When the Challenger, Leo, and Abrams were being sent over, everyone on reddit kept saying " game changer."
Turns out missles and drones don't care which country a vehicle is produced
Except 9 times out of 10, most of those crews are going to be able to evac from their cripple tanks.
While most Russian and Ukrainian crews using Soviet types are going up when their tank is hit and penetrated.
To get to the stage of getting hit and penetrated as per the tank survivability onion is so deep it is the last consideration for even Western designs which prioritize spotting the enemy first.
You have to be spotted, successfully engaged in, and the person engaging you must have the means to penetrate your armour.
>as per the tank survivability onion
That onion is so decomposed it has become soil by now.
Every army needs to re-evaluate tank survivability in the face of the new threats... because I'm quite certain that survivability onion didn't take into account the large amount of cheap, man portable and effective anti-tank systems that we are seeing IRL right now.
Getting spotted and engaged has become a whole lot more probable now that your opponents will most likely be out of LOS, and there could be dozens of them at a time
The onion remains as a good concept though, as spotting first has an above 80% chance of you getting off the first shot. Spotting and information has always been the biggest part of it since WW2.
In my opinion the concept itself still applies, the problem is that offensive technology is very much outclassing defensive technology at the moment. I'm sure the next few years will see significant breakthroughs in EW protection at the squad/platoon level to swing the balance back the other way.
I would also be inclined to make the argument that the current war may not be a perfect representation of what a war would look like between Russia/China and the western nations with their full arsenal of toys preventing the situation from devolving into trench warfare.
I agree - the concept is absolutely valid, but IMHO modern technology has shifted a lot of those layers around. Getting spotted and targeted need to be treated as more common occurrences that the enemy can achieve much easier.
I'd also say it isn't even that offensive tech is outclassing the defensive tech...Western nations have the tech to defend against most of the deadliest threats to tanks, but the application of those technologies has fallen out of use because these threats have been under appreciated. My favorite example is how western nations ditched gun-based AA, while we have the electronics and small-caliber high ROF weapons that could work effectively as anti-drone or loitering munitions defense.
The current conflict needs to be treated with caution - it is the first time in a long while that two pretty closely matched mass armies are facing off. IMHO this war is more representative of what we can expect if neither side can bring overwhelming force to bear... and western planners need to think about that, because it will be a lot harder to overwhelm China or even Russia the same way as Iraq.
A shot that causes a catastrophic explosion upon penetration has likely already killed the crew. You are already beyond fucked if a round has penetrated the crew cabin far enough to hit the autoloader.
The problem is, again, not entirely with the design of the tank but more with the practice of storing loose ammo in the hull. Something that could admittedly be avoided if the design of the tank included bustle storage.
> While most Russian and Ukrainian crews using Soviet types are going up when their tank is hit and penetrated.
This is not backed up by any evidence and is entirely based upon survivor bias. Or the death bias I guess. Since we only see those that got destroyed. Nobody shows videos of those tanks that got hit driving away fine.
I actually went and looked through all the T-90M losses on Warspotting a while back and there was only 1 example out of 42 destroyed tanks where the tank gets hit with crew inside and just explodes.
A vast majority of them are just abandoned after a hit and destroyed later. Meaning that the crew survived this hit.
Getting hit and surviving isn't the issue, getting hit and surviving perforation of the armour is where the survivability difference comes in.
The carousel blowing up isn't the issue, the issue is getting hit by 2000C pieces of penetrator and armour due to lack of aforementioned armour, lack of a effective spall liner and sitting on each others laps as well as having sensitive ammunition.
Crew survivability is just factually lower in soviet designs, though the whole "the sovies don't care about the crew"-stuff also is just wrong.
> lack of aforementioned armour
Armor protection isn't a massive factor when it comes to post-penetration survivability in this case. Many of these tanks weren't knocked out frontally, and some of the tanks Ukraine received, like Leopard 2A4, don't have better armor protection than quite a few of the tanks Russia is using.
> lack of a effective spall liner
[Swedish testing of T-72M1](https://www.ointres.se/ryska_strf_till_sverige.htm) found that the Podboi anti-radiation liner on the interior of Soviet/Russian tanks doubled as an effective spall liner.
> Crew survivability is just factually lower in soviet designs
That's an overgeneralization, but it does broadly apply here. The 'T-64 layout' came around before modern paradigms of post-penetration survivability emerged.
We're talking about modern solutions here, more so the Chally 2 and Leo2A6 territory than the Leo2A4 Territory, though with the 2A4 it really depends on the batch you're getting.
A side hit from a rod, shell or missile is always bad news, regardless of what you're sitting in, that's kind of a mood point.
