Ukraine

[ZenMaster]

I can read Putin's mind. He expected easy push through Ukraine and for Ukraine to roll over. Putin also has a longing for the Soviet Union.

And it's not just me who believes it but the Ukrainian Caucus co-chair. Here's a source that is close & dear to conservatives: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/put...-co-chair-says
Other experts: https://www.politico.com/news/magazi...perts-00011652

Childish and propaganda, too weak.

Your opinion is aligned with the Ukrainian Caucus co-chair and politicians like Lindsey Graham, it should be something for you to reflect on. It's Iraq all over again with people believing every lie told to them.

[bladefd]

Childish and propaganda, too weak.

Your opinion is aligned with the Ukrainian Caucus co-chair and politicians like Lindsey Graham, it should be something for you to reflect on. It's Iraq all over again with people believing every lie told to them.

Has Putin ever come out during a speech and said "I have a longing for Soviet union"? No. He is a smart man as a former colonel of the kgb. Why would he announce to the world his plan or desire? He is not a fool.

[Nanners]

Racist biden started the war by shutting down American pipelines and lifting the sanctions for Russian pipelines that Mr. Donald Trump put. Racist biden funded the war, and then took 10%.

Biden did start the war, but he started it back in 2014 as part of Obamas administration. Back in 2014, Biden was in charge of the Obama admins Ukraine policy, and this is when the CIA orchestrated a coup that ultimately replaced Ukraines democratically elected (pro Russian) govt with a western aligned puppet govt. When Ukraines western aligned puppet govt took power, they immediately stared a civil war with the goal of ethnically cleansing Russian speaking Ukrainians living in the eastern regions of the country.

When Russia talks about "de-nazification", they are specifically referring to Azov Battalion - a wing of Ukraines armed forces that proudly wears Nazi symbols (despite the fact that their biggest funder is Igor Kolomoisky - a jewish billionaire with citizenship in Israel and Cyprus), and has killed over 14k Russian speaking Ukrainian citizens even since their ethnic cleansing campaign began ~9 years ago. Russia had no reason to invade Ukraine until after the US (and Biden specifically) overthrew Ukraines democratically elected government and replaced it with a regime that is deeply antagonistic to Russia and violent toward their own Russian speaking citizens.

[bladefd]

US is sending the M1 Abrams tanks to form an entire Ukrainian division of 30. These top-of-the-line tanks will wreak havoc on Russian forces. M1 Abrams are the most battle-tested main tanks and very difficult to destroy.

Germany, Poland are both sending Leopard 2 tanks, which are 80s tech but still powerful.

This is going to escalate things in Ukraine. It's going to be hell for Russian forces in the coming months.

[Nanners]

US is sending the M1 Abrams tanks to form an entire Ukrainian division of 30. These top-of-the-line tanks will wreak havoc on Russian forces. M1 Abrams are the most battle-tested main tanks and very difficult to destroy.

Germany, Poland are both sending Leopard 2 tanks, which are 80s tech but still powerful.

This is going to escalate things in Ukraine. It's going to be hell for Russian forces in the coming months.

Exactly what opponents has the M1 been "battle tested" against? Saddams "army" during desert storm? The Taliban in Afghanistan?

The M1 and the Leopard are both 50 year old designs, which means Russia and the rest of the world have had ~50 years to develop counter measures.

These tanks will be completely vulnerable from above... because unlike the US middle eastern wars, a formidable hostile power controls the skies above the battlefield. Obviously it would be difficult to destroy an M1 when you are a cave dwelling shepherd with an ak-47 and the US airforce is bombing you every day... theres no tank on this planet that is particularly difficult to destroy for any top tier military that has air supremacy.

Also, when was the last time that tanks played a decisive or even moderately important role in any military conflict anywhere? World War 2?

[bladefd]

Exactly what opponents has the M1 been "battle tested" against? Saddams "army" during desert storm? The Taliban in Afghanistan?

The M1 and the Leopard are both 50 year old designs, which means Russia and the rest of the world have had ~50 years to develop counter measures.

