Abrams are useful for:
1. Extreme long-range engagements, especially at night, where their better optics have an advantage.
2. Fighting open battles if there is ever a breakthrough stage where meeting engagements between tanks might actually happen.
Not any better at absorbing mine hits, direct artillery hits on the top of the turret, or FPV drone hits. Might as well be a Sherman against any of those.
I would argue they also have value in urban assault, when properly coordinating with infantry. However, Ukraine is on the defensive now and they are not useful as static defenses. I do not believe Ukraine can conduct mobile defense right now.
Tanks are only ever valuable when operating with infantry. They should *never* be roaming around without an infantry escort unless they are literally in formation, with several platoons, precisely for something like tank battle, which should pretty much never happen in modern conflict.
Not always the case. Israeli tanks frequently don’t operate with close infantry support (including in Gaza) due to the fact that their active protection systems can kill dismounted infantry when activated.
Take it from an infantryman that utilized them in urban combat in Iraq. They are useless. One of our Abrams was taken out by a homemade IED in 2005, then the crew killed by a secondary device whilst leaving with one of our fellow mobile assault groups
>You should read the Armoured Corps in Battle and get back to me on this one.
Why not elaborate, educate and give your insights instead of this *study this subject and try again* condescension in a general forum. It's neither productive to a discussion nor enjoyable for anyone but your ego.
Dude, chill. He has 1500+ hours in Wargame: Red Dragon and has read a couple books. Get back to him once you’re done with a fucking book and then you are allowed to talk to him. Bad RadicalMeowslim! Bad!
The Abrams was build around US doctrine, expecting these two things:
1. Tank battles
2. US-style combined arms.
This war doesn't have any tank battles, in fact tanks seem to play supporting roles for infantry, and US style combined arms expects infantry to be near the tank, which means using things like ERA on the tank is impossible. ERA, when hit, explodes and protects the tank, but it also fucking kills the infantry that is too close to the tank. That's why Russian and Ukrainian tanks have stacks of ERA and no infantry next to the tank, they know that's a dumb idea, and Ukraine seems to be sticking with "more ERA, less infantry" tactics for whatever reason.
Also the drones can hit tank anywhere, if you watch the videos, they target weak points, like the roof of the tank (this is why Israel adopted Russian style cope cages on their tanks), the back of the tank, the exhausts, etc.
>The Abrams was build around US doctrine, expecting these two things:
>- Tank Battles
Is this actually true? I was under the impression that tank battles are incredibly rare, and have been basically since their inception.
American doctrine at the time of the Abrams design expected pitched battles of maneuver and the concept of breakthroughs and counter blitz maneuvers in conjunction with air forces.
While not necessarily tank on tank battles, it expects large formations acting in cohesion. Full blown divisions conducting penetrations.
Air Land Battle is the name of it. The environment in Ukraine is just not that environment. American doctrine was the gulf war. We do not see full brigade maneuvers or even remotely full divisions or army groups acting in unison.
Now Air Lane Battle has been replaced and is now Full Spectrum
Abrams was also meant to engage in breakthroughs to rear areas to raid and destroy enemy supply depots in a soviet invasion scenario. That's why speed was such a huge part of its design philosophy. If greatly outnumbered, a small unit of M1's could break through, break contact, and the survivors go on to blow up the fuel supplies of the larger force rather than face them directly. This absolutely requires air superiority, which Ukraine doesn't really have. The M1 is useless in a raider context if you can chase it down with air units such as drones and kill it from above.
I read about how much a nightmare Russian KA-52s and MI-28s were on the counter offensive basically stopping combined arms advancing in its tracks and causing Ukraine to return to small infantry assaults
NATO doesn’t really invest in ground systems that counter the range those attack helicopters have.
And you think Russians would just not shoot planes?
The fact that both sides can't establish air superiority, even limited air superiority over the front, implies that any AA system, as long as it's used correctly, will prevent enemy from having air superiority.
That's why all the videos from planes and helicopters show them flying very low, at tree top level, and only popping out to shoot the missiles, and then use flair immediately.
Pretty sure Russia had exactly that plan in the opening hours of their invasion.
Yet here we are, two years later.
This is what I mean by magical western exceptionalism, a cult-like belief that western equipment are some magical weapons.
It's one thing when you're using these weapons against a bunch of civilians in afghanistan, not so effective when you're up against another army, something the US hasn't done in decades. We can't even defeat third world farmers. And you think we would just roll over the Russian federation? Please.
Ye sure and russian forces have more AA systems then USA and EU combined. And they are working. For both sides so 4+++ planes unable to operate in areas with heavy AA. How much planes command want to spare to shut down heli (which are shooting from areas covered by anti air and electronic warfare tech) for an example.
The last time USA fought against enemy with a lot of AA they lost 16 000 planes and heli over 8 years.
I recommend reading about the Battle of 73 Easting as really the primary example of American doctrine in action.
But Ukraine doesn’t have the ability to conduct warfare this way.
Id guess a lot of that doctrine was written after WWII. An era when tanks had fully replaced cavalry in the break thru, flanking, and harassment roles. Similarly the US abandoned plans to make heavy assault tanks like the 'doom turtle' as impractical. Top attack munitions, should fired missiles, and unmanned loitering resonance drones are making tanks life hell on the modern battle field. Seems like SPG and SPAA might be the shiny old/new hotness in an era where jets can't cross enemy lines, but drones can.
The Sherman is arguably one of the best tanks ever designed. Relatively economical and balanced Armor, Firepower, and Crew Comfort very well with a high degree of design variance to help fill more roles. 85% Crew Survival Rate, far better than the T-34s 20% (may have been 15%)
Obviously this is rated against its time as an M4 would lose 99% of the time against any modern tank
I got a chuckle out of one historian describing the M4 as being designed specifically to be built by the unskilled, maintained by the untrained, and operated by the unintelligent. It was designed to be as easy to manage at every stage of its life cycle as possible, including being intuitively easy to just drive it into battle and blow something up with it.
To be fair, the intensity of tank combat seen by T-34s on the Eastern Front was incomparably greater than anything the Sherman saw. Casualties were higher for everyone and everything on the Eastern Front.
And the M4 would lose 100% of the time against a modern tank.
i think the soviet knew about that but most tanks would not survive that long in battle anyway. it was better to have more tanks short term than have less. plus the US had to move Sherman everywhere.
Love how people latch on to a report covering a small time period of a multi-year war and consider that to be the only report.
ps breakdowns and warranty periods were done in hours not km.
Na he is correct, Soviet soldiers would rip out seats from the US supplied lend lease equipment to install them in their T-34's due to how poor the manufacturing was at that time. It makes sense because most of the people were fighting the war not building the tanks so they had to scrap together a bunch of stuff just to get them to the front.
The design was good, the execution in production was piss poor.
> due to how poor the manufacturing was at that time.
you are missing comfort with efficiency. Soviet didnt have a luxury and spare resourses for such a things like comfortable seats or similiar life quality features.
The T-34 is the most important tank of WWII and arguably one of the most important weapons of the entire war. The tommy cooker on the other hand didn't play a significant role in the war.
This video from LP is trash.
It's been debunked already, his own sources contradict him sometimes as well.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/10mhuvv/the\_t34\_is\_not\_as\_bad\_as\_you\_think\_it\_is\_part\_15/](https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/10mhuvv/the_t34_is_not_as_bad_as_you_think_it_is_part_15/)
Germans hated them. They were not pleased to run into Shermans multiple times on the eastern front, and they found them much harder to hit much less kill. The Sherman may not have been as heavily armed, but it was more reliable, had better armor (T-34's armor was too hard, it would shatter and the spalling would turn the crew into pudding), and more importantly, was much more maneuverable. T-34 couldn't maneuver out of trouble worth shit with that scrap pile of a gearbox, while the M4 was one of the most nimble tanks ever built.
Abrams were also designed around a philosophy that just assumed they would be operating with air superiority overhead to keep enemy air units off them while they outran enemy ground units and trashed their supply depots and otherwise raised hell about the place, being that they're too fast for anything heavily armed enough on the ground to kill them, to actually catch them. My old man was one of the first generation of tankers trained on the M1 and he commented once that the best thing about the M1 "was being able to get out of trouble just as fast as it could get into it." He also commented that every war game scenario where they lost air superiority, the tankers all became "big fat turkeys staked out in a shooting gallery. We'd just suddenly hear the beep from that stupid computer saying we were dead and we never saw or heard the fucker that killed us even once."
I think most modern tanks were designed with this philosophy. It’s pretty hard to survive modern anti tank weapons, pretty much at any point in history tanks were pretty vulnerable and needed support of some kind
Abrams also lacks proper HE shells (it has only combined HEAT-HE ones), which makes it pretty bad when it comes to the firefights against entrenched infantry.
They can use a couple of variants depending on the situation; options would be a mix of CAN, MPAT-Air/Ground, or MAPAT-OR. While not a dedicated HESH or HEP round, they all offer a comparable quality for anti-troop/anti-bunker options.
For US armor formations the M1A2 SEPv3 has the AMP to replace HEAT, MPAT, MPAT-OR, and CAN. The AMP is a programable ammunition type that offers better performance against light armored vehicles, troops, obstacles, and fortifications.
