"Why no Abrams to Ukraine?" Topic

Ok, something those former (& current) armed forces members could help me understand – I get that the Abrams has a jet turbine engine, that it has a huge logistical tail and maintenance requirements.

BUT – the US gave them to the Iraqis, reconstructing their military. Surely Ukraine has a better logistics infrastructure, and there's a NATO base in Poland right across the border rather than sending the things half way round the world to the Middle East. And aren't there a few older M1A1 variants surplus now the USMC has ditched it's tanks – so you wouldn't need to send the most up-to-date ones anyway?

Am I missing something? Or is it all a a great conspiracy to sell Ukraine a fleet of Panther IIs?

You bring up the point and answer to your own question.

It's a huge logistical tail, and maintenance nightmare.

Think of all of the different types of equipment that is flowing into Ukraine, (Leo's, Challengers, etc), each one needing it's own type of logistics and maintenance to keep them running.
Now think about the fuel requirements.
Now add the M1 to that, which gets approx 1 gal of fuel per mile.
Now think about how the Russians would love to get their hands on an abandoned/captured M1A1.

The Ukraine has already been given over 60 BILLION Dollars, (90% of it is unaccounted for), and yet they are asking for "MOOOOAAAAARRRRR…."
Russia had now declared the UK to be "a legitimate target", and that "they are already fighting NATO".

The decision by the USMC to drop it's armor forces was a huge mistake that will be acknowledged in the near future when Marines face off against Chinese troops. (Yes that day is coming…)

Plus the fact that the surplus M1's will be needed to replace combat losses when the face off with the Chinese does occur.

I'm certain the Russians have an M1A1 by now. I'm even more certain the Chinese do. But I'm guessing.

I think it's really about escalation, but I don't think that's as big a risk as the experts.

The Germans said no Leopards if no Abrams, so let's get an agreement that everyone is going to send a few and get them over there and end this. Otherwise someone is going to use the Q-word.

The Russians and PRC should have just picked one up from Iraq as soon as the US handed them over, not to do so is just dumb.

Murpy – are you saying the PRC is a threat? No way man! It's Russia all day, every day. The USMC plans on re-enacting a Wake Island- Phillippines cross over in 1-1 scale.

As Murphy stated earlier, this is turning into a logistical nightmare. Let's say you give Ukraine 14-15 M1s. All of the crews need training on the equipment, plus you'll need several maintenance teams, a workshop, plus a stockpile of spare parts. Once they've been in the field or go on a long march to the front, there's going to be breakdowns and the maintenance staff, even after a short training period, is going to take some time to get them back into the field.

I'm sure that the Russians and Chinese already have details, plans, etc., for the M1. However, having that information and being able to replicate it in real life are two separate things. If it was so simple every country would have M1s in their army.

Totally agree this is a maintenance nightmare in the making..

The Ukranians shouldn't get a few Challenger 2s.

They should get nearly 300 Challenger 1s. That's enough tanks to make a difference, plus there is enough left for replacements.

The Ukraine has already been given over 60 BILLION Dollars, (90% of it is unaccounted for), and yet they are asking for "MOOOOAAAAARRRRR…."

This argument doesn't wash. Giving old equipment from storage actually saves money on upkeep. The announcements of the value of donated equipment at retail prices are for publicity purposes only. It has only a small value once it is scrapped in years to come.

Druzhina
Illustrations of Costume & Soldiers

Sweden will send 40 cv9040 ifv now, and some archer artillerysystems as well. So I hope that all together will make a difference.

"90% of it is unaccounted for"

I'm sure that's well-sourced.

I'm fairly certain if offered Abrams Ukraine would take them. Though the lead time would probably make their practical value limited and Ukraine does already have logistical issues around fuel. Though a battalion parked somewhere between Kyiv and the Belarussian border wouldn't need to do much and would probably act as a useful deterrent. Probably an ideal part of a post-war aid package though.

The real question is the German governments stalling which seems to be confusing even its own public. There are a heck of a lot more Leopard IIs within easy delivery distance of Ukraine than pretty much any other Western MBT I can think of.

Of course there might be games within games being played here – Ukraine may be hoping that some high profile equipment promises might make the Russians commit to their much touted offensive early and less prepared than they could be – which based on previous experience of Russian logistics and planning might be very much in Ukraine's favour.

