First M1 Abrams Destroyed in Ukraine -- Near Berdychi, Avdiivka
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 вер 2024
- Photo shows a burning Abrams tank in Ukraine, the first destroyed in the Ukraine War. The blowout panels deployed. It was likely hit by a drone.
Donation PayPal
Mikhail Korozei: korozei@ukr.net
![[UA] Eternal Fire проти NAVI | EPL Season 20 Malta](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/chvlsDygrZM/mqdefault.jpg)
When T-90 gets destroyed: Haha trash tank Russia sucks
When Abrams gets destroyed: No tank is invincible Russia sucks
Well, Mordor does suck. So that is correct.
And they will say : "You dont understand tis not same".😂
* Mordor* is that your mom's name?
@@nian60
@@DlanorAKnox-ur2bf of cause in 1950 blacks rode in bus on back sits because of segregation - that is real democracy
@@DlanorAKnox-ur2bf yep. His moms hole bigger than eye of sauron
That's the thing, if you aren't supplying everything Ukraine needs, it makes what you do supply more vulnerable, no matter how good it is.
abrams isn't a good tank compared to leopard 2 to begin with
This is why the American boys get overwhelming combat strength, not a feeble dribble.
Der amerikanische Panzer ist förmlich eine Kopie nur mit anfälligem und durstigem Turbinentriebwerk. Auch die L44 Glattrohrkanone ist eine Rheinmetall Entwicklung die die Amis in Lizenz selber bauen. Die Optik und Kanonenstabilisierung funktioniert am Leopard besser. Auch ist die L55 Kanone in der Leistung und Reichweite gesteigert, Amis haben nur L44 Kanonen. Bis auf technische Unterschiede sind Wanne und Turm baugleich. Die Deutschen wissen wie man Geometrie und Dimension eines Panzers gestaltet, da hat man lange dran gearbeitet.
@@cactuslietuva Video games are not a accurate measure of a tank or aircraft's quality, performance, or survivability. A Leopard would have - and has - died the same way. Both types are made to operate under a certain set of conditions and driving them around in 1's and 2's alone with little or no air and infantry support just makes them a big slow target sure to die.
@@andik859 For this type of warfare, one being better than the other in small ways is meaningless. A leopard, abrams, or challenger would have been stopped in the same way. Using them all alone with no support is tank suicide on these battlefields.
Thanks for the update
Ok, so far 35 Leopard 2s, 1 Challenger 2 and now 1 M1 Abrams have been damaged or destroyed.
37 Western main battle tanks so far.
Let's check how many Russian tanks are listed on Oryx with video and photo evidence as destroyed, damaged, abandoned or captured...
2759 tanks.
thanks
and now let’s talk about how many Abrams leopards and challengers are in Ukraine. Ukraine fights mostly using USSR equipment. Now think about what would happen if Ukraine fought only with Western equipment. How many Abrams and leopards would be destroyed?
What I like most is when the American bid tch begins to justify her defeat, by the way, you can continue to believe that Russia is losing. Well, I hope you like the fact that your taxes go into Zelensky’s pocket.
@@idinaxyipudjprobably still a lot less with a lower percentage of loss
@@fallencobra5197 What makes you assume that? He is right , this is effectively a near-peer conflict which means any tank is more and more vulnerable.
@@idinaxyipudj You have a point though. But your pfp is disgusting
having worked on the M-1 and having seen a burned out one.... the crew likely made it out alive. the tank, judging from the photo, may be recoverable, but will need major repair, and a new engine/transmission. if not rebuildable, there is much that will be salvageable
Can you speak to the blast doors? Seems like they are a liability to simple FPV drones since the ammo is so close to the roof of the tank.
Look closely at the still picture - the fires are burning materials (likely from the bustle rack) on top of the engine compartment. The M1 series tank was designed to survive a bustle event with minimal damage.
@@user-vj9qz3br6l How are the blast doors a liability? They are inside the tank and made out of titanium an inch thick.
If you are talking about the blow out panels - they provide the same amount of protection as the roof of the tank. The roof is the thinnest armor on any tank.
oh no we are gunna get an annoying amount of spam from russo bots claiming western tech is inferior.
NOT AGAIN!!
So a wester tank was nocked out, yah but the crew most likely survived (unlike ~80% ruZZian tank crews) and will get another tank to use their trained skill set on.
Popped int Red Effects video on it and it's swarming with them....
Just stop using dumb parts of Twitter
@@TB-zf7we Most of the crew deaths from russian tanks appear from ammo stored in the turret not the carousel autoloader. In addition , just because the ammo is separated that doesnt mean the crew cant get killed because of apfsds penetrations.
Good for you for reporting this, Suchomimus! If anyone gives you grief about posting about a Ukranian defeat, point out to them that Ukraine's supporters need to be fully informed to support Ukraine effectively. If you try to debate with someone opposed to Ukraine, but you don't know key facts, you get blindsided in the debate and look like a sap.
You will notice that the Abrams turret was not blown into orbit from ammo detonation, and the entire crew was almost certainly not vaporized instantly!
And did you notice that those fires are on top of the engine compartment and not in it? Did you notice that all the hatches are still closed? The crew is trained to keep the hatches closed and hunker down until things stop exploding. And the fact that the driver's hatch is closed means that the crew compartment was not compromised. The larch was designed with a weak spot so it would fail and vent the turret if there was an overpressure event.
I'd say that once the crew starts to recover from this 'brown trousers event' they realized that the engine was still running and they could drive home. (Assuming that they didn't also take a drone strike to the engine compartment.)
Cope
@@CA-jz9bmCope or not, one must have brain rot to support ruzzia
You all sound the same....always making excuses
The crew is probably very toasted anyways 😅
I thought the ruskies already destroyed several thousand Abrams...
