What's new

UK to send Challenger 2 tanks to Ukraine, Rishi Sunak confirms

650 M1A1 SA, 1,605 M1A2 SEPv2 and 390 M1A2 SEPv3 are in active US service.
3,450 M1A1/A2 are in storage (mostly in good condition).
Well, not all 3450 abrams are in storage, some were being used by the Army national guard and some were used to train Tanker and some are being upgraded. Conventional number suggest around 1500-1600 inactive Abrams store in the tank grave yard in Nevada
 
.
The above lists exclude those Leo 2 tanks that are not in active use - but in storage and can be reactivated. Leo 2's make the most sense as they are not as maintence heavy as the Abrahams will be. The diesel engines on the Leo'2's are very robust and reliable and will be easy to maintain in the field.

Hopefully the first mover by the UK allow's the German's to finally take their fingers out of their collective butt holes and allow any country that wants to gift Leo 2's to Ukraine to be able to do so freely.

Canada should give over its entire fleet - and get Abrahams backfilled from US stocks asap ( not that Canada actually "needs tanks!" - lets be honest her. ).

So far - there has been no discussion's on Leclerc's either - but 862 of them built and france has 222 of them in active use. So - some of them could be transferred - though the best solution is Leo 2's since there are so many of them in Europe and it will help reduce the logistic burden on the Ukranian Armed forces on having to operate such a diverse set of military equipment as they are having to do right now.
 
Last edited:
.
Well, not all 3450 abrams are in storage, some were being used by the Army national guard and some were used to train Tanker and some are being upgraded. Conventional number suggest around 1500-1600 inactive Abrams store in the tank grave yard in Nevada


As of September 2018, the active duty component of United States Army consists of 31 brigade combat teams:

14 infantry brigade combat teams (including airborne brigades)
10 armored brigade combat teams
7 Stryker brigade combat teams

Army National Guard brigade combat teams have the same TOE as active duty component BCTs. As of September 2018, the Army National Guard consists of 27 BCTs:

20 infantry brigade combat teams
5 armored brigade combat teams
2 Stryker brigade combat teams

How many Abrams are in a ABCT?
90 right?
So ...

900 in Army
450 in ARNG
= 1350
Let's give some of the first from my post be taking the roles you mentioned.
US still has WAY MORE Abrams.
 
.
As of September 2018, the active duty component of United States Army consists of 31 brigade combat teams:

14 infantry brigade combat teams (including airborne brigades)
10 armored brigade combat teams
7 Stryker brigade combat teams

Army National Guard brigade combat teams have the same TOE as active duty component BCTs. As of September 2018, the Army National Guard consists of 27 BCTs:

20 infantry brigade combat teams
5 armored brigade combat teams
2 Stryker brigade combat teams

How many Abrams are in a ABCT?
90 right?
So ...

900 in Army
450 in ARNG
= 1350
Let's give some of the first from my post be taking the roles you mentioned.
US still has WAY MORE Abrams.

Its not a question of the US having way more Abrahams - it is a question of what can be easily maintained and operated by Ukraine and right now that would be Challenger 2/Leclercs/ and most importantly - Leo' 2's.

The USA can offer to backfill existing Leo 2' operators with Abraham tanks for sure as those countries that operate the Leo's will have an advanced enough logistical network that could operate and support the Abrahams - but that is not the case with Ukraine right now. The engines on the Abraham's are too much for Ukraine to manage right now.

Supplying Abraham's direct to Ukraine makes no sense right now. It should be Challenger 2/Leclercs/Leo' 2's.

I fully expect the number of Challenger 2's operating in Ukraine to go up, in the same was the AS90's are going up as crews are trained and can be used to backfill into new tanks as they come on line.

The UK does give a flying hoot about "angering the Russians" .. we are more than happy to give them the middle finger and more ...
 
.
We like Ukranians


Its not a question of the US having way more Abrahams - it is a question of what can be easily maintained and operated by Ukraine and right now that would be Challenger 2/Leclercs/ and most importantly - Leo' 2's.

The USA can offer to backfill existing Leo 2' operators with Abraham tanks for sure s as those countries that operate the Leo's will have an advanced enough logistical network that could operate and support the Abrahams - but that is not the case with Ukraine.
Supplying Abraham's direct to Ukraine makes no sense right now. It should be Challenger 2/Leclercs/Leo' 2's.

I fully expect the number of Challenger 2's operating in Ukraine to go up, in the same was the AS90's are going up as crews are trained and can be used to backfill into new tanks as they come on line.

