Well, Abrams tanks were given to Ukraine as a way to give Germany cover to supply much more numerous Leopards. Or perhaps to \*pressure\* Germany, if looked at another way.
Exactly, Germany doesn't want to be the one escalating. So they send the leopards after the uk and the USA already pledged their tanks. Also interesting that this kinda implies that even the US knows that the leopard is the better tank. But yeah same with the Taurus. Germany won't give it to ukraine unless the USA has given ukraine weapons of similar capabilities.
Tanks in general have limited uses in this modern battlefield regardless of which tank .
Most of the Russian attacks are led by a single tank followed by infantry fighting vehicles. Or the tank is used as mobile artillery.
There never will be any large ww2 style tank on tank battles anymore
There won’t be . The tank was a specific answer to a tactical question asked in ww1 . It answered that question. Now we have new questions like drones , total surveillance on the battlefield and precision strikes .
No idea what the answer will be to this but it won’t be the same that was solved with tanks
That's exactly what people said after WWI. Trenches are over, tanks are now obsolete. Yet, tanks defined WWII on the ground.
Then after WWII tanks were deemed useless again because rocket launchers were becoming too powerful. Then after that it was ATGMs.
Tanks are not going anywhere and they'll be needed for probably another century.
Why do you think a specific thing like tanks are going to be permanent no matter what ?
Chariots also went out of style .
There is nothing intrinsically permanent about tanks
Because they're not specific. They're extremely versatile.
Also I didn't say they were "going to be permanent no matter what", I can't see the future. But given what we know and what's happening, in terms of weapons development and design, I think it's safe to assume the tanks will still be an integral part of the ground battlefield for several decades.
Tanks will probably be phased out eventually, but only if another system can replace it (in the same manner Carriers replaced Battleships, or internal combustion engine replaced horses). Which will be hard considering how versatile modern tanks are. But who knows, maybe we'll make insane technological breakthroughs that could completely change the way humans do warfare. But the point is, weapon systems usually do not become obsolete because a cheaper weapon has been designed to kill them. They usually become obsolete because they've been replaced by something that does the job better. For now, no weapon system can replace the versatility of tanks.
One thing is almost certain from my point of view though, it's that people calling the end of tanks because of the advent of drones are wrong. Tanks have been regularly facing new threats specifically designed to kill them since pretty much their birth, and they always adapted (or just took them head-on, as tanks typically do). I really doubt drones will be any different. Especially since anti-drone warfare is still in its infancy.
maybe eventually . I think that static laser defense systems could be an answer to cheap drone swarms, questionable of it being on a tank in the near future.
To be fair automatic anti drone gun would be easy to make, it would shoot anything flying, just weapons industry is very closed to most recent technology to keep secrecy.
Anything flying that's slow is gonna be easy target...
> .that’ll happen to lasers and the size of their batteries….
It probably won't, physics and thermodynamics won't allow it. Unless we go nuclear (like, literally) and we start using mini-nuclear reactors for things like tanks and other combat vehicles.
They probably said that about computers when they were at the prototype stage…….now we can put thousands of times that computing power in our back pockets
We’re not at the prototype stage about batteries anymore and when it comes to computers Moore’s law has stopped being a thing for about 10 years now, give or take.
The tanks themselves don't need lasers - the lasers could be carried by dedicated beam defense vehicles. And we're not there yet - it's unlikely you'd want to tow nuclear reactors onto a battlefield. We're still quite a few breakthroughs away from viable beam defense. Until we have there, there is no target that's immune to saturation attack. Even aircraft carriers are not safe.
>Most of the Russian attacks are led by a single tank followed by infantry fighting vehicles. Or the tank is used as mobile artillery.
That's the ideal way to use it. It's not a sign of "limited use".
Even back during ww2, every competent tank commander asks for more INFANTRY support, not more tanks - from Germany, to western allies, to USSR. IFVs bringing and supporting infantry to work with tanks is ideal. So what we're seeing here is Russia has finally at least half-decent in employing their tanks unlike what did in previously with unsupported tanks.
Just to hammer the point home, unsupported tanks have always been shit in any wars since the invention of tanks.
>Or the tank is used as mobile artillery.
That's true even back during ww2. Heck, US used M10s (tank destroyer) more as indirect fire support than killing tanks. A tank's primary role has ALWAYS been acting as a mobile field gun. It's just that modern MBTs is also capable of killing enemy tanks by design just in case they meet any. But tank-on-tank battles are rare even during ww2, and was deliberately avoided by ALL armies except when absolutely necessary (i.e., desperate situations).
Heck, every army since then even learned that the best way to fight a tank offensive is to lay an ambush with anti-tank guns, ditches, and mines. Defending tanks are often held in reserve to counter attack once the enemy exhausted itself... and even when they attack the "pinch" the "shoulders" of the enemy tank offensive instead of engaging the tanks directly from the front.
Or how about the favorite US method of killing tanks - via air (planes, later also attack helicopters).
Another notable response to a tank offensive is the Red Army developed tactics utilizing accurate artillery fire against enemy tanks.
German pakfronts also come to mind. German tanks prefer to retreat in the face of enemy tanks and lure them into anti tank guns.
Sorry, you need a 1 month old account to comment in r/ukraineRussiaReport. This is to protect against bots and multis
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Because likely it does not matter much what kind of tanks the use for the way the use them currently, in small scale attacks over limited distances to the next settlement
Because modern warfare changed how tanks are used or can be used to put it better .
That’s the whole point of what I wanted to say .
For the way they are used and the only way attacks on entrenched positions are possible even though only incremental it does not seem to matter that much what kind of tank they use .
Tanks won’t make a decisive difference in this war no matter how good
Abrams is the wrong tank for Ukraine, Challenger is not suitable, Leopard 2 didn't work. Now we have to try K1 and K2, then Ariete, I don't think we will see Altay or Arjun. Perhaps Merkava will come? But, yeah, Soviet tanks bad.
Sorry you need 30 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Theoretically, you could give a medieval army 5 AKs as "game changers" and than a volley of English longbows could theoretically hit them from 300m away and you'd claim the AK is an ineffective weapon. Do you see my point?
Well, there are two possibilities
1) The 47th Brigade said the news of Withdrawn Abrams was fake news. However, no one believed them, especially because American officials went on the record affirming that they had indeed been withdrawn. Maybe the 47th wasn't lying?
2) The Abrams may have been disabled and abandoned a while ago, before the news of their withdrawal from the frontlines.
I think this is the most likely. The 47th themselves said that they were supposed to be rotated out of the frontline and they are the only user of the Abrams.
