he's an autistic neet

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Indeed the Poles do, but the Ukies will need time and training to get up and running, and sending any tanks they get back from the front to Poland when damaged with be a costly affair. Even with the Abrams being a fast girl

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Iraq 321
                >Egypt 1360
                >Kuwait 218

                And the US MIGA tards are complaining about supporting Ukraine getting some scraps. Honestly it's fucking retarded how it was okay to send 2.3 Trillion down the drain to some brown goatfuckers but a couple of billions to fellow Christian whites against an actual legitimate bad guy who hates white people? Then they sperg out like retards.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Those were purchased

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >recovery vehicles
            They have plenty of tractors in Ukraine.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Tractors could potentially work, but Abrams are big girls, and they can be pigs to pull.
              https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M88_Recovery_Vehicle
              >The main winch on the M88A2 is capable of a 70-ton, single line recovery, and a 140-ton 2:1 recovery when used with the 140 ton pulley. The A-frame boom of the A2 can lift 35 tons when used in conjunction with the spade down.
              The 8 series Deeres can pull 20k lbs to the 140k lbs our recovery vehicles use (there is a 9 series that pulls a bit more). And the smallest Abrams starts at above 50tons. We like a girl with a fatass in America

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                the weight difference with the Leopard 2a6 is pretty small, anon, you're still talking 62 metric tons vs 66 for the SEPv3, good luck hauling that without a dedicated recovery vehicle or 2 tractors

                Indeed the Poles do, but the Ukies will need time and training to get up and running, and sending any tanks they get back from the front to Poland when damaged with be a costly affair. Even with the Abrams being a fast girl

                Yeah, and?
                The training programs for 19k and maintenance are not exactly years long

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Leopards aren't much better in any regard for sending. My point is the US isn't going to give away hundreds of tanks for free to someone who can't use them. All of the big foreign users had to pay to play and the deals took years to setup. Also in regards to training, it's not "hard" to train to use, it's hard to service and maintain equipment when you have limited manpower and experience. Abrams (and Leopards) will impact both.

                >Iraq 321
                >Egypt 1360
                >Kuwait 218

                And the US MIGA tards are complaining about supporting Ukraine getting some scraps. Honestly it's fucking retarded how it was okay to send 2.3 Trillion down the drain to some brown goatfuckers but a couple of billions to fellow Christian whites against an actual legitimate bad guy who hates white people? Then they sperg out like retards.

                Those countries paid for their tanks Anon, with money and or political favors. Ukraine can offer no money, and their favor is killing Russians, which by all accounts we don't need to send tanks for them to do. Ukraine victory is a partial goal of the US, total victory is wanted but not needed for foreign policy purposes. Zelensky and crew might be able to convince us for more, but it will depend. I'd imagine the reasoning they just got Bradleys is promises of a big offensive soon, but that's just an assumption.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Ukraine doesn't exactly have a problem with man power, they have the opposite, they have too many people and not enough equipment

                US will send 20 Abrams. Right afterwards Germany announces it will send 12 Leos, take 3 months to send 4, then another month to send the next 4, another month for the final 4. About a week later you'll hear news about how 2 of the Leos broke down before seeing any combat because the Germans didn't send any spare parts and are unable to procure any. The Finnish will eventually save the day and donate the special issue Leopard nuts and bolts.
                Meanwhile, America will have shipped the next shipment consisting of 12 Abrams and 40 Bradleys

                I am demooralized

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                They absolutely have a manpower issue, and it will grow more as they push farther into the occupied regions. Don't buy the hype, they're not in collapse, but they don't have the luxury of sending tons of guys off on experiments. Thankfully for them Russian behavior has clearly spurred a burst of nationalism and they might eventually open up their FL to massive influxes.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                oh yes, that's why Kiev has waiting lists for the guys who want to join and has cases of recruiters accepting bribes from guys who want to get to the fight, with others joining Azov or non-aligned militias

