What tank is better? (1 Viewer)

[sammy719]

Not looking for any political rant, just want to get your opinion on which tank is better?? The U.S. Abrams or the German Leppard II tank???

 

[Obee]

For this conflict in Ukraine I think the Leopard would be best.

One main reason I have read about is they are fuelled by a diesel engine, which is relatively accessible fuel to Ukraine, unlike the jet fuel that powers the M1 Abram tanks the US has pledged.

Interesting ????

John

 

[OzDigger]

The Abrams is noted for having a multi fuel turbine engine; it will run on Petrol, Diesel, Jet Fuel, Kerosine, maybe even cooking oil ^&grin

 

[sammy719]

For this conflict in Ukraine I think the Leopard would be best.

One main reason I have read about is they are fuelled by a diesel engine, which is relatively accessible fuel to Ukraine, unlike the jet fuel that powers the M1 Abram tanks the US has pledged.

Interesting ????

John

Jet fuel???

 

[lancer]

Just a thought, but the M-1 Abram has a very successful combat record, proven over multi-conflicts and years. The Leopard has been used in combat on a much more limited scale. -- Al

 

[sammy719]

On a different forum I mentioned that over half a century ago we have German tanks fighting the Russians...full circle right there.

 

[OzDigger]

Jet fuel???

There are many types of 'Jet Fuel', they are usually based on Kerosine with different additives including Petrol to various percentages. It's the main type of fuel used for jet aircraft by civilian airlines and military. Pure Piston powered aircraft usually use Aviation Fuel/Avgas which is basically (Leaded) Petrol.

 

[Combat]

They are sending 14 Leopards? I don't see how that alters the situation no matter how good these tanks are. How many tanks did Hitler send against Russia? The US tanks will take months to get there and require complex maintenance, training, and support teams.

 

[lancer]

They are sending 14 Leopards? I don't see how that alters the situation no matter how good these tanks are. How many tanks did Hitler send against Russia? The US tanks will take months to get there and require complex maintenance, training, and support teams.

Good point. A very small number of tanks, 14 Leopards, 31 M-1's, that hardly seem sufficient to turn the tables. -- Al

 

[sammy719]

From what I heard the UK sending Challenger tanks and a good amount of German tanks from other Allies that own the Leapard II

 

[Obee]

Good point. A very small number of tanks, 14 Leopards, 31 M-1's, that hardly seem sufficient to turn the tables. -- Al

The report I read states that :The goal is for Germany and its allies to provide Ukraine with a total of two battalions, or 88 tanks. Meanwhile, the US has announced it will send 31 advanced M1 Abrams tanks.

German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius cautioned that it would take about three months for the first tanks to be deployed in Ukraine.
He described the Leopard 2 as "the best battle tank in the world".


That makes a total of 119 tanks.

John

 

[Combat]

Good point. A very small number of tanks, 14 Leopards, 31 M-1's, that hardly seem sufficient to turn the tables. -- Al

There seems to be creeping escalation of the type that infected the Vietnam strategy. Incremental increases in force to sustain the effort but never enough to win it. Next up will be a call for fighter jets and then ground forces. It is difficult even to define the end game here since Ukraine cannot militarily defeat Russia. Eventually Russia will decide when it ends. That will likely take years and a regime change in Moscow like the Russian effort in Afghanistan.

 

[jazzeum]

It will take around a year for the Abrams’ to show up. Moreover, it’s apparently a very complicated tank to maintain and operate.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/25/world/europe/ukraine-tanks.html

 

[tdubel]

So in essence the plan is to send multitude of different tanks/technologies which will require a multitidue of training, support and oh by the way spare parts.......................................seems like a great plan.

Here is what I will say - if you are not going to totally annihilate or at least plan to do that to the other side, then the time is now to get off our *****, bring the Russians to the table and hammer out a solution. This has got to end.

