Yea NATO tanks in general are built to work only with air superiority. Even then, tanks have been pretty much abandoned in the doctrine in favour of lighter vics lol
@@honkhonk8009 >Yea NATO tanks in general are built to work only with air superiority. According to who? What features do non-NATO tanks have that somehow make them different?
@@cstgraphpads2091 It's not only about the tanks. NATO Electronic Warfare and short-range AA abilities are lacking. The Russians and Ukrainians use EW extensively and have numerous short-range AA platforms yet they still suffer tremendous losses. If NATO army formations didn't have air superiority they would've been exposed and losses would've been even more horrendous in comparison. That's why the US is now scrambling to procure more anti-drone/short-range AA platforms right now. They saw the writings on the wall and are trying to adapt, with systems like LIDS, L-MADIS, Lattice, and Silent Archer all under development currently.
Yeah artillery has been devastating in this war. It is very different from the western way of war, and it looks like it's caused them to look at the risk. It would likely be hard for a western power to sustain a long, attritional war over many years with air power alone.
No tank is impervious to destruction. It's insane to pretend to think that Abrams won't be destroyed, anyone with that expectation or think it means Russians are somehow superior for destroying an Abrams tank here and there, while they've lost thousands of tanks themselves....they are kidding themselves.
People do not usually realize that Abrams performed as well as it did in Iraq is mostly attributed to US Air Force and Navy and in general US military as a whole. MBT did not win the war.
I am a former officer, and tank commander. I would agree with the Staff Sergeant's accessments. I began my Tanker career on the Sheridan in Vietnam. Then the M-48, M60A1, and the Abrams. With the weapons technology and drone technology today, I am glad I am retired!
@@sooryan_1018 Oh nah, u can definitely find a lot of footage with them in forest camo. In fact, a few countries received woodland camo abrams in return for sending their soviet era mbts to ukraine during the first year of the war.
@@stealthSGMBfor me the main difference is crew survival rates which aren’t being published too much, as for the other it would be T series is used by the home nation who designed it to fit their doctrine whereas the Abrams is being used by a country who’ve had minimal training and in which it doesn’t fit the doctrine, also has seen success before (gulf wars) but they’re both 50 year old designs so of course neither can keep up with modern war zones
You see the western tanks can sometimes return into service because they have blow out panels. Russian tanks get their damn turrets blown to heaven@@stealthSGMB
Every weapon system changes the world. No true soldier will ever say it doesn't. How much it will 5 years from now may be big may not be. It's the thing about war and why you should avoid it you have no idea where it will go.
The lancet hasnt changed Anything, as the lancet was a reaction to the drones that amerca was sending to ukraine. The only difference is Lancet is used as a loitering ATGM while the American ones come in 2 varients the larger one which is more or less a lancet then the smaller one which can be used for killed troops, sensitive equipment or softskin vehicles etc.
@@rgbforever4561 well argue that with the Tank Commander interviewed. He disagrees. From what I’ve read it’s considered one of the deadliest drones on a battlefield today and it’s certainly combat proven… but hey wave your flag and dream.. whatever
IMO Chieftain is likely familiar with the Abrams exported, doubt you would get a comment on an active battlefield deployment of one, perhaps a reminiscing of another day.
@@gotohyoshihisa3971 I know it was a joke. I was teasing because he misspelled Abrams and another comment in a different video called it Abraham so I borrowed it.
As a Scout in the US Army who's spent a lot of time on a Brad, and working with tanks and Aircraft, this dude pretty much hit the nail on the head in terms of how we look at things and utilization of Armor. And what's going on has already influenced changes in the US and by extension NATO. A lot more focus on LSCO (Large Scale Combat Operations) and specific things we are seeing in Ukraine currently, with a lot more going foward I would assume.
Nah, you don't turret-wiggle to beg. You turret-wiggle because Gaijin doesn't know how to code and if your barrel is moving when it gets hit it somehow turns into Stalinium and even 183mm shots wont turn it yellow.
I dont think you could use the Abrams doctrinally even if you wanted to just as the Russians cant use their t series doctrinally. The nature of warfare changed since the 50s.
Well, the Abrams and the T series tanks were designed for Maneuver Warfare doctrines, as stated in the video the Russo-Ukraine war is Positional (or perhaps it is better to say Attritional) and the frontlines are far more static. Moreover, the doctrine that Abrams and the T series were designed for were (to my knowledge) both offensive, the slow reverse speed of many T series comes to mind. I think it's a bad idea to say nobody can use the Abrams or even the T series doctrinally just because the Ukrainians and Russians are unable to do so. Speaking specifically to the Abrams, Uncle Sam has more toys at his disposal to use the Abrams according to doctrine that Ukraine does. Obligatory "I am a civilian, take my thoughts worth a grain of salt."
@@damoclesecoe7184 Ukraine is still a maneuver war. The problem is that Ukraine has not fought a war as a nation in living memory, and it has been a long time since Russia has fought a war of this scale. Both countries have very top-down militaries, where the average soldier has basically no say in how an operation is conducted. RIght now Ukraine is entirely dependent on foreign support, while Russia doesn't want to squander more than it already has because they know their country is not very well off economically (with or without the sanctions).
well they are also meant to be used in combined arms warfare with USA's overwhelming air superiority in Ukraine they are basically used as anti tank SPGs for defense
Great interview! I’m sure lots of us were wondering that same question. “How affective is tanks in current warfare” and these drones are the new superior weapon in wars. Acquiring positions/dropping ordinances is hard to beat that
Great explanation sir, really. My friend is a tank commander out of Malmstrom at the moment (I know Malmstrom is AF). He doesn’t have near this insight. So thank you.
15:11 - No apology needed. I think it did not sound 'all over the place' in any way. It seemed to be clear and make perfect sense, imho. This was absolutely fascinating and highly educational to me. Thank you greatly for this video. ☮
@messyjessem.3108 "hunter killer drone standing by..." "Your predator missile is ready for launch." "Reaper on stand by" "RC car, ready for deployment!"
Was on the SEP2 for 6 years. You own the sky and that tank will thrive. More importantly though, crew survivability, that's where she excels at. It's nice to have fancy tanks, even better being able to put a crew that just lost a tank into a new one quickly.
Yea but economy will play a role eventually no country not even the US can withstand losses of $10 million dollar tanks to drones that cost in the thousands and until something can be done about drones armored warfare will not be the same blitzkrieg is dead for the moment but iam confident we will eventually find a solution but not for a while.
Yes. I need to vent for a second. Red effects comment section is insufferable. 90% are yapping about shit no one ever said. And it's either "western stuff is just as good as the Russian stuff and will be immediately destroyed by 20 million lancets" Or "Western stuff is so incredibly good it's not even comparable" Although I do have to say that the people with let's say favourable opinions about russian equipment are leagues ahead with being annoying.
@@jesseterrell2109 Tbf the tanks themselves are very cheap materially due to economies of scale. If you played games like Squad, tanks are still favoured. Its difficult to use AT tools. A good armour player in that game can dominate if they know how to play with infantry. Bad armour players just waste tickets
Am I the only one who feels a strange parallel to WWII with the proliferation of naval aviation which changed the naval doctrine of a “Decisive Battle” to small skirmishes/air raids? (“Grand battle” to individual tank/drone raids) 😂😂
@@cstgraphpads2091 I would count midway as the definition of an air raid battle, compared to the contemporary Decisive Battle doctrine at the time. You can also argue drones “change the delivery method of munitions.”
@@rnzafdude But they didn't. The aircraft carrier changed the delivery of munitions from a gun on a ship to an aircraft launched from a carrier. Are drones somehow not "aircraft" despite them also flying through the air in 100% of these cases? Aircraft drops bomb, drone drops grenade: No difference Aircraft launches missile, drone launches missile: No difference Aircraft crashes deliberately into target, drone crashes deliberately into target: No difference. How is Midway an "air raid battle"? It was a massive set-piece battle between two opposing fleets and lasted for three days. A "raid" isn't going to last one day, let alone three. Two carrier fleets squared off and launched wave after wave of planes at each other while trying to maneuver for better advantage. That is literally no different than a naval battle between battleships, like the Battle of Jutland, where it would be salvos of shells instead of waves of planes. Hell Jutland only lasted a single day.
@@cstgraphpads2091 Your arguments don’t counter any of my points? At this point, I think you’re agreeing with me, and you’re just akshuallying and nickpicking on word choice? Lol. Because yes, that is my exact point. Just like we went from Battleship-oriented “Decisive Battle” doctrine to naval aviation doctrine, I am saying the ground battle seems like it is going from Tank-Division level Manoeuvre-Warfare doctrine oriented “Grand Battle” (eg 73 Easting) to drone-oriented. Lol.
I think a big problem is the lack of support because they're stretched so thin they cant afford to have dedicated infantry/aircraft units to support them which leaves them exposed in alot of situations
Tank commander whoever you are, I love your response to the doctrine question as the US doctrine is written with air superiority in mind and without drones in mind. Great answers i love your realism especially with explaining how the Ukrainians are using their tanks much love!
He says that drones are the biggest threat, and they kind of are, however, that's in conjunction with a lot of other threats. Say for example the tank will run over a mine, which arguably has done a lot of work in this war, the tank will be immobilised, the crew will escape and then a drone will finish off the job by dropping a bomb down its open hatch. This simplifies it a little bit, but really drones more or less render the recovery of vehicles almost impossible, and drones have also done fantastic work on soft skinned vehicles, as well as the passengers who ride on the top because of their fear of being blown up by a mine. Also, let's not forget the fantastic job drones have done in complimenting artillery which can rain down accurate fire on moving armoured columns.
As I saw somebody else comment, mines and artillery have been known factors for decades and centuries respectively. Drones, specifically the way they are used in the Russo-Ukraine war, are the new thing on the block.