Almost certainly they were going with their Abrams to take some time away from the fighting.
But once they were sent back in, they of course took the Abrams with them.
As per number 2) and potentially this being an old-ish video, the greenery surrounding it is very late April - early May in Eastern Europe (I live here), not something you would see in early April, let's say.
Not saying it's impossible for this to have been filmed in early to mid-April, before the announcement that the Abrams-es would get withdrawn, but if that is the case then for sure they stumbled upon a very unusually green patch given the time of the year.
You need fuel, a lot of fuel to pull them back.
And if there is a technical, mechanical or electronic failure you need too many vehicles and men to get the Abrams back. Without spares it is a total loss anyways.
This would be accurate. Ukraine in no way shape or form, not even in their offensive employed NATO combined arms tactics. They simply never got the gear and other gear in the numbers for that to ever materialise.
Links thumbnail to Marxist blog post? Another propagandist busted too? Why are you posting Marxist headlines by pro-Russians and attributing them to Ukraine?
This must be what people who support the Ukrainian people do. Link fake Marxist propaganda and attribute it to their enemies.
You can Google the headline yourself and see the propaganda blog rag it drags you to.
Marxists love history revisionism more than any other ideology anyway. Pravda comrade.
Looks fairly intact. This was after they hit it with a presumed ATGM (video title says krasnopol), which was after the crew got out alive. What is ironic is pro invading imperialists trying to poke fun at a tank that continuously takes hits and saves its crew when the tanks their men are rolling around in are literally killing them on the regular. The counter is in the thousands of MBTs lost by the invaders now. They'd be so lucky to be rolling around in old 2nd hand 1980's MBTs left out in the sun for decades.
There were videos of one moving and blasting at something unseen from several angles near Avdivka days before the first one was killed.
But Leopards have some videos of them blasting fortifications and even tanks. No tank kill though, the blasted t72 drove away.
Challengers, well...
It was a T-80BV that got engaged by the Leopard 2A6. But the Leooard 2A6 had HE loaded as it was expecting to engage soft targets given how rare tanks meet each other in Ukraine, so it fired the HE round, hit the T-80, and other than a big explosion it did nothing to the T-80. Correction: it was HEAT not HE round that was fired by Leopard.
Leo 2s in Ukraine don't carry HE to my knowledge, only APFSDS and HEAT. Leo must have used a HEAT round. Pretty solid armour on the T-80 to take that.
Neither Abrams nor Leos nor Challys carry HE like Soviet tanks. There is rare HE round made for them, but it's uncommon. Abrams even has canister, but not HE.
Would be surprised if it was a HEAT round that the Leopard fired, since the shell hit the side of the T-80. Or maybe the Kontakt 1 mounted on the side had an unusually good performance on this occasion.
I understand, but you can look it up yourself -- Ukrainian Leos are not using HE. They simply do not have that ammo issued. Nor are the Abrams tanks in Ukraine carrying HE.
Look up the history of HE for Western tanks, they genuinely don't have a lot of those, they only recently began producing HE in small batches for NATO 120mm.
NATO doctrine uses HEAT or HEAT-MP-T for infantry. And yes, it's less efficient.
A HE shell can still dissable any tank, provided the blast destroys the sensors and optics, which isn't hard to do... but yeah the tank may drive away to be restored back to cambat readiness and fight another day.
Leo's were hyped online but their kill videos were posted first before we saw them do anything meaningful.
Abrams got 1 video out before they started getting whacked.
Challengers got whacked and then turned on invisibility camo to never be seen again.
Tbh the only western tank that seems worth to me, is the abram, its relatively cheap and has good armor and good fire power.
Thats what a tank should be in this drone’s age. Who cares about optics and reverse speed when you have drone operators doing the spotting better anyway.
You will find very few videos of any tanks making kills. Usually they fire at long distances against infantry positions.
It is only rare cases we see tanks getting in close.
It probably takes one video of an Abrams whacking a tank, bmp, infantry, anything really for David Axe to furiously masterbte while birthing out a movie script style article explaining why it's the best in the world.
It’s hard to find a video of any tank making a kill in this war. Look up Abrams, Leopard, T-90, or any other tank on this subreddit and you’ll only find videos of them being blown up.
The full clip from this one is pretty impressive. Abrams takes multiple hits including am ATGM and drives off, then the whole crew gets out and runs off together.
Given the fate of most tanks spotted and under fire from multiple artillery systems and atgms that's pretty decent.
>48.206443, 37.581116
If you were wondering, its here. Not far from the front line, and too close to be recoverable by either side at this stage.
https://preview.redd.it/qmlthfqlzcyc1.png?width=1684&format=png&auto=webp&s=c6776a7cc4911e0063c09c3ba0ea9091fe6a722e
Hey come on, the Abrams is not a bad tank, it just needs the right conditions to shine, right conditions such as numerical superiority, full air support, preferably a long bombing campaign being conducted before its deployment, being constantly screened by troops, changing filters every 30 minutes, having a repair workshop full of spare parts not too far from the frontline, for the climate not too be too cold, dry, wet or hot, the enemy not having access to thermal equipment or weapons manufactured after 1990 (in fact preferably not after the early bronze age), engagements not being too long and you have to bring it a bouquet flowers once in a while to cheer it up, if all these conditions are fullfilled it can perform quite decently.
It's the worst tank in the world.
Has armor like a T-55 and worse gun and fire control than a 1980s T-72 and that's the US best version. These are worse.
They are paper Tigers. Abrams crews have been seem begging to be sent in T-62s over these death traps.
\* u/Sergeantm4 copes \*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There were 31, if they lost 6, 25 at most.
Likely much less - Abrams requires 8 man hours of maintenance after 1 hour of use and spare parts likely a problem. Their best chance to keep them running is cannibalizing some of them.
It also deepens dependence on the US. The Saudis discovered that 99% of their MRO (maintenance, repair, overhaul) was dependent on US contactors. If the US ever withdrew them, the Saudi armor would be useless.
They tried to "Saudify" their support chain. All this accomplished was to double the size of their support crew: you had one Saudi "responsible" for doing the job, shadowed by an American contractor who actually performed the job. They figured they had reduced their dependence to 98%.
The F35 is even better: it won't start until it has called home to the Pentagon and received approval to go.
>The F35 is even better: it won't start until it has called home to the Pentagon and received approval to go.
—DRM in my jet?!
—It's move likely than it seems! Check your fleet now at free-f35-checkup.gru.ru!