У вас и 500 танков не будет, которые можно завести и поехать ))) Вы армия только на бумаге )))
Как сегодня прошел детский сад?@@kinchevk
@@kinchevk
ніхто не буде з тобою штокати і какати
The ghost of kiev wiped out 1 million soldiers and 300 SU57 felons...lmfao... You nafo ppl are fuckin jokes
@@kinchevk русорез не закончиться никогда 😊
I reluctantly liked this video. A like for Suchomimus and a comment for the algorithm.
👌
Same, also a comment for the algae rhythm 👊🇺🇦🇬🇧
All information is important, good or bad.
Also
I like videos for the effort to report the news, not propaganda and not for the news therein, but most of all to show that the conflict, war, illegal invasion is not forgotten.
Russian MOD confirmed this is the 113th M1 Abrams destroyed out of the 31 sent.
Don't forget about the Russian MOD claimed destruction of an Imperial Star Destroyer, the Battlestar Galactica, IJN Yamato, and they must be up to 2,379 destroyed HIMARs vehicles by now.
@@asterixdogmatix1073 and have killed about 4 million NATO troops!
I wonder how many Russkies the Abrams have accounted for? I wonder how many this one has accounted for? If the Battle of 73 Easting is anything to go by: plenty...
I thought only Ukrainian MOD or The Sun can say something like that.
Western media has claimed Ukraine is fighting a lost cause😂😂
Maybe it's a wrong assessment, but rather than destroyed it seems seriously damaged but repairable (even if it will take a long time) if it were recovered
the panels seem to have done their duty
the most important thing is that the crew survived (the turret hatches are open and this is a good sign)
If it was just the blow out panels all that is required would be to replace the ammo rack, the blowout panels and some paint.
Smoke is coming from hatch too.
@@shawnr771 smoke is exiting the crew hatches. the crew compartment is likely burned
I'd say that it isn't even seriously damaged. The fires are burning material on top of the fenders and the engine deck. There's no sign of fire inside the tank. I'd say that the crew probably drove the tank back to base. The M1 series tank was designed to take minimal damage from a 'bustle event.'
@@Phantom-bh5ru I cant see that on a phone.
First I heard about this was from Red Effect several hours ago, but the info on what struck it was limited compared to this one.
Other than that, 1 Abrams tank destroyed is not a huge loss just as long as the crew survived, which is what matters the most, because training a New Crew for a old or new tank takes time.
This can't be correct. TASS reported that all Abrams were destroyed before they entered Ukraine.
They did not. TG channels were monitoring Abrams for a long time. cut the crap
CNN sad that Russia already loose this war!..😆😂😉
@@smertbanderam7285and RT said this was going to be a 3 day special operations
@@CB74651it wasn’t rt it was US general… just so you know real story
@@CB74651 why are you lying?
Keep in mind, this version of the Abram’s tank does not incorporate a close in self defense system that is being deployed in current models in use by US Army. Hope the crew got out ok
Also doesnt have the same armor configuration. Tungsten panels were used to replaced the depleted uranium ones. Also quite a few other changes, Its quite old compared to currently fielded abrams sadly.
thats why they are scared to send them in mass bcoz that version of abrams is no different than the typical t72 you-d encounter roaming around ukraine and its gonna get destroyed eventually not even the armata or merkava with trophy would survive modern warfare as it is something else, long gone are the days of almost invulnerable tigers rushing through the field
It's disgusting how low with everything is Ukraine being supplied, 31 f*cking tanks by US... And those really old ones
Is every policymaker in Europe and US more concerned about Decepticons invading more than Russians to rather sit on equipment instead of winning the war before it reaches NATO
That would not changed a thing....
Good news is you can see the blowout panels WORKED, no turret toss, and an apparently intact power pack.
intact power pack. Copium eh. No turret toss because US does not use HE-frag projectiles that would tear it apart from the inside. Meaning, Abrams does not have general purpose non-AT ammo type. That means the burnt out tank is good for scrap.
@@cdgncgn Listen kid. Western tanks don't do the turret toss because they are better designed. And our 120mm HEAT round doubles as an HE round.
All you did with that comment was make yourself look like an idiot.
You can tell that the tank isn't that badly damaged by looking at the still photo. Those fires are burning debris that landed on the tank. All the hatches are closed, and the main gun is directly over the driver's hatch - this means that the crew feels no need to abandon the tank. The fact that the driver's hatch is closed also means that the crew is unharmed (the latch on that hatch is designed to fail in order to vent overpressure from and hit that penetrates the crew compartment).
You clowns knew over 30 years ago, not only do your tanks have a basic design flaw that causes them to explode when hit - but also that we had designed ammunition specifically to take advantage of this design flaw. And you did nothing to correct it. Every one of your dead tank crewmen was murdered by your own government.
The only 'copium' here is coming from you.
My heart breaks every time I see Ukrainians asking for help. I hate that they don't have the resources to defend their own homeland.
@@costasm158and for that were promised to be defended and never attacked. why you stoopid russki restarts never realise this
Does your heart break on gaza as well or not?
My heart breaks every time when US once again sponsoring conflicts across the globe for their own profit.
@@bisdakboyzhub9150 shouldn't have attacked Israel on 7th of October :)
@bisdakboyzhub9150 for all victims of rich mens and egomaniacs fueds, my heart bleeds, so yes it does. War and violence is garbage and a blight on humanity.
F the machine...1. Did the crew get out safely? 2, What hit? 3. What's the fix?
The hatches are still closed. The crew is trained to keep the hatches closed and hunker down until things stop blowing up. And the loaders hatch is still closed. The latch is designed with a weak spot so it will fail and vent the tank if there is overpressure in the crew compartment. This means that all of the bad things happened outside the crew compartment.
