Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

usrevenge t1_jd6mh2v wrote

Too much dicking around and not enough action.

While the us has done a lot I hate the "we might and are going to eventually"

We are supposed to be the arsenal of democracy and my tax dollars paid for it so anything that is not classified and is already in Europe send it to Ukraine.

Send them out older fighters. Send them out older m1 abrams and Bradley's. If we realistically won't need them in the next 5 years and they are already outdated send them

Also send them the ammo they need

−7

AwesomeBrainPowers t1_jd6sa2k wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#2,300,719)

I remain completely uncertain as to whether or not this is satire.

Would you help clarify that, please? Because it's very bad rap, so the only way there's any positive value is if it's just remarkably dedicated satire.

1

LionsLoseAgain t1_jd6vlxl wrote

Pour it the fuck on. I'm sick of hearing about it. Just do it. Destroy the Red Army's material and personnel in Ukraine so we can totally focus on moving troops from Europe to the Indo-Pacific for the real show.

25

diefreetimedie t1_jd6vu0x wrote

Replying to usrevenge (#2,300,510)

Assuming you're from a monetarily sovereign nation, Your tax dollars are deleted after payment and any new spending from the federal government is currency created by the federal government. Limited only by real resources; materials, logistics and labor.

−14

CW1DR5H5I64A t1_jd76ydz wrote

Replying to usrevenge (#2,300,510)

>so anything that is not classified and is already in Europe send it to Ukraine.

That’s the issue, the Abrams we have in Europe with active duty units and the APS fleet have highly classified armor packages on them. Anything we send will need to be overhauled to use an unclassified armor material.

Additionally we are currently in the process of upgrading our existing Abrams to a new variant. The sequestration years a decade ago hit our armored units very hard and we had to skip/delay upgrades and depot level maintenance. That means a lot of our fleet is very old and for lack of a better term “tired”. A lot of the A2s in service with line units need major maintenance overhauls.

Sending the Ukrainians tanks which will have prolonged maintenance issues will not do them any good. Upgrading the MA1A1SAs probably coming from the Marines old fleet or the ones the 3ID turned in for replacement a year or two ago will be much better for them in the long run.

20

Rosenate22 t1_jd77log wrote

Looks like after that meeting with Xi and Putin we are going to need our arsenal here.

23

Folsomdsf t1_jd7llcs wrote

Replying to usrevenge (#2,300,510)

>Too much dicking around and not enough action.

My dude, they're building NEW tanks. That's what Ukraine bought, they have no training on them, why there was no rush, but also the Abrams is such an easy tank to use that once ukraine found the ability to free up some crews FOR training they want to use them immediately.

1

CW1DR5H5I64A t1_jd7oey6 wrote

Replying to Folsomdsf (#2,302,727)

> The new plan calls for refurbishing tank hulls already in the U.S. arsenal.

Read the article, it’s saying the US is going to send refurbished M1A1 hulls now.

I was replying to a comment saying we should send the existing M1A2 stock that is currently in Europe and am saying that is not an option because they would need to be overhauled anyway.

Also even “new build” tanks rarely if ever are built from scratch. They usually strip an existing hull and re-build it.

11

too_old_to_be_clever t1_jd7pvp1 wrote

What is it about world leaders that make them want to speed run the end of the world. I just don't get it.

Mind you, I am not against sending Ukraine everything they need, I just don't understand the need to destroy everything.

−13

Dreadedvegas t1_jd7rtre wrote

Replying to Folsomdsf (#2,302,727)

The US ordered new units for Ukraine but has no reversed course and will be sending mothballed M1A1s that were originally slated for modernization in order to speed delivery from 3 years to this year

4

Dreadedvegas t1_jd7tdoy wrote

I do not and will not understand why the US is doing this piecemeal aid.

30 tanks will not make a difference in a conventional landwar. The USA has the ability to send large quantities of mechanized vehicles because its slotted to begin replacement this year. Sending 30 vehicles every 2 weeks is just… mind numbing short sighted.

The training that NATO is doing is too short and too little. 3 months? That’s ridiculous, how can they expect those units to perform combined arms when their fresh conscripts.

