This is what Brandon said when announcing the U.S. was sending Abrams tanks to Ukraine at a cost of about $310 million
(NBC News) Sending the tanks will “enhance Ukraine’s capacity to defend its territory and achieve its strategic objectives” because they are “the most capable tanks in the world,” Biden said.
“That’s what this is about — helping Ukraine defend and protect Ukrainian land. It is not an offensive threat to Russia, there is no offensive threat to Russia,” the president said.
Yes, they can be used for defense. They should be used for charging in and destroying Russian assets that are attacking Ukraine. Zelensky was demanding them. He lauded when they were allocated and arrived. How’s that working out?
US Abrams tanks failing in Ukraine as Russia mocks them as ‘empty tin cans’
America’s Abrams tanks are failing on the battlefield in Ukraine as Russia has labelled them “empty tin cans”.
The US donated 31 Abrams to Ukraine last year in a move heralded as a potential game changer for Kyiv in its fight against Russia.
Ukraine had been complaining that its old soviet-era tanks were getting stuck in mud, not firing and constantly breaking down. But the superior US models appear to be faring little better in practice.
Speaking to CNN, Ukrainian crews working on the tanks say the Abram M1s are not as robust as touted. “Its armour is not sufficient for this moment,” said one crew member with the callsign Joker.
“It doesn’t protect the crew. For real, today this is the war of drones. So now, when the tank rolls out, they always try to hit them.”
So, we just pissed away at least $310 million for the tanks, plus training, shipping, and rounds. One problem is that the normal armor is removed
The tanks usually come equipped with “secret” uranium armour, but the US donated modified versions with Chobham armour, the composite ceramic and steel protective material developed in Britain in the 1960s. The move was likely made out of fears the uranium armour could end up in Russian hands.
But, they would still be in danger from above even with the uranium armour, due to the use of drones.
Even CNN has noticed that the tanks, which Biden was so excited to send over due to Zelensky’s demands, are mostly useless. As one of the people in the comments say
I am also an ex-tanker on the M1A1. The warfare in Ukraine really isn’t for the tank. Tanks are built more for open land spearheading with air support. When we did training in Hohenfels which is probably similar to Ukraine. When we went against OP4 seldom did tank units did well. When tanks are confined to trails or roads and not in open areas such as big fields and deserts, they are easy prey to be picked off by anti-tank units or in Ukraine by drones. The Abrahams is a good tank but like any tank vulnerable in these conditions. The same is for the Russian army as they don’t do combined arms maneuvering well and they are being picked off as well very easily including their top tanks such at the T-90.
So, wrong weapons systems for the fight.
Ex tanker here. This is what many of us in the U.S. Armor community said would be a likely issue for Ukraine. A tank by itself, while fearsome, relies on combined arms tactics for maximum effectiveness. That means coordination with air support, artillery, infantry, etc. Don’t blame the tank for having a counter that you were ill prepared for.
Which Ukraine doesn’t have. Ukraine is supposed to be getting F-16s in the coming months. Will those also be a waste of money?
Read: Biden’s Abrams Tanks To Ukraine Are Failing »