The Complex M1 Abrams Tank Logistics Ukraine May Struggle With | WSJ

The M1 Abrams tank is one of the most powerful ground weapons in the U.S. arsenal, but it poses some serious challenges for the Ukrainian army in their fight against Russian forces. As the Russia-Ukraine War carries on, Ukraine is in need of more military support from Western nations for their counteroffensive.
WSJ explores how the tank’s complicated technology and turbine engine could be a big issue for Ukrainian forces, and why President Biden felt pressured to send them.
0:00 M1 Abrams’ features
0:51 Complicated tech and repairs
3:05 Logistics issues for refueling
5:10 Ukrainian supply chains
5:54 Why the U.S. sent tanks
Russia-Ukraine Conflict
WSJ’s latest news coverage around the 2022-2023 Russia-Ukraine conflict.
#Ukraine #Abrams #WSJ

[@wsj]

The Wagner Group has become the face of the Russian assault in Ukraine. Our documentary, Shadow Men: Inside Russia’s Secret War Company reveals how the Russian private military company hides the flow of riches and resources that ultimately connect to the Kremlin: kzbin.info/www/bejne/e367n32DeNR5j6s

[@feedyourmind6713]

Only because the West wants it that way. Russian regular forces are combating Ukraine forces now. Why Kiev choose to combat Wagner for the last several months at Bakmut was their own failings as strategic planners.

[@usuario2967]

everything in WSJ is "too hard" "too complicated" "Dangers of escalation" "russia is too strong" "ukraine loses too much troops"

[@feedyourmind6713]

@@usuario2967 Your higher education system says you're welcome.

[@Jordan-J]

This didn’t age well

[@nicolbolas8758]

do they know that lepoart 2 already in place how much abrams different then leopard 2

[@TheBongReyes]

People forget, or simply ignores, the sheer size of the US military’s logistical support infrastructure. It’s not about knowing how to use an Abrams, it’s about maintaining the Abrams to be effective. Anyone who drives a Honda Accord can drive a Ferrari. But there are certain parts and systems of a Ferrari than your local automotive mechanic would know how to fix and/or maintain.

[@Lassemalten]

Well Germany wouldn't send any Leopards unless Usa sent Abrams. Maybe they will just be in Ukraine for a show, to fool the germans

[@c4element1]

its a diesel....

[@orlock20]

80% of the U.S. Army is support.

[@FacultyFan]

yes, but the Turbine engine of an Abrams can use Diesel, Jet Fuel, Gasoline or Kerosene. it can probably run on vegetable oil or biodiesel if it had too. It's an engine that takes a lot of fuel, but can take many different varieties of fuel. Also, a m1 may get damaged... big deal, send enough spare parts to keep them in the fight. I can't believe there isn't a facility in Germany that couldn't repair an Abrams.

[@jed-henrywitkowski6470]

@@Lassemalten Imagine if we did Russia and China like we did Japan and Germany! Talk about castration. It's like, c'mon Germany, do what you do best!

[@4700_Dk]

As a former Cavalry soldier, the M1 like the M2 and M3 are mechanical nightmares. I wish them well.

[@alittleextra2832]

What do you mean by mechanical nightmare?

[@reinaldodesflamino2764]

@@alittleextra2832 mechanical maintenance nightmare.

[@alittleextra2832]

@@reinaldodesflamino2764 Thanks

[@4700_Dk]

@@alittleextra2832 Very high maintenance.

[@randyboisa6367]

Ukrainians are good at PMCS.

[@cl570]

The Ukrainians were able to operate the Patriot system fantastically, and were even asking for extra training from the Americans after completing their courses faster than expected. We're definitely underestimating them, I think they'll do okay.

[@AbuBawa-sw1ut]

America is a terrorist nation

[@jensholm5759]

I agree. Parts of the milary systems recruit too low educated people. They instead are compensated by overwhelming tools nad logistics. Something like that. More brightons in the ukra military forces

[@AnyTwoWillD0]

I often hear a range of explanations and justifications coming from the US, but when it comes to Ukraine, it's crucial to provide them with the necessary support, including tanks and other required supplies. Ukraine is currently fighting and sacrificing lives for the sake of our shared values. If Ukraine were to lose this battle, the consequences would be far greater, potentially leading us to face conflicts with China and Russia directly. Ukraine is doing its best with the resources it has, but as a wealthy nation, America should avoid adding unnecessary complexity to the supply chain. It is disheartening to witness a multitude of excuses emerging from America when action is what is truly needed. As an American myself, I urge for a departure from excessive politics and a focus on saving lives. Providing Ukraine with the tanks and support they require is essential to help them achieve victory and safeguard innocent lives.

[@BigM0neyHustla]

What patriot systems lol.. theyre non existent there now 🤣🤣🤣

[@CG-lq3hh]

Thank you, it’s like WS journal reporter was responding directly to the cup half empty guy. Ukraine is surrounded by nato partners to help and Abrams shares same barrel, ammunition etc as the German Leopard tank. Give them the tanks!

[@salahuddinyusuf]

Finally, a news outlet that admits the Abrams can also use high quality diesel and not just the mythical jet fuel only supplied by American fairies once every blue moon. Also, I can see why we decided to go partially electric for the next gen tank. At least with the Abrams X you're not chugging fuel during idle time.

[@randallturner9094]

Recent versions of the Abrams come with an APS (auxiliary power supply), a smallish two-stroke diesel generator in the rear-left storage compartment. This allows them to run their electronics and everything except the actual drive train without firing up the main turbine. Greatly decreases fuel consumption in static situations. I’m not sure whether the versions we’re sending Ukraine are equipped with them. They should be, conflicting reports on that.

[@giorgig777]

Just for curiosity, how is it easier to charge a tank on a battlefield? The charging vehicle will need roughly the same amount of fuel, no?

[@GlobalGaming101]

@@giorgig777 I think he is implying some tanks are partially electric, meaning they’re on a hybrid power train. When the tanks idle, it’ll switch to the battery. When the engine is running, it will also charge the battery pack.

[@ericdpeerik3928]

I'm reasonably sure the Americans are not going to rely on engineers running forward and installing charging points. 😂 Hybrid ki d of makes sense though. They would get double bonus points if it can run silently for short stretches. A silent tank would be terrifying

[@randallturner9094]

Battery powered tanks make absolutely no sense physics-wise. Energy density is just too low. I’m a 66 year old EE, worked on a number of defense projects. The weight penalty for battery propulsion is prohibitive, so anything other than backup for auxiliary systems (like the APS does now) is PR vaporware - not going to happen.

[@mattkelly2004]

With specialty training in the US or elsewhere I don't worry about ability of maintainers, I worry about ability of getting and keeping enough stuff into a warzone through several hands

[@MemekingJag]

The Abrams was designed for a war overseas in Europe. If the cold war went hot, the Abrams were designed to be shipped over there and kept in the fight as long as possible to prevent the USSR rolling through West Germany. It's a tough and durable tank, but that means complexity which requires a well trained maintenance crew to keep in operation. While the Ukrainian military is devoted and eager, switching over to learning the entire operation of a tank whose closest shared tank ancestor was in 1935 with the BT-7 is not an easy task, let alone during wartime, let alone to an entire mobilised military.

[@stevencharnock9271]

@@MemekingJag only problem with both the aAbram and the Challenger is the weight. Both were designed to stop a Soviet attack not to crash across the steeps

[@MemekingJag]

@@stevencharnock9271 True, but both (and especially the Abrams) have good mobility due to their engines despite their weight. The Abrams turbine engine provides good acceleration even if top speed is limited, and shouldn't have a problem keeping up with much smaller, lighter soviet tanks in fast assaults. While the type of opponent will be very different, the range of terrain found in the middle east, where most NATO deployments have been means they've been field tested. If the new maintenance crews are well trained, the weight wont matter once they're shipped there and until muddy season comes again, which is one difficulty the heavy tanks may struggle with.