Also note that the fires are on the deck of the engine compartment and not in the engine compartment. The tank is probably drivable. The most serious injury to the crew is likely to their underwear. Assuming they have the parts - this tank can be FMC (Fully Mission Capable) in about three days. BTW - the tank can still use its machineguns and they have a few main gun rounds in a hull storage compartment (with its own blow-out panels.)
@@colincampbell767 Did you learn physics from Marvel films? Where does the amount of heat from burning ammunition and fuel go, is it no less dangerous for the crew inside? only centimeters of steel separate you from the fire
@@vp6087 First of all - there was no burning fuel. The fuel is stored in the hull and under the armor (in fact the fuel acts as part of the armor.)
And here's a video of what happens inside the turret during a bustle event: ua-cam.com/video/l4tLyoVn5lA/v-deo.html
(Did you really think that the Army wasn't going to test this to ensure that it works before accepting the tanks into service?)
I served for 26 Year in the US Army. Over 20 of these years were on and around tanks. I spent my first 5 years on the M60A3 and the rest on the M1IP then the M1A1. And I attended and graduated Master Gunner School (Like the Ranger course - only for your brain). And I saw the above video when it was still classified. (And that is not the complete video. There are other parts where threat weapons were fired into the weak parts of the armor to see what happened inside - these are probably still classified,)
I literally was responsible for training the crews in my unit the 'bustle event drill' on how to react to a bustle event. (As the Master Gunner I was responsible for the training and qualifications of the tank crews in my unit.)
@cris-rj5zf Nope - the issue here is that you don't have a clue. You have no idea how M1 crews are trained or how its systems operate. And apparently you aren't even smart enough to watch the video of what happens when the US Army loaded the ammo compartment up with service ammunition and detonated it as part of the qualification testing before the tank was accepted into service.
You seem to think that just because your country can't properly design tanks - nobody else can.
And yes - I am laughing at you. You come in her without a clue and then proceed to make a fool out of yourself. If I know the details of how the latch on the loader's hatch is designed - that should have clued you in to the fact that I have experience on that tank.
Are all Russians this stupid?
That tank is still combat capable if recovered before its interior is torched. This is exactly how the blow out panels look after a hit in the ammo rack. Rear turret repair is needed but the engine and interior will be intact.
With the exception of the hole the drone warhead made (generally about the diameter of a pencil) there will be little damage to the turret itself. I suspect that the hardest part of the repair will be replacing the cables (which always seemed to have life of their own and were doing everything they can to make it harder for the person installing them).
New ammunition racks are literally a 'drop in' item.
Where the repairs are done depends on Ukranian doctrine.
Tanks are always going to get destroyed in this war. All that matters is if the crew survived.
How do you know it's survived?
En Ucrania no sobrevive ningún vehículo. Todos son destruidos, no importa el ejército para el q están operando. Es una picadora de acero. 😢😢😮😊😊
@@AlexanderTch because unlike the russian tanks these ones are made with crew survival in mind.
Wow remember when people said this in the begining if the conflict when the subject was russian tanks back then people told me and other reasonable people who dont have their heads up their a*s that tanks are machine like any other they will get destroyed, sadly this bit of common knowledge didnt apply to western tech, well not for a while atleast.
@@AlexanderTchHe wrote: All that matters is IF the crew survived.
Now, how was that so difficult to comprehend?
Suchomimus: you're making the same mistake everyone else is. The amount of equipment Ukraine is getting *has nothing to do with the amount of reserve pieces of equipment*. It has everything to do with how quickly ammunition can be produced, shipped to Ukraine and transported to the front lines.
I don't know why I have to say this in every video of yours now, but the US is making ammunition as fast as we can and Ukraine is using it EVEN FASTER. A Patriot battery with no missiles is just an expensive target. An M1 with no ammunition is just an expensive target. An F16 with no bombs is just a very expensive target.
You know what this stuff did in Iraq and Afghanistan, right? Mostly nothing. Hull down at gates behind a bunch of M2s and Mk 19s. Convoy escort. Coaxial gun vs personnel. Same thing with the Avenger. No one used that for it's missiles. It was a big, expensive M2 with a thermal camera.
The thing is its only damaged. It will take longer to tow the M1 tank to a repair shop then replacing the damaged module component parts.
The ammo storage compartment and engine compartment are designed to be easily repaired when damaged.
If the ammo compartment was the only damage it can drive itself to the repair shop.
The “repair shops” are in NATO nations. And the amount of jet fuel it would need to drive there on its own isn’t available.
Trucking it to the closest NATO nation to switch for a full operational one is likely the only alternative.
@@abrakkehakka1357 Ukranian M1s run on diesel. The M1 series tank has a multi-fuel engine that is optimized to run on diesel fuel. The Secretary of Defense demonstrated that he is completely and utterly unqualified for his job when he said that the tank needs jet fuel.
Note the US Army stopped using diesel fuel in the 1990's. They developed a new fuel called JP-8 that works on all diesel and aircraft engines. Everything including things like generators and cooking stoves - use JP-8.
And to reconvert an M1 tank back to diesel requires a procedure known as 'pulling up alongside the fuel tank and filling up.' The biggest problem you have is listening to the crew complain about putting inferior fuel in their tank. (Diesel fuel leaves sludge in the fuel system after using diesel for an extended period of time and filling up with JP-8 t- he JP8 will dissolve the sludge and you will be replacing fuel filters until the fuel system is clean again.
There is no sign of damage to the engine compartment. the fires in the still picture are burning debris on top of the engine compartment.
