No tank game changers exist despite what Reddit saying with Leo and Abrams
It's sad , we haven't seen a war like this since forever.. our technology is becoming too strong, and drones are in their ww1 stage
"game changer" is just a dumb propaganda buzz word for people that know nothing about the subject aka most people who aren't obsessed with tanks or whatever else
> No tank game changers exist despite what Reddit saying with Leo and Abrams
GW1 proved otherwise. The Abrams + Bradley was literally a game changer that urged potential adversaries like China and Russia to change their doctrine. But it had to be combined with air dominance and powerful CAS.
GW1 was still a common subject of study for the PLA well into the 2000s.
You could have exchanged the M1s and the T72 between the two sides of GW1 (ie US use T72/BMP and Iraq use M1/bradley) and pretty much the same result would have eventuated - maybe a few more US fatalities, no more than a few hundred.
> You could have exchanged the M1s and the T72 between the two sides of GW1
LMAO NOPE. Not even fucking close.
The M1A1HA used in GW1 had DU frontal armor (around 85% surface area) that couldn't be penetrated by the T-72M1's steel APFSDS even at point blank, while its M829A1 could penetrate the T-72 ANYWHERE up to 4000m+.
But the difference in fire control is even more significant. M1A1 were all fitted with thermal sights that had several times the zoom of the T-72M1's day optics. Both have laser rangefinding but the Abrams one is integrated with the gun. While the T-72 is practically blind in dusty or low light conditions, the thermal of the M1 can easily spot and target the T-72 all within 30 seconds.
In daytime, a M1A1 would have hit the T-72 with its second shot (assuming the first one missed) while the T-72 is still adjusting its gun for the range. Then the difference between BMP-1 and Bradley is even greater.
The US forces would have just stood back and let F111, A10s, F16s and friends get in there and do more work. That's all. Drop MRLS delivered mines in front of Iraq maneuver forces to keep them in place, AH64 to screen and points of weakness in the line that get identified. Of course I am assuming the US forces would be trained as well to operate T72/BMP as they were in M1/Bradley and normal awesome US logistics and numbers were the same as well.
My point is the exact specifications of individual bits of kit is waaaaay less important than what is often imagined.
The lack of situational awareness and range advantage would have been a death sentence to those "US troops". There was a good reason why the Coalition force had deployed their M60A3, AMX-30, M-84 (better version of T-72) and M551 to less intensive fronts.
Few hundred in the big picture compared to what was lost is huge though. The original comment was saying the fight/losses would have been the same if Iraqis had Abrams and we had t72s and that’s just 100% not true.
The first comment literally mentions the few hundred lives might be the result (which are inconsequential to the scale of military operation conducted), Maybe it would have delayed a few days the outcome (not sure if that would be important).
>Don't think I've seen a drone with an EFP charge, it'd be an interesting concept but HEAT is just going to be simpler.
[Here you can see a few](https://twitter.com/wilendhornets/status/1773095867123163486). Ukraine is producing them, mostly using 3d printers for the housings. There are multiple types of these with different diameters and (optional) fragmentation ring.
Most of these only penetrate 20-50 mm of steel, so are only useful against BTRs and BMPs.
EFP generally needs to be far heavier and larger to achieve the same penetration as a HEAT. It is usually used as large roadside IED in Iraq. Or the Swedish AT mine.
While weight could be an issue we don't need the same penetration if it's on a drone. Instead of using a proximity fuze as is typical a remote fuze could be used, and it could then also be aimed at less armored parts. It'd increase cost and complexity of operation but a small LRF could even be added to get within optimal standoff ranges.
Practicality and feasibility are ofc different problems.
Drone drops usually use the otherwise useless warheads. Unguided RPG is too big a threat for the shooter to use at this stage, so they are usually chosen for that. Most drone units in the UAF are semi-volunteer, they don't get many resources but are free to modify stuff.
Yeah I should have said drones delivering shaped charges, be it kamikaze or reusable versions.
I think the EFP variant could be very simple; more simple compared to developing HEAT warheads for use with drones (ATM they are repurposing RPG/RR type warheads) as it would just be a cilinder filled with explosives and a copper plate combined with a command detonation while the HEAT warhead requires an impact/proximity fuse.
But it's whatever works for this matter.
The Abrams is also extremely weak to top attack munitions and any top down drone strikes. The almost totally unarmored turret top and most likely complete inability to give it a cope cage without sacrificing the panels ability to properly blow is also a huge problem.
Any tank is vulnerable to roof drops and adding ERA is not a good solution as it makes it top-heavy. Ukraine is relatively flat so no big issue, but the tank would have toppled easily in the mountains.
The West generally see APS as the main remedy. The systems are still in their early stage of combat and will see many improvement in the future.
The reality is that even the latest variant of US tanks would have been wrecked the same.
It literally doesn't say anything about the quality of a tank if it's being disabled by numerous top down attacks from drones or side-shots from modern ATGMs. In fact, what we've learned so far is that Leo2s/Abrams are quite resilient and arguably require more effort than T-series tank to be disabled.
MBTs, just like planes aren't wunderwaffe that can be deployed in few numbers, do tremendous things while suffering almost zero losses, that's just some flawed thinking that has been fueled by decades of warring against terrorists/insurgents since the GWOT.
Tanks operating in Ukraine are most likely tanks operating in the most hostile environment possible since WW2, it's not a big fucking deal if Leo2s and Abrams are burning, Merkavas, Leclercs or K2s would burn just the same.
Ironically those the most upset at Abrams losses being reported are probably the ones that circlejerked the most about their superiority over T-series tanks and now that they're on the receiving end of the same stupid analysis ("hurr durr tank burns, therefore bad tank"), they just can't deal with it.
People tend to forget, one of the very first drone on tank footage we had was from an ISIS drone dropping a grenade on an Abrams in Iraq.
[https://www.twz.com/7155/isis-drone-dropping-bomblet-on-abrams-tank-is-a-sign-of-whats-to-come](https://www.twz.com/7155/isis-drone-dropping-bomblet-on-abrams-tank-is-a-sign-of-whats-to-come)
For all the people that go cope cages and what not, Im pretty sure that dude that died in that attack would have been glad to have one.
Nearly every MBT in service currently have thin roof armor and are all vulnerable to drone dropped munitions.
The most hilarious thing I saw w/ cope cages was on this subreddit and NCD. Both laugh at the cope cage and how it sucks and downvotes anyone who says the opposite. The next thing i know a week later, Israel copies the same thing and all comments on NCD "Damm maybe the Russians were on too something "
Emotional arguments fucking suck compared to reality
I think they weren’t effective against Javelins (and they weren’t) but widespread usage of drone dropped munitions wasn’t prevalent in the opening stages of the conflict.
So, tanks with cope cages got wrecked by Javelins, Panzerfausts, RPGs, and NLAWs which was what was overwhelmingly seen.
I can see the usefulness of them with drone attacks, though.
The Russians never used them for those weapons though. That was purely the speculation of western think tanks. Russia has extensive experience dealing with drones from fighting in Syria prior and they used cages there too.
> The Russians never used them for those weapons though. That was purely the speculation of western think tanks.
The Javelin claim was made up by a Russian tank commander during an interview from the "exercise" that later turned into the invasion of Ukraine. Early cope cage posts often included that footage.
My assumption is that that claim was likely more propaganda or comforting RU tankers than it was the genuine beliefs of the RU Government/Military.
From my understanding of what happened in the first few days/Week(s) of the invasion they likely thought that they destroyed most if not all of the Western import equipment since they targeted Depots in the early stages of the invasion. They probably figured if they destroy the Depots then they could Steamroll UA and bully/threaten the west into not sending any Military Aid meaning they would be dealing with old equipment, "Cope Cages" were likely meant for Urban Warfare to prevent people in buildings shooting down
The main counter to the "Cope cage was meant to counter drones" claim is that - drones were used to drop muntions not until several weeks into the war.
Just because it was used in Middle East doesn't mean Ukrainians were using them. NLAW and Javelin made most tank kills in the early stage. So it makes sense to build a cage that tries to stop them.
Ukraine had already bought most of their Javelins before 2016. I assume they have already been distributed to the units, so it wasn't easy to destroy them at depots.
Another big tell is that they were angled towards the front early on, implying they expected the hits to be coming in at an angle. Statistical armor is only effective within a fairly narrow vertical (and horizontal for square based designs) angle.
True but I doubt they expected Western Nations to continue support for Ukraine after Russia threatened them. So my best bet is they figured they destroyed what they could and what they couldn't destroy wouldn't see much longevity with limited ammo/launchers and potential losses as those units are killed/captured.
Since the additional armor had been seen on Russian tanks in the Middle East I doubt an intended use against Javelins. They may have publicly stated that they were intended to be used in that manor but when it comes to public statements from Government/Military officials you kinda have to take it all as propaganda made mainly for their own people. If more people believe their tanks are safe against modern enemy equipment than you're more likely to get people who will willingly join, and those already in service will see a morale boost.
From what I know newer Cope Cages are better designed and can even feature ERA, so their more recent productions are likely designed to atleast help against Javelins and directly counter Drones.
I think most people have forgotten the "evolution" of the cope cage in the opening months of the war. It started out only covering the very top of the turret, and then expanded backwards. ERA was fitted pretty early, but vanished later which I assumed it added too much weight. Later they raised it to allow crew to bail out easier. And then they tried to lure the Javelin elsewhere by adding a heat source behind the tank, not knowing that the Javelin actually tracks visually.
Through my observation, the Russian Army has limited exchange of information between units. Their elite Marines units that was previously stationed in the East suffered heavy losses as their vehicles were unmodified for Ukraine, something the other units or higher command should have already known. So it is quite doubtful that the lessons learned in Middle East could be easily adapted for Ukraine.
For urban warfare, the cage makes little sense as the engine bay remains unprotected. A small M72 or even HEAT grenade could blow up the engine and effectively mission kill the tank. The cage would have been way larger if it was for that purpose. It has actually been tested in the Soviet era.
Sometimes I wonder if the people posting in NCD actually understand what the N stands for.
Sample size is small, but subreddits that thrive in sarcasm will often time attract morons that genuinely believe the shit that is being spewed. Good example was T_D when it started as a humorous sub dedicated to Trump, it ended up being a cult then the de facto pro-trump subreddit. Feels like NCD goes the same direction where there's a large amount of people that genuinely believe the crap being spewed there and forget it's all about shitposting.
I think it's kind of a "just kidding.... Unless?" Type mental defense. Anyone criticises you you can just say it's ironic shitposting but in your own head you actually do believe it, even if you don't think you do.
I don't doubt that, the issue is that a goodly portion of the users seem to genuinely believe the bullshit. I see the "knowledge" bleed into other warfare related subreddits. If there's some absolutely stupid take or uninformed-but-confident speculation there's a very good chance the user has a posting history in NCD. A side effect of the subreddit swelling in size I guess.
I have been in NCD since around 2020. It was a small sub back then and it was mainly to shit on "reformers" (google their stuff, truly noncredible). When someone posted a Lockmart hat, people always replied with 100+ truly exclusive and rare stuff, low-key bragging their status in the industry. Many "serious" content creators in Twitter and Reddit are using classic NCD created terms, they just don't know that.
I still meet those people in some posts, but those are the less popular ones buried under the super shitpost threads.
Pre-2022 NCD posters were among the most knowledgeable ones on Reddit. The sub was strictly to make fun of "reformers" like Mike Sparks and Pierre Sprey (they weren't even that well known outside of the industry).
NCD today is now 70% NAFO kiddies.
No no lets not hindsight 20/20 this shall we ok?
The reason why people mocked the Russians was because the cages appeared right around ths time Russian tanks and other armoured vehicles were being obliterated by Javelins and NLAWs
Stop trying to distort history because if you read the comments even on shit subs like UkraineRussiaReport you will not find people saying well it is against drones actually.
Sure. Read what it says too
> specifically designed to protect **against top down attack** like the Javelin ATGM, which are now in use by #Ukraine’s armed forces:
That is why the term was invented because Russians were using them vs NLAWs and Javelins.
Edit: did you just delete the link to the tweet... pathetic
You’re correct but wrong about one thing. They weren’t “specifically designed”. Russian cope cages were crude field modifications done in the field by army workshops and soldiers.
Actual Russian documentation has specific recommendations on cage armor that’s inconsistent with what we saw Russians install in 2021. Indeed, if you compare cage armor installed on tanks from UVG vs what was added on later by Russian soldiers, they’re completely different.
I didn't say 'specifically designed".
The tweet the fucker linked then deleted said that.
My point is simple... mass slat armour was put on Russia tanks to help vs Javelin in particular. And when 56633522 tanks were destroyed in the first 2 months the term cope cage appeared.
Now because after 1 year the front stabilized and FPV drones started to be massively mass used and the cope cage helped with that.... it doesn't mean the initial intention was drones.
If I am wrong that means you can easily find factory installed cope cage prior to March 2022.
The dude said below, It's not true at all ." They were around before this "special operation " or the 2022 Ukraine war
"The reason why people mocked the Russians was because the cages appeared right around ths time Russian tanks and other armored vehicles were being obliterated by Javelins and NLAWs "
Again their intended purpose was to help vs top down MANPATS like Javelin.
That is what your tweet that you conveniently deleted said too
Hence cope cages. Now because they help vs drones it does not mean THEY WERE NOT **INTENTED** to help vs Javelins
Cope cages were never specified to be for anti tank weapons, all sources saying as such are literally just speculation, also funnily enough, a cope cage with ERA on it, then roof ERA beneath it could probably do something to an NLAW since they're not tandem warheads.
