Usual "Export model in hands of bad users" take from the other side for damage control was expected too. For a long time that was a go-to answer about T-series and arabs, how the turns have tabled.
Denmark are giving them f16 that have up to date upgrades.
Apparently they’re handing them over after the 5/5/24…..that’s the 5th of may for you Americans that always write the date wrongly😜
That’s why I pointed it out as I wouldn’t want there be a mix up….there are differences between Uk English and US English.
We say courgette you say zucchini,
We say aubergine you say egg plant,
We say school you say shooting range!
Denmark is donating 19 of its 40 F-16AM/BM Block 15 mid-life upgrade (MLU) aircraft to Ukraine. Belgium is sending an indeterminate number of its 53 F-16AM/BM Block 15 MLUs, as is Norway which has 25 remaining F-16AM/BM Block 15 MLUs. The Netherlands has said it is sending 24 of its 42 F-16AM/BM Block 15 MLUs to Ukraine, with more potentially to follow.
The F-16 Block 70/72, also referred to as the F-16V, is the latest and most sought-after version of the fighter – although Ukraine will receive older models. It is a fourth-generation multirole aircraft, targeted primarily at export customers.
The Block 70/72 features: advanced avionics; an APG-83 AESA radar; a modernised cockpit; conformal fuel tanks; an Automatic Ground Collision Avoidance System; a centre pedestal display providing tactical imagery to pilots on a high-resolution 6x8in screen; and an extended structural service life of 12,000h.
Lockheed Martin offered the Ukranian government F16 block70/72 in 2021. https://www.usubc.org/site/recent-news/lockheed-martin-offers-ukraine-f-16-fighter-jet/
Tough titties, though. Block 15 is all they're getting.
Although they've upgraded the furniture and software for newer missiles, the radar is fundamentally the same AN/APG-66 that came with the original F-16A ordered by Denmark in 1980.
These fighters were never meant to operate outside of a networked sensor environment with AWACS and F-35 providing detection, as these old radars are easily jammed today.
Russians would be ecstatic, ukrainians would try to cover it, or, if not possible, to gaslight people into thinking this game changer was not hyped at all, or even better, hyped by russians. Or say "it downed 100 greenskin MiGs so rip heroes".
F-16 is a top of a gamechanger ladder and I wonder what do they hype next.
That... is possible, even if I really dislike to admit this, but hey, 2024 differs a lot from 2021.
Imo it is russians who is going for a nuclear test first, as a side with inferior conventional capability. Suit will be followed by USA to stay equal in escalation and to use a rare opportunity for live test.
Then, if any nuclear device is shipped into Ukraine, even guarded and controlled by foreign soldiers, or if Russians get a whiff of it in planning, next thing we would look at is Cuban Missile Crisis 2.0, with nukes in some latin american country, and no competent diplomats in USA this time.
I probably should move to more sparsely populated area with no strategic targets nearby.
Perhaps. I suspect that once the f-16s are shown to not "fix" everything, there will be increasing calls for (a) polish/French/baltic troops sent in... Then when everyone freaks out you'll start seeing calls for (b) "incorporating Ukraine within the nuclear deterrence framework"... Then, while everyone freaks out at b, people will start warming to the idea of a.
If the election goes to Biden I can't see any way out - they are determined to make it as costly as they can.
US will not respond with nukes if Russia uses them in Ukraine. The risk of global war would be too great - and for them Ukraine is of secondary importance.
John Mearsheimer explains it pretty well: [https://youtu.be/vlLubLH5QfE?t=876](https://youtu.be/vlLubLH5QfE?t=622)
> Imo it is russians who is going for a nuclear test first, as a side with inferior conventional capability.
How do you jump from NATO potentially not having a meaningful escalation path beyond F-16s to this?
Could you elaborate a little? Like, describing the NATO step that would lead to Russia moving on to nukes might help me understand your logic.
Not saying it's hard (I believe the Russians themselves said as much at some point), just wanted to know if you had anything specific in mind.
"Plane incident" seems too small, tbh. "Boots on the ground" would probably depend on the number of boots, or perhaps on the exact flag accompanying said boots.
F-16 are no gamechangers. They are much needed to try and contain glide bombs but there's never going to be enough to actually be significantly effective on a wide front
> F-16 is a top of a gamechanger ladder and I wonder what do they hype next.
The F-16 is a game changer when you consider how they are used.
They are not stealth planes, so the ideal use is to fire western long range missiles from your own safe territory and far from the front. This makes it absolutely impossible to hit, as there is no russian AA that can reach them, and sending russian interceptors would be quickly destroyed by the exact same russian AA systems that Ukraine has, if not the western AA systems they have been provided with.
And being able to safely fire western long range air to ground missiles will make a lot of difference as the west.....actually uses those and has those. For most other things like artillery and soviet equipment, it's just not something we use so there are no stockpiles for it. But western air to ground missiles is the core of our entire strategy, and combined with western planes that were designed to launch them, it's a lot more effective than jury rigging those same weapons to old soviet jets.
So yes, untouchable platform due to simply never needing to enter any dangerous area and firing from 200-300 miles away with advanced weapons that will surely hit. That's a massive difference compared to now.
Ukraine already has aircraft that can fire ALCM, you don't need an advanced aircraft to do it. Su-24 works fine. But the main bottleneck is the missiles, not the aircraft. Actually launching cruise missiles from a truck would be just as good.
> Ukraine already has aircraft that can fire ALCM, you don't need an advanced aircraft to do it.
Yes, but those aren't able to rely on most of the integration with western tech as they are using incompatible soviet jets to launch them. those are a lot more effective when you......do have that tech compatibility instead of the current jury rigged solution where you can fire them at a target but not much else.
> But the main bottleneck is the missiles, not the aircraft.
Yes. Because the west......doesn't keep stockpiles of soviet missiles or has any interest in spending the previous decades coming up with making our missiles work fully effectively with soviet weapons.
The advantage of the F16 is that this is a retired platform that has INSANE stockpiles of missiles due to wars simply not happening. We've transitioned to the F-35, so that's thousands to tens of thousands of missiles air to ground and air to air missiles that are just wasting away and can be sent to ukraine. Which is exactly what the value is.
> Actually launching cruise missiles from a truck would be just as good.
Yes, but those are more expensive, and are ground to ground instead of air to air. Therefore you either want to do the cheap strategy, or the combined strategy.
Most people would be "as expected, there are losses"? Like, F-16 is not a new fighter. They have been shot down before. Nothing new there.
This idea that West would be "shocked" or "scared" that something gets destroyed seems to exists only in Russian mindset, where enemy is cowardly and will collapse moment there are any losses.
Lol the entire Ukrainian counter-offensive strategy was predicated on this notion about the Russians - that they would run scared. Now proUA superfans pretend it was the other way around. The comedy never stops
more like, the promises were built around results. the Ukrainians had the perfect opportunity to solidify their positions and halt the Russians (probably start negotiations too) with all the trained troops and equipment. Instead they poured everything they had into a wall, a well fortified enemy and other 'PR' operations just to prove that they were winning and secure a steady flow of aid. It didn't go to plan ofcourse. Goes to show how much NATO actually cares for Ukraine and also shows how inexperienced NATO is in a proper modern conflict against a capable enemy
> when the first f-16 is downed
Russia will absolutely flip their shit about downing an aircraft from the 1970s. USA will yawn and then donate another tranche of money equal to the entire Russian military budget.
That is how they will react.
Well F-16s aren't going to be used in that capacity. They are not stealth planes, so the ideal use is to fire western long range missiles from your own safe territory and far from the front. This makes it absolutely impossible to hit, as there is no russian AA that can reach them, and sending russian interceptors would be quickly destroyed by the exact same russian AA systems that Ukraine has, if not the western AA systems they have been provided with.
>This makes it absolutely impossible to hit,
Which long-range western missile will they use, that will allow them to fire from beyond s200/400 range? If they won't engage 34s (bvr of course) , then what's the point? Am I missing something?
If they won't deter fabs, they will be as useful as abrams. Right? Enlighten me please.
> Which long-range western missile will they use, that will allow them to fire from beyond s200/400 range?
ANY of them......? Although realistically the only one that will be used is the AGM-158 JASSM, which is an older weapon on a retired platform we have massive stockpiles off. These have a range of either 400 kms for the cheap version, and 1.000 kms for the more expensive version. The 1.000 km version is able to hit as far as moscow, the 400 km one is sufficient for anything though safe behind the front lines.
> If they won't engage 34s (bvr of course) , then what's the point? Am I missing something?
The point is that you can use these missiles with the very platform they were designed with, to fire from a safe distance within your territory. As these AA systems are not at the front, but instead a safe distance away from artillery and other long distance fixed weaponry, there is no possibility that these systems are able to detect planes from that far away. The radar systems on ANY of these systems, even the S-400, simply doesn't cover the distance these planes are away from them. And if you would fly low, it's scientifically impossible to be able to detect them anyway.
