Any of the M1 Abrams models, from any source.
Tanks need to be in active service. Training does not count.
Related questions
🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ12,509 | |
| 2 | Ṁ996 | |
| 3 | Ṁ760 | |
| 4 | Ṁ653 | |
| 5 | Ṁ344 |
The standard for “active service” seems made up here. It is not a concept that natively applies to equipment. If we take the concept from soldiers (serving full time) and apply it to the crews for these vehicles, surely active service would be met (the crews for these are serving full time in the military.) If we take the concept and ask “are the tanks doing anything else other than being used for military service (edit: including as a strategic reserve)”, it is hard to see what that would be.
@Volty Training, which is excluded by the description, or nothing at all. They could be in a warehouse somewhere.
We might not have a definition of "active", but the common use of the word would exclude inaction, I would think.
https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/documents/fmr/archive/07aarch/07a_definitions_Feb99.pdf
Inaction can easily qualify for active service for personnel as above. Yes training is specifically excluded but that’s clear from the question.
@Volty It makes no sense for a level of activity less than that of training to qualify for a YES resolution if training doesn't. After all, if they were used for training in Ukraine, they would have immediately prior to that moment been doing nothing, apparently qualifying for a YES resolution by your argument, and making the exclusion for naught.
The exclusion of training only makes any sense if you assume that the tanks doing nothing at all wouldn't count either.
(A) Writing the question poorly isn’t my issue. I’m reading it as written.
(B) Your argument gives importance to an imagined spectrum that goes Reserve -> Training -> Battle, where we all agree that Battle counts, but I can just as easily argue for the spectrum of “active service” going Training -> Reserve -> Battle.
To be clear, I don’t think (B) should decide the question (A should) I’m just following that thread for fun
@Volty The exclusion of training in the criteria literally has no effect under your interpretation. Correct?
If the tanks were used for nothing but training in Ukraine, you're saying the market should resolve YES anyway, correct?
Training -> Reserve -> Battle
This spectrum is incoherent. The tanks must be in the country prior to being used for training there. What state are they in then? You can't use them for training without first not using them for training.
No no, I’m reading the question as requiring active service and not training. I think that’s clear.
You’re reading it as active service, implicitly using a novel definition of active service that needs to be dissimilar to training (and also not training)
@Volty Answer this question please (or make it clear if you were already answering it):
The exclusion of training in the criteria literally has no effect under your interpretation. Correct?
The training happened in Germany?
@Volty hypothetical training in Ukraine, is what the criteria are excluding. The title already requires the tanks being in Ukraine, so the title already excludes the German training.
Yes if the tanks were in Ukraine and either being used for training or not in active service (say, being scrapped for parts or used for non-military purposes) then resolve NO, but since in this timeline they did training in Germany… what are you proposing? I started by pointing out the baseless equation of active service with combat…
@Volty Just to confirm: let's say the tanks were used for training in Ukraine. However, the tanks must have at the very least have entered the country at some point, and at that instant they crossed the border, they were not being used for training yet - they were being transported.
You're saying that should resolve the market YES?
You are making much of “tanks in transport can’t be employed in training”, I don’t know if that holds. Surely they could have been driven from parts abroad into the country as part of training.
@Volty They could have. If they weren't, should this resolve YES?
I'm sure you can see that the exclusion of training doesn't make sense to have even mentioned if it was only expected to make a difference if tanks were continuously used for training and nothing else (including being idle or transported!).
If training took a week-long break and the tanks were idle, would that cause the market to resolves YES?
I think I'll stop replying soon, but it's not reasonable to interpret resolution criteria in these ways unless the creator has been extremely specific that that's really what they meant. If they're excluding training, you can't waggle your finger at the creator and say "aha! You forgot to exclude transport on the way to training!"
Guys none of this is new. We discussed those pictures and articles multiple times...
What do you think @StanPinsent ? YES?
Ukraine’s M-1 Abrams Tanks Are ‘Situational Awareness’ Models: Not The Best M-1s, But Available In Large Numbers: Whether the United States pledges more M-1s might depend on politics (Forbes November 25th 2023)
US’s landmine eating vehicle made of M1-Abrams tank spotted in Ukraine (Interesting Engineering November 7th 2023)
Ukraine given only 31 M1 Abrams tanks out of 6,000 that US has pledged - analyst Bild (Ukrainian News December 5th 2023)
M1A1 Abrams Tanks Spotted Near Ukranian Front Lines, Is the Jig Up For Russia? (AutomotiveEvolution November 28th 2023)
Ukraine Destroys Three Russian Tank Battalions in a Single Week: Kyiv (Newsweek November 27th 2023)
U.S.-Made Abrams Tanks Spotted in Ukraine (RealClear Defense November 27th 2023)
@SirCryptomind These images and articles have been discussed and save for a few users who disagree, found lacking. We know the tanks are in Ukraine, and we don't have a definition of "active service", but there isn't good evidence of them being deployed, to combat or otherwise.
The last photo in your tweet comes from a Russian source on telegram, and has people saying it's unlikely to even be Ukraine, let alone eastern Ukraine in November. Other images cited as evidence may be training, in Ukraine or not. We have yet to see an image of a combat-ready M1 Abrams tank in Ukraine - they're all supposedly missing bits that you would expect for a tank that was combat-ready.
(and the resolution criteria explicitly excludes training)
You won't find verified evidence of the tanks being deployed, though you will find a few credulous articles reporting on unverified images from telegram. If you dig into them though, they're all referring back to these same few images.
This article post-dates most of these images (possibly all of them?) and has experts saying we shouldn't expect the tanks to be deployed until the spring:
https://www.businessinsider.com/abrams-likely-deployed-next-spring-due-winter-russian-defense-analysts-2023-11
I can't any credible source saying the tanks have been deployed.
@Dynd "Any source" in the market description clearly means the tanks can come from anywhere, not that any unverified image of tanks is sufficient evidence.
@Dynd Look at the trees. This video was taken months ago, presumably during the training that the Ukrainian forces were doing.