Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

495

(post is archived)

[–] • 1 pt

Says later in the article that we're totally cool with giving up some Bradleys though. It may not be tank killer armor, but it's still armor.

[–] • 1 pt

Probably the ones best to shit and in mothballs. Even if they get good ones, they’ll be taken out pretty quickly.

[–] • 0 pt

I highly suggest the US provides the tanks for these reasons:

They can guzzle all of the fuel reserves. Ukraine should already knows why with the GTD-1000TF on the T-80, it can burn anything, but at the cost of high fuel consumption. Going from a diesel to a turbine cuts the effective range in half. All that dynamo power results in a much volume of air intake intake, making the tank engine more vulnerable to poor maintenance. Which in turn, increases dependency and stress on logistics.

As a bonus, any tank leaving US inventory is a tank that will stay out of US inventory forever, making our F-15s and nukes that more effective. The parts will have to go with the tanks as well. Also the recovery vehicles. And the fuel trucks.

[–] • 0 pt (edited )

I will also say, that throwing tanks against the Soviet "Counter-Deep" doctrine is a bad idea. Israeli tanks were worthless against it when Egypt employed it, and unlike Egypt, Russian also has air superiority.

[–] • 0 pt

I read that as ' tax payers need to step it up to furnish MIC with more shekels first ' ....

[–] • 0 pt

Nor should we. Ever. Ukraine should provide for their own defense, seeing as they've done nothing for us and will do nothing for us.

[–] • 1 pt

' but pootin bad' ad nauseum infinitum bla bla bla ...