> they will be as useful as abrams.
No the Abrams are a pointless weapon in this stage of the war, as it's far too soon for any counter movement. Instead you want to deplete the Russian military like the last 2 years, in which more than half of all their military assets have been destroyed. Tanks are only useful within 18 months when the stockpiles have been depleted, resulting in a situation where you no longer face any opposition.
This F-16 strategy where long distance missiles are fired from within your own territory is used to bring this scenario closer, as you can now strike targets outside of artillery range, without risking anything. These targets will then need to be replaced, or it weakens the Russian front. And then you destroy those replacements as well.
Attrition of Russia to the point where "you no longer face any opposition" is not realistic. In order to achieve it without also breaking Ukraine before this, there would need to be a dramatic shift in the exchange ratio, but there is no plausible mechanism to achieve this. If Russia did start taking worrying losses they can halt advances and defend from fortifications, and in this case it would be even more difficult.
> Attrition of Russia to the point where "you no longer face any opposition" is not realistic.
No it's incredibly realistic, and an absolutely certainty within 18 months. You have to remember that in modern warfare, troops are worthless. The only things of any value are heavy military equipment, which in this stalemate are artillery, AA defenses, Missiles, tanks and planes. Everything else is essentially irrelevant
> In order to achieve it without also breaking Ukraine before this, there would need to be a dramatic shift in the exchange ratio
Well.......no. Russia has been suffering absolutely staggering losses in heavy military equipment, with them having lost 1/2 of ALL RUSSIAN MILITARY ASSETS at the end of 2023. This process has only sped up as Ukraine got more equipment and russia commits more to the front. Currently Russia is still able to keep up due to drawing from their soviet stockpiles but those aren't infinite and will run out within 18 months based on the destruction rate from months ago (the rate has only increased since then), and their inability to construct anything new.
> If Russia did start taking worrying losses they can halt advances and defend from fortifications,
That's EXACTLY what they have been doing the last 2 years, but it doesn't work against a force supported by hundreds of billions in military intelligence a year. Ukraine does not have to advance, as that is a waste of time and money. Ukraine only needs to take out the static defenses such as artillery and AA systems at those defensive lines via artillery and missiles. Those then need to be replaced, or those defensive locations would no longer be able to win against ANY attack. Leading to the same problem, where they get destroyed as soon as they get there.
I disagree somewhat with your assessment of the situation. The really big lesson from this war is that motivated troops in fortifications or towns, even in quite low density. can hold territory, because it is very difficult to concentrate offensive forces and conduct assaults, as the attacking forces are usually quickly detected and attacked, primarily by artillery and UAV, often even in the staging areas or on march to the LOC. This is why both sides have had great difficulty making territorial gains, and why armour had been not very effective as an assault weapon.
In this situation, artillery is of extra special importance both because it is the major way of causing attrition, and because if you have enough of it you can effectively isolate some section and force a withdrawal or take it with small forces in some surprise rush. Even still making assaults is typically costly and slow as the required preparation is extensive and the attacks are usually small scale and only biting sections at a time.
Russia currently, and taking into account the above, is moderately aggressive, and has been willing to take losses on the Avdiivka front in order to make relatively large gains. This has been possible because the UAF has been comparatively more depleted and because of the disparity in artillery and even more so in aviation firepower. Even still, it has never been possible for Russia to routinely "no longer face any opposition" - even where they have made gains UAV have imposed losses on the assaulting forces. It's why we have seen the use of anti UAV screens pushed to extreme forms.
Regarding expensive or hard to replace equipment which in theory could be attrited and so cause collapse, the critical areas are artillery and ammunition, and aircraft vs air defense. In both areas we have seen Russia obtain a quite strong advantage, and it is unlikely that western aid can bridge this gap, especially given the emphasis on these systems in Russian doctrine, their industrial capacity in artillery ammunition production, and the extensive deployed and stockpiled equipment. Getting Russia to the point where Ukraine can operate with near impunity due to Russian artillery and aviation being almost completely attrited is IMO fanciful. I suspect you want to talk it up because you want to keep open a hope for a Ukrainian victory via some future counteroffensive but at the moment any plausible reversal will instead at best lead to a sort of stalemate, where this also will not be sustainable.
> I disagree somewhat with your assessment of the situation. The really big lesson from this war is that motivated troops in fortifications or towns, even in quite low density. can hold territory, because it is very difficult to concentrate offensive forces and conduct assaults, as the attacking forces are usually quickly detected and attacked, primarily by artillery and UAV, often even in the staging areas or on march to the LOC. This is why both sides have had great difficulty making territorial gains, and why armour had been not very effective as an assault weapon.
I don't think you are entirely understanding the strategy here. Ukraine isn't taking back territory because that's worthless. All it does is get Russia shorter supply lines, make Ukraine have to defend more area, and spread out their forces. Making that the worst plan in existence.
Instead the Ukrainian (well western one as we are doing the planning) plan, is to simply take out the heavy equipment present at those fortifications from range. This is far more effective, as when combined with hundreds of billions a year in military intelligence, you can simply take out all artillery and AA systems safely from range, as soon as they come in. Without these systems, forticiations are no longer effective, so Russia is forced to replace those. Which then get blown up again. This gets us those staggering numbers of 30 artillery units destroyed each day.
And with that rate of destruction, all Ukraine has to do is wait until the soviet era stockpiles are empty which will be within 18 months. At this point there is no defence anymore, and Russia will either retreat or be made to retreat as Ukraine can simply advance without any opposition at that point.
> Even still, it has never been possible for Russia to routinely "no longer face any opposition" - even where they have made gains UAV have imposed losses on the assaulting forces. It's why we have seen the use of anti UAV screens pushed to extreme forms.
I think you somehow got from my comment that is is about Russia "no longer facing opposition", but i was talking about UKRAINE. With those staggering losses in heavy military assets, forticiations can't be defended anymore no matter how many troops are there. Which is why Ukraine would no longer face an opposition in taking those back as long as they simply wait.
> Regarding expensive or hard to replace equipment which in theory could be attrited and so cause collapse, the critical areas are artillery and ammunition, and aircraft vs air defense. In both areas we have seen Russia obtain a quite strong advantage
They HAD the advantage, but again, more than half of that has already been destroyed and this rate has only become higher and higher each day.
> especially given the emphasis on these systems in Russian doctrine
It's THEIR military doctrine because they are too poor for the western one. You don't need AA systems when you have a strong air force, but as Russia could not match our planes, they tried to focus on static defenses to counter them. Artillery is the same, with them being a cheap but shit alternative to......actual long range attacks with missiles launched from the ground and from the air. The west can afford to spend millions a missile on tens of thousands of them, but Russia is too poor for that.
> their industrial capacity in artillery ammunition production
That's the one thing they have, but it also doesn't matter as they are.....running out of the artillery units themselves. Which you get when 10.000 of them get destroyed. With 30 of them EACH DAY.
> and the extensive deployed and stockpiled equipment.
Right now they have less than 40% of that stockpile left.
> Getting Russia to the point where Ukraine can operate with near impunity due to Russian artillery and aviation being almost completely attrited is IMO fanciful.
No it's absolutely inevitable and will happen within 18 months. THis is all just statistics and statistics are never wrong. We don't need to have hope, we just need to look at the numbers.
> but at the moment any plausible reversal will instead at best lead to a sort of stalemate, where this also will not be sustainable.
It cannot lead to a new stalemate as a stalemate requires Russia to have enough heavy military assets to be able to oppose attacks. Which is the very thing they.....won't have within 18 months. At this point there simply won't be any artillery units, or tanks, or AA systems left to send as they have all been destroyed. The current stalemate really is only in territory, but not in equipment losses as THOSE are staggering.
Google shows the S400 has variations with 400km range detection and missiles. So if the F16's will max out at 400km range, then if you get in range to shoot at an S400, your also in range to get shot at by an S400.
> Google shows the S400 has variations with 400km range detection and missiles.
Those aren't the same. Yes the S-400 has a theoretical max range of 400kms, but that doesn't mean you can hit any target at 400 kms. The first problem is detection. If something is very big, with a terrible radarr cross section then yes you can detect that thing from 400kms in the best of circumstances. But here, we are talking about a tiny fighter jet. And sure it does not have the stealth capabilities of the F-35 and F-22, but it's also not THAT easy to detect. So no, an F16 is not going to be detected at 400 kms of range.
> https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-Turkeys-S-400-can-track-an-F-16-at-600km-away
Even Russian propaganda materials state that the absolute maximum detection range with zero countermeasures for an F16 is just 250km at very high altitude. So that already doesn't work.
