you just know abrams are coming

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    is this a new aid package or just the formal press list of everything discussed previously in the last few weeks?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      New package, just announced a few hours ago, Possibly in response to Russian spring offensive.

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    apparently no abrams, but Strykers and GLSDBs rockets for HIMARS, which i think are 'totally not cluster bombs'

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I just want to watch hundreds of mobiks get exploded via cluster munitions is that so hard an ask

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        oh wait no the Ground-Launched-Small-Diameter-Bomb is a guided drone warhead, like a mix between a cruise missile and a Switchblade fired by a HIMARs launcher

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >guided drone warhead
          it's a glide bomb with GPS attached to a rocket motor, where are you getting this nonsense?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            anon, it's guided, has folding wings, it's a suicide drone

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              anon, you're an idiot

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          you retard zoomers need to stop polluting up this board

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      GLSDBs aren't cluster bombs though. If they wanted to give cluster munitions they'd send DPICM

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >but Strykers
      Sounds plausible, I was wondering why we weren't sending any since they are """"obsolete""" and in the process of being phased out. Sunk cost, so Democrats get to brag about how much we are giving to Ukraine while Republicans can brag about how it isn't costing taxpayer money

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        strykers are not obsolete dumbass

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          https://www.military.com/daily-news/2021/05/12/army-ditching-all-of-its-stryker-mobile-gun-systems.html

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            MGS =/= all Strykers, the APCs are staying and MGS is being replaced by MPF

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              The MGS Stryker is """obsolete""" so it makes sense to send it to Ukraine

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Fair enough, send it

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              MPF is not replacing MGS. MGS is having its roles covered by Stryker Dragoon and J-CROWS
              MPF is in the IBCTs

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >while Republicans can brag about how it isn't costing taxpayer money

        Most republicans (essentially just magatards) are acting like bitches and moaning incessantly about “muh billions” even though the US is just giving Ukraine the leftovers of military surplus that was going to get thrown away. Seriously, magatards need to shut the fuck up.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >most
          nice D&C effort

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Show this to the rubliggers in congress and to Cucker Carlson, those gays slurp up vatmoron semen like it’s going out of style.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Same with AAV, getting replaced soon, and with 3000+ in stock FMS is going to get rid of all of them.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      GLSDB isn't a cluster munition, it's a long-range munition similar to ATACMS.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        what's the difference between GLSDB and ATACMS?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          GMLRS
          >92km range
          >200lb warhead
          GLSDB
          >150km range
          >250lb warhead
          ATACMS
          >300km range
          >500 warhead
          In those raw terms it's more like a better GMLRS than an ATACMS. But it's also just a very different weapon system, it's basically a rocket strapped to what was previously an air-dropped smart bomb. It also not battle-tested but the Swedes say they can make them for Ukraine.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            thanks anon

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Abrams would have been next to useless in this war anyways, but rockets will do some damage. The strategic value of tanks is gone. The military was considering discontinuing tanks 5 years ago. The problem is that a couple thousand dollar rocket could destroy a tank from a mile away and you can mass produce rockets a lot faster than tanks. It is like sitting in a pill box in WW2.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        wrong

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          There is a reason Russia and Ukraine lost most of their tanks at the start of the war. The things can be destroyed or disabled by one guy with a modern rocket launcher. If you had unlimited tanks then they are useful, but it takes 5 months to make one Abrams. They aren't useful anymore and the only reason they are still produced is military lobbyist and politicians wanting to keep the factories running in their states. It would be better to change over all manufacturing over to ballistic armor for infantry and missiles.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Name one piece of military hardware that can't be destroyed by a projectile cheaper than it.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous
              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                That costs more than a 50cal round

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You got me there. I saw the challenge and took a swing

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              The cost isn't the issue it is time and how effective the equipment is. Tanks don't have a role that isn't done better by missiles, artillery, or squadrons. It has a cannon that isn't any better than a missile. It is so much less maneuverable than a soldier it is a sitting duck when under attack. Unlike you I'm not arguing out of my ass. The pentagon has literally said there is no longer any strategic value in tanks. I am not making up reasons from the top of my head I am citing 5 star generals and military analyst. Unless you have better sources you can fuck off.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                [citation needed]

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Tanks don't have a role that isn't done better by missiles, artillery, or squadrons. It has a cannon that isn't any better than a missile. It is so much less maneuverable than a soldier it is a sitting duck when under attack
                Have you seen what happens when a mortar shell explodes near a person? Or a person tries to walk into machine gun fire?
                They fucking die. Tankers call infantry 'squishies' for a reason.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I have a feeling that would change if the west ever had to worry about anything more than an rpg hitting their tanks

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The Israelis deal with that problem a lot because Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. have ATGMs. Their response was the Trophy active protection system and they still have a ton of tanks.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                drone recon, APS, mutual support from other vehicles and infantry

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Anon, the last 5-star general was Omar Bradley, who died in 1981. So I think you are in fact making up reasons.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Tanks don't have a role that isn't done better by missiles, artillery, or squadrons. It has a cannon that isn't any better than a missile. It is so much less maneuverable than a soldier it is a sitting duck when under attack
                Have you seen what happens when a mortar shell explodes near a person? Or a person tries to walk into machine gun fire?
                They fucking die. Tankers call infantry 'squishies' for a reason.

                [citation needed]

                Just read the pentagon report you cheeky bastards.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                then post it

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                https://i.imgur.com/oin0NTc.jpg

                Damn I am having trouble finding it and that is really odd. It was fairly popular article just a few years ago and was one of the reforms the military was considering under Trump.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You might be mixing it up with one I've seen about the Marines getting rid of MBTs because they wanted to be more prepared for island hopping, but I haven't seen anything about the Army considering it.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah I found that article. https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/flashpoints/2020/03/26/the-marines-want-to-get-rid-of-their-tanks-heres-why/
                But this was a different article and was from the pentagon and not the marines. I will keep searching. It should have been around 2017-18 before rona hit.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Tbh you get less informed about a complicated technical topic (military hardware, covid, climate change) by reading popular media articles than were being totally ignorant. It's negative knowledge built on spin and misinformation. Tanks are fine and the US military, every military, will keep using them.

