User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 10:32:55 PM EST
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I really wish we would have closed that useless tank factory down like GD wanted a couple years back. Fucking MIC bleeding the taxpayer dry with their $300000 BoD jobs and make work bullshit of spreading pork to congressional districts. I can never tell if you’re trolling or huffing paint. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 10:32:56 PM EST
[#2]
Does this mean they're Putin apologists?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 10:33:22 PM EST
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: One article cites Doug Bush and others saying 15/mo is great but the capacity exists for more and the other is a Russian influenced site that cites Polish media military analysts who say that 12/mo is the max. Which is it? Does it matter? A year into the Ukraine war we made 22 this year and plan on 30 next year. How many of those do you think are going to Ukraine? How many does Ukraine make? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 10:34:17 PM EST
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I can never tell if you’re trolling or huffing paint. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I really wish we would have closed that useless tank factory down like GD wanted a couple years back. Fucking MIC bleeding the taxpayer dry with their $300000 BoD jobs and make work bullshit of spreading pork to congressional districts. I can never tell if you’re trolling or huffing paint. I believe it's called shitposting. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 10:35:59 PM EST
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Again, WTF are you talking about? Russia bought ammo once from NK as a stopgap while their factories were expanded by the Chinese. We bought ammo from fucking Pakistan. Now at the end of the day, they actually made positive actions to increase their production and are making exponentially more, and growing. The west has not. https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-ammunition-manufacturing-ukraine-west-officials-2023-9 https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-ramps-up-artillery-production-still-falling-short-western-official-says-2023-09-09/ The west is losing a lot of our shit and we aren't replacing it, only talking about replacing it. That will become a problem pretty soon with China, Iran, North Korea, or more likely, all of them. So the highlight is that we managed to reduce an Army that already was not a considerable tactical threat while gutting NATO. Neato. We are gutting NATO, by adding Finland and Sweden? What constitutes gutting?, 18 F-16s, and less than 300 MBTs, maybe 1000 IFVs, MRAPS, and armored HUMVEEs? Literally shit, M113s, old Humvees and MRAPs we were letting the Afghans cut up for scrap. The only things we habe given them in quantity that is starting to effectnour reserves are 155MM, Stingers and Javelins. And yes, the West is ramping up production as per the Raytheon emails I receive for production QA positions. Where are all the attack helicopters? the heavy brigades of 1000s Abrams have we given them? How many, F-15s, F-18s, F-22s, F-35s? How many aircraft carriers and submarines have we given them? I mean according to you NATO is gutted!!! How many aircraft has NATO given them!?! |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 10:36:03 PM EST
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Again, WTF are you talking about? Russia bought ammo once from NK as a stopgap while their factories were expanded by the Chinese. We bought ammo from fucking Pakistan. Now at the end of the day, they actually made positive actions to increase their production and are making exponentially more, and growing. The west has not. https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-ammunition-manufacturing-ukraine-west-officials-2023-9 https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-ramps-up-artillery-production-still-falling-short-western-official-says-2023-09-09/ The west is losing a lot of our shit and we aren't replacing it, only talking about replacing it. That will become a problem pretty soon with China, Iran, North Korea, or more likely, all of them. So the highlight is that we managed to reduce an Army that already was not a considerable tactical threat while gutting NATO. Neato. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: What a handful? Russia has lost thousands, and count 3 men per typically, not to mention thousands of BMPs, with how many per? And how many aircraft has NATO lost, now Russia? In a war of attrition Russia and China, don't have the logistics to maintain this, that's why Putin is buying shit ammunition from NK. Again, WTF are you talking about? Russia bought ammo once from NK as a stopgap while their factories were expanded by the Chinese. We bought ammo from fucking Pakistan. Now at the end of the day, they actually made positive actions to increase their production and are making exponentially more, and growing. The west has not. https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-ammunition-manufacturing-ukraine-west-officials-2023-9 https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-ramps-up-artillery-production-still-falling-short-western-official-says-2023-09-09/ The west is losing a lot of our shit and we aren't replacing it, only talking about replacing it. That will become a problem pretty soon with China, Iran, North Korea, or more likely, all of them. So the highlight is that we managed to reduce an Army that already was not a considerable tactical threat while gutting NATO. Neato. America can no longer afford to be the worlds policemen and the sooner arf boomers realize that, the better. We shouldn't be spending billions on others wars while we still have kids to transition at home. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 10:37:34 PM EST
[#7]
Order volume doesn’t justify more.
