Poland sends first batch of Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

Source: The Hill

Poland has delivered its first batch of Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine, Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki announced during a visit to Kyiv on Friday.

“I came here not only with a word of support. Poland, as the first European country, symbolically hands over to you, [Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky], the first four Polish Leopard tanks,” Morawiecki said, per his official Twitter account. “We will deliver more and urge our EU and NATO partners to do the same.”

Warsaw, which has pledged to provide Ukraine with 14 Leopard 2 tanks, was a key figure in the pressure campaign on Berlin last month to allow for the transfer of the German-made tanks to Ukraine.

Germany ultimately agreed to approve other countries’ requests to send the Leopard tanks to Ukraine in late January and pledged to also send 14 of its own tanks. The U.S. soon followed Berlin’s lead, announcing that it would send 31 Abrams tanks to Ukraine.

Read more: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/poland-sends-first-batch-of-leopard-2-tanks-to-ukraine/ar-AA17TzYX?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=a57534653c4c4fa3a42842fad817c56f

[republianmushroom]

1. good

[former9thward]

2. U.S. may take up to two years to get tanks to Ukraine.

Tanks might not reach Ukraine this year, US Army secretary says

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Army is weighing how to get M1 Abrams tanks to Ukraine, but they may not even arrive until next year, the service’s secretary said Thursday.

U.S. President Joe Biden announced in January he would send 31 General Dynamics Land Systems-made tanks to Ukraine, reversing course after Germany cleared the way for Europe to send its own main battle tanks.

None of the options that we’re exploring are weeks or two months,” she continued. “There are longer timelines involved, but I think there are options that are less than two years, less than a year-and-a-half.”

https://www.defensenews.com/land/2023/02/23/tanks-might-not-reach-ukraine-this-year-us-army-secretary-says/

[Evolve Dammit]

3. That is not ok. How long would it take to send to Afghanistan? We have the planes to transport 'em.

Send 'em.

[XorXor]

7. I may be wrong, but I think a lot of this has to do with having export tanks to send

These export tanks are the ones without the secret sauce armor that is on the tanks that the US military uses. So they need to either retrofit those tanks to have the export armor, build new export versions, or source them from client states that have the export variants.

Maybe someone who has more intimate knowledge of this could chime in to say if that's accurate or not.

Ukraine should be getting the M2 Bradley IVFs soon though, right? I believe they are receiving over a 100 of those by now, aye?

[Kennah]

8. You are correct. M1s have depleted uranium armor plates that have to be replaced for export.

[Evolve Dammit]

10. We're the "super-power." Seems we should/could do better???

[GB_RN]

13. It's Not About Transport...

It's training the tank and maintenance crews. It takes six months to train the tank crews just to run the tank. Another six for field maintenance training. So, just for the operating crew, you're looking at a year. Then, you also have to train the actual repair/maintenance crews on their jobs. Note: This information comes from former military guys at Daily Kos, including Kos, himself.

I was personally hoping that we were already training crews so that we could have the tanks in the field shortly. Maybe we already are, but not as far along as I'd hoped, which in my imagined time table, would have put the tanks in the field in the next couple of months. Meaning we would have started training the Ukrainian tankers shortly after Russia invaded.

[Evolve Dammit]

19. let us hope the training has been conducted at this point? Anticipatory measures. We can do this.

[Aristus]

25. For tank crewmen, field maintenance is a huge, huge responsibility.

I don't think Ukraine's tankers will have to be taught the importance of constant vehicle maintenance. They have a motivation that supercedes all temptations to be lax and slipshod: throwing the Russians out of their country.

The Russians themselves have proven to be spectacularly inept when it comes to routine maintenance of their tanks. And that lax attitude is costing them dearly.

At Fort Knox, we trained to the level of reflex and second nature that when the tank comes to a stop, we jump off, open up the track skirts and "walk" the track looking for loose end-connectors, and tightening them; adjusting track tension, if needed; checking all the engine and transmission fluids, and topping off, as needed; cleaning all the machine guns, dismounting them if necessary, checking and re-checking the radios and their pre-set frequencies; checking the storage compartments to ensure we have all of our tools on board; calling in the fuel trucks when our tanks needed gassing up; clearing clutter and cleaning mud, dirt, and dust from the turret floor; servicing the main gun after live-fire exercises, etc, etc. All of those actions have to become reflexive, or the tank will soon become a useless hunk of metal.

The constant training also serves to weld the crew into a tight, efficient team. Because without impeccable teamwork, the tank, again, will not function well.