[@davidc4946]

@@MemekingJag the world isn’t a tank one. Tanks really were at their peak in world war 2 when an armored vehicle to cross lines was top tier. Todays modern anti vehicle weapons are too much for an attack assault. That’s why a Russian invasion failed.

[@65bravo]

@@stevencharnock9271 Just not the case...

[@AndrewWellsPlus]

A lot of these problems apply to all tanks not just M1 Abrams. The big thing they hit on is the length of the supply chain going all the way back to the US. But a lot of that can overcome by supplying Ukraine with plenty of initial supplies and setting up bigger depots for Abrams parts in Poland or Romania.

[@danielhutchinson6604]

How do you get supplies from Romania into Donbas, when few roads are not vulnerable to Russian Missiles, and the last remaining rail connection along the Black Sea Coast was disabled long ago? You have a 600 mile journey to get even close to the front lines and then the logistics of supporting a War as the Electric Locomotives appear to lose the Transformers that supply them with Juice seem to be eliminated along the three major rail lines across Ukraine? The rails and trucks will need an increased amount of fuel to support any effort by Kyiv to push Russia out of the Nation they built up after WW2. The US State Department now appears to be operated by Wall Street as just another profit center? The War appears to consume US Tax Dollars and produce profits for Investors. The Ethics stink as badly as JD Rockefeller's Standard Oil routine.

[@dacokc]

I was thinking the same thing.... The Russian tanks don't need fuel, replacement parts etc?... I would probably be easier to use German tanks but cut out an ocean in the supply chain but yeah.. all tanks need support.

[@ichangedmysn9]

@@danielhutchinson6604 how do you think the tanks are getting to the donbas to begin with? UPS delivery straight there?

[@danielhutchinson6604]

@@ichangedmysn9 I worked with logistics for 50 years. I do understand how to move heavy equipment. What is your point?

[@danielhutchinson6604]

@@dacokc Is NATO just creating Martyrs out of Ukraine Civilians? Do they just need new poster Boys to sell weapons? NATO apparently never intended for Kyiv to win. They just want Russia to lose money. How is that working so far?

[@calebwhite5600]

At least he admitted they've been fighting Russia since 2014, since the coup. People think Russia just randomly decided to invade one day.

[@gmangs5874]

Right but it was not even the Russian army in 2014. The Dpr and Lpr. Let’s not forget the innocent citizens.. people seem to really quickly though.

[@usul573]

It wasn't a coup Russia invaded Crimea and Donbas. Putin got angry at the concept of Ukraine forgetting their place as a Russian vassal.

[@calebwhite5600]

@@usul573 It was literally a coup, nobody but you disputes that fact. They(trained and led by the CIA) rebelled in Kiev and overthrew their elected president and replaced the government with an anti-Russia regime. Crimea is mainly ethnically Russian and speak Russian and voted to not recognize the new regime in Kiev and instead to join Russia. The Ukrainians of those two regions in Donbas, who also speak Russian, voted to become independent states. Ukraine has been killing civilians there, who are technically their own citizens, since 2014. These two regions asked Russia for help and only then Russia invaded to defend them. Read something other than propaganda, if you only listen to one side you only have half the story. Lastly, if you saw Putin's speech you'd know he used the fact Zelensky threatened to stage NATO nukes in Ukraine as the last straw for the invasion. We wouldn't allow a hostile nation to bring nukes to our border would we?

[@joetuktyyuktuk8635]

Running several different kinds of tanks, is not preferable... but it is necessary, because no single provider of tanks would supply the needed number. The U.S. really were the only nation that has a large enough supply of modern tanks, to supply one kind of tank... even with the mixed bag of tanks Ukraine still needs more tanks. Even with the complicated logistics, having multiple different tanks is better than having no tanks at all.

[@jensholm5759]

The newer tanks and more older ones are comming. Mnay more here should understand tanks only are a part of the whole cooperating cirkus. Number one is still artillery are the best tank killers. There are other well armed vehicles as ewell as we now has drones and missiles. Finally both has jets and helicopters too. Landmines take many vehicles and soldiers too.

[@jensholm5759]

Ukriane has got more artillery and from Sweden as well as France too.

[@CG-lq3hh]

When in doubt send more tanks and paint them camouflage. 🇺🇸🇺🇦

[@Lonewolfmike]

By the time they get the tanks the supply chains will be in place and replacement parts and depots will be set up to maintain them as best as possible. I wouldn't be surprised if you have retired maintenance crews in Ukraine to service at least the minor stuff that every tanks needs to have done to it. One good thing is both the Abrams and leopard 2 have commonality in ammunition and that will help in one part of the supply chain. The Challenger 2, if they send the rifled version, will have its own ammunition supply.

[@Lonewolfmike]

@@jensholm5759 I saw that the Cesar 8x8 is either there or coming soon and the Archer will be going to Ukraine as well. They already have the Cesar 6x6 howitzer.

[@phbrinsden]

I’m pretty sure Ukrainians can manage these. They have exceeded all expectations in all matters. They are excellent engineers and smart.

[@garythomas4936]

... another clueless dummy who has never been in the military.

[@root_pierre]

Definitely have great engineers in Ukraine. Can't wait to see them impress me more. Go Ukraine

[@garythomas4936]

Have you been in an Abrams tank unit? The logistics are a nightmare. And to train teams takes many months/years

[@garythomas4936]

@@Slavic_Boer... at Bakhmut Ukraine was advancing IN REVERSE.

[@ericp1139]

What makes you think they are excellent engineers and smart? They’ve only been using Soviet weapons?

[@guybeingaguy]

My battalion in Germany got some of the first M1 tanks in the mid 80’s. The night vision is insane on them. Also once you click and lock on target, that’s it. The systems take it from there, target destroyed. I think this anticipated counter offensive will look similar to the onslaught and subsequent slaughter in Kuwait/Desert Shield.

[@Anthony-jo7up]

They only have a small amount of American arms, but Russia's military is performing worse than Saddam's. I think you're right.

[@zionmcfarland4365]

USA had air superiority in the Middle East, Ukraine doesn't have that. The counter offensive will not be as good as people are expecting it to be

[@briant5685]

lol yeah for those tanks,they will be chewed pretty well by anti-tank missiles

[@briant5685]

@@Anthony-jo7up is that why they control a landmass bigger than UK with only 150k troops..?

[@winstonchurchill8491]

That’s literally every tank now a days. Even Russian

[@maximad5997]

I think the one thing this video missed is the parts can also be made in Egypt where the tank manufacturer of the Abrams tank is also located/second HQ who have been there since 90's when upgrading the Egyptians tank force. So you really don't need take it all the way too the US.

[@iphoneupdate]

Egypt supports Russia.

[@VulpeculaJoy]

You could even store spare parts in Poland and ship them over to replace broken components.

[@desmosoldier]

Logistics, logistics, logistics. You can gel a tank crew fairly quickly on what needs to be done, but crew, unit and installation maintenance AND POL/Parts availability keep them on mission.

[@philipp594]

The M1 can also run on diesel. So yeah.

[@d.b.1176]

Jet fuel and diesel are basically the same thing.

[@arrielradja5522]

​@@d.b.1176 You did not just said that

[@d.b.1176]

@@arrielradja5522 I did…

[@Lost-In-Blank]

Yes, when selling the tank to the American public, the fact it can run on regular diesel was touted as a major selling point.