What strategic assets is Russia using anyway? Since strategic conventional bombing is a thing that doesn’t actually exist. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 10:38:08 PM EST
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I believe it's called shitposting. In theory yes but proper shitposting is clever or funny. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 10:39:24 PM EST
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How many of those do you think are going to Ukraine? How many does Ukraine make? Zero to both. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 10:39:48 PM EST
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If, due to budget constraints, the USA put all our best equipment and soldiers into one corps meant to fight a peer adversary and it was suddenly decimated with the enemy capturing or destroying all their equipment, what would say about that? For just 5-10% of our military budget and no blood lost, we've destroyed more than half of Russia's military equipment. According to Oryx, the best open source database there is, Russia has lost:
https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html Russia has a GDP of $1.8 trillion compared to the US $26 trillion or Europe's $17 trillion or China's $17 trillion. Russia's defense budget is $100 billion next year (it was $66 billion before the invasion) compared to the US $880 billion or NATO's $1.26 trillion. I just don't see how Russia ever replaces this stuff, considering most of this was built in Soviet times and today's cost to replace is so high. There's a reason they never built the T-14 Armata tank or Su-57 stealth fighter jet, and only built hypersonic missiles with funding from India. They don't have the money. https://i.insider.com/6573113f7a3c8094d5daec93?width=1000&format=jpeg&auto=webp https://en.defence-ua.com/media/illustration/articles/84665086c5b8eccb.jpg https://i.postimg.cc/9Xx2XhXx/32f.png https://i.postimg.cc/W1F61by5/1021-t90a-destr.jpg https://i.postimg.cc/QM7HJM92/1051-berdyansk-afb.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I don't know what that has to do with literally anything at all. If, due to budget constraints, the USA put all our best equipment and soldiers into one corps meant to fight a peer adversary and it was suddenly decimated with the enemy capturing or destroying all their equipment, what would say about that? For just 5-10% of our military budget and no blood lost, we've destroyed more than half of Russia's military equipment. According to Oryx, the best open source database there is, Russia has lost:
https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html Russia has a GDP of $1.8 trillion compared to the US $26 trillion or Europe's $17 trillion or China's $17 trillion. Russia's defense budget is $100 billion next year (it was $66 billion before the invasion) compared to the US $880 billion or NATO's $1.26 trillion. I just don't see how Russia ever replaces this stuff, considering most of this was built in Soviet times and today's cost to replace is so high. There's a reason they never built the T-14 Armata tank or Su-57 stealth fighter jet, and only built hypersonic missiles with funding from India. They don't have the money. https://i.insider.com/6573113f7a3c8094d5daec93?width=1000&format=jpeg&auto=webp https://en.defence-ua.com/media/illustration/articles/84665086c5b8eccb.jpg https://i.postimg.cc/9Xx2XhXx/32f.png https://i.postimg.cc/W1F61by5/1021-t90a-destr.jpg https://i.postimg.cc/QM7HJM92/1051-berdyansk-afb.jpg Considering that 08 Romney was wrong in his presidential debate against Obama and Russia isnt the biggest threat, who cares what they do. China is the 10 foot tall and bulletproof threat the MIC wants us to be scared of now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 10:44:13 PM EST
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So what? We all know Russia has lost a lot of men and weapons without you spamming the thread. Yet here we still are. Sure, and we will be here until Russia whittles that T-72, T-64/62, T-55 stockpile down to nothing, then rolls out all its new T-72B3s out to be cannon fodder. You mentioned a 90 tank a month surge, I mean sure a "surge", how long do you think a production surge is maintainable? And how is Russia going to grow experienced tank crews? They aren't going be able to sustain a loss rate of 60 tanks a day, even at production surge of 90 for several months. They don't have the men for it. They've already started to abandon armored vehicles in Avdiivka, and have again resorted to human wave attacks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 10:44:19 PM EST
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I can never tell if you’re trolling or huffing paint. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I really wish we would have closed that useless tank factory down like GD wanted a couple years back. Fucking MIC bleeding the taxpayer dry with their $300000 BoD jobs and make work bullshit of spreading pork to congressional districts. I can never tell if you’re trolling or huffing paint. I am GD, but out of phase. There's literally no point in winning dick measuring contests on the internet and nobody can tell the truth here even if they wanted to do why not have fun with it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 10:44:33 PM EST
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: We are gutting NATO, by adding Finland and Sweden? What constitutes gutting?, 18 F-16s, and less than 300 MBTs, maybe 1000 IFVs, MRAPS, and armored HUMVEEs? Literally shit, M113s, old Humvees and MRAPs we were letting the Afghans cut up for scrap. The only things we habe given them in quantity that is starting to effectnour reserves are 155MM, Stingers and Javelins. And yes, the West is ramping up production as per the Raytheon emails I receive for production QA positions. Where are all the attack helicopters? the heavy brigades of 1000s Abrams have we given them? How many, F-15s, F-18s, F-22s, F-35s? How many aircraft carriers and submarines have we given them? I mean according to you NATO is gutted!!! How many aircraft has NATO given them!?! NATO had little to begin with, they have almost nothing now. When I say modern warfare has changed, those tanks and IFVs are a lot less important than the Patriots, Javelins, Stingers, IRIS-T, NASAMS, Storm Shadows, HIMARS, etc. Those are the ones we need that we cannot replace quickly or cheaply. But NATO is absolutely gutted and its pretty sad actually. Germany is down to a couple thousand artillery shells, air defense is few and far between on the European continent. Sweden is a fucking joke of a military and is just one more country we have to spend to defend. The west's version of ramping up production is a couple years years for contracts and EPA shit, then maybe starting a line or two. That is not the case for Russia/China. Then there is the fact that nobody wants to be left holding the bag after spending a billion dollars on a new factory and the war ends. I really think that's the main reason Europe is so full of excuses and slow rolling everything. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 10:45:03 PM EST
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Zero to both. So it doesn't matter anyway. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 10:45:21 PM EST
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Does it matter? A year into the Ukraine war we made 22 this year and plan on 30 next year. How many of those do you think are going to Ukraine? How many does Ukraine make? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 10:46:54 PM EST
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Considering that 08 Romney was wrong in his presidential debate against Obama and Russia isnt the biggest threat, who cares what they do. China is the 10 foot tall and bulletproof threat the MIC wants us to be scared of now. China want as aggressive on the past. And that was 2012. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 10:47:44 PM EST
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So it doesn't matter anyway. It matters for the US. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 10:47:59 PM EST
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: China want as aggressive on the past. And that was 2012. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Considering that 08 Romney was wrong in his presidential debate against Obama and Russia isnt the biggest threat, who cares what they do. China is the 10 foot tall and bulletproof threat the MIC wants us to be scared of now. China want as aggressive on the past. And that was 2012. AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH? AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 10:49:48 PM EST
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Even if we do send them some, they won't make any difference because among other things Abrams guzzle lots of fuel and Ukraine can't keep them supplied . Abrams uses roughly the same fuel as a Tiger II. A four Abrams platoon uses 10% more fuel as a platoon of 5 M4 Shermans. Yet that could be sustained in the 1940s… |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 10:50:10 PM EST
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Sure, and we will be here until Russia whittles that T-72, T-64/62, T-55 stockpile down to nothing, then rolls out all its new T-72B3s out to be cannon fodder. You mentioned a 90 tank a month surge, I mean sure a "surge", how long do you think a production surge is maintainable? And how is Russia going to grow experienced tank crews? They aren't going be able to sustain a loss rate of 60 tanks a day, even at production surge of 90 for several months. They don't have the men for it. They've already started to abandon armored vehicles in Avdiivka, and have again resorted to human wave attacks. 60 tanks a day loss rate? What? That surged production rate is likely sustainable considering China can supply them with raw materials. If anyone in this fight doesn't have the manpower, it's Ukraine. Average fighting age is already mid 40's, and after the latest conscription it'll be 50+. That's a lot less sustainable for Ukraine than Russia. Russia just has more people. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 10:50:26 PM EST
