The Future Of The U.S. Tank Force

Drones, anti-tank missiles, and precise artillery have been used to great effect against tanks on both sides during the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The U.S. military relies on the Abrams tank to be a bedrock of power in any potential conflict, but with war entering a new era, are giant tracked behemoths equipped with massive cannons still the cornerstone of land warfare?
Produced by: Brad Howard
Supervising producer: Jeff Morganteen
Graphics by: Alex Wood
Additional footage: The NATO channel
» Subscribe to CNBC: cnb.cx/SubscribeCNBC
» Subscribe to CNBC TV: cnb.cx/SubscribeCNBCtelevision
About CNBC: From 'Wall Street' to 'Main Street' to award winning original documentaries and Reality TV series, CNBC has you covered. Experience special sneak peeks of your favorite shows, exclusive video and more.
Connect with CNBC News Online
Get the latest news: www.cnbc.com/
Follow CNBC on LinkedIn: cnb.cx/LinkedInCNBC
Follow CNBC News on Facebook: cnb.cx/LikeCNBC
Follow CNBC News on Twitter: cnb.cx/FollowCNBC
Follow CNBC News on Instagram: cnb.cx/InstagramCNBC
#CNBC
The Future Of The U.S. Tank Force

[@hughjass1044]

A $20 million tank can be taken out by a $20 thousand RPG but the soldier firing the RPG can be taken out by a $2 bullet, yet no one is saying soldiers are obsolete.

[@redbug3696]

I read a book once called Thirteen Cent Killers! It was a Vietnam war story. If you say bullets now cost 2 dollars , that must be inflation and quality causing the price difference! 😆👍

[@manchesterunitedno7]

Actually, it need to get hit by multiple rounds of RPG to completely incapacitated modern MBTs. As demonstrated in the last Lebanon conflict over a decade ago. When the guerilla have to hit a Merkava with half a dozens of RPGs and LAWs to destroy it.

[@hughjass1044]

@@manchesterunitedno7 OK, OK, I have no idea what anything costs, I was just using a generalization to make a point. There's no need to be so damned literal.

[@hypothalapotamus5293]

People tend to put price tags only on inanimate pieces of equipment, but soldiers are absurdly expensive. Some economists estimate that one western life is worth $10 million in economic productivity. Thus, governments saving money short term by undertraining or under equipping troops are eventually going to pay for it long term. If $200k worth of training, a $200k ATGM, or a $10 million dollar tank that requires special equipment to disable significantly improves the odds of survival (an M1 is not significantly more expensive long term than one human life), it is actually money well spent.

[@actualfactual8737]

All that aside these points from CNBC were literally (most likey) taken from Infographics KZbin channel that they recently uploaded. What lazy reporting and work.

[@joebarron4666]

It was a flawed article, but I'm sure they did their best to make a deadline. For one, the Abrams aren't limited to jet fuel, which is one of their strengths. The Abrams is fuel agnostic, meaning it can run on jet fuel (kerosene), diesel fuel, and gasoline. Something other tanks can't.

[@dianapennepacker6854]

Yeah what the hell even I know this. It is pretty common knowledge. While not ideal it definitely can run on all sorts of crap. Not really sure how much different fuels effect it though especially mechanically.

[@frankweiss3025]

The Abrams isn't the only tank which has an multifuel engine.

[@jtgd]

It has no definite answer to the Gas God question!

[@Jonezingforvidz]

He said it can run on jet fuel, not that it only runs on jet fuel. In the US especially what do Abrams mostly use? JP-8, aka jet fuel.

[@droknron]

@@Jonezingforvidz But the video also said things like: That's why the US wanted Ukraine to have German tanks because they use Diesel. Alluding to the idea that the Abrams cannot use Diesel which is incorrect.

[@Rimasta1]

The tanks obituary was first written in 1919, and it’s been written many other times and every time the voices who said it was obsolete ‘this time’ have always been wrong. Find a better blend of mobility, protection and firepower and you’ll be right. Until then it’ll just evolve with the threat.

[@KP-wu5gy]

Tanks are obsolete.

[@kazedcat]

The Main Battleship will just evolve with the treat it will never be obsolete.

[@chuckbuck5002]

@@KP-wu5gy HOW?

[@KP-wu5gy]

@@chuckbuck5002 they're big and slow.. vulnerable to air attacks as we've seen.. nothing has changed from a tank besides improving it's armor and weapons but it's still the same, a tub on tracks.. Tanks are just a show of force now.. imo. But mobile artillery on the other hand is a different story.

[@scheewheed8285]

@@KP-wu5gy thats why we have anti air to avoid letting that happen

[@shaider1982]

5:07 the Abrams can burn diesel or Kerosene. That's the strength of a gas turbine: it can run on a variety of liquid fuels. If I recall, the Me262 did run of diesel instead of high octane fuels needed by high performace piston engines CNBC should have consulted with Nicholas Moran (the Chieftain) while making this article. Apart from his research on tank history, he was an Abrams tank commander.

[@timmccarthy982]

American 72 ton tank that can use multiple fuels from different fuel trucks in a gas guzzling turbine engine that had short range when it started at 60 tons vs Russian 55 ton tanks that use diesel like every other vehicle in their army and has very good range. "Everything in war is simple but even the simple is difficult" that was said hundreds of years ago and is still true today.

[@yoda5565]

Just hit the three little dots under the video and report it for disinformation. It's the only other tool we have other than comments.