There's an article detailing what the UKs sent and is officially planning to send here link

Here's another perspective.

Several NATO countries are sending hardware to the Ukraine. Many of these are Russian systems, the argument is that Ukraine has the training and logistics in place to support systems such as the T-72, MiG-29, S-300, etc. So they are getting those, and they are being replaced with systems such as the M1 Abrams, F-35, and Patriot. Other systems are being phased out by the donor countries, and are again being replaced by more modern systems. The mix of systems undoubtedly creates a logistical issue for Ukraine.

On the other hand, the NATO countries are divesting themselves of Russian equipment which they might have trouble supporting in a conflict with Russia, and replacing that with equipment which is U.S. and/or NATO standard. Likewise, older systems (sometimes somewhat unique) are being shipped to Ukraine and phased out, again being replaced with U.S./NATO standard.

A NATO equipped with systems supported by the U.S. or other Western countries which is still in production will not only be of higher quality but will be easier to replace or support logistically in time of conflict.

Maybe these shipments not only supply material to Ukraine but also serve the longer-term goal of standardizing equipment and simplifying logistics within NATO.

"I'm sure that's well-sourced."

Actually it is emckinney.
Here's a link from Nov 2022: link

All you need to do is a little research and you will see how much money is simply "gone"….

"The Ukraine has already been given over 60 BILLION Dollars, (90% of it is unaccounted for)"

Oh god, not this again…

Ukraine got hardly any cash, that's the value of the (often surplus) stocks sent over. Money that was spent decades ago for the most part. And the modern stocks that need replenishing will mean billions spent, in the US.

"This argument doesn't wash. Giving old equipment from storage actually saves money on upkeep. The announcements of the value of donated equipment at retail prices are for publicity purposes only. It has only a small value once it is scrapped in years to come."

I said nothing Druzhina about "giving old equipment". I was discussing how much money we have given to Ukraine. It's really not that hard dude.

So yes it does "wash"….

"Oh god, not this again…

Ukraine got hardly any cash, that's the value of the (often surplus) stocks sent over. Money that was spent decades ago for the most part. And the modern stocks that need replenishing will mean billions spent, in the US.?

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't true…

link

link

link

btw….how much aid has Belgium given?

There's a developing story right now about 50 SUV's donated to Ukraine by GM that can't be found. As with everything else in this war, it's hard to know what's true and what isn't.

"'90% of it is unaccounted for'

I'm sure that's well-sourced."

Sourced straight off a Kremlin talking point list then echoed by conspiracy theory websites.

Hey Murph….here is who you're quoting about missing money in Ukraine, lol.

The Gateway Pundit is an American far-right fake news website. The website is known for publishing falsehoods, hoaxes, and conspiracy theories. Founded by Jim Hoft in 2004, The Gateway Pundit expanded from a one-person enterprise into a multi-employee operation that is supported primarily by advertising revenue. Wikipedia

the US gave them to the Iraqis, reconstructing their military. Surely Ukraine has a better logistics infrastructure, and there's a NATO base in Poland right across the border rather than sending the things half way round the world to the Middle East. And aren't there a few older M1A1 variants surplus now the USMC has ditched it's tanks – so you wouldn't need to send the most up-to-date ones anyway?

The concept is that the M1 is a complex "Iron Monster". Maintenance & Log heavy. And yes, the USMC gave up 200 on their M1s. But we have many more surplus than that already. IIRC a 1000 + ? And certainly, the Russians have M1s like we have many of their AFVs, etc.

In IIRC 2014 when Iraq first encountered ISIS. The Iraq's abandoned something like(?) 42 M1s and 52 M109s 155mm SPFA. Later Iranians were seen using the M1s in Iraq. Until they broke down. So yes, the Russians have M1s, M2s, etc. I'd venture to say.

As I posted on another thread … And yes, the M1 is log & maint. heavy. Been there … done that as a Mech Hvy Bde BMO.

Of course, the US may need many of their M1 as there still are threats out there, e.g., the PRC/CCP. The M1s may have to go to Taiwan along with other US assets. However, IIRC Poland is buying some M1s as mentioned before.

From another thread I posted on. Yes, the "Iron Monsters" require maintenance & logistic support. All those AFVs, etc. should come with Prescribed Load List, etc. of parts & accessories, etc. The Log guys will or will have to set up a Forward Log Support base/Field Trains in Poland. The same will have to be done for ammo, etc.

