You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments
62 points

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.

permalink
report
reply
8 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

Does russia have more air superiority? I assumed they had air superiority this entire time

permalink
report
parent
reply

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

isn’t the exported abrams famous for being a very expensive gun emplacement?

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

I bet they’re just going to dig them in to make them mobile bunkers to avoid fuel costs and that’s that

permalink
report
parent
reply

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
25 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
42 points

It also weighs 70 tonnes, 80 with the addon packages, so good luck crossing bridges.

permalink
report
parent
reply
25 points

Or a field. Or anything that doesn’t have reinforced pavement.

permalink
report
parent
reply
38 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply

news

!news@hexbear.net

Create post

Welcome to c/news! Please read the Hexbear Code of Conduct and remember… we’re all comrades here.

Rules:

-- PLEASE KEEP POST TITLES INFORMATIVE --

-- Overly editorialized titles, particularly if they link to opinion pieces, may get your post removed. --

-- All posts must include a link to their source. Screenshots are fine IF you include the link in the post body. --

-- If you are citing a twitter post as news please include not just the twitter.com in your links but also nitter.net (or another Nitter instance). There is also a Firefox extension that can redirect Twitter links to a Nitter instance: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/libredirect/ or archive them as you would any other reactionary source using e.g. https://archive.today . Twitter screenshots still need to be sourced or they will be removed --

-- Mass tagging comm moderators across multiple posts like a broken markov chain bot will result in a comm ban--

-- Repeated consecutive posting of reactionary sources, fake news, misleading / outdated news, false alarms over ghoul deaths, and/or shitposts will result in a comm ban.--

-- Neglecting to use content warnings or NSFW when dealing with disturbing content will be removed until in compliance. Users who are consecutively reported due to failing to use content warnings or NSFW tags when commenting on or posting disturbing content will result in the user being banned. --

-- Using April 1st as an excuse to post fake headlines, like the resurrection of Kissinger while he is still fortunately dead, will result in the poster being thrown in the gamer gulag and be sentenced to play and beat trashy mobile games like 'Raid: Shadow Legends' in order to be rehabilitated back into general society. --

Community stats

  • 198

    Monthly active users

  • 20K

    Posts

  • 428K

    Comments