The new weapon the U.S. is giving Ukraine isn't a tank, but it is a problem for Russia

[blue-wave]

Bradley armored vehicles provide the capabilities that are required for pushing the Russians out of Ukraine.

Military Twitter has been ablaze for days debating whether the armed and armored vehicles the U.S. and its allies recently decided to send Ukraine constitute tanks, which could be read as a significant escalation in the war against Russia. The debate centers on the precise form and function of the new fighting vehicles — but it misses the point. 

It’s true that neither the American-made Bradley nor the AMX-10RC and Marder vehicles being chipped in by France and Germany, respectively, fit the technical definition of a tank, which is generally defined as combining a tracked hull with a turret containing a large howitzer-caliber gun. (The guns on the Bradley and Marder are smaller-caliber, while the AMX is wheeled rather than tracked.) But much more significantly, they provide the kind of armored maneuver capabilities that are required for pushing the Russians out of Ukraine.

Until recently, NATO states had been reluctant to give Ukraine their domestically designed heavy armored fighting vehicles due to a perception that they’re offensive weapons of aggression that Russia could jump on to broaden the scope of the war. But deadlier and more technically advanced weapons like HIMARS rocket artillery and PzH-2000 armored howitzers have already been transferred to Ukraine without triggering the Russian blowback many in the West feared. 

Now the war is about to enter its second year. Through last summer the focus was on helping Ukraine defend against Russian advances, which it’s done admirably. But to end the conflict, Ukraine needs to go fully on the offensive to drive Russia out.


Full Article: https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/ukraine-russia-war-sees-bradley-non-tanks-enter-fray-rcna64963

[rubbersole]

2. And nasty.

[TomSlick]

6. Bradleys are much more than the old armored personnel carriers. It ain't just a battle taxi.

They are infantry fighting vehicles with the fire power to support infantry when they dismount.

[link:

|

[Aristus]

3. Tell you what: if we give the M1 Abrams-series tank to Ukraine,

it's game over for Russia.

[blue-wave]

4. Oh, I agree

Waiting for the day when.

[Aristus]

5. I was an M1A1 tank crewman in the Army.

It's an astonishing piece of machinery. When I was in the Gulf in 1991, even though my unit didn't serve in combat, our tank exceeded its design tolerances for the harsh terrain and climate time and time again. Couple the Abrams with Ukrainian vengeful fury, and it will mean a fight for the ages.

[Grins]

9. Nice; but Bradley's and tanks, and even artillery need...

….AIR SUPERIORITY! They need combat aircraft like the F-16 and F-18.

The A-10 is a great tank killer and ground support aircraft, but even it is vulnerable to Russian fighters.

This sentence:

“NATO states had been reluctant to give …heavy armored fighting vehicles due to a perception …that Russia could…broaden the scope of the war.”

I think we passed that point some time ago.