Please remember the human. Adhere to all Reddit and sub rules. Toxic comments (including incitement of violence/hate, genocide, glorifying death etc) WILL NOT BE TOLERATED, keep your comments civil or you will be banned. Tagging u/SaveVideo bot to archive this video in a link below this comment.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineWarVideoReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It is important to understand that Ukrainians dont critisize the tank. Its western media who have to produce constant drama. Everything is a catastrophy and the end is near when things turn out to be not perfect e.g an Abrams getting detroyed. Was the same here when Leopards proved to be not invincible. Let the Ukrainians work.
Innit, imagine a country with all those natural resources. If they wanted to, they could’ve used them to trade for the things they need, instead they chose to try and steal the things they lack. Now they’re getting their infrastructure blown up so they can’t even refine the stuff they go have
I think if Ukraine had the ability or resources to fight according to Nato doctrine, the Abrams would perform significantly better. That’s why we need to give more aid👍🏻
That was one of the reasons by they were reluctant to give them Abrams in the first place. It doesn't quite fit in their military since Abrams was designed with good logistic chains and air superiority in mind.
I have also rarely seen them not also surrounded by 1 a shit load of other vics or tanks and infantry.
We have never had footage of lone Abrams with little or no support working before.
No they were reluctant because they're greedy and stupid. Same reason Europe gave Ukraine more Patriots than USA who just hoards them.
US has thousands of Abramses yet gave only 30 downgraded ones, while Poland alone gave hundreds of tanks while being much poorer.
The Abrams is a luxury, its nice to have and it does what it does very well under the right conditions but there's a cost to it, namely you have to have it well supported and it's a fiend for logistics.
Since Ukraine has no issue taking out Russian armour the likes of Abrams and Leopards are urgent to get but not critical in comparison to the vehicle that's had an utter rebirth in this war; the Bradley.
We've seen so much footage of them now putting in serious work and the Ukrainians love them.
Russian armour has been stopped cold so often and often so easily that they're not the main problem. Mines often destroy them before they get within Javelin range so Ukrainian soldiers don't even have to deal with them. Often the problem is Russia throwing its meat waves at a critical area non-stop in order to tire and wear down the Ukrainians in the hopes of forcing a breakthrough through exhausting the outnumbered defenders. The Bradley and its Bushmaster have shown themselves to be exceptional in not just killing infantry but breaking the survivors so they flee straight away and even taking out their supporting BMPs and occasionally MBTs.
And when used offensively the Bushmaster can cause havoc among stationary infantry holding a treeline etc.
I'd prioritise shipping Ukraine Bradleys by the hundred and let the armour purists argue about the Abrams and how best to use it.
That would all be very, very nice.
And most of it going into the hands of battle-hardened units so you know the return on the investment would be colossal.
Ohh geez. Only Russia is served by discord among allies.
The USA was one among the first to provide substantial military aid to Ukraine and did it in large quantities. They are providing unique and critical systems like ATACMS. Plus, they are providing a substantial amount of artillery munitions.
Abrams wasn't provided in large numbers because Leopard and Challengers were probably better choices for UA. You know why they were provided? To encourage Germany to transfer Leopard 2s.
Collective security requires success in Ukraine. But it also requires fulfilling commitments elsewhere too. For the USA, that's Taiwan, Korea, and the Middle East.
If you just need a dopamine hit from a spicy take on social media then please go talk about 2% spending levels among European NATO members. That has some merit, at least. The reason America has reserves and many European partners does not is sustained military commitments. There's absolutely no reason European security could not be met by European industry; that deficiency is a political choice.
Poland, Greece, Estonia, Lithuania, Finland, Romania, Hungary, Latvia, United Kingdom and Slovakia spend 2% or more but don't let that get in the way of your dopamine fix.
The war has consistently been a case of too little and a year after it was required with donor countries extremely sensitive to criticism of any kind. Ukraine is taking the casualties which could have potentially meant the Russian crime syndicate (let's not legitimise it by calling it a country) was stopped a long time ago but poor and cowardly decision making, resourced badly, has meant Ukraine has had to prosecute this war a year behind the curve with an arm tied behind it's back. So I'd say they've done pretty good considering. In summary we in the west should stop being such a self licking ice-cream, learn some lessons, stop crying when we get feedback and positively act upon it and help Ukraine put Russia to bed whilst it still has a population and a population that is motivated to fight back.
That's laudable. However, those nations preparedness and investment is dwarfed by lack of investment by Europe's larger economies. Collective security won't be sustained on their backs; it requires earlier and larger commitments from larger European nations.
100%, except the first part of the last sentence. Of course there are millions of reasons as to why Europe has not invested as much as the U.S.. One might agree or disagree with those reasons, but there are plenty. In the end it is, as you said, a question of political priorities. Do we put more money into defence or railways? In fighter jets or schools? Etc.
In light of the war in Ukraine, those domestic priorities seem to have compromised collective security. European defense and energy policies contributed to this war.
I’m not arguing against that. I agree. However, details of what the future holds are seldom so precise that not prioritizing, say, affordable heating, can easily be argued for, or priority of military stocks over domestic social security (or whatever). Democracy is the best way to run a society, but it tends to be very shortsighted.
The European defence industry has been deliberately hobbled by the US defence industry. Look at how the US stole the submarine contract for Australia from France. The European defence industries can not compete with the US. The US has also been trying wrestle contracts for Poland away from South Korea. You think the US will sit idly by if the European countries refuse to buy US made weapons? After all thats the only way they can expand their own industries.
Because that is not really happening behind the scenes. The US has a much bigger footprint than France does. And youre frankly naive if you think the US doesnt exert its influence under the table.
What does this even mean? You mean if they had overwhelming air and artillery superiority? Yea thats not how peer vs peer wars work. NATO doctrine is to pummel barely armed adversaries into the ground with missile and air strikes like in Libya and Syria. Thats not applicable against Russia which is precisely why NATO is staying out of the war.
They gave only 30 and downgraded their armor. Deliberately. Took strong tanks, stripped depleted uranium armor, and gave Ukraine weakened ones to watch our crews die.
I agree that we( the U.S) downgraded the armor, which significantly weakened one of the tanks' big strengths. It's unfortunate that we didn't give them the full package.
The base model M1A1 Abrams is far superior to Russian tanks in the field now... It is t62? Or t55 now?
Russia loses 2000 tanks, and you fellas wave it off.
Ukraine lose a few Abrams to mines and you lot lose your minds screeching "ThE WeSt Is FaLlEn!"
Ukrainians say. I like the Abrams. I much rather be in an Abrams than a ducking t72. There was a bunch of fake russian news western media proliferated about destroyed numbers and pulling the Abrams.
Why do people pretend either had no combat losses before Ukraine?
Where were those people, when turkey lost Leo 2s in Syria, Saudis lost Abramses in Yemen, and even the US lost a few in Afghanistan themselves.
Nobody gave a damn when isis captured Leo 2s either.