These tanks will be completely vulnerable from above... because unlike the US middle eastern wars, a formidable hostile power controls the skies above the battlefield. Obviously it would be difficult to destroy an M1 when you are a cave dwelling shepherd with an ak-47 and the US airforce is bombing you every day... theres no tank on this planet that is particularly difficult to destroy for any top tier military that has air supremacy.

Also, when was the last time that tanks played a decisive or even moderately important role in any military conflict anywhere? World War 2?

They are the most battle-tested of the modern tanks across the world. They destroyed T-80s against Saddam's army. Perhaps not tested against T-90s afaik, but still superior to the T-90s. You are welcome to choose the inferior T-90.

M1 has been upgraded multiple times over the years. They are sending the latest A2 variant that we sell to countries like South Korea, Poland, Germany, Japan, etc. It's not 50yrs old technology lol.

Tanks depend on what the terrain is like. Ukraine is hilly, has plenty of forest cover and also some urban settings. Works well for tanks.

[Nanners]

They are the most battle-tested of the modern tanks across the world. They destroyed T-80s against Saddam's army. Perhaps not tested against T-90s afaik, but still superior to the T-90s. You are welcome to choose the inferior T-90.

M1 has been upgraded multiple times over the years. They are sending the latest A2 variant that we sell to countries like South Korea, Poland, Germany, Japan, etc. It's not 50yrs old technology lol.

Tanks depend on what the terrain is like. Ukraine is hilly, has plenty of forest cover and also some urban settings. Works well for tanks.

lol... so when you said they were the most battle tested, you were just talking about how they spent a couple days blowing through the Iraqi millitary during desert storm? When the M1 was going up against Saddams 1960s soviet tanks, they were doing it with full US air support and zero threat from any enemy aircraft whatsoever ... In Ukraine the M1 wont have any air support, they will be sitting ducks for the enemy aircraft that has controlled the sky for the past year.

Saying the M1 is the most battle tested of modern tanks is like saying someone is the most retarded poster on ISH... no modern tanks have seen any meaningful battle testing (for a lot of reasons, most importantly because tanks are obsolete for almost every modern combat situation), and everyone on ISH is retarded... no doubt you are the M1 of this discussion board

Tanks are useless in all forms of terrain if they are totally vulnerable from the air. Also, if Ukrainian territory works well for tanks, then why havent Russian or Ukrainian tanks played any kind of meaningful role in the conflict thus far?

[bladefd]

lol... so when you said they were the most battle tested, you were just talking about how they spent a couple days blowing through the Iraqi millitary during desert storm? When the M1 was going up against Saddams 1960s soviet tanks, they were doing it with full US air support and zero threat from any enemy aircraft whatsoever ... In Ukraine the M1 wont have any air support, they will be sitting ducks for the enemy aircraft that has controlled the sky for the past year.

Saying the M1 is the most battle tested of modern tanks is like saying someone is the most retarded poster on ISH... no modern tanks have seen any meaningful battle testing (for a lot of reasons, most importantly because tanks are obsolete for almost every modern combat situation), and everyone on ISH is retarded... no doubt you are the M1 of this discussion board

Tanks are useless in all forms of terrain if they are totally vulnerable from the air. Also, if Ukrainian territory works well for tanks, then why havent Russian or Ukrainian tanks played any kind of meaningful role in the conflict thus far?

What other wars has there been in recent times that lots of M1A2 tanks were involved? Wars don't happen every other month to have many opportunities to test out tanks. In the conflicts that have involved M1A2 Abrams, the fact is that not a single M1A2 Abrams has been destroyed by enemy fire through its 30+ years of service. Russia's latest tank is the T-14, but they don't have many of those. The bulk of Russian tanks are the latest variant of T-90, which Ukrainian military has destroyed plenty of. T-80s as well. What other tank has been more battle-tested and been successful?

"Tanks are useless in all forms of terrain if they are vulnerable from air"? You are a complete moron. Main Battle tanks don't travel alone. They travel with infantry, other armored vehicles (both include anti-aircraft capabilities).

Thousands of tanks have been deployed & used in Ukraine by Russia. Over a total of a thousand tanks have also been lost in Ukraine (more tanks lost by Russia than Ukraine btw). If that is not a meaningful role, I don't know what is. You are truly an idiot.

[Nanners]

What other wars has there been in recent times that lots of M1A2 tanks were involved? Wars don't happen every other month to have many opportunities to test out tanks. In the conflicts that have involved M1A2 Abrams, the fact is that not a single M1A2 Abrams has been destroyed by enemy fire through its 30+ years of service. Russia's latest tank is the T-14, but they don't have many of those. The bulk of Russian tanks are the latest variant of T-90, which Ukrainian military has destroyed plenty of. T-80s as well. What other tank has been more battle-tested and been successful?

Lets remember how we got here. You claimed that the M1 was "battle tested", I challenged your claim by asking exactly what challenges the tank had faced, you responded with "saddams army" (lol)... and now with this comment you are basically agreeing with my original point like the mental midget that you are

"Tanks are useless in all forms of terrain if they are vulnerable from air"? You are a complete moron. Main Battle tanks don't travel alone. They travel with infantry, other armored vehicles (both include anti-aircraft capabilities).

LMAO at an absolute simple jack like you thinking anyone else is stupid

It doesnt matter how many infantry or other armored vehicles travel with these tanks, they will still get wrecked from the sky (which Russia has controlled since day 1). I dare you to prove me wrong, show me how Ukrainian infantry/vehicles are taking down the Russian drones and other aircraft that have ruled the sky over Ukraine for the past year.

Thousands of tanks have been deployed & used in Ukraine by Russia. Over a total of a thousand tanks have also been lost in Ukraine (more tanks lost by Russia than Ukraine btw). If that is not a meaningful role, I don't know what is. You are truly an idiot.

Prove it

If fighting has been so fierce that "thousands" of tanks have been lost, how exactly are 30 M1s going to shift the tide in any meaningful way? Are you seriously dumb enough to believe that the M1 is so strong that its not only impervious to all air attacks but it can also wipe out Russian tanks at a 10:1 or 20:1 ratio? Keep in mind these M1s are going to be crewed by some ukrainians with overnight training and not the US tank crews who have spent years practicing with this tank.

[Patrick Chewing]

Oh look we have a war in Ukraine and now a war in Iran. Fun times!

[bladefd]

Lets remember how we got here. You claimed that the M1 was "battle tested", I challenged your claim by asking exactly what challenges the tank had faced, you responded with "saddams army" (lol)... and now with this comment you are basically agreeing with my original point like the mental midget that you are



LMAO at an absolute simple jack like you thinking anyone else is stupid

It doesnt matter how many infantry or other armored vehicles travel with these tanks, they will still get wrecked from the sky (which Russia has controlled since day 1). I dare you to prove me wrong, show me how Ukrainian infantry/vehicles are taking down the Russian drones and other aircraft that have ruled the sky over Ukraine for the past year.



Prove it

If fighting has been so fierce that "thousands" of tanks have been lost, how exactly are 30 M1s going to shift the tide in any meaningful way? Are you seriously dumb enough to believe that the M1 is so strong that its not only impervious to all air attacks but it can also wipe out Russian tanks at a 10:1 or 20:1 ratio? Keep in mind these M1s are going to be crewed by some ukrainians with overnight training and not the US tank crews who have spent years practicing with this tank.

It's not M1 alone but also Leopards, which can matchup with a T-80/T-90. There will be multiple battalions of them (1 of M1A2 but multiple of Leopards). Ukraine is fighting primarily a defensive war, and these battalions will help hold territory. I highly doubt they will let the tanks sit there in the open without anti-aircraft support nearby at the ready.

Russia is pretty much in a mess anyways. They have lost a lot of soldiers, tanks and don't have much territory control to show for it 10 months into the war.