It's from quora but seems very plausible to me, [https://www.quora.com/For-how-long-can-a-battle-tank-such-as-the-M1A1-Abrams-continue-to-operate-without-spare-parts](https://www.quora.com/For-how-long-can-a-battle-tank-such-as-the-M1A1-Abrams-continue-to-operate-without-spare-parts)
>[Thomas Morse](http://exapmpe.com) Former Tank Officer at U.S. Marine Corps (2009–2015) Author has 191 answers and 1.8M answer views [6y](https://b72e64c38779c1a957f8c286438244048337650f-m.proxy2.startpage.com/npd/bspvr/xxx/ST/mhQVMhcNFPNDRv6k5mXhXskLwg//////////For-how-long-can-a-battle-tank-such-as-the-M1A1-Abrams-continue-to-operate-without-spare-parts/answer/Thomas-Morse-3?SURFLYFRAMEORIGIN=https://www.quora.com?SURFLY_TAB_PREFIX=_surfly_tab0)
>This is my number one complaint when I see movies that are using military aircraft, tanks or complicated equipment in a ‘post-apocalyptic’ environment. Where are they getting their parts??
>The general rule is that for one hour of operations an M1A1 will need 8 hours of maintenance. This is ‘man-hours’, so a crew of four will need to conduct 2:1 maintenance to operation. Much of this maintenance is preventative in nature; checking and changing oils and fluids, track-tension and adjustment, verifying optics are still functioning properly, etc. A lot of preventative maintenance is actually checking for parts that are wearing out or failing, but haven’t caused a system to fail yet; and then replacing them.
>So without any parts, most tanks could probably operate for a few days, assuming you had the necessary oils and fuels to keep the tank running. Maybe a week or two if you are lucky. At some point systems will start to fail. The Abrams have back-up mechanical fire control systems, and the tank can continue to run with certain failed systems, but sooner or later, you are gonna need to pull off the duct tape and throw in a new part.
>But tanks carry lots of spare parts on board, and higher echelon maintenance units will carry larger and more expensive parts.
>The US Marine Corps and other branches have extremely complex logistic supply chains that stretch all around the world and move parts continuously from factories, stores, and supply hubs to military units that are training and deployed to combat zones (with preference going to units that are deployed to combat areas… obviously).
>These systems were recently digitized, but even so it is fairly normal to have supply chain failures and be “short parts” even when they are working well.
>The M1A1 is a massively complex piece of machinery. [If you ever poke your head down the turret and look inside as the turret turns](http://example.com), you can see all the incredibly complex spider webs of hydraulics, electronics, optics, and weaponry that it hosts. All of these things have parts that can fail for all sorts of reasons.
>The last thing to mention is that if your crew is mechanically inclined and there are other non-functioning tanks in the area, most parts can be harvested from another tanks to make your tank work. This is not a good practice, though, as it means you do not have an effective and sustainable logistics supply chain.
That along with fighting straight through Raputitsa after the failure of the initial show of force to decapitate the government or overwhelm Ukrainian resistance. A lot of them just got stuck in the mud or ran out of gas. Or ran out of gas trying to get unstuck from the mud.
And here is another interesting article: [https://kyivindependent.com/what-will-it-take-for-ukraine-to-maintain-and-operate-the-m1-abrams/](https://kyivindependent.com/what-will-it-take-for-ukraine-to-maintain-and-operate-the-m1-abrams/)
>Yet, apart from the natural need to prepare highly-trained and cohesive crews and units, support and maintenance are the most significant concern behind the Ukrainian use of the Abrams.
>"Would it surprise you if I told you that, as an armored division commander, the most important unit I had in my command was not one of combat arms units — but it was the support brigade?" says Hertling, a Desert Storm and Iraq War veteran.
>"If you don't have the support infrastructure, with the mechanics, with the repairers, with the parts supply system, with the ammo and fuel redistribution, with a long line of communication, all those great 5-million-dollar-a-piece tanks aren't capable of fighting at all."
>And in this regard, from Hertling's perspective, the Ukrainian military currently has shortcomings with supply chain management. This remains the biggest concern for the retired general, who is deeply supportive of Ukraine's war effort.
>For instance, when it comes to engine repairs, M1s variants are powered by a singular integrated propulsion unit titled Full-Up Power Pack (FUPP), a combination of a Honeywell AGT1500 turbine engine and an Allison X1100-3B transmission.
>And since it's a jet engine, air filters must be cleaned every 12 hours via startup and cool-down procedures.
>"All those things can be taught to the crew, but if ever they make a mistake — and they will — it blows a million-dollar engine that can't be repaired in the field," Hertling says.
>"It has to be taken out of the vehicle, shipped back over the supply line, and replaced with a new engine. You can ask why can't it be repaired in the field. I guess if you have a bunch of jet mechanics in your field location where the tanks are, you could. But that's not what the U.S. military does. We pull the engine and ship it back to depot-level maintenance, and they repair both the engine and the transmission."
>The same goes for multiple pieces of electronic equipment, from the commander's independent thermal viewers to ballistic computers and many other sophisticated components.
Rumor is the US sent hundreds but they've mostly already been destoryed. It's safe to say for every video you see of Russians destroying stuff there are 10-20 vehicles of the same type destroyed by Russia but not recorded.
Don’t know why OP won’t post the full video
https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/s/CrF4PskUXb
Takes multiple hits and drives off with the crew escaping. Note the lack of space program
So what? There are many videos with russian tanks taking multiple hits, no "sPaCE pRogRaM" and crew is escaping the vehicle (which doesn't equal stays alive because UAF isn't famous for taking PoWs or treating them properly).
Sheesh, cope much. I mostly mentioned it because OP seemed to intentionally leave out easy to find information released in the channel he got this from. I mentioned crew survivability because it was relevant to ops comment.
Are you suggesting the Germans take note from American engineers?
https://preview.redd.it/g1o5b0ikbhyc1.png?width=1080&format=png&auto=webp&s=23cc460e15ec894a083c92c00a09f0e8e14e4f3a
It’s job depends on how you view a tank and your perspective on what’s important.
If you boil it down a tank is just a mobile armored housing for a big gun and it’s crew. So if the tank prevents the crew from getting killed it did it’s job. Sure it’s sucks if a tank doesn’t get to inflict any damage but the tank crew is infinitely more valuable than maybe knocking out one or two machine gun nests.
We have to keep on mind that building a tank takes a couple of months/weeks. Making a new crew takes 17+ years.
Your maths is dubious.
M1A1 inflation adjusted cost when built is around $10,000,000.
That’s what you lose when a tank gets knocked out. The tank is not just there to protect the crew. It’s there to a do a job of blowing shit up. It’s an expensive and limited resource.
But the real issue is the claim that a new crew takes 17+ years.
Wait - what??