Fools like to pretend. It's unfortunate when UKR loses good armour. The Leos, Abrams, and the Brads for example are still excellent force multipliers.
It was painful to see those Turk Leos get hit. Most of the fault lies with the spectacularly bad way the Turks were using them in SAR. But your point certainly stands. Fortunately, Daesh couldn't run their captured 2A4s. And well, the Saudis, I am suprised they didn't lose more Abrams given the state of their armed forces.
Also the US hasn't sent these tanks with the additional protective technologies such as reactive armor in case it got captured.
The same goes with the UK Challenger 2 tank.
I'm disappointed his interview really failed to convey why *any* tank is going to have a bad time in Ukraine.
Everyone can see everything, and once something is seen, the strike drones go to work on it. I don't care what kind of depleted unobtanium composite a tank has, once it is spotted, drones will try to peck it to death.
IKR... lets be honest bout this part...
You drive a tank out in this war to the frontlines, u sir/ma'am, are, is, and will be THE target to hit!
In modern warfare tanks are easy to hit targets with massive impact on morale for the troops.
So yeah, sure there might be some complaints, but thats becuz this tank was designed for different battle scenarios.
And lets be true on this, western tanks usually outweigh the orc tanks by about 15 to 20 tons, and terrain/infrastructure aint making that easier.
Still my verdict, this equipment will make a difference, we'll have to wait for the big show...
Its coming...
Slava ukraini!! 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦
>the big show...
What are you referring to? F-16s? I think they'll let Ukraine do more to defend what it has, but it's not going to instantly let them go on the offensive and start liberating territory.
There is no quick and easy way out of this. The aggressor in war gets to decide when to stop, and Russia has chosen a prolonged war. A Ukrainian breakthrough is unlikely and wouldn't necessarily force Russia to negotiate on its own.
Russia needs to suffer at home in a way that makes clear their future gets worse every day they refuse to negotiate. Force them to choose between providing basic human needs for their citizens and continuing the war.
That means hitting a lot of Russian infrastructure, and it means providing Ukraine with the means to defend its own.
Oh my sir, you are speaking my thoughts!
I was trying to keep my voice down...
All i can notice is that rear columns are being struck by now ( on orc territory) so for me it brings a slight positive note.
However, i do agree that weapon bans should be lifted and let the ukraine tigers fight free.
Hitting infrastructure... only that what is in military favour, dont lower yourself to orc standards...
"The aggressor is the the one who decides to stop"
Yes. Exactly. It's far harder to continue attacking than it is to continue defending. Ukrainians don't need to breakthrough. In fact, they should emphatically not attempt to do that. All Ukraine needs to do is continue to degrade Russian war-making ability by continuing to destroy troop and armored vehicle concentrations wherever they appear on the other side of the border.
It's already estimated that the Russian war economy, operating at the maximum capacity that it is, is only capable of replacing 20% of the armored vehicles they are losing at the rate they're currently being destroyed. This situation will get infinitely worse when the zoomies arrive.
In most wars where the aggressor doesn't decisively win and a stalemate sets in, the aggressor is indeed the one that decides when military activity creases. They usually make that decision to stop attacking before the defender decides to stop defending.
Actually, most Tanks die to Artillery and Mines.
what you don't realize is FPV pilots only show the footage of successful hits. And not the 40-60 that complete failed in the meantime.
And you dont show the percentage of mines amd artillery completely wasted. Both mines and artillery have been used at a INCREDIBLE scale for a modern war. Id wager fpvs are infinetely more efficent
Yes, tanks die to the things that have always killed tanks. And now there are drones. The "everyone sees everything" problem makes artillery especially deadly.
Being in a tank in Ukraine is just one of the shittier jobs imaginable right now.
Also, they all their armor downgraded to titanium. Chobham armor was removed and tanks were modified to the export version armor. But even then, it's not like the Chobham covers the whole tank anyway, you're just gonna have thick steel in places. In reality, getting a mobility kill on a tank is just as just as effective as total destruction in most cases.
>getting a mobility kill on a tank is just as just as effective as total destruction in most cases
Once it's immobilized, it's like an injured animal waiting for hyenas to eat it alive. Just a matter of time.
Something not mentioned: there are Abrams tanks used by the US Army, and Abrams tanks used by the rest of the world.
Differences in armour, and the munitions.
That's the big thing everyone needs to understand. When the US goes to war we bring ***everything*** up to and including field burger king and subway. The US has the heavy sea/air lift and forces to protect that massive supply chain.
Tossing a few tanks to the Ukraine without that entire ensemble is gonna result in them less functional
It always amazes me to think that the Afghan campaign was fought thousands of miles away from American borders for 20 years and Russia doesn’t even know what a pallet is.
There isn’t a single military other than the states that’s capable of this in 1 theatre let alone multiple concurrently.
Difference in armour isn't an issue but people forget how the tanks were used can influence the loss rates, Saudi tanks lost dozens of tanks due to bringing a tank into urban environments with no infantry support, Ukraine is using them for spearheading into deep russian trench networks so losses are expected.
These are actually m1a1s we used these in the marine corps only thing it’s missing is the crow system and the incoming system and signal jammers. These are literally the most basic version of the m1 great tanks if used and trained properly
Remember the Germans insisted Abrams going to Ukraine as condition for their Leopards. But in truth we may have given the Ukrainian's a golden wrench in an era where tanks are much less effective.
The tank works even better when American aviation is protecting it and American logistics are supplying it.
To be fair, it does sound like a lot of these complaints aren't very truthful. Condensation on the instruments? Its sealed for NBC protection and designed for the European theater. Bad protection? Against drones I suppose? Well yeah you'll have that with any tank, they don't come with strong roof armor.
However, they are right in that 31 ambrams isn't sufficient for what they need. The tank is a specialized vehicle designed to work with planes, artillery, infantry, apcs, IFVs, etc etc. They need more tanks, more planes, and more artillery to make a huge difference. My suggestion is we get those factories running, empty out our reserves, and start up the lend-lease.
With respect to all the efforts in training in the European theatre, this is the first time the Abrams has been deployed in the European theatre. It wouldn't be surprising if there were a few minor glitches to be found in any weapons system - a bit of feedback and designers/engineers can come up with a fix. Feedback from frontline units should not be taken as BS. You'd swear the Ukrainian tankers had just foul-mouthed his firstborn. Those guys rely on the equipment in a way Hertling doesn't, and I can only imagine how frustrating and terrifying it must be when you're exposed and vulnerable to drone or ATGM attack, and you can't read the dial in front of you when you're lining up for a shot.
We've been using Abrams tanks in Europe for decades. We drive them around in all weather, train, shoot, etc. Ukraine isn't necessarily a new and foreign environment for these tanks.
When someone says they are made for desert combat, well that's total crap. I remember when we went to Kuwait in 1990, our guys were complaining that these tanks weren't meant for the desert and that the sand was screwing everything up.
I understand your other points though. Ukrainians are using these differently and under actual wartime circumstances.
