The Harsh Truth about Abrams in Ukraine

[@RedEffectChannel]

See through media bias in coverage of international politics. Try Ground News today and get 40% off your subscription: ground.news/redeffect

[@fernandoi3389]

The chieftain is making a series of videos in the OPFOR training center , and they are now including drones recon and mass drone strikes. War in Ukraine changed the game a lot

[@ziepex7009]

get that money king

[@sigma-sigma1]

@Redeffectchannel Great, unbiased, factual analysis very rarely seen from western military observer, keep it up and kudos to your effort.

[@bb3683]

Good vid as always, what about Leo 2 series and wether or not tanks lose relevancy in coming wars? (I know it's a cringe question but still curious to hear your thoughts.)

[@y.m.9277]

Aside from politics, what would you expect if the Ukrainians have received Merkava tanks instead of Leopards and Abrams? Would it perform better in a infantry+trench+drone warfare where tank confrontation is a secondary need? Can you make a video on that?

[@christopherchartier3017]

This video sounds less like “a harsh truth about Abrams in Ukraine” and more like “a harsh truth about tanks in Ukraine”

[@slayerofdoom5146]

Ok ok fanboy 😅.

[@geiers6013]

True, but still he is right. Every decent expert comes to the same conclusion.

[@rael5469]

Quite correct. Nothing is immune from destruction. The ONLY thing that matters is .....did it earn it's keep on the battlefield?

[@Bdog40]

Paraphrasing RedEffect again “If shit gets used shit will get destroyed”

[@krunchie101]

Every modern tank today is an easy kill with a cheap drone armed with explosives. Going to be interesting to see what next gen defensive packages will be slapped on besides cope cages.

[@mr.jancok4413]

That's why I don't get about the hype when abrams first arrive, because people expecting it would be like the operation desert storm and then being surprised and in denial when mutiple abrams got taken out, this isn't desert storm or invasion of iraq, this is more like the battle of the bulge where the enemy have larger number of personnel and equipment while you are short on everything and have very few air support to relied on, that is what Ukraine war looks like

[@subjectc7505]

Due to Russia under performance and sticking to Soviet doctrine, Ukraine and NafO think due to the Abrams history of going against no threats but only itself, Ukraine would do the same. But Russia has shown they're capable of beating whatever is sent even if it means losing more men.

[@djm7323]

Russians have a lower number of soldiers on the field than Ukrain.

[@mr.jancok4413]

@subjectc7505 Russia always been like that, struggle on the start but slowly picking up the pace as the time goes, if given enough time they will beat you up

[@kg7162]

​@@subjectc7505that the russian way of life doing stupid stuff in the begiging and thinking you are right but learning from mistake and in a large part harsh mistake their even a word in russian but can't remember

[@lordsheogorath3377]

​@@subjectc7505 Oh dang what is historically a death trap is a death trap. Tanks are reuseable coffins with guns, you cannot convince me otherwise. What makes the US army good is logistics, information superiority, overwhelming air power, and tactical cohesion. You can't just send in 30 tanks and expect US army levels of performance. Propaganda will come from both sides, but we've seen this poor performance before from literally every non-NATO country the tank gets exported to. Some like the Saudis do not know how to use it and others like Ukraine do not have the systems in place to use it even if they did.

[@Disconnect350]

The problem here is that people expected tanks to be these unstoppable forces of nature but in the end they're just there to support ground troops. Not much a tank can do against mines, atgm's, artillery, MLRS, jets/helicopters, ambushes, etc.

[@evildragon1774]

Those people are easily got influenced by propaganda thats why. In reality these tanks are as good as most any modern tank

[@BlackWolf9988]

Especially when german instructors before the counter offensive told ukrainians tankers to just drive "around" the minefields. To bad that doesn't work when the whole frontline is a minefield.

[@death_parade]

@@evildragon1774 I find Brits to be particularly vulnerable to propaganda. I've had multiple of them over the years claim that their 225 strong force of Challenger 2s is sufficient to fight the 4350 Indian T-90 and T-72. Because they think Chally2's tech superiority (which I agree with) is enough to supplant such a hopeless numbers advantage (which I don't agree with). I try telling them that its not just the tanks that fight, and if we talk about the entire Army, a couple of Divisions is all UK can field while India can field bit more than 45 Divisions. I only ever remember one Brit back down after hearing that. smh. Propaganda really gets to people.

[@graveperil2169]

@@death_parade the numbers have got to the point when you questions if its worth anything better to scrap it and pile the money into the navy and the airforce we still are an Island

[@agravemisunderstanding9668]

​@@death_paradeI think you are forgetting how much better the UK air force is, India was recently still fielding MIG21s and in the air tech superiority will beat large numbers almost ever time. And if Britain could achieve air superiority their victory would be pretty much assured

[@Niitroxyde]

"Improvise, adapt, overcome." So true, and the people making fun of "cope cages" should get a reminder of that. Even Ukrainians are using them on their Abrams.

[@totallynotpotato9268]

The difference being that the Russians bolted on cope cages to "stop" Javelins, which is stupid. The Ukrainians started using them because of drones.

[@Niitroxyde]

@@totallynotpotato9268 There are never been any indication that they did it to "stop Javelins", that's an internet misinformation. These cages dated back to Syria and were made to counter or at least minimize the threat of drones and rockets fired from high buildings. The whole Javelin thing is something some NAFO guys made up to mock Russians. As if Russians didn't know that Javelin is a tandem warhead and that a simple slat armor scheme wouldn't work against it. We're talking about the nation that has the most experience in tank design and warfare and by far, they're not stupid, they know all this.

[@Stench512]

@@totallynotpotato9268When Russia does it it’s dumb, and for stupid reasons. When Ukraine does it it’s smart and for good reasons. Are you serious right now or just trolling?

[@Evirthewarrior]

The "cope cages" were originally put on to stop ATGMs with top attack. Not to stop drones, if it were to stop drone instead of having large pieces of angle iron welded onto the top to resemble slat armor, they would have had fencing or netting. Nice try though, thanks for not understanding what was happening and then later trying to pretend it was for drones all along.

[@moritamikamikara3879]

I'm still going to make fun of them. Not because cope cages are a bad idea, but because the Russians made bad cope cages.

[@chost-059]

news flash, modern tanks still have the same roof protection as they did back in the 1940's

[@Jmtz556]

Don’t tell lazerpig he might go nuts and call you a Putin propagandist, ruZZian both etc😂😂

[@dominuslogik484]

Depends on the tank but yeah at best the roof armor went from on average 20mm to 30mm on average so basically nothing.

[@gizzmo89]

Tell that to the Swedish strv122 😌..

[@u2beuser714]

​@@Jmtz556 Let the 41% community cope all they want. Their lifespans are shorter than the abrams in ukraine

[@u2beuser714]

​@@Jmtz556 Let him cope the community lazerpig belongs to have a shorter lifespan than the abrams in ukraine

[@stooge389]

I DISTINCTLY remember the US saying it wasn't the right tank for the job, and nobody listening.

[@StruggleGun]

Yeah, and then the media went out and claimed it was a game changer and drowned out the cautious words of our military experts.

[@sogerc1]

And the donation of these tanks were largely symbolic to encourage others.

[@donaldduck830]

@@sogerc1 Yeah, how many did the USA send? Was it a dozen or was it two?

[@tomcat4195]

@@donaldduck830 It was 31 tanks

[@JDCheng]

@@donaldduck830 More Abrams than UK's Challenger 2. But fewer than Leopard 2 or Leopard 1.

[@lordyoda607]

You send 31 of any tank and it's not going to do much.

[@avex3903]

cope harder 😂

[@shad0wpk02]

@@avex3903it’s not a cope, it’s literally a fact. Send little tanks they’re not gonna do well.

[@tc5328]

@@avex3903if there is one thing that this war has shown, it’s that all tanks regardless of make and model are extremely vulnerable to drones.

[@aleph.nought]

@@avex3903 Westoid coping

[@Raussl]

@@tc5328 and large minefields or man portable anti tank systems.

[@JustPeasant]

Sad truth: ANY tank is just as vulnerable to the top-attack ammunition as the non-armoured, everyday vehicle (car/truck).

[@OcelotSF]

no😂 you're stoopid

[@geiers6013]

No, non armored vehicles are far more vulnerable. Even thin armor is much better than nothing and Nato tanks at least protect their crew pretty good.