Why have long term munitions contracts not been signed? Why is the DPA not invoked? Why is the army so resistant of taking Bradleys out of its reserve units and stockpiles? They are getting replaced.

I just do not comprehend the administration’s position of “not escalating”. Is this just some cold war trauma mentality of nuclear armageddon? The USA literally fought the Soviet air force and air defense forces in Korea and Vietnam. If war didn’t break out from Able Archer and from Cuba why would war break out by sending arms? Why are we so scared?

Why is it considered “acceptable” for Russia to commit war crimes daily by targeting hospitals and residential blocks but unacceptable for Ukraine to target legitimate military targets inside Russia like the airfields where the cruise missile carrying aircraft are coming from or the railways in which supplies are coming in from?

We need to start truly acting like this is a war because our mild response will only embolden future actors. We do not need to directly get involved but I just cannot comprehend why we arent sending ATACMs, more IFVs and tanks. Its a conventional ground war, they need the equipment and they need more comprehensive training.

These decisions shouldve been made last year. It makes me sick that they wait the last minute and then there is a 6-8 month delay. Thats easily another 60.000 dead Ukrainians when there are already serious manpower considerations.

We didn’t go “oh here are 30 planes” to the British and the Soviets in WW2 prior to our involvement. We opened the arsenal of democracy and provided huge quantities of arms, ammo and equipment.

22

bumboclawt t1_jd7tu24 wrote

They better, otherwise the Ukrainian counter-offensive is at risk of failing. France and Germany are already in discussions about what to do if this counter-offensive doesn’t work…

41

Dreadedvegas t1_jd81pa6 wrote

Replying to Lukescale (#2,303,558)

If the USSR didn’t do anything about Israel arms supplies during 1967 / 73 or arms supplies in Afghanistan. The Russians aren’t going to go nuclear over Ukraine. The US likewise did nothing over USSR involvement in Korea and in Vietnam.

Putin is terrified of COVID why would he risk nuclear annihilation? Even China has told Russia its a red line.

The analysts and experts who are worried about nuclear war are the same ones who didn’t think the Russians were going to invade imo

14

Dreadedvegas t1_jd829et wrote

Replying to Rosenate22 (#2,301,667)

Ground mechanized units are not important to an Indo-Pacific confrontation. There will not be ground battles in Taiwan and the US surely wouldn’t invade China.

Sending Bradleys and tanks to Ukraine does not take away from the Navy and Marines strategy in the Pacific. There is a reason why the Marines have divested from tanks and artillery there

37

Lukescale t1_jd83vgr wrote

Replying to Dreadedvegas (#2,303,946)

And?

Why push him over?

30 tanks, with crews of 10 or more, given two weeks to train should be ready to aid training the next round when it arrives. That's 300 men and women, not nothing logistically on the Ukrainian side.

Dumping the all at once just makes them a target and will make pupu jumpy. Besides, Xi is the one who would really hit the button, for war if not for nukes.

0

washington_jefferson t1_jd83zzo wrote

Replying to too_old_to_be_clever (#2,303,037)

Civilians in Ukraine are being murdered every day. That’s the reason. You’re suggesting something like, “greetings gentlemen, what do you say that we allow Mr. Hitler to finish doing what he’s doing, and once he’s settled in and comfortable, we’ll address the matter with seriousness.”

1

sieb t1_jd851dj wrote

So 30+ years later, we get the ground war with Russia everyone had a wet dream about during the Cold War. Only its Ukraine that gets to have it with our hardware instead of the US. :P

15

Dreadedvegas t1_jd85hns wrote

Replying to Lukescale (#2,304,126)

Piecemeal deliveries does not permit for brigade wide training. 30 tanks is not even a single tank battalion.

How can you expect Ukraine to train new units when they do not have the equipment to learn how to operate together intermixed with IFVs, APCs and other motorized equipment.

Conventional war is combined arms. To do combined arms the staff has to know what equipment is available to assign and fill out their organizational structure.

Providing small amounts of equipment in packages does not permit these new brigades (which contain 3-7 battalion of various types [armor, mechanized infantry, light infantry, motorized infantry, artillery detachments etc]) to properly train for maneuvering together which is what you have to do on the offensive.