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You mentioned a 90 tank a month surge, I mean sure a "surge", how long do you think a production surge is maintainable? Quote HistoryQuoted: You mentioned a 90 tank a month surge, I mean sure a "surge", how long do you think a production surge is maintainable? I guess better temrinology would be "switching their entire economy to a full military industrial footing" versus surge. Does that change anything? Quoted: And how is Russia going to grow experienced tank crews? Even if they don't it isn't going to make the difference you think it will. How is Ukraine? Quoted: They aren't going be able to sustain a loss rate of 60 tanks a day, even at production surge of 90 for several months. They don't have the men for it. They've already started to abandon armored vehicles in Avdiivka, and have again resorted to human wave attacks. I heard this in 2022 as well. Either UKR MOD reporting isn't the gold standard you think it is, or the loss rate isn't the detractor you think it is. Which do you think is more correct? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 10:51:32 PM EST
[#22]
Nothing ever happens. If the funding ends tomorrow Russia will solidify their holdings. If they don't, the funding will start again. The US is so dramatically OP that it's funny, but most of that stuff can't be talked about.
All the tactical and strategic doesn't matter without an understanding of geopolitics that simply isn't taught. It's all over, but life will go on. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 10:53:50 PM EST
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So your military experience is literally not relevant at all here, so you may want to hold that card in your pocket instead of dropping it on the table. Hmm, me too, among a lot of other places relevant here. I'll go ahead and bet my work there was a bit different...and much more relevant to this discussion. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: No, I retired 3 years ago, and I spent a little time as an aircrew member So your military experience is literally not relevant at all here, so you may want to hold that card in your pocket instead of dropping it on the table. Quoted: All I will say is, I spent a little time in Georgia...and a little a bit in Ukraine in 2009 for work, I have a little understanding of why we are there...just sayin'. Hmm, me too, among a lot of other places relevant here. I'll go ahead and bet my work there was a bit different...and much more relevant to this discussion. Hmm could be, might not be. It doesn't seem to be helping you in supporting your position so, that's awkward. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 10:54:21 PM EST
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Do you think that is a symptom of new technology and tactics, drones etc or a symptom of two armies that can't utilize tanks in a coherent combined arms effort? How much of what we are seeing is the new reality of war vs this just being a tactical shit show? There has always been a debate over just how effective tanks are in a modern battlefield. A couple years ago the US Marine Corps decided to get rid of their tanks. That's a huge change. The Iraqis and Afghanis didn't have a whole lot of anti-tank missiles, not compared to the Ukrainians. But now that the Abrams tank has the Trophy missile protection system they are better protected. My understanding is it's the only system that really works too, but no way we're going to send that to Ukraine. As for tactics, they're fighting on open farm land. They don't have many places to hide. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 10:54:30 PM EST
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 60 tanks a day loss rate? What? That surged production rate is likely sustainable considering China can supply them with raw materials. If anyone in this fight doesn't have the manpower, it's Ukraine. Average fighting age is already mid 40's, and after the latest conscription it'll be 50+. That's a lot less sustainable for Ukraine than Russia. Russia just has more people. Russian tank losses are at least 120/mo and could be half again that. Ukrainian fighting age is high for several reasons, the best of which is that their draft age is mid twenties and up. Russia drafts at 18. Ultimately Russia has more men, but it remains to be seen how many they can draft before they start losing important domestic support. They also don’t use women in uniform as much as Ukraine does. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 10:54:49 PM EST
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Abrams uses roughly the same fuel as a Tiger II. A four Abrams platoon uses 10% more fuel as a platoon of 5 M4 Shermans. Yet that could be sustained in the 1940s… Those tanks used regular gas, which was prepo'ed in Europe already due to the fact that literally every civilian vehicle uses it. They didn't use JP8 which nothing else in their inventory uses. Leopard and Challenger use regular Diesel. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 10:55:59 PM EST
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Hmm could be, might not be. It doesn't seem to be helping you in supporting your position so, that's awkward. You just don't understand some very fundamental facets of this that I cannot help. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 10:58:18 PM EST