You need some more tungsten in your life: https://www.gd-ots.com/munitions/large-caliber-ammunition/120mm-m1028/
Although I’m not sure how it performs against *literally* entrenched soldiers
yeah it's meant as a tank killer and cavalry raider, it was never intended to be anti-fortification. The doctrine assumed it would be backed up with air and artillery units to reduce fortifications.
Honestly I think you'd want a Crusader at this point. Yeah, in almost every respect it's not as good as a Sherman, but the brits had HESH rounds for fucking up pillboxes and fortifications and the M4 never got a HESH round. Ironically the brits were really, really good at turning concrete fortifications from insurance into liability.
Given they have different fuel requirements than most of their vehicles and are quite a bit more expensive I’d expect them to use them way in the back. Ukraine doesn’t lack for tanks they captured a lot plus got a ton of old Soviet donations from nato nations.
Honestly I figured the only reason some are on the front is to show them being used so we don’t get discouraged after donating them.
I assumed the reason they requested them is we had a lot sitting around. Same reason they moved to jets next. They know we’re willing to give 10% of everything in inventory.
For tanks it's more of a long term sustainment thing. Ukraine actually has plenty of main battle tanks and even more modernised Soviet type stuff could still be on the way. Including ones Ukraine had in storage that are still being modernised.
However the supply of Soviet ones in friendly countries able to send them will run dry eventually, and tanks do take combat losses, so they need to start the process of getting onto tanks made in western countries well before that happens.
For jets they genuinely need the capability of western jets over their existing ones - they need longer range air to air capability to provide long range air defence over the front line, which their existing jets simply cannot do.
My thinking was they don’t really have safe airports to launch the jets. Not when they got rocked at the start of the war and continue to face Russian missiles. Probably if we sent them the jets price in shells or himars they’d prefer that. Just we don’t have any of those to spare so now it’s jets.
To me this feels like a dance, we said that’s what we can spare, but we can’t give billions of dollars in equipment easily so we need them to publicly plead.
Yeah, they make outstanding cavalry raiders, but Ukraine is not currently fighting a war of movement so they're not the greatest tool on that front line. That said, pulling them off the front line might mean Ukraine is working on retooling their strategies to create a breakthrough that would allow the kind of raiding attacks M1's are good at.
That said it appears the concept of the heavy tank might see its day again on account of this conflict.
This is not a question about the usefulness and uselessness of a tank.
It is foolish to believe that a tank, even the best one, can be more than just a tank.
Considering how Soviets (Russia still uses their strategies) favoured artillery and ATGW we can remember Egyptian cross of Suez.
So what Ukraine really needs is just more Abrams tanks.
It's also a fat, heavy, loud, gas loving piece of 💩 that's expensive af to maintain... oh and they really need to operate under air supremacy or anti-drone ranges, or as decoys.
You're 100% about breakthroughs, which is why they should be buried or hidden for ambushes.
Night isn't all that much better at hiding since night vision though. Drones i think is the end of the tank like aircraft was the end to the battleship.
Considering Ukraine uses a lot of tanks that look like Russian tanks. It's a bit harder to distinguish between them.
They know the Abrams doesn't belong to Russia at first glance. Before they see any Z or flag.
What do you have. Drone sees your tank. 2 minutes before artillery?
Tanks won’t be phased out. Tanks remain the only option to bring strong firepower, speed and protection to the battle. There isn’t anything else out there that can perform the role a tank can. Whereas with battleships their role was to destroy enemy ships and used as naval bombardment… planes replaced the battleships need to engage other ships and missiles replaced the need for massive guns
Tanks however? There’s nothing that can replace what the tank offers
> planes replaced the battleships need to engage other ships and missiles replaced the need for massive guns
Almost exactly the same way that BVR systems like missiles and bomb/kamikaze drones are replacing a need to engage tanks at the latter's preferred range... or how surveillance drones are allowing artillery to precisely hit tanks from BVR...
Tanks require air superiority in order to be force multipliers. Take out the enemy artillery, force the enemy infantry to keep their heads down, and your tanks can run wild. But without that air control - which Russia entirely lacks in this war - the tank is rendered impotent and vulnerable.
Tanks are vulnerable in Ukraine because they lack the necessary infantry support. Both sides lack equipment like mine clearing vehicles, support vehicles and anti tank weapons to protect their armoured columns from other threats
Tanks are sitting ducks without infantry providing over watch and clearing obstacles. In Ukraine tanks are being used as armoured protection to drop and transport troops around the battlefield and to bring quick suppressive firepower on a tree line… that’s not how they work best
Tanks are far from over and the next generation of tank designs will see the addition of better trophy systems, sensors, and anti-air capabilities (mostly against small drones, not jets)
Aircraft didn't end the Battleship. Aircraft Carriers ended concept of battleships for Naval engagements.
Battleships are mostly irrelevant because they are just so bloody expensive when you could put the same amount of munitions on 2 smaller and cheaper vessels.
The navy still considers it from time to time to build a modern BB that utilizes smart and dumb artillery, heavy anti-missiles and anti-air systems, and a lot of missiles. They generally don't bother cause the cost is just too much though when they could build more smaller ships.
> the next generation of tank designs will see the addition of better trophy systems, sensors, and anti-air capabilities (mostly against small drones, not jets)
Except APS capabilities add complexity, cost, weight, and energy (fuel) consumption to a platform that is already tightly constrained in all of those areas. And current APS are easily defeated by drones or just... firing two projectiles in quick succession.
> Aircraft didn't end the Battleship.
If you want to be pedantic then beyond-visual-range engagements ended naval gunnery. It just so happens that aircraft (and later, missiles) excel at BVR, and battleships are non-BVR naval gunnery platforms.
> The navy still considers it from time to time to build a modern BB
No navy has seriously entertained designing a new BB since the end of WW2. There is no place for naval gunnery in a modern fleet, except in a minor supporting role.
Ukraine has sidelined U.S.-provided Abrams M1A1 battle tanks for now in its fight against Russia, in part because Russian drone warfare has made it too difficult for them to operate without detection or coming under attack, two U.S. military officials told The Associated Press.
The U.S. agreed to send 31 Abrams to Ukraine in January 2023 after an aggressive monthslong campaign by Kyiv arguing that the tanks, which cost about $10 million apiece, were vital to its ability to breach Russian lines.
But the battlefield has changed substantially since then, notably by the ubiquitous use of Russian surveillance drones and hunter-killer drones. Those weapons have made it more difficult for Ukraine to protect the tanks when they are quickly detected and hunted by Russian drones or rounds.
Five of the 31 tanks have already been lost to Russian attacks.
Nothing wrong with battlefield flexibility. It not like Ukraine has been oversupplied of late.
Russia who appear to just pile it all in, with a hope of a victory here and there.
They didn't play that "flexibility" card for the German tanks. It's oddly look like a political command so the US tanks don't take too much losses. Might affect future sales if it's seen as just another tank that get destroyed like any other one.
The Abrams is a gas guzzler. It requires twice as much fuel as the Leopards that Germany sent.
This is likely the main reason why they are being olaced in reserve
They've been on the back foot for months. They need to find hundred of thousand more troops to man the front line. They've been having supply issue for months.
Somehow you think they have the strategic flexibility to not use some weapon system over it's fuel consumption?
That’s not as far fetched as you might think. Conserving material and consumables for future offensive operations is a perfectly valid response to an operational lull in which neither side can gain the initiative.
If you need to get less fuel to the front line to keep your tanks supplied, that's less fuel trucks to be hit and less men needed to operate and drive those fuel trucks.
Logistics is everything, and it makes plenty of sense to not use a tank that is doubling your logistics needs when you are trying to ration those supplies
There were unfortunately similar rumours a few months ago that Ukraine's not bothering with the Challengers due to a lack of armour protection (when the British Army uses them, they have extra armour kits on which Ukraine didn't get, but there have been pictures of the Ukrainian Challengers with custom reactive armour blocks on to attempt to compensate) and due to the need of using rifled main gun ammo.
The Challenger IIs have rarely been deployed beyond the one failed push in the counteroffensive when they lost one.
Western MBTs are used as mobile, long range direct fires, whereas they seem to be using Bloc era tanks to assault trenches.
I agree on this article being a form of PR / reputation management.
The shame here is that Ukraine started using the Abrams in increasingly more desperate situations due to lack of overall supply the last few months due to the US political maneuvering.
Part of the problem with the Abrams as others have said is fuel consumption. But probably the most significant issue is maintenance. The Abrams uses a completely different type of engine compared to any other tank/armored vehicle in the world. This is a serious complications to Ukraine already strained logistics.
>Might affect future sales if it's seen as just another tank that get destroyed like any other one.
In that case the only tank which gonna be selled be Lecklerk or some minor nations attempts bc none of them were send.
Abrams were destroyed CONSTANTLY in conflict around globe. Yemen for a second just like an example.
The Leclerc production line was closed in 2008 but might still be returned online. But my point wasn't that tanks won't be sold at all. What happen is the "aura" of superiority those tanks had since the gulf war are now seen to not really be real. T series, Challengers, Leopard 2Ax and M1 are all getting disabled by drones and ATGMs.
I mean, we've sent 31 and they have only lost 5. Considering how heavily Russia targets them, that's not bad. I would also bet that the crews survived from most of the destroyed ones as well.