I was a Mech Bn and then later Mech Hvy Bde Motor Officer. As well as a Mech Bn Log Officer[S-4] then Asst Bde S-4. Yes, [I was a Grunt, but you don't get to choose where higher thinks you need to go.] If NATO and the US gets/has their 💩 together the various maint., parts, all Classes of Supply should be available. They may have to do a "push package" initially to get all the supplies, etc. in Poland. NATO is supposed to have interoperability … or they will learn very quickly if not …

You can't imagine all the parts & Classes of supplies a Mech Bn and Mech Hvy Bde that are required. Again, The US & NATO have done it before in Iraq and A'stan. Poland is a much better location than those for a number of reasons.

At this point I don't think the USA wants to send such expensive end items as M1s. Some in the US gov't thinks we have and are sending too much expensive equipment already. Plus, M1s IIRC can't fly into an airfield in in Poland. Maybe C5 can take one ? Someone correct me if I'm wrong. Have not run air ops since '83.

Another post from a thread here.

You can load an MBT or IFV/APC, etc. fairly easily at a near railhead[still a PIA!].

Load AFVs, etc. at near railhead.

Railhead to port. Then download …

Load onboard ship. Cross the ocean but a ship can only move so fast.

Ship goes to port on the other side of ocean.

Download at railhead near port.

Then upload on rails, send those AFVs, etc. to far Railhead to link up with crews & troops.

It would be nice if you could fly everything into an airfield, etc. Some AFVs, etc. we can. But if you have IFVs/APCs they have to be supported by MBTs & vis versa. As well as FA, ADA, etc.

That is the way e.g. Poland will get it's M1s & K2s, etc. And the Ukraine is getting many AFVs, etc. from not just the US, Australia, etc.

The US went thru a period where they were going with lighter AFVs for mobility. To project strength, etc. But as I posted, once the M1, M2, Stryker and LAVs got on the ground. The US ended up having to add, etc. armor to all those AFVs, IIRC.

As we know, the balancing act with AFVs. Is to trade off armor & firepower with mobility and deployability. You have to get a good mix based on your requirements.

I said nothing Druzhina about "giving old equipment".

You did write "M1A1".

Druzhina
Illustrations of Costume & Soldiers

There's a developing story right now about 50 SUV's donated to Ukraine by GM that can't be found. As with everything else in this war, it's hard to know what's true and what isn't.

Would these be the same 50 trucks that have been falsely claimed to be paid for by the US government?

At least pre-war a lot of corruption was linked with Russia and those with Russian connections…

Out of NewsPunch, GateWayPundit and HeadlineUSA, Headline is the most reliable and that's a click-bait ad-farm. One of NewsPunch's founders used to work for David Icke and the organisation has the dubious of honour of being an early propagator of the Pizza-gate conspiracy. Dear lord. Why don't people just have done and subscribe to Gonzalo Lira etc….?

Maybe Ukraine can get some trucks from the large stocks we left behind for the Taliban. They must have at least 50 extras …

Just saw on the news the US is sending 50 MRAPs(?). Those can be easily transported on e.g. C-17s. And in large number, e.g. 8-10?

Plus, the news just said the Germans will Leo MBTs. That should have happened already, IMO. Just like the other NATO members, Germany, and other European nations can rail the equipment To Poland, etc. Quicker and easier than sending e.g. M1s, etc., by ship.

BTW the US Army has a Mech or Tank Hvy Battle Grp in Poland already. For a few years now, AFAIK. About 5000 troops. US units rotate in and out, not sure of time interval. That Battle Grp is a permanent in Poland like we had forces in "West" Germany, etc. during the Cold War. IIRC the 82d & the 101 have Battle Grps there for 6-8 months now. Giving the US about 10,000 troops.