@@damoclesecoe7184 Except that some western countries (not the USA) banned the use of land mines after a campaign by Princess Diana. All due respect to her, good intentions won't win a war and I believe that European countries should reverse that decision and stock up on cheap land mines and cluster bombs which have been shown to be incredibly effective. As for drones, well, we should use our resources to create advanced imaging AI hooked up to short range flak guns mounted onto vehicles like humvees that can use its software and advanced camera sensors to quickly detect aerial threats and shoot them out of the sky. The west has an advantage in computing technology and now is not the time to be introducing laws to restrict ourselves on R&D.
@@The_Greedy_Orphan You misunderstand the point I'm making. The reason the Staff Sgt. is focusing on drones is because the examples you gave like landmines and artillery have been concerns of his throughout his entire career as a tanker. Drones used the way they have been in Ukraine have only been around a couple of years and as such are needing new tactics and technology to counter. Mines and artillery may be an equal or greater threat, but ones that have been understood and trained for.
@@The_Greedy_Orphan Diana's campaign was against anti personnel mines, which aren't a threat for tanks. Conversely anti tank mines aren't that much of a threat for civilians.
Appeal to Authority. This one guy was great. But don't think "a real military professional" is a good quality. _I'm_ a military professional. Or a Veteran, since I'm out of the force now. And I can tell you straight up that half the people there aren't worth listening to.
I'm susprised he never mentionned helicopters, which is was the major threat against tanks, or mb bc he's american, so US army never deploy their tanks without air dominance, so he never had to worry about helicopters, but other armies, speciall iraqi army had never had a chance against american attack helicopters.
The tactics will depend on the EW/anti-drone solutions that are invented to deal with drones. Let's say we develop some specialized vehicle whose only purpose is to carry a massive EW/anti-drone device that covers an area. You might, ironically, end up with tight groups of tanks "hugging" that EW/anti-drone vehicle for protection from drones. On the other hand, if reliable, strong EW/anti-drone devices can be miniaturized so that each tank has its own, then you might see truly independent lone wolf tactics, OR a return to tactics that ignore drones altogether (if the EW/anti-drone solution is reliable enough).
We currently have EW systems that protect large areas, but not enough to cover the entire front line. Many countries are working on vehicle mounted systems to defeat drones. It won’t be long before they are employed on a large scale. Just as the Duke and rhino were used to defeat IEDs, we will find a way to defeat most drones. It’s just a matter of time.
The main theme of the Russo-Ukranian war has been just how easy it is to mass fires & dangerous it is to concentrate forces on a transparent battlefield. Everyone involved (and everyone watching) is trying to figure out how to either mass forces safely OR generate offensive potential in a dispersed posture.
The issue is that neither side has enough firepower to suppress the other side. It isn't just that things are too transparent. Trench warfare in WW1 was primarily caused by what armies *lacked* (ammo most especially). The same is true here. Both sides are exhausted.
@@pax6833 I would argue that the positional fighting of WWI was primarily a result of the *excess* of firepower. Back then, as now, tactics have struggled to enable free movement of large forces in the open in the face of rapidly massed fires.
Great unbiased interview; a guest who was measured, gave good well thought responses and was honest. It's something I notice when talking to lower-level officers, that most are actually really measured and don't underestimate their opponent and take things seriously, as apposed to higher level command which are arrogant and stuck in the past.
Wouldnt it gi through a teething process first though, plus they only have 6 in comparison to the russain airforce its miniscule. Furthermore they will be hunted so i personnally dont think ukraine can afford the pr or material loss.
It would be the same as how they’re currently using there MIG 29/SU 27 The F-16 would bring more as it’s a modernize variant but it’s not gonna be a huge difference
Really excellent interview truly (BTW, very concise and easy to understand don't worry)! And I couldn't agree more, they're going to really start to have have to start to focus on the individual unit and the individual in general and I think special forces is going to expand tremendously..! Essentially all Frontline US forces are going to be highly specialized they're going to have to be... With that said, US Army finally found APS solution in the Iron Fist L/D, with at least 3 but up to 9 ABCT's worth of M2A4's(same APS as is likely to be used/incorporated into XM30 MICV/M2 replacement...) Elbit advertised not long after the October 7th attacks the Dave Incorporated a software upgrade into the new Iron Fist(Iron Fist Light/Dis-coupled designed essentially for Bradley's) which enables the radar to surveil and track anything coming from above as well so they can protect against slow-moving grenade dropping as well as FPV and loitering UAV's(US Army agrees, and I would love to hear what this SEPv3 commander has to say about this/Trophy/APS's in general and their abilities...) And don't get me started on where the F*CK is the Iron Fist L/D on the M10 Booker?!? I'm hoping it's just like the fact that there isn't an RWS on the top, because it's just the bare bones minimum in order to get into production ASAP...!
A tank can be designed to feature an unmanned turret, which would be lightly armored, while the crew operates from within the chassis that is reinforced with additional top armor. This unmanned turret concept was pursued in the T-14 Armata & BMPT Terminator.
@@anchorread68yeah no, that's the worst possible idea. Because then one enemy drone easily disarms your tank. Chasing weight reduction in the turret is a stupid idea. Use the weight savings to up armor the turret and the hull roof instead.
I can appreciate this commander's viewpoint. The problem is that no one knows how war is going to play out. Sun Tzu said you avoid it if you can. Cuz you don't know. Well they're not drones will be as important in The next war remains to be seen. Between now and then we don't know what levels of progress in tracking drones will happen, nor the counter measures that will be produced. Drones may become King of the battlefield, or they may become something that has to sit off 2 km and just watch useful. Suicide drones may become impractical, or not. Really what suicide drones are guided munitions, I think what we've seen is is that unguided munitions are becoming less and less useful in the battlefield. And a spike in guided munitions especially small. But that doesn't mean that we might not see a counter. Something like mini phalanx's. We just don't know
I love how 99% of the comments are from people doing research and forming their own opinions .I would like to hear from actual soldiers in the field ,in Ukraine,operating tanks and what their real life experiences have taught them about the abrams.The majority of you guys commenting are guessing.
have to wait once they become veterans or at least when the war ends. WW2 German veterans who were snipers got interviewed as well on how they functioned and the kills they had so I'm sure regardless if this entire thing becomes a total bloodshed with one side being occupied, you'll still have at least some veterans talking about their experiences.
using small scale drones in war has been possible for two decades. the only change is they dont just carry cameras anymore. as someone who grew up using rc and basic robotics. I find it pretty amusing the US department of defense DOD never considered this a possibility. until someone fighting on a budget used it because it makes sense. love this 2001 thinking going on across the world being surprised. I had thought of this stuff in high school as its pretty simple concepts.
FPV drones employ a concept akin to television-guided missiles from the post-WW2 era. Over time, missiles have become more costly and automated, leading to the use of Soviet-era TV-guided missiles exclusively by militants.
@@anchorread68Problem is, as weapons become more complicated, they also become harder to use. Do they want an electrical engineer in the front just to service and operate the zoomy-boomy things?
I don’t know what I’m talking about, but I think they can send in decoys with smaller groups. The problem is drones can see everything, but they can only see on outside. They know how and where to strike but not which one when presented with multiple possibilities But again, I don’t much about modern warfare. And there’s the fact that this wouldn’t work if there are multiple drones swarming a target
Smaller groups? Major criticism of the failed offensive was the ongoing use of small independent teams instead of the use of the western trained tactics that considered the special situation in Ukraine. They said prior to the offensive the gear will be a waste this way.
The thing is drones will have such advanced detection technology that any decoy would probably need to be deceptive on multiple spectrums of light, infrared, electronic and magnetic signals, etc. in order to effectively draw significant fire. You are on the right path that the obvious solution is advanced cloaking or camouflage, but hiding next to dummies made of wood or blown up balloons are probably a by-gone Era.
Does he though? The M1 was made for how the United States fights wars. We'd have dominance in the air and in the electronic spectrum. We'd go in en masse. So this is not comparable.
Idk...but this much I'll tell you those Abrams are the obsolete M1A1 models the US phased them out back in the mid 90'a and Moth balled them They were either going to scraped them or just ship them to Ukraine.
Is very good interview. I was in the navy and I used to drive the assault boats. The LCM 8 boat was big enough to handle the M60, but the Abrams wouldn't fit.So they end up phasing out the landing craft mechanized. went more for the air cushion assault craft. The Marine Corps understands what's going on.They've changed a lot of their tactics including the armor, they've phased it out. Is the tank obsolete? With all the new technology, only time well tell.
Most of tank losess seem to occur, when lone tank is driving in open field or road. Which makes sense, even the best weapon is vulnerable on its own. All those tanks in Ukraine, Russian or NATO, aren't bad tanks, they are just often used in a way, that makes them vulnerable. Not to mention, that we usually only see those vechicles at the end of their life, but we rarely see what they managed to accomplish before that. Imo, tanks nowdays should be used in small groups, close enough to support each other, but not close enough for all of them to be damaged by single artilery barrage. Also, non-kinetic ways of destroying or neutralising drones and other smart munitions will definetly be very important part of future warfare.
You simply cannot defend against a dozen tiny drones coming from five different direction. As nobody has solved this threat yet, the concept of the "tank" as a breakthrough and assault weapon is on hold for the time being.
the real issue is that they brought the wrong tank to the wrong war. This is a war of attrition and a slug fest. Numbers are the most important factor. 30 abrams vs 1000 t72?
There's that, and a lot of American doctrine is based around their being a carrier strike group or in the case of Europe an air force base in range to offer support. There's no B1's to go after the tanks nor F16's to hunt helicopters or air defenses.