The Ukrainian army has degraded. Its original NATO trained forces do not exist anymore due to casualties and the activation of reserve officers.

Also training someone on how to operate a tank is different than training a tank company on how to operate together on its own and that’s different than training a tank company to detach and support a mechanized infantry battalion to conduct an offensive.

Its not something thats like here is a rifle, we trained you how to clean and shoot. here if your bradley, the crew knows how to operate it. Go take that trench. Thats fucking suicide. Because the infantry do not know how to dismount while under fire, the other bradleys don’t know how to cover the others, do they know how to suppress the trench line? Do they have a reconnaissance element? Is there artillery observers embedded in the Commanders bradley? How does he correct mortar fire if thats available? What if they need to withdraw, how do you conduct that properly and not loose vehicles?

Ukraine is building 3 brand new brigades. It needs equipment. It needs tanks, it needs IFVs, it needs APCs, it needs fuel trucks, it needs logistics vehicles, it needs reconnaissance vehicles and it needs the equipment earlier so those troops can train and become familiarized before they begin training on how to conduct a combined arms offensive

11

girafa t1_jd8bi5p wrote

Replying to Rosenate22 (#2,301,667)

Is Xi giving Putin weapons?

edit: "while China should not be considered a neutral party, the United States has seen no indication the Chinese are poised to provide the Russians with lethal weapons."

Source

3

tbarr1991 t1_jd8c72v wrote

Replying to BulkyPage (#2,304,068)

Same reason naval fire power is kind of meh nowadays. Yes having control of shipping and what not is great but aerial supremecy. Why float a slow moving heavily armored target when you can just blow up xyz at the 2x or 3x the sound barrier and be gone in 30 seconds instead of 30 hours.

Not saying a strong navy isnt important unless youre literally a landlocked country that doesnt touch an ocean iunno like Afghanistan. Then a navy would be well fuckin worthless.

4

too_old_to_be_clever t1_jd8rna0 wrote

Replying to Elcactus (#2,305,305)

I do not associate with those people so my apologies for sounding like them. I am used to being around people, who think Putin cannot leave this world fast enough, and understood me.

I will be more careful with my words in the future.

5

Dreadedvegas t1_jd8wvc2 wrote

Replying to CaptLeaderLegend26 (#2,305,906)

It is not logistically feasible today to conduct an invasion. The navy is not configured to do it

The US does not have the type of ships or equipment in numbers to perform a naval landing that would have to make Normandy look small.

Its not possible. Even if some idiot ordered it, it is not possible.

A conventional war between China and the US would look like the Falklands war which would be almost exclusively a naval and air campaign

8

ClubsBabySeal t1_jd8x84p wrote

Replying to Dreadedvegas (#2,303,321)

The Bradley is not being replaced any time soon. As far as the abrams goes the pentagon has said they were reluctant to send them because they're of less use than other systems. It is a bitch to field after all.

4

tbarr1991 t1_jd93a9l wrote

Replying to Senyu (#2,305,802)

Why use tank on a carrier to shoot shit in the distance at that point and just build ships with even bigger guns mounted to em. WELCOME TO THE GUN SHOW.

Also TIL Bolivia is a landlocked country that has a navy.

3

Dreadedvegas t1_jd98tny wrote

Replying to ClubsBabySeal (#2,306,530)

OMFV final three to be announced this year for prototype submission.

Based on the MPF turnaround that means selection will be late 2024 / early 2025 with low rate production in 2026 before it enters service in 2028

There is likely pressure to get it to production this time after two failed programs in the FCV program and GCV program. With the MPF selection (GLDS) , and the AMPV (BAE) production in full swing. Its very likely the Army gets it selected this time.

Current teams for the program are:

GLDS with a variation of the Griffin II

Oskosh / Hanwha with the Redback

American Reinmetall with Lynx KF41

BAE with its successor bradley

Point defense which is new kid on the block

The M113 replacements are already entering service and is in production right now

Edit: with the Abrams, take what the Pentagon says with a grain of salt. They don’t want to see a reduction in capabilities and readiness and sending more Abrams will see that readiness plummet in their active units due to less availability of Abrams. Ukraine already fields turbine tanks, this is nothing new. However IFVs are more important than tanks are in the medium term.