[@Andrea-1998]

@@d.b.1176 You’re going to get alot of hate from this for sure

[@aleksandarm4489]

Ukrainians don't seem to worry about logistics after absorbing different types of western equipment. They will be much better with those tanks than without them.

[@ericp1139]

More like they don’t have to worry about logistics because they will be 1 time use.

[@Kevin-xq2tv]

@@ericp1139 aahhh what like the 90 himars you destroyed tankie?🤡

[@ericp1139]

@@Kevin-xq2tv I dunno. How many HIMARS are left? And if they're such a wonder weapon, why not send 100 more and win the war?

[@borreLore]

While it isn't ideal, they are receiving weapons and international training where they don't have to worry about being bombed at base. The logistics issue is absolutely a problem, but like you said, it is preferable over being defeated and annexed by Russia.

[@aleksandarm4489]

@@ericp1139 you are right. It is one time use. You use it against the Russian troops once and they aren't any left.

[@jp-um2fr]

A major friend of mine was an observer during the Gulf wars for another 'close country'. Let's start by saying that Lycoming (who built the Abrams engine) built a complete engine rebuild factory in the desert. Gas turbines and sand do not get on. They were not allowed to follow in convoy as the air filters got blocked. Their fuel consumption even at idle was horrendous. Challenger 1's could engage at least 1000 yards earlier due to the accuracy of their rifled guns. No longer used by the UK as pipes are cheaper. There is a very good reason the Ab's have not been sent sooner. They are a maintenance nightmare, it's as simple as that. Never mind, they will make good pillboxes - maybe?

[@jaymorales5049]

Biggest problem I had in Germany while being a tanker and doing military drills was the territory. Most broken parts I saw while in Germany was the torsion bar, the hard mud combination with hard rocks made a huge impact on the M1A1 track and sprocket. The other problem was the horrible winters that I had to endure. If the Ukrainian forces get M1A1 or other versions they must be given cold weather gear specially Mickey Mouse boots. Also from seeing how most engagements are very close the best round for these troops to utilize will be the Canister round! I wish I would be able to help train those troops but since I am handicapped due to an I.E.D in 2006 Iraq, I am left to wish for an other chance to help these people.

[@Yakob135]

Thank you for your service sir!!

[@user-il6py2th6l]

@@Yakob135 ахах

[@mozambique9113]

What is your opinion on iraq war?

[@jaymorales5049]

@@mozambique9113 the truth is that, after my 3rd tour of duty, by that time I had change MOS to 19D armor scout so I became a sniper and I was pretty much guarding the biggest gas pipeline in northern Iraq. And I lost my left leg above knee as well as losing tons of friends to suicide it’s not worth it

[@antonyvan5100]

Thanks for your service..but I don't think Abrams is much smarter ..it's going to get hits once on ground like all other tanks

[@maevethefox5912]

I've not understood why the US won't just tank trade them with Poland. Poland has logistics to support M1's, and also has more Leopards to send to Ukraine. Let the Ukrainians focus their western tank fleet on one type of vehicle.

[@chem826]

You have to diversification all your equipment. You see when war all countries will send their stuff and you need to be ready for that. Ukraine faces a lot of problems because of that.

[@jensholm5759]

The Poles yet just has logistics for simple rapairs. They are buildng out or will. New tanks to Poland also are very expensive. Someone has to pay. This is not UNICEF or Santa Claus.

[@BoatLoadsofDope]

@@chem826 Diversification is exactly what you don't want. You want standardized equipment to ease maintenance and logistics.

[@wojt88]

This is about politics. Germany said they won't send Leopards to Ukraine if USA don't send Abrams. So it is what it is. Also I'm pretty sure that Abrams sent to Ukraine will be maintained to a large extent in Poland. There is not enough time to set up all logistics for Abrams in Ukraine, on the other hand Poland already bought earlier a lot of Abrams, and also got some in exchange for T-72 to Ukraine so logistics for Abrams in Poland is being prepared anyway.

[@Kevin-xq2tv]

@@jensholm5759 do you know the price tag if russia wins??? It wil be alot more + this is the cheapest chance the US has ever gotten to get rid of one of their main rivals

[@archigoel]

Toyota to....Tesla. LOL. Tesla is super simple. It automates so much of driving that its learning curve is actually very low. Abhram, looks like much more complicated design.

[@coolssdoge]

Im probably missing a few factors here but what if when they receive these tanks why not put each variant in a different region with its own supply chain thus to lower complexity while also keeping performance.

[@thomasgade226]

Likely yes. The differences are small between the Abrams, Challenger and Leopard tanks, so not much nuance to exploit for an enemy. But a small occasional mixing is probably necessary to keep opponents guessing. The drones tell roughly which tanks are coming, but not the precise mix.

[@brett76544]

Power pack replacement, Transmission or engine, easy to do. The final drives another point of failure, the M88's have a brace for removing the rear sprocket. Track blocks and roadwheels. Then cleaning air filters or replacing them. Then bore sight the tank again and again. Then torsion bars. After this stuff, you have unusual breakdowns. damaged vision blocks, wiring harnesses and some other things, but not much. Still the track and power pack are the areas to keep spares ready. After that it is ammo and fuel. Once I saw a tank totally screw up and drove the gun into the ground, due to a large mud pit. Then there was the time they played bumper cars and had to tarp the side of the one tank.

[@Bokicazver]

It seems that you are the ONLY person here with some sense, knowledge and experience, among those idiots...THANK YOU!

[@wesc6755]

How about we find out. Instead of making assumptions about what they *might* be able to do or not do, how about we empirically learn the answer by letting them use them. They are sitting in storage, along with the Bradleys the Army is already decommissioning anyway, so why not train them no matter how long it takes and gather data to answer the question instead of speculting.

[@jensholm5759]

I agree. Denamark bought many of the M1 model and upograded them as well as it goes. We now have them in garage museums. We now send what are 100% ready. Succes says we send the rest, which are not in spareparts only.

[@volition2015]

Every tank, T-72 included, needs a logistical support chain with fuel, ammo and repair depots. And just like T-72 or any other tank, Abrams is also vulnerable to ATGMs, mines and loitering munitions. Ukraine designed and built a lot of the Soviet armor, they have their own tank factories and a lot of experienced engineers and technicians that can use Skype. Besides, Poland operates M1 and has all or most of the infrastructure and repair facilities needed for whatever can't be done locally. I always wondered why US makes it sounds like their tank is some kind of a spaceship that is so incredibly difficult to maintain and operate.

[@ravenhunter6582]

German Leopards and American Bradleys are already on fire. Abrams next

[@Aaronreacher]

They have a very big ego when it comes to tanks when in reality this war is getting dominated by drones no tanks.

[@807800]

Nice video of explaining the crucial thing about sending tank that many people just don't realize. Effing logistic!

[@DestroyerOfLiberasts]

"Abrams needs complex supply chain right behind it. Abrams can go everywhere, but the supply chain can't.". Kinda defeats the purpose of this tank then, wouldn't you say?

[@mk8530]

The USA knows Logistics win wars.

[@jensholm5759]

Not at all. Everyone knows that and its exelent if its used not for long distance. Instead of cancelling the Abrams as a system the USA decided to build a new version. So it must be do something right. None should compoare with Barbarossa ivading USSR. Too many do. They are still exelent covering a limited terrain with good supply in the middle.