@@alexsitaras6508even if their was those things, MiG-31s and S-500s would counter the bombers and S-400s, S-300s, Su-35S and Su-30SM to counter F-16s. Also Europe has numerous air bases.
@@SergyMilitaryRankings I probably could've been more succinct and said that Abrams works as a part of a doctrine that has massive emphasis on air dominance. We still don't really know what a 21st century airforce with a sizeable 5th gen fleet looks like in action against another large airforce.
The m1 Abram is a tankmeant for combined arms warfare and with such price and complexity of logistics it can only suffer in scenariod of attrition and trenchy warfare
Bro what are you talking about? It's a tank that has a gun and can shoot How the fuck is it a liability, The Ukrainians have a separate line of logistics for western stuff. So I doubt it's a liability for the rest of the army.
Problem is combined arms dosnt work in ukraine, too many drones and a combined brigade is an easy target to spot and a large target for artillery fire. Combined arms only really works when you have dominance in all realms of armor, infantry, sky and sea. Neither side controls the skies which means that both sides have been easily able to saturate the frontlines with artillery making combined arms warfare almost impossible. The current way to get around this without immense losses is simply by fielding smaller troops and sending armor alone, its better to loose a few troops or a single tank then to loose a whole brigade in seconds. The greatest example of combined warfare is how Wagner got mauled by the americans in syria. The combination of land artillery with air power to simply shell the enemy into absolute oblivion. But it wouldnt have been the same if america had no air superiority.
@@trevorsutherland5263 no it means the weapon was designed to fight in a battle with other elements to cover its weakness like IFVs and infantry protecting its flanks so the tank can focus on enemy armor instead of infantry.
Great interview, I’m not sure why he apologised at the end. He tried to be fair but western equipment always benefits from positive bias and from the assumption that it’s flawless and if it gets destroyed it’s because “times changed” or “another technology came up”. I just note that Russian or Chinese equipment would never benefit of the same excuses if/when it is struggling in battle.
5:30 To be fair: the first cope cages were not installed on Russian tanks to prevent drone attacks, it was done to "protect" against Javelins and NLAWs and whatnot. That's why it was named a "cope cage" - because it just coping instead of actually being viable to work with. (This is also how we got silly shit like that one tank that someone welded a steel tube to and put a container full of hot coals in on the end of it thinking it would throw off heat-seeking munitions.)
Are Ukrainians 'correctly' using a tank developed specifically with the United States doctrine and war fighting capabilities in mind? No, lol. Thanks for listening to my TED talk. (Love you really red. ❤)
The armor for the abrams was taken out in Ukraine, the DU plates and everything else was taken out and made it extremely watered down. The crew also is usually also extremely untrained and these abrams are always on solo missions, abrams are only at their best effectiveness when they are in squads with infantry
Yeah, its an obsolete version of the Abrams. Literally the oldest version still available, yet it still does its job. There are like 4 Abrams tanks that have been proven to be taken out, with another 3 unproven, so about 7 total. Now lets look at the other side, that have lost between 300 and 800 T-72s, 80s and 90s. In economical comparison, every old Abrams is about 2 times more expensive than the average Russian tank. So once there are about 150-400 destroyed Abrams tanks, we can say that the situation is even. But that won´t happen because Ukraine never got more than 31.
I think what people need to understand, the Abrams isn’t a super tank, never was and it wasn’t designed to be. It has the same venerability as any other tank. Most of the time you see a lone Abrams fighting… a tank alone is a target and usually a easy hit. They are meant to be teamed up with support infantry and other armored assets
@@zayedbinimran957 buddy, the losses on the russian side are astronomicaly higher than the ukrainian side. the americans tought they would lose allot more abrams tanks because of the overwhelming majority of russian tanks and airpower. the tech is showing its superiority over and over and over. but they dont have the numbers to do what they have to do.
@@noidontthinksolol so? russia can easily replace its losses. 1 abrams costs the same as 8 t 72s or 2 and a half t 80s. russian tanks are cheap so that they can easily be replaced because in war there are losses. who said the americans thought they would lose more? have you read the american minds? russians have been adapting to the rapidly changing enviroment of the battlefield. this isnt 2022 anymore where ukraine can do massive counterattack and russia will lose hundreds of vehicles
@@zayedbinimran957 the US and nato dont give a fuck about how much the equipment consts. we have more than enough money. and you clearly havent been paying attention
I don't want to bother with the full quotation, but immediately around the 3 min mark he starts saying how it's not a question of if the tank is suited and then says it's "what does the modern scale of battlefield look like these days" buddy...that's *literally the same as being asked if it is suited to Ukraine* My guy is being asked "does this tanks capabilities mean it can be effective in this current war" and then says "the tank will go wherever you put it, so it's about if the battlefield lets the tank be effective" Yes. That's what suited means. What you have ended up answering is "can it *operate* in X place?" the correct answer to that question *is* 'it goes where it's told and we make it work'.
Grenade dropping drones are almost exclusively used to clean up damaged/abondoned tanks. Its the cumulative charge drones like lancet that are the real tank threat.....thats scary how far behind on tactics US army seems to be. Worrying about grenade dropping drines should be a distant afterthought when training/preparing for drone vs tank combat
With the poor performance of Abrams in Ukraine i think everyone started realizing that it is just a normal tank, just overpriced. The same goes for Leos
They are good tanks and have better than average crew survival. There are no tanks right now that are able to completely counter the threat of loitering munitions.
@@georgesimon1760 i dont see differences, in both cases just the number makes the strenght. We haven't seen a sigle video of an abrams or leopard hitting or destroying a russian tank. Not a single one, just atgm's or drones (who wrecked western tanks the same as russian ones)
Every MBT should have anti air/drone system on top of the turret, thats the solution I could think of. Radar, 30mm gun, APS and anti drone laser, it will be HEAVY but you dont have a choice.
Not only heavy but also explosive... We are more likely to see return of concept of multiturret land battleship. Otherwise it's going to be on separate vehicle altogether.
@@Retronyx yeah but their EW on T72 is just a bunch of stuff tied together with a diesel generator strap on to the side. And I think the Ukrop hit that tank, so it didn't work 100%. The problem is mobile, dedicated EW for individual tanks is still very new. Maybe in a few months something would be better.
30mm? Are you insane? Even a 5.45/5.56 would do just fine or even just shotgun bucks. Also thing is that those systems would cause a bit of a friendly fire issue
The Abrams X is good start, since its base weight is only at 60 tons, just put on additional stuff on it and make the armor of the crew capsule much thicker on the top. Again it will still end up heavy but the latest SEPV3 upgrade of the M1A2 had its weight end up at 80 tons already. Then just put some mine plow on it and you have an actual breacher tank, followed by the more agile tank which is the Booker.
Currently 3 major threats to tanks in Ukraine and mostly applied ot other places elsewhere : Drones, ATGM, and Mines. The Abraham is designed to take some ATGM hits but that is constantly changing in the game of cat and mouse. It may be able to avoid mines if the operators know where these are. Drones is another question. Active defense can be used against Drones and ATGM. Mines is trickier question but the good thing is it is not always available to the defenders, or can be debatably neutralized or bypass somehow. Tanks in a dense forest like in SE Asia or Latin America will not be easy to be hit with drones.
Some atgm hits? 😅 a Saudi Abrams was taken out by a single atgm, an Iranian knock-off of Russian made designed in 1970. And who tf is stupid enough to drive a 70 tons behemoth in a forest let alone dense tropical rainforest in SE Asia/Latin America?
It makes sense for the Ukrainians to use their tanks like the Germans did in Normandy as they are in similar situations such as they are both on the defensive. And the primary threat was coming from the air. The Germans faced fighter bombers and the Ukrainians are facing drones.
man i was racing drones fpv First Person View back in 2013 and the video they use is old school to analoge.and a good pilot well even a normal racer like me could easy go under the drone cage and still hit the tank
Abrahms are very effective against goad herders in long dress and sandles with a AK 47... But in a real hardcore war they are just normal tanks and gets destroyed aswell...
they won't use jets at all, because there's so much anti-air everywhere on both sides. Anything sufficiently large WILL get shot down, so it's not even worth trying
The impact of drones v battle tank is a sort of "David and Goliath" scenario.. Brings back to mind an old safe-breakers principle: ... "If man can make it - man can break it".
In the last 2 months: Ukraine lost 4 outdated Abrams - "oooo worst tank ever, Ukies use them wrong!" Russia lost 15 super modern T90Ms - "best tank in the world!!!" 🤣
No they’re not usin it wrong it’s the first time the Abrams has been in contact with actual military power that is more than a few terrorists shooting aks at it
40mm x 365mm HEVT with full IRST search and track capability's on an IFV with the tanks (preferably with the latest Gen Thermal Imagers plus anything to track the signals being sent between drones and operators...even if is just able to alert that drones are nearby would be useful)
These are mk 1 Abrahams, powered by gas turbine engines therefore the have a high temp profile an easy target for drones. they can only spend 8 hours in the field.
Yes the Abrams has a heat profile so giant that i bet the russians spot them from earth orbit when they are on the move. The 8 hour capability and range is great minus idk what they were thinking when they designed this thing.
Imagine what it'll be like in the future. Swarms of small fast drones that are autonomous or semi autonomous. Will lock on to individual soldiers using heat signature. You might even be able to flood areas with tiny drones that lie dormant for days or weeks until a target shows up. Think of soldiers walking through a forest being attacked by insect sized drones that inject a nerve agent.
I thought this guy would be a dope who just castigated the Ukrainians for not sticking to US doctrine, but he was actually extremely thoughtful and a very interesting interview. You can tell he’s given this a lot of consideration. Great video!
