What makes the Abrams so hard to maintain?

What makes the Abrams so hard to maintain? Ukraine is using dozens of vehicle and artillery systems but what is it about Abrams where the US is saying no way?

  1. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    For fuck's sake, this is ridiculous. No one thought to make a SIMPLE but effective tank for export?

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      I mean we even gave Abrams tanks to the iraqis. If a bunch of arabs who've never invented anything can run and maintain abrams, the Ukrainians who actually have a home-grown defense industry certainly can.

      the US has thousands of Abrams in storage though
      all the countries with leopards have a hundred or so to spare in total

      I now firmly believe the burger government has no interest in ending this conflict as quickly as possible. I'm not surprised though, given how spineless almost all politicians, regardless of nationality, are.

      The same problem as Germany.
      They don't want to face the prestige and propaganda loss of having them destroyed in actual battle.

      I fully support the West making EXPORT models designed for the fact a lot of countries simply aren't fucking rich and possessing of insane-tier logistics.

      Hey friends I can't wrap my head around this conundrum: If Ukraine had hundreds of tanks before the start of the war, why is it they suddenly need more tanks? What happened to all the tanks they began with?

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        they probably lost them Anon, that happens in a war

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Because non soviet tanks can effectively do better than soviet tanks. Along with them utilizing captured or damaged tanks for spare parts for already deployed tanks. Maintaining equipment is not that simple and russian/soviet based equipment are just shit.

  2. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Because all the countries nearby use leopards and have more availability in their parts and maintenance.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      the US has thousands of Abrams in storage though
      all the countries with leopards have a hundred or so to spare in total

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        You can't utilize thousands of those tanks without proper logistics. The point is that leopards are much easier to logistically maintain because nearby countries are already using them. The abrams is just not suited for the conflict unless the united states gets directly involved in the war.

  3. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    It's about gas. This shit can't make 1 mile without needing resupply.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      I thought the benefit of the turbine engine was that it could run on practically anything? Why not just run it off of lard? Tons of that in Ukraine.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      So let's get the fucking Oplot-M production ramped up. Forgot the Abrams. It's too dependent on American-style Logistics.

  4. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >You have a backpack.
    >This backpack weighs about 40 kilograms.
    >You then meet a guy who also has a backpack.
    >His backpack is bigger, it might not carry much more weigh, but it is bigger.
    >Your friends decide to give you a few pouches for you to wear to carry even more than the other guy.
    >It's a bit cumbersome, and it feels heavy in the places where you have the pouches, but it works.
    >Then, all of a sudden, comes over one of your friend with a Northrop Grumman certified Ultra-carry Pack.
    >It holds about 200 kilograms, but it weighs 15.
    >You decide to take it anyways.
    >Now you're totally overcumbered, and movement is really hard.
    >The guy you were trying to one-up then just pushes you, and you fall.
    >He then steals your wallet.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      meds

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Touch grass

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Ironically enough I was cutting grass but I kept getting these cuts so I browsed here while the blood dried off

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          Wash that shit with neutral soap, stupid.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            There's no such thing as neutral soap, you dumb dumb, it's all joozed.
            Also, why? It's just a few cuts

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              I dare you to wipe your ass with that hand.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                I just got a bandaid over the biggest cut, don't worry mate.

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              Buy it at a drugstore, you donut.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                I already have a soap that smells like flowers. Why do I need another? :C

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Because you keep getting cuts on your hands, dumbass.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                I'm sorry but I ignored your advice and instead fried me up some spring rolls.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Fuck me, those look good.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                God dammit anon I'm hungry now. You win this time.

  5. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    I mean we even gave Abrams tanks to the iraqis. If a bunch of arabs who've never invented anything can run and maintain abrams, the Ukrainians who actually have a home-grown defense industry certainly can.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      didn't Arabs invent like, calculus?

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Calculus in it's modern form was invented by Newton, a Brit, and Liebnitz, a German. It's debatable who was first, but Liebnitz was definitely the first to publish, although his notation was more difficult. Both were giants.

        However, key elements in calculus were developed by Babylonian astronomers, in modern Iraq, millennia earlier, with their methods later lost to history until fairly recently.

        An Arab invented algebra however, and lots of other math aside. Also, the scholastic revolution, which led to the Renaissance and later the modern revolution in philosophy that gave us the scientific method and let the West surge ahead, was driven by Maimonides (Arabic speaking garden gnome), Avecenna, and Averroes (both Arabs).

