We care deeply for the Ukrainian people, which is why we'll be giving them depleted-uranium munitions that they can us within their own country and cause a spike in cases of cancer and birth defects:biden-alert:
Depleted Uranium - 5% bonus to penetration, poison the land forever.
Westerners - WORTH IT
I will die - of cancer probably - on the hill that poisoning the land forever is the intention, and its ballistic properties are somewhere between a perk and a figleaf for its true purpose
well, destroying the best arable land in europe would presumably drive up the price of US farmland...
My (obtained from lightly browsing the news thread) understanding is that tungsten is more expensive so the depleted uranium shells' main advantage is cost.
RIP the Ukrainian Biome. Might as well just kick off another Chernobyl incident, while you're at it.
I know this isn't really the main point, but no kidding the Ukranians can't logistically support these things. The Abrams is a notorious fuel hog. They only reason the US is able to make use of them is because we can afford to field fleets of dedicated fuel trucks alongside them.
The Abrams requires something like 300 gallons of fuel (ideally jet fuel) for every eight hours of operation, depending on conditions. I understand that the Ukranians are already experiencing vehicle shortages. They almost certainly won't have the capacity to deploy dedicated fuel trucks in sufficient numbers to sustain an armored force large enough to matter. And, even if they did, the Russians' apparent air superiority (or near-superiority, I'm not clear on that) would allow them to kill the trucks with impunity, which has been the most effective tactic for halting an armored assault since WW2.
I may just have an incorrect picture of the situation, but there's a reason the Abrams never does much good for the people we export them to.
Abrams also can't handle the Ukrainian terrain very well; it was designed with open space in mind, but Ukraine has so many hills, streams/rivers, trees...it would become a slightly more mobile AT emplacement lol
It also weighs 70 tonnes, 80 with the addon packages, so good luck crossing bridges.
I hadn't even thought of that, but you're precisely right. I mean, generally, we've been using the Abrams in roles for which it was never intended for decades. The Abrams was designed decades ago for a massive armored clash in the Fulda Gap that never came to be.
Now granted, no tanks do well in irregular terrain like that, but the Abrams is basically only deployable in any effective capacity by the US. The Ukranians would see very little benefit from them even if the country was as flat as Kansas.
My understanding is that Soviet tanks are built significantly lighter and smaller than the Abrahms because the Soviets weren't capitalism brained dipshits and actually considered what weights the bridges and roads their tanks were intended to operate on could stand. Also, apparently the US only has like one or five bridgelayers capable of deploying bridges the abrahms can cross. The thing will not have good manuervability in Eastern Europe while mobility was made an important design constraint for Soviet armor.
isn't the exported abrams famous for being a very expensive gun emplacement?
The export Abrams replaces the jet turbine engine with a conventional internal combustion engine for that reason, but that makes it very underpowered with the weight of the tank.
I bet they're just going to dig them in to make them mobile bunkers to avoid fuel costs and that's that
Does russia have more air superiority? I assumed they had air superiority this entire time
I think the Galactic Empire in Star Wars would make more sense if instead of disposable TIE Fighters they had super bloated mega-Abrams-in-space gunships that cost many times their material costs because of contract bloat.
Basically shittier versions of these:
https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Alpha-class_Xg-1_Star_Wing/Legends
It's funny how Western weapons are so complex that using them is a logistical nightmare and that's super cool and amazing, but the simplicity of a Soviet tank that can run using vodka as fuel is bad for some reason.
but the simplicity of a Soviet tank that can run using vodka as fuel is bad for some reason.
Well I can tell you why that's bad, the tank is drinking the vodka instead of me.
Yeah like, the Russian military is definitely a shitshow, but it's wild that the Ukraine fandom was mocking them for supposedly using tanks from 50 years ago as if our weaponry even last that long.
Love how the video just pivots after listing countless issues, to essentially just send these bad boys over there so they can get to work!
I feel like we're just beating a dead horse at this point, and everyone here is on the same page. The NATO equipment kind of assumes air superiority (and seemingly never planned much for the sheer amount of artillery being utilized). The video mentions the issues as challenges as if they can be overcome, but there's just no way it's possible at this point. We could send over 500 Abrams tanks and I don't think it makes a difference at all.
Also, now that the leopard 2s have been confirmed destroyed. It ruins the "un-killable" reputation there. Abrams and Challenger 2 I'm sure will struggle as well. Are there any Leclerc's donated yet? Maybe we have have all the major MBTs tarnished a bit reputation wise through this?
Love the excessive logistics animations. Makes it very obvious why we're fucking sending it there, we want to print money and corpses
I have friends who insist that patriot missiles can intercept hypersonic glide vehicles with terminal maneuverability, but I have also seen patriot missiles join the houthi cause mid-launch and martyr themselves to strike at Riyadh so who knows :shrug-outta-hecks:
Also, I'm pretty sure we're sending stripped down export abrahms without the fancy DU composite armor. They're just steel armor, so they're going to get toasted just like the T-70s and T-62s
Remember when the war enjoyers were calling slat armor, a defensive technology invented shortly after the shaped charge warhgads it is intended to defeat, cope cages?
Yeah, part of me wonders if American's just assume the stuff has to absolutely be invincible/ infallible because there's so much money spent on this. I still remember those popular mechanics articles from when I was a kid talking about the F-22, F-35, Future Warrior Program, etc and how this stuff is just so amazing nothing can touch it. I also don't think people realize when like the vast majority of US armament entered service and that it's been just being upgraded over and over. Like literally all the new stuff is either garbage, or in too few of a number (or both) to really matter.