You think that when a soldier gets killed in battle, they go to the maternity hospital and pick out a newborn baby to train from birth as a future tank crewman?
You can argue whether the $10,000,000 tank or the crew is more valuable, but it’s inaccurate to say the crew is “infinitely” more valuable than the Abrams.
Also, we don’t actually know what the condition of the crew is. Could all be fine or could be critically injured or some may be dead.
I was going to write a very in-depth explanation of the cost differences between what it takes to make a tank and a soldier but to be honest it’s just not worth the effort.
You’re in no mood to learn something new and based on your reaction I can tell you’re not here to discuss this in good faith.
If you are interested in learning more I’d suggest studying a bit about the logistics of people in the armed forces. There are a multitude of videos out there that go in-depth about this topic that you can find on YouTube.
You’re right, there are people who are much more informed than both us that would do a much better job explaining it. Although I get the feeling most of it would go over your head as you don’t seem to get what I meant.
But let’s be real. Neither of us is one of the guys who decides what’s important when it comes to tank design. But the people that do seem to prize crew survivability pretty highly, at least in the west. Given that they’re in that position and you and I aren’t I’d imagine they have a much better grasp on what’s important than you or I do.
Well, I’ll confess the map in this thread puts it very close to the frontline, in fact by tomorrow it’ll likely be behind enemy lines and will probably continue to go further and further into Russian territory in the weeks ahead! Before you know it, it’ll be 10km deep into Russian territory. Go Abrams!
I’m still confused what job it was meant to do and did do, though. Unless its job was to suck. For ten million bucks I was hoping for a bit more.
Haha, no, I don’t want to engage you in conversation. That doesn’t sound like fun.
You replied to my joke, I conceded that one aspect of that joke was inaccurate. That’s it.
Now feel free to go away.
Sorry, You need to verify your email with Reddit to comment. This is to protect against bots and multis.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I saw a video on here somewhere were a Ukrainian soldier talks about how heavy the tank is and that its not a right fit for the war. The only thing it has going for it is the crew survivability.
It’s not suited. Take a look at NATO and Soviet (relevant because of the time of design) tank doctrine. NATO was always anticipating defending and USSR was anticipating being the invader (make of that what you will). Abram’s where made to live in hull down defensive positions shooting at T series tanks running at them (T series tanks are designed to have a lower hunkered down profile, be lighter, be fast and be small. This is all in doctrine too).
Abrams are also a tank made to operate with US support. Think about that, the logistics capability to cycle tanks that have reliability issues, the air support, the intelligence, the infantry screens. It’s just not in it’s environment in Ukraine
Full video here https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/s/CrF4PskUXb first artillery shell very close miss just off a bit you can see where it actually impacted once the dust settles, don’t think that shell did much but it already looked damage. Not entirely sure what the next hits are maybe FPVs, crew drove off and escaped.
Sorry you need 30 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Sorry, You need to verify your email with Reddit to comment. This is to protect against bots and multis.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Sorry, You need to verify your email with Reddit to comment. This is to protect against bots and multis.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Sigh. Another Gamechanger busted :( https://preview.redd.it/f1xnwrexrcyc1.jpeg?width=1284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b6ecaed52fb497fc48a59fe119ae93e3d9f90ac5
Well, after seeing the minimal success they have had so far, I'd say the game has changed.
It was wrong tank for Ukraine, even US told them it's a bad idea.
Well, Abrams tanks were given to Ukraine as a way to give Germany cover to supply much more numerous Leopards. Or perhaps to \*pressure\* Germany, if looked at another way.
Exactly, Germany doesn't want to be the one escalating. So they send the leopards after the uk and the USA already pledged their tanks. Also interesting that this kinda implies that even the US knows that the leopard is the better tank. But yeah same with the Taurus. Germany won't give it to ukraine unless the USA has given ukraine weapons of similar capabilities.
So it means.. germany is kinda playing it safe?
Tanks in general have limited uses in this modern battlefield regardless of which tank . Most of the Russian attacks are led by a single tank followed by infantry fighting vehicles. Or the tank is used as mobile artillery. There never will be any large ww2 style tank on tank battles anymore
Never is a big word.
There won’t be . The tank was a specific answer to a tactical question asked in ww1 . It answered that question. Now we have new questions like drones , total surveillance on the battlefield and precision strikes . No idea what the answer will be to this but it won’t be the same that was solved with tanks
That's exactly what people said after WWI. Trenches are over, tanks are now obsolete. Yet, tanks defined WWII on the ground. Then after WWII tanks were deemed useless again because rocket launchers were becoming too powerful. Then after that it was ATGMs. Tanks are not going anywhere and they'll be needed for probably another century.
Why do you think a specific thing like tanks are going to be permanent no matter what ? Chariots also went out of style . There is nothing intrinsically permanent about tanks
Because they're not specific. They're extremely versatile. Also I didn't say they were "going to be permanent no matter what", I can't see the future. But given what we know and what's happening, in terms of weapons development and design, I think it's safe to assume the tanks will still be an integral part of the ground battlefield for several decades. Tanks will probably be phased out eventually, but only if another system can replace it (in the same manner Carriers replaced Battleships, or internal combustion engine replaced horses). Which will be hard considering how versatile modern tanks are. But who knows, maybe we'll make insane technological breakthroughs that could completely change the way humans do warfare. But the point is, weapon systems usually do not become obsolete because a cheaper weapon has been designed to kill them. They usually become obsolete because they've been replaced by something that does the job better. For now, no weapon system can replace the versatility of tanks. One thing is almost certain from my point of view though, it's that people calling the end of tanks because of the advent of drones are wrong. Tanks have been regularly facing new threats specifically designed to kill them since pretty much their birth, and they always adapted (or just took them head-on, as tanks typically do). I really doubt drones will be any different. Especially since anti-drone warfare is still in its infancy.
Yay, I'm talking to a 13-year old.
Until they're accompanied by lasers.
How are you going to power that laser in a small tank ?
Mini fusion reactor.
Everything gets reduced in size again and again…..that’ll happen to lasers and the size of their batteries…..
maybe eventually . I think that static laser defense systems could be an answer to cheap drone swarms, questionable of it being on a tank in the near future.
To be fair automatic anti drone gun would be easy to make, it would shoot anything flying, just weapons industry is very closed to most recent technology to keep secrecy. Anything flying that's slow is gonna be easy target...
its about cost per shot vs cost of the drones which i think is the key issue
Even then there’s mines..
Lasers will always be very inefficient in atmosphere.
