Biden approves sending 31 Abrams tanks to Ukraine

[BumRushDaShow]

Last edited Wed Jan 25, 2023, 06:12 PM - Edit history (1)

Source: ABC News

In a major increase of U.S. support to Ukraine, President Joe Biden has signed off on sending 31 M1 Abrams tanks to the war-torn country as concerns mount over a new Russian offensive this spring.

"Secretary [Lloyd] Austin has recommended this step because it will enhance the Ukraine's capacity to defend its territory and achieve its strategic objectives," Biden said on Wednesday in remarks from the White House's Roosevelt Room, flanked by Austin, the defense secretary, and Secretary of State Antony Blinken.

Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has repeatedly appealed for more tanks, with a harsh winter and the one-year anniversary of Russia's invasion approaching. The political maneuvering had muddled Ukraine's plea while Russia is thought to be preparing for a spring offensive.

For weeks, Pentagon officials said publicly that the Abrams tanks weren't suited for the fight in Ukraine, including because of the fuel they need to operate. But officials also did not rule out the vehicles as a potential long-term possibility.

Read more: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/biden-approves-sending-31-abrams-tanks-ukraine-president/story?id=96660143

---

(Ukraine remarks will be given shortly at the above - not sure about the graphic overlay regarding "California" )

Article updated.

Original article -

In a major increase of U.S. support to Ukraine, President Joe Biden has signed off on sending 31 M1 Abrams tanks to the war-torn country as concerns mount over a new Russian offensive this spring, according to senior administration officials.

"The reason for 31 is because that is how many tanks would constitute a Ukrainian tank battalion," a U.S. official told reporters in a conference call earlier Wednesday. "So we are specifically meeting that requirement."

The president is set to speak at noon ET from White House's Roosevelt Room on the "continued support for Ukraine," as Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has put out a direct appeal for more tanks with a harsh winter and the one-year anniversary of Russia's invasion approaching.

The U.S. announcement about its tank commitment comes the same day Germany has also pledged to send Ukraine 14 of its own Leopard 2 tanks.

[samsingh]

1. i could about 150+ modern western tanks pledged to Ukraine now.

halfway to the 300 tank goal

this is good.

[getagrip_already]

2. That can be deceiving....

The Bradley's, while not an mbt, are easily the equal of the old pos russian tanks. Sure, those tanks can kill a Bradley, but are unlikely to do so through indirect fire. Even line of sight targeting on a moving target reportedly sucks.

The Russians are using their tanks more like mobile artillery than mobile infantry support. Or so it seems anyway.

In any case, they are getting a lot of m2s.

[GregariousGroundhog]

5. Between a Bradley and a T-72 variant, the winner is usually whoever sees the other first

The optics and targeting computer on a T-72 can vary considerably, depending on when it was manufactured and last refitted. On a whole though, I suspect the odds are in the Ukrainians favor.

[Aristus]

6. Even mobile infantry support is a waste of a tank's capabilities.

The tank is supposed to be the spearhead of a combined arms strike force, supported by air, artillery, and infantry. It shines best in offensive operations. Now, of course, that's not what Ukraine wants to do; they are fighting defensively. But they can use the new tanks to drive Russia out of the Crimea for starters, and then push the entire invasion force out of Ukraine for good.

One of the reasons Russia's tank force is getting crushed by Ukraine is because the tanks are being used as you pointed out above: mobile artillery and infantry support. The worse thing a tank can be is a rolling pillbox.

When I was a tanker in the Army, we always trained as a rapid strike force leading the way, with infantry bringing up the rear to hold and consolidate the gains earned by the tanks.

[irisblue]

10. Lima Army Tank Plant, in Lima Ohio is in 'Gym' Jordans district makes the M1A1 Abrams

His constituents work there, the money they make in a depressed area of Ohio is important to the community.
I will be curious to see what that mofo Jordan says about this deal.

[Aristus]

12. You can be damned sure he's going to try to minimize President Biden's contributions,

and Jordan's diseased supporters will believe him.