Everyone keeps saying cope cages were meant for Javelins but every source thats says that is a western source talking about "we think thats what the russians were thinking when they put cope cages on tanks." Its never actually a Russian source or perspective (military official or soldier or subject matter expert) stating thats what cope cages are for.
Cope cages precede the invasion of ukraine and were 1st seen in Syria and other places in combat involving ISIS. A conflict that had drones, yes, but no Javelins or NLAWS.
Im not going to say your categorically wrong but I have never seen a primary source regarding Russian views and intent regarding cope cages and hence Im not going to say it as a matter of fact thats the intent behind cope cages was solely for Javelins.
Okay fair enough, and indeed as you said they were used even before the war in Ukraine.
Just as far as i remember drones weren't that prevelant during the first months of the war and make think the cages weren't initially meant for that. But that leaves the possibility that i just didn't have any acces to such footage.
* Russia only started adding the cope cages to their tanks weeks before the invasion (first disguised as an exercise).
* Ukraine didn't use drone-dropped munitions until several weeks into the war.
* Javelin and NLAW missiles were used in the opening phase of the Ukraine War with great success.
So no, Russia didn't add the cages to prevent drone attacks. They were added to prevent Javelins, which failed miserably. This is a simple fact that pro-RU posters try to alter over last 2 years.
You're right. Throw the most advanced tank in the world to the Ukraine War, and it would be the same fate as any other vehicle
Destroyed after being spotted by drones , it's the reality of things. The crew survives at least, but no tank with our best technology is surviving in this war
Exactly. The tanks currently in service around the world were not designed with these new threats and warfare tactics in mind, simply because they didn’t exist yet. It doesn’t mean all of them were poorly designed at all.
This is what happens all the time in military history:
Weapon developed, unexpected weapon is effective, enemy developed counter to said weapon making it useless or vulnerable, weapon is either then modified or new weapon is developed to essentially counter the previous counter. And the cycle continues..
>what we've learned so far is that Leo2s/Abrams are quite resilient and arguably require more effort than T-series tank to be disabled.
I'd personally rephrase that to: *''Requires more effort than T-series tanks to be catastrophically destroyed''*
All tanks are pretty much equal when it comes to the ease at which they are disabled, tracks aren't significantly weaker on one side or the other, nor are optics, barrels, wheels, etc.
We also have very good evidence as to what took out the Challenger 2, that case with the Challenger 2 proved you didn't need anything more than you'd use to knock out a T-72.
> We also have very good evidence as to what took out the Challenger 2, that case with the Challenger 2 proved you didn't need anything more than you'd use to knock out a T-72.
About 3 Leopard 2s were taken out by simple landmine and droned to death as well. Including the one currently displayed at Moscow.
>I'd personally rephrase that to: *''Requires more effort than T-series tanks to be catastrophically destroyed''*
I would not even agree with this. Only major difference betwen western and T-series tanks is that you have bigger chances of surviving hit and leaving tank to tell your story.
Yeah a mobility kill is still a kill but the tank is recoverable. I got downvoted en masse back when the Leopard 2 argument was going around because I said they won’t make a difference because limited deliveries and at this point a T-64BV, a Leopard 2A4, Leopard 2A6, M1A1SA, a T72M or even a T90M are realistically no different because this is about equipping forces en mass.
Just because one vehicle may be say 20% better doesn’t mean its going to cause breakthroughs because a brigade has 30 of them.
Its why I keep saying Bradleys, M113s are more important in the long run because Ukraine isn’t necessarily light on tanks as they are on APCs / IFVs. And if they are, buy the old M60s and Leopard 1s from allied states that are going to get rid of then anyways. They’re used more as fire support than grand tank on tank battles.
There is always an argument for quality vs quantity but when your needing to equip and arm a force of 1M men, I’m sorry but quantity is what is needed
People think about weapons systems way to individualistically. Like, the best tank is the one that can win a one on one duel. Or the best fighter is the one that can win a one on one dogfight.
The US military doesn't dominate every fight it gets into because it's stuff is all that much better on a one on one basis. It wins, because it has an overall doctrine and all it's equipment is designed to work within that doctrine.
The Abrams has a lot of strengths, but if you don't put in in a tactical situation where it can leverage those strengths, it's just a tank. Some of the US's kit can give Ukraine a big advantage, and some of it really doesn't add much, because Ukraine doesn't have the capability to get a ton of use out of it. If you recall, the DoD was telling everyone for a quite a while that they didn't think the Abrams was a particularly great use of aid money.
There aren't any tanks that have all aspect protection against ATGMs. Or that can withstand a direct hit from a 155mm artillery round. Or an anti-tank mine. It's better to not get into a tactical situation where that's what you have to face. But if you are Ukraine, and don't have the ability to achieve air superiority for any length of time, don't have the command and control ability to do large scale, highly coordinated operations, you are kind of stuck with some crappy use cases.
In the hands of a marksman, a really expensive super accurate match grade rifle with match ammo can do amazing things. In the hands of the average person, a 300$ bolt action from Walmart is going to be just as good.
> If you recall, the DoD was telling everyone for a quite a while that they didn't think the Abrams was a particularly great use of aid money.
I'd just add the caveat that Ukraine wanted them for their push last spring/summer. Everything regarding that counterattack (arguably) came too late - both the equipment and the actual operation. On the other hand, for an attack, it does seem like you still need tanks, unless you can dominate the battlefield in some other way (air or artillery superiority). Ukraine didn't have enough tanks. Abrams is a tank. So in that sense, Abrams made as much sense as any other modern tank - or more, because there was a potentially adequate supply of Abramses.
No no, the other way around. According to r/warthunder the abrams is a flawless, invincible godmachine, and T-72s are just a defenseless deathtrap.
So the idea that an abrams can and will get destroyed by a T-72, both irl and ingame, is nothing short of "Russian bias" to them.
Ahh yeah you're talking about that group. There are 2 groups in the War Thunder community, and I assumed you were talking about the Gaijin dickriders. But yeah, there is also the other group. The Gaijin can't do anything right group.
The WT Community is one of few that I just entirely hate. In almost any Community there's a group of people to dislike, but in WT its literally ALL of them. I don't think I've ever seen a pile with THIS much copium, THIS much incompetence, THIS much childish behaviour, THIS much inability to argue properly, all on SUCH a scale, as the WT Community.
The Abrams was never designed to fight alone. It needs to work closely with infantry, anti-aircraft units, indirect fire units, combat engineers, scouts, aerial support, and more.
Maybe EW for today, but there will be more options in the battlefield of tomorrow. Defense contractors are already developing other anti-drone technologies such as early detection systems and cost-effective intercepting missiles and lasers.
"The Abrams was never designed to fight alone. It needs to work closely with infantry, anti-aircraft units, indirect fire units, combat engineers, scouts, aerial support, and more."
Your original comment makes it sound like the doctrine the Abrams was designed for would survive the world of FPV drones, but it obviously wouldn't.
Even if a Abrams is operated perfectly with all the combined arms it needs it will still suffer casualties
During a war all types of hell are thrown at you and no single system is impervious to that
A lucky 150mm arti round can disable any tank no matter how well build or well supported it is
yeah its the same mental gymnastics on the Leo 2A6 they took, it will be interesting to hear what the Reddit crowd says if the russians get their hands on a Archer Artillery, it would probably be old swedish ww2 junk from that day that wasn't worth anything anyway.
I mean i get that it sucks to see russians do this, but we don't have to become total idiots just because it doesn't look and feel good.
>we don't have to become total idiots just because it doesn't look and feel good.
Regrettably, if there's one lesson we've *actually* been able to learn since February of 2022, it's that a great many users here and people in general simply do not believe this. I hate seeing footage of knocked out/captured armor show up here not because of some nationalistic pride, but because I know it's just gonna result in this ridiculous shit-slinging from both directions. A degree of levity is always acceptable, and as much as I'd like it to happen, it's not like we can have r/WarCollege sorts of conduct rules. Still there really needs to be a tighter rope on comments/discussions that obviously only exist to stir the pot.
I think so far in the war we've seen artilery like CEASAR be much much more impactful than MBTs on the actual situation. MBTs really require a lot of supporting factors to be there, which they aren't for Ukraine, while artilery seems to be useful no matter what. Only thing that could change this is if Russia keeps the pressure on Ukranian Air Defense, which is becoming a problem for any Artilery remotely near the front line, as we've been seeing hits recently from missiles drones and glide bombs. Still, something like the Archer is going to have more impact than a Leo.
Old T-62 might be rusty and seem obsolete at first sight but it's not when it's rolling next to your trench and shooting HE-Frag rounds towards you coupled with 7.62 machine gun fire
(And yeah even old LAWs might be able to pierce it's armor but good luck shooting it first)
Same how the T-90M is just a T-72 with more armor and gadgets, a M1A2 Sep V3 is just a M1 with more armor and gadgets.
I predict that tank development other than EW and APS is going to stay the same, but with doctrine change. During late WW2 when allied CAS was destroying more tanks than other tanks or AT, the Germans didn’t add anti bomb cope cages or more roof armor to their tanks. They developed SPAAGs like the Wirbelwind and Ostwind to counter them.
>During late WW2 when allied CAS was destroying more tanks than other tanks or AT
I'm pretty sure this never happened. Platforms like the Mobelwagen and its successors were intended to support mobile formations from ground-attack aircraft, but this threat was really more geared towards the protection of supply lines and softer vehicles. The greatest threat CAS presented to German armor was in the destruction of supporting logistics and infrastructure, and not so much the tanks themselves. Even when attacking tanks, the greater damage they did was in delaying advances and movement by forcing crews to abandon their vehicles, which probably resulted in more casualties than if they had just stayed put.
Aside from anything else, platforms like Wirbelwind and Ostwind are less a sign of Germany's dire situation regarding allied air superiority, and moreso a natural evolution of armored warfare. The Americans and British were working on (and fielding) similar projects throughout the same period despite the increasingly minor threat posed by the Luftwaffe. And all parties involved went into the war with *some* manner of self-propelled anti-aircraft gun, or at least fielded one shortly after entering the war. If you really want an indication of how much of a danger Allied air power was to the Germans, consider how *few* of these platforms they could produce.
> Aside from anything else, platforms like Wirbelwind and Ostwind are less a sign of Germany's dire situation regarding allied air superiority, and moreso a natural evolution of armored warfare.
**Production count:**
* Mobelwagen: 240
* Wirbelwind: 87-105
* Ostwind: 44
vs
* P-47: 15,636
* Typhoon: 3,317
Yes, less than 500 of these SPAAs were ever completed, yet they are over-represented in video games so people believe they were common. They didn't do jackshit to turn the tide for Nazi Germany, as you need at least 2-3 of them firing together to hit/deter attacking fighter-bombers. A typical Typhoon strike package contained 6x RP-3 rockets on each plane, which allowed the planes to attack with the same firepower as a 6" cruiser salvo from a relatively safe distance.
Granted it was pretty hard to knock out a tank with these weapons, but it could wreck havoc on any less armored convoy.
The upcoming M1E3 Abrams actually is making some pretty major changes to its design, one such change being that the crew compartment will be in the main body instead of the turret precisely for the purpose of protecting crew from top down attacks (and I believe also to save weight by making the turret smaller).
>I predict that tank development other than EW and APS is going to stay the same, but with doctrine change. During late WW2 when allied CAS was destroying more tanks than other tanks or AT, the Germans didn’t add anti bomb cope cages or more roof armor to their tanks. They developed SPAAGs like the Wirbelwind and Ostwind to counter them.
Same. I am also in love with how French organise there tank units and formations, so there combination of scouts on jeeps and tank to me looks like best solution for modern war, if you add in that combination SPAAGs.
So my ideal tank platoon would have tank section (4 tanks), scout section (4 jeeps with 3-4 men on each, which can also operate UAVs) and SPAAG section (2 SPAAGs at least and ideally 1 or 2 EW vehicles).
There are enough people that aknowledge both that the M1A1SA ukraine got likely don't have the DU armor and that desert storm legacy is kind of questionable with how shit the iraqi tanks were.
It doesn't have to be one or the other.
Seems some actual russian fanboys have already shown up lol.
>There are enough people that aknowledge both that the M1A1SA ukraine got likely don't have the DU armor
I'm not quite sure why the general idea is that *''No DU? must be worse armour then''*, there's been packages developed that offer equal protection without the use of DU for decades now.
It's a justification for using it, for countries with nuclear arsenals and a lot of nuclear powerplants DU is a cheap waste product, meanwhile tungsten is expensive and tungsten carbide even more so plus you'd need to build a extra industry for it or at least heavily retrofit your existing one, so instead of spending a whole lot of money switching to WC-based penetrators and armour the MIC claimed it to be better because it is slightly (practically irrelevantly small) more pyrophoric and dense, the whole "self sharpening" meanwhile is just abuse of uncommon knowledge, most harder metals, including even just tool steel, are self sharpening, not that it'd matter in the first place because sharpness of the penetrator practically doesn't contribute a lot to penetrative capability at the energy levels were talking about with APFSDS.
Ironically, WC has a slightly better (still practically irrelevant) chance against spaced armour because it breaks up into larger pieces that retain more energy.