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Anon, think, just think before posting videos made by anyone with a vested interest. Ukies keep mum on casualty counts, if Ukies had a flood of men ready and easy to dispatch wouldn't that match pre war 2015 population censuses. Like I said they're not in collapse, but they certainly aren't able to waste men. And in many ways that's a good thing as it drives the adoption of Western tactics and kit which put bodies as very valuable, but they are not in a "healthy can keep this up forever" state. An important reality people on this site need to remember is that every video that eventually reaches here is curated and maintained by the communities qho collect and spread them. I personally believe the Ukies have about 1/3 of the casualties and far less deaths than their Russian counterparts (plates, helmets, nods and previous evidence from US modernization support this), but once again Ukraine pre 2015 was not a country in growth. And if you take a look at the demographics as reported their biggest slice is 30-40 year olds (which match photos of Ukies in kit clearly being middle age or older). Again though an important note for their performance, they are prioritizing keeping these guys alive. Something I would not say of Russia

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                bait isn't bait if you have to try this hard, bud

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Ok live in your own world, nothing I said was remotely pro Russian

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Source: RT told me so

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You need trained crews with proper facilities to maintain ANYTHING, from a tank on down to a tractor. The more advanced the machine, the more advanced the facility you need. Vehicles do break down, wear out parts, etc. They're going to do it more with newly-trained crews. So this is a reasonable concern.

        There's also the 'gaz guzzler' concern, but it really depends on what Abrams you're talking about. I'll also point out that Abrams is a multifuel tank, its designers weren't ignorant that fuel line logistics could be disrupted. This is probably the lesser concern.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        the only thing I can think about would be maintenance for the gas turbine engine, but even thats not very complicated

        I think a lot of people confuse the logistics required to properly maintain a large amount of vehicles in peace time (ie. long periods of time, many checks and repairs to keep in a 90% state) with fielding a smaller number of tanks in the field. Also, people tend to overestimate the capabilities required to service military equipment.

        Yes, tanks can get damaged in combat. Most aren't, and most of them dont break down from a few months of active use, given rudimentary field maintenance.

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    i'm kinda biased towards abrams but leo is the most logical choice, since it's optimal logistically, the only problem it's german vehicle.

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I spent a good while shitting on Leopards, but they're certainly more suited for Ukraine than Abrams

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It's okay to be butthurt.

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If sand morons can into Abrams + maintenance pretty sure ukraine could do it too.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Is that a tossed turret I spy?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >tank is packed with explosives
        >amazed that it catastrophically explodes

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Yeah, thats what happens when you let Ahmed place an IED inside a tank.

          Somehow when retards spam images of abandoned Leos that were rigged with esplosives later that doesn't dissuade the spammers.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah, thats what happens when you let Ahmed place an IED inside a tank.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The real question is what happened to the crew. Do ragheads break and run even when inside a heavily armored tank?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yes.
            It has historically been a problem with every muslim nation except Bosnia, Albania, Azerbaijan and Turkey.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >Turkey
              They are the top abandoned of asia minor

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The tank was immobilized. You could wait for isis inside and be the main character of their next video or you can GTFO and try to go back to your lines I guess.
            webm not related just posting old shit

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              holy fuck, did they hit the side where the ammo rack is it and it didn't pen?? or

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Yes. Didn't help though because mudslimes are awful tankers.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                But the molotov cocktail destroyed it later.
                Abrams btfo

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >hit tank multiple times
              >inflict no penetrating hits
              >the crew starts durking in terror and runs away anyway

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                To be fair that tank in that video survived. it was a fucking miracle because it was alone, in the open and with no enough gun depression to hit them back

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Abrams have multiple machine guns. Too many by some reckonings. Why not use these instead of durking to allah? Also
                >unsupported tank rolling around on its own
                Jesus ragheads are beneath even contempt.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous
            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Ok but that was an excellent hit, very nice. Didn't do much damage but managing to hit like that in a situation like that is remarkable

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They both will lose to T-90 tho

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Leopard makes for a shorter logistics trail, but it's an inferior tank. Still vastly superior to Russian tanks, though.

