SpankyMcFarland Posted January 24 Report Share Posted January 24 (edited) Good news if true: Quote Germany to send Leopard tanks to Kyiv - reports German chancellor Olaf Scholz has decided to send Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraineand allow other countries such as Poland to do so while the US may supply Abrams tanks, magazine Spiegel has reported. A government spokesperson declined to comment. The defence ministry was not immediately available for comment, Reuters reported. https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2023/jan/24/russia-ukraine-war-live-zelenskiy-flags-more-changes-in-corruption-purge-german-defence-group-offers-to-send-tanks-if-needed Edited January 24 by SpankyMcFarland Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpankyMcFarland Posted January 24 Report Share Posted January 24 Here is another link: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/germany-send-leopard-tanks-kyiv-allow-others-do-so-spiegel-2023-01-24/ 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Contrarian Posted January 24 Report Share Posted January 24 (edited) 48 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said: Here is another link: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/germany-send-leopard-tanks-kyiv-allow-others-do-so-spiegel-2023-01-24/ In a reversal, the U.S. is now poised to approve sending M1 Abrams tanks to Ukraine, officials tell AP. The change comes as international reluctance toward sending tanks to the battlefront against the Russians begins to erode. Update: I see the Guardian article mentioned it too. Edited January 24 by Contrarian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpankyMcFarland Posted January 24 Report Share Posted January 24 Does the US have nothing else to send other than Abrams tanks? With their fuel requirements they seem highly impractical on that front. What about something more like the Leopard? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted January 24 Report Share Posted January 24 The Leopard and the Abrams are fairly similar in capability. The US built the Abrams and operates that, and having something like the Leopard would not only be redundant, but logistically wasteful. Sending the Abrams to Ukraine is probably also wasteful, as a turbine-powered vehicle hungry for jet fuel is not ideal for a poverty-stricken country whose logistics systems are already under heavy attack. I suspect if the Abrams does go to Ukraine, they'll be in limited number and get parked symbolically around Kiev to deter attacks from Belarus. The Leopard 2 is a much better option. Like with the Challenger, Abrams tanks to Ukraine is likely just a gesture meant to exhaust German excuses for dragging their heels on their machine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aristides Posted January 24 Report Share Posted January 24 Diesel is close to jet fuel so the Abrams may be able to use it. You can run older diesels on Jet A1. The Abrams is more difficult to maintain, Ease of maintenance is a reason the Leopard is so popular, a Leopard engine can be replaced in 30 minutes with the proper equipment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dougie93 Posted January 24 Report Share Posted January 24 59 minutes ago, Aristides said: Diesel is close to jet fuel so the Abrams may be able to use it. You can run older diesels on Jet A1. The Abrams is more difficult to maintain, Ease of maintenance is a reason the Leopard is so popular, a Leopard engine can be replaced in 30 minutes with the proper equipment. the Abrams is not really harder to maintain than the Leopard 2 the Honeywell AT1500 engine is quite reliable, it's battle proven in the harshest conditions ( Arabian dessert ) it's also multi fuel, it can run on diesel, marine diesel, gasoline, or jet fuel Abrams is also stealthy, we used to call them "whispering death" because the engine is so quiet in case of both tanks, the advantage is the thermal sights with the Rheinmetall RH120/L44 gun both Arbams & Leopard can see and shoot Russian tanks beyond the range which the Russians can see & shoot also, don't underestimate the British Challenger 2 being sent as well the British L30 CHARM rifled gun is longest ranged in NATO Challenger 2 holds the world record longest ranged tank kill in Iraq, at 5,100 meters Challenger 2 also has the heaviest frontal armour of any NATO MBT 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aristides Posted January 24 Report Share Posted January 24 Apparently the Brits have never lost a Challenger to enemy fire. In Iraq, one survived hits by 14 RPG's, a Milan anti tank missile and was back in action 6 hours later even though it threw its tracks when it backed into a ditch. Another survived 70 RPG hits. As we have seen how effective suicide drones have been, top armour has all of a sudden become very important. I don't know how they rate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted January 25 Report Share Posted January 25 3 hours ago, Aristides said: Diesel is close to jet fuel so the Abrams may be able to use it. You can run older diesels on Jet A1. The Abrams is more difficult to