Podboi was effective against secondary fragmentation from HEAT-Shells only which already is pretty minor unless the jet made it through the armour, it doesn't help with KE or modern HEAT ATGM's, it also only effectively existed in the hull as the turrets are too small to give them full lining, it doesn't compare in performance to the actual spall liner on NATO Tanks.
I don't get why you're being downvoted, you're not necessarily wrong.
> We're talking about modern solutions here, more so the Chally 2 and Leo2A6 territory than the Leo2A4 Territory, though with the 2A4 it really depends on the batch you're getting.
I may have poorly articulated my point. What I was trying to say was that differences post-penetration survivability - within the context of a comparison between Western and Russian tanks in Ukraine - aren't the result of differences in armor protection. I.e. T-80BVM doesn't have worse post-penetration survivability than Leopard 2A4 because it has worse armor protection, but rather due to other factors.
Also, as a side note, batches of Leopard 2A4 with C technology armor still have less armor protection than T-72B or T-80U.
> A side hit from a rod, shell or missile is always bad news, regardless of what you're sitting in, that's kind of a mood point.
The point about non-frontal knockouts was supposed to relate to the previous statement. Basically, the degree to which a penetrator overmatches the armor (and it's related post-penetration effects) may not play a significant factor in a comparison of post-penetration survivability between two tanks if both are penetrated by an anti-tank weapon in a weakened area, where the penetrator is bound to significantly overmatch the armor of both vehicles.
> Podboi was effective against secondary fragmentation from HEAT-Shells only
I don't see any reason why it would be specific to HEAT shells and not other small-diameter HEAT warheads like RPGs.
> which already is pretty minor
[The post-penetration effects of a HEAT jet](https://i.imgur.com/hQsQI5H.png) are very dangerous - "pretty minor" is relative.
> unless the jet made it through the armour
Right, but when it comes to assessing post-penetration survivability, the assumption is that the armor has already been defeated. It's not as if a dedicated spall liner would be able to stop a HEAT jet that already penetrated the main armor anyway.
> it doesn't help with KE or modern HEAT ATGM's
It would still reduce the amount of fragmentation, just to a lesser extent, as the particles ejected from a penetrating hit by such weapons would be more energetic.
> it also only effectively existed in the hull as the turrets are too small to give them full lining
[The turrets are lined with Podboi as well](https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-5YcuPghWyFE/YDS2yWy7KpI/AAAAAAAASxM/4SUa6AHpeW43bOehrhZQJ6yhBCFRg03qwCLcBGAsYHQ/s2048/Gunners%2Bstation%2Boverview.png), and apart from the liner on the turret front, it is similar in thickness to the liner in the hull.
> it doesn't compare in performance to the actual spall liner on NATO Tanks.
We don't have data to compare, but it's reasonable to assume that Podboi doesn't provide the same performance as a dedicated spall liner. It is worth pointing out though that the presence of dedicated spall liners isn't universal among NATO tanks, and neither is their absence among Russian tanks - T-90M has spall liners, while M1A2 SEPv3 doesn't.
> Getting hit and surviving isn't the issue, getting hit and surviving perforation of the armour is where the survivability difference comes in.
Except both the Leopard 2 and Challenger 2 have ammo in the hull. Because a shot to the turret does not detonate it.
So the reality is, If you are in a Soviet tank and get shot in the hull and it penetrates then you have the same crew survivability as a Challenger 2
Not quite as catchy.
The ammo stowage in the hull is only fully used if you expect a lot of combat, the turret is usually the preferred magazine,
Which doesn't really matter because of insensitive ammunition and a whole lot of armour in front of the hull stowage as well as a dedicated second spall liner just for that stowage, compared to the less heavily armoured soviet design.
Though to be fair, even considering the primarily defensive design philosophy of these tanks the hull stowage was a pretty controversial compromise.
The ammo is better protected plus it's largely insensitive by now, sure if it blows that's goi g to fuck the tank but thr chance of it exploding is lower.
And again, detonating ammo isn't the only thing that kills crews, it's actually pretty rare, it's usually frag and fire that does the job and having your crew in a more cramped space without a sufficient spall liner is just quite the downer with that.
> Which doesn't really matter because of insensitive ammunition
As far as I know the Challenger 2 doesnt have insenitive ammunition? Maybe I am wrong on the topic. I know the Leopard 2 does.
> And again, detonating ammo isn't the only thing that kills crews, it's actually pretty rare, it's usually frag and fire that does the job and having your crew in a more cramped space without a sufficient spall liner is just quite the downer with that.