[@loyalhoodini4944]

@@timmccarthy982 tell that to the tanks in Ukraine being abandoned after running out of fuel

[@matfaycal3078]

​@@loyalhoodini4944 😂😂 better no send right?😂😂 Russians trolls have afraid

[@andrewschliewe6392]

@@timmccarthy982 the Abrams has a range of about 300-350 miles, that means it can go all day without a fill up.

[@7891ph]

For the record, the Abrams can run on anything fromm the gasoline to heavy fuel oil. The Pentagon settled on jet fuel across the board for the entire vehicle fleet so they could fuel anything from a Hummve to an attack helicopter from the same fuel truck, at the same time.

[@ee-ef8qr]

Yeah but I bet the engine of the abrams prefers JP8.

[@Kill4Time255]

@@ee-ef8qr aussie abrams use same turbine engine . But they run on diesel instead of jp8.

[@1alexjeremiah]

⁠@@Kill4Time255 JP8 is diesel. JP8 is a higher octane variant of diesel but can be used by any diesel engine including Jets.

[@AaronB99999]

I was on an Abrams for four years and put diesel in it every single day. I don’t know what this video was talking about.

[@stray2748]

You can take a lighter directly to JP-8 and it's VERY difficult to ignite. It is thus less prone to explode than other fuels (gasoline or diesel) when fired at by enemies. It also has additives to help preserve it's storage life. JP-8 was chosen due to these logistic and combat safety advantages.

[@AzizBike]

The Abrams M1 uses a turbine engine and can burn a variety of fuels including regular Diesel. You are mistaken when you mention they cannot.

[@caesarsalad1170]

A 5 second Wikipedia search would have shown him 🤣🤣

[@Holdmy2nuts]

Lol fr. It’s the small things that erodes credibility.

[@andrewschliewe6392]

heck, you can drive one up to the nearest gas station and fill it up on Regular or Premium Unleaded Gasoline

[@squidwardo7074]

@@caesarsalad1170 Literally type "can the abrams run on diesel" and its right there

[@jamesmaduabuchi6100]

The stock market has been a really tough one this past year, but I watched an interview on CNBC where the anchor kept mentioning "KATRINA VANRENSUM ". This prompted me to get in touch with her, and from August 2022 till now we have been working together, and I can now boast of $540,000 in my trading portfolio.

[@dorissteve912]

That's right, getting in touch with a consultant during the pandemic was how I was able to scale through the crazy stock downtrend.

[@jessicamamikina7648]

That's massive. Can you please connect me with your personal broker, I would love to work with her

[@jamesmaduabuchi6100]

Like I said earlier , her name is KATRINA VANRENSUM and you can reach her via her website.

[@jamesmaduabuchi6100]

Just run a search on her name, and you would see all you need.

[@jessicamamikina7648]

Thanks for the info . Found her website and it really impressive

[@dohminkonoha3200]

Not only tanks, Russian suddenly forgets how to use entire military.

[@njnikusha]

Their military is just junk

[@cedriceric9730]

They expected the west to " fear" war oh how wrong they were .......

[@sergey_2328]

Correct. Tanks play very important role on the battlefield. But any weapons can and will be destroyed in case of active usage against capable rival. Tech spec by itself means nothing. Huge amount of good weapon used by trained, motivated, well coordinated and managed military to achieve the right military goals is the only key to success.

[@peterl3417]

Yeah the military is very much like the human body, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts

[@mistervo8185]

Portable RPG: "What's a tank?" Tanks: the 20th Century metal coffin on wheels ☠️

[@JP-qb3ny]

RPG might be able to disable the tank. Now a anti tank guided missile on the other hand, yes will make a hot burning coffin out of that tank.

[@Commievn]

The next frontier of Battlefield will be Drone and Unmanned vehicles. Where the most destructive soldier is behind a computer. A gamer basically.

[@howard6433]

Dude, a tank runs on tracks, not wheels. Watch the video.

[@madensmith7014]

21st*

[@dzcav3]

You have obviously never faced a NATO combined arms mechanized force.

[@chemiejodler2927]

It shows that war is an important interplay of all forces. If one is missing you are already in a bad situation, if you just relay on one unit like tanks with limited infatery or non at all you have basically just moving traps for your own soldiers. Not like in ww2 where tanks or aircrafts can make huge success, this is now very limited from simply to preduce and small (to carry for each soldier) anti tank/aircraft wepeaons which are seen to be ultra effect.

[@Jones922]

American taxpayer: “where’s my taxes going?” US Military:”let me introduce myself”

[@-2u2]

Like they say, "you only need tanks if you want to win"

[@MarkM001]

3:57 Again, some unknown drip under pressure rags on the F-35. The F-35 is a highly capable machine and it continues to improve.

[@tommykaung5882]

He must be Pierre Sprey fan or something.

[@MarkM001]

@@tommykaung5882 Could be.

[@drksideofthewal]

At least awareness of how good the F-35 actually is continues to spread.

[@jacob.m.deem_md]

Another correction in this video is that yes while tanks were used in World War I they did not appear on the battlefield until near the end of the war after the fighting with all but over. Many nations actually thought tanks were a bad idea and did not invest heavily in the technology. One of the many reasons that the German army had a significant advantage in the second world war was that they saw the promise of tanks, and Invested in them despite the treaty of Versailles.