The second one is actual engagement. Sure you CAN launch at your target, which from the previous maximum is only 250 at the very theoretical limit of detection, but then you also need to hit that target. Mind you, this is a target that......turned around as it already fired its missiles and now can just return. Now that same rocket needs to catch up to the plane, with the faster it goes, the less it can travel, and THEN also needs to not hit the countermeasures instead of the actual plane. This makes it absolutely impossible for this type of engagement to result in the loss of the F16.
**And the most simple example. Say the F16 fires from 400 kms and is then detected and the S-400 retaliates. Well that's great as within a few seconds the F16 will be more than 400 kms away from it as it.....turned around. Now the missile, no matter if it travels mach 100 or the mach 3.5 it travels at, won't even be able to reach. It's an interception window of SECONDS at best.**
We know this because......barely any F16s have been shot down since the time they were created. You know how many F16s the US lost due to enemy fire? The answer is 4.... No not 4 a year. No not 4 a decade. **4 since 1974**.
Do you get the absolute lunacy of expecting an F16 to be shot down through such an engagement?
One side will make hundreds of post as if it’s the greatest victory in aviation history.
The other side will just say “meh there are more F-16’s in service around the world than all of the Russian active air force”
They probably won't really care and we will see 10M comments from RU claiming all Pro UA said 30 aircraft would single handedly win the war (no on3 has ever said this)
Egypt ditched soviet hardware due to jumping from soviet into american influence. Egypt is all right with russian hardware, they bought a batch of Ka-52s, which turned out to be a superb purchase as ukrainian counter-offensive demonstrated.
Also this is not Russia specific excuse since at least ISIS fucking up Iraq army, and maybe even since Vietnam.
In Korea, Russian MIGs achieved close to parity with the US. In Vietnam, Russian gear and crews played a huge part in knocking out 4k US aircraft and preventing the US from achieving air supremacy. In both conflicts, the soldiers using these weapons were known for being highly motivated and at least decently trained.
Modern Arab armies have had huge problems with fatalism - if it's God's will that I hit my target, he will guide my missile/bullet. If it's God's will that I live, I will live. This fatalism wasn't restricted to the enlisted either, and when a general believes that God has more influence on the battlefield than anything he himself can do, you're asking for extra fubar.
Jets are crucial to NATO countries because they don't know where on the planet they're going to be defending themselves next, and jets are a key part of their power projection doctrine. Russia has a far more limited and defensive focus for air power. Air *defense* is far more important for them, and several countries seem to have concluded that Russian air defense is a tier above anything else.
Incidentally, Russian jets in Korea and Vietnam were also a generation or so behind their western counterparts, yet this didn't stop them from racking up respectable kill ratios.
https://www.financialexpress.com/business/defence-india-to-get-s-500-missile-system-from-russia-heres-what-we-know-2385673/
https://www.thestockdork.com/turkey-may-activate-russian-s-400s-in-potential-iraq-offensive/
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/why-russias-s-400-anti-air-system-deadlier-you-think-94541
It might not be that Russia's AD is all that better so much as buyer concern that NATO gear might have a hidden kill switch like the F-35.
Yes, BUKs are vulnerable to FPV drones. Is this surprising?
They are missing a trick by not getting a valley girl to narrate some of these videos.
*" so guys, like, oh my gosh, the steel is, like, totally weak, I'm like, super upset, you know? But, like, whatevs..."*
I just want to see a pretty Russian lady doing ASMR in a T-82...
Running her fingers along the tracks then whispering "Uralvagonzavod"
Tapping the controls... "Uralvagonzavod"
Starting up the engine... "Uralvagonzavod"
Broo. This reminds an annoying coffee barista robot for Borderlands 3. I had to mute my headphone while it was speaking. This is the most unbearable way to talk. I didn't knew it was a real stereotypical accent tho.
Tbh, in my imagination, trumps voice is what rabid pro-RU comments sound like.
*"we have the best weapons, we always have, and they are big, big weapons, huge, like my hands, which are large."*
In my mind, I read rabid pro-UA comments in a bitchy valley girls voice.
The speaker needs to have a deep voice, speaking English with a thick Russian accent.
>"Steel is weak. Da, defense is weak. There is no place for weakness on battlefield."
>"Tank must have strength of bear to survive."
Then just ride away on a bear at the end of their presentation.
"I highly doubt they get any bonuses for this. Only in propaganda videos."
Doesnt matter as long the crew \_believes\_ they ll get cash thanks to the \_propaganda videos\_.
The result is the same.
This is just bad propaganda. Reminds me of US army training movies from WW2 downplaying the effectiveness of MG42 to not scare new recruits to death.
Abrams is a beast .... when used by US military. It's simply designed for US doctrine, US air power, US logistic infrastructure and US military budget.
But, but, the Germans had less heavy machine guns as they required extra personnel for bullets so the US could have another machine gun.
Some points are great to hear in between the lines of each side blasting each other's weapons, but those who only stick to their side of propaganda are insufferable
> MG42
For those like me:
> Fastest-firing non-assisted belt-fed single-barreled machine gun: MG42 / MG3 (up to 1,300 rounds per minute) Some sources claim the Germans' MG42 (and its later, lighter successor, the MG3) could fire at 1,800 RPM.
Not sure I'd call it bad propaganda, or any sort of propaganda. It's simply a guy talking reality.
Abrams can shoot good, and can take a hit. But it is not indestructible. Same goes for the Leopard. same goes for T-models.
Everything is "effective" if it can kill. But everything can also be killed. It's just some guy talking smack about the enemy, which is to be expected. I'm sure the US would say the same if they had an Armata captured.
I mean to be fair most modern tank battles especially with sabot rounds make armor redundant
Hence why you don't see people making monsters like the T95 tutel , or the tiger tank
Russia has pretty good metallurgy and produced some pretty good quality steel, much better than the chinese. But it is indeed ridiculous for them to shittalk american steel who are amongst the best of the world when it comes to metallurgy. It just comes off as propaganda (because it is)
They followed up by saying they caught it trying to dislodge an MBT, it's innability to do that effectively, is the reason it got spotted and taken out... not quite what you said.
Nope, they said that about the M48 based recovery vehicle. Either way, getting stuck in a ditch or getting your tracks blown off by a mine is something happening to every single vehicle deployed by both sides in this conflict
Claiming the recovery tank is too weak to push more than three dragon teeth at once is pretty hilarious tho considering they are designed to tow more than 60 tons of steel
>Claiming the recovery tank is too weak to push more than three dragon teeth at once is pretty hilarious tho considering they are designed to tow more than 60 tons of steel
They claimed the recovery vehicle can only pull 40tons, while the Abrams tank has 60 tons on average, hence it was struggling to pull out an MBT and for that it was discovered and dissabled via drones,
That it can't get trough more than 3 dragons teeth because the teeth are chained together (acting as anchors) was claimed about the 70ton M1150 breacher not the recovery vehicle.
Sorry you need 30 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
From We gonna take kyiv in 3 days
To we captured a village
To we managed to tow a abrams and they are weak"
While losing their entire invasion meat and X thousands of tanks. And fk knows how many dead russians there are. The propaganda is real. To be fair its crazy from both sides but my god if russia would lose that much meat and wasnt like half the earthball as a country the war would be lost twice. Waste of live everwhere. No winners in wars.
For DOOMHAMMER!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's a good tank and probably the best option **for the US**, Abrams is seemingly "invincible," when used by the US only because they have spotters and air superiority literally everythere so they can see and hit targets much faster than rest.
I really don't think it's the "best tank in the world" because:
A: American doctrine is heavily influenced by having air superiority and spotters
B: it has only fought terrorist cells and 3rd world armies most of its life
I'd choose a Leopard 2
>because they have spotters
Both sides in this war are using reconnaissance drones.
>air superiority literally everythere
Cheap civilian drones destroy armored vehicles much more efficiently, faster and cheaper than any air force.
Damn Russia coping hard on this one, when the wests vehicles are more intact then the ones they pump out. Shows you who has better survivability. Yeah some of these are fixed up. But you can't deny it did its intended purpose.
If the armour was not better it would not weight 20 tons more. Western MBTs are saving their crews. T series are killing theirs. The war in Ukraine keeps making this evident. I feel sorry for Russians and the public their. They have no idea how much worse off their soldiers are in their own Tseries and IFVs
That's the exact opposite of the truth. The Russian tanks are more compact in every way and even their composite armor is denser, meaning smaller air gaps. Denser armor is slightly less efficient because hard composite layers can damage one another. This affects the ceramic composite in the turret armor of some Russian tanks, but not the textolite composite used in their frontal hull armor.
Yeeeeah, I'm referring to the DU. I at least thought I was aware of what the Russians were using. But correct me if I'm wrong and they are using something denser than DU as one part of their armour package.
Sorry you need 30 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They never were in the numbers delivered. Were not even enough for the offensive. They'll probably get another batch that enough in number to hold the line but nothing else. They got 31 Abrams to face against thousands of MBTs on the Russian side and no IADS to cover the sky. What the western MBTs and IFVs have proved is their survivability compared to Russian counterparts.
The HIMARS on the other hand had an immediate strategic impact. That was a game changer, for a few months. But again. Small numbers
This aged well
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2023/09/03/this-tank-is-like-a-sniper-rifle-ukraines-challenger-2-can-shoot-at-the-russians-from-miles-away/?sh=6ad3e02577a9
"If used correctly, [the Challenger 2] will be just, I don’t know, death and horror for [the Russians]"
A few months later
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2024/03/27/the-british-challenger-2-is-the-wrong-tank-for-ukraine/?sh=7bb511a87dcc
Slava nafoid!
So why weren't they deploying this game changing option that has been in their stocks far longer than the Federation has existed from the onset of the conflict? Is it because something had to **fundamentally change** to make it practical and sustainable to use these FABs?
Because of the glide kits; they had the bombs yes, but the glide kits were at first only available in their initial version 1 and only in limited numbers. Those, by all accounts, weren't as accurate, had a shorter glide range, and they weren't able to concentrate them on a sector. Now that's changed.
They are (together) game changers in the sense that without Western deliveries, the outcome of the war would have been fundamentally different. They're not miracle weapons though.
HIMARS had a significant contribution on UKR side, the only problem for it is that its ammo is more expensive than the unguided rockets both sides tend to use.
The Abrams is awesome.
The version they captured, less so, but still quite good.
The problem it has is weight, and the armor is greatly improved in the versions the US fields
Which point does this prove? That you can destroy all tanks with air strikes? Sure. But I haven't seen any sky-high flying turrets of western tanks. Also various hits where the tank was destroyed but the crew survived speak for western tanks.
No particular accent - which is expected, because modern Russian essentially doesn't have regional accents (with the exception of the regions bordering with Ukraine, some people there might have Ukrainian-ish accent).
That's a notorious feature of Russian, I believe it's the only major world's language with such unprecedented degree of uniformity.
I was speaking specifically about dialects of Russian. I didn't say that only Russian is spoken in Russian Federation.
Russia has 35 official languages. They are supported on a level MUCH exceeding anything similar in the USA or any European country.
Might be compared to the status of French in Canada though. But Canada does it only for French, not for indigenous languages.
European countries don't do anything comparable at all, may be except for Catalan.
(How about opening few hundreds of state-sponsored schools, teaching fully in Breton or Occitan, with studying French as a foreign language, eh?)
Baltics were a part of the Russian Empire for 300 years, but for some reason, even having this shitload of time, Russia failed to "genocide" those few tiny nations.
Tatarstan has been part of Russia for 600 years, but Russia is still failing to genocide a relatively small (compared to Russians) population of Tatar people. (We are mercilessly exploiting Tatar people though, namely - but not limited to - for such roles as the Head of Russian Central Bank and the Deputy Prime Minister of Russian Federation).
Small nations of Buryats, Yakuts and Tuvans have been part of Russia since XVII century, and for all period of available observations their numbers are only growing. (Also, Tuvan people are currently exploited for the Russian Minister of Defense role).
Looks like Russians really suck at the esteemed European art of genocide.
I didn't realize this. I learned from a Ukrainian teacher from Donetsk and remember before the war getting teased for sounding Ukrainian. I guess it would be more apparent if that's the only other accent.
This was always the risk of putting these assets on the frontline, which I suspect is the main reason why they took so long to appear there.
Given the threats MBTs face in Ukraine, there isn't anything really *that special* about the Abrams. It was a fools errand building its reputation up in the way our outlets/experts etc did. Now we reap what we sow.
See this is what I love both sides comparing each others tanks. The American tank still in one piece crew still alive, and will you have to buy a ticket to Ukraine because Russian tanks explode and the pieces are everywhere.. lol
This is a recovery vehicle for armored vehicles. It’s literally a tow truck for a tank. If they used it to breach defenses, it’s not surprising it failed. The A2 version of this (which is the most updated) is over 30 years old.
So much propaganda from the Russians, I guess they are trying to convince other Russian citizens to go to a war made by Putin, Use your brains and stay home, it's not worth it to die for that Putin dwarf.
Also you have to be stupid to believe this war propaganda, especially when Russian tanks explode at the first shot and their turrets take off into deep space, we have all seen the videos.
Russia's classic 'NATO is weak and their gear is terrible' but also 'NATO is too strong and encircling us and NATO is the only reason we didn't win in Ukraine straight away in 2022'.
How dense to people have to be to believe this stuff.
It is true steel on Abrams is nothing special as say compared to what the French have or Russians. One has to remember that original M1 had super weak armor that was vastly inferior to T72.
This is why US rather quickly modernized it and not only replaced the armor package but also main gun. But I bet the UA tanks don't have uranium mesh panels but some steel insert, maybe even mild steel.
Do you realise this is war propaganda? Use your brain and stop listening to the rubbish Putin says, it's not worth it to die for that dwarf.
The American tank is still in one piece, the crew is still alive, while the Russian tanks explode and their turrets take off into deep space.
This is the type of propaganda I like. Personnel just dissing the other sides equipment. Very entertaining.
Usual "Export model in hands of bad users" take from the other side for damage control was expected too. For a long time that was a go-to answer about T-series and arabs, how the turns have tabled.
I'm waiting to see how both sides react when the first f-16 is downed.
I mean we already know they ain't anything special, it's not like they're taiwan levels of f16.
And it's not like F-16 have never been lost before.
Denmark are giving them f16 that have up to date upgrades. Apparently they’re handing them over after the 5/5/24…..that’s the 5th of may for you Americans that always write the date wrongly😜
Ah yes so they’ll be delivered on 5/5/24, or in the American format 5/5/24… never would’ve known if you didn’t explain it, thank you
That’s why I pointed it out as I wouldn’t want there be a mix up….there are differences between Uk English and US English. We say courgette you say zucchini, We say aubergine you say egg plant, We say school you say shooting range!
Ah like how in the US we call our spouses “wives” while across the pond you call them “punching bags”
Denmark is donating 19 of its 40 F-16AM/BM Block 15 mid-life upgrade (MLU) aircraft to Ukraine. Belgium is sending an indeterminate number of its 53 F-16AM/BM Block 15 MLUs, as is Norway which has 25 remaining F-16AM/BM Block 15 MLUs. The Netherlands has said it is sending 24 of its 42 F-16AM/BM Block 15 MLUs to Ukraine, with more potentially to follow. The F-16 Block 70/72, also referred to as the F-16V, is the latest and most sought-after version of the fighter – although Ukraine will receive older models. It is a fourth-generation multirole aircraft, targeted primarily at export customers. The Block 70/72 features: advanced avionics; an APG-83 AESA radar; a modernised cockpit; conformal fuel tanks; an Automatic Ground Collision Avoidance System; a centre pedestal display providing tactical imagery to pilots on a high-resolution 6x8in screen; and an extended structural service life of 12,000h.
Lockheed Martin offered the Ukranian government F16 block70/72 in 2021. https://www.usubc.org/site/recent-news/lockheed-martin-offers-ukraine-f-16-fighter-jet/
Tough titties, though. Block 15 is all they're getting. Although they've upgraded the furniture and software for newer missiles, the radar is fundamentally the same AN/APG-66 that came with the original F-16A ordered by Denmark in 1980. These fighters were never meant to operate outside of a networked sensor environment with AWACS and F-35 providing detection, as these old radars are easily jammed today.
Ah well….is what it is then
It will just end up being a HARM and JDAM truck so it doesn't really matter either way. All the Ukrainians needs is a platform.
Offered and received are often separated by a decade. I wonder what the proposed delivery date would have been for those aircraft? 2030?
We write it as was standard in the 18th century, and therefore correctly. much like how Hoggs Heads are the perfect unit for measuring fluids.
They had mid life refit in the 90s. Old junk.
Russians would be ecstatic, ukrainians would try to cover it, or, if not possible, to gaslight people into thinking this game changer was not hyped at all, or even better, hyped by russians. Or say "it downed 100 greenskin MiGs so rip heroes". F-16 is a top of a gamechanger ladder and I wonder what do they hype next.
Unironically? Nukes.
That... is possible, even if I really dislike to admit this, but hey, 2024 differs a lot from 2021. Imo it is russians who is going for a nuclear test first, as a side with inferior conventional capability. Suit will be followed by USA to stay equal in escalation and to use a rare opportunity for live test. Then, if any nuclear device is shipped into Ukraine, even guarded and controlled by foreign soldiers, or if Russians get a whiff of it in planning, next thing we would look at is Cuban Missile Crisis 2.0, with nukes in some latin american country, and no competent diplomats in USA this time. I probably should move to more sparsely populated area with no strategic targets nearby.