[irisblue]

15. His district has kept him in office since 2007. You are likely right

Source-https://ballotpedia.org/Jim_Jordan_(Ohio)

snip-"Tenure
2007 - Present

Term ends
2025

Years in position
16"

[Buzz cook]

14. Ukraine has done some offensive opperations

So not just fighting defensively. Their attack in Kherson and Kharkiv might be a model of what the Ukrainians would do with a few modern tanks.
The problem, as I see it is, the lack of air superiority. Without that the tanks are going to be tethered to mobile AAA.

[GB_RN]

7. A Battalion (31) Of M1A2-Abrams...

Or even a company at a time (14 tanks or so), will plow the field clear of anything the Russians have deployed. Add in the British Challenger MBTs and German Leopard 2 tanks, all while backed up by a crapload of M2-Bradley fighting vehicles? Wherever these are deployed, the Russians don't stand a chance.

[GregariousGroundhog]

3. The current count is 73 tanks definitively pledged

14 Challenger 2 (U.K.)
14 Leopard 2, variant unknown (Poland)
14 Leopard 2A6 (Germany)
31 Abrams M1A1 (US)

Poland hasn't specified whether they are providing the Leopard 2A4 or the 2A5; they have about an equal number of both in inventory.

Norway were considering sending eight tanks as part of a coalition deal, and the Netherlands 18; Spain and Finland were also considering sending an undisclosed number. I suspect we'll be hearing from these four countries in the coming days.

[GB_RN]

8. It's The M1A2, Officially Announced...

Edited: From Biden's presser (per Daily Kos's Mark Summer, who's been watching it), it's the M1A2 Ukraine is getting.

[GregariousGroundhog]

16. Even better :)

So then CNBC either has old or incorrect information:
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/25/ukraine-war-news-us-will-send-abrams-tanks.html

[BradBo]

4. Bet we get a nuke threat from Putin today.

[peppertree]

9. And, hopefully, a stroke

[Shanti Shanti Shanti]

29. I had a dream of a a massive nuke strike and counter strike right over my head, woke me up!

Don't have many apocalyptic experiences like that, it was a doozy, duck and cover

[orangecrush]

11. I'll bet

It's a lot more than that.

[Buzz cook]

13. More anti missle and anti aircraft weapons would be nice as well.

Tanks are cool and will sure enable more offense.
But currently most of the casualties are from missiles and aircraft of different types. Or at least that's what I hear on the news.
Access to info from spy satellites and maybe a friendly AWACs would be nice too.
And as long as I'm wishing, some anti ship cruise missiles would probably do some good.

[republianmushroom]

17. like it

[dembotoz]

18. great day to be a defense contractor

would prefer green economy but a job is a job

[Calista241]

19. That's not all

The Ukrainians are also getting 8 M88 recovery vehicles and low boy trucks to transport the M1A2 tanks. Not including 120mm tank ammo and spare parts.

[anamnua]

20. Thereby ingeniously providing Scholz of his figleaf

-- or depriving him of his excuse.
May they prove the death knell of many a brutal invader.

[Seeking Serenity]

21. Yay. More $$ to war contractors.

The MIC is living large. Meanwhile, we've got no M4A, and homeless veterans are sleeping rough under bridges in the cold.

Priorities, don'cha know. Because God forbid that the War mongers not get every last fucking cent!

[MarineCombatEngineer]

22. So your solution about Russian aggression is.............what?

Should the world ignore Ukr. needs against Russia's illegal invasion and wholesale slaughter of Ukrainan civilians and not supply them with the needs to repel the Russian military?

What would be your course of action?

[Seeking Serenity]

25. My course of action would NOT be endless war

Last edited Thu Jan 26, 2023, 06:15 PM - Edit history (1)

I've always been antiwar. I'm not changing now.

I'm not OK with bailing out big banks or making sure war contractors have hot and cold running champagne at their homes.

Y'know, like Democrats used to.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

27. I'm anti war also given my experiences,

but this isn't about big banks or defense contractors, this is about us supporting a sovereign nation, Ukraine, to see to it that they have the necessary tools to give them a fighting chance against an illegal invasion by Putin against them.