[@Jonezingforvidz]

Eh it’s not really a history video. Not sure it’s a correction, the video just says that they were first used in world war 1 and moves on. But thanks for the background note, what you said is interesting. Got any video recs on ww1 tanks?

[@D0P1C3]

Tanks were used in battle for the first time, by the British, on 15 September 1916 at Flers-Courcelette during the Battle of the Somme. yup fighting was all but over teach me more about history sensei

[@jacob.m.deem_md]

No need to be rude. “Changed warfare” was what I was referring to. If I were writing the piece I would’ve maybe slid the timeline to the more relevant war in terms of tanks “changing warfare.” The reason I said any of it is because their early adoption/development is actually very interesting. I would also suggest reading a little more into just how many tanks were used (versus the scale of forces on both sides) and the British thoughts on them afterwards. At least the tanks that weren’t stuck in the mud.

[@robertagren9360]

The world war one ended with Germany surrendering while winning the war. The Tank had no significant impact.

[@abcdedfg8340]

May want to read abit more before you post on history next time. You should check out plan 1919. It demonstrated some of the essentials of modern armoured warfare. In fact most armies saw the value of tanks, and developed them after the war further. There was alot of interwar tank development, feel free to learn more.

[@lisaroberts8556]

As long as Troops have to hold ground with a hostile enemy. (Tanks will never go out of fashion) It just depends how you want deploy them. And what way you want to apply that force.

[@andrewschliewe6392]

tanks take ground, infantry holds the ground.

[@smokeypuppy417]

Even in a modern battlefield with potent atgm's/ drones/ accurate artillery, and fighter planes with smart munitions i would still have M1a2 SepV2 Abrams as the primary armor juggernaut in a spearhead assault. 3-4 army brigades have trophy active protection system which defeats modern rpg's, thus keeping Abrams tanks fighting. Even without the system on m1 abrmas tanks, I would still rather have an armored brigade with roughly 90 M1 Abrams tanks/ 100 M2 Bradley's fighting a neer peer mechanized fighting force then a light infantry or stroker brigade. The end of the modern tank used in efficient combined arms operations is not here yet.

[@sergey_2328]

Yes, tanks play very important role on the battlefield. And any weapons can and will be destroyed in case of active usage against capable rival. Tech spec by itself means nothing. Huge amount of good weapon used by trained, motivated, well coordinated and managed military to achieve the right military goals is the only key to success.

[@andrewschliewe6392]

but tanks are going to see those light infantry guys way before they will see or hear the tanks.

[@smokeypuppy417]

@@andrewschliewe6392 yes in open fields, small towns, and other large open areas with visibility out to 2000m tanks rule, what scares me is sending in tanks into a massive urban city where at4's/ RPGs can easily get shots at the sides of the tank and from 3-6 stories high hitting the top weak armor of the tank. You have to have infantry in front of the tanks, clearing the enemies on all sides of the tanks before the tanks can move up to support the infantry to take the next set of buildings.

[@andrewschliewe6392]

@@smokeypuppy417 But the US has known since WWII, that tanks and urban areas don't work. That's what the infantry is for.

[@winstonchurchill8491]

The Abrams Active defense system would not stop artillery or a kornet which are the main killers

[@sergey_2328]

Tanks play very important role on the battlefield. Any weapons can and will be destroyed in case of active usage against capable rival. Tech spec by itself means nothing. Huge amount of good weapon used by trained, motivated, well coordinated and managed military to achieve the right military goals is the only key to success.

[@oceanic8424]

Your producers need to fact check your information more thoroughly; the M1's AGT 1500 turbine engine is multifuel and is fully capable of running on standard military diesel fuel. Mistakes such as this are impinging on your credibility.

[@Dennis-nc3vw]

Such a beautiful tank.

[@thunderxgod01]

The Abrams DOES run on diesel, but it does not have a diesel engine. The gas turbine engine is one of the Abrams' greatest features, but also its Achilles Heel. The gas turbine engine has a tremendous power to weight ratio, and it supplies the onboard electric drive of the Abrams with a massive amount of mobility for such a heavy tank. This engine runs on any and all types of liquid fossil fuel. Another tremendous advantage. It's also very, very thirsty for fuel.. so thirsty, in fact, that the US's large-scale combined arms combat docturine is centered around supplying the tanks with fuel, ammo, and parts. The cost and complexity of the supply chain and infrastructure to keep a battalion of these running and supplied is why the US was hesitant to send them to Ukraine in the first place. The Abrams and their crews are massively capable, but they're also high maintenance.

[@gravestone9831]

It's a combination of the T72 series of tanks being obsolete and Russias outdated fighting doctrine

[@JP-qb3ny]

Same with Ukraine also. Their T-72 and T-80s have pretty much been all blown up. And now we’re sending them all our older tanks that aren’t equipped with the latest active and reactive protection systems. They’ll end up being destroyed too.

[@mandarinandthetenrings2201]

Yes, your right and the fact that they have no training.

[@triadwarfare]

@@JP-qb3ny as long as training is sufficient and properly covered by combined arms, Ukraine should be able to push through. Also, tankies are bad

[@winstonchurchill8491]

T72s are not obsolete. They aren’t the best but the are far from obsolete and in the right hands are very capable. A weapon is not obsolete if it is still being used effectively. T72B3M or Czech T72M4CZ with TURMS T are good example of this. Good mobility and fire control

[@squidwardo7074]

It's mostly due to training even their most modern tanks like T-90M which in simulated battles should have about the same performance as a leopard 2a6. You could give an abrams crew a T55 and they would probably do better than most Russians

[@HatlessMuffin]

The Tank Museum in Bovington covered this a lot more better, including point and details missed in most coverage of this topic.

[@FullNelson007]

The A1 Abrams are a multifunction fuel system. Can run off gasoline, diesel or jet fuel...

[@catman9000]

There is also the point that the guy with the RPG will not take the shot against a Abrams even if he got within range of it 😂

[@damianm-nordhorn116]

Germany is actually gonna send 18 Leo2s. Originally 14 (1 company) but we added another 4. Saw a video this morning of more than a dozen 2A6s on a train in Poland, so those might be ours. ..as most k other countries are sending the less advanced 2A4s

[@iiilllii140]

I heard it's now 19. But I could be wrong.

[@ax.f-1256]

And add to that at least 178 Leopard 1 tanks. So with Russia sending in T-54 and T-55 even the leopard 1 will feel like in it's natural environment 😂

[@jonatikoisuva2695]

​@@ax.f-1256 What makes you think Tanks are gonna make a difference in Ukraine. Without Airsupport and Defence systems those tanks are Useless. Russia now has a huge amount of artillery in Ukraine and they control Ukrainian airspace. What do you think happened to all 900 Ukrainian Tanks ? 🤔 It fell into a hole ? 🤷

[@ax.f-1256]

@@jonatikoisuva2695 Russia has no control over Ukrainian airspace. It's 50/50 all the time. That's why Russia is afraid of sending their air force into Ukraine... Or where do you think those 300+ shotdown Russian aircraft have disappeared to ? Same with the Russian tanks. 3,000 were destroyed and 500 captured. So Ukraine only lost about 400 tanks... 900 🇺🇦 destroyed - 500 🇷🇺 captured = just 400 🇺🇦 tanks lost 😂

[@jonatikoisuva2695]

@@ax.f-1256 You should probably stay in your fantasy world where Ghost Of Kiev is kicking ass 🤣

[@UnyieldingWillDiscipline]

I still think tanks will play an important role during a zombie apocalypse in the future.

[@markoconnell804]

The Abrams does run on diesel. Please check resources.

[@jhmcd2]

I would say, make sure the tank can deal with Drones, and second, make sure its top isn't going to pop off like a Jack in the Box.

[@AirSupportIncomimg]

drones are normally dealt by the infantry, you don't send unsupported tanks to attack (unless you're Russia). Secondly, Western tanks have a ammo basket which stores ammo securely, It has blowout panels to ensure that even if the ammo is hit it will just explode without really affecting the crew of the vehicle or even the vehicle itself

[@winstonchurchill8491]

@@AirSupportIncomimg Unless it hits the hull storage. Which is unprotected and would annihilate the tank. This is not good because western tanks have worse hull armor and as shown in Syria, the blow out ammo rack doesn’t matter when the crew is killed or the hull ammo is hit

[@winstonchurchill8491]

Auto loader isn’t the problem. If the tank died the crew don’t really care if the turret is launched. Watch military history and the Chieftains video on it

[@BakuganBrawler211]

There are many things you could do using fuel cell hybrids with a compact backup diesel generator that can power the motors etc.

[@DOLBmonster44]

Russia never met a Chicagoan , America's Spartans!

[@ThunderRod]

First ten seconds "Top of the line tanks" *shows images of T-80s with the weird reactive armor blocks* Yes, very top of the line.

[@WWFanatic0]

T-80s are pretty good tanks, at least the BV, U, and BVM models (which have the ERA). Ukraine has shown the T-80 with upgrades is quite capable. Honestly this war feels like a smart kid (Ukraine) and a dumb kid (Russia) both taking the same math test. The dumb kid fails and everyone concludes the math is impossible or the test is too hard. Meanwhile the smart kid might not have gotten a perfect or even an A, but he passed just fine.

[@winstonchurchill8491]

T80 and it’s upgraded versions are capable tanks. And however “weird” those ERA blocks are they are extremely useful and very common. Simple but effective.

[@squidwardo7074]

The russian tanks are great tanks, the issue is poor training and tactics, mostly with combined arms

[@ThunderRod]

@@squidwardo7074 fair enough

[@navilusevenson]

we need to go full drone mode

[@PhiLLyPhiLLz]

I’m surprised that our tanks aren’t all equipped with throphy systems, seems like a must have on the field.

[@Holdmy2nuts]

They are

[@AirSupportIncomimg]

they are being equipped right now, but costs are limiting and it's still relatively new technology

[@Ling__Ling__]

Because they’re expensive and they increase the weight of the tank and it also takes time.

[@hopeman7717]

I remember reading that the United States is working on several new systems of its own. The currently existing trophy is for temporary use only.

[@JamesOMalley-hb4tf]

​@@Holdmy2nutswrong. We have maybe 250 Abrams with trophy if that.

[@Aaron-hr2fs]

Imagine being in a warzone and the last thing you see before a tank Destroys you is 4:46

[@rustykilt]

Tanks need to work in conjunction with ground and air support and are very relevant in taking ground. Their importance in the triad of offence cannot be easily replaced.

[@perleth8936]

I like how the laptop has the webcam covered by some tape lol

[@ForRealConfused]

That here Abrams can run off a bud light and a happy meal if you need it to!