[Nanners]

It's not M1 alone but also Leopards, which can matchup with a T-80/T-90. There will be multiple battalions of them (1 of M1A2 but multiple of Leopards). Ukraine is fighting primarily a defensive war, and these battalions will help hold territory. I highly doubt they will let the tanks sit there in the open without anti-aircraft support nearby at the ready.

Russia is pretty much in a mess anyways. They have lost a lot of soldiers, tanks and don't have much territory control to show for it 10 months into the war.

This isnt WW2, there arent going to be any meaningful tank vs tank battles... one of those Iranian drones can knock out a M1 or Leopard for 1/1000th the cost, and the hohols have no choice but to put the tanks out in the open where they can be easily annihilated (aka they are going to operate virtually anywhere on Ukrainian soil), or hide them and hold them back from combat (and thus render them entirely useless).

Russia doesnt give a shit about territory, anybody who has spent more than 5 mins studying the Russian military knows that Russia has been exceptionally successful in their military conflicts (they managed to beat the full might of both napoleon and hitler head to head), and their general strategy is always to coax the enemy into a dangerous position by sacrificing territory and strategically retreating... and then crushing their enemy when winter comes and their opponents are stretched thin and poorly supplied trying to control useless Russian land.

[Lakers Legend#32]

Oh look we have a war in Ukraine and now a war in Iran. Fun times!

American soldiers are not fighting and dying in either one.

I know that takes all the fun out of it for Poopsie.

[ZenMaster]

It's not M1 alone but also Leopards, which can matchup with a T-80/T-90. There will be multiple battalions of them (1 of M1A2 but multiple of Leopards). Ukraine is fighting primarily a defensive war, and these battalions will help hold territory. I highly doubt they will let the tanks sit there in the open without anti-aircraft support nearby at the ready.

Russia is pretty much in a mess anyways. They have lost a lot of soldiers, tanks and don't have much territory control to show for it 10 months into the war.

Execs at weapons companies approve your post, but in real life:

1) It's going to be months before new recruits are trained for these and enter the battlefields, so you fantasy about Abrams punching around the Ukrainian landscape killing Russians left and right is going to even get a chance to come to fruition.

2) Tanks are an offensive weapon, not a defensive one. Especially without air support it's tough for a big visible target like a tank to operate in a modern war.

3) Claiming that "no Abrams has ever been destroyed in battle" is North Korea level of propaganda.

4) You never answer this question when I ask it, but what's the goal for you as a US citizen in supporting this? You keep talking about Russia will get weaker like it has meaning, like there's some next step in events that you expect to happen. What is it you think will happen?(Other than weapons execs and people affiliated with politicians lining their pockets)

[bladefd]

This isnt WW2, there arent going to be any meaningful tank vs tank battles... one of those Iranian drones can knock out a M1 or Leopard for 1/1000th the cost, and the hohols have no choice but to put the tanks out in the open where they can be easily annihilated (aka they are going to operate virtually anywhere on Ukrainian soil), or hide them and hold them back from combat (and thus render them entirely useless).

Russia doesnt give a shit about territory, anybody who has spent more than 5 mins studying the Russian military knows that Russia has been exceptionally successful in their military conflicts (they managed to beat the full might of both napoleon and hitler head to head), and their general strategy is always to coax the enemy into a dangerous position by sacrificing territory and strategically retreating... and then crushing their enemy when winter comes and their opponents are stretched thin and poorly supplied trying to control useless Russian land.

What have the Russians done successfully in Ukraine over last 10 months? I don't give a shit about what they did against napoleon in 1800s or against Hitler in 1942. Both had an offensive campaign that failed. Ukraine is not going to invade Russia lol. Ukraine also knows full well how brutal their winters are - napoleon/Hitler were unprepared and made foolish mistake thinking it will be quick conquers.

Winter has been here for a while now, what have the Russians done since "strategically retreating"? We are almost in February and it will be the end of winter. Russia is stretched thin and poorly supplied trying to control Ukraine's land. Forgetting that part?

What does Russia have to show for this war?