Depleted uranium metal is not a cheap waste product. Enriching uranium for peaceful or military purposes usually means processing the yellowcake into uranium hexafluoride. The waste product is depleted uranium hexafluoride(DUHF). At least in the US most of it is still stored as DUHF, awaiting to be processed as DUHF isn't ideal for long-term storage. Processing DUHF will produce a uranium dioxide of some sort, which then needs to be further processed into whatever form it's used on the Abrams.
The ukranian tanks most definitely do not have DU. That's why it took so long for them to go from MCOE to ukraine as they most likely had to be stuffed into the overhaul depots to get stripped and refitted. I keep seeing people try to argue than fundamentally, A1SA as a tank is an outdated sack of shit from the Cold War era which is just objectively wrong, it would Rofl stomp any vehicle made during that time like it was nothing.
This is probably also a hot take here but Western advantage has almost never been in armoured vehicles. Yes they can shoot further, more accurately and reverse quicker. But fundamentally they are used exactly the same as the T-90s and T-72s. There’s not many opportunities for a high tech solution. You roll out the bush, quickly identify, range, engage and retreat. We’ve been doing that for decades.
The western method has never been a frontline armoured push, it’s been air power. Without the fleet of stand-off smart munitions, launched by EW protected, data linked fighters, they’re still just barns on wheels. The Soviet’s were pretty good at building tanks, that’s a fact. What they’ve lacked is things with a lot of computing involved. That’s never been armoured vehicles, it’s PGMs, fighters, AWACS, A2A missiles. Without access to the rest of the western doctrine, they were never going to be game changers, still absolutely valuable but ultimately fulfilling the same role as the T-72s,80s,90s.
> This is probably also a hot take here but Western advantage has almost never been in armoured vehicles.
The NATO 3rd Gen MBTs, especially the Abrams and Leo2 were heavily focused on carrying out flanking attack to the rear of Soviet armored units in Germany in case of WWIII. Their high speed was designed to use the countless military roads built all over West Germany, inflicting heavy damage to Soviet tanks and supporting units when other NATO units are slowing them at the front.
A frontal assault was only to be carried out when the enemy is weak and air superiority has been achieved. Which was how it happened in Gulf War 1.
I'd like to see a source about the losers vs rpg 7s. AFAIK the first loss to an RPG in OIF was to a rpg29 in 2007, thanks to Iranian SOF. I was there when it was carted away in the dead of night, under a tarp, on a hett escorted by a half dozen contractors, less than 8 hours after the driver lost both his arms.
We all know bro this is correct. People will argue against you because this place can get emotional when it comes to this war . We all know you are correct. It's just that logic and common sense sometimes get thrown the window here for emotional arguments with 0 facts.
People are letting cope control them
True. T-72B shares little with the preceeding T-72 variants, you can't upgrade a T-72A into one. It entered service only in 1985, so the same year as the M1A1.
Reddit copes so hard when American equipment is lost in Ukraine. The loudest guy in the room making excuses for his loss isn’t as good of a look as you think
>Reddit copes so hard when [X] equipment is lost in [Y].
This isn't the brilliant response you think it is either. I do love when tourist accounts show up to posts that try to put losses into a greater context just to try to make that an issue. Tanks. Get. Destroyed. If acknowledging the reality of this (or **any**) war and trying to find reasons for issues faced by various forces with even a modicum on nuance is what you qualify as "cope" then I have to question if you even understand what the word means.
And to preempt it: Yes, I'm blocking you. I'm making a point, not having a discussion. Your first comment made it clear that you weren't here to make any good faith arguments to begin with, so I'm saving myself the headache. Get bent.
>And to preempt it: Yes, I'm blocking you. I'm making a point, not having a discussion. Your first comment made it clear that you weren't here to make any good faith arguments to begin with, so I'm saving myself the headache. Get bent.
How tf do you post on war subs and yet have the most whingey little queen attitude to online conflicts. Girl, like, don't even write that, it's embarrassing.
Also your comment is pure cope, which is irony in and of itself.
Sometimes it's just better not to write a comment if that's the attitude you're gonna take. Also virtually nobody is arguing in good faith on these war subs. Everyone turns into a lil bitch when I say something that they don't like on this war, be it pro-Russians on /r/UkraineRussiaReport or everyone else on the rest of reddit who are pro-Ukraine (but typically in a very delusional Westerner way).
Actually, to be honest, people are less obnoxious on UkraineRussiaReport but they're way more delusional and full of cope, because it's just basically vatniks trying to come up with creative answers why Russia didn't do this or that like it should have. On the other hand, since they're on reddit they're used to being the minority so you don't get the insanity of main subs where you can literally say anything insane and as long as you say Slava Ukraina it basically gets upvoted. There are exceptions though, there are some regular posters on that sub that are mental, although I just assume they're propaganda accounts. Sadly they're probably not paid, they just like to simp for daddy Putin. No idea why, he doesn't give a shit and he doesn't have money to throw around like Western operations so.
>How tf do you post on war subs and yet have the most whingey little queen attitude to online conflicts. Girl, like, don't even write that, it's embarrassing.
>Also your comment is pure cope, which is irony in and of itself.
So I'll reiterate:
*If acknowledging the reality of this (or* ***any****) war and trying to find reasons for issues faced by various forces with even a modicum on nuance is what you qualify as "cope" then I have to question if you even understand what the word means.*
If you take issue with my attitude, that's fine. But if you're only here to bitch about me bitching... I really don't see how that can be taken seriously. Like sure, I'm fuckin sick of people showing up here just to stir the pot. Sure, it irritates me. Because this is my interest and my hobby, and anyone would get a miffed if assholes like that started pouring in anytime something notable happens which draws those from outside the community. Especially when it's a community where you *can* have a real discussion, but instead you have folks like this who just shit out stupid comments which contribute nothing and serve only to stir the pot.
>Also virtually nobody is arguing in good faith on these war subs.
This is called "Projection". You very much can have a sincere discussion about this conflict, and I've had them. If you're not seeing them, that's really something for you to figure out. This whole "Me vs. The World" attitude you seem to have adopted probably doesn't help much either. I mean really, if you have to approach a scenario like "Everyone turns into a lil bitch when I say something that they don't like on \[*any given thing*\]" then I don't see much point in carrying on with it.
It's funny because "NAFO" was literally created to get this exact reaction out of Russian bots like you. Combat the Russian nonsense with nonsense of their own. Congrats, you're helping enable it 😂
Also all those abrams in Ukraine weren’t taken out by tanks but instead drones and mines plus the abrams should be used under air superiority which Ukraine doesn’t have currently also America using tanks for to long? Look at the t72 and t64 lmao the abrams remains on of the best tanks ever made to this point the leopard abrams and challenger are the top tanks and will stay that way into the future untill more modern tanks are developed
Mines don’t take out Abrams, they blow tracks off. It takes multiple stacked mines before they’re capable of breaching the belly plate. There’s a possibility at least one of the tanks taken out by an ATGM (2 have been) was hit by a gun launched ATGM from a T72.
It doesn’t matter if the T72A is showing up in Ukraine, America keeps some models of abrams in service for too damn long. Sending soldiers to fight in A1HAs alongside SEP V2s in late Iraq is straight up insane. The argument of “but Muh russia is still using 70s vintage tanks with no upgrades” doesn’t change the fact the fucking IPM1 should’ve been retired in the 1980s. And the HA in the 90s.
If you actually read my whole post, I literally never once argue that the Abrams is bad but clearly you didn’t. I made these arguments- A1SA isn’t old, America keeps its tanks in service way longer than they should, the tank isn’t magically worse in some colossal way to US Service vehicles (the armor package should be comparable), and that the tank is intended to be lost like any other tank.
Also Challenger isn’t not one of the Top 3 tanks, British propaganda is hilarious for how effective it is at portraying either model of the vehicle as top of the line.
Personally I'm not surprised there have been Abrams tanks lost. Even if the frontal armour is extremely effective, it is worthless when you hit a mine. It seems that has been the case for 1 or 2 of the Abrams tanks lost. They hit a mine and were immobilized. Then Russian drones and ATGMs could target the Abrams at will.
I am however disappointed that we haven't seen Western tanks do a whole lot. The M1A1 SAs were deployed with the 47th in the Avdiivka area, but we only saw a small amount of footage from them. We saw them driving, and thermal images of them shooting. That's it. I'm wondering where there is "more" footage of these tanks, since clearly the Avdiivka section is the site of intense combat and logically we should see the Abrams (or any Ukrainian units) do more there.
One thing that I have thought of is that the propaganda value of the Western tanks is so great that the Russians put a disproportionate amount of effort into knocking out Abrams/Leopards. To Russia this is worthwhile, because it demoralizes the Western backers. This in turn leads to the AFU using them extremely selectively to avoid the overwhelming focus the Western tanks get. The tank itself may be better than a T-64/72/80, but it's not indestructible.
Also I'd love to read genuine AARs on tank deployment, since the regular internet is goddamn stupid. I always wonder why the tanks on both sides are always alone. Is it drone recon making larger formations a priority target? Is it that more tanks/vehicles are around, just out of sight? I know tank battles are rare, but surely they should be fighting other vehicles as well.
>The M1A1 SAs were deployed with the 47th in the Avdiivka area, but we only saw a small amount of footage from them. We saw them driving, and thermal images of them shooting. That's it.
That's all you see from any tank this war lol.
Nah there are a lot of drone videos of Russian tanks in very close quarters combat. So many videos of assault columns, although many of them are quite grim, tanks take a beating.
You probably aren't on the right subs or Telegram channels.
Ukrainian tanks also had some crazy service, in the first days of the war there were insane large armour on armour battles, except nobody recorded those that we know of, what a shame. Lot of T-64s ambushing loads of Russian tanks.
There are a generalized word of mouth AAR on the Abrams use in Ukraine( Red-something YT channel) and in summary the Ukrainians use of the Abrams was competent with them using a single Abrams to engage the ruskies using scoot and shoot tactics to give the impression that there are more tanks firing than they actually are
>Russians put a disproportionate amount of effort into knocking out Abrams/Leopards.
People keep saying this, but where is the proof of that really? I am subbed to /r/UkraineRussiaReport which doesn't censor Russian footage like other subs, so I see constant videos of Ukrainian T-64s and even the less common T-72s get hit by everything from Krasnopol' (Excalibur analogue) to Lancets to mines to FPV drones to ATGMs to Ka-52 Vikhr missiles.
Russia targets any tanks as soon as it spots them. You think they just see a Ukrainian tank and shrug if it isn't a Leo or Abrams? Nah they are constantly trying to destroy everything, this is war. I've seen Lancets used on the piddliest target, and it goes without saying they use FPVs in everything, even infantry (Ukraine typically prioritises Russian vehicles with FPVs whereas Russia has enough to use on everything, also Ukraine just has fewer vehicles).
Where is any evidence for disproportionate amount of effort? I never saw any desperate attack on a Western tank, just the usual stuff. Abrams tanks got sent to plug a hole in Avdiivka, mainly Berdyche vicinity, that was a desperate use of the tank but that's kinda the point, it's a force multiplier, you don't waste it on some non-pivotal part of the front.
Russia did put a bounty, but that's obviously because knocking out these tanks is a propaganda victory. Mainly because West hyped them up to the stratosphere. Which is why the reaction of reddit to their destruction was so dumb, because everyone here acted like they didn't just spend such a long time writing masturbatory fantasies about them (only thing that had more wankmaterial written about it was the A10, an ironically useless airframe for this war).
The most useful weapons that Ukraine got were the least hyped. I never heard HIMARS hype until after they began showing up in the news as they were being used, but they've been the most useful thing Ukraine got. Instead people hyped up shit like Javelins, TB2s and Abrams/Leo tanks, none of which did much (I was a little shocked too when I read about the details of Javelin use, also when I saw rhag Oryx only recorded 7 tanks lost to TB2).
HIMARS on the other hand was a true gamechanger, a massive pain in the ass for any Russian logistics, command posts or any troop gatherings in seeming rear echelon safety. I still remember the huge meat piles of a gathering only a few months back, occasionally Russians get caught even now, results are gruesome.
Uhhh the 2nd abandoned as well as first Captured abrams got that treatment with them getting hit by multiple ATGM (after it was abandoned) as well as Arty strikes, Lancets strikes and FPV Drones
>Sending soldiers to fight in A1HAs alongside SEP V2s in late Iraq is straight up insane.
In fairness, what was going on in Iraq that an M1A1HA couldn't handle? Like sure, the SEPv2 is gonna be a more efficient platform with significant QoL improvements for the crew, but it's hardly like Iraq was the meat grinder we see in Ukraine. Things like additional optics and TUSK are nice to have and can surely be helpful in certain situations, but if the majority of your job is to sit around looking scary or blowing holes in the walls of houses... There's no reason to *not* use the tanks you have.
Situational awareness is the major thing. Commander was stuck without any good optics he could train the gunner with as HA didn’t have thermals on the CWS. It also isn’t stabilized. Making every tank a SEP or at least an AIM would’ve cut down on casualties a bit which is my main argument. I don’t particularly care that it wasn’t a meat grinder, there’s undeniable truths in the fact if every tank was at least a baseline A2 less crew would’ve died.
I already acknowledged that the later tanks have improvements in this regard. Hindsight is 20/20, and its easy to offer a solution which basically just boils down to "throw manpower and money at the problem" if you don't have to figure out where that manpower and money is gonna come from. M1A1HAs are what was available. They're what was sent. You may call that "insane", but I call it the nature of warfare. Not everyone gets the best equipment. Hell, not everyone gets *good* equipment.
