@@paulbrown4649with dominate air power the battlefield is completely different. It would be hard to establish position to use drones . when bombs and missile rain down on the battlefield
@@Canthus13 A tank in a real battle is still advancing, if the hostile artillery isn't that accurate, because drones mostly do recon. However, like the US fights the war, it isn't made for an Ukrainian success, so these battle tanks don't act like they should. Also, the US doesn't protect the regular soldiers or unrecruited civilians from hostile murder or special operations, so the achievable numbers to create superiority don't matter. Only that way these special operations can hide, and keep Ukraine away from a proper military advance.
Why is nobody talking about the big white elephant of the abrams FUEL ECONOMY....... Ukraine has the leopard that uses almost HALF of what an Abrams does but has comparable performance. This comes down to simple economics, Ukraine can run TWO leopards for the cost of one Abrams..... simple as that. Nothing to do with AT weapons or training or anything else really.... The only other issue is tanks like Abrams and challenger are extremely heavy for winter combat in Ukraine and moving them around will add to that fuel bill, In reality only the usa has the economic power to run them, nobody else really can in large numbers.
I also wanted to add another point that was left out in this video: the weight of the tank 55-60 tons in a terrain like Uraine is not going to work too well during any season but winter. The soil is for the most part earth/dirt without much rock in it and with a bit of rain or melted snow it will be mud in no time. That's why most Soviet/Russian tanks are around 40 tons.
It's a two fold. The bradley isn't useless since it has shown its effectiveness against russian tanks repeatedly. But it's just getting increasingly short lived due to the focus on fpv warfare.
Bradleys can take on most Soviet era tanks if it has TOW (specifically made to counter Soviet tanks), it can transport troops and since it’s less than half the weight of an Abrams, it can go over bridges etc. Abrams was made for a major symmetrical conflict that never came to pass.
LOL, seriously you are judging abrams alone.. and the first generation of abrams to boot. The abrams is just piece of the military puzzle. you need to take into account Ukraine doesn't have A-10's for close air support, you don't see F-15's, F-35's, B2's, Kiowas, Apache's, etc. putting a single piece into a battle without support is a poor way to judge the effectiveness of said piece.
sorry mister , you have to think the war without Air Assets since Air dominance it contested, you dont fight talibans there to throw anything you want.
@jamesoke7414 , yeah and against you there is same ... so basically your tanks goes vulnerable to drones.Still no defense against drones,you will hear only bzzzzzz,boom.Both sides are trying to shoot the drones because there is no laser or emp riffles 🤣
If an Abrams a car. The war in Ukraine is like a city with no parking, congestion pricing and speed cameras. A e scooter will serve you better. Smaller faster and cheaper if you lose one.
And when the Russians started using such vehicles, our bald UA-camr was crowing that it was because they had run out of tanks. It might be hard to hear, but Western "experts" have had a pretty shocking war.
@@Samuel-hd3cp when the Russia started using what exactly?? The only shocking thing about this war is how bad the Russians are performing against their own very small ill-equipped neighbor. Imagine if Russia was actually trying to fight a pier that was somewhere else on planet Earth. 😂
@@FeatheredDino pretty sure he meant "started using e-scooters"; or rather their actual equivalents of dirt-bikes, buggies ("golf carts") and the like. There was a moment a few weeks (months?) back, where a lot of "western" youtubers went /point /laugh "look at those poor russians, now they have to use civilian vehicles because they ran out of tanks and IFVs". Turns out that those bikes are just better suited to certain battlefield conditions such as urban environments with roadblocks, mines and debris while at the same time offering less valuable targets for FPVs.
The Abrams tank sucks because it only got its Fame from fighting insurgents third world countries and ragtag militias and Gorillaz you put it up against anyone with sophisticated weapons is just burning scrap metal
@@richardbenjamin8341 exactly look at France at start of WWII they actually had more and heavier armor than Germans but they were trying to use them as part of a static defense and they were crushed. Tanks are a part of mobile warfare with a combined arms strategy.
IIRC Lloyd Austin clearly said the Abrams would be useless in Ukraine but Germany refused to give Leopard 2 tanks unless supported by other countries giving MBTs so the US had to give a few to unlock the situation.
During the Gulf War (1990-1991), while M1 Abrams tanks seemed to perform exceptionally well in tank battles, the majority of Iraqi tanks were actually destroyed by U.S. and coalition aircraft through overwhelming air superiority.
The difference is American fought in Iraq, they trained and knew how to use their equipment effectively and efficiently. So what if we gave them only 30 Abram’s? We’ve given them countless personnel transport vehicles and Bradley’s, we gave them F-16s, and long range missiles. Why should we continue to give our weapons away when we get nothing in return?
The US only sent them so the Europeans would have the balls to send their own tanks. The US said the Ukrainians wouldn't be able to use them, but European countries refused to send their tanks until the US sent them as they were worried about escalation.
@@Ch1cken_Nub what do you mean, get something back. We are ally’s and Ukraine is attacked. What do want them to do? Give up ? Get under Russian control? No one wants to be under Russian control. Only dictators are finde with that
Nobody expected them to make a difference. They are there to signal political support for the reconquista of Crimea. The fighting will be done by artillery and drones. But the idiots who saw war movies with tanks aren’t convinced unless you show them the picture of a main battle tank. It’s a theater just for you! 🎭
@@JesterEric They sent them 8 per week, not 800 tanks at once, big fucking difference. Same with artillery shells and everything else. Parcel it out a bit at a time for maximum political clout without making a real difference to anything. Great plan bart!
@@wavydavy9816 I never understood why they did that, not to mention why they announce what they are sending at all. Seems to me entirely counterproductive.
The issue is with tanks in general, not the Abrams specifically. With the rise of the drone, putting a multi-million dollar tank in combat without the intended combined arms protection is not a good trade. The tank kind of reminds me of the cavalry in WW1. When the breakthrough is achieved, then you need them but for static warfare they're of little use & consume lots of supplies. There needs to be a design shift if they want to use tanks in this kind of warfare. The Russians have tried it with their 'Turtle tanks' which are crude & of dubious effectiveness but it shows a different defence is needed as the front glacis of the tank is no longer the crucial area that requires protection. There is also the fact that the heavy NATO tanks were designed for a very different war & environment. For breaking up mass attacks by T72 type 'medium' tanks on the plains of Northern Europe, they'd probably perform well, as long as they had sufficient air cover & electronic warfare countermeasures. Used individually in a muddy field with next to no protection, of course they've going to struggle.
Exactly my thoughts. Drones are the new airpower, with their anti-tank warheads being dropped on top of the tanks etc. plus blocks of C4 attached to blow off turrets and generally ruin the tankers day. These weapons were not allowed or planned for when the tanks were dsigned. Mass drone airpower may be one way forward in modern battle conditions.
I am wondering if you could miniaturize C-RAM systems and put them on top of tanks. The current systems are far too big and heavy but those are also made to engage actual arial targets flying relatively high and fast. FPV drones fly relatively low to the ground are not that fast and need to get pretty much on top of their target. So it would be enough to engage targets that are only a few hundred meters away at most. I think with the current advancement in computer vision a lidar or even camera based system should be able to spot and recognize fpv drones.
To all, including Paul, who claims that the war in Ukraine proves tanks to be useless... Both Russia and Ukraine not only continues to use tanks, they actively seek to get more of them. This means both sides, in spite of being intimately familiar with and the worlds leading expert in drone warfare, consider tanks being absolutely necessary to still field. That alone should give anyone pause and start consider "why" that is the case.
Ukraine doesn't know how to use tanks any more than the Russians do. they both are former Soviet mindset armies. and neither understands combined arms.
Yup but the point is that a 60 year old Leo1 is about more usefull then an Ab. They still like the Leo2 and that tank from the Britts. Its only the Ab that sucks for them and even then they probable be pretty happy if the USa ships over a thousend or so. It just is a sucky tank for ukraine to operate but that was already known. Its overly complex is a fuell hog even for a tank isn't that fast or manouverable. The only good thing about it was its armour and they didnt get that. I mean its a nice machine for a breakthrough tank if you can protect it and can aford the logistics nightmare the thing is.
The Worlds leading expert in Drone warfare is probably sat in a trench on one or the other side of this conflict right now... not some upper rank officer in procurement that's never had one explode in his vicinity...
@johntowers1213 More likely in a basement somewhere, assembling the newest prototype... but point still stands. If they didn't see a need for tanks, they wouldn't spend so much efforts getting more of them.
Drone operator said: Only 15% moving targets were hit by FPV drone. The rest of it was disabled by mines or ATGM. FPV drones normaly only finish disabled tanks.
That would have been correct a month ago. But the Russians are evolving and adapting to the war. Something the Ukrainians and their allies(mainly the US) are failing to do. The same tricks dont work twice. The Russians are now using fiber optic drones. Meaning they cant be disabled. Only shot down.
as I said years ago. why didn't Ukraine setup mine field along the border with Russia? when it was clear Russia was building up their force to invade Ukraine? that would have slowed down the invasion quite a bit.
@@davidjacobs8558 one of the major bridges leading into Ukraine was allegedly mined specifically to slow down an invasion but mysteriously didn’t go down despite Ukrainian military planning.
Your advice only considers the price and the manufacturing time of a physical asset (tank, weapon, drone, shell etc.), and you suggested pushing far more solders ahead, but how would you estimate the value of a single solder, and how long it takes to make one from scratch (embryo)?
27 днів тому+1
Ukraine has lost over 500,000 of them and the West and Zelensky values their lives at $0
The mighty Abrams does not have the scenarios on the battlefields that it is made for. The Ukrainians basically have only been using it from distances as a „sniper tank“, plus the Ukrainians do not have the surrounding maintenance equipment and crews to support it properly. Actually, this assessment was correctly given before Ukraine received them! That they would not be of much particular use for Ukraine and the scenarios they face. It was primarily a political decision to send a few (very few) to Ukraine, to make the Germans move and send more heavy equipment, because the coward chancellor of germany hid behind the excuse „we are not sending because they Americans do not“….. So that is that.
what about the us cowardly decision to not allow ukraine to hit russia with us weapons. that was idiotic.no way russia would declare war on usa or nato or use nukes.sullivan is an idiot lawyer. why is he incharge instead of a military general?
The reason why the Germans were hesitant ti send their newest tanks was because the european nations were being encouraged to send over all their european and old soviet weapons stocks. Notice how none of those other european nations sent over their Abrams (even though they do have them). So the Germans realized the game that the US was playing. If Germany sent over its own stocks of its own tanks it would ve unable to resupply all those other nations which just emptied out their stockpiles, and the US would step in and sell them all Abrams and thus completely take over the market share and in the long term pretty much wipe out German exports. So to convince Germany to empty out its own stockpiles the US promised to send Abrams. But after the Germans sent Leopard 2s, the US waited more than a year, and only sent over a handful of Abrams. So now German industry is busy fulfilling replenishing German stocks, while the US has taken over all of Germany's old customers. It was a big trick to screw over the Germans, and it worked.
My understanding of WW1 includes the first use of "shock troops" designed to apply sudden, massive, brutal pressure on enemy trench lines to break through, allowing regular infantry to follow and exploit the breakthrough. This is not exactly the same type of "elite" troops as Army Rangers, but it does show that militaries in WW1 did use specialized troops.
AKCHUALLY..... Shock troops were never "massive, brutal pressure". Sthormtruppen and the tactic relied on specialised units but low in number, with through recon they find weak points and carry out a suprise attack. But these units had to go under very specialised training, lot of experience and they had a lot of losses still. But it was the most effective offensive way of the time right. The issue with something like this is still the 0-24/7 survelliance of the front line with drones equipped with thermals. Any movement on the no mans ground would be decimated with arty, and /or drone strikes. WW1 did not have 105 and 155 arty, they did not have proxy fuse, air burts this precise, etc. 105 has a blast zone of 50-100m with "high probability of lethal damage. Can you just imagine how big is fkin 50 meters? If you are not in a trench, you are DEAD. 155 has 100-200m blast zone. It's NUTS how effective we got in killing each other
@@MegaRagingBunny Oh yeah, they had like 2000 of these through the war. Now, as per my previous comment: do you think these guns had the same precision as the WW1 ones? Did these guns have the same effect withouth the modern proxy shell, modern HE ammo, the drone assisted target identification AND lead on target? Are they using 2000 piece of these, or do you think it's more around 10k+?
Fejlecbezar. That is my understanding too. The thing is ISTAR in this conflict makes indirect fire extremely deadly. You can't up-armour a vehicle to survive 155-152mm shells landing on it, without fatally compromising its mobility . Not at today's level of technology anyway. Mobility may be a better option, but then you hit the problem of mine fields and effective direct fire weapons. Personally I think the defensive may be the superior form of warfare at the moment, but these things to in cycles. I fear this may apply to air warfare too, unless stealth really is a game changer, as advertised. I can't pretend to know if it is though. Incidentally the Imperial German Army got the idea for Stormtruppen from the Russians ' 1916 Brusilov Offensive.
When it comes to hand to hand trench warfare the entrenching shovel will NEVER be obsolete. the short war ax never runs out of ammo. It also digs holes!
The main reason why the Abrams is not doing well is because their is just not enough to use properly. Their is no reserves for them and their are just too few to risk which is why the leopard 2 is seeing more action as the western mbt of choice. The Bradley's are doing wonderfully by contrast because they have hundreds of them, rather than a few dozen abrams. This is a massive difference because having units to risk is very important.
also the lack of HE rounds, APFSDS is of little use against what Ukraine is versing i.e. infantry. I would say that is the major reason that MBTs aren't getting much use.
they don't use the leopard 2 more than the abrahms... additionally, almost none are A6, most of them are L2A4... the Abrahms the US provided are better than the A4 in general theydont want to risk any of the modern MBTs without air superiority... thats why they mostly use their old stuff and old L1
Wow, congratulations on your impressive investment success! Your discipline and focus on delayed gratification is truly inspiring. I'm curious, what are some of the key factors that you consider when making investment decisions? Do you have any tips for those of us who are just starting to dip our toes into the world of investing? Thanks for sharing your story!
The reason is numbers to deploy, a few dozen Abrams is not enough to go around, especially when you consider rotation times. We sent, however, hundreds of Bradley's and sent even more later on. This means not only you have numbers to set across multiple units and fronts but you can have some set aside for rotation and reserves. Quantity is still important. So right now many tanks are being held in reserve for counter attack and reinforcements instead.