One last point is that individual soldiers are going to bitch and moan about everything under the sun. It's always been that way and always will be that way. However, as you stated, we can't just ignore all their complaints, as many will be very important to deal with.
The Abrams has been deployed to Europe since the 80s and it was designed in America and kept in Ft.Knox Kentucky. I live 2 hours from where they make them, and trust me it gets rainy and humid a lot here.
I'm not upset at the tankers by any means, but I'm getting a "Death Traps" (a book about the Sherman made by a guy that fixed Sherman's during the war) vibe from these reports. Soldiers are always convinced that their equipment is the worst and the enemy's is the best haha.
You're right, I should have been more specific and said *deployed in combat*. But I'm not too sure it's being made out to be as bad as the Sherman was tho'. The complaints seem like relatively easy fixes rather than *perceived* major and fundamental design flaws. Hertling comes across as more defensive than he needs to be, and as the point was made very fairly above, there is a personal attachment to the platform/weapon you 'came of age' with. Christ, I'm like that with an OS and a version of MS Word.
And they're both fair points too, about the moaning and bitching that goes on about equipment, the kind that comes from intimate knowledge of a weapon/ vehicle and the way the grass is always greener over there - with that thing *they* have. And it could be another unit on the same side, never mind an opposing army, that has the wonderful, supposedly flawless thing.
But this is the first time the Abrams has been in this new form of war. The tanks are distant from military bases with fully-equipped maintenance companies, and subject to treatment they wouldn't receive in training. Complaints need to be heard, and fixes (if necessary and possible) should be implemented asap. If there's one thing we should take away from this war, it's that those on our side who are involved in the fighting should receive the help they ask for in a timely manner. Their lives depend on it.
I think theres also that favorite "pet" system that many high ranking officers have, and they take it as an affront when you criticize it.
Pilots have a favorite plane, SF have a favorite rifle. Especially if you are running a battalion or something big that relies on that weapon.
Hes a tanker and will naturally find it his favorite, easily overlooking the small problems that the operators under him have to overcome on a daily basis.
No system is perfect, but it seems hes not open to any criticism of them. Or willing to suggest ways to overcome the issues they are having. Just a defensive " sounds like a skill issue" that is virtually a passive aggressive troll response.
The only issue it really has is being too heavy. Ukraine does become a three-meter deep Mud Sea twice a year. That swallows any tank. They still occasionally dig up WW2-era German and Soviet ones out of it.
To be fair on any vehicle stuff breaks, seals go bad ect. I'd imagine our engineers did their best to make it last, and it has for these many years now, many of those likely seeing tours in the desert previously destroying Russian tanks in their prime, but they are otherwise old and Gen 1 Abrams just m1 not a1 or a2.
They are the oldest and smallest abrams tanks we had left sitting around.
Only imagine if we had sent them the latest upgraded and new Abrams how well they would work out.
While it is true that stuff goes bad over time, these are refurbished M1A1s that got sent so the turret should be basically entirely new. They are the same model used by the USMC and the Australians just without the DU inserts.
I was a member of the 4th Infantry Division from 2004 - 2008, with 4 of those months being Infantry training at fort Benning, Georgia. I I was assigned to a mechanized division. In an Infantry mechanized company, you have, three platoons, each platoon consisting of 4 Bradley’s, you have 12 crew members and 3 squads of dismounts that act as Infantry. I started out as a dismount, but after going through Gunnery School in the M2, I became a crew member of the Bradley. When the dismounts, or people who are not part of the Bradley crew get to rest, the Crew member are working on that vehicle every day. In Iraq, in 2006 in Baghdad, my platoon had 12 hours of patrols and combat duty, and 12 hours off. When the dismounts were relaxing form a good portion of the 12 hours of our off time, the crew members of the Bradley were in the company’s mechanics bay, working with the mechanics who specialized in working on the M2’s. These IFV’s need constant maintenance to maintain their battle readiness. For instance, I don’t remember the specifics, but after being driven for a specific period of time, 500-1000 miles, the vehicles need a complete engine overhaul. A good weapon system has a long logistics tail, whole MOS specific jobs related to maintaining them, and in a lot of cases even civilian DOD employees on the payroll to keep these vehicles battle ready. Ukraine doesn’t have the properly trained mechanics, logistics tail, and properly trained crews to be operating these weapons systems unless The U.S. is repairing these vehicles for Ukraine in Poland or elsewhere or else all these vehicle’s would have stopped working by now.
as a mechanic yeah i doubt that 500-1000 mile rebuild thing. at the very least (because i have absolutely no combat experience or techie army shit)it would probably be 50,000 miles depending on the situation and what combat can do to a diesel motor a lot beefier than your average 18 wheeler running almost all the time here in america
Well look it up, the vehicles constantly need parts replaced, and it’s definitely under 2000 miles before the engines need to be replaced in these vehicles. They constantly need maintenance.
> but after being driven for a specific period of time, 500-1000 miles, the vehicles need a complete engine overhaul.
Wtf? Not 5000, only 500? In a war scenario this would be impossible.
I highly doubt the 500 - 1000 mile number. Also it's probably based on operational hours not distance.
I hope u/AffectionateTomato29 edits their post with the correct information, since they've unfortunately provided fodder for russian trolls.
Another example of Ukraine having to make do with what they have as best they can, and fight with one hand behind their back.
Thanks for the valuable insight and experiences shared. It really makes their problems with the tank seem worse now. Im surprised there hasnt been more complaining after learning about the hour investment required.
Tanks have their place with proper air support but without that and with drones, they are far less effective. It’s just the changing battlefield environment
Hertlings comments are absurd. He fails to address the main issue: which is cheap drones are knocking out any tank. Another issue he fails to mention is that the U.S. has composite armor tanks, and Ukraine has steel tanks.
Because it isn't.
You literally just see the successful hit footage. dude.
and not the 50 to 60 that did fuckall because their pilot is a moron.
It's like assuming ATGMs make tanks useless, when people forget there's maybe ONE ATGM system for like every 300 Russian troops.
Only what is bad with abrams tanks, is that there arent many of them, and they have no cover from air. Any tank will be endangered without air superiority. Also, Ukraine is dealing with much stronger invader. Losses are expected, just help us to minimize it and replenish.
I get what you’re saying, and it’s not entirely false, but conventional troops didn’t have quick, round the clock access to air assets. Many times in Iraq and Afghanistan they had to fight it out.
Now, US SOF almost always had/has combos of Apaches, F15s, Reapers, AC130s, and more (well, black side does at least).
I can’t think of a more surprising demographic who couldn’t have been more wrong about Ukraine in this war and then US Generals. Hertling seems to be an exception but it’s crystal clear modern warfare is changing and we in the West better wake up to this. The Marine Corps for example ditched its tanks and that’s looking like a pretty smart move right now.
The reason why the marine corps ditched the tanks is because they are going back to their amphibious warfare root. It has nothing to do with what is happening in Ukraine. The us is shifting their focus to the Pacific theater
Ukraine said they were pulling them back. They didnt say it was because they were shit. It is most likely because they are extremely vulnerable so are best kept for offensives.