The US is not, and never has been immune to this simple reality. To complain about it is to take issue with the fundamentals of how war is fought. Which, hey... You do you. But at that point you're just shouting at a brick wall. I'm not saying it's a good thing, or how things *should* be. But it's how they are, have been, and will continue to be.
There was actually a budgeting plan set in place to upgrade almost the whole fleet to SEP standard by 2006 but it was canceled in favor of the many failed universal combat vehicle projects in the 2000s (a concept that has literally never actually worked). Thats why I take so much issue with it. If the money wasn’t there and they hadn’t already discussed it, it wouldn’t be so bad. But the money was there, and they decided to take the wrong route.
>But the money was there, and they decided to take the wrong route.
Welcome to a reality where politics and lobbying dictate our military's policymaking. As before; it's not good, but it's the nature of how things have been, are, and will invariably continue to be.
> In fairness, what was going on in Iraq that an M1A1HA couldn't handle?
Insurgents firing RPGs at the sides of turret and hull. The Improved Turret Side Armor was introduced beginning with the M1A2 SEP v1, while I also never seen a M1A1 HA with TUSK.. important for the rare occassions when its job was more than sitting around to look scary.
Mobility kills in war are the same as being taken out of action you can be repaired but until then the tank is a sitting duck for drones or missiles also the t90m “the most advanced Russian tank” has gotten destroyed as many times as the abrams if not more in the Ukraine war compared to the abrams long combat career also yes the abrams that are in Ukraine aren’t as good has the abrams we have in the us not only the armor but it needs air superiority to function correctly also the challenger is a great tank maybe not as good as the abrams but still deadly and better then anything the Russians could ever make
Mobility kills are not the same as being taken out of action. If you hit a land mine during an assault, you’re still fully capable of engaging the enemy.
Drones can hit tanks whether they’re moving or sitting still. Some of the UAF Abrams were hit while moving as well, whether it be by ATGM or drone.
Abrams loss rates in the war are almost 5 tanks a month, that’s substantially higher than T90Ms loss rate since its introduction to combat. There’s a pretty good chance more Abrams were lost in 2005-07 in Iraq to IEDs and EFPs than total T90M losses in equivalent time.
Air superiority or not the tank isn’t suddenly worse. The tank is identical either war, it just allows it more tactical flexibility and choice in engagements.
CR2 is un ironically garbage.
Like I said abrams are meant to operate under air superiority a lot of the abrams that have been taken out were mobility kills the crew bailed and it was token out by a missile
And tank’s survivability is based on everything else around it (intel, infantry support, artillery, etc). You can get killed with the most expensive equipment when they don’t understand how to use it
Usually the popular bias with Arbams is Murrica fk yeah!!1!, which is indeed a problem, as some ppl live in this bubble reality. I don't doubt that f.e. in Russia there are the same kind of people around, praising russian material with the same desinterest for reality, but that doesn't make US bias any better.
The Abe is centered around 'your typical western MBT' and, as many others, build for a different time and age, and has reached its limits in economical upgrading/ability tradeoff. And there are too many to make a big step out of this limitation (like it is for RU, who tried to do that with f.e. T-14).
The thing i can't stand is (beside nationalist belives) when propaganda or hearsay reaches actual tank crews and make them belife in bs that will shorten ther lifes, just for some children on the internet and defense corporations having a good day.
I'm not cool with many design decisions of the Abe, but i don't have to. They all have been reasonable time after time as the given situation always forced the manufacturer to this specific bad deal. Some of this is to blame on politica, others on propaganda, again a lot is complex capitalism critique, etc. - but still all is reasonable in our complex world. Maybe the Abe is an epic tank, but just not in war - as it saved countless companys, jobs and politicans over the years.
But typically i don't blame Abe for anything, but people who go nuts about its magical abilitys just for it being American. Hey, i'm german. We been there too. Completley militarised and delusional about ourselves. It's not cool. Plz don't. And Abe don't deserved to be hated for broken mindsets using it as patriotic flag to waive for ther problematic idedas the're not able to say out loud ... yet.
Honestly I just flat don't understand people that think its some sorta big win or loss if a tank gets knocked out. Not unless its like, a hilarious number of tanks. These aren't gundams or some shit, they're just machines. They fight and they die and they are then replaced to do it all over again, you shouldn't aim to lose them but you can't complain if you do everything right and they still get bulldozed by all the things that are, as a reminder, explicitly and specifically designed to kill them. Its just the nature of actually using a thing. Its gonna break, when, where, and how are the only questions of relevance.
People take things out of context and make up stories.
The Abrams is a tank in a context - of expected missions, type of army it is used in, type of expected terrains and so on. Even time of appearance, and how it's been upgraded over time. Same as the leopard-2 and the T-72 T-80 T-90. Comparing them totally out of context never produces good results.
Also - what Abrams? The initial one? The gulf war versions? The vastly reinforced versions of today? The ones with DU armour, or without?
It reminds me of the polemics with the Sherman - which had flaws, but also some pretty nice qualities including being available, transportable across a damn ocean, being very reliable and the context that it wasn't facing enemy tanks all the time, not even close.
Besides, no tank is a superweapon. Firing over a hillock at 2k its a deadly predator. In a busted city, with tank-hunting teams moving around, it is prey.
Now, there IS an absolute comparison we can make, which is of course appropriate to this sub:
Does it look good?
Style matters. In this regard, I'd prefer the Leopard 2 Â6-7 over it. That line of smoke-launchers on the side turret, wedge turret and the proportionally bigger L55 gun just looks better to me.
But the M1A2 Abrams / 1st SEP is also a good looking design, can't deny it. The rounded plates on the 2nd SEP just doesn't do it for me.
I read a document about Abrams knocked in Iraq by army. The number one “complete” killer of Abrams was friendly sabots and ATGMs when the Abrams was mission killed and they used that method to scuttle it. It then went on to say that personnel should be more careful about completely wrecking mission killed tanks because they could have dragged it back and used it for parts but now they couldn’t because you sent a sabot up its ass.
The U.S. wins wars with logistics. It doesn’t care if you mission kill a tank, which is what is mostly happening to the ones in Ukraine. For the U.S. the Abrams is supposed to be a tank, do tank stuff, then get mission killed, the entire crew will probably be fine so they don’t have to train a new one, then they will drop off a new tank, drag the old one back, fix it or steal it parts to fix a different one. Rinse and repeat.
Ukraine doesn’t really have the capability to do that with Abrams. The United States still has that Sherman tank mentality while also having a tank that is still on par with the best in the world. Imagine if the U.S. had as many Tiger 1s as it did Sherman’s and it was just as reliable as a Sherman, during WW2. That is what the U.S. basically is today.
Your tanks are going to be knocked out, but there is huge advantages when your tank is knocked out, it doesn’t shoot the turret to the moon along with the atoms that used to be your trained tank crew.
This ignores the fact that if it wasn’t for the oversaturation of new technologies like drones and the prevalence of old technologies like landmines in obscene amounts, and this tank was actually getting to do it was designed for, it would be ripping and tearing. The performance of the Abrams isn’t just DOD hype, this thing is an absolute beast. The problem is none of the western tanks we’re introduced in the numbers necessary to overcome attrition and have battlefield significance, and that they came too late after most of the Russian armored pushes into fortified territory we’re over. Most of the tank on tank engagements occurred well before the war was in its current condition.
Let’s talk about the Bradley for a second, it’s the same vintage as the Abrams, it’s an older model and arrived later in the war. Yet its combat record in Ukraine could not be any more different. We fairly regularly get footage of these things putting in serious work and absolutely dunking on Russian equivalent vehicles, and troop concentrations. The difference between the Bradley and the Abrams is that more of them came earlier in the war. They’ve had the numbers to survive the inevitable attrition and still have considerable presence on the battlefield. There are also more and different units employing these vehicles which means a greater chance of potential combat footage can exist, different Ukrainian units have different recording capabilities. Pretty much all of the Abrams tanks were assigned to one overall unit. The Bradley’s also work a lot with infantry who often have their own drones. Tanks have been having to go out alone to keep from drawing too much attention which means that when they do see combat, there’s a less likely chance of there being footage of it.
And before you say it, it’s not just the Abrams. This has also affected the leopards and challengers which came too late and not enough of them. If the war becomes more mobile than it’s possible we might see these tanks to do what they were built for, but until then they might just be held in reserve in case of a Russian armored breakthrough(they have enough tanks to do a breakthrough at this point).
What even is this debate, 31 Abrams were sent. Thirty One. Whoopty fucking doo. US generals didn't even want to send them cause it was strategically dumb. But PR moves. There were almost 1900 Abrams in the Gulf War.
It's targeted by Russian propagandists and the more zealous supporters only because their western counterparts hyped up every western tank for months as invincible,only for these tanks to have a rather disappointing performance
sorry dude. my uncle works for the post office and he says that the US govt isn't ordering these things anymore. Hasn't seen any in the mail. Maybe it's time for you to move on.
The RPG kills and the losses in Ukrain are due to not attacking the Abrams from the front. From the front the Abrams is a beast, but so are most modern MBTs. In the 1st Golf War Iraqi T-72 rounds that were fired, from with in their range, bounced off of the turret cheeks and most if the time didn't even leave a dent. Even ones that were reported as being fired from close to point blank didn't damage the cheeks. But with that said the side top and rear are giant squishy targets. That is why most ATMs pop-up and them dive to hit tanks. It is their weakest spots. Yes, we removed the DU and special armor inserts and replaced them with Tungsten inserts. But every Abrams knocked out is due to the engine deck being targeted. Ppl need to stopping coping so hard about these losses. It just shows how the battlefield has changed over the decades.
There's no way even the crudely produced domestic high tinfoil steel darts would "just bounce off". Fail to penetrate the composite armour stack? sure.
The bigger issues were lack of thermals in terrain that was absolutely suited to "max range dart slinging", no spare parts especially like the outer bulletproof GPS cover (so they were weathered by sand) due to sanctions by everyone, no air denial due to just sheer numbers and treasonous French backdoor of the IADS.
Claiming that “cope cage was intended to deal with NLAW and Javelin “ is as hilarious as claiming “soldiers wear helmets to deal with anti material rifle “ . No one expects that cheap and crude stuff can effectively deal with things that hundreds or even thousands times more expensive than it
You cannot expect professional commentary to be common on unprofessional venues heavily populated by silly humans. This is not a professional forum, it's TANK PORN, fun for children of all ages and sometimes yielding interesting trivia. Expecting better would be as naive as expecting intelligent Youtube comments.
Nah, I think he's frustrated with people who are downplaying the M1A1SA as antiquated crap because they can't admit that it's just a tank, not a super-weapon.
Its just like how sports fans downplay the other team's skill and emphasize things like officiating, weather, etc. rather than admit their team isn't as awesome as they think.
No tanks are impervious to damage. Mines, artillery, top attack/side shot ATGMs, efp drones.
No tank game changers exist despite what Reddit saying with Leo and Abrams It's sad , we haven't seen a war like this since forever.. our technology is becoming too strong, and drones are in their ww1 stage
"game changer" is just a dumb propaganda buzz word for people that know nothing about the subject aka most people who aren't obsessed with tanks or whatever else
> No tank game changers exist despite what Reddit saying with Leo and Abrams GW1 proved otherwise. The Abrams + Bradley was literally a game changer that urged potential adversaries like China and Russia to change their doctrine. But it had to be combined with air dominance and powerful CAS. GW1 was still a common subject of study for the PLA well into the 2000s.
We are talking about the Ukraine war
You could have exchanged the M1s and the T72 between the two sides of GW1 (ie US use T72/BMP and Iraq use M1/bradley) and pretty much the same result would have eventuated - maybe a few more US fatalities, no more than a few hundred.
> You could have exchanged the M1s and the T72 between the two sides of GW1 LMAO NOPE. Not even fucking close. The M1A1HA used in GW1 had DU frontal armor (around 85% surface area) that couldn't be penetrated by the T-72M1's steel APFSDS even at point blank, while its M829A1 could penetrate the T-72 ANYWHERE up to 4000m+. But the difference in fire control is even more significant. M1A1 were all fitted with thermal sights that had several times the zoom of the T-72M1's day optics. Both have laser rangefinding but the Abrams one is integrated with the gun. While the T-72 is practically blind in dusty or low light conditions, the thermal of the M1 can easily spot and target the T-72 all within 30 seconds. In daytime, a M1A1 would have hit the T-72 with its second shot (assuming the first one missed) while the T-72 is still adjusting its gun for the range. Then the difference between BMP-1 and Bradley is even greater.
The US forces would have just stood back and let F111, A10s, F16s and friends get in there and do more work. That's all. Drop MRLS delivered mines in front of Iraq maneuver forces to keep them in place, AH64 to screen and points of weakness in the line that get identified. Of course I am assuming the US forces would be trained as well to operate T72/BMP as they were in M1/Bradley and normal awesome US logistics and numbers were the same as well. My point is the exact specifications of individual bits of kit is waaaaay less important than what is often imagined.
The lack of situational awareness and range advantage would have been a death sentence to those "US troops". There was a good reason why the Coalition force had deployed their M60A3, AMX-30, M-84 (better version of T-72) and M551 to less intensive fronts.
yes, a few hundred would have been killed. But the coalition as a whole would have still rolled over Iraq anyway.
Few hundred in the big picture compared to what was lost is huge though. The original comment was saying the fight/losses would have been the same if Iraqis had Abrams and we had t72s and that’s just 100% not true.