I made this comment a few times, on one hand Bradleys had PR victories, everybody seen the T90 tank etc. On the other hand the Bradley is an IFV. It is versitile and has more than one use. Transport reinforcement to the front? HELL YEA. Casualty evac? SURE IT DOES. Fire support? OFC! And probably another dozen thing that my internet keyboard warrior ass can't think of. A tank is just a tank, and it's designed that with concentrated forces find a weakpoint in the enemy line and punch it through, and encircle. There is not much else it's good for. Big, heavy, slow and obsolete
These aren’t problems with Abrams. These are problems with all tanks in this conflict. Give the Ukrainians credit for quickly realizing that the mass armor attack isn’t going to work and avoiding it.
Ukraine doesn't know how to use tanks any more than the Russians do. they both are former Soviet mindset armies. and neither understands combined arms, nor has the experience and training to pull it off.
@@SoloRenegade Ukraine has had plenty of training in Western ways and as the offensive into Kursk demonstrated can carry out combined arms actions well when the opportunity arises. Their problem is that combined arms works best when you are on the offensive and mostly they are not. Their coordination is still pretty competent though but the Russians are improving also.
@@laszlokaestner5766 Yes, they have training, they are learning, they are adapting. but you simply cannot recreate US fighting style in only a decade, and without air support. Older military members are still entrenched in their ways, and it takes time for lessons to sink in, be applied across teh forces, etc. Yes, Ukraine has demonstrated SOME combined arms skills, but not much. Compared to the US they are still a 3rd world military, they have a long way to go. Yes, the Russians have improved faster than I expected. Fortunately it took them 750k dead and loss of nearly all their artillery and armor to start adapting. and even then, the Russians are only adapting slightly and on individual unit levels, not at teh organizational, training, and control levels, which is good for Ukraine.
@@paulchapin6877 The only weaknesses for tanks are that they have the lowest mobility per mass ratio compared to other mobility technologies, they are incapable of flight, and they are expensive. Other than these problems, tanks have the highest durability to mass ratio compared to other armor technologies. Tanks of highly advanced technological feats are extremely durable, are equipped with myriads of weapon variations to counter almost all types of enemies, and are adaptable to moving on various terrains. Tanks are the ultimate frontline fighters. It is a matter of technological superiority when it comes to successful tanks.
Silly. Tanks indeed all weapons are vulnerable …… must be used as part of a combined arms team. Anti-drone weapons and countermeasures are evolving. Hmm by your analysis soldiers are vulnerable and therefore eliminate them.
I get all the arguments on why Abrams tanks could not be as effective in Ukraine as its' reputation and famous name would suggest, given the unsuitable terrain. But judging a performance of a weapon on a battlefield that was delivered in low quantity is not exactly fair. 30 Abrams tanks out of thousands in US stockpiles is not even serious. They were only transfered to Ukraine because Germany had this childish thing where they would say "we will only provide a certain weapons system to Ukraine when America does so". Even though in a european war, Germany should've taken the lead. Especially when it comes to tanks given that Leopard 2-s actually have done fairly well in combat. Also it raises a large issue about the US readiness to defend eastern Europe in case of Russian attack. The terrain and weather in eastern Europe is similar, so will Abrams tanks be as ineffective in protecting the Baltic States?
Exactly this. You cannot effectively field a weapon when it is both expensive, under-equipped (these are old versions without many protection systems that are on modern variants) and it is in low supply (tens when they need hundreds/thousands). The Abrams was designed to be used in certain numbers and with specific tactics.
Tanks are still necessary for certain very specific applications. They need armour on the frontline, still, just with the current flights other equipment would be more effective. We're never going to NOT need tanks. They do certain things very specifically well
The Bradley is a better vehicle in the fight. It can be used to move stuff and also be a light tank. While tanks are important for some countries such as India and Pakistan, there really isn't much need for the U.S. to have a tank. They are slow to transport, require a lot of fuel and maintenance and can be taken out by modern weapons just as easily as one takes out an unarmored vehicle.
my take, Western tanks are sitting around because Ukraine overall shortages of operators, parts, and even the overal doctrines of using the thing what made Abrams so successful in the past was air supremacy and proper planning before hand, Ukraine does not have that luxury what makes Western tanks good in Ukraine is that hey are keeping the crews alive and fulfill that inf support roles, but with Ukraine being so outstretched everywhere, and coming back to not enough resources and manpowers to drive everything on the other hand, drones maybe really good and cheap, but we are also seeing how easily they can be countered with jamming, tracking, and even hacking so moving forward, i expect NATO to incorporate more drones in their combined arm doctrines, working alongside tanks, infantries, artilleries, and airplanes, lots of possibilities
And your source on the readiness of the operators and strategic doctrines is? Air supremacy would not make any change in this, you cant shoot down a IFV with a AIMX-9. Western tanks have about the same protection on the top as the russian tanks: NADA. Even if they had thicc armor, the RPG shaped charge is designed to penetrate. Tanks are obselete. Does not matter if 30 or 100 or 500 tanks we talk about ready to be deployed. No air cover would solve the drone supremacy.
Exactly this. The US flew around the world and staged an invasion with food, fuel, and ammunition. They supplied thousands of vehicles around the clock with quantities of supplies that would bankrupt any other nation. Tanks are and always will be deathtraps. But they are very useful deathtraps and force the enemy to expose assets to kill them because if they are ignored, they can wreak havoc on troops and fortifications. Ukraine does not have the capability to take advantage of this and cannot engage in maneuver warfare since they lack the ability to create a breakthrough in Russian lines due to supply shortages, low manpower, and lack of air power. Abrams isn't useless. Ukraine is just fighting a war against a much stronger opponent while under constant air and artillery attacks that they are unable to respond to. Abrams is poorly suited to this since it is essentially being used either as a last-ditch QRF or a static bunker. In both cases all tanks would be vulnerable in these situations because it exposes them to air and artillery attacks without support.
@fejlecbezar my sources are mainly from recent engagements in Ukraine, drones getting hacked and jammed all the time, it is not perfect yet, hence why I mention it must be used in a combined armed doctrine As for tanks, my main study is the 1991 gulf war, 2004 Iraqi freedom, and the recent decisions on why marines abandoned the m1 Abram Abram tanks traditionally work very well when being supported by a lot aspects like inf support and air cover, and the US is very experienced in doing this Ukraine is punching above its weight, but even their combat doctrine is still based upon old Soviet teaching, just look at how they handle their tanks, aka needing stop or slow down to shoot accurately, so they are still learning about combined armed tactics The main reasons why they are doing so well is more towards how slow Russia is at adapting, but adapting to Ukrainian drones they did, though inconsistent, typical for Russians As for us Marines and m1 Abrams, these guys are the first guy to go in wreck shit, they need to move fast and hit hard, tanks require complex infrastructure set up to operate, something the army is better at doing, I admit that the marine engineer Corp can make miracles from much less, but they can't build entire cities with proper maintenance facilities out of sticks and crayons
@@georgepatton93 Russia has switched to wire guided drones that can't be jammed, these are expensive and used for high value targets like tanks. Ukraine too is either developing them or using them already. As for the Abrams, Ukrainians say they prefer the Leopard for it's engine but mainly that with the Leopards they got HE shells while Abrams came with AP shells only, so they hit a house with 10 shells and it's still standing like nothing happened. As for adapting: don't fall for your own propaganda, I recently heard an discussion with a Veteran who fought until a few days ago at the front. And a western army colonel studying the war, the question of lessons of the war came up. To which the veteran said "the lessons of what time are we talking about? 4 months ago the war was nothing like it is today, the lessons of back then are of no use any more" there is insane speed in innovation and adaption on both sides.
It's very ironic that tank warfare has reverted back to the old British doctrine of an infantry support tank. The Abrams was built for tank on tank warfare and that is not what this war has become. The Abrams has the same problem of every modern tank, thin roof armour and lacking active defence against drones or top attack ATGMs. Worse, it has very few tank-on-tank opportunities, so its contribution is limited to shelling enemy trenches with rounds not suited for the job. The humble AT mine has inserted back into the equation. If there's no reliable answer to the AT mine, well we better get real good at avoiding minefields. Cheap mines or cheap drones kills very expensive MBTs. Not good economics. What we're probably looking at for the next war is a family of relatively cheap IFVs with an active defence and a serious ATGM capability. The current TOW missiles on the Bradley are way obsolete and has to go. Mixed in we need IFVs with anti-personnel capabilities, much like how the British mixed Shermans and Churchills with Fireflies in WWII. Broadly generalizing, the Fireflies killed the Tigers while the Churchills and Shermans dealt with the infantry. The British also built anti-personnel, anti-fortification and mine clearing Churchills. The Swedes and the Finns have armoured, rapid fire mortar IFVs that would be ideal for trench warfare. Bomb the fuq out of an enemy trench system with very accurate mortar fire, then move in your infantry. Historically, all weapons have a shelf life. The MBT has probably reached its best by date, just like the battleship in WWII. A $1,000 drone can kill a $15,000,000 MBT. Economics have won the argument against the MBT until the tank can reliably defeat the $1,000 dollar drone or mine. We're entering the era of the cheap and plentiful weapons. We no longer can plan for wars with five days worth of ammo and weapons.
These old Abrams tanks can in theory be retrofitted with active protection that is calibrated to handle FPV style drones. Any vehicle will be destroyed unless there is an escort of anti-micro drone weapons that can handle swarming micro drones. Put those two things into place and those old M1 A1 Abrams can still remain useful.
@@williamzk9083 I am not sure, but highly doubt that APS is capable to neutralize several drone attacks. APS were invented more agains ATGMs and regular AT rockets. I mean probably it CAN shoot down a drone, but the tank would not have full cover from all sides is what i mean. Not sure on the magazine size of these systems, but all in all i still think that drone swarms can beat it. And there is also the AT mines that pose a threat. Somewhere i heard that frontline soldiers do em in stacks of 3 to not just immobilize but destroy the tank, OR the anti mine rig in front of it so the next mine has better chance of hitting the tank. All in all: it's just that the tank has SO many ways to get obliterated...
@@fejlecbezar well pointed Sir. Not to mention bomber drones as class. 15 bombes of 10k each with modified AT mines on them are of the cost of 1 Javelin rocket. And in near future it will be AI operated (harder to jam, more precise bombing, swarm tactics).
Ukraine bought license from Finnish Patria to get those vehicles and now factories in Finland and Poland are cranking those and Patria is building factories in the Ukraine. German factories should come online soon too.
You are mistaken about there being no elite troops in WWI. The German Stormtroopers, also known as Stosstruppen or Sturmtruppen, were elite infantry units. Developed in 1915, they were trained to break through enemy trenches using innovative tactics and equipment--a precursor to the blitzkrieg.
@@louisecorchevolle9241 It's got nothing to do with the tower. The issue is in the logistics, training and manpower limitations of the Ukrainian military. The advantage of the Russian tanks is that they're diesel, only need two men and don't need to train high tempo loaders. They need less maintenance personnel assigned and they have a large catalogue of spare parts and surplus tanks to cannibalise parts from.
The UK has been criticised for reducing its new challenger 3 to only 149 tanks. The truth is the day of the heavy tank ruling the battlefield has come to an end, and the UK has seen this. IFV is beginning to take over from the tank.
No, you just need smaller numbers of VERY advanced tanks with hard-kill APS, jammers, and often drone deployment capabilities. Deploying hordes of low quality tanks is no longer a viable tactic given the quality of ATGMs and drones today.
No, they are just cheap (the government) and don't want to pay for more. Running down the military to almost useless levels. BUT plenty of cash to send abroad to 3rd world shtholes
The tank never ruled the battlefield. That would be the king of battle, number one cause of casualties outside of disease since the invention of gunpowder.
@08:50 commandos and storm troops were created in WW I… they were effective, were regular troops were not. They did reconaissance missions, took enemy prisoners for intelligence, prepared assaults for regular troops, carried out sabotage (also behind enemy lines) and so on. Basically the opposite of what you say is true. Do those troops „win wars“? Not alone, no. They do not replace regular troops, but make them much more effective and give them an edge, also during assaults. And that was especially true in WW I.
A lot to ponder here, but I'll toss in my .02 worth since I'm an old Abrams tanker. The armor on the M1A1 is quite good and its placed perfectly for the wars of the late 20th Century. Tank killers were SACLOS ATGMS and the main guns of other MBTs. These weapons are direct fire ones, so the armor on the Abrams, and other period MBTs, was placed to defeat them. It's common sense- thick sloped armor with ceramic/DU reinforcing could quite easily defeat flat trajectory rounds and SACLOS missiles. MODERN ATGMS like the Javelin and drones don't have that limitation. They can just fly past the armor and detonate ABOVE the the tank and have access to its weakest armor- the top armor. The US expect air superority, so shots from above are quite rare in that environment AND artillery is suppressed by deep striking air power and fires. Drones carrying warheads are very different. They are dirt cheap compared to SAMS and are small and agile enough to skip past traditional ADA (maybe not AAA like 12.7mm M2HBs, 20mm Vulcans, and 40mm Bofors) and can be flown to their targets. Given that then an Abrams is a sitting duck... we're so proud of its ammo storage, and it is great, but now it's a vulnerability because it wasn't designed to take a hit! Just fly your little drone over and detonate it right on those panels and you have a soft kill on an Abrams. The tank isn't really destroyed and can be recovered and repaired, but it's out of action for a long time and I doubt the Ukrainians can deal with that sort of damage. Tanks are still useful, but the next generation of tank will have to be designed to be protected against drones, or else they will remain sitting ducks.
At Russia's tank attrition rates, all 30 Abrams tanks that the USA gave to Ukraine would be destroyed in 1 week. Listen to the video again. Russia is fighting a highly attritional war. Those T72s are NOT better than Abrams. They're just cheaper, and Russia had thousands of them while Ukraine got 30 Abrams. FPV drones can disable either tank. Abrams will fare better vs FPVs than a T72, but those FPVs can still destroy the sensors/optics/controls on an Abrams or hit the wheels/treads and immobilize the Abrams. In that context, any single tank is vulnerable, and more cheap tanks is probably better than fewer very expensive + big + heavy tanks. Poland gave Ukraine 10 times as many tanks as Ukraine received from the USA.