[@footballprime9661]

Such a beautiful tank

[@GrandMoffGage]

Everything William D. Hartung has contributed in this dialogue has been a very realistic and valuable perspective

[@cz287cj]

every unit has its role to play and they need to complement each other.

[@NealX_Gaming]

Rafael and Leonardo equip the Abrams tank? Hell, get Donatello and Michelangelo helping out and we're good!

[@charleshixon1458]

The problem with explosive reactive armor is that it is not a new concept and many weapons have two HEAT warheads to penetrate. The active protection systems are new and not widely implemented. Classic arms and armor race. 7:01

[@WhatMountain]

"Russias modern tanks" what a joke this article is wildly inaccurate. Those tanks aren't modern.

[@phil20_20]

Bring back the Battleship. 🎉 The real answer to all this is, War is never going out of style for everybody, so you need to be ready for it. War has always been a contest between defensive shielding and offensive weaponry. When one of these two technologies eclipses the other, then the technocrats get busy and develop countermeasures to it. The status quo is rebalanced again until those measures are defeated, and so on. Technology continues to advance.

[@xenuno]

War is profitable, especially as a supplier in a country not directly involved. The defense contractors get wood as do connected politicians when conflicts arise around the world. Lotta potential sales in those conflicts ...

[@pauldannelachica2388]

US TANKS should add a switchblade package on

[@andreslinares6429]

Reactive armour reacts. Great explanation CNBC...

[@donkeyfly43]

0:50 “protection behind it” Generally you want protection *in front* of it.

[@martinalladin8981]

That was drier than the Sahara I've never actually watched flies copulate but I imagine it would be a lot like that

[@newyorkcity76]

Nice speaking from the last gentleman

[@alyssonmanson8912]

that turret is begging for a blast ==krispy critters

[@ssilent8202]

People have been saying tanks are obsolete for literally over a century now.

[@Chris-0703]

The future of every tank is a pile of rubble after being hit with a portable anti-tank rocket

[@zoranmudric7]

Kao i F117

[@robertagren9360]

Mitsubishi rocket launcher. They also made airplanes.

[@peterparadis6788]

I don't know why the myth that Abrams don't run on diesel still persists...

[@n7warhound885]

This isn’t the end of the tank but the end of the doctrine

[@operator9858]

Well put.

[@donaldhyatt2875]

While I was interested in this reporting, the factual errors were too much. I am a former U.S. army armor officer, and the primary tank during my time in service was the very same M1A1 being discussed in the video. The most glaring error was the statement that the M1A1 does not burn diesel fuel. The turbine engine is a multi-fuel engine which can burn almost anything that qualifies as a liquid fuel (virtually all grades of jet fuel, gasoline, white gas, commercial diesel, and military DF2 by recollection). Although I understand from friends who remained on active duty that the Army later switched to a grade of jet fuel, for a number of years the M1A1 fleet in Europe was run on DF2 (military diesel). We had no problems running on DF2 and it simplified supply as all of the diesel engined vehicles and the M1A1 were burning the same fuel, which greatly simplified the supply chain. (Essentially only one fuel, DF2, had to be pushed to ground units in large bulk quantity by trailer transfer of 5000 gallon tankers.) While there are many issues of concern for the maintenance, operation, supply, and tactical use of a weapon system as complex as the M1A1, as long as the Ukrainins can get diesel to the Abrams, they will have sufficient fuel to run.

[@abrahamdozer6273]

The next gen tank better have a big enough power plant to drive an ionizing laser.

[@SuperiorAmericanGuy]

Tanks are vulnerable to long range bombardment artillery vehicles and ambushes from handheld rocket launchers.

[@commonavionics6069]

You heard em, the tank is obsolete again.

[@caiolimacaldas]

They need create a new brand generation of battle tanks.

[@n3xu59988]

A well-placed grenade dropped from a drone can give the tank a bad day. I think we need to revisit the practicality of a tank

[@FEmBoth]

What we need is the Tumbler (for anyone that saw Christopher Nolan "Dark Knight Trilogy" .

[@deftones8717]

7:04 Rafael and Leonardo teamed up you say? I wasn’t aware that the ninja turtles were in the tank business these days.. good sh!t… what’s Mikey and Donatello up to?

[@sammurphy3343]

Tanks only look obsolete in Ukraine because Russian tank crews Incorrectly use them. Video after video you can see a Russian tank convoy ambushed as they enter hostile area. While sometimes they have a majority of the time they roll in with no infantry support. That's their most costly mistake.

[@okinawanah3463]

just put a mini Iron Dome with quad firing .50 cal on the turret including smoke/flares

[@robertagren9360]

Satellite with uranium bullets.

[@buryitdeep]

The music could be a bit louder

[@somnathde8680]

Good subject.

[@clineshaunt]

This is just evolution in warfare. WW2 showed armored forces need air defense. The war in Ukraine and Nagorno-Karabakh showed now you not only need air cover, but also anti drone defenses.

[@dexterplameras3249]

The M1 is multifuel and has better fuel economy using diesel. The reason the US armed forces uses JP8 (jet fuel) in its M1 (as well as other ground vehicles) is because of a decision by US military made to simplify the logistics chain. Australian M1s use diesel because it is more plentiful in Australia compared to JP-8. The Ukrainians should use what is practical.