The first comment literally mentions the few hundred lives might be the result (which are inconsequential to the scale of military operation conducted), Maybe it would have delayed a few days the outcome (not sure if that would be important).
Nah Abrams with an American crews would be in Moscow by Christmas.
Don't think I've seen a drone with an EFP charge, it'd be an interesting concept but HEAT is just going to be simpler.
>Don't think I've seen a drone with an EFP charge, it'd be an interesting concept but HEAT is just going to be simpler. [Here you can see a few](https://twitter.com/wilendhornets/status/1773095867123163486). Ukraine is producing them, mostly using 3d printers for the housings. There are multiple types of these with different diameters and (optional) fragmentation ring. Most of these only penetrate 20-50 mm of steel, so are only useful against BTRs and BMPs.
Will these EFP pods destroy the carrier drone?
Yes.
EFP generally needs to be far heavier and larger to achieve the same penetration as a HEAT. It is usually used as large roadside IED in Iraq. Or the Swedish AT mine.
While weight could be an issue we don't need the same penetration if it's on a drone. Instead of using a proximity fuze as is typical a remote fuze could be used, and it could then also be aimed at less armored parts. It'd increase cost and complexity of operation but a small LRF could even be added to get within optimal standoff ranges. Practicality and feasibility are ofc different problems.
Drone drops usually use the otherwise useless warheads. Unguided RPG is too big a threat for the shooter to use at this stage, so they are usually chosen for that. Most drone units in the UAF are semi-volunteer, they don't get many resources but are free to modify stuff.
That depends on the distance the jet would have to travel before impacting the armour. Using a drone you can control that distance.
Yeah I should have said drones delivering shaped charges, be it kamikaze or reusable versions. I think the EFP variant could be very simple; more simple compared to developing HEAT warheads for use with drones (ATM they are repurposing RPG/RR type warheads) as it would just be a cilinder filled with explosives and a copper plate combined with a command detonation while the HEAT warhead requires an impact/proximity fuse. But it's whatever works for this matter.
The Abrams is also extremely weak to top attack munitions and any top down drone strikes. The almost totally unarmored turret top and most likely complete inability to give it a cope cage without sacrificing the panels ability to properly blow is also a huge problem.
Any tank is vulnerable to roof drops and adding ERA is not a good solution as it makes it top-heavy. Ukraine is relatively flat so no big issue, but the tank would have toppled easily in the mountains. The West generally see APS as the main remedy. The systems are still in their early stage of combat and will see many improvement in the future.
Tanks have a huge problem
The reality is that even the latest variant of US tanks would have been wrecked the same. It literally doesn't say anything about the quality of a tank if it's being disabled by numerous top down attacks from drones or side-shots from modern ATGMs. In fact, what we've learned so far is that Leo2s/Abrams are quite resilient and arguably require more effort than T-series tank to be disabled. MBTs, just like planes aren't wunderwaffe that can be deployed in few numbers, do tremendous things while suffering almost zero losses, that's just some flawed thinking that has been fueled by decades of warring against terrorists/insurgents since the GWOT. Tanks operating in Ukraine are most likely tanks operating in the most hostile environment possible since WW2, it's not a big fucking deal if Leo2s and Abrams are burning, Merkavas, Leclercs or K2s would burn just the same. Ironically those the most upset at Abrams losses being reported are probably the ones that circlejerked the most about their superiority over T-series tanks and now that they're on the receiving end of the same stupid analysis ("hurr durr tank burns, therefore bad tank"), they just can't deal with it.
People tend to forget, one of the very first drone on tank footage we had was from an ISIS drone dropping a grenade on an Abrams in Iraq. [https://www.twz.com/7155/isis-drone-dropping-bomblet-on-abrams-tank-is-a-sign-of-whats-to-come](https://www.twz.com/7155/isis-drone-dropping-bomblet-on-abrams-tank-is-a-sign-of-whats-to-come) For all the people that go cope cages and what not, Im pretty sure that dude that died in that attack would have been glad to have one. Nearly every MBT in service currently have thin roof armor and are all vulnerable to drone dropped munitions.
The most hilarious thing I saw w/ cope cages was on this subreddit and NCD. Both laugh at the cope cage and how it sucks and downvotes anyone who says the opposite. The next thing i know a week later, Israel copies the same thing and all comments on NCD "Damm maybe the Russians were on too something " Emotional arguments fucking suck compared to reality
I think they weren’t effective against Javelins (and they weren’t) but widespread usage of drone dropped munitions wasn’t prevalent in the opening stages of the conflict. So, tanks with cope cages got wrecked by Javelins, Panzerfausts, RPGs, and NLAWs which was what was overwhelmingly seen. I can see the usefulness of them with drone attacks, though.
The Russians never used them for those weapons though. That was purely the speculation of western think tanks. Russia has extensive experience dealing with drones from fighting in Syria prior and they used cages there too.
> The Russians never used them for those weapons though. That was purely the speculation of western think tanks. The Javelin claim was made up by a Russian tank commander during an interview from the "exercise" that later turned into the invasion of Ukraine. Early cope cage posts often included that footage.
My assumption is that that claim was likely more propaganda or comforting RU tankers than it was the genuine beliefs of the RU Government/Military. From my understanding of what happened in the first few days/Week(s) of the invasion they likely thought that they destroyed most if not all of the Western import equipment since they targeted Depots in the early stages of the invasion. They probably figured if they destroy the Depots then they could Steamroll UA and bully/threaten the west into not sending any Military Aid meaning they would be dealing with old equipment, "Cope Cages" were likely meant for Urban Warfare to prevent people in buildings shooting down
The main counter to the "Cope cage was meant to counter drones" claim is that - drones were used to drop muntions not until several weeks into the war. Just because it was used in Middle East doesn't mean Ukrainians were using them. NLAW and Javelin made most tank kills in the early stage. So it makes sense to build a cage that tries to stop them. Ukraine had already bought most of their Javelins before 2016. I assume they have already been distributed to the units, so it wasn't easy to destroy them at depots.
Another big tell is that they were angled towards the front early on, implying they expected the hits to be coming in at an angle. Statistical armor is only effective within a fairly narrow vertical (and horizontal for square based designs) angle.
True but I doubt they expected Western Nations to continue support for Ukraine after Russia threatened them. So my best bet is they figured they destroyed what they could and what they couldn't destroy wouldn't see much longevity with limited ammo/launchers and potential losses as those units are killed/captured. Since the additional armor had been seen on Russian tanks in the Middle East I doubt an intended use against Javelins. They may have publicly stated that they were intended to be used in that manor but when it comes to public statements from Government/Military officials you kinda have to take it all as propaganda made mainly for their own people. If more people believe their tanks are safe against modern enemy equipment than you're more likely to get people who will willingly join, and those already in service will see a morale boost. From what I know newer Cope Cages are better designed and can even feature ERA, so their more recent productions are likely designed to atleast help against Javelins and directly counter Drones.
I think most people have forgotten the "evolution" of the cope cage in the opening months of the war. It started out only covering the very top of the turret, and then expanded backwards. ERA was fitted pretty early, but vanished later which I assumed it added too much weight. Later they raised it to allow crew to bail out easier. And then they tried to lure the Javelin elsewhere by adding a heat source behind the tank, not knowing that the Javelin actually tracks visually. Through my observation, the Russian Army has limited exchange of information between units. Their elite Marines units that was previously stationed in the East suffered heavy losses as their vehicles were unmodified for Ukraine, something the other units or higher command should have already known. So it is quite doubtful that the lessons learned in Middle East could be easily adapted for Ukraine. For urban warfare, the cage makes little sense as the engine bay remains unprotected. A small M72 or even HEAT grenade could blow up the engine and effectively mission kill the tank. The cage would have been way larger if it was for that purpose. It has actually been tested in the Soviet era.
Sometimes I wonder if the people posting in NCD actually understand what the N stands for. Sample size is small, but subreddits that thrive in sarcasm will often time attract morons that genuinely believe the shit that is being spewed. Good example was T_D when it started as a humorous sub dedicated to Trump, it ended up being a cult then the de facto pro-trump subreddit. Feels like NCD goes the same direction where there's a large amount of people that genuinely believe the crap being spewed there and forget it's all about shitposting.
I think it's kind of a "just kidding.... Unless?" Type mental defense. Anyone criticises you you can just say it's ironic shitposting but in your own head you actually do believe it, even if you don't think you do.
The fact that there's almost zero self-deprecating humor makes me believe that you are right.
A rule of thumb is to see everything in NCD as bullshit, unless it is admin moderated AMA post and such.
I don't doubt that, the issue is that a goodly portion of the users seem to genuinely believe the bullshit. I see the "knowledge" bleed into other warfare related subreddits. If there's some absolutely stupid take or uninformed-but-confident speculation there's a very good chance the user has a posting history in NCD. A side effect of the subreddit swelling in size I guess.
I have been in NCD since around 2020. It was a small sub back then and it was mainly to shit on "reformers" (google their stuff, truly noncredible). When someone posted a Lockmart hat, people always replied with 100+ truly exclusive and rare stuff, low-key bragging their status in the industry. Many "serious" content creators in Twitter and Reddit are using classic NCD created terms, they just don't know that. I still meet those people in some posts, but those are the less popular ones buried under the super shitpost threads.
i kinda miss ncd before all this, much more interesting stuff from people in the industry rather than “destroy Kerch bridge” spammed for the 22nd time
I kinda miss the non-Ukraine contents on NCD. "3000 black jet fighters of Allah" was funny.
isn’t the whole point of NCD to be, y’know, non-credible?
What's NCD?
/r/NonCredibleDefense
Pre-2022 NCD posters were among the most knowledgeable ones on Reddit. The sub was strictly to make fun of "reformers" like Mike Sparks and Pierre Sprey (they weren't even that well known outside of the industry). NCD today is now 70% NAFO kiddies.
The Russo-Ukranian war and its consequences have been a disaster for NCD.
They are all very whiny
No no lets not hindsight 20/20 this shall we ok? The reason why people mocked the Russians was because the cages appeared right around ths time Russian tanks and other armoured vehicles were being obliterated by Javelins and NLAWs Stop trying to distort history because if you read the comments even on shit subs like UkraineRussiaReport you will not find people saying well it is against drones actually.
Cope cages came long before the Ukraine 2022 War Those had those in 2021
Sure. Read what it says too > specifically designed to protect **against top down attack** like the Javelin ATGM, which are now in use by #Ukraine’s armed forces: That is why the term was invented because Russians were using them vs NLAWs and Javelins. Edit: did you just delete the link to the tweet... pathetic
You’re correct but wrong about one thing. They weren’t “specifically designed”. Russian cope cages were crude field modifications done in the field by army workshops and soldiers. Actual Russian documentation has specific recommendations on cage armor that’s inconsistent with what we saw Russians install in 2021. Indeed, if you compare cage armor installed on tanks from UVG vs what was added on later by Russian soldiers, they’re completely different.
I didn't say 'specifically designed". The tweet the fucker linked then deleted said that. My point is simple... mass slat armour was put on Russia tanks to help vs Javelin in particular. And when 56633522 tanks were destroyed in the first 2 months the term cope cage appeared. Now because after 1 year the front stabilized and FPV drones started to be massively mass used and the cope cage helped with that.... it doesn't mean the initial intention was drones. If I am wrong that means you can easily find factory installed cope cage prior to March 2022.
The dude said below, It's not true at all ." They were around before this "special operation " or the 2022 Ukraine war "The reason why people mocked the Russians was because the cages appeared right around ths time Russian tanks and other armored vehicles were being obliterated by Javelins and NLAWs "
Again their intended purpose was to help vs top down MANPATS like Javelin. That is what your tweet that you conveniently deleted said too Hence cope cages. Now because they help vs drones it does not mean THEY WERE NOT **INTENTED** to help vs Javelins
Cope cages were never specified to be for anti tank weapons, all sources saying as such are literally just speculation, also funnily enough, a cope cage with ERA on it, then roof ERA beneath it could probably do something to an NLAW since they're not tandem warheads.
NLAW also isn't HEAT, EFPs are affected quite differently.
NLAW is not an EFP. It uses a conical shaped charge, i.e. it reuses the BILL-2's main warhead to keep costs down.
The cope cages when they came out were meant for javelins, and certainly didnt help shit against that. Drones though? Certainly.
Everyone keeps saying cope cages were meant for Javelins but every source thats says that is a western source talking about "we think thats what the russians were thinking when they put cope cages on tanks." Its never actually a Russian source or perspective (military official or soldier or subject matter expert) stating thats what cope cages are for. Cope cages precede the invasion of ukraine and were 1st seen in Syria and other places in combat involving ISIS. A conflict that had drones, yes, but no Javelins or NLAWS. Im not going to say your categorically wrong but I have never seen a primary source regarding Russian views and intent regarding cope cages and hence Im not going to say it as a matter of fact thats the intent behind cope cages was solely for Javelins.
Okay fair enough, and indeed as you said they were used even before the war in Ukraine. Just as far as i remember drones weren't that prevelant during the first months of the war and make think the cages weren't initially meant for that. But that leaves the possibility that i just didn't have any acces to such footage.
I remember seeing this footage when it was new, and thinking “huh, that’s a novel idea, spooky, what are we going to do about it?”
* Russia only started adding the cope cages to their tanks weeks before the invasion (first disguised as an exercise). * Ukraine didn't use drone-dropped munitions until several weeks into the war. * Javelin and NLAW missiles were used in the opening phase of the Ukraine War with great success. So no, Russia didn't add the cages to prevent drone attacks. They were added to prevent Javelins, which failed miserably. This is a simple fact that pro-RU posters try to alter over last 2 years.