Giving old stocks to Ukraine does save money on upkeep in the long run. The expense comes in the refurbishment, and transportation from storage to a port, across the ocean, unloading, and transportation to where the Ukrainians pick them up. That does cost actual money.l As does the ammunition, fuel, spare parts, and lubricants.
Is Ukraine corrupt? I have no doubt some of them are. Apart from perhaps Japan and Switzerland there is not a long list of nations that are not corrupt. But being a corrupt nation is not a justification for Russian invasion.
As for vehicles disappearing, there is a war on, so stuff gets destroyed, captured, abandoned, and yes even stolen or diverted. It is the nature of modern war. War is very wasteful in lives and materials.
We should not send 15 Abrams to Ukraine. We should send them 500 and 500 Bradleys. There are thousands of them in storage that will never be used short of a land war against the PRC which is not likely in the near term.
Russia has invaded four of their neighbors and stolen their land since the fall of the Soviet Union. This is our chance to avoid the problems we so clearly see in hindsight with the Germans before WWII. The West let them nibble at all the nations around them and we did nothing.
This way Ukraine can spend their blood and we can spend some money. It seems a good deal to me to stop Russia.
The peace should require all Russian troops out of Chechnya, Moldova, Georgia, and Ukraine, all Russian naval forces out of the Black Sea and Russia should give up their nuclear weapons. They have been irresponsible and dangerous to all their neighbors.
You knows it's bad when even Sweden, Japan, and South Korea all send support for a war.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek

These are all fascinating answers, and thank you everyone- but my question still stands.

If the issue is logistics/ maintenance, surely that was a bigger issue in Iraq than it would be in Ukraine, just over the border from a NATO base with a military that is transitioning to a NATO standard of it's own volition , than it was to a Mid East state thousands of miles away from CONUS with no infrastructure in place and a military that was for decades equipped with Soviet gear?

We should send them 500 and 500 Bradleys.

That would be a good thing. Plus, along with other NATO, etc. equipment that would give the Ukraine a real edge. But not just all the maint. & log support, there is crew training, etc. It would take months to get all those 500 M1s & 500 M2s. Can the Ukraine hang on with just using NATO equipment being railed across the Polish then Ukraine border?

but my question still stands.

I think at this point it has more to do with US leadership. But as I said, if we are going to send heavy expensive equipment like M1s … we better get on it.

I have mentioned this before. When Putin was massing on the border with took months. The US and even NATO should have been sending "Heavy Metal", etc., etc. IMO it could have deterred the Russia attacks. Or at least make the Russian think twice if they did cross the border and got their handed to then. Even worse that their 2d rate military had done as it was.

IMO, I think our leadership did not want to "upset", etc., Putin if we sent a lot of "Iron Monsters", etc., etc. early on. I had heard the US leadership wanted to broker a peace deal early on. Regardless of Russia holding the parts of the Ukraine. The Donbas, Crimea, etc. would still be in Russian hands. If this peace deal became reality.

This would be IMO awarding bad behavior. With the Russian Imperialism being from something like the last Century, i.e. WWII.

But since Russia has Nukes that has to be a concern. As their tactical doctrine includes using WMDs, i.e. Nukes.

Bottom line IMO the US leadership like in A'stan had not thought thru how and what they should have done, etc.. Too many Beta-males in high places. I'm not saying start WWIII, but we must have strong, determined, intelligent, etc., leaders. Some leaders who Putin, Xi, Iran, etc. may actually fear and respect. I believe that is not the case. That is all Putin, Xi, etc., understand e.g. strength … They are predators, Betas don't always do well vs these types …

The Ukraine has already been given over 60 BILLION Dollars, (90% of it is unaccounted for), and yet they are asking for "MOOOOAAAAARRRRR…."

I think we're up to about $110 USD Billion in aid now. The War in Ukraine is a hungry beast, quite lucrative for the well-connected and defense contractors.

But since Russia has Nukes that has to be a concern. As their tactical doctrine includes using WMDs, i.e. Nukes.

Putin will not surrender Crimea and Sevastopol, the home of the Black Sea Fleet. He will use tacnukes before he lets that go.

The War in Ukraine is a hungry beast, quite lucrative for the well-connected and defense contractors.

Keep in mind that a lot of that "money" is in the form of equipment that would have been scrapped soon.

That is true, much of this equipment is older and the Gov't got their money's worth. E.g. the Strykers were probably from the deactivated Stryker Bde Combat Grp out of Alaska. The Army was actually thinking about using some of them for parts(!?!?!?).