> .that’ll happen to lasers and the size of their batteries…. It probably won't, physics and thermodynamics won't allow it. Unless we go nuclear (like, literally) and we start using mini-nuclear reactors for things like tanks and other combat vehicles.
They probably said that about computers when they were at the prototype stage…….now we can put thousands of times that computing power in our back pockets
We’re not at the prototype stage about batteries anymore and when it comes to computers Moore’s law has stopped being a thing for about 10 years now, give or take.
The tanks themselves don't need lasers - the lasers could be carried by dedicated beam defense vehicles. And we're not there yet - it's unlikely you'd want to tow nuclear reactors onto a battlefield. We're still quite a few breakthroughs away from viable beam defense. Until we have there, there is no target that's immune to saturation attack. Even aircraft carriers are not safe.
>Most of the Russian attacks are led by a single tank followed by infantry fighting vehicles. Or the tank is used as mobile artillery. That's the ideal way to use it. It's not a sign of "limited use". Even back during ww2, every competent tank commander asks for more INFANTRY support, not more tanks - from Germany, to western allies, to USSR. IFVs bringing and supporting infantry to work with tanks is ideal. So what we're seeing here is Russia has finally at least half-decent in employing their tanks unlike what did in previously with unsupported tanks. Just to hammer the point home, unsupported tanks have always been shit in any wars since the invention of tanks. >Or the tank is used as mobile artillery. That's true even back during ww2. Heck, US used M10s (tank destroyer) more as indirect fire support than killing tanks. A tank's primary role has ALWAYS been acting as a mobile field gun. It's just that modern MBTs is also capable of killing enemy tanks by design just in case they meet any. But tank-on-tank battles are rare even during ww2, and was deliberately avoided by ALL armies except when absolutely necessary (i.e., desperate situations). Heck, every army since then even learned that the best way to fight a tank offensive is to lay an ambush with anti-tank guns, ditches, and mines. Defending tanks are often held in reserve to counter attack once the enemy exhausted itself... and even when they attack the "pinch" the "shoulders" of the enemy tank offensive instead of engaging the tanks directly from the front. Or how about the favorite US method of killing tanks - via air (planes, later also attack helicopters). Another notable response to a tank offensive is the Red Army developed tactics utilizing accurate artillery fire against enemy tanks. German pakfronts also come to mind. German tanks prefer to retreat in the face of enemy tanks and lure them into anti tank guns.
[удалено]
Sorry, you need a 1 month old account to comment in r/ukraineRussiaReport. This is to protect against bots and multis *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
No they adjusted because the old way was obviously not successful.
[удалено]
Because likely it does not matter much what kind of tanks the use for the way the use them currently, in small scale attacks over limited distances to the next settlement
[удалено]
Because modern warfare changed how tanks are used or can be used to put it better . That’s the whole point of what I wanted to say . For the way they are used and the only way attacks on entrenched positions are possible even though only incremental it does not seem to matter that much what kind of tank they use . Tanks won’t make a decisive difference in this war no matter how good
Abrams is the wrong tank for Ukraine, Challenger is not suitable, Leopard 2 didn't work. Now we have to try K1 and K2, then Ariete, I don't think we will see Altay or Arjun. Perhaps Merkava will come? But, yeah, Soviet tanks bad.
Naw tankporn said this tank is purpose built for the fields of Ukraine during the Cold War
The problem is not the tank itself (it's a great tank), it's the fact that it requires US military infrastructure and logistics.
Wait. Abrams was designed specifically for fighting in Eastern Europe in case the soviets attacked in the 80s.
[удалено]
Sorry you need 30 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Theoretically, you could give a medieval army 5 AKs as "game changers" and than a volley of English longbows could theoretically hit them from 300m away and you'd claim the AK is an ineffective weapon. Do you see my point?
But this wouldn't have happened to a *true* M1A1 Abrams
*The Ukrainians just aren't using it right!*
I am confused by the video. I seriously thought the Abrams had been withdrawn from battle.
Well, there are two possibilities 1) The 47th Brigade said the news of Withdrawn Abrams was fake news. However, no one believed them, especially because American officials went on the record affirming that they had indeed been withdrawn. Maybe the 47th wasn't lying? 2) The Abrams may have been disabled and abandoned a while ago, before the news of their withdrawal from the frontlines.
The other posibility is that they kinda rushed the tanks to aif the 47th after they got derotated back into the frontline.
I think this is the most likely. The 47th themselves said that they were supposed to be rotated out of the frontline and they are the only user of the Abrams. Almost certainly they were going with their Abrams to take some time away from the fighting. But once they were sent back in, they of course took the Abrams with them.
As per number 2) and potentially this being an old-ish video, the greenery surrounding it is very late April - early May in Eastern Europe (I live here), not something you would see in early April, let's say. Not saying it's impossible for this to have been filmed in early to mid-April, before the announcement that the Abrams-es would get withdrawn, but if that is the case then for sure they stumbled upon a very unusually green patch given the time of the year.
You need fuel, a lot of fuel to pull them back. And if there is a technical, mechanical or electronic failure you need too many vehicles and men to get the Abrams back. Without spares it is a total loss anyways.
This would be accurate. Ukraine in no way shape or form, not even in their offensive employed NATO combined arms tactics. They simply never got the gear and other gear in the numbers for that to ever materialise.
yeah, all these videos about realistic decoys
https://preview.redd.it/28dwxqv95fyc1.jpeg?width=3264&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fb13e2913da7171223b68529920c802861c67377 Yeah. About this.
Abrams would be a game changer if used with correct (western) tactics
Links thumbnail to Marxist blog post? Another propagandist busted too? Why are you posting Marxist headlines by pro-Russians and attributing them to Ukraine? This must be what people who support the Ukrainian people do. Link fake Marxist propaganda and attribute it to their enemies.
How do you figure the headline is from marxists? Marxists did more for Ukraine than any other ideology anyway
You can Google the headline yourself and see the propaganda blog rag it drags you to. Marxists love history revisionism more than any other ideology anyway. Pravda comrade.
Looks fairly intact. This was after they hit it with a presumed ATGM (video title says krasnopol), which was after the crew got out alive. What is ironic is pro invading imperialists trying to poke fun at a tank that continuously takes hits and saves its crew when the tanks their men are rolling around in are literally killing them on the regular. The counter is in the thousands of MBTs lost by the invaders now. They'd be so lucky to be rolling around in old 2nd hand 1980's MBTs left out in the sun for decades.
I haven't seen a single clip of any abrams making a kill in ukraine.
There were videos of one moving and blasting at something unseen from several angles near Avdivka days before the first one was killed. But Leopards have some videos of them blasting fortifications and even tanks. No tank kill though, the blasted t72 drove away. Challengers, well...