        There were a lot of great Arab thinkers. People sometimes try to shit on the Golden Age by saying it was all garden gnomes, but really garden gnomes were like 1/5th or a bit more, by no means all. This percentage isn't really off of Murray's percentage of great Europeans who were gnomish, so it isn't the dig anti-Arab people think it is. If anything garden gnomes were more dominant in 19th-20th century mathematics and physics.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          A fact I always find funny is that some really advanced math, shit absolutely necessary for advances in IT today, discrete mathematics as a discipline, graph theory, etc., was invented by garden gnomes trying to decide "secret" messages in the Torah for their Kabbalhic magic.

          Needless to say, while genius, these didn't have practical applications for a very long time.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          Personally my favorite golden age thinker was Ibn Khaldun, but I’m a history nerd so I’m naturally biased to the father of historiography. Despite the monumental stupidity displayed by the average felaheen Arab peasants they do have enough intellects to produce real innovation. These days it’s mostly devoted to oil and gas exploration for obvious reasons, but they have points on the board of civilizational development for sure.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Calculus in it's modern form was invented by Newton, a Brit, and Liebnitz, a German. It's debatable who was first, but Liebnitz was definitely the first to publish, although his notation was more difficult. Both were giants.

        However, key elements in calculus were developed by Babylonian astronomers, in modern Iraq, millennia earlier, with their methods later lost to history until fairly recently.

        An Arab invented algebra however, and lots of other math aside. Also, the scholastic revolution, which led to the Renaissance and later the modern revolution in philosophy that gave us the scientific method and let the West surge ahead, was driven by Maimonides (Arabic speaking garden gnome), Avecenna, and Averroes (both Arabs).

        There were a lot of great Arab thinkers. People sometimes try to shit on the Golden Age by saying it was all garden gnomes, but really garden gnomes were like 1/5th or a bit more, by no means all. This percentage isn't really off of Murray's percentage of great Europeans who were gnomish, so it isn't the dig anti-Arab people think it is. If anything garden gnomes were more dominant in 19th-20th century mathematics and physics.

        Arabs are having fun. The Mongols kill them all. Turks move in and fuck them for 300 years.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Persians not Arabs

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >I mean we even gave Abrams tanks to the iraqis.
      The U.S. armed forces were directly involved in that conflict for over 20 years, it's not the same situation at all. This is butting heads with Russia directly, and pathetic as they are, they still have working nukes somewhere. The DoD knows exactly how many and where, and assessed that it isn't worth the risk.
      I disagree, the Russians are already scared shitless of getting their mess outside of Ukraine.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      It was designed with the assumption that operationally it has the entire logistical support network of the US Army juggernaut behind it. The US was tepid about giving them Abrams because you can bet it means hundreds of DoD contractors are going into the conflict along with them.

      It was a fucking stupid idea and given the above was a surreptitious way to ensure Iraqis were permanently beholden to the US for support. They were just trophies sent to make political gains with the given assumption that the US would be in Iraq forever to actually do any of the necessary fighting.

  6. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    It's just a visible escalation, they don't want to make the Russians even more desperate, perhaps desperate enough to launch a tactical nuke and spoil everything for everyone.
    The kacaps aren't going to do shit, though.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      nukes won't help russia in any way, not tactically, not strategically, not politically

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >nukes won't help russia in any way,
        I agree, but it would force an escalation from NATO and direct involvement, and probably more detonations. It would be a humanitarian and tactical shitshow regardless of the outcome and not just for the Russians.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      So we send them two brigades worth of Bradleys instead, makes sense. I want my tax dollars back

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Lern 2 vote then, retard.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Cry more gay. Nobody will ever care. The arms are never going to stop. Russia is never going to stop losing ground.

  7. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    I now firmly believe the burger government has no interest in ending this conflict as quickly as possible. I'm not surprised though, given how spineless almost all politicians, regardless of nationality, are.

  8. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    The same problem as Germany.
    They don't want to face the prestige and propaganda loss of having them destroyed in actual battle.

  9. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    one big issue is that Abrams weighs 60 tons, which is easily 20 tons more than any tank Ukraine has ever operated, and 10 tons more than most other western MBTs. In thick mud and snow, I'd bet the Abrams would have a hard time operating, especially with the state of the roads in Ukraine.

