User Panel
|
Quoted: We train 17-18 year olds to operate these. Converting already trained tankers is not hard View Quote 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 |
|
|
Quoted: 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. View Quote 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. |
|
C-5 can carry 281,000 lbs.
C -17 can carry 170,900 lbs One M1 Abrams weighs 140,000 lbs rounghly. |
|
Quoted: 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 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. |
|
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. View Quote |
|
|
Quoted: C-5 can carry 281,000 lbs. C -17 can carry 170,900 lbs One M1 Abrams weighs 140,000 lbs rounghly. View Quote 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. |
|
Quoted: What do you think Space X is for? View Quote 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. |
|
|
Quoted: Are they really slow or just so fucking big they look slow? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: 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. |
|
|
|
I would figure on the ex-USMC tanks that just arrived in Poland.
|
|
Quoted: 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. View Quote |
|
Quoted: You should post less often if this is what you believe. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: So I guess that we will officially have troops on the ground, exposed to Putin's nukes or bio weapons..... So, you can say with confidence there are no US servicemen in the Ukraine now or in the future? |
|
Quoted: So, you can say with confidence there are no US servicemen in the Ukraine now or in the future? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: So I guess that we will officially have troops on the ground, exposed to Putin's nukes or bio weapons..... 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. |
|
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 |
|
Quoted: This is why the air force keeps C-5 mechanics at bases around the world. View Quote 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. |
|
Quoted: There are no active duty military personnel fighting in Ukraine. Take that for what it's worth which is basically nothing. View Quote They may not be on the line fighting, that's not really the best use of thier talents. |
|
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. View Quote 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? |
|
Quoted: 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 View Quote 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. |
|
Quoted: 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 View Quote and will take months to arrive before training can even commence, Lol that's BS |
|
Quoted: 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. View Quote 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 |
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
Quoted: 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. View Quote 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. |
|
|
Quoted: There's a reason we have them pre-staged in different locations. It takes a ship or train to move them in decent quantities. View Quote 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. |
|
|
Quoted: 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. View Quote All the Marine Tankers in Desert Storm that I saw/ran across still were using the M60's. |
|
Quoted: Assuming they aren't already loaded in a ship and halfway to Ukraine right about now? View Quote 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) |
|
|
A whole lot slower than you can deploy a bunch of anti tank options.
|
|
|
Quoted: There are no active duty military personnel fighting in Ukraine. Take that for what it's worth which is basically nothing. View Quote 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 |
|
View Quote Once |
|
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> |
|
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." |
|
|
Quoted: 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? View Quote 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. |
|
Quoted: 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 |
|
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.