Thank you, they are all bunch of sore loosers. Arrogant cowards. Their full might, I repeat their full might is being displayed in Ukraine, they can't even understand what's happening to them
@@clutteredchicagogarage2720 question for you. Out of the 30 Abram’s we’ve sent how many have been destroyed? How many of their crews were killed? Just a question
@@Kraken2-2Actual 8 confirmed destroyed 16 in total damaged and out of action so 50% in over a year at this point not bad for being in some of the biggest battles in ukraine in the last year from adivka to kursk. with austraila giving 47 more to ukraine to replace the losses. as far as crew killed a fuck ton less then in the damn t90 series tanks i dont think ive seen a confirmed crew kill in a abrams in ukraine while the challenger 2 definetly lost a crew member in 1 cas and the leopards 2s have definetly lost crew.
The Ukrainian army is under-manned. An Abram's tank needs a crew of 4. It's larger than Soviet tanks. The theater of combat is basically trench and urban warfare. It's not a case of "future", it's a case of the dictates of the war.
I have been saying this for ages Abrams are a piece of overrated of garbage and having the national security advisor Jake Sullivan saying it is gold you guys been playing too much world of tanks, as the Russians said just tin can. They are too heavy, too slow the condensation inside them destroys the sensitive electronics in them and they have one real bad Archilles heal which I will not say what it is but the Russians certainly know what it is. Same as the Leo 2 and Challenger 1 only good for fighting third world countries when you have total air superiority.
Apparently a large part of the problem with the Abrams in Ukraine is that the front armor is not strong enough. Ukrainian soldiers had to add reactive armor on top to survive hits. On top of that Abrams are very maintenance heavy. This information is directly from Ukrainian Soldiers, so I assume it's accurate.
@AlexKall I see! That is unfortunate, but apparently adding reactive armor fixed atleast that issue. I watched some more related videos where Ukrainian Abrams crews were interviewed. It seems after the armor issues were fixed, the tank itself serves quite well! Maintenance is ofcourse an issue, the tanks are quite old and parts need to be imported from US. Basically if the Ukrainian tanker had to choose between a Abrams or a Russian style tank, Abrams is an automatic winner. So it's not quite as bad as the articles are saying. So far the most praised tank was unsurprisingly the Leopard 2, especially the Swedish variant that has even more armor.
Fortunately, the US army uses the after action report as a continual learning tool, so every combat result is used as a learning. Don’t sell the US short…
It is not that simple. Sorry. The later revisions of the M1 were largely built by retrofitting existing tanks. Sure there are improvements - in fact there are UA-cam videos showing the process done by an Army Depot. But the Ukrainians got some of these improvements. My concern is that now some have been captured - and even displayed in front of the Kremlin. They may not have the latest, but they do know what design features constrain the latest. Russia has a long history of accurately deducing and exploiting correct information from incomplete data. Now their data is more complete.
they dont have the secret depleted armor nor a couple of electronic updates, not even the ones Australia are sending have that fit, the difference between the ones they are getting and the current fit is like comparing a F-16 and an F-35, but you wont find the details out in the open
@@Why_ask_ Do you mean as useless as the THOUSANDS of Russian tanks that have been destroyed...??? Yeah... Seems like the Ukranians actually, really like the Abrahms, even though it's not the same version the US uses. ua-cam.com/video/6Wih2SUF6j8/v-deo.htmlsi=nKdx8e906O5k39qL Watch and listen to the actual Ukranians using the Tank. There ya go, sport.. 🙄 Get wrecked
The key point you did not highlight is that these are older M1 variants, which do not have additional reactive armour and other key items. Ukrainian units that have modified the M1s with additional Ukrainian reactive armour and precisely customized drone cages and additional armour at key points, have reported doing well again rpgs atgms and drones . The use of individual customized Abrams at key strategic points in engagements has been done with great effectiveness. Its precise and multiple target capabilities have been much appreciated. It’s also been found to be quite agile for a big machine. As per dickens’ Oliver Twist : “can I have more sir” Several hundred more Bradley’s would also make a great stocking stuffer.
I’m relieved relieved that my country (Finland) has focused on the right things all these years. We never abandoned conscription, and have a huge artillery reserve and the ability to mobilize hundreds of thousands of reaervists with decent training in a matter of days. Most nato countries have adopted the small expensive highly trained elite force model and forgotten that Britain tried this in ww1 and that elite force perfomed better than most but was still spent within months and Britain had to resort to forcefully conscript from the civilian population.
Finland has the most artillery of any NATO country. Poland is building up its artillery as well and will soon have the largest tank army of all the European NATO countries.
Sorry, there was elite troops in WW1. For example, Sturmsoldat - the German stormtrooper. They specialized in commando style raids, infiltrate enemy trenches before an advance , maneuver warfare, reconnaissance, and shock tactics. The Allies ( France / UK) had similar troops. Maybe, you're referring solely to the USA. By the time the USA entered into the war the original nations ie. UK, Germany, France had developed elite units and had changed their military doctrine from 1914. For example. quick bombardment of the enemies trench followed by staggered artillery to protect the infantry attacking the enemy trench and finally dropping a smoke barrage when friendlies made contact with the enemy trench. Supported by tanks and small fast hitting elite units that perform shock tactics. The infantry also broke into smaller groups carried less and ran towards the enemy trench. On the other hand, the USA were using 1914 tactic's when they finally became involved in 1917/1918. Over the trench and walk towards the enemy trench in a line at a walking pace after a prolonged barrage on the enemy trenches lol. No support from Artillery of special units.
They did say the Abrams was not the appropriate tank for Ukraine over and over again. But the Germans wouldn’t allow the Leapard 1 or 2 unless the Americans sent their tanks. It seems like Lighter Bradley has been the most effective piece of kit we’ve given them.
In weight, armor protection and firepower Leopard 2 & Abrams are almost identical (they were designed together). The difference is the Abrams has about 2x the engine power and fuel consumption, so half the range, but that isn't important in a semi-frozen battlefront. Challenger and Leopard 2 have had much the same results as Abrams.
First Germany wanted not the only country to send Tanks. They don't care if the US is sending some, would be enough that France or the UK is sending tanks. Even if Greece would sent some modern tanks that would be enough for Germany to send their Lepards. And why you ask? - Because if Germany would have send their tanks lonely and Russia would have really seen this as escalation and would have gone "all in", what do you think would happens? On the next day all over the world in the News: "'(Nazi) Germany does it again - They Started a World War."
It makes absolute sense for the Germans to demand that. Otherwise the image would have been of a second class tank, the leo2,being innefective, and not drones and advanced missiles creating an interesting problem. The lack of proper cheap HE is also an issue.
These arguments against the Abrams could just as easily be applied to the Bradley, and yet they are being heavily and successfully used by Ukraine. Interviews with Bradley crews show their equipment has frequently suffered damage from anti-armor weapons, and remained in use. Meanwhile, the Abrams have been supplied without their most effective armor, their best electronics, and I believe without their most effective anti-personnel rounds, as well as in miniscule numbers. While tanks are vulnerable on the modern battlefield, the Leopards have also been effective, probably because there are enough of them to make a difference.
True, but the Bradly is quick, maneuverable and it has a high rate of fire. Hard to get off an anti tank missile when that Bushmaster is tearing you a new butthole. 🤣 Someone will come up with a vehicle mounted anti drone system, basically an automated shotgun, and all this “outdated” equipment will be right back in the dominant position.
Abrams would be more useful if Ukraine had them in hudreds, had crews and maintenance personal. Repair and maintenance facilities. Compared to Bradley Abrams has higher ground pressure which means it will have bigger problem with mud, and can't be pulled out with any recovery vehicle. Overall weight is higher, which means it cannot cross certain bridges. fuel consumption, is higher so it needs more logistics. If you are not going on the offensive, and you don't need the frontal protection, or main gun, it is better to use Bradley since you can get two for the cost of one abrams. They should have sent either 300 or none. But they had to for political reasons.
Just because you seen the overhyped few instances where a bradley had a successful engagement, it does not mean that it has any impact on the battle on the strategic level. It cannot change the deadlock trench warfare, it cannot avoid drone attacks. None of the tanks are DESIGNED with significant armor on the top which is where drones hit them. Even if retrofit a lot of armor there, the RPG shaped charge would penetrate withouth reactive armor ON TOP of that. And you cannot just cover fully a tank in reacive armor, sooner or later a drone will find it's mark, or just make the thank combat ineffective. Drones changed warfare so much that you can't even comprehend. Did you miss the russian HEAVY losses about a year, year and half ago when they still tried to concentrate forces for a big charge? They have not even reached the RUSSIAN side of the front when they suffered heavy losses. I'm not 100% up to date with jamming technology but if it would be as simple as most of you guys think to slap a jammer on top of the tank and go, what do you think this war would look like?
I happened to talk to guys operating M1, and main complaints was lack of uranium armor and high downtime for servicing combined with lack of spare parts. There were cases when ATGM penetrated turret's frontal armor. That makes Abrams not useless, but less useful then Leopard 1.
@@kayjay7780 I meant Leopard 1. They both equally vulnerable to drones and ATGMs, have great sensors and firing control and have very similar modifications done by Ukrainians. Threats where M1 will be better is almost non existent. If you can't shrug off hits in frontal projection, then all of that 20 tons of additional armor will just humper your ability to reposition in muddy terrain. And about Leopard 2 I can't say anything. I don't know what they are doing, and how effective they are.
@@KolyanKolyanitch There's a difference between shrugging off the best ATGM available and shrugging off your old RPG-7VL. Not everything on the front will be the latest and greatest. So they very much are NOT equally vulnerable.
I think the whole view on the war doctrine is outdated. Soviet this, Soviet that. There is absolutely zero Soviet about this logic. War machines and equipment should ALWAYS be inexpensive, as effective as needed, easy to produce and maintain, have massive numbers and be easily teachable and easy to repair that even a monkey can do it. Super-weapon only looks good on paper and military shows and that is about it. Even NA**S knew that. They started to develop superweapons only when they failed to invade the USSR, when they knew they were loosing. Before that they had simple weapons and plans and a lot of people… ✌️
If you think Jake Sullivan is a reliable source of information, I pity you. One has to wonder why all the other many models of tanks in the AFU are so effective?
The British challenger 2 has had it's short comings exposed on the battlefield, and it's qualities endorsed.The challenger has been nicknamed the sniper because of its targeting and high tech firing solutions ( multiple targets can be acquired and engaged with near perfect performance) part of the accuracy is down to the rifled barrel that helps the accuracy.Another popular item is the emphasis on crew protection and survivability. The down side is the ammunition is specific to the tank which makes it difficult for logistics, and the armour makes it heavier and slower.. The actual battlefield experience for all the armour and artillery has been priceless for the arms manufacturers... IMHO we have to take into account that this is not a full on war like we saw in the gulf, this is more like a civil war between two groups grinding eachother into submission...
To correct a misconception held by you. In 1918, the Germans introduced specialised shock/assault troops. They were very effective and create many breakthroughs . Easy to research.
Maybe in WW1 they were effective, but their use couldn't be effective anymore because of the transparency of a modern battlefield. You start assaulting and the opposite side sees it immediately, and then you get wrecked by drones/artillery even before you could use your ultimate training. Means, "assault/shock" troops become nearly as good as any other troops.
@@matsv201 Drone dropped Infrantry? You mean Airborne Infantry? We dont need to invent new Things, the US already used Helicopters for Transport in Vietnam. And even Russia tried an Helicopter Assault at the Start.
According to the Chieftain on YT, that is old news. The current Abrams are not fuel hogs. It could be that the Ukrainians received versions that were unimproved though.
Give me strength! There are about 4-5 wars going on. When sanctions failed, the Russians won the economic war. 1-0. Financially the seizing of Russian assets has been a bit of an own goal, bringing De-dollarisation forward by at least 25 years. Trump is right to fear it, it's a game changer. But it's not obvious what he can do about it. 2-0. Russia is not diplomatically isolated in fact it's become the West against Rest. 40 countries vs 160. Like those odds do you? We don't even need to add the very solid Sino-Russian Alliance, or the rise of BRICS+. 3-0. I may have taken longer than expected and the Ukrainians have fought like tigers, but militarily the Russian strategy is increasingly effective and none of the Western game changer has worked. Militarily they are winning and are very likely to achieve their war aims. 4-0 But I guess We're still winning on Twitter? 4-1 This is going to be another Vietnam where you pretend you won because no Americans died and Ukraine will survive albeit as a much reduced state. Pathetic!
@@DonaldAtherton-l7uUnfortunately things are about to change with your new "loyalty before competence" president. He has promised to purge the upper echelons of the US military after all. And if a war actually starts, before his halfwit loyalists are removed for their incompetence, the damage will already have been done. Modern war between high tech adversaries can get very bloody very fast.
@@DonaldAtherton-l7uYou realize China doesn't fall into that category, right? There are many reports across Chinese military media about their failures, and how they seek to improve them. Just look into their reaction during the 2016 joint sword operation, or how they were jammed by growlers.
😅The Article leaves out that Ukraine was never supported with many M1 to beginn with. Also most were'nt "destroyed". The numbers i could find was that 2 tank where destroyed and 3 where damaged and not recovered in time... Of a total of 31. Also the article does'nt mention that most of the M1s.are currently out of use simply because of the lack of spareparts for repairs and if they are used, it's normaly in the more intense parts of the frontline. The article brings no sources and the explanations why the M1 is'nt effective sounds pretty amateurish to me. I don't trust it.
The tank has had its day. It is a weapon developed over a hundred years ago, when they were almost invincible. Then along came anti-tank weapons and now we have drones.
@@tonybaker55 Canada was banking on that very thing in 2002 thinking tanks wouldn't be needed in any future ground wars. Four years later the LeoC1 with MEXAS armour was sent. Point is tanks are an essential tool in the commanders toolbox. Thats why Counter and anti drone tech is flourishing. To this point in the war the bulk of Leo2's and M1A1's have been recovered and repaired. The biggest point in their favour? The bulk of the crews survived.
@@charlieunderwood1311 i think medium tanks with a focus on repairablility and crew survivability (like the sherman most of which survived the war and had a crew loss rate of 0.5 per knockout) are going to make a comeback, something light weight, iwth a just big enough gun, a focus on mobility and active protection, designed to provide fire support rather than get punched in the jaw will be the go to going forward
we must not forget a small detail: the Abrams traveled to Ukraine are old models which have also been deliberately degraded by removing certain elements, which completely distorts the results, and the 30 tanks delivered by the us is a ridiculous amount in comparision from the real US possibilities (two tousand Abrams stored and useless...)