[@andrewschliewe6392]

which was a stupid move imo. only aviation units used JP-8 and all of those are now Corps assets. It wasn't an issue for 40+ Years of the Cold War.

[@dexterplameras3249]

@@andrewschliewe6392 Yes and the US military is the single largest institutional consumer of petroleum in the world 4.6 Billion gallons of fuel per year. Logistics gets complicated particularly when hauling and storing fuel in a war zone. 80% of all cargo transported by the US military is fuel.

[@andrewschliewe6392]

@@dexterplameras3249 Not really. most of the tankers would go to Iraq and Afghanistan with diesel with some with jp-8. It take a lot more oil to come up with jp-8 than it is for diesel.

[@dexterplameras3249]

@@andrewschliewe6392 Thats contrary to any of the vast open material put out by the news agencies and military. Do you have any citable sources or do we trust your word for it?

[@squidwardo7074]

Are you sure it has better fuel economy with diesel? Everywhere I've read says that it's more optimized for jet fuel. So does that mean if it was optimized for diesel it would run better than being optimized for jet fuel?

[@cmdr1911]

The heavy tank like the Abrams, over 70 ton, will be replaced with a new model and will be smaller. Active protection will provide more protection with less armor. Tanks are also not recommended to be used on their own. The tank is far from done, but this generation of T-90 and M1 is likely coming to a close.

[@andrewschliewe6392]

The abrams X project is a joke.

[@thejetkeeper]

​@@andrewschliewe6392 it's a technology demonstrator lol

[@earthman7088]

It will most likely go in a circle just like most forces of history have. A smaller more maneuverable tank will replace the heavy MBTs, the world will develop AT to deal with these smaller tanks and eventually heavier tanks will be developed to counter these AT assets.

[@cannon3267]

new model might even have scalable armor. a 25-30 ton base unit, air liftable, with add on armor plates, layer on layer, to reach needed level of protection for the given mission. that means levels can be taken off if not needed, or to reduce weight to cross bridges. less weight means faster top speed and better fuel economy and less road damage. air lift a 25 ton tank to the zone, add on 20 tons of seperatly delivered armor to do an infantry assualt mission, then another 15 tons and reactive armor to face expected tanks in the defence. take off all the armor to road march 50 miles to the next area of operation. flexability and options are a good thing.

[@andrewschliewe6392]

@@cannon3267 All what you described a tank has to be able to switch from one to another in a heartbeat. There's no time to take armor off to road march nor coming out of road march to go directly into a defensive position, again no time for maintenance to mount additional armor. Also when you take all that armor off, the tank will be unstable when the 120mm fires.

[@Alsayid]

So they're going to do a SEP4 now? I thought they were going to go from M1A2 SEP3 to M1A3 next.

[@T_81535]

Sepv4 will be the final upgrade before a new tank is chosen. It will probably utilize AI and will definitely have APS and drone defeating features

[@doer105]

"Does not run on diesel". Uhhhmmm... more research, please?

[@Harris.S]

Enough of wars , no more war please

[@robertagren9360]

Start a business and employ otherwise the army enlist employees.

[@grandmaster137]

Drones are simply better, faster and much cheaper doing what tanks can do and they can be deployed or recalled easily. Also, drone has situational and combat awareness that tanks lack who are basically blind. Drones have a 360 degree view of the battlefield. Drones are very cheap to maintain, unlike tanks that costs tens of millions of dollars to buy and maintain. Tanks get stuck in mud, are very slow, very noisy and very heavy and a very large target - practically rolling coffins. They also need large supply lines and takes weeks or months to deploy over long distances. It takes a day at most to train a drone operator, while it takes several months to train tank crews. When the Russians brought down a US drone, no American lives were lost, but a tank that is blown up, you lose 3-4 tank crews. Tanks are jurassic.

[@gorejan1]

Drones can not hold the ground though

[@MarkM001]

I think systems to counter drones will be developed quickly.

[@madensmith7014]

Machine guns and autocannons would like to greet your infantry with a warm welcome

[@abcdedfg8340]

@@MarkM001 They already have been developed, decades ago. Its called anti-aircraft systems. But they are definitely useful for scouting and overwatch, which used to be done by manned planes.

[@MarkM001]

@@abcdedfg8340 "Its called anti-aircraft systems." Those are under continuous development and that's the development I was considering when I wrote the comment. I think there's a hole, maybe more than one; in forward deployable anti-aircraft systems currently in use.

[@Kazuya720]

3:43 Hold my Rheinmetal KF-51 Panther tank :D

[@winstonchurchill8491]

Lmao prototype tank cringe. Kf51 and Armata. Only good prototype is Maus

[@rickjames18]

Tanks are far from obsolete and Ukraine should have made that clear. Trophy is a good step. The focus should also be on increasing weapons manufacturing, if the war has taught us anything it is how inadequate current production is and how fast stocks of munitions would be used up in a full conventional war. If the US truly plans to back Taiwan they need to increase stocks by the thousands not hundreds.

[@andrewschliewe6392]

Problem is Russia hasn't deployed tanks the way they should be and their older doctrine dictated. That's why Ukraine is knocking so many of them out.

[@rickjames18]

@@andrewschliewe6392 Yeah, that is certainly part of the problem. Driving into a defended city with not enough infantry to cover the tanks is a sure way to lose them.