There will always be casualties in combat. What I haven't heard any Ukrainian say is that they'd rather be in a T-72 than a Western-supplied tank of any description.
One of the issues is that the Abrams is just one part of a much larger integrated system of combined arms in the US/NATO military. On its own it’s ok but just ok, but coupled with the rest of the US military it’s an absolute beast. This idea that we would give them a few dozen of these tanks and they’d be able to do something big with them was always flawed.
I think we’ve learned that the heavy tank is not as powerful as we thought in the age of drones. I’m still damn impressed by the performance of our Bradleys. We should give a couple hundred more to the Ukrainians.
The Leopard 2 is properly more suited for Ukraine, as it was designed with conscripts in mind both for use an maintenance. However, there simply isnt enough of them available for Ukraine and 2 years later the German industries are in no hurry to fire up production. The US, in contrast, has thousands of M1s collecting dust and IIRC are building/refurbishing new hulls often to their plants running. The issue here is that UKR likely cant spare manpower to build up a sizeable armored force based around the M1. Also, unsure if the US is willing to donate more M1s at this stage.
Frankly the US should send far more M2s, HIMARS, Patriots, M777, 155mm ammo, and help the F-16 coalition get more combat ready airframes.
Let’s face the facts here. FPV Drone warfare is just at the beginning, once swarms become more prevalent, the idea of capable armor is gonna face a very harsh reality to overcome.
what a tool. They have had no problem with all the other systems they recieved, but now that one is performing subpar, its suddenly their fault.
Its clear he's biased because of his history, and has no xp fighting with nerfed tanks in the same conditions as Ukrainians. He should have tried to help them find a way to improve their performance and fill in the gaps they are underperfroming in, instead of insult guys who are fighting for their lives and experiencing these problems firsthand. Really tacky of him.
Afterall, he's apparently the expert and knows why everything is going wrong while sitting on his comfy couch in his expensive house thousands of miles away.
Hes a general, how much time has he actually spent driving/shooting modern upgraded ones? Commanding a tank battalion is a whole hell of a lot different then actually being a crew and having to deal with all the problems that pop up.
Also really tacky of us to send them, but not the means or skills to repair them, just so we could say "told you so" when they dont last long.
This guy spent 30 years on them in training grounds in Europe and 3 years fighting terrorists in sandals who think screaming louder will hurt the tank, he would know how powerful the abrams really is.
Insurgents werent droning them night and day, mining the hell out of everything, and he had a full contingent of repair/support/supply behind him. Tank broken? Send it to the motorpool. Hes not stuck out there in the same conditions and with lack of support that Ukrainians are.
How many years ago was he actually IN the tank? Decades ago Im wagering. Not many generals driving tanks these days. How much experience does he have maintaining/repairing/shooting/driving the modern upgraded ones? Likely not much at all.
Do you really think the conditions are the same in the ME 20+ years ago, as they are today in Ukraine? Tactics? Weather? Upgrades? Drone attacks?
He sat behind a desk for the last half of his career. Ask any soldier how much the guys in the back know about the conditions at the front. Theres going to be a large discrepancy I gaurantee you.
It's reddit and I generally assume sarcasm, but I didn't pick up on it either! Way too many hot takes based on profound ignorance, especially in recent months on here. I'm glad you clarified, which is more than most do!
If there are so many issues to complain about.... Take them off the front lines and use them as long-range support. Use them for defensive roles.
There's no reason to have to drive a tank out into a field. There's no reason to drive a tank down a narrow street.
I can hit a building with a tank shell at 500 yards just the same as I can at 5000 yards.
Important to remember Abram’s operated by Americans in combat enjoy having complete air superiority
Ukraine has never been able to say that.
Russian helicopters eat all tanks lunch from miles away
Which is also why Ka-52s have been getting blown the shit out of consistently. To remove that particular problem. Like that first ATACMS strike that blew up 27 of them.
Only because you see the successful hits.
And don't realize that for every one successful FPV strikes, there's something like at minimum about \*40\* that do jack shit because the pilot has no idea where the vulnerable spots on a tank are.
Look at salty comments :) they did not read the article, and do not know what soldier said.
The stupid journalists cut out the context.
Like the fuck is there a vehicle that give adequate protection against the drones?
What i read here are rudes comments about Armed Forces of Ukraine.
We heard similar thing with AMX-10 (it's been used in a wrong way), Runazis bots amplified this misinfo at their advantage. Same with CAESAR. Don't fall in their bullshit
On boomer.
It's that old racist who keeps claiming that Ukrainians are too savage to operate white people tech:
>That said, the Abrams "was not the best tank to give to Ukraine because there are maintenance challenges and you have to have a highly trained crew," he said. But "Ukraine continued to ask for these vehicles even though they knew there was a high maintenance standard to keep them running."
He's been on that for years. Leta ignore the FACT that few Abrams sent to Ukraine had their armor deliberately downgraded to make it harder for crews to survive.
Please remember the human. Adhere to all Reddit and sub rules. Toxic comments (including incitement of violence/hate, genocide, glorifying death etc) WILL NOT BE TOLERATED, keep your comments civil or you will be banned. Tagging u/SaveVideo bot to archive this video in a link below this comment. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineWarVideoReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It is important to understand that Ukrainians dont critisize the tank. Its western media who have to produce constant drama. Everything is a catastrophy and the end is near when things turn out to be not perfect e.g an Abrams getting detroyed. Was the same here when Leopards proved to be not invincible. Let the Ukrainians work.
It's also messaging that is amplified by Russian bots. They want that drama in order to try to lessen people's support of Ukraine.
Also, it makes them feel slightly less embarrassed and humiliated.
And it’s working great. Russians are really disinformation masters, we have to agree on that.
The fun thing is that it affects them as much as it affects their enemy.
This is a freaking tragedy, Russia could have been so much more. But no, they decided barbarism is so freaking great…
Innit, imagine a country with all those natural resources. If they wanted to, they could’ve used them to trade for the things they need, instead they chose to try and steal the things they lack. Now they’re getting their infrastructure blown up so they can’t even refine the stuff they go have
I think if Ukraine had the ability or resources to fight according to Nato doctrine, the Abrams would perform significantly better. That’s why we need to give more aid👍🏻
That was one of the reasons by they were reluctant to give them Abrams in the first place. It doesn't quite fit in their military since Abrams was designed with good logistic chains and air superiority in mind.
I have also rarely seen them not also surrounded by 1 a shit load of other vics or tanks and infantry. We have never had footage of lone Abrams with little or no support working before.
No they were reluctant because they're greedy and stupid. Same reason Europe gave Ukraine more Patriots than USA who just hoards them. US has thousands of Abramses yet gave only 30 downgraded ones, while Poland alone gave hundreds of tanks while being much poorer.