                Here is an article that happened after this report and after the lobbyist got involved.
                https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-pol-trump-tank-ohio-20180702-story.html

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >The decision to upgrade the “rusties” is an abrupt shift for the Army, which six years ago told Congress it didn’t need more Abrams tanks because the heavy armored vehicles were of limited value in the unconventional wars it was fighting against militant groups and insurgents.
                Yeah that's largely true but also different from "tanks are bad". They're just not useful for fighting illiterate sandmorons that live in caves. You want them to fight a real army though.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                There's quite a bit in that about wanting to stop making/maintaining Abrams but I couldn't find anything about not wanting tanks in general. Honestly after reading that the reluctance to send Abrams is weird, if you're going to be repairing 40 year old tanks just to keep your factory workers they may as well be repairing battle damage rather than rust.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Tbh you get less informed about a complicated technical topic (military hardware, covid, climate change) by reading popular media articles than were being totally ignorant. It's negative knowledge built on spin and misinformation. Tanks are fine and the US military, every military, will keep using them.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                So by "pentagon report" you mean "clickbait",

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous
              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                No, no, no, no. You said you were citing five-star generals. Which ones? Your options are:
                Marshall, MacArthur, Eisenhower, Arnold, and Bradley. Except Hap Arnold was USAAF so what the fuck did he know about tanks?
                So out of the four possibilities which two are you citing?

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Reminder: US ordinance enroute to Ukraine is a legitimate military target for Russia

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Then why don't they hit it?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Russia can't accurately hit ordinance in Ukraine.
      How're they going to manage it outside?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Always has been?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Shoot down a C-17. Please do it. Just one. Just one air force plane, its not that hard, you can still manage a little anti-air right?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        After witnessing ukies do a fucking hind raid on belgorod i find it difficult to think they actually have functional anti-air although that must just be the russians operating it.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          There is a reason why the Hind raid was never repeated. The Russians were operating "air corridors" to prevent FF incidents, which they closed after the raid

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        They could get that pretentious schizoid fag girkin to do it maybe; he started this whole mess, is arguably responsible for much of the mass death currently in ukraine, so seems apt that he should take it to the "next" level.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Reminder: Russia has not hit a single one of these shipments while enroute 🙂

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Reminder Russia won't do shit because they can't hit shit

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Every single pound of NATO aid to Ukraine has gone through Rzsewswsewrshfhshd airforce base in Poland and not once has Russia had the balls to strike Rzswesweswdwsws.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Flawless spelling, anon. :tips hat:

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Ah yes, the famed Rzswswdsdwswsws Airbase.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          polish be like "I would like to buy a vowel" smdh

          >Nah, the M60's are gone.

          what happened?

          they were mostly sold to client states like turkey and taiwan

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It's Rzeszow. Zheshoov. But I guess Rzsewswsewrshfhshd is close enough.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Maybe if you used some FUCKING DIACRITICS for fricatives like the Czechs and South Slavs I'd pay attention to your fucked-up language

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        FFS anon, it's called Rżężyszczów, learn to spell.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Resewsewershffshud?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        LOST

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Fucking do it.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous
    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You're right, but for reasons of not wanting to kick off what will at best be a national suicide, and at worst the apocalypse, Russia will wait until they are well inside the Ukrainian border before even considering action.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Reminder: US ordinance enroute to Ukraine is a legitimate military target for Russia
      sink the Lusitania I fucking double dare you

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I can almost understand how the british in WW1 and 2 felt.Almost because I know russia is too pathetic to actually do it.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yes. But until it leaves NATO area or airspace, attacking it is also a direct act of war.
      >Verification not required.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >a legitimate military target for Russia
      you need to declare war for this

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      WHERE ARE THE FUCKING BRADLEYS
      I want kino videos

      They said the same about modernized polish T72 and nothing happened. Go for it anyway.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Russia is afraid of waking the american bear.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yes, it is. And Russia isn't going to do shit about it.

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Russia is winning, sorry chud

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Russia is winning

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    man, the Ukis are getting a shitton of military vehicles lately

    either they are preparing for a russian attack or we might soon witness Kharkov Offensive 2.0

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Russia is supposedly getting ready to attack sometime in the next few weeks, maybe even through Belarus. We saw how they took Soledar and now Bakhmut so I’m guessing they’re beefing up defenses.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >how they took Soledar and now Bakhmut
        >Bakhmut
        >taken
        it appears that western media is trying to bury these news, where can I find more?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        both sides have been preparing for offensives once the ground is sufficiently frozen, Zaluzhny mentioned how they were actively pulling back a lot of equipment and personnel to regroup and prepare in a December interview in the Economist. It's not a coincidence a lot of Western heavy equipment and ammo shipments are being announced now.

        >May the soldiers in the trenches forgive me, it’s more important to focus on the accumulation of resources right now for the more protracted and heavier battles that may begin next year. I’ll be talking to Milley [America’s top soldier] about this [later today].

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        i would be very stupid for them to attack from belarus since the border is mined

        so yeah, they will probably do it

        i wonder if the US could send the ukis some M60 tanks, those things must be rusting in a depot, give them a chance to hunt commies once more

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Nah, the M60's are gone. We got thousands of M1's and M1A1's in storage though. Not even the NG uses the M60 anymore.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Nah, the M60's are gone.

            what happened?

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              scrapped and used for targets

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              look at the m60s wiki page buddy

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It's probably both.

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    abrams does less than 1 mils per gallon, how the fuck are the ukies gonna keep them running?