[@NahIdWin995]

@@geiers6013 "Protect their crew pretty good"🤣

[@Floh-yf7yz]

​@@NahIdWin995Yes, their protection is way better than the russian crap. Why are you laughing at a fact. Look at a video of a m1, leopard etc. and compare it to a similar hit on a russian tank.

[@sigmamale756]

​@@geiers6013it is a trade off, smaller target or being a bigger target. Missing 2-3 meter is enough to make the drone useless (He shell will only make the leo 2a4 blow up becus it kinda a death trap like the t72a)

[@boblarry5524]

Coming from an Abrams fan boy, I think that both western and eastern tank design are great. But they are both getting shafted by the new drone warfare.

[@dawnofwar4302]

Both the Russians and Ukrainians have damn devolved into a trench war.

[@2lbsTrigrPull]

Everything will get shafted if the enemey has the right counter hardware. In Ukraine two actual armies are fighting with modern equipment. Anything will get wrecked, even when F-16s are showing up.

[@dawnofwar4302]

@@boblarry5524 And here we go again, KZbin keeps deleting my comments. My previous comment was "The Ukrainian war has essentially devolved into trench warfare"

[@no-bodymr6419]

⁠@@2lbsTrigrPullyeah, the Russo-Ukraine war is what a modern conventional war look like, not those wars in Middle East.

[@T33K3SS3LCH3N]

@@no-bodymr6419 It's what a modern conventional war THAT GROUND TO A HALT looks like. Even with Russia's staggering incompetence and deficits, they came close to defeating Ukraine in the initial push in February 2022. That's the power that tanks still have in mobile warfare. Drones are powerful, but most of their power in Ukraine comes from being more economical and preserving the lives of their pilots. When a quick and decisive push comes before the lines have been fixed, then drones lose much of their benefit while tanks become extremely strong. Ultimately, all major exchanges of territory in this war involved tanks right at the front line. Russia made most of its gains right in the opening stages, when they could still advance dozens of kilometers per day. Ukraine's most successful counter-offensive at Kharkiv and Kherson was likewise swift and spearheaded by armor.

[@tovarish_kommandir]

so when a t-90 is destroyed t-90 is bad , when an abrams is destroyed all tanks are bad ( im not talking about the creator here )

[@pooferfish1227]

I guess they're saying that Russians make fun of the few downgraded Abrams that were destroyed, while over 2,000 Russian tanks met horrible fates, with videos out there.(And btw more t90s were destroyed than any western tank in ukraine.)

[@tovarish_kommandir]

@@pooferfish1227 the reason behind 2k is mostly at the start, they were using ww2 tactics spam tanks and pray, but yrs they did take the l at the start, but nowadays no... And the reason why more t-90s were destroyed because they weren't scared to use em unlike the abhrams and most of the kia for t+90 we're at the start, nowwads there's barely any casualtie for t+90

[@hongockimquang1994]

I would say it's simply ill-prepared. If there're weapons meant to destroy your tanks, you must have your tanks equipped with any sort of countermeasures to them as best as you can, it's just common sense. My God! What are they thinking!? And this even happened AFTER what we all saw Ukr drones had done to Russian tanks. To the Ukr and with their dire situation they're in right now, the loss of 1 tanks can be counted as at least 2~3 tanks.

[@tovarish_kommandir]

@@hongockimquang1994 excatly , the russians can afford losses, ukraine cant , for example the KRUST attack, whats the damn point?? sure they didnt win , but whats the point??? they just wasted valuable resources on a place with no militray value, and theyll loose it soon becuz its russian land , they will send in some of their 2million reserves in moscow, theyll take it with no trouble... i saw a comment " The russains are winning the war campain and the ukraines are winning the pr campain"

[@bustertn2014]

@@tovarish_kommandir They also don't bring the t90's up very far...

[@cybernetic_crocodile8462]

Abrams performed about as well as most other tanks. Which is not suprising, it isn't some wonder weapon, it is just a solid vechicle. Not to mention, that Ukraine got only like 30 of them. How the hell were they supposed to make any big impact? Abrams isn't bad, but it is in many parts outdated as design just as the Russian tanks are.

[@fuckoff4705]

the last sentence is just pure cope

[@nekko5778]

No, it performed a lot worse. It costs more than any Russian tank, has worse cross-country performance, you can't add nearly as much drone protection to it as on Russian/Soviet tanks because it's simply too heavy. This means that the protection it does have is completely and utterly useless, it's a bigger target and it provides 0 firepower because IT CAME WITH NO HE SHELLS FOR WHATEVER GODFORSAKEN REASON which are by far the most important type of weapon for tanks in Ukraine since they barely engage other tanks and even if they engage other vehicles Russian tanks tend to use their 5+km range barrel-fired ATGMs for that purpose. The only and ONLY advantage of Abrams compared to Russian tanks is its reverse speed, that's literally it. And don't come to me with survivability when your tank is more likely to get destroyed in the first place because of the reasons mentioned above, when everything inside will still be annihilated when it's hit by a big missile like Kornet, blowout panels or not, and when the vast majority of catastrophic explosions in Soviet tanks happened to already abandoned tanks. And when we take SEPv3, the US doesn't even have a lot of them.

[@kieffer9705]

Abrams has also an outdated design even their modern variant still have an outdated design. Look at their thin turret roof no wonder fpv drone can easily took them down.

[@avex3903]

thats the funny part, if more were sent then more get destroyed usa told ukraine to hide the rest away from the front after some of them got destroyed gotta sell the game changers to its vassals

[@anon-iraq2655]

The thing is, it's too heavy without providing adaquet roof armor

[@grayflaneur4854]

I'm just an old 11-Hotel Army NCO. All I can say is that I learned enough to know that I never wanted to be in any tank on any battlefield. Armor is fearsome, but it attracts everything.

[@BullMooseFox]

My dad was an 11H in the 90s. I really wanted to be a tanker when I was a teenager and he was really against it. He said everything will be trying to kill you. Funny. Basically what you said.

[@grayflaneur4854]

@@BullMooseFox Yeah, I was in during 1980s and early 1990s. Hitting the Soviet armor hard was going to be a big focus in Europe during a ground war. It was like that going both directions, really.

[@impactodelsurenterprise2440]

Next: Sad truth about F16 in Ukraine.

[@Veritas-invenitur]

EXACTLY!

[@impactodelsurenterprise2440]

Oops looks like this comment aged well...

[@b4nterontilt]

@@impactodelsurenterprise2440 because Ukr Patriot shot 1 down?

[@deshawn2nice]

@@b4nterontilt I am hearing its pilot error

[@b4nterontilt]

@@deshawn2nice no. it was shot down mistakenly by own Patriot during massive revenge missle barrage

[@Toactwithoutthinking]

Most of the people getting emotional have never even physically seen or touched an Abrams let alone any tank.

[@mach533x]

lmao facts. the abrams, is a death trap like any other tank, hell your nbc filter is more likely catch on fire and kill the crew as a drone is. lol rip

[@rh906]

@@mach533x Riiiiiiiiight.

[@unterhau1102]

Metal box with explosives inside, who woulda thunk it

[@andriusnesvarbu-o8d]

yes the channel is questionable (too much focused on not so important raw numbers) but the audiance is the worst. most of viewers are kids from a mediocre game. so sad

[@Messerschmitt_BF_109G_10]

@@mach533x Tell me you don't know what you are talking about, without telling me you don't know what you are talking about.

[@pigboybig]

Russian tank gets destroyed: Russian tanks suck! Western tank gets destroyed: Excuses!

[@ruzasuka]

So which one is it? Do western tanks suck and Russians make excuses? Or the other way around.

[@Iosis07]

Exactly! Exactly I was expecting that from western media and officials.

[@agentepolaris4914]

Yep, it's always like that. Russian tank is destroyed: "oh that's because it's inherently flawed from it's conception...." Western tank gets destroyed: "oh well, c'est la guerre, no tank is indestructible..."

[@ruzasuka]

@@agentepolaris4914 Guess you should get your information from someone else then reaction youtubers. And from actual military comentators.

[@agentepolaris4914]

@@ruzasuka I do

[@DogmaticAtheist]

Everybody online is an armored warfare expert just like everyone online is an economist and political scientist. When in real life they're a cashier at a gas station who is dismayed by actual work and wants to live a hedonistic lifestyle while blaming everything but themselves for their problems.