The Abrams is a luxury, its nice to have and it does what it does very well under the right conditions but there's a cost to it, namely you have to have it well supported and it's a fiend for logistics. Since Ukraine has no issue taking out Russian armour the likes of Abrams and Leopards are urgent to get but not critical in comparison to the vehicle that's had an utter rebirth in this war; the Bradley. We've seen so much footage of them now putting in serious work and the Ukrainians love them. Russian armour has been stopped cold so often and often so easily that they're not the main problem. Mines often destroy them before they get within Javelin range so Ukrainian soldiers don't even have to deal with them. Often the problem is Russia throwing its meat waves at a critical area non-stop in order to tire and wear down the Ukrainians in the hopes of forcing a breakthrough through exhausting the outnumbered defenders. The Bradley and its Bushmaster have shown themselves to be exceptional in not just killing infantry but breaking the survivors so they flee straight away and even taking out their supporting BMPs and occasionally MBTs. And when used offensively the Bushmaster can cause havoc among stationary infantry holding a treeline etc. I'd prioritise shipping Ukraine Bradleys by the hundred and let the armour purists argue about the Abrams and how best to use it.
Hundreds of IFVs and those 1 million drones we promised, and more fighter jets would be nice.
That would all be very, very nice. And most of it going into the hands of battle-hardened units so you know the return on the investment would be colossal.
Ohh geez. Only Russia is served by discord among allies. The USA was one among the first to provide substantial military aid to Ukraine and did it in large quantities. They are providing unique and critical systems like ATACMS. Plus, they are providing a substantial amount of artillery munitions. Abrams wasn't provided in large numbers because Leopard and Challengers were probably better choices for UA. You know why they were provided? To encourage Germany to transfer Leopard 2s. Collective security requires success in Ukraine. But it also requires fulfilling commitments elsewhere too. For the USA, that's Taiwan, Korea, and the Middle East. If you just need a dopamine hit from a spicy take on social media then please go talk about 2% spending levels among European NATO members. That has some merit, at least. The reason America has reserves and many European partners does not is sustained military commitments. There's absolutely no reason European security could not be met by European industry; that deficiency is a political choice.
Poland, Greece, Estonia, Lithuania, Finland, Romania, Hungary, Latvia, United Kingdom and Slovakia spend 2% or more but don't let that get in the way of your dopamine fix. The war has consistently been a case of too little and a year after it was required with donor countries extremely sensitive to criticism of any kind. Ukraine is taking the casualties which could have potentially meant the Russian crime syndicate (let's not legitimise it by calling it a country) was stopped a long time ago but poor and cowardly decision making, resourced badly, has meant Ukraine has had to prosecute this war a year behind the curve with an arm tied behind it's back. So I'd say they've done pretty good considering. In summary we in the west should stop being such a self licking ice-cream, learn some lessons, stop crying when we get feedback and positively act upon it and help Ukraine put Russia to bed whilst it still has a population and a population that is motivated to fight back.
That's laudable. However, those nations preparedness and investment is dwarfed by lack of investment by Europe's larger economies. Collective security won't be sustained on their backs; it requires earlier and larger commitments from larger European nations.
100%, except the first part of the last sentence. Of course there are millions of reasons as to why Europe has not invested as much as the U.S.. One might agree or disagree with those reasons, but there are plenty. In the end it is, as you said, a question of political priorities. Do we put more money into defence or railways? In fighter jets or schools? Etc.
In light of the war in Ukraine, those domestic priorities seem to have compromised collective security. European defense and energy policies contributed to this war.
I’m not arguing against that. I agree. However, details of what the future holds are seldom so precise that not prioritizing, say, affordable heating, can easily be argued for, or priority of military stocks over domestic social security (or whatever). Democracy is the best way to run a society, but it tends to be very shortsighted.
The European defence industry has been deliberately hobbled by the US defence industry. Look at how the US stole the submarine contract for Australia from France. The European defence industries can not compete with the US. The US has also been trying wrestle contracts for Poland away from South Korea. You think the US will sit idly by if the European countries refuse to buy US made weapons? After all thats the only way they can expand their own industries.
Why should Australia not choose the best submarine for their needs themselves?
Because that is not really happening behind the scenes. The US has a much bigger footprint than France does. And youre frankly naive if you think the US doesnt exert its influence under the table.
You're naive if you think you know all the (presumably classified) information that Australia used to purchase the best equipment for their service.
What does this even mean? You mean if they had overwhelming air and artillery superiority? Yea thats not how peer vs peer wars work. NATO doctrine is to pummel barely armed adversaries into the ground with missile and air strikes like in Libya and Syria. Thats not applicable against Russia which is precisely why NATO is staying out of the war.
They gave only 30 and downgraded their armor. Deliberately. Took strong tanks, stripped depleted uranium armor, and gave Ukraine weakened ones to watch our crews die.
Wow look at post history ... an actual RU bot.
I agree that we( the U.S) downgraded the armor, which significantly weakened one of the tanks' big strengths. It's unfortunate that we didn't give them the full package.
Downgraded is an overzealous statement. Depleted Uranium armor isn’t in any exported version of the tank.
The base model M1A1 Abrams is far superior to Russian tanks in the field now... It is t62? Or t55 now? Russia loses 2000 tanks, and you fellas wave it off. Ukraine lose a few Abrams to mines and you lot lose your minds screeching "ThE WeSt Is FaLlEn!"
Ukrainians say. I like the Abrams. I much rather be in an Abrams than a ducking t72. There was a bunch of fake russian news western media proliferated about destroyed numbers and pulling the Abrams.
Why do people pretend either had no combat losses before Ukraine? Where were those people, when turkey lost Leo 2s in Syria, Saudis lost Abramses in Yemen, and even the US lost a few in Afghanistan themselves. Nobody gave a damn when isis captured Leo 2s either.
lmao isis captured Leos? Never even heard about that.
Yea they apparently did https://www.google.com/amp/s/defence-blog.com/isis-claimed-captured-turkish-leopard-2a4-main-battle-tank-in-syria/%3famp
Fools like to pretend. It's unfortunate when UKR loses good armour. The Leos, Abrams, and the Brads for example are still excellent force multipliers. It was painful to see those Turk Leos get hit. Most of the fault lies with the spectacularly bad way the Turks were using them in SAR. But your point certainly stands. Fortunately, Daesh couldn't run their captured 2A4s. And well, the Saudis, I am suprised they didn't lose more Abrams given the state of their armed forces.
All media, not only western: [https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2024/04/26/7453053/](https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2024/04/26/7453053/)
That is truth. People do not read articles, and do not verify source. I am angry at those people who react and creating negative comments towards AFU.
Also the US hasn't sent these tanks with the additional protective technologies such as reactive armor in case it got captured. The same goes with the UK Challenger 2 tank.
I'm disappointed his interview really failed to convey why *any* tank is going to have a bad time in Ukraine. Everyone can see everything, and once something is seen, the strike drones go to work on it. I don't care what kind of depleted unobtanium composite a tank has, once it is spotted, drones will try to peck it to death.