Must not forget the terrain there gets really boggy in certain times of the year and the very heavy Western tanks become of limited use until the ground hardens. Russia builds smaller, lighter tanks for a reason.
@@sportsfanivosevic9885 thats not how it works. weight doenst matter that much. Its more about the Pressure you put on the Ground. Lets take the Leo2A4. Weight is around 55tons, but it only puts 0,83kg/cm2 on the Ground. Meanwhile the T90S weights only 46tons but has smaller Tracks and puts 0,87 kg/cm2 on the Ground. Thats also the Reason why a Woman with High Heels puts more Pressure on the Ground then a Grown Elephant.
@@Kumpelblase397 Weight of the tank doesn't matter much? Do you think tanks just magically appear on the battlefield? How are you transporting these super heavy tanks from the factory to the front lines? Can your railway system, and trucks handle 70 ton tanks? Can your road and bridges handle them? Don't just think about how a tank will perform on the battlefield, you have to think about logestics.
Lets stop all this talk about Abrams / F-16 / Javelins etc , etc and let’s go back to square 1. a simple question : * Why is the US constantly messing with other countries ( all over the world ) , countries that are no threat to them , that aren’t their neighbors or even on the same continent ? You don’t want to be messed with by others , then why mess with foreign countries yourself ?? * Why waste all this taxpayers money on ( pretty useless weapons - let’s be honest - On a proxy war you started yourselves - let’s be honest about that as well - and are now losing ) Instead of using that money to cause death , destruction , suffering in other countries , why not spend it in your own country on building infrastructure, helping the homeless , improving healthcare / education etc , etc , etc ….??
@@aukeykema9689 Thing is, US blew a lot of steam in meaningless wars in Iraq/Afghanistan. But this time, when there really is something to fight for and the free world needs them…meh…we’re tired of this. It’s actually a decisive moment, a lot more at stake than we think. We will look back at this conflict as either the time when the world said no to tyranny, enforced international law, or the moment the world backed down, gave up on what we believe in and entered a time of global anarchy. The world is watching.
1. Budapest memorandum is a good candidate. 2. The US didn't start a proxy war, nor is Russia - Ukraine war a proxy war. Russia started the Russia - Ukraine war by invading Ukraine Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk regions in early 2014. Russia was losing influence (control through threats) in Ukraine which was moving closer to the EU. Russia is still the same imperialistic country as it has always been. Now with fascist leadership. On the last point, that is generally not what the defence budget is used for.
'The main battletank of the free world'? Urkaine has a lot more Leopards than the overcomplicated and mostly useless Abrams which needs too much maintainage. But it was the decision of the US, not to deliver 300 of them and 600 Bradleys, mothballed in thousends, in their desert-depots, while the Russ have nearly completly emptied theirs, to end the war quickly. Because US wanted the Europeans to deliver their equipment and buy new then in US. Like they do now with the expensive US-fracking gas.
Russians tank not doing well: cos the Russians are bad at making tanks. US tank not doing well: well because of this and because of that…. Uh terrain and training, you know?… 😂😂😂
8:48 - You hear about German stormtroopers and infiltration tactics all the time. That's what Rommel made his career on before the panzer corps. They sliced through the Italians at Caporeto and pushed the Western allies back during the 1918 German spring offensive. They became the standard infantry tactics after the war.
Excellent commentary! This makes a lot of sense. My thought was that the Abrams over time has just become way WAY too heavy, with extra armor and protection, to the point it can't even cross bridges safely anymore or travel across mud. We in the west need a larger number of smaller cheaper systems, not a small number of big expensive systems.
The Abrams is the best tank in the world and has proven that time and time again - when in the hands of the US Army. My bullshit meter is up there when anyone criticizes the Abrams.
Hitler famously said, I believe after Kursk, "30 thousand tanks! If anybody had told me that this was possible..." Yeah, maybe it was a mistake to build tanks in the early 1940s that now look like tanks from the 1970s in an exhibition. So much effort was put into how things would look when a bigwig would pop up for some "inspection" (i.e., PR photo op) that nothing could be produced en masse. Totalitarian and autocratic political systems are so incredibly stupid 🤔 The US keeps making systems that are too expensive because of its ridiculous GDP and it's still below 3%. Nazi Germany made systems that were too expensive because that beautifully shot of Albert Speer arriving in a very fancy car and then walking around a tank was crucial for the sake of being crucial.
The best way to make a profit selling stuff to the US Army, a short guide. 1.claim it is the best, the strongest, the most devastating, or it will be once in production. 2. Low ball the initial contract, offer anything to everyone to get the contract. Once contracts are signed, slow walk and overpromise and watch the creep roll in 3. Develop the weapon system but make it come in over budget and behind schedule, the military signed the contracts honoring all production creep. 4. Profit, 2-5 years after initial promised date. 5. Make minor incremental upgrades and go to step 1.
This video would have been more interesting if Paul talked about WHY the Abrams seems to be worse than the Leo or Challenger, or WHY it is not doing well on a modern battlefield. As to Paul's comment about elite troops not worth it in WW1 - not exactly true. Germany's Stormtroopers were elite troops. They took the youngest, fittest men out of the infantry units, had better food, specialized training under infiltration doctrine, better equipment (like flamethrowers), and in 1918 smashed through 2 British armies, wiping out the Allied gains of an entire year. The Allies deliberately did not strip the best men out of their units - the idea being to have better general purpose units across the entire division. However the Stormtroopers were successful. But supplies and artillery could not keep up across ruined and muddy No Man's Land. And the Allied Armies, particularly the French, were more motorized so could transport troops to trouble spots faster than the tired Stormtroopers could literally run. So the German 1918 Offensives petered out because the Germans could not break out past Allied defenses, and the elite Stormstrooper units had taken heavy losses. It would take the WW2 tanks with mobility, speed and portable firepower using Stormtrooper doctrine to be successful.
Because the Abrams, when not engaged in direct tank to tank warfare, is an infantry SUPPORT vehicle. Tanks are combined arms. You need air cover, artillery, and infantry working together.
So, it's taken more than an year or 2 for someone to point this out. The US held back, with the MIC drip feeding ammo to Ukraine to keep the cash registers ticking over as long as possible. With the UK offering the Challenger 2 tank and the Germans finally relenting to provide Leopard 2. The Challenger 2 was known to be one of the toughest tanks on the planet. When the Abrams arrived it was taken out, left, right and centre.
Some time ago when the US was considering what to send to the ukraine, I said "Send them support in artillery, missiles, but more importantly drones... as many as you can send." I think the reason why the US decided to send the Abrams was in part to get rid of old inventory and to spur development of a new tank. But as we can see, tanks are nearly useless now. The Bradley fighting vehicle seems far more useful when deployed in small numbers together. Using their 25mm chain gun to knock out Russian tank optics on the turret renders tanks useless. The Bradley seems to be even causing the reactive armor on some tanks to detonate.
Isn't the Abrams impractical because: 1 Weighs too much? Few of the many bridges it would have to take in Russia or Ukraine can hold its weight. So forget a tank-carrier's weight. 2 For every 24 hours operating in the field it needs too many hours of maintenance? 3 Fuel hog adding to supply-nightmares? Reminds me of what a French Foreign Legionnaire said about us USMC ground-pounders. Built like brick shithouses to carry 100 pounds and up, whereas legionnaires were built like whippets to carry light loads of essentials.
My understanding is that Soviet kit is not easy to repair. As it’s designed to be expendable. Changing the barrel on a T-72 takes much longer than on a western tank.
I recall how a military expert warned the ukranians when they were requesting the Abrams’ that the tank was too heavy and it ate a lot of fuel, putting stress on the logistics.
Reminds of a Bill Mauldin Joe and Willy cartoon from World War Two. A Sherman was passing down a road while Joe and Willy were walking along the side in classic infantry form. " I don't know, Joe. A moving foxhole attracts attention." Tread heads have run the Army for too many generations. Remember tanks designed for the Fulda Gap in Vietnam? Armor played a vital role in Vietnam, but a lighter weight, faster firing version worked better.
Probably a better analogy is battleship obsolescence to aircraft carriers. What use is the big gun on the abrams when you're taken out at range by a swarm of cheap drones.
The quote "generals always fight the last war, especially if they had won it" is attributed to French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau, who was in office during the later years of World War I.
I remember Paul saying when he was in service, the US left the Abrams behind as a certain IED design penned them every time. Anyone recall or am I losing it?
All tanks are vulnerable without air superiority
How are you going to get that from drones?
air superiority only exist in a massive lopeside war between pretty much cavemen vs modern military
@@paulbrown4649 Have you not been paying attention to drone advances? Not necessarily in Ukraine, but air superiority drones are becoming a thing.
@@paulbrown4649with dominate air power the battlefield is completely different. It would be hard to establish position to use drones . when bombs and missile rain down on the battlefield
@@Canthus13 A tank in a real battle is still advancing, if the hostile artillery isn't that accurate, because drones mostly do recon. However, like the US fights the war, it isn't made for an Ukrainian success, so these battle tanks don't act like they should. Also, the US doesn't protect the regular soldiers or unrecruited civilians from hostile murder or special operations, so the achievable numbers to create superiority don't matter. Only that way these special operations can hide, and keep Ukraine away from a proper military advance.
Why is nobody talking about the big white elephant of the abrams FUEL ECONOMY.......
Ukraine has the leopard that uses almost HALF of what an Abrams does but has comparable performance.
This comes down to simple economics, Ukraine can run TWO leopards for the cost of one Abrams..... simple as that.
Nothing to do with AT weapons or training or anything else really....
The only other issue is tanks like Abrams and challenger are extremely heavy for winter combat in Ukraine and moving them around will add to that fuel bill,
In reality only the usa has the economic power to run them, nobody else really can in large numbers.
There's also a logistics question with German and Swedish made combat vehicles, they can be easy ship by rail and repaired in Poland.
C2 has better fuel economy than the leopard 2 btw
I also wanted to add another point that was left out in this video: the weight of the tank
55-60 tons in a terrain like Uraine is not going to work too well during any season but winter. The soil is for the most part earth/dirt without much rock in it and with a bit of rain or melted snow it will be mud in no time. That's why most Soviet/Russian tanks are around 40 tons.
@@0rcd0c nonsense the ground pressure of the t90 v the abrams is virtually the same as
@@MrTangolizard That's not true. 15psi vs 13psi is still a difference
Nothing can match the laser guided Russian shovels with washing maching chips.😂
Except being brought down by debris from defective Ukrainian air defense.
Bradleys are constantly praised, though.
Always told they were junk "Pentagon Wars"
Video "The Problem With Pentagon Wars" explains why it was wrong anyway.
Bradley's are more relevant in this war. Without APCs infantry are exposed to drones.
Bradleys are considerably more mobile (40mph, 25t) than M1 Abrams (30mph, 75t). Bradleys are vulnerable to drones too though.
It's a two fold. The bradley isn't useless since it has shown its effectiveness against russian tanks repeatedly. But it's just getting increasingly short lived due to the focus on fpv warfare.
Bradleys can take on most Soviet era tanks if it has TOW (specifically made to counter Soviet tanks), it can transport troops and since it’s less than half the weight of an Abrams, it can go over bridges etc. Abrams was made for a major symmetrical conflict that never came to pass.
LOL, seriously you are judging abrams alone.. and the first generation of abrams to boot. The abrams is just piece of the military puzzle. you need to take into account Ukraine doesn't have A-10's for close air support, you don't see F-15's, F-35's, B2's, Kiowas, Apache's, etc. putting a single piece into a battle without support is a poor way to judge the effectiveness of said piece.
sorry mister , you have to think the war without Air Assets since Air dominance it contested, you dont fight talibans there to throw anything you want.
Let’s not forget friend Russia has a lot of Anti air around and jets flying so will still be ineffective
I'm sure Biden had no shortage of "Yes" men who thought it was a good idea...
@@jimvick8397 the military advise as to the right tools for the task. That plus we have a surplus of these antiques sitting around.
@jamesoke7414 , yeah and against you there is same ... so basically your tanks goes vulnerable to drones.Still no defense against drones,you will hear only bzzzzzz,boom.Both sides are trying to shoot the drones because there is no laser or emp riffles 🤣
This report screams of the military industrial complex going to congress for more funding.
Yes great point. Didnt think of that
So says Putin, as always.
The military industrial complex does NOT exist (anymore). Wake up. Reagan isn't president anymore.
If an Abrams a car. The war in Ukraine is like a city with no parking, congestion pricing and speed cameras. A e scooter will serve you better. Smaller faster and cheaper if you lose one.
And when the Russians started using such vehicles, our bald UA-camr was crowing that it was because they had run out of tanks.
It might be hard to hear, but Western "experts" have had a pretty shocking war.
💯
@@Samuel-hd3cp when the Russia started using what exactly?? The only shocking thing about this war is how bad the Russians are performing against their own very small ill-equipped neighbor. Imagine if Russia was actually trying to fight a pier that was somewhere else on planet Earth. 😂
@@FeatheredDino pretty sure he meant "started using e-scooters"; or rather their actual equivalents of dirt-bikes, buggies ("golf carts") and the like. There was a moment a few weeks (months?) back, where a lot of "western" youtubers went /point /laugh "look at those poor russians, now they have to use civilian vehicles because they ran out of tanks and IFVs". Turns out that those bikes are just better suited to certain battlefield conditions such as urban environments with roadblocks, mines and debris while at the same time offering less valuable targets for FPVs.
The Abrams is the US Army's main battle tank, it's not the main battle tank of the free world.
Yeah, that was a weird remark.
In Americans mind: The free world = USA
then we must not go and sow disorder in the whole world...
The Abrams tank sucks because it only got its Fame from fighting insurgents third world countries and ragtag militias and Gorillaz you put it up against anyone with sophisticated weapons is just burning scrap metal
@@jfbft5007 Someone has to bring order or you get more disorder
This is not an argument against armor, it’s against using armor in the wrong place, in the wrong way at the wrong time.
@@richardbenjamin8341 exactly look at France at start of WWII they actually had more and heavier armor than Germans but they were trying to use them as part of a static defense and they were crushed. Tanks are a part of mobile warfare with a combined arms strategy.
