Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Russia/Ukraine conflict

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
A Bradley might make it through some mud, but may bog down in other muddy areas.
Muddy field with no standing water- fine. Muddy field with standing water- questionable. Swampy river bottom- no. Basically is the Abrams goes the Bradley can too. Lots of coordination and constant communication. If Bradley’s are scouting the mbt has to be careful or they can get in trouble.
 
But if Ukraine doesn't have any offensive weapons – then how are they going to be able to retake the parts of Ukraine that are currently occupied by the Dictator?... And apparently the Germans are OK with sending tanks if the US also sends tanks... So the sending tanks part doesn't seem to be the problem here...
There are multiple issues. If it was only one it would be easy to solve and very much in Scholz's interest to solve it. Now it needs to be made clear to Scholz et al that it is still in their interests to solve it. But to recap:

- the legal (the very obvious bit of the German constitution);
- the political (Scholz is leader of SPD coalition, and SPD has a cadre of ultra-pacificists in it who are quite capable of seeking legal actions against Scholz and/or trying to deselect him as party leader and chancellor); and
- the security/etc interests of (of Germany). Note the clause in the legal text, "interest of the Federal Republic of Germany in maintaining good relations with other countries". The case can be made (however weak I personally think it is) that the USA proves it will maintain good relationships with Germany by sending its own Abrams alongside German Leopards. And conversely if USA won't do this then how can Germany be sure that legally defined test is being met. Which is also a test of what is really the wider longer-term self-interest of Germany in this respect.

Be in no doubt that I personally am very supportive of sending Western MBTs in large numbers to Ukraine, along with all the rest of the necessary stuff. But if we are to figure out how to solve and overcome the quibbles of the Germans then we need to understand and defeat both the technicalities that are presented as blocks, and the underlying reality. It needs to be made clear to Germany both the positive (it is in Germany's self-interest to approve) and the negative (it is not in Germany's self-interest to deny).

I am very aware that Ukraine must carry out a campaign of an offensive nature to retake its own territory, and that giving it the capability to conduct such an operation on its own territory also gives it the potential to conduct such an operation beyond its own territory. I personally think the balance of risks favours giving the Ukraine these capabilities, but it is undeniable that these are potent capabilities.

====

Ukraine now has a lot of paved roads and paved areas where vehicles can park without having to wade through the mud. The Bradley is a lot lighter than an Abrams, but as @petit_bateau pointed out, it has higher ground pressure because of smaller treads.

Specifically the M1A1 [Abrams] is 13.8 psi and the M2A2 Bradley is 9.3 psi . So the Abrams requires firmer ground than the Bradley. Which makes sense if you think that there are greater numbers of Bradleys operating in the screen and so they have to operate across a wider variety of terrain types, however localised.
 
Last edited:
B8B719A8-7A12-436A-B7B6-3896E96ACF72.jpeg


 
from Geroman


The Ukrainian army was armed and trained by NATO to take back the Donbas - they tried to form a NATO force with modern SOF warfare.

Russia just switched the game and forced them to fight a classical WW2 style high ammo game.

West run out of ammo.

And lost.



Interviews with soldiers told us:

They trained us to take it over with special forces tactics - now we sit in a trench and wait till the Russian wipe us out with artillery like in a bad WW2 or even WW1 movie.

When we fire one shell - they fire 8 or ten.



West was not prepared for that.

No high level ammo production.

No counterartillery in a right capacity.

Modern drones had no chance against RF AD.

And by waging a static defense game - because a lost mobility - the game was set.



The only successful actions were in the beginning - when AFU could play the game their way.

Small units attack RF thin lines of supply and communication.

And then the take back of Kharkov.

Well organized small highly trained units did what they have learned - and won a battle.



The war became static since then - and Russia was even forced to shorten the lines.

They retreated - in a very professional way out of northern Kherson.

Russia did what it could best - retreating when a fight is too costly.

And they did that very very well.



Then the war switched to a war of attrition.

And also that in favor of Russia.

But now the face of war will change again.

And soon you will see the results.
 
from Geroman


The Ukrainian army was armed and trained by NATO to take back the Donbas - they tried to form a NATO force with modern SOF warfare.

Russia just switched the game and forced them to fight a classical WW2 style high ammo game.

West run out of ammo.

And lost.



Interviews with soldiers told us:

They trained us to take it over with special forces tactics - now we sit in a trench and wait till the Russian wipe us out with artillery like in a bad WW2 or even WW1 movie.

When we fire one shell - they fire 8 or ten.



West was not prepared for that.