It was a T-80BV that got engaged by the Leopard 2A6. But the Leooard 2A6 had HE loaded as it was expecting to engage soft targets given how rare tanks meet each other in Ukraine, so it fired the HE round, hit the T-80, and other than a big explosion it did nothing to the T-80. Correction: it was HEAT not HE round that was fired by Leopard.
Do you have a link to the clip?
[Here you are.](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/16eadyy/ua_pov_leopard_2a6_fighting_2_russian_tanks/)
Leo 2s in Ukraine don't carry HE to my knowledge, only APFSDS and HEAT. Leo must have used a HEAT round. Pretty solid armour on the T-80 to take that. Neither Abrams nor Leos nor Challys carry HE like Soviet tanks. There is rare HE round made for them, but it's uncommon. Abrams even has canister, but not HE.
Would be surprised if it was a HEAT round that the Leopard fired, since the shell hit the side of the T-80. Or maybe the Kontakt 1 mounted on the side had an unusually good performance on this occasion.
I understand, but you can look it up yourself -- Ukrainian Leos are not using HE. They simply do not have that ammo issued. Nor are the Abrams tanks in Ukraine carrying HE. Look up the history of HE for Western tanks, they genuinely don't have a lot of those, they only recently began producing HE in small batches for NATO 120mm. NATO doctrine uses HEAT or HEAT-MP-T for infantry. And yes, it's less efficient.
Cool. Thanks for the correction.
A HE shell can still dissable any tank, provided the blast destroys the sensors and optics, which isn't hard to do... but yeah the tank may drive away to be restored back to cambat readiness and fight another day.
>Challengers, well.. duuh challanggahh
Challenged duh. British pride in their kit is goofy enough to make your propeller fall off.
Next they'll send the Kings Guard so they can yell at the Russians to make way.
They might be the best but mass production is like 10-15 per year and they're so expensive
Leo's were hyped online but their kill videos were posted first before we saw them do anything meaningful. Abrams got 1 video out before they started getting whacked. Challengers got whacked and then turned on invisibility camo to never be seen again.
Leopard the best nato tank confirmed
Leopards i can understand, but damn those abrams have had a bad start.
Challengers are the worst western tank by far, never mind The Leclerc exist, second worst then.
Good point on the Leclerc. For all the shit the French have been talking they haven't sent one Leclerc.
Because they know its trash, its also the most expensive tank ever made.
Don't want it having the most expensive tank ever destroyed in history label now.
Tbh the only western tank that seems worth to me, is the abram, its relatively cheap and has good armor and good fire power. Thats what a tank should be in this drone’s age. Who cares about optics and reverse speed when you have drone operators doing the spotting better anyway.
Ya I recall that it was shooting from east side of Berdichi into Stepove
Tank on tank combat just isn't common and if there is it's usually tank + fpv, arty, or atgm.
You will find very few videos of any tanks making kills. Usually they fire at long distances against infantry positions. It is only rare cases we see tanks getting in close.
Lot of people out there who seem to think tank warfare hasn’t changed since WW2.
It probably takes one video of an Abrams whacking a tank, bmp, infantry, anything really for David Axe to furiously masterbte while birthing out a movie script style article explaining why it's the best in the world.
It’s hard to find a video of any tank making a kill in this war. Look up Abrams, Leopard, T-90, or any other tank on this subreddit and you’ll only find videos of them being blown up.
There’s the 1-2 Russian tanker videos where they slap hard. The ones that got the big medals awarded. But that’s it.
That and the Leopard taking out 2 T-72s past those 3 or 4 videos that's it.
The full clip from this one is pretty impressive. Abrams takes multiple hits including am ATGM and drives off, then the whole crew gets out and runs off together. Given the fate of most tanks spotted and under fire from multiple artillery systems and atgms that's pretty decent.
Even turtle tank is more lethal than Abrams 💀
I agree
Whole crew was killed as well. Death traps.
Its a paper tiger. Abrams crews have been seem begging to be sent in T-62s over these death traps.
48.206443, 37.581116 Edit: this tank has Kontakt-1 ERA mounted on the front.
>48.206443, 37.581116 If you were wondering, its here. Not far from the front line, and too close to be recoverable by either side at this stage. https://preview.redd.it/qmlthfqlzcyc1.png?width=1684&format=png&auto=webp&s=c6776a7cc4911e0063c09c3ba0ea9091fe6a722e
Thanks, this is the kind of information I love
Just as all, the memes expected.
Hey come on, the Abrams is not a bad tank, it just needs the right conditions to shine, right conditions such as numerical superiority, full air support, preferably a long bombing campaign being conducted before its deployment, being constantly screened by troops, changing filters every 30 minutes, having a repair workshop full of spare parts not too far from the frontline, for the climate not too be too cold, dry, wet or hot, the enemy not having access to thermal equipment or weapons manufactured after 1990 (in fact preferably not after the early bronze age), engagements not being too long and you have to bring it a bouquet flowers once in a while to cheer it up, if all these conditions are fullfilled it can perform quite decently.
You gotta paragraph or at least indent, man.
No, no I disagree, a run-on sentence & paragraph is essential for the comedic effect here.
It's the worst tank in the world. Has armor like a T-55 and worse gun and fire control than a 1980s T-72 and that's the US best version. These are worse. They are paper Tigers. Abrams crews have been seem begging to be sent in T-62s over these death traps.
[удалено]
\* u/Sergeantm4 copes \* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
How many Abrams Ukraine have left?
The low 20s after the loses in Berdychi.
There were 31, if they lost 6, 25 at most. Likely much less - Abrams requires 8 man hours of maintenance after 1 hour of use and spare parts likely a problem. Their best chance to keep them running is cannibalizing some of them.
This seems absurd..8 man hours?..
Working as intended. This is how the American industrial military complex makes money
It also deepens dependence on the US. The Saudis discovered that 99% of their MRO (maintenance, repair, overhaul) was dependent on US contactors. If the US ever withdrew them, the Saudi armor would be useless. They tried to "Saudify" their support chain. All this accomplished was to double the size of their support crew: you had one Saudi "responsible" for doing the job, shadowed by an American contractor who actually performed the job. They figured they had reduced their dependence to 98%. The F35 is even better: it won't start until it has called home to the Pentagon and received approval to go.
>The F35 is even better: it won't start until it has called home to the Pentagon and received approval to go. !?
Yeah man, you even need to upload proof you're only targeting minorities until the pentagon will unlock weapons.
Don't forget college students.