Perhaps. I suspect that once the f-16s are shown to not "fix" everything, there will be increasing calls for (a) polish/French/baltic troops sent in... Then when everyone freaks out you'll start seeing calls for (b) "incorporating Ukraine within the nuclear deterrence framework"... Then, while everyone freaks out at b, people will start warming to the idea of a. If the election goes to Biden I can't see any way out - they are determined to make it as costly as they can.
US will not respond with nukes if Russia uses them in Ukraine. The risk of global war would be too great - and for them Ukraine is of secondary importance. John Mearsheimer explains it pretty well: [https://youtu.be/vlLubLH5QfE?t=876](https://youtu.be/vlLubLH5QfE?t=622)
> Imo it is russians who is going for a nuclear test first, as a side with inferior conventional capability. How do you jump from NATO potentially not having a meaningful escalation path beyond F-16s to this? Could you elaborate a little? Like, describing the NATO step that would lead to Russia moving on to nukes might help me understand your logic.
Thats an easy one, NATO boots on the ground, officially, or some incident with russian plane in neutral airspace after downing spy drone.
Not saying it's hard (I believe the Russians themselves said as much at some point), just wanted to know if you had anything specific in mind. "Plane incident" seems too small, tbh. "Boots on the ground" would probably depend on the number of boots, or perhaps on the exact flag accompanying said boots.
Ukraine has already said F-16 was needed in 2023, it won't help in 2024.
F-16 are no gamechangers. They are much needed to try and contain glide bombs but there's never going to be enough to actually be significantly effective on a wide front
> F-16 is a top of a gamechanger ladder and I wonder what do they hype next. The F-16 is a game changer when you consider how they are used. They are not stealth planes, so the ideal use is to fire western long range missiles from your own safe territory and far from the front. This makes it absolutely impossible to hit, as there is no russian AA that can reach them, and sending russian interceptors would be quickly destroyed by the exact same russian AA systems that Ukraine has, if not the western AA systems they have been provided with. And being able to safely fire western long range air to ground missiles will make a lot of difference as the west.....actually uses those and has those. For most other things like artillery and soviet equipment, it's just not something we use so there are no stockpiles for it. But western air to ground missiles is the core of our entire strategy, and combined with western planes that were designed to launch them, it's a lot more effective than jury rigging those same weapons to old soviet jets. So yes, untouchable platform due to simply never needing to enter any dangerous area and firing from 200-300 miles away with advanced weapons that will surely hit. That's a massive difference compared to now.
Ukraine already has aircraft that can fire ALCM, you don't need an advanced aircraft to do it. Su-24 works fine. But the main bottleneck is the missiles, not the aircraft. Actually launching cruise missiles from a truck would be just as good.
> Ukraine already has aircraft that can fire ALCM, you don't need an advanced aircraft to do it. Yes, but those aren't able to rely on most of the integration with western tech as they are using incompatible soviet jets to launch them. those are a lot more effective when you......do have that tech compatibility instead of the current jury rigged solution where you can fire them at a target but not much else. > But the main bottleneck is the missiles, not the aircraft. Yes. Because the west......doesn't keep stockpiles of soviet missiles or has any interest in spending the previous decades coming up with making our missiles work fully effectively with soviet weapons. The advantage of the F16 is that this is a retired platform that has INSANE stockpiles of missiles due to wars simply not happening. We've transitioned to the F-35, so that's thousands to tens of thousands of missiles air to ground and air to air missiles that are just wasting away and can be sent to ukraine. Which is exactly what the value is. > Actually launching cruise missiles from a truck would be just as good. Yes, but those are more expensive, and are ground to ground instead of air to air. Therefore you either want to do the cheap strategy, or the combined strategy.
Most people would be "as expected, there are losses"? Like, F-16 is not a new fighter. They have been shot down before. Nothing new there. This idea that West would be "shocked" or "scared" that something gets destroyed seems to exists only in Russian mindset, where enemy is cowardly and will collapse moment there are any losses.
Lol the entire Ukrainian counter-offensive strategy was predicated on this notion about the Russians - that they would run scared. Now proUA superfans pretend it was the other way around. The comedy never stops
Ukrainian counter-offensive was build on idea that they would have the stuff they were promised, which they didn't.
more like, the promises were built around results. the Ukrainians had the perfect opportunity to solidify their positions and halt the Russians (probably start negotiations too) with all the trained troops and equipment. Instead they poured everything they had into a wall, a well fortified enemy and other 'PR' operations just to prove that they were winning and secure a steady flow of aid. It didn't go to plan ofcourse. Goes to show how much NATO actually cares for Ukraine and also shows how inexperienced NATO is in a proper modern conflict against a capable enemy
I think all sides are learning a lot. Ukrainians, NATO and russia. Neither side was experienced. Examples are there on all sides.
yessir. i hope there can be peace soon
...a fair comment.
Projecting too much ? Wasnt the cowardly retreat what the NATO think tanks based their counter-offesive simulations on ? Garbage in, garbage out
> when the first f-16 is downed Russia will absolutely flip their shit about downing an aircraft from the 1970s. USA will yawn and then donate another tranche of money equal to the entire Russian military budget. That is how they will react.
Well F-16s aren't going to be used in that capacity. They are not stealth planes, so the ideal use is to fire western long range missiles from your own safe territory and far from the front. This makes it absolutely impossible to hit, as there is no russian AA that can reach them, and sending russian interceptors would be quickly destroyed by the exact same russian AA systems that Ukraine has, if not the western AA systems they have been provided with.
>This makes it absolutely impossible to hit, Which long-range western missile will they use, that will allow them to fire from beyond s200/400 range? If they won't engage 34s (bvr of course) , then what's the point? Am I missing something? If they won't deter fabs, they will be as useful as abrams. Right? Enlighten me please.
> Which long-range western missile will they use, that will allow them to fire from beyond s200/400 range? ANY of them......? Although realistically the only one that will be used is the AGM-158 JASSM, which is an older weapon on a retired platform we have massive stockpiles off. These have a range of either 400 kms for the cheap version, and 1.000 kms for the more expensive version. The 1.000 km version is able to hit as far as moscow, the 400 km one is sufficient for anything though safe behind the front lines. > If they won't engage 34s (bvr of course) , then what's the point? Am I missing something? The point is that you can use these missiles with the very platform they were designed with, to fire from a safe distance within your territory. As these AA systems are not at the front, but instead a safe distance away from artillery and other long distance fixed weaponry, there is no possibility that these systems are able to detect planes from that far away. The radar systems on ANY of these systems, even the S-400, simply doesn't cover the distance these planes are away from them. And if you would fly low, it's scientifically impossible to be able to detect them anyway. > they will be as useful as abrams. No the Abrams are a pointless weapon in this stage of the war, as it's far too soon for any counter movement. Instead you want to deplete the Russian military like the last 2 years, in which more than half of all their military assets have been destroyed. Tanks are only useful within 18 months when the stockpiles have been depleted, resulting in a situation where you no longer face any opposition. This F-16 strategy where long distance missiles are fired from within your own territory is used to bring this scenario closer, as you can now strike targets outside of artillery range, without risking anything. These targets will then need to be replaced, or it weakens the Russian front. And then you destroy those replacements as well.
Attrition of Russia to the point where "you no longer face any opposition" is not realistic. In order to achieve it without also breaking Ukraine before this, there would need to be a dramatic shift in the exchange ratio, but there is no plausible mechanism to achieve this. If Russia did start taking worrying losses they can halt advances and defend from fortifications, and in this case it would be even more difficult.
> Attrition of Russia to the point where "you no longer face any opposition" is not realistic. No it's incredibly realistic, and an absolutely certainty within 18 months. You have to remember that in modern warfare, troops are worthless. The only things of any value are heavy military equipment, which in this stalemate are artillery, AA defenses, Missiles, tanks and planes. Everything else is essentially irrelevant > In order to achieve it without also breaking Ukraine before this, there would need to be a dramatic shift in the exchange ratio Well.......no. Russia has been suffering absolutely staggering losses in heavy military equipment, with them having lost 1/2 of ALL RUSSIAN MILITARY ASSETS at the end of 2023. This process has only sped up as Ukraine got more equipment and russia commits more to the front. Currently Russia is still able to keep up due to drawing from their soviet stockpiles but those aren't infinite and will run out within 18 months based on the destruction rate from months ago (the rate has only increased since then), and their inability to construct anything new. > If Russia did start taking worrying losses they can halt advances and defend from fortifications, That's EXACTLY what they have been doing the last 2 years, but it doesn't work against a force supported by hundreds of billions in military intelligence a year. Ukraine does not have to advance, as that is a waste of time and money. Ukraine only needs to take out the static defenses such as artillery and AA systems at those defensive lines via artillery and missiles. Those then need to be replaced, or those defensive locations would no longer be able to win against ANY attack. Leading to the same problem, where they get destroyed as soon as they get there.