[@qasimmir7117]

Tanks in general are logistics heavy during operations. However I do think the Abrams is most troublesome in this respect I’d say. Main because of the fuel consumption and somewhat the parts and maintenance being thousands of miles away. Challenger 2 is a much better option fuel range wise, as it has the most. But there’s only 14 available and a limited ammo supply. Leopard 2 would be the most comfortable for Ukraine to operate logistically.

[@lloyd9500]

The 14 Challenger 2s coming from the UK are more a gesture to our western allies that someone's gotta make the first move, and the rest hopefully follow. Same goes with our commitment to create a coalition of allies to send F16s and train their pilots to handle them, which are otherwise gathering dust in a hangar. Since we made thoseannouncement the US has been pressured to follow suit. While the US has been excellent in its supply of financial and military aid thus far, it has only just scratched the surface. While Biden twiddles his thumbs and scratches his head, Ukrainians are dying by the thousands. We. need. to. act.

[@ggg-cf9zl]

As the Ukrainian I want to say thanks to the US and American people for your support!

[@davidhynes]

Your welcome brother.

[@vp6087]

@@davidhynes No thanks for USA. USA must thanking Ukraine for defending Europe from Russia and China on their own.

[@BojanPeric-kq9et]

Don't worry, you will pay, all of it, plus interest. Ukrainians lives are your own expense.

[@ajtexas1100]

The U.S throwed you into an unwinnable war And why thank americans that has been killing in the middle east for decades now ?

[@kdawg9477]

Former Abram officer.. driving is very easy than many people think.. logistic is the only painful thing

[@valentinursu1747]

Wow, It's a guy who operated the tank for a decade, versus some choleric WSJ Editor who thinks switching tanks is like switching commercial cars. With the NATO tanks, the Ukrainian army is like a cobra now, they have one bite, they need to chose where and bite hard. It's make or break, repairing tanks in the field is too complex to worry about, routing the Russians in 2 weeks is what they need to think about.

[@bavery6957]

The tanks and technology are most impressive, but how they're used will make all the difference. Hopefully, the crews and command are well-trained to best exploit its capabilities...

[@kenlandgren4701]

Both tactics and maintenance are equally important.

[@johnmccain3877]

Logistics is always hard and complex, but we need to see tanks arrival first.

[@hsuantingchen490]

this is great stuff, putting war into perspective

[@derdesdemden1234]

''For the Abrams it is like going home!'' I like that one.

[@sguploads9601]

yah - thats especially funny that it will fight on russian soil

[@lilkim5789]

Something a lot of people disregard about Slavic nations in general is that they are very prone to improvising. They don't need original parts or some big factory to keep things moving, so don't be surprised if you see Abrams rolling with home made parts and such and trust me, they will keep moving.

[@jeannettejordan7104]

Ukrainians have proven how innovation they can be 👍

[@tiberiosemproniogracco5685]

Russians are also Slavic. Be ready to get a nasty surprise.

[@Bokicazver]

"They will keep moving" like Leopards are moving, RIGHT?!

[@raferoyal8659]

They have a hot turbine engine and they run for about 8 hours before running out of fuel. And heat can be seen from space because of heat output.

[@indrahaseo]

Abrams will stay at rear as last role as last defense in order to save fuel and ammo and they can be useful to cover on tanks in the middle from rear as leopards 2 and challenger 2 if needed.

[@williamdrijver4141]

Abrams is like a fully optioned Escalade. Expensive, gas guzzler, and high maintenance. Perhaps Ukraine is better off with a reliable LandCruiser 70 series. Much cheaper, easy to repair and operate. Can run on any kind of diesel.

[@Lost-In-Blank]

Abrams can ruin on diesel.

[@jensholm5759]

Well they do getv a lot of bradleys, strykers, piranas and in that level too. To me the M1 in the many upgrades are just above their level . They also has got many 100 landcruisers.

[@jensholm5759]

@@Lost-In-Blank M e too. Minimum is bread and coffee.

[@nczioox1116]

​@@jensholm5759 it can run on many different fuels though

[@jensholm5759]

@@nczioox1116 It can

[@user-mu9ke9ex9f]

M1 Abrams is unsuitable for modern high intensity warfare. The Soviets new that complexity is a detriment and built their tanks small, cheap and easy to supply and repair.

[@j.b.victor]

Saddam Hussein's T72's in Iraq in 1991 were small, cheap, and easy to supply and repair. But they were still wiped out by complex Abrams. Yes Abrams are more complex, but the benefit to that is that they have access to useful technology and tools (gen 2 thermals, data share, advanced FCS, better armor, etc.) on the battlefield that older soviet tanks cannot use.

[@pogo1140]

T-14

[@user-mu9ke9ex9f]

@@j.b.victor You are under the wrong impression that the army of Saddam fought against the US army. Iraqis didn't fight. Not at all! They abandoned equipment long before battle. I am pretty sure that we will see burning M1s on the fields of Ukraine.

[@briant5685]

@@j.b.victor atleast the world will finally see that these tanks are not as invincible as people like to hype them,russia has alot of anti-tank weapons which will chew them pretty well

[@AdventureNa]

Yuri! Why is the 13mm wrench too big and the 12mm wrench too small?

[@Blau_Max]

The turbine engines - and therefore the fuel consumption - really make the logistics a special kind of nightmare.

[@Dimaz42]

is it better to also send some spare parts that more likely to break along with the tanks shipment, than to send them later on from the US when they eventually break? 🤔

[@Andrea-1998]

Logistics hubs were established in and around Ukraine for a reason, and i doubt spare-parts are the problem here

[@incomingincoming1133]

If the Soviet tanks are anything like old Toyotas, then I'm more concerned for the Abrams.

[@DonaldBiden420]

If you are talking about the long lifespan, that's the least important thing on the battlefield. Tanks are not cars, they have offensive and defensive systems that get obsolete very quickly. You are comparing apples to oranges.

[@incomingincoming1133]

@@DonaldBiden420 I am talking about high tolerance for low maintenance.

[@DonaldBiden420]

@@incomingincoming1133 Like I said, low maintenance is by far the one of the least important characteristics of a COMBAT vehicle. It might require low maintenance, yes, but how is it going to help you on the battlefield? How is it going to help you save the life of the crew and hit the targets?

[@incomingincoming1133]

@@DonaldBiden420 Perhaps you should look into why the simple, easy to produce, easy to maintain Shermans overcame the more sophisticated German Tigers and Leopards. That is not the only case of that.

[@DonaldBiden420]

@@incomingincoming1133 Yeah, but it usually took up to 3 Shermans to destroy 1 Tiger.

[@dunnkruger8825]

Really? Moving from a 2017 Toyota to a 2023 Tesla?! Well, Sir, now you’ve put the difficult transition into perspective on level of complexity!! Good analysis, and I might add, nice suit!

[@kamikadze74]

Somewhere the operator of the FPV drone smiled😅😂 🚀🔥

[@sapphyrus]

I love how Western media is simultaneously portraying Abrams as "the best tank out there" and a logistical nightmare that cannot be handled other than a military with a trillion $ budget.

[@kenlandgren4701]

So what happens if an M1 turbine engine goes down. How is going to be fixed? Who will fix it? Where will it be fixed?

[@idalmkqly866]

as a tank soldier i can say its not so hard to learn how to work with it the only problem that relevant is the fact of maintenance

[@TukikoTroy]

They seem to be doing just fine with the British Challenger 2 which is at least every bit as complicated as the early model M1s they will be getting.

[@qasimmir7117]

Thing is, fuel. Challenger 2 has a much longer driving range than Abrams. She has large fuel tanks and a diesel engine with an APU for stationary operations to not use up diesel when idling. She also comes with two external fuel drums as standard.