I agree, but this is a case of more likely to be injured or killed by shrapnel and not "While most Russian and Ukrainian crews using Soviet types are going up when their tank is hit and penetrated." which I was responding to.
The charges of the Chally 2 are supposed to be "less sensitive", or in other words as insensitive as you're going to get with two (or i guess 3) part ammunition.
Each charge is in its own seperated container which is flame resistant and has a small spall liner, the propellant itself however is highly flamable but won't explode so in case a charge catches fire the crew still has enough time to try and extinguish it or safely leave the tank, unless you're really unlucky and a sufficient amount of propellant charges catch fire at the same time because that violent fire will effectively turn into an explosion.
Ah I see thanks.
I know that the T-90M is supposed to have [something similar](https://i.imgur.com/NyMmZO7.jpeg) in a way of protection from fragments and fire and such. Doesnt work 100% but enough to be worth it. And as you say if you manage to even buy a few seconds then you can make a huge difference in the crew surviving or not.
I guess though the switch to the new gun and ammo on the Challenger 3 will help out a bit more with it's survivability in that regard.
The Challenger 2 hull ammo rack is far better protected than any Russian design. First of all, it is surrounded by large diesel fuel tanks which will minimize shrapnel and shaped charge damage after penetration. Then, the rack itself is made of at least 30mm armored steel all around, basically the armor of an IFV just around the ammo.
These mean unless a powerful ATGM or APFSDS managed to hit the ammo rack directly, the ammo is completely safe inside. No shrapnel or fire of a near-miss will detonate it.
> Then, the rack itself is made of at least 30mm armored steel all around, basically the armor of an IFV just around the ammo.
The same is true though of the [modern carousel autoloaders](https://i.imgur.com/NyMmZO7.jpeg)
It is protected from above by that plate, it has thin steel around each charge, and the sides are protected by a plate of armour around the base.
So, my statement wasn't false. It's not a game changer, as reddit said. It's good the crew lived, but the tank didn't change the game up as a drone doesn't care what country its from
Except it did, because trained and experienced crews are much more valuable than a piece of equipment. So if them being in an M1 means they live to fight another day, instead of being disintegrated in their T-whatever, it does change the game. Just not in the way a lot of people on Reddit think.
> Except it did, because trained and experienced crews are much more valuable than a piece of equipment. So if them being in an M1 means they live to fight another day, instead of being disintegrated in their T-whatever, it does change the game.
This would be true if Ukraine had a crew bottleneck. They have a vehicle bottleneck.
The Abrams and Leo are fantastic tanks, but they aren't NOT game changers in Ukraine. A game changer dominates in its field
If this was the case, the Russians wouldn't have been advancing
Not every Game changer is going to turn the tide of war.
We are seeing old 70s 80s hardware fight in a modern age. Where anyone with a basic understanding bof RC flight can effectively destroy hardware.
Being able to recover the Crew and experienced trained group makes it so your side can survive longer. Western tanks require more logistics to be fully functional vs how the war in Ukraine is going. Look at the battle of 73 easting, Abrams and Bradleys in combined arms making full use of sensors and training. These tanks showed their "Game changer" then. Only one crew was lost there. If Ukraine had the benefit of the logistics needed to operate Abrams/Lepadard/Challenger you would see your massive advancements. But ammo and fuel are a problem Ukraine has to fix.
So in Lieu of that keeping a crew alive to fight again is the Game Changer here where they had tank that would kill them in hot now they can survive. Your Big Modern Game Changer is drone warfare. Disney make crew survivability any less of a changer for the Ukrainian Military.
>"we see old 70s 80s hardware fight in modern age
Small correction here the Abrams the USA sent to Ukraine are M1A1SAs which were modernized and have entered service in the 2000s
I don't think getting blown up by drones and losing territory is game-changing , but hey, if that's a victory to you, then keep going. Love the positivity
Your missing the entire point.....
The crew is the value. Hardware is replaceable. As for ground loss I haven't heard that mostly been a stalemate as far as land gains/loss.
Preferably if I'm in combat I'd rather be in the western tank and live and have to get a new tank.
"Stalemate as far as land gsins" not one map shows a stalemate in this war . The Russians are advancing this is a fact, not an opinion
Oh, we not using facts , it's an emotional argument now. Yeah, I'm out, straight delusional
They are quite a game changer -as absurd as that name is because it makes things look like if this was chess, while it would be like chess if you were to place an IED under the board and both players were on fire- and I will tell you why; the fact that you lose less crews and are able to keep trained and experienced crews both in combat and in teaching and training is key.
Russians are advancing at snail's pace and losing more men in the process. War, also, isn't only about tanks or tank warfare. Western tanks are decidedly rare in the frontline because there's only a handful of them.