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There has always been a debate over just how effective tanks are in a modern battlefield. A couple years ago the US Marine Corps decided to get rid of their tanks. That's a huge change. The Iraqis and Afghanis didn't have a whole lot of anti-tank missiles, not compared to the Ukrainians. But now that the Abrams tank has the Trophy missile protection system they are better protected. My understanding is it's the only system that really works too, but no way we're going to send that to Ukraine. As for tactics, they're fighting on open farm land. They don't have many places to hide. USMC abandoned their direct fire asset and had best plan on being naval infantry again. Because they won’t be executing any breaches. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 10:59:20 PM EST
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Those tanks used regular gas, which was prepo'ed in Europe already due to the fact that literally every civilian vehicle uses it. They didn't use JP8 which nothing else in their inventory uses. Leopard and Challenger use regular Diesel. You know that 9 of 10 Abrams customers use diesel in it right? And that the Abrams was developed before the single fuel policy? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 11:01:35 PM EST
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Those tanks used regular gas, which was prepo'ed in Europe already due to the fact that literally every civilian vehicle uses it. They didn't use JP8 which nothing else in their inventory uses. Leopard and Challenger use regular Diesel. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 11:03:12 PM EST
[#31]
You can use gasoline in them too.
Wait until he finds out about Jet B. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 11:03:33 PM EST
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Abrams uses roughly the same fuel as a Tiger II. A four Abrams platoon uses 10% more fuel as a platoon of 5 M4 Shermans. Yet that could be sustained in the 1940s |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 11:04:16 PM EST
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You know that 9 of 10 Abrams customers use diesel in it right? And that the Abrams was developed before the single fuel policy? Quote HistoryQuoted: You know that 9 of 10 Abrams customers use diesel in it right? And that the Abrams was developed before the single fuel policy? Cool story. Running it with diesel means a lot more maintenance and less fuel efficiency, both of which are the Abrams main flaws with regard to the Ukrainian army. Wait until they find out how many transmissions and power packs they are going to have to swap out. Quoted: You can use gasoline in them too. Wait until he finds out about Jet B. Oh I'm aware. One of us was a tanker at one point, one is a poser. I'm sure you can guess which is which. The Abrams is one of the least fuel efficient vehicles on the planet with the JP8 it's optimized to use. Try it with gasoline and see what that gets you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 11:05:17 PM EST
[#34]
Your source is…Business Insider.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 11:06:27 PM EST
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Who said that? Why are people so emotional about and cheering for the equipment scoreboard? From what Daemon and others are saying this war is past the maneuver phase. Who gives a shit about tanks if they're largely ineffective on both ends? Russia seems to be re-stocking arty and long range missiles faster than Ukraine, which is also in danger of running out of SAMs. I love seeing Russian shit blown up, but I'm not sure they can be displaced, which is what you should be cheering for, with fucking tanks and IFVs. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Losing thousands of tanks is nothing for Russia but losing 14 from the UK is catastrophic  Who said that? Why are people so emotional about and cheering for the equipment scoreboard? From what Daemon and others are saying this war is past the maneuver phase. Who gives a shit about tanks if they're largely ineffective on both ends? Russia seems to be re-stocking arty and long range missiles faster than Ukraine, which is also in danger of running out of SAMs. I love seeing Russian shit blown up, but I'm not sure they can be displaced, which is what you should be cheering for, with fucking tanks and IFVs. Because it's about attrition. You're making an argument about equipment attrition, which is valid. My disagreement about this attrition has less to do about equipment and more about manpower and experience. Russia contrary to other peoples opinion in this thread doesn't have a bottomless well of people, they can throw away at this non-existential Special Military Operation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 11:09:55 PM EST