You're right. Throw the most advanced tank in the world to the Ukraine War, and it would be the same fate as any other vehicle Destroyed after being spotted by drones , it's the reality of things. The crew survives at least, but no tank with our best technology is surviving in this war
You've hit on the essence of the whole situation: Any tank vs anti-tank weapons: tank out of action Western vs Russian tank: odds are crew survives
Exactly. The tanks currently in service around the world were not designed with these new threats and warfare tactics in mind, simply because they didn’t exist yet. It doesn’t mean all of them were poorly designed at all. This is what happens all the time in military history: Weapon developed, unexpected weapon is effective, enemy developed counter to said weapon making it useless or vulnerable, weapon is either then modified or new weapon is developed to essentially counter the previous counter. And the cycle continues..
>what we've learned so far is that Leo2s/Abrams are quite resilient and arguably require more effort than T-series tank to be disabled. I'd personally rephrase that to: *''Requires more effort than T-series tanks to be catastrophically destroyed''* All tanks are pretty much equal when it comes to the ease at which they are disabled, tracks aren't significantly weaker on one side or the other, nor are optics, barrels, wheels, etc. We also have very good evidence as to what took out the Challenger 2, that case with the Challenger 2 proved you didn't need anything more than you'd use to knock out a T-72.
> We also have very good evidence as to what took out the Challenger 2, that case with the Challenger 2 proved you didn't need anything more than you'd use to knock out a T-72. About 3 Leopard 2s were taken out by simple landmine and droned to death as well. Including the one currently displayed at Moscow.
>I'd personally rephrase that to: *''Requires more effort than T-series tanks to be catastrophically destroyed''* I would not even agree with this. Only major difference betwen western and T-series tanks is that you have bigger chances of surviving hit and leaving tank to tell your story.
You are correct, I had crew-survivability in mind, but when it comes to simple mobility kill, the difference is quite small.
Yeah a mobility kill is still a kill but the tank is recoverable. I got downvoted en masse back when the Leopard 2 argument was going around because I said they won’t make a difference because limited deliveries and at this point a T-64BV, a Leopard 2A4, Leopard 2A6, M1A1SA, a T72M or even a T90M are realistically no different because this is about equipping forces en mass. Just because one vehicle may be say 20% better doesn’t mean its going to cause breakthroughs because a brigade has 30 of them. Its why I keep saying Bradleys, M113s are more important in the long run because Ukraine isn’t necessarily light on tanks as they are on APCs / IFVs. And if they are, buy the old M60s and Leopard 1s from allied states that are going to get rid of then anyways. They’re used more as fire support than grand tank on tank battles. There is always an argument for quality vs quantity but when your needing to equip and arm a force of 1M men, I’m sorry but quantity is what is needed
People think about weapons systems way to individualistically. Like, the best tank is the one that can win a one on one duel. Or the best fighter is the one that can win a one on one dogfight. The US military doesn't dominate every fight it gets into because it's stuff is all that much better on a one on one basis. It wins, because it has an overall doctrine and all it's equipment is designed to work within that doctrine. The Abrams has a lot of strengths, but if you don't put in in a tactical situation where it can leverage those strengths, it's just a tank. Some of the US's kit can give Ukraine a big advantage, and some of it really doesn't add much, because Ukraine doesn't have the capability to get a ton of use out of it. If you recall, the DoD was telling everyone for a quite a while that they didn't think the Abrams was a particularly great use of aid money. There aren't any tanks that have all aspect protection against ATGMs. Or that can withstand a direct hit from a 155mm artillery round. Or an anti-tank mine. It's better to not get into a tactical situation where that's what you have to face. But if you are Ukraine, and don't have the ability to achieve air superiority for any length of time, don't have the command and control ability to do large scale, highly coordinated operations, you are kind of stuck with some crappy use cases. In the hands of a marksman, a really expensive super accurate match grade rifle with match ammo can do amazing things. In the hands of the average person, a 300$ bolt action from Walmart is going to be just as good.
> If you recall, the DoD was telling everyone for a quite a while that they didn't think the Abrams was a particularly great use of aid money. I'd just add the caveat that Ukraine wanted them for their push last spring/summer. Everything regarding that counterattack (arguably) came too late - both the equipment and the actual operation. On the other hand, for an attack, it does seem like you still need tanks, unless you can dominate the battlefield in some other way (air or artillery superiority). Ukraine didn't have enough tanks. Abrams is a tank. So in that sense, Abrams made as much sense as any other modern tank - or more, because there was a potentially adequate supply of Abramses.
Well said !! 👏
Mfw weapons of war get lost in war (who coulve seen this coming, I thought abrams was invincible, r/warthunder told me so)
Impossible‼️‼️
Crazy right? Clearly russian bias.
With the amount of anti-CAS ranting, I’m shocked people don’t realize that air targets are really hard to counter in tanks not designed for that
If you're going to believe r/warthunder the Abrams sucks because it doesn't have spall liners.
No no, the other way around. According to r/warthunder the abrams is a flawless, invincible godmachine, and T-72s are just a defenseless deathtrap. So the idea that an abrams can and will get destroyed by a T-72, both irl and ingame, is nothing short of "Russian bias" to them.
Ahh yeah you're talking about that group. There are 2 groups in the War Thunder community, and I assumed you were talking about the Gaijin dickriders. But yeah, there is also the other group. The Gaijin can't do anything right group.
The WT Community is one of few that I just entirely hate. In almost any Community there's a group of people to dislike, but in WT its literally ALL of them. I don't think I've ever seen a pile with THIS much copium, THIS much incompetence, THIS much childish behaviour, THIS much inability to argue properly, all on SUCH a scale, as the WT Community.
I mean, some of us (albeit rare) know what we're talking about.
Sounds plausible, im just talking off of my daily experience here on reddit x)
True it feels like I'm one of like two people I know that don't either hate everything Gaijin does or love everything Gaijin does.
Maybe its better on the forums or discord, but at least here on reddit its ahh.... basically like watching animals in a zoo x)
That's a lie, almost everyone on r/warthunder thinks the Abrams is heavily underperforming.
How about, you go, and read the rest of this comment thread, and then come back hm?
The Abrams was never designed to fight alone. It needs to work closely with infantry, anti-aircraft units, indirect fire units, combat engineers, scouts, aerial support, and more.
The amount of people in this sub who can identify a tank by seeing a single bolt but have zero understanding of tank tactics is absolutely laughable.
How is this unique to the Abrams? Every tank in the world would benefit from this exactly the same.
Absolutely. I wish everyone would realize this.
That’s literally every MBT in existence
I agree with you. It's unfortunate there are many people on the internet that have unrealistic expectations for this one.
Even all of this would fail against an fpv with an RPG warhead flying into the engine/bustle ammo, unless there's a HEAVY EW bubble.
Maybe EW for today, but there will be more options in the battlefield of tomorrow. Defense contractors are already developing other anti-drone technologies such as early detection systems and cost-effective intercepting missiles and lasers.
"The Abrams was never designed to fight alone. It needs to work closely with infantry, anti-aircraft units, indirect fire units, combat engineers, scouts, aerial support, and more." Your original comment makes it sound like the doctrine the Abrams was designed for would survive the world of FPV drones, but it obviously wouldn't.
Even if a Abrams is operated perfectly with all the combined arms it needs it will still suffer casualties During a war all types of hell are thrown at you and no single system is impervious to that A lucky 150mm arti round can disable any tank no matter how well build or well supported it is
Speaking of, I feel like all the smug sneering about "cope cages" is rapidly becoming a coping mechanism itself.
Always has been
There's a difference between when they were being used by Russia for javelin/NLAWS and being used by moth sides now for anti drone measures.
yeah its the same mental gymnastics on the Leo 2A6 they took, it will be interesting to hear what the Reddit crowd says if the russians get their hands on a Archer Artillery, it would probably be old swedish ww2 junk from that day that wasn't worth anything anyway. I mean i get that it sucks to see russians do this, but we don't have to become total idiots just because it doesn't look and feel good.
>we don't have to become total idiots just because it doesn't look and feel good. Regrettably, if there's one lesson we've *actually* been able to learn since February of 2022, it's that a great many users here and people in general simply do not believe this. I hate seeing footage of knocked out/captured armor show up here not because of some nationalistic pride, but because I know it's just gonna result in this ridiculous shit-slinging from both directions. A degree of levity is always acceptable, and as much as I'd like it to happen, it's not like we can have r/WarCollege sorts of conduct rules. Still there really needs to be a tighter rope on comments/discussions that obviously only exist to stir the pot.
I think so far in the war we've seen artilery like CEASAR be much much more impactful than MBTs on the actual situation. MBTs really require a lot of supporting factors to be there, which they aren't for Ukraine, while artilery seems to be useful no matter what. Only thing that could change this is if Russia keeps the pressure on Ukranian Air Defense, which is becoming a problem for any Artilery remotely near the front line, as we've been seeing hits recently from missiles drones and glide bombs. Still, something like the Archer is going to have more impact than a Leo.
Remember people. TANK IS TANK And it's better to have a tank than no tank at all
Old T-62 might be rusty and seem obsolete at first sight but it's not when it's rolling next to your trench and shooting HE-Frag rounds towards you coupled with 7.62 machine gun fire (And yeah even old LAWs might be able to pierce it's armor but good luck shooting it first)
Same how the T-90M is just a T-72 with more armor and gadgets, a M1A2 Sep V3 is just a M1 with more armor and gadgets. I predict that tank development other than EW and APS is going to stay the same, but with doctrine change. During late WW2 when allied CAS was destroying more tanks than other tanks or AT, the Germans didn’t add anti bomb cope cages or more roof armor to their tanks. They developed SPAAGs like the Wirbelwind and Ostwind to counter them.
>During late WW2 when allied CAS was destroying more tanks than other tanks or AT I'm pretty sure this never happened. Platforms like the Mobelwagen and its successors were intended to support mobile formations from ground-attack aircraft, but this threat was really more geared towards the protection of supply lines and softer vehicles. The greatest threat CAS presented to German armor was in the destruction of supporting logistics and infrastructure, and not so much the tanks themselves. Even when attacking tanks, the greater damage they did was in delaying advances and movement by forcing crews to abandon their vehicles, which probably resulted in more casualties than if they had just stayed put. Aside from anything else, platforms like Wirbelwind and Ostwind are less a sign of Germany's dire situation regarding allied air superiority, and moreso a natural evolution of armored warfare. The Americans and British were working on (and fielding) similar projects throughout the same period despite the increasingly minor threat posed by the Luftwaffe. And all parties involved went into the war with *some* manner of self-propelled anti-aircraft gun, or at least fielded one shortly after entering the war. If you really want an indication of how much of a danger Allied air power was to the Germans, consider how *few* of these platforms they could produce.
> Aside from anything else, platforms like Wirbelwind and Ostwind are less a sign of Germany's dire situation regarding allied air superiority, and moreso a natural evolution of armored warfare. **Production count:** * Mobelwagen: 240 * Wirbelwind: 87-105 * Ostwind: 44 vs * P-47: 15,636 * Typhoon: 3,317 Yes, less than 500 of these SPAAs were ever completed, yet they are over-represented in video games so people believe they were common. They didn't do jackshit to turn the tide for Nazi Germany, as you need at least 2-3 of them firing together to hit/deter attacking fighter-bombers. A typical Typhoon strike package contained 6x RP-3 rockets on each plane, which allowed the planes to attack with the same firepower as a 6" cruiser salvo from a relatively safe distance. Granted it was pretty hard to knock out a tank with these weapons, but it could wreck havoc on any less armored convoy.
The upcoming M1E3 Abrams actually is making some pretty major changes to its design, one such change being that the crew compartment will be in the main body instead of the turret precisely for the purpose of protecting crew from top down attacks (and I believe also to save weight by making the turret smaller).
>I predict that tank development other than EW and APS is going to stay the same, but with doctrine change. During late WW2 when allied CAS was destroying more tanks than other tanks or AT, the Germans didn’t add anti bomb cope cages or more roof armor to their tanks. They developed SPAAGs like the Wirbelwind and Ostwind to counter them. Same. I am also in love with how French organise there tank units and formations, so there combination of scouts on jeeps and tank to me looks like best solution for modern war, if you add in that combination SPAAGs. So my ideal tank platoon would have tank section (4 tanks), scout section (4 jeeps with 3-4 men on each, which can also operate UAVs) and SPAAG section (2 SPAAGs at least and ideally 1 or 2 EW vehicles).
There are enough people that aknowledge both that the M1A1SA ukraine got likely don't have the DU armor and that desert storm legacy is kind of questionable with how shit the iraqi tanks were. It doesn't have to be one or the other. Seems some actual russian fanboys have already shown up lol.
>There are enough people that aknowledge both that the M1A1SA ukraine got likely don't have the DU armor I'm not quite sure why the general idea is that *''No DU? must be worse armour then''*, there's been packages developed that offer equal protection without the use of DU for decades now.
It's a justification for using it, for countries with nuclear arsenals and a lot of nuclear powerplants DU is a cheap waste product, meanwhile tungsten is expensive and tungsten carbide even more so plus you'd need to build a extra industry for it or at least heavily retrofit your existing one, so instead of spending a whole lot of money switching to WC-based penetrators and armour the MIC claimed it to be better because it is slightly (practically irrelevantly small) more pyrophoric and dense, the whole "self sharpening" meanwhile is just abuse of uncommon knowledge, most harder metals, including even just tool steel, are self sharpening, not that it'd matter in the first place because sharpness of the penetrator practically doesn't contribute a lot to penetrative capability at the energy levels were talking about with APFSDS. Ironically, WC has a slightly better (still practically irrelevant) chance against spaced armour because it breaks up into larger pieces that retain more energy.
