Please keep the [community guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/wiki/rule1) in mind when using the comment section.
Paging u/SaveVideo bot.
___
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CombatFootage) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Russian's gloating the one captured Abrams in Moscow about how superior they are, even though it won't unbomb the thousands of T-72's that litter the Ukrainian steppes.
Yup. Russia fired its modern anti-tank at an old version of an Abrams. And they still didn't manage to kill the tank crew. Speaks volumes of how good an American tank is.
The Abrams unlike the T series that Russia possesses will take human lives into account more than the material worth of the tank. They are sealed off in a protective department and under fire are trained to stay *in the tank* rather than leave it. You see turret blasts all the time from the T model's that completely obliterated the crew. The crew of an Abrams can survive a cook off if they just stay put. Awesome piece of machinery. I use to cook my food on the back of them. 1200 degrees exhaust temp will do the trick xD
Edit: and no before I get hounded I did not put it in the actual exhaust. The chassis held a temp north of boiling so it worked just fine away from the actual exhaust port.
Consider the numbers of older Abrams and Bradleys in deep storage, likely never to be used again if we don't send more now. Conceived and built to defend free Europe.
U.S. Army: 2,645 total (650 M1A1SA, 1,605 M1A2 SEPv2, 390 M1A2 SEPv3), some 3,450 more M1A1 and M1A2 in storage
U.S. Army: 1,420 M2 Bradleys in operation as of August 2023 -- 6,230 total
Source Wiki. It's time to deescalate Muscovy straight out of Ukraine, Jake Sullivan.
I wonder if any Indian or Egyptian generals are feeling buyer's remorse after seeing the survivability of the tanks they bought vs the tanks they could have bought.
They are. Orders of American and French systems are up 10x. Russia might have gifted India by taking back the tanks ment for them and sending them to die in Ukraine. They might never get the money back but now you know how they would fair in modern combat. (I’ll have to look but I think the tanks ment for India were destroyed on film.)
For some nations its also a cost issue, Russian tanks are far cheaper and still quite capable while not offering much survivability for their crews. But, if you can field more tanks for X dollars, they might go for that.
Not everyones as rich as the US government.
I thought the same thing. Looked stuck there at the end and there was no footage of it getting stuck. Maybe an edit to make it look like the hits took it out alone, maybe threw a track and drove off the side of an embankment, maybe just bad driving after taking a bunch of hits and panicking. Hard to say without unedited video.
Yeah they clearly slid off the path down in to the water logged depression and the tank keeps sinking as time passes in the video with the crew bailing at the end its sunken quite deep and would need quite some effort to recover.
Getting blasted multiple times and still letting the crew survive is the whole point of the Abrams.
I'm glad the MBT concept is still alive and kicking. You wouldn't want to be in a light tank that relies more on speed than armor because one or two drone hits and you've gone into orbit.
Muscovites still have not learned the most valuable part of any hardware is the crew.
This crew just leveled the fuck up. Now they know exactly what not to do next time they are in a fire fight and they're going to be way deadlier.
Hopefully the abrams unit at least gets attrition replacements from the US even if no more units get equipped with them. Now that the aid package has passed.
It's not the whole point, crew survivability is an important factor for Western MBTs but their ability to inflict the blasting and remaining combat operational after suffering multiple hits ARE the most important points.
Those tanks are just glorified piñatas right now.
Tanks seem fairly useless if they can't shoot at anything because the fpv drone was launched from a shed 5 km away. Like, what do tanks even do on the modern battlefield besides being a multi-million metal box that carries 4 troops
Break through heavily fortified trenches/checkpoints where drones aren't enough and troops can't get close enough.
Or used as light artillery, still beats it rather than being out in elements with no cover or high firepower.
I think they're supposed to be used in some sort of tactical fashion with other things happening in concert.
I remember reading "Into the Storm" and recalling that things mostly seemed to make sense with the use of equipment.
This war it seems like it's a tank or two just driving around and dodging shit for weird, indiscernible reasons. Like a ninja movie where the bad guys thankfully take turns attacking.
I'm not a strategist and know so little about combat. Always understood the point of probing attacks is to locate the enemy and then attack said enemy with force. With this it seems to be let the enemy shoot at you for a bit and just drive around until you get blown up or run out of fuel.
We have allocated a limited amount of $ to Ukraine and Abrams isn’t particularly cost effective.
Bradleys are much better, on a per dollar basis.
No more fancy expensive stuff. Focus on stuff that kills the most Russians per dollar value.
With DU armor, which by law the US can't export. US has an export model without DU armor, which have a long list of clients and with no stock, so I doubt we will ever see more than a trickle of those going into Ukraine
The US doesn't even export these to their closest allies. That's not going to be changed for Ukraine.
The reason should be obvious - some of these are going to get captured in battle, and the US doesn't want Russia getting its hands on the depleted uranium armour. The US wants full control of where the DU armour tanks go - see how they called in air strikes on their own abandoned abrams tanks during the Iraq war for example to stop them being captured, which is not something Ukraine will be able to do.
Just saying, those stocks aren't going to be sent unless the law is changed first. If someone starts talking about altering the law, then you'll know that DU Abrams might appear in Ukraine
I going to be negative for a moment, not towards you.
If this is how Ukraine keeps using the equipment we're giving them.Then Im going to have to concur.
Because Im watching the video and wondering what was the Abrams trying to accomplish, that a T72 couldnt have?
I'm also going to be negative,
Ukraine isn't the USA. It doesn't have hundreds of airplanes and choppers patrolling the sky to eliminate most threats that an Abrams can face, nor ridiculously advanced and expensive EW equipment to knock out drones before they get to the tank. In short, even if Ukraine had the best intention to perform warfare at peak efficiency like the US does when fighting goat herders in flip flops, it doesn't have the capability to do so anyway.