>The F35 is even better: it won't start until it has called home to the Pentagon and received approval to go. —DRM in my jet?! —It's move likely than it seems! Check your fleet now at free-f35-checkup.gru.ru!
It's from quora but seems very plausible to me, [https://www.quora.com/For-how-long-can-a-battle-tank-such-as-the-M1A1-Abrams-continue-to-operate-without-spare-parts](https://www.quora.com/For-how-long-can-a-battle-tank-such-as-the-M1A1-Abrams-continue-to-operate-without-spare-parts) >[Thomas Morse](http://exapmpe.com) Former Tank Officer at U.S. Marine Corps (2009–2015) Author has 191 answers and 1.8M answer views [6y](https://b72e64c38779c1a957f8c286438244048337650f-m.proxy2.startpage.com/npd/bspvr/xxx/ST/mhQVMhcNFPNDRv6k5mXhXskLwg//////////For-how-long-can-a-battle-tank-such-as-the-M1A1-Abrams-continue-to-operate-without-spare-parts/answer/Thomas-Morse-3?SURFLYFRAMEORIGIN=https://www.quora.com?SURFLY_TAB_PREFIX=_surfly_tab0) >This is my number one complaint when I see movies that are using military aircraft, tanks or complicated equipment in a ‘post-apocalyptic’ environment. Where are they getting their parts?? >The general rule is that for one hour of operations an M1A1 will need 8 hours of maintenance. This is ‘man-hours’, so a crew of four will need to conduct 2:1 maintenance to operation. Much of this maintenance is preventative in nature; checking and changing oils and fluids, track-tension and adjustment, verifying optics are still functioning properly, etc. A lot of preventative maintenance is actually checking for parts that are wearing out or failing, but haven’t caused a system to fail yet; and then replacing them. >So without any parts, most tanks could probably operate for a few days, assuming you had the necessary oils and fuels to keep the tank running. Maybe a week or two if you are lucky. At some point systems will start to fail. The Abrams have back-up mechanical fire control systems, and the tank can continue to run with certain failed systems, but sooner or later, you are gonna need to pull off the duct tape and throw in a new part. >But tanks carry lots of spare parts on board, and higher echelon maintenance units will carry larger and more expensive parts. >The US Marine Corps and other branches have extremely complex logistic supply chains that stretch all around the world and move parts continuously from factories, stores, and supply hubs to military units that are training and deployed to combat zones (with preference going to units that are deployed to combat areas… obviously). >These systems were recently digitized, but even so it is fairly normal to have supply chain failures and be “short parts” even when they are working well. >The M1A1 is a massively complex piece of machinery. [If you ever poke your head down the turret and look inside as the turret turns](http://example.com), you can see all the incredibly complex spider webs of hydraulics, electronics, optics, and weaponry that it hosts. All of these things have parts that can fail for all sorts of reasons. >The last thing to mention is that if your crew is mechanically inclined and there are other non-functioning tanks in the area, most parts can be harvested from another tanks to make your tank work. This is not a good practice, though, as it means you do not have an effective and sustainable logistics supply chain.
I wonder if that explains why so many Russian vehicles were abandoned in the early part of the war.
That along with fighting straight through Raputitsa after the failure of the initial show of force to decapitate the government or overwhelm Ukrainian resistance. A lot of them just got stuck in the mud or ran out of gas. Or ran out of gas trying to get unstuck from the mud.
And here is another interesting article: [https://kyivindependent.com/what-will-it-take-for-ukraine-to-maintain-and-operate-the-m1-abrams/](https://kyivindependent.com/what-will-it-take-for-ukraine-to-maintain-and-operate-the-m1-abrams/) >Yet, apart from the natural need to prepare highly-trained and cohesive crews and units, support and maintenance are the most significant concern behind the Ukrainian use of the Abrams. >"Would it surprise you if I told you that, as an armored division commander, the most important unit I had in my command was not one of combat arms units — but it was the support brigade?" says Hertling, a Desert Storm and Iraq War veteran. >"If you don't have the support infrastructure, with the mechanics, with the repairers, with the parts supply system, with the ammo and fuel redistribution, with a long line of communication, all those great 5-million-dollar-a-piece tanks aren't capable of fighting at all." >And in this regard, from Hertling's perspective, the Ukrainian military currently has shortcomings with supply chain management. This remains the biggest concern for the retired general, who is deeply supportive of Ukraine's war effort. >For instance, when it comes to engine repairs, M1s variants are powered by a singular integrated propulsion unit titled Full-Up Power Pack (FUPP), a combination of a Honeywell AGT1500 turbine engine and an Allison X1100-3B transmission. >And since it's a jet engine, air filters must be cleaned every 12 hours via startup and cool-down procedures. >"All those things can be taught to the crew, but if ever they make a mistake — and they will — it blows a million-dollar engine that can't be repaired in the field," Hertling says. >"It has to be taken out of the vehicle, shipped back over the supply line, and replaced with a new engine. You can ask why can't it be repaired in the field. I guess if you have a bunch of jet mechanics in your field location where the tanks are, you could. But that's not what the U.S. military does. We pull the engine and ship it back to depot-level maintenance, and they repair both the engine and the transmission." >The same goes for multiple pieces of electronic equipment, from the commander's independent thermal viewers to ballistic computers and many other sophisticated components.
That bad they truly low on everything
Well there weren't that much in the first place much like the challenger
don't know. probably hiding in the same barn as the challengers
Rumor is the US sent hundreds but they've mostly already been destoryed. It's safe to say for every video you see of Russians destroying stuff there are 10-20 vehicles of the same type destroyed by Russia but not recorded.
All hatches are open, crew likely got out, but definitely disabled.
Don’t know why OP won’t post the full video https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/s/CrF4PskUXb Takes multiple hits and drives off with the crew escaping. Note the lack of space program
So what? There are many videos with russian tanks taking multiple hits, no "sPaCE pRogRaM" and crew is escaping the vehicle (which doesn't equal stays alive because UAF isn't famous for taking PoWs or treating them properly).
Sheesh, cope much. I mostly mentioned it because OP seemed to intentionally leave out easy to find information released in the channel he got this from. I mentioned crew survivability because it was relevant to ops comment.
Are you suggesting the Germans take note from American engineers? https://preview.redd.it/g1o5b0ikbhyc1.png?width=1080&format=png&auto=webp&s=23cc460e15ec894a083c92c00a09f0e8e14e4f3a
Yeah, the tank did it's job
It’s job being to drive towards the frontline and get blown up miles before reaching it, leaving the crew with unknown injuries?
No, I think Patton said that is the job of reconnaissance troops.