IIRC Lloyd Austin clearly said the Abrams would be useless in Ukraine but Germany refused to give Leopard 2 tanks unless supported by other countries giving MBTs so the US had to give a few to unlock the situation.
@@francoisleveille409 Considering the leopard proved to be the most useless tank in this conflict, that just compounds the stupidity.
During the Gulf War (1990-1991), while M1 Abrams tanks seemed to perform exceptionally well in tank battles, the majority of Iraqi tanks were actually destroyed by U.S. and coalition aircraft through overwhelming air superiority.
@@richardbenjamin8341 would be a different story if they all had the new active protect system.
US just send around 30 Abrams, what the ukranians gonna do with 30 tanks?
In Irak, did US just send 10 Abrams tanks to destroy Saddam's army?
The difference is American fought in Iraq, they trained and knew how to use their equipment effectively and efficiently. So what if we gave them only 30 Abram’s? We’ve given them countless personnel transport vehicles and Bradley’s, we gave them F-16s, and long range missiles. Why should we continue to give our weapons away when we get nothing in return?
Biden gave token supplies, but only enough to keep the stalemate going, he tied the hands of Ukraine over and over.
@@Ch1cken_Nub they fought against Shepherds with sandals..
The US only sent them so the Europeans would have the balls to send their own tanks. The US said the Ukrainians wouldn't be able to use them, but European countries refused to send their tanks until the US sent them as they were worried about escalation.
@@Ch1cken_Nub what do you mean, get something back. We are ally’s and Ukraine is attacked. What do want them to do? Give up ? Get under Russian control? No one wants to be under Russian control. Only dictators are finde with that
The Germans in WW2 used over 2,000 tanks in Ukraine, and we give them 20, 30, or 120 and expect them to make a difference?
чувак..во второй мировой не было,дронов, дальнобойных высокоточных ракет, мин которые рассеиваються с воздуха...танки это МУСОР! пережиток прошлого!
Nobody expected them to make a difference. They are there to signal political support for the reconquista of Crimea. The fighting will be done by artillery and drones. But the idiots who saw war movies with tanks aren’t convinced unless you show them the picture of a main battle tank. It’s a theater just for you! 🎭
Ukraine has been provided with over 800 tanks from NATO stocks alone. They had 900 tanks in service in 2022 and many more in storage
@@JesterEric They sent them 8 per week, not 800 tanks at once, big fucking difference.
Same with artillery shells and everything else.
Parcel it out a bit at a time for maximum political clout without making a real difference to anything.
Great plan bart!
@@wavydavy9816
I never understood why they did that, not to mention why they announce what they are sending at all. Seems to me entirely counterproductive.
The issue is with tanks in general, not the Abrams specifically. With the rise of the drone, putting a multi-million dollar tank in combat without the intended combined arms protection is not a good trade. The tank kind of reminds me of the cavalry in WW1. When the breakthrough is achieved, then you need them but for static warfare they're of little use & consume lots of supplies.
There needs to be a design shift if they want to use tanks in this kind of warfare. The Russians have tried it with their 'Turtle tanks' which are crude & of dubious effectiveness but it shows a different defence is needed as the front glacis of the tank is no longer the crucial area that requires protection.
There is also the fact that the heavy NATO tanks were designed for a very different war & environment. For breaking up mass attacks by T72 type 'medium' tanks on the plains of Northern Europe, they'd probably perform well, as long as they had sufficient air cover & electronic warfare countermeasures. Used individually in a muddy field with next to no protection, of course they've going to struggle.
Exactly my thoughts. Drones are the new airpower, with their anti-tank warheads being dropped on top of the tanks etc. plus blocks of C4 attached to blow off turrets and generally ruin the tankers day. These weapons were not allowed or planned for when the tanks were dsigned.
Mass drone airpower may be one way forward in modern battle conditions.
Bad comparison, tanks are not obsolete once UAV's are neutralized.
@@sirmalus5153 So explain the success of the Leopards?
@@sirmalus5153wrong, UAV attacks are unique to the Ukraine war and would not dominate when all current technology is deployed (e.g. Leonidas)
I am wondering if you could miniaturize C-RAM systems and put them on top of tanks. The current systems are far too big and heavy but those are also made to engage actual arial targets flying relatively high and fast. FPV drones fly relatively low to the ground are not that fast and need to get pretty much on top of their target. So it would be enough to engage targets that are only a few hundred meters away at most. I think with the current advancement in computer vision a lidar or even camera based system should be able to spot and recognize fpv drones.
To all, including Paul, who claims that the war in Ukraine proves tanks to be useless...
Both Russia and Ukraine not only continues to use tanks, they actively seek to get more of them. This means both sides, in spite of being intimately familiar with and the worlds leading expert in drone warfare, consider tanks being absolutely necessary to still field.
That alone should give anyone pause and start consider "why" that is the case.
Tanks behind drones are useful for carrying people. Tanks in front of drones are an easy target.
Ukraine doesn't know how to use tanks any more than the Russians do. they both are former Soviet mindset armies. and neither understands combined arms.
Yup but the point is that a 60 year old Leo1 is about more usefull then an Ab. They still like the Leo2 and that tank from the Britts. Its only the Ab that sucks for them and even then they probable be pretty happy if the USa ships over a thousend or so. It just is a sucky tank for ukraine to operate but that was already known. Its overly complex is a fuell hog even for a tank isn't that fast or manouverable. The only good thing about it was its armour and they didnt get that. I mean its a nice machine for a breakthrough tank if you can protect it and can aford the logistics nightmare the thing is.
The Worlds leading expert in Drone warfare is probably sat in a trench on one or the other side of this conflict right now... not some upper rank officer in procurement that's never had one explode in his vicinity...
@johntowers1213 More likely in a basement somewhere, assembling the newest prototype... but point still stands.
If they didn't see a need for tanks, they wouldn't spend so much efforts getting more of them.
Drone operator said: Only 15% moving targets were hit by FPV drone. The rest of it was disabled by mines or ATGM. FPV drones normaly only finish disabled tanks.
That would have been correct a month ago. But the Russians are evolving and adapting to the war. Something the Ukrainians and their allies(mainly the US) are failing to do. The same tricks dont work twice. The Russians are now using fiber optic drones. Meaning they cant be disabled. Only shot down.
as I said years ago. why didn't Ukraine setup mine field along the border with Russia? when it was clear Russia was building up their force to invade Ukraine? that would have slowed down the invasion quite a bit.
@@davidjacobs8558they did in Zaporizhiye. Got Fabed so hard it turned to ruins.
@@davidjacobs8558 one of the major bridges leading into Ukraine was allegedly mined specifically to slow down an invasion but mysteriously didn’t go down despite Ukrainian military planning.
@@davidjacobs8558 in a word ..Corruption,
Your advice only considers the price and the manufacturing time of a physical asset (tank, weapon, drone, shell etc.), and you suggested pushing far more solders ahead, but how would you estimate the value of a single solder, and how long it takes to make one from scratch (embryo)?
Ukraine has lost over 500,000 of them and the West and Zelensky values their lives at $0
Why am I not surprised?
The mighty Abrams does not have the scenarios on the battlefields that it is made for. The Ukrainians basically have only been using it from distances as a „sniper tank“, plus the Ukrainians do not have the surrounding maintenance equipment and crews to support it properly.
Actually, this assessment was correctly given before Ukraine received them! That they would not be of much particular use for Ukraine and the scenarios they face.
It was primarily a political decision to send a few (very few) to Ukraine, to make the Germans move and send more heavy equipment, because the coward chancellor of germany hid behind the excuse „we are not sending because they Americans do not“….. So that is that.
what about the us cowardly decision to not allow ukraine to hit russia with us weapons. that was idiotic.no way russia would declare war on usa or nato or use nukes.sullivan is an idiot lawyer. why is he incharge instead of a military general?
You seem to forget that several other countries tried to send heavy equipment to Ukraine but got held back by Washington rather than Berlin.
Сценарий где эта штука выступает в роли гриля для свинины вполне удачный у него.
VladPootin. Doubt that as they have the early 105mm gun version don't they?
I could see them using the Challenger 2s like that though.
The reason why the Germans were hesitant ti send their newest tanks was because the european nations were being encouraged to send over all their european and old soviet weapons stocks. Notice how none of those other european nations sent over their Abrams (even though they do have them). So the Germans realized the game that the US was playing. If Germany sent over its own stocks of its own tanks it would ve unable to resupply all those other nations which just emptied out their stockpiles, and the US would step in and sell them all Abrams and thus completely take over the market share and in the long term pretty much wipe out German exports.
So to convince Germany to empty out its own stockpiles the US promised to send Abrams. But after the Germans sent Leopard 2s, the US waited more than a year, and only sent over a handful of Abrams. So now German industry is busy fulfilling replenishing German stocks, while the US has taken over all of Germany's old customers. It was a big trick to screw over the Germans, and it worked.
My understanding of WW1 includes the first use of "shock troops" designed to apply sudden, massive, brutal pressure on enemy trench lines to break through, allowing regular infantry to follow and exploit the breakthrough. This is not exactly the same type of "elite" troops as Army Rangers, but it does show that militaries in WW1 did use specialized troops.
I thought exactly the same, like the shtormtruppen.
AKCHUALLY..... Shock troops were never "massive, brutal pressure". Sthormtruppen and the tactic relied on specialised units but low in number, with through recon they find weak points and carry out a suprise attack.
But these units had to go under very specialised training, lot of experience and they had a lot of losses still. But it was the most effective offensive way of the time right.
The issue with something like this is still the 0-24/7 survelliance of the front line with drones equipped with thermals. Any movement on the no mans ground would be decimated with arty, and /or drone strikes. WW1 did not have 105 and 155 arty, they did not have proxy fuse, air burts this precise, etc. 105 has a blast zone of 50-100m with "high probability of lethal damage. Can you just imagine how big is fkin 50 meters? If you are not in a trench, you are DEAD. 155 has 100-200m blast zone.
It's NUTS how effective we got in killing each other
@@fejlecbezar ww1 had 155mm arty -.-
for example: The Obusier de 155 mm C modèle 1890
@@MegaRagingBunny
Oh yeah, they had like 2000 of these through the war.
Now, as per my previous comment:
do you think these guns had the same precision as the WW1 ones? Did these guns have the same effect withouth the modern proxy shell, modern HE ammo, the drone assisted target identification AND lead on target? Are they using 2000 piece of these, or do you think it's more around 10k+?
Fejlecbezar. That is my understanding too.
The thing is ISTAR in this conflict makes indirect fire extremely deadly.
You can't up-armour a vehicle to survive 155-152mm shells landing on it, without fatally compromising its mobility . Not at today's level of technology anyway.
Mobility may be a better option, but then you hit the problem of mine fields and effective direct fire weapons.
Personally I think the defensive may be the superior form of warfare at the moment, but these things to in cycles. I fear this may apply to air warfare too, unless stealth really is a game changer, as advertised. I can't pretend to know if it is though.
Incidentally the Imperial German Army got the idea for Stormtruppen from the Russians ' 1916 Brusilov Offensive.
Tanks without air cover didn't work in the battle of the bulge either.
That was logistics.
@@nkristianschmidt You mean the logistics that got bombed to shit by the enemy air power?
@@fen3311 yes, airpower takes out trucks rather than tanks.
Look like nothing can beat a solid humble shovel ! Right ? 😂
Russian bots you annoying with your shovels
When it comes to hand to hand trench warfare the entrenching shovel will NEVER be obsolete. the short war ax never runs out of ammo. It also digs holes!
The main reason why the Abrams is not doing well is because their is just not enough to use properly. Their is no reserves for them and their are just too few to risk which is why the leopard 2 is seeing more action as the western mbt of choice.
The Bradley's are doing wonderfully by contrast because they have hundreds of them, rather than a few dozen abrams. This is a massive difference because having units to risk is very important.
also the lack of HE rounds, APFSDS is of little use against what Ukraine is versing i.e. infantry. I would say that is the major reason that MBTs aren't getting much use.
they don't use the leopard 2 more than the abrahms...
additionally, almost none are A6, most of them are L2A4... the Abrahms the US provided are better than the A4
in general theydont want to risk any of the modern MBTs without air superiority... thats why they mostly use their old stuff and old L1
Thank you for recommending Sarah Jennine Davis on one of your videos. I reached out to her and investing with her has been amazing.
Wow, congratulations on your impressive investment success! Your discipline and focus on delayed gratification is truly inspiring. I'm curious, what are some of the key factors that you consider when making investment decisions? Do you have any tips for those of us who are just starting to dip our toes into the world of investing? Thanks for sharing your story!
Do you mind sharing info on the adviser who
assisted you? I'm 39 now and would love to
grow my portfolio and plan my retirement
@@สมรักษ์อินทร์ตา-ม7ฑ Sarah Jennine Davis is highly recommended
You most likely should get her basic info when you search her on your browser.
@@mayor-o1w How do I access her ? I really need this
+156
I remember thinking the Bradley was going to be near useless, and the Abrams would over perform. Clearly the opposite is true.
VERY GOOD OBSERVATION. AND THE WAY UKRAINES MILITARY FEELS, IN THEIR OWN WORDS.
The reason is numbers to deploy, a few dozen Abrams is not enough to go around, especially when you consider rotation times. We sent, however, hundreds of Bradley's and sent even more later on. This means not only you have numbers to set across multiple units and fronts but you can have some set aside for rotation and reserves. Quantity is still important. So right now many tanks are being held in reserve for counter attack and reinforcements instead.
I made this comment a few times, on one hand Bradleys had PR victories, everybody seen the T90 tank etc.
On the other hand the Bradley is an IFV. It is versitile and has more than one use. Transport reinforcement to the front? HELL YEA.
Casualty evac? SURE IT DOES. Fire support? OFC! And probably another dozen thing that my internet keyboard warrior ass can't think of.
A tank is just a tank, and it's designed that with concentrated forces find a weakpoint in the enemy line and punch it through, and encircle.
There is not much else it's good for. Big, heavy, slow and obsolete
@@fejlecbezarnot slow really but heavy yes, and no air protection.
@@davidradtke160
Eeeeerm define slow? What do you think it's capable?
Fuckit let me help you:
On road (paved): 42 mph (67 km/h)
Cross-country: 25-30 mph (40-48 km/h)
Deep sand: ~20 mph (32 km/h)
Mud/wet terrain: 10-20 mph (16-32 km/h)
Snow/ice: 15-20 mph (24-32 km/h)
Urban areas:
These aren’t problems with Abrams. These are problems with all tanks in this conflict. Give the Ukrainians credit for quickly realizing that the mass armor attack isn’t going to work and avoiding it.
Ukraine doesn't know how to use tanks any more than the Russians do. they both are former Soviet mindset armies. and neither understands combined arms, nor has the experience and training to pull it off.
@@SoloRenegade Ukraine has had plenty of training in Western ways and as the offensive into Kursk demonstrated can carry out combined arms actions well when the opportunity arises. Their problem is that combined arms works best when you are on the offensive and mostly they are not. Their coordination is still pretty competent though but the Russians are improving also.
@@laszlokaestner5766 Yes, they have training, they are learning, they are adapting. but you simply cannot recreate US fighting style in only a decade, and without air support. Older military members are still entrenched in their ways, and it takes time for lessons to sink in, be applied across teh forces, etc.
Yes, Ukraine has demonstrated SOME combined arms skills, but not much. Compared to the US they are still a 3rd world military, they have a long way to go.
Yes, the Russians have improved faster than I expected. Fortunately it took them 750k dead and loss of nearly all their artillery and armor to start adapting. and even then, the Russians are only adapting slightly and on individual unit levels, not at teh organizational, training, and control levels, which is good for Ukraine.
@@paulchapin6877 The only weaknesses for tanks are that they have the lowest mobility per mass ratio compared to other mobility technologies, they are incapable of flight, and they are expensive. Other than these problems, tanks have the highest durability to mass ratio compared to other armor technologies. Tanks of highly advanced technological feats are extremely durable, are equipped with myriads of weapon variations to counter almost all types of enemies, and are adaptable to moving on various terrains. Tanks are the ultimate frontline fighters. It is a matter of technological superiority when it comes to successful tanks.
@@SoloRenegade Blud that's a crazy thing to say, tanks were the bread and butter of the soviets.
Silly.
Tanks indeed all weapons are vulnerable …… must be used as part of a combined arms team.
Anti-drone weapons and countermeasures are evolving.
Hmm by your analysis soldiers are vulnerable and therefore eliminate them.
I get all the arguments on why Abrams tanks could not be as effective in Ukraine as its' reputation and famous name would suggest, given the unsuitable terrain. But judging a performance of a weapon on a battlefield that was delivered in low quantity is not exactly fair. 30 Abrams tanks out of thousands in US stockpiles is not even serious. They were only transfered to Ukraine because Germany had this childish thing where they would say "we will only provide a certain weapons system to Ukraine when America does so". Even though in a european war, Germany should've taken the lead. Especially when it comes to tanks given that Leopard 2-s actually have done fairly well in combat.
Also it raises a large issue about the US readiness to defend eastern Europe in case of Russian attack. The terrain and weather in eastern Europe is similar, so will Abrams tanks be as ineffective in protecting the Baltic States?
It's a good thing they didn't have the lead, since they've been dragging their heels with everything.
Crazy thing considering the Abrams was designed to fight the USSR in northern Europe.
Good points… also of note, they are using Abram’s from the Gulf War, correct ?
Exactly this. You cannot effectively field a weapon when it is both expensive, under-equipped (these are old versions without many protection systems that are on modern variants) and it is in low supply (tens when they need hundreds/thousands).
The Abrams was designed to be used in certain numbers and with specific tactics.
....drones are now the face of war
Tanks are still necessary for certain very specific applications. They need armour on the frontline, still, just with the current flights other equipment would be more effective.
We're never going to NOT need tanks. They do certain things very specifically well
The Bradley is a better vehicle in the fight. It can be used to move stuff and also be a light tank. While tanks are important for some countries such as India and Pakistan, there really isn't much need for the U.S. to have a tank. They are slow to transport, require a lot of fuel and maintenance and can be taken out by modern weapons just as easily as one takes out an unarmored vehicle.
Spot on! Thanks for an honest video! 🙂
my take, Western tanks are sitting around because Ukraine overall shortages of operators, parts, and even the overal doctrines of using the thing
what made Abrams so successful in the past was air supremacy and proper planning before hand, Ukraine does not have that luxury
what makes Western tanks good in Ukraine is that hey are keeping the crews alive and fulfill that inf support roles, but with Ukraine being so outstretched everywhere, and coming back to not enough resources and manpowers to drive everything
on the other hand, drones maybe really good and cheap, but we are also seeing how easily they can be countered with jamming, tracking, and even hacking
so moving forward, i expect NATO to incorporate more drones in their combined arm doctrines, working alongside tanks, infantries, artilleries, and airplanes, lots of possibilities
And your source on the readiness of the operators and strategic doctrines is?
Air supremacy would not make any change in this, you cant shoot down a IFV with a AIMX-9.
Western tanks have about the same protection on the top as the russian tanks: NADA. Even if they had thicc armor, the RPG shaped charge is designed to penetrate.
Tanks are obselete. Does not matter if 30 or 100 or 500 tanks we talk about ready to be deployed. No air cover would solve the drone supremacy.
Exactly this. The US flew around the world and staged an invasion with food, fuel, and ammunition. They supplied thousands of vehicles around the clock with quantities of supplies that would bankrupt any other nation.
Tanks are and always will be deathtraps. But they are very useful deathtraps and force the enemy to expose assets to kill them because if they are ignored, they can wreak havoc on troops and fortifications. Ukraine does not have the capability to take advantage of this and cannot engage in maneuver warfare since they lack the ability to create a breakthrough in Russian lines due to supply shortages, low manpower, and lack of air power.
Abrams isn't useless. Ukraine is just fighting a war against a much stronger opponent while under constant air and artillery attacks that they are unable to respond to. Abrams is poorly suited to this since it is essentially being used either as a last-ditch QRF or a static bunker. In both cases all tanks would be vulnerable in these situations because it exposes them to air and artillery attacks without support.
@fejlecbezar my sources are mainly from recent engagements in Ukraine, drones getting hacked and jammed all the time, it is not perfect yet, hence why I mention it must be used in a combined armed doctrine
As for tanks, my main study is the 1991 gulf war, 2004 Iraqi freedom, and the recent decisions on why marines abandoned the m1 Abram
Abram tanks traditionally work very well when being supported by a lot aspects like inf support and air cover, and the US is very experienced in doing this
Ukraine is punching above its weight, but even their combat doctrine is still based upon old Soviet teaching, just look at how they handle their tanks, aka needing stop or slow down to shoot accurately, so they are still learning about combined armed tactics
The main reasons why they are doing so well is more towards how slow Russia is at adapting, but adapting to Ukrainian drones they did, though inconsistent, typical for Russians
As for us Marines and m1 Abrams, these guys are the first guy to go in wreck shit, they need to move fast and hit hard, tanks require complex infrastructure set up to operate, something the army is better at doing, I admit that the marine engineer Corp can make miracles from much less, but they can't build entire cities with proper maintenance facilities out of sticks and crayons
@@georgepatton93
"Drones getting hacked"
@@georgepatton93 Russia has switched to wire guided drones that can't be jammed, these are expensive and used for high value targets like tanks. Ukraine too is either developing them or using them already. As for the Abrams, Ukrainians say they prefer the Leopard for it's engine but mainly that with the Leopards they got HE shells while Abrams came with AP shells only, so they hit a house with 10 shells and it's still standing like nothing happened.
As for adapting: don't fall for your own propaganda, I recently heard an discussion with a Veteran who fought until a few days ago at the front. And a western army colonel studying the war, the question of lessons of the war came up. To which the veteran said "the lessons of what time are we talking about? 4 months ago the war was nothing like it is today, the lessons of back then are of no use any more" there is insane speed in innovation and adaption on both sides.
It's very ironic that tank warfare has reverted back to the old British doctrine of an infantry support tank. The Abrams was built for tank on tank warfare and that is not what this war has become. The Abrams has the same problem of every modern tank, thin roof armour and lacking active defence against drones or top attack ATGMs. Worse, it has very few tank-on-tank opportunities, so its contribution is limited to shelling enemy trenches with rounds not suited for the job.
The humble AT mine has inserted back into the equation. If there's no reliable answer to the AT mine, well we better get real good at avoiding minefields. Cheap mines or cheap drones kills very expensive MBTs. Not good economics.
What we're probably looking at for the next war is a family of relatively cheap IFVs with an active defence and a serious ATGM capability. The current TOW missiles on the Bradley are way obsolete and has to go. Mixed in we need IFVs with anti-personnel capabilities, much like how the British mixed Shermans and Churchills with Fireflies in WWII. Broadly generalizing, the Fireflies killed the Tigers while the Churchills and Shermans dealt with the infantry. The British also built anti-personnel, anti-fortification and mine clearing Churchills.
The Swedes and the Finns have armoured, rapid fire mortar IFVs that would be ideal for trench warfare. Bomb the fuq out of an enemy trench system with very accurate mortar fire, then move in your infantry.
Historically, all weapons have a shelf life. The MBT has probably reached its best by date, just like the battleship in WWII. A $1,000 drone can kill a $15,000,000 MBT. Economics have won the argument against the MBT until the tank can reliably defeat the $1,000 dollar drone or mine. We're entering the era of the cheap and plentiful weapons. We no longer can plan for wars with five days worth of ammo and weapons.
These old Abrams tanks can in theory be retrofitted with active protection that is calibrated to handle FPV style drones. Any vehicle will be destroyed unless there is an escort of anti-micro drone weapons that can handle swarming micro drones. Put those two things into place and those old M1 A1 Abrams can still remain useful.
Wow finally somebody in the comment section who knows his sht and don't spew out complete nonsense.
Appreciate you sir. 🎩
@@williamzk9083
I am not sure, but highly doubt that APS is capable to neutralize several drone attacks. APS were invented more agains ATGMs and regular AT rockets.
I mean probably it CAN shoot down a drone, but the tank would not have full cover from all sides is what i mean.
Not sure on the magazine size of these systems, but all in all i still think that drone swarms can beat it.
And there is also the AT mines that pose a threat. Somewhere i heard that frontline soldiers do em in stacks of 3 to not just immobilize but destroy the tank, OR the anti mine rig in front of it so the next mine has better chance of hitting the tank.
All in all: it's just that the tank has SO many ways to get obliterated...
@@fejlecbezar well pointed Sir. Not to mention bomber drones as class. 15 bombes of 10k each with modified AT mines on them are of the cost of 1 Javelin rocket. And in near future it will be AI operated (harder to jam, more precise bombing, swarm tactics).
Ukraine bought license from Finnish Patria to get those vehicles and now factories in Finland and Poland are cranking those and Patria is building factories in the Ukraine. German factories should come online soon too.
You are mistaken about there being no elite troops in WWI. The German Stormtroopers, also known as Stosstruppen or Sturmtruppen, were elite infantry units. Developed in 1915, they were trained to break through enemy trenches using innovative tactics and equipment--a precursor to the blitzkrieg.
I know for a fact that this man told us the Abrams was a game changer!
It would be if they weren't stripped down before being sent.
the tower is too high for this landscape, the russsian taks are far better and four time cheaper than the Abraham
It is, it is a harbinger of the future it and every other tank in Ukraine today.
@@AlitaGunm99 no it wouldnt man.
@@louisecorchevolle9241 It's got nothing to do with the tower.
The issue is in the logistics, training and manpower limitations of the Ukrainian military.
The advantage of the Russian tanks is that they're diesel, only need two men and don't need to train high tempo loaders. They need less maintenance personnel assigned and they have a large catalogue of spare parts and surplus tanks to cannibalise parts from.
The UK has been criticised for reducing its new challenger 3 to only 149 tanks. The truth is the day of the heavy tank ruling the battlefield has come to an end, and the UK has seen this.
IFV is beginning to take over from the tank.
No, you just need smaller numbers of VERY advanced tanks with hard-kill APS, jammers, and often drone deployment capabilities. Deploying hordes of low quality tanks is no longer a viable tactic given the quality of ATGMs and drones today.
No, they are just cheap (the government) and don't want to pay for more. Running down the military to almost useless levels. BUT plenty of cash to send abroad to 3rd world shtholes
From UK perspective, if they would have to engage in tank battles on their own land, that would mean they have alredy lost.
The tank never ruled the battlefield. That would be the king of battle, number one cause of casualties outside of disease since the invention of gunpowder.
The US has sent 300 Bradleys and committed about 200 Strykers.
@08:50 commandos and storm troops were created in WW I… they were effective, were regular troops were not. They did reconaissance missions, took enemy prisoners for intelligence, prepared assaults for regular troops, carried out sabotage (also behind enemy lines) and so on. Basically the opposite of what you say is true. Do those troops „win wars“? Not alone, no. They do not replace regular troops, but make them much more effective and give them an edge, also during assaults. And that was especially true in WW I.
Navy tried this recently, Littoral ships were a pretty epic failure.
What use is a big metal bullet magnet without artillery cover and air superiority in a place where there's more open field than anything else
A lot to ponder here, but I'll toss in my .02 worth since I'm an old Abrams tanker. The armor on the M1A1 is quite good and its placed perfectly for the wars of the late 20th Century. Tank killers were SACLOS ATGMS and the main guns of other MBTs. These weapons are direct fire ones, so the armor on the Abrams, and other period MBTs, was placed to defeat them. It's common sense- thick sloped armor with ceramic/DU reinforcing could quite easily defeat flat trajectory rounds and SACLOS missiles. MODERN ATGMS like the Javelin and drones don't have that limitation. They can just fly past the armor and detonate ABOVE the the tank and have access to its weakest armor- the top armor. The US expect air superority, so shots from above are quite rare in that environment AND artillery is suppressed by deep striking air power and fires. Drones carrying warheads are very different. They are dirt cheap compared to SAMS and are small and agile enough to skip past traditional ADA (maybe not AAA like 12.7mm M2HBs, 20mm Vulcans, and 40mm Bofors) and can be flown to their targets. Given that then an Abrams is a sitting duck... we're so proud of its ammo storage, and it is great, but now it's a vulnerability because it wasn't designed to take a hit! Just fly your little drone over and detonate it right on those panels and you have a soft kill on an Abrams. The tank isn't really destroyed and can be recovered and repaired, but it's out of action for a long time and I doubt the Ukrainians can deal with that sort of damage. Tanks are still useful, but the next generation of tank will have to be designed to be protected against drones, or else they will remain sitting ducks.