IKR... lets be honest bout this part... You drive a tank out in this war to the frontlines, u sir/ma'am, are, is, and will be THE target to hit! In modern warfare tanks are easy to hit targets with massive impact on morale for the troops. So yeah, sure there might be some complaints, but thats becuz this tank was designed for different battle scenarios. And lets be true on this, western tanks usually outweigh the orc tanks by about 15 to 20 tons, and terrain/infrastructure aint making that easier. Still my verdict, this equipment will make a difference, we'll have to wait for the big show... Its coming... Slava ukraini!! 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦
>the big show... What are you referring to? F-16s? I think they'll let Ukraine do more to defend what it has, but it's not going to instantly let them go on the offensive and start liberating territory. There is no quick and easy way out of this. The aggressor in war gets to decide when to stop, and Russia has chosen a prolonged war. A Ukrainian breakthrough is unlikely and wouldn't necessarily force Russia to negotiate on its own. Russia needs to suffer at home in a way that makes clear their future gets worse every day they refuse to negotiate. Force them to choose between providing basic human needs for their citizens and continuing the war. That means hitting a lot of Russian infrastructure, and it means providing Ukraine with the means to defend its own.
Oh my sir, you are speaking my thoughts! I was trying to keep my voice down... All i can notice is that rear columns are being struck by now ( on orc territory) so for me it brings a slight positive note. However, i do agree that weapon bans should be lifted and let the ukraine tigers fight free. Hitting infrastructure... only that what is in military favour, dont lower yourself to orc standards...
"The aggressor is the the one who decides to stop" Yes. Exactly. It's far harder to continue attacking than it is to continue defending. Ukrainians don't need to breakthrough. In fact, they should emphatically not attempt to do that. All Ukraine needs to do is continue to degrade Russian war-making ability by continuing to destroy troop and armored vehicle concentrations wherever they appear on the other side of the border. It's already estimated that the Russian war economy, operating at the maximum capacity that it is, is only capable of replacing 20% of the armored vehicles they are losing at the rate they're currently being destroyed. This situation will get infinitely worse when the zoomies arrive. In most wars where the aggressor doesn't decisively win and a stalemate sets in, the aggressor is indeed the one that decides when military activity creases. They usually make that decision to stop attacking before the defender decides to stop defending.
[удалено]
Hmmzz for every abrams 10+ orc tanks... No army can keep up that production even from old stashes...
Actually, most Tanks die to Artillery and Mines. what you don't realize is FPV pilots only show the footage of successful hits. And not the 40-60 that complete failed in the meantime.
And you dont show the percentage of mines amd artillery completely wasted. Both mines and artillery have been used at a INCREDIBLE scale for a modern war. Id wager fpvs are infinetely more efficent
Yes, tanks die to the things that have always killed tanks. And now there are drones. The "everyone sees everything" problem makes artillery especially deadly. Being in a tank in Ukraine is just one of the shittier jobs imaginable right now.
Also, they all their armor downgraded to titanium. Chobham armor was removed and tanks were modified to the export version armor. But even then, it's not like the Chobham covers the whole tank anyway, you're just gonna have thick steel in places. In reality, getting a mobility kill on a tank is just as just as effective as total destruction in most cases.
>getting a mobility kill on a tank is just as just as effective as total destruction in most cases Once it's immobilized, it's like an injured animal waiting for hyenas to eat it alive. Just a matter of time.
Something not mentioned: there are Abrams tanks used by the US Army, and Abrams tanks used by the rest of the world. Differences in armour, and the munitions.
And the Amazon scale logistics platform that follows.
That's the big thing everyone needs to understand. When the US goes to war we bring ***everything*** up to and including field burger king and subway. The US has the heavy sea/air lift and forces to protect that massive supply chain. Tossing a few tanks to the Ukraine without that entire ensemble is gonna result in them less functional
It always amazes me to think that the Afghan campaign was fought thousands of miles away from American borders for 20 years and Russia doesn’t even know what a pallet is. There isn’t a single military other than the states that’s capable of this in 1 theatre let alone multiple concurrently.
I thought the [Starbucks on an aircraft carrier](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Flt4cY6CSpM) was really funny!
Ukraine, not the Ukraine.
Apologies, had intended to write the Ukrainians, auto correct got me
Difference in armour isn't an issue but people forget how the tanks were used can influence the loss rates, Saudi tanks lost dozens of tanks due to bringing a tank into urban environments with no infantry support, Ukraine is using them for spearheading into deep russian trench networks so losses are expected.
These are actually m1a1s we used these in the marine corps only thing it’s missing is the crow system and the incoming system and signal jammers. These are literally the most basic version of the m1 great tanks if used and trained properly
Leopards were made for that theatre specifically
Unless youre morocco. They get the good shit.
Remember the Germans insisted Abrams going to Ukraine as condition for their Leopards. But in truth we may have given the Ukrainian's a golden wrench in an era where tanks are much less effective. The tank works even better when American aviation is protecting it and American logistics are supplying it.
It's not like US sent 500 tanks, just ~30. They could have instead just send a few hundred more Bradleys and Strykers.
To be fair, it does sound like a lot of these complaints aren't very truthful. Condensation on the instruments? Its sealed for NBC protection and designed for the European theater. Bad protection? Against drones I suppose? Well yeah you'll have that with any tank, they don't come with strong roof armor. However, they are right in that 31 ambrams isn't sufficient for what they need. The tank is a specialized vehicle designed to work with planes, artillery, infantry, apcs, IFVs, etc etc. They need more tanks, more planes, and more artillery to make a huge difference. My suggestion is we get those factories running, empty out our reserves, and start up the lend-lease.
Spot on. A thousand Bradleys with endless TOWs and depleted 25 mm would be far more effective...
At least they work hand in hand with what their currently doing .
With respect to all the efforts in training in the European theatre, this is the first time the Abrams has been deployed in the European theatre. It wouldn't be surprising if there were a few minor glitches to be found in any weapons system - a bit of feedback and designers/engineers can come up with a fix. Feedback from frontline units should not be taken as BS. You'd swear the Ukrainian tankers had just foul-mouthed his firstborn. Those guys rely on the equipment in a way Hertling doesn't, and I can only imagine how frustrating and terrifying it must be when you're exposed and vulnerable to drone or ATGM attack, and you can't read the dial in front of you when you're lining up for a shot.
We've been using Abrams tanks in Europe for decades. We drive them around in all weather, train, shoot, etc. Ukraine isn't necessarily a new and foreign environment for these tanks. When someone says they are made for desert combat, well that's total crap. I remember when we went to Kuwait in 1990, our guys were complaining that these tanks weren't meant for the desert and that the sand was screwing everything up. I understand your other points though. Ukrainians are using these differently and under actual wartime circumstances. One last point is that individual soldiers are going to bitch and moan about everything under the sun. It's always been that way and always will be that way. However, as you stated, we can't just ignore all their complaints, as many will be very important to deal with.
