@LeChampion1992
Yeah it has great range for an MBT, but that's not relevant in this context. It has great range because the double edged sword for turbine engines is that their fuel consumption doesn't vary much depending on how fast the vehicle is moving. They get that great range because they can haul ass without using much more fuel than they would just creeping along at 5 miles per hour. That was great for the US in desert storm because the US could follow behind its tank columns with massive legions of fuel trucks across an open desert against an enemy entirely incapable of reliably targeting said fuel trucks. That's not the situation on the ground for Ukraine. They'll either A, have to drive to gas stations on a regular basis. This being basically suicide since Russia will no doubt start watching these stations and then shelling them as soon as they see tanks pulling up, or will wait for said tanks to return to their positions and then shell those positions. Option B is to bring fuel trucks to the tanks. This isn't really a good option either since this will inevitably give away their locations, and even the shitty grenade dropper drones we've been seeing can easily take out a fuel truck.
Also this isn't even getting into all the problems Abram's tanks will likely have with the mud there.
A T-72 has a ground pressure of 12.8 psi
A T-90 has a ground pressure of 13.34 psi
An Abrams has a ground pressure of 15 psi
We've seen T-72s and T-90s have problems with the mud in a lot of places there. More than likely the Abrams is going to have even worse problems.
(Since your response is the only one that isn't Z Ruzzia will win, us is gay copium post) I'll actually respond because you made valid points.
This war is definitely a game changer, we're seeing tactics used in Syria and the cartel wars make their way onto the battlefields in Ukraine.
But with the tanks, The T-55/M60 (With laser range finders, and digitized thermal imaging) Patton tanks are more then capable of going toe to toe with the Russian T-72M/T-90M.
This means that your medium, middle of the road, Tanks won't cut it unless they have thermal imagers and range finding.
For Ukraine they're slowly but surely getting more air cover to defend themselves from Russian terror strikes. This means they can slowly inch their supply lines closer into Russian lines (I'm being hypothetical here), I know the reality could change, the Z types could storm Kyiv and Zelinsky has his pelt ok Putin's wall. But more likely I see a situation where via debt payments the US will gauretee Ukraine s military victory and force a trade deal in order to get it's money back.
The Abrams and Leopard (possibly the Armata) tanks being sent in could make a difference seeing as They're much more survivable, these would basically be NATO Domestic abrams models, (IE depleted uranium, Next generation thermals, and Reactive anti Missile defense.)
(Bear with me I'm sorry it's a long explanation.)
In modern tank warfare we're finding out that an early cold war tank with modern thermals, and a super advanced tank actually are useful in this war. What is basically useless are the In-between tanks ie your T-90s and T-90AM models are basically useless against AGTMs. What isn't useless is the fact that an older T-62 you can slap a modern thermals system and destroy some of the best Russian gear. The Russian units have also understood this and are salvaging any scrap thermals they have and putting them on their T-62/T-55Ms they're pushing out.
However we're also finding that US artillery like himars, and modern MBTs could be useful.
Tl;Dr
The war in Ukraine is long and grueling and akin to WW1. Now if there is some sort of major spring/summer offensive whoever can get the better mobile warfare doctrine advantage in at the end of the day wins assuming both sides can survive until the ground dries up.