The UK does give a flying hoot about "angering the Russians" .. we are more than happy to give them the middle finger and more ...
Dude, what I meant is that the USA have such a huge amount a good/solid equipment, they could muster a 2nd Army for Ukraine (equipment wise).
15x84 Bradley (M2A2-M2A3/A4) ACTIVE (Don't count the M3A2/3 variants), several THOUSAND in reserve in good condition.
You can do that for nearly every major AFV of the US.
It's insane. But Realpolitik, US wanna damage the Russians over a long time.
If Ukraine wins fast, maybe Russian retalation would come swiftly and from the point of damage done to Russia, not good enough, so hold the Ukries "in the game" and the Russians too.
Sick yeah but efficient.
 
.
Zelensky cries like a baby for more military hardware. He gets very litte.
Bro...its all loans...
This is the Jewish plan to make Ukraine pay for the next 250 years.
This fxxxibg zionist clown has no idea

read the news its a British tank not Chinese or Russian



its a great injustice not to send the Leopard 2

over 1,300 in storage and even Canadians have them

I mean seriously what does Canada need tanks for, send them to Ukraine where they are needed

Leopard 2 was specially built to face Russian armour, so its entire existence is in vain if its not sent into Ukraine

I hope they do it

Ahh ofcourse britsih tanks don't get knocked out because you worship them.

Lol, the T-90M, T-90A, T-80BVM and T-72B3 are rather expensive and are "better than western tanks" according to Russia yet they're blown up by the hundreds.

No one wants cheap tanks, expensive tanks that protect the crew is what's needed. If the crew survives you have battle hardened troops that can hop inside another tank. If they had a cheap tank they wouldn't have survived.


No, Russian tanks are kinda garbage.

If Ukraine had Merkava's they would be able to make offensives easily thanks to the Trophy.
I agree re Russian tanks

We have seen merkava in Lebanon. But still much better than Russian crap
 
Last edited:
.
As of September 2018, the active duty component of United States Army consists of 31 brigade combat teams:

14 infantry brigade combat teams (including airborne brigades)
10 armored brigade combat teams
7 Stryker brigade combat teams

Army National Guard brigade combat teams have the same TOE as active duty component BCTs. As of September 2018, the Army National Guard consists of 27 BCTs:

20 infantry brigade combat teams
5 armored brigade combat teams
2 Stryker brigade combat teams

How many Abrams are in a ABCT?
90 right?
So ...

900 in Army
450 in ARNG
= 1350
Let's give some of the first from my post be taking the roles you mentioned.
US still has WAY MORE Abrams.
To be honest, I don't know the formation anymore, they had changed that at least twice since I left. So I can't tell you the actual TO&E.

But as far as I know, not just ABCT have tanks, they all have some sort of armor attached to their organic brigade, my unit was an armor regiment attached to an Infantry BCT, but then, as I said, it was 2003, and they changed at least twice on the organic structure, so I could be wrong.
 
.
To be honest, I don't know the formation anymore, they had changed that at least twice since I left. So I can't tell you the actual TO&E.

But as far as I know, not just ABCT have tanks, they all have some sort of armor attached to their organic brigade, my unit was an armor regiment attached to an Infantry BCT, but then, as I said, it was 2003, and they changed at least twice on the organic structure, so I could be wrong.
Humvee (and the successor) in IBCT.
Stryker in SBCT.
Bradley, Abrams, M109 in ABCT.
They have 10 US-Army ABCT, 5 ARNG.
15x90 Abrams
15x84 Bradley (IFV variant, I don't count the M3 Cavalry variant)
15x18 M109
ACTIVE combat units. (Maybe they have always a MBT/IFV coy and SPH bat in reserve)
Greetings Sir.
 
.
Dude, what I meant is that the USA have such a huge amount a good/solid equipment, they could muster a 2nd Army for Ukraine (equipment wise).
15x84 Bradley (M2A2-M2A3/A4) ACTIVE (Don't count the M3A2/3 variants), several THOUSAND in reserve in good condition.
You can do that for nearly every major AFV of the US.
It's insane. But Realpolitik, US wanna damage the Russians over a long time.
If Ukraine wins fast, maybe Russian retalation would come swiftly and from the point of damage done to Russia, not good enough, so hold the Ukries "in the game" and the Russians too.
Sick yeah but efficient.
While what you said is true, if US wanted, they can send Ukraine basically another Ukrainian Army worth of equipment without harming the current structure.

Thing is, it is by law will not happen, by law, US have to keep 1/3 of their entire stock to accommodate selective service act. Which mean if congress decided to activate selective service, they would have to pull that 1/3 equipment from storage to arm the selective service unit. (In other words, arming the draftee)

So let's say, US have 8000 tanks, their active element would have around 1/3 of the article, and 1/3 of that 8000 would be kept in serviceable condition and the other will be kept in storage. Mind you, that's still a big number.