No high level ammo production.

No counterartillery in a right capacity.

Modern drones had no chance against RF AD.

And by waging a static defense game - because a lost mobility - the game was set.



The only successful actions were in the beginning - when AFU could play the game their way.

Small units attack RF thin lines of supply and communication.

And then the take back of Kharkov.

Well organized small highly trained units did what they have learned - and won a battle.



The war became static since then - and Russia was even forced to shorten the lines.

They retreated - in a very professional way out of northern Kherson.

Russia did what it could best - retreating when a fight is too costly.

And they did that very very well.



Then the war switched to a war of attrition.

And also that in favor of Russia.

But now the face of war will change again.

And soon you will see the results.
Russian Troll is back. Lol Geroman. 🤣🤦‍♂️
 
Retired US Army General and former Director of the CIA David Petraeus at 0:39 in a video on the web page linked below:

'...] If giving 14 [Abrams] tanks, say an armored company worth of tanks to Ukraine allows the Germans to provide Leopard II, and as importantly to approve the transfer of Leopard II that other countries have [...], then I think it's very much worth it. And I think it's time to get on with this frankly. [My underline.] [...'

 
Why do you waste your time here with the Russian propaganda nonsense? Seriously. What motivates you? Paid troll? Or simply an ignorant fool that easily falls for this type of nonsense?
I am often unable to distinguish trolls from bots. This one's moniker suggests troll <shrug>. Personally, I place either on ignore and call it a day after reminding myself how fortunate I am to have a much more fulfilling life than the sorry existence that hides behind a troll.
 
I am often unable to distinguish trolls from bots. This one's moniker suggests troll <shrug>. Personally, I place either on ignore and call it a day after reminding myself how fortunate I am to have a much more fulfilling life than the sorry existence that hides behind a troll.

Don't forget - some men just want to watch the world burn.

They forget that hope, life and liberty are of the utmost importance.

It's a sad existence to want people being slaughtered to lose even more than they have including their children.

I also enjoy the use of the ignore feature.
 
Specifically the M1A1 [Abrams] is 13.8 psi and the M2A2 Bradley is 9.3 psi . So the Abrams requires firmer ground than the Bradley. Which makes sense if you think that there are greater numbers of Bradleys operating in the screen and so they have to operate across a wider variety of terrain types, however localised.

Sorry I remembered the numbers backwards initially and by the time I saw my mistake, it was too late to edit.

Retired US Army General and former Director of the CIA David Petraeus at 0:39 in a video on the web page linked below:

'...] If giving 14 [Abrams] tanks, say an armored company worth of tanks to Ukraine allows the Germans to provide Leopard II, and as importantly to approve the transfer of Leopard II that other countries have [...], then I think it's very much worth it. And I think it's time to get on with this frankly. [My underline.] [...'


Someone here suggested that a handful of Abrams be sent to defend Kyiv. That's not a bad idea. The Ukrainians need to keep a force in the north anyway to deter the Russians. A handful of Abrams that are moved into ambush positions for the roads leading into Kyiv and left there frees up some other resources for offensive action and if it solves the political quandary, it's gold.

The Abrams logistical tail does not suit it for offensive action in this war. I trust Mark Hertling's opinion on this. He has commanded a US armored division in combat and had to keep a lot of Abrams operational. The US logistics system is up to the task of keeping the Abrams in the field. The US has the most sophisticated logistics train in the world. It has to, all it's wars since the 1860s have been fought in other countries and since the 1890s all but a few relatively small operations all US wars have been fought outside the western hemisphere. In WW II the US managed to beat two modern militarizes on opposite sides of the world at the same time. A feat nobody has ever done before or since.

The US is outstanding at getting supply where it needs to go, as well as establishing support facilities. But it also is free of one major headache the Ukrainians have to contend with. The US today has a very simple set of equipment for most things. There is one tank type (Abrams), one tracked APC/IFV (Bradley), one general purpose support vehicle (HMMMV), 3 field artillery (2 of which use the same ammunition), 2 rocket launchers (which use the same ammunition), and a handful of truck types.

The Ukrainians are trying to maintain an army with a mix of almost every ground weapons system in the world. It's a logistical nightmare. Trying to support the Abrams in the offensive along with all the other tank types is going to be a nightmare.
 
In WW II the US managed to beat two modern militarizes on opposite sides of the world at the same time. A feat nobody has ever done before or since.
Ahem, it is actually more significant to be able to maintain global peace without needing to engage in large scale warfare. For a century even. So the USA has a bit of catching up to do.