HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » US finalizing plans to se...

Tue Jan 24, 2023, 01:17 PM

US finalizing plans to send Abrams tanks to Ukraine, US officials say

Source: CNN

Washington
CNN
—
The Biden administration is finalizing plans to send US-made Abrams tanks to Ukraine and could make an announcement as soon as this week, according to three US officials familiar with the deliberations.

The timing around the actual delivery of the tanks is still unclear and it normally takes several months to train troops to use the tanks effectively, officials said.

An announcement about the tanks could be part of an attempt to break a diplomatic logjam with Germany, which indicated to the US last week that it would not send its Leopard tanks to Ukraine unless the US also agreed to send its M1 Abrams tanks.

Read more: https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/24/politics/us-abram-tanks-ukraine/index.html

35 replies, 1411 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 35 replies Author Time Post
Reply US finalizing plans to send Abrams tanks to Ukraine, US officials say (Original post)
rollin74 Jan 24 OP
Chin music Jan 24 #1
ColinC Jan 24 #4
FredGarvin Jan 24 #8
Chin music Jan 24 #9
GB_RN Jan 24 #24
Tomconroy Jan 24 #2
rollin74 Jan 24 #3
rollin74 Jan 24 #5
harun Jan 24 #6
Irish_Dem Jan 24 #12
OnlinePoker Jan 24 #7
oldsoftie Jan 24 #10
FredGarvin Jan 24 #14
oldsoftie Jan 24 #19
Mister Ed Jan 24 #16
oldsoftie Jan 24 #20
paleotn Jan 24 #22
Emrys Jan 24 #28
Aristus Jan 25 #34
CrabbyAppleton Jan 25 #31
oldsoftie Jan 25 #32
CrabbyAppleton Saturday #35
IronLionZion Jan 24 #11
FredGarvin Jan 24 #15
republianmushroom Jan 24 #13
Mysterian Jan 24 #17
Roc2020 Jan 24 #18
James48 Jan 24 #21
Aristus Jan 24 #23
James48 Jan 24 #26
XorXor Jan 25 #29
Evolve Dammit Jan 24 #25
MarineCombatEngineer Jan 24 #27
XorXor Jan 25 #30
MarineCombatEngineer Jan 25 #33

Response to rollin74 (Original post)


Response to Chin music (Reply #1)

Tue Jan 24, 2023, 01:26 PM

4. This is the best news since the patriots

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chin music (Reply #1)

Tue Jan 24, 2023, 01:44 PM

8. The newest Abrams variants wont be sent

The US has a HUGE mothballed stockpile of the earlier variants.

Send them all I say

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FredGarvin (Reply #8)


Response to FredGarvin (Reply #8)

Tue Jan 24, 2023, 06:08 PM

24. According To The WSJ...

The M1A2 is the tank being considered. /shrug

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rollin74 (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2023, 01:20 PM

2. Der Spiegel is reporting that Germany has agreed to send Leopard tanks

No number yet. Supposedly 30 Abrams.
I'm not able to copy twitter links for now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tomconroy (Reply #2)

Tue Jan 24, 2023, 01:26 PM

3. 30-50 Abrams is what I'm hearing so far nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rollin74 (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2023, 01:29 PM

5. Germany is reportedly going to give 15 Leopard 2A6 tanks as well nt

supposedly about 100 Leopards are going to be donated by 12 different countries

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rollin74 (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2023, 01:38 PM

6. Wow, they are definitely going to try to take Crimea back.

West wants to have Crimea under their control before negotiations I think.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to harun (Reply #6)

Tue Jan 24, 2023, 02:08 PM

12. I know, last week it looked like NATO didn't want Zelensky to take Ukraine.

That a deal might have been cut with Putin and that is why the refusal to send weapons.