[@peterl3417]

@@rickjames18 Grozny 2.0 I’d laugh if it weren’t so depressing to laugh at dead teenagers sent to die in Chechnya, a war they had way less knowledge of and ability to refuse in

[@rickjames18]

@@peterl3417 Yeah, that was humiliating and sad. Then a traitor appeared.

[@squidwardo7074]

@@rickjames18 Driving into a city with a tank at all is a bad idea lol. Send the Bmps or btrs instead

[@stuglenn1112]

Tanks are like battleships obsolete.

[@jarynn8156]

Eh, not really. Most military experts worth their salt still see a role for tanks. They are a force multiplier. But the days of tank vs tank battles have been over for a very long time. They are best used in conjunction with other hardware.

[@Fred-eg9sx]

The SEPv4 is already in service 2-12 Cav Regiment since Jan 2023

[@the_dudeguy]

William Hartung comparing F-35 to the LCS.. lol

[@robertcrews8659]

Which way are they coming?

[@daniellowry660]

Comparing the Abraham's X to both the Litoral Combat Ship and F 35 is extremely confusing given just how different those two programs actually ended up

[@operator9858]

They were both debacles of epic proportion yo...

[@daniellowry660]

@@operator9858 no one has over 800 units in current operation

[@jarynn8156]

@@operator9858 The litoral combat ship was ultimately deemed a failure. The F-35 has redefined what air combat will look like going forward and is being sought after by virtually every country in the world with decent relations with the USA.

[@operator9858]

@@jarynn8156 the learning curve to get there was brutal and when russia starts selling $25-30 million su75's even poor countries will be able to afford stealth fleets...

[@jarynn8156]

@@operator9858 Russian stealth technology is well documented to be quite far behind the US's. As for the program's future success.. Even ignoring the whole Ukraine war thing that has left Russia in shambles, it will be an uphill battle. India seems hesitant to buy any furhter into the Russian weapons ecosystem. And few other major arms importers would really have the money to spend on a stealth fighter when their main targets are local resistance that lack the means of shooting even an old traditional fighter out of the sky. Countries with the money to spend on stealth jets are probably still far more likely to buy from the USA. Most experts expect the S-75 to never go anywhere near the F-35's total number of sales.

[@MrKillroy26]

As some have stated already, the abrams can run on multiple types of fuel. Secondly, Russia doesnt understand that throwing a tank on the battlefield isnt going to change anything cause a tank is a sitting coffin without support from other units. Its a force multiplier but by its lonesome, its just a big target.

[@chemiejodler2927]

5:07 The Abraham is the only tank who can make a war winning impact. Because of one simple reason. The Abraham is the only battle tank which can be delivered in super high quantities and can be produced in high quantities. You can sent 100-200 Leos but will it change the war? Yeah, for a short time you can make some nice breakthroughs at spific fights but you willl lose some tanks there and this advantage will then stop. But you can sent 2-4k Abrahams. Like this you can always have the advantage. It is necessary that Ukraine get logistic and training for Abraham if this war will go on longer than this year.

[@JP-qb3ny]

Super high quantities? Are you sure about that? Military brass just had meeting with congress saying they don’t have the capability currently to produce large numbers of Abrams tanks. It’s going to take a couple years and hundreds of billions of dollars before they can ramp it up.

[@MarkM001]

Yes! "super high quantities". That's how the west wins wars. And not just with tanks, with all that is needed whatever that might be. We are not doing this with the war in Ukraine. I'm trying to assume there is a good reason but the longer this goes on the harder it is for me to make the assumption.

[@winstonchurchill8491]

It would literally take years and the west would have to make replacements to send 4000 Abrams. Ukraine wouldn’t be able to operate them because Abrams do not get small pieces repaired. They just replace the entire module Like if a gasket broke they just replace the whole engine

[@chemiejodler2927]

@@winstonchurchill8491 wrong, the usa is able to delivere even bigger numbers than 4k abrams, they will prob need 2 years to deliver the last one. The repair is yet not that easy possible but it is easy to build in one year station to do this. This is why they need the abrams now if the war goes more than a year so they can build up everhing and train. Russia will anyways run out of tanks in one year to one and a half years. If ukrain can make it until then russia will lose.

[@winstonchurchill8491]

@@chemiejodler2927 America is not going no give that many tanks. And Ukraine literally can’t maintain them you can’t just throw tanks at a problem to fix it. Russia will not run out of tanks they have lost 1800 out of the 12000. And given they are much more conservative about their uses with them after the beginning

[@edmondsmith4259]

To call the MPF vehicle a "light tank" is, unfortunately, misleading. As sensational as it looks, both the U.S. Army (buyer) and General General Dynamics Land Systems (seller) do not call, and urge not to call, the MPF (Mobile Protective Firepower) vehicle a "light tank" as that is not it's design nor intended use.

[@ahriboy]

It is based on ASCOD platform, which also designed the Sabrah Light Tank the Philippines is using

[@diddykong7354]

lets not forget with improving automated tech the crew count will decrease to only 2 in a couple decades and eventually 1 or 0 and even more armor can defenses can be added with less space needed for a human to fit.

[@andrewschliewe6392]

and when the tank throws track, what then? or when it needs to refuel and rearm?

[@diddykong7354]

@@andrewschliewe6392 im pretty sure to re arm and refuel it has to head back to base...

[@galaxygamer8649]

bro said top of the line tank

[@captainamerica3814]

It seems like accurate artillery fire would be the tanks worst nightmare. Not much armor on the top.