Yeah. Most of our stuff dates from the late cold war. The US has never made a successful radar guided SPAAG successfully and relies on jury-rigging Stinger MANPADS for everything. All of our APCs suck. Neither the Army nor the Marines want Abrahms but congress keeps buying them to keep the factories open. The F-35 is supposed to control a bunch of drones that afaik don't exist. It supposedly has the radar signature of a honeybee but who knows what that's worth in a near-peer combat environment. The F114 or whatever stealth fighter was sneaky as hell, except it took the same path every night so the Serbs(?) Just waited along it's route and shoved a cheap anti-aircraft missile up it's jet exhaust. And my understanding is that the F-35s supply chain is a dysfunctional bureaucratic mess, so each one is functionally irreplacable due to parts shortage even ignoring the up front cost.
If the F-35 isn't as invisible as advertised the US's is going to have real trouble in any remotely conventional war. War nerds also seem unreasonably confident in the US's ability to shoot down every single hypersonic anti-ship missile 100% of the time without letting a single one get through to kill or disable an aircraft carrier.
The US has never made a successful radar guided SPAAG successfully and relies on jury-rigging Stinger MANPADS for everything.
Explains why their SPAAG options suck in Wargame: Red Dragon. Makes me wonder about the CIWS on naval ships.
If the F-35 isn’t as invisible as advertised the US’s is going to have real trouble in any remotely conventional war.
Yeah, pretty sure it was Venezuela that used a Chinese Radar to spot and yell at an F-35 violating their airspace. There's probably other instances as well, but that leads me to believe on top of its myriad of other issues like the auto ordering spare part supply chain issue its DOA.
CIWS seems to work great on low and slow stuff like mortar rounds and various cheap rockets but that's a very different thing from stopping hypersonic missiles that can maneuver right up until impact.
If it turns out that th F-35 isn't invisible to the radar wavelengths used by our designated enemies i will give up and admit we're living in a Peter Sellers dark comedy.
Didn't China and Russia both design their most recent radar systems specifically around avoiding using the wavelengths that stealth planes operate within?
I know Russia and China have been working on it, and in an article I found on the Venezuelan thing I saw this comment:
F-22 can be detected by advanced radar systems, particularly those with long wavelengths, meaning it is far from unthinkable that the JY-27 did so
Apparently it was the F-22 actually, which is apparently supposed to be stealthier than the F-35.
If it turns out that th F-35 isn’t invisible to the radar wavelengths used by our designated enemies i will give up and admit we’re living in a Peter Sellers dark comedy.
Funny how you correctly diagnose all the insanities of American propaganda in your posts above and then imply that the F-35 will be "invisible" in any way. At best, it's "low-ovservable" in a few scenarios and wavelengths, like when going up against 70s radar technology, but of course that such a rare scenario these days and the F-35 is just such a piece of dog shit in general that I wouldn't really quote any favorable quality of this MIC abomination.
But yeah, I liked your comment about American SPAAG - makes me want to read up the insane testing antics they employed with the Sergeant York SPAAG (M247 I believe?)
The Abrams they send over are export models without the special armour and turbine engines, so western military nerds can say that the US spec is Abrams is still invincible or some other bullshit
I didn't know they removed the turbine engine for export. I was fully expecting fancy electronics and armor to be stripped off. That's also a good point, the military nerds will probably not shut up about how its not the absolute specimen the US Army/ Marines use.
The turbine engine have to be removed because no supply lines can maintain the fuel needed. The Abrams is designed with US superiority in mind.
The turbine engine have to be removed because no supply lines can maintain the fuel needed.
They won't remove the turbine engine. This would be a MAJOR redesign of the whole drivetrain that would take years to do, if even possible given space constraints from the current drivetrain. We're talking about a completely different and much larger engine, quite a different gear, and then of course all the ratchets and sprockets down stream that are now subjected to different loads and torque and whatnot.
No, the Abrams that are going to the Ukrainian Nazis sometime newxt year (lol) will have a turbine engine, and they will suck ass.
AFAIK, the only real use for DU rounds is penetrating another tank's armor.
I have watched lots of footage from this war, and I can only remember one single tank-on-tank encounter. I think it was very early on in the war, when nobody knew what the fuck was going on. And the regular tungsten rounds (or maybe even HEAT) seemed to do their job just fine.
The west just wants to trigger the Russians by harming civilians.
That and maybe bunker busters, but they're definitely mostly sending them to poison the land. Maybe that means they've given up on turning back the annexation.
I was like "I thought they already did this", but on reflection I'm pretty sure that was Britain.
I vaguely recall hearing about a Ukranian weapons store with depleted uranium in it that got blown up by the Russians.
That was debunked unfortunately(or fortunately I guess), IIRC the radiation spike actually preceded that strike by a couple of days at least.
You know who else wanted to fight the Soviet Union with tanks in Eastern Europe?
THAT'S RIGHT :HITLER:
Actually I'm glad we don't have a hitler emoji. Anyway, who's the tankie now?
Russia and East Ukraine have every right to declare war on the USA. Look at what that stuff did to Iraq. Generations of birth defects and cancer. Poisoned water tables.
Bruh. Inching close to nuclear war, Brandon is so senile, he's auto pilot straight to nuclear armageddon and I thought Trump was shite. At least he knows when to stop getting swindle.
Every single fucking day I come across a new piece of information that makes me hate this country even more, and I don't think it's possible, and it keeps fucking happening :joker-dancing:
Is it beautiful how under the zenith of “green” political power, europe is being saturated by spend uranium? Like the thing they were always comparing about, howww ebbuull nuclear power was? Like this will not just effect Ukraine and russia.