  7. 3 weeks ago
    RC-135 Rivet Joint

    Mechanized offensive soon. Probably going to tie up as many Russians with some useless objective then pen their lines someplace else.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >wait for russians to launch their attack
      >trust territorial/garrison/reserves to handle them
      >immediately launch mechanized assault on russian lines while the russian reserves are not just out of position but committed to an offensive literally on the other side of the country
      >day ten: Russia has bogged down thirty miles from the border, Ukraine has liberated Melitopol

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    OP - it’s best practice to include a link to the article you’d like a discussion about.

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    This is probably gonna be announced in time or after that NATO meeting in Europe this Friday, if its true. Also, post the fucking source.

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yes, Scholz doesn't want to be baited into being the sole modern tank contributor and said that mutts need to deliver their own tanks.
    If you do, we deliver them together. Ukraine is the project you started so at least lead by example

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Proof

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        If dubs they get abrams.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          rollin'

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Plot twist: It's actually going to be F-16

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >it's a whole ass squadron of Arleigh Burkes

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            turkroaches would SEETHE

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          nah, Könings Tigers

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Abrams AND Apaches

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          garden gnomes give Merkavas.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          rolling for F-16C Block 50s

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          roll gay

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Feed me Russians

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        scholz too retarded to understand that maybe it isnt so good logistically to have 30 different mbts in your army

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          but can understand German MIC lobbyist saying its bad marketing if only leopards are exploding

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Typical of spineless germs, awaiting on big daddy to not be singeled out.
        Menwhile the Anglo bulls and Polish chads already dabbed on you fags.
        Seethe.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Be anglo
          >Send 12 tanks
          >Expect germany to send 120
          Yeah no, we aren't falling for your anglo gnomish tricks. If WW3 starts we will be the first ones to get nuked. We should share that burden evenly.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            a European fight, that threatens Europeans more, means that the US needs to send more than them? I think the whole point is that Europe needs to fight for itself for once and actually pull its own weight in NATO

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Germany won't even allow other NATO countries to give their own tanks to Ukraine. Approving their export costs Germany absolutely nothing aside from printer paper.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Classic deflection. Nice.

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I know this is nitpicky but:
    >American military aid package
    >article uses image of German MBT

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    F-15

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I've heard Abrams are actually a worse idea than the euro tanks because they require more maintenance and at higher intervals.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      so send both.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Abrams might have that reputation due to serving exclusively in deserts for decades. There are soviet tanks with turbine engines and Ukies don't seem to be having issues with them, not to mention that combat value per hour of maintenance is still higher for western shit

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Correct T80 is a gas turbine, Russia abandoned the design as it was apparently complicated, meanwhile Ukraine is operating them no problem.

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Consoom Ukraine Aid Package
    >Get excited for next Ukraine Aid Package

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      it's genuinely pathetic how you people think this is "consoomerism"

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It literally is lmao
        Just look at how something like Pokémon cards is discussed on social media and compare the similarities to how equipment for Ukraine is discussed.
        Bonus: it’s the exact same people

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          how about you stop basing your opinions on internet cringe like a fucking post-2016 terminally online zoomer
          >b-b-but I'm BASED and OPPOSE the cringe
          think for yourself

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >think for yourself
            I do think for myself, that’s why I think you’re all gay for circlejerking about [weapon system of the month]

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      yes yes, we should be sending M113s to the homeless in San Fransisco instead, but since nobody wants to endorse my mechanization-first approach to homelessness it's either Ukraine or the scrapper

  15. 3 weeks ago
    T-I-G-E-R-S

    Notvyet,, Abrams is a 150 000 killstreak unlock

  16. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    why would they get abrams before M60s with the final upgrade package?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      how many of latter do they have ready to ship in or near operational condition?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        nasty guard still uses M60s so probably enough of them actually, and they could get their money's worth from their reservists getting the ones that have been mothballed ready, c'mon man how would u not think of that

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The National Guard got rid of their Pattons in 1997. The only M60s the US military still has are range targets or gate guards. The rest were scrapped or sold over a decade ago.
          The majority of M60s in the United States are owned by private collectors.

  17. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    german olaf says nein to leopard until usa will send abrams

    maybe olaf thinks he will save germany
    maybe olaf thinks he will save the world

  18. 3 weeks ago
    T-I-G-E-R-S

    [...]

    Come the fuck on, we all know Rußian air defence is grave danger for airliners only

    It's Rzeszow. Zheshoov. But I guess Rzsewswsewrshfhshd is close enough.

    polish be like "I would like to buy a vowel" smdh

    [...]
    they were mostly sold to client states like turkey and taiwan

    Ah yes, the famed Rzswswdsdwswsws Airbase.

    It's Camp Juliet

  19. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >also the debt ceiling is approaching, but these two stories are entirely unrelated

  20. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >abrams
    At that point I'd take a dozen FT 17 instead of one of that overweight piece of shit.

  21. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Question no one ever answers: if Ukraine had thousands of tanks at the start of the war, why is it they suddenly need more?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Because uh….the…uh

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Tanks (449, of which destroyed: 265, damaged: 24, abandoned: 16, captured: 144)
      your avatar fits

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        thats so weird, I thought Ukraine was winning?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          yeah if your tanks are not invulnerable, you're losing

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            well I was told Russia is losing because all of its tanks have been destroyed and they are out of ammo, but now I'm hearing actually Ukraine's tanks are all destroyed and they are begging for more ammo... this is very confusing.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Do you get startled every time you see you own shadow?

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              This kind of circular no-context thinking is how you end up a flat Earther or some shit

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Well, fren that's because you are fucking retarded. Which is why you back other retards. Now the retards are getting wrecked, which is why you dont back tards in the first place. It only encourages them.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Ukraine had thousands of tanks
      They didn't. They had < 200 operational tanks.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        so now they have no tanks huh? That must mean they all got destroyed... by someone? Did the Ghost of Kyiv accidentally do it?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          let's see how russia's tanks are doi--
          >Tanks (1619, of which destroyed: 951, damaged: 73, abandoned: 59, captured: 536)

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            but Russia still has tanks and Ukraine is the one begging for more tanks...