The M113, I commanded an M113 Mech Co. '87-'89. And they were old then. We even sent some to A'stan for the ANA, which are now being used by the Taliban. And of course we sent some M113s to the Ukraine plus "the ANZACs" sent their version as well. The M113AS4 link

We are sending more MRAPs to the Ukraine too. After we left A'stan the Army was giving some to local LEOs. Our police have one. Plus of course a lot left in A'stan. AFAIK the newer version, the MAX Pro we left in A'tan as well. AFAIK some are still being used by our forces in Syria and Iraq. Of course, the Iraqis have some too IIRC. But seemed the MRAPs that were not given away, etc. some were talking about mothballing some of them. Don't know if that ever happened?

Putin will not surrender Crimea and Sevastopol, the home of the Black Sea Fleet. He will use tacnukes before he lets that go.

Well he knows the fallout will go everywhere … even to some NATO nations. Will he risk it ? If he does things could get out of had very quickly. I think he will removed before that happens … but who knows ?

Go here -
file:///C:/Users/Byron/Downloads/nadezhnaya-opora-mostostroenie-v-ukraine.pdf

The Abrams is 71 tons and a major fuel consumer.

Midlander and Uesugi…
So you didn't like one of three links…wow…

Okay, here you go…

1: Go to Google.
2: Type in the following: "How much of the US Money to the Ukraine is unaccounted for?"
3: Take your pick of reports. There's quite a freakin' bunch of them out there. But then again, if you don't like the facts you won't find something there to fit your narrative.

It's so simple even you can do it.

"btw….how much aid has Belgium given?"

Murphy, when this is the kind of argument you have to resort to, you show you have nothing decent to counter mine :-)

And the Belgian army is a joke, has been for a long time… It's been turned into a lightly armed humanitarian aid provider by our politicians. When they deployed a company of infantry to Romania early in the war, they had to scrape together equipment from pretty much every infantry battalion we have to get it up to full TO&E. We have nothing to give, other than some Unimog trucks that are getting replaced this year…

One UK newspaper asked if the UK was sending the wrong Challengers to Ukraine?

Reason being Jordan has been using basically the entire British fleet of around 400 Challenger 1s when the Brits retired them after Gulf War 1.

Jordan has maintained them in good condition and in some ways improved them.

Jordan is now retiring them.

Wouldn't 400 Challenger1s be perfect for Ukraine?

Blutarski's link should be Reliable Support: Bridge Construction in Ukraine – Metinvest for a pdf download.

The heavier the tank, the less bridges there are that can support its weight. Ukraine has many rivers and streams.

Some pundits on the news have been saying the Abrams requires jet fuel, but it can use a variety of fuels – the Australian Army uses diesel for its Abrams. They do use a lot of fuel.

Druzhina
Illustrations of Costume & Soldiers

"Midlander and Uesugi…
So you didn't like one of three links…wow…"

I checked several – all equally unreliable. Just because something is on the internet on a fringe conspiracy website doesn't make it true – generally quite the opposite.

According to the Russians: the only reason they haven't won yet in Ukraine is because of the massive support provided by NATO – they are effectively defending themselves against the whole alliance. Simultaneously, little of this support has reached the front line because it has all been sold off by corrupt Ukrainians. And of course Russian kit, training and people are so vastly superior to anything from the West that Western quantity can never make up for Russian technical and moral superiority.

When somebody is so obsessively pushing propaganda that originates and is to the advantage of a hostile, authoritarian country, one has to wonder what motivates them.

@Battler Britain
Interesting point. Shipping 400 Challengers would be a major exercise though given the most obvious route isn't available. Probably could also include specialist support vehicles as well which would be needed.
@Skinflint Games
I think the answer is 'political' at the moment. I could be wrong but I don't think the US government have given a definitive reason in public. But in practical terms sustainment of Abrams would be a major headache for Ukraine though probably not a deal breaker longer term.

I think its worth noting that a lot of the aid isn't purely military the West is propping up the Ukrainian government and economy to a certain extent. And the headline figures in the press-release are not the real dollar value being given so 90% couldn't make into Hunter Biden's or Hilary Clinton's wallet – show me a picture of Hilary running to the 7-11 in a M113 or MRAP and you might have something…. Nor for that matter will it be lining the pockets of military-industrial complex since Ukraine is being given the fancy stuff and using the cash to do stuff like pay wages and buy basic ammo.

It's so simple even you can do it.

What kind of tree are you?

[edit] This story does give the current official reason – but ultimately its still 'politics' IMO
link

I find it amazing some posters do not realise how unreliable the web is.
There are bots and real people all over Russia pushing lies all the time.
Maybe here.