    Abrams is a better tank but more logistically burdensome. The US has also got the most skin in the game and for diplomatic reasons it really does behoove our European partners to be seen making a large, important contribution.

    It honestly might end up being both. With previous weapon systems the answer has often simply been "yes," which is to say everyone pitches something in. Fuck's sake there's pimped-out T-55s fighting against the pidorashka now.

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They should send em a couple of both, just so we can get some data on how they actually perform against the enemy they were designed for. But my bet would be on Abrams if it actually does happen, seems like most nations barely have the capacity to field their own Leos, let alone supply another army and repair them on top of that.

  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    My bet is on Challengers, because that would make the least ammount of sense (but also because they are the toughest of the previous generation of tanks, while both the Leopard and Abrams place an increased reliance on mobility and battlefield awareness for survivable).

  12. 4 weeks ago
    T-I-G-E-R-S

    Leopard 2A4

  13. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >tfw its amx30 and leo1

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      ex-Jordanian Chieftains

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Those thighs should be illegal damn

  14. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Neither.

  15. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Leo 2 would be better - industrial base is all around Europe, easy to find technical experts, easy to find trainers and spare parts.

    M1 benefits: equipment already in theater due to prepositioned stockpiles, mooch off US logistics, can safely train in the US as needed

  16. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Hopefully M1s. Germs don't get the bragging rights after dragging their fert like this. As for logistics, I'd trust the US on that front over Germans any day.

    Either will be amazing and have a similar effect, though

  17. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Hopefully M1
    Cant wait to see them cooking and americans couldnt say this time "muh monkey model"

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >retarded half germ half mongol NEET still posting the blowout panel video

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >muh panel video

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >vatnik can't comprehend that Western vehicles are designed to not instantly kill their entire crew when damaged

  18. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    OF-40

  19. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Bong bros
    Frog friends
    What’s the approved cope??

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      that you have a small military in comparison to the US, that's it

  20. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Which fucking Abrams and Leopard?
    There are like gazilions of variations.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      There really aren't, most countries that have either have modern variants through upgrade programs.
      the US didn't keep its 105mm armed Abrams, they converted all of them to 120mm guns, we have only relatively new ones in service. Same with Leopard, most in service are Leo 2A5 and newer, which is actually quite old in comparison to the M1A2 SEPv2 but its still modern and not the early Leo 2/2A1 etc

  21. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    US will send 20 Abrams. Right afterwards Germany announces it will send 12 Leos, take 3 months to send 4, then another month to send the next 4, another month for the final 4. About a week later you'll hear news about how 2 of the Leos broke down before seeing any combat because the Germans didn't send any spare parts and are unable to procure any. The Finnish will eventually save the day and donate the special issue Leopard nuts and bolts.
    Meanwhile, America will have shipped the next shipment consisting of 12 Abrams and 40 Bradleys

  22. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Just heard an interview with General Petraeus on the tank donations.
    The TL;DW is
    >US tanks do not have the logistical network for most repairs in Europe
    >US tanks are highly capable but the jet fuel requirement severely limits their maneuverability without the accompanying system to back them up
    >Repairs of these engines are way more intensive and the twin diesels of the Leopards are at least easier for Ukraine to self repair.

    at 7:35

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >>US tanks are highly capable but the jet fuel requirement severely limits their maneuverability without the accompanying system to back them up
      Gas turbines are pretty much the most reliable multi-fuel engines there is for tank use at this point.
      Abrams runs just fine on diesel.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      this guy doesn't know shit, how the fuck was he a general? No repair capabilities? Jet fuel requirement??

  23. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Abrams for the Poles etc, Leopard 1 and 2 for Ukaine

  24. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Neither, it'll be the 300 Challenger 1s that the Jordanians are about to retire

  25. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Def Leppard

  26. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous
    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      you'll get the german internet defence force on you for posting that.

  27. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Any tank autists care to weigh in on the differences in logistical burden of the two?

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