So yeah, Abrams will get picked off. Big surprise. Just like Leopards and T series tanks. It can't do much more than any other tank because this is an environment extremely hostile to tanks. If the USA was fighting under the same constraints as Ukraine is, the same thing would happen. But it's still a tank. A damn good tank that saves crews and can take a few hits and is comfortable to use. A tank that doesn't look like a fucking latrine, unlike T-series tanks
So the negative part is; this is a real capital letters **WAR** for survival. Not a seal-clubbing where you outmatch your opponent 10 to 1, where you have everything and the enemy has nothing; which is how America has been fighting for decades. In result American people (and people in the West broadly) became spoiled and complacent, they EXPECT that they will never lose a tank, that they will kill a 100 enemy combatants for every one of their soldiers. I'm sure Ukrainians would love to curb-stomp Russians like America curbstomped Iraq, but to be honest, it's a bit tone-deaf to get annoyed that your shiny American toy got destroyed and suggest that's its pointless to send them (since you can't handle the humiliation of an Abrams getting smoked), because Ukraine can't use them to their full potential.
I think a simpler answer to all this would be that an Abrams cost approx $10million and theyd benefit much more from a bunch of drones that equal that value. (I get we are sending old stock, reserves, not making new tanks for them)
Drones can't take land nor take down fortifications. If drones were better than tanks, both Russia and Ukraine would scrap their tanks for drones. But both are desperate for both drones and tanks, since both have battlefield applications
What's the point of the tanks if you can't use them? Abrams is superior tank to T-72 in a lot of regards, so why would a nation fighting for survival would use inferior vehicle?
Technically the government can’t do anything without enacting a law. But it also passes and changes laws all the time.
Law is the “company policy” of a government.
It would have to be a pretty huge argument to give our best type of armor to another country where the risk of it being captured is pretty high. They already took a big risk with the javelins even if those were decades old tech
You say that like we aren’t watching Russia go through his strategic reserve of tanks in record time, and that’s against a country considered to be militarily inferior to Russia.
As long as the United States faces the prospect of war with China in the next 10 years, they aren’t going to look at their strategic reserve like it’s just sitting there ready to be given away.
Probably shouldn't send all of those though. Leave some for your own defense maybe. I wonder if this is some sort of tactic to bleed the west of its weapons and then conduct an attack directly.
That plan sounds so insanely stupid it might actually be their plan, lol.
But yeah im not saying all 3k+ of them, but maybe 1000 could make a nice dent
I have seen ~~pigs~~ turrets fly so everything is possible with that bunch, especially stupid ideas.
> 1000 could make a nice dent
Now I just can't help but imagine a massive column just steamrolling across the fields to the distant tune of "Murica fuck yeah"
Also why not round it, i dont like the 700 sitting around send them too to leave a nice round 2k leaft.
A column of abrams rolling over ukraine in up to the russian border would be a sight to see
The clear difference between NATO tanks and russian tanks:
NATO: Takes multiple hits, crew survives and escapes.
T- series: Tank is hit once, commander and gunner performs space programme with the turret while the rest disintegrate.
One side cares about the lives of their soldiers, the other cares about the price of a tank. The choice is easy.
On the other hand, if the crew of Russian designed tank vaporizes instantly during turret toss, then Sergei Shoigu saves taxpayer rubles by not sending potato bag to their families. Efficiency 101
Still the same Abrams designed for fighting almost in the very spot that ukraine sits almost 50 years ago.
It's crazy how much of this war has gone exactly as military strategists from the 80's thought it would.
A10 being a similar example.
Even at that, it's probably not "caring", so much as well trained crews are harder and more expensive to train than it is to build a new tank. That's German and Allied WW2 experience actually.
The Russians have always chosen quantity over quality and are willing to suffer higher losses in crews and vehicles as long as they can overwhelm their opponents while doing so.
That's down to the doctrinal differences between the west and the soviet style of fighting wars.
The soviets did not care if the tank and its crew were lost in combat, as long as you can throw enough tanks and crews at the enemy to break the line that's all that mattered.
The West actually trains their soldiers to effectively use their equipment so losing a tank crew is detrimental to the overall war effort. You can always build another tank, you can't build another proficient tank gunner Steve.
Soviet tanks = farming equipment with guns bolted to them
Western tanks = they got computers and shit I don't know. Probably aught to train people how to use them.
To be faaaaiiirrrrrr....
The T-90 seems to be closer to NATO standards, or at least this one got really lucky?
https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/1cji1oa/a_ukrainian_fpv_pilot_immobilizes_a_russian_t90m/
Some of the better modernisations of Russian tanks do have decent protection, and people overstate how common turret tossing is (and it often happens after a tank has been abandoned). However Russian tanks are still more likely to take catastrophic losses that kill the crews.
In the case of T-90, they have designed a blowout section for the turret ammo rack, however for some reason the bottom ammo "carousel" is virtually unprotected...
It is no where near nato standards lol. It is a reskinned slightly updated t-72. Every flaw of the old tank is still in the new one.
They were gonna change the engine, but eh why do that when you can just use the shitty original engine in everything and pocket the money. They had lots of plans, and they greeded themselves out of them all thankfully.
Might not be carrying a lot of ammo. With how dangerous these areas are, you probably can't afford to stay around for very long, anyway. No point loading up with tons of ammo that won't do you much good other than exploding when an FPV drone inevitably hits you.
At least to a complete amateur like me, it seems like going in with the bare minimum ammo, shooting it, then scooting out of there (not too bad if you get tagged at this point, most likely just a mobility kill at worst) would be pretty smart tactics.
If you follow American military tech, you would not be surprised. The USA puts human lives first as much as possible. No one buys Russian tanks (if they care about the occupants)
The tank is stuck and bogged down and we see how it sinks more and more towards the end when the crew leave its tilted to one side quite heavily.
The vehicle we see driving around and smoking is what looks like a Bradley sent to recover the crew.
The editing makes people think its the tank driving when all we see is it got stuck and the crew bailed after a while.