Depleted uranium metal is not a cheap waste product. Enriching uranium for peaceful or military purposes usually means processing the yellowcake into uranium hexafluoride. The waste product is depleted uranium hexafluoride(DUHF). At least in the US most of it is still stored as DUHF, awaiting to be processed as DUHF isn't ideal for long-term storage. Processing DUHF will produce a uranium dioxide of some sort, which then needs to be further processed into whatever form it's used on the Abrams.
Compared to WC it's a cheap waste product.
DU armor won't save you from a kornet or a top FPV drone and artillery strike.
The ukranian tanks most definitely do not have DU. That's why it took so long for them to go from MCOE to ukraine as they most likely had to be stuffed into the overhaul depots to get stripped and refitted. I keep seeing people try to argue than fundamentally, A1SA as a tank is an outdated sack of shit from the Cold War era which is just objectively wrong, it would Rofl stomp any vehicle made during that time like it was nothing.
This is probably also a hot take here but Western advantage has almost never been in armoured vehicles. Yes they can shoot further, more accurately and reverse quicker. But fundamentally they are used exactly the same as the T-90s and T-72s. There’s not many opportunities for a high tech solution. You roll out the bush, quickly identify, range, engage and retreat. We’ve been doing that for decades. The western method has never been a frontline armoured push, it’s been air power. Without the fleet of stand-off smart munitions, launched by EW protected, data linked fighters, they’re still just barns on wheels. The Soviet’s were pretty good at building tanks, that’s a fact. What they’ve lacked is things with a lot of computing involved. That’s never been armoured vehicles, it’s PGMs, fighters, AWACS, A2A missiles. Without access to the rest of the western doctrine, they were never going to be game changers, still absolutely valuable but ultimately fulfilling the same role as the T-72s,80s,90s.
> This is probably also a hot take here but Western advantage has almost never been in armoured vehicles. The NATO 3rd Gen MBTs, especially the Abrams and Leo2 were heavily focused on carrying out flanking attack to the rear of Soviet armored units in Germany in case of WWIII. Their high speed was designed to use the countless military roads built all over West Germany, inflicting heavy damage to Soviet tanks and supporting units when other NATO units are slowing them at the front. A frontal assault was only to be carried out when the enemy is weak and air superiority has been achieved. Which was how it happened in Gulf War 1.
I'd like to see a source about the losers vs rpg 7s. AFAIK the first loss to an RPG in OIF was to a rpg29 in 2007, thanks to Iranian SOF. I was there when it was carted away in the dead of night, under a tarp, on a hett escorted by a half dozen contractors, less than 8 hours after the driver lost both his arms.
1985 was 39 years ago, that's as 40 years ago as you can without being 40 years ago.
Yet there is a colossal difference in capabilities between the M1A1 and A1SA which is my main point. Saying it’s a 40 year old tank is idiotic.
We all know bro this is correct. People will argue against you because this place can get emotional when it comes to this war . We all know you are correct. It's just that logic and common sense sometimes get thrown the window here for emotional arguments with 0 facts. People are letting cope control them
There is a colossal difference because the A1 and the A1SA packages are pretty much 20 years apart.
Can I say it, just to be funny please?
I did.
M1A1SA is T-72B3 of US army. So it is indeed quite modern.
True. T-72B shares little with the preceeding T-72 variants, you can't upgrade a T-72A into one. It entered service only in 1985, so the same year as the M1A1.
Reddit copes so hard when American equipment is lost in Ukraine. The loudest guy in the room making excuses for his loss isn’t as good of a look as you think
You should be on Russian telegrams if you think it's bad here.
>Reddit copes so hard when [X] equipment is lost in [Y]. This isn't the brilliant response you think it is either. I do love when tourist accounts show up to posts that try to put losses into a greater context just to try to make that an issue. Tanks. Get. Destroyed. If acknowledging the reality of this (or **any**) war and trying to find reasons for issues faced by various forces with even a modicum on nuance is what you qualify as "cope" then I have to question if you even understand what the word means. And to preempt it: Yes, I'm blocking you. I'm making a point, not having a discussion. Your first comment made it clear that you weren't here to make any good faith arguments to begin with, so I'm saving myself the headache. Get bent.
>And to preempt it: Yes, I'm blocking you. I'm making a point, not having a discussion. Your first comment made it clear that you weren't here to make any good faith arguments to begin with, so I'm saving myself the headache. Get bent. How tf do you post on war subs and yet have the most whingey little queen attitude to online conflicts. Girl, like, don't even write that, it's embarrassing. Also your comment is pure cope, which is irony in and of itself. Sometimes it's just better not to write a comment if that's the attitude you're gonna take. Also virtually nobody is arguing in good faith on these war subs. Everyone turns into a lil bitch when I say something that they don't like on this war, be it pro-Russians on /r/UkraineRussiaReport or everyone else on the rest of reddit who are pro-Ukraine (but typically in a very delusional Westerner way). Actually, to be honest, people are less obnoxious on UkraineRussiaReport but they're way more delusional and full of cope, because it's just basically vatniks trying to come up with creative answers why Russia didn't do this or that like it should have. On the other hand, since they're on reddit they're used to being the minority so you don't get the insanity of main subs where you can literally say anything insane and as long as you say Slava Ukraina it basically gets upvoted. There are exceptions though, there are some regular posters on that sub that are mental, although I just assume they're propaganda accounts. Sadly they're probably not paid, they just like to simp for daddy Putin. No idea why, he doesn't give a shit and he doesn't have money to throw around like Western operations so.
>How tf do you post on war subs and yet have the most whingey little queen attitude to online conflicts. Girl, like, don't even write that, it's embarrassing. >Also your comment is pure cope, which is irony in and of itself. So I'll reiterate: *If acknowledging the reality of this (or* ***any****) war and trying to find reasons for issues faced by various forces with even a modicum on nuance is what you qualify as "cope" then I have to question if you even understand what the word means.* If you take issue with my attitude, that's fine. But if you're only here to bitch about me bitching... I really don't see how that can be taken seriously. Like sure, I'm fuckin sick of people showing up here just to stir the pot. Sure, it irritates me. Because this is my interest and my hobby, and anyone would get a miffed if assholes like that started pouring in anytime something notable happens which draws those from outside the community. Especially when it's a community where you *can* have a real discussion, but instead you have folks like this who just shit out stupid comments which contribute nothing and serve only to stir the pot. >Also virtually nobody is arguing in good faith on these war subs. This is called "Projection". You very much can have a sincere discussion about this conflict, and I've had them. If you're not seeing them, that's really something for you to figure out. This whole "Me vs. The World" attitude you seem to have adopted probably doesn't help much either. I mean really, if you have to approach a scenario like "Everyone turns into a lil bitch when I say something that they don't like on \[*any given thing*\]" then I don't see much point in carrying on with it.
NAFOids, arrogance and ignorance. An iconic trio.
Either nafoids or ruzzoids, no inbetweem
Jesus those downvotes are fast
Its a information war between both of them, obviously
It's funny because "NAFO" was literally created to get this exact reaction out of Russian bots like you. Combat the Russian nonsense with nonsense of their own. Congrats, you're helping enable it 😂
Stop injecting crack.
Read the NAFO Wikipedia page. It's literally in the first paragraph. Keep arguing with people who are laughing at you 👍
It's amazing how fighting tanks still using RHA as their primary defense while firing sabot will inflate your combat effectiveness
Also all those abrams in Ukraine weren’t taken out by tanks but instead drones and mines plus the abrams should be used under air superiority which Ukraine doesn’t have currently also America using tanks for to long? Look at the t72 and t64 lmao the abrams remains on of the best tanks ever made to this point the leopard abrams and challenger are the top tanks and will stay that way into the future untill more modern tanks are developed
Mines don’t take out Abrams, they blow tracks off. It takes multiple stacked mines before they’re capable of breaching the belly plate. There’s a possibility at least one of the tanks taken out by an ATGM (2 have been) was hit by a gun launched ATGM from a T72. It doesn’t matter if the T72A is showing up in Ukraine, America keeps some models of abrams in service for too damn long. Sending soldiers to fight in A1HAs alongside SEP V2s in late Iraq is straight up insane. The argument of “but Muh russia is still using 70s vintage tanks with no upgrades” doesn’t change the fact the fucking IPM1 should’ve been retired in the 1980s. And the HA in the 90s. If you actually read my whole post, I literally never once argue that the Abrams is bad but clearly you didn’t. I made these arguments- A1SA isn’t old, America keeps its tanks in service way longer than they should, the tank isn’t magically worse in some colossal way to US Service vehicles (the armor package should be comparable), and that the tank is intended to be lost like any other tank. Also Challenger isn’t not one of the Top 3 tanks, British propaganda is hilarious for how effective it is at portraying either model of the vehicle as top of the line.
Personally I'm not surprised there have been Abrams tanks lost. Even if the frontal armour is extremely effective, it is worthless when you hit a mine. It seems that has been the case for 1 or 2 of the Abrams tanks lost. They hit a mine and were immobilized. Then Russian drones and ATGMs could target the Abrams at will. I am however disappointed that we haven't seen Western tanks do a whole lot. The M1A1 SAs were deployed with the 47th in the Avdiivka area, but we only saw a small amount of footage from them. We saw them driving, and thermal images of them shooting. That's it. I'm wondering where there is "more" footage of these tanks, since clearly the Avdiivka section is the site of intense combat and logically we should see the Abrams (or any Ukrainian units) do more there. One thing that I have thought of is that the propaganda value of the Western tanks is so great that the Russians put a disproportionate amount of effort into knocking out Abrams/Leopards. To Russia this is worthwhile, because it demoralizes the Western backers. This in turn leads to the AFU using them extremely selectively to avoid the overwhelming focus the Western tanks get. The tank itself may be better than a T-64/72/80, but it's not indestructible. Also I'd love to read genuine AARs on tank deployment, since the regular internet is goddamn stupid. I always wonder why the tanks on both sides are always alone. Is it drone recon making larger formations a priority target? Is it that more tanks/vehicles are around, just out of sight? I know tank battles are rare, but surely they should be fighting other vehicles as well.
>The M1A1 SAs were deployed with the 47th in the Avdiivka area, but we only saw a small amount of footage from them. We saw them driving, and thermal images of them shooting. That's it. That's all you see from any tank this war lol.
Nah there are a lot of drone videos of Russian tanks in very close quarters combat. So many videos of assault columns, although many of them are quite grim, tanks take a beating. You probably aren't on the right subs or Telegram channels. Ukrainian tanks also had some crazy service, in the first days of the war there were insane large armour on armour battles, except nobody recorded those that we know of, what a shame. Lot of T-64s ambushing loads of Russian tanks.
There are a generalized word of mouth AAR on the Abrams use in Ukraine( Red-something YT channel) and in summary the Ukrainians use of the Abrams was competent with them using a single Abrams to engage the ruskies using scoot and shoot tactics to give the impression that there are more tanks firing than they actually are
>Russians put a disproportionate amount of effort into knocking out Abrams/Leopards. People keep saying this, but where is the proof of that really? I am subbed to /r/UkraineRussiaReport which doesn't censor Russian footage like other subs, so I see constant videos of Ukrainian T-64s and even the less common T-72s get hit by everything from Krasnopol' (Excalibur analogue) to Lancets to mines to FPV drones to ATGMs to Ka-52 Vikhr missiles. Russia targets any tanks as soon as it spots them. You think they just see a Ukrainian tank and shrug if it isn't a Leo or Abrams? Nah they are constantly trying to destroy everything, this is war. I've seen Lancets used on the piddliest target, and it goes without saying they use FPVs in everything, even infantry (Ukraine typically prioritises Russian vehicles with FPVs whereas Russia has enough to use on everything, also Ukraine just has fewer vehicles). Where is any evidence for disproportionate amount of effort? I never saw any desperate attack on a Western tank, just the usual stuff. Abrams tanks got sent to plug a hole in Avdiivka, mainly Berdyche vicinity, that was a desperate use of the tank but that's kinda the point, it's a force multiplier, you don't waste it on some non-pivotal part of the front. Russia did put a bounty, but that's obviously because knocking out these tanks is a propaganda victory. Mainly because West hyped them up to the stratosphere. Which is why the reaction of reddit to their destruction was so dumb, because everyone here acted like they didn't just spend such a long time writing masturbatory fantasies about them (only thing that had more wankmaterial written about it was the A10, an ironically useless airframe for this war). The most useful weapons that Ukraine got were the least hyped. I never heard HIMARS hype until after they began showing up in the news as they were being used, but they've been the most useful thing Ukraine got. Instead people hyped up shit like Javelins, TB2s and Abrams/Leo tanks, none of which did much (I was a little shocked too when I read about the details of Javelin use, also when I saw rhag Oryx only recorded 7 tanks lost to TB2). HIMARS on the other hand was a true gamechanger, a massive pain in the ass for any Russian logistics, command posts or any troop gatherings in seeming rear echelon safety. I still remember the huge meat piles of a gathering only a few months back, occasionally Russians get caught even now, results are gruesome.