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So what? We all know Russia has lost a lot of men and weapons without you spamming the thread. Yet here we still are. We have taken Russia off the board as a conventional threat, world player, and regional bully for at least as long as Putin lives and you say "so what? and "I don't know what that has to do with literally anything at all." What does it take to impress you? Russia may not be the same threat that China conventionally is but if you told the joint chiefs 2 years ago this would happen they'd be high-fiving and doing shots of tequila right then and there. When Russia says they want to destroy America, create a new world order, take away our wealth and destroy the dollar, and interfere in our elections, I think we ought to take that seriously. When Angela Merkel, Russia's only friend in Europe said “I always knew he wanted to destroy Europe,” that ought to be taken seriously too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 11:10:20 PM EST
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Because it's about attrition. You're making an argument about equipment attrition, which is valid. My disagreement about this attrition has less to do about equipment and more about manpower and experience. Russia contrary to other peoples opinion in this thread doesn't have a bottomless well of people, they can throw away at this non-existential Special Military Operation. They don't. They do have a lot more than Ukraine. The problem is they will most likely be losing men a lot less quickly once the Ukrainian guns run dry. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 11:13:03 PM EST
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: We have taken Russia off the board as a conventional threat, world player, and regional bully for at least as long as Putin lives and you say "so what? and "I don't know what that has to do with literally anything at all." What does it take to impress you? Russia may not be the same threat that China conventionally is but if you told the joint chiefs 2 years ago this would happen they'd be high-fiving and doing shots of tequila right then and there. When Russia says they want to destroy America, create a new world order, take away our wealth and destroy the dollar, and interfere in our elections, I think we ought to take that seriously. When Angela Merkel, Russia's only friend in Europe said “I always knew he wanted to destroy Europe,” that ought to be taken seriously too. They were never on the board during my time as an adult as a conventional threat, just a regional bully. They are still a world player. If you are worried about the global threat Russia poses via taking away wealth, destroying the dollar and interfering in elections I'm not sure how you think destroying their tanks and burning boatloads of cash and munitions solves that. Here's a spoiler alert, it doesn't. It has only made those problems worse....almost as if it were designed to do so. If by now you aren't fully sold on the alliance between Russia, China, Iran and North Korea and are still solely mesmerized by 60 year old tanks getting destroyed, I just don't know what to tell you. You and stickfigure are going to be in for a treat in the next 4-5 years. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 11:14:07 PM EST
[#39]
If China were smart, as long as the US and NATO were pledging support to Ukraine, they should participate in a lend-lease program with Putin. 2020's China is basically 1940's US... they can out-manufacture pretty much ANYONE and in doing so make their enemies (US/NATO) spend BIG money to keep Ukraine in the fight.
They should negotiate an oil discount from Russia to fill up their reserves for pennies on the dollar and take that unprecedented manufacturing capacity and energy (that needs to be spent building ghost cities just for the sake of GDP & building things) and start churning out ERA-equipped T99 and T15 tanks, APCs, MANPADS, ATGM, and hordes of anti-personnel drones/kits. Supply comprehensive satellite intel/comms. They could probably start by donating a thousand Type 96 tanks sitting around collecting dust just to get them off the books without even missing them. Slap some ERA blocks on them before shipping them off. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 11:16:51 PM EST
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Your source is Business Insider. In fact, pretty much every article I searched using the phrase "logistic challenges Abrams Ukraine" admitted the Ukrainians were going to have trouble keeping them supplied in combat, especially when on offense. Come of think of it, your comparison of the Abrams to the Tiger II was quite accurate.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 11:19:02 PM EST
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Cool story. Running it with diesel means a lot more maintenance and less fuel efficiency, both of which are the Abrams main flaws with regard to the Ukrainian army. Wait until they find out how many transmissions and power packs they are going to have to swap out. Oh I'm aware. One of us was a tanker at one point, one is a poser. I'm sure you can guess which is which. The Abrams is one of the least fuel efficient vehicles on the planet with the JP8 it's optimized to use. Try it with gasoline and see what that gets you. Per Army studies at the time of the adoption of the single fuel policy the M1A1 had reduced power and increased fuel consumption on JP-8. What’s driving the claim of increased maintenance? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 11:20:00 PM EST
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: They were never on the board during my time as an adult as a conventional threat, just a regional bully. If you are worried about the global threat Russia poses via taking away wealth, destroying the dollar and interfering in elections I'm not sure how you think destroying their tanks solves that. Here's a spoiler alert, it doesn't. It has only made those problems worse....almost as if it were designed to do so. Russia was a conventional threat to us in Syria; luckily it never came to blows except for one time. They've been active in Africa. And if this didn't happen they were only going to interject themselves in more places more often. The tanks were a big threat to our allies in Europe. Besides the tanks, we've been able to isolate them politically and diplomatically too.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 11:22:09 PM EST
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Oh I'm aware. One of us was a tanker at one point, one is a poser. I'm sure you can guess which is which. The Abrams is one of the least fuel efficient vehicles on the planet with the JP8 it's optimized to use. Try it with gasoline and see what that gets you. Yeah, you’re a tanker, a pilot, a drone pilot, infantry adjacent, an artillerist, a doctrine author and so much more. Have you used diesel fuel in an Abrams? What was your measured fuel efficiency difference? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 11:22:32 PM EST
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If China were smart, as long as the US and NATO were pledging support to Ukraine, they should participate in a lend-lease program with Putin. 2020's China is basically 1940's US... they can out-manufacture pretty much ANYONE and in doing so make their enemies (US/NATO) spend BIG money to keep Ukraine in the fight. They should negotiate an oil discount from Russia to fill up their reserves for pennies on the dollar and take that unprecedented manufacturing capacity and energy (that needs to be spent building ghost cities just for the sake of GDP & building things) and start churning out ERA-equipped T99 and T15 tanks, APCs, MANPADS, ATGM, and hordes of anti-personnel drones/kits. Supply comprehensive satellite intel/comms. They could probably start by donating a thousand Type 96 tanks sitting around collecting dust just to get them off the books without even missing them. Slap some ERA blocks on them before shipping them off. They could, but what would the west start to supply in retaliation? What sanctions might they face? There are a lot of sticks and carrots waiving around behind the scenes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 11:25:02 PM EST
[#45]
Honestly who really cares outside of Ukraine and Russia?
Ukraine is not important to us. It was a cheap and easy way to make life hard for Russia. It's of no strategic interest to the US who controls what part of Ukraine. We gave zero shits for years when they took Crimea and did a slow invasion of the East. Now we are supporting Ukraine, because they've proven they can fight pretty well and it's easy for us to do. If Ukraine loses it all at this point... Oh well. If Russia loses lol. If they fight about it forever lol. We've been gifted a situation that even Biden's team of incompetents can't fuck up bad enough to matter. That's saying something. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 11:25:50 PM EST
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Voice of America and the the NeoCon lobbying group Atlantic Council said basically the same things, albeit in a more Ukraine-friendly way so as to not embarrass them too much. In fact, pretty much every article I searched using the phrase "logistic challenges Abrams Ukraine" admitted the Ukrainians were going to have trouble keeping them supplied in combat, especially when on offense. Come of think of it, your comparison of the Abrams to the Tiger II was quite accurate.... VOA didn’t mention fuel. Germany had POL production issues that Ukraine doesn’t have. Ukraine just needs to deliver fuel—the euros have been buying it for them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 11:26:58 PM EST
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If China were smart, as long as the US and NATO were pledging support to Ukraine, they should participate in a lend-lease program with Putin. 2020's China is basically 1940's US... they can out-manufacture pretty much ANYONE and in doing so make their enemies (US/NATO) spend BIG money to keep Ukraine in the fight. They should negotiate an oil discount from Russia to fill up their reserves for pennies on the dollar and take that unprecedented manufacturing capacity and energy (that needs to be spent building ghost cities just for the sake of GDP & building things) and start churning out ERA-equipped T99 and T15 tanks, APCs, MANPADS, ATGM, and hordes of anti-personnel drones/kits. Supply comprehensive satellite intel/comms. They could probably start by donating a thousand Type 96 tanks sitting around collecting dust just to get them off the books without even missing them. Slap some ERA blocks on them before shipping them off. China isn’t going to spend that kind of money knowing that they won’t get it back and that it will alienate Europeans who they hope to convince to stay out of a fight in the pacific. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 11:27:29 PM EST