[@thesavingtruth8534]

The phrase “they’re [abrams] essentially going home” made it lol

[@Diggnuts]

One would think that the pentagon would by now have learned to not underestimate Ukraine. With the small amount of M1's they are getting, they will manage perfectly fine.

[@jensholm5759]

You dont know that at all. Too much is clever infantery and milisia veterans.

[@Diggnuts]

@@jensholm5759 I have no clue what you want to say with that comment!

[@randallturner9094]

@@Diggnuts I’m skeptical the concerns about Abrams logistics are anything but political posturing to justify not supplying them in quantity. Basically you’re right, ukraine has handled every problem so far amazingly well.

[@jensholm5759]

@@Diggnuts Thats was what I told You. USA gives what they can see and control. They dont underestimate Ukraine, but also dont overestimate the Ukrainian capitabilities. As we have seen so much even in the Iraq war not even left USA and the rest were almost gone in 60 seconds as fast cars. Many plundered everything they could. A random exampel from the Saddam oil for food was egyptian bisquits with 0 neutricians to a starving population. The looked good the few ones few saw- So Im for USA as well as we control every support at least twice. America already is the biggest wasteland in the world. Your healtcare and hospitals cost twice as Ours in Denamrk. And Ours are much better. Americans also are the fattest people in the world because You fill everything with cheep fat and sugar. Thats a Macca and Medina for Your medicine producers and almost better then paradice for the insuline producers. It goes for Your houses build of almost nothing, They not only blow away when its windfy. You spend 1000s of dollars extrqa for cooling them down as well as warming them up. You also are lazy bums or has very bad companies if You need so many hours to produce the same as here. We all has 37 hours a week and 4 weeks of granted and paid vacation. When are children are born we have many weeks off jobs and are almost paid full and added some practical help and often a forst month package. Cars are same thing. Hardly no driver licewnce makes many car incidents. Who pays for them. Big big cars with only one passenger. And we see so many accidents saying too many are sleeping or almost sleeping in their cars too. Thats not freedom. And a funny thing compared to my Denamrk You has to wait up to a year for tax return. What kind of system is that. Its Your money - isnt it.

[@kbram7363]

$$$ cost

[@GnosticAtheist]

If any country is going to manage multiple systems its Ukraine. They might not have the time to master any of the given systems, but I am fairly certain they can plan its effective use within the skill level training and experience allows. The main problem with so many systems is the number of support mechanisms, thus the amount of people it requires.

[@jensholm5759]

Many would hope they will be able to handle their country that well too.

[@GnosticAtheist]

@@jensholm5759 Indeed, but that is their affairs. The point is that every sovereign nation is to deal with their own internal issues. It does look good though, the amount of anti-corruption work they are doing seems legit.

[@jensholm5759]

@@GnosticAtheist Hard times for such a new creation.

[@GnosticAtheist]

​@@jensholm5759 The Garðaríki, that is the original Rus, is Ukraine. Kiev is ancient, and so is Ukraine. That said, Moscow and part of western Russia (Europe) should tecnically be part of Kievs domain, historically speaking.

[@jensholm5759]

@@GnosticAtheist Ihave told the Russian that many times. If and when they collapse again, many of them can start all over again naming themself Gardarike, Kiev Russ or Ruthenia. And it can happen sooner then they think. They might even have Zelinsky as President.

[@Lost-In-Blank]

The Pentagon and White House are worried about Abrams not working out in battle against Russia. Same with the F-16. I think it is totally unwarranted fear. And it just makes the USA look bad, after it has marketed Abrams and the F-16 as being robust, easy to learn, and easy to maintain. The fuel claims are particularly egregious. On of Abrams selling points was that i could run on regular diesel, kerosine, and jet fuel (them all being very similar), then turning around and saying jet fuel only. Same with learning the Abrams, so easy to learn to use with all of its electronic panels and beautiful user interface.

[@jensholm5759]

Its very good to be worried and alert in those matters. Mnay choises has toi´be made. Its also politics. When are we donaring to Ukriaine ín their right ´s to defnd themselves. When do we support they arrack Russia. Thats whats sliding Minsk2. Putin of course is the bad guy, but we shiukd try to be the good ones as long as it makes sense. We have just seen the escalation. The Russians has got reminders in Krasnodar as well as Moskva. No god sign. To many are too desperate.

[@mtsaz100]

these are not cheap. That is what the concern is. The US has complete trust and faith in the 50 yr old abrams when operated by trained crews. Thats the fear.

[@ViperBenchmarks]

How long get it to cold start an Abrams ?

[@zackgreen9248]

amaizing report thank you

[@Lassemalten]

Ukraine will probebly only use Abrams to break through the first lines and then let the other tanks and IFV take care of the rest

[@briant5685]

atleast the world will finally see that these tanks are not as invincible as people like to hype them

[@Lassemalten]

@@briant5685 Nothing is invincible on it's own. But Russians don't understand combined arms, Ukrainians does, which ahve a huge effect on survivability of tanks.

[@briant5685]

@@Lassemalten you''ll soon understand that those tactics only works against militias and isis not russian army

[@Lassemalten]

@@briant5685 It already worked several times in this war. Russia got defeated at Kiev and had to retreat, Russia got defeated at Kharkiv and had to retreat far to be able to stablize the front, and Russian army ahd to retreat in Kherson. 3 large areas they where defeated and had to retreat with haevy casualties. AND now they have hardly any real soldiers left, worse equipment while Ukraine have better equipment many brigades fully trained in western tactics. Something they didn't have before. So nmo your favorite fascist country is gonna get an even bigger defeat now then the previous 3.

[@Lassemalten]

@@briant5685 Also the tactic worked very well against Iraq army, which fight better then the Russians. Which is a suprise to many.

[@phil20_20]

Not too complex 😂

[@ldIezz]

Yuri can fix a diesel engine, But can he fix a turbine engine? no

[@dacoolse]

Most of these problems the leopard 2 and 1a5 to a lesser degree have aswell but somehow they manage those fine it seems. Or send them 500 Bradleys those are easier to maintain.

[@scottp740]

Put them in defensive and support roles to give a very solid fall back point without having to run them through the countryside, chasing them with fuel and repair vehicles.

[@qasimmir7117]

The point is they need to mount an effective attack against the Russians. Defensive work just isn’t good enough.

[@cathoderay305]

People point out the complexity of the Abrams, but forget that it is really no more complex than an attack helicopter or fighter-bomber as far as Ukraine is concerned. You need an aircraft mechanic for the turbine engine instead of a diesel mechanic, but I'm sure that the Ukrainians can be trained to maintain and operate it in short order. Don't underestimate them because they've been using other advanced equipment (e.g., HIMARS) without too much difficulty after a short training phase.

[@BojanPeric-kq9et]

All NATO weapons had few weeks of glorious operations and then we hear next to nothing about it.

[@cathoderay305]

@@BojanPeric-kq9et HIMARS not working? 155mm Artillery not still working against Russian positions? ATGW's not working? I know that drones get a lot of press, but I've seen many recent videos of NATO small arms in use.

[@BojanPeric-kq9et]

@@cathoderay305 According to media, they are were "game changers". If current reports are true, Russian army is still in Ukraine. Thus game hasn't changed. And I remember when Soviet era cruise missiles made Ukrainians cry very much. I don't know about reasons, I guess it was because they weren't intercepted and managed to hit targets. So one could say that 35+ years old missiles work too.

[@cathoderay305]

@@BojanPeric-kq9et Yes, but the Russian ability to manufacture, procure, and/or supply those missiles is their weakness. As to a change in the game, I think we haven't seen them deployed quite yet. We might see tank battles far larger than those of the First Gulf War soon.