Democrats, like me, are against illegal and unnecessary wars, there's a difference here between our experiences in Vietnam and the Ukrainian's fight against Russia.

[BumRushDaShow]

28. "Y'know, like Democrats used to."

Unfortunately history doesn't bare that out.

See FDR (WW2), Truman (Korean War), JFK/Johnson (Vietnam War), Carter (Afghanistan), Clinton (breakup of Yugoslavia), Obama (Syria).

The difference is that Democrats did not INITIATE "wars" through invasions under dubious justifications, including to "bring Democracy to the world" like Republicans, e.g., Raygun and Panama & Granada, Poppy (Iraq & Kuwait), Shrub (Afghanistan, Iraq). Democrats provided material support to satisfy treaty obligations (save for WW2 when we were attacked, the aftermath leading to the formation of NATO).

Republicans were the PNAC-hugging war-mongers.

[Lucky Luciano]

23. The Neville Chamberlain disgrace shouldn't be repeated.

[XorXor]

24. If these tanks were not sent to Ukraine, we still wouldn't have M4A

Instead we'd have a Russian flag flying over Kyiv and still be without a good solution for our healthcare system. Your argument is a lot like the ones that complain about the "wasteful" space program with a 24 billion dollar budget. As if those are things preventing us from funding multi-hundred billion dollar or even trillion dollar programs. Neither of these are what's preventing that from happening.

Helping Ukraine defend itself against Russian aggression is exactly how we should want our defense monies to be spent. Is it a good thing? No! It would be better if we didn't have to, but much like in WW2, it is something that needs to be done. This isn't like us spending trillions of dollars in our own unnecessary and counter productive war of aggression in Iraq.

Maybe you can elaborate on how you believe the situation should be handled. I'm always interested in hearing different viewpoints.

[maxsolomon]

26. What kind of fuel to they run on? Premium? Diesel?

So weird.

[Shanti Shanti Shanti]

30. M1 Abrams has a jet turbine engine rather than a diesel, so they use JP-8 aviation gas, jet fuel

[MarineCombatEngineer]

31. Yes, they do run on JP-8,

but they are also a multi fuel tank.

The tank is powered by Avco Lycoming (now Honeywell) AGT1500 gas turbine engine, developing 1 500 horsepower. Essentially it is a modified helicopter engine, adapted for use on tanks. It is a multi-fuel engine, which can run on any grade of petrol, diesel, aviation fuel or kerosene. This engine has impressive performance and is compact for its power output. So even though the Abrams tank is heavy and bulky, it is surprisingly agile. It is faster than many other tanks and has superior cross-country performance. Also the engine is remarkably quiet. Due to this feature the Abrams is even nicknamed the Whispering Death. Its gas turbine engine has servicing intervals significantly longer than those of diesel engines, however is troublesome to maintain and has very high fuel consumption comparing with diesels. Engine can be replaced in field conditions within 30 minutes. Chassis and transmission of the M1A1 was improved to coupe with increased tank's weight. This main battle tank can be equipped with mine plow or mine rollers

https://www.military-today.com/tanks/m1a1_abrams.htm

[Shanti Shanti Shanti]

32. True too, whatever they use, have lots of it, they be the ultimate gas guzzlers, gallons to the mile

Moving a 50 ton tracked vehicle at any speed takes a lot of work, lol

[MarineCombatEngineer]

33. Absolutely correct,

they are fuel guzzlers, the Leopards are better suited for Ukr.

[Aristus]

34. One thing the Ukrainian tankers are really going to love about the Abrams:

The turbine-engine exhaust. Nothing in the world on a freezing day like cranking up the tank, then standing behind the thing, basking in the warm exhaust of the engine. The engine is nice and quiet, and there's almost none of the dirty, lung-irritating smoky exhaust characteristic of a diesel engine.

We'd stand behind the tank until the warmth saturated our clothing, then climb aboard, crank the crew-space heater, and roll out for another winter's day in the field.