Sending tanks to Ukraine
- Thread starter Red Gold
- Start date
Whyayeman
Well-Known Member
- Dec 8, 2018
- 3,914
- 2,536
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
Putin appears to be obsessed with the old Imperial Russia. If he succeeds in taking Ukraine back into Russia Finland, Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia will be next on his list. (That is why Finland has joined NATO.)
Upvote
0
Putin was a colonel in the KGB. He tortured and murdered for the Soviet Union. King commie.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Oct 17, 2009
- 38,746
- 12,123
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Single
If they're being sent to Ukraine where they won't be able to be maintained, or fueled, and are much more difficult to operate, they will no doubt be mothballed in favor of the easy to maintain, easy to fuel, and easy to use Leopard 2 tanks, they will be going to waste. However, America sending them there will be an escalation of the United states against Russia and goes further toward increasing the chance of a nuclear conflict in the future, so maybe it won't be a complete waste when it comes to Biden era patterns of behavior.
Next, we'll be sending F-15s and F-16s to make absolutely sure it's understood how involved we are.
Upvote
0
- Oct 17, 2009
- 38,746
- 12,123
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Single
Sending anti-tank missiles would be more practical. It's one of the first things we sent them, and it was effective. But not many people talk about that anymore. Instead, the talk is about sending them equipment that makes it look more and more like America is directly involved.
Upvote
0
- Jul 19, 2012
- 15,312
- 14,322
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Judaism
- Marital Status
- Married
I agree. the Abrams is a terrible tank for Ukrainian forces. Way too much infrastructure and support needed to operate effectively.
I am waiting for Biden to start sending "advisers", that will show how involved we are.
Upvote
0
- Aug 18, 2012
- 20,912
- 17,302
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
As noted earlier, Biden only switched course to provide cover for Germany releasing their Leopard 2 tanks (from Germany and other countries that have them). That had been Germany's position for months. As it is, Biden only said yes to supplying a single tank battalion, and given the significant ramp up time and logistics required for the M1's, I doubt they will ever see the battlefield. With the Leopards deployed, there isn't really any need for them....
As for the the F-16's, I say let em fly (however, it will take at least 6 months to train Ukrainian pilots).
IMO, it's time to call Putin's bluff and give Ukraine the weapons it needs to take back it's territory.
Ukraine says pilots would need six months for F-16 combat training
Ukraine said on Friday it would take its pilots about half a year to train for combat in Western fighter jets such as U.S. F-16s, as Kyiv steps up its campaign to secure fourth-generation warplanes in the wake of Russia's invasion last February.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Oct 17, 2009
- 38,746
- 12,123
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Single
Provide cover? What does that even mean? It seems to indicate that we're giving up 31 of our most sophisticated tanks to simply virtue signal that we "did something" (as if giving them 105 billion dollars in aid so far wasn't enough).As noted earlier, Biden only switched course to provide cover for Germany releasing their Leopard 2 tanks (from Germany and other countries that have them). That had been Germany's position for months. As it is, Biden only said yes to supplying a single tank battalion, and given the significant ramp up time and logistics required for the M1's, I doubt they will ever see the battlefield. With the Leopards deployed, there isn't really any need for them....
As for the the F-16's, I say let em fly (however, it will take at least 6 months to train Ukrainian pilots).
IMO, it's time to call Putin's bluff and give Ukraine the weapons it needs to take back it's territory.
Ukraine says pilots would need six months for F-16 combat training
Ukraine said on Friday it would take its pilots about half a year to train for combat in Western fighter jets such as U.S. F-16s, as Kyiv steps up its campaign to secure fourth-generation warplanes in the wake of Russia's invasion last February.www.reuters.com
Now you talk about calling Putin's bluff. If he's not bluffing, and there's no reason to believe he is if he really is dying, is backed into a corner and given no way out, which U.S. city would you be willing to see incinerated by a nuke?
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
timewerx
the village i--o--t--
If I'm not mistaken, the M1's turbine engine is multi-fuel and can also use diesel. And if I'm not mistaken again, the Leopard 2 is multi-fuel also.
They can both use diesel fuel so that shouldn't be a problem in fuel logistics.
However, I'm not sure how tanks can win the war. We see Russian tanks easily defeated by drones and foot soldiers carrying inexpensive anti-tank weapons.
It could make the war a lot more costly for the western coalition. Right now, Russia is sending cheap drones and the western coalition is shooting them down with missiles far more expensive than the drones! Am I the only one seeing how ridiculous the situation is??
What might make a difference is that these tanks are fielding the latest technology in its defensive suite. Like the thing that shoots small missiles or shotgun pellets at incoming missiles or tank rounds.
Upvote
0
timewerx
the village i--o--t--
The operational cost of flying F-16's in combat, firing its weapons is most certainly far more costly than the cheap suicide drones Russia is using against Ukraine.
Why can't the west think think like that? Field effective but inexpensive weapons. Is throwing obscene amounts of money to a problem the ONLY way they know how to solve any problem?
Upvote
0
- Oct 17, 2009
- 38,746
- 12,123
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Single
If they get the F15s and F16s that we used to say was not even a consideration before, they won't be used for defensive purposes. They'll be used to attack inside Russia. American F15s and F16s flying into Russian airspace and attacking targets inside of Russia will be seen as an attack by the United States against Russia regardless of the nationality of the pilot.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Whyayeman
Well-Known Member
- Dec 8, 2018
- 3,914
- 2,536
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
Let us stick to the tanks for now, as tanks are what the Ukrainians have asked for. I don't think that American tanks are very important except symbolically for Germany. Their tanks and the Polish versions will be enough to restore the balance against Russian armaments. Remember that Russian forces are in Ukraine. There are many objectives within the border and a serious threat on Ukraine's border with Belarus where Russian troops are massing. Tanks positioned there will have a strong deterrent effect.
(Biden has just stated that F16s will not go to Ukraine.)
(Biden has just stated that F16s will not go to Ukraine.)
Upvote
0
Similar threads
