Timeline for Why is sending so few tanks to Ukraine considered significant?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
18 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 22, 2023 at 15:50 | comment | added | got trolled too much this week | @Trilarion: Another interesting point is that the wear and tear on Abrams engines in Australian service was apparently 10 times (!) faster than in US service. Although the Australians attribute this to their usage patterns and not fuel. YMMV. | |
| Jan 22, 2023 at 15:44 | comment | added | got trolled too much this week | @Trilarion: one interesting point from that last article is that Australia apparently runs their Abrams on diesel. So, I guess it's more common than I previous thought, but then, they ended up commissioning their own engine maintenance/refurb facility... by repurposing one that previously serviced F111 aircraft engines. | |
| Jan 22, 2023 at 15:41 | comment | added | got trolled too much this week | @Trilarion: There's also the issue that even in normal usage conditions older Abrams engines only run about 700 hours before they need to be shipped back for maintenance. nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2006/9/1/… Which for a non-US user (like Australia) that used to mean costs of half-a-million dollars per engine service/refurb, shipping way back to Alabama... australiandefence.com.au/news/… The US Army might have such a facility in Germany, but I'm not entirely sure. | |
| Jan 22, 2023 at 15:29 | comment | added | got trolled too much this week | @Trilarion: no it's not moot. It runs on anything in an emergency. But engine life and mileage depends on fuel quality. | |
| Jan 22, 2023 at 13:54 | comment | added | NoDataDumpNoContribution | "heir Abrams tanks [normally] run on JP-8 aviation fuel, which would be logistically more problematic for Ukraine." The Wikipedia page on Abrams says that their engine can run on anything (multi-fuel) including jet fuel but also Diesel making this point kind of moot. | |
| Jan 21, 2023 at 17:24 | history | edited | got trolled too much this week | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1207 characters in body
|
| Jan 21, 2023 at 15:27 | history | edited | got trolled too much this week | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 4175 characters in body
|
| Jan 20, 2023 at 18:26 | comment | added | Stack Exchange Supports Israel | @ScottishTapWater You might think it's your house. But oops! Garzweiler II mine needs to expand again, so your house belongs to RWE AG now. Sorry, can't do anything to stop it. | |
| Jan 18, 2023 at 14:34 | comment | added | user5155 | @ScottishTapWater Fair enough. Legality at the international level just isn't nearly as cut and dry as many people like to think, trying to overstate things in that way I don't think leads to any better understanding. The point still stands though that the claim being pressed is just as legitimate as the will is there to either enforce it or deny it. | |
| Jan 18, 2023 at 10:54 | comment | added | ScottishTapWater | @JeffLambert - I don't think it is a distinction without much of a difference. Phrasing it one way makes it seem as though both sides have a legitimate claim that must be settled. Phrasing it the other makes it seem as though Russia is taking something that is not theirs. Sure, in terms of practicalities there's little difference, a war is a war but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be cognisant of how we're presenting these things anyway. | |
| Jan 18, 2023 at 3:08 | comment | added | user5155 | @ScottishTapWater Unfortunately, that is a distinction without much of a difference. If there were a disagreement about who owned your house you would still need to prove to someone that you actually legally owned it. The only way it seems countries can prove they "legally" own territory they claim is by diplomatic means and, if those fail, by either taking it or defending it. It would be nice if that were not the case, but that is not the world we live in. | |
| Jan 17, 2023 at 19:51 | comment | added | ScottishTapWater | I'm not sure "100% of the territory they claim" is the best phrasing there. They're not claiming that territory... It is legally theirs. That's like saying I'm claiming ownership of my house... No, it's mine. Let's not equate Russia's claims with Ukraine's actual right of ownership | |
| Jan 17, 2023 at 4:44 | history | edited | got trolled too much this week | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 697 characters in body
|
| Jan 16, 2023 at 22:58 | comment | added | JJJ♦ | I think needless escalation has always been on the minds of those supplying heavier equipment. Retaliation doesn't have to be nuclear. One way of retaliation could be to attack supply shipments before they even get to Ukraine. And it's somewhat of a double edged sword in that when such an escalation occurs, the West might need some of that equipment for its own defense (e.g. air defense systems). | |
| Jan 16, 2023 at 21:52 | history | edited | got trolled too much this week | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 314 characters in body
|
| Jan 16, 2023 at 21:46 | history | edited | got trolled too much this week | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 314 characters in body
|
| Jan 16, 2023 at 21:29 | history | edited | got trolled too much this week | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 426 characters in body
|
| Jan 16, 2023 at 21:26 | history | answered | got trolled too much this week | CC BY-SA 4.0 |