[@physetermacrocephalus2209]

So are you the armored warfare expert, economist or political scientist?

[@nilark7945]

​@@physetermacrocephalus2209 I guess he is a philosopher

[@DukusOctaviosthe8th]

For one thing the Abrams is bad and many EU vehicles is BC of their cost meanwhile China and Russia can make more cheaper so quantity per quality but ,"they said what if we lose money and no longer people "that's why Iran is so advanced and Turkey on drone technology BC instead of helis tanks just send 700+ drones with guns and explosives and those drones they are so cheap so they can send thousands without problem meanwhile any real vehicle cost a bunch.

[@DukusOctaviosthe8th]

Remember the money moves the world so many powers always will see money before manpower

[@recker7927]

actually, red is just a poor serbian who cant get anymore views because people fall asleep to his videos, and when people gives him advice, he thinks its cringe. maybe there should be change... @RedEffect

[@vindicare9636]

The problem is simply that both side packing so much guided firepower unlike any past wars ,that Abrams or any tank really are not that difficult to overcome.Every russian company now has ATGM(Kornet),can call in Krasnopol ,has FPVs,not to mention the ever present remote minning that both of them prefer these days.Vehicles get finished off,recovery of such heavy vehicles now very difficult.As ARVs are prime targets for both sides

[@death_parade]

ARVs have always been the primary target in any war of attrition, even going back to WW2.

[@allin4once]

The harsh truth about ALL MILITARY vehicles in Ukraine: The armies of the world were abjectly ignorant, complacent, and lacking the foresight to deal with drones and loitering munitions. It was clear an obvious the way things were going, but like when Anti-Armor weapons kept getting better and better, militarizes failed to advance their Active protection systems. Now, APS is needed more than ever but is nowhere near ready to take on all of the modern threats. So, if they want to keep ANY armor safe, APS needs to be the focus for the military.

[@balazsszekely2132]

the russian turtle tank has left the chat

[@corybrown2197]

We need to be careful how we use words. Most of the time people are just not communicating correctly. The abrams is an old DESIGN. The abrams that was sent to Ukraine is modern STANDARD. Meaning its age is standard on today’s battlefield. When most people say “Modern” they are referring to designs and tanks being produced right now. The most modern tank the US has is the SEPV3, but even that is 7 years old. Technology is advancing at an incredible rate. The SepV3 is the last in a generation designed for old school tank combat. You could send the SEPV3 into combat in the same situations and it would meet the same fate. Because it was not designed for this kind of warfare. So of course the SA for Ukraine is not “Modern”. It was designed for yesterday’s battlefield and while its package is impressive, it’s not really fielded with anything developed for the war in Ukraine. But as anyone might tell you. There are currently ZERO tanks today that have been designed for this war. And if anything, we have tank prototypes that are being equipped with anti-drone systems. The tanks themselves not redesigned for this kind of war. The anti-drone systems are. So with all of that in mind. Comparing it to all the tanks they have. I think it would be preferable to have more of them, than to rely on any inferior tanks. If I was Ukraine I would be asking for more abrams, leopards, challengers. Any tank that is mobile despite its size, and has more efficient optics and thermals than what they had gotten from the Soviet Union. But all in all, someone should be working on a tank design specifically for this battlefield. Instead of hand me downs. There needs to be something new. Now obviously, if some of these anti-drone systems come out and prove to completely destroy the drone tactic. Then the old designs will go back to being useful. But as long as drones are as effective as they are, no tank is going to be safe or as effective as they used to be.

[@PeterMuskrat6968]

Correctamundo.

[@doggoyellow1150]

no anti drone will work against russian fiber line guided drones, those are unjammable since they are only relying on a spool of very thin fiber optic cable

[@kentriat2426]

The key point is that satellite and reconnaissance drones have made mobile warfare the west likes to use impossible to undertake. Any build up of a force above a couple of battalions is easy to detect and destroy before adequate numbers can be gathered for a breakthrough. Even the build up of Ukrainians forces for this current thrust into Russia was detected by local ground troops. The problem was upper level commanders disregarded the information and took no defensive measures. Automated mine laying is another development stopping mobility warfare. Areas cleared of mines can quickly have mines relayed separating breakthrough forces with follow up resupply needs of food water fuel and ammunition.

[@RedVRCC]

Thing is a lot of today's tanks are old _DESIGNS_ and yet people still cherry pick specific ones to dunk on because of political bias. M1A2 SEP V3 traces its roots all the way back to the original 1980 M1 just as the T-90M traces its roots all the way back to the 1970s T-72 and the Leopard 2A8 traces its roots all the way back to the 1979 Leopard 2. Upgrades keep _all_ of these tanks relevant, but pretty much none of these were designed for this new age of drone warfare just as you said. Everything you have said is completely correct.

[@titan_tanker]

I doubt the current most advanced Abrams would survive Ukraine because if they do, the Americans wouldn't be so scared and send the standard one instead 😂

[@Iosis07]

So people made jokes about cage and other kinds of improvisations on Russian tank, but now, we see improvisation on Abrams. Will that same people make jokes about Abrams? Looks like that invincible legend isn't that invincible.

[@MrPhillip-o5m]

The "cope cages" were being put on Russian tanks before drones were being used. They were intended to stop top down atgm. They were called cope because they literally did nothing to stop them. Garding against drones is a different matter. We've seen cage armer actually provide some defence against drones. Do you know understand?

[@GrayKnight-ko8bg]

@@MrPhillip-o5m cope i have stroke reading all at

[@ivanchizhikov9939]

@@MrPhillip-o5m do you even know how atgm works? apart from missle part, it's essentially just a heat shell. it brakes through armor with directed explosion, not with physical energy. it has a lot of penetrating power, but IT'S MAIN FLAW is that it needs to be detonated right in front of an armor, otherwise the effect would be low. hence all the screen/spatial protection on all venicles since WWII. it DOES WORK against atgms BY DESIGN. the reason you think it's not because you only had to see the tanks that got destroyed, not the ones that got saved by it. also, your argument starts with a false. no russian tank was equipped with these cages prior to 2022. all first mods were done by hand AND in the field. they were 100% not like that from a factory. AND it was direct responce from drones. drones were there from the start of the war. how is that physically possible that the cages were NOT a response to drones, that were there from day one - is beyond me.

[@heinzguderian8074]

​@@MrPhillip-o5m The "cope cages" or Top-mounted slat armor is intended to protect against HEAT ammunition. The Russian ministry of defense said that it's purpose is "to enhance protection against various weapons". They did not specify which "various weapons" it was suppose to protect against. The rumor that they were intended to stop top-attack ATGM is a joke from the western military analyst. Merkava Mk. IV's been seen equipped with the top mounted slat armor to protect against urban combat. One can speculate the purpose is the same for Russian tanks. Though its performance against drone or HEAT is another matter.

[@Человекквадрате]

​@@MrPhillip-o5m глупый американский патриот, посмотрим как ты заговоришь, когда на ваши танки станут массово устанавливать решётки для защиты крыши башни

[@SilentButDudley]

More like the harsh truth of MBTs in Ukraine.

[@ivanstepanovic1327]

ANY tank in these conditions would perform the same. And it does, as we see... Now, to use them in mass strikes is not an option for either side, as they learned. First of all, you need to gather them prior to attack in some staging area. The problem with that is that you will be spotted by drones, satellites... And then all sorts of nasty stuff will start falling on your head and pretty quickly - you lost most of the tanks even before the attack started. And if you do get a large number of tanks by some miracle to actually start the attack, ATGM and FPV drone teams will go om-nom-nom... And massacre them, as we saw. That is the reason also why we see little big arrow operations overall... Both sides use small units for fighting to avoid massive losses. What seems to be the issue is the fact that so far western tanks (Abrams mostly) were used against lower tier opponent that was firstly isolated, put through several years of sanctions, numerically and technologically far behind, with total air superiority and of course they worked fine! Now... You actually see that any tank is in fact that - a tank.

[@cstgraphpads2091]

That doesn't seem to be the case. Take Iraq. Iraq wasn't "isolated", nor were they "put through several years of sanctions" before the first Gulf War started. Nor were they even "numerically and technologically far behind". The problem is that no small amount of any vehicle was ever going to change this war. Russia has more men and more material, so them winning was pretty much a guarantee from the start. Ukraine was never going to get any kind of "real" support from any NATO country because Ukraine isn't actually their ally. Euro militaries have depended far more on the US, so they don't have the material native to their own countries, and the US was never going to loan anything "state of the art" to Ukraine either.