  10. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >What makes the Abrams so hard to maintain?
    Realistically?
    Nothing. Plenty of shitholes use it. It's just an excuse because Biden would rather have Europeans use up their tanks on thus war.

  11. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    beeing a tax burning shitbox like all american tech

  12. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Abrams are imbued by the machine god. You need to swing pots of incense and chant in a specific manner before battle. And if you didn’t maintain the armor properly it would get scratched off and reveal the runes underneath

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Ukrainians have plenty of experience with runes

  13. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Do you think this gross incompatibility of a lot of American heavy weaponry with other aligned and friendly countries' militaries, because they're not fucking rich enough or even have a strong enough road network or airlift capacity to support them logistically or even doctrinally due to the logistics might be a foreign/security policy issue?

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      I fully support the West making EXPORT models designed for the fact a lot of countries simply aren't fucking rich and possessing of insane-tier logistics.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      I fully support the West making EXPORT models designed for the fact a lot of countries simply aren't fucking rich and possessing of insane-tier logistics.

      Quite frankly we should have kept M60 Patton production in limited runs and just modeled the export model after what the Turks and Israelis have achieved with that old bastard. A cheap and easy diesel engine paired with modern c3 and reactive armor would be just what the doctor ordered. If Turkey was not committed to being the diplomatic middleman of east vs. west and Egypt wasn’t desperate for grain from any source, including Russia, I’d say just buy the tanks off them and ship them to the ukes. Maybe Pakistan has some mothballed that could be upgraded and sold off but they seem to be busy now that Afghanistan blew up in their face.

  14. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    This cope about muh fuel consumption and maintenance is just pathetic. US been selling Abrams to Muslim shitholes and they operate them just fine and you tell me Ukraine that has been able to adapt to like 200 weapons systems at this point and massive US/EU financial aid would not be able to operate them? Sounds like total bullshit.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      That's because it is. The US knows the war will come to an end once the West is trying to out-do each other with who can send the most MBTs. Russia hasn't been bled enough yet to allow for that.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Why would fuel consumption be an issue in muslim shitholes? Gasoline is pennies a gallon there. Maintenance is an issue in Ukraine because they don't have the shops and mechanics there, not because it's requires some kind of ubermensch supergenius to comprehend mechanical engineering.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Ukraine doesn't have the infrastructure to support fancy Western tanks.

        Get the "Oblongs" (Oplots) mass-produced!

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          That's at best a post war reconstruction project. They'd never be able to produce them at a meaningful rate at the moment. It'd be one thing if the war seemed like it was going to stretch on for decades, but Russia is barely holding on as it is.

  15. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Sending abrams isn't the expensive part, keeping them fueled is. Sending leopards is cheaper since they're just the next country over so transport cost is lower and leopards get much better fuel mileage.

  16. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    We don't want to give them a bunch of first-rate front-line weaponry because the situation is much more complicated than, "Russia bad so give whoever is fighting them everything in order to make Russia lose."
    If we load them up with a bunch of first-rate hardware and then Russia goes all pissy and isolationist for the next 100 years, that's not optimal because Western Imperialism relies on them being open enough to trade. With trade, both sides win, but the West is really good at turning its side of the win into massive wealth.
    Also, what happens with Ukraine after the war ends? Doling out the weaponry a little at a time means it will be used against Russia, If we load them up with enough material that they can trounce Russia, don't they now have enough to easily overpower their other neighbors? We're not looking to massively rewrite the balance of power in the region to the detriment of everyone but Ukraine. We can't guarantee that Ukraine will remain the good guys.

    Also, what happens if Ukraine gets a ton of goodies and still isn't winning? That makes our weapons look bad and puts us in the position of either needing to cut them off or needing to give them multiple times more aid.

    In the end, this is their war, not ours; and our strategic goals are met by giving them enough cheap weaponry for a stalemate where they just keep shelling hundreds of thousands of Russians to death.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >If we load them up with enough material that they can trounce Russia, don't they now have enough to easily overpower their other neighbors?
      Which neighbor would they attack?

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Hopefully Belarus so we can see if NATO equipment can defeat potatoes

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      the key to politics is always to have 2 good options which means presenting 2 bad options to your opponent

      trump is a verbal master at this, sad he is a fat wastrel gorilla-watching grifter though

  17. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >artillery systems

    I think you mean, "tanks"

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      That's a Famas.

  18. 4 days ago
    Westie

    What’s this! Tanks are fun!

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