Why Have So Many Abrams Tanks Been Destroyed in Ukraine? | War on Tape | Daily Mail

[@dailymail]

This is the second episode of our new show War on Tape, watch it and let us know what you think in the comments below!

[@romanromanovic7654]

Why? Because tanks are supposed to work like a piece of the puzzle off Combined Arms Warfare. Really what the US did to Ukraine is close to a mockery. Almost make me to believe that USA want Russia to win and destroy Ukraine.

[@pstarr-hh3ew]

you forgot something the a1 distroys 28 tanks for everyone they lose do the math youngman

[@ziepex7009]

@@pstarr-hh3ew Crikey, have they been employing 6 year olds or hillbillies over at the american propaganda department?

[@robertmartens7839]

Why not call it 'War on Film' r 'War on daguerreotype'

[@AAAAAA-tj1nq]

US urged Ukraine to halt strikes on Russian oil refineries. western countries still rely on Russian energy! cant stop laughing!

[@pjhgerlach]

Why does the media still thinks a tank is indestructible?

[@Billy-Whizz]

so that people like you watch it. Basically click bait to make them money

[@marcelbruin9151]

Ha, you put "think" and "media" in the same sentence. Silly old goof

[@Aaron-pb5xy]

Show me where it says that please

[@Billy-Whizz]

@@Aaron-pb5xy you must be a kid, welcome to the business world

[@Aaron-pb5xy]

@@Billy-Whizz It's a legitimate question. I just want to see where (if any) media says it's indestructible.

[@Hairysteed]

_"Why is anyone still using tanks if they keep getting blown up?"_ Why is anyone still using soldiers if they keep dying?

[@markdsm-5157]

logic and clickbait don't mix.

[@anthonygordon9483]

looks like he took your advice and changed the title.

[@hayatlak355]

because they are cheap for whats on stake for the big companies and war mongers of the world.

[@Sandhill1988]

In other words , Ukraine wasn't using the tanks correctly.

[@anthonygordon9483]

@@Sandhill1988 We have to remember that these are not our latest generation of Abrams. These tanks were used in Desert Storm and they gained a reputation in Iraq for how well they performed. But these are 50 year old tanks. We sent them M1A1 tanks but the U.S. currently operates M1A2 tanks and M1A3 tanks and we have a Prototype M1A4 in the works. So this is why we are giving away our most beloved tanks to ukraine right now. has nothing to do with who is using it. But as far as age. Teh M1A1 is not that far off from a modern russian tank. To put things into standards. Our current Abrams can operate drones in the sky for survellience as well as operate unmmanned tank drones. The new Abrams is a beast compared to what we sent.

[@enissay9950]

A wise man once said: everything gets destroyed! There no magical weapon! So stop selling BS!

[@sahs3811]

It’s not just in Ukraine the Houthi’s were destroying Saudi Arabian Abram tanks in Yemen with soviet era anti tank weapons!

[@D64nz]

Yeah, and the Saudi's had all the air support they could want, it made zero difference.

[@lucas82]

Yep, the Turkish lost several Leo 2s to Syrian insurgents as well, and the Israelis lost some Merkavas IVs to Hamas.

[@ericzimmerman9599]

​@@D64nzThey weren't using any infantry to protect the tanks, however. Not very smart.

[@ericzimmerman9599]

​@@lucas82 It's a numbers game in a large war. The question is, how many of those insurgents were gunned down by those same tanks.

[@badgerattoadhall]

you dont support tanks with infantry that kinda happens

[@Nomad-XA]

Why are people surprised to see a Abrams been destroyed 😅, is full scale war and NO Abrams is indestructible or any tank

[@arthursobrinho6842]

Its because they dont see the explosion of the T-72😂.

[@Leo_Pard_A4]

I was TC in the mid 80's, stationed in Germany. We were told that our survival time was 24 to 36 hours, and our battalion supply train only had fuel and ammo for 48 hours.

[@marshalljulie3676]

​@@arthursobrinho6842makes no sense

[@Rafale11]

​@marshalljulie3676 that's why you need tankers/supply's. 😮

[@f-35lightningii6]

world largest poor Russia 6,000+ losing tank weak by Ukraine drone..

[@tutydau]

If Abdul can wreck these tanks, what do you expect Sergei can do?

[@ailinofaolin8897]

Abdul speedruns up to tank places mine, runs away no more tank..

[@Wyomingchief]

​@ailinofaolin8897 actually no, Abdul runs up throws a mine under it and gets a Mobility kill. Shortly thereafter a recovery vehicle comes and takes it back and it's back on the battlefield 24 hours later. Sergey on the other hand, hits it with a drone getting more than likely a Mobility kill if he's lucky if not he blows off the blowout panels. The big difference is Abdul is fighting the M1A2sep3 And Sergey is fighting the M1 A1😂😂

[@Awesomes007]

Racist.

[@DrLsuBoyMatt]

@@Wyomingchief m1a1 entered service at 2007 idiot

[@enissay9950]

😂

[@lonniemoody5318]

No tank on this earth is invincible. PERIOD.

[@christophercook723]

What has a menstrual cycle to do with this?😢

[@D64nz]

Don't tell that to Hollywood. They just got done with their remake of Topgun. They really hate it when people imply their toys can be broken. And one mention the Dwight D. Eisenhower!

[@raywhitehead730]

It not a "problem" with the Abram tank. It's that All tanks are very vulnerable now. And it's not a problem of not having air supremacy.

[@D64nz]

There are so many conflicts where tanks with this mighty air support still get fried like it's not even there. Try tell that to the Saudi's who lost their Abrams to farmers with RPG's in Yeman. And they had all the air support they could have have wanted and it made zero difference.

[@msdos32]

@@D64nzthe saudis also aren’t a well trained or coordinated army. Tanks are relatively blind compared to infantry. They rely on infantry for support.

[@wadopotato33]

Air supremecy helps a ton. In the Gulf war the tank losses were lopsided during tank battles, but people also forget that during those tank battles the Iraqi's were gettjng hammered by Apache's and planes filling the CAS role. America knows better.

[@huskywr240]

@@wadopotato33 That's why the western veterans was killed, except the ones to managed to escape. To fight against Bedouins with sandals poorly armed in the desert is not like fighting against a real army, all the wars started up to now by the Americans were in contexts with "poor" armies. Helicopters and planes reportedly met a bad end in Ukraine

[@pr248]

Drones have made anti-tank warfare the equivalent to walking up to a dartboard an placing your dart where ever you want in order to get the maximum score.