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              well maybe if russia wasn't such an unlikeable loser they'd have friends to ask for tanks too, but they don't.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                but they still have tanks..

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                so does ukraine lmao, did you see the >captured: 536 posted earlier in the thread?
                what i meant by my post is that even though ukraine still has tanks they want as much overmatch as they can get, thankfully they have allies to turn to for these things.
                russians, being the most unlikeable creatures on earth comparable to morons, do not have that and are on their own. they too still have tanks, but it's questionable if it's even much more than ukraine has at this point.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I'm sorry but you're just making this more confusing. If Ukraine captured 536 tanks from Russia, and we presume they intend to use them, themselves.
                Why would they be begging the west for like less than 100 tanks? If I was so capable of stealing tanks from my enemy why not just keep doing that? This really doesn't make sense. It makes more sense that Ukraine is out of tanks, because they've been destroyed...

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                you try this every thread
                stick to begging for flying lawnmowers

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I'm sorry have we spoken before? You seem confused and delusional, you ok?
                Anyways I just want to get to the bottom of this mystery.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                are you broken or something? the answer you've gotten is that nobody gives a shit that ukraine still has a useful amount of tanks, we want them to have more, and they do too.
                just because we want that doesn't mean ukraine has lost it's existing tank fleet.
                every time you ask this retarded question henceforth i will refer you to this post and you will ignore it because you're disconnected from reality.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I'm getting certain vibes.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                why do you keep asking retarded questions you know the answers to, i get you're trying to bait people but i really don't know what you get out of pretending to be retarded.

                also perhaps they dont get to swindle many more tanks from russia because russian tank density has dropped drastically and the front is pretty static atm lol.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                but Russia still has tanks and Ukraine needs more tanks... why don't they just steal more Russian tanks then?
                They seem really desperate for tanks... like they've ran out.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                see

                are you broken or something? the answer you've gotten is that nobody gives a shit that ukraine still has a useful amount of tanks, we want them to have more, and they do too.
                just because we want that doesn't mean ukraine has lost it's existing tank fleet.
                every time you ask this retarded question henceforth i will refer you to this post and you will ignore it because you're disconnected from reality.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >If Ukraine captured 536 tanks from Russia, and we presume they intend to use them, themselves.

                but it's still dogshit puccian junk, and if you're lucky you can use 1/3 of them at best and rest is for cannibalising.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I know this is bait, but no, the fact that Ukraine is asking for tanks does not imply they must have zero tanks right now. That's clearly an unreasonable conclusion. Just because I ask my boss to pay me every week doesn't mean I'm broke, I'm not, I just want more money to add to the money I already have.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >gets sent flying tanks from Iran
                top kek mate

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                *blocks ur path*
                nothing personnel, imperialist

                what happened to all the tanks they had before?

                I don't know why it's so hard for you to process that Ukraine both has more tanks than they started with and would still like even more tanks. Ukraine is fighting an country many times it's size and as many tanks as possible is the correct number of tanks to have.

                The alternative is that you understand this, don't care, and merely want to shit up the board. In which case, (You).

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                are you broken or something? the answer you've gotten is that nobody gives a shit that ukraine still has a useful amount of tanks, we want them to have more, and they do too.
                just because we want that doesn't mean ukraine has lost it's existing tank fleet.
                every time you ask this retarded question henceforth i will refer you to this post and you will ignore it because you're disconnected from reality.

                >If Ukraine captured 536 tanks from Russia, and we presume they intend to use them, themselves.

                but it's still dogshit puccian junk, and if you're lucky you can use 1/3 of them at best and rest is for cannibalising.

                I know this is bait, but no, the fact that Ukraine is asking for tanks does not imply they must have zero tanks right now. That's clearly an unreasonable conclusion. Just because I ask my boss to pay me every week doesn't mean I'm broke, I'm not, I just want more money to add to the money I already have.

                Ok ok ok, now we're getting somewhere. So they have tanks, but their tanks suck and they need better tanks to win. If they don't get better tanks they'll lose. Got it, makes more sense.
                No wonder all their old tanks got destroyed, they sucked.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                yeah soviet tanks are shit

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                no it makes sense. Ukraine will lose with soviet shit, they need better shit, but not Russia. Russia can win with soviet shit.
                2tru

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Russia can win with soviet shit.
                Russia has been reduced to fielding T-62s, their reserves of usable tanks are likely running low. We only see a handful of very new T-90Ms and a large number of very obsolete T-72As and T-62s from Russia. They are unlikely to win if the West provides a steady stream of arms to Ukraine.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Thats weird dude, I saw videos from Soleder(is that how you sp?) where the Russians were attacking with T-72 and there was no Ukrainian armor besides personnel carriers with a single heavy mg.
                But you claim that Russia lost all of those? Where were all the Ukrainian tanks then?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                man almost like a single video doesn't paint a complete picture of both side's equipment states.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Where were all the Ukrainian tanks then?
                A place my people call "out of frame".

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Russia can win with soviet shit.
                it's not really looking good for russia, however they do have more of the soviet shit

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                nope they wont lose, they just won't take back the occupied territories, try again subhuman
                also see

                are you broken or something? the answer you've gotten is that nobody gives a shit that ukraine still has a useful amount of tanks, we want them to have more, and they do too.
                just because we want that doesn't mean ukraine has lost it's existing tank fleet.
                every time you ask this retarded question henceforth i will refer you to this post and you will ignore it because you're disconnected from reality.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Correct. Ukraine started with T-64BVs and has been given T-72M1s. Russia started with T-72B3Ms, T-90A, and T-80U; and is now fielding an eclectic mix of T-90Ms, T-62s, and T-72As. Challenger 2 is better than any tank listed there for either side. Leopard 2 depends on the model, with 2A4 being mediocre and 2A7 being quite good.

                no dude, I get it. Its like in a video game, a skill issue, where you need an advantage like something better than the other guy to win. Ukraine just needs a crutch because they lack skill. Its so simple.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                See, now you just look like a retard and we can report your post as extremely low quality.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                no it's just nice to have an advantage over not having it. again just so you know 5th graders understand this concept and you don't.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                In real life getting an equipment advantage means more of your people get home safely after the war, that's worth a bit of begging.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >just like bideo game!

