UK to supply tanks to Ukraine as Russian missiles hit Kyiv

[Omaha Steve]

Source: AP

By SYLVIA HUI and HANNA ARHIROVA 42 minutes ago

LONDON (AP) — U.K. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak on Saturday promised to provide tanks and artillery systems to Ukraine, amid renewed missile attacks by Moscow targeting the Ukrainian capital and other cities in the nearly year-long war.

Sunak made the pledge to provide Challenger 2 tanks and other artillery systems after speaking to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on Saturday, the British leader’s Downing Street office said in a statement.

It didn’t say when the tanks would be delivered or how many. British media have reported that four British Army Challenger 2 main battle tanks will be sent to Eastern Europe immediately, with eight more to follow shortly after, without citing sources.

Zelenskyy tweeted his thanks to Sunak on Saturday “for the decisions that will not only strengthen us on the battlefield, but also send the right signal to other partners.”



Read more: https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-kyiv-vitali-klitschko-explosions-401d8116d95d67e3afbe8de8eb8cf65a?utm_source=homepage&utm_medium=TopNews&utm_campaign=position_01

[Lonestarblue]

1. The West should have sent these tanks months ago. Parceling out equipment has meant

more deaths and destruction in Ukraine. This war needs to end before there is nothing left of Ukraine to save. Russia itself is not worth saving as a country. All they export is brutality, theft of priceless cultural artifacts, and theft of Ukrainian children they’ve sent to Russia for adoption. It’s long past time to try Putin and his generals in absentia for horrendous war crimes. The minute one of them steps outside Russia, he should be arrested and sent to The Hague for trial.

[IthinkThereforeIAM]

2. +1...

... eom.

[3auld6phart]

4. Agree

100%.

[Irish_Dem]

5. The West is drawing out this war to let Ukraine destroy the Russian military.

It costs the west a very small portion of their military budgets, and no loss of lives for NATO.
For a small price we can ensure that it will take a decade for Russia to build up their military.

Of course the Ukrainians are paying the ultimate price in terms of loss of life,
and the torture, rape, murder of their children. The destruction of their country, etc.

[paleotn]

10. Can't argue with that.

[GB_RN]

14. I Don't Know About The Challenger...

But training to be competent just to use the M1-Abrams tank is a months-long process. That doesn’t include the training for field repairs. Overall training is around a year, as I understand it.

Even if we decided from relatively early on to supply the M1 to the Ukrainians, the earliest we could have gotten the Ukrainians battle ready with the Abrams (again, not including field repairs), they’d likely have been sidelined by what I’ve seen referred to as “General Mud” in the Fall. 70 tons of tank sinks in (Ukrainian) mud quite rapidly, as we all witnessed when the Russians tried advancing through the Spring mud. So realistically, even an early decision would put them on the field now. Again, that would be without field repair training…or at least that being incomplete.

If we’ve been training the Ukrainian tanker crews on M1 operations in secret, we could still get them deployed shortly, but repairs would require sending the tanks, by rail, back to Poland, as we couldn’t send our own troops into Ukraine without risk of escalation. So tanks would be offline for extended periods of time, for what should be simple field repairs.

While I don’t know all this personally, as I’m not now, nor ever have been part of an M1 crew, I’m relaying information from guys over on Daily Kos who were.

[Chainfire]

3. It is inevitable that, with time, that the scope off the war ratchets up.

The longer this war continues, the more dangerous it becomes. We are living what we have feared most of this boomers life; a war between Russia and NATO. Putin can't back down, Ukraine can't give in and NATO can't stand by and watch. The old "domino principle" comes back to haunt us again. Round and round we go, where we stop, nobody knows.

I fully support sending of any means to help Ukraine defend its freedom, but I hate to see where this is heading. We are watching a train wreck in slow motion.

[Owl]

16. Agreed. K&R

[Bayard]

6. I am afraid of what the newly-empowered idiot caucus will do

I'm thinking they will cut off all funding to Ukraine. It certainly helps to have the UK and others' contributions, but without us, the prospects are not good.

[Ford_Prefect]

7. FWIW Sunak has been long on promises and short on veritas since he took office. I would not place

much faith in this one either. When the training begins and vehicles arrive on the battlefield in numbers enough to affect the war I'll believe him.

Brexit Britain has a double standard when dealing with Putin and his interests no matter who sits in the PM's chair.

[republianmushroom]

8. like it

[blue-wave]

9. Now let's get them some

Abrams and Leopards, ASAP!!

[paleotn]

11. They can't afford the M1A1 or 2.

The Lamborghini of main battle tanks. They're superbly powerful, but only we have pockets deep enough to afford them. In essence, the Abrams is an armored jet engine with a turret attached. It literally runs on a turbo-fan jet engine. Expensive to maintain by only highly trained maintainers. A nightmare to keep fueled.

Leopard 2's and Challenger 2's are the ticket. Much better choice and both use the the same NATO standard ammunition.

[Ford_Prefect]

21. The Abrams runs on Jet fuel and has an enormous servicing footprint which

requires a complex support logistics chain.

[paleotn]

12. Good news.

Along with Bradly's as heavily armed troop carriers and AMX-10's for armored recon, they may be ready for offensive operations once the mud dries this spring. BUT...12 Challengers and a handful of Leopard 2's isn't going to be enough. They need more.

[Aristus]

13. Not to mention, logistics in the realm of ammunition re-supply is going to be a nightmare.

Ukraine's Russian-built T-72-series tanks take 125mm smooth-bore two-piece ammunition for their auto-loaded tanks. British-made Challenger II's take two-piece 120mm rifled-bore ammunition, and the German Leopards take single-cartridge 120mm smoothbore ammunition. And that's before mentioning that each model of tank can fire several different kinds of ammunition designed for different threat-level targets.

Even the best ordnance sergeant would hang his head in despair over the problem of getting each kind of ammunition to the units fielding the appropriate tanks.

[paleotn]

15. The devil is always in the logistics details.

Particularly a military made up of old Russian equipage, Eastern Bloc castoffs (at least they conform to the Russian standard) and now a little kit the western democracies can spare. They'll just have to make it work. So far, it's about enough quality equipment to outfit one combined arms battalion. They need more. A lot more. I know it's not intentional, but it's as though we're just keeping their chins above the water. Not enough to actually win. Better than drowning I guess. Maybe.

[cstanleytech]

17. I wonder if the US should provide the Ukraine with THAAD.

[ColinC]

18. I would provide ukraine with nukes if i were in charge

but it's probably a good thing i'm not.

[cstanleytech]

19. Nukes are an offensive weapon THADD is a defensive weapon system.

[ColinC]

20. Like I said

It’s a good thing I’m not in charge