User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/25/2023 10:22:08 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: As much as this Country is sucking the Ukraine cock, they will probably fly every one of them over there. All worth it to support The Ukraine, we should give them the cargo planes too. So they can mortar the fuck out of those too? :lol:  |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2023 10:23:41 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: We train 17-18 year olds to operate these. Converting already trained tankers is not hard If they are trained with Russian doctrine and tactics they would need to un-learn them first. It wasn’t just the equipment that enabled us to steam roll Iraq. It was that our tactics for using combined arms work very well and Russian tactics haven’t evolved since WW II |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2023 10:24:41 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Sweet, overnight shipping available on an M1 purchase. My dad fedex'd a 3/4 ton suburban once... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2023 10:24:55 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I had no idea the C-5 had a capacity around 1/4 mil pounds. I have had the lower half of an M1 on an RGN, and that bitch was pretty heavy. IIRC, around 85,000 lbs ish. I wish people would quit using acronyms that nobody knows what they are, .mil folks are the worst. By the way, had to look up RGN because I had no fucking idea what it was, and it turns out it was part of my job before I retired. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2023 10:35:02 PM EDT
[#5]
C-5 can carry 281,000 lbs.
C -17 can carry 170,900 lbs One M1 Abrams weighs 140,000 lbs rounghly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2023 12:45:52 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: My kid was with C-5s a while back. Most of them are broke as fuck all the time. I doubt the AF could rustle up 25 C-5s and run them hard for very long.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWp0prT9RN4When I got out, the C5M was just coming online. The mission capable rate for the non-M models was like 50%. The early Ms were even worse. The ones at Travis were horribly unreliable. I'm sure they unfucked some of the issues since then, but they're still C5s. Big, loud, slow; but they haul some seriously big shit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2023 12:49:46 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: When I got out, the C5M was just coming online. The mission capable rate for the non-M models was like 50%. The early Ms were even worse. The ones at Travis were horribly unreliable. I'm sure they unfucked some of the issues since then, but they're still C5s. Big, loud, slow; but they haul some seriously big shit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2023 12:53:34 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Assuming they aren't already loaded in a ship and halfway to Ukraine right about now? For ukraine it wouldnt surprise me if they came from a us base in europe and are already in Ukraine or about on the border |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2023 1:00:38 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: C-5 can carry 281,000 lbs. C -17 can carry 170,900 lbs One M1 Abrams weighs 140,000 lbs rounghly. Peacetime C17 cargo weight is restricted to 135K, but iirc, fuel cuts into that. I remember seeing max cargo loads being capped at 90k after gas was calculated. Deployment waivers allowed us to kick it up to 150k or so with gas, but that was usually for ammo haulers going up to Iraq from Kuwait. 18 pallets of 155mm arty is fucking HEAVY, but the trip is quick so less fuel is required. Less fuel = more cargo. Certain pallet positions on those jets are limited to how much weight can be loaded, and there are also height restrictions. The 4 ramp spots for example are limited. C5s work the same way. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2023 1:02:28 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What do you think Space X is for? They might actually manage to shoot 2 of them in a starship point to point. Not sure you could fit 2 volume wise. Thing is if you are going to launch essentially an icbm at a war you should probably fill it with a whole lot more fuck you than a couple of tanks. Think how many switchblades you could fit in one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2023 1:02:41 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: My kid was with C-5s a while back. Most of them are broke as fuck all the time. I doubt the AF could rustle up 25 C-5s and run them hard for very long. This is why the air force keeps C-5 mechanics at bases around the world. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2023 1:08:53 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Are they really slow or just so fucking big they look slow? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: When I got out, the C5M was just coming online. The mission capable rate for the non-M models was like 50%. The early Ms were even worse. The ones at Travis were horribly unreliable. I'm sure they unfucked some of the issues since then, but they're still C5s. Big, loud, slow; but they haul some seriously big shit. Both. The Ms upgraded engines gave it a bit more ass, but its still a lumbering pig. I much preferred dealing with 747s. Electronic roller systems, electronic locks, good lighting, and more capacity (42 pallets vs 36). One 747 could clear out my entire warehouse in Japan. Always gave me a sense of satisfaction when we did that. Pack it all up, and get it the fuck gone. Plus the 747s hardly ever broke, and if they did, they were fixed within a day. Broke jets dont make money so the contract companies always fixed them quick. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2023 1:10:00 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Two to a C-5 or one per C-17 if I remember right. Yup. We could have a battalion size element on ground anywhere within 24hrs. 2 per C5 is correct. Edit: M1s are too heavy for air drops. They are only driven off planes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2023 1:11:57 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Sweet, overnight shipping available on an M1 purchase. No, that's only if they've already signed up for Gov't Prime. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2023 1:13:59 AM EDT
[#15]
I would figure on the ex-USMC tanks that just arrived in Poland.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2023 1:15:53 AM EDT
[#16]
I think our military is so bad ass.