[@BojanPeric-kq9et]

@@cathoderay305 why would we we see large tank battles? It is like: "Ukrainians destroyed Russian tanks with ATGMs, but Russian will not try to use ATGM advantage and instead will fight tank vs tank"? That doesn't sound sane, but YMMV.

[@paulthomson2466]

Is it too complex? Not using but the maintenance and repair is!!!

[@jensholm5759]

Nice if You wouold give other solutions. I have none.

[@giorgig777]

Americans did ran, supply and maintain Abrams in few wars. Ukrainians can also learn to do the same.

[@jensholm5759]

@@giorgig777 Of course they can. They can integrate and assimilate a little by little and use them in short distance for fuel as well as maintain.

[@ciaranbrk]

It's not just about the tanks complexity it's more about the logistics needed to support it.

[@achatcueilleur5746]

NATO supplies Russia with much more stretched and complex logistics.

[@lmouraa]

With regard to logistics, there is now a new nightmare that even the American operator still has no experience with: drones, which always sneak up.

[@BravoCheesecake]

God, whoever makes these silly little pieces clearly has no idea what they're talking about. They only think about what the best headline will be. We are talking about a relatively small area of combat. Abrams were literally designed to fight in this kind of terrain, slowly bounding with artillery support. They were never meant to fight in the desert over thousands of kilometers but they still succeeded.

[@jensholm5759]

I agree. The old Abrams makes a lot of sense in that terrain as well. Supply and repair has to be fixed for it as well as it goes. If succesfull Denmark not far away have several garages full of upgraded M1s. Half of them are 99% ready and most of the rest can soon be ready too. We are not a big warrier nation but fx 25 + 25+ is much better then none

[@1maico1]

The front line in Ukraine is 1000km long.

[@BravoCheesecake]

@Flickering Celluloid Yes but the depth of the combat zone is no more than 120km.

[@ianskinner1619]

it's nice of the US to donate attractions to Moscow's tank park.

[@siciidmaxamuud1170]

How can they use

[@cliveengel5744]

That is why the T-72 has an additional 600litre Fuel Drum on the back for extra Range and the T-72 can wade a rive and not only 4’ like the A1

[@user-sp7tc5cw7z]

The Abrahms is 43 year old tank. It has little defense against modern anti-tank weapons like the Kornet missile.

[@TGTexan]

One thing people dont know that when drones spot them they would be instantly hit by artillery or even suiced drones

[@CalBru]

@@TGTexan Only if Russian artillery can coordinate well against mobile targets - that hasn't been the case to date.

[@operator9858]

i hear an abrams can still take a hit to the frontal armor from a kornet still, but only from the front.

[@TGTexan]

@@CalBru well there are instances of it ever heard of the road of life in bakhmut? Hundred of vehicles were destroyed and i dont think vehicles are stationary

[@CalBru]

@nhidzmirtillah3463 General shelling of a single supply road is quite a bit different

[@williambodin5359]

I fully believe that Ukraine will use these tanks to their best, possible effect. I would use them as a threat in being. The Orcs will be watching very closely to see where they are deployed. They will move assets accordingly. Ukraine can make good use of that. And if they DON'T move assets - well, they can use that too. (Zoom, zoom!)

[@winstonchurchill8491]

The Abrams that are being sent are the sep v3 or v4 they are old v2s. A T84 oplot is scarier than an old Abrams

[@williambodin5359]

The Abrams stands on its battlefield record and not what it ought to be on paper.

[@kentriat2426]

@@williambodin5359 your right of course but the fact is the Abrams has never been tested in battle against a pier enemy with anti tank weapons firing further than the Abrams main gun. It’s been attacked by drones and come off worse for west in Yemen where paint balloons were dropped on tank platoons blocking vision ports and sensors leaving the tank blind and open to RPG’s at close range to sides and rears. Saudi Arabia lost over 30* tanks. It’s all a bit mute as the Abrams have yet to be built and delivered with reduced combat systems etc to protect actual ability for a future war.

[@williambodin5359]

@@kentriat2426 How a tank is used and who is doing the using makes all the difference. Ukraine is doing pretty well with refurbished old Soviet era tanks. They can only do better with newer, more capable tanks. A tank, however capable, is only part of a greater overall combat system. When the system works competently, it is an awesome war-winning thing. When it doesn't - well then it doesn't matter how good the individual tank is.

[@BojanPeric-kq9et]

After first hit by ATGM will "smokey Abrams" become viral or it will be "deep fake video made by Kremlin using Chinese AI software"?

[@Zoomerland]

WSJ: a good report, better than some of your recent past reports, thank you

[@ahmedelhassan2901]

I don't know if that is going to be a smart thing or not but would it be useful if part of the tanks are kept in a country near Ukraine for example Poland and those tanks can be taken into pieces so they can be used to replace the parts that are damaged in the tanks that are on the front lines since it is very difficult to predict which part is going to be broken Just a suggestion

[@apersondoingthings5689]

For anyone who wants specifics, these are base M1A1s from before the Gulf war. These are not as robust as the ones the US is pictured with in the gulf war which used depleted uranium inserts. The top speed of the base M1A1 is around 45mph governed, ungoverned crews say the thing can break speeds of 60mph. While not nearly as protected as modern U.S. abrams which are the M1A2 sepv3 and M1A1HC they do provide a massive capability boost to Ukrainian armor

[@PowhiroMus]

I understand the concern but two things stand out, first Poland is equipping with 500 Abrams plus hosting NATO's Ready Reaction Force that includes Abrams and Poland is very helpful to Ukraine. The second point is that in a year or two Ukraine will be a frontline NATO member equipped with modern Western weaponry and very likely equipped with Abrams. The Ukrainians are very smart, very impressive in their adoption of Western weaponry. If they ask for Abrams they want Abrams.

[@kentriat2426]

Poland doesn’t have 500 US tanks. They cancelled most of the order and have gone for South Korean tanks on 200 being made in South Korea in next three years and starting local manufacturing in Poland from 2026 under licence. Poland found they were to expensive to purchase and operational cost and maintenance to high for 500units. Weight issue also a big factor as M1A2 at 68 ton to heavy for their bridges and large culverts in the road infrastructure

[@covfefe1787]

honey Ukraine is the next Vietnam that America will lose. Russia has time and is more invested in Ukraine than the U.S is a world away. China will invade Taiwan in the next 2 years and Ukraine will be Russian oblasts soon. this a ten year war minimum its not going to be over any time soon.

[@BojanPeric-kq9et]

Ukraine in NATO? Leftovers of Ukraine may try to join NATO, but I have no doubt that in such case Putin or whoever would stop playing nice.

[@RealityDysfunction]

@@BojanPeric-kq9et "Putin or whoever would stop playing nice" Really? You'd think he would have quit playing nice like over a year ago when the initial invasion failed rather than letting it drag on making him look like an impotent incompetent on the world stage. Poor old small dicked Putin.

[@realnapster1522]

Ukraine will never join nato.

[@milutinke]

You know how bad the situation with the fuel consumption is when the main selling point of AbramsX is 50% reduction in fuel consumption.

[@mrjackpots1326]

Since Poland is setting up a service center for Abrams tanks that will be used by all European countries that use Abrams tanks, I don't think servicing will be a problem. The first Abrams are arriving in Poland this month and will be the first installment of 116 M1A1 models they have purchased. Poland has already ordered 250 M1A2 models which will be delivered in 2025. The US Army aleady moved 28 M1A2 Abrams tanks to Poland in order to train Polish crews, so repair facilities are already in place. All this information is readily available on the internet. I really expected more from the WSJ. Just a heads up, the future tank power in Europe is going to be Poland, since they have ordered 1000 South Korean Black Panther MBTs most of which will be manufactured in Poland. Along with the Abrams and their domestic tank designs Poland will have a very powerful armored force and the manufacturing base to make more tanks on demand. They are very close allies of Ukraine so things are looking very bad for Russia.