[@DilbertMuc]

Drones are to heavy armored tanks like nimble torpedo bombers to heavy armored battleships!

[@pogo1140]

Bad tactics and lack of support is why. A single SPAA eliminates the threat of drones, as does a lightweight ECM jammer and IR dazzler that can be mounted on the roof of the tank and run off the tank's power supply

[@OptiPopulus]

@@pogo1140 Exactly, but the poorly trained crews and the tactically braindead generals over in Ukraine cannot figure this out.

[@DilbertMuc]

@@pogo1140 It's a game of cat and mouse. Both sides improve their tactics and electronics all the time to defeat the other side.

[@caav56]

@@pogo1140 >A single SPAA Only if you're talking about Skynex.

[@travisedmonds4214]

It's so strange that a tank that was designed 50 years ago has problems with drones...you think they would have taken that into consideration lol

[@amunra5330]

Westerns whine about "old" equipment yet when the West was fighting country shepherds with the tanks in Iraq and Afghanistan - "oh we are crushing it" Sucks to fight a REAL army doesn't it?

[@larrymunn5279]

Stockpile. These guys are getting US first gen Abrams it's just what they have on hand you know. At first they didn't wanna give any for multiple logistical reasons repair needs exclusive gear and experts the fuel costs are through the roof compared to other western tanks and it's heavier. Means traversing those swampy regions is that much harder. The US suggested lighter weight Euro tanks would be better suited and all they got was attitude I think it was Germany, said they would only contribute if the states did turned it into a political thing so, now they have both. Then Ukraine said F-16's, and Biden said no F-16's. And Poland said yes F-16's. So Biden said Okay F-16's. Then Ukraine said long range missiles. Biden said no long range missiles. You get the drift lol. (I think it was Poland I don't remember now somebody coughed up F16's)

[@1337flite]

Well yes - kinda. Drone are jus slow missiles with a high degree of accuracy.

[@3HourSleepHeartAttack]

Sarcasm ​@@larrymunn5279

[@mortalz9940]

50 years ago cope? all the internals are new and kontak armor

[@D.Feenstra]

Because not a single tank has been adapted to drone warfare...

[@oneshothunter9877]

+ no air support.

[@dzonikg]

@@oneshothunter9877 Air support want help you with drones

[@davebox588]

@@dzonikg It can if it can prevent a drone crew getting anywhere near to the tank or APCs. We're talking light drones, of course. Not Reapers or their equivalent.

[@dzonikg]

@@davebox588 Russia is bombing with glide bombs which intensely powerfull but still that dont help ,dron crews are probably deep inside some bunkers

[@youtubeuser_custom_1]

​@@oneshothunter9877and what if air support is against you?

[@smtx2117]

"M-kill" for Mobility Kill "K-kill" for Catastrophic Kill?

[@everholdwelding292]

no one uses K-kill. where this guy got that who knows. we use Mobility hits, and kills. not M-kill or K-kill.

[@johan3595]

is what happens when non-military do military videos

[@weeb3277]

$1K vs $10M

[@RocketPal]

Yeah, but a drone cant capture a town

[@Retronyx]

@@RocketPal but that's the point of a drone is to stop the tank from capturing a town.

[@vistakay]

​@@RocketPalPrimitive thinking

[@canadianwhitewolf3688]

Like all tanks, the Abram is not indestructible. The important thing is that the operators are not killed. Since the start of the invasion, drones have changed the situation enormously on both sides. We will have to change tactics and equip the tanks with anti-drone protection systems.

[@rory4656]

we also did not provide them with the unique armor we have on our tanks, just sent them the generic armor we sell to allies

[@lordraydens]

@@Sergey-ot2gc ok putinbot

[@rory4656]

@@Sergey-ot2gc its not the same armor bro

[@AchYamanKhadirov]

Sooner or later military tanks will be equipped with anti-drone technology

[@lordraydens]

@@Sergey-ot2gc ok putinbot

[@doodskie999]

This war has redefied and changed people's expectations. Tanks are almost obsolete due to the new drone threat, Russian tanks are very easy to cook off, Abrams and Nato are also equally easy to disable and the bradley, even though we did not give enough credit, is actually very effective in this kind of warfare.

[@bobbastian760]

The top hatches were never designed with drones in mind, it's a huge weakness.

[@grahamkearnon6682]

Why are you pronoucing the name ABrams, very odd.

[@roguemodel]

He's a Brit. enough said

[@Red.Hot.Chili.Beans63]

He thinks he's posh!

[@silentblackhole]

It's weird. Brits don't say it that way. This guy needs more exposure to the USA media for the equipment.

[@DaveP-uv1ml]

It’s a video that was never really intended for American domestic consumption. The only reason you were watching this video is because the KZbin algorithm found it and has calculated some statistical probability that you are inclined to watch the video. Even though you are not the video creators intended audience. But I wouldn’t complain about it because that’s like watching a French documentary in America and then writing in the comment section over in France why it’s not spoken in English? Do you see how that makes you look?

[@JAMMAJ-cq2bl]

@@DaveP-uv1ml 😂👏👍

[@ivanstepanovic1327]

Actually, the carousel is rarely hit directly. The reason for those catastrophic explosions is - additional ammo kept inside the tank. Carousel capacity is 22 rounds, but total ammo capacity of a T-72 is 45. The remaining 23 rounds are all over the interior. So, the chances of it being hit are very high in case of penetrating hit. What happens is: the hit comes, sets the cook off of spare ammo (outside the carousel, at which point it natters little to the crew what happens next) and than that cook off starts chain reaction that eventually gets to the carousel and then it pops up like a cork on a bottle. Very soon, both sides realized that and they carry only what ammo fits into carousel. Same thing with Leopard 2. If you check photos of destroyed Turkish Leo 2 tanks in Syria, you will see that at least one had its turret popped. How is that possible when they have blast door and blow panels? Well, they brought extra ammo that got hit...

[@MrZlocktar]

Russians are not storing more than 6 shells usually. Depends on task, but they would never keep more than 15 rounds in tank. Even 15 is too much.

[@backyardengineer916]

@@MrZlocktarsource?