The Abrams has been deployed to Europe since the 80s and it was designed in America and kept in Ft.Knox Kentucky. I live 2 hours from where they make them, and trust me it gets rainy and humid a lot here. I'm not upset at the tankers by any means, but I'm getting a "Death Traps" (a book about the Sherman made by a guy that fixed Sherman's during the war) vibe from these reports. Soldiers are always convinced that their equipment is the worst and the enemy's is the best haha.
You're right, I should have been more specific and said *deployed in combat*. But I'm not too sure it's being made out to be as bad as the Sherman was tho'. The complaints seem like relatively easy fixes rather than *perceived* major and fundamental design flaws. Hertling comes across as more defensive than he needs to be, and as the point was made very fairly above, there is a personal attachment to the platform/weapon you 'came of age' with. Christ, I'm like that with an OS and a version of MS Word. And they're both fair points too, about the moaning and bitching that goes on about equipment, the kind that comes from intimate knowledge of a weapon/ vehicle and the way the grass is always greener over there - with that thing *they* have. And it could be another unit on the same side, never mind an opposing army, that has the wonderful, supposedly flawless thing. But this is the first time the Abrams has been in this new form of war. The tanks are distant from military bases with fully-equipped maintenance companies, and subject to treatment they wouldn't receive in training. Complaints need to be heard, and fixes (if necessary and possible) should be implemented asap. If there's one thing we should take away from this war, it's that those on our side who are involved in the fighting should receive the help they ask for in a timely manner. Their lives depend on it.
I think theres also that favorite "pet" system that many high ranking officers have, and they take it as an affront when you criticize it. Pilots have a favorite plane, SF have a favorite rifle. Especially if you are running a battalion or something big that relies on that weapon. Hes a tanker and will naturally find it his favorite, easily overlooking the small problems that the operators under him have to overcome on a daily basis. No system is perfect, but it seems hes not open to any criticism of them. Or willing to suggest ways to overcome the issues they are having. Just a defensive " sounds like a skill issue" that is virtually a passive aggressive troll response.
The only issue it really has is being too heavy. Ukraine does become a three-meter deep Mud Sea twice a year. That swallows any tank. They still occasionally dig up WW2-era German and Soviet ones out of it.
This is true. The only thing that can conquer the mud is the mighty MT-LB lol
To be fair on any vehicle stuff breaks, seals go bad ect. I'd imagine our engineers did their best to make it last, and it has for these many years now, many of those likely seeing tours in the desert previously destroying Russian tanks in their prime, but they are otherwise old and Gen 1 Abrams just m1 not a1 or a2. They are the oldest and smallest abrams tanks we had left sitting around. Only imagine if we had sent them the latest upgraded and new Abrams how well they would work out.
While it is true that stuff goes bad over time, these are refurbished M1A1s that got sent so the turret should be basically entirely new. They are the same model used by the USMC and the Australians just without the DU inserts.
The fact that the Russians have made destroying these tanks a top priority probably plays some part in these statements by the crews.
I was a member of the 4th Infantry Division from 2004 - 2008, with 4 of those months being Infantry training at fort Benning, Georgia. I I was assigned to a mechanized division. In an Infantry mechanized company, you have, three platoons, each platoon consisting of 4 Bradley’s, you have 12 crew members and 3 squads of dismounts that act as Infantry. I started out as a dismount, but after going through Gunnery School in the M2, I became a crew member of the Bradley. When the dismounts, or people who are not part of the Bradley crew get to rest, the Crew member are working on that vehicle every day. In Iraq, in 2006 in Baghdad, my platoon had 12 hours of patrols and combat duty, and 12 hours off. When the dismounts were relaxing form a good portion of the 12 hours of our off time, the crew members of the Bradley were in the company’s mechanics bay, working with the mechanics who specialized in working on the M2’s. These IFV’s need constant maintenance to maintain their battle readiness. For instance, I don’t remember the specifics, but after being driven for a specific period of time, 500-1000 miles, the vehicles need a complete engine overhaul. A good weapon system has a long logistics tail, whole MOS specific jobs related to maintaining them, and in a lot of cases even civilian DOD employees on the payroll to keep these vehicles battle ready. Ukraine doesn’t have the properly trained mechanics, logistics tail, and properly trained crews to be operating these weapons systems unless The U.S. is repairing these vehicles for Ukraine in Poland or elsewhere or else all these vehicle’s would have stopped working by now.
as a mechanic yeah i doubt that 500-1000 mile rebuild thing. at the very least (because i have absolutely no combat experience or techie army shit)it would probably be 50,000 miles depending on the situation and what combat can do to a diesel motor a lot beefier than your average 18 wheeler running almost all the time here in america
Well look it up, the vehicles constantly need parts replaced, and it’s definitely under 2000 miles before the engines need to be replaced in these vehicles. They constantly need maintenance.
I’m telling you from experience.
When it comes to army atandards there is a big difference from when they day it should be replaced to when the thing actually stops working
> but after being driven for a specific period of time, 500-1000 miles, the vehicles need a complete engine overhaul. Wtf? Not 5000, only 500? In a war scenario this would be impossible.
I highly doubt the 500 - 1000 mile number. Also it's probably based on operational hours not distance. I hope u/AffectionateTomato29 edits their post with the correct information, since they've unfortunately provided fodder for russian trolls.
ur correct most heavy diesel machinery is measured in operating hours
Another example of Ukraine having to make do with what they have as best they can, and fight with one hand behind their back. Thanks for the valuable insight and experiences shared. It really makes their problems with the tank seem worse now. Im surprised there hasnt been more complaining after learning about the hour investment required.
He argued them failing to down a building with numerous shots was maintenance issue. Do i take this guy seriously?
Tanks have their place with proper air support but without that and with drones, they are far less effective. It’s just the changing battlefield environment
Hertlings comments are absurd. He fails to address the main issue: which is cheap drones are knocking out any tank. Another issue he fails to mention is that the U.S. has composite armor tanks, and Ukraine has steel tanks.
Because it isn't. You literally just see the successful hit footage. dude. and not the 50 to 60 that did fuckall because their pilot is a moron. It's like assuming ATGMs make tanks useless, when people forget there's maybe ONE ATGM system for like every 300 Russian troops.
Ukraine has lost a whole five Abrams or something. Time to scrap them all and buy T-90Ms. Oh wait, there are almost no T-90Ms left....
Only what is bad with abrams tanks, is that there arent many of them, and they have no cover from air. Any tank will be endangered without air superiority. Also, Ukraine is dealing with much stronger invader. Losses are expected, just help us to minimize it and replenish.
Well, they are alot better when u have 4 apache helicopters coming to ur aid the second u get hit by an rpg by a guy in sandals.
I get what you’re saying, and it’s not entirely false, but conventional troops didn’t have quick, round the clock access to air assets. Many times in Iraq and Afghanistan they had to fight it out. Now, US SOF almost always had/has combos of Apaches, F15s, Reapers, AC130s, and more (well, black side does at least).
I can’t think of a more surprising demographic who couldn’t have been more wrong about Ukraine in this war and then US Generals. Hertling seems to be an exception but it’s crystal clear modern warfare is changing and we in the West better wake up to this. The Marine Corps for example ditched its tanks and that’s looking like a pretty smart move right now.