3

SlykRO t1_jd9bhd3 wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#2,304,875)

Just like in day to day life of interpersonal communication....if people fucking hate you, they hate you, if you weren't such a prick, they wouldn't hate you and have reason to beat your ass

10

Senyu t1_jd9dape wrote

Replying to tbarr1991 (#2,307,088)

I honestly thought that'd be the route the Navy would go with their railguns, but it seems that project has been put on hold indefinitely. My guess is they value air strikes and missles more than a kinetic launcher that's costly in electricity. I think both are good, especially given the range and ammo costs of a railgun, but we'll see if it ever resumes.

2

Dreadedvegas t1_jd9dogc wrote

Replying to ClubsBabySeal (#2,307,837)

They already have 300 vehicles. They want 3,000. First 3 years of procurement was slated for low rate production

Edit: 3 years of low production followed by 10 years of full rate production with a target of 300 vehicles / year and the option to scale / increase production at will.

The army specifically chose this procurement timeline so the production facility didn’t end immediately if the army decided it needed more 5+ years for now so they specifically slowed down production to be steady over a period of time so the option to scale it to a larger procurement was available.

4

ClubsBabySeal t1_jd9ezxb wrote

Replying to Dreadedvegas (#2,307,860)

What I'm asking is what is the full rate of production going to be? At 300 per year that'd be unusually large. The Bradley replacement hasn't even been finalized. So that's a decade or probably more even if it's rushed. A decade plus is not soon, certainly not in the context of the current war.

1

Dreadedvegas t1_jd9grg7 wrote

Replying to ClubsBabySeal (#2,307,967)

For the AMPV they chose to lower the numbers per year so the initial order of 3000 full production vehicles kept the factory line going for a decade in case they wanted to acquire more later on because it would be easier and cheaper to just increase production or keep the line going for longer. So they decided on doing 300 vehicles / year for full production with every year the option to increase production numbers if a new order was done.

With this OMFV program until the prototypes are selected we cannot say. If one of the existing vehicles wins it can obviously go into production much quicker than a fully brand new prototype can. Those details won’t be announced until whoever wins the prototyping stage

With the MPF, the army expects its first unit to be equipped by 2025 (2 years after the winner being announced) from Low rate initial production.

Edit: the army has decided to get its shit together when it comes to procurement. MPF went from bids to prototype to production in 3 years and should realistically be used as the framework for how omfv is going to go.

3

ClubsBabySeal t1_jd9ievb wrote

Replying to Dreadedvegas (#2,308,092)

Yeah, the mpf was an impressive turnaround time. Then again it's pretty much a role that isn't adequately being filled. I can't imagine a Bradley replacement entering full production that quickly. But maybe not. Maybe it'll be so superior that they'll go full no fucks given. And yes, keeping production lines going is of huge importance. It's why we kept ordering tanks we didn't need. Thankfully congress had the wisdom to do that.

1

Dreadedvegas t1_jd9j1z5 wrote

Replying to ClubsBabySeal (#2,308,221)

With the Lynx, the Redback, and the Griffin II modified variants apart of the proposed submissions for the replacement… its pretty likely it goes into production fast since all 3 variants are in production. Only the BAE / Front Point submittals will be truly new vehicles that would have teething issues.

The army has realized its mistakes in the 2000-2014 era of DoD procurement. Both the army and the navy are showing a preference for modifications to proven systems from other partners (MPF, Constellation-class )

1

usrevenge t1_jd9mwrq wrote

Replying to CW1DR5H5I64A (#2,301,615)

We been talking about sending tanks for months.

How long does it take to throw any working m1a1 without anything classified on a ship and send it to Poland.

This could have honestly been a good rapid response scenario to train our logistics under. A hypothetical "we have nothing elsewhere in the world how fast could we help this area"

0

CW1DR5H5I64A t1_jd9qfq6 wrote

Replying to usrevenge (#2,308,612)

The actual armor is classified.