[@MrZlocktar]

@@backyardengineer916 Russian TG and interviews with other tank crews, they're all admitting that most of the time they are getting attacked by drones when there is no ammunition left. They don't store more ammunition then they need for certain tasks.

[@D64nz]

@@MrZlocktar It would depend on the job. You might take a full ammo load to carry it forward, but even then trains and trucks would be a better option. You don't need full ammo unless you are going to be in an extended battle, and that's pretty rare. It's one detail that I liked in Warthunder. You can short your ammo to prevent extra damage from turret penetrations.

[@mirror0flife]

it's actually quite simple abrams were built long before drones even were a thing

[@AusNav09]

Exactly.

[@D64nz]

True. The real issue is the massive PR hit of the once invincible Abrams getting one tapped on the first shot by a T-72 from over 2km's away. Not that tank on tank battles are really a thing anymore, but they do happen on the odd occasion.

[@FrostyExlipse]

I'm pretty sure modern US Abrams, not the ones in Ukraine due to these being from the 80s of course, are adapted for drone warfare

[@Together707]

​@@FrostyExlipseyeah, sure... hope they send them and test those "anti-drone" capabilities. The copeing is stagering for a guys like you. 😅

[@loneranger5349]

When he ask do tanks have a place on the battlefield of the future. The answer is if you can afford to replace them 🤣🤣🤣

[@trvkim9435]

What they don't tell you is that those western tanks are rarely on the frontlines

[@LarsPallesen]

Which tanks would they put on the frontlines then? Old Soviet tanks from the 1960's? Don't think so.

[@haythemsandel8303]

The Ukrainians are being pressured to not cause the US and the west a PR embarrassment and to keep their tanks hiding in the rear, if they were more used on the frontlines they would all get destroyed in about a week.

[@briant5685]

@@LarsPallesen once russia destroyed one challenger british government ordered them to withdraw the remaining ones from the frontlines to save face and all propaganda of its invisibility

[@RainingFlow19]

​@@LarsPallesenukraine received more soviet t-72 than western tanks. Not on frontline due to ukraine conscript more familiar with soviet design and those tanks is stupid expensive. Each repair cost more than few soviet tanks repair.

[@alexandern5296]

@@LarsPallesen yes. most of their western tanks that were lost were lost during their failed 2023 summer offensive. after that they pulled them to the rear cause they were shook. had they remained on the front and on the offensive they would have been destroyed just like any other tank.

[@Tunneling_]

How is that first kill a failure?😂

[@Yomamakizmanuts]

It’s a failure for the Russians because even with the ammo cooked off, and a tank immobilized, the crew which is the key to making the tank effective, survived, and if possible, the tank could still repaired. The same cannot be said for the Russian T-72, T-80, and T-90s majority of which ended in a catastrophic kill, destroying the tank beyond repair, as well as killing the crew.

[@hariharanm1964]

@@Yomamakizmanutsit’s stuck there and the crew are out in the open if they can manage two drones to hit the tank a few more can finish of the rest as you can see the entire field is under Russian surveillance. It’s not like they will let the crew fight another day.

[@chillsthecreator]

@@hariharanm1964the crew survived tho, and if they retake the area under their control they have an extra tank.

[@kaulumapaulus9234]

​@@chillsthecreatorthe crew survived da attack on the tank, but video doesn't show if they survived when they were outside..

[@chillsthecreator]

@@kaulumapaulus9234 im saying that the survived period, they are alive

[@hotfightinghistory9224]

We Americans have no illusions of them being indestructible. We saw plenty get destroyed in urban combat in Iraq. Quite the opposite, we are heartened to see them being used (and yes, destroyed) on the battlefield for which they were intended. Furthermore, I can damn near promise that the crews of these incredible machines suffered zero losses and simply had to abandon the vehicle, leaving them easy targets for an FPV drone. The same can't be said for a T-72 when it gets popped by a Javelin.

[@thedarkexorcion8267]

The only reason the M1 doesn't explode like fireworks is because it doesn't have high-explosive shells, making it as safe for the crew as it is useless on the battlefield.

[@wadopotato33]

Not true. The Abrahms use HE rounds all of the time. They don't cook off like Russian tanks because the rounds are kept in a seperate compartment with blast doors designed to direct the blast outward away from the crew.

[@thedarkexorcion8267]

@@wadopotato33 Just compare a full-fledged high-explosive projectile and the misunderstanding that the Abrams uses, there is a difference as with a full-fledged self-propelled gun.

[@Sulayman356]

PROPAGANDA button 😂

[@briankorbelik2873]

Whose?

[@carkawalakhatulistiwa]

​@@briankorbelik2873 CIA

[@abel_underwater]

@@carkawalakhatulistiwa We just watched all tank crews survive in the few abrahms disabled; but that somehow overshadows the thousands of Russian tanks blasting off to space for u? 😂 pathetic paper bears

[@kasemuffin6133]

After Ukraine lost their first Challenger 2 they turned it into a stealth tank. 😆

[@Awaken2067833758]

I saw one turned into a submarine 😅

[@GodPresidentReagan]

Better than turning it into a space rocket. Russians can go into space no really its true! 🤣

[@ddoumeche]

The heavy Challenger 2 are hiding patiently from russian drones, deep in the mud

[@flakcannonhans6170]

They were used in Robotyne not that long ago

[@MerkavaMk4M]

@@GodPresidentReagan Challengers turret was also slightly blown off

[@SDZ675]

Tanks v Drones is the future, not Tanks v Tanks.

[@williambodin5359]

Crew survivability was always the main feature of the Abrams. You fight better when you know your tank isn't going to blow sky high when it is hit.

[@timothy1949]

really? so how did they lost 1/3 of the abrams in like 3 months? how many inferior russian tanks did they destroy? did they take out ONE? how exactly "better" did they fight? can you explain? so they made a tank that cost 3 times a typical russian tank, twice as big and tall, 40% extra the weight which get them stuck all the time and need multiple recovery vehicle to pull out, with one extra crew, only to survive when hit? so they can run away and beg for a new one and continue the process until the war ends?

[@elchicano187]

It’s an older model and they took away. It’s original armor.

[@celestineoc1123]

Why take the armor off if you believe it will not be captured ?

[@iamsorryforbeingrudebefore1626]

Even if you send the newer ones complete with armors, it wont make any difference.