@@abrakkehakka1357
The engine on the M1 series tank is a multi-fuel engine that runs on diesel everywhere except in US service. The 'jet fuel' myth* comes from the fact that the US Army switched over to a single fuel (JP-8) for everything (vehicles, aircraft, generators, cookstoves, and everything else that used liquid fuel) back in the 1990s. And no modifications are needed to switch from JP-8 to diesel. All un need to do is pull up to the fuel truck and fill up. Tank crews prefer JP-8 because it gives better performance, better mileage, and burns cleaner (on cold mornings people cluster behind a running M1 series tank in order to use it as a space heater so the cleaner burning fuel is appreciated).
These repairs can be done by direct support maintenance. New ammunition racks are 'drop in' modules, the replacement cables are a minor PITA to install (they seem to have a life of their own). The Radio antennas and their mounts are easy to replace, the crosswind sensor assembly and the ammunition temperature sensor are also morular components (I'm not sure if they come preinstalled on the armor racks or not). Been a while since I was on tanks. The unit level mechanics can perform these repairs, but US Army doctrine is the send the tank back to Battalion maintenance for repairs that will take over three hours in the field - in garrison the unit mechanics do just about everything. (The tank crew also assists with the repairs.)
* This myth also demonstrated that our current Secretary of Defense is completely unqualified for his position. The Army switched to JP-8 because running everything on one type of fuel simplifies logistics and even though the fuel itself is more expensive - it saves money in the long run.
@@colincampbell767 You haven't seen the tank from the inside, what can you talk about?
Australia will be switching to the M1A2 Abrams from next year. Ukraine has requested 59 of old M1A1 Abrams. Perhaps this will happen this year.
The inside ammo door closes automatically after you retrieve a round to load
pretty, but if the door itself is holed, you get fire inside.
I would assume they had detonated a turret with a complete simulated ammunition load. So where would a hole come from then
@@cdgncgn > if the door itself is holed, you get fire inside
I don't think it would get a hole, though. It's designed to withstand the ENTIRE AMMO STORAGE igniting almost at once, right? (And if it's not designed for that, then what's the point of even having the door!) A drone would have to blow through the back of the turret, into the storage area, through any ammo still stored, and still have force enough to get through that door. I don't think it's likely, and it'd have to be more force than dozens of tank rounds simply exploding. (I know many of the rounds are simply penetrators but they still have a lot of powder, no?)
@@cdgncgn The blast doors are inch thick Titanium.. They are also too far from any potential entry point for the jet of molten copper from a HEAT round to be effective. (And the drones use HEAT warheads.)
@@josephd.4890 They did this with a full load of service (combat) ammunition. And every round was HEAT because having an HE warhead on every round is the 'worst case' scenario. Every time there's a turret re-design or a new type of ammunition is fielded these tests are repeated.
Meanwhile Russia’s charm and intellect has forming the Baltic into a NATO pond…..
doesn't matter, it always was under NATO control to begin with with norway and denmark controlling the only escape route from baltic sea
Nece Rus biti blag kao prema zatrovanoj Ukrajinskoj braci.Da li je ikada igdje bio rat ovakvih razmjera sa toliko malo civilnih zrtava.Zar ti to ne govori,da Rusi tamane nato placenike i fasiste.Tamo nece slati zrupe dok tepih bombe ne odrade svoje.
@@cactuslietuva Wrong. Sweden was on the other side of the escape route. Not Norway. But NOW the escape route is NATO controlled. Bravo Putler, NATO recruiter of the year again.
@@cactuslietuvaWith a name like Lietuva you know full well that what you're saying is wrong, because you know the region. Are you an orc bot?
@@nian60 i don't normally chat with idiots, especially t hose who can't make coherent sentence in English. Baltic sea was always under NATO control since collapse of soviet union.
This is the same location where the M1 was shown engaging trenches in the tree line.
Tanks get destroyed in war. The big difference is that this tank (and most western tanks) keep their crews save. No jack-in-a-box explosion.
Yes exactly this. I don't get why so many people still cry about a tank loss, of course it's gonna happen. At least Leopards, Abrams or Challengers don't start their own space program and keep their crew way more safe
@@azeQify America lost about 7,000 Sherman tanks in ww2. But let's not talk about that! Vehicles are just a bunch of metal and some electronics, we ditch those things on the daily.
@AwesomeRepix single sherman had 5 crew members so thats 7000 x5, or maybe x4 lets say 1/5 survived by escaping thats 28k of trained crew lost, this tank wasnt known for it's quality but more for its cheaper cost and larger quantity hence the reason you had commanders pushing tank crews through sheer brute force against the german thats why you had a single elefant destroying ten sherman before being encircled and knocked
@@unskilled822 the Ford workers in detroid were gravely offended by your ignorant comments....jokes aside when it came to build quality and speed sherman was the best in it´s class, being churned out in massive numbers, the tanks did see many paralel producer´s which lead to few quality issues with some major component´s tracks, and suspension component´s and having later factory and ad-hoc mod´s like the jumbo sherman´s quality took slight deviation, but as a norma model form M4 to M4A3 their build quality was bloody golden.Ferdies weren´t even seen in the western front to begin with, so your argument holds no water and shermans were lend-leased to ussr in number around 4.2k they ones operated at kursk had few choice units known as independent tank unit´s where they jointly served with m3 Lee´s. further ferdinand/elefant was so bloody complicated due to porsche-tiger´s electro-hydraulic transmission and sheer overweight for the suspension germans lost majority of them due to breaking down before they could be effectively utilized in the fighting, and even those which would eventually face the soviet´s would be bitchslapped into oblivion by soviet artillery or the SU-152.
@@unskilled822loss rates for crew were significantly lower and the consistency of the tank fleet enabled large nrs of Sherman’s to be repaired after being hit in battle.
The tank does not looks not too wrecked. At worst, the crew had survived and the tank is lost.
This has to be expected.