It’s not like just taking out some computers or electronics or something. The armor on an Abrams is not one solid sheet of metal, it’s multiple layers of materials, including DU and ceramics. The composition of the armor package on the Abrams is classified and not something we share, not even with our closest Allies like the British, Canadians, or Australians. So they need to be re-built to remove the classified armor components and re-fitted with an unclass alternative.

It’s is a major overhaul.

3

Monyk015 t1_jd9rnf8 wrote

Replying to Dreadedvegas (#2,303,321)

I agree with your point, but 30 tanks do make a difference. And they're not fresh conscripts, they're highly experienced professional troops that have seen combat beyong anything any American soldier had experienced in the last 60 years. They're being trained on new vehicles. But yes, we need more of them, this is true.

5

Dreadedvegas t1_jd9tw9v wrote

Replying to Monyk015 (#2,309,001)

They aren't. They're conscripts. The new brigades are being made up of replacements and reserve officers.

They are mobilized non contract soldiers otherwise known as ... conscripts.

And again 30 tanks is just 30 tanks. It won't make a difference at a strategic level. Its a conventional war. You need sheer numbers. Its not some magic bullet that the media acts when it comes to 'western weapons'.

1

Monyk015 t1_jd9vmzi wrote

Replying to Dreadedvegas (#2,309,166)

"The new brigades" being trained in Europe are, indeed, new brigades. The ones that are being trained on new equipment aren't. It wouldn't make sense to train conscripts on the best and most expensive pieces of equipment your army is gonna have, would it? Yeah, again, I agree. It's more like 110-120 modern Western tanks in total, which makes a huge difference. IFVs, attillery, everything, also counts. These are the numbers Valeriy Zalushnuy asked for and to quote "Give me this amount and I will retake Melitopol". But yes, in the grand scheme we'll need more, this is absolutely true. Not really sure why it's going so slow, it seems politically it has been decided to make russia suffer a decisive defeat. Putin is a wanted man, so negotiations are off the table. Is it possible there are actual logistical bottlenecks?

6

Dreadedvegas t1_jdajl65 wrote

Replying to Monyk015 (#2,309,269)

Its political willpower

The US alone could hand over enough equipment to transition the entire UAF into a NATO standardized army.

To fully equip these slotted bridges with what would normally be a US ABCT the US has more than enough equipment to not seriously diminish its own fighting capacity.

It just comes down to handing over the equipment without removing the DU armor, delaying allied armor sales, cannabilize national guard units [30th Armored BCT (NC), 1st Armored BCT (MN), 155th Armored BCT (MS), 278th Armored Cav (TN), 81st Stryker BCT (WA), equipment (it already is doing that for the Bradley's)

Its theorized the reason ATACMS or cluster munitions hasn't been sent to the UAF is because the army never ordered new ones post Iraq War so the inventory is 'low' in the eyes of the army. ~1000 missiles is what it theorized to be. The other theory is they want to dangle it so the Russians don't get Iranian SRBMs. Either way, its political willpower on why they haven't been provided with it.

There are other arms that could be transferred that would severely assist the UAF in the coming offense like breaching equipment and lots of it. But the army doesn't want to part ways with it to again diminish its own warfighting capacity.

If Biden wanted to hand over enough equipment to the Ukrainians to fill out 5 bridges worth of equipment, the US military could realistically do it in less than 6 months if ordered. The only realistic hurdle would be having to have Congress authorize the transfer due to the valued amount of equipment and waive the DU armor being removed.

1

BF_2 t1_jdavuf7 wrote

Replying to sieb (#2,304,233)

It's called a "proxy war." I have no doubt the Pentagon is drooling over this opportunity, especially in the way Ukraine is kicking Russia's ass. This is exactly why the US and NATO will deliver everything they can to Ukraine. I would surprised if NATO countries are NOT encouraging their warriors to join international regiments in Ukraine.

It really is exactly as Moscow is saying -- they're not just fighting Ukraine, they're fighting NATO. So f*****g what? FAFO.

I should add: I oppose war. I've never seen a war that was justified. But in this case it's Russia that isn't justified -- Russia that caused this war -- and it would be wrong not to support Ukraine's efforts to remain free.

4