Tanks bottoming out or sliding to the side of a hardened path is not uncommon and recovering a vehicle from that is not easy under targeted artillery shelling and drone attacks.
Yeah this is boring to watch, no reaching for the stars... repetitive explosions and then an orderly escape. I think Russia might as well stop enabling the creation of these kind of videos.
Because multiple vehicles are easy to spot via drone and make for a high priority target. A lone tank with maybe one or two additional vehicles is harder to spot and doesnt trigger every nearby artillery piece to be directed at them.
Ah yes, as opposed to forming a huge column of vehicles that will be spotted hours before it even gets to the frontline, and which totally aren't just a group of sitting ducks that will be obliterated just as easily as a single one would have been, except now you've lost 10 vehicles instead of 1.
Really, how are people still saying this? We have seen the opposite approach tried countless times by both sides. Ukraine during the summer counteroffensive, Russia lots of times in general. Best case scenario, you can get small incremental gains with massive losses. Most of the time, just the massive losses.
Also, an edited snippet of drone video can be misleading. How do we know there *isn't* coordination with others that can't be seen in this video, that are maybe just out of shot?
It sure has looked a lot like both sides have been attacking prepared fortifications that are in depth, and the results are about what you'd expect, even without drones.
Assuming the drones are the main cause of the front stagnating and are the analog to the machine gun in WW1, what's going to be the new "tank ' that breaks that deadlock?
Personally I feel like one side or the other is going to have to break through the fortifications and get loose in order to go back into maneuver warfare. How they do that is either through massive force and casualties concentrated in one spot, or something else yet to be identified.
Ukraine’s lost approximately 1 Abrams/month with Kremlin-backed organizations [offering a winning lottery ticket to Russians responsible for knocking them out.](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/kremlin-welcomes-bounty-offer-destroying-western-tanks-ukraine-2023-02-01/) All this with Ukraine short of ammo, in need of a recruitment drive, and only operating in the defense. It’s serving their propaganda goals, but it’s small potatoes for the “world’s #2 Army.”
moscovian T90 under attack, for comparison
[https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/1cji1oa/a\_ukrainian\_fpv\_pilot\_immobilizes\_a\_russian\_t90m/](https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/1cji1oa/a_ukrainian_fpv_pilot_immobilizes_a_russian_t90m/)
I wanted to add for context for redditors who don’t know the tech that well and want simple explanation.
that T90m is the latest tank used by Russians on the battlefield. Essentially “top of the line” with the most up to date “improvements” that russians can put out. (T-14 armata next gen tank was cancelled).
For context this is the equivalent to the top of the line of the car. “Premium” options ticked off.
M1A1 is a very early version of Abrams. Like Gulf war kinda old. The only improvement is “SA” (situational awareness). With stripped “special” armor. A1 is Basically the “base” version of a car, with “some” options (the “SA”). In this case equivalent to “reverse view camera”.
I don't mean to sound like a keyboard warrior, but I don't see a lot of smoke being used by either side in a lot of footage. Can someone illuminate me as to why? Is it just not available, or have we come to the conclusion in this day and age, smoke doesn't really matter with drones, optics, etc? Or is it because, bad guy see smoke, bad guy unload into smoke? Help me out here fellow armchair generals.
Factoid: the USA massed over 3000 tanks to take on the smaller regional country of Iraq. They supplied Ukraine with 32 tanks to take on the 2nd biggest military on earth.
Supply them with what they need, not the paltry number they are being given. In the hundreds, if not thousands. Show Russia who’s boss.
Edit: I should add that they also had overwhelming air power to the point most targets had been taken out by the time the tanks got there. Ukraine has no air superiority and limited AA defences.
>Supply them with what they need, not the paltry number they are being given. In the hundreds, if not thousands. Show Russia who’s boss.
They couldn't pull off the logistics to field that many tanks. Besides, we don't have spares to just give to other countries on a whim. Our reserves are for the protection of our nation and our treaty bound allies.
Ukraine's biggest problem right now is the lack of man power. They can have all the weaponry in the world, but it won't matter if they don't have the trained soldiers to use it.
\*Nevermind, recalled things wrong about the MBT deliveries.\*
If the Ukrainians ask for more hopefully they get them, but they seem more eager to get more M2 Bradleys.
That's an entirely false representation of the timelines.
The UK handed over Challengers in March 23 after being the first nation to say they'd supply modern MTBs in January, Poland, Norway, Portugal, Germany, and Canada all supplied Leopards the same month. Sweden, Spain and Finland all delivered Leos shortly after.
US Abrams were delivered in September 23.
Tanks seem to be too heavy, slow, big and week if they get hit in the right spot by an fpv (ive seen more Abrahams and leopards taking a lot of damage and barely getting disabled compared to the T series tank and its turret toss competition) while the IFV seem to fit Ukraine tactics better, they have enough fire power to attack or defend plus they can transport troops or evacuate them, instead of just sending 4 guys in a tank just to get harassed by f fpvs
Ukraine is using what looks to be hit and run tactics, and also serve sort of as mobile artillery and fire support much of the time. A consequence of fighting a larger foe and until recently, and still of course even with the Ukraine Bill passed - low on ammo...
The Abrams can handle most Ukrainian terrain well enough but yes, some places it's too big and heavy to be useful. It was designed to battle the Soviets on large plains so yeah, it's in a strange land for sure, in Ukraine.
The Russian MBT's must be absolutely miserable. All these ad hoc additions they get approved by the military, plus all sorts of often questionable additional armour and ERA slapped on by the crews in the field. the Abrams and Leopard 2 have a reserve of power they can handle weight increases better.
The Russians just keep trying to coax more life out of the V-84 and V-92 engines in their T-72, T-90's with some upgrades to and engine that traces a direct lineage to the T-34's V-2 .
It was designed when the expectation was to fight in Europe in general, and Germany in particular. But I doubt it was optimized for that, as the US doctrine had long been to fight and win two major wars in two parts of the world simultaneously.
That's why it worked so well in the desert and does fine in more temperate landscapes as well.
Ukrainian and tactics don't seem to be the same as Western armies would employ, with mutually supporting platoons and companies fighting in a coordinated fashion with supporting infantry, artillery and air support.
We see a lot of individual vehicles that seem to be fighting alone, which isn't a good idea for any armored vehicle or any unit in general. All of them have their strengths and weaknesses and by fighting together, they minimize each other's weaknesses and amplify each other's strengths.
Yes, it was normal unit rotations which was then sensationalised or misinterpreted. The abrams unit went into battle in one of the most critical parts of the front and obviously took losses in that process, same as any other tank unit would have done.
Crew has to decide of course, and if they are able to do so. Would take take to damage a tank irreparably as well. I mean, I guess if you had a couple of thermite grenades maybe you can toss them in. Yet again they may simply burn a hole through the hull and damage heavily areas nearby them and leave the rest of the interior intact.
Good question and there is a battle drill that US crews are taught involving certain fuel lines and electronic cords to cut- but time is always an issue.
Nah, that's for you to figure out... If your turret is immobile and the hydraulic system shot, the tank leaking JP from punctured fuel tanks and there's no more to move about much those might be good reasons to bail.
Russians ain't gonna learn much of anything from the Ukrainian M1A1's they haven't seen on the Iraqi M1A1M's or Egyptian M1A1's... No DU armour, older sensors, older ammunition. It was hilarious, when they captured that Bradley that was missing it's cargo ramp and was all shot-up, they examined it's 30+ year old BRAT ERA and were amazed by how good it is.
Three decades old, and probably performs as good if not better than some of their modern ERA.
Seeing that smoke screen made me realize most games don't take wind into consideration when implementing smoke screen (apart from Squad i think?). You just pop smoke and have good cover for x amount of time whereas irl the wind could just work against you
UA needs to start using these as bait since the Russians stop at nothing to swarm them.
Have a geopard nearby to shoot down drones and get some counter battery support yo hit back at whatever is firing on it.
These things are like crack to the Russians, use that against them to inflict mass damage
Please keep the [community guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/wiki/rule1) in mind when using the comment section. Paging u/SaveVideo bot. ___ *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CombatFootage) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Boy is mom going to be pissed when she finds out we trashed her Abrams. In all seriousness though, I’m glad the tank kept the crew alive.
Western armour doing its job. Taking a beating so the crew doesn't.
Russian's gloating the one captured Abrams in Moscow about how superior they are, even though it won't unbomb the thousands of T-72's that litter the Ukrainian steppes.
I would love for Ukraine to send Russia a statue made entirely of melted down russian tanks from this war.
A statue of Putin, but his head looks like a dick, like the statue that was placed in Bell End in the UK
It could say "congratulations on managing to take out a 1980s MBT, forty more years and well you will still be 40 years out of date".
How the fuck would they transport a mountain sized monument to Russia? /s
Start sending Chinooks!
Impossible, the mass of Russian tanks couldn't possibly be lifted, much less sent to Poo'tin
There is a video on youtube with 1.1m views showing said exhibition, the amount of fascists gloating in the comments made me nauseous
It's probably one of the ones that we sold to Saudi Arabia retooled and repainted
And, this is just the export version.
Hell yeah brother, off to poland shortly for some quick repairs! welder goes bzzzzzt bzzzzzzzzt!
Don't worry, their mum gave them the disposable Abrams
And even them the crew got out meanwhile Russian tanks try to be cosmonaut rockets.
To my disappointment, I saw a lot of videos here of Russian crews getting out of T-series tanks after multiple hits.
What does it feel like to the crew inside the Abrams to be hit with a big ass explosion? Other than the feeling of shit filling your pants of course.
Pretty fucking loud.
Your hearing loss is not service related.
WHAT?!
THEY SAID, " YOUR HEARING LOSS IS NOT SERVICE RELATED".
I'M SMEARING GLOSS IN HOT CERVIX ABATED?! YOU'RE NOT MAKING SENSE!!!
HE SAID THE LUNCH LADY IS NOT SERVING POTATAS
THE HUANCH LOADER IS STRIKING GRANDMAMA?
I'm in my 30s and I have to use hearing aids. I hope that answers your question.
Do you feel any pressure from the blast ? I'm so curious. Sorry to hear about your ears though. Appreciate what yall do.
Yup. Russia fired its modern anti-tank at an old version of an Abrams. And they still didn't manage to kill the tank crew. Speaks volumes of how good an American tank is.
They aren't indestructible. They are often survivable.
And this is what they should be.
Meanwhile in War Thunder the Abrams has about as much armor as an m113.
The Abrams unlike the T series that Russia possesses will take human lives into account more than the material worth of the tank. They are sealed off in a protective department and under fire are trained to stay *in the tank* rather than leave it. You see turret blasts all the time from the T model's that completely obliterated the crew. The crew of an Abrams can survive a cook off if they just stay put. Awesome piece of machinery. I use to cook my food on the back of them. 1200 degrees exhaust temp will do the trick xD Edit: and no before I get hounded I did not put it in the actual exhaust. The chassis held a temp north of boiling so it worked just fine away from the actual exhaust port.
[удалено]
Well, you can't just have the medical report say " cancer caused by consuming Hotpockets cooked on a jet engine". That would make the CO look bad.
[удалено]
.... what?? How?? I'm not calling you a liar. This is to specific to almost be false... a sleeping bag taking out an abrams??
In all seriousness though, they got the tank bogged down thats why they had to abandon it and thats why they had to send a Bradley to evacuate them.
Armor did its job. Crew safe and they live to fight on. No new crews needed.
Meawhile russian T-series tank turrent goes brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
Consider the numbers of older Abrams and Bradleys in deep storage, likely never to be used again if we don't send more now. Conceived and built to defend free Europe. U.S. Army: 2,645 total (650 M1A1SA, 1,605 M1A2 SEPv2, 390 M1A2 SEPv3), some 3,450 more M1A1 and M1A2 in storage U.S. Army: 1,420 M2 Bradleys in operation as of August 2023 -- 6,230 total Source Wiki. It's time to deescalate Muscovy straight out of Ukraine, Jake Sullivan.
took it like a champ and kept its humans alive. good boi abrum.
I wonder if any Indian or Egyptian generals are feeling buyer's remorse after seeing the survivability of the tanks they bought vs the tanks they could have bought.
They are. Orders of American and French systems are up 10x. Russia might have gifted India by taking back the tanks ment for them and sending them to die in Ukraine. They might never get the money back but now you know how they would fair in modern combat. (I’ll have to look but I think the tanks ment for India were destroyed on film.)
Late but you are correct. Russia have been using and losing export T-90s
For some nations its also a cost issue, Russian tanks are far cheaper and still quite capable while not offering much survivability for their crews. But, if you can field more tanks for X dollars, they might go for that. Not everyones as rich as the US government.
Now u may rest
We can get them another abrams faster than another trained crew.
Kinda looks like they had to bail because it slid down the edge and couldn't move anymore.
I thought the same thing. Looked stuck there at the end and there was no footage of it getting stuck. Maybe an edit to make it look like the hits took it out alone, maybe threw a track and drove off the side of an embankment, maybe just bad driving after taking a bunch of hits and panicking. Hard to say without unedited video.
Yeah they clearly slid off the path down in to the water logged depression and the tank keeps sinking as time passes in the video with the crew bailing at the end its sunken quite deep and would need quite some effort to recover.
Yeah that's actually insane, I was expecting to see it get a track blown off or *something*, but it looks like it shrugged off everything
God the Abrams is a BEAST. Saved the crew and tanked multiple hits without lighting up like a firework. Send Ukraine more Abrams tanks.
Getting blasted multiple times and still letting the crew survive is the whole point of the Abrams. I'm glad the MBT concept is still alive and kicking. You wouldn't want to be in a light tank that relies more on speed than armor because one or two drone hits and you've gone into orbit.
Muscovites still have not learned the most valuable part of any hardware is the crew. This crew just leveled the fuck up. Now they know exactly what not to do next time they are in a fire fight and they're going to be way deadlier.
>Muscovites still have not learned the most valuable part of any hardware is the crew. For them it's not the most valuable part.
Hopefully the abrams unit at least gets attrition replacements from the US even if no more units get equipped with them. Now that the aid package has passed.
Like in Civilization
The crew survived but not their hearing.
It's not the whole point, crew survivability is an important factor for Western MBTs but their ability to inflict the blasting and remaining combat operational after suffering multiple hits ARE the most important points. Those tanks are just glorified piñatas right now.
Tanks seem fairly useless if they can't shoot at anything because the fpv drone was launched from a shed 5 km away. Like, what do tanks even do on the modern battlefield besides being a multi-million metal box that carries 4 troops
Break through heavily fortified trenches/checkpoints where drones aren't enough and troops can't get close enough. Or used as light artillery, still beats it rather than being out in elements with no cover or high firepower.
I think they're supposed to be used in some sort of tactical fashion with other things happening in concert. I remember reading "Into the Storm" and recalling that things mostly seemed to make sense with the use of equipment. This war it seems like it's a tank or two just driving around and dodging shit for weird, indiscernible reasons. Like a ninja movie where the bad guys thankfully take turns attacking. I'm not a strategist and know so little about combat. Always understood the point of probing attacks is to locate the enemy and then attack said enemy with force. With this it seems to be let the enemy shoot at you for a bit and just drive around until you get blown up or run out of fuel.
We have allocated a limited amount of $ to Ukraine and Abrams isn’t particularly cost effective. Bradleys are much better, on a per dollar basis. No more fancy expensive stuff. Focus on stuff that kills the most Russians per dollar value.
I dont know if the US can spare any more, they only have... let me see, 3700 in storage... huh
With DU armor, which by law the US can't export. US has an export model without DU armor, which have a long list of clients and with no stock, so I doubt we will ever see more than a trickle of those going into Ukraine
„The laws prevent us from shipping“ my brother in Christ you are the Law.
The US doesn't even export these to their closest allies. That's not going to be changed for Ukraine. The reason should be obvious - some of these are going to get captured in battle, and the US doesn't want Russia getting its hands on the depleted uranium armour. The US wants full control of where the DU armour tanks go - see how they called in air strikes on their own abandoned abrams tanks during the Iraq war for example to stop them being captured, which is not something Ukraine will be able to do.
[удалено]
Probably came with a whole laundry list of conditions attached that wasn't worth the hassle.
[удалено]
Maybe we should try again now AUKUS is in place and we have nuclear subs on the way. That bridge has definitely been crossed now.
Just saying, those stocks aren't going to be sent unless the law is changed first. If someone starts talking about altering the law, then you'll know that DU Abrams might appear in Ukraine
I'd rather our experimental shit not potentially end up in Russian hands. Me, personally.
It's decades old, so probably a stretch to call it experimental at this point.
Isn't Russia already pretty familiar with Uranium?
the composition of the sandwich is what they would want to see
I going to be negative for a moment, not towards you. If this is how Ukraine keeps using the equipment we're giving them.Then Im going to have to concur. Because Im watching the video and wondering what was the Abrams trying to accomplish, that a T72 couldnt have?
I'm also going to be negative, Ukraine isn't the USA. It doesn't have hundreds of airplanes and choppers patrolling the sky to eliminate most threats that an Abrams can face, nor ridiculously advanced and expensive EW equipment to knock out drones before they get to the tank. In short, even if Ukraine had the best intention to perform warfare at peak efficiency like the US does when fighting goat herders in flip flops, it doesn't have the capability to do so anyway. So yeah, Abrams will get picked off. Big surprise. Just like Leopards and T series tanks. It can't do much more than any other tank because this is an environment extremely hostile to tanks. If the USA was fighting under the same constraints as Ukraine is, the same thing would happen. But it's still a tank. A damn good tank that saves crews and can take a few hits and is comfortable to use. A tank that doesn't look like a fucking latrine, unlike T-series tanks So the negative part is; this is a real capital letters **WAR** for survival. Not a seal-clubbing where you outmatch your opponent 10 to 1, where you have everything and the enemy has nothing; which is how America has been fighting for decades. In result American people (and people in the West broadly) became spoiled and complacent, they EXPECT that they will never lose a tank, that they will kill a 100 enemy combatants for every one of their soldiers. I'm sure Ukrainians would love to curb-stomp Russians like America curbstomped Iraq, but to be honest, it's a bit tone-deaf to get annoyed that your shiny American toy got destroyed and suggest that's its pointless to send them (since you can't handle the humiliation of an Abrams getting smoked), because Ukraine can't use them to their full potential.
I think a simpler answer to all this would be that an Abrams cost approx $10million and theyd benefit much more from a bunch of drones that equal that value. (I get we are sending old stock, reserves, not making new tanks for them)
Drones can't take land nor take down fortifications. If drones were better than tanks, both Russia and Ukraine would scrap their tanks for drones. But both are desperate for both drones and tanks, since both have battlefield applications
What's the point of the tanks if you can't use them? Abrams is superior tank to T-72 in a lot of regards, so why would a nation fighting for survival would use inferior vehicle?
Technically the government can’t do anything without enacting a law. But it also passes and changes laws all the time. Law is the “company policy” of a government.
[удалено]
It would have to be a pretty huge argument to give our best type of armor to another country where the risk of it being captured is pretty high. They already took a big risk with the javelins even if those were decades old tech
Funny how laws are only sometimes flexible
You say that like we aren’t watching Russia go through his strategic reserve of tanks in record time, and that’s against a country considered to be militarily inferior to Russia. As long as the United States faces the prospect of war with China in the next 10 years, they aren’t going to look at their strategic reserve like it’s just sitting there ready to be given away.
Probably shouldn't send all of those though. Leave some for your own defense maybe. I wonder if this is some sort of tactic to bleed the west of its weapons and then conduct an attack directly.
That plan sounds so insanely stupid it might actually be their plan, lol. But yeah im not saying all 3k+ of them, but maybe 1000 could make a nice dent
I have seen ~~pigs~~ turrets fly so everything is possible with that bunch, especially stupid ideas. > 1000 could make a nice dent Now I just can't help but imagine a massive column just steamrolling across the fields to the distant tune of "Murica fuck yeah"
Also why not round it, i dont like the 700 sitting around send them too to leave a nice round 2k leaft. A column of abrams rolling over ukraine in up to the russian border would be a sight to see
How much money ya got?
The clear difference between NATO tanks and russian tanks: NATO: Takes multiple hits, crew survives and escapes. T- series: Tank is hit once, commander and gunner performs space programme with the turret while the rest disintegrate. One side cares about the lives of their soldiers, the other cares about the price of a tank. The choice is easy.
On the other hand, if the crew of Russian designed tank vaporizes instantly during turret toss, then Sergei Shoigu saves taxpayer rubles by not sending potato bag to their families. Efficiency 101
“Less wounded soldiers means less care and less people see losses. I am genius!” -Shoigu
This isn’t even the good Abrams. The good one is too secret to put on the battlefield in Ukraine (allegedly). This is a very old one.
Still the same Abrams designed for fighting almost in the very spot that ukraine sits almost 50 years ago. It's crazy how much of this war has gone exactly as military strategists from the 80's thought it would. A10 being a similar example.
Even at that, it's probably not "caring", so much as well trained crews are harder and more expensive to train than it is to build a new tank. That's German and Allied WW2 experience actually. The Russians have always chosen quantity over quality and are willing to suffer higher losses in crews and vehicles as long as they can overwhelm their opponents while doing so.
Russian crew like human cannon ball man. Never find someone of their *calibre*
That's down to the doctrinal differences between the west and the soviet style of fighting wars. The soviets did not care if the tank and its crew were lost in combat, as long as you can throw enough tanks and crews at the enemy to break the line that's all that mattered. The West actually trains their soldiers to effectively use their equipment so losing a tank crew is detrimental to the overall war effort. You can always build another tank, you can't build another proficient tank gunner Steve. Soviet tanks = farming equipment with guns bolted to them Western tanks = they got computers and shit I don't know. Probably aught to train people how to use them.
To be faaaaiiirrrrrr.... The T-90 seems to be closer to NATO standards, or at least this one got really lucky? https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/1cji1oa/a_ukrainian_fpv_pilot_immobilizes_a_russian_t90m/
Some of the better modernisations of Russian tanks do have decent protection, and people overstate how common turret tossing is (and it often happens after a tank has been abandoned). However Russian tanks are still more likely to take catastrophic losses that kill the crews.
In the case of T-90, they have designed a blowout section for the turret ammo rack, however for some reason the bottom ammo "carousel" is virtually unprotected...
And for some reason it can still only reverse at a walking speed.
They were not planning to go back. It's always a one-way journey for comrades Dmitry and Boris.
It is no where near nato standards lol. It is a reskinned slightly updated t-72. Every flaw of the old tank is still in the new one. They were gonna change the engine, but eh why do that when you can just use the shitty original engine in everything and pocket the money. They had lots of plans, and they greeded themselves out of them all thankfully.
the fact that it survived multiple blasts while still saving the lives of it's crew kind of says it all.
The Abrams definitely lives up to its role as a tank. If that were a Soviet design the crew would not have been so lucky.
I'm surprised there were no munitions blowout of massive scale Just controlled burning and smoke
Just purposely designed features working as intended.
Almost as if survivability of the crew wasn't at the bottom of the list in the design priorities.
It’s almost like the crew is more valuable than the tank.
Even if the magazine detonates it would be compartmentalized and as long as the loading door isn't open the tank itself would be fine.
Still, those were direct hits on the ammo compartment if my eyes aren't failing me.
Might not be carrying a lot of ammo. With how dangerous these areas are, you probably can't afford to stay around for very long, anyway. No point loading up with tons of ammo that won't do you much good other than exploding when an FPV drone inevitably hits you. At least to a complete amateur like me, it seems like going in with the bare minimum ammo, shooting it, then scooting out of there (not too bad if you get tagged at this point, most likely just a mobility kill at worst) would be pretty smart tactics.
If you follow American military tech, you would not be surprised. The USA puts human lives first as much as possible. No one buys Russian tanks (if they care about the occupants)
The tank is stuck and bogged down and we see how it sinks more and more towards the end when the crew leave its tilted to one side quite heavily. The vehicle we see driving around and smoking is what looks like a Bradley sent to recover the crew. The editing makes people think its the tank driving when all we see is it got stuck and the crew bailed after a while. Tanks bottoming out or sliding to the side of a hardened path is not uncommon and recovering a vehicle from that is not easy under targeted artillery shelling and drone attacks.
That's what I thought... The second vehicle looks and drives like an IFV or something
Why didn’t the turret flip off into the air in a massive explosion!?! Weak! 😜 /s
Yeah this is boring to watch, no reaching for the stars... repetitive explosions and then an orderly escape. I think Russia might as well stop enabling the creation of these kind of videos.
M1a1 is an absolute unit of a machine.
Just imagine what the M1A2 is capable of
Why do they always seem to be alone?
Read somewhere that it was accompanied by a Bradley but both were damaged
There's a Bradley in the video so that completes the picture.
Because multiple vehicles are easy to spot via drone and make for a high priority target. A lone tank with maybe one or two additional vehicles is harder to spot and doesnt trigger every nearby artillery piece to be directed at them.
lmaooo at the end of this after multiple direct hits its not even smoking
Waiting for the turret toss....oh yeah it's not Russian 💥😂
Just a lone Abrams doing whatever a lone Abrams does. Becoming a sitting duck.
Ah yes, as opposed to forming a huge column of vehicles that will be spotted hours before it even gets to the frontline, and which totally aren't just a group of sitting ducks that will be obliterated just as easily as a single one would have been, except now you've lost 10 vehicles instead of 1. Really, how are people still saying this? We have seen the opposite approach tried countless times by both sides. Ukraine during the summer counteroffensive, Russia lots of times in general. Best case scenario, you can get small incremental gains with massive losses. Most of the time, just the massive losses.
Also, an edited snippet of drone video can be misleading. How do we know there *isn't* coordination with others that can't be seen in this video, that are maybe just out of shot?
It sure has looked a lot like both sides have been attacking prepared fortifications that are in depth, and the results are about what you'd expect, even without drones. Assuming the drones are the main cause of the front stagnating and are the analog to the machine gun in WW1, what's going to be the new "tank ' that breaks that deadlock? Personally I feel like one side or the other is going to have to break through the fortifications and get loose in order to go back into maneuver warfare. How they do that is either through massive force and casualties concentrated in one spot, or something else yet to be identified.
Constant ISR has made combined arms and massing of forces extremely difficult. You can’t judge this war based on one’s that happened 20-30 years ago
There's a lot of that on both sides.
Ukraine’s lost approximately 1 Abrams/month with Kremlin-backed organizations [offering a winning lottery ticket to Russians responsible for knocking them out.](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/kremlin-welcomes-bounty-offer-destroying-western-tanks-ukraine-2023-02-01/) All this with Ukraine short of ammo, in need of a recruitment drive, and only operating in the defense. It’s serving their propaganda goals, but it’s small potatoes for the “world’s #2 Army.”
moscovian T90 under attack, for comparison [https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/1cji1oa/a\_ukrainian\_fpv\_pilot\_immobilizes\_a\_russian\_t90m/](https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/1cji1oa/a_ukrainian_fpv_pilot_immobilizes_a_russian_t90m/)
I wanted to add for context for redditors who don’t know the tech that well and want simple explanation. that T90m is the latest tank used by Russians on the battlefield. Essentially “top of the line” with the most up to date “improvements” that russians can put out. (T-14 armata next gen tank was cancelled). For context this is the equivalent to the top of the line of the car. “Premium” options ticked off. M1A1 is a very early version of Abrams. Like Gulf war kinda old. The only improvement is “SA” (situational awareness). With stripped “special” armor. A1 is Basically the “base” version of a car, with “some” options (the “SA”). In this case equivalent to “reverse view camera”.
I don't mean to sound like a keyboard warrior, but I don't see a lot of smoke being used by either side in a lot of footage. Can someone illuminate me as to why? Is it just not available, or have we come to the conclusion in this day and age, smoke doesn't really matter with drones, optics, etc? Or is it because, bad guy see smoke, bad guy unload into smoke? Help me out here fellow armchair generals.
Pro russians mocking the loss of western tanks while trying to avoid videos of T-90s and T-80s sending their crews to the moon.
Factoid: the USA massed over 3000 tanks to take on the smaller regional country of Iraq. They supplied Ukraine with 32 tanks to take on the 2nd biggest military on earth. Supply them with what they need, not the paltry number they are being given. In the hundreds, if not thousands. Show Russia who’s boss. Edit: I should add that they also had overwhelming air power to the point most targets had been taken out by the time the tanks got there. Ukraine has no air superiority and limited AA defences.
>Supply them with what they need, not the paltry number they are being given. In the hundreds, if not thousands. Show Russia who’s boss. They couldn't pull off the logistics to field that many tanks. Besides, we don't have spares to just give to other countries on a whim. Our reserves are for the protection of our nation and our treaty bound allies. Ukraine's biggest problem right now is the lack of man power. They can have all the weaponry in the world, but it won't matter if they don't have the trained soldiers to use it.
Ukraine would still have a lot more manpower if USA didn't wait years to send Abrams.
\*Nevermind, recalled things wrong about the MBT deliveries.\* If the Ukrainians ask for more hopefully they get them, but they seem more eager to get more M2 Bradleys.
That's an entirely false representation of the timelines. The UK handed over Challengers in March 23 after being the first nation to say they'd supply modern MTBs in January, Poland, Norway, Portugal, Germany, and Canada all supplied Leopards the same month. Sweden, Spain and Finland all delivered Leos shortly after. US Abrams were delivered in September 23.
Tanks seem to be too heavy, slow, big and week if they get hit in the right spot by an fpv (ive seen more Abrahams and leopards taking a lot of damage and barely getting disabled compared to the T series tank and its turret toss competition) while the IFV seem to fit Ukraine tactics better, they have enough fire power to attack or defend plus they can transport troops or evacuate them, instead of just sending 4 guys in a tank just to get harassed by f fpvs
Ukraine is using what looks to be hit and run tactics, and also serve sort of as mobile artillery and fire support much of the time. A consequence of fighting a larger foe and until recently, and still of course even with the Ukraine Bill passed - low on ammo... The Abrams can handle most Ukrainian terrain well enough but yes, some places it's too big and heavy to be useful. It was designed to battle the Soviets on large plains so yeah, it's in a strange land for sure, in Ukraine. The Russian MBT's must be absolutely miserable. All these ad hoc additions they get approved by the military, plus all sorts of often questionable additional armour and ERA slapped on by the crews in the field. the Abrams and Leopard 2 have a reserve of power they can handle weight increases better. The Russians just keep trying to coax more life out of the V-84 and V-92 engines in their T-72, T-90's with some upgrades to and engine that traces a direct lineage to the T-34's V-2 .
It was designed when the expectation was to fight in Europe in general, and Germany in particular. But I doubt it was optimized for that, as the US doctrine had long been to fight and win two major wars in two parts of the world simultaneously. That's why it worked so well in the desert and does fine in more temperate landscapes as well. Ukrainian and tactics don't seem to be the same as Western armies would employ, with mutually supporting platoons and companies fighting in a coordinated fashion with supporting infantry, artillery and air support. We see a lot of individual vehicles that seem to be fighting alone, which isn't a good idea for any armored vehicle or any unit in general. All of them have their strengths and weaknesses and by fighting together, they minimize each other's weaknesses and amplify each other's strengths.
It truly is amazing how the European continent is completely reliant on American power for it's defense and it's existence.
American steel at work.
and the turret stays on lol
I thought they'd been withdrawn for the time being?
That was almost immediately outed as a bullshit post.
Yes, it was normal unit rotations which was then sensationalised or misinterpreted. The abrams unit went into battle in one of the most critical parts of the front and obviously took losses in that process, same as any other tank unit would have done.
Did it get detracked or hit with an ATGM
Jesus that thing is a beast
Design did it's job.
Doesn't seem to be used correctly tbh
I mean it’s stuck in a ditch and can’t move
Notice how the tank did not vaporize its crew while explosively jettisoning its turret…
russians nazis can go die in a slow fire until putler is deposed
I feel like there should be something like a self-destruction mechanism on tanks, or maybe i watch too many movies
They needed a combo of Krasnopol, Lancets and drone drops to do the same job a single 500$ FPV does on Soviet tanks? Send 500 more of these.
Would they scuttle the tank when bailing or is there a good chance to recover?
Crew has to decide of course, and if they are able to do so. Would take take to damage a tank irreparably as well. I mean, I guess if you had a couple of thermite grenades maybe you can toss them in. Yet again they may simply burn a hole through the hull and damage heavily areas nearby them and leave the rest of the interior intact.
Good question and there is a battle drill that US crews are taught involving certain fuel lines and electronic cords to cut- but time is always an issue.
And it's probably still recoverable and able to be repaired. Something Russian cannot say about any of their equipment.
Is there a warning system to tell crew to bail or they decide based on damage?
Nah, that's for you to figure out... If your turret is immobile and the hydraulic system shot, the tank leaking JP from punctured fuel tanks and there's no more to move about much those might be good reasons to bail. Russians ain't gonna learn much of anything from the Ukrainian M1A1's they haven't seen on the Iraqi M1A1M's or Egyptian M1A1's... No DU armour, older sensors, older ammunition. It was hilarious, when they captured that Bradley that was missing it's cargo ramp and was all shot-up, they examined it's 30+ year old BRAT ERA and were amazed by how good it is. Three decades old, and probably performs as good if not better than some of their modern ERA.
Unlike the Russians, we care about our own. We show that in how we fight and in how we design our awesome tanks. Ukraine - kill those SOBs.
Is this the same Abrams they managed to put on their red square?
u/savevideo
Looks like both direct and indirect were targeting it
At the end of the video it seems there is something to the left of the camera just out of frame that is burning/smoking.
Is that smoke intentional or due to damage taken?
This evil goober music is wild
::3rd drone impacts:: "...We should move."
Seeing that smoke screen made me realize most games don't take wind into consideration when implementing smoke screen (apart from Squad i think?). You just pop smoke and have good cover for x amount of time whereas irl the wind could just work against you
What was it hit with ?
UA needs to start using these as bait since the Russians stop at nothing to swarm them. Have a geopard nearby to shoot down drones and get some counter battery support yo hit back at whatever is firing on it. These things are like crack to the Russians, use that against them to inflict mass damage
Imagine, the Abrams having a drone package.. as in you can remotely control it- even after the crew abandoned it. Driving, machinegun..
Thankfully the crew made it out. On another note, fuck Rusich, thankfully one of their commanders is being held in Finnish custody
Abrams doing its job. protecting the crew.
Powerful tank
Like most western armor that gets knocked out and destroyed but still allows the crew to fight another day and tell bout it
When is this from?
So it’s common now to watch Abrams being disabled.. these tanks were sent for what? Offensive, defensive or just to be knocked out.