[#48]
And lets not forget that we're in Europe. The Russian tanks were a threat to our forces there too.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 11:28:06 PM EST
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: NATO had little to begin with, they have almost nothing now. When I say modern warfare has changed, those tanks and IFVs are a lot less important than the Patriots, Javelins, Stingers, IRIS-T, NASAMS, Storm Shadows, HIMARS, etc. Those are the ones we need that we cannot replace quickly or cheaply. But NATO is absolutely gutted and its pretty sad actually. Germany is down to a couple thousand artillery shells, air defense is few and far between on the European continent. Sweden is a fucking joke of a military and is just one more country we have to spend to defend. The west's version of ramping up production is a couple years years for contracts and EPA shit, then maybe starting a line or two. That is not the case for Russia/China. Then there is the fact that nobody wants to be left holding the bag after spending a billion dollars on a new factory and the war ends. I really think that's the main reason Europe is so full of excuses and slow rolling everything. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: We are gutting NATO, by adding Finland and Sweden? What constitutes gutting?, 18 F-16s, and less than 300 MBTs, maybe 1000 IFVs, MRAPS, and armored HUMVEEs? Literally shit, M113s, old Humvees and MRAPs we were letting the Afghans cut up for scrap. The only things we habe given them in quantity that is starting to effectnour reserves are 155MM, Stingers and Javelins. And yes, the West is ramping up production as per the Raytheon emails I receive for production QA positions. Where are all the attack helicopters? the heavy brigades of 1000s Abrams have we given them? How many, F-15s, F-18s, F-22s, F-35s? How many aircraft carriers and submarines have we given them? I mean according to you NATO is gutted!!! How many aircraft has NATO given them!?! NATO had little to begin with, they have almost nothing now. When I say modern warfare has changed, those tanks and IFVs are a lot less important than the Patriots, Javelins, Stingers, IRIS-T, NASAMS, Storm Shadows, HIMARS, etc. Those are the ones we need that we cannot replace quickly or cheaply. But NATO is absolutely gutted and its pretty sad actually. Germany is down to a couple thousand artillery shells, air defense is few and far between on the European continent. Sweden is a fucking joke of a military and is just one more country we have to spend to defend. The west's version of ramping up production is a couple years years for contracts and EPA shit, then maybe starting a line or two. That is not the case for Russia/China. Then there is the fact that nobody wants to be left holding the bag after spending a billion dollars on a new factory and the war ends. I really think that's the main reason Europe is so full of excuses and slow rolling everything. Oh, I'd agree that the nature of those weapons has changed the nature of warfare, but you're not seeing their Russian equivalent, drastically competing with or dominating Ukraine on the battlefield. We are seeing the concetration of mass, exhausting or overwhelming Ukraine's ability to pull the trigger. All those weapons you mention are muntions, not delivery systems. Russia is losing delivery systems as well as stand off munitions, that it can't replace, so yeah it's throwing money into cheap OWKAs from Iran. Those are not going to put up an sort of defense against offensive delivery systems, like actual combat aircraft. This is easily demonstrated by watching Su-27s mess with our Reapers. Drones are all well and good, but a drone is not fighter, yet. And as much as you might feel justified in critiquing Sweden, who isn't a NATO member yet, you didn't mention Finland, and they have a long history of making Russia feel pain, same with Poland. Russia can barely handle Ukraine right now, given their poor performance in Ukraine, I seriously doubt they would be able handle Ukraine, Poland and Finland simultaneously. BIG DOUBT. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 11:28:46 PM EST
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Per Army studies at the time of the adoption of the single fuel policy the M1A1 had reduced power and increased fuel consumption on JP-8. What’s driving the claim of increased maintenance? Being a self-proclaimed tank expert I would have thought you understood that JP8 was incredibly efficient at speed and inefficient at idle, which is why they added the EAPU. The single fuel policy was adopted in 1990, the EAPU came about in the mid 90's. Not using JP8 also affects speed in an Abrams significantly. I will admit that the maintenance claim is driven by our maintenance chief in Iraq that not using JP8 will drastically shorten the life of the power pack, which they are going to burn through anyway. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