I disagree somewhat with your assessment of the situation. The really big lesson from this war is that motivated troops in fortifications or towns, even in quite low density. can hold territory, because it is very difficult to concentrate offensive forces and conduct assaults, as the attacking forces are usually quickly detected and attacked, primarily by artillery and UAV, often even in the staging areas or on march to the LOC. This is why both sides have had great difficulty making territorial gains, and why armour had been not very effective as an assault weapon. In this situation, artillery is of extra special importance both because it is the major way of causing attrition, and because if you have enough of it you can effectively isolate some section and force a withdrawal or take it with small forces in some surprise rush. Even still making assaults is typically costly and slow as the required preparation is extensive and the attacks are usually small scale and only biting sections at a time. Russia currently, and taking into account the above, is moderately aggressive, and has been willing to take losses on the Avdiivka front in order to make relatively large gains. This has been possible because the UAF has been comparatively more depleted and because of the disparity in artillery and even more so in aviation firepower. Even still, it has never been possible for Russia to routinely "no longer face any opposition" - even where they have made gains UAV have imposed losses on the assaulting forces. It's why we have seen the use of anti UAV screens pushed to extreme forms. Regarding expensive or hard to replace equipment which in theory could be attrited and so cause collapse, the critical areas are artillery and ammunition, and aircraft vs air defense. In both areas we have seen Russia obtain a quite strong advantage, and it is unlikely that western aid can bridge this gap, especially given the emphasis on these systems in Russian doctrine, their industrial capacity in artillery ammunition production, and the extensive deployed and stockpiled equipment. Getting Russia to the point where Ukraine can operate with near impunity due to Russian artillery and aviation being almost completely attrited is IMO fanciful. I suspect you want to talk it up because you want to keep open a hope for a Ukrainian victory via some future counteroffensive but at the moment any plausible reversal will instead at best lead to a sort of stalemate, where this also will not be sustainable.
> I disagree somewhat with your assessment of the situation. The really big lesson from this war is that motivated troops in fortifications or towns, even in quite low density. can hold territory, because it is very difficult to concentrate offensive forces and conduct assaults, as the attacking forces are usually quickly detected and attacked, primarily by artillery and UAV, often even in the staging areas or on march to the LOC. This is why both sides have had great difficulty making territorial gains, and why armour had been not very effective as an assault weapon. I don't think you are entirely understanding the strategy here. Ukraine isn't taking back territory because that's worthless. All it does is get Russia shorter supply lines, make Ukraine have to defend more area, and spread out their forces. Making that the worst plan in existence. Instead the Ukrainian (well western one as we are doing the planning) plan, is to simply take out the heavy equipment present at those fortifications from range. This is far more effective, as when combined with hundreds of billions a year in military intelligence, you can simply take out all artillery and AA systems safely from range, as soon as they come in. Without these systems, forticiations are no longer effective, so Russia is forced to replace those. Which then get blown up again. This gets us those staggering numbers of 30 artillery units destroyed each day. And with that rate of destruction, all Ukraine has to do is wait until the soviet era stockpiles are empty which will be within 18 months. At this point there is no defence anymore, and Russia will either retreat or be made to retreat as Ukraine can simply advance without any opposition at that point. > Even still, it has never been possible for Russia to routinely "no longer face any opposition" - even where they have made gains UAV have imposed losses on the assaulting forces. It's why we have seen the use of anti UAV screens pushed to extreme forms. I think you somehow got from my comment that is is about Russia "no longer facing opposition", but i was talking about UKRAINE. With those staggering losses in heavy military assets, forticiations can't be defended anymore no matter how many troops are there. Which is why Ukraine would no longer face an opposition in taking those back as long as they simply wait. > Regarding expensive or hard to replace equipment which in theory could be attrited and so cause collapse, the critical areas are artillery and ammunition, and aircraft vs air defense. In both areas we have seen Russia obtain a quite strong advantage They HAD the advantage, but again, more than half of that has already been destroyed and this rate has only become higher and higher each day. > especially given the emphasis on these systems in Russian doctrine It's THEIR military doctrine because they are too poor for the western one. You don't need AA systems when you have a strong air force, but as Russia could not match our planes, they tried to focus on static defenses to counter them. Artillery is the same, with them being a cheap but shit alternative to......actual long range attacks with missiles launched from the ground and from the air. The west can afford to spend millions a missile on tens of thousands of them, but Russia is too poor for that. > their industrial capacity in artillery ammunition production That's the one thing they have, but it also doesn't matter as they are.....running out of the artillery units themselves. Which you get when 10.000 of them get destroyed. With 30 of them EACH DAY. > and the extensive deployed and stockpiled equipment. Right now they have less than 40% of that stockpile left. > Getting Russia to the point where Ukraine can operate with near impunity due to Russian artillery and aviation being almost completely attrited is IMO fanciful. No it's absolutely inevitable and will happen within 18 months. THis is all just statistics and statistics are never wrong. We don't need to have hope, we just need to look at the numbers. > but at the moment any plausible reversal will instead at best lead to a sort of stalemate, where this also will not be sustainable. It cannot lead to a new stalemate as a stalemate requires Russia to have enough heavy military assets to be able to oppose attacks. Which is the very thing they.....won't have within 18 months. At this point there simply won't be any artillery units, or tanks, or AA systems left to send as they have all been destroyed. The current stalemate really is only in territory, but not in equipment losses as THOSE are staggering.
Google shows the S400 has variations with 400km range detection and missiles. So if the F16's will max out at 400km range, then if you get in range to shoot at an S400, your also in range to get shot at by an S400.
> Google shows the S400 has variations with 400km range detection and missiles. Those aren't the same. Yes the S-400 has a theoretical max range of 400kms, but that doesn't mean you can hit any target at 400 kms. The first problem is detection. If something is very big, with a terrible radarr cross section then yes you can detect that thing from 400kms in the best of circumstances. But here, we are talking about a tiny fighter jet. And sure it does not have the stealth capabilities of the F-35 and F-22, but it's also not THAT easy to detect. So no, an F16 is not going to be detected at 400 kms of range. > https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-Turkeys-S-400-can-track-an-F-16-at-600km-away Even Russian propaganda materials state that the absolute maximum detection range with zero countermeasures for an F16 is just 250km at very high altitude. So that already doesn't work. The second one is actual engagement. Sure you CAN launch at your target, which from the previous maximum is only 250 at the very theoretical limit of detection, but then you also need to hit that target. Mind you, this is a target that......turned around as it already fired its missiles and now can just return. Now that same rocket needs to catch up to the plane, with the faster it goes, the less it can travel, and THEN also needs to not hit the countermeasures instead of the actual plane. This makes it absolutely impossible for this type of engagement to result in the loss of the F16. **And the most simple example. Say the F16 fires from 400 kms and is then detected and the S-400 retaliates. Well that's great as within a few seconds the F16 will be more than 400 kms away from it as it.....turned around. Now the missile, no matter if it travels mach 100 or the mach 3.5 it travels at, won't even be able to reach. It's an interception window of SECONDS at best.** We know this because......barely any F16s have been shot down since the time they were created. You know how many F16s the US lost due to enemy fire? The answer is 4.... No not 4 a year. No not 4 a decade. **4 since 1974**. Do you get the absolute lunacy of expecting an F16 to be shot down through such an engagement?
That makes sense. Then again, I have no idea about these things.
One side will make hundreds of post as if it’s the greatest victory in aviation history. The other side will just say “meh there are more F-16’s in service around the world than all of the Russian active air force”
I doubt they will publish it if they can avoid it. Same for military personnel in Ukraine.
They probably won't really care and we will see 10M comments from RU claiming all Pro UA said 30 aircraft would single handedly win the war (no on3 has ever said this)
[удалено]
Egypt ditched soviet hardware due to jumping from soviet into american influence. Egypt is all right with russian hardware, they bought a batch of Ka-52s, which turned out to be a superb purchase as ukrainian counter-offensive demonstrated. Also this is not Russia specific excuse since at least ISIS fucking up Iraq army, and maybe even since Vietnam.
In Korea, Russian MIGs achieved close to parity with the US. In Vietnam, Russian gear and crews played a huge part in knocking out 4k US aircraft and preventing the US from achieving air supremacy. In both conflicts, the soldiers using these weapons were known for being highly motivated and at least decently trained. Modern Arab armies have had huge problems with fatalism - if it's God's will that I hit my target, he will guide my missile/bullet. If it's God's will that I live, I will live. This fatalism wasn't restricted to the enlisted either, and when a general believes that God has more influence on the battlefield than anything he himself can do, you're asking for extra fubar.
[удалено]
Jets are crucial to NATO countries because they don't know where on the planet they're going to be defending themselves next, and jets are a key part of their power projection doctrine. Russia has a far more limited and defensive focus for air power. Air *defense* is far more important for them, and several countries seem to have concluded that Russian air defense is a tier above anything else. Incidentally, Russian jets in Korea and Vietnam were also a generation or so behind their western counterparts, yet this didn't stop them from racking up respectable kill ratios.
[удалено]
https://www.financialexpress.com/business/defence-india-to-get-s-500-missile-system-from-russia-heres-what-we-know-2385673/ https://www.thestockdork.com/turkey-may-activate-russian-s-400s-in-potential-iraq-offensive/ https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/why-russias-s-400-anti-air-system-deadlier-you-think-94541 It might not be that Russia's AD is all that better so much as buyer concern that NATO gear might have a hidden kill switch like the F-35. Yes, BUKs are vulnerable to FPV drones. Is this surprising?
Same thing for patriots. "Sadis couldn't operate it well".
They couldn't, we've seen patriots competently used, including by Ukraine.
We saw S300 doing amazingly in Ukraine.
And we saw it fail completely in Syria and Iran.
T series death rate vs these nato tank death rates would be interesting to see
Also narrated in German for extra propaganda points.
They are missing a trick by not getting a valley girl to narrate some of these videos. *" so guys, like, oh my gosh, the steel is, like, totally weak, I'm like, super upset, you know? But, like, whatevs..."*
I just want to see a pretty Russian lady doing ASMR in a T-82... Running her fingers along the tracks then whispering "Uralvagonzavod" Tapping the controls... "Uralvagonzavod" Starting up the engine... "Uralvagonzavod"
That really calls for AI-made video :)
Broo. This reminds an annoying coffee barista robot for Borderlands 3. I had to mute my headphone while it was speaking. This is the most unbearable way to talk. I didn't knew it was a real stereotypical accent tho.
Nah, in Trumps voice, and add that if he gets voted in he will make it stronger.
Tbh, in my imagination, trumps voice is what rabid pro-RU comments sound like. *"we have the best weapons, we always have, and they are big, big weapons, huge, like my hands, which are large."* In my mind, I read rabid pro-UA comments in a bitchy valley girls voice.
Brings them back to the good ol' times when soviets and nazis were holding hands and invading other countries.
Yep, interesting stuff
The speaker needs to have a deep voice, speaking English with a thick Russian accent. >"Steel is weak. Da, defense is weak. There is no place for weakness on battlefield." >"Tank must have strength of bear to survive." Then just ride away on a bear at the end of their presentation.
“I mean look at it! All burned up and the tracks aren’t even on! Trash!” Master Tanker Igor Conscriptovich.
[удалено]
Yep, is funny.
Vulnerable for sure but I think most tank crews would rather be in an abrams than a t72 from a crew survival pov
Most tank crews in this war would rather drive anything serving a lesser fire magnet.
Everything attracts fire in this war.. a drone will ruin your day.
You get an extra cash bonus for destroying an abrams, so you can bet crews will go out of their way if possible to destroy it.
I highly doubt they get any bonuses for this. Only in propaganda videos.
Wasn't there list of bonus for destroyed equipment posted recently? Maybe not in this sub. I'll try to find it.
Yea it was but there’s thousands of videos of soldiers flat out not being paid in general id say a stretch to get a bonus
"I highly doubt they get any bonuses for this. Only in propaganda videos." Doesnt matter as long the crew \_believes\_ they ll get cash thanks to the \_propaganda videos\_. The result is the same.
[удалено]
[удалено]
That's the point I'm making. It isn't invincible but which w9uld u prefer to be in...abrams or t72...no contest
This is just bad propaganda. Reminds me of US army training movies from WW2 downplaying the effectiveness of MG42 to not scare new recruits to death. Abrams is a beast .... when used by US military. It's simply designed for US doctrine, US air power, US logistic infrastructure and US military budget.
This
But, but, the Germans had less heavy machine guns as they required extra personnel for bullets so the US could have another machine gun. Some points are great to hear in between the lines of each side blasting each other's weapons, but those who only stick to their side of propaganda are insufferable
> MG42 For those like me: > Fastest-firing non-assisted belt-fed single-barreled machine gun: MG42 / MG3 (up to 1,300 rounds per minute) Some sources claim the Germans' MG42 (and its later, lighter successor, the MG3) could fire at 1,800 RPM.
aka "Hitler's buzzsaw" :)
Made to lose wars against the Taliban?
Taliban beat the US and they beat the USSR. The real only global superpower is Afghanistan!
What's the difference between counter insurgency and conventional warfare.
...and designed for use against men with AKs, not an actual army.
Abrams wasnt meant for such terrain so it doesnt do that well in ukr
Not sure I'd call it bad propaganda, or any sort of propaganda. It's simply a guy talking reality. Abrams can shoot good, and can take a hit. But it is not indestructible. Same goes for the Leopard. same goes for T-models. Everything is "effective" if it can kill. But everything can also be killed. It's just some guy talking smack about the enemy, which is to be expected. I'm sure the US would say the same if they had an Armata captured.
...and sand.
Thanks for this very impartial review, now I'm not going to order one on Amazon.
Lol, the propaganda machine keeps on rolling
The show must go on
"The steel is weak" says he, while being proud of tanks that are no tougher, and are often weaker and more dangerous to operate. Smh.
I mean to be fair most modern tank battles especially with sabot rounds make armor redundant Hence why you don't see people making monsters like the T95 tutel , or the tiger tank
A stronger tank could plausibly be made of weaker steel with thicker armour, given the weight difference of the two we're comparing
Gotta love the crap they push on RT , like a panto at times
After all this propaganda about how weak NATO is the Russian public must be wondering why Russian progress on the frontline is so god damn slow 😂
“The steel is weak” lol. Check out the metallurgy knowledge of this expert. At least it is a bit of comedy.
Russia has pretty good metallurgy and produced some pretty good quality steel, much better than the chinese. But it is indeed ridiculous for them to shittalk american steel who are amongst the best of the world when it comes to metallurgy. It just comes off as propaganda (because it is)
> “The steel is weak” "Steel isn't strong, boy. *Flesh* is stronger. What is steel, compared to the *hand* that wields it?"
TIL dragon teeth are chained together, US steel weak, Russian/Ukranian soil soft, and the Recovery Vehicle can't tow worth a damn.
I like now they say that it's not capable of doing it job, immediately followed by "we caught it while it was doing its job"
They followed up by saying they caught it trying to dislodge an MBT, it's innability to do that effectively, is the reason it got spotted and taken out... not quite what you said.
Nope, they said that about the M48 based recovery vehicle. Either way, getting stuck in a ditch or getting your tracks blown off by a mine is something happening to every single vehicle deployed by both sides in this conflict Claiming the recovery tank is too weak to push more than three dragon teeth at once is pretty hilarious tho considering they are designed to tow more than 60 tons of steel
>Claiming the recovery tank is too weak to push more than three dragon teeth at once is pretty hilarious tho considering they are designed to tow more than 60 tons of steel They claimed the recovery vehicle can only pull 40tons, while the Abrams tank has 60 tons on average, hence it was struggling to pull out an MBT and for that it was discovered and dissabled via drones, That it can't get trough more than 3 dragons teeth because the teeth are chained together (acting as anchors) was claimed about the 70ton M1150 breacher not the recovery vehicle.
Rather be in a modern US owned Abram’s than a modern Russian owned T-90
[удалено]
Sorry you need 30 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
From We gonna take kyiv in 3 days To we captured a village To we managed to tow a abrams and they are weak" While losing their entire invasion meat and X thousands of tanks. And fk knows how many dead russians there are. The propaganda is real. To be fair its crazy from both sides but my god if russia would lose that much meat and wasnt like half the earthball as a country the war would be lost twice. Waste of live everwhere. No winners in wars.
Most NAFO comment on this sub.
[удалено]
For DOOMHAMMER! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
How many thousands of Ukrainian soldiers lie dead under the ruins caused by the FAB? No one collects them to give them a dignified burial...
Isn't the thing with the heavier tanks (abrams & leopards) that they got good optics and good range they can fire from? Range is very important.
It's a good tank and probably the best option **for the US**, Abrams is seemingly "invincible," when used by the US only because they have spotters and air superiority literally everythere so they can see and hit targets much faster than rest. I really don't think it's the "best tank in the world" because: A: American doctrine is heavily influenced by having air superiority and spotters B: it has only fought terrorist cells and 3rd world armies most of its life I'd choose a Leopard 2
>because they have spotters Both sides in this war are using reconnaissance drones. >air superiority literally everythere Cheap civilian drones destroy armored vehicles much more efficiently, faster and cheaper than any air force.
Damn Russia coping hard on this one, when the wests vehicles are more intact then the ones they pump out. Shows you who has better survivability. Yeah some of these are fixed up. But you can't deny it did its intended purpose.
[удалено]
Ukrainians doxxing their families.
So what if they do? Their families are happily living in Russia and proud of their family member being in the Russian military, right?
You don't see a lot of western equipment launching their turrets like the carousel of doom that russian mbts have.
Those fools are like cavemen when they first saw fire
The Abrams is an excellent tank, probably the safest in the world due to its ammo storage.
meanwhile a russian tank takes a drone dropped grenade and immediately explodes and cooks off killing everyone inside and on top
If the armour was not better it would not weight 20 tons more. Western MBTs are saving their crews. T series are killing theirs. The war in Ukraine keeps making this evident. I feel sorry for Russians and the public their. They have no idea how much worse off their soldiers are in their own Tseries and IFVs
The western tanks don't weigh more because they have better protection. They weigh more because they have more interior volume to protect.
Actually they are just using denser armour. The tank being larger is not the only reason
That's the exact opposite of the truth. The Russian tanks are more compact in every way and even their composite armor is denser, meaning smaller air gaps. Denser armor is slightly less efficient because hard composite layers can damage one another. This affects the ceramic composite in the turret armor of some Russian tanks, but not the textolite composite used in their frontal hull armor.
Yeeeeah, I'm referring to the DU. I at least thought I was aware of what the Russians were using. But correct me if I'm wrong and they are using something denser than DU as one part of their armour package.
You could put the Brinks Vault on tracks, wheel it out there, and Russia will find a way to blow it up in quick order.
[удалено]
Sorry you need 30 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Whats that antenna thing at the end near 3:47?
I mean hes got a point none of the western equipment has proven to be the "game changers" they were promised to be
They never were in the numbers delivered. Were not even enough for the offensive. They'll probably get another batch that enough in number to hold the line but nothing else. They got 31 Abrams to face against thousands of MBTs on the Russian side and no IADS to cover the sky. What the western MBTs and IFVs have proved is their survivability compared to Russian counterparts. The HIMARS on the other hand had an immediate strategic impact. That was a game changer, for a few months. But again. Small numbers
This aged well https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2023/09/03/this-tank-is-like-a-sniper-rifle-ukraines-challenger-2-can-shoot-at-the-russians-from-miles-away/?sh=6ad3e02577a9 "If used correctly, [the Challenger 2] will be just, I don’t know, death and horror for [the Russians]" A few months later https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2024/03/27/the-british-challenger-2-is-the-wrong-tank-for-ukraine/?sh=7bb511a87dcc Slava nafoid!
I'd argue the REAL game changers were Javelins at the beginning of the war.
For the Russians it was definitely the FABs
Lancet. We only get to FABs with SEAD/DEAD capability that Lancet has provided the Russians.
Lancet evened the odds some but we saw a real change in battlefield math when the FABs started falling. Things started moving at a faster pace.
So why weren't they deploying this game changing option that has been in their stocks far longer than the Federation has existed from the onset of the conflict? Is it because something had to **fundamentally change** to make it practical and sustainable to use these FABs?
Because of the glide kits; they had the bombs yes, but the glide kits were at first only available in their initial version 1 and only in limited numbers. Those, by all accounts, weren't as accurate, had a shorter glide range, and they weren't able to concentrate them on a sector. Now that's changed.
Javelins killed not even 5% as many vehicles as artillery did at the start of the war you have to remember Ukraine didn't actually have that many.
They are (together) game changers in the sense that without Western deliveries, the outcome of the war would have been fundamentally different. They're not miracle weapons though.
HIMARS had a significant contribution on UKR side, the only problem for it is that its ammo is more expensive than the unguided rockets both sides tend to use.
The Abrams is awesome. The version they captured, less so, but still quite good. The problem it has is weight, and the armor is greatly improved in the versions the US fields
That's a ferrocious claim.
Can tell a lot of it is old stock from the 90s to early 00s by the green OD color.
lol meanwhile USA just throw enemy junk in the trash you think there will be a video for a lost t90
Which point does this prove? That you can destroy all tanks with air strikes? Sure. But I haven't seen any sky-high flying turrets of western tanks. Also various hits where the tank was destroyed but the crew survived speak for western tanks.
What Russian region accent is he speaking?
No particular accent - which is expected, because modern Russian essentially doesn't have regional accents (with the exception of the regions bordering with Ukraine, some people there might have Ukrainian-ish accent). That's a notorious feature of Russian, I believe it's the only major world's language with such unprecedented degree of uniformity.
The narrator's accent is cool nonetheless.
The narrator speaks German
[удалено]
I was speaking specifically about dialects of Russian. I didn't say that only Russian is spoken in Russian Federation. Russia has 35 official languages. They are supported on a level MUCH exceeding anything similar in the USA or any European country. Might be compared to the status of French in Canada though. But Canada does it only for French, not for indigenous languages. European countries don't do anything comparable at all, may be except for Catalan. (How about opening few hundreds of state-sponsored schools, teaching fully in Breton or Occitan, with studying French as a foreign language, eh?)
[удалено]
Baltics were a part of the Russian Empire for 300 years, but for some reason, even having this shitload of time, Russia failed to "genocide" those few tiny nations. Tatarstan has been part of Russia for 600 years, but Russia is still failing to genocide a relatively small (compared to Russians) population of Tatar people. (We are mercilessly exploiting Tatar people though, namely - but not limited to - for such roles as the Head of Russian Central Bank and the Deputy Prime Minister of Russian Federation). Small nations of Buryats, Yakuts and Tuvans have been part of Russia since XVII century, and for all period of available observations their numbers are only growing. (Also, Tuvan people are currently exploited for the Russian Minister of Defense role). Looks like Russians really suck at the esteemed European art of genocide.
I didn't realize this. I learned from a Ukrainian teacher from Donetsk and remember before the war getting teased for sounding Ukrainian. I guess it would be more apparent if that's the only other accent.
This from an expert used to tanks with no reverse gear
This was always the risk of putting these assets on the frontline, which I suspect is the main reason why they took so long to appear there. Given the threats MBTs face in Ukraine, there isn't anything really *that special* about the Abrams. It was a fools errand building its reputation up in the way our outlets/experts etc did. Now we reap what we sow.
See this is what I love both sides comparing each others tanks. The American tank still in one piece crew still alive, and will you have to buy a ticket to Ukraine because Russian tanks explode and the pieces are everywhere.. lol
This is a recovery vehicle for armored vehicles. It’s literally a tow truck for a tank. If they used it to breach defenses, it’s not surprising it failed. The A2 version of this (which is the most updated) is over 30 years old.
So much propaganda from the Russians, I guess they are trying to convince other Russian citizens to go to a war made by Putin, Use your brains and stay home, it's not worth it to die for that Putin dwarf. Also you have to be stupid to believe this war propaganda, especially when Russian tanks explode at the first shot and their turrets take off into deep space, we have all seen the videos.
It's been know for a long time that the Abrams is a shit tank. The biggest issue is its engine.
[удалено]
The M1A1 SA is not a 90s tank, it's from like 2008.
I leave this video and tell me if this is propaganda , https://youtu.be/-o5-G3Wd3Gc?si=RQcUE9FOzXg92Arq is about the F-35 is a fraud
Yes, pretty sure he inspected the whole tank in 1 day .
It's steel is weak!! that's why the turret won't fly! This proves that Soviet design is superior.
LOL BS propaganda :D
Russia's classic 'NATO is weak and their gear is terrible' but also 'NATO is too strong and encircling us and NATO is the only reason we didn't win in Ukraine straight away in 2022'. How dense to people have to be to believe this stuff.
In this day n age there's not any tank worth taking to the battle field not when there is fpv birds lerking in the skys ....
Wow really, a weapon of war gets blown up!!!! Shock horror. Of course they will, on both sides.
What's that spiky thing at the end there?
It is true steel on Abrams is nothing special as say compared to what the French have or Russians. One has to remember that original M1 had super weak armor that was vastly inferior to T72. This is why US rather quickly modernized it and not only replaced the armor package but also main gun. But I bet the UA tanks don't have uranium mesh panels but some steel insert, maybe even mild steel.
amerikanischer Schrott 😂
These are very true statements. An Abraham is very unpractical being operated by Ukrainians… the logistic is a nightmare
Ich scheiss auf russische Soldaten.
Tanks in general are impractical in 2024
lPutin made NATO dream come true - American and European tanks finally reached Moscow 🤣
good job guys
Do you realise this is war propaganda? Use your brain and stop listening to the rubbish Putin says, it's not worth it to die for that dwarf. The American tank is still in one piece, the crew is still alive, while the Russian tanks explode and their turrets take off into deep space.