Russia deploying WWII tanks are ok but the Abrams is inadequate. Please.
but russian tank crews are worth only 5 roubles . Ukraine is short of men to operate any warfighter tool
At Russia's tank attrition rates, all 30 Abrams tanks that the USA gave to Ukraine would be destroyed in 1 week.
Listen to the video again. Russia is fighting a highly attritional war. Those T72s are NOT better than Abrams. They're just cheaper, and Russia had thousands of them while Ukraine got 30 Abrams. FPV drones can disable either tank. Abrams will fare better vs FPVs than a T72, but those FPVs can still destroy the sensors/optics/controls on an Abrams or hit the wheels/treads and immobilize the Abrams. In that context, any single tank is vulnerable, and more cheap tanks is probably better than fewer very expensive + big + heavy tanks.
Poland gave Ukraine 10 times as many tanks as Ukraine received from the USA.
Thank you, they are all bunch of sore loosers. Arrogant cowards. Their full might, I repeat their full might is being displayed in Ukraine, they can't even understand what's happening to them
@@clutteredchicagogarage2720 question for you. Out of the 30 Abram’s we’ve sent how many have been destroyed? How many of their crews were killed? Just a question
@@Kraken2-2Actual 8 confirmed destroyed 16 in total damaged and out of action so 50% in over a year at this point not bad for being in some of the biggest battles in ukraine in the last year from adivka to kursk. with austraila giving 47 more to ukraine to replace the losses. as far as crew killed a fuck ton less then in the damn t90 series tanks i dont think ive seen a confirmed crew kill in a abrams in ukraine while the challenger 2 definetly lost a crew member in 1 cas and the leopards 2s have definetly lost crew.
The Ukrainian army is under-manned. An Abram's tank needs a crew of 4. It's larger than Soviet tanks. The theater of combat is basically trench and urban warfare. It's not a case of "future", it's a case of the dictates of the war.
I have been saying this for ages Abrams are a piece of overrated of garbage and having the national security advisor Jake Sullivan saying it is gold you guys been playing too much world of tanks, as the Russians said just tin can. They are too heavy, too slow the condensation inside them destroys the sensitive electronics in them and they have one real bad Archilles heal which I will not say what it is but the Russians certainly know what it is. Same as the Leo 2 and Challenger 1 only good for fighting third world countries when you have total air superiority.
@@fakshen1973 nonsense. Ukraine has enoug people to man fuckings tanks, they sent 30 tanks, ofcourse they not gonna overperform lol
Really nice video with good explanations. Love you going into the "why".
the abrams probably isn't helped by being a priority propaganda target for the russian troops
Apparently a large part of the problem with the Abrams in Ukraine is that the front armor is not strong enough. Ukrainian soldiers had to add reactive armor on top to survive hits.
On top of that Abrams are very maintenance heavy.
This information is directly from Ukrainian Soldiers, so I assume it's accurate.
Should be, they were sent a less capable export version of the M1A1.
@AlexKall I see! That is unfortunate, but apparently adding reactive armor fixed atleast that issue.
I watched some more related videos where Ukrainian Abrams crews were interviewed.
It seems after the armor issues were fixed, the tank itself serves quite well! Maintenance is ofcourse an issue, the tanks are quite old and parts need to be imported from US.
Basically if the Ukrainian tanker had to choose between a Abrams or a Russian style tank, Abrams is an automatic winner. So it's not quite as bad as the articles are saying.
So far the most praised tank was unsurprisingly the Leopard 2, especially the Swedish variant that has even more armor.
@@muleganda1085 Yep, it seems the STRV 122 is the number one choice, I saw that it was also used in the Kursk region, shame they have so few of it.
Fortunately, the US army uses the after action report as a continual learning tool, so every combat result is used as a learning. Don’t sell the US short…
Genuine question, aren’t these decades old Abram’s being sent? Nowhere near our newest and best
It is not that simple. Sorry. The later revisions of the M1 were largely built by retrofitting existing tanks. Sure there are improvements - in fact there are UA-cam videos showing the process done by an Army Depot. But the Ukrainians got some of these improvements. My concern is that now some have been captured - and even displayed in front of the Kremlin. They may not have the latest, but they do know what design features constrain the latest. Russia has a long history of accurately deducing and exploiting correct information from incomplete data. Now their data is more complete.
Ukraine tanks have all the latest improvements
they dont have the secret depleted armor nor a couple of electronic updates, not even the ones Australia are sending have that fit, the difference between the ones they are getting and the current fit is like comparing a F-16 and an F-35, but you wont find the details out in the open
@@Why_ask_ Do you mean as useless as the THOUSANDS of Russian tanks that have been destroyed...???
Yeah... Seems like the Ukranians actually, really like the Abrahms, even though it's not the same version the US uses.
ua-cam.com/video/6Wih2SUF6j8/v-deo.htmlsi=nKdx8e906O5k39qL Watch and listen to the actual Ukranians using the Tank.
There ya go, sport.. 🙄
Get wrecked
@@flyingsword135 No... they don't..
When you only give 30 ????
Cash in those tanks and buy drones with the money!
70 more coming from Australia, we're getting "new" ones.
The key point you did not highlight is that these are older M1 variants, which do not have additional reactive armour and other key items.
Ukrainian units that have modified the M1s with additional Ukrainian reactive armour and precisely customized drone cages and additional armour at key points, have reported doing well again rpgs atgms and drones . The use of individual customized Abrams at key strategic points in engagements has been done with great effectiveness. Its precise and multiple target capabilities have been much appreciated. It’s also been found to be quite agile for a big machine. As per dickens’ Oliver Twist : “can I have more sir”
Several hundred more Bradley’s would also make a great stocking stuffer.
Actually there were elite units in ww2. The British SAS operating in North Africa and u could also say the us army rangers were elite.
You’re right, but He said ww1.
@ oh my mistake then.
@@joeprimal2044 He would be still wrong tho :D
I’m relieved relieved that my country (Finland) has focused on the right things all these years. We never abandoned conscription, and have a huge artillery reserve and the ability to mobilize hundreds of thousands of reaervists with decent training in a matter of days.
Most nato countries have adopted the small expensive highly trained elite force model and forgotten that Britain tried this in ww1 and that elite force perfomed better than most but was still spent within months and Britain had to resort to forcefully conscript from the civilian population.
Agreed, Finland is a European model country when it comes to military defence!
Finland has the most artillery of any NATO country. Poland is building up its artillery as well and will soon have the largest tank army of all the European NATO countries.
Russia is not the enemy, people who wear tiny 🎩 are the ones that are driving us to WW3.
Sorry, there was elite troops in WW1.
For example, Sturmsoldat - the German stormtrooper. They specialized in commando style raids, infiltrate enemy trenches before an advance , maneuver warfare, reconnaissance, and shock tactics. The Allies ( France / UK) had similar troops.
Maybe, you're referring solely to the USA. By the time the USA entered into the war the original nations ie. UK, Germany, France had developed elite units and had changed their military doctrine from 1914. For example. quick bombardment of the enemies trench followed by staggered artillery to protect the infantry attacking the enemy trench and finally dropping a smoke barrage when friendlies made contact with the enemy trench. Supported by tanks and small fast hitting elite units that perform shock tactics. The infantry also broke into smaller groups carried less and ran towards the enemy trench.
On the other hand, the USA were using 1914 tactic's when they finally became involved in 1917/1918.
Over the trench and walk towards the enemy trench in a line at a walking pace after a prolonged barrage on the enemy trenches lol. No support from Artillery of special units.
They did say the Abrams was not the appropriate tank for Ukraine over and over again. But the Germans wouldn’t allow the Leapard 1 or 2 unless the Americans sent their tanks. It seems like Lighter Bradley has been the most effective piece of kit we’ve given them.
In weight, armor protection and firepower Leopard 2 & Abrams are almost identical (they were designed together). The difference is the Abrams has about 2x the engine power and fuel consumption, so half the range, but that isn't important in a semi-frozen battlefront. Challenger and Leopard 2 have had much the same results as Abrams.
First Germany wanted not the only country to send Tanks. They don't care if the US is sending some, would be enough that France or the UK is sending tanks. Even if Greece would sent some modern tanks that would be enough for Germany to send their Lepards.
And why you ask? - Because if Germany would have send their tanks lonely and Russia would have really seen this as escalation and would have gone "all in", what do you think would happens?
On the next day all over the world in the News: "'(Nazi) Germany does it again - They Started a World War."
It makes absolute sense for the Germans to demand that. Otherwise the image would have been of a second class tank, the leo2,being innefective, and not drones and advanced missiles creating an interesting problem.
The lack of proper cheap HE is also an issue.
@@nickhockings443 they are both 1500hp with Leo 2 engines having higher torque output.
@@AlexKall You are right. The differences are much smaller than I thought.
These arguments against the Abrams could just as easily be applied to the Bradley, and yet they are being heavily and successfully used by Ukraine. Interviews with Bradley crews show their equipment has frequently suffered damage from anti-armor weapons, and remained in use. Meanwhile, the Abrams have been supplied without their most effective armor, their best electronics, and I believe without their most effective anti-personnel rounds, as well as in miniscule numbers. While tanks are vulnerable on the modern battlefield, the Leopards have also been effective, probably because there are enough of them to make a difference.
Where? Ever heard of Bradley square? One guess as to why it's named such...
True, but the Bradly is quick, maneuverable and it has a high rate of fire. Hard to get off an anti tank missile when that Bushmaster is tearing you a new butthole. 🤣 Someone will come up with a vehicle mounted anti drone system, basically an automated shotgun, and all this “outdated” equipment will be right back in the dominant position.
Abrams would be more useful if Ukraine had them in hudreds, had crews and maintenance personal. Repair and maintenance facilities. Compared to Bradley Abrams has higher ground pressure which means it will have bigger problem with mud, and can't be pulled out with any recovery vehicle. Overall weight is higher, which means it cannot cross certain bridges. fuel consumption, is higher so it needs more logistics. If you are not going on the offensive, and you don't need the frontal protection, or main gun, it is better to use Bradley since you can get two for the cost of one abrams. They should have sent either 300 or none. But they had to for political reasons.
@@interesthing101Don’t be an idiot.
Just because you seen the overhyped few instances where a bradley had a successful engagement, it does not mean that it has any impact on the battle on the strategic level.
It cannot change the deadlock trench warfare, it cannot avoid drone attacks.
None of the tanks are DESIGNED with significant armor on the top which is where drones hit them. Even if retrofit a lot of armor there, the RPG shaped charge would penetrate withouth reactive armor ON TOP of that. And you cannot just cover fully a tank in reacive armor, sooner or later a drone will find it's mark, or just make the thank combat ineffective.
Drones changed warfare so much that you can't even comprehend. Did you miss the russian HEAVY losses about a year, year and half ago when they still tried to concentrate forces for a big charge? They have not even reached the RUSSIAN side of the front when they suffered heavy losses. I'm not 100% up to date with jamming technology but if it would be as simple as most of you guys think to slap a jammer on top of the tank and go, what do you think this war would look like?
Abrams tank useless.
Leopard tank useless.
Challenger tank useless.
F16 useless.
@@stephenokolie3792 all ruski equip useless. Drones are the only think really useless and dedly
I happened to talk to guys operating M1, and main complaints was lack of uranium armor and high downtime for servicing combined with lack of spare parts. There were cases when ATGM penetrated turret's frontal armor. That makes Abrams not useless, but less useful then Leopard 1.
you mean Leopard 2.
@@kayjay7780 I meant Leopard 1. They both equally vulnerable to drones and ATGMs, have great sensors and firing control and have very similar modifications done by Ukrainians. Threats where M1 will be better is almost non existent. If you can't shrug off hits in frontal projection, then all of that 20 tons of additional armor will just humper your ability to reposition in muddy terrain. And about Leopard 2 I can't say anything. I don't know what they are doing, and how effective they are.
@@KolyanKolyanitch There's a difference between shrugging off the best ATGM available and shrugging off your old RPG-7VL. Not everything on the front will be the latest and greatest. So they very much are NOT equally vulnerable.
I think the whole view on the war doctrine is outdated. Soviet this, Soviet that. There is absolutely zero Soviet about this logic. War machines and equipment should ALWAYS be inexpensive, as effective as needed, easy to produce and maintain, have massive numbers and be easily teachable and easy to repair that even a monkey can do it. Super-weapon only looks good on paper and military shows and that is about it. Even NA**S knew that. They started to develop superweapons only when they failed to invade the USSR, when they knew they were loosing. Before that they had simple weapons and plans and a lot of people… ✌️
If you think Jake Sullivan is a reliable source of information, I pity you.
One has to wonder why all the other many models of tanks in the AFU are so effective?
Effective against which army? Ranking of its power?
View a tank as a battleship. View drones as naval aircraft. History repeats.
Until direct energy weapons can be mounted onto vehicles that can zap drones like flies.
@@bobbyrayofthefamilysmith24 My microware is pretty good at zapping 2.4ghz wifi networks. Take the door off a microwave and point it lol.
The British challenger 2 has had it's short comings exposed on the battlefield, and it's qualities endorsed.The challenger has been nicknamed the sniper because of its targeting and high tech firing solutions ( multiple targets can be acquired and engaged with near perfect performance) part of the accuracy is down to the rifled barrel that helps the accuracy.Another popular item is the emphasis on crew protection and survivability.
The down side is the ammunition is specific to the tank which makes it difficult for logistics, and the armour makes it heavier and slower..
The actual battlefield experience for all the armour and artillery has been priceless for the arms manufacturers...
IMHO we have to take into account that this is not a full on war like we saw in the gulf, this is more like a civil war between two groups grinding eachother into submission...
To correct a misconception held by you. In 1918, the Germans introduced specialised shock/assault troops. They were very effective and create many breakthroughs . Easy to research.
Maybe in WW1 they were effective, but their use couldn't be effective anymore because of the transparency of a modern battlefield. You start assaulting and the opposite side sees it immediately, and then you get wrecked by drones/artillery even before you could use your ultimate training. Means, "assault/shock" troops become nearly as good as any other troops.
@@mormatuswell.not really. The troops only need to be faster and more invisible. Maybe drone dropp infanttery.