[@KC98561]

Abrams could have gone with a $20k turbo diesel but opted to line GE's pockets with a complicated, fuel hungry and break easily $1.5M jet engine instead. NATO needs to standardize tank engines across the board so they can all be interchanged. They already standardize ammo and there is no reason not to apply that to the engines.

[@morphkogan8627]

Did you misd the part where it can run on Jet fuel, diesel, and gasoline?

[@embreis2257]

let the Germans design the engines needed for these vehicles. they have proven again and again how good they are at it.

[@randallturner9094]

Oh bs, the USA went with the turbine because it delivers almost twice the horsepower per pound that the best German diesel engine does.

[@KC98561]

@@morphkogan8627 No, fuel economy and engine wear is best for kerosene but if you run on diesel, economy and engine wear suffer. And if you run on gasoline the economy and engine wear accelerates making maintenance on an already maintenance heavy engine bad.

[@KC98561]

@@randallturner9094 Oh bs, the German water cooled diesel provides 1500hp just like the Abrams engine so dont try and tell me the Abrams now provides 3000hp at twice the German one.

[@dexterplameras3249]

Australia for many years had to send its M1A1 Engines back to the US for overhaul, putting the tank out of action for 9 months at a time. It took a long time before Australia had a sovereign capability to service the Turbine engine. I imagine Ukraine will have similar issues.

[@randallturner9094]

They have depot level maintenance facilities in Poland, right next door. Australia is just a loooong ways away from everything. (Except Middle-Earth, apparently.) 😛

[@randallturner9094]

@Just Chill You mean orcs, as in derogatory slang for Russian troops? No, not an “orc” reference, dumba$$ - the Lord of the Rings movies were filmed in New Zealand, they still have movie sets of Hobbiton and similar locales you can tour. Hence Australia is right next door to Middle Earth. 🙄

[@mtsaz100]

its called poland--like Randall Turner says. Seriously? you think the US is going to send tanks to ukraine only to have to have major parts sent back to the US for 9 months? Poland just bought hundreds of these tanks and nato has hundreds deployed there already.

[@Bokicazver]

@@randallturner9094 More than 1.000 miles is NOT "next door"...

[@randallturner9094]

@@Bokicazver Poland and Ukraine share a common border. 🙄

[@ericclausen6772]

If you send extra engines they can replace them quickly and they need a lot of parts like air filters and track section's along with every part on the tanks turrets and if they had this support they will do fine

[@Bokicazver]

We need more tank maintenance experts like you...

[@khvojjnickijj]

Ok, get it. We will wait for tanks with fuel and support vehicles. Thanks for info!

[@DutchFR1908]

I wish that the US would send more abrams tanks to ukraine and atackms i know that the US provides the most weapons but ukraine simply needs more and Russia will be weakened a lot so all by all all these costs are a bargain

[@chrism7249]

Europe is sending their stockpiles whilst America offers to sell them replacements 🤣

[@Worldaffairslover]

Ukraine is gonna bleed is dry☠️ Taiwan is more important and the opponent would be a much more advanced military

[@Andrea-1998]

⁠@@chrism7249 Basically everything the states has given has been free, and it’s been going on since 2014. Far earlier and far more then Europe ever has

[@chem826]

Probably also logistics problem. There’re a lot of stuff coming to Ukrainian everyday.

[@jensholm5759]

So far USA cover 50% of the incommings used for warfare. It makes sense when others and several others then Nato send their part too. They do. The distance for Nato Europe is not far as well and we have educrion and tools for repair. I dont think Ukraine need many more too heavy tanks. Too much is too wet too often. So relative light and high mobility everywhere is more important. Thats my oppinion. Manstein defended Bakhmut well but also has to retreat. He was in need of heavy stuff as well.

[@samaipata4756]

Thank you for your in depth explanation of all the countless reasons as to why Abrams tanks are absolutely unusable in any war scenario! Plus I’m truly happy to know that Russian armour will be able to convert this pile of junk into scrap metal in a fraction of a second!😂✌️🇷🇺✌️🇷🇺✌️🇷🇺✌️🇷🇺✌️

[@pittsfieldbeast]

Alright we’ll see. By the way, how are the drone strikes on Moscow, and the impeding civil war with Wagner, Russia freedom of legion and others? And you can’t forget the failure of the war that is in Ukraine. Lost an uncle or brother yet? Maybe a cousin or a couple friends? Don’t worry, there will be many, many more bodies coming home, and it won’t stop until Russia leaves Ukraine.

[@samaipata4756]

@@pittsfieldbeast 😁

[@Luis_Fernando_Pouliot_Madero]

Perform the same with diesel?

[@SingleMost]

so we need to send troops and support vehicles? why even ship implements if they cant run the fleet

[@drex8925]

If Ukraine can manage with patriot AA, Himars, jets, stormshadows, drone warfare Leopards, Challengers ect ect ect I'm sure they can figure out the M1 and its logistics. They are clearly not stupid

[@yellowtunes2756]

The problem is that every new piece of tech complicates logistics a lot

[@nisarullah2969]

Patriot was destroyed. Kornet anti tank missile is the Russian solution.

[@robertolsen348]

@@nisarullah2969 Yup and all himars laucnhers, all jets, all tanks 🤣. Go home ruski, vodka is not here

[@AndriiMalenko]

@@nisarullah2969 that's why patriots fires each night at incoming ruzzian missiles. Get from the tree and educate yourself.

[@tomsmith2587]

Ukrainians have overcome every other obstacle, I'm sure they can handle this one too.

[@briant5685]

atleast the world will finally see that these tanks are not as invincible as people like to hype them

[@vixoaduo7288]

if the pace of the offensive remain like this there won't be issues at all .

[@uuzoo]

I hope I'm wrong, but sending M1 Abrams to Ukraine is a mistake. I thought this way back when it was first initiated. It's going to be a logistical nightmare. I read that the Abrams that are being sent will lack DU armor and some of the advanced technical electronics will not be available. The DU armor will help a lot.

[@Bokicazver]

No, you are NOT wrong...

[@johnnytyler5685]

I just gotta say that the Abrams is BY FAR the best-looking modern tank in existence. The turret in particular is just very pleasing to look at. It's also wide and low, which gives it a very aggressive look. I'm just talking about the basic design and shape of the hull and turret...obviously there's all kinds of stuff hanging off of the turret now...machine guns, smoke launchers, sights, spare parts, etc. But overall, it's such a clean, visually appealing design.

[@Andrea-1998]

It’s definitely over-engineered back in the day, but if it works it works

[@Lost-In-Blank]

I would have preferred the Abrams in Porshe Red, but British Racing Green is okay too. ;)

[@jensholm5759]

@@Andrea-1998 I dont think it is overenginered at all. They asked for a very advanced one, got it and it it of course was very expensive. Compare with the F35 or the many rotten things about the Bradleys and Strykers.

[@ericdpeerik3928]

It looks good, but can it make a cup of tea? 🤔

[@briant5685]

russia armata is the best looking tank

[@rsaunders57]

The US uses tanks is a completely different way than Russian tank doctrine, German tank doctrine, frankly anybody else's tank doctrine. The US uses a combined tank+helicopter tactical approach. That's why it's beneficial to use helicopter fuel. Without the Longbow Apache to work with, Abrams isn't really better than the German Leopard 2 tank. Other than the political cover, there isn't any reason not to just have given them more Leopard 2s.