Additionally, politicians want to sound good with simple messaging.

You don't see a big long list of boots, socks,50 cal bullets, beans etc etc. You see a simple 2.5bn "value" someone put together based on theoretical costings. None of that boring accounting book value reduction, impairment or fair market value lark.

The US is not sending huge bundles of cash. It's not free to transport all those himars. It's not free to get old kit fixed up into working condition.

The people organising this aid will have oversight checking what they're up to. It is, at best, naive to think 90% of these stated sums are somehow being funneled away into someone's bank account.

Training 400+ Challenger crews would take some time, including a loader/ Operator (including a BV package). Remember the Ukrainians have been operating three man MBTs, not 4.

Tally Ho!

Andy +1

Gateway Pundit is not a source for documented findings,I have found from seeing it here. The web is a complex tool and should be assessed with care. IMO Pundit is consistently without sources for the articles I have seen. Brief politicized theorizing, sounding like extremist sound bites. I do not fault people for following it in the post truth era, we are awash in opinions for profit and political gain. But I am not in agreement with its content.

Nick, they have the same problem with Chally2 with regards to crew numbers and positions.

But would 400 Challenger1s be better than 14 Chally2s?

I find it amazing some posters do not realise how unreliable the web is.

TBH most don't know or care – 'other side of the aisle bad' end of. And post-modernism says my 'free' opinion matters as much as facts…

Pretty much any Western MBT and indeed light tank will bring with it the additional crew issue. Though I think its fair to say that Ukraine probably has more potential crewmen than vehicles at the moment. Though in the very short term 14 or 400 makes little difference since since with training and familiarisation they will just be forecourt queens.

The Abrams is 71 tons and a major fuel consumer.

That is a given. And well known or should be.

Jordan has maintained them in good condition and in some ways improved them.

Jordan is now retiring them.

Wouldn't 400 Challenger1s be perfect for Ukraine?

I think that is a great idea. And they are closer to the Ukraine than the UK.

Training 400+ Challenger crews would take some time, including a loader/ Operator (including a BV package). Remember the Ukrainians have been operating three man MBTs, not 4.

That is always the rub for any Army. Along with maint. & log support training.

The heavier the tank, the less bridges there are that can support its weight. Ukraine has many rivers and streams.

Again that is a given, e.g. the M1 was designed to fight in Europe. If the USSR/WP crossed the IGB. I was in (West)Germany in '88 commanding an M113 Mech Co. attached to a US Tank Bn. The Tank Bn had 3 M60A1s Cos. & 1 M1IP Co. Not M1s.

In the ROK, '84-'85 with a forward deployed M113 Mech Bn with the 2ID. The 2ID had two Tank Bns, with M60A1s.

Both Europe and the ROK are full of streams, rivers, marshes and in the ROK – Rice Paddies everywhere.

I'd think the Ukraine's terrain is about the same for the most part. I think M1s or any "heavier" MBT like that could operate with few problems in the Ukraine. But just like in (West)Germany and the ROK terrain & situation dictates everything …

And yes the M1 is heavier than the M60A1s. And some Russian MBTs. But again, the M1 was designed to fight in Europe. Is the US M1 having mobility problems in Poland ? Poland's terrain is not much different than the Ukraine's, yes ? The US has M1s there IIRC. And Poland is going to buy M1s.

Of course, the US has CE support with AVLBs, float bridges, etc.
Again, been there … done that …

FWIW – MBT weights:

M1A2 – 70 tons

M60A1 – 54 t

T-72 – 45 t

T-80 – 46 t

T-90 – 48 t

T-14 – 55 t

I'm sure e.g.: Poland knows all this as well as the Ukraine. But it may be a moot point. Poland will buy M1s …

So far … the US is not sending M1s to the Ukraine …yet …

Midlander. Okay, so every question about the money, (and nowhere did I ever say "cash", I gave a quote in value), is in your pov, propaganda.

Fine, I'll go with your silly POV.

I'll ask this question then.

WHY should the US give the Ukrainians M1A1's?

You wrote:

I said nothing Druzhina about "giving old equipment". I was discussing how much money we have given to Ukraine.

Then you wrote:

nowhere did I ever say "cash", I gave a quote in value

So is "money" different to "cash"?