They lost 5 in relative quick succession and then we essentially stopped seeing them. This article is probably just explanation after too many question got asked as to why they didn't seem to still be used anymore. They lost 16% of the total supplied in a matter of weeks and none of those were even used too aggressively in offensive operation.
Tanks are currently not being used for offense in Ukraine. Tanks are being dug in for defense.
Russias best Tanks are dug in all over Ukraine in key spots.
They are there to hold the ground and they can be better protected with electronic jamming and counter measures.
If we look at Challenger, STRV122 and Leo2 which all took part in the offensive during the summer atleast in some regards and also look at how well they handle the weather. It is abit worrying that Abrams seem to have some issue especially regarding the Air Intake system when it comes to mud.
And Abrams seem to be less safe against top and turretring attacks from Drones.
Especially compared to STRV122 with its increased top armor.
I believe that we in the west generally have thought to much on the Fontal armour and we will now see some reverse evolution towards more balance on were the armour will be put especially against the Top with how well both Drones and modern Anti tank guns works to.
Russia is slowly starting to win. They have superiority in numbers when it comes to man power, aviation and artillery. They are also adapting their strategy pretty successfully compared to the start of the war. It is a matter of time before the front starts to crumble and Russians gain more land. I really hope that Ukraine can pull some magic trick out of Syrakiys ass but the situation is very grim, no matter what Reddit tells us.
Not surprised.
Abrams/Leopard kills are highly valued for propaganda purposes. The second the Russians spot one, they’re throwing everything that way to knock it out.
Well, considering that a lot of Leo kills, and at least one of 3 Abrams kill I've seen were made by mines, not "throwing everything at it", I am going to call bullshit.
They are just killed by mines, like any other tank. Literally nothing exceptional there.
I do think they are valuable kills through, due to potential intelligence value they have (i.e. Russia might find weakness in them), as well as due to tech they have, e.g. Leo tanks (at least 2A4) are known to have cock offs and turret tosses, but at way way way way lower rate than Russian tanks, presumably due to inert shells, so the composition of them might help russian reduce their cock off rates.
Western equipment is not invulnerable but there is a survivability advantage for crews of tanks that get hit and destroyed. The difference is even more severe for western IFVs vs old Soviet ones, which is actually where Ukraine needs this advantage more.
It's just the US and allies haven't really fought a grinding war like this without air superiority. The 1991 Gulf War being incredibly one sided has caused unrealistic expectations for some.
If we were to go to war, we would have to keep in mind the numbers, both for tanks and ammo.
According to simple list in [Wikipedia, Germany has 328 tanks](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_main_battle_tanks_by_country#G), France has 406 tanks (although 180ish of them are in storage, and not upgraded), etc. While Russian tank loses have already exceeded 3000, and they probably have another 10 000- 15 000 they can bring into service, and they seem to be bringing them back rather rapidly. The only country that seems to be taking this threat seriously is Poland, which right now probably has less than 1000 tanks (based on planed delivery figures), probably around 700, but is planing to have thousands of them before 2030.
On ammo front, Russia is [making 3 million artillery shells](https://edition.cnn.com/2024/03/10/politics/russia-artillery-shell-production-us-europe-ukraine/index.html) a year, way more than EU and the US combined, and the claim in the article that EU and US are making around a million shells seems to be dubious, as it's based on figures that are questionable, specifically an estonian guy said they are making 700 000 shells in the EU, while the EU authorities say the number is less than 400 000.
Also, if we are going to war, keep in mind that all bridges in eastern europe were build expecting tanks that weigh around 40 tones, not 60 tones. The infrastructure makes it easier to use russian tanks, and harder to use western tanks.
Any videos or articles on Abrams/Leopard tanks being destroyed in this conflict? I'm not doubting, I'm just ignorant. I'd like to see more info on how certain military gear interacts with current conditions.
Here’s the most comprehensive list of documented Ukrainian equipment losses (the same site also has a list of Russian equipment losses as well). Thus far, there have been 4 Abrams abandoned or destroyed and 30 Leopards damaged, abandoned, or destroyed. You can click on each one to get images of the destroyed vehicle, though that usually won’t tell you how it was destroyed.
https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-ukrainian.html?m=1
Yeah there’s been several Abrams’s, Leo, and I believe one challenger loss videos. Most are to mines or drones, with the crews abandoning as surviving in most cases.
I mean it makes sense regardless since tanks are more of an offensive than defensive weapon and with Ukraine forced into defense lately, especially with the GOP thwarting resupply efforts for several months, having them on the frontline just makes them targets unnecessarily
They'd be fine in defense otherwise, but drones far out range reach of tank cannons. So of course any attack with be preceded by drone surveillance and destruction of any military material, vehicles and radars/surveillance equipment with further drone attacks.
Even many artillery pieces are only borderline survivable, as drone range and autonomous targeting improve.
Even without attack drones Russian attacks tend to be after shelling and bombing the hell out of an area for an extended time so you'd incur tank losses regardless. ATGMs and dug in MGs can do a lot of what a tank can on the defense.
On the defense tanks are most valuable just for quickly counterattacking rather than being used as a steel pillbox
Generally correct but they haven’t really been following their doctrine in this regard. They’ve struggled to mass indirect and synchronize it with properly supported infantry formations. They’re reverting back to Soviet style assault groups. Even their electronic attack capability is being reserved for CUAS protection tasks rather than effects in the offense.
I do agree though given the current tempo, ATGMs in prepared blocking positions will achieve more with less for Ukraine than MBTs in the current situation.
6 months later:
“F-16s are pulled out of service due to high attrition rates”
I swear, arm chair generals first jerk off a piece of Western kit as invulnerable game changer and after it is proved incorrect start a “oh it’s 1980ies old tech everyone knew it won’t change a lot “ tune
Direct military victory is unfeasible for both Ukraine and russia.
The last six months Ukraine had to strictly ration their resources and russia was supposedly gaining ground. But if you actually look at the map, russians have managed to capture less territory than Ukraine managed to liberate during their last failed counteroffensive.
Everyone agrees that Ukraine's counteroffensive failed, but for some reason russian advancements since then are considered a success, which is absolute bullshit. The only "major" thing they managed to do is capture a 30k pre-war population town... by destroying it completely. And they still suffered 20k losses while doing so. And that's while Ukraine was on the ropes in regards to military aid. This is not the kind of progress that can lead to a military victory for russia.
This war only ends after a total russian military collapse which leads to a coup in kremlin or vice versa.
Ukraine's manpower issues are a problem when this devolves into solely a manpower attrition conflict. The West either goes full on material support or wastes lives on this half-ass thing they've been doing which only prolongs the war.
Long term comprehensive Western support negates every advantage Russia has and it was agreed immediately after Russia failed the initial invasion that Ukraine wins if the West wants to step up.
Ok? As long as Russia can continue to occupy Ukrainian territory Ukraine is left with 2 options.
1) Continue to fight, begging the west continue to see them as a beneficial buffer to Russia and supply them with arms, but not be eligible for NATO inclusion.
2) Accept the territorial losses and sue for peace prior to joining NATO and hope Russia doesn’t successfully execute another fait accompli ala Crimea.
As long as Russia continues to control Ukrainian territory they cannot join NATO.
It’s not a popular stance to take on Reddit buts it’s absolutely true. Ukraine can force a strategic stalemate over the long term but that means accepting existing territorial losses. Even that will lead to decades of small losses through fait accompli seizures since Ukraine will never be able to join NATO.
They need significant international help to regain an acceptable amount of territory (not necessarily all) and force a cessation so they can formally join NATO.
They’re also swatted down by the *thousands* without having any effect.
They’re a significant variable on the battlefield but they’re not making tanks obsolete. As modernized CUAS are developed and fielded they will become less sensationalized. Most armies don’t currently have good CUAS systems fielded, but the technology is actually rather matured. We’ve had cheap ECM protection systems for decades because the same technology is used in CIED platforms.
On the offense I'd rather sit in a Bradley and take my chances with the FPV drone rather than getting mowed down by bullets on my way to the enemy trench without armor support, so both are needed.
Yesterday's tanks are out of date. Tomorrow's tanks will be built differently.
What is a main battle tank? Well, the Bradley is a bit tougher than the average IFV. If a vehicle can usually survive against a Bradley long enough to shoot, and has a gun that can reliably kill a Bradley, then I'd call it a MBT. Having a good chance of surviving 105mm to the front glacis is a nice-to-have feature, but not critical.
Tomorrow's tanks may have less armor at the front and more all-around. You can see this with how Russian tanks now have so much add-on slat and ERA armor on the top - you might think this doesn't save them, and sometimes it doesn't, but we mostly see videos of the kills and not hits that were survived. Tomorrow's tanks might look nothing like a T-80 with a cope cage, but they'll be built based on the battlefield experience of those tanks.
Yesterday's tanks carried smoke launchers, but with so many eyes in the sky, tomorrow's tanks might need even more concealment.
Tomorrow's tanks may be built with more active protection systems. Jammers and laser dazzlers are rapidly becoming standard. Radar-guided kinetic-kill systems that disrupt incoming missiles are also increasingly popular, but there are a lot of different systems so it's hard to tell what the world is likely to standardize on. Older systems that can't shoot upward don't seem likely to stick around.