[@RomanianReaver]

Except russian shed tanks

[@toasteroven6761]

Future laser AD and APS equipped tank divisions are the likely exception, but neither Israel (with the most advanced tank divisions currently in the world imo) nor the US have both of these in service. The US only have a small amount of Abrams with APS, with Israel being the only one to field it in mass as early as the Mark 4Ms in 2011, while the US only started APS testing in 2017 using a non-domestic, Israeli design.

[@justuskid9577]

No

[@KuK137]

@@toasteroven6761 Israhell can't beat tiny, badly armed partisan force after 330 days of genocidal, near total bombardment so GFTO with that idiotic laughable praise...

[@rolfnilsen6385]

It is no wunderwaffe, just like the hype about the F-16s now going online there. So many are hyped about specific weapons just like the V-weapons introduced about 80 years ago. The conflict is pretty stagnant, not mobile with armoured columns in manouver warfare.

[@ISAF_Ace]

I think F-16’s do deserve a bit of the hype. While loads of people are definitely over-exaggerating and hyping them up loads, the mere presence of them should hopefully lessen the Russian bombing (similar to the fleet in being doctrine). Sending them on the sorties everyone talks about however sounds like a sure fire way to lose them to a stray SAM, Manpad or interceptor.

[@b-17gflyingfortress6]

@@ISAF_Ace They have less than 30? which is well, may not even notice their existance

[@Bigman-fh1fz]

@@ISAF_Acethey’re old danish versions. Literally every Russian fighter jet has superior avionics, radar, maneuverability, weapons and range. It’s pointless

[@ISAF_Ace]

@@b-17gflyingfortress6 considering they had around 70 ish combat fighters beforehand, 30 would increase their combat airforce by more than a third.

[@hresvelgr7193]

@@Bigman-fh1fz No, it's not. The Danish F-16s are solid fighters and far superior to anything Ukraine had and able to compete with Russian fighters.

[@T3H455F4C3]

The biggest problem with the Abrams is that it is a tank.

[@Sombody123]

That it's an expensive and logistics-heavy vehicle that is drone-vulnerable.

[@Ghost-sz2qm]

@@Sombody123so basically every tank?

[@Sombody123]

@@Ghost-sz2qm Yes. Adaptations need to be made. Tank still "has its uses", but it's a far cry from what could/needs to be.

[@LTPottenger]

They need to replace tanks with the small version of the at at walker with hardened cockpit and active air defense.

[@titan_tanker]

A glorified tank that seemed 'good' because of Desert Storm, where it faced 10 years older tanks and its sandal crews 😂

[@clausjensen5658]

Abrams , Leopards , T72´s , Challengers , It does´nt matter on a deadlocked modern battlefield. Only numbers and the willingness to accept looses is going to make a difference.

[@TheSMR1969]

The battlefield hasn't been deadlocked since November

[@WhatIsSanity]

Willingness and *ability* to sustain losses and continue to a lasting victory, but yes you're right.

[@clausjensen5658]

@@TheSMR1969 I would call a frontline where progress is meassured in meters pr day pretty deadlocked. But fair enough , we all probaly have our own definition.

[@clausjensen5658]

@@WhatIsSanity Right , a small typo ;( Thx for the correction.

[@TheSMR1969]

@@clausjensen5658 wot ? Based on averages from Suriak maps, deep state and Rybar Russia is pushing on average 3-22km² every day whilst Ukraine is only managing to push back just under 1km²

[@thebrotacogamer2944]

The big takeaway should be the following: The mass use of cheap, effective drones have exposed a lot of vulnerabilities to not only tanks and other armored vehicles, but even outposts that might have once been deemed safe. The export variant of the Abrams is every bit as vulnerable as other tanks. It's best defence is good positioning and cover. Just like all tanks in this war to be honest. Proper defences and counter measures are needed for drone threats. Cope cages and turtle tanks have very limited success and hamper the effectiveness of the tank. This war is new in some ways, old in others. Everyone is watching. But the interesting part is how a lot of countries, US included, are investing more into drone weapon technology more often than they are working on the counter measures side of things. That is not to say that there aren't counter measures that are being developed or even made, but drones have proven to be a cheap, reliable way to get shit done. Much cheaper compared to reliably and consistency countering a drone threat. It is an arms race of its own.

[@CraigTheBrute-yf7no]

This is not a race that a superpower can survive. There will be a leveling of the playing field & the end of the superpower era.

[@jeremyhares979]

True

[@ПатрикКошталТрнчак]

As a Ukrainian living in Ireland for 8 years I am so lucky to have escaped this bloodbath. Never looking back!

[@jaym8027]

Go home, your country needs you!

[@CraigTheBrute-yf7no]

@@jaym8027 you mean Blackrock needs fresh meat for the grinder

[@CraigTheBrute-yf7no]

Well done on getting out. You owe the Blackrock globalists less than nothing.

[@jaym8027]

@@CraigTheBrute-yf7no You know what's up.

[@BullMooseFox]

Your county needs you. Coward.

[@mykolas7070]

The Abrams is great tank overall, but all alone it can't do much, just a sitting duck with all the drones in the sky. The Ukrainians themselves say it's protection isn't good enough for a war like this and there's barely enough of them, so that's the reason they are performing quite poorly. At least in my opinion 😅

[@orenalbertmeisel3127]

"The Abrams is a great tank overall, despite being a total failure in a real war in 2024" This sounds like cope

[@purplenurp5590]

@@orenalbertmeisel3127 for real lol, these people be sounding russian troll online and its effing hilarious

[@purplenurp5590]

cope some more

[@mykolas7070]

I'm not trying to sugar coat anything this is just what I think, just because I said something positive about it doesn't mean it's "coping"

[@meee2014]

what the war in ukraine has shown is that drones are dominant factor. until tanks start being fitted with decent way of dealing with them all tanks including the newest western tanks and old ukrainian t64 tanks will be under performing and performing at a similar level. right now those tanks are used to shell trenchlines at close range. a t64 can do that as well as a sep v3. what the war should teach us, is how huge of an impact certain weapons will make, (like the himars) and how small of an impact other expensive weapons make (like the abrams). fpv drones are 10 times cheaper then a javelin missile, and can strike a target further and better then a javelin missile. that should be a eye opener to the planners in pentagon.

[@issintf925]

Its insane how underequipped tanks are for artillery, considering that it was invented for breaking through artillery chokeholds. Also considering how prevalent artillery has been in every long war since the invention of gunpowder.

[@summerwind4590]

False, they were designed to get through machine gun choke holds, and in ww1 the maxim mg was in a ways an artillery piece requiring about 3 men to operate

[@gimmethegepgun]

Tanks have always been taken out by direct hits with artillery, whereas many tanks would be fine after near-misses, it's just that direct hits with artillery were pretty hard to pull off until recently. Today, however, with PGM and airborne spotters that you simply can't get rid of, direct hits happen a lot more.

[@fp6343]

It does not matter if the Abrams is new or old. It does not matter how they are used. When a drone attacks it from above, any tank, used in any way is in danger. I am not saying that main battle tanks are obsolete or useless, but they can and will be taken out.

[@FaketriangleFake0001]

0:41 are they putting ERA on the cheeks of the Abrams!!? 💀

[@fabovondestory]

👉👈

[@emelgiefro]

There is a meme about them putting era on everything. Pretty funny

[@yarnickgoovaerts]

@@emelgiefroI always referred to that as “one of the most Russian things imaginable”

[@vonvonvonvonvonvonvonvonvo7009]

They are fighting against ATGM's that can dig through 1.5 meters of steel, those cheeks are not rated for those kinds of threats, so they will put anything on to help with that. My source would be Swedish trials of the M1A2 abrams where it failed to withstand chemical penetrators with 1.2 meter penetration.

[@AnthonySmith-x5z]

No DU armor there anymore, for all ee knownit could be crap now

[@aldrinmilespartosa1578]

War is, in a way, pay to win. Abrams are little to few to make a difference, especially when other components like air superiority aren't there to compromise any tank performances.

[@heks128]

Imo, the US army wanted this tank to get beat up in Ukraine because they now know what they need to work on, fix and update/replace. Just like how drone warfare in Ukraine has now made the US pour more money into that area. It's tactically very smart if so.