[@AAAAAA-tj1nq]

@elchicano187 m1a2 sep v3 would share the same fate as the original abrams

[@haythemsandel8303]

Even if it had the armor it wouldn't anything because drone hits are mainly on the tank roof which is very thinly armored in ALL Abrams editions

[@lancerevo9747]

Coping so hard is not recommended. Even if the US sent the latest models, they would burn just the same. These were hit by mere FPV drones, tiny things. You should see what the lancet can do to a tank

[@albinofknrhino2949]

Nothing is invincible, the most expensive and difficult thing to replace is crew so the fact that they walked away to fight another day in another tank is worth way more then any tank. Also knowing your tank will protect you if hit means you get in the fight and do your job where im sorry if i was in a tank where it explodes and turns me into ash in mere seconds then you wouldnt find me and probably most russian tanks not rushing into battle or rushing to help people, they most likely stopping at every corner and slowly creeping along and hoping no one sees them and questiong there orders and if lives are on the line and depending on that tank well you can guess the outcome

[@maganzo]

because it's full scale war?

[@octitawhythisnameistaken]

Amen. Video over.

[@BulbBunny]

It's going against a capable military with the same amount of fire power.

[@kronk9418]

@@BulbBunnyHow many Russian tanks have been lost, again?

[@bb2866]

most powerful shovels ive ever seem

[@renemagritte8237]

Explain? Bcause we talk here three Abrams tanks destroyed in a full scale war during one week. In the very first 10 days of Russian invasion 3 Thousands of Russian tanks were destroyed on the way to Kiev.

[@youtubeuser_custom_1]

​@@renemagritte8237what is Kiev?

[@renemagritte8237]

@@youtubeuser_custom_1 шутник

[@friday9250]

“Best protection in the world” war thunder us mains would like too have a word

[@TUMSonY]

I thought most experts agree that the German leopard in its newest version is the most superior tank in the world?

[@Awaken2067833758]

That tale didn't last long either 🤣

[@gumby2241]

1 tiger tank against 10 t-34's, same logic now with 1 abrahms against 10 t-72's.

[@MerkavaMk4M]

@@gumby2241 It does not work like that also the Tiger number is made up so you know that

[@Mr79dream]

@@Awaken2067833758 where have you seen one in combat action? btw. 76 T-90M gone the way of the Dodo

[@pauloaz496]

​@@gumby2241 except they're not fighting any soviet tank, modern tank battle are very rare, and most of the loses on both sides are from anti-tanks and FPV.

[@blondeblue32]

Everyone has to make adjustments for the kid on the block......"drone"....and adapt. Bunkers need a solid door past the wire mesh. Tanks need defensive screening too.

[@johnglover3682]

This second episode of War on Tape was excellent! Period. Thank you. It is worth watching again and taking notes.

[@user-fu9vj9ix3g]

1) Yes. Tanks will remain important going forward for the foreseeable future,. 2) Tank tactics will evolve to deal with drones 3) Ukraine is appereantly not able to use them successfully due to lack of other assets 4) No tank is invulnerable - especially if left alone in a modern war with literally thousands of drones available to the enemy. US tanks are built with an entire system in mind, with air power and many other assets that go with an armored assault. 5) The same thing is happening to Russian tanks.

[@phillipgriffiths9624]

There already is drone protection. These tanks were not fitted with this protection.

[@user-hw6hb4rk9t]

No visible ground vehicle is safe against all these weird modern threats.

[@williamyoung9401]

Abrams tanks, designed and built in the 80s, didn't take drones into account during production.

[@nobody4y]

@@williamyoung9401 No tank is indestructable. Its only the question of the size of projectile you'l throw at them.

[@dailymail]

Hi, Chris here - thanks for watching and commenting. You're absolutely right, the combination of visibility and precision presents a generation-defining issue for military strategists. We now live in a world where you can see virtually everything on the battlefield, and (provided you have the ammo) can hit everything you can see. Two interesting solutions are: 1) Barracuda netting from Saab which is camouflage that works both visually and from electronic sensors - allowing friendly signals through and blocking all others (other versions are around, this is just the one I'm familiar with). 2) Decoys which trigger the enemy into wasting valuable ammo on low-value targets, effective hiding your real equipment in plain sight.

[@user-hw6hb4rk9t]

@@dailymail Countries need to get up much better jamming and anti-drone detection/mobile flak to protect armored formations.

[@andymogg1445]

Even the best tanks get destroyed in war so I'm not sure I see the point of this report.

[@CT-pq9ru]

Did he not think to learn how to say the word Abrams properly before recording this! loool

[@thevintagerecipeblog]

He's British and that's how they pronounce Abrams

[@CT-pq9ru]

@@thevintagerecipeblog I'm British, it's not how we pronounce it

[@zeldamage001]

Did the narrator have a stroke at the start of the vid? "This is an American Abaroos tank"

[@purplekys1536]

but the real question is how many died inside those abrams compared to on russian side t series tanks u can always replace abrams but cant replace battle hardened tank crew

[@Friedrich-ck2le]

The problem with your argument is US tanks' multi-million dollar price tag.

[@purplekys1536]

@@Friedrich-ck2le so are t series tanks too or t72 is ~1.2m and t80 is something around 3m

[@fridaynight3181]

​@@Friedrich-ck2leM1A1 is only around 5 million

[@Friedrich-ck2le]

@@fridaynight3181 Although the total cost of a single four-person Abrams tank can change, according to Reuters data, it tops $10 million per unit when training and maintenance are factored in. In contrast, the Russian Shoigu tank has a price tag of just $1.2 million.

[@fridaynight3181]

@@Friedrich-ck2le coming bro, you really believe in Russians? The M1A1 is export version and it's armour is removed. Even the Egypt can build their own M1s. That thing is dumped down version of the US army version. The latest version of Abrams is M1A2 Sep V4 that cost 20 million each.

[@hopcat500]

They are older reconditioned models that have been stored out in the desert. Ukranian tactics and coordinated combined arms operations don't seem to be used by the Ukranians. The combat videos I see are of a couple tanks driving down one lane roads surrounded by wide open fields. Now drone attacks are making ALL ARMOR vulnerable to attacks from above. war is evolving and tactics must evolve as well. Automated warfare and AI powered planes and vehicles will be the effective weapons of the future.