 Unfortunately the tank drop dont always work out, send 10% more than we need maybe just in case.  If we give them some I guessing we will send them in with a ship through a surrounding nation slowly with some trainers from a friendly Eastern European nation. I have no idea really. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2023 7:35:30 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Both. The Ms upgraded engines gave it a bit more ass, but its still a lumbering pig. I much preferred dealing with 747s. Electronic roller systems, electronic locks, good lighting, and more capacity (42 pallets vs 36). One 747 could clear out my entire warehouse in Japan. Always gave me a sense of satisfaction when we did that. Pack it all up, and get it the fuck gone. Plus the 747s hardly ever broke, and if they did, they were fixed within a day. Broke jets dont make money so the contract companies always fixed them quick. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2023 7:42:40 AM EDT
[#18]
...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2023 8:00:26 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:  You should post less often if this is what you believe. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: So I guess that we will officially have troops on the ground, exposed to Putin's nukes or bio weapons..... You should post less often if this is what you believe. So, you can say with confidence there are no US servicemen in the Ukraine now or in the future? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2023 8:07:41 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So, you can say with confidence there are no US servicemen in the Ukraine now or in the future? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: So I guess that we will officially have troops on the ground, exposed to Putin's nukes or bio weapons..... You should post less often if this is what you believe. So, you can say with confidence there are no US servicemen in the Ukraine now or in the future? There are no active duty military personnel fighting in Ukraine. Take that for what it’s worth which is basically nothing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2023 8:08:20 AM EDT
[#21]
Despite the generous Western package, there are fears that Ukraine won't be able to actually use the tanks on the front line for months, potentially after Russia's anticipated spring offensive.
The promised M1 Abrams tanks from the US are not even in supply at the moment and will take months to arrive before training can even commence, senior officials have said. The modern tanks need to be procured, then the US will begin a 'comprehensive training programme' for Ukrainian soldiers, which will also need spare parts and will require significant maintenance once deployed. Germany and European Leopard 2 tanks will likely arrive sooner but will still require training as Kyiv forces have become accustomed to their Soviet-era tanks used so far in the war. Germany's tanks would probably be ready in three or four months, Defence Minister Boris Pistorius said. The United States has a number of Abrams tanks and some of them would have to be refurbished in order to be exported... it's certainly true that they're not sitting there ready to go, work will have to be done to get any of them ready to be deployed. Read the rest at the Daily Mail |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2023 8:12:43 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This is why the air force keeps C-5 mechanics at bases around the world. Not always. Many times they have to fly the maintainers to the jet. And they are down for weeks at a time wherever they break and the maintainers sit on their asses waiting for parts... It was a very discouraging and eye opening view into that world. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2023 8:15:33 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There are no active duty military personnel fighting in Ukraine. Take that for what it's worth which is basically nothing. They may not be on the line fighting, that's not really the best use of thier talents. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2023 8:17:47 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Peacetime C17 cargo weight is restricted to 135K, but iirc, fuel cuts into that. I remember seeing max cargo loads being capped at 90k after gas was calculated. Deployment waivers allowed us to kick it up to 150k or so with gas, but that was usually for ammo haulers going up to Iraq from Kuwait. 18 pallets of 155mm arty is fucking HEAVY, but the trip is quick so less fuel is required. Less fuel = more cargo. Certain pallet positions on those jets are limited to how much weight can be loaded, and there are also height restrictions. The 4 ramp spots for example are limited. C5s work the same way. Okay, I’m Curious now. I have a 152mm projo here. On a regular pallet you can get 2 dozen or so. How big are these pallets? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2023 8:19:01 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Despite the generous Western package, there are fears that Ukraine won't be able to actually use the tanks on the front line for months, potentially after Russia's anticipated spring offensive. The promised M1 Abrams tanks from the US are not even in supply at the moment and will take months to arrive before training can even commence, senior officials have said. The modern tanks need to be procured, then the US will begin a 'comprehensive training programme' for Ukrainian soldiers, which will also need spare parts and will require significant maintenance once deployed. Germany and European Leopard 2 tanks will likely arrive sooner but will still require training as Kyiv forces have become accustomed to their Soviet-era tanks used so far in the war. Germany's tanks would probably be ready in three or four months, Defence Minister Boris Pistorius said. The United States has a number of Abrams tanks and some of them would have to be refurbished in order to be exported... it's certainly true that they're not sitting there ready to