[big]US. and Germany OK Main Battle Tanks for Ukraine[/big]
[b]• U.S. finally agrees to send Ukraine Abrams Main Battle Tanks • Initially 31 Abrams tanks will be supplied to compliment 14 Leopard tanks from Germany • Russia calls plan an “obvious overestimation of the potential (the tanks) would add to the armed forces of Ukraine.”[/b]
[i][c=666666]A U.S. Army M1A2 Abrams Main Battle Tank. (Mateusz Slodkowski/AFP via Getty Images)[/c][/i]
[sep]
After months of wrangling the U.S. and Germany have agreed to send main battle tanks to Ukraine. The U.S. will be providing the Ukrainian armed forces with M1A2 Abrams Main Battle Tanks and Germany will supply Leopard 2 MBTs. Perhaps most importantly the agreement means that Germany’s NATO allies who already have Leopard 2s in their inventory will be able to supply these to Ukraine.
The Ukraine has long since sought heavier battlefield weapons to counter the expected Russian spring offensive. These tanks would also be invaluable as Ukraine tries to dominate the battlefield and take back territories currently occupied by Russian forces.
The U.S. will initially send 31 Abrams Main Battle Tanks to the Ukraine – and Germany will supply 14 Leopard 2 tanks. The expected delivery dates have not been finalized, however, training tank crews in both tanks – and planning for their support while in Ukraine has already commenced or will commence shortly.
The agreement paves the way for other European countries such as Poland to supply Ukraine with Leopard 2s that they have in their inventory. This was previously not possible in terms of the agreement made with Germany governing the on selling of German tanks to third parties. According to A German spokesperson the long-term plan is for Ukraine to field two battalions of Leopards - 88 tanks. These formations would be bolstered by the more complex and heavier Abrams.
This places us (the U.S.) and our allies is a new and distinctly different position. We are no longer simply helping Ukraine defend itself, we are now saying it is time to go on the offensive and we are going to party to that and support you with the means to do so. We are entering into and supporting a whole new phase in this conflict.
Personally I think we have been dragging our feet and I am 100% in support of this. Time for Putin to put up or shut up.
@Ontheroad [quote]This places us (the U.S.) and our allies is a new and distinctly different position. We are no longer simply helping Ukraine defend itself, we are now saying it is time to go on the offensive and we are going to party to that and support you with the means to do so. [/quote]
Much as I support the supplies of heavy weaponry from NATO and its allies I don't think the supply of tanks is an act of aggression. Only supplying Ukraine with advanced missiles capable of penetrating far into Russia itself could constitute an offensive - no matter what bollocks the Russians spout.
@ImperialAerosolKidFromEP main battle tanks, which is what the Leopard II and Abrams are, are quite lethal when deployed, and with nearly two battalions worth of tanks deployed properly, they can be quite effective in support of any offensive. As long as Putin doesn't have air superiority, and he doesn't, they will reign supreme on the battlefield.
SW-User
Obviously, we should help those being attacked, we should’ve gone against Hitler in 1936, when he entered the Rhineland, What’s the is of deep concern is what about if he starts bombing Poland? The NATO will need to respond and that will start World War III Obviously, the last thing we want is bombs falling on London and Washington DC, etc.
Yes because it sends a message. If Putin is allowed to take Ukraine many more will suffer and also he will use that territory to push and pressure Finland and others into the same fate or as forced proxy states.
Should have sent them long ago. As is it's going to take a year to even get there. Possible, yet unfortunately unlikely, that the war might be over by then.
Ukraines only hope now is the German Leopard II tanks.
There simply is no way to expedite the Abram tanks. It takes time to build them and to get them to Ukraine. Unless you want them to fall apart in transit.
@Funlov I didn't specifically mean just NATO countries. I meant that any country that has the tanks and is close enough to get them there in a short period of time.
@melbeacher I’ve been Afghanistan I’ve been to Beirut all over the Middle East scene war at its Worst politics has no place in war. This is just becoming a game of chess.
@Cierzo Don't they teach you European History in Spain? The appeasement of Hitler over the Sudentland? And what that led to? You think it was all "local" prior to 1941? Do you really believe that Putin isn't a threat to the whole of Europe?
@Cierzo [quote]I am sick of the Hitler argument by those who have no qualms aligning with groups like Azov battalion.[/quote] Thanks for showing your true colours.
The second question was framed in a way that seems to indicate the US is obligated to send weapons and $$. I don't agree. I do agree we should send the tanks, but the idea we are obligated to do so is ridiculous.
We are essentially in a proxy war with Russia. The only difference is Ukrainian lives are being spent not Americans. The Europeans need to step up and provide expanded support. They are too reliant on the US tax payer. And we don't like it.
{@sw-news] such a difficult call really it seems to be one of those where you cannot do right for doing wrong. on the one hand you have as country being invaded by a former superpower on rather a lets say flimsy proviso . sanctions have been used to try and cripple the economy of russia is that biting really , you are seeing ukraine being attacked with russian missiles and there innocent civilians being killed , ukraine are asking for our help in the west too help fend off these invaders with more heavy ammunition and tanks . this in turn is being seen as provocation by russia the west obliging the ukranian government with there request .it is really dangerous and this could bring the west and nato in direct conflict with russia and the danger that brings too world peace
It's so tricky. This is the playbook for how wars escalate. But as it's an existential threat to Democracy, I think it's time. Glad the U.S. and Germany waited. It required that. But SW-News? "The" Ukraine? Come on now.
If I were a Russian military planner, those tanks, from the first mention of them being asked for and the following time wasted on squabbling and knowing there will be a time gap before they’d be combat capable, I’d be planning their destruction.
@soar2newhighs [quote] I’d be planning their destruction[/quote] The Russians probably are - but their planning has been so inept thus far, they've been outmanoeuvred time and time again by Ukraine, that I can't see them succeeding.
@Justenjoyit There are militaries including the US where ineptness is not unheard of. With respect to Russia’s military, I would say this: if anyone feels the Russian military is inept, do not put all your eggs ( in this matter) in one basket.
We should not - it will leave us under prepared for ANY other military action. Our oil reserves are toast. Our military has been turned into overly sensitive girly boys.
These are exactly why Biden will be sending the tanks.
@Budwick you’re wrong, but that’s your point of you but you’re wrong. United States isn’t even an army anymore or a military I know cause I come from the military as part of the UN buddy nobody fights alone anymore.
The question isn't 'should they'. It's already a done deal. Ukraine needs another 255 battle tanks on top of the 45 promised so far to mount its spring offensive.
@MarineBob Ronald Reagan had a HIGE budget back in the early 80s to breakup the Soviet Union. It is how our trillion dollar deficit first started. This pales in comparison to Reagan’s spending.