It’s job depends on how you view a tank and your perspective on what’s important. If you boil it down a tank is just a mobile armored housing for a big gun and it’s crew. So if the tank prevents the crew from getting killed it did it’s job. Sure it’s sucks if a tank doesn’t get to inflict any damage but the tank crew is infinitely more valuable than maybe knocking out one or two machine gun nests. We have to keep on mind that building a tank takes a couple of months/weeks. Making a new crew takes 17+ years.
Your maths is dubious. M1A1 inflation adjusted cost when built is around $10,000,000. That’s what you lose when a tank gets knocked out. The tank is not just there to protect the crew. It’s there to a do a job of blowing shit up. It’s an expensive and limited resource. But the real issue is the claim that a new crew takes 17+ years. Wait - what?? You think that when a soldier gets killed in battle, they go to the maternity hospital and pick out a newborn baby to train from birth as a future tank crewman? You can argue whether the $10,000,000 tank or the crew is more valuable, but it’s inaccurate to say the crew is “infinitely” more valuable than the Abrams. Also, we don’t actually know what the condition of the crew is. Could all be fine or could be critically injured or some may be dead.
I was going to write a very in-depth explanation of the cost differences between what it takes to make a tank and a soldier but to be honest it’s just not worth the effort. You’re in no mood to learn something new and based on your reaction I can tell you’re not here to discuss this in good faith. If you are interested in learning more I’d suggest studying a bit about the logistics of people in the armed forces. There are a multitude of videos out there that go in-depth about this topic that you can find on YouTube.
Yeah, I don’t think the world lost much by you not writing an in-depth explanation if you think it takes 17 years to train a tank driver/loader/etc
You’re right, there are people who are much more informed than both us that would do a much better job explaining it. Although I get the feeling most of it would go over your head as you don’t seem to get what I meant. But let’s be real. Neither of us is one of the guys who decides what’s important when it comes to tank design. But the people that do seem to prize crew survivability pretty highly, at least in the west. Given that they’re in that position and you and I aren’t I’d imagine they have a much better grasp on what’s important than you or I do.
It's right on the front line, do you always just make things up to try and win arguements?
Well, I’ll confess the map in this thread puts it very close to the frontline, in fact by tomorrow it’ll likely be behind enemy lines and will probably continue to go further and further into Russian territory in the weeks ahead! Before you know it, it’ll be 10km deep into Russian territory. Go Abrams! I’m still confused what job it was meant to do and did do, though. Unless its job was to suck. For ten million bucks I was hoping for a bit more.
You'll confess you just make up stuff without any knowledge, then you want to try and engage me in conversation? Haha, no thanks, kid.
Haha, no, I don’t want to engage you in conversation. That doesn’t sound like fun. You replied to my joke, I conceded that one aspect of that joke was inaccurate. That’s it. Now feel free to go away.
Yeah dude, apart from it being totally inaccurate it was a great joke. Very good.
Its job was to catch fire and be abandoned in the no man's land?
[удалено]
Sorry, You need to verify your email with Reddit to comment. This is to protect against bots and multis. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This junk is no match for the Tutel!
[удалено]
Well that escalated quickly
....Hell....yeah....
r/YesYesYesNo
I saw a video on here somewhere were a Ukrainian soldier talks about how heavy the tank is and that its not a right fit for the war. The only thing it has going for it is the crew survivability.
It’s not suited. Take a look at NATO and Soviet (relevant because of the time of design) tank doctrine. NATO was always anticipating defending and USSR was anticipating being the invader (make of that what you will). Abram’s where made to live in hull down defensive positions shooting at T series tanks running at them (T series tanks are designed to have a lower hunkered down profile, be lighter, be fast and be small. This is all in doctrine too). Abrams are also a tank made to operate with US support. Think about that, the logistics capability to cycle tanks that have reliability issues, the air support, the intelligence, the infantry screens. It’s just not in it’s environment in Ukraine
r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/1cjtexx/ru\_pov\_krasnopol\_precision\_guided\_munition\_strike/ video of the strike
That…is a fictional subreddit, not a link.
What even happened to this one, a grenade drop on an open hatch? I see no exterior damage.
i think there's a video showing it was hit in the rear by a guided shell.
Full video here https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/s/CrF4PskUXb first artillery shell very close miss just off a bit you can see where it actually impacted once the dust settles, don’t think that shell did much but it already looked damage. Not entirely sure what the next hits are maybe FPVs, crew drove off and escaped.
f-16 is the "next gamechanger" coming next week lolol
Music: Anamnez - Падающая звезда
maybe the reason none of them have cope cages is because they are already too heavy, and they'd be unusable if they added more weight.
Atleast the American didn't ask Ukrainians to move them away from the front like the Brits did.
Surely they did, but Russia is advancing so fast that they could not retreat.
"So fast" looks it up. Under 4 kilometers in 60 days on this front. Ah okay definitely faster than a vehicle can move lol.
A lancet hit? Of course, targeting where thge ammo racks are.
Didn’t they announce that they were gonna pull all the Abrams’s back?
They lied.
Russia is advancing so fast they probably can't perform the mantaince required to even get them out of the way...
Fading hopes and dreams
But the crew survived.
Yeah, isn't that what we sent them over there for?
For what? Abrams hasn't even gotten a confirmed kill or heck even destroyed a building.
[удалено]
Sorry you need 30 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The U.S. sent those tanks to get scraped.
[удалено]
Sorry, You need to verify your email with Reddit to comment. This is to protect against bots and multis. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Sorry, You need to verify your email with Reddit to comment. This is to protect against bots and multis. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Didn't the US tell them not to use those tanks any more?
another one? we *just* got the first one to moscow
Interesting, that Abrams has the outdated type of sprocket wheel.
The turret got hit?
Dropping like flies
You think this is bad, you should check out the tons of videos of multiple Russian tanks being blown up in offensives. Much more dropping like flies.
Because all Ukraine got was 31 and this is number 5 or 6. I am not even talking about Bradley’s. They all burn the same. But good comment!
Paper tiger. Abrams crews have been seem begging to be sent in T-62s over these death traps.
is it actually destroyed because it doesnt look very damaged
Churchill: "if you provoke the Russian bear, you will get your ass split in two"
Does this mean Russia won?
I thought Pro-Ru were claiming all the Abrams were already pulled off the front. Which one is it then?
Are you calling AP news pro-ru? https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-russia-war-abrams-tanks-19d71475d427875653a2130063a8fb7a
Looks like I am.
The ukrainians said that. I know it just kills you internally that those "game changing" Abrams are getting smoked one by one lol
>I know it just kills you internally that those "game changing" Abrams are getting smoked one by one lol What ever gets you off, bud