[@MemekingJag]

Germany doesn't have any. Not in working order anyway. The Bundeswehr was in worse shape than the Russian military turned out to be in, and they've only just gotten the memo that they can't let the US spend their own money for them. I agree the Abrams is likely too complex to be as useful, although they are designed for almost this exact purpose. Stop Russian armour from rushing through Europe, to fight a war overseas and away from design factory repair facilities. I assume they're not as bad as the doctrine mish-mash might make them seem, but there is no escape from Ukraine having to switch over to non-Warsaw pact armour soon.

[@eustab.anas-mann9510]

All these Generals in the KZbin comments...

[@MemekingJag]

@@eustab.anas-mann9510 Or perhaps ex-servicemen and women, maybe with insight on the topic, that don't think idle discussion on current affairs is anything more than an interesting way of discussing the news.

[@Andrea-1998]

They are basically cousin-tanks, the department of defense hesitated to send over the tanks in the first place so i’m guessing it’s the insistence of the Ukrainians that caused it. Probably would indeed be better to get a bunch of the same tanks in bigger numbers then to get several different typa tanks

[@Milo-id9qd]

With the ADS systems of Russia, not sure how effective the Longbow Apache would have been either. Most tanks in Ukraine (for both sides) were knocked out by artillery tbh, not direct weapons fire, and very rarely in tank v tank fighting, which is exactly where the M1 specializes.

[@jeannettejordan7104]

Why wouldn’t they send a large supply of spare parts to replace until the broken part is replaced and returned to the spare parts storage?

[@jonny-b4954]

0:23 To be fair, we're not giving them the version with Chobham armor. That's classified tech and they're only getting the export version. 5:19 That's by far going to be their biggest headache. There's a reason as WW2 dragged on most countries limited things to... 2 tanks for the most part. Many more still operating still, but they primarily had focused on a Heavy tank and a medium tank at that point. The U.S., only medium tanks. Unless you're counting variants like self propelled arty on a Sherman chassis etc.

[@Bokicazver]

Abrams doesn't have Chobham armor! You have the Internet, learn something...

[@darthvirgin7157]

from the beginning (February 2022), the Ukrainians have shown amazing ingenuity and determination in fighting ORKS with outdated russian equipment AND Western equipment provided to them. if they are able to make use AND maintain the M1 Abrams in their own unique way (and i’m definitely sure they will) while fighting the russians, you can bet the DoD would love to learn about it and implement it on their own. that’s the HIDDEN BENEFIT that the DoD sees in providing these weapons, and that most media don’t discuss.

[@BojanPeric-kq9et]

Do you remembers when all kinds of guys used IEDs to fight fatbutts?

[@jjbarajas5341]

That is something I have been thinking about.. the Americans get the benefit of using the weapons "as intended" through Ukraine, but they get to gather data on their weapons' effectiveness in real battle. I'm sure testing provided plenty of data when they designed these things, but there's nothing like the real world to provide real data on the weapons' actual effectiveness in conventional war. I imagine some analyst in the American military must be quite busy pouring over the data the Ukrainians are providing about how the tanks are being used.

[@Bokicazver]

Don't worry about Abrams maintenance! Russians destroyed Leopards BEFORE Ukrainians had a chance to maintain them...

[@TimTams_64]

Its fascinating how Ukraine is basically one of the most advacned modernised armies in the world now, and its happened basically in just the past 3 years, bascially overnight.

[@rogerwilco5918]

Oh that's a bit of a stretch.

[@TimTams_64]

@@rogerwilco5918 is it?, what other eastern european has the artillery, weapons and logistics structure of Ukraine right now. Ukraine has gone from Soviet era technology to NATO standard infrastructure.

[@MrStephenmindo]

yeah, basically

[@rogerwilco5918]

@@TheTrackles ohhh.. "eastern Europe" is "The world" now? Ukraine gets scraps from NATO and all of a sudden they're "one of the most advanced"? If that were even close to being true you wouldn't see the maxim machine gun on the battlefield. And you wouldn't see Ukraine using any soviet junk at all.

[@trevorsutherland5263]

Only in the very spots where NATO gave them stuff. They are using home-made drones and IEDs in other areas. Most of their tanks are still T-64 type. Most of their aircraft are old and have ancient avionics tech.

[@redetermined]

SO GO AND HELP THEM!!!

[@christopherwang4392]

Would upgraded models of the US M60 tanks such as the M60-2000 or M60A3 SLEP also be suitable for Ukraine?

[@BojanPeric-kq9et]

Yes, as target practice for older Russian ATGMs.

[@jed-henrywitkowski6470]

My father has been in logistics for about three decades. As a first-generation European-American and second-generation soldier, he had a MOS that had to do with logistics. With that said, the United States Army is the finest logistics organization in the world, and since World War One has been a significant boon to our friends and a major "thorn in the side" of our foes. While the Ukrainians, like the Brits, Poles, and others in the last war against a European juggernaut, have proven to be brave and competent men, they, like our forebears lack the awesome force of ready-go logistics that we have brought to the table for nearly a century... and will continue to do so into the future!

[@user-tw5rb8iw7x]

it's the gayest comment I've ever seen on youtube

[@Bokicazver]

Running from Afghanistan, you successfully demonstrated how "ORGANIZED" are you...

[@ryanhartnett530]

Logistics will be challenging, but look at the upside potential. Russia has no answer to the Abrams tank.

[@FireSignKennels]

T90 tank 🤔🤷🏿‍♂️

[@duncancreativecorner]

that reminds me of the battle at kursk,we will have rematch!last time it happened someone was just near ukrain ,infact Germany ,there was no problem of supplies,but eventually the factories in ural mountains made everything and USSR won the largest tank battle in human history and now the successor state is given a confirmation battle ,this rematch will be epic!

[@Drealias]

@@FireSignKennels t-90 is modernized t-72

[@vaterunser3879]

lol T90, u just made my day.. this is like Boeing versus hot air balloon

[@FireSignKennels]

@@vaterunser3879 😅🤣 oops

[@bornbenso98]

The biggest struggle to have those thanks as soon as possible

[@abtechnicaltkt4720]

Peace

[@1Techoner1]

Even though the Abrams tanks can prove difficult for Ukrainian soldiers to operate and maintain the ukrainians have surprised us in many ways so I think that this is just one more way that the ukrainians will surprise us by their determination and their rapid adaptability.

[@cliveengel5744]

Yes they are doing so well now with the Leopards and Bradley that they have ceased to move by Amour and have restored to Walking!

[@Bokicazver]

Yeah, I am SUPER "surprised" to realize that they lost ALL LEOPARDS...

[@cliveengel5744]

@@Bokicazver - I beleive they dont want to commit these to the front, Challengers first with the Bedstand on Top 😅🥹😂🥲

[@stillcovalent]

Just build more T-72s

[@hzmt12]

You need factories to build stuff

[@Andrea-1998]

@@hzmt12 And people, Ukraine’s litterally under siege so it’s hard to keep a factory up and to keep people working in them

[@Lost-In-Blank]

We don't have factories to make Russian ammunition.

[@stillcovalent]

@@hzmt12 They should build them in Ukraine, using their experienced engineers

[@hzmt12]

@@stillcovalent takes time buddy, US is expected to produce 2.5k artillery shells every month by 2028, by 2028! While Ukraine right now is using 7k shells a day

[@sjhaji]

WSJ keep it up.