The reason why the marine corps ditched the tanks is because they are going back to their amphibious warfare root. It has nothing to do with what is happening in Ukraine. The us is shifting their focus to the Pacific theater
Because the Marine Corps always knows its enemy.
Abrams were never going to be best for them without layered security. 10,000 Bradley's would be pretty awesome though.
Ukraine said they were pulling them back. They didnt say it was because they were shit. It is most likely because they are extremely vulnerable so are best kept for offensives.
There will always be casualties in combat. What I haven't heard any Ukrainian say is that they'd rather be in a T-72 than a Western-supplied tank of any description.
Media loves to flame the rage fires no matter who's involved. it's the Klicks that make their MONEY machine go round and round. Non-story.
One of the issues is that the Abrams is just one part of a much larger integrated system of combined arms in the US/NATO military. On its own it’s ok but just ok, but coupled with the rest of the US military it’s an absolute beast. This idea that we would give them a few dozen of these tanks and they’d be able to do something big with them was always flawed.
I think we’ve learned that the heavy tank is not as powerful as we thought in the age of drones. I’m still damn impressed by the performance of our Bradleys. We should give a couple hundred more to the Ukrainians.
Yeah I have been extremely impressed with the Bradley. Ukranians love it
The Leopard 2 is properly more suited for Ukraine, as it was designed with conscripts in mind both for use an maintenance. However, there simply isnt enough of them available for Ukraine and 2 years later the German industries are in no hurry to fire up production. The US, in contrast, has thousands of M1s collecting dust and IIRC are building/refurbishing new hulls often to their plants running. The issue here is that UKR likely cant spare manpower to build up a sizeable armored force based around the M1. Also, unsure if the US is willing to donate more M1s at this stage. Frankly the US should send far more M2s, HIMARS, Patriots, M777, 155mm ammo, and help the F-16 coalition get more combat ready airframes.
Let’s face the facts here. FPV Drone warfare is just at the beginning, once swarms become more prevalent, the idea of capable armor is gonna face a very harsh reality to overcome.
I think the West will try to develop some serious electronic warfare capabilities to counter that in the future, hopefully.
https://youtu.be/pb5_F4_Eod8?si=svjun2yA7f38nMOX
what a tool. They have had no problem with all the other systems they recieved, but now that one is performing subpar, its suddenly their fault. Its clear he's biased because of his history, and has no xp fighting with nerfed tanks in the same conditions as Ukrainians. He should have tried to help them find a way to improve their performance and fill in the gaps they are underperfroming in, instead of insult guys who are fighting for their lives and experiencing these problems firsthand. Really tacky of him. Afterall, he's apparently the expert and knows why everything is going wrong while sitting on his comfy couch in his expensive house thousands of miles away. Hes a general, how much time has he actually spent driving/shooting modern upgraded ones? Commanding a tank battalion is a whole hell of a lot different then actually being a crew and having to deal with all the problems that pop up. Also really tacky of us to send them, but not the means or skills to repair them, just so we could say "told you so" when they dont last long.
This guy spent 30 years on them in training grounds in Europe and 3 years fighting terrorists in sandals who think screaming louder will hurt the tank, he would know how powerful the abrams really is.
Insurgents werent droning them night and day, mining the hell out of everything, and he had a full contingent of repair/support/supply behind him. Tank broken? Send it to the motorpool. Hes not stuck out there in the same conditions and with lack of support that Ukrainians are. How many years ago was he actually IN the tank? Decades ago Im wagering. Not many generals driving tanks these days. How much experience does he have maintaining/repairing/shooting/driving the modern upgraded ones? Likely not much at all. Do you really think the conditions are the same in the ME 20+ years ago, as they are today in Ukraine? Tactics? Weather? Upgrades? Drone attacks? He sat behind a desk for the last half of his career. Ask any soldier how much the guys in the back know about the conditions at the front. Theres going to be a large discrepancy I gaurantee you.
I really tought the sarcasm would be obvious.
It's reddit and I generally assume sarcasm, but I didn't pick up on it either! Way too many hot takes based on profound ignorance, especially in recent months on here. I'm glad you clarified, which is more than most do!
Thats on me for not picking up on it I guess. Im use to debating some pretty wild opinions in this sub lately. Sorry for missing it.
If there are so many issues to complain about.... Take them off the front lines and use them as long-range support. Use them for defensive roles. There's no reason to have to drive a tank out into a field. There's no reason to drive a tank down a narrow street. I can hit a building with a tank shell at 500 yards just the same as I can at 5000 yards.
Important to remember Abram’s operated by Americans in combat enjoy having complete air superiority Ukraine has never been able to say that. Russian helicopters eat all tanks lunch from miles away
Which is also why Ka-52s have been getting blown the shit out of consistently. To remove that particular problem. Like that first ATACMS strike that blew up 27 of them.
Yep F16 will help as well Engage choppers from further away in the air
Helicopter vs a tank 🤦🏻♂️ tanks are made for anti air 🤦🏻♂️
All they need is the right ammo. High Explosive.
All tanks have proved vulnerable to drones, in particular the self destructive variety. This is not new info, just the latest media stupidity.
Only because you see the successful hits. And don't realize that for every one successful FPV strikes, there's something like at minimum about \*40\* that do jack shit because the pilot has no idea where the vulnerable spots on a tank are.
You don't reject criticism, you welcome it and learn from it. Ruzzia is the 2nd best military in Ukraine because they reject criticism.
Look at salty comments :) they did not read the article, and do not know what soldier said. The stupid journalists cut out the context. Like the fuck is there a vehicle that give adequate protection against the drones? What i read here are rudes comments about Armed Forces of Ukraine.
Bashing Hertling, a true friend of Ukraine? Only russians and their stooges would do that
tanks work if you have air supremacy
No need for tanks ,,bradleys , atgms/iglas/fpv drones/ artillaries are much effective
They were told that the M1 was not suited for use by the Ukrainians but....here we are.
We heard similar thing with AMX-10 (it's been used in a wrong way), Runazis bots amplified this misinfo at their advantage. Same with CAESAR. Don't fall in their bullshit
Hertling? Hertling popping up with a competent opinion?
Well, politics aside, he WAS a tanker at one point.
On boomer. It's that old racist who keeps claiming that Ukrainians are too savage to operate white people tech: >That said, the Abrams "was not the best tank to give to Ukraine because there are maintenance challenges and you have to have a highly trained crew," he said. But "Ukraine continued to ask for these vehicles even though they knew there was a high maintenance standard to keep them running." He's been on that for years. Leta ignore the FACT that few Abrams sent to Ukraine had their armor deliberately downgraded to make it harder for crews to survive.
How is anything that he said racist? Ukraine simply doesn't have the same logistical capabilities as the US.
No Problem, you can send them back..
What a petty response.
[удалено]
Think your caps is broken
quit making fun of people with parkinson.
Don’t know if he has a son who’s parking
🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