@@matsv201 Drone dropped Infrantry? You mean Airborne Infantry? We dont need to invent new Things, the US already used Helicopters for Transport in Vietnam. And even Russia tried an Helicopter Assault at the Start.
Manpad
Australians were WW1 and WW2 shock troops.
Abrams are also notorious fuel hogs, even by tank standards.
According to the Chieftain on YT, that is old news. The current Abrams are not fuel hogs. It could be that the Ukrainians received versions that were unimproved though.
@@kenandbarbie-b6c Ukraine revived old export versions.
It's fantastic that the US unlike Russia can just admit these things and work to fix them
That's why Russia or China will never defeat the us. Adapt and change and open discussions and geek arguments arent characteristics of a dictatorship.
Give me strength!
There are about 4-5 wars going on.
When sanctions failed, the Russians won the economic war. 1-0.
Financially the seizing of Russian assets has been a bit of an own goal, bringing De-dollarisation forward by at least 25 years. Trump is right to fear it, it's a game changer. But it's not obvious what he can do about it. 2-0.
Russia is not diplomatically isolated in fact it's become the West against Rest. 40 countries vs 160. Like those odds do you? We don't even need to add the very solid Sino-Russian Alliance, or the rise of BRICS+. 3-0.
I may have taken longer than expected and the Ukrainians have fought like tigers, but militarily the Russian strategy is increasingly effective and none of the Western game changer has worked. Militarily they are winning and are very likely to achieve their war aims. 4-0
But I guess We're still winning on Twitter?
4-1
This is going to be another Vietnam where you pretend you won because no Americans died and Ukraine will survive albeit as a much reduced state. Pathetic!
@@DonaldAtherton-l7uUnfortunately things are about to change with your new "loyalty before competence" president. He has promised to purge the upper echelons of the US military after all. And if a war actually starts, before his halfwit loyalists are removed for their incompetence, the damage will already have been done. Modern war between high tech adversaries can get very bloody very fast.
@@DonaldAtherton-l7uYou realize China doesn't fall into that category, right? There are many reports across Chinese military media about their failures, and how they seek to improve them. Just look into their reaction during the 2016 joint sword operation, or how they were jammed by growlers.
I guess you forgot that Russia also has Kontact armour, jamming systems on top of tanks, cages, shtora and arena-m
😰 Its ok. We'll get through this difficult time together. Stay strong!
😅The Article leaves out that Ukraine was never supported with many M1 to beginn with. Also most were'nt "destroyed". The numbers i could find was that 2 tank where destroyed and 3 where damaged and not recovered in time... Of a total of 31. Also the article does'nt mention that most of the M1s.are currently out of use simply because of the lack of spareparts for repairs and if they are used, it's normaly in the more intense parts of the frontline.
The article brings no sources and the explanations why the M1 is'nt effective sounds pretty amateurish to me. I don't trust it.
The tank has had its day. It is a weapon developed over a hundred years ago, when they were almost invincible. Then along came anti-tank weapons and now we have drones.
tanks got nerfed by the balance patches
@@tonybaker55 Canada was banking on that very thing in 2002 thinking tanks wouldn't be needed in any future ground wars. Four years later the LeoC1 with MEXAS armour was sent. Point is tanks are an essential tool in the commanders toolbox. Thats why Counter and anti drone tech is flourishing. To this point in the war the bulk of Leo2's and M1A1's have been recovered and repaired. The biggest point in their favour? The bulk of the crews survived.
Small and faster IFVs sem to be what is really working
@@charlieunderwood1311 i think medium tanks with a focus on repairablility and crew survivability (like the sherman most of which survived the war and had a crew loss rate of 0.5 per knockout) are going to make a comeback, something light weight, iwth a just big enough gun, a focus on mobility and active protection, designed to provide fire support rather than get punched in the jaw will be the go to going forward
Nonsense. 100+ year old tanks are vulnerable to rifle fire to a substantial degree.
Dude they said that before they even asked for them
Yes they did this is so old news..
The Russian also said the same..
To be fair to Abrams tanks, the other weapons, offensive and defensive, are also useless.
we must not forget a small detail: the Abrams traveled to Ukraine are old models which have also been deliberately degraded by removing certain elements, which completely distorts the results, and the 30 tanks delivered by the us is a ridiculous amount in comparision from the real US possibilities (two tousand Abrams stored and useless...)
Agreed, they are export versions of M1A1. So yes, older and less capable compared to the domestic version.
Must not forget the terrain there gets really boggy in certain times of the year and the very heavy Western tanks become of limited use until the ground hardens. Russia builds smaller, lighter tanks for a reason.
@@sportsfanivosevic9885 thats not how it works. weight doenst matter that much. Its more about the Pressure you put on the Ground. Lets take the Leo2A4. Weight is around 55tons, but it only puts 0,83kg/cm2 on the Ground. Meanwhile the T90S weights only 46tons but has smaller Tracks and puts 0,87 kg/cm2 on the Ground.
Thats also the Reason why a Woman with High Heels puts more Pressure on the Ground then a Grown Elephant.
All excuses the Russians are using old tanks. The Russian tanks are built for war not to brag
@@Kumpelblase397 Weight of the tank doesn't matter much? Do you think tanks just magically appear on the battlefield? How are you transporting these super heavy tanks from the factory to the front lines? Can your railway system, and trucks handle 70 ton tanks? Can your road and bridges handle them? Don't just think about how a tank will perform on the battlefield, you have to think about logestics.
Lets stop all this talk about Abrams / F-16 / Javelins etc , etc and let’s go back to square 1.
a simple question :
* Why is the US constantly messing with other countries ( all over the world ) , countries that are
no threat to them , that aren’t their neighbors or even on the same continent ?
You don’t want to be messed with by others , then why mess with foreign countries yourself ??
* Why waste all this taxpayers money on ( pretty useless weapons - let’s be honest - On a proxy war you started yourselves - let’s be honest about that as well - and are now losing )
Instead of using that money to cause death , destruction , suffering in other countries , why not spend it in your own country on building infrastructure, helping the homeless , improving healthcare / education etc , etc , etc ….??
@@aukeykema9689 Thing is, US blew a lot of steam in meaningless wars in Iraq/Afghanistan. But this time, when there really is something to fight for and the free world needs them…meh…we’re tired of this. It’s actually a decisive moment, a lot more at stake than we think. We will look back at this conflict as either the time when the world said no to tyranny, enforced international law, or the moment the world backed down, gave up on what we believe in and entered a time of global anarchy. The world is watching.
🇷🇺🤖
Starting at the beginning....do you know what a 'treaty' is?
1. Budapest memorandum is a good candidate.
2. The US didn't start a proxy war, nor is Russia - Ukraine war a proxy war. Russia started the Russia - Ukraine war by invading Ukraine Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk regions in early 2014. Russia was losing influence (control through threats) in Ukraine which was moving closer to the EU. Russia is still the same imperialistic country as it has always been. Now with fascist leadership.
On the last point, that is generally not what the defence budget is used for.
Because Russia wants to end US world hegemony my lad. They're your enemy.
'The main battletank of the free world'? Urkaine has a lot more Leopards than the overcomplicated and mostly useless Abrams which needs too much maintainage. But it was the decision of the US, not to deliver 300 of them and 600 Bradleys, mothballed in thousends, in their desert-depots, while the Russ have nearly completly emptied theirs, to end the war quickly. Because US wanted the Europeans to deliver their equipment and buy new then in US. Like they do now with the expensive US-fracking gas.
Yes, "The main battle tank of the free world" was very weird and as kids say, a "cringey" statement.
Russians tank not doing well: cos the Russians are bad at making tanks.
US tank not doing well: well because of this and because of that…. Uh terrain and training, you know?…
😂😂😂
8:48 - You hear about German stormtroopers and infiltration tactics all the time. That's what Rommel made his career on before the panzer corps. They sliced through the Italians at Caporeto and pushed the Western allies back during the 1918 German spring offensive. They became the standard infantry tactics after the war.
The Americans literally said this but the German chancellor made them send them anyway before he supplied leopards.
Excellent commentary! This makes a lot of sense. My thought was that the Abrams over time has just become way WAY too heavy, with extra armor and protection, to the point it can't even cross bridges safely anymore or travel across mud. We in the west need a larger number of smaller cheaper systems, not a small number of big expensive systems.
in almost all wars ,Challengers have been out performing Abrams by miles.
Similar to the reason they stopped building battleships. As soon as someone invents the undefeatable padlock someone will invent a way to defeat it.
The Abrams is the best tank in the world and has proven that time and time again - when in the hands of the US Army. My bullshit meter is up there when anyone criticizes the Abrams.
The drones have changed the battlefield tactics radically showing their ability to neutralize conventional weapons.
Hitler famously said, I believe after Kursk, "30 thousand tanks! If anybody had told me that this was possible..."
Yeah, maybe it was a mistake to build tanks in the early 1940s that now look like tanks from the 1970s in an exhibition.
So much effort was put into how things would look when a bigwig would pop up for some "inspection" (i.e., PR photo op) that nothing could be produced en masse. Totalitarian and autocratic political systems are so incredibly stupid 🤔
The US keeps making systems that are too expensive because of its ridiculous GDP and it's still below 3%.
Nazi Germany made systems that were too expensive because that beautifully shot of Albert Speer arriving in a very fancy car and then walking around a tank was crucial for the sake of being crucial.
Yeah, it's a very understandable situation. The temptation to pile up to mega-tank-zoids is just built-in and applies to all the branches.
I look forward to making a response to this.
The best way to make a profit selling stuff to the US Army, a short guide.
1.claim it is the best, the strongest, the most devastating, or it will be once in production.
2. Low ball the initial contract, offer anything to everyone to get the contract. Once contracts are signed, slow walk and overpromise and watch the creep roll in
3. Develop the weapon system but make it come in over budget and behind schedule, the military signed the contracts honoring all production creep.
4. Profit, 2-5 years after initial promised date.
5. Make minor incremental upgrades and go to step 1.
The tank doesn't work because it has a gas turbine engine that drinks fuel, it needs this because it is ridiculously heavy.
This video would have been more interesting if Paul talked about WHY the Abrams seems to be worse than the Leo or Challenger, or WHY it is not doing well on a modern battlefield. As to Paul's comment about elite troops not worth it in WW1 - not exactly true. Germany's Stormtroopers were elite troops. They took the youngest, fittest men out of the infantry units, had better food, specialized training under infiltration doctrine, better equipment (like flamethrowers), and in 1918 smashed through 2 British armies, wiping out the Allied gains of an entire year. The Allies deliberately did not strip the best men out of their units - the idea being to have better general purpose units across the entire division. However the Stormtroopers were successful. But supplies and artillery could not keep up across ruined and muddy No Man's Land. And the Allied Armies, particularly the French, were more motorized so could transport troops to trouble spots faster than the tired Stormtroopers could literally run. So the German 1918 Offensives petered out because the Germans could not break out past Allied defenses, and the elite Stormstrooper units had taken heavy losses. It would take the WW2 tanks with mobility, speed and portable firepower using Stormtrooper doctrine to be successful.
Tanks are just drone magnets on the modern battlefield. RIP Abrams.
Because the Abrams, when not engaged in direct tank to tank warfare, is an infantry SUPPORT vehicle. Tanks are combined arms. You need air cover, artillery, and infantry working together.
So, it's taken more than an year or 2 for someone to point this out. The US held back, with the MIC drip feeding ammo to Ukraine to keep the cash registers ticking over as long as possible. With the UK offering the Challenger 2 tank and the Germans finally relenting to provide Leopard 2. The Challenger 2 was known to be one of the toughest tanks on the planet. When the Abrams arrived it was taken out, left, right and centre.
They work the best when the enemy has no weapons
It is the tank or how it is used?
Some time ago when the US was considering what to send to the ukraine, I said "Send them support in artillery, missiles, but more importantly drones... as many as you can send." I think the reason why the US decided to send the Abrams was in part to get rid of old inventory and to spur development of a new tank. But as we can see, tanks are nearly useless now. The Bradley fighting vehicle seems far more useful when deployed in small numbers together. Using their 25mm chain gun to knock out Russian tank optics on the turret renders tanks useless. The Bradley seems to be even causing the reactive armor on some tanks to detonate.
These systems were older and didn’t have depleted uranium or modern communication. A few of them even needed repairs upon arrival.
"modern" communication is jammed and DU wont help much when you have a bunch of drones targeting your weak spots
Isn't the Abrams impractical because:
1 Weighs too much? Few of the many bridges it would have to take in Russia or Ukraine can hold its weight. So forget a tank-carrier's weight.
2 For every 24 hours operating in the field it needs too many hours of maintenance?
3 Fuel hog adding to supply-nightmares?
Reminds me of what a French Foreign Legionnaire said about us USMC ground-pounders. Built like brick shithouses to carry 100 pounds and up, whereas legionnaires were built like whippets to carry light loads of essentials.
My understanding is that Soviet kit is not easy to repair. As it’s designed to be expendable. Changing the barrel on a T-72 takes much longer than on a western tank.
With the Abrams, it's almost like we've forgotten all the winning lessons of ww2 by now
Tanks in general have proven vulnerable. You can't move without being spotted by a drone and then targeted by man fired anti tank weapons.
I recall how a military expert warned the ukranians when they were requesting the Abrams’ that the tank was too heavy and it ate a lot of fuel, putting stress on the logistics.
Reminds of a Bill Mauldin Joe and Willy cartoon from World War Two. A Sherman was passing down a road while Joe and Willy were walking along the side in classic infantry form. " I don't know, Joe. A moving foxhole attracts attention."
Tread heads have run the Army for too many generations. Remember tanks designed for the Fulda Gap in Vietnam? Armor played a vital role in Vietnam, but a lighter weight, faster firing version worked better.
Man was taking the 'spout as much untrue bullshit in 10 minutes challenge' seriously here.
Probably a better analogy is battleship obsolescence to aircraft carriers. What use is the big gun on the abrams when you're taken out at range by a swarm of cheap drones.
Crazy that we call it outdated when it doesn perform againt tanks that are literally older than it.
The quote "generals always fight the last war, especially if they had won it" is attributed to French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau, who was in office during the later years of World War I.
That's right, on this front the Abrams are not being confronted by peasants in slippers and with Kalashnikovs.
I remember Paul saying when he was in service, the US left the Abrams behind as a certain IED design penned them every time. Anyone recall or am I losing it?