go, work will have to be done to get any of them ready to be deployed. Read the rest at the Daily Mail When the USMC was given M1A1s just prior to Desert Storm kicking off, the tankers and their support crews had about two weeks to get trained up for the fight. This was a reserve unit IIRC and they proceeded to tear the Iraqis a new asshole. Granted, those Marines were already tankers but the transition from the old dinosaur M60A1s to the M1A1 was significant. I think the Ukrainians will get up to speed very quickly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2023 8:21:13 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Despite the generous Western package, there are fears that Ukraine won't be able to actually use the tanks on the front line for months, potentially after Russia's anticipated spring offensive. The promised M1 Abrams tanks from the US are not even in supply at the moment and will take months to arrive before training can even commence, senior officials have said. The modern tanks need to be procured, then the US will begin a 'comprehensive training programme' for Ukrainian soldiers, which will also need spare parts and will require significant maintenance once deployed. Germany and European Leopard 2 tanks will likely arrive sooner but will still require training as Kyiv forces have become accustomed to their Soviet-era tanks used so far in the war. Germany's tanks would probably be ready in three or four months, Defence Minister Boris Pistorius said. The United States has a number of Abrams tanks and some of them would have to be refurbished in order to be exported... it's certainly true that they're not sitting there ready to go, work will have to be done to get any of them ready to be deployed. Read the rest at the Daily Mail and will take months to arrive before training can even commence, Lol that's BS |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2023 8:22:20 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm just relieved there are so many gas turbine experts over there, chilling with the jet fuel laying around. And abrams tanker school is a long weekend, right? 13 units should turn the tide. Ukraine was the hub for Soviet aviation. A lot of high tech industries are there. They already maintain and operate turbine powered tanks in the hundreds, for example: T80b T80BV T80BVM (All freshly abandoned from the 1st GTA, too) another won’t be a hassle. For things mechanics can’t figure out trailer it back to Poland and we will fix it |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2023 8:24:08 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This is so bad... Quote HistoryQuoted: This is so bad... Why? Quoted: As much as this Country is sucking the Ukraine cock, they will probably fly every one of them over there. All worth it to support The Ukraine, we should give them the cargo planes too. Theyre needed like yesterday, so yes. This is what happens when people get behind something and move mountains. Just like when Covid hit and we were all going to die and PPE was in huge demand |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2023 8:24:23 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Okay, I'm Curious now. I have a 152mm projo here. On a regular pallet you can get 2 dozen or so. How big are these pallets? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2023 8:25:21 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If you're talking 463L pallets, they are 108x88 and are rated for 10K worth of cargo. Y’all’s version of a pallet was a bit bigger than mine |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2023 8:46:51 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The Marines used to use pre-positioning ships fully loaded with everything they needed. Sent the ships to staging areas so they could be there before the untit actually got there. I’m not sure the MPS fleet was Marine specific. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2023 8:49:32 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Okay, I’m Curious now. I have a 152mm projo here. On a regular pallet you can get 2 dozen or so. How big are these pallets? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Peacetime C17 cargo weight is restricted to 135K, but iirc, fuel cuts into that. I remember seeing max cargo loads being capped at 90k after gas was calculated. Deployment waivers allowed us to kick it up to 150k or so with gas, but that was usually for ammo haulers going up to Iraq from Kuwait. 18 pallets of 155mm arty is fucking HEAVY, but the trip is quick so less fuel is required. Less fuel = more cargo. Certain pallet positions on those jets are limited to how much weight can be loaded, and there are also height restrictions. The 4 ramp spots for example are limited. C5s work the same way. Okay, I’m Curious now. I have a 152mm projo here. On a regular pallet you can get 2 dozen or so. How big are these pallets? 155 rounds are 8 to an individual pallet. Here is the AF constructing and pushing pallets which have 3 of those pallets strapped together. They put 2 on each 463L for 48 rounds. Budget ~100 pounds per round, then add for the dunnage and lifting plug. 463Ls are pretty much the gold standard seen everywhere pallet.   |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2023 8:51:10 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: When the USMC was given M1A1s just prior to Desert Storm kicking off, the tankers and their support crews had about two weeks to get trained up for the fight. This was a reserve unit IIRC and they proceeded to tear the Iraqis a new asshole. Granted, those Marines were already tankers but the transition from the old dinosaur M60A1s to the M1A1 was significant. I think the Ukrainians will get up to speed very quickly. The Marines are not dumb. Bet anything and a case of whisky they were reading and studying everything they could lay hands on about the Abrams, in anticipation of such a upgrade. Need much more Marine input about new equipment and doctrine. Everyone has heard about the much vaunted HIMAR system. No one bothers much to mention that it was the Marines that brought it to life. But I digress. In answer to the question of this thread, I think the longest deployment in theory (God help us it becomes a reality) would be to Australia. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2023 9:03:56 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I had no idea the C-5 had a capacity around 1/4 mil pounds. I have had the lower half of an M1 on an RGN, and that bitch was pretty heavy. IIRC, around 85,000 lbs ish. 288,000 lbs |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2023 9:12:23 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There's a reason we have them pre-staged in different locations. It takes a ship or train to move them in decent quantities. Quite true. When my unit and M1A1's deployed from Kirchgoens Germany to Desert Shield/Desert Storm it took the better part of two months for the tanks to get from Germany to the port in Saudi Arabia. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2023 9:16:57 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: One M1 Abrams weighs 140,000 lbs rounghly. Actual weight depends on the series of M1. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2023 9:19:33 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: When the USMC was given M1A1s just prior to Desert Storm kicking off, the tankers and their support crews had about two weeks to get trained up for the fight. This was a reserve unit IIRC and they proceeded to tear the Iraqis a new asshole. Granted, those Marines were already tankers but the transition from the old dinosaur M60A1s to the M1A1 was significant. I think the Ukrainians will get up to speed very quickly. All the Marine Tankers in Desert Storm that I saw/ran across still were using the M60's. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2023 9:19:37 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Assuming they aren't already loaded in a ship and halfway to Ukraine right about now? Or, are they coming out of the reserves already in Europe and we're just shipping replacements? The real question is: how long before they arrive will the Russians claim to have destroyed them? (See Bradleys) |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2023 9:21:42 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The Marines are not dumb. Yes we arr |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2023 9:21:49 AM EDT
[#40]
A whole lot slower than you can deploy a bunch of anti tank options.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2023 9:22:30 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Or, are they coming out of the reserves already in Europe and we're just shipping replacements? The real question is: how long before they arrive will the Russians claim to have destroyed them? (See Bradleys) Russians already claim to have destroyed an abrams. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2023 9:24:39 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There are no active duty military personnel fighting in Ukraine. Take that for what it's worth which is basically nothing. That you know of. Go read on Indochina and get back to us. We know we have active duty warriors in Poland, right next door. Tick tock. If they don't handle it we will be there |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2023 9:26:35 AM EDT
[#43]
Already some in theater perhaps?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2023 9:32:24 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryOnce |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2023 11:13:47 AM EDT
[#45]
I don't see it taking long to get a decent crew up to speed on the newer incoming tanks from the West. I still think the logistical parts supply and maintenance is going to be a nightmare on that many system.
But I guess we will see. Maybe it's a " why fix when they can send us new ones" kind of deal. < shrugs> |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2023 11:50:51 AM EDT
[#46]
Here is a little history for those that want to know.
"From February 1998 to September 1998, 1-35th Armor participated in SFOR, the Stabilization force in Bosnia-Herzegovenia, enforcing the Dayton Peace Accords. In May 1999, C Company became the first airlifted heavy tank company in US Army history when they deployed as part of Task Force Hawk to Tirane, Albania. As 1-35th Armor prepared for its deployment to Kosovo as part of KFOR, it remained the only active battalion of the 35th Armored Regiment and as such was the home unit for the Regiment." "C Company, the Comanches, was the first American ground force to enter Kosovo in June 1999. In addition to leading the way into Kosovo, Comanche tanks were responsible for clearing mines from the land that became Camp Bondsteel." |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2023 12:06:45 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There's a reason we have them pre-staged in different locations. It takes a ship or train to move them in decent quantities. We used to have them pre-staged on ships but now that the Marines have given up on tanks, not sure. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2023 12:07:54 PM EDT
[#48]
48 hours if the right airport is available.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2023 12:14:29 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: dont these things require some sort of transport truck? i mean do you just roll them out of the aircraft, get on the local interstate and boogy into ukraine? They easily could, but a heavy transporter is preferred. For those bitching about the logistics, etc. That's what contractors are for. I'm going to bet they already have simulators up and running. For the incoming Bradleys too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2023 12:16:40 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: My kid was with C-5s a while back. Most of them are broke as fuck all the time. I doubt the AF could rustle up 25 C-5s and run them hard for very long. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWp0prT9RN4 |
|
|
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.