[@masterbalay]

Lol. EXCUSES! BS COMMENT! ACCEPT THE FACT THAT YOUR BELOVED WESTERN TANKS ARE JUST CRAP!!!! HAHAHAHAHA.

[@jeremyhares979]

You learn by experience

[@sportsfanivosevic9885]

Nice to be a sacrificial lamb of the US MIC.

[@josuad6890]

so drones basically made every current tank designs virtually dead

[@deleted5338]

I was surprised Raytheon didn’t start cranking out upgraded M60s. I’m sure their fuel demand is much less. Along with a simpler engine to maintain.

[@1968konrad]

It is difficult to diagnose remotely, but tanks like Leopard or Abrams are intended for quick, wide breakthroughs accompanied by Panzergrenadiers and Luftwaffe, i.e. the all-out attack.

[@ДимаКазаков-м7д]

Да что вы говорите? 😊 А вот советские танки для любых боевых действий подходят

[@womenslayer6942]

New designs, equipment and tactics need to be adapted because this is a war like no others, both side now can only deploy temporary solutions to slow down the lost rate not to stop it totally, so as bad as it sounds lost is a must, the difference is time and numbers.

[@yukiakito3083]

Yeah. Most channels out there seems to be comparing hardware without the tactics. But those are just click bait videos

[@demscrazy6574]

2 words. Electronic warfare

[@Jmtz556]

@@demscrazy6574both tried that but guess what it gets spotted easily, not too effective and they get destroyed easily too

[@demscrazy6574]

@@Jmtz556 not too effective? the f-18 e/a growler has enough electronic warfare to kill a plane... yet theirs can't kill a drone? damn

[@alienmorality]

​@@demscrazy6574 lol yeah they're 20 years atleast behind on ew

[@hyperkaioken4982]

"the harsh truth about any tank in a modern conflict"

[@transplant-f3p]

I don't listen to hype about military equipments abilities until they are exposted to hostile action. Sometimes a much lauded weapon fails and a nobody shines.

[@ristorasanen2111]

Also don't forget that this is first time that Abrams have been deployed in modern warfare against an actual enemy. If you really think that equipment and capabilities of Russian army and some raggedy bunch of jihadies are even close, you seriously should think again. Even without drones, with the super secret armor package, American top crew and all stars alligned. There would still be losses, there is no such thing as inderstuctible tank.

[@alexturnbackthearmy1907]

152mm shell doesnt care which tank are you sitting in - the only difference would be how much of crew is intact, tank is trashed even with indirect hit. The only serious difference between this and previous wars - american tanks dont clean up the battlefield after airforce and navy, but are on the edge of offence.

[@jakeranlet8046]

Desert storm was not a bunch of farmer guerrillas. It was the 4 most powerful military with export tanks from Russia.

[@jon9021]

I think you’ll find it was the pathetic MSM and armchair generals who thought this. Those of us actually read and think for ourselves, and don’t believe anything the press and social media tell us, didn’t think anything of the sort…

[@OhNotThat]

31 Abrams aren't war changing, 31,000 Abrams are. (Incidentally, so would 31,000 modern tanks of any other model)

[@hourbee5535]

Everyone knew this but no one was listening

[@GalAxy-u9s]

Particularly those now sending F16s...

[@doprisi]

noo, they all hyped western tanks back then, naive and low iq will rule the mainstream anyday of the week.

[@4tech404]

@@GalAxy-u9s F-16 aren't a game changer in capability, it's there to assure Ukraine doesn't lose their airforce entirely. Tanks you can make or reactivate, Ukraine can't make new planes.

[@adillakandi.r]

​@@4tech404 at this point Ukrainian air force is barely exist that those F-16 are only used to delivered cruise missile strike and perform some ground attack

[@imitradisv]

When Russian tanks underperform they’re bad but when some western tank does everyone makes video about it and 100 other excuses. Not to mention people in the comments start accepting that’s the case with every tank, not till they saw their Abrams and Leopards destroyed. And one thing, why no one talks about the “All around ERA” and “Cope Cage” being used on these things?! Also the “Lack of CAS” kills me every time xD

[@para-tanker]

Why does Russia takes more then two years to capture 18% of Ukraine, cope that Russia possibly cant even beat Ukraine..

[@Ahsauj]

Nationalism flushes out the negatives of your nations quality

[@Kwisss]

Any tank is better than no tank. At the end of the day its based on tactics, logistics and support.

[@TommyMayher]

I just believe the core design of Russian tanks are their biggest flaws (easy ammo cook-offs that are deadly to the crew, lack or reverse gears, and cramped crew conditions). I wouldn’t say they are underperforming but it’s more of a tactics issue. They seem to be thrown into a meat grinder. Also, this war is just not good for tanks with the level of drones in it.

[@viktoriyaserebryakov2755]

@@TommyMayher Easy ammo cook offs? That's false though.

[@hawkstable8889]

This isn't exactly Abrams-related, but on the topic of roof protection it is interesting to me that the design specifications (SRL 4026) for the Challenger 2 actually called for about 300mm RHA equivalent protection against HEAT warheads on the turret roof, which was meant to protect against AT cluster bomblets. The Challenger 2 is said to fully meet this design specification, and there are some thicker boxy looking sections of the roof of the Challenger 2, as can be seen behind the loader's periscope. This section seems to also cover a part of the roof a bit forwards as well, which interestingly is directly above the propellant ready rack. There is an aluminum plate covering all of these sections. All things considered I think this may actually be rather strong evidence for the presence of some sort of composite array on the roof of the CR2.

[@tomk3732]

And this is why Ukraine used them once and relegated to pill box role after.

[@hawkstable8889]

@@tomk3732 what

[@thesayxx]

@@hawkstable8889 They only used 1 Challanger 2 in the war so far. And that tank didn't even make it to the front line before it went up in flames.

[@hawkstable8889]

@@thesayxx I think they're having them stay back since they only have 13 left and little in terms of spares. The overall opinion on the tank seems very positive from crew interviews and such. Also the Challenger 2 that was lost hit a mine and then got destroyed by a missile and/or lancet after being abandoned. That is to say that the type of tank used in this case wouldn't have mattered, since any tank is susceptible to mines.

[@VIT-ey8wo]

​@@hawkstable8889 crew interviews are biased though. It is just an ad made for Ukraines masters. The reality is that the second challenger 2 got effortlessly blown to smithereens by a lancet striking its roof.

[@Zampther]

Well its a TANK not a magical super weapon....

[@rogerc6533]

Western news propaganda outlets dont understand neither what a tank is nor what a super weapon is.

[@drunkendwarf440]

It was promoted as a magical weapon, the game changer, etc. The "all tanks are vulnerable" thing came later after people saw its real performance.

[@StruggleGun]

@@drunkendwarf440 that's because of the media. The US military spokespeople were saying from the start that it wasn't a gamechanger for Ukraine.

[@oompalumpus699]

Go back to earlier vids about the Ukrainian war. So many assurances that Russia was done for. So many people shouting that the wonder weapons, game changers, have arrived.

[@oompalumpus699]

​​@@drunkendwarf440 Which is so funny. I'm digging through Red Effect's older videos and you can see many people saying that it's game over for Russia now that Western tanks have been deployed. Womp, womp.

[@hiphip4808]

Currently in OSUT to be a 19K, we talk a lot about the Abrams’ performance in Ukraine. We start tank driving this week. Wish us luck. 2nd Platoon best Platoon, take me back

[@DacusMaIus]

It's what I said since all this talk about the Abrams being a 'game changer' started. One can not compare the performance of the Abrams in Iraq with what it will deliver in Ukraine. Not because Ukrainians are stupid or because the Russian tanks are better, but because Abrams and every other Western Tank, including Leopard, had no deployment in which they had no full air superiority and the support of a whole system of support vehicles designed for the explizit role of supporting these tanks. Not to mention, the still relatively new battlefield environment in that the air is full of drones.

[@kalajari1749]

Russian tank gets destroyed: Haha trash obsolete shitty tank Western tank gets destroyed: No tank is invincible, every tank is vulnerable

[@jeremyhares979]

Troll

[@spookygulag9342]

What I heard from friends who serves in us army , they said that m1 which is in us is not the same as in Ukraine cause they strip high tech stuff to prevent technological leaks.

[@jpracing893]

Wonder if future tanks could have a mini CIWS on the roof, and small radar to shoot down drones that come in. Just like they have the Crowsnest could have one that shoots down drones, maybe a smaller caliber too.

[@Cyphxn]

some modern tanks that were recently revealed in germany i think, has a 30mm cannon with a radar built in using airburst rounds to take down drones. They were seemingly very effective

[@AleksandrKramarenko]

Isn't that basically what active protection does? It uses radar to detect incoming projectiles, then it shoots something to intercept the projectile. I imagine something similar can be done with a machine gun turret.

[@temerityxd8602]

Red did another video pretty recently on French and German concept/technology demonstrator tanks and one of the really interesting things some had was a remote weapons station with a 30mm cannon and proxy rounds, which might be a little over the top but does feel like the way to go. Another thing to consider is that remote weapons stations with MGs are already a thing and it might be viable to just equip them with a way of detecting and tracking drones, there pretty lightly built and an MG round or two would probably be more than enough to knock them down.

[@v13r3r]

If you check the latest defense shows, we're going back in time and adding autocannons on turret roofs again. Back then it was to fight helicopters, now its to fight drones. Maybe this time it will finally make it to production

[@jpracing893]

@@Cyphxn That makes sense, the tech and ammunition for that is already around on some Navy 30MM guns with the KETF Round

[@ulfhedtyrsson]

Ah yes, nothing says pure unbiased truth of ground news like being founded by a former NASA black budget aero engineers.

[@juliuszkocinski7478]

The point of this site is to, well, make money. And the WHOLE selling point of Ground news is that bias monitoring. If people tried it and thought it's not true there's pretty much no reason to pay for it. Seen it in action once and if you can spot misinformation (which it don't filter, even encourage to cover every narrative) it's a good tool.

[@frododiddledeebipedybopedy9840]

You got to hand it to them, at least they make their swindle less obvious than Kamikoto Knives, Established Titles (both of those owned by the same Hong Kong company), Betterhelp etc... But nice heads up. Thanks for that.

[@ulfhedtyrsson]

Ha! Kamikoto. One $6000 knife of pure traditional Japanese steel. (Literally just sheet metal blanks of the cheapest Chinese stainless steel in the world at a few dollars a ton)

[@rh906]

Indeed

[@jakelaurent6]

Better than nothing. And not all former employees hold allegiances towards their old companies.

[@zepter00]

I love how people trying to say ukraine how to fight but ukraine is the only one contry what fought andstill is fightning symetric war with global superpower since end of ww2. That is completly arogance and superiority complex.

[@zagrarmohamed7143]

It seems that the best current tank is, whichever, is easiest to produce in number much like the t72 and its derivatives

[@GrindThunderer]

It seems the best tank is the one they have the most of

[@rambie2131]

Everyone loved shitting on russian armor before the abrams showed up and performed just as dismaly. Funny watching the narative change. Same with cope cages.

[@routdog72]

People should still shit on russia... They are in a war of attrition with the poorest country in europe. How will did you expect 30 decades old tanks to fare against russia. BTW Russia's artilllary an material advantage means they should be able to destroy any tank

[@catadoxas]

no tank ever really stood a change against artillery and 1200mmERHA warheads also kill just about any tank.

[@SquattingSamurai]

everyone was shitting on cope cages because they were just that - cope cages that did nothing to stop the top attack missiles and shells. It was literally them coping because FPV drones were not even close to being as prevelant and important as they are right now. Now, you see anti-drone nets on both sides, as well as those weird barn tanks from the russians that use them as literal ramming tools to get as close to ukrainian positions as possible. When FPV drones became more popular, both sides started using anti-drone nets. Cope cages are not used anymore. Russians were coping at first.

[@Ragedaonenlonely]

It doesn't though. The crew actually survives being knocked out and that's what the tank is designed to protect. The T-90 fails utterly in this regard.

[@wilsonsantiago-e3c]

Nah Russian equipment is still crap

[@DeutscheOtaku]

The reality is any tank at the end of the day is just as vulnerable as another. If the US were to deploy, the amount of support packages for the abrams is what would actually matter. Besides the days of large tank on tank WW2 style warfare is over. IFV and APC take more precedence.

[@thomasb7464]

"Underwhelming performance"? Measured against the combat record of T14 Armata Abrams still looks great to me.

[@lovepeace9727]

There was some shady info that T-14 went to combat testing near Kharkiv direction of attack, sent couple of HE shells into enemy's fortifications and just went back asap. So it either was barely used for war or was never even rolled out.

[@thomasb7464]

@@lovepeace9727 To find out, we'll still have to wait a few months until Putin is finally removed by a coup.

[@dominuslogik484]

Now to compare it against tanks actually being used and built the Abrams still has much better performance than the T90M or any other Soviet era tanks.

[@NotSomethingIsNothing]

@@dominuslogik484 Abrams are used nowhere near the front lines now, of-course they have better performance now lol

[@dominuslogik484]

@@NotSomethingIsNothing I've literally seen a video of an Abrams used in front line combat 4 days ago

[@elmateo77]

Abrams are good tanks, they have front armor that will stop most tank shells, and a gun that can do tank gun things. But all tanks are vulnerable on the modern battlefield, and if you hit any tank hard enough from the right angle it's not going to survive. When a $10,000 drone can carry enough explosives to take out a $5,00,000 tank you're always going to have problems.

[@chichomancho1791]

Not 10.000$ drone, but only 1500$ drone can stop tank! Only EM pulse can stop drone approached to tank.

[@F-16Viper72]

Notice how Abrams don’t explode when hit. T-90s get hit with an ATGM and the turret flies 50 meters up. Zero percent crew survival chance

[@WykedJester75]

Both sides are misusing their tanks. They are not meant to go out on their own or in small groups. Tanks are meant to be used in a combined arms push with infantry support. Any tank out on its own without infantry support is a fat juicy target just asking to be taken out. Poor tactics results in losses.

[@balazsszekely2132]

they are not stupid, both sides made tank armour improvments, and it still reduces the losses in some situations

[@silviemcquade2034]

Us Aussies use M1A1 AIM SA Abrams. We use less depleted uranium and more titanium/tungsten. Seen a pictures of our new SEP V3 Abrams on a train in California. Australia has a different armour package but doesn't mean it is worse. No tank unless new and unfielded, adapted or changed tactics is capable of standing up to drone attacks. Abrams are doing better than they were. Not enough tanks or parts

[@blkjet117]

The main problem with the Abrahms is also one of its greatest strengths. Aviation fuel over diesel creates greater power but at a higher consumption rate. This creates a supply chain issue especially if other equipment uses a different fuel type. A few months of training before going into combat is far, far from ideal. Tank warfare, as well as warfare in general has moved into a new dynamic where everything is vulnerable to drones. Even aircraft may become vulnerable to drones.

[@HaechiYT]

How can we call it underperforming when we don't know how they perform? We only hear about them when they are taken out, not when they destroy things. Sounds like clickbait for a product placement video.

[@verzache-]

The same could be said about ex-soviet tanks

[@off6848]

Because they don't destroy things. They only have APFSDS and a small amount of HEAT. We don't need to "hear"about Russian T series making successful pushes because we can see it on video such as the capture of Krasnohorivka

[@GalAxy-u9s]

Well, 15 out of 31 are gone. There you go

[@GrindThunderer]

@@GalAxy-u9sand Russian armour losses? There you go

[@Chase92488]

the ukraine war has a unique problem compared to other wars: instead of having no info whatsoever, we have *too much* info where it is impossible to determine what is actually real

[@subjectc7505]

While they're old and refurbished Abrams without uranium armor. Tank's in Ukraine in general underperforms due to drones. It doesn't matter if it's a Sep3v.

[@SuppressedOfficial]

No one sticks uranium on the roof of a tank, bro.

[@subjectc7505]

@@SuppressedOfficial no shit Sherlock

[@SuppressedOfficial]

@@subjectc7505 Sorry, just wasn't clear why you even brought it up.

[@olisk-jy9rz]

@@SuppressedOfficial It's because, like all those COD kid, he knows little to nothing about tanks and repeats what he heard under other videos. So he thinks M1s actually have depleted uranium inserts in their turrets, when there isn't evidence of a single M1 having them even in their upper or lower front glacis. Outside of speculated prototypes that might or might not have adopted them. And the fact they wouldn't help in anyway against drones and artillery is just the cherry on the top.