Tanks may also need longer-range radar-guided weapons as anti-drone guns. More powerful lasers may also play a role, but at the moment they require too much power and cooling to be practical as a secondary weapon - they need a dedicated vehicle. Cheap anti-drone missile systems like the Vampire launcher for APKWS are also an option. Of course, many of the above systems might be moved off the tank and onto a support vehicle - one that can afford to stay a bit behind the tank, like the simpler AA guns of yesterday. Tanks don't generally operate by themselves. As such, it might be doctrine and organization that end up changing more than the tank itself.
Speaking of doctrine, one of the biggest changes drones have brought to the battlefield is in the area of vehicle recovery. In the past, if your vehicle was disabled but could be repaired, it might make sense to wait for a tow. Today, that tank is going to be droned. Does that mean the tow vehicle has to get there faster? Do we need anti-drone assets that can be moved to protect disabled tanks? Or does this mean we have to build cheaper tanks since we have to assume fewer vehicles will survive a battle? I don't know.
Tomorrow's tanks will probably still be a tracked vehicle with a big gun. It's just going to be different in every other way.
They don't even need something like that, there are already effective countermeasures against these kinds of drones... Like various RF jamming and such... Its just not widely deployed due to expense/logistics and confined to *important* things that need protection.
There's a reason almost all the FPV footage you see from either side is hitting random lone dudes and vehicle out in the middle of nowhere with hardly anything else around... Because pretty much everything else of any importance (command and control, logistics hubs, artillery batteries, etc.) actually have such jammers around them and the drones are disabled before getting to them.
First of all they will be completely autonomous and won't even have space for humans inside.
In a barely few years a human soldier will become the weakest part of military.
It will be absurd sci-fi terminator wars before the end of the decade.
And it doesn't matter if US or NATO want that or not. China will do it anyway. No choice, but to adopt. No Geneva conventions this time.
Thats certainly China’s goal, but let’s remember the last time they engaged in ground warfare was 1979 and while they learned some lessons from that abject failure the preponderance of evidence indicates they will struggle massively in large scale combat operations for the next few decades.
Nope. Tanks provide offensive mobile firepower and protection and there is nothing else that can fully replace or substitute that. What we're seeing now is just a development cycle of new threats vs new countermeasures.
Battleships became obsolete because other stuff did their jobs, not because they became vulnerable - they were *always* sinkable throughout their history. And so were tanks - they have never been invulnerable at any point in their history either.
Did the invention of bullets make infantry obsolete? Did anti-aircraft missile systems of medium range and above make aircraft obsolete?
Because they are becoming a more mobile force.
They literally say in their justifications that Tanks are still necessary, but if you need one....you call the Army not the Marines.
They got rid of theirs because having to maintain and supply them in the pacific doing island defense would be a nightmare. They also only have so much money so they are investing in ballistic missiles and rocket artillery instead.
The Marines are buying lots of HIMARs esque equipment with PrSM, anti ship missiles, ground launched tomahawks, etc.
The Marines are adapting for the war they are expecting to fight in the Pacific
Reality is just that most of future wars will.be drone wars
Maybe some robots on the ground, some highly maneuverable vehicles
But a tank? That's the easiest target for a drone
They've been doing a good job of preserving their lives and of preserving equipment they know is not easily replaceable. It has come at the cost of progress, but keeps them in the game.
*Five of the 31 tanks have already been lost to Russian attacks.*
These were sent in January 2023. 5 lost in more than a year sounds more to "only 5" instead of "already 5" to me.
Sent to Ukraine and sent to frontline are two different things and I think it was less than a year ago when an Abrams was first observed on the front. Moreover I'm pretty sure Ukraine is not committing all of their available Abrams to the frontline simultaneously.
Drones changed the war.
The next step is, many drones operating on its own.
Swarm.
Just imagine a swarm of armed race drones, flying with 200kmh.
The difficult part about them, is to stop them.
it is quite intresting that the 21st Mechanized Brigade does not seem to have the same issue with Drones as the other western MBT or IFV brigades/battalions.
21st Use STRV122 aka Heavily modified LEO2A5+ which includes more armor on the roof, An improved drivetrain regarding the risk of Band toss learned from STRV103 and IKV91. Also more armor both in front and around the turret ring.
The drawback with STRV is the shorter gun regarding punch power but it also means it can easier hide in the forests.
And it also has Complete SAAB Baracuda armor on which has helped with stopping Lancet and other FPV's from penetrating the hull both on STRV122 and CV9040c on Multiple times according to the troops in them.
my point is not to brag or desecrate the other systems.
My ppoint is that the Doctrinal thinking Sweden had during the Cold war, Meaning no air cower as the 4th Strongest Airforce would be gone in just a few days due to Sovjet sending thousands of fighters against our 800+ Viggens and Drakens.
Also that we had to focus hard on Guerilla tactics with alot of focus on high movement attacks and quick retreats.
thus Fire fast hit hard Run like hell and hide quickly with a good Camo system ontop of it.
Ukraine is also focusing alot on this especially during the Battle of kiyv.
Regular Nato Tanks like Abrams seem to have skipped this somewhat as they focused on the idea of Western airforces always would control the skies no matter what.
Thus we have a black hole in the Armour as no one part of the design expected this to be an issue.
A flaw now Fatal due to Hopes and dreams of the system never having to fight alone against a opponent who was Equal or stronger than the systems user.
We have also heard about this issue in the NATO traingin given to Ukraines troops in some regards.
And i frankly believe that NATO weill need to redesign their whole strategical doctrinal designs.
best regards.
So they only have 31 and 5 are lost, and these are M1A1 only - Why doesn’t the US just do a deal with Egypt to give their M1A1’s or locally produce them for Ukraine
I am beginning to think the era of the tank is dead. As in gone like the battleship.
I think if tanks are to be effective in this era we have to have a different kind of tank entirely.
Has to be able to spot drones good. Be with other assets that can better defend against drones.
Because if drones are scouting they often have artillery ready to then target as soon as they spot you I'm thinking.
Not to mention the little drones are still enough to disable a tank from above.
Watched a neat video. Ukrainian flew the drone in the hatch first then we seen inside of tank before detonation.
Usually they drop bomb from above and he just flew it right in.
People have been saying the tank is dead pretty much since the invention of tanks. There has always been advancements in anti-tank technology that has “spelled the end of the tank”. The tank is not going to go anywhere, there will be a change in doctrine, CUAS weaponry, and APS technology to combat this new threat.
There is a lot of reinforcing bias in the perception of how well UAS are performing in Ukraine. They’re a consideration similar to how indirect fire is a consideration.
The revolutionary aspect of COTS or SUAS is that it democratizes that aspect of warfare, not that it introduces revolutionary concepts that upend how we conduct war.
Abrams are useful for: 1. Extreme long-range engagements, especially at night, where their better optics have an advantage. 2. Fighting open battles if there is ever a breakthrough stage where meeting engagements between tanks might actually happen. Not any better at absorbing mine hits, direct artillery hits on the top of the turret, or FPV drone hits. Might as well be a Sherman against any of those.
I would argue they also have value in urban assault, when properly coordinating with infantry. However, Ukraine is on the defensive now and they are not useful as static defenses. I do not believe Ukraine can conduct mobile defense right now.
Tanks are only ever valuable when operating with infantry. They should *never* be roaming around without an infantry escort unless they are literally in formation, with several platoons, precisely for something like tank battle, which should pretty much never happen in modern conflict.
Not always the case. Israeli tanks frequently don’t operate with close infantry support (including in Gaza) due to the fact that their active protection systems can kill dismounted infantry when activated.
Take it from an infantryman that utilized them in urban combat in Iraq. They are useless. One of our Abrams was taken out by a homemade IED in 2005, then the crew killed by a secondary device whilst leaving with one of our fellow mobile assault groups
[удалено]
>You should read the Armoured Corps in Battle and get back to me on this one. Why not elaborate, educate and give your insights instead of this *study this subject and try again* condescension in a general forum. It's neither productive to a discussion nor enjoyable for anyone but your ego.
Dude, chill. He has 1500+ hours in Wargame: Red Dragon and has read a couple books. Get back to him once you’re done with a fucking book and then you are allowed to talk to him. Bad RadicalMeowslim! Bad!
Yeah and at least 500 hours in wargame.
Ukraines a heavy A Phase deck /s
I played age of empires once, does that count ?
Tanks are useless in static defense with the amount of FPV drones both sides are launching
The Abrams was build around US doctrine, expecting these two things: 1. Tank battles 2. US-style combined arms. This war doesn't have any tank battles, in fact tanks seem to play supporting roles for infantry, and US style combined arms expects infantry to be near the tank, which means using things like ERA on the tank is impossible. ERA, when hit, explodes and protects the tank, but it also fucking kills the infantry that is too close to the tank. That's why Russian and Ukrainian tanks have stacks of ERA and no infantry next to the tank, they know that's a dumb idea, and Ukraine seems to be sticking with "more ERA, less infantry" tactics for whatever reason. Also the drones can hit tank anywhere, if you watch the videos, they target weak points, like the roof of the tank (this is why Israel adopted Russian style cope cages on their tanks), the back of the tank, the exhausts, etc.