[@williamgollatz1911]

Yeah, the presenter here is an idiot, and so are most of the posters. A MBT, fighting trench warfare... The M1A1 was designed to kill while moving 80-kp/h, not speed down a road and stop. The M1A1 is designed to work in coordination with IFV's. Ukraine is doing none of that. Not exactly their fault - but no one wants to put all the M1's into one unit with a lot of Bradlys to punch a hole and do a gun run run through lines and return back.

[@xisotopex]

combined arms takes a while to master and I dont think the ukrainians ever had all those elements in place, and especially the numbers needed.

[@cliffordferguson6520]

THE person who invented the bomb drone should get their award.

[@brrrlak]

3:32 if it burns to the ground it's NOT a "K-kill"? 4:16 so that's a "K-Kil".... m'kay...

[@thejourney6712]

😂 I realized that too

[@fridaynight3181]

It only damaged the blow out panels. Tank is repairable. But t72 turret blow up into the sky is not repairable

[@brrrlak]

You might want to watch the video again.

[@fridaynight3181]

@@brrrlak all that engine, ammo are easily replaceable in Abrams. The fire will stop burning at some point. Even the tank structure look fine.

[@voidtempering8700]

​@@fridaynight3181The tank was completely burned out, the hull was black.

[@LccAdventures]

Well, there were no drones back when the tanks now were made. That's why.

[@firstnamerequiredlastnameo3473]

The drones were still using rubber band motors then.

[@dzonib1]

tanks are not indestructible, none is. it’s about survivability of the crew that makes the difference. the crew is still more valuable than anything, not only because it’s human lives, but also the training it requires. the media and people need to understand that

[@SodaPop392]

It's an m1a1 so its outdated, the m1a2 has very advanced tech and features that the m1a1 does not, plus the Abrams tanks are not designed for northern environments but are designed for western and southern environments. The m1a1 first came into service in the 80s and the m1a2 first came into service in 2008. Also tanks are not indestructible and drones are a new anti tank warfare method which no current tanks are designed for yet.

[@CMB21497]

My first question is, why the tank is being operated by itself? These tanks are supposed to be used in teams with infantry support.

[@user-tt6il2up4o]

So how is that going to help giant drones?

[@CMB21497]

@@user-tt6il2up4o Drones are temporary. If you can stop an incoming ATGM, you can stop a drone. Just have to develop a cost efficient system. The reason I said what I said is that these tanks are repairable. You can't recover a tank if you don't have security in an area. The crew lived. Repair the tank and send them back into combat in a repaired tank.

[@vpapenko]

Because any concentrated force will be immediately spotted and targeted by the artillery. The combination of high awareness and fast and precise long range strikes changed the game, maybe more than drones.

[@macheadg5er]

​@@vpapenko wrong that is NOT how combined arms works in the USA. There would be NO artillery in range because it would have been destroyed by aircraft and cruise missiles and drones already. This is BASIC stuff. Even in the first Gulf war air superiority was number 1 then once achieved all artillery sites were destroyed etc....

[@vpapenko]

@@macheadg5er I know how US fight against less advance opponent. But we talk about Russia vs Ukraine, and my point is true for this war. Both sides are using advanced reconnaissance from small drones to AVACS and satellites, and know about every move of the opponent. Both sides use artillery, MLRS, cruise and ballistic missiles to suppress any preparation of massive attack.

[@ihaverandomlifevideos]

Crazy how Cold War era tanks are finally fighting each other in Europe in practically their original forms.

[@jasonmccredden1050]

The confetti in party popper's would stop a drone

[@sorinturle4599]

How many is that "so many"? About 30 were sent in total. And as some already specified in the comments, there is a huge-huge difference: Abrams, Leopards tanks were detroyed or damaged, but the crews survive, they aren't breaking records at turret vertical launching, instaltly carbonising the crew or turning it in airforce. On the question....in the nearby future, the tanks in general will have little place in the battlefield. They will have some more place for those who have the means to ensure the air control, but in general, they tend to be obsolete. Maybe the IFV-s, more mobile, will do a better job overall, as it seems that Bradley does a better job than the Abrems. Exception may be if they have active protection which would really work and/or having loitering amo, which can be fired from 20+ km, so that the tank will not be exposed in the battle area. It would be the presumptive case of KF-51 or Abrams-X, but the prices would be prohibitive, you purchase an army of drones for the price of one such of tank.

[@donwyoming1936]

It shows people's lack of knowledge how the Abrams tank is designed. The ammo crib in the back of the turret is meant to blow upward if penetrated to protect the crew. The module is replaceable. The tank isn't destroyed.

[@1llus1ve]

I'm going to to remain pretty doubtful that the tank is undestroyed until someone gives me the chance to check out the interior of one of these "undestroyed" tanks. In the video it sure looks like waves of burning molten material are pouring out of the ammo compartment onto the engine compartment. The hull is intact so technically the tank might be repairable but if the engine/transmission needs to be replaced and the electronics are fried by the heat then I'd call the tank practically destroyed.

[@justanaverageguy912]

@@1llus1ve so you are saying blow out panels don't work as advertised, and that the abrams is being sold with inflated capabilities? and nobody sued the manufacturer yet?

[@1llus1ve]

@@justanaverageguy912 I'm saying that while blow out panels may do what they say they do and prevent a catastrophic detonation of the entire ammo store, it's not at all obvious that they do more than that. For all the videos I've seen that demonstrate the escape of the crew from the tank, I've not seen a single one that demonstrates that anything inside the tank is still operational afterwards.

[@dailymail]

Hey, Chris here - thanks for watching and commenting. This was what motivated me to make this video in the first place - we discuss the safety features of the Abrams at length including how the blowout panels are deliberately weak in order to protect the crew. Even after the fire, this tank was probably repairable if Ukraine could have rescued it, though unfortunately we believe it fell into Russian hands after they captured the village of Berdychi last month.

[@dmknght8946]

yeah the tanks were not destroyed. they were just not work anymore lmaoooo

[@amunra5330]

8 Abrams have been destroyed so far out of the 31 Abrams tanks in Ukraine.

[@1maico1]

The oryxspioenkop photo data base shows M1A1 Abrams: 3 destroyed, 1 damaged, 4 damaged and abandoned. So 7 lost.