maintain, Ease of maintenance is a reason the Leopard is so popular, a Leopard engine can be replaced in 30 minutes with the proper equipment. I doubt you want to run diesel through a multi-million dollar vehicle that runs on a turbine engine. Maybe it would work in a pinch, but you probably gunk up the engine and even if it did work, it apparently guzzles fuel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aristides Posted January 25 Report Share Posted January 25 (edited) 14 minutes ago, Moonbox said: I doubt you want to run diesel through a multi-million dollar vehicle that runs on a turbine engine. Maybe it would work in a pinch, but you probably gunk up the engine and even if it did work, it apparently guzzles fuel. One reason you can't use jet fuel in newer diesels is the sulphur content is too high and destroys the particulate filters and converters used for emission controls. It would depend on the quality of local diesel fuel. Edited January 25 by Aristides Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted January 25 Report Share Posted January 25 I don't know anything about that, but I imagine if the diesel was a good option they'd use that over the jet fuel. Where are comrade athos and little comrade cadet nationalist ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Contrarian Posted January 25 Report Share Posted January 25 (edited) 12 hours ago, Contrarian said: In a reversal, the U.S. is now poised to approve sending M1 Abrams tanks to Ukraine, officials tell AP The decision will most likely be announced today.The officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said an announcement could come as early as Wednesday (January 25). A third source familiar with the matter said the U.S. commitment could total about 30 Abrams tanks to be delivered over the coming months. The Sun has posted a video in regards to the tank: Edited January 25 by Contrarian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aristides Posted January 25 Report Share Posted January 25 3600 Leopard 2's have been built, if every country that operates them sent 10% of their fleet that would make a nice little tank army. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted January 25 Report Share Posted January 25 I don't think we'll get anywhere near that anytime soon, but one can hope. The piecemeal and slow-roll trickling of equipment is costing lives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aristides Posted January 25 Report Share Posted January 25 (edited) https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/european-court-human-rights-mh17-netherlands-russia-1.6725325 Quote Among other things, the Court found that areas in eastern Ukraine in separatist hands were, from 11 May 2014 and up to at least 26 January 2022, under the jurisdiction of the Russian Federation," the court said in a ruling on Wednesday. Quote The court's finding that Moscow did control pro-Russian forces in Ukraine mirrors a Dutch court ruling last November that Moscow had "overall control" over the forces of the Donetsk People's Republic in Eastern Ukraine from mid-May 2014. So much for the assertion that Ukrainians were shelling their own people in Donetsk. Edited January 25 by Aristides Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dougie93 Posted January 26 Report Share Posted January 26 (edited) one thing to note is that the logistical burden of the Abrams is overstated by the media and on the internet "ZOMG gas turbine !" yes, the Abrams burns more fuel by the minute but it's not like the Leopard is a plug in hybrid, the Leopard burns plenty of fuel too its not such a difference as to make the Abrams inferior and in fact, the Abrams carries more fuel than the Leopard 2 so even burning fuel faster, the Abrams actually has a longer operational range Abrams goes 265 miles on a tank of gas, Leopard 2 only goes 210 miles meanwhile the Abrams has depleted uranium reinforced armour which adds significantly better protection than Leo 2 if I had to pick a tank to go into battle with, I'm going with Abrams M829A1 APFSDS depleted uranium ammo & depleted uranium armour ftw Edited January 26 by Dougie93 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted January 26 Report Share Posted January 26 I don't think anyone is arguing the Abrams is a bad tank, or that the Leo 2 is better. In what basically amounts to a third-world country, I simply imagine that trying to add and integrate jet fuel logistics alongside the already-existing diesel would be more challenging. From what I understand, the armor protection for both the Leo 2 and the Abrams are mostly classified, so we don't actually have a lot of good statistics on which is better. In terms of cooperation with Ukraine, there are more NATO members running Leo 2's than Abrams, which makes forming a coalition of willing donaters much easier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dougie93 Posted January 26 Report Share Posted January 26 On 1/24/2023 at 4:05 PM, Moonbox said: The Leopard and the Abrams are fairly similar in capability. The US built the Abrams and operates that, and having something like the Leopard would