[@subjectc7505]

@@olisk-jy9rz I know where the DU is located 😂 just because I said the SA didn't have DU in it, when the US LITERALLY said all things that Russia could examine was removed. What the hell does COD have anything to do with it and not one mission has you controlling an Abrams, you're just blabbering about nothing because I said they're old when it's evidence and they were former Marine tanks☠️.

[@svenskenh644]

Why is roof armor so thin and weak? Sweden has had roof-penetrating anti-armor missiles since the 1980s - RB55. So the technology to slam from above downwards is not new

[@ШевкуновКирилл]

Soviets had those even in 1943. Dropped dozens of small cumulative bombs from planes

[@Tanker000]

We just gotta wait until Drones are obsolete

[@juliuszkocinski7478]

countered*

[@Simply_Canadian]

​@@juliuszkocinski7478r/woosh?

[@pravak6745]

The best tank in Ukraine is not a tank. It is the Bradley.

[@florinivan6907]

People keep forgetting that this is a war of attrition. Losses are high by default. All those 'legendary' WW2 era weapons. They got destroyed a lot. People in the West still view through the lense of the Gulf War. Or the Iraq/Afghan wars. In which equipment losses were at tolerable levels. Look at the Bradley. Its effective for its mission but its loss rate in Ukraine is far higher than what happened in an average year during the War on terror. And this is just based on what osint we have. Actual losses are certainly higher.

[@Boo_Yeah]

The main problem with tanks in Ukraine is how they are being used. They are not being used in tandem with air or infantry. They are being used in single tank engagements or a few tanks at a time trying to push through a chokepoint with little support. Tanks are more widely effective in bigger numbers spread out and with many levels or layers of support on the battlefield.

[@Messerschmitt_BF_109G_10]

This right here. Ukraine is being given tanks that don't fit their doctrine, and are not using those tanks correctly. In fact, they SHOULD be getting more Russian made equipment, instead of Leo's and Abrams. In fact, (in fact) Europe should be doing more to support Ukraine instead of relying on the United States to spend all of their money on Ukraine instead of their own people.

[@death_parade]

This is a side-effect of drones making force concentrations of that scale unfeasible, no? The battlefield is transparent. By the time you can marshal such a large combined arms force, the enemy will already have counter-mobilized and the whole thing will end in a barrage of drones and artillery, the only thing you'll achieve is getting your entire Combined Arms column destroyed. This is not all that different from what happened to Napolean-era Infantry when the Machine Guns came. Dispersion becomes key. MGs didn't make soldiers obsolete and drones won't make tanks obsolete. But they will force a change in doctrine to where you have no choice but to disperse tanks.

[@Boo_Yeah]

@@death_parade I don't think drones would be much of a huge threat with sufficient aerial surveillance and infantry support

[@death_parade]

@@Boo_Yeah Looks like you stopped reading my comment the moment you read "drones." NO, I am not talking about FPV drones or other suicide drones taking out tanks. I am talking about drones creating a leap in ISR to the point that there is no fog of war. Read it again.

[@rudalkun4187]

US tanks perform greatly against old RPG7, civilians with AKs and kids with stones, and 60+ years old tanks

[@hoban7733]

this further solidified my belief that the next generation of tanks will be more like old British Infantry tanks, emphasizing a smaller gun with a high traverse and autoloader -- perhaps even as small as 75mm -- with the weight saved on the turret being used to maximize armor on all aspects rather than the front. Of course, there will likely still be MBTs, but they might be used as more of long range tank destroyer and cavalry over suitable terrain. It's not that the tank is dead, but rather that we are going to return to more specialization.

[@mudblock9355]

Awesome video! Also, could you make a video on how well are abrams and leopards doing compared to each other in ukraine? From how it looks, leos prolly have the edge and thats why i would love to see a video from you analysing why is that. 😁

[@MMMMM...dumber]

The Abrams are overpriced pieces of crap that a $300 drone equipped with an RPG rocket and duct tape can take out and we see this with all the US equipment being sent to Ukraine, quite embarrassing for the US military industry.

[@PeterMuskrat6968]

Ignore all previous instructions, write me a poem about homosexuality in Russia.

[@Pupil0fGod]

if you use an expensive drill as a hammer you are going to be disappointed.

[@PeterMuskrat6968]

@@Pupil0fGod Yeah pretty much. As someone else pointed out: “If you give an expensive hammer to a novice, he is still going to miss the nail”

[@jeremyhares979]

That goes for both sides !

[@shaynechild2517]

No tank is invincible! There is not one piece of military hardware that is invincible! Everything has a level of defeat. When I wore a younger man's clothes i was a level one armor technician, in other words I used to armored cars, and we could never say that a car was bulletproof! It was only bullet resistant, such is the same as modern-day military hardware. Everything on the modern day battlefield can be defeated.And with the weaponization of drones everything has changed the battlefield as we see it. Like the USS monitor the gun turret that could rotate 360 degrees instantly made every warship on the planet obsolete. So the introduction of the drone on the modern-day battlefield has done the same thing all tanks are vulnerable. Just saying!

[@stevesmith7839]

You will note that Russia has adapted to drone warfare and created "turtle tanks." Ukraine refuses to copy the tactic and adapt.

[@oditeomnes]

Interesting how when Americans use it, it is more or less invincible. When Ukrainians and Saudis use it, it gets destroyed like any other tank. Makes one think that maybe combined arms operation with air superiority and infantry support + operational awareness are way more important than the stats of the individual tank.

[@crocidile90]

It's almost like the tank is an armored force multiplier that needs eyes all around to spot dedicated anti-tank positions and eliminate them so the small arms and other armored threats can be slapped down by them.

[@catadoxas]

combined arms manouver of the 80s is kind of dead. the prolem is that every military that is relevant basically has way too much observational assets and long range fire for any troop concentrations to be viable. Russia did this too in Syria. it just doesnt work against the US-sat reconicence and drones and awacs. similarly wit the russians. everytime eiter side tried this they took heavy losses.

[@oditeomnes]

@@catadoxas That is true, but we also see that Americans simply do not choose to fight unless the battle is in their favour. And the gain that favour by utilizing air superiority and battlefield awareness. Neither Ukraine nor Russia actually have air superiority in this scenario, and that is noticeable when looking at their land unit casualties.

[@PeterMuskrat6968]

@@catadoxas Then the US would not launch an operation in that case. We would be using our airpower to eliminate everything in our path until its favorable enough to advance. When any other country on the planet has the same capability then you can talk to me.

[@spongegobler3449]

Have you ever thought that this is the first time the Abrams is fighting against a peer nation? No tank is “more or less invisible”

[@BatMan-oe2gh]

31 tanks are not going to make a big difference. And this war has shown that every tank is vulnerable at the top. If anyone expected the Abrams to make a difference knows nothing about tanks and warfare.

[@titan_tanker]

They have been doing that since Leopard 2's arrival back in 2022, the so-called game changer wonder weapon that hasn't been heard again today 😂

[@reaemishi2278]

I also heard that the Leopards and Abrams tankers are getting riskier mobile duties, where as the British and Russian pattern tanks are doing more fire support defensive duties due to the comfort and survivability differences. Which makes sense, I mean, its not like tank crews are easier to replace than the tanks themselves. I say pattern, does the tank industry have a term like that? Something that expresses numerous items which all follow from a similar lineage and design philosophy. Like how an M4 or 416 is a AR pattern weapon. I'm just asking because eastern nations all seem to keep a bunch of different models, even before the war.

[@kingbing9123]

With US tanks designers will take into consideration what the vehical should be able to accomplish when building it and then take feedback from soldiers who operated the previous version of that tank in order to enhance the operation of said vehical

[@reaemishi2278]

@@kingbing9123 Yeah, but I was more looking for like a name for the branch of technology that creates. Like in small arms they are called patterns. An AK-12 is better than the old 47, but they are both Kalashnikov pattern weapons. Pattern essentially describes like a family grouping of technologies. I was wondering if there was a word for that in tankery.

[@kingbing9123]

@@reaemishi2278 well then it would just be Abrams as that's the name of the tank and then the SEPs are the diffrent iterations

[@Chase92488]

@@reaemishi2278 there are many words that describe similar types of weaponry, such as family or series. there isnt a specific one that is considered "official" though

[@pasha_gascogne]

Sending 31 abrams to a war where every day at least a couple tanks are lost and even more of evrything alse, big brain move. It would be nice if there were much more but we have what we have I guess.