[@parrotsarnoso1099]

Zalensky retired them from the battle.....read the news.

[@lafosh7234]

@@parrotsarnoso1099he did not you bot..the 47th brigade already came out and dispelled that weak ass Russian lie literally videos of abrams sending rounds into Russian positions posted just last week Soo go touch grass

[@MerkavaMk4M]

​@@1maico18 have been lost in one way or another

[@jackdbur]

All current tanks are vulnerable to drone attacks on their engines!

[@alextaylor29]

Fantastic content and video. Like and subscribed. Very well researched, documented and presented.

[@Bren.nto6971]

They claim change From "Game changer!" to "Obsolete"😂💩

[@opus3989]

Meanwhile in Russia - the blind turtle tank or - Barn tank 2000 is entering the battleground. Latest of Russian tanks in drone defence.. 😂

[@Nnn_Lofi]

It ain’t stupid if it works 🐢

[@DilbertMuc]

Russian slogan: Keep it simple, stupid. And it works. Now Ukrainians build cages and ERA tiles around their Abrams like on their T72s. And a Ukrainian turtle tank appeared as well.

[@lancerevo9747]

The concept will be copied by NATO and their allies very soon.

[@Booz2020]

Ingenuity 🤯

[@useridxvbnbtg]

It works. This is why Ukraine is getting fkd all over the front line and withdrawing on a daily basis.

[@davejoseph5615]

This simply demonstrates the fact that modern FPV drones are changing the design requirements for armored vehicles. For the M1A1 it may mean that the blow-off doors are too weak in the era of accurate drone attacks. Every M1A1 is at least 32 years old.

[@Awaken2067833758]

it was a great idea for tank on tank combat but it is the worst tank against cheap drones, imagine having thousands of those as your mbt 😅

[@1337flite]

The blow off doors would also be a problem for any top attack weapon - and top attack missiles have been around for 20+ years.

[@davejoseph5615]

​@@Awaken2067833758 I don't think any tanks are doing well against drones.

[@dailymail]

Hi, Chris here - thanks for watching and commenting. Couple of thoughts... First, you're absolutely right that FPV drones are a game-changer. Militaries have long theorised about the possibilities of weapons like these, but only in Ukraine have we seen how effective they are. All future weapon systems will have to respond to this threat - tanks included. Second, the blowout panels are deliberately weak. They're supposed to fly off if the ammo compartment gets hit in order to vent any explosion away from the crew. Reinforcing the panels would vent the blast towards the crew, which is the last thing you want! Hope that helps clarify.

[@davejoseph5615]

@@dailymail Cope cage then?

[@Withnail1969]

Because the Abrams is a huge, extremely heavy and unreliable tank. it turned out it was a better idea to build lots of cheaper, lighter, reliable tanks like the Soviet Union did.

[@FlorinSutu]

2:55 - - "ends in failure" Is the narrator hallucinating? It is like he would say "White is black" or "Black is white."

[@2663540]

Many of us saw in the begining of the war how many tanks that russia lost. With this said, many of us saw it pointless sending tanks to ukraine.

[@mrbaywatch21]

The difference between Russian and American tanks is crew survivability… not alien technology making them indestructible

[@D64nz]

Wrong. That only applies to Hollywood movie tanks.

[@muhlenberg2608]

At the opening of this video, they show an Abrams tank brewing up. I noticed that all of the crewmembers were able to bailout safely. This is because the ammunition locker is separated from the crew compartment. You wouldn't see the crewmembers bailing out alive if this was a Russian tank.

[@GregsAutomotive]

Tbh without drones to contend with this tank would indeed be a gamechanger.

[@huskywr240]

It's a bit like saying that Mike Tyson with his hands tied would be easy to beat.

[@joehayward2631]

No tank. Armor carrier, grunts, attack helos, ECT should never be alone on the battlefield

[@cykelpump2]

Because they have never encounted drone warfare before.....and "so many destroyed" 🤔

[@hotdogcaptain11]

@JeanLucsNerdBrain you mean like the iraqi army....twice?

[@fcukrealmadrid]

compare with who? russia lost thousands tanks if russia vs us, russia gone already

[@ailinofaolin8897]

@hotdogcaptain11 Only Americans think those are wars.

[@macheadg5er]

@@ailinofaolin8897 only morons think they were not

[@DrVincentHVTran]

3.

[@jamesgorman1979]

Big difference is 99% of the time the crew survives. Thats whats important. Tanks can be replaced. A well trained crew can't as easily

[@Mizonoob]

Says who. Ukraine propaganda. Now i dont believe anything Ukraine says. So should you

[@fasx56]

Appreciated the question and answer session presented by the Host and Weapons Expert. The mans answers to the many questions were precise and well thought out and were coning from a very knowledgeable expert on the subject of Tanks and other weapon systems.

[@magedogtag]

The fact that the crew survived, If I remember correctly, was the purpose of the blowout panels to begin with. The fact that the tank may be totally recoverable and put back into action is also part of the design. It was never designed to be invincible. On top of that, when it was designed there was no such thing as a weaponized drone. All that being said, it's still a world leading tank and with, possibly, some improvements it will reestablish dominance. Or not. Time will tell.

[@ericscottstevens]

I was in an M1A1 armor unit for 3 years, the tanks were not meant for single salient but armored spearhead platoons. As for the longevity of the tank, it was actually being reduced from Army & Marine service. Yet US congressmen and senators wishing to keep their districts constituents employed keeping the assembly line going despite the declining need. .Now the M1A1 tanks are being used for surplus to disposal one tank at a time.

[@AgentPepsi1]

Ukraine only got 31 M1A1 tanks... not the newest... most are 40 years old. Seven, so far, have been destroyed. I wonder how many T-72, T-80s, and T-90s litter the battlefields.

[@harbard642]

​@ibrahimmoncada2710ask your self why... Oh wait...u about to Tell me western corruption I know.

[@firstnamerequiredlastnameo3473]

Not many M1A1 tanks destroyed because there are so very few of them available on the battle field. Russia likes to break the few that do show up.

[@thankmelater1254]

Wasn't Ukraine told to not expose them to battle, in order to to keep the MACHINE safe? Save their reputation? That is , when they're not sinking in the mud?

[@WarzoneOfficial22789]

Itu karena tank Abrams tidak berani keluar karena takut dipermalukan Rusia lewat drone FPV. Harga jual tank Abrams akan terjun bebas jika itu terjadi karena performanya tidak sesuai dengan kertas brosur.... 🤭🤭🤭🤭😂😂

[@reguengos15]

Firstly, USA forced Ukraine to relegate the remaining tanks to support or back roles, so they would suffer less casualties, however doing so basically mutes the purpose of a tank... Also, as when they were announced to be sent, US secretary said in press conference that, while being M1A1s, they were retrofited to be on par with M1A2s. Do not forget that the latest M1 gen can also be an upgrade on the existing old chassis. So... Please stop, no need to throw sand on the eyes, instead just learn, be critical and imparcial... Probably if so, Ukraine would not be in a so bad position right now (starting with the 2023 summer offensive....).

[@herickdeharo]

USA never send tanks whitout aeral support.

[@KODAK_1]

Yes it doesz

[@brianrasmussen2956]

"so many".. Erh, they recieved 31, so it can't be "so many"... Really...

[@brianrasmussen2956]

However if you ask putin they probably destroyed 1 billion Abrams and killed 37 trillion "Western" soldiers. And 80 googol Ukrainian soldiers.

[@rolandthethompsongunner64]

I seriously doubt that little drone can carry a 20lb warhead 😂

[@Solanis]

No idea where you got 20 lb from. The larger one carries 4.5 kg payload, which is close to 10 lb.

[@Slapbladder]

You are seeing the blowout secton saving the crews lives so they can escape and man another tank. This is exactly the design, not the turret poppers, the soviet designs. These are also old M1A1 Abrams without any additional armour.

[@karakarakiri9568]

4 tank crew. Only 3 seen out. 2 of them burning. That is possibly 3 crew KIA/WIA from the image alone. As we have seen in Iraq, Abrmas survivability after penetration is not that great fro the crew. Probably better than any russians (T-72/90) and ukrianians (T-64/80) designed soviet tanks once the ammo is hit, but not that much regarding injuries.

[@D64nz]

@@karakarakiri9568 All tanks store ammo in the turret. There simply isn't anywhere else to put all of it. Why do you think the back of the Abrams turret is so large? It's just as, if not more deadly than a T-72 because it's only protected from the front. Western Doctrine of the time was for the big arrow push, with support always protecting the flanks. That simply can't happen on the modern battlefield, and each tank becomes it's own singular entity. That's specifically why the T series tanks were designed with round turrents. They are defending in all directions because they were planning on urban and forest combat where ambushes are common.

[@lee00346]

three out of four got out. and they were smoking and stumbling around looking pretty injured...

[@ericzimmerman9599]

​@@karakarakiri9568 There is a second part to this video where the whole crew is evaced.

[@ericzimmerman9599]

​@@lee00346 There is a second part of this video where the whole crew is evaced.

[@patallen5095]

No tank is indestructible......crew survivability is paramount and the video captures this. A T-Whatever's crew would not have. Also, these are first generation Abrams.

[@tedstewart114]

You do realise the drone filming the event was Russian, the crew lived for a few mins. after the tank was destroyed.

[@lancerevo9747]

The crew were hit by a frag shell, and sticking together like that helped in making the strike effective.

[@thankmelater1254]

"crew survivability is paramount" That was the plan. Seems though, that human survivability is a deal less than "paramount" in Ukraine.

[@marklandwehr7604]

Another way to say the same thing anti tank weapons work don't they

[@voidtempering8700]

These aren't first generation Abrams. There is a 30 year age difference between the M1a1 SA and the original M1 Abrams.

[@OfficialUSKRprogram]

It's amazing how the crew could run away despite the ammo fire.

[@psilocybintherapybahamas8443]

Russia always has been best with making enough price/quality tanks to win a war, in fact the germans spent 90% of their army on Russia, the other allies got the other 10 %

[@danditto6145]

That’s how a blow out panel is supposed to work. Saves the crew, makes the tank recoverable. If you make the blow out panels really strong it will redirect the blast into the tank and crew compartment. The only thing I would change is put something in the ammo bin that ejects all the ammo if it is penetrated. Abrams and Challenger are the best tanks in the world, but a tank that has balanced armor, armament and powertrain will always have a some danger spots in its defenses. Abrams and Challenger probably balance that as well as anything the Allies were able to field in World War II, as opposed to the German tanks whose armor weighed so much they destroyed their own power train.

[@firstnamerequiredlastnameo3473]

Many of the short comings do not show up until the machines are operating in the field under war time conditions. Very difficult to anticipate every weakness during design. Important that manufacturers be able to adapt and refit equipment quickly as discoveries are made on the battle field.

[@mightza3781]

@@firstnamerequiredlastnameo3473 NATO and Russian tanks might have newer electronics and armor packages, but the base platform is still a Cold War era design as there was no incentive to change. This is in contrast to the rapid evolution of tanks during WWII where the chassis of older tanks became obsolete and were repurposed into casemate assault guns and tank destroyers. All tanks today have thin top armor and are vulnerable to drones. Abrams has an advantage in crew survivabliilty with how ammo is stored, but still gets knocked out as easily as a T72. IFVs have remained much more relevant due to their versatility as they can fill the role of APC, light tank, ambulance and command center.

[@Awaken2067833758]

Abrams is the worst tank in the world against cheap drones and the challenger 🤣🤣

[@denislemieux4915]

What's important is the survivability. The Abrams crews survived to fight another day. T crews are in orbit after being blasted into the sky.

[@tedstewart114]

You do realise the drone filming the event was Russian, the crew lived for a few mins. after th

[@thankmelater1254]

Seems that Ukrainian lives are cheap and exposed, whereas those tanks are being coddled.

[@Awaken2067833758]

They are going to fight another day, in the front with an assault rifle because they are not getting a new tank 😅

[@marseldagistani1989]

​@@tedstewart114 Meanwhile, Sergei, Misha, and Sasha have saved the government money on cremations

[@tommytomas-fr3sh]

Keep believing in these lies.

[@jamesalias595]

The USA never wanted to give Ukraine the Abrams except they kept pleading for them. The Abrams is a great tank, but it's not made for static warfare. It would be hard to target Abrams with drones in the dessert if the tank is driving at full speed to overrun the enemy position. Targeting something on the move and is coming to kill you is harder than sitting in a trench flying a drone against a slow moving or stopped tank.