not only be redundant, but logistically wasteful. Sending the Abrams to Ukraine is probably also wasteful, as a turbine-powered vehicle hungry for jet fuel is not ideal for a poverty-stricken country whose logistics systems are already under heavy attack. I suspect if the Abrams does go to Ukraine, they'll be in limited number and get parked symbolically around Kiev to deter attacks from Belarus. The Leopard 2 is a much better option. Like with the Challenger, Abrams tanks to Ukraine is likely just a gesture meant to exhaust German excuses for dragging their heels on their machine. I'd say the opposite the Leo 2 that the Ukrainians are getting is the Leo 2A4 version the Abrams is superior to the older Leo 2A4 I'd expect the better armoured Abrams firing the much more lethal ammo would be used to protect Leo 2A4's Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dougie93 Posted January 26 Report Share Posted January 26 (edited) 45 minutes ago, Moonbox said: I don't think anyone is arguing the Abrams is a bad tank, or that the Leo 2 is better. In what basically amounts to a third-world country, I simply imagine that trying to add and integrate jet fuel logistics alongside the already-existing diesel would be more challenging. NATO is going to have to supply the Ukrainians with massive amounts of logistical support either way so I'd say the logistics argument is moot if the Ukrainians are going to mount a counteroffensive with NATO tanks, NATO will have to provide the logistics therein the difference between Abrams, Challenger & Leopard in terms of Ukrainian logistics is irrelevant they can't support any of them without NATO picking up the tab Edited January 26 by Dougie93 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dougie93 Posted January 26 Report Share Posted January 26 8 minutes ago, Moonbox said: From what I understand, the armor protection for both the Leo 2 and the Abrams are mostly classified, so we don't actually have a lot of good statistics on which is better. both tanks use the same NATO Chobham composite armour except Abrams goes one step further by adding depleted uranium plates to the Chobham there's your relevant statistic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dougie93 Posted January 26 Report Share Posted January 26 (edited) 31 minutes ago, Moonbox said: I don't think anyone is arguing the Abrams is a bad tank, or that the Leo 2 is better. I'm not saying Leo 2 is bad but again, the Ukrainians are not getting the latest version Leo 2's they are getting Leo 2A4's, which are the oldest and least capable version of Leo 2 M1A1 Abrams is the better tank than Leo2A4, better sights, better armour, with much more lethal ammo the only reason the Poles are willing to give their Leo2A4's to Ukraine is that Poland is replacing Leo 2 with Abrams https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2023/01/04/poland-signs-deal-to-buy-2nd-batch-of-us-abrams-tanks/ Edited January 26 by Dougie93 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dougie93 Posted January 26 Report Share Posted January 26 spare parts is a vastly bigger issue than fuel anyways and the Pentagon has way more spare parts available than Germany does the Germans have difficulties supporting their own armoured fleets, never mind supporting Ukraine's the logistical economies of scale in America dwarfs all of Europe's defense industries combined if logistics is your problem, Europe can't help you, America is a logistics superpower first & foremost Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Contrarian Posted January 26 Report Share Posted January 26 (edited) 16 hours ago, Contrarian said: The officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said an announcement could come as early as Wednesday (January 25). A third source familiar with the matter said the U.S. commitment could total about 30 Abrams tanks to be delivered over the coming months. The Sun has posted a video in regards to the tank: The Confirmation has been given for 31 tanks, not 30 tanks. The Sun has posted a video in regards to the "Challenger 2 Tank" - initially 14 are being sent. Edited January 26 by Contrarian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dougie93 Posted January 26 Report Share Posted January 26 9 hours ago, Aristides said: 3600 Leopard 2's have been built, if every country that operates them sent 10% of their fleet that would make a nice little tank army. training is the limiting factor the Ukrainians are being given one or two squadrons of tanks at a time because that's how many tank crews that are available to be trained at a time they won't have the crews to operate 360 NATO tanks, that will take months Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Contrarian Posted January 26 Report Share Posted January 26 (edited) 2 hours ago, Contrarian said: The Sun has posted a video in regards to the "Challenger 2 Tank" - initially 14 are being sent. The French are due to make a decision in the next few days in regards to Leclerc tanks. The debate continues inside France. Video from 2019: Edited January 26 by Contrarian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.