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Correct. Ukraine started with T-64BVs and has been given T-72M1s. Russia started with T-72B3Ms, T-90A, and T-80U; and is now fielding an eclectic mix of T-90Ms, T-62s, and T-72As. Challenger 2 is better than any tank listed there for either side. Leopard 2 depends on the model, with 2A4 being mediocre and 2A7 being quite good.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                the main thing is they will need more mechanized for the offensive to take back the eastern parts than they did on the defensive

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              the astute reader will notice that ukraine has captured nearly twice as many tanks as it has had destroyed

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                so why do they need more then? Did they lose the keys?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                more tanks is more gooder, and NATO gear even gooderer

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                if you were planning to shitstomp the russian landbridge would you want 400 tanks, 500 tanks or 600 tanks?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                what happened to all the tanks they had before?

              • 3 weeks ago
                T-I-G-E-R-S

                moron, only a fraction of captured tanks are in good enough shape to be put in UA service. Now, due to nonexistent rußian QC and lack of standardisation keeping them running without spares is even more difficult after 11 months of prolonged fight

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >army has expanded by over 2x
              >number of tanks hasn't increased by much
              >hurrr durr why do they need tanks

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Stop noticing things

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >Russia still has tanks
              May I see them?

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Remind me again... Which of these countries used to be a superpower and has thousands of vehicles in stocks left over from the Cold War?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Russia has generously donated a great many tanks to Ukraine. They even pitched in the delivery fee.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            man almost like a single video doesn't paint a complete picture of both side's equipment states.

            I don't understand again. If Ukraine has so many tanks why were there none to defend Soleder? Why would they be begging for more if they have lots of tanks?

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              You don't understand much, it's okay. There's societies set up to help the mentally retarded.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                it just seems like a really basic question that would have a very basic answer, but all I'm getting is very convoluted answers... like they don't want to tell me..

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                maybe if your brain was more convoluted than that of a bacterium you'd understand,

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I think you should insult me more, that helps.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                if you want more than insults to your intelligence you should do more than insult our intelligence by arguing the same question in circles for hours and ignoring every response

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                stop dazzling us with your ignorance then, you won't get placed in the retard corner if you stop acting like a retard, very simple.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                See

                are you broken or something? the answer you've gotten is that nobody gives a shit that ukraine still has a useful amount of tanks, we want them to have more, and they do too.
                just because we want that doesn't mean ukraine has lost it's existing tank fleet.
                every time you ask this retarded question henceforth i will refer you to this post and you will ignore it because you're disconnected from reality.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                answer one simple question anon
                if you were given a free tank would you take it?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                obv yes, but I also wouldn't lie and claim I'm winning when I have no tanks

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Do you know how a logical argument works? Basically you take a few statements, or facts that are true, and you place them next to each other. After this, you construct a conclusion, which is generally a statement that even if direct proof or it does not exist, has to be true if the above statements are true. Let’s try practicing for ourselves:
                >Ukraine has tanks
                We know this because they’ve captured more tanks than they have lost, and they have received a few from foreign powers. Even if Ukraine started the war with zero tanks, which they didn’t of course, we can safely say they have a least 100 or so now, though more likely around 550.
                >tanks help win wars
                I think this is pretty safe to say since both sides are using tanks, and almost every war that has been carried out since the creation of the tank in which it has been remotely feasible to field them has seen them used by all sides that can
                >western tanks are basically free
                Even if they’re part of some sort of long-term loan deal, they consume no resources to acquire that Ukraine could better put to work in other sides of the war effort, therefore they are an extremely cheap, or entirely free asset to obtain.
                Now that we have our three statements we can make an easy conclusion:
                >Ukraine has tanks and wants more.
                See? That was pretty easy. Try doing it with other things, it’s called deductive reasoning, or inductive if the conclusion has some room for doubt, which in this case it really doesn’t.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                so you're saying Ukraine needs more AND better tanks to defeat Russia, or they will lose to Russia? If they don't need them, then why even argue that they DO need them?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                No one said that and you are retarded. Imagine for instance a conversation that goes something like this:
                “Hey can I have a straw for my soda, it would make it easier to drink”
                “Oh, so if you DONT get a straw you will DIE of DEHYDRATION?”
                I think we can both agree the second person is retarded. In a more realistic example, we can look at the conversation we just had and conclude that in this case you are retarded.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Seems like you're coping and have been reduced to name calling. Ukraine NEEDS more and better tanks OR they WILL lose to Russia.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Not him, but you're just utilizing fakse dilemma.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Haven't seen this gif since month 1 of the war can't imagine why
                Does not deserve a (You) btw

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Truly it is indicative of the Russian mindset to believe anyone wanting anything above the absolute bare minimum is impossible

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                War is not a game and you need better equipment to be able to easily achieve success. Its either deagging the conflict out for an eventual win or send equipment that can provide a quick and decisive victory. Its not about losing, but more about doing better.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Afghanis had worse equipment and defeated both the Soviets and USA. Sounds like a skill issue to me.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The taliban did horribly against American forces and consistently lose their battles. It wasn't until the doha agreement that the taliban is able to achieve some success because the americans stopped bombing them.
                https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/US%E2%80%93Taliban_deal
                Imagine being unable to achieve success despite the americans not doing any offensive against you since 2014. All it takes is a few bombers and the taliban is fucked apparently.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >claims they did horribly
                >still won
                says more about the USgAy then it does about Afghanistan