[@MrVovenarg]

yeah, exactly 7000 of T-72. I believe.

[@creative_cooper]

Tanks are done, until there's a more effective way to deal with drones.

[@1337flite]

I would be surprised if active defense - with sufficient projectiles couldn't defeat drones with some software updates. Active defense is intneded to hit an RPG round. The only difference is these RPG rounds are moving slower than if fired ona rocket, probably the software in active defense systems has a minimum speed. That won't help the older Ukraine Abrams, but the modern US Abrrams can probably be4 protected.

[@ddoumeche]

Either go for passive defense like the russian turtle tanks, or active defense with a AA gun turret

[@marseldagistani1989]

​@@ddoumeche The Abrams has a solution Turret mounted .50 cal Which also comes in a remote control trolled turret

[@kenibnanak5554]

LoL are you drunk? "So many destroyed'? We (the US) have about 6.000 Abrams in reserve and another 2500 in active duty. So 6 are damaged. Macht Nichts. A truly insignificant percentage. Ukraine requested 500 Abrams tanks for the 2023 offensive. The US supplied 33 and questioned why the 2023 offensive didn't work. LoL Tanks are expendable combat weapons. During the Battle of Kursk both the USSR and Nazi Germany lost thousands of tanks in the battle. All tanks can be immobilized by blowing their tracks with a land mine.

[@mortalz9940]

Its 13 abrams destroyed out of 31 sent to ukraine cope harder

[@parrotsarnoso1099]

There is a web page with pictures of hundreds of M1 Abrams destroyed in Iraq.......

[@navyseal1689]

M1 Abrams is just bad

[@Dking863]

Actually your wrong.. America has twelve thousand Abram tanks with enough parts to fix sixty thousand of them..

[@kenibnanak5554]

@@Dking863 LoL, that's probably correct and makes their decision to not supply the 500 but send 33 instead look even more stingy. Also raising the possibility that the White House doesn't really want to see Ukraine defeat Russia, but instead just keep slowly depleting Russia's capability without an actual defeat.

[@diasaidlv]

Abrams has only one advantage - Marketing Team.

[@user-nz6dx2fj6h]

Don't forget that their tanks had to be crewed by very short crews, and in Riussia, that's a short commodity(pun intended).

[@mikitadou]

Ukrainian army opened a new can of worms with their drone warfare that they resorted to due to lack of options, even russians are copying them now. Modern Tanks are not ready for this at this point.

[@Bfizzle62]

The difference is that the US doesn't send a single tank into a contested area unsupported

[@EmmettBrown9]

So you're telling me the US spends $10 million on M1 Abrams and the tank is useless in a contested environment without any support? Can you further explain what a contested area would mean for a tank? HOW MUCH DOES AN M1 ABRAMS TANK COST? The Abrams tanks are made by General Dynamics and each one costs over $10 million when including training and upkeep, according to Reuters.Jan 26, 2023

[@Bfizzle62]

@@EmmettBrown9 How the Hell did you make that leap of logic? That's not even close to the point that I made.

[@fridaynight3181]

​@@EmmettBrown9M1A1 export version is only around 5 million

[@JamesGrim08]

@@EmmettBrown9 Tanks are never meant to be unsupported. Thats like tank warfare 101...

[@galesiege6099]

So... How do you make the are uncontested? And with what support?

[@ilikeit2ful]

Thank you William, your explanation was excellent! There are so much more to warfare that have to be taken into consideration today - the Russo-Ukrainian war demonstrated that unequivocally. The West - in fact the world, has to urgently rethink and redesign war tactics and strategy. They have for way to lonnnnnnggg hide in their comfort zones and not realizing that the battlefield has basically overnight changed from brute force to delicate electronic warfare.

[@hourbee5535]

Ukraine's request and America's decision to provide Abrams was purely political theater. Anyone with any sense knew they would not make a difference in the current conflict and were just expensive fireworks.

[@RUTHLESSambition5]

These tanks are meant to fight in the desert against defenseless farmers 😂😂😂 Don't stand a chance against a real army.

[@drzdeano]

​@@RUTHLESSambition5 not really they were designed during the cold war to fight russian tanks in Europe so... .. they were not designed to defend against drones

[@bigtechisbigbrother8690]

Yes it was silly to think that 30 tanks were going to have any effect. It was all for propaganda purposes.

[@xisotopex]

@@RUTHLESSambition5 wrong. they were meant to fight the soviets on the very ground they are on now.

[@RUTHLESSambition5]

@@xisotopex and yet ukrainians don't want to use them😂😂😂

[@user-zs5ez8xn1g]

Best protection?Ukrainians said to cnn that the tank didn't protect the crew.

[@thankmelater1254]

Stop that! This is UK media. Have some respect for the old boys club.

[@gumby2241]

they're just the regular bullshiiters.

[@chickenfishhybrid44]

Share the link to that CNN video please. Thanks, 3 month old account

[@user-zs5ez8xn1g]

@@chickenfishhybrid44 Just type "CNN video shows captured tanks" it was something like that. KZbin deletes links.

[@user-zs5ez8xn1g]

@@chickenfishhybrid44 type "CNN captured tanks". KZbin deletes links. Also what about my account? I just have a new phone. My older one fell in water so I had to do everything again.

[@abraryaseen8842]

They have been using it against men with aks in flipflops and declared themselves to be indestructible 😂

[@user-zl6li1mr6m]

didn't realize snowden was an expert on tanks as well

[@fitycalibre7555]

They destroyed like 5 and you’re acting like the entire US Tank corpse is being obliterated lmao. Like how many T Series tanks have the Russians lost?

[@user-qj9rq5ee1c]

This man is an expert of matchboxes .

[@MrBadBean]

But the crew survived how many Russians have the chance to escape a tank explosion, not many.

[@backyardengineer916]

More than you think. Ukraine doesn’t post failed attempts🤯

[@jaspercaelan4998]

Tanks are becoming obsolete like battleships in WW2. Just like they were taken out by cheap aircraft dropping torpedos tanks are taken out by cheap drones and RPGs.

[@maishjunior4651]

Being the best doesn't mean it can't be destroyed... Abrams are the best for they're more protective to soldiers

[@ronaldsherbaum899]

Not the tank, it's the crew