TD

 

[Poppo]

So in essence the plan is to send multitude of different tanks/technologies which will require a multitidue of training, support and oh by the way spare parts.......................................seems like a great plan.

Here is what I will say - if you are not going to totally annihilate or at least plan to do that to the other side, then the time is now to get off our *****, bring the Russians to the table and hammer out a solution. This has got to end.

TD

The point is that to bring the russians to the table, you have to defeat them on the field of battle first...Othewise, all negociation is pure illusion..This is the point of NATO. Winning the battle and negociations are complementary, not alternative..

 

[jazzeum]

So in essence the plan is to send multitude of different tanks/technologies which will require a multitidue of training, support and oh by the way spare parts.......................................seems like a great plan.

Here is what I will say - if you are not going to totally annihilate or at least plan to do that to the other side, then the time is now to get off our *****, bring the Russians to the table and hammer out a solution. This has got to end.

TD

Aside from the fact that you don’t reward aggression, and this aggression goes back to 2014, the Russians have shown no inclination — ever — to negotiate in good faith. If anything, by their actions they have shown that they wish to suppress Ukraine, its people and culture. This is not a new phenomenon; Stalin, during the Holodomor, was responsible for killing millions of people, around three million or so.

Moreover, what would they negotiate about exactly. Anything that leaves them in possession of the Donbas (and probably Crimea) is unacceptable to the Ukrainian people and it is up to the Ukrainian people to determine whether to negotiate or not.

As an aside, please disregard the “like.” I hit the wrong button by accident.

 

[Poppo]

Aside from the fact that you don’t reward aggression, and this aggression goes back to 2014, the Russians have shown no inclination — ever — to negotiate in good faith. If anything, by their actions they have shown that they wish to suppress Ukraine, its people and culture. This is not a new phenomenon; Stalin, during the Holodomor, was responsible for killing millions of people, around three million or so.

Moreover, what would they negotiate about exactly. Anything that leaves them in possession of the Donbas (and probably Crimea) is unacceptable to the Ukrainian people and it is up to the Ukrainian people to determine whether to negotiate or not.

As an aside, please disregard the “like.” I hit the wrong button by accident.

All you say is very correct and I would add that, speaking of real politik, even people who don't care about ukrainians, they should understand that the Nato do this to preserve the international law trampled on by Russia. If it were to let it slide, a Pandora's box would open in which any state that possesses the nuclear weapon could invade its neighbor with any excuse (perhaps the next Taiwan?), and the world would become an ugly and dangerous place to live. We pay the bill, but in reality, Ukrainians are fighting for our freedom.

 

[Poppo]

Aside from the fact that you don’t reward aggression, and this aggression goes back to 2014, the Russians have shown no inclination — ever — to negotiate in good faith. If anything, by their actions they have shown that they wish to suppress Ukraine, its people and culture. This is not a new phenomenon; Stalin, during the Holodomor, was responsible for killing millions of people, around three million or so.

Moreover, what would they negotiate about exactly. Anything that leaves them in possession of the Donbas (and probably Crimea) is unacceptable to the Ukrainian people and it is up to the Ukrainian people to determine whether to negotiate or not.

As an aside, please disregard the “like.” I hit the wrong button by accident.

Furthermore, in 1991 Ukraine handed over its nuclear arsenal,rather naively we can say today, with the assurances of Russia and the United States that they would guarantee its sovereignty and independence…if it hadn't, it probably wouldn't have been invaded today.

 

[mikemiller1955]

if an American Abrams was disabled and captured by Russian troops...
is our technology so advanced...
is there any concern they would scrutinize and replicate it on their tanks?

 

[jazzeum]

Furthermore, in 1991 Ukraine handed over its nuclear arsenal,rather naively we can say today, with the assurances of Russia and the United States that they would guarantee its sovereignty and independence…if it hadn't, it probably wouldn't have been invaded today.

That proves that 30 years is a long time and that you can’t trust the words of other governments.