Druzhina
Illustrations of Costume & Soldiers

Also FWIW : MBT Weights :

Challenger II 75 t

Leopard II 66 t

Looks like NATO likes "Fat" Tanks !

Regardless it is easier to transport lighter cargo, e.g. vehicles/AFVs, etc., obviously.

But it seems there are US M1s in Poland with US units. And Some Challenger IIs IIRC.
Still awaiting Leopard IIs, AFAIK …

WHY should the US give the Ukrainians M1A1's?

IMO, if possible the US/NATO/etc. should give whatever they need to push Putin Forces out of the Ukraine. Then they will still need FA, MBTs, IFVs to protect themselves from Russia trying to go for Invasion 2.0. 3.0 if you count Putin taking the Crimea in 2014.

Again, Putin and Russia must have its wings clipped/neutered. Invading a neighbor in the 21st Century is no acceptable. Plus, Putin and many Russians have committed war crimes …

And even though the Ukraine has some corruption, etc. problems, etc. Like many in NATO and elsewhere, it might be a good move to let them join NATO. To keep Russia out. Albeit once Putin and his ilk are gone, I don't think they will try to invade anyone. As Russia is pretty much surrounded by NATO.

Which was Putin's fear … guess he should have had better intel and more common sense, etc.

Murphy- to kill Russians. That's what they were made for

Yep, that is what M1s were made for during the Cold War. And if need be … even now. But we will have to wait and see what the US & Germany works out ?

Looks like NATO likes "Fat" Tanks!

Extra crewman and more spacious surroundings all cost weight and so does crew survivability – not sure that was particularly high up the list of Soviet design requirements!

Not so sure the route for Jordanian Challengers would be so easy. Black Sea is out. There a lot of overland! Best case by rail and I'd bet that will include at least one or two changes in gauge at a guess just between southern and eastern Europe.

Yes all the Russian AFVs I've been in looked like they designed for dwarves or hobbits. Been in US M60A1s and M1IPs not really spacious … 😎

Well I'd think those Jordian Challenger IIs would be very useful for the Ukrainians. It would have to be by rail AFAIK. But I don't know how the rail gauges would affect the transport. As they might have change rail cars & engines. How do goods get around this would be my first question. ?

I also saw on the news that the US recommended that the Ukraine should hold off on major offensive ops. Until they get all the US & NATO AFVs, etc. Well, that is obviously good advice. But seems the Germans & US still have not worked out the details, IIRC. The longer it takes to get these US/NATO AFVs, etc. The longer the war will go on and more will die. And a long war just plays into Putin's advantage.

I'm going to blame poor, timid, weak US leadership again. I hope we don't leave Ukraine hanging. Like we did with the Kurds and A'stan. But A'stan would be hard to "fix" anyway. As we saw with the 20 years there the US spent there. Regardless, the US is not going to be considered a very good "ally".

Murphy:

"Midlander. Okay, so every question about the money, (and nowhere did I ever say "cash", I gave a quote in value), is in your pov, propaganda.

Fine, I'll go with your silly POV."

You are setting up a straw man. I never said that every question about money was propaganda.

You asserted that 90% of the "Dollars" given to Ukraine was unaccounted for: "The Ukraine has already been given over 60 BILLION Dollars, (90% of it is unaccounted for)". When you were called out over the 90% you backed it up with links to various far-right conspiracy theory websites. This allegation that most of the aid given to Ukraine is lost to corruption is a big part of Russian propaganda – along with many other demonstrably false and often self-conflicting claims.

I also never wrote that you'd said "cash". I didn't make any comment on that at all but, seeing as you mention it, you wrote:
- ‘Ukraine has already been given over 60 BILLION Dollars'
- ‘see how much money is simply "gone"….'
- 'I said nothing Druzhina about "giving old equipment". I was discussing how much money we have given to Ukraine.'
- 'How much of the US Money to the Ukraine is unaccounted for?'
I think I can understand why some readers might think you were talking about cash, especially from the one where you specifically rejected the idea that you were talking about equipment but meant money.

m1 abrams maintenance and logistics heavy
if faced with full out war .after a while would we be similar to german Wehrmacht with their tigers and elefants etc out of action against modern shermans equivalents

any m60s lying around anywhere?

bit of fake news for the russians maybe blow up dummy m1s placed north of kiev ,video of ukranians driving them in poland faked to be in ukraine