[Karadeniz]

4. What's the problem?

[GB_RN]

14. See My Post Above...

#13. It's a training thing.

[brush]

5. The German Leopard and British Challenger tanks might be better options...

as they are much less expensive to run and the Abrams is heavier and there is a fuel problem as it runs on jet fuel, unlike most other diesel military vehicles...the British and German tanks.

Logistics will be a problem because of that. The Ukrainians might be ok with German and British tanks as they'll get there much sooner and will be up and operating. That's probably why the admin had to be persuaded to agree to sent them. Defense Sec'y Austin is of course aware of the fuel problem having commanded the Abrams in the middle east wars. Sand was also a problem as it tended to clog up the filters of the turbine engines.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

11. ....

The German Leopard and British Challenger tanks might be better options...
as they are much less expensive to run and the Abrams is heavier and there is a fuel problem as it runs on jet fuel, unlike most other diesel military vehicles...the British and German tanks.

That's not true at all:

https://www.military-today.com/tanks/m1a2_abrams.htm#:~:text=It%20is%20a%20multi-fuel%20engine%2C%20which%20can%20run,is%20heavy%20and%20bulky%2C%20it%20is%20surprisingly%20agile.

The M1A2 Abrams is powered by Avco Lycoming (now Honeywell) AGT1500 gas turbine engine, developing 1 500 horsepower. Essentially it is a modified helicopter engine, adapted for use on tanks. It is a multi-fuel engine, which can run on any grade of petrol, diesel, aviation fuel or kerosene. This engine has impressive performance and is compact for its power output. So even though the Abrams tank is heavy and bulky, it is surprisingly agile. It is faster than many other tanks and has superior cross-country performance. Also the engine is remarkably quiet. Due to this feature the Abrams is even nicknamed the Whispering Death. Its gas turbine engine has servicing intervals significantly longer than those of diesel engines, however is troublesome to maintain and has very high fuel consumption comparing with diesels. Engine can be replaced in field conditions within 30 minutes.

[GB_RN]

16. When Using Diesel, Though...

My understanding is that the gallons per mile rating suffers rather significantly. Is that accurate? Of course, it's not like it gets that great a gpm with aviation fuel/kerosene to start with (also, from what I've read).

[MarineCombatEngineer]

17. Yes, the Abrams will burn through more Diesel and service times will shorten,

but it can run on different fuels, that's all I was pointing out.

[GB_RN]

23. Right.

Wasn't trying to dispute you the fact the Abrams's engine was capable of burning different fuels. Just wanted to confirm whether or not what I'd read about its lessened efficiency on diesel was correct.

Thanks for the info, MCE.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

24. +100.

[brush]

20. Thanks for additional info. Didn't know it was multi-fuel.

So what's the better option to you, the closer Leopard and Challenger diesels or the Abrams unfortunately maybe even two years away.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

21. Definitely the Leopard and Challenger,

they're much easier to train to operate and they use the standard NATO 120 mm round so the US can supply the ammo also besides other NATO countries.

[Aristus]

26. This misconception again: that because the Abrams engine is a "jet" engine,

it only runs on jet fuel.

In actuality, the Abrams engine is multi-fuel, meaning, obviously, that it can run on many types of fuel. We tankers used to brag about the interesting variety of potential fuels for our tanks: "From jet fuel to Jack Daniels".

In actual practice, we used diesel fuel for our tanks. I don't remember ever using any other kind of fuel during my four years as a tank crewman. I don't even remember hearing about anyone using any other kind of fuel, whether the jet fuels JP-4 or JP-8, or common gasoline, which we called "mo-gas".

The Abrams uses diesel fuel, just like the Challenger, The Leopards I & II, the Leclerc, and every model of tank currently fielded by both Russian and Ukraine.

Bottom line.

On edit: the danger of dust to the air filtration system for the Abrams engine, although a valid concern, has been wildly overstated. My tank unit was deployed to the Gulf in 1991, and although we ended up not serving in combat (the ground war ended so quickly), we did undergo a five-day training exercise to get us (who trained for the terrain in Germany) accustomed to desert warfare. Although we were supposed to dismount and clean the air filtration packs at least once a day, the training schedule was so packed with tasks that we ended up only getting to do it once in five days. And although we knocked an unholy amount of dust out of the filtration packs that final day, the engine never failed us even once in the harsh Saudi desert.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

6. This makes me smile

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[Cha]

9. TY LMPV..

[OnlinePoker]

12. And Canada is sending another 4 plus a lot of 155mm ammo

That will be 8 Leopard 2's we've sent.

[Kaleva]

22. +1

[republianmushroom]

15. like it