Ukraine (29 Viewers)

SamAndreas

It's Not my Fault
VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Joined
Dec 18, 2021
Messages
1,601
Reaction score
3,730
Location
California
Offline
Not to go down the rabbit hole but DU armor is an addon or sandwich to most Chobham armor packs in the M1. However, I believe (needs verification) but US law prohibits the export of Depleted Uranium in some products, like tanks (to certain countries). Therefore, most but not all M1's exported have tungsten armor in place of DU. Chobham armor is a manufacturing process to harden the steel (again I believe) and then sandwiched with DU for US tanks and tungsten for export versions. Depending on which expert you speak with including Europeans the tungsten sandwich is just as effective as the DU. The reason most European tanks have tungsten is because the aversion to burning tanks loaded with radioactive DU all over Europe (in the event of WWIII). However, since US tanks have it, it's the price for US shouldering the defense of central Europe. I guess the thought of the Russian hordes advancing over the central European plains was enough to sway the Germans to allow DU armor in the US Tanks defending them. However, German tanks do not use DU armor.
Ukrainian tanks will most certainly not have DU armor (nor would they get DU sabot rounds) but may have tungsten.
Also I believe that the US Marines operated M1A1's upgraded to 120mm back in the Mid 2000's? So an "M1" might be a general media term for any "Abrams" tank. I would tend to think that the 105mm are a bit of a rare bird? Even back in the late 1990's the Guard was up gunning to M1A1's. I can't see the US supplying 105mm equipped tanks when the NATO standard is 120mm?
That's the problem it's a both a general media term and a specific model type term. Some of the detailed specifics are here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams

One should not make assumptions if the US Marine Corp is involved. Hand a Marine a cannon ball and he or she will either break it or drop it overboard.

The US Army and all of its guard units are still US Army, they probably have not had the rifled 105mm for years. But up until the Marine Corp dropped tanks altogether two years ago, their old M1 were armed with 105mm's.

I suppose it came down to a fact that Marine Corp gunnies did not approve of smooth bore guns of any type.

The M1 came first, then the M1A1, and then the M1A2. It's confusing though because some people use the shortened term M1 to mean any of, or all of the variants.

Unless it was added on later during a refurbishment the original M1 didn't have depleted Uranium armor, and had only the 105mm gun in a smaller turret. The original M1's were produced between 1979 and 1985, and about 3,000 of them were made.

I think most of the original M1's have either been scrapped, or have been re-manufactured into the larger heaver M1A1 and M1A2 variants by replacing their turret and adding armor to the chassis.

Details of Chobham armor and depleted Uranium armor are both still secrets, but are probably both layered armor. Chobham being layers of steel ceramic with perhaps elastic layers in there as well. Depleted Uranium perhaps the same but with Uranium alloy steel replacing the ceramic.

As I understand it Chobham is the original armor for the M1, and is still the base armor of the later M1 variants when depleted armor is overlaid on top of base Chobham armor.
 

SamAndreas

It's Not my Fault
VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Joined
Dec 18, 2021
Messages
1,601
Reaction score
3,730
Location
California
Offline
The media reporting about the M1's a fir ball of inconsistency.

This is the Ukrainian report which seems to be the AP report republished:

Biden administration considering sending 30 Abrams tanks to Ukraine - AP​


https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-at...ng-sending-30-abrams-tanks-to-ukraine-ap.html
"The U.S. administration is currently considering buying about 30 Abrams M1 tanks for Ukraine rather than providing them from Pentagon stocks, a process that could take months.
That's according to AP, which refers to a U.S. official, Ukrinform reports.
"A decision to send a bit more than 30 tanks could be announced as soon as Wednesday, though it could take months for the tanks to be delivered," the article reads."

"U.S. officials said details are still being worked out. One official said the tanks would be bought under an upcoming Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative package, which provides longer-range funding for weapons and equipment to be purchased from commercial vendors."

"The U.S. announcement is expected in coordination with an announcement by Germany that it will approve Poland's request to transfer German-made Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine, according to one official.
The Wall Street Journal reported earlier, referring to U.S. officials, that the Biden administration is leaning toward sending a significant number of Abrams M1 tanks to Ukraine and an announcement of the deliveries could come this week."

This Reuters article is longer but seems less detailed:


USA Today changes the number of tanks to 31 and adds in 8 recovery vehicles which is a lot for only 31 tanks, and makes no mention of when they might arrive.

 

SamAndreas

It's Not my Fault
VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Joined
Dec 18, 2021
Messages
1,601
Reaction score
3,730
Location
California
Offline
This is a Bloomberg article republished in Japan, that gets it over the Bloomberg pay wall:


What's important about it is the author is credible on the subject having been a commander of NATO, and he points out something which is easy to overlook, Turkey has the second largest military force committed to NATO.

The US being the largest.
 

Consiglieri

Hall-of-Famer
VIP Contributor
Joined
Sep 19, 2002
Messages
5,604
Reaction score
7,785
Online
This is a Bloomberg article republished in Japan, that gets it over the Bloomberg pay wall:


What's important about it is the author is credible on the subject having been a commander of NATO, and he points out something which is easy to overlook, Turkey has the second largest military force committed to NATO.

The US being the largest.
Thanks for posting. I'd agree with him - Turkey has been and should continue to be much more strategic as an ally than would be Sweden/Finland. They just need to get on the same page vis-a-vis the Kurds, and put a (temporary) halt to the Koran-burning.
 

DCSaints_Fan

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Mar 2, 2005
Messages
5,591
Reaction score
3,025
Location
San Jose, CA
Offline
This is a Bloomberg article republished in Japan, that gets it over the Bloomberg pay wall:


What's important about it is the author is credible on the subject having been a commander of NATO, and he points out something which is easy to overlook, Turkey has the second largest military force committed to NATO.

The US being the largest.
Its not just the largest military force. Turkey controls the entrance to the Black Sea, and is a foothold in the Middle East.
If push comes to shove, then I'm betting the US especially, would rather keep Turkey in. Possibly we work out a separate agreement between the Nordic countries and the US. There is no clause in NATO that says you cannot be a member of another alliance, although it has to be the primary one.
 

Sailorsaint

Guest
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
8,854
Reaction score
14,958
Offline
Thanks for posting. I'd agree with him - Turkey has been and should continue to be much more strategic as an ally than would be Sweden/Finland. They just need to get on the same page vis-a-vis the Kurds, and put a (temporary) halt to the Koran-burning.
The conspiracy theorist might say the Koran burning was done at this particular time to block Sweden from getting into NATO. Erdogan was close to facilitating their entry, now, not so much. Highly coincidental.
 

nolaspe

Slava Ukraini!
VIP Contributor
Joined
Aug 4, 2003
Messages
14,647
Reaction score
36,240
Offline
While not Ukraine-related, I can see tweets on here fine when on my phone but they aren't loading in chrome on my laptop. I just get a blank white image in the shape of a tweet, but if I click on it, it takes me to twitter that's working fine in chrome...
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom