M1 Abrams Tank Tactics in Ukraine

THIS IS YOUR LAST CHANCE TO WIN!
go.getenteredt...
DEADLINE to ENTER is TONIGHT 10/08/23 @ 11:59pm (PST)
Written by: Chris Cappy & Justin Taylor
Edited by: Savvy Studios
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @taskandpurpose
Task & Purpose is a military news and culture oriented channel. We want to foster discussion about the defense industry.
Email [e-mail] for inquires.
#TANK #WAR #ARMY

[@Taskandpurpose]

THIS IS YOUR LAST CHANCE TO WIN! go.getenteredtowin.com/taskandpurpose DEADLINE to ENTER is TONIGHT 10/08/23 @ 11:59pm (PST)

[@williamforbes6291]

What happened to the Gadaffi vid?

[@williamforbes6291]

(he uploaded it yesterday then it got removed after 43min)

[@joshearhart6142]

​​@@williamforbes6291you gotta watch em while they're hot, boys....

[@Taskandpurpose]

I had to delete the Libya video because youtube basically censored that one so I'm going to reupload it within a week or two ! its one of my favorite episodes so im looking forward to posting it again soon@@williamforbes6291

[@SaultoPaul]

Will y’all train them on MUD ??!!

[@AlexLee-dc2vb]

two cappy videos in one day? And they're both well made and a proper length? You spoil us, Chris. Thank you for the hard work.

[@riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiip]

He uploaded a video on the fall of Libya yesterday morning which got demonetized so he was forced to take it down. He then uploaded a video on Israel 9 hours ago. Now he uploaded this one.

[@williamforbes6291]

There was 3! He uploaded and deleted a full gadaffi vid I got to see it woop

[@williamforbes6291]

Deleted 43 min after upload?

[@artvandelay1099]

This guy is a machine!

[@mass.1710]

This is the only channel that I actually pay for membership too. Been watching since channel had less than 250K and I’ve sent video to friends and family more times than i can count.pretty much everyone ive sent videos from here too has subscribed at minimum. Id love to have this job cause he does this the right way and news channels should watch his videos to relearn how to tell the truth to us all. Cappy, ur the man and keep up the great work!!!

[@Wick9876]

The Abrams acoustic signature is generally lower than diesel powered tanks. The trick is that it sings tenor rather than bass, and higher frequencies attenuate more rapidly with distance.

[@kyledabearsfan]

Thanks for the explanation, it's really fascinating

[@gooldii1]

Thanks!

[@_G_R_]

Yes. Instead of 5-7 kilometers, it will be heard at 3-5. He is big and clumsy. And I saw several videos of a leopard being hit by artillery right on the move. Those. he was seen from a drone and was constantly being “led.” The tank did not stop for a second, drove onto the forest road and still received a shell directly on the roof. It's like being in the damn "world of tanks". Leo is much more mobile. I think that the main point of sending Abrams is to prepare for serious urban battles, where this tank will show its best side

[@aethylwulfeiii6502]

Only if they are being sent with their tank urban survival kits that were introduced during second war of Iraq.

[@Ramirez83786]

If you are close = M1 is louder If you are far = Diesel is louder

[@TAZUTRA]

As a former Army mechanic I can firm the bit about Americans replacing parts is true. Mechanics are basically finding the problem, removing the part, and putting a new part on. With that said, removing an engine is always a struggle. It's never easy to replace an engine because you always need a crane and like 5 people make sure everything is going correctly. I wished the engines had a rail system that would make it easier to just slide out of the engine bay.

[@dragononwall8733]

I have seen here on YT, 4 men change engine on Leopards in 35 min.

[@grigorijgreg906]

@@dragononwall8733 The M1 and Leopard engines differ in layout, although they have the same power. So your 35 minutes to replace the Leopard engine is a few hours for the M1

[@jeffho1727]

As Canada Maint, we could do a Leo1 in 20 +min with a 2 man team, couple extra made it go easier. I've been told by the guys still in the Leo 2 is comparable.

[@CaptinLongdong1]

Changing the pack was easy. Changing the transmission was not.

[@jvalencia2595]

My question is, why does Ukraine get free tanks, but service members gotta pay for their meals

[@michaelr4858]

I was around tanks for 26 years. Abrams are really quiet compared to other tanks. You can hear the tracks rattling before you would hear the engine.

[@daze3877]

This is exactly what i was thinking. Every account ive heard has abrams very quiet unless you are up close to them

[@MerpSquirrel]

Didn't it get the nickname "Whispering Death" death in the 80s because no one heard it coming compared to other tanks?

[@OhTheGeekness]

I had the same thought when I heard him say the Abrams was loud. I was infantry when I was in the Army but I had the opportunity to be near Abrams on numerous occasions. I recall the clankety-clank of the tracks being louder than the engine.

[@Agiselaus]

It has been an absolute pleasure seeing this channel grow from memeing, to still memeing, but also putting out the highest tier of analytical/informative content.

[@HeisenbergFam]

You know its deadly serious when Chris does double upload in 9 hours

[@tranxuanminh4623]

you look like the dude who always comment on the friendly puma hissing the cameraman🙀

[@whitefalcon630]

That's around the service time of the M1 from F to R (Idiling) Now really who am I kidding we just try to prepare our bloody arse that these tanks will likely be captured or destroyed by the Russians in the security zone like they are not there. The lad's knowledge about T series tanks is a wee bit questionable He also lied about the Challenger and Leopard losses 13 Leopard and 2 Challager confirmed, 56 Bradley and a dozen armoured boxes dubbed as APC Cringe

[@BattleHQ]

@@whitefalcon630 Where are you finding your sources for the tank losses? The most I can find is around 8 losses on the Leopard max outside of Arab news sources which just are biased as all hell, and the most they got to was 10.

[@Masterafro999]

its a long way from the wt comment section.

[@elcormoran1]

He gonna have to COPE hard when we see his mighty tanks getting blown up by the russians bahahahahaha

[@tironansunfrendlyskies5040]

The Challenger 2 tank doesn't use the same ammo at all. Although it is a 120mm gun, it is rifled.

[@goodsoup6085]

yea think he overlooked that its not the chally 3 in use yet

[@MrZombiekiller23]

Well this video aged really poorly😂😂 Ukraine lost 4 Abrams in 5 days the first time they finally put them On the front lines

[@Lintasbenuanews]

Americans always proud and hype when it talks about their weapons 😂, but they weapons only superior in hollywood movies 😂

[@seanb2604]

You think it's only equipment that makes the US Military, the most effective over the last 10 decades? Ukraine best check their tactics.

[@MrZombiekiller23]

@@seanb2604 I'm tryna figure out what crack one needs to smoke in order to believe the US has the "most effective" military over the last ten decades. Even in world war 2 there was plenty of incompetence but since then the US has spent decades losing to guys in flip flops globally from Vietnam to Afghanistan & the latest embarrassment of Yemen shutting down western colonial economies in red sea despite all the effort from the US Navy to bomb them & starve them for decades 🥴

[@Odin029]

The loudness of an Abrams is interesting. I read an article some time ago that while close up the Abrams is louder, it puts off higher frequency sounds than a diesel engine. Those frequencies don't travel as far, so from a distance the Abrams is very hard to hear, while the lower frequency sounds of a rumbling diesel are much easier to hear even from far away.

[@moonasha]

I've heard that the Abrams is basically silent once you get a little bit away from it

[@lordlol3787]

What is the point of this silence if the entire battlefield is visible from the sky?

[@Odin029]

@@lordlol3787 It's not as if every soldier has a drone ready to drop munitions able to disable a tank in their pockets. Soldiers in the field still rely on their senses too.

[@lordlol3787]

@@Odin029 Look at the war in Ukraine, almost every unit or group has its own drone

[@grayskull8629]

Bruh... this didn't age well lmao 28.04.2024 - "Ukraine pulling out Abrams tanks away from front line" and that's after 5 lost Abrams out of 30. Game changer my azz

[@rinaldoman3331]

According to the late news they lost ~8-9 Abrams out of 50. So actually M1A1 same vulnerable as T-72 but has higher chance of survive.

[@stillamarine1001]

I was a member of a Marine Infantry Battalion. Every Marine infantrymen received flash cards of different tanks and armored vehicles. I made sure every Marine in my squad could identify with 100% accuracy from those cards. We did not want to shoot a Bradly or any other allied vehicle with our AT Missiles and rockets.

[@davidfinch7407]

As a former Army tanker who sometimes trained with the Marines, your diligence in not blowing us up is appreciated.

[@rogerwood5228]

How difficult was it to get your Marines to put down the crayons long enough to study those flash cards?

[@Legitpenguins99]

@rogerwood5228 the trick is to write them in crayon to keep the children focused. If you answer correct, you get to eat it

[@j.robertsergertson4513]

SMAW against a Bradley that's a bad day ,SMAW against an Abrams , touch up the paint scuff and good to go

[@CaptinLongdong1]

Did those flashcards come standard with pop up pictures and crayon writing?

[@DerpyFox]

9:26 "If what you looking at is another Abrams Tank: Showes Abrams A Leopard tank: Shows T- sires A Soviet T-sires: Showes Leopard 2

[@lance9150]

Turbine engine in Abrams we'll have them glowing bright for KA52 thermals and whirlwind.

[@Schopenhauer667]

I think the final commentary over the skies over Ukraine is an understatement. There is no contest, Russia dominates the airspace.

[@MrJonasinfinity]

Update. Abrahms return home.

[@jakethornton4856]

I was a M1A1 crewman in Iraq in 2003 and I'm not really sure how 31 tanks are going to be very helpful. Only 2/3 of them will prolly be battle ready most of the time considering how often they break. When I was at NTC our tank crew got an award cuz we were the only tank that managed to be in every battle in the whole brigade and that was just a 45 day training exercise. Tanks crews are normally only allowed to do 10 level maintenance and that is tank crews in the US Army that have a lot of experience on the vehicles. I knew how to do a lot of 30 level maintenance on the tanks(the only reason my commander wanted me to reenlist lol) but that saved the tanks I was on from missing multiple battles during my enlistment and was able to do "services" that normally took a whole tank crew a week by myself in two or three days cuz I only needed the maintenance section to work on the engine. The whole time I was stationed at fort riley there was only one time that our tank was completely 100% with no issues on our M88 form and we were also the only tank I knew of in the battalion that achieved that(it wud have lasted longer but a ripped drivers headrest on was the m88 for months b4 we got it). 31 tanks are not even 2 full companies and I feel like the US wants to force Russia to give up more than they want Ukraine to actually win cuz they are scared of Russia using nukes but I wish they wud just give Ukraine 1000 tomahawk missiles and this war wud be over in a month because Russia wud have to decide to withdraw or use nukes and even tho they claim they are willing to use them I'm sure if they do the rest of the world wud be a lot more serious about ending the war than they are now.

[@AndyFromBeaverton]

Agreed. Russia is going to be targeting the M1A1 before they ever hit the front lines for propaganda points. Unless Ukraine ferries them forward under the protection of patriot missiles, they might not make it into battle. As we have seen, there isn't a tank out there with proper protection from the sky above.

[@Quetzalcoatl_Feathered_Serpent]

Ukraine is essentially a mini NATO at the moment. The 31 Abrams is working along side British and German tank designs. The M1's might be held back in the main battles acting as spotter for the other tanks or working alongside them taking out threats they see and allowing the other tanks to hunt other targets.

[@kmoecub]

31 tanks is 31 more tanks than Ukraine has at the ready currently. That's how they will be helpful. People who are defending their homes ALWAYS find a way to make the best use of what they have.

[@johanmetreus1268]

The 31 tanks allows the Ukrainians to work out their maintenance and logistics hands on, after that is figured out and put in place, you can ship the tanks in bulk. US personnel are notoriously restricted in what they are allowed to do. In Sweden, it's more a recommendation, don't touch unless you know what you are doing.. but if there's someone around with proper skills from other areas go right ahead.

[@TechieWidget]

I am not a military expert, but I don't think 31 tanks would be enough and they alone would not make a difference. Without proper air support, the tanks would be vulnerable targets to Russian drones and attack aircraft.

[@slimhope1]

Basically a big slow moving target that any modern Russian ATGM will destroy, or a Lancet will land on top off.

[@FlyingGuy]

It didnt take the Russians long to destroy 3 abrams tanks.

[@aidboo1054]

Didn’t take long for t90m either, all tanks can be destroyed, so what’s your point?

[@FlyingGuy]

@@aidboo1054did take long for a "but.." 4 Abrams tanks destroyed. So much for the legendary tank

[@aidboo1054]

@@FlyingGuy wow, a tank can be destroyed. why are you so surprised? kornet and rpg has done it before, and no tank is invincible, like the oh so beloved Russian t series tanks aren’t. Abrams being destroyed isn’t special, get over yourself and keep on coping

[@TriTran-qb9eg]

​@@aidboo1054at least a typical T90 survives for longer than an Abrams on the front. The time from the teaser trailer of Abram deployment to destruction was 1 day. Replace Ukr entire fleet of T series with Abrams and Leos and you would see the same result as the old T series on Ukr side. Not to mention, didn't a T72b from '86 destroyed an M1A1 SA Abram from the 2000s just a few days ago?

[@aidboo1054]

@@TriTran-qb9eg yes because the Russian govt is placing literal million ruble bounties on the destruction of these tanks. Who would’ve guessed that would be an incentive to rush to destroy them. Also, just because it’s an SA variant doesn’t mean it’s from the 2000’s. M1A1 is still from the 80’s, and SA quite literally stands for situational awareness, dunno how you expect better viewers and slightly better thermals to make it light years harder to kill like it’s non export American counterparts. Challenger and leopard, and all russian tanks didn’t have a bounty over their head, neither did Bradley. That’s why they survived longer than the abrams. T72s Abrams faced in Iraq were export variants, Abrams Russia will face in Ukraine are export variants. Neither are being used by the country that designed them, so neither should be able to be judged for the country that designed them.

[@loumorningstar7709]

The Abrahams. The symbol of America. with its German Turbine technology, Its German cannon, Its British armor, The list goes on. A real patriotmobile indeed.

[@OldMajor]

We will also send Stacey Abrams… she is built like a Tank and is a real killer.

[@MrStephansucks]

Excuse me sir that constitutes a war crime

[@robertbates6057]

Please send her somewhere, lol.

[@kmech3rd]

You think those Abrams turbines are resource hogs, wait til you gotta feed THAT.

[@thunderK5]

One note: Almost all Russian tanks seen in Ukraine do have laser rangefinders and all T-72s, T-80s, and T-90s seen have these systems.

[@123456qwful]

Their also confirmed images of old model bring deployed with thermal aswell as a full utilization throguhtout the armor forces, honestly i like his presentation but leave the infantryman to infantry and the armor to tankers

[@ryanj610]

@@123456qwful Most Russian tanks do not have thermals. Only ones I've seen are the ones brought up to modern standards (T-72B3?) and those are NOT the majority.

[@yesbyeno1458]

@@ryanj610 which are the majority then?

[@MooN-ml2os]

@@ryanj610T-72B3, T-80U, and T-80BVM along with all T-90 models have thermals. They don’t really use the old T-72A’s and B’s as much as they did at the start of the war…majority of Russian tanks on the field rn probably have thermals

[@wulfheort8021]

@@ryanj610 The good old "trust me" me source.

[@texasranger24]

You are really cranking out those videos this weekend. And 20+ minute ones, not just some short ones.

[@CecilEvan-n5i]

Compassion and happiness are not a sign of weakness but a sign of strength.

[@vojtechpribyl7386]

It's not like they didn't get Challenger 2, Leopard 2, M-55Ss and are not getting the Leopard 1s that all require 4 man crews. Also T-62s and T-55s on Russian side have four man crews.

[@L33tSkE3t]

Damn, Cappy is absolutely killing it with these back to back uploads. Great work as always 👍

[@wheelwrightpl9429]

Two basic errors in this video I noticed so far: 1) Many Russian tanks have no laser rangefinder (that's false, it is not WW2). 2) Challengers and Leopards share same ammunition (false, because the Challenger has a unique rifled gun which requires non-standard ammo).

[@simonwatson2399]

The Challengers sent have riffled barrels. There is also a smooth bore gun available that does use the same ammunition.

[@voidtempering8700]

​@@simonwatson2399Yes, but that upgrade is not in service yet.

[@CloneDAnon]

3) Most Russian tanks have 2gen+ thermals and latest have CITV for commanders too (it ain't the 1990's anymore).

[@JohnSmith-gd6ej]

Another lie: “5 Leopards were destroyed..” Leopards were killed by the dozens.

[@wheelwrightpl9429]

@@JohnSmith-gd6ej No proof of that in the ONYX database, which makes me believe the Leopards are quite effective, although obviously they are not a "wonder weapon".

[@devlinm5398]

T&P crushing it. Thanks Cappy, the hard work of you and your team is obvious. 🤘

[@squatchbigfoot8577]

as a M1 tanker for 20 years, you hit the nail on the head. the M1 wont help Ukraine much at all, unless they use it in Defense .

[@MRptwrench]

I agree. The Abrams may be a poor fit for front line in Ukraine. But I think the reason the US government was OK with sending them is because thy won't be the offensive solution, but a more defensive tool which will free up many more lighter armored vehicles for the faster combined arms offensives while the M1a1 plays safety to pick off any passes up the middle.

[@zartic4life]

Ukraines Counter offensive from June 4 to Oct 4: 90,00 KIA (average age 40) 557 tanks lost 19,000 armored vehicles lost 380km2 or >1% territory reclaimed Solution? Thirty one 80s M1 Abram tanks from the US but 'modernized'.👍 Sources: New York Times, Reuters, Business Insider, Ben Wallace fmr UK Minister of Defence

[@whitefalcon630]

Finally some sanity This needed like a bit of bread

[@kroolis77]

Except the numbers which you made up everything checks out. Love the 19 thousand armored vehicles lost or 90 thousand KiA meaning 300k wounded. Ukraine Army doesn’t exist at this point so why are russians retreating? 😂😂😂

[@RustedCroaker]

@@kroolis77 "russians retreating" - where exactly? "Ukraine Army doesn’t exist" - it can't conduct large scale operations like in June anymore.

[@kroolis77]

@@RustedCroaker in Sevastopol or in Verbove. So where are Russians surging forward? Destroyed UA army shouldn’t be a problem according to your numbers. I’m curious about 19 thousand armoured vehicles lost since June as well as 400 thousand casualties since June. You muppets are predictable in your ignorance. That level of casualties would mean Ukraine would cease to even man the lines never mind hold them. There is no unit in the world that will hold cohesion with 50% casualties. You kacaps should lie more realistically. Ukraine lost 557 tanks since the start of the war. Russia lost 3000.

[@nebojsaenic985]

@@kroolis77 From where?

[@jackham4407]

well actually🤓 abram engine noise is louder than diesel at close range but is actuallly quiter from farther away than a diesel engine. a bit more Heat signature doesnt really matter when diesel engine run over 300 degree hot

[@AngrySlavaUkraini]

Who think in a couple of years we could have lots of wars going on? I kinda do

[@lance9150]

There already are. No one respects America anymore, now that it is basically Mexico. I mean... Do you think China or Russia gives a shit about Mexico? Why would they care about America after all the Americans have been replaced by Mexicans?

[@aethylwulfeiii6502]

Already are, some of them we just don’t hear about much. Most Americans don’t even know about the modern French wars in North Africa. Or pretty much any war in sub Saharan Africa.

[@gifthorse3675]

Biden is a warmonger and Trump was the first president in 40 years to not start a new conflict so it’s not surprising.

[@justinr9753]

I've been expecting it for 3 years now.

[@quartermaster1976]

Syria, Yemen, Mali, etc.

[@topoff33]

I spent 10 years on the M1A1 and I guarantee, a majority of these tanks will be dead lined before they even see any action! Trying to keep up with maintenance and parts alone in the American Army was a bear, I can't imagine how it will fare in Ukraine without a steady flow of parts, fuel, and turboshaft, notwithstanding, the expertise needed to keep these beasts on the battlefield and not back at the UMCP!

[@Lintasbenuanews]

They got smoked by russian drone

[@evanleo7633]

Correction: M1 abram is not louder than diesel tank, it’s higher pitch and dissipate quickly but more annoying for the crew and it runs cooler than diesel engines too, M1 has exhaust temperature of 500f and leopard 2 has 600f but this doesn’t matter, they all show up on thermal

[@Cael-peace2U]

Thanks for bringing back your good ol’ spare parts army humor to this video in just the appropriate places. Well done.

[@SuiLagadema]

I remember seeing a video where, I think it was ISIS, shot a kornet at an Abrams on the side. Every single one of those inhuman beings started screaming Allahu Akbar!!... Until the turret of the M1 started turning towards them and you could hear the panic in their voices.

[@sidharthcs2110]

Iirc , it wasn't ISIS , it was Saudi Abrams vs Houthi rebels

[@rajaydon1893]

If it was a kornet it definitely penitrated it since I have seen videos of kornet taking it out, they might have gotten lucky and nothing important was hit

[@jtl05]

@@rajaydon1893 depends if it hit the hull steel or the composite and DU armor in the turret side

[@rajaydon1893]

@@jtl05 it doesn't matter what was in the side of the hull it won't stop a kornet

[@jtl05]

@@rajaydon1893 no it really does matter the turret composite of a M1A2 has about 2400mm of chemical protection where as the hull side has 100mm of steel

[@threestrikesmarxman9095]

16:29 Slight caveat: the Challenger doesn't and can't use the same 120mm rounds as the Abrams and the Leopard because it has a different gun, an L30 from Royal Ordnance as opposed to the Rheinmetall Rh-120/M256. The L30 uses separate charges and projectiles whereas the the Rheinmetall gun uses cased cartridges.

[@billhanna2148]

Thank you, I knew he made a mistake and I only found your comment that confirms it. 🙏💪👍

[@alex434343]

Interesting. Isn’t that in violation of NATO standardization though?

[@threestrikesmarxman9095]

@@alex434343from what I can find, technically not. STANAG 4385 only covers _smoothbore_ 120mm tank guns. The L30 is rifled and is likely not subject to STANAG 4385.

[@jeffbenton6183]

Is this changing soon? I seem to remember hearing that the Nritish are phasing out their rifled 120s in favor of smoothbore 120s due to the perceived (or exspected) obsolescence of HESH rounds.

[@bishopp14]

"They can't hear us if we blow 'em up" might be my favorite line ever 😂🤣💥

[@Stealth86651]

With all the documentation, spare parts and such it's a great vehicle to take a few hits and get repaired rapidly. Especially since crew survivalbility is a huge factor in this war, losing an experienced crew is worse than losing a vehicle. Heavy weight is an issue, so much that the military's already developing a smaller, more lightweight tank, but it's good enough for now. Not like the US can't send some engineering vehicles for bridge building or reinforcing the ground if need be as well.

[@pwrserge83]

Yeah, why are we sending taxpayer money to back an openly fascist regime?

[@tomislavvaldec1]

this tank isnt built for drone atack

[@Sophie-and-Ken]

@@tomislavvaldec1not totally true. Yes, drones did not exist in the 80s when the tank was designed, but we have countermeasures like Trophy today. I would not not be surprised if Israel isn’t sending Ukraine anti RPG and drone countermeasures.

[@logirex]

They also have thousands of them in storage that will never be used.

[@devin5139]

​@@Sophie-and-KenIsrael isn't really supporting Ukraine. They are fence sitting because they need a good relationship with Russia to shape middle-east politics. They certainly aren't sending ukraine trophy systems

[@battlefield3112011]

I thought the nickname for Abrams back in the day is Whispering Death due to how quiet the AGT1500 is compared to diesel engine like MTU MB 873?

[@reappermen]

Technically the gine is quiter in pure decibels. But it is in higher frequencies than the low rumble of heavy diesel engines and such, which comes with 2 drawbacks: Higher frequencies are usualy easier to locate/ find for humans. They also carry better over longer distances, dropping of much less than the lower frequencies.

[@CoffeeAndPaul]

​@@reappermen , you're wrong about that last assertion. Low freqs carry farther in air than high freqs, the natural result of having a longer wavelength. This also holds true in water which is how whales can communicate with each other over Hundreds of kilometers. The freq range large whales can talk in is infrasound, far below the range of human hearing.

[@stephenallen4635]

@@reappermen Easier to hear up close yeah but higher frequencies dont travel as far as lower frequencies

[@Lintasbenuanews]

Lancet 😂

[@artemkildibekov6315]

31 tanks that seems very little to make any change on the whole operation, I believe the point to sent it was to trigger the Leopards release

[@frankderks1150]

No, these 31 are a precurser for many more to come. The focus now is setting local up logistics and training infrastructure.

[@colemichae]

​@@frankderks1150LOL manufacturing a M1 not a hope they have not actually made just rebuilt in over the last 20years in the US, Ukraine will not get manufacturing of any sort in at least 3 years for other tanks. It is not making a car and even that takes years to build a manufacturing plant

[@frankderks1150]

@@colemichae Plenty are mothballed and can be made operational in a short amount of time. Nobody is suggesting anything about sending shiny new ones.

[@colemichae]

@@frankderks1150 the US will not be sending any more they don't want the media spotlight on them being destroyed by mines UAV's helicopters. The US is playing a media advertising plan, we have the best. The Bradley's they knew before were not perfect from Afghanistan, but the Abrams is their perfect MBT having 20 Destroyed will play havoc with military sales

[@donhitchcock6309]

You do a fantastic job. Your research and presentation is outstanding. Even someone without a military background like me can gain a huge amount of knowledge from your videos. Thank you.

[@CloneDAnon]

Except his information is more than 30 years out of date. Basically its BS.

[@servel2]

Just came in here to say that while Abrams has a turbine engine, it is both more quiet and less visible to thermal cameras when compared to Soviet designed Diesel engine equipment.

[@copterinx0468]

These sorts of logistical issues often make me wonder if it would be better to have a worse tank that is logistically easier to support.

[@CoffeeAndPaul]

No.. The true strength of any main battle tank or mechanized armor is their crews. Only tank crews turn inanimate tank into a winning machine. The best tanks use well-established design principles to allow a crew to survive direct hits. Ukrainians LOVE the Bradley because it's very survivable relative to the Soviet APC's they used before.

[@tsubadaikhan6332]

To quote Stalin, 'Quantity has a Quality all of its Own'. But, judging by the age of some of the Tanks Russia is bringing to the field now, their attrition rate must be damn high too.

[@copterinx0468]

@@CoffeeAndPaul I know that a good tank is, by definition, better than a bad tank, but if logistics become too much of an issue, it might be the choice between a bad tank and no tank. And if that is the case, and you still want to have a tank, then it might be useful to have such a logistics-minded tank.

[@MartinMaarva]

@@tsubadaikhan6332 I have not seen any reports of old tanks being used in the actual fighting on the Russian side. There were plenty of old tanks moved to Ukraine, reportedly to be used as stationary artillery on deeper defensive lines but so far Ukrainians were not able to breach the first one to get close to them. Only old tanks used in Ukraine were on the Ukrainian side, some of them were captured by Russians. As they have not much of use for that crap, Russians usually send them back to Ukrainian lines, obviously filled with several tons of ordnance and explosives.

[@knoll9812]

34000 destroyed t34 Maybe thd Russians needed a better tank

[@importantname]

Super expensive, with a few major advantages over other tanks available to Ukraine. Meaning there will be few opportunities to make it worthwhile using these. That is areas where: targets are are beyond 1500m, tank is close to roads to reduce fuel usage, allow resup and repair, likely at night. No point using these in most of the battles being fought, which are occuring at relatively close range, and being exposed to mine fields and trench systems. Likely will be used as part of an attack or raid to hit targets from extreme range, enabling over vehicles to close with the Russians, then will either withdraw, or stay 1 or 2 klm behind the advancing units, and called as fire support. Much like a big heavy expensive battleship, stays as far away as possible, hitting from extreme range, and surrounded by supporting weapons to keep it relatively safe. Because there are only 30 in country, of that only 10 or 15 will be available for use at any one time - repair and maintenance being done on 20 odd. And then there will be vehicles lost to enemy actions. 30 - really is not very many. The over all effect on the war will be minor, but Ukraine needs everything that anyone will give it.

[@jaggedskar3890]

They may be more trouble than their worth. Ukraine is suffering from the same logistical nightmare the Germans had in WWII. The Germans had so many different types of equipment used from so many countries it was a nightmare keeping spare parts on hand for the right types. Ukraine doesn't have such a widespread theater of operations, but 31 tanks is a pittance in this conflict, not a game changer.

[@everest9707]

I agree that it's a nice gesture on the part of the US, however I am struggling to see the advantages.

[@DigitalRX2r]

@@jaggedskar3890 It's just the first package of tanks. More tanks will be sent. It went this way with every weapon system we've sent them so far.

[@quartermaster1976]

With our peace talks this is just cruel using 70 year old tankers.

[@DigitalRX2r]

@@quartermaster1976 They aren't even remotely close to 70 years old.

[@Maperator]

Ah yes because the Leopards and Challengers smoking on the fields were clearly not also designed to fight soviet T-model tanks as well 😂

[@simonwatson2399]

IT was so nice of the Russians to provide several pictures of those two tanks from multiple angles and with different backgrounds. 😉

[@GrandeurGateway67]

​@@simonwatson2399🤡🤡

[@walkinondamoon1]

​@@simonwatson2399look, everyone, even most anti Russian media admite 1 or 2 Challangers got smoked and 9 Leopards 2a6. And i mean unreparable. Its not like its some crazy Rus made up propaganda. Im not sure what you think tanks (western or not) are, but they are not indestructable. Infact its not that hard to disable a tank. Destroy its track and it ain going nowhere. Let alone if it lands on a mine or two.

[@jtl05]

@@walkinondamoon1 yeah they leopards and challengers were destroyed but the west didn't call them indestructible like Russia calls theirs and the leopards and challengers did their job ad kept the crew alive to get in a new tank and keep fighting

[@walkinondamoon1]

@@jtl05 i think Russians only called t14 indestructable cause u are not gonna see one in this war lol. Not the rest. Latest T90 is a capable tank, but certainly isnt indestructable. In west the media (and some military analist) made fabels of both the leopard 2a6s (best tank ever game changer) and challanger 2s (never been destroyed in battle except friendly fire, indestructable chobam armour). Personaly i found the Challanger 2 one funny. Got to the front line and in matter of days got torched. Ofc military isnt stupid enough to say those thing but they did keep their trap shut when others said it ofc since it sells tanks and makes the troops driving them feel invincible. Abrams will burn aswell. Its inevetable. All armour gets blown by mines or artillary. It really doesnt matter what you have for armour if its even slightly comparable. Its what tactics you use to have least tank casualties while inflicting the most dmg.

[@markbarrale995]

I was a E5 gunner on a M1A1 tank in second armored division from 90to 94ish. Returned as prior service in 2003 in the same capacity except I had to accept a corporal, rank due to the time away, and return to Iraq with the 1st cavalry division. that being said, I agree and loved everything you said, but I take great exception to what you said about the noise level an Abrams tank makes. It is a high-pitched whine when starting the turbine which takes probably less than 20 seconds , and after that, it is a sound signature that does not travel,far at all. I am not schooled or have a PhD in Phonetics or whatever you would call it. But I Will tell you from experience, A LOT of experience but I can tell you that an Abrams turbine engine is far less discernible on the field at distance than a diesel engine.

[@strictlyplatonic7287]

The Abrams returning to its natural habitat. Nature is healing.

[@saidonfax]

Some people raised a point that the Hamas's attack in Israel was possibly encouraged by Russia to draw attention and support away from Ukraine. Moscow talked to Tehran, then Tehran talked to Gaza. Sounds quite far fetched but I don't know. Just need China and North Korea to show some actions and we're on the brink of world war 3.

[@yaboyed5779]

Seems far fetched. If you’ve followed the conflict in the region you’d know it wouldn’t take Russia to cause it.

[@KeVIn-pm7pu]

Very far fetched. Not to mention i doubt most Western countries would help isreal doing their ethnic cleansing

[@KennethArriola]

That's exactly what I told my father. HAMAS literally had nothing to gain out of their murderous rampage in Israel, except the wrath of an enraged IDF. Putin must have prodded Tehran into prodding HAMAS to attack Israel to divert some supplies meant for Ukraine. And it has worked, with Biden shifting Patriot missiles into Israel.

[@mduckernz]

@@yaboyed5779Thry aren’t saying they caused it, though - rather, encouraged it to be the scope and ferocity it was. Probably provided munitions as well…

[@yaboyed5779]

@@mduckernz I get that, but Russia can’t really afford to spare ammo rn given the ferocity of their own war in Ukraine.

[@thespalek1]

The frequency in which you manage to produce new videos is admirable!! Thank you, sir! (and your team, probably?)

[@yutakago1736]

The M1 Abrams success in Gulf war is due to air superiority. In Ukraine war, it will not be able to enjoy the same success until Ukraine air superiority.

[@MikeyisNinja]

*unless not until

[@deathzombie1267]

​@@MikeyisNinja*until, not unless

[@MikeyisNinja]

@@deathzombie1267 until implies Ukraine has a chance. Which they really don't. Especially with more wars breaking out and global interest shifting.

[@caracallaavg]

During the battle of 73 easting the aviation was grounded due to a sandstorm. Yet Ambrams + Bradley combo decisively rekt the elite Iraqi armor

[@ender8124]

Outranging their targets was also a big factor. Its success wasnt entirely due to just air

[@raka522]

Interestingly enough, you only hear from american side about the M1 being the best tank in the world 😉😄 Compared to a Leopard 2 A6, I don't see any particular differences in the capabilities of both MBTs. Apart from the drive, some of the Leos installed the longer and more powerful cannon from the 2A5 version onwards, but it was not possible to upgrade the Abrams because the turret was too weak for this. By the way, the British Challenger 2 does not use the same 120mm ammunition as the Abrams and Leopard because they both have a Rheinmetall, or its replica in the A1, smoothbore cannon, and the British tank has a rifled barrel.

[@icu17siberia]

Anrams reputation was formed in Iraq, where it smoked Russian built tanks, mostly at night.

[@Fred70115]

I think the title is a bit off. The US did not gladly start sending tanks. It took months of begging from Ukraine for us to send a few tanks. The weight will also bog down in the months-long wet weather that is coming up. Good review of the logistics issues.

[@SimonTmte]

Doesn't take 2 years to upgrade 31 to M1A2, it could take 2 years IF the deliveries were not to interrupt other considerations..Come on, be more precise

[@BuckeyeRutabaga]

It appears that this war in Ukraine is being kept on a western life support with the sole purpose of hardware testing and the testing appears to be in small batches that will likely not make a huge strategic impact on the war overall.

[@goodnight920]

I respect the grind!!! Godddamn

[@snappy604]

The M1 A1 'Ese' version.. South California edition ... bling, hydrolics, spinning rims and fuzzy dice!

[@danroffee4904]

The British Challenger II is equipped with an L30 120mm rifled tank gun ... Completely different than the smooth bore Leopard II and the M1A2

[@_ob200]

Smashing it T&P ! Two top quality videos in 12 hours 💪🏼💪🏼

[@wrpg9955]

77 tons... yeah sure this thing can only fight in space where there is no gravity

[@mlgmounted9599]

lol what?

[@wrpg9955]

​@mlgmounted9599 the Abrams is one of the heavies MBTs on planet Earth. It simply isn't a practical tank for Earth Gravity. On the Moon maybe but good luck trying to cross any damaged bridges with that much mass or even worse trying to get out of mud. Sad to see the West adopted German WW2 tank ideology. Your great metal beast doesn't do shit against a triple stacked AT mine or just a simple ditch and mud.

[@newshound64]

That's a very helpful video supplying lots of new information. Thank you very much.

[@FormerChild-n6k]

I Love how he uses warthunder clips to demonstrate some of what he is talking about 🤣

[@lLoveCarolCleavland]

Something I was pondering recently is that when we were in Vietnam, society was stunned about the brutal aspect of war because they had a front row seat and almost in real time due to reporting and television. It was the first TV war and it shocked people. You would think with the internet that the world would be affected all the more so because it can be shown in real time. I was old enough to remember the reporting of the tail end of Vietnam and how the people around me talked about it. What blows my mind is the reporting and the in your face of warfare today that could be, is actually very sanitized. KZbin and such that could show reality shy away from that almost to an art form.

[@everest9707]

I think that the negative morale effects on the US population, of televising of the Vietnam war, is precisely the reason that you don't see it now.

[@Miner-dyne]

It is as if they don't want the public to see the reality. You are right though, I saw more carnage on a snowy tube TV than I see on these 4k captures in the current war. Kinda weird

[@tackytrooper]

@@Miner-dyne I think a lot of it has to do with the reality on the ground frequently not matching the media narrative in this war. They *could* show reality, but showing a hundred dead Ukrainians in a field doesn't really help the whole "Ukraine is kicking Russia out" story....

[@eeroala5132]

The difference between yhen and now is that today we do not have real journalists. Today the journalists are all shills for the government. They only report war info that is provided to them.

[@lLoveCarolCleavland]

@@tackytrooper A thought crossed my mind when he brought up the possibility (I doubt it, but don't really care) of pushing the Russians back with the help of the M1's to the border. What if Ukraine decided not to stop there? They ignored the demands of their nato masters and kept going. Fun times...

[@liamartinproductions]

Always amazed by American ingenuity, engineering, and logistics

[@collander7766]

14:16 while the Abrams is louder strictly by decibels, this doesn't paint the whole picture. While it is *technically* louder, it's also at a much higher frequency (higher pitch) because it's a turbine engine. Higher frequency sounds dissipate much more quickly than lower ones. So while an Abrams may be louder up close, there is actually a distance where you could hear something like a Leopard 2 but wouldn't be able to hear an Abrams. So while it's *actually* louder, it's *effectively* quieter.

[@Vadym_95]

Well, actually, not everything is so bad with the maintenance of tanks in Ukraine. We have a T-80 with a gas turbine engine (and a small service life), our T-64 tankers also change engines in the field, and so far no special problems with this are known. And the experience of Humvee operation and maintenance says the following - our repairmen do not replace the "pump", they disassemble it and replace the relay that failed, and assemble it back. This is due to the fact that we have Humvees of different years of production, upgrades and configurations, so sometimes it is easier to replace the relay than to wait for the "pump". Of course, this does not apply to components of a military purpose, nevertheless - I am optimistic about it. Thank you American taxpayers)🦅

[@SnoW-pk9zo]

Thank you? You'll be our lap dog for 200 years

[@Biga101011]

​@@SnoW-pk9zo I doubt it. The US and other NATO countries will have an outsized influence, but unlike Germany, Japan or South Korea we won't have troops or bases that project any real power or influence. Ukraine is doing all the work. The investment is worth every dollar and I just hope that it helps.

[@SnoW-pk9zo]

@@Biga101011 I'd rather have 100 billion invested in my country than funding a foreign war for a random ass European country that used to top corruption podiums

[@caracallaavg]

@@SnoW-pk9zo give me one thousand dollars. No bitching to me

[@Niilomaan]

​@@SnoW-pk9zowhich would be valid, IF that was how your investments worked. You can't just take a dollar amount from one place and put it to another on government level. US constantly manufactures, buys and sells weapons. None of this is stock being manufactured from your resources for Ukraine, it's old stock being taken from storage and put to use. It will likely get replaced by newer stock fulfilling bunch or existing contracts.

[@simondnkom2422]

There is no tank that is invincible. It is just a penetration and support Do not make it a mobile fortress

[@johnusas2870]

The Abrams engine is loud up close, but because its a high frequency sound the sound waves lose energy quicker than a diesel engine. A diesel engine can be heard from farther away than than the gas turbine engine especially if there's obsticals in the way such as hills, trees, building, etc.

[@LeonAust]

They will hear death coming.

[@pravinsarvade7608]

Abrams the game changer tank going burn like other game changer tanks

[@ryanj610]

DU is used as a backer for the composite matrix. It's always a "plus" (other than weight). It will probably be replaced with tungsten; and if not that, just steel.

[@evrydayamerican]

Best journalist out there. Dude does in depth reports with FACTS and he let's US make our own mind up on the news that is reported. Great video Cappy

[@johnnycaps1]

Agreed!

[@sadlerbw9]

I won’t pretend I fully understand the politics behind the scenes, but I believe these Abrams were sent largely to get the Europeans to send over Challengers and Leopards. The Abrams isn’t really the ideal tank for Ukraine to operate, but it got the ball rolling and got them access to other options that will work better for them in the long run. That is probably just as valuable as anything these tanks might do on the battlefield.

[@ivanstepanovic1327]

Well, in this, as well as any other conflict, tanks were destroyed rarely by other tanks. Here, with the problems mentioned (mud, logistics, wasting too much fuel etc), they will have to face artillery, drones and ATGMs. So, while it is a major improvement (though, the same was said about Leopard 2 and it turned out not to be), it is a fait assessment that they are not indestructible. After all, the first Challenger 2 was knocked out and shown burning (first damaged by a Lancet drone, then finished off by Kornet ATGM).

[@ThereIsAlwaysaWay2]

And those excellent points are not even the main problem, main being you need 400 tanks minimum to make a minor difference. 31 tanks is like I give you 31$ to go buy a Ferrari. Another fact ignored 99% of time is Abraham consume same gas on idle then when running. Cut's it's operation time on average by 2/3.

[@Kermit670]

Something that gets lost in your videos but I want to call out, is your ability to be non-partisan. There is no political commentary whatsoever, and as a non-American I really appreciate it! Keep up the great work Cappy! One interesting thing to note, certain countries operate tanks as essentially mid-range (comparatively) SPG's. I'm curious if that training will be useful for Ukraine in preserving equipment to bombard Surovinkin line positions before assaulting, saving the logistics of having to move designated SPG systems and instead only using tanks.

[@alexlanning712]

agree, "objectivity and impartiality" make a far more credible ally

[@nole8923]

You are exactly right. There hasn’t been hardly any tank on tank warfare in Ukraine. Most tanks have been destroyed via mines, drones, and anti tank missiles. That means almost no sabo rounds. The battle of 73 easting in Iraq may be the last great tank on tank battle we will ever see.

[@walterbrunswick]

Корнет says hello

[@tyme5837]

kamikaze drones are also tank-killers

[@vashlotus1891]

1. To maintain the false image that the US is a super power. 2. US #1 export is weapons. 3. War is business. 4. Abrams are too costly to run logistically. Sell them and let the buyer worry about it.

[@jackmio]

I would like to point out that while yes, the abrams turbine engine is louder up close, it is actually quieter at range because higher pitched noise is more easily attenuated by the terrain

[@ThereIsAlwaysaWay2]

Creasy fuel consumption on idle tough. Exactly the same then when driving. Cuts the operability time usually by 2/3 on average.

[@jackmio]

@@ThereIsAlwaysaWay2 what does fuel consumption have to do with noise output?

[@EastlakeRasta7]

​@@jackmioI'd assume your vehicle regardless of tonnage or engine size would run louder when you're at your max speed 🤔

[@jackmio]

@@EastlakeRasta7 yes, that's obvious, but im confused about the point you are trying to make

[@EastlakeRasta7]

@@jackmio your question is "what does fuel consumption have to do with noise output?" And one would assume that my answer would be obvious but apparently not

[@kuunoooo7293]

Little correction, most russian T72's do in fact have thermal sigths and laser rangefinders. Even so their thermal sigths are even better than the ones of the abrams tank. The only thing is the abrams has citv and the russian tanks, exept for the T90M, dont have that Also since when cant sovjet tanks figth on the move ? Damn lots of mistakes But still cool video about this topic, i support your channel

[@Frost640]

Soviet tanks do not have cannon stabilizing, they have to come to a stop to make an accurate shot which is why the Leopard Challenger and Abrams were so highly requested for this conflict.

[@Frankon81]

@@Frost640 T-72B3 and newer have cannon stabilization. Earlier T-72 variants dont have it

[@rajaydon1893]

​@@Frost640do you live under a rock

[@infinitetk4165]

@@Frost640what a load of crap go do research

[@voidtempering8700]

​@@Frost640Even the T-55 has fun stabilisation. It wasn't good, but it had stabilization. The T-72s is even better.

[@ypointNull]

31 tanks are a drop in the pond. Even if you want to argue they can be used a strategically important sites, for the enemy it's a simple equation. 31 is finite. And Abrams are notoriously hard to maintain. Zaluzhny himself said they need 400+ for the counter-offensive and they didn't even get that. It's been handed to them piecemeal. And then they conducted the offensive how the did, and that went so well for them. But it's also abt to be the muddy season so they will I'm be able to use them in small ways until winter when the Russians themselves are allegedly planning and offensive. They will then become targets for Russian planes etc which are increasingly gaining control of the airspace. 31 tanks is nothing at the end of the day, and does nothing to change the conflict. Just another distraction from where this is headed.

[@willaimoconnell9430]

Russians are gaining control of the airspace? Seriously?

[@TimVoktwo]

They should not send any US tanks. The optic of burning M1 Abram tanks will be embarassing. It will not change the outcome of the war.

[@Nevernotalone]

So happy for this veteran and his incredible, informative channel.

[@NZobservatory]

*The M1 Abrams is the most effective MBT of the modern era.* This is proven historical fact, and yet even just mentioning it triggers violent reactions from some people.

[@paulbarclay4114]

its proven fighting against equipment 3 generations behind. thats like saying a ps5 is better than a ps2. the US military is not equipped for fighting a large scale modern war. the logistics and maintenance times for all of its equipment, from the f35, to the abrams, are the highest of any vehicles in the history of war.

[@NZobservatory]

@@paulbarclay4114 *The M1 Abrams is the most effective MBT of the modern era.* This is unquestionable. No other MBT even comes _close_ to its operational record.

[@paulbarclay4114]

@@NZobservatory yes as long as it has endless fuel supplies and its fighting against equipment 30 years older it has an excellent record

[@NZobservatory]

@@paulbarclay4114 *The M1 Abrams is the most effective MBT of the modern era.* This is proven fact obvious to everyone. What don't you understand, comrade?

[@pharasite3011]

@@paulbarclay4114 You'd say the same too with T90... the only reason why western tanks have been damaged or destroyed in Ukraine is because of those filthy mines and drones (which is also a weakness for russian tanks, or generally just any tank at all). Make an arena for an Abrams and a T90 one on one, both the crews have the same skills so its up to the tanks technology and I'm sure the abrams would win.

[@AlexLee-dc2vb]

Oh by the way Chris I just wanted to give some positive feedback on the editing - I greatly prefer this style of text-on-screen at the bottom with footage playing at the same time, rather than making the whole screen go block and one word shown at a time (which is a style that I've never been a fan of). Just wanted to let you know what I like as you continue to experiment/further refine your video quality over the years.

[@MTBScotland]

no, won't do shit. mines and no air cover means it will be hindered by the same things that the other western tanks. DU rounds are not effective for how the fighting is going on. They will get blown up by mines, ATGMs and hit by lancets.

[@Ag3nt0fCha0s]

“They have like flash cards to memorise it.” Anyone else have visions of tankers sitting around playing top trumps?

[@betterwithrum]

3:13 can we take a moment to appreciate the 91A specialist that marked the main gun on that Abrames. Chef kiss.

[@_SYDNA_]

Thanks for the in depth reporting on the Abrams as well as it's modular repair system. Really useful reporting. 31 is silly and a pretend effort but having this background is good. We did see more of a direct engagement from tanks around the time of the Robotyne counteroffensive. Reports showed AFU tanks at a standoff distance, acting somewhat successfully in more of a sniper role, from the northeast quadrant of the battle area. Given the mines this makes sense. Obviously, the handful of Abrams with their longer range accuracy would be useful in this kind of role.

[@chaosXP3RT]

One correction from me Cappy. The Ukrainians are very familiar with the T-62 series of Soviet tanks and they have no auto-loader. They have 4 crew members. The T-64 was the first Soviet tank to be manufactured with an auto-loader and just 3 crew members

[@MrRjizz]

A lot of what he stated about the T tanks in use in the war is wrong. I suggest If people want accurate information about it they go and check out tank focused KZbin channels

[@HENRISTARKS]

TRUE! YOU NEGLECT TO ADMIT 41ST GUARD TANK DIVISION GROUP OF SOVIET FORCES GERMANY, BORE THE BRUNT OF T64B! FACTORY TECHNICIANS 🏭 WERE FORWARD DEPLOYED AND PART OF MATERIAL SUPPORT BRIGADES JUST TO KEEP THEM RUNNING 🏃‍♂️ 🏃‍♀️ 😀 T80 CAME ALONG JUST TO BE RID OF THE T64B. NO T72 WAS MEANT TO REPLACE T54 T55,T62 IN WARSAW PACT, AND CLIENT ARMY. THIS QAS TOLD TO ME. IN ONLINE CONVERSATION WITH MARSHAL OF SOVIET UNION VIKTOR KULIKOV. CINC WARSAW PACT FORCES. DONT BELIEVE THE LIES OF GEN Z KZbin CROWD. I HEARD FROM THE HORSES 🐎 MOUTH!

[@Josef9004]

US military equipment was mainly built to pound 3rd world countries to dust, will be really interesting to see how their equipment fares in combat against a somewhat more sophisticated enemy. In the whole of the Ukrainian war we have probably seen all of 3 tank vs tank battles and I'm quite curious to see how these tanks would fare against russian drones, seeing as those are going to be their main opponents.

[@pogo1140]

The M1 was designed to fight in Europe to fight Soviet and Warsaw Pact armor while outnumbered.

[@justliberty4072]

"pound 3rd world countries to dust". Some US equipment has been designed with that in mind, but the Abrams stems from cold war times.

[@shadow200343]

A lot of our military equipment is meant to deal with near-peer threats, with appropriate upgrades to deal with the Middle Eastern conflicts. If our technology can combat Russia or China, it's going to fare well against some country that using 80s and 90s technology.

[@andresmcjr]

​@@pogo1140very heavy moving through Ukrainian mud, complicated logistics, downgrades to not give away armour...yeah totally purpose built

[@pogo1140]

@@andresmcjr yeah it's heavy but the ground pressure is less than a horse. I would still not advise using it (or any tank for rhat matter) during the fall and spring mud season. Wait for the winter to freeze the mud solid and resume in January.

[@uku4171]

"Depletium uranium" Damn ok Dumbledore

[@DawnTout]

One needs something to believe in, something for which one can have whole-hearted enthusiasm. One needs to feel that ones life has meaning, that one is needed in this world.

[@PvtPartzz]

I wonder how effective anti tank mines will be once they’ve been covered by layers of snow and frozen over.

[@p4nnus]

Most of them remain quite effective unless theres literally more than a meter of packed snow & ice on top. Reasons for this include magnetic fuzes used and tanks sinking through ice and snow.

[@nowhere474]

NOT SURE ABOUT THE PERFORMANCE IN UKRAINIAN MUD!

[@wbwarren57]

This video is 17 minutes old! How many of the Abrams tanks have already been destroyed in Ukraine? Are there any left?

[@planescaped]

The SA model can be distinguished by their shirts with only the top button done up and headbands tied in the front.

[@jdogdarkness]

Pretty sure Chappie is wrong about a few points. For example, US export Abrams DO NOT have Depleted Uranium inserts in them, by order of congress.

[@IMACAT71]

Hi Kappy, my friend who works at the Missoula PD told me that her brother is in the last class of the Marines Sniper School. Why is it closing, if true? I always thought that snipers were essential force multipliers for platoons. I'm also curious as to why this hasn't been widely mentioned. A short video on this, and it's historically important role, would be very appreciated. Go Griz~~

[@sjsomething4936]

If this is true I’d be very interested to know why as well! Good video suggestion.

[@johngalt234]

SHORT ANSWER: In the Marine Corps, they are called scout snipers. The scout aspect doesn't go far enough on the modern battlefield. The sniper aspect is superfluous with the rise of designated marksmen. LONG ANSWER: In order to be more agile against threats like China, the Marine Corps announced in February 2023 that it's changing its doctrine under the Force Design 2030 modernization initiative. Back in 2017, the Marines acknowledged that too many students were failing the scout sniper course specifically because of the stalking portion. To address this, they were going to separate scout sniper training into three phases: the first was formal training on marksman and scouting skills, then the student would be sent to on-the-job training for six months to learn stalking, and then the student had to pass a formal stalking class. This was supposed to start in 2020, but that is also when Force Design 2030 started. It cancelled the new school program while it reassessed the problem. Force 2030 decided that-because infantry didn't need to know formal stalking skills-that it was wasted training. It also decided that because designated marksman are getting upgraded M110s, they don't need an extra unit that focuses on distance precision shooting. Infantry is simple enough: find, outmaneuver, and engage the enemy. They don't need *_trained_* (i.e. scout, stalk, shoot) snipers for that. All told, this makes scout snipers superfluous in infantry units. That is why the Marines are disbanding 18-man _scout sniper platoons_ and dropping the MOS 0317. However, the Marines are standing up 24-man _scout platoons_ instead because what they really want is greater ISR capability than scout snipers currently provide in a modern battlefield. We are talking integrating electronic sensors and other modern means into the battlefield. That being said, sniping itself isn't disappearing. Reconnaissance battalions already have their own sniping school. Their Marines will earn the newly created MOS 0322 titled "reconnaissance sniper." ARTICLES: Coffee or Die did an article called _"With One Shot, Marine Brass Kill Legendary Scout Sniper Program."_ Task and Purpose did an article called _"Marines remove scout sniper platoons from infantry battalions."_

[@IMACAT71]

Thanks @@johngalt234. Incredibly insightful answer- I like the long one! I appreciate you taking the time to explain it. I looked at all the rifles that you mentioned, though I'll watch the videos tonight. I thought that the .50 Cal was the preferred sniper rifle as it's penetration power has spank enough to disable an engine, if struck correctly. Minds with more knowledge than mine have cast their dice with the M110A2. Still, it's too bad that the Marines aren't just adopting to the new situation at their school. Let's hope that they're making the right decision in the 2030 program. The MSS is such a terrific institution, sorry to hear that it's true.

[@sjsomething4936]

@@johngalt234 thanks very much, great and detailed explanation, I appreciate it! I’m not a military person but I do find the entire military service and the life that revolves around it fascinating, it’s like a society within a society. And because of its size it has so much of its own language, rules, processes etc.

[@johngalt234]

@@IMACAT71 They haven't discussed it much, but-if I were a betting man-I'd say that they will back down from this just like they did a few years ago with the "12>13" squad size that they actually increased to 15. The .50BMG has gone the way of the dodo in sniping circles. It was never designed for sniping, and it has a bad ballistic coefficient compared to something new. Barrett's custom-made .50BMG ammo has 0.64 G1 while the a .338 Norma Magnum has 0.82 G1. (The closer to 1.00 the better). That means it can't buck the wind as much and drops faster than the competition. The American military stopped acquiring precision rifles in .50BMG a few years ago. The venerable Barrett M109/M89A1 are not used. The general feeling was that it was heavy and the semiauto capability was not needed. In the time that it takes a bullet to fly to the target, the operator could work the bolt. To replace it, the US military bought the Barrett MRAD (designated as the MK22 PSR) which is half the weight and is multipurpose. It comes with a barrel for 7.62x54mm (training), .300 Norma Mag (antipersonnel), and .338 Norma Mag (antimateriel).

[@tanker335]

After nearly two years, neither side has figured out how to use armor. France put on a clinic in 1940 on how not to deploy tanks. I.E.: As Infantry support. We've all seen video after video of isolated tanks camped in a tree line or skirting a field get it's turret removed by a single infantryman. What we haven't seen is the other 11 tanks it should be with turning that infantryman into a vapor cloud. Tanks are meant to be massed. They are hammers, not anvils.

[@elektrotehnik94]

Mines & drones. We are far from WW2.

[@WackadoodleMalarkey]

A hammer is just a tiny anvil with a stick

[@MrNigzy23]

Kind of hard to mass with the amount of drones circling the sky. And the sheer amount of front line they have to defend. Why compare to WW2 too? Let's just have a little comparison of how big the French armour fleet was in 1940... Ah, over 4,400... Ah yes, that's just 'modern tanks' too. What a great comparison!!!! Freaking amateurs with their comparisons, never actually think about the variables just the numbers. As if everything else just stays static or something. Fml.

[@tanker335]

@@MrNigzy23 I have 8 years as an armor crewman on the M60A3 and the M1A1 slick. You couldn't figure out how to open the loaders hatch on either one. It never fails. Mention tanks and here come the veterans from the 92nd Comment Regiment.

[@tanker335]

@@elektrotehnik94 Are we? Mines and P-47 Thunderbolts didn't exist in the 40's?