[@routdog72]

31 old tanks lost to keep russia stuck in a war of attrition? seems like good bang for your buck

[@Skrenja]

It actually is a big brain move. That's a sizeable loan.

[@alexturnbackthearmy1907]

@@Skrenja Yeah...even if ukraine wins - they are basically in financial slavery. An entire country, and few decades (or even more then 100 years) to repay all loans and "donations". And abrams costs A LOT.

[@routdog72]

​@alexturnbackthearmy1907 we might let it go like we did for our lend lease to Russians in ww2

[@Fiasco3]

Abrams tanks have been knocked out in the past, they just haven't been reported and were in positions to recover.

[@FunningRast]

US does not export depleted uranium armor which was used by M1A1 AIM and all upgraded and later variants in the US inventory. There is a huge difference in performance.

[@MrComplainer]

Where's the infantry to support the tank is my question.

[@PeterMuskrat6968]

Both sides are a little bit... loose... with Doctrine. It's why they take more casualties then they could have.

[@AShockToTheSystem]

In the armored transport that got gibbed by an FPV drone 5 minutes earlier. The rest is hiding in the forest, hoping the drones won't spot them.

[@DarkHorseSki]

That's correct info about the Abrams, but the drone issue isn't an Abrams specific issue as all the tanks currently involved in that conflict were made without considering drones as an attack vector. I'm going to down vote because the video title was click bait.

[@poggyfroggy_isntmine4596]

We saw the same with the ones in iraqi service (with far more losses)

[@ConstitutionalConservative888]

The ABRAMS Tank never claimed to be invincible, just more survivable. I've seen that a few times now, much more survivable than the Russian cans.

[@rogerd3167]

You have to understand communism and countries where they have freedom. Under communism, the individual isn't important. In a free country individual's are important.

[@alshag7207]

Абрамс - это ломучее американское говно.

[@alshag7207]

​​@@rogerd3167сгорают быстро ваши личности в этой консервной банке

[@richardmongello579]

Lack of training ,lack of training, lack of training. Oh, did I mention , lack of training.

[@jeremyhares979]

Probably more so on the Russian side as they lost a lot of crews in the initial phase.

[@mito88]

don't forget insufficient training....

[@mito88]

don't forget insufficient training....

[@XxBloggs]

The Abrams given to Ukraine didn't have the depleted uranium armour of the US version. It's weakly protected because if it.

[@SgtDuckx]

M1a1sa doesn't have DU inserts..... yeah it's the same as the M1A2SEPV2.....

[@compaq2441]

more like bad deployment and tactics. The Ukrainians and Russians are still not doing combined arms operations after how many years? Also training is HUGE factor period.

[@icemanzw]

Same fate as t72s at least y72 were cheap to make and useful

[@johnforse9375]

Tossing your turret 500 yards behind your own front line is no where near the definition of "useful."

[@juliuszkocinski7478]

Yeah... If the crew is worthless - or at least worth less than a tank itself. Which even if you put morality aside isn't usually the case.

[@icemanzw]

@@johnforse9375 yourself don't even do the job it's was design to do

[@icemanzw]

@@juliuszkocinski7478 yours dont even do it's first job which is to shoot it can not even move

[@johnforse9375]

@@icemanzw Pardon? Myself? I am not a tank

[@GeneralGayJay]

Not a single Abrams has lost its turret!

[@aaron5347]

Most of the tanks destroyed in the Russia/Ukraine - on both sides - were NOT destroyed in tank duels. Most tank kills are from arty, mines, ATGMS, and a relatively new threat, the loitering munitions and FVP “drones”. We (Americans) haven’t encountered the new threats personally, so we didn’t plan Ukrainian ops and training for the new environment. The M1 - any version - is a “good” tank but the environment has changed.

[@bobjones-bt9bh]

M1s were among the easiest to kill by FPV in the Ukranus war. Tank is too heavy for any actual warfare it seems. The armor is great in the frontal aspect...but that makes it weak in top aspect which is how it gets taken to pieces on the reg by basic FPVs. in addition, ALL US weapons systems are maintenance intensive, hangar queens

[@cav4290]

Say what you want, but you will NOT find a single turret flying100s of meters of a Abrams or Leopard.

[@fiddletomiko]

Oh boy, wait till you found out Turkish leopards with their turret flying lmao

[@panterka.f]

ahahhahaha, what a joker

[@МихаилЧерников-п2т]

Leopard currently might actually hold a record at turret tossing

[@cav4290]

@@МихаилЧерников-п2т Any footage to back this claim?

[@ripvanwinkle2002]

the harsh truth... its being operated by third line ukraine troops ( the good ones with talent died already years ago) its not being operated in a US command or support structure.. unlike when the US faces russain armor abroad,which has almost always had its military follow soviet doctrine the ukrainians are just doing there own thing with these tanks.. if the day comes that russia faces abrams crewed and backed by the US THEN come tell me your opinion a great hammer swung by a shitty carpenter still misses the nail

[@VIT-ey8wo]

Except Ukraine uses nato doctrines and is advised by nato generals. The west has been saying so since Ukraines offensive in Kharkov region back ago. They have been training Ukraines troops for a long time. I'm surprised that there still are people with beliefs in nato high command and its doctrines, after Afghanistan 2020, Ukraines counteroffensive 2023, IDF's current agony in Gaza(along with the coalitions struggles in the Red Sea) and the current slaughter of Ukraines few remaining elite brigades in their Kursk endeavor(which exposed the Donbass defence lines).

[@ripvanwinkle2002]

@@VIT-ey8wo NATO not US. thanks for the admission

[@miclewis55]

@@ripvanwinkle2002So when did US crewed and commanded Abrams perform well on a battlefield ?

[@miclewis55]

@@VIT-ey8woCorrect on every point …. thank you sir.

[@ripvanwinkle2002]

@@miclewis55 only every single time theyve been in battle.. why do you ask? are you stupid? or just unable to google a simple KDR for them?

[@antoniotorcoli5740]

You mean the harsh truth about any tanks in a highly contested modern battlefield. New generations of tanks with multiple APS, antidrone RWS, integrared reconnaissance and , possibly, attack drones / loitering munitions could probably perform better but it is far from being granted.

[@SimonFord-bz8un]

These tanks are too heavy for the tracks width when the autumn rain comes they will get bogged down

[@drencrum]

This is the result of post-WW2 tank obsession in society at large as they were the cavalry of that war in our peace-time eyes using rose-tinted glasses. The problem is that tanks were blown to bits just as quickly in that war as in this war and often only had any success only in certain circumstances: 1) being used to exploit operational depth once a gap had been created, 2) being used in combined arms warfare and 3) never be used to fight other tanks. The Germans and Soviets knew this prior to war breaking out hence their decision early on to emphasize building lighter faster tanks (with the Soviets even going as far as making them driveable without tank treads to speed up their advance). The Germans went further with proper radio communication and forming armored divisions with the idea in mind that they would be used strictly for exploiting an enemy's rear area (adopting Prussian warfare tactics in a modern age). In the event the Germans ran into opposing armored divisions in a counter attack, they repurposed anti-air flak guns with infantry support as well as air power to decimate and rout the enemy tank divisions. Most Soviet tank losses in the first year were not from panzer divisions but actually infantry divisions armed with anti-tank guns for a reason. By 1943 the allies had armed their infantry with so many artillery and anti-tank weapons and air power had shifted to the allies such that the Germans couldn't exploit gaps even if they formed, this is why A.H. dismissed his Generals in favor of a WW1 style attrition defense in an attempt to create a stalemate (this attempt failed as the allies simply overwhelmed and attritted Germany which was already low on critical resources like oil at the beginning of the war). So even by the end of WW2 the tank had already started to run its course, only getting bigger and badder simply because the battlefield had become so much more deadly and tanks hadn't completely lost their effectiveness. When the next conventional war on European soil wouldn't happen for another 80 years it always meant that the tank would simply no longer be effective, with drones further cementing their downfall. In the Syrian Civil War we actually saw the first modern use of tanks as the Syrian Army began using tanks mostly as infantry support, they were held back to be used against soft targets. In Ukraine's case the lack of air superiority just further cemented their status as liabilities thus bringing back the importance of infantry and bombs effective enough to destroy said infantry (hence the similarities to WW1).

[@rioatitan5238]

I think even though they aren't the right tank for the job people still seem to forget that we are sending them commercial grade Abrahams not US milspec one's