Equipment on the way to the Ukraine

[Allen]

440 units. 60 of them are Bradly tanks not M1 Abrams as so many news sites state. From what I've read the Bradly will serve them better. The tanks take a crew of 3 to operate vs 4 for the Abrams, less training time and depending upon variant the Bradly can transport 6 additional soldiers and has a large loading gate that opens in the rear.

From what all I've read the Bradly is better is some ways over the Abrams but the main thing is the Abrams takes many months of training to fully utilize the vehicle and not be a target.

https://news.yahoo.com/440-units-us-military-equipment-210821417.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall

[lyman]

well,

if we had just taken the equipment with us when we left Afghanistan,,

[Allen]

well,

if we had just taken the equipment with us when we left Afghanistan,,

Makes you wonder who's going to end up with all of that.

[bruce]

Do not see any point in giving Ukraine the Bradley. It will not take a hit from anything significant. The Abrams is much more capable of having an extreme effect on the battlefield. Training would be required, but the Ukranians are smart people, they would adapt and learn rapidly. Sincerely. bruce.

[Allen]

Do not see any point in giving Ukraine the Bradley. It will not take a hit from anything significant. The Abrams is much more capable of having an extreme effect on the battlefield. Training would be required, but the Ukranians are smart people, they would adapt and learn rapidly. Sincerely. bruce.

From what I read it takes US months to train and up to a year for the Abrams. The Ukrainians need something they can use now. There may be some language barriers too.

For this same reason it is impractical to send them F-16's. A better choice I think would be the SU-25's and 29's that Poland and others have offered. This is what the Ukrainians fly now. They could use these planes today and not have to train for months down the road.

Bradley tanks:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/craigho...aine-and-nato/

[dogtag]

Maybe the removal of secret sensitive stuff from the Tanks
(don't want it to fall into Russia's hands) makes it less effective ?
Stuff is so complicated these days that maybe removing one
thing causes everything else to stop working.

[Allen]

Maybe the removal of secret sensitive stuff from the Tanks
(don't want it to fall into Russia's hands) makes it less effective ?
Stuff is so complicated these days that maybe removing one
thing causes everything else to stop working.

That's really the way it should be. If we aren't going to install remote controlled deactivation systems in our equipment which so often gets into the wrong hands we need something of this nature.

Whatever the case the Ukrainians are being trained in Germany on these tanks by Americans. So what is left that the tank can do the teachers know about it and is transferred.

Better than what they have.

More than what they have.

Better than the Russian tanks.

Double as troop carriers.

No extended training times.

Proven U.S. vehicles.

Free.

[bruce]

Re: Bradley. So ... neither fish nor fowl. Guess if it has a tube on top to pop 62's, 72's and the "terminator" then possibly the Bradley will be of some use. Hopefully putin and his cannon fodder army are not any better than what saddam fielded. Just hard to take the Bradley seriously. It seems to be a APC or maybe a IFV with delusions of grandure. Can it even withstand a RPG? Is it survivable for use in Ukraine. May be a way though to off load the Bradley while it has some utility so that a better vehicle can be developed and fielded. Regardless, glory to Ukraine! Sincerely. bruce.

[Allen]

Re: Bradley. So ... neither fish nor fowl. Guess if it has a tube on top to pop 62's, 72's and the "terminator" then possibly the Bradley will be of some use. Hopefully putin and his cannon fodder army are not any better than what saddam fielded. Just hard to take the Bradley seriously. It seems to be a APC or maybe a IFV with delusions of grandure. Can it even withstand a RPG? Is it survivable for use in Ukraine. May be a way though to off load the Bradley while it has some utility so that a better vehicle can be developed and fielded. Regardless, glory to Ukraine! Sincerely. bruce.

They can't be too bad. We still use them and made 6,700 of them so if they fail in the Ukraine they will be doing something way different than us. They are faster than the Abrams and weigh half as much. Remember, we have to deliver them.

From what all I see most of the tank battles going on now are in cities and congested areas where these type tanks would work. Not many open fields or deserts like WW2 battles that I've seen where the larger tanks would be beneficial.

We'll find out soon about the Bradley's as they will be compared to the Leopard2's when put to work.

[bruce]

Re: Bradley/cities. Agree. Out in the open, imagine the life expectancy of a Bradley would be about as long as it took for a decent crew to put a round on target. Ridiculous I know, but I keep thinking about that scene in Kelly's Heros, when Odd Ball catches that Tiger from behind and pumps paint shells into him, ... then finally gets a hot round into that thing and blows it sky high. Very much hope and pray that the battlefield conditions will favor the Bradley ... and the Leopard2. Just do so much wish the Bradley was better protected from the junk it will face. Sincerely. bruce.

[Allen]

Where do you draw the line? These aren't as "bullet Proof" as the Abrams but aren't exactly cardboard boxes either and it is claimed that they are capable of out shooting the Abrams.

The Ukrainians can use these and the Leopard2's soon vs a year from now on the Abrams. They may not have a year.

They don't have our F-22's and F-35's either.

Fact is we are supplying a very corrupt communist non-Nato country to fight what is basically a civil war and supplying more than the rest of the world combined (what I've read) so I think we are doing pretty good.

I'm sure Zelenskyy will be glad to get them.

[bruce]

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. We armed and used communist in WWII to destroy a common enemy. Sincerely. bruce.

[Allen]

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. We armed and used communist in WWII to destroy a common enemy. Sincerely. bruce.

Thanks for that reminder and comparison.

[rayg]

Yes but one friend then has become the enemy now!

[bruce]

Re: Friends... real and otherwise. Have always thought Patton had the right idea. The Allies should have taken all the Germans and all their equipment, lined up with them and then launched WWII.2 against the Russians. It would have been an ideal time to attack. End result would have been better for everyone. Sincerely. bruce.