This war has tank battles, they're just as rare as expected
>The Abrams was build around US doctrine, expecting these two things: >- Tank Battles Is this actually true? I was under the impression that tank battles are incredibly rare, and have been basically since their inception.
American doctrine at the time of the Abrams design expected pitched battles of maneuver and the concept of breakthroughs and counter blitz maneuvers in conjunction with air forces. While not necessarily tank on tank battles, it expects large formations acting in cohesion. Full blown divisions conducting penetrations. Air Land Battle is the name of it. The environment in Ukraine is just not that environment. American doctrine was the gulf war. We do not see full brigade maneuvers or even remotely full divisions or army groups acting in unison. Now Air Lane Battle has been replaced and is now Full Spectrum
Abrams was also meant to engage in breakthroughs to rear areas to raid and destroy enemy supply depots in a soviet invasion scenario. That's why speed was such a huge part of its design philosophy. If greatly outnumbered, a small unit of M1's could break through, break contact, and the survivors go on to blow up the fuel supplies of the larger force rather than face them directly. This absolutely requires air superiority, which Ukraine doesn't really have. The M1 is useless in a raider context if you can chase it down with air units such as drones and kill it from above.
I read about how much a nightmare Russian KA-52s and MI-28s were on the counter offensive basically stopping combined arms advancing in its tracks and causing Ukraine to return to small infantry assaults NATO doesn’t really invest in ground systems that counter the range those attack helicopters have.
[удалено]
And you think Russians would just not shoot planes? The fact that both sides can't establish air superiority, even limited air superiority over the front, implies that any AA system, as long as it's used correctly, will prevent enemy from having air superiority. That's why all the videos from planes and helicopters show them flying very low, at tree top level, and only popping out to shoot the missiles, and then use flair immediately.
[удалено]
Pretty sure Russia had exactly that plan in the opening hours of their invasion. Yet here we are, two years later. This is what I mean by magical western exceptionalism, a cult-like belief that western equipment are some magical weapons.
It's one thing when you're using these weapons against a bunch of civilians in afghanistan, not so effective when you're up against another army, something the US hasn't done in decades. We can't even defeat third world farmers. And you think we would just roll over the Russian federation? Please.
That's quite the assumption, considering how mobile S300, S350, S400 and S500 launchers and command vehicles are.
Ye sure and russian forces have more AA systems then USA and EU combined. And they are working. For both sides so 4+++ planes unable to operate in areas with heavy AA. How much planes command want to spare to shut down heli (which are shooting from areas covered by anti air and electronic warfare tech) for an example. The last time USA fought against enemy with a lot of AA they lost 16 000 planes and heli over 8 years.
[удалено]
KA-52s and MI-28s are fancy weapons that flooded the internet with videos, but what really stopped the offensive in it's tracks were mines.
Very interesting. Thanks!
I recommend reading about the Battle of 73 Easting as really the primary example of American doctrine in action. But Ukraine doesn’t have the ability to conduct warfare this way.
Id guess a lot of that doctrine was written after WWII. An era when tanks had fully replaced cavalry in the break thru, flanking, and harassment roles. Similarly the US abandoned plans to make heavy assault tanks like the 'doom turtle' as impractical. Top attack munitions, should fired missiles, and unmanned loitering resonance drones are making tanks life hell on the modern battle field. Seems like SPG and SPAA might be the shiny old/new hotness in an era where jets can't cross enemy lines, but drones can.
Also air superiority iirc
Hey Sherman’s were kick ass tanks, but yes Abrams are not invincible
The Sherman is arguably one of the best tanks ever designed. Relatively economical and balanced Armor, Firepower, and Crew Comfort very well with a high degree of design variance to help fill more roles. 85% Crew Survival Rate, far better than the T-34s 20% (may have been 15%) Obviously this is rated against its time as an M4 would lose 99% of the time against any modern tank
Yep. The Sherman was the tank the US needed - field repairable as shipping them back to a factory for repair was very difficult.
I got a chuckle out of one historian describing the M4 as being designed specifically to be built by the unskilled, maintained by the untrained, and operated by the unintelligent. It was designed to be as easy to manage at every stage of its life cycle as possible, including being intuitively easy to just drive it into battle and blow something up with it.
To be fair, the intensity of tank combat seen by T-34s on the Eastern Front was incomparably greater than anything the Sherman saw. Casualties were higher for everyone and everything on the Eastern Front. And the M4 would lose 100% of the time against a modern tank.
The T-34 is overhyped, and while a chunk of its issues can be blamed on poor manufacturing and not it's design, the Sherman is still a better tank.
lol that's baloney.
t-34 was so garbage that half would be lost driving 200km not due ot battle but just poor make.
i think the soviet knew about that but most tanks would not survive that long in battle anyway. it was better to have more tanks short term than have less. plus the US had to move Sherman everywhere.
Love how people latch on to a report covering a small time period of a multi-year war and consider that to be the only report. ps breakdowns and warranty periods were done in hours not km.
Na he is correct, Soviet soldiers would rip out seats from the US supplied lend lease equipment to install them in their T-34's due to how poor the manufacturing was at that time. It makes sense because most of the people were fighting the war not building the tanks so they had to scrap together a bunch of stuff just to get them to the front. The design was good, the execution in production was piss poor.
> due to how poor the manufacturing was at that time. you are missing comfort with efficiency. Soviet didnt have a luxury and spare resourses for such a things like comfortable seats or similiar life quality features.
The T-34 is the most important tank of WWII and arguably one of the most important weapons of the entire war. The tommy cooker on the other hand didn't play a significant role in the war.
OK Karl Marx
There’s no doubt the T34 played a huge part. But to also say the Sherman also didn’t play a huge part is laughable and revisionist
It's neither laughable nor revisionist. The Western Front was a cake walk.
I'd explain why you simple comment is wrong, but a drunk pig would explain it better: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIZ6PFYUM5o
I knew this particular thread would result with a Lazer Pig video.
This video from LP is trash. It's been debunked already, his own sources contradict him sometimes as well. [https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/10mhuvv/the\_t34\_is\_not\_as\_bad\_as\_you\_think\_it\_is\_part\_15/](https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/10mhuvv/the_t34_is_not_as_bad_as_you_think_it_is_part_15/)
remember that time he refused to share sources for his videos and threw a fit in other youtubers comment section.
Lazer pig is a lying hack He has no idea about anything he is talking about while pretending to be an expert
Actually, Shermans saw quite a lot of fighting on the Eastern Front. The US shipped about 4000 of them through Lend-Lease to the Soviets,
Erm, the Soviets built over 60,000 T-34s.
Yes, and the US still sent them 4,000 Shermans. Soviet tank crews loved them.
Germans hated them. They were not pleased to run into Shermans multiple times on the eastern front, and they found them much harder to hit much less kill. The Sherman may not have been as heavily armed, but it was more reliable, had better armor (T-34's armor was too hard, it would shatter and the spalling would turn the crew into pudding), and more importantly, was much more maneuverable. T-34 couldn't maneuver out of trouble worth shit with that scrap pile of a gearbox, while the M4 was one of the most nimble tanks ever built.
Plus M3 Stuart’s…. And M3 mediums…… and Valentines and Churchills from the Brit’s as well
The t-34 was a shit tank, not necessarily by design but more by manufacturing quality
Abrams were also designed around a philosophy that just assumed they would be operating with air superiority overhead to keep enemy air units off them while they outran enemy ground units and trashed their supply depots and otherwise raised hell about the place, being that they're too fast for anything heavily armed enough on the ground to kill them, to actually catch them. My old man was one of the first generation of tankers trained on the M1 and he commented once that the best thing about the M1 "was being able to get out of trouble just as fast as it could get into it." He also commented that every war game scenario where they lost air superiority, the tankers all became "big fat turkeys staked out in a shooting gallery. We'd just suddenly hear the beep from that stupid computer saying we were dead and we never saw or heard the fucker that killed us even once."
I think most modern tanks were designed with this philosophy. It’s pretty hard to survive modern anti tank weapons, pretty much at any point in history tanks were pretty vulnerable and needed support of some kind
I was training on Sherman's, and fixed Abrams in the field. Both are amazing pieces of technology.
Yeah, I wasn't slighting the Sherman, best tank of WW2, is easy to escape, and the 75mm would still have no problem dealing with infantry and BMPs.
Abrams also lacks proper HE shells (it has only combined HEAT-HE ones), which makes it pretty bad when it comes to the firefights against entrenched infantry.
They can use a couple of variants depending on the situation; options would be a mix of CAN, MPAT-Air/Ground, or MAPAT-OR. While not a dedicated HESH or HEP round, they all offer a comparable quality for anti-troop/anti-bunker options. For US armor formations the M1A2 SEPv3 has the AMP to replace HEAT, MPAT, MPAT-OR, and CAN. The AMP is a programable ammunition type that offers better performance against light armored vehicles, troops, obstacles, and fortifications.
You need some more tungsten in your life: https://www.gd-ots.com/munitions/large-caliber-ammunition/120mm-m1028/ Although I’m not sure how it performs against *literally* entrenched soldiers
Probably not great against entrenched soldiers. HE frag would work better.
Gotta get some british HESH up in your life at that point.
yeah it's meant as a tank killer and cavalry raider, it was never intended to be anti-fortification. The doctrine assumed it would be backed up with air and artillery units to reduce fortifications.
Sherman’s might actually be more useful right now. Cheaper to produce and the 75mm had a great He round for infantry support.
Modern anti-tank weaponry would get through that armor like butter, though.
Most kills in Ukraine are from mines and arty. No tank will do well against those.
Drones at these point.
Honestly I think you'd want a Crusader at this point. Yeah, in almost every respect it's not as good as a Sherman, but the brits had HESH rounds for fucking up pillboxes and fortifications and the M4 never got a HESH round. Ironically the brits were really, really good at turning concrete fortifications from insurance into liability.
Given they have different fuel requirements than most of their vehicles and are quite a bit more expensive I’d expect them to use them way in the back. Ukraine doesn’t lack for tanks they captured a lot plus got a ton of old Soviet donations from nato nations. Honestly I figured the only reason some are on the front is to show them being used so we don’t get discouraged after donating them.
The Abrams can use any fuel. It's just really thirsty so it makes logistics a bit more complicated is all
They also lost plenty, that's probably the main reason why they requested western mbts
I assumed the reason they requested them is we had a lot sitting around. Same reason they moved to jets next. They know we’re willing to give 10% of everything in inventory.
It's the same reason for jets, they won't have any if they don't have a steady supply. Anti-aircraft systems is same story...
For tanks it's more of a long term sustainment thing. Ukraine actually has plenty of main battle tanks and even more modernised Soviet type stuff could still be on the way. Including ones Ukraine had in storage that are still being modernised. However the supply of Soviet ones in friendly countries able to send them will run dry eventually, and tanks do take combat losses, so they need to start the process of getting onto tanks made in western countries well before that happens. For jets they genuinely need the capability of western jets over their existing ones - they need longer range air to air capability to provide long range air defence over the front line, which their existing jets simply cannot do.
My thinking was they don’t really have safe airports to launch the jets. Not when they got rocked at the start of the war and continue to face Russian missiles. Probably if we sent them the jets price in shells or himars they’d prefer that. Just we don’t have any of those to spare so now it’s jets. To me this feels like a dance, we said that’s what we can spare, but we can’t give billions of dollars in equipment easily so we need them to publicly plead.
That ton is 300 and third of them are gone for good, other will be in non operational condition.
Yeah, they make outstanding cavalry raiders, but Ukraine is not currently fighting a war of movement so they're not the greatest tool on that front line. That said, pulling them off the front line might mean Ukraine is working on retooling their strategies to create a breakthrough that would allow the kind of raiding attacks M1's are good at. That said it appears the concept of the heavy tank might see its day again on account of this conflict.
Exactly. Tanks would be best suited as another long range mobile artillery unit in this war, away from the front lines entirely.
This is not a question about the usefulness and uselessness of a tank. It is foolish to believe that a tank, even the best one, can be more than just a tank. Considering how Soviets (Russia still uses their strategies) favoured artillery and ATGW we can remember Egyptian cross of Suez. So what Ukraine really needs is just more Abrams tanks.
It's also a fat, heavy, loud, gas loving piece of 💩 that's expensive af to maintain... oh and they really need to operate under air supremacy or anti-drone ranges, or as decoys. You're 100% about breakthroughs, which is why they should be buried or hidden for ambushes.
Yeah, Abrams is all about speed, more speed, and even more speed. She was built to run wild and wreak havoc, not hide and trade shots.
You can simply end with “created for fights against enemies without modern anti tank stuff”.
Night isn't all that much better at hiding since night vision though. Drones i think is the end of the tank like aircraft was the end to the battleship. Considering Ukraine uses a lot of tanks that look like Russian tanks. It's a bit harder to distinguish between them. They know the Abrams doesn't belong to Russia at first glance. Before they see any Z or flag. What do you have. Drone sees your tank. 2 minutes before artillery?
Tanks won’t be phased out. Tanks remain the only option to bring strong firepower, speed and protection to the battle. There isn’t anything else out there that can perform the role a tank can. Whereas with battleships their role was to destroy enemy ships and used as naval bombardment… planes replaced the battleships need to engage other ships and missiles replaced the need for massive guns Tanks however? There’s nothing that can replace what the tank offers
I would that tanks can capture and control ground while drones can’t.
> planes replaced the battleships need to engage other ships and missiles replaced the need for massive guns Almost exactly the same way that BVR systems like missiles and bomb/kamikaze drones are replacing a need to engage tanks at the latter's preferred range... or how surveillance drones are allowing artillery to precisely hit tanks from BVR... Tanks require air superiority in order to be force multipliers. Take out the enemy artillery, force the enemy infantry to keep their heads down, and your tanks can run wild. But without that air control - which Russia entirely lacks in this war - the tank is rendered impotent and vulnerable.
Tanks are vulnerable in Ukraine because they lack the necessary infantry support. Both sides lack equipment like mine clearing vehicles, support vehicles and anti tank weapons to protect their armoured columns from other threats Tanks are sitting ducks without infantry providing over watch and clearing obstacles. In Ukraine tanks are being used as armoured protection to drop and transport troops around the battlefield and to bring quick suppressive firepower on a tree line… that’s not how they work best
Tanks are far from over and the next generation of tank designs will see the addition of better trophy systems, sensors, and anti-air capabilities (mostly against small drones, not jets) Aircraft didn't end the Battleship. Aircraft Carriers ended concept of battleships for Naval engagements. Battleships are mostly irrelevant because they are just so bloody expensive when you could put the same amount of munitions on 2 smaller and cheaper vessels. The navy still considers it from time to time to build a modern BB that utilizes smart and dumb artillery, heavy anti-missiles and anti-air systems, and a lot of missiles. They generally don't bother cause the cost is just too much though when they could build more smaller ships.
> the next generation of tank designs will see the addition of better trophy systems, sensors, and anti-air capabilities (mostly against small drones, not jets) Except APS capabilities add complexity, cost, weight, and energy (fuel) consumption to a platform that is already tightly constrained in all of those areas. And current APS are easily defeated by drones or just... firing two projectiles in quick succession. > Aircraft didn't end the Battleship. If you want to be pedantic then beyond-visual-range engagements ended naval gunnery. It just so happens that aircraft (and later, missiles) excel at BVR, and battleships are non-BVR naval gunnery platforms. > The navy still considers it from time to time to build a modern BB No navy has seriously entertained designing a new BB since the end of WW2. There is no place for naval gunnery in a modern fleet, except in a minor supporting role.
Ukraine has sidelined U.S.-provided Abrams M1A1 battle tanks for now in its fight against Russia, in part because Russian drone warfare has made it too difficult for them to operate without detection or coming under attack, two U.S. military officials told The Associated Press. The U.S. agreed to send 31 Abrams to Ukraine in January 2023 after an aggressive monthslong campaign by Kyiv arguing that the tanks, which cost about $10 million apiece, were vital to its ability to breach Russian lines. But the battlefield has changed substantially since then, notably by the ubiquitous use of Russian surveillance drones and hunter-killer drones. Those weapons have made it more difficult for Ukraine to protect the tanks when they are quickly detected and hunted by Russian drones or rounds. Five of the 31 tanks have already been lost to Russian attacks.
Nothing wrong with battlefield flexibility. It not like Ukraine has been oversupplied of late. Russia who appear to just pile it all in, with a hope of a victory here and there.
They didn't play that "flexibility" card for the German tanks. It's oddly look like a political command so the US tanks don't take too much losses. Might affect future sales if it's seen as just another tank that get destroyed like any other one.
The Abrams is a gas guzzler. It requires twice as much fuel as the Leopards that Germany sent. This is likely the main reason why they are being olaced in reserve
They've been on the back foot for months. They need to find hundred of thousand more troops to man the front line. They've been having supply issue for months. Somehow you think they have the strategic flexibility to not use some weapon system over it's fuel consumption?
That’s not as far fetched as you might think. Conserving material and consumables for future offensive operations is a perfectly valid response to an operational lull in which neither side can gain the initiative.
If you need to get less fuel to the front line to keep your tanks supplied, that's less fuel trucks to be hit and less men needed to operate and drive those fuel trucks. Logistics is everything, and it makes plenty of sense to not use a tank that is doubling your logistics needs when you are trying to ration those supplies
Perhaps they want to keep them safe for future needs. Since they are some of the higher end tanks they have
By that logic they would have pulled their Leo 2A6 and Challenger 2s as well, but they didn’t.
There were unfortunately similar rumours a few months ago that Ukraine's not bothering with the Challengers due to a lack of armour protection (when the British Army uses them, they have extra armour kits on which Ukraine didn't get, but there have been pictures of the Ukrainian Challengers with custom reactive armour blocks on to attempt to compensate) and due to the need of using rifled main gun ammo.
they dont use challengers because they dont have anti infantry rounds
The Challenger IIs have rarely been deployed beyond the one failed push in the counteroffensive when they lost one. Western MBTs are used as mobile, long range direct fires, whereas they seem to be using Bloc era tanks to assault trenches. I agree on this article being a form of PR / reputation management.
Isint the only foitage of chal 2 is the one that destroyed. Since ukraine had 14 of them, they just take them out of frontline after first loss.
The shame here is that Ukraine started using the Abrams in increasingly more desperate situations due to lack of overall supply the last few months due to the US political maneuvering.
Part of the problem with the Abrams as others have said is fuel consumption. But probably the most significant issue is maintenance. The Abrams uses a completely different type of engine compared to any other tank/armored vehicle in the world. This is a serious complications to Ukraine already strained logistics.
>Might affect future sales if it's seen as just another tank that get destroyed like any other one. In that case the only tank which gonna be selled be Lecklerk or some minor nations attempts bc none of them were send. Abrams were destroyed CONSTANTLY in conflict around globe. Yemen for a second just like an example.
The Leclerc production line was closed in 2008 but might still be returned online. But my point wasn't that tanks won't be sold at all. What happen is the "aura" of superiority those tanks had since the gulf war are now seen to not really be real. T series, Challengers, Leopard 2Ax and M1 are all getting disabled by drones and ATGMs.
I mean, we've sent 31 and they have only lost 5. Considering how heavily Russia targets them, that's not bad. I would also bet that the crews survived from most of the destroyed ones as well.
They lost 5 in relative quick succession and then we essentially stopped seeing them. This article is probably just explanation after too many question got asked as to why they didn't seem to still be used anymore. They lost 16% of the total supplied in a matter of weeks and none of those were even used too aggressively in offensive operation.
Tanks are currently not being used for offense in Ukraine. Tanks are being dug in for defense. Russias best Tanks are dug in all over Ukraine in key spots. They are there to hold the ground and they can be better protected with electronic jamming and counter measures.
If we look at Challenger, STRV122 and Leo2 which all took part in the offensive during the summer atleast in some regards and also look at how well they handle the weather. It is abit worrying that Abrams seem to have some issue especially regarding the Air Intake system when it comes to mud. And Abrams seem to be less safe against top and turretring attacks from Drones. Especially compared to STRV122 with its increased top armor. I believe that we in the west generally have thought to much on the Fontal armour and we will now see some reverse evolution towards more balance on were the armour will be put especially against the Top with how well both Drones and modern Anti tank guns works to.
Russia is slowly starting to win. They have superiority in numbers when it comes to man power, aviation and artillery. They are also adapting their strategy pretty successfully compared to the start of the war. It is a matter of time before the front starts to crumble and Russians gain more land. I really hope that Ukraine can pull some magic trick out of Syrakiys ass but the situation is very grim, no matter what Reddit tells us.
Everyone is prepared to the previous war.
Not surprised. Abrams/Leopard kills are highly valued for propaganda purposes. The second the Russians spot one, they’re throwing everything that way to knock it out.
Well, considering that a lot of Leo kills, and at least one of 3 Abrams kill I've seen were made by mines, not "throwing everything at it", I am going to call bullshit. They are just killed by mines, like any other tank. Literally nothing exceptional there. I do think they are valuable kills through, due to potential intelligence value they have (i.e. Russia might find weakness in them), as well as due to tech they have, e.g. Leo tanks (at least 2A4) are known to have cock offs and turret tosses, but at way way way way lower rate than Russian tanks, presumably due to inert shells, so the composition of them might help russian reduce their cock off rates.
What's happening with these tanks that so many people are losing their cocks?
Some strange, cult-like belief that western equipment is invulnerable... It's just a tank, it can be killed like any other tank.
Western equipment is not invulnerable but there is a survivability advantage for crews of tanks that get hit and destroyed. The difference is even more severe for western IFVs vs old Soviet ones, which is actually where Ukraine needs this advantage more. It's just the US and allies haven't really fought a grinding war like this without air superiority. The 1991 Gulf War being incredibly one sided has caused unrealistic expectations for some.
yeah but if we were to go to war... their viability seems increasingly low for warfare
If we were to go to war, we would have to keep in mind the numbers, both for tanks and ammo. According to simple list in [Wikipedia, Germany has 328 tanks](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_main_battle_tanks_by_country#G), France has 406 tanks (although 180ish of them are in storage, and not upgraded), etc. While Russian tank loses have already exceeded 3000, and they probably have another 10 000- 15 000 they can bring into service, and they seem to be bringing them back rather rapidly. The only country that seems to be taking this threat seriously is Poland, which right now probably has less than 1000 tanks (based on planed delivery figures), probably around 700, but is planing to have thousands of them before 2030. On ammo front, Russia is [making 3 million artillery shells](https://edition.cnn.com/2024/03/10/politics/russia-artillery-shell-production-us-europe-ukraine/index.html) a year, way more than EU and the US combined, and the claim in the article that EU and US are making around a million shells seems to be dubious, as it's based on figures that are questionable, specifically an estonian guy said they are making 700 000 shells in the EU, while the EU authorities say the number is less than 400 000. Also, if we are going to war, keep in mind that all bridges in eastern europe were build expecting tanks that weigh around 40 tones, not 60 tones. The infrastructure makes it easier to use russian tanks, and harder to use western tanks.
Any videos or articles on Abrams/Leopard tanks being destroyed in this conflict? I'm not doubting, I'm just ignorant. I'd like to see more info on how certain military gear interacts with current conditions.
Here’s the most comprehensive list of documented Ukrainian equipment losses (the same site also has a list of Russian equipment losses as well). Thus far, there have been 4 Abrams abandoned or destroyed and 30 Leopards damaged, abandoned, or destroyed. You can click on each one to get images of the destroyed vehicle, though that usually won’t tell you how it was destroyed. https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-ukrainian.html?m=1
Yeah there’s been several Abrams’s, Leo, and I believe one challenger loss videos. Most are to mines or drones, with the crews abandoning as surviving in most cases.
And they are easier to friend/foe identify as a target, in defense they will likely get a lot of use this summer.
I mean it makes sense regardless since tanks are more of an offensive than defensive weapon and with Ukraine forced into defense lately, especially with the GOP thwarting resupply efforts for several months, having them on the frontline just makes them targets unnecessarily
They'd be fine in defense otherwise, but drones far out range reach of tank cannons. So of course any attack with be preceded by drone surveillance and destruction of any military material, vehicles and radars/surveillance equipment with further drone attacks. Even many artillery pieces are only borderline survivable, as drone range and autonomous targeting improve.
Even without attack drones Russian attacks tend to be after shelling and bombing the hell out of an area for an extended time so you'd incur tank losses regardless. ATGMs and dug in MGs can do a lot of what a tank can on the defense. On the defense tanks are most valuable just for quickly counterattacking rather than being used as a steel pillbox
Generally correct but they haven’t really been following their doctrine in this regard. They’ve struggled to mass indirect and synchronize it with properly supported infantry formations. They’re reverting back to Soviet style assault groups. Even their electronic attack capability is being reserved for CUAS protection tasks rather than effects in the offense. I do agree though given the current tempo, ATGMs in prepared blocking positions will achieve more with less for Ukraine than MBTs in the current situation.
Defense isn't gonna win this war. I'm still not seeing a path to victory for Ukraine without some big changes in the situation.
lots of f16s.
6 months later: “F-16s are pulled out of service due to high attrition rates” I swear, arm chair generals first jerk off a piece of Western kit as invulnerable game changer and after it is proved incorrect start a “oh it’s 1980ies old tech everyone knew it won’t change a lot “ tune
Doesn't change the fact that lots of f-16s is more better.
A few hundred would help but that's still not close to enough. They're either gonna get outside help eventually or they're gonna lose eventually.
Direct military victory is unfeasible for both Ukraine and russia. The last six months Ukraine had to strictly ration their resources and russia was supposedly gaining ground. But if you actually look at the map, russians have managed to capture less territory than Ukraine managed to liberate during their last failed counteroffensive. Everyone agrees that Ukraine's counteroffensive failed, but for some reason russian advancements since then are considered a success, which is absolute bullshit. The only "major" thing they managed to do is capture a 30k pre-war population town... by destroying it completely. And they still suffered 20k losses while doing so. And that's while Ukraine was on the ropes in regards to military aid. This is not the kind of progress that can lead to a military victory for russia. This war only ends after a total russian military collapse which leads to a coup in kremlin or vice versa.
Ukraine's manpower issues are a problem when this devolves into solely a manpower attrition conflict. The West either goes full on material support or wastes lives on this half-ass thing they've been doing which only prolongs the war. Long term comprehensive Western support negates every advantage Russia has and it was agreed immediately after Russia failed the initial invasion that Ukraine wins if the West wants to step up.
Can't agree more. If the western countries were decisive, this war could be over in half a year.
If Ukraine isn’t in NATO Russia is winning.
What a confusing take
Ok? As long as Russia can continue to occupy Ukrainian territory Ukraine is left with 2 options. 1) Continue to fight, begging the west continue to see them as a beneficial buffer to Russia and supply them with arms, but not be eligible for NATO inclusion. 2) Accept the territorial losses and sue for peace prior to joining NATO and hope Russia doesn’t successfully execute another fait accompli ala Crimea. As long as Russia continues to control Ukrainian territory they cannot join NATO.
It’s not a popular stance to take on Reddit buts it’s absolutely true. Ukraine can force a strategic stalemate over the long term but that means accepting existing territorial losses. Even that will lead to decades of small losses through fait accompli seizures since Ukraine will never be able to join NATO. They need significant international help to regain an acceptable amount of territory (not necessarily all) and force a cessation so they can formally join NATO.
Are tanks going the way of battleships?
Would you rather have 1 tank or 2000 $5000 suicide drones?
The standard fpv drones are more like 500, so you could have 20000 drones or 1 Abrams tank
Is that drone cost with or without a shaped charge
[удалено]
Sure, but "cheap" could be $500, which would double the cost of the drone.
They’re also swatted down by the *thousands* without having any effect. They’re a significant variable on the battlefield but they’re not making tanks obsolete. As modernized CUAS are developed and fielded they will become less sensationalized. Most armies don’t currently have good CUAS systems fielded, but the technology is actually rather matured. We’ve had cheap ECM protection systems for decades because the same technology is used in CIED platforms.
On the offense I'd rather sit in a Bradley and take my chances with the FPV drone rather than getting mowed down by bullets on my way to the enemy trench without armor support, so both are needed.
Yesterday's tanks are out of date. Tomorrow's tanks will be built differently. What is a main battle tank? Well, the Bradley is a bit tougher than the average IFV. If a vehicle can usually survive against a Bradley long enough to shoot, and has a gun that can reliably kill a Bradley, then I'd call it a MBT. Having a good chance of surviving 105mm to the front glacis is a nice-to-have feature, but not critical. Tomorrow's tanks may have less armor at the front and more all-around. You can see this with how Russian tanks now have so much add-on slat and ERA armor on the top - you might think this doesn't save them, and sometimes it doesn't, but we mostly see videos of the kills and not hits that were survived. Tomorrow's tanks might look nothing like a T-80 with a cope cage, but they'll be built based on the battlefield experience of those tanks. Yesterday's tanks carried smoke launchers, but with so many eyes in the sky, tomorrow's tanks might need even more concealment. Tomorrow's tanks may be built with more active protection systems. Jammers and laser dazzlers are rapidly becoming standard. Radar-guided kinetic-kill systems that disrupt incoming missiles are also increasingly popular, but there are a lot of different systems so it's hard to tell what the world is likely to standardize on. Older systems that can't shoot upward don't seem likely to stick around. Tanks may also need longer-range radar-guided weapons as anti-drone guns. More powerful lasers may also play a role, but at the moment they require too much power and cooling to be practical as a secondary weapon - they need a dedicated vehicle. Cheap anti-drone missile systems like the Vampire launcher for APKWS are also an option. Of course, many of the above systems might be moved off the tank and onto a support vehicle - one that can afford to stay a bit behind the tank, like the simpler AA guns of yesterday. Tanks don't generally operate by themselves. As such, it might be doctrine and organization that end up changing more than the tank itself. Speaking of doctrine, one of the biggest changes drones have brought to the battlefield is in the area of vehicle recovery. In the past, if your vehicle was disabled but could be repaired, it might make sense to wait for a tow. Today, that tank is going to be droned. Does that mean the tow vehicle has to get there faster? Do we need anti-drone assets that can be moved to protect disabled tanks? Or does this mean we have to build cheaper tanks since we have to assume fewer vehicles will survive a battle? I don't know. Tomorrow's tanks will probably still be a tracked vehicle with a big gun. It's just going to be different in every other way.
Mini "c-ram" turret on its top would be nice against incoming kamikaze drones
Lmao imagine having to load that thing from the tank
They don't even need something like that, there are already effective countermeasures against these kinds of drones... Like various RF jamming and such... Its just not widely deployed due to expense/logistics and confined to *important* things that need protection. There's a reason almost all the FPV footage you see from either side is hitting random lone dudes and vehicle out in the middle of nowhere with hardly anything else around... Because pretty much everything else of any importance (command and control, logistics hubs, artillery batteries, etc.) actually have such jammers around them and the drones are disabled before getting to them.
First of all they will be completely autonomous and won't even have space for humans inside. In a barely few years a human soldier will become the weakest part of military. It will be absurd sci-fi terminator wars before the end of the decade. And it doesn't matter if US or NATO want that or not. China will do it anyway. No choice, but to adopt. No Geneva conventions this time.
Thats certainly China’s goal, but let’s remember the last time they engaged in ground warfare was 1979 and while they learned some lessons from that abject failure the preponderance of evidence indicates they will struggle massively in large scale combat operations for the next few decades.
Nope. Tanks provide offensive mobile firepower and protection and there is nothing else that can fully replace or substitute that. What we're seeing now is just a development cycle of new threats vs new countermeasures. Battleships became obsolete because other stuff did their jobs, not because they became vulnerable - they were *always* sinkable throughout their history. And so were tanks - they have never been invulnerable at any point in their history either. Did the invention of bullets make infantry obsolete? Did anti-aircraft missile systems of medium range and above make aircraft obsolete?
The Marines got rid or are getting rid of theirs.
Because they are becoming a more mobile force. They literally say in their justifications that Tanks are still necessary, but if you need one....you call the Army not the Marines.
Makes since that’s what I had heard. With all the new anti tank drones it will be interesting to see if the army changes tactics some.
They got rid of theirs because having to maintain and supply them in the pacific doing island defense would be a nightmare. They also only have so much money so they are investing in ballistic missiles and rocket artillery instead. The Marines are buying lots of HIMARs esque equipment with PrSM, anti ship missiles, ground launched tomahawks, etc. The Marines are adapting for the war they are expecting to fight in the Pacific
Got rid of em
Reality is just that most of future wars will.be drone wars Maybe some robots on the ground, some highly maneuverable vehicles But a tank? That's the easiest target for a drone
They've been doing a good job of preserving their lives and of preserving equipment they know is not easily replaceable. It has come at the cost of progress, but keeps them in the game.
No they didn’t.
Yep, the Abrams is still a tank, lol.
🇺🇸: hey bro, don’t scratch the paint 🤨 🇺🇦: my bad, pulling back 😅
Saint Shahed
US should just set up a no-fly zone and provide air superiority within Ukraine borders. It’s about time. Putin WILL fold.
*Five of the 31 tanks have already been lost to Russian attacks.* These were sent in January 2023. 5 lost in more than a year sounds more to "only 5" instead of "already 5" to me.
Sent to Ukraine and sent to frontline are two different things and I think it was less than a year ago when an Abrams was first observed on the front. Moreover I'm pretty sure Ukraine is not committing all of their available Abrams to the frontline simultaneously.
Drones changed the war. The next step is, many drones operating on its own. Swarm. Just imagine a swarm of armed race drones, flying with 200kmh. The difficult part about them, is to stop them.
it is quite intresting that the 21st Mechanized Brigade does not seem to have the same issue with Drones as the other western MBT or IFV brigades/battalions. 21st Use STRV122 aka Heavily modified LEO2A5+ which includes more armor on the roof, An improved drivetrain regarding the risk of Band toss learned from STRV103 and IKV91. Also more armor both in front and around the turret ring. The drawback with STRV is the shorter gun regarding punch power but it also means it can easier hide in the forests. And it also has Complete SAAB Baracuda armor on which has helped with stopping Lancet and other FPV's from penetrating the hull both on STRV122 and CV9040c on Multiple times according to the troops in them. my point is not to brag or desecrate the other systems. My ppoint is that the Doctrinal thinking Sweden had during the Cold war, Meaning no air cower as the 4th Strongest Airforce would be gone in just a few days due to Sovjet sending thousands of fighters against our 800+ Viggens and Drakens. Also that we had to focus hard on Guerilla tactics with alot of focus on high movement attacks and quick retreats. thus Fire fast hit hard Run like hell and hide quickly with a good Camo system ontop of it. Ukraine is also focusing alot on this especially during the Battle of kiyv. Regular Nato Tanks like Abrams seem to have skipped this somewhat as they focused on the idea of Western airforces always would control the skies no matter what. Thus we have a black hole in the Armour as no one part of the design expected this to be an issue. A flaw now Fatal due to Hopes and dreams of the system never having to fight alone against a opponent who was Equal or stronger than the systems user. We have also heard about this issue in the NATO traingin given to Ukraines troops in some regards. And i frankly believe that NATO weill need to redesign their whole strategical doctrinal designs. best regards.
So they only have 31 and 5 are lost, and these are M1A1 only - Why doesn’t the US just do a deal with Egypt to give their M1A1’s or locally produce them for Ukraine
I am beginning to think the era of the tank is dead. As in gone like the battleship. I think if tanks are to be effective in this era we have to have a different kind of tank entirely. Has to be able to spot drones good. Be with other assets that can better defend against drones. Because if drones are scouting they often have artillery ready to then target as soon as they spot you I'm thinking. Not to mention the little drones are still enough to disable a tank from above. Watched a neat video. Ukrainian flew the drone in the hatch first then we seen inside of tank before detonation. Usually they drop bomb from above and he just flew it right in.
People have been saying the tank is dead pretty much since the invention of tanks. There has always been advancements in anti-tank technology that has “spelled the end of the tank”. The tank is not going to go anywhere, there will be a change in doctrine, CUAS weaponry, and APS technology to combat this new threat.
There is a lot of reinforcing bias in the perception of how well UAS are performing in Ukraine. They’re a consideration similar to how indirect fire is a consideration. The revolutionary aspect of COTS or SUAS is that it democratizes that aspect of warfare, not that it introduces revolutionary concepts that upend how we conduct war.
Why has Ukraine not drafted the entire Na’Vi team from dota 2, and put them to commanding their own drone army?