Russia - threadbanned users in OP

The last time Germany sided with Russia - it certainly didn't work out the best

You'd think the feckers would understand this by now.

That said Germany has been a instigator in no less than three potentially civilisation ending events - including the end of the Roman empire and much later the first and second World Wars. Here's hoping they're not in on the third fourth.

CNN had a report on the Russian media just now. The level of gaslighting is off the scale - viewers are told the 'special operation' is going brilliantly and to plan, Russia has had very few troop losses, the soldiers are behaving impeccably and the only people carrying out atrocities are the Ukrainians (it actually sounds worse than Nazi propaganda in WW2).

I don’t think anyone is arguing that Ukraine couldn’t field or operate an Abrams; the argument is that it is too different for them to be able to do it in any kind of reasonable timeframe with any kind of reasonable efficiency. The same argument would hold for any military which doesn’t already operate turbine driven 4-man tanks.

As a longer term initiative it would be great; but I don’t see how it would help them over the coming weeks and months. That’s where more standard combustion engined tanks might come in such as the Leopard. Also any and all Soviet era tanks should be supplied even if only in small quantities to start with.

In any case I think the focus on tanks is a bit of a distraction; what they really need are long range artillery systems and guided munitions of whatever type might be available. Or armoured vehicles which offer simple point and shoot weapons systems to support dismounted troops and provide transport. Also anti-air and anti-drone systems etc.

A few hundred extra howitzers and trucks to tow them I suspect Ukraine would make excellent use out of; and they ain’t that complicated to use especially when everyone and their dog has a drone to adjust fire and vast tracts of open country with low likelihoods of collateral damage.

Whether it stays conventional or not a conflict between Russia and the USA is an international conflict. The idea that the US would roll tanks and troops into Ukraine and just allow Russian assets in the Black Sea/Belarus/Russia to attack them uncontested is kinda silly.

One exception might be small numbers of special forces engaging in small unit operations with only US intelligence support. Which could be happening right now for all we know (although I don't believe it is); it was certainly happening in the Donbass before the invasion.

Why should you need to be convinced? I mean if anything it should be easier to justify giving Ukraine equipment which isn't battle ready; no? I bet they would take them even just to start getting their mechanics/trainers familiar with them as compared to Soviet gear.

Also German industry has stated they have some 50 tanks and 60 IFVs they can recommission and start providing to Ukraine within weeks; but Germany won't authorise these transactions. Granted Ukraine needs help sooner than 6 weeks but they also need to assume Russia is still going to be squatting in their country for the foreseeable future.

They will be facing certain death at the hands of the Russians , disappeared to face sham trials in Russia for crimes committed against Russia

It's horrific but probably true. Surrender is a death sentence. But what choice, no relief, no supplies, no hope of a breakthrough. Its just a sh1tty situation all round.

Getting into armchair general territory here when I'm not even one and should leave it to others, but that does seem a waste of their military's time and resources (messing with some old Western weapons that they don't know how to maintain and that may/may not work for them in battle, just to learn about them?). Assuming this could drag on, would seem more logical to send some reservists/new people if they can be spared (possibly? Ukraine has basically called up the entire fighting age male population?) out to Europe or US to do military training using some of these bigger, more complex Western weapons [kind of things people here say should be sent "now" - tanks, artillery systems, large air defence systems, maybe even some aircraft], or get the training to become part of the big infrastructure that is no doubt needed in the background away from fighting to keep them fueled up/armed and working well. Then such weapons could be supplied and make a difference.

There does (according to the media) seem to be disagreements about feasibility between the German govt. and arms makers over some of those heavier weapons like old tanks/tracked fighting vehicles (what needs to be done to actually get the equipment ready + how long it will take, the actual ability of Ukrainians to use and maintain it etc. without a lot of training). Don't know who to believe there really.

Some of the posting here about Germany gets ridiculous and hyperbolic + leaves a bad taste. Someone just tuning in from Mars reading along would think they were allied with Putin/Russia and invading Ukraine, or responsible for Russia's decision to do this.

I'm also thinking back to US strategy when they armed the Taliban back in the 80's to fight the Soviets. They had the option to arm them with M16s and the load of other US gear, but instead they opted to give them a load of AK47s and other Soviet-specific gear. The thinking was that if the Taliban succeeded, they would end up capturing Soviet ammo, which would be compatible with the gear they were carrying.

So, my guess is that giving Ukraine Soviet design weapons & tanks will give them the option to use any ammo stores or equipment that they can capture on the field while fighting.

Oh that too for sure! You want them to just jump into these newly supplied tanks and drive them off from day one. The ammo thing is a secondary benefit, but a substantial one since ammo supply is a challenge, and grabbing abandoned / captured Russian gear is a handy and quick source if compatible with what you're using.

It would make sense sure; but your suggestion would require a political decision to supply particular systems in sufficient quantities. That doesn't seem to be forthcoming. My point was in lieu of such political decisions surely some initial familiarisation could take place; even if only on small numbers of non-combat ready vehicles or systems.

I mean if you're Ukraine with a relatively large defence industry who has had most of its infrastructure destroyed; you probably have a bunch of engineers and technicians who could be spared to work on new/different projects. Especially if they could do so outside of Ukraine and in relative safety.

And furthermore if nobody will supply Ukraine with combat-ready and working heavy equipment; I suspect they would take non-combat ready heavy equipment if it was possible. Worst case scenario it's left sitting in storage somewhere; but it could make a difference if the conflict drags.

It (my suggestion & some ideas in your post) doesn't seem to require a political decision the Western media or hence a joe soap like me would know of at the moment.

Ideally let Russia find out about it when this heavier + more difficult to use western stuff starts shipping (probably could not keep it secret that long I suppose).

i.e When the weapons appear in Ukraine with soldiers able to deploy them, use them well in battle and maintain them etc. (Ukrainians, not Western soldiers/"advisors" about which there does seem to be a definite political decision made not to use here, for reasons there's been much arguing about on thread + I won't start going on about!).