Humvee (and the successor) in IBCT.
Stryker in SBCT.
Bradley, Abrams, M109 in ABCT.
They have 10 US-Army ABCT, 5 ARNG.
15x90 Abrams
15x84 Bradley (IFV variant, I don't count the M3 Cavalry variant)
15x18 M109
ACTIVE combat units. (Maybe they have always a MBT/IFV coy and SPH bat in reserve)
Greetings Sir.
It's always a battalion in reserve, they don't put company or squadron in reserve as they are too small.

Again, I will need to download the latest manual if I were to know, and I don't have time to do that now..........
 
.
While what you said is true, if US wanted, they can send Ukraine basically another Ukrainian Army worth of equipment without harming the current structure.

Thing is, it is by law will not happen, by law, US have to keep 1/3 of their entire stock to accommodate selective service act. Which mean if congress decided to activate selective service, they would have to pull that 1/3 equipment from storage to arm the selective service unit. (In other words, arming the draftee)

So let's say, US have 8000 tanks, their active element would have around 1/3 of the article, and 1/3 of that 8000 would be kept in serviceable condition and the other will be kept in storage. Mind you, that's still a big number.


It's always a battalion in reserve, they don't put company or squadron in reserve as they are too small.

Again, I will need to download the latest manual if I were to know, and I don't have time to do that now..........
Very good site.
Good YT channel too. :P
 
.
Very good site.
Good YT channel too. :P
Well, I believe no one beat this


It said we have 12 Active ABCT in 2021.

1.jpg


2.jpg
 
Last edited:
.
I am kinda skeptical about Ukrainian armored units making much of a difference in the war.Challengers,Leopards,Bradleys and Marders are all great but Russians do have quite capable ATGM's in their arsenal not to mention attack drones.
More Excaliburs,Bonux and M30A1 missiles(for HIMARS)would be much more effective in fighting off the Russian army than tanks and IFV's in my opinion.
 
.
Lol, the T-90M, T-90A, T-80BVM and T-72B3 are rather expensive and are "better than western tanks" according to Russia yet they're blown up by the hundreds.

No one wants cheap tanks, expensive tanks that protect the crew is what's needed. If the crew survives you have battle hardened troops that can hop inside another tank. If they had a cheap tank they wouldn't have survived.


No, Russian tanks are kinda garbage.

If Ukraine had Merkava's they would be able to make offensives easily thanks to the Trophy.
9qixlbzmrzv31.jpg

manar-06770780016285967995-768x579.jpeg

0j3qjqsl67v71.jpg


 
.
I am kinda skeptical about Ukrainian armored units making much of a difference in the war.Challengers,Leopards,Bradleys and Marders are all great but Russians do have quite capable ATGM's in their arsenal not to mention attack drones.
More Excaliburs,Bonux and M30A1 missiles(for HIMARS)would be much more effective in fighting off the Russian army than tanks and IFV's in my opinion.
ATGM mostly work with defensive force, because the one major sell point for Armor is mobility, I mean by the time you forward deploy your ATGM team in the field, your tank will most likely be 10 or 20 miles away already.

I have laid out the Ukrainian potential war plan with these armor when they come into play above...
As I said in an earlier post, There aren't really that much use for the 14 Challenger 2 that UK is sending to Ukraine. This is more of a thing to pressure US and Germany to send their own tanks to Ukraine. Both countries unlock the necessary number that Ukraine need.

Right now, Ukrainian Armour does not have any edge against the Russian, simply because they are the same, but Ukraine tends to use older Soviet Armour (like T-80s and T-72s) the only edge Ukraine have is that they are defending, which also negate the mobility of Tanks. Which mean in term of armour v armour, Russia and Ukraine are at best having a draw, if not Russia have the outright advantage.

That comes the Western Tank, 4-500 Western Tank (so 3 to 4 Division) would make a significant different to Ukrainian military, the Ukrainian can leave their T-72 on static defence role and move those new Leo 2 and Abrams as mobile armour brigade, which mean if and when Russia attack with tanks, Ukrainian old Soviet Tank can tkae the blunt as a static defence piece and Ukraine can also move Western Tank into flanking or envelopment to destory any Russian spearhead. Which now they can't do because they can only use their tank as either/or and not both, and as I mentioned before, their tanks don't have edge against the Russian, so they would be most likely slaughtered if they leave their defensive position.

What the Ukrainian need is for the US and German to unleash their Abrams and Leo 2. And it's more or less working right now, as even Australia is considering sending our M1A1 Tanks to Ukraine as they were being replaced by M1A2, watching a news segment here saying they may transfer another squadron of Abrams to Ukraine (we only have 59 Abrams) while waiting on the US to deliver the new M1A2 Abrams which starting this year and end in 2024.
 
. .

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom