In complex logistic and time wise terms, i doubt.
Sending cutting edge equipment such as advanced jets is not remotely same as sending packages of m4 rifles and mortar shells.
The question to more knowledgeable:
how long is necessary to train a pilot for f16, or similar jet?
How long is necessary to train crew for modern advanced battle tank, such as Abrams?
The training means:
Not only to be able to make safe parking and landing, but to be effective on battlefield in coordinated modern military offensive, and for the crews to have a grip on maintenance in war conditions on the ground?
For a soldier trained on a T72 - learning to handle a M1 would be a fairly quick process. They would have to add one more crewman (loader), but the sighting system, though far better (state of the art thermal plus laser). is still the same basic battle drill. The engine is similar to that found on the T80, and Ukraine seems to have no difficulty operating the ones they have captured. Tactical employment is the same though more risk can be taken with the M1 because its armor is very difficult to penetrate.
The real challenges will be maintenance, transport, fuel, and repair. A supply chain would have to be created capable of getting basic repair and maintenance parts to the units operating the tanks. A depot would have to be established for higher echelon repair. A battalion of M1's would likely burn twice as much fuel as a similar unit equipped with the T72.
Tanks do not drive to the battlefield - they arrive on rail or on wheeled transport. I would be surprised if Ukraine has any wheeled transporters capable of hauling around a M1 which is significantly heavier than the T72 or T80.
All of which could be overcome, but it would take time and the lift would have to be via ship not air. If the effort started next week, the Ukrainian army could likely field a couple of battalions of M1's by summer.
The hurdles to deploy the M1 is why I have found the arguments to provide them the Leopard 2 far more compelling. From a size perspective it is between the M1 and T72. Ukraine's transports could likely manage them. Most importantly the logistics and training footprint would be much closer.
Sadly, neither the White House nor Germany seems particularly eager to provide "offensive" weapons.
The prevent escalation argument has become a little silly, because Russia is already throwing every conventional arm in their arsenal at Ukraine. They almost can't escalate any farther. Russia will not attack a NATO member, and the use of tactical nuclear weapons would be of limited utility and likely cause catastrophic reaction from the rest of the world to include China and India.
Fascinating and quite believable.
I have mentioned here previously that I have very little faith in Jake Sullivan. He has neither a military, nor a diplomatic, nor an intelligence background. He is an election strategist. He is pulling polmil strings on the world stage for the first time in is life, and I have little faith he would recognize when his were being tugged instead. Regrettably, he has a president incapable of providing him meaningful guidance.
Milley seems equally unsophisticated in managing this conflict - at lack of preparedness that mirrors his political naivete.
Austin seems to be the only real adult at the table, but he is hampered by his background as a soldier. Yes, he knows how the international game of competing national interests is played, and the relative position of US power in that game. However, deference to civilian authority is deeply imprinted in his DNA. I suspect he has a very difficult time challenging Sullivan or even Blinken.
Ukraine's counter offensives will inevitably always be less than they could have been.