Yes Crimea has to be taken back or Putin wins.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rollin74 (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2023, 01:42 PM

7. Really fuel intensive platform, something that Ukraine is in short supply of

Approx 300 gallons every 8 hours according to Global Security:

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m1-specs.htm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rollin74 (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2023, 02:02 PM

10. Dont think this is a good idea. Abrams need a stout supply line.

And they're also a little harder to train up on as opposed to the Leopards. They can burn a gallon a MINUTE under some situations.
How about sending them some ground based Phalynx systems? They would take out these drone swarms.
And give them the ability to hit the Russians FURTHER behind the front lines.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldsoftie (Reply #10)

Tue Jan 24, 2023, 02:42 PM

14. Phalynx isnt capable of reaching behind lines

Its a defensive weapon

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FredGarvin (Reply #14)

Tue Jan 24, 2023, 04:46 PM

19. Yes, I said it would be great to use against those drone swarms.

And a lot cheaper than missiles or rockets. It just fils the air with lead & good luck to those Iranian pieces of shit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldsoftie (Reply #10)

Tue Jan 24, 2023, 03:07 PM

16. I wonder if it's more symbolic/political than tactical?

It seems likely to me that, for reasons like those you outlined, the Abrams may not be well-suited for this theatre. Perhaps only a few would be used. But in agreeing to send them, the US may have broken the political logjam that's been keeping more-suitable Western tanks from Ukraine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mister Ed (Reply #16)

Tue Jan 24, 2023, 04:47 PM

20. Thats a good point; pressure to others (GER I'm looking at you) to get going.

Germany has been dragging their feet WAY too much

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mister Ed (Reply #16)

Tue Jan 24, 2023, 05:36 PM

22. Yes.

Your Leopard runs low on fuel. Syphon some diesel from a truck or a farmer's tractor. JP8 that fuels the Abrams gas turbine engine? A whole lot tougher to find and source. Plus, it takes months to properly train maintainers. It's for show. To give "Dieter" a warm fuzzy so he'll part with his leopards. A much easier tank to train and maintain.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to paleotn (Reply #22)

Tue Jan 24, 2023, 07:58 PM

28. The Abrams M1 is multifuel.

It can run on just about any fluid that burns.

But that adapability does come with the cost of vital routine maintenance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to paleotn (Reply #22)

Wed Jan 25, 2023, 09:13 AM

34. The entire four years I was in, we never used JP-8.

We always used diesel when fueling the tanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldsoftie (Reply #10)

Wed Jan 25, 2023, 04:38 AM

31. Phalanx alone won't do...

Phalanx was designed as a ship mounted system. It was adapted to create the Centurion C-RAM (Combined Rocket Artillery Morter) system which still won't do what you describe but is closer to what you envision.

The Land Mounted Phalanx Weapons System (LPWS) combined with C-RAM needs the addition of several other sensor systems like the Forward Area Air Defense Command and Control (FAAD C2), Lightweight Counter Mortar Radars (LCMR), Firefinder radars, Ka-band Multi-Function Radio Frequency Systems (MFRFS), Air and Missile Defense Workstation (AMDWS), and several other components to handle drones. This stuff isn't cheap.

Mount all this stuff on several Oskosh by Gosh mobile prime movers with the generator sytems and you're talking about a $15 million system (in 2020 dollars) to cover, hell I don't remember, 2 square klicks of turf?

LPWS uses M940 ammo to reduce collateral damage, $20,000 to 60,000 per intercept.

Not cheap for limited area coverage.

Crabby

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrabbyAppleton (Reply #31)

Wed Jan 25, 2023, 08:13 AM

32. But would you really need all that to defeat 100mph drones?

And thank you for all that info; I'm not even familiar with a few of those systems.

I understand that missiles are also being used, but I think the drones are a bigger problem because of how they send them 100 at a time. Maybe not the Phalynx because of all the added requirements you mention, but some other heavy fire system like the .50cals mounted to Humvees that could put a lot of rounds in the air? I'm just trying to get the most bang for the buck while dropping as many drones as possible

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldsoftie (Reply #32)

Sat Jan 28, 2023, 04:31 AM

35. De nada

Phalanx was designed to be a point defense system to stop missiles, aircraft and small boats which have larger radar signatures. The other equipment was added to be able to detect artillery and mortar fire as well. Different sensors were needed to detect smaller objects as well as other processors to examine the incoming data. Power generators are required because Phalanx relies on shipboard power.