The big downside to Abrams is the cost to purchase & maintain. Wikipedia is showing the export price for the latest version at $24M per tank. Ouch! When US aid gets renewed, it will still "only" be $50 or 60 billion. If a $1 billion only buys you 40 M1s, and then you have expensive upkeep and fuel bill, the problem isn't the US doesn't have M1s to spare, its that Ukraine needs so much of everything there simply isn't enough money to buy & run lots of M1s.
Last time I checked the cost of an M1A2 SEP V3 was just over 8 million. I think that Wikipedia is incorrect. And this is the latest version which we are not exporting. The ones sent to Ukraine are M1A1s with the SA and TUSK upgrades. And they are tanks that were in storage awaiting eventual scrapping that were taken and refurbished to a 'zero miles - zero hours' condition. We have over 450 of this version of the M1A1 in storage. We could have equipped Ukraine entire army with these tanks and provided enough spares so that battle damaged tanks can be swapped out with new ones and sent for repair. And setting up the Ukranian army with the same model of tank would reduce their logistics burden a lot.
1:28 the US sent 31 refurbished USMC version of the M1A1 but not all of the ammo options. The US has many variants but the M1A2 SEPv3 is the most modern. The USMC could not use the M1A2 because it is too heavy for its landing craft. That increased weight is primarily due to upgraded armor and engine mod. IMO the real increase in capability is crew awareness features that may have prevented the loss. US offered M1A2 to Ukraine but it would take at least 2 years to get delivered, so discontinued marine hand-me downs sent for immediacy.
the tank that were refurbished were M1A1, but they were refurbish into base M1A2
@@1BigBen there is a difference between refurbishment and upgrade. Upgrade to M1A2 requires work at the GDLS plant. Refurbish supposedly provides "very similar capability" to A2 according to the Pentagon. Refurbish occurs at the Anniston and Sierra Army depots. IMO "very similar capability" means zero-mile, zero-hour condition with exportable armor and AIM electronics/optics but does not include the armor, engine, or digital capabilities of the A2. Since the tanks were from USMC assets, presumably they retain FEP features. I suspect these are very similar to the Polish M1A1 FEP MBTs.
The United States will never send the equipment it wants to sell to be burned.
With the newest technology, it will be impossible to deny it, saying “the technology is already outdated and ineffective.”
However, the USA does not have good technology, only useless scrap metal with good marketing for sale.
US technology can only fight savages in sandals
@@1BigBen You cant refurbish a M1A1 to an M1A2. The turret itself on the -A2 is different from the A1 turret. The A2 fire control system won't fit in an A1 turret..
You have failed to mention that smoke is pouring out of the open turret hatches. This indicates that the crew may have (happily ) escaped, but also that the crew compartment has been destroyed.
The Russians have now said that this tank was hit by a drone, and by an RPG.
The hatches are closed. The circular object on the front of the turret is a spare road wheel and the loader's hatch is directly behind it. the fact that it is still closed indicates that the crew is fine - the latch on this hatch is designed to fail if there's overpressure in the tank and vent it outside. It being closed means that the crew compartment was not compromised.
The fires you see are burning materials on top of the engine compartment and the smoke is coming the ammunition compartment and debris on top of the turret.
The main gun is directly over the driver's hatch - this means that the crew has no intention of abandoning the tank. This and the fact that there is no smoke coming from the engine compartment implies that the powerpack is undamaged and the crew can drive to safety. The only things the tank lost was most of its main gun ammunition, everything in the ammunition compartment, the Crosswind sensor assembly, the radio antennas and mounts, the ammunition temperature sensors, and just about everything that was stored in the bustle rack (the burning materials you see probably was stuff stowed in the bustle rack).
FYI - the tank was designed to survive what is referred to as a 'bustle event' with minimal damage.
The only thing in that picture that concerns me is the fire on the left rear corner of the tank. That's where the batteries are and if the batteries are damaged, they will lose electrical power and need a jump start if they shut the engine down. Fortunately, the access panels are watertight so that shouldn't be an issue.
@colincampbell767
Is the hatch behind the machine gun open or closed? If open, the turret is clearly full of smoke, and if it is venting the same surely applies. It may be that the whole crew has been asphyxiated.
There is on YT a channel, RedEffect, which specialises in tank losses, and which offers a different view to your own.
@@ConradAinger It's closed. If it were open, then you would see it at an angle to the rear. It's spring loaded to move into that position.
The smoke is coming for shouldering debris on top of the turret and from the ammunition compartment. Another clue is the fact that the main gun is directly over the driver's hatch. It is extremely difficult for the driver to get out that way and one of the first things done in the 'evacuate tank drill' is to rotate the turret 30 degrees to the right so the gunner can safely get out (rotating it to the left would mean that the driver is exiting directly in front of the coaxial machinegun).
Red effect is good at researching his stuff but not perfect and doesn't have access to stuff like crew drills, the unclassified classes on the tank's survivability features, etc. And he apparently mistook the burning debris for a fire in the engine compartment. If there were a fire there, you'd see black smoke coming out the back.
And the problem with the asphyxiation theory is that there is no realistic path for the flames and fumes from the explosion to enter the turret. BTW: there's a crew drill for responding to a halon activation. The tank has automatic fire extinguishers in the crew compartment that extinguish a fire less that a second after it starts. Back in the days of the original M1 and M1IP - photographs of the inside of the turret were forbidden because the flash kept setting off the fire extinguishers.
Most people are not aware was that when the specifications for what became were sent out to industry for proposals - the Primary requirement was crew survivability.
Here's a link to the You Tube video of what happens when the ammunition compartment is filled up with service ammunition and then deliberately detonated.
ua-cam.com/video/l4tLyoVn5lA/v-deo.html
The video is of a test for the 105mm gun, but this test is conducted every time design changes are made to the turret or new ammunition types are introduced.
I spent over 20 years on and around tanks - 15 of them on the M1 series. I also graduated Master Gunner school for each of the M60S3, the M1IP, and M1A1 (like Ranger School - only for your brain). The more I learned about these tanks the more amazed I because at the engineering that went into them.
@@colincampbell767 I acknowledge your superior knowledge.
I am not American, and I don't understand the reference to Ranger School. My brain or one's brain?
@@ConradAinger Ranger school is an extremely tough course that is physically challenging. Although the mental tasks that have to be performed are stuff every officer and NCO is expected to do - they have to perform them under conditions of extreme sleep deprivation, physical exhaustion, and not having anything to eat for two days. My oldest brother went to Ranger school and regards earning that 'Ranger' patch as one of his life's major achievements.
The only course of instruction more academically rigorous than the Master Gunner course is the Navy's nuclear power plant operator training.
Archer and Bohdana howitzers also hit by lancet today....
Wow another "Game Changer" being no game changer😂😂
The ammo bustle can be removed & replaced rather quickly. Depending on the extent of other damage, the tank could be back in action in a few days. The design is pretty neat.
From the photo it looks like there is no real damage no real damage outside of the stuff in or above the ammo compartment. In fact, the US Army maintains prepacked kits with everything you need to repair it. (We assume that there will be a lot of 'bustle events' in combat and designed it to be easy to repair.)
Russian tank destroyed: hehe, stupid ruski tank
Abrams destroyed: all tanks are not invincible
P.S. Nato-bots started this war about "invincible" west military vehicles, and now they are worrying that russian bots doing same about them, lmao. Taste your own medicine
Why is one footage crystal clear and the next almost indecipherable?
lots of coping nato bots 🤗
Unlike you, we are not bots. The West doesn't have paid bot farms. And unlike you we have access to reality.
NATO doesn't have bots. We spend money where it actually matters.
@@nian60 thats what a sneaky nato bot would say
Hey people, feeling butt hurt? Looks like another expensive western "game changer" just sucked off a Russian rpg. Didn't last longer than "mighty" Challenger 🤣🤣🤣🤡
Yes, tovarisch. USA power is fake.
This was likely hit by an ATGM, the armor is to thick for a regular RPG. Pretty much everyone expected us to lose the abrams we send, thats war, we arnt like Russia where we claim our missiles and warships are invincible, we know the reality of war, russians do not.
@@emilabbasov8310is that why Russia cant deal with a few dozen HIMARS? they gave up trying to jam starlink and started using it themselves.
How does it feel when the tank and the crew are still intact unlike russian tanks and their crew?
@@odisy64 Dozens of HIMARS missiles were shot down.
Seems like everything except ammo racks is in place. Certainly not as much "destroyed" as those T series tanks with flying turrets and hulls ripped apart.
Actually not! That is not a catastrophic kill.
Good update, thank you.
Not destroyed, recoverable and needs to be repaired. Hope to hear how the crew made out.
Destroyed*
@@uhsir9852 Damaged. Might even be driveable.
@@SteamCraneno one will let you evacuate him, he is knocked out with the usual FOV drone and is constantly under surveillance. By the way, these blow-panels are useless, because the crew was KILLED after the explosion anyway. By the way, 3 Abrams have already been confirmed destroyed, as soon as Ukraine began to use them, and before that they were always riding somewhere in the rear. The same fate awaits the F16. No chance of recovery, you are dreamers.
One out of quite a few. The life expectancy of the best tank with the best crew is rather short.
The pictures are pretty bad but it appears that the crew hatches are still closed. Abrams tank crews are trained that if they have a 'bustle event' they remain in the tank with the hatches closed. If this is a recent bustle event the crew may still be inside, and the tank may still be drivable. The fires appear to be on top of the engine deck and not coming from the engine compartment itself.
Something else that's of note is that all of the tank's weapons are pointed directly ahead. Generally, this implies that the tank was not in direct combat but moving either towards or away for the front line.
Hmm. So the tank did its job. It probably protected the crew and they got out safely.
Todos quedaron dentro como pollo a la leña
Lol, what job and what crew?? U think lollipops are raining there, so u can exit and lick it till mechanic come to fix ur "tire"??????
@@SoulArtSound no but you can abandon vehicle and continue the fight on foot or retreat on foot if tanks are used correctly they are on the flanks or at the rear of the offensive line and if deemed recoverable at the end of a battle a recovery vehicle can come out and tow it back for repairs
And it’s a complete loss
@@CARBONHAWK1 ve a ucrania a recoger tu basura jajajaja
I'm surprised that some anti drone electronic warfare system wasn't used in conjunction with the Abrams, but war is an ever changing beast. You either adapt or you die.
Driver was okay, but the commander spilt his coffee and has a slight ringing in his ears.
и шо этому танку сорок лет он создан для войны а на войне танки горят если экипаж жив он свое дело сделал
Так в том-то и дело, что экипаж уже успел отправиться в страну вечной охоты: знаешь, что бывает, когда взрывается боеприпас? Все отделение танка выжигается в считанные секунды, и машина превращается в крематорий на гусеницах. Так что сгорел экипаж, как спички.
@@сергейКурмыза-щ4йThis is what the blowout panels are for. So that this doesn't happen. Literally the biggest advantage western tanks have over Russian ones is that the crew usually survives when their tank gets taken out.
@@DuBaas007usually
@@DuBaas007 Oh yeah? That's what you think. Talk to the tankers, they'll tell you about their "survival" from the burning tanks. And here's the thing: despite the fact, that the blowout panels are designed to save the crew from internal explosion, it's still does not save the tank from explosions itself. Therefore, there's been numerous losses of the Abrams tanks in Afghanistan, Iraq and Yougoslavia, it's just that the media doesn't allow you to see it. In other words, those blowout panels are useless. About the Russian tanks, so far, there's been no confirmed reports about the destroyed russian tanks, only comes from the Western media and Ukrainian General Staff, which was already exposed, as liars. So therefore, i don't even think, that Abrams doesn't have any advantages to Russian T-90, because these are similiar tanks, builded by 90-s. And i prefer to listen to the facts, not stories from CNN or other propaganda sources.
@@сергейКурмыза-щ4й😂 if your in a T Soviet or Russian tank that’s correct……
It was headed for the scrap heap anyway before we donated it to Ukraine.
One thing that is beneficial with this war, it allows manufacturers of tanks to view the future munitions that can be deployed against it and this seems to have occurred before the next generation of tanks were created.
Crew looks dead to me
If it can be retrieved that tank could be repaired and put back in mainly because it has blowout panels so it saves the inside crew compartment and anything inside
Im still not fully convinced Suchomimus. It doesn’t look convincing enough from them (the Russys). Why not show the moment it was impacted? Im very skeptical and I wouldnt be surprised if its fake.
"Tis But A Scratch." - The Black Knight in Monty Python's Quest For The Holy Grail.
😂😂😂😂
And the funny thing is that if you look carefully the tank isn't that badly damaged. In fact the tank is probably still drivable. (Thos fires are burning material on top of the enginge compartment not from inside the engine compartment.
Turretless T-72:´´we´ll call it a draw then?´´
Bummer. Drones?
Thank you
The giggly part is the abrams in theatre are M1A1SAs, modified
These aren’t exactly active service in the US, seen as previous gen armor
They are in active US service. Only 60% of the US tank fleet is the M1A2 variant.
@@colincampbell767 no they’re not
@@looinrims Nearly all of the National Guard tank fleet is M1A1s.
Слава России, слава русской армии 🇷🇺💪
It was first combat mision of Abrams in few days and they already got destroyed, probably more not on video cases...
It’ll be recovered and repaired
It's just your anti russian dream. Tank is terribly burnt out and won't be repaired.
What makes you think that? It's easier just to beg for more equipment.
@@L.Ron.Hoyabembenope. Only the ammo rack has to be replaced. Repairable. So simple even a ruzzian would understand.
@@gohibniugoh1668 I have zero faith in Ukraine to repair anything. They leave our shit out in the open to get hit by a drone, then ask for more once it gets wrecked.
@@gohibniugoh1668 Are you implying that I'm Russian because I have a problem with how Ukraine treats the equipment we give them?
Also probably no ECM on it 😢
We saw at least one bradley has it.
No ecm i can understand but not even grill welded on top is just negligence
Like everyone else is saying the Abrams is just a tank, it's not invincible. But it does worry me that that a drone could take one out. It really makes me wonder if tanks are really fit for Modern Warfare ®.
Abrams was designed in the 1970s. I don't think they had drone warfare in mind at the time. Future versions of the tank will need to have design adjustments made to keep drones out of the blowout panels. The Ukraine war will be a good learning experience for seeing all its weaknesses and flaws.
@@GeneralLee131Do you think that's how they disabled the tank? I was wondering what part you could hit with a drone that could knock it out.
@@doggonemess1 There is footage floating around of the tank being hit by a drone with an RPG like bomb attached to the bottom. I'm not sure how thick the top of the Abrams is, but i don't suppose it's more than about 30mm. Really wouldn't take much to crash it into the blowout panels and get the explosion into the ammo box.
@@GeneralLee131 Ammo box is sacrificial to save the crew.
The US wars in the middle east really made people think Thier equipment are indestructible
Western tanks like the leopard, Abrams, etc are extremely vulnerable to Drones. What makes their crews safe also makes them vulnerable. Drones target the blowout panels which give access straight to the magazine of the tank. It doesn't destroy the tank catastrophically, but it causes the tank to become a mobility kill.
Never knew that, and now I do.
I may still be salvageable. Assuming that it is not a deep fake image, it still looks like a tank and not some blown-out rusted junk that you see when Russian tanks are blown apart.
did the crew survive? cause like yeah they are gonna get destroyed but did it do its job properly and enable the crew to not die
Again, welding some cage was too much hassle? Ffs u cant believe they still didn't add basic cope cage, literally piece of fence welded on top could prevented this...
Not a fan of 47th :/
those tanks should be given to experienced units not freshly formed
ruSSians had one tank with welded football gate at the back of turret, stolen for sure. Did not help either =D
@@Krionix81nothing is 100% resistant. Doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.
Would you do anything on the frontline to improve your survival chance? Ask yourself this....
@@Angry-Lynx yes I would, better have smth vs having no extra added protection.
Gotta wonder: is this tank truly destroyed, or just damaged? And if damaged, can Ukraine retrieve it & repair it before the Russians capture the tank so they can copy the technology?
M1A1, very old technology.
Trouble is, the US cant send their most up to date equipment in case it's captured.
It does show the need for air cover
Why did they only post a up close screenshot? Do you have a after picture of burnt out Abrams?
This is painful to watch, as painful as when the first Leo was destroyed...
US military scribbling notes furiously ...
According to a former Russian military man who has contacts directly with the unit that destroyed the tank, the tank was first immobilized by an FPV drone and then shot with an RPG`s. the crew seemed to be alive. (sorry for english, using google-translate).
Everyone knows American tanks are just a joke compared to the almighty Russian wunderwaffe. I mean, go ahead, throw drones and ATGMs at an Abrams, and watch it laugh in the face of danger with its immovable turret. Meanwhile, the Russian wonder weapon, the T-90s, is apparently so advanced it can even launch its turret into orbit along with its cosmonaut crew whenever it takes a hit. Brilliant engineering, really.
Remember back before 2022 we got "Russia Strong" win meme
Yeah, those people have to forget on purpose to say we underestimate Russia
Which pretty much opposite
Also about Autoloader, it's good back from 1971, blowout panel ain't ready yet
It's just outdated they keep recycle
Copium
Abrams are not indestructible. This is a different war where drones rule the battlefield
Tanks are metal boxes full of explosives and explosively inflammable substances. Given the complexity of Abrams, that won't 'buff out' as easily as a damaged T-72. However, I hope that the crew had chance to disembark before the 'Roman Candle' went off...
The "roman candle" doesn't consume the crew in the tank, this tank has blowout panels that vent outside on its ammo storage
@zacharywolter I watched the video. But 3 of the crew still have to evacuate from hatches right next to that mess. And the driver too if his hatch is blocked by the turret or gun.
The Yanks have as much to answer for as do the Ruskies.
When America offers you security guarantees, it just means that they will sit around and look like there doing something, but if it is not directly in there interest, they fall far short of actually solving the problem.
Yup.
I made a post stating that I had seen a video of one of these tanks operating by itself completely isolated and if that is the case then it's no wonder one of them got what was coming to it. But that comment seems to have been deleted! UA-cam Censor much?
I bet that M1 gets scrapped for parts. It still looks in decent shape, at least the front of it. I am no M1 expert, but I bet that barrel is still useable and some other parts could scrapped. I doubt the Ukrainians are going to let that sit there long and draw dust. I bet is has already been towed back to the repair yard and parts are being scrapped. Glory to Ukraine!
It’s not a complete loss, evidently it got hit in the ammo storage compartment and the blowout panels worked. The tank can be recovered, repaired and sent back into combat
Are you delusional or blind to not see the fire coming from the crew compartment ?
@@Lemosa3414 Are you a active duty 19K or a former 19K? The flames you saw were coming out of the Main Gun Storage section, the later photo showed some small fires coming from the vicinity of the engine compartment. The smoke coming out of the hatches is residual from smoke that has seeped into the turret from the sliding blast door.
OMG do you mean the turret isn't supposed to attempt orbit?
Oh no, where is the tank tower blown up several dozen meters, as in the case of the "indestructible" T-80 or T-90 xD? All we see is a burning tank, which in most cases will return to the fleet and be renovated, and the crew managed to evacuate.
No
I guess the term modern MBT has to be redefined. Makes no sense to deploy 5 milion behemoths that can be taken out by 15k drones. Active protecrion systems that actually work will be the next step in tank evolution.
Could be this Abrams victim of the "Leopard" effect?
I mean: ucranians crews of Leos was perfectly aware to be a primary target for russians. In many cases they obeyed the orders to move forward, but then they abandoned the tank somewhere on the front line to save their lifes.
Was going to happen at some point.
I feel people are going to say, "This happens, it's war after all." they would be right, but are they going to say the same about the T-90M?
Yes, its why we don’t actually give a fuck about T-90 losses and move on very quickly, we only care about captures and thats just because it allows us to learn further flaws in the tank.
@@pixellordm8780 You can also learn about the flaws of the tank by destroying it, by studying the way you destroyed it.
@@TikhonT. you learn significantly less from a charred husk than you do the actual functioning tank, sure you might know “Sometimes if i hit this spot it might damage it” but that could literally just be a insanely lucky shot, not to mention the technology & equipment onboard is destroyed when the tank is destroyed.
but it's differen years :
t-90 deploy since 2022
abrams deploy since 2024
@@firzayunianto5853 doesn’t matter. Don’t get why you’re bringing that up dude.
The sentiment remains the same, tanks will be lost in a war, and the sheer amount of Russian made tank losses VS western is comedic almost.
I just read that Russia is giving up on manufacturing the T14 Armata.
I couldn't help but to think of the old Doritos commercials where they would say, "Crunch all you want. We'll make more" lol.
Like Suchomimus said, we have tons of M1's so supply won't be an issue (unless our stupid politicians decide not to send more of them).
On a more serious note, I'm hoping the crew was unharmed. I'm guessing they were because the Abrams has a very high survivability rate but since this is the first one to ever be hit by a drone... its hard to say. Hopefully we will get an update on the crew soon.
Good post. Thanks for sharing.
That tank is probably repairable - looks like only the 'ammo bustle' on rear of turret did its job, the crew and the interior of the tank will probably be OK. I notice that unlike any of the Russian tanks we see that the Abrams still has its turret. Pays to bear in mind that the tanks sent to Ukraine will not have the latest high-tech armour, so Russia has little to crow about when so many of their latest T-90 tanks have been destroyed by cheap Ukrainian drones... Looks like in most areas the Russians are using T-55 tanks, I look forward to seeing the first T-34 tank on your channel.
Yes. Damaged.
It’s the international package of the ahbrams, lacks a lot of tech as well as depleted uranium armor. Still an amazing tank..but far from the best America has.
Can it b repaired??
🇺🇲
First time?
It sucks that all the good tanks get lost in lag of AA tanks and air support.
Perhaps Ukraine will withdraw the remaining abrams, as happened with Challenger after the first loss.
Unlikely. Losses are to be expected.
Oh no not the 50 year old technology.
Destroyed by even older technology. Your point?
@@u2beuser714 modern drones are not older tech, you dunce
@@u2beuser714kamikaze drone is even older technology?
Incorrect. Drones are newer.
@@BodnarchukR Duh.. those are from 1755, invented by Sir Isaac Clarke of the 3rd Civil Brigade. Of course it's old technology
Maybe the other Abrams video allowed russia to geolocate where they were being used, and direct the necessary forces there.
The blow-out panels indicate that the turret was penetrated and the ammo ignited. If it was a drone hit, it suggests that cope cages should be installed.
The age of tanks is over..