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                > says more about the USgAy then it does about Afghanistan
                Lol. US literally just got tired and left so the Taliban crawled out of their hole.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The ANA lost because they can't survive without american support. The taliban wasn't able to do anything except broker a deal with the americans in exchange for them to pullout. America didn't care about the ANA, but cared more about al-Qaeda/ISIS. In which case, they accepted a deal that ensure that they deal with counter terrorism operations. taliban won against the ANA, but not against america because america hasn't even done much operations against them since 2014. By January 2021, only 2,100 American troops are left in afganistan and have stopped supporting the ANA since 2020.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Because the U.S. is not going to stay there forever. Unless you're saying that America should annex the place. But whatever the ANA do is none of their concern and the U.S. left everything to them in regards to the taliban.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Without them they'll probably win anyway, but it'll be an Afghanistan style wait 20 years until the attacker leaves kind of victory rather than a battlefield one.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Well if they don't need them why are they begging for them as if they do?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Because being at war for 20 years will do serious long term damage to Ukraine and they'd prefer not to endure that.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                At the rate they're going they won't last another year, they've lost what? 40% of their population to refugees fleeing and war casualties? They are dead broke, all of this "aide" is loans that the US will demand are paid back to them. And the infrastructure is destroyed.
                Sounds like Ukraine NEEDS more and BETTER tanks NOW or they will be totally fucked.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >they'll lose because infrastructure was damaged
                Afghanistan never had any infrastructure to begin with and they won

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                right so why is Ukraine so bad at war that they can't even defeat Russia (whom the Afghanis did defeat, easily)? Sounds like a skill issue.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Because it's been a year, doing it Afghanistan style takes a really long time.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >right so why is Ukraine so bad at war that they can't even defeat Russia
                No Kherson?
                No Lyman?
                No Kupiansk?
                No Izium?

                Now you're just coping. Ukraine NEEDS those tanks or they will lose, sad.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Two more weeks

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >right so why is Ukraine so bad at war that they can't even defeat Russia
                No Kherson?
                No Lyman?
                No Kupiansk?
                No Izium?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Anon, ukraine still has its government. Explain why Ukraine hasn't been able to collapse despite getting their infrastructure destroyed? Explain why russia bragged about taking kyiv in 3 days, but yet hasn't been able to do it? War is not always quick. Its either
                >russia lose slowly
                Or
                >russia lose fast
                Choose your poison.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                They won the thing nobody wanted: a pile of rocks and poppy fields.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >look you have a car with 4 tires on it, yes they are completely smooth, but they can still drive so why do you want 4 new tires?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                so they NEED them? Or like the car with bald tires will have flats (ie losing to Russia)?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Or like the car with bald tires will have flats (ie losing to Russia)?
                No Kherson?

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              how do you know there were none to defend soledsnake? all you've seen is snippets through a camera.
              this of course assuming ukrainians would even deem it important enough to use tanks for. still don't get why they shifted down from bakhmut even further into this tiny mining hamlet now being the pride of their offensive operation.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                idk thats a fair point, and all I can go off of is what I see. I see lots of footage of Russian tanks, and very little of Ukrainian tanks, but I'm told Russia is out of tanks and Ukraine has tons of tanks.
                That doesn't add up buddy...

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                it does add up because ukies have better OPSEC and rarely film their own vehicles, as well as russians rarely getting tanks in their sights because their intelligence is bad, it's the same reason why they can only hit static targets that have been standing for years with their long range PGMs

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                thats not true, theres way more Ukrainian footage out there, they film 10x more than the Russians

                if you want more than insults to your intelligence you should do more than insult our intelligence by arguing the same question in circles for hours and ignoring every response

                I'm just not getting conclusive answers

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                note that i specified of their own vehicles.
                again you realise that pretending to be a vatnik doesn't make you better than one right? you're still shitting up the board and you'll still be made fun of in the same way.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                oh no, dont make fun of me

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                here is a conclusive answer, please respond to it in literally any meaningful way

                are you broken or something? the answer you've gotten is that nobody gives a shit that ukraine still has a useful amount of tanks, we want them to have more, and they do too.
                just because we want that doesn't mean ukraine has lost it's existing tank fleet.
                every time you ask this retarded question henceforth i will refer you to this post and you will ignore it because you're disconnected from reality.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >thats not true, theres way more Ukrainian footage out there, they film 10x more than the Russians
                mostly TDF and foreign volunteers

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >but I'm told Russia is out of tanks and Ukraine has tons of tanks.
                Who by? Russia has vast reserves of tanks (condition notwithstanding). What they don't have is large numbers of modern tanks. The newest tanks in the Russian Army are the T-90M (numbering in the dozens), T-72B3 Obr 2016 and T-80BVM, both of which number in the hundreds. They have lost significant numbers of these, particularly T-72B3s and the T-80s of the 1GTA earlier in the war.
                Ukraine's tank forces have also suffered losses and unlike Russia they are reliant on sourcing replacements from elsewhere. Ex-Soviet stocks of tanks in Europe are finite. Most have already been donated or are being refurbished to be sent through this year.
                As we are entering a phase where Ukraine intend to counterattack in the Donbas, they need more and ideally better tanks. Which leaves western MBTs as the logicam choice.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Ok thank you, first honest poster. So it was as I suspected: Russia still has lots of tanks. Ukraine is running out, and they need better tanks or they will lose.
                Thank you.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                no, they'll still win, just slower and bloodier, the poster you replied to also doesn't bring up the fact that it's quite hazy how many more tanks they can actually bring into service out of their giant stock of decrepid looted hulls.
                keep being a pretentious liar though.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >the poster you replied to also doesn't bring up the fact that it's quite hazy how many more tanks they can actually bring into service out of their giant stock of decrepid looted hulls.
                True, but it was already a long reply and I need to go to sleep. I'd say given the Russians had to use T-62Ms earmarked for Syria to plug the gaps, the reserve fleet of T-72s is not in good condition. How many hulls are salvageable and how easily Russia can get hold of modern night vision/thermals with current sanctions is a whole new can of worms that I don't think anyone ITT can really answer.

                The optics question is really the big one. Tanks aren't obsolete, but tanks without situational awareness are death traps. Western optics and thermals absolutely shit on anything the Russians are using. That's the single biggest reason Ukraine wants western tanks. That and a reverse speed faster than a glacier.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                i figured it'd be a lot for a single post, happy dreams anon.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              There are videos of Ukrainian tanks in Soledar you disingenuous moron

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              You're right they don't have any tanks. It's pretty impressive the ukies are winning without them right?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Sounds like you're having a good time. You know what's an even better time? laying around my house observing my country's' (formally) number one geopolitical adversary get evicted from recently conquered territory by my country's obsolete military hardware. It costs me less than a dollar a day The best part is that the invaders are being slaughtered by a much smaller, former vassal state. I've waited a lifetime for this and didn't even know. Good times.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >I've waited a lifetime for this and didn't even know. Good times.
            basically this
            can't imagine the world used to take Russia seriously
            literally a bunch of drunk retards

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Ztard is asking the hard questions westoids can't answer.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Name a NATO arms manufacture of 125mm rounds

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Bulgaria

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          What the name of the Bulgarian weapons manufacture?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            EMCO and Armaco

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Armaco don't manufacture

              So that only leaves EMCO.

              I can see way they need NATO tanks.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >why is it they suddenly need more?
      When a moron attacks you, is it better to defend yourself with a knife or with the most modern machinegun?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Hey wait a minute wait a minute guys I just realized something, if the US is so strong and they have so many tanks why do they keep building more???

  22. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    my name is kevin mccallister from U of S A
    i am very upset, that my money go to banderites
    alzheimers patient jo obama must stop sending of abraham to zelenskiy
    please. we americans are afraid poking of bear

  23. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    stop getting brandolini'd

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      that's what this post is for

      are you broken or something? the answer you've gotten is that nobody gives a shit that ukraine still has a useful amount of tanks, we want them to have more, and they do too.
      just because we want that doesn't mean ukraine has lost it's existing tank fleet.
      every time you ask this retarded question henceforth i will refer you to this post and you will ignore it because you're disconnected from reality.

      the solution in theory is simply to recognize trolling and not engage but we have decades of internet history showing this doesn't actually work because there's always a dumbass who engages, and if only dumbasses engage it makes the troll look smarter

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        but it's fun to engage, it also doesn't make him look smarter, in a few posts he'll do the "hehahe you all got baited haha you thought i was actually retarded when i was MERELY PRETENDING" and then we still bully and laugh at him because he's a retarded loser for doing that too.

        on top of that i have nothing else to be doing right now.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        "we refute the trolls, not because it is easy, but because it is hard" - John "fuh real" Kennedy

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >the solution in theory is simply to recognize trolling and not engage but we have decades of internet history showing this doesn't actually work because there's always a dumbass who engages, and if only dumbasses engage it makes the troll look smarter
        I've been trying to put that into words succinctly forever.

  24. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    you just know the first Abrams that breaks down and is abandoned will be posted ad nauseum by serbs here

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It will be glorious.

  25. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    oh yeah dennis is spamming his shit threads
    it's him

  26. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Sadly not;
    >The United States is not currently prepared to provide advanced Abrams tanks to Ukraine, a senior Pentagon official said Wednesday, citing difficulties in maintenance and training.
    >"I just don't think we're there yet," US Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Colin Kahl told journalists when asked about providing Abrams to Ukraine, though he did not completely close the door on a shift in the future.
    >"The Abrams tank is a very complicated piece of equipment. It's expensive, it's hard to train on, it has a jet engine -- I think it's about three gallons to the mile with jet fuel. It is not the easiest system to maintain," Kahl said.
    >He also noted that US defense chief Lloyd Austin has been keen to avoid providing equipment to Ukraine that "they can't repair, they can't sustain and that they over the long term can't afford because it's not helpful."
    https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20230118-us-not-there-yet-on-abrams-tanks-for-ukraine-pentagon

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Complete bullshit lol

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Why would Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Colin Kahl lie? Though is it really a 'jet engine"?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Yes, Abrams has a gas turbine. It's a shitty excuse though, because Ukraine has a turbine industry and their own history of turbine powered tanks. They operate captured T-80Us, they can service a gas turbine.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >They operate captured T-80Us, they can service a gas turbine.
            That does appear to be the case; image related.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            They would be pulling power packs then sending them off for overhaul anyway. Front line military maintenance is mostly simple mechanics and swaptronics. Most electrical troubleshooting after parts swaps don't work is continuity testing.

            Turbines are lighter and easier to work on than piston engines. Been there, done that and it's all big gearhead fun.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Because the cucks at the White House and the Pentagon are terrified of muh eshkalayshun. So they come up with all sorts of excuses to not send better equipment.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      So much crap
      if those tank won't see frontline they can use those near belarus border or rear which will free up a significant amount of soviet tanks for frontline action

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >"The Abrams tank is a very complicated piece of equipment. It's expensive, it's hard to train on, it has a jet engine
      But Leo2 isn't expensive? It doesn't require training? Mutts are such morons holy shit.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I don't think he really knows why we haven't sent M1s yet, he doesn't know that the m1's turbine really isn't a "jet" engine.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          If gas turbine was such a deciding factor, the american argument against abams and for leo2 would be "WE HAVE GAS TURBINE, LEOS HAVE DIESEL ENGINE,THIS IS 10000% BETTER" and that would be a valid argument.
          But if they start with "uuuuh its expensive, uuuuuuuh it needs crew training, uuuuuh spare parterinos" then you know its bullshit argument. And just an excuse to not "escalate" and let germans waste their own tanks instead.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Stuff like this is why I unironically browse PrepHole every day to get up-to-date info on the equipment needed for Ukraine; otherwise I would have bought into the same red herrings as the boomers that follow such news articles without question.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Jet fuel
      Abrams turbine runs on fucking whatever, what a fucking dumb or schrewd moron, holy shit.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I've trained kids off the block to fix fighters as I was trained in my time. Any heavy truck mechanic, auto mechanic (cars suck compared to aircraft) etc can get familiar even quicker and sending foreign troops through US training schools is much older than anyone reading this.

      Send Abrams to backfill every Eurotank then send those east. Problem solved for everyone.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >ny heavy truck mechanic, auto mechanic (cars suck compared to aircraft) etc can get familiar even quicker
        Preach. If you already know "how stuff works", the training period for an experienced mechanic would probably be only a few weeks (if that).

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        locking wire tho

  27. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    ~~*56813105*~~
    >But you claim that Russia lost all of those?
    I'm not going to reward you with a (You) if you don't even read my post, Dennis. Even GPT-3 can meaningfully respond to what you write, are you truly worth less than a chatbot?

  28. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    https://online-strafanzeige.de/berlin

  29. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >why are they begging for more if they have lots of tanks?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      what does something from 80 years ago have to do with Ukraine not having tanks?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Because it's the same argument. The Soviets also asked for tanks, so that must mean they didn't have any tanks, right? But the reality is they had the most tanks of any power in the war because the T-34 is the most-produced tank of all time.

        Anyway, you do this is in every thread. No, the US sending tanks to Ukraine is not bad news for Ukraine. It's bad news for Russia.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          no, clearly the Soviets asked for and got tanks. Which is why they have so many now, unlike Ukraine who's out of tanks.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            why do you say things as if they are true when they are not, almost as if you're not posting in good faith or something.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            prove it

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You gotta try harder than this man. You baited a lot of replies but everyone can see through this one.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            see

            are you broken or something? the answer you've gotten is that nobody gives a shit that ukraine still has a useful amount of tanks, we want them to have more, and they do too.
            just because we want that doesn't mean ukraine has lost it's existing tank fleet.
            every time you ask this retarded question henceforth i will refer you to this post and you will ignore it because you're disconnected from reality.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The Soviet Union received thousands of tanks, despite building many thousands of Christie Tank T-34 in factories like the American designed and built Stalingrad Tractor Factory, because a bigger army killed Germans quicker

        Ukraine is receiving Western vehicles despite having some of their own and some that they've captured, because a bigger army kills Russians quicker

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Ukraine needs more tanks
          the other guys up there were assuring me that Ukraine had lots of tanks tho, so you're saying they don't have enough? They'll lose if they don't get more?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            see

            are you broken or something? the answer you've gotten is that nobody gives a shit that ukraine still has a useful amount of tanks, we want them to have more, and they do too.
            just because we want that doesn't mean ukraine has lost it's existing tank fleet.
            every time you ask this retarded question henceforth i will refer you to this post and you will ignore it because you're disconnected from reality.

            >tfw the vatnik is mindbroken

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Tanks are offensive weapons. If Ukraine is serious about counteroffensives they need local superiority in either quantity or quality of tanks, ideally both. The optics and fire control systems of western MBTs are the biggest overmatch in this regard.
            So they won't lose as such if they don't get more tanks, but it'll be harder and much more costly to try and kick the Russians out.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              no, they'll still win, just slower and bloodier, the poster you replied to also doesn't bring up the fact that it's quite hazy how many more tanks they can actually bring into service out of their giant stock of decrepid looted hulls.
              keep being a pretentious liar though.

              idk guys this sounds like cope, Russia has more tanks ie not begging for more, Ukraine is out of tanks AND they need better tanks or they will lose. It really seems that simple.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                russia would beg for more tanks if they had allies, which they don't.
                again see

                are you broken or something? the answer you've gotten is that nobody gives a shit that ukraine still has a useful amount of tanks, we want them to have more, and they do too.
                just because we want that doesn't mean ukraine has lost it's existing tank fleet.
                every time you ask this retarded question henceforth i will refer you to this post and you will ignore it because you're disconnected from reality.

                pls unfuck your brain because it seems to be stuck.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Russia is begging for ammo from Iran and North Korea

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Interesting because russia was begging for artillery rounds, missiles, and drones. Do you think those might make russia lose? Having less of three things is worse than having less of one

                Don't for the fucking mobilization
                By the dumb bait logic this guy keeps pushing, that must mean the entire Russian military was dead by September, otherwise they wouldn't be calling up the mobiks.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Interesting because russia was begging for artillery rounds, missiles, and drones. Do you think those might make russia lose? Having less of three things is worse than having less of one

  30. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Geeze didnt they just get 1.7 trillion fucking dollars

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      surely you can find a source for this absurd claim?

  31. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Is it true Germoney will block everything, even allies giving their own tanks to Ukraine?

  32. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Am I right in assuming most of the problems reported with the Stryker are about the MGS variant? The troop carrier with the M2/Javelin CROWS seems like it could be extremely useful.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I just wanna say I fucking love this thing. I know it's kinda shit which is why it's being retired but it was one of the first vehicles that caught my eye when I first started getting into milibooism and I've had a soft spot for it ever since. I hope they all go to Ukraine and get to achieve their purpose rather than getting sold for scrap.

  33. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Imagine phoneposting lmao
    Do normies care about this shit? Are they gonna sportballize the military industrial complex so that sharts will not feel robbed by, but instead cheer for more raytheon contract awards?

  34. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >hey Ukraine do you want modern tanks instead the Russian crap you are using?
    >Free modern stuff? Yes pls
    Indian Russian shills and leftypol translate this into
    >OMG UKRAINE IS OUT OF TANKS BECAUSE ALL OF THEM WERE DESTROYED AND CREWS KILLED LOLOLOL
    kek

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      it's either an indian that makes just barely enough for a curry a day doing this. or it's some loser desperate for online attention who thinks he isn't being mocked in the same way actual vatnik shills are.

  35. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Let's be honest anon. I don't think that a dozens of abram and leopard will have big impact in the war. Sure, extra tanks is always good, but for battlefields that dominated by artillery, i don't see many benefit of owning a dozens extra tank?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      If you follow up a breakthrough you can steal a lot of artillery pieces and ammo

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The idea is that this is more than a dozen, probably a couple hundred to start with.

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