Another problem as I mentioned is the ammo. You can't just pump a lot of ammo into the air because what goes up, must come down and that can cause a lot of unwanted damage. In fact, there have been multiple incidents with Phalanx systems at sea causing collateral damage. USS Missouri sent out chaff to protect itself from incoming missiles which caused a ship nearby to fire it's Phalanx which caused some injuries or even a death, I don't remember. I myself saw a Phalanx shipboard test where the system shot the tow cable pulling a dummy missile and then the gun jammed. The dummy just barely missed hitting the deck I was standing on.

The solution to that problem is M940 ammo which instead of tungsten projectiles is a High Explosive Tracer Round which is designed to explode on impact with a target, OR burn-up after a set distance (2000 meters) if it doesn't hit a target.

Normal tracers are usually used in a 1 to 5 or 1 to 7 ratio to allow gunners to track where they are shooting. M940 is used in every round so none of the ammo comes back down. That's why video of the Land Phalanx Weapons System looks so cool. Every round is a tracer. Watch the video though and you'll notice the guns don't depress their fire too low so none of it comes back down to the ground. The ammo is very expensive too.

Another problem with multiple drone attacks is Phalanx doesn't have a large magazine (relatively speaking) so it is easily overwhelmed by a large number (more than 5) of incoming targets.

There are other systems in development to deal with the multiple threats that drones pose. The problem as I see it is that systems that are effective, are expensive and cover a very limited area.

On the other hand, the info I am privy to is that Russia does not have the resources to make drones of their own and their source of drones has been destroyed.

Crabby

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rollin74 (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2023, 02:03 PM

11. Ukraine expects to get 100 Leopard 2 tanks from 12 countries, once Germany approves

Ukraine expects to get 100 Leopard 2 tanks from 12 countries, once Germany approves: Senior Ukrainian official

https://abcnews.go.com/International/ukraine-expects-100-leopard-2-tanks-12-countries/story?id=96620510

Russkies are gonna get their asses kicked real bad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IronLionZion (Reply #11)

Tue Jan 24, 2023, 02:44 PM

15. Let's hope they deter a Belarussian invasion

This is of great concern as of late.

Once again the West is ahead of the Orc strategists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rollin74 (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2023, 02:08 PM

13. like it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rollin74 (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2023, 03:29 PM

17. Send them everything they need to repulse the murderous Russians

Tanks, planes, trains and automobiles. Ukraine is fighting for all democracies and is doing it quite well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mysterian (Reply #17)

Tue Jan 24, 2023, 03:53 PM

18. Indeed. Nothing should be off the table

at this point. Russia you started the war..then War it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rollin74 (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2023, 04:56 PM

21. M-1 Abrams Tanks-

Come normally in about four tanks to a platoon; 3 tank platoons, and two more tanks to a Company, and 4 companies to a battalion. (Up to about 64 tanks per battalion), plus another 100 or so troops per battalion for low level maintenance, supply, ammo, fuel, etc.

They need to get at least several battalions - it will take more than a month to get the tanks out of storage, and onto ships to carry them to Poland/Romania. Tanks are too heavy to rely on cargo airplanes.

Even if they start now, it’s going to take some time to get them all there.

We already have promised several hundred M-1’s to Poland.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to James48 (Reply #21)

Tue Jan 24, 2023, 05:55 PM

23. I don't know if the order of battle has changed since I got out in 1993,

but an Abrams Company has fourteen tanks. Three platoons of four tanks each, and then one tank each for the commanding officer and the executive officer. Each company usually also gets one deuce-and-a-half cargo truck for supplies, and a Humvee for administrative duties.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aristus (Reply #23)

Tue Jan 24, 2023, 06:43 PM

26. Update

Last edited Wed Jan 25, 2023, 06:54 AM - Edit history (1)

It was four tanks to a platoon, and four platoons (2 armor, 2 mech infantry) in a combined arms battalion. I just think they reorganized to three in 2016.

See https://www.battleorder.org/usa-cab-2016

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to James48 (Reply #26)

Wed Jan 25, 2023, 03:43 AM

29. Hear of any trustworhty estimates on training time for the crews?

It seems safe to say they'd also need at some basic maintenance training and equipment too, right? I'd guess they could skip over the more advanced/difficult things by sending the vehicles out of country for that sort of service, aye?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rollin74 (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2023, 06:28 PM

25. send 'em all we don't need. Send them all back to Vlad's waiting arms thanking them for service

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rollin74 (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2023, 07:00 PM

27. For the US and Germany to agree to send the Ukrainian's

MBT's they must have pretty good intelligence that Russia won't retaliate with tactical nukes, I think Russia is in for a whole lot of hurt and sooner or later, the Russian High Command will come to the realization that Putin's war is lost and it's time for Putin to fall out of a high rise window.

This is my opinion only.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MarineCombatEngineer (Reply #27)

Wed Jan 25, 2023, 03:56 AM

30. I do wonder the likelihood of Russia escalating by attacking service/support facilities outside

of Ukraine, though. I'm just an idiot on the internet, but that always seemed like a more likely path of Russian escalation than using tactical nukes. Outside of its usefulness in scaring/bullying countries from helping Ukraine, it seems like something that would have limited value compared to harm it would cause to Russia (and the world) But striking some facilities, convoys, whatever, in a neighboring country could be viewed as the non-nuclear nuclear option. I could see them deluding themselves into thinking that would scare NATO into retreat rather than being the catalyst to a wider more destructive war. Oh, then we also have the whole cyber thing. I think that falls into that category too.

I could see either of those snowballing into a war between Russia and NATO, and that escalating to nuclear weapon usage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to XorXor (Reply #30)

Wed Jan 25, 2023, 08:40 AM

33. I think that's a real possibility also,

but the Russian military leaders are not fools, IMO, if Putin did order an attack on any NATO soil, the military or the oligarchs who actually run Putin would eliminate him.

Here's an interesting opinion article what might happen if Putin did order a tac. nuke strike on Ukraine.

What would actually happen if Putin hit Ukraine with tactical nukes?

The nuclear and geopolitical fallout, explained
Russian President Vladimir Putin has raised the specter of a nuclear attack on Ukraine several times since invading the country in February 2022. Those threats grew more frequent as Ukraine started beating Russia on the battlefield, and Europe and the U.S. stepped up their military assistance to Kyiv. Putin's illegal annexation of an area of eastern and southern Ukraine roughly the size of Portugal raised the risks, since Russia — and Russia alone — now considers those areas part of the Russian Federation.

The humiliating setbacks in Putin's war, combined with a botched and unpopular military draft, have prompted broad discontent up and down Russian society and open sparring on state-controlled TV. The pressure building on Putin is raising concerns in the West that he may actually use a low-yield tactical nuke in Ukraine — and in fact, at least two prominent and powerful pro-war figures, Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov and Wagner financier Yevgeny Prigozhin — have openly advocated this path.

What would actually happen if Russia resorts to nuclear warfare in Ukraine? Here's a look at what Putin would lose and gain, how the West might respond, and how bad it would be for Ukraine.

What kind of nuclear weapon might Putin use?
Putin has lots of options on hand. "Great secrecy surrounds Russia's arsenal of tactical arms, but they vary in size and power," and there are believed to be about 2,000 such weapons at Putin's disposal, The New York Times reports. "For months now, computer simulations from the Pentagon, American nuclear labs, and intelligence agencies have been trying to model what might happen and how the United States could respond" if Putin nukes Ukraine, but that's "no easy task" given the sizes and varieties of Russia's arsenal.


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/what-would-actually-happen-if-putin-hit-ukraine-with-tactical-nukes/ar-AA12CoFj?cvid=466f0877dfe341818ad248b81ba05b49

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread