Timeline for Why is sending so few tanks to Ukraine considered significant?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
35 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 14, 2023 at 2:21 | answer | added | wrod | timeline score: 2 | |
| S Jan 26, 2023 at 17:50 | history | bounty ended | Timur Shtatland | ||
| S Jan 26, 2023 at 17:50 | history | notice removed | Timur Shtatland | ||
| Jan 19, 2023 at 18:10 | answer | added | NoDataDumpNoContribution | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jan 19, 2023 at 17:35 | history | unprotected | Timur Shtatland | ||
| S Jan 19, 2023 at 17:34 | history | bounty started | Timur Shtatland | ||
| S Jan 19, 2023 at 17:34 | history | notice added | Timur Shtatland | Improve details | |
| Jan 19, 2023 at 9:00 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackPolitics/status/1615997514146004993 | ||
| Jan 19, 2023 at 6:09 | comment | added | NoDataDumpNoContribution | "Why is this considered to be a significant event..." By whom is it considered significant? Who said that? Surely 14 tanks are better than 0 tanks but probably nobody said that they are sufficient to win the war. Is this a straw men argument? Or could at least the sources be classified a bit more? | |
| Jan 19, 2023 at 1:39 | history | edited | got trolled too much this week | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
for accuracy
|
| S Jan 18, 2023 at 17:54 | history | suggested | Rodrigo de Azevedo | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Note that the Bradley is not really a tank, just like a turbofan-powered cargo plane is not a fighter jet. Minor improvements in wording and formatting.
|
| Jan 18, 2023 at 16:28 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Jan 18, 2023 at 17:54 | |||||
| Jan 18, 2023 at 15:33 | comment | added | Timur Shtatland | @NotThatGuy I added this statistic because it is a reasonable estimate of the number of Russian tanks that either are in action or could be put into action, perhaps after some modernization. It might represent something closer to the upper limit of the number of usable Russian tanks. Note that the number of tanks to be sent to Ukraine by the West is also by definition closer to the upper limit, since many of the promised tanks have not arrived yet. Please feel free to make a more reasonable comparison and add it to the question. Any improvements are welcome! | |
| Jan 18, 2023 at 10:00 | history | protected | Philipp♦ | ||
| Jan 18, 2023 at 9:11 | comment | added | NotThatGuy | @TimurShtatland It doesn't seem all that reasonable to compare the total number of tanks a country produced in the last 70 years, with no idea how many of those are still in operation, to the number of tanks actively being used in a particular war. (I see you edited that statistic into the question.) | |
| Jan 18, 2023 at 1:55 | comment | added | cjs | @Trilarion Not necessarily, no. For example, two companies of tanks without good sustainment may have about the same value as one company with because in the former case one company may have to be cannibalised to keep the other at an effective fighting strength. Starting with a dozen tanks and a couple of repair and recovery vehicles can easily leave you with more tanks a month later than starting with two dozen tanks and no recovery/repair. (Consider "mobility kills" where a tank is fine except it has a destroyed track.) | |
| Jan 18, 2023 at 1:39 | comment | added | cjs | You may have been getting some downvotes because the question in the title was significantly different from the question in the body of the post. (By most reasonable definitions, the west has sent a lot of "military equipment" to Ukraine; it's also true that the west has sent and currently proposes to send very few tanks.) When writing a question, it's well worthwhile to re-consider the title after you've finished writing the body. I've taken the liberty of editing your question title; feel free to edit title or body again if see how to make things more clear. | |
| Jan 18, 2023 at 1:36 | history | edited | cjs | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Make title better match body
|
| Jan 17, 2023 at 23:19 | answer | added | Lawnmower Man | timeline score: 27 | |
| Jan 17, 2023 at 20:05 | comment | added | DonQuiKong | @stackoverblown in relation to the number of atomic bombs currently in use in the war, 1 is a huge amount. In relation to what it would help Ukraine, one is probably irrelevant. So for the sake of argument, yours wasn't exactly on point. | |
| Jan 17, 2023 at 18:53 | comment | added | NoDataDumpNoContribution | @stackoverblown you're right and wrong at the same time. Numbers still matter. Twice as many tanks of the same type are roughly twice as valuable. | |
| Jan 17, 2023 at 18:02 | history | edited | Timur Shtatland | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Edited tags. Added a reference with the number of tanks RF has, to put the tank numbers into proper context.
|
| Jan 17, 2023 at 17:55 | history | edited | Timur Shtatland |
edited tags
|
|
| Jan 17, 2023 at 17:08 | comment | added | stackoverblown | For argument sake, if NATO were to send a nuclear bomb to Ukraine, are you going to say one is too little? It is not the number that counts, it is how effective and powerful such weapons that matter. | |
| Jan 17, 2023 at 8:48 | answer | added | Stančikas | timeline score: 11 | |
| Jan 17, 2023 at 3:35 | history | became hot network question | |||
| Jan 16, 2023 at 22:41 | comment | added | NoDataDumpNoContribution | "...you have some baseline to compare it to." We could take the existing amount of tanks as baseline. 14 sounds indeed as rather low in that regard. I guess one could also formulate the question as: why not more and not sooner if more and sooner would have been possible. Of course with hindsight everything is a bit easier. | |
| Jan 16, 2023 at 22:23 | history | edited | JonathanReez | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Tried to improve clarity of the question
|
| Jan 16, 2023 at 21:26 | answer | added | got trolled too much this week | timeline score: 10 | |
| Jan 16, 2023 at 20:56 | comment | added | WPNSGuy | In your consideration of what 'the West' is providing (or lacking to provide), have you added in the thousands of flight hours in ISR assets from the US and NATO? Pretty much continual flights of AWACS/JSTARS/Rivet Joint/Global Hawk/tankers? | |
| Jan 16, 2023 at 20:40 | comment | added | ohwilleke♦ | The question is framed in a one sided way that fails to establish any reason why any particular amount of military equipment should be sent to Ukraine. There is no such thing as "such a low amount" or "such a high amount" until you have some baseline to compare it to. | |
| Jan 16, 2023 at 20:13 | answer | added | Italian Philosophers 4 Monica | timeline score: 48 | |
| Jan 16, 2023 at 19:42 | history | edited | Alexei | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
tried to improve the question + added relevant tags
|
| S Jan 16, 2023 at 19:35 | review | First questions | |||
| Jan 16, 2023 at 19:38 | |||||
| S Jan 16, 2023 at 19:35 | history | asked | D J Sims | CC BY-SA 4.0 |