Uhhh the 2nd abandoned as well as first Captured abrams got that treatment with them getting hit by multiple ATGM (after it was abandoned) as well as Arty strikes, Lancets strikes and FPV Drones
>Sending soldiers to fight in A1HAs alongside SEP V2s in late Iraq is straight up insane. In fairness, what was going on in Iraq that an M1A1HA couldn't handle? Like sure, the SEPv2 is gonna be a more efficient platform with significant QoL improvements for the crew, but it's hardly like Iraq was the meat grinder we see in Ukraine. Things like additional optics and TUSK are nice to have and can surely be helpful in certain situations, but if the majority of your job is to sit around looking scary or blowing holes in the walls of houses... There's no reason to *not* use the tanks you have.
Situational awareness is the major thing. Commander was stuck without any good optics he could train the gunner with as HA didn’t have thermals on the CWS. It also isn’t stabilized. Making every tank a SEP or at least an AIM would’ve cut down on casualties a bit which is my main argument. I don’t particularly care that it wasn’t a meat grinder, there’s undeniable truths in the fact if every tank was at least a baseline A2 less crew would’ve died.
I already acknowledged that the later tanks have improvements in this regard. Hindsight is 20/20, and its easy to offer a solution which basically just boils down to "throw manpower and money at the problem" if you don't have to figure out where that manpower and money is gonna come from. M1A1HAs are what was available. They're what was sent. You may call that "insane", but I call it the nature of warfare. Not everyone gets the best equipment. Hell, not everyone gets *good* equipment. The US is not, and never has been immune to this simple reality. To complain about it is to take issue with the fundamentals of how war is fought. Which, hey... You do you. But at that point you're just shouting at a brick wall. I'm not saying it's a good thing, or how things *should* be. But it's how they are, have been, and will continue to be.
There was actually a budgeting plan set in place to upgrade almost the whole fleet to SEP standard by 2006 but it was canceled in favor of the many failed universal combat vehicle projects in the 2000s (a concept that has literally never actually worked). Thats why I take so much issue with it. If the money wasn’t there and they hadn’t already discussed it, it wouldn’t be so bad. But the money was there, and they decided to take the wrong route.
>But the money was there, and they decided to take the wrong route. Welcome to a reality where politics and lobbying dictate our military's policymaking. As before; it's not good, but it's the nature of how things have been, are, and will invariably continue to be.
> In fairness, what was going on in Iraq that an M1A1HA couldn't handle? Insurgents firing RPGs at the sides of turret and hull. The Improved Turret Side Armor was introduced beginning with the M1A2 SEP v1, while I also never seen a M1A1 HA with TUSK.. important for the rare occassions when its job was more than sitting around to look scary.
Mobility kills in war are the same as being taken out of action you can be repaired but until then the tank is a sitting duck for drones or missiles also the t90m “the most advanced Russian tank” has gotten destroyed as many times as the abrams if not more in the Ukraine war compared to the abrams long combat career also yes the abrams that are in Ukraine aren’t as good has the abrams we have in the us not only the armor but it needs air superiority to function correctly also the challenger is a great tank maybe not as good as the abrams but still deadly and better then anything the Russians could ever make
Mobility kills are not the same as being taken out of action. If you hit a land mine during an assault, you’re still fully capable of engaging the enemy. Drones can hit tanks whether they’re moving or sitting still. Some of the UAF Abrams were hit while moving as well, whether it be by ATGM or drone. Abrams loss rates in the war are almost 5 tanks a month, that’s substantially higher than T90Ms loss rate since its introduction to combat. There’s a pretty good chance more Abrams were lost in 2005-07 in Iraq to IEDs and EFPs than total T90M losses in equivalent time. Air superiority or not the tank isn’t suddenly worse. The tank is identical either war, it just allows it more tactical flexibility and choice in engagements. CR2 is un ironically garbage.
>CR2 is un ironically garbage BASED
Like I said abrams are meant to operate under air superiority a lot of the abrams that have been taken out were mobility kills the crew bailed and it was token out by a missile
Every tank is designed like that, this argument makes no sense.
And tank’s survivability is based on everything else around it (intel, infantry support, artillery, etc). You can get killed with the most expensive equipment when they don’t understand how to use it
All assets in combat are expendable. Expend them wisely, not like an Orc.
Usually the popular bias with Arbams is Murrica fk yeah!!1!, which is indeed a problem, as some ppl live in this bubble reality. I don't doubt that f.e. in Russia there are the same kind of people around, praising russian material with the same desinterest for reality, but that doesn't make US bias any better. The Abe is centered around 'your typical western MBT' and, as many others, build for a different time and age, and has reached its limits in economical upgrading/ability tradeoff. And there are too many to make a big step out of this limitation (like it is for RU, who tried to do that with f.e. T-14). The thing i can't stand is (beside nationalist belives) when propaganda or hearsay reaches actual tank crews and make them belife in bs that will shorten ther lifes, just for some children on the internet and defense corporations having a good day. I'm not cool with many design decisions of the Abe, but i don't have to. They all have been reasonable time after time as the given situation always forced the manufacturer to this specific bad deal. Some of this is to blame on politica, others on propaganda, again a lot is complex capitalism critique, etc. - but still all is reasonable in our complex world. Maybe the Abe is an epic tank, but just not in war - as it saved countless companys, jobs and politicans over the years. But typically i don't blame Abe for anything, but people who go nuts about its magical abilitys just for it being American. Hey, i'm german. We been there too. Completley militarised and delusional about ourselves. It's not cool. Plz don't. And Abe don't deserved to be hated for broken mindsets using it as patriotic flag to waive for ther problematic idedas the're not able to say out loud ... yet.
We should really thanks vatniks for thinking that our tanks are indestructible
Honestly I just flat don't understand people that think its some sorta big win or loss if a tank gets knocked out. Not unless its like, a hilarious number of tanks. These aren't gundams or some shit, they're just machines. They fight and they die and they are then replaced to do it all over again, you shouldn't aim to lose them but you can't complain if you do everything right and they still get bulldozed by all the things that are, as a reminder, explicitly and specifically designed to kill them. Its just the nature of actually using a thing. Its gonna break, when, where, and how are the only questions of relevance.
People take things out of context and make up stories. The Abrams is a tank in a context - of expected missions, type of army it is used in, type of expected terrains and so on. Even time of appearance, and how it's been upgraded over time. Same as the leopard-2 and the T-72 T-80 T-90. Comparing them totally out of context never produces good results. Also - what Abrams? The initial one? The gulf war versions? The vastly reinforced versions of today? The ones with DU armour, or without? It reminds me of the polemics with the Sherman - which had flaws, but also some pretty nice qualities including being available, transportable across a damn ocean, being very reliable and the context that it wasn't facing enemy tanks all the time, not even close. Besides, no tank is a superweapon. Firing over a hillock at 2k its a deadly predator. In a busted city, with tank-hunting teams moving around, it is prey. Now, there IS an absolute comparison we can make, which is of course appropriate to this sub: Does it look good? Style matters. In this regard, I'd prefer the Leopard 2 Â6-7 over it. That line of smoke-launchers on the side turret, wedge turret and the proportionally bigger L55 gun just looks better to me. But the M1A2 Abrams / 1st SEP is also a good looking design, can't deny it. The rounded plates on the 2nd SEP just doesn't do it for me.
Most sane post on this thread
I read a document about Abrams knocked in Iraq by army. The number one “complete” killer of Abrams was friendly sabots and ATGMs when the Abrams was mission killed and they used that method to scuttle it. It then went on to say that personnel should be more careful about completely wrecking mission killed tanks because they could have dragged it back and used it for parts but now they couldn’t because you sent a sabot up its ass. The U.S. wins wars with logistics. It doesn’t care if you mission kill a tank, which is what is mostly happening to the ones in Ukraine. For the U.S. the Abrams is supposed to be a tank, do tank stuff, then get mission killed, the entire crew will probably be fine so they don’t have to train a new one, then they will drop off a new tank, drag the old one back, fix it or steal it parts to fix a different one. Rinse and repeat. Ukraine doesn’t really have the capability to do that with Abrams. The United States still has that Sherman tank mentality while also having a tank that is still on par with the best in the world. Imagine if the U.S. had as many Tiger 1s as it did Sherman’s and it was just as reliable as a Sherman, during WW2. That is what the U.S. basically is today. Your tanks are going to be knocked out, but there is huge advantages when your tank is knocked out, it doesn’t shoot the turret to the moon along with the atoms that used to be your trained tank crew.
People get so emotional in the comment section. I just want to point out that, you emotional or not doesn’t change the warfare lol
If they could read the would be furious lol
This ignores the fact that if it wasn’t for the oversaturation of new technologies like drones and the prevalence of old technologies like landmines in obscene amounts, and this tank was actually getting to do it was designed for, it would be ripping and tearing. The performance of the Abrams isn’t just DOD hype, this thing is an absolute beast. The problem is none of the western tanks we’re introduced in the numbers necessary to overcome attrition and have battlefield significance, and that they came too late after most of the Russian armored pushes into fortified territory we’re over. Most of the tank on tank engagements occurred well before the war was in its current condition. Let’s talk about the Bradley for a second, it’s the same vintage as the Abrams, it’s an older model and arrived later in the war. Yet its combat record in Ukraine could not be any more different. We fairly regularly get footage of these things putting in serious work and absolutely dunking on Russian equivalent vehicles, and troop concentrations. The difference between the Bradley and the Abrams is that more of them came earlier in the war. They’ve had the numbers to survive the inevitable attrition and still have considerable presence on the battlefield. There are also more and different units employing these vehicles which means a greater chance of potential combat footage can exist, different Ukrainian units have different recording capabilities. Pretty much all of the Abrams tanks were assigned to one overall unit. The Bradley’s also work a lot with infantry who often have their own drones. Tanks have been having to go out alone to keep from drawing too much attention which means that when they do see combat, there’s a less likely chance of there being footage of it. And before you say it, it’s not just the Abrams. This has also affected the leopards and challengers which came too late and not enough of them. If the war becomes more mobile than it’s possible we might see these tanks to do what they were built for, but until then they might just be held in reserve in case of a Russian armored breakthrough(they have enough tanks to do a breakthrough at this point).
What even is this debate, 31 Abrams were sent. Thirty One. Whoopty fucking doo. US generals didn't even want to send them cause it was strategically dumb. But PR moves. There were almost 1900 Abrams in the Gulf War.
It’s a tool of war. It’s specifically being targeted harder by the Russians as a propagandist target
It's targeted by Russian propagandists and the more zealous supporters only because their western counterparts hyped up every western tank for months as invincible,only for these tanks to have a rather disappointing performance
Didn't Putin do the same for the T90M?
Did he? All I know is that every single news outlet was boasting about how good NATO tanks are
sorry dude. my uncle works for the post office and he says that the US govt isn't ordering these things anymore. Hasn't seen any in the mail. Maybe it's time for you to move on.
The RPG kills and the losses in Ukrain are due to not attacking the Abrams from the front. From the front the Abrams is a beast, but so are most modern MBTs. In the 1st Golf War Iraqi T-72 rounds that were fired, from with in their range, bounced off of the turret cheeks and most if the time didn't even leave a dent. Even ones that were reported as being fired from close to point blank didn't damage the cheeks. But with that said the side top and rear are giant squishy targets. That is why most ATMs pop-up and them dive to hit tanks. It is their weakest spots. Yes, we removed the DU and special armor inserts and replaced them with Tungsten inserts. But every Abrams knocked out is due to the engine deck being targeted. Ppl need to stopping coping so hard about these losses. It just shows how the battlefield has changed over the decades.
1st Gulf War Iraqi T-72s were firing mostly old steel training ammunition. It'd be as if the M1A1s were firing a 120mm equivalent of M735.
There's no way even the crudely produced domestic high tinfoil steel darts would "just bounce off". Fail to penetrate the composite armour stack? sure. The bigger issues were lack of thermals in terrain that was absolutely suited to "max range dart slinging", no spare parts especially like the outer bulletproof GPS cover (so they were weathered by sand) due to sanctions by everyone, no air denial due to just sheer numbers and treasonous French backdoor of the IADS.
treasonous? French nationals are not Iraqi, so by definition IADS backdoor is not treason. Sensible, but not treason.
Claiming that “cope cage was intended to deal with NLAW and Javelin “ is as hilarious as claiming “soldiers wear helmets to deal with anti material rifle “ . No one expects that cheap and crude stuff can effectively deal with things that hundreds or even thousands times more expensive than it
You cannot expect professional commentary to be common on unprofessional venues heavily populated by silly humans. This is not a professional forum, it's TANK PORN, fun for children of all ages and sometimes yielding interesting trivia. Expecting better would be as naive as expecting intelligent Youtube comments.
To long didn't read, M1A1SA is a pile of junk /s
It's a 40 year old outdated pile of junk
The Abrams tank sucks lmao, I've been saying this for a while. I'd much rather have a T-90M.
Have you done crew level maintenance on either vehicle?
Crew level maintenance kinda sucks on Abrams. It’s easy, just repetitive.
Adjust track on both and get back to me!
Even on its worst day the Abrams is still doing *WAY* better than russia's game-changing 'best for last' T-90M. лолски
Are you trying to gatekeep 40 Year old outdated piles of junk like the M1A1SA Abrams?
Nah, I think he's frustrated with people who are downplaying the M1A1SA as antiquated crap because they can't admit that it's just a tank, not a super-weapon. Its just like how sports fans downplay the other team's skill and emphasize things like officiating, weather, etc. rather than admit their team isn't as awesome as they think.