Great interview! I agree 100% with all he said. I see the roof atop of tanks becoming the norm and I also see bullets for assault rifles with spread becoming popular(Having one mag of this would be very useful) Remember drones have come to stay
Doctrine means also working with infantrymen, air support, it’s a lot more than just tank / Armor maneuver. SSG should have more conversations with his officer. Never just fire from one position shoot move and communicate.
It’s almost like tanks made for the us military are best used under the assumption it has the rest of the us military, and 90% of these comments didn’t even watch the first 2 minute of the video
Drones are doing to armor what aircraft did to the battleship in WWII. Until a drone countermeasure is developed armor is not going to be an effective in combat to the scale it had been before.
When we trained them, they would stream line a lot of the instruction rather than echoing the doctrine. I don't blame them. Not enough time to train them but they had what they had and ran with what they deemed was necessary.
the artillery one is huge. now artillery crews tehmselfes cna get REAL TIME footage of htere rounds hitting, or missing and teh effects of ther hits. Before that artilelry squads had to relie on artillery observers that tell them stuff like "yeah looks like all enemys are defeated." now they get a BIRDS EYE VIEW of wether or noth the target is aktually destroyed, and if not can send another group of shells on the target. Where in the past artillery would, even if it hit, sometimes leave equipment nad personell operational, now thats not the case anymore, or if it is then they and there infantry commrads, know that the traget is still up and running.
This is the closest thing we've seen to modern technologically advanced adversaries fighting each other since WW2. Near-peer warfare will produce near-peer losses.
The way the British hyped the Abrams, Challenger and Leopards tanks, it looks as if the tanks are practically invincible and doesn't need much manual intervention to engage the enemy.
What about an active protection system for whatever you want to protect from drone strikes that is based on a fully automatic 12 gauge firing steel shot? Kind of like a C.I.W.S. but with shot instead of 20mm.
Tanks and other frontline vehicles will have to be like ships that have EW/ESM and a CIWS-like counter-SUAS/LM weapon that's automated, with a mini-radar and high ROF MG or cannon that fires prox-fused/programmed airburst rounds.
Didnt the Ukrainians THEMSELVES say that the newer T-72 variants were overall better tanks then the M1s? Also, the question of crew survivability tends to be greately oversimplified by westerners. They seem to think that if the turret does not fly, it means the entire crew survived. It is nonsense. First of all, what goes on inside the tank when it gets penetrated by a shaped charge tends to not be exactly "healthy" for the human body... To put it mildly. So just because the turret did not fly off, does not mean that all of the crew survived a blast of molten metal inside. Secondly, assuming the crew did survive the hit and got out, that does not automatically mean they are just going to hop into another tank like in a video game. The crew that survived their tank getting knocked out are now stranded in a combat zone armed only with their sidearms. Most likely contested by drones and enemy artillery. That is NOT a very pretty situation to find yourself in. During the previous wars, the Americans always had total air and artillery superiority, and there were no drones. If a tank got disabled and the crew got out, they could simply be extracted by a nearby Bradley and their damaged tank could easily be recovered and repaired. In Ukraine, that does not fly. In a zone contested by enemy drones, any attempt to extract the crew risks that vehicle getting hit as well. And any attempt to recover damaged tanks poses a big risk for the recovery vehicle and crew. The proliferation of drones and real-time battlefield surveillance has made the recovery of damaged tanks and their crews more dangerous then ever. This is literally how the infamous "Bradley square" in Ukraine came to be. The Ukrainians sent a platoon of Leopard 2A6 tanks supported by a platoon of Bradleys to attack the Russain positions. They got pinned down in a minefield and the Leopards got disabled. The Ukrainians then sent in ANOTHER platoon of Bradleys to extract the survivors, which resulted in that platoon falling prey to Russian attack helicopters that arrived to provide CAS for their defending troops.
Im kidna amazed that ppl consider drones a new concept... I mean I remember being a kid playing EVE online 20 years ago already knowing that swarm of drones can rip apart a battleship as long as you dont take out operator so its funny how war tech progresses mostly only during war and in peace time you get a lot of cool things but they are expensive and not practical while in actual war you get to see ppl useing cheap and practical things
People calling abrams trash after a few losses is just as stupid as people saying t90m is trash after one got disabled by a bradley. There are so many factors that go into one engagement that it is simply stupid to attribute a loss to simply bad equipment. Need to have much larger sample sizes to make such a conclusion. If it was a straight up comparison between the t90m and m1a1, I would say that t90m is probably better in a one on one tank battle due to modern active protection systems and optics. However, abrams has better crew survivability. Against drones, I would say abrams is better because no matter what you are pretty much going to lose. The only difference is whether or not you come out alive or not.
Plus maybe the tank needs to be complimented with IFV's as the main assault platform, in a pair or small attack group of one tank and two Bradley IFV's? But it's the drone warfare like the hypersonic antiship missile that will force a change in deployment thinking. To expand, the US Navy reliance on these big GR Ford super carrier task forces maybe be bit of a too vulnerable target. Instead I can see a wolf pack type squadron being deployed of maybe two attack subs and two or three AEGIS destroyers to cover a threat sort of like the equivalent of an infantry fire team.
In my opinion drones (like fpv) are the „new tanks“. They have proven to make more or less everything (including tanks) obsolete/ineffective, just like the Tank did 100 years ago in regards to trench warfare.
Just as an infantryman armed with a 'sticky bomb' was a threat to armor, drones armed with shaped-charge, anti-tank munitions add yet another dimension to the fight. A drone with a RPG warhead is a heck of a lot cheaper than a Javelin missile, just don't tell General Dynamics or Raytheon.
Until the UA has sufficient number of main battle tanks to form adequate number of armored/regiments, brigades & divisions, they’ll use these tanks sparingly on piecemeal battles mainly for infantry support. They can’t risk losing most of these tanks in one major operation to spearhead an offensive thrust as doctrinally done by US and allied forces. UA will also need a capable air force component to complement combined force tactics that the West has employed. In the meantime, UA has and will continue to adapt and modify its tactics as best it could with what it has in material and manpower.
When there's no air superiority and drones everywhere, you can't amass forces without getting bombed to shit.
Yea NATO tanks in general are built to work only with air superiority.
Even then, tanks have been pretty much abandoned in the doctrine in favour of lighter vics lol
@@honkhonk8009 >Yea NATO tanks in general are built to work only with air superiority.
According to who? What features do non-NATO tanks have that somehow make them different?
@@cstgraphpads2091 according the US military doctrine, that's who.
@@cstgraphpads2091 Serious lack of anti-air.
@@cstgraphpads2091 It's not only about the tanks. NATO Electronic Warfare and short-range AA abilities are lacking. The Russians and Ukrainians use EW extensively and have numerous short-range AA platforms yet they still suffer tremendous losses. If NATO army formations didn't have air superiority they would've been exposed and losses would've been even more horrendous in comparison.
That's why the US is now scrambling to procure more anti-drone/short-range AA platforms right now. They saw the writings on the wall and are trying to adapt, with systems like LIDS, L-MADIS, Lattice, and Silent Archer all under development currently.
90% of the armor loss in this conflict seems to be either drones, artillery or mines, things a MBT has little to no response.
M1A1SA captured by Russia
ua-cam.com/video/8eZA4X5KyZA/v-deo.htmlsi=yMWTNMoKpP3fx35F
All of this is true for every system, right down to the infantry man...
Yeah artillery has been devastating in this war. It is very different from the western way of war, and it looks like it's caused them to look at the risk. It would likely be hard for a western power to sustain a long, attritional war over many years with air power alone.
No tank is impervious to destruction. It's insane to pretend to think that Abrams won't be destroyed, anyone with that expectation or think it means Russians are somehow superior for destroying an Abrams tank here and there, while they've lost thousands of tanks themselves....they are kidding themselves.
People do not usually realize that Abrams performed as well as it did in Iraq is mostly attributed to US Air Force and Navy and in general US military as a whole. MBT did not win the war.
- Samir, you are breaking the tank
- Shut up
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Don't tell me how to drive
I just imagined a T-80 going at 70+ km/h in an Ukrainian field lol
TRIPLE CAUTION SAMIR
@@outrun7455 TRIPLE CAUTION
I am a former officer, and tank commander. I would agree with the Staff Sergeant's accessments. I began my Tanker career on the Sheridan in Vietnam. Then the M-48, M60A1, and the Abrams. With the weapons technology and drone technology today, I am glad I am retired!
shame our countries are Allied, (Sweden) you're a worse war criminal than Putin
@N3003Q t-72
🧢🧢🧢
This kid said he was ancient when he was in the Army in 2016. I must be a wooly mammoth and you are a dinosaur to him lol.
@@darkopavlic6592just because you are probably a habitual liar doesn’t mean everyone making a statement is.
imo the Abrams looks much nicer in the forest camo
Only seen them before in video games
What? Geez
@@sooryan_1018 Oh nah, u can definitely find a lot of footage with them in forest camo. In fact, a few countries received woodland camo abrams in return for sending their soviet era mbts to ukraine during the first year of the war.
nah, I understand its the OG, but Tan is 10/10
What it needs is 3 stripes camo.
T-80 T-72 : blame the tank
Abrams : blame the crew
Internet is a funny place
When a T-Series tank got knocked out: LOL BAD TANK LOL!!!!!!
When a challenger or Abrams get knocked out: No tank is invincible…
@@stealthSGMBfor me the main difference is crew survival rates which aren’t being published too much, as for the other it would be T series is used by the home nation who designed it to fit their doctrine whereas the Abrams is being used by a country who’ve had minimal training and in which it doesn’t fit the doctrine, also has seen success before (gulf wars) but they’re both 50 year old designs so of course neither can keep up with modern war zones
@departmentoftheeruseanroya9106 to be fair, only challenger had actually gone undefeated by enemy
You see the western tanks can sometimes return into service because they have blow out panels. Russian tanks get their damn turrets blown to heaven@@stealthSGMB
@@Goddamndan200"Only Challenger hs gone undefeated by an enemy"
>99% of Challenger 2s service life has been against insurgents with old weapons
Good unbiased comments by your guest. Admitting that Lancet has opened a lot of eyes and how warfare will be forever changed now
Every weapon system changes the world. No true soldier will ever say it doesn't. How much it will 5 years from now may be big may not be. It's the thing about war and why you should avoid it you have no idea where it will go.
Or the Iranian Shahed drone.
The great russian Lancet
Yea nope lancet hasn't changed shit.
It's about drones in general.
The lancet hasnt changed Anything, as the lancet was a reaction to the drones that amerca was sending to ukraine. The only difference is Lancet is used as a loitering ATGM while the American ones come in 2 varients the larger one which is more or less a lancet then the smaller one which can be used for killed troops, sensitive equipment or softskin vehicles etc.
@@rgbforever4561 well argue that with the Tank Commander interviewed. He disagrees. From what I’ve read it’s considered one of the deadliest drones on a battlefield today and it’s certainly combat proven… but hey wave your flag and dream.. whatever
This is the content we need the most, interviews with tankers
I kept waiting to hear "Greetings all, Chieftain here!"
Kind of relieved I didn't. The Chieftan's good but I like hearing some new perspectives.
@@PL-rf4hy Especially younger and more on the cutting edge.
While you make fun of NATO equipment here , Abrams tanks are quietly encircling Moscow
IMO Chieftain is likely familiar with the Abrams exported, doubt you would get a comment on an active battlefield deployment of one, perhaps a reminiscing of another day.
I think Chieftain would say pretty much the same thing…
Arbams* in the thumbnail
Arbams
LOL the translation!!! 😂😂😂
Don't you mean the Abraham? 😂
@@Saffi____
The M1 Abrams was named after a certain General Creighton Abrams.
Not Old Abe
@@gotohyoshihisa3971 I know it was a joke. I was teasing because he misspelled Abrams and another comment in a different video called it Abraham so I borrowed it.
As a Scout in the US Army who's spent a lot of time on a Brad, and working with tanks and Aircraft, this dude pretty much hit the nail on the head in terms of how we look at things and utilization of Armor. And what's going on has already influenced changes in the US and by extension NATO. A lot more focus on LSCO (Large Scale Combat Operations) and specific things we are seeing in Ukraine currently, with a lot more going foward I would assume.
13:11 when your barrel gets destroyed in WT and you are pleading for your life
> Fine and fire
> Miss a shot
> This happened
Fr 😂😂😂
Nah, you don't turret-wiggle to beg. You turret-wiggle because Gaijin doesn't know how to code and if your barrel is moving when it gets hit it somehow turns into Stalinium and even 183mm shots wont turn it yellow.
I dont think you could use the Abrams doctrinally even if you wanted to just as the Russians cant use their t series doctrinally. The nature of warfare changed since the 50s.
Well, the Abrams and the T series tanks were designed for Maneuver Warfare doctrines, as stated in the video the Russo-Ukraine war is Positional (or perhaps it is better to say Attritional) and the frontlines are far more static. Moreover, the doctrine that Abrams and the T series were designed for were (to my knowledge) both offensive, the slow reverse speed of many T series comes to mind.
I think it's a bad idea to say nobody can use the Abrams or even the T series doctrinally just because the Ukrainians and Russians are unable to do so. Speaking specifically to the Abrams, Uncle Sam has more toys at his disposal to use the Abrams according to doctrine that Ukraine does.
Obligatory "I am a civilian, take my thoughts worth a grain of salt."
No it hasn't.
@@damoclesecoe7184 Ukraine is still a maneuver war. The problem is that Ukraine has not fought a war as a nation in living memory, and it has been a long time since Russia has fought a war of this scale. Both countries have very top-down militaries, where the average soldier has basically no say in how an operation is conducted. RIght now Ukraine is entirely dependent on foreign support, while Russia doesn't want to squander more than it already has because they know their country is not very well off economically (with or without the sanctions).
@@cstgraphpads2091 Like I said, grain of salt.
well they are also meant to be used in combined arms warfare with USA's overwhelming air superiority in Ukraine they are basically used as anti tank SPGs
for defense
Great interview! I’m sure lots of us were wondering that same question. “How affective is tanks in current warfare” and these drones are the new superior weapon in wars. Acquiring positions/dropping ordinances is hard to beat that
I just saw one in person for the first time an hour ago, it looks much cooler in person
did you get an autograph
@@SeminarioMAE sadly no, the NCOs didn’t let me that close
All tanks look cooler in person
Great explanation sir, really. My friend is a tank commander out of Malmstrom at the moment (I know Malmstrom is AF). He doesn’t have near this insight. So thank you.
That's where I'm based out of lol
15:11 - No apology needed.
I think it did not sound 'all over the place' in any way.
It seemed to be clear and make perfect sense, imho.
This was absolutely fascinating and highly educational to me.
Thank you greatly for this video.
☮
Dude any call of duty player could have told them drones are annoying as efff like back in 2009... :|
yeah and one communication disruption and it's all gone
@@lolasdm6959yes but it also would affect your own communication too both parties will be dark
@messyjessem.3108
"hunter killer drone standing by..."
"Your predator missile is ready for launch."
"Reaper on stand by"
"RC car, ready for deployment!"
@@mctony0965 So you just open up your disruptor for 1 minute now all their drones are dropping to the ground then you turn it off.
@@mctony0965 That assumes your communication is the same as your enemy's.
@RedEffect
Bravo for the interview
Another great video, always good to have a subject matter expert who is currently, commanding the subject(Abrams) thank you to yourself and your guest
Was on the SEP2 for 6 years. You own the sky and that tank will thrive. More importantly though, crew survivability, that's where she excels at. It's nice to have fancy tanks, even better being able to put a crew that just lost a tank into a new one quickly.
Yea but economy will play a role eventually no country not even the US can withstand losses of $10 million dollar tanks to drones that cost in the thousands and until something can be done about drones armored warfare will not be the same blitzkrieg is dead for the moment but iam confident we will eventually find a solution but not for a while.
Yes.
I need to vent for a second.
Red effects comment section is insufferable.
90% are yapping about shit no one ever said. And it's either "western stuff is just as good as the Russian stuff and will be immediately destroyed by 20 million lancets"
Or
"Western stuff is so incredibly good it's not even comparable"
Although I do have to say that the people with let's say favourable opinions about russian equipment are leagues ahead with being annoying.
A tank takes a couple weeks to be built, a tanker takes a lifetime to be built.
@@jesseterrell2109 Tbf the tanks themselves are very cheap materially due to economies of scale.
If you played games like Squad, tanks are still favoured. Its difficult to use AT tools.
A good armour player in that game can dominate if they know how to play with infantry. Bad armour players just waste tickets
What makes it survivable.
Am I the only one who feels a strange parallel to WWII with the proliferation of naval aviation which changed the naval doctrine of a “Decisive Battle” to small skirmishes/air raids? (“Grand battle” to individual tank/drone raids) 😂😂
But WW2 didn't do that. Midway wasn't a "small skirmish/air raid". The only thing naval aviation did was change the delivery method of munitions.
Maybe more like the invention of the torpedo before that? 🤔
@@cstgraphpads2091 I would count midway as the definition of an air raid battle, compared to the contemporary Decisive Battle doctrine at the time. You can also argue drones “change the delivery method of munitions.”
@@rnzafdude But they didn't. The aircraft carrier changed the delivery of munitions from a gun on a ship to an aircraft launched from a carrier. Are drones somehow not "aircraft" despite them also flying through the air in 100% of these cases?
Aircraft drops bomb, drone drops grenade: No difference
Aircraft launches missile, drone launches missile: No difference
Aircraft crashes deliberately into target, drone crashes deliberately into target: No difference.
How is Midway an "air raid battle"? It was a massive set-piece battle between two opposing fleets and lasted for three days. A "raid" isn't going to last one day, let alone three. Two carrier fleets squared off and launched wave after wave of planes at each other while trying to maneuver for better advantage. That is literally no different than a naval battle between battleships, like the Battle of Jutland, where it would be salvos of shells instead of waves of planes. Hell Jutland only lasted a single day.
@@cstgraphpads2091 Your arguments don’t counter any of my points?
At this point, I think you’re agreeing with me, and you’re just akshuallying and nickpicking on word choice? Lol.
Because yes, that is my exact point.
Just like we went from Battleship-oriented “Decisive Battle” doctrine to naval aviation doctrine,
I am saying the ground battle seems like it is going from Tank-Division level Manoeuvre-Warfare doctrine oriented “Grand Battle” (eg 73 Easting) to drone-oriented. Lol.
I think a big problem is the lack of support because they're stretched so thin they cant afford to have dedicated infantry/aircraft units to support them which leaves them exposed in alot of situations
You don't want to die from a kamikaze drone.
Which kind of put's them in a loss spiral where the lack of support can increase losses which leaves them stretched even thinner.
Tank commander whoever you are, I love your response to the doctrine question as the US doctrine is written with air superiority in mind and without drones in mind. Great answers i love your realism especially with explaining how the Ukrainians are using their tanks much love!
He says that drones are the biggest threat, and they kind of are, however, that's in conjunction with a lot of other threats. Say for example the tank will run over a mine, which arguably has done a lot of work in this war, the tank will be immobilised, the crew will escape and then a drone will finish off the job by dropping a bomb down its open hatch.
This simplifies it a little bit, but really drones more or less render the recovery of vehicles almost impossible, and drones have also done fantastic work on soft skinned vehicles, as well as the passengers who ride on the top because of their fear of being blown up by a mine.
Also, let's not forget the fantastic job drones have done in complimenting artillery which can rain down accurate fire on moving armoured columns.
As I saw somebody else comment, mines and artillery have been known factors for decades and centuries respectively. Drones, specifically the way they are used in the Russo-Ukraine war, are the new thing on the block.
@@damoclesecoe7184 Except that some western countries (not the USA) banned the use of land mines after a campaign by Princess Diana. All due respect to her, good intentions won't win a war and I believe that European countries should reverse that decision and stock up on cheap land mines and cluster bombs which have been shown to be incredibly effective.
As for drones, well, we should use our resources to create advanced imaging AI hooked up to short range flak guns mounted onto vehicles like humvees that can use its software and advanced camera sensors to quickly detect aerial threats and shoot them out of the sky. The west has an advantage in computing technology and now is not the time to be introducing laws to restrict ourselves on R&D.
@@The_Greedy_Orphan You misunderstand the point I'm making. The reason the Staff Sgt. is focusing on drones is because the examples you gave like landmines and artillery have been concerns of his throughout his entire career as a tanker. Drones used the way they have been in Ukraine have only been around a couple of years and as such are needing new tactics and technology to counter. Mines and artillery may be an equal or greater threat, but ones that have been understood and trained for.
You'll still have an ambrams then...
@@The_Greedy_Orphan Diana's campaign was against anti personnel mines, which aren't a threat for tanks. Conversely anti tank mines aren't that much of a threat for civilians.
Thank you - a very interesting video. It's very enlightening to hear the thought process of a real military professional.
Appeal to Authority.
This one guy was great. But don't think "a real military professional" is a good quality.
_I'm_ a military professional. Or a Veteran, since I'm out of the force now. And I can tell you straight up that half the people there aren't worth listening to.
I'm susprised he never mentionned helicopters, which is was the major threat against tanks, or mb bc he's american, so US army never deploy their tanks without air dominance, so he never had to worry about helicopters, but other armies, speciall iraqi army had never had a chance against american attack helicopters.
The tactics will depend on the EW/anti-drone solutions that are invented to deal with drones. Let's say we develop some specialized vehicle whose only purpose is to carry a massive EW/anti-drone device that covers an area. You might, ironically, end up with tight groups of tanks "hugging" that EW/anti-drone vehicle for protection from drones. On the other hand, if reliable, strong EW/anti-drone devices can be miniaturized so that each tank has its own, then you might see truly independent lone wolf tactics, OR a return to tactics that ignore drones altogether (if the EW/anti-drone solution is reliable enough).
We currently have EW systems that protect large areas, but not enough to cover the entire front line. Many countries are working on vehicle mounted systems to defeat drones. It won’t be long before they are employed on a large scale. Just as the Duke and rhino were used to defeat IEDs, we will find a way to defeat most drones. It’s just a matter of time.
The main theme of the Russo-Ukranian war has been just how easy it is to mass fires & dangerous it is to concentrate forces on a transparent battlefield.
Everyone involved (and everyone watching) is trying to figure out how to either mass forces safely OR generate offensive potential in a dispersed posture.
That's just warfare then... Even in chess you have to be carful and how to attack when.
The issue is that neither side has enough firepower to suppress the other side. It isn't just that things are too transparent. Trench warfare in WW1 was primarily caused by what armies *lacked* (ammo most especially). The same is true here. Both sides are exhausted.
@@pax6833 I would argue that the positional fighting of WWI was primarily a result of the *excess* of firepower.
Back then, as now, tactics have struggled to enable free movement of large forces in the open in the face of rapidly massed fires.
@@jordanreeseyreI think you're right on point w your analysis
Great unbiased interview; a guest who was measured, gave good well thought responses and was honest. It's something I notice when talking to lower-level officers, that most are actually really measured and don't underestimate their opponent and take things seriously, as apposed to higher level command which are arrogant and stuck in the past.
Now, I'm interested to see if the same issue occurs with how they deploy the F-16s.
Wouldnt it gi through a teething process first though, plus they only have 6 in comparison to the russain airforce its miniscule.
Furthermore they will be hunted so i personnally dont think ukraine can afford the pr or material loss.
It would be the same as how they’re currently using there MIG 29/SU 27
The F-16 would bring more as it’s a modernize variant but it’s not gonna be a huge difference
Really excellent interview truly (BTW, very concise and easy to understand don't worry)!
And I couldn't agree more, they're going to really start to have have to start to focus on the individual unit and the individual in general and I think special forces is going to expand tremendously..! Essentially all Frontline US forces are going to be highly specialized they're going to have to be...
With that said, US Army finally found APS solution in the Iron Fist L/D, with at least 3 but up to 9 ABCT's worth of M2A4's(same APS as is likely to be used/incorporated into XM30 MICV/M2 replacement...)
Elbit advertised not long after the October 7th attacks the Dave Incorporated a software upgrade into the new Iron Fist(Iron Fist Light/Dis-coupled designed essentially for Bradley's) which enables the radar to surveil and track anything coming from above as well so they can protect against slow-moving grenade dropping as well as FPV and loitering UAV's(US Army agrees, and I would love to hear what this SEPv3 commander has to say about this/Trophy/APS's in general and their abilities...)
And don't get me started on where the F*CK is the Iron Fist L/D on the M10 Booker?!?
I'm hoping it's just like the fact that there isn't an RWS on the top, because it's just the bare bones minimum in order to get into production ASAP...!
Outstanding discussion! To hear from one of the troops who will actually have to go forward and face these new threats is eye-opening.
the document is not in the description
A Tank was not designed to sustain damage from above...
Unless they change that Drones gonna make Tanks obsolete
A tank can be designed to feature an unmanned turret, which would be lightly armored, while the crew operates from within the chassis that is reinforced with additional top armor. This unmanned turret concept was pursued in the T-14 Armata & BMPT Terminator.
I guess they gotta cut the front armor down and use that to create a better roof with spaced nera/era
@@anchorread68yeah no, that's the worst possible idea. Because then one enemy drone easily disarms your tank. Chasing weight reduction in the turret is a stupid idea. Use the weight savings to up armor the turret and the hull roof instead.
@@thelordofcringe only problem is not just hull roof or turret also engine and side are weak points . basicly tanks needs to be an armored box
@@thelordofcringe Enemy drones disarm your tank easily anyway bruh
I can appreciate this commander's viewpoint. The problem is that no one knows how war is going to play out. Sun Tzu said you avoid it if you can. Cuz you don't know. Well they're not drones will be as important in The next war remains to be seen. Between now and then we don't know what levels of progress in tracking drones will happen, nor the counter measures that will be produced. Drones may become King of the battlefield, or they may become something that has to sit off 2 km and just watch useful. Suicide drones may become impractical, or not. Really what suicide drones are guided munitions, I think what we've seen is is that unguided munitions are becoming less and less useful in the battlefield. And a spike in guided munitions especially small. But that doesn't mean that we might not see a counter. Something like mini phalanx's. We just don't know
I love how 99% of the comments are from people doing research and forming their own opinions .I would like to hear from actual soldiers in the field ,in Ukraine,operating tanks and what their real life experiences have taught them about the abrams.The majority of you guys commenting are guessing.
have to wait once they become veterans or at least when the war ends. WW2 German veterans who were snipers got interviewed as well on how they functioned and the kills they had so I'm sure regardless if this entire thing becomes a total bloodshed with one side being occupied, you'll still have at least some veterans talking about their experiences.
using small scale drones in war has been possible for two decades. the only change is they dont just carry cameras anymore. as someone who grew up using rc and basic robotics. I find it pretty amusing the US department of defense DOD never considered this a possibility. until someone fighting on a budget used it because it makes sense. love this 2001 thinking going on across the world being surprised. I had thought of this stuff in high school as its pretty simple concepts.
FPV drones employ a concept akin to television-guided missiles from the post-WW2 era. Over time, missiles have become more costly and automated, leading to the use of Soviet-era TV-guided missiles exclusively by militants.
Yes
It's a great(although scary)addition to the fighting force.
@@anchorread68 They're exactly the same in concept.
@@anchorread68Problem is, as weapons become more complicated, they also become harder to use. Do they want an electrical engineer in the front just to service and operate the zoomy-boomy things?
"Never considered this a possibility" where do you betards get this shit? Anti drone tech has been being worked on for 20 years.
Military experts has already theorised that the arch enemy of the modern tank is the helicopter gunship.
I don’t know what I’m talking about, but I think they can send in decoys with smaller groups. The problem is drones can see everything, but they can only see on outside. They know how and where to strike but not which one when presented with multiple possibilities
But again, I don’t much about modern warfare. And there’s the fact that this wouldn’t work if there are multiple drones swarming a target
Smaller groups? Major criticism of the failed offensive was the ongoing use of small independent teams instead of the use of the western trained tactics that considered the special situation in Ukraine. They said prior to the offensive the gear will be a waste this way.
The thing is drones will have such advanced detection technology that any decoy would probably need to be deceptive on multiple spectrums of light, infrared, electronic and magnetic signals, etc. in order to effectively draw significant fire. You are on the right path that the obvious solution is advanced cloaking or camouflage, but hiding next to dummies made of wood or blown up balloons are probably a by-gone Era.
Speaking to a tank commander, who knows his stuff, brings real understanding of the issue in question.
Does he though? The M1 was made for how the United States fights wars. We'd have dominance in the air and in the electronic spectrum. We'd go in en masse. So this is not comparable.
Idk...but this much I'll tell you those Abrams are the obsolete M1A1 models the US phased them out back in the mid 90'a and Moth balled them They were either going to scraped them or just ship them to Ukraine.
Is very good interview. I was in the navy and I used to drive the assault boats. The LCM 8 boat was big enough to handle the M60, but the Abrams wouldn't fit.So they end up phasing out the landing craft mechanized. went more for the air cushion assault craft. The Marine Corps understands what's going on.They've changed a lot of their tactics including the armor, they've phased it out. Is the tank obsolete? With all the new technology, only time well tell.
Most of tank losess seem to occur, when lone tank is driving in open field or road. Which makes sense, even the best weapon is vulnerable on its own. All those tanks in Ukraine, Russian or NATO, aren't bad tanks, they are just often used in a way, that makes them vulnerable. Not to mention, that we usually only see those vechicles at the end of their life, but we rarely see what they managed to accomplish before that. Imo, tanks nowdays should be used in small groups, close enough to support each other, but not close enough for all of them to be damaged by single artilery barrage. Also, non-kinetic ways of destroying or neutralising drones and other smart munitions will definetly be very important part of future warfare.
things are different when your enemy can actually fire back
Didn’t they swap to individual because they were loosing too many when grouping up, but good points
Large convoys were sent during the unsuccessful Spring Counter-offensive.
So you're saying they should do what they did in the surprise counter offensive again?
@@darkstonefire They've been doing it since before that but yes. The Russians hit any heavy concentration of forces.
So when did training have you not have the hatches close/combat lock?
You simply cannot defend against a dozen tiny drones coming from five different direction. As nobody has solved this threat yet, the concept of the "tank" as a breakthrough and assault weapon is on hold for the time being.
This was really informative and eye-opening. Thank you!
#1 Don't leave hatches open on submarines or tanks.
the real issue is that they brought the wrong tank to the wrong war. This is a war of attrition and a slug fest. Numbers are the most important factor. 30 abrams vs 1000 t72?
There's that, and a lot of American doctrine is based around their being a carrier strike group or in the case of Europe an air force base in range to offer support. There's no B1's to go after the tanks nor F16's to hunt helicopters or air defenses.
They're not fighting 1000 T72s. They're fighting drones, mines and artillery.
@@alexsitaras6508even if their was those things, MiG-31s and S-500s would counter the bombers and S-400s, S-300s, Su-35S and Su-30SM to counter F-16s. Also Europe has numerous air bases.
@@SergyMilitaryRankings I probably could've been more succinct and said that Abrams works as a part of a doctrine that has massive emphasis on air dominance. We still don't really know what a 21st century airforce with a sizeable 5th gen fleet looks like in action against another large airforce.
@@viktoriyaserebryakov2755look up T-72 destroys Abrams.
The m1 Abram is a tankmeant for combined arms warfare and with such price and complexity of logistics it can only suffer in scenariod of attrition and trenchy warfare
so you mean it was designed to never be shot at?
Bro what are you talking about?
It's a tank that has a gun and can shoot
How the fuck is it a liability,
The Ukrainians have a separate line of logistics for western stuff.
So I doubt it's a liability for the rest of the army.
Problem is combined arms dosnt work in ukraine, too many drones and a combined brigade is an easy target to spot and a large target for artillery fire. Combined arms only really works when you have dominance in all realms of armor, infantry, sky and sea. Neither side controls the skies which means that both sides have been easily able to saturate the frontlines with artillery making combined arms warfare almost impossible. The current way to get around this without immense losses is simply by fielding smaller troops and sending armor alone, its better to loose a few troops or a single tank then to loose a whole brigade in seconds.
The greatest example of combined warfare is how Wagner got mauled by the americans in syria. The combination of land artillery with air power to simply shell the enemy into absolute oblivion. But it wouldnt have been the same if america had no air superiority.
@@trevorsutherland5263 no it means the weapon was designed to fight in a battle with other elements to cover its weakness like IFVs and infantry protecting its flanks so the tank can focus on enemy armor instead of infantry.
They should have sent some tanks designed for non-combined arms warfare, like the Bob Semple.
the abrams was designed for combined arms use, that means with scouts, infantry, air assets etc.. it was never meant for solo use period.
Great interview, I’m not sure why he apologised at the end.
He tried to be fair but western equipment always benefits from positive bias and from the assumption that it’s flawless and if it gets destroyed it’s because “times changed” or “another technology came up”.
I just note that Russian or Chinese equipment would never benefit of the same excuses if/when it is struggling in battle.
welcome to ram ranch
Hello brainlet
5:30
To be fair: the first cope cages were not installed on Russian tanks to prevent drone attacks, it was done to "protect" against Javelins and NLAWs and whatnot. That's why it was named a "cope cage" - because it just coping instead of actually being viable to work with. (This is also how we got silly shit like that one tank that someone welded a steel tube to and put a container full of hot coals in on the end of it thinking it would throw off heat-seeking munitions.)
Are Ukrainians 'correctly' using a tank developed specifically with the United States doctrine and war fighting capabilities in mind?
No, lol.
Thanks for listening to my TED talk.
(Love you really red. ❤)
I mean, how are they supposed to? United States doctrine assumes that they already have Air dominance in the sky, neither Ukraine or Russia have that.
Abarms isn't made for anything but a flat open terrain sand-dune, with full air control
The armor for the abrams was taken out in Ukraine, the DU plates and everything else was taken out and made it extremely watered down. The crew also is usually also extremely untrained and these abrams are always on solo missions, abrams are only at their best effectiveness when they are in squads with infantry
Yeah, its an obsolete version of the Abrams. Literally the oldest version still available, yet it still does its job. There are like 4 Abrams tanks that have been proven to be taken out, with another 3 unproven, so about 7 total.
Now lets look at the other side, that have lost between 300 and 800 T-72s, 80s and 90s. In economical comparison, every old Abrams is about 2 times more expensive than the average Russian tank. So once there are about 150-400 destroyed Abrams tanks, we can say that the situation is even. But that won´t happen because Ukraine never got more than 31.
Huh I haven't heard this but it makes sense as we did the same to Iraq and they did clear out ISIS though lost a few abrams too.
I think what people need to understand, the Abrams isn’t a super tank, never was and it wasn’t designed to be. It has the same venerability as any other tank. Most of the time you see a lone Abrams fighting… a tank alone is a target and usually a easy hit. They are meant to be teamed up with support infantry and other armored assets
Unless you could make it all of titanium. Which would be unattainable.
if we dont give them the numbers and quantities and backup equipment then how the hell are they supposed to use them as they should
things are different when your enemy can actually fire back
Stingy west, the real goal for the west is to keep ukraine in the war, not to win the war.
@@zayedbinimran957 buddy, the losses on the russian side are astronomicaly higher than the ukrainian side. the americans tought they would lose allot more abrams tanks because of the overwhelming majority of russian tanks and airpower.
the tech is showing its superiority over and over and over. but they dont have the numbers to do what they have to do.
@@noidontthinksolol so? russia can easily replace its losses. 1 abrams costs the same as 8 t 72s or 2 and a half t 80s. russian tanks are cheap so that they can easily be replaced because in war there are losses.
who said the americans thought they would lose more? have you read the american minds?
russians have been adapting to the rapidly changing enviroment of the battlefield. this isnt 2022 anymore where ukraine can do massive counterattack and russia will lose hundreds of vehicles
@@zayedbinimran957 the US and nato dont give a fuck about how much the equipment consts. we have more than enough money.
and you clearly havent been paying attention
I don't want to bother with the full quotation, but immediately around the 3 min mark he starts saying how it's not a question of if the tank is suited and then says it's "what does the modern scale of battlefield look like these days" buddy...that's *literally the same as being asked if it is suited to Ukraine* My guy is being asked "does this tanks capabilities mean it can be effective in this current war" and then says "the tank will go wherever you put it, so it's about if the battlefield lets the tank be effective" Yes. That's what suited means. What you have ended up answering is "can it *operate* in X place?" the correct answer to that question *is* 'it goes where it's told and we make it work'.
Grenade dropping drones are almost exclusively used to clean up damaged/abondoned tanks. Its the cumulative charge drones like lancet that are the real tank threat.....thats scary how far behind on tactics US army seems to be. Worrying about grenade dropping drines should be a distant afterthought when training/preparing for drone vs tank combat
With the poor performance of Abrams in Ukraine i think everyone started realizing that it is just a normal tank, just overpriced. The same goes for Leos
They are good tanks and have better than average crew survival. There are no tanks right now that are able to completely counter the threat of loitering munitions.
Yea the Abrams are better than most or all of the Russian tanks. But it's a war, you're going to lose some.
@@georgesimon1760 i dont see differences, in both cases just the number makes the strenght. We haven't seen a sigle video of an abrams or leopard hitting or destroying a russian tank. Not a single one, just atgm's or drones (who wrecked western tanks the same as russian ones)
they face a real enemy...
Every MBT should have anti air/drone system on top of the turret, thats the solution I could think of. Radar, 30mm gun, APS and anti drone laser, it will be HEAVY but you dont have a choice.
Not only heavy but also explosive...
We are more likely to see return of concept of multiturret land battleship. Otherwise it's going to be on separate vehicle altogether.
Russian already had that on their tanks now FYI. So it's possible
@@Retronyx yeah but their EW on T72 is just a bunch of stuff tied together with a diesel generator strap on to the side. And I think the Ukrop hit that tank, so it didn't work 100%. The problem is mobile, dedicated EW for individual tanks is still very new. Maybe in a few months something would be better.
30mm? Are you insane? Even a 5.45/5.56 would do just fine or even just shotgun bucks. Also thing is that those systems would cause a bit of a friendly fire issue
The Abrams X is good start, since its base weight is only at 60 tons, just put on additional stuff on it and make the armor of the crew capsule much thicker on the top. Again it will still end up heavy but the latest SEPV3 upgrade of the M1A2 had its weight end up at 80 tons already. Then just put some mine plow on it and you have an actual breacher tank, followed by the more agile tank which is the Booker.
Currently 3 major threats to tanks in Ukraine and mostly applied ot other places elsewhere : Drones, ATGM, and Mines. The Abraham is designed to take some ATGM hits but that is constantly changing in the game of cat and mouse. It may be able to avoid mines if the operators know where these are. Drones is another question.
Active defense can be used against Drones and ATGM. Mines is trickier question but the good thing is it is not always available to the defenders, or can be debatably neutralized or bypass somehow.
Tanks in a dense forest like in SE Asia or Latin America will not be easy to be hit with drones.
Some atgm hits? 😅 a Saudi Abrams was taken out by a single atgm, an Iranian knock-off of Russian made designed in 1970.
And who tf is stupid enough to drive a 70 tons behemoth in a forest let alone dense tropical rainforest in SE Asia/Latin America?
It makes sense for the Ukrainians to use their tanks like the Germans did in Normandy as they are in similar situations such as they are both on the defensive. And the primary threat was coming from the air. The Germans faced fighter bombers and the Ukrainians are facing drones.
You are reaching
man i was racing drones fpv First Person View back in 2013 and the video they use is old school to analoge.and a good pilot well even a normal racer like me could easy go under the drone cage and still hit the tank
Abrahms are very effective against goad herders in long dress and sandles with a AK 47... But in a real hardcore war they are just normal tanks and gets destroyed aswell...
Wait, wait...soon they will used the f16 wrong I think.....😂
Yep😅
exactly....🤫
they won't use jets at all, because there's so much anti-air everywhere on both sides. Anything sufficiently large WILL get shot down, so it's not even worth trying
The impact of drones v battle tank is a sort of "David and Goliath" scenario.. Brings back to mind an old safe-breakers principle: ... "If man can make it - man can break it".
In the last 2 months:
Ukraine lost 4 outdated Abrams - "oooo worst tank ever, Ukies use them wrong!"
Russia lost 15 super modern T90Ms - "best tank in the world!!!" 🤣
No they’re not usin it wrong it’s the first time the Abrams has been in contact with actual military power that is more than a few terrorists shooting aks at it
Brutal but true.
A lot of words to say absolutely nothing
40mm x 365mm HEVT with full IRST search and track capability's on an IFV with the tanks (preferably with the latest Gen Thermal Imagers plus anything to track the signals being sent between drones and operators...even if is just able to alert that drones are nearby would be useful)
Damn, 25 seconds ago.
Gotta love how he doesnt even mention any of the drawbacks of the abrams like its weight, range etc...
These are mk 1 Abrahams, powered by gas turbine engines therefore the have a high temp profile an easy target for drones. they can only spend 8 hours in the field.
Yes the Abrams has a heat profile so giant that i bet the russians spot them from earth orbit when they are on the move. The 8 hour capability and range is great minus idk what they were thinking when they designed this thing.
As said: Hightec can't be used to it's limits if you never worked with it
At 11:57 the term he's trying to reference is Large Scale Combat Operations (LSCO, pronounced as Lisco).
Imagine what it'll be like in the future. Swarms of small fast drones that are autonomous or semi autonomous. Will lock on to individual soldiers using heat signature. You might even be able to flood areas with tiny drones that lie dormant for days or weeks until a target shows up. Think of soldiers walking through a forest being attacked by insect sized drones that inject a nerve agent.
I thought this guy would be a dope who just castigated the Ukrainians for not sticking to US doctrine, but he was actually extremely thoughtful and a very interesting interview. You can tell he’s given this a lot of consideration. Great video!
Great interview! I agree 100% with all he said. I see the roof atop of tanks becoming the norm and I also see bullets for assault rifles with spread becoming popular(Having one mag of this would be very useful) Remember drones have come to stay
Doctrine means also working with infantrymen, air support, it’s a lot more than just tank / Armor maneuver. SSG should have more conversations with his officer. Never just fire from one position shoot move and communicate.
It’s almost like tanks made for the us military are best used under the assumption it has the rest of the us military, and 90% of these comments didn’t even watch the first 2 minute of the video
Drones are doing to armor what aircraft did to the battleship in WWII. Until a drone countermeasure is developed armor is not going to be an effective in combat to the scale it had been before.
When we trained them, they would stream line a lot of the instruction rather than echoing the doctrine. I don't blame them. Not enough time to train them but they had what they had and ran with what they deemed was necessary.
the artillery one is huge. now artillery crews tehmselfes cna get REAL TIME footage of htere rounds hitting, or missing and teh effects of ther hits. Before that artilelry squads had to relie on artillery observers that tell them stuff like "yeah looks like all enemys are defeated." now they get a BIRDS EYE VIEW of wether or noth the target is aktually destroyed, and if not can send another group of shells on the target.
Where in the past artillery would, even if it hit, sometimes leave equipment nad personell operational, now thats not the case anymore, or if it is then they and there infantry commrads, know that the traget is still up and running.
This is the closest thing we've seen to modern technologically advanced adversaries fighting each other since WW2. Near-peer warfare will produce near-peer losses.
Doctrinally it means working together with Combined Arms, with artillery, CAS, and infantry.
The way the British hyped the Abrams, Challenger and Leopards tanks, it looks as if the tanks are practically invincible and doesn't need much manual intervention to engage the enemy.
What about an active protection system for whatever you want to protect from drone strikes that is based on a fully automatic 12 gauge firing steel shot? Kind of like a C.I.W.S. but with shot instead of 20mm.
Tanks and other frontline vehicles will have to be like ships that have EW/ESM and a CIWS-like counter-SUAS/LM weapon that's automated, with a mini-radar and high ROF MG or cannon that fires prox-fused/programmed airburst rounds.
I am starting to think that SHORAD system are going to be very important again, that can keep up with these battlegroup tanks. As a counter to drones
Didnt the Ukrainians THEMSELVES say that the newer T-72 variants were overall better tanks then the M1s?
Also, the question of crew survivability tends to be greately oversimplified by westerners. They seem to think that if the turret does not fly, it means the entire crew survived. It is nonsense.
First of all, what goes on inside the tank when it gets penetrated by a shaped charge tends to not be exactly "healthy" for the human body... To put it mildly. So just because the turret did not fly off, does not mean that all of the crew survived a blast of molten metal inside.
Secondly, assuming the crew did survive the hit and got out, that does not automatically mean they are just going to hop into another tank like in a video game. The crew that survived their tank getting knocked out are now stranded in a combat zone armed only with their sidearms. Most likely contested by drones and enemy artillery. That is NOT a very pretty situation to find yourself in. During the previous wars, the Americans always had total air and artillery superiority, and there were no drones. If a tank got disabled and the crew got out, they could simply be extracted by a nearby Bradley and their damaged tank could easily be recovered and repaired. In Ukraine, that does not fly. In a zone contested by enemy drones, any attempt to extract the crew risks that vehicle getting hit as well. And any attempt to recover damaged tanks poses a big risk for the recovery vehicle and crew.
The proliferation of drones and real-time battlefield surveillance has made the recovery of damaged tanks and their crews more dangerous then ever.
This is literally how the infamous "Bradley square" in Ukraine came to be. The Ukrainians sent a platoon of Leopard 2A6 tanks supported by a platoon of Bradleys to attack the Russain positions. They got pinned down in a minefield and the Leopards got disabled. The Ukrainians then sent in ANOTHER platoon of Bradleys to extract the survivors, which resulted in that platoon falling prey to Russian attack helicopters that arrived to provide CAS for their defending troops.
Im kidna amazed that ppl consider drones a new concept...
I mean I remember being a kid playing EVE online 20 years ago already knowing that swarm of drones can rip apart a battleship as long as you dont take out operator
so its funny how war tech progresses mostly only during war
and in peace time you get a lot of cool things but they are expensive and not practical while in actual war you get to see ppl useing cheap and practical things
People calling abrams trash after a few losses is just as stupid as people saying t90m is trash after one got disabled by a bradley. There are so many factors that go into one engagement that it is simply stupid to attribute a loss to simply bad equipment. Need to have much larger sample sizes to make such a conclusion. If it was a straight up comparison between the t90m and m1a1, I would say that t90m is probably better in a one on one tank battle due to modern active protection systems and optics. However, abrams has better crew survivability. Against drones, I would say abrams is better because no matter what you are pretty much going to lose. The only difference is whether or not you come out alive or not.
Plus maybe the tank needs to be complimented with IFV's as the main assault platform, in a pair or small attack group of one tank and two Bradley IFV's? But it's the drone warfare like the hypersonic antiship missile that will force a change in deployment thinking.
To expand, the US Navy reliance on these big GR Ford super carrier task forces maybe be bit of a too vulnerable target. Instead I can see a wolf pack type squadron being deployed of maybe two attack subs and two or three AEGIS destroyers to cover a threat sort of like the equivalent of an infantry fire team.
In my opinion drones (like fpv) are the „new tanks“. They have proven to make more or less everything (including tanks) obsolete/ineffective, just like the Tank did 100 years ago in regards to trench warfare.
Just as an infantryman armed with a 'sticky bomb' was a threat to armor, drones armed with shaped-charge, anti-tank munitions add yet another dimension to the fight. A drone with a RPG warhead is a heck of a lot cheaper than a Javelin missile, just don't tell General Dynamics or Raytheon.
Until the UA has sufficient number of main battle tanks to form adequate number of armored/regiments, brigades & divisions, they’ll use these tanks sparingly on piecemeal battles mainly for infantry support. They can’t risk losing most of these tanks in one major operation to spearhead an offensive thrust as doctrinally done by US and allied forces. UA will also need a capable air force component to complement combined force tactics that the West has employed. In the meantime, UA has and will continue to adapt and modify its tactics as best it could with what it has in material and manpower.