First US Abrams tanks arrive in Ukraine
First US Abrams tanks arrive in Ukraine
The first U.S. Abrams tanks pledged to Ukraine have arrived in the country and are being prepared to send into battle, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky announced Monday. “Good news from Defen…
The first U.S. Abrams tanks pledged to Ukraine have arrived in the country and are being prepared to send into battle, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky announced Monday.
“Good news from Defense Minister [Rustem] Umerov. Abrams are already in Ukraine and are preparing to reinforce our brigades. I am grateful to our allies for fulfilling the agreements!” Zelensky wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter.
Zelensky added that Ukraine is “looking for new contracts and expanding the geography of supply.”
The Pentagon confirmed the tanks arrived in Ukraine, with a spokesperson saying “the mere presence of Abrams tanks serves as a potent deterrent.”
“By having these tanks in their arsenal, the Ukrainian army can more effectively discourage aggressive actions,” the Defense Department spokesperson told The Hill. “We will continue to focus on what we can do to help Ukraine succeed on the battlefield and protect its people.”
You're viewing a single thread.
How important are tanks in modern warfare?
I've been under the impression that infantry, drones (both recon and attack), mortars, artillery and guided missiles are kind of the thing to focus on in modern war. I think of tanks as big expensive targets.
I am by no means an expert, but what I have gathered is that it, like almost everything in combat, is incredibly complex.
With the correct support and combined arms usage tanks are an absolute devastating force on the battlefield still. Used correctly they can completely change a battle.
But they aren't war winners by themselves, and have never been. Unsupported a single tank is exactly a big expensive target, just like a modern fighter and or a single soldier.
The idea that tanks can be wonder weapons and that they alone can turn the tide of a war has existed since WW2, but they have always had weaknesses that need to be covered by supporting elements in order to be used effectively.
How the Abrams will do in Ukraine is anyone's guess. The Abrams has never seen combat without the might of the US's military logistics backing it up.
All that being said, if you are in a firefight, would you rather have a tank backing you up, or not? I'd take the tank support.
How the Abrams will do in Ukraine is anyone’s guess. The Abrams has never seen combat without the might of the US’s military logistics backing it up.
Well Ukraine already fields Leos, the Abram's twin separated before birth (both tanks started out as a joint programme, then Germany realised that the US were serious about using a turbine).
They use the exact same main gun, armour will be roughly comparable, there will be differences in secondary armament (machine guns, numbers and calibres thereof, (smoke) grenade launchers, etc), but generally also comparable (and generally modular). Both are about the same size and weigh about the same.
The big difference is that the Leo is faster, while the Abrams guzzles more fuel. Also, not diesel, but (preferably) jet fuel. And, as you said, Abrams logistics are a nightmare, even for the US. The one definite upside of the Abrams though is that the US have thousands standing around collecting dust because they kept producing them because that's cheaper than shutting down factories and starting them up again ten, twenty years later.
All in all: In combat it'll perform pretty much like the Leo as long as the Ukrainians can keep up with the logistics requirements. They don't have to do the whole logistics chain, though, in particular when it comes to maintenance... they'll need to do field maintenance and maybe they'll get away with half of what a depot would usually do and definitely let the Poles deal with the rest, just as with the Leo.
And given the sheer number of tanks the US could deliver having more lag in the maintenance department isn't actually that bad, having 10 tanks on a train to ship to Poland and back all the time would be a drop in the bucket.
..., while the Abrams guzzles more fuel. Also, not diesel, but (preferably) jet fuel.
This again... Yes, the Abrams needs more fuel, than for example the Leopard 2. But it's actually not that much more. I'll dig up the numbers later, when I'm home. Also the claim about jetfuel: The Abrams uses (mainly) JP8. And so do most if not all vehicles of the US military. This was done to unburden logistics - You only need to ship JP8 if everything in your arsenal uses it. And JP8 is basically Dieselfuel with worse lubrication properties than regular Diesel.
I retract everything and assert the opposite.
But, hey, at least you don't have to explain to people that a squad bringing a broomstick to an exercise to argue to brass that their command vehicle should have a gun even though it doesn't have a dedicated gunner does not even begin to be embarrassing.
Yeah, I’m a little anxious about how they’ll do. While they’re great technology, they’re just one piece.
They would be unstoppable if they also included air superiority, integrated battle mapping, sensors and satellites, the classified armor, overwhelming numbers, combined arms assault, the amazing global logistics of the us military ……
the amazing global logistics of the us military
This might not be terribly relevant but Ukraine has in fact stellar strategic airlift capabilities, at least by European standards. Definitely better than Germany we don't have An-124 to fly over to Australia on a whim and fetch a couple of Bushmasters. They have seven of them, when other European militaries need that kind of transport we lease exactly those.
And while A400Ms are in operation now and they are fine birds indeed, strategic transports they are not.
While I'm at it: RIP Mriya.
mriya :(
They're the bunker buster for infantry advancement. You can't keep them in front all the time, they'd get taken out. But being able to blast and smash fortified positions during an infantry engagement can decide a battle. They can also give short chase to escaping mobile units.
On a defensive front, they're a bunker that can move whenever your own hard points get bombed out. Providing cover to maintain a position.
From the videos and information I know about, the Ukrainian military is using them more like fast and heavily armory artillery in a lot of cases. They have a much better standoff distance than infantry but a much shorter range than actual artillery, they can redeploy with a quickness, and compared to Russia, they are really good at reclaiming hulls to refurbish and rebuild.
I recently learned that most of the damage that kills people is in the turret. So when a tank takes a bunch of damage they can tow out the hull, swap in a new turret, patch up any damage on the hull, replace a few armor panels, and replace it. It's not easy, but it's easier to repair and refurbish than building a whole new tank.
It turns out the Russians are not so good at retrieving tank hulls, and really enjoy just scuttling them and running away (assuming they survive and whole thing isn't just trashed). Which is a whole tank hull that can never be used again.
Drones, yes. Infantry? Less so.
Dudes have to be well prepared, equipped, have solid Intel and the tanker has to either be stupid or have bad leadership.
The tanks should keep their distance and support infantry while keeping a look out on thermal for anything that gets too close. They have emergency features like trophy (it's a explosion that shoots down missiles) but mostly they wait for infantry to find targets for them to blow up.
In tank-tank combat they often let their infantry fall back while they lock on at range and hope their gunnery is better.