[@operator9858]

Especially in the age of guided munitions...

[@ericmason349]

The Abrams can sip diesel, gasoline, or marine diesel for fuel, but it is optimized to run on jet fuel. I hope the non-Abrams tanks get to Ukraine sooner than later. 6:58 Couldn't an active protective system be deadly for friendly infantry near the tank?

[@edmondsmith4259]

That has always been a concern for the developers and the risks continue to be mitigated in extensive testing.

[@andrewschliewe6392]

I wouldn't say it is optimized to run on jet fuel.

[@winstonchurchill8491]

Yes APS could hurt infantry

[@ShadeRaven222]

In thumbnail... Are those cardboard boxes taped on the front?

[@ammarmangala9814]

Those are not state of the art tanks but 1970's tanks (T-72). state of the art tanks are the T-14 @ T-90A/T-90MS. it's really not that hard to do some researching.

[@dreb222]

Bro, those T-90Ms, have been getting decimated on the battlefield. As far as the T-14 armadas, they are better but are still being reformed, but haven’t been fully implemented yet because there is too few.

[@ammarmangala9814]

@@dreb222 Decimated? lol. they havent even been massively deployed on the battlefield. you're talking about the T-72, T-72B3 & T-80BV

[@dreb222]

@@ammarmangala9814 They can’t be massively deployed, the Russian Federation only has a small amount. About a dozen T14s in fact. As far as T90s of all variants, Russia only has around 500 to 600, 100 of which happen to be the T90M variant, and as of late February of 2023, this year, Ukraine has destroyed around 60 with verified proof, and has captured about that many of various T90s. Most of which were acquired on the bull run offensive in Kharkiv. With what they have deployed, and with that loss ratio, simple math exposes the truth, that the T90 tank of all variants so far have underperformed in many ways and that’s not even against first rate US and allied tanks…

[@dreb222]

@@ammarmangala9814 Yet another example of a T90M in flames from 24 to 48 hours ago. But I digress. kzbin.info/www/bejne/lWmzfHSXm9-KZ8U

[@T_81535]

The modular designed components in the Abrams makes it very easy for modernization

[@Tounushi]

The Abrams-X as a vehicle is amusing to me as "top of the line" since the core concept of a tank with an unmanned turret was tested in the 80s with the TTB. There the turret was much narrower, though. The only production tank to use the concept of an unmanned turret and the crew all in the same armored tub is the Russian T-14 Armata, which itself is going nowhere.

[@andrewschliewe6392]

that tank is a joke. It seems the US wants tanks to nothing more than infantry support.

[@JB-pu8ik]

I'd say calling the T-14 a "production" tank is a stretch. It's more of a technology demonstrator mated to a PR stunt at this point.

[@Tounushi]

@@JB-pu8ik Well, it was "selected" for production. Much as AN-94 was selected for production, but that doesn't make it widespread either.

[@ee-ef8qr]

To be fair the Russian arms industry is having trouble producing their old technology .

[@johnsmeith3913]

@@Tounushi my mountain bike has more offensive power than the t-14. The Russian tank force is a joke, and the t-14 can’t even drive itself forward without a tow most of the time. I’d take a Sherman in a 1-1 with the T-14

[@jamesscott2894]

5:05 "Abrams doesn't run on diesel...." That's patently false. The Abrams DOES in fact run on diesel. You *CAN* fill it up with jet fuel... or diesel... or gasoline... or anything that's a flammable liquid really... the turbine engine doesn't actually require jet fuel, and in fact th US Army has a standard fuel for all it's ground vehicles from Abrams tanks to Bradley IFVs to the gazillions of HMMWVs and FMTV and HEMMT trucks, they all run on the same JP8... (or in other words, the same fuels Ukraine puts in T-64/72/80s and Leopards 2, Chally 2, will work just fine in the Abrams as well without any needed modifications...)

[@artyparty_av]

Tanks are "obsolete" until you need to advance

[@aaront3749]

The Abrams turbine engine is optimized for Jet fuel, it can run on gasoline AND diesel fuels… Not sure why no one knows this.

[@majtom5421]

There are plenty of Army & Marine ex-tankers who would go as a contractor from a non US contractor.

[@samuelngugi2539]

This is not accurate, one tank was being attacked by 20 ATGMs, in sober real war environment, where supplies are critical that cannot happen, that is why they run out of ATGMs so quickly because they were kind of wasting them. So tanks are still very important and indispensable.

[@peterl3417]

What? BS, I need a link lol

[@redhalogaming7581]

the Abrams can use many different types of fuels

[@mikeck4609]

Just because an army that doesn’t know how to properly use a weapon loses them, doesn’t mean it’s a problem with the weapon. Aircraft can be shot down left and right by SAMS; yet when used properly, can destroy entire air defense systems and targets efficiently

[@edan2629]

let me summarize it for you Useless & Obsolete. this is the era of drone fight

[@adamanderson3042]

So obviously this is mainstream media trying to understand military matters so I won't hold you to a high standard but generally the attack helicopter has only been seen as a foe of the tank when it comes to Apache arguably maybe Lynx or some other European attack helicopter that has the battle management systems and optical situational awareness of the apache combined with long-range ATGMs onboard.

[@winstonchurchill8491]

*Tunguska

[@leonh619]

lol, dude said "ABLE TO TRANSVERSE TERRAIN"