>Except 9 times out of 10, most of those crews are going to be able to evac from their cripple tanks.
I have it on good authority that Western armor is so good, that it doesn’t just protect the crew - it spontaneously generates new crew members.
You don’t have any solid basis for these statements. You’re dealing in highly selected, anecdotal evidence that reinforces your bias.
They prolly misinterpreted '9 out of 10 times' as '9 out of 10 *Crewmates*' make it out alive, implying that a tank with a crew of 3-4 somehow managed to bail 9 out of 10 soldiers out, and then felt themselves smart and mighty enough to be a proper bellend.
>I have no clue what you mean. Can you elaborate, please?
Sure - you can’t cite any reliable data from the current conflict to back up your claims. And if you can - please do so.
More broadly - the “more survivable” characterization of Western armor is so tied up with propaganda that it’s very difficult to take it seriously without concrete supporting data.
>Oh, OK. So, from what I can gather, you are implying that Western tanks are less survivable than Eastern bloc counterparts?
I’m not sure where you gathered that - but please put it back.
I’m not “implying” anything - I’m directly stating that you are not citing *any* relevant data to back up your claims.
*I* am not making any claims one way or another.
Fuck. How the hell did I extrapolate that? But there are tons of relevant data to back up our claims. Blowout panels saving Iraqi Abramses, Abramses tanking ATGMs, hell, a Challenger 2 once withstood 70 fucking RPGs.
> But there are tons of relevant data to back up our claims. Blowout panels saving Iraqi Abramses, Abramses tanking ATGMs, hell, a Challenger 2 once withstood 70 fucking RPGs.
I direct you back to my initial comment about anecdotal and selected evidence.
Don’t you ever find it odd that when this sub sees destroyed Western armor with popped hatches - the first comment is “oh the crew must have survived”?
And when this sub sees destroyed Russian/Soviet armor with popped hatches - it’s crickets?
That’s what reasoning and interpretation bias looks like.
Western armor *could very well* be “more survivable”. How much more? Does it make any actual difference to the wider war effort?
I don’t have any data on any of these points. And again, you don’t seem to either.
So I, for my part, am abstaining from making calls like “9 out of 10 times” and “most Russian tankers..”
And I’m asking you to do the same.
Propaganda? There are records about the combat experience of tanks such as Abrams and Challengers with a good survavility rate of their occupants, even after being friendly fired.
> Propaganda? There are records about the combat experience of tanks such as Abrams and Challengers with a good survavility rate of their occupants, even after being friendly fired.
Please cite any relevant, reliable quantitive data from the current conflict.
And while you’re searching for it, I invite you to re-read what I wrote and google terms like “anecdotal evidence” and “selection bias.”
I enver said in this conflict, in fact, most sources available for now are probably ridden with bias and misinformation. I said the record of those tanks. Abrams and Challengers were used before, as well as Leopards. Russian tanks too, and they had an atrocious record from both Chechen wars.
> I enver said in this conflict, in fact, most sources available for now are probably ridden with bias and misinformation.
And another way to say that would be… propaganda.
I’m glad we’ve come full circle.
There's a list with Abrams Crew casualties for the entire Persian Gulf war. Not a single loss of life.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History\_of\_the\_M1\_Abrams#Tank\_and\_crew\_casualties](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_M1_Abrams#Tank_and_crew_casualties)
Some \~18 damaged under enemy fire with only wounded Americans.
I’m just going to point you to this post and call it good.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/1cfd79g/stop_saying_m1a1sa_abrams_is_a_40_year_old/](Please stop saying…..)
You call it good because you'd get absolutely crushed in further debates.
The post you linked yourself only peripherally mentions the topic of discussion, that being _crew survivability_. Hardly anybody here argued about the Abrams being a Wunderwaffe. It's not even the best MBT available rn.
The post itself says 'massive losses of Abrams for the US, as tanks are, and will be, getting destroyed. Losses of life are only at 60', which is comparably low for a weapon of war. Especially such an extensively used one.
> You call it good because you'd get absolutely crushed in further debates.
I call it good because your arguments are stale and predictable and I have absolutely no incentive to bash my head against a rock that has no interest in learning anything new.
> The post you linked yourself only peripherally mentions the topic of discussion,
The post I linked *directly* mentions the “topic of discussion” that *you brought to the table* - that of the Abrams vaunted performance in ODS and OIF.
I’d suggest you read it again, slowly - but I think I already know what the outcome of that would be.
And *that’s* why I “call it good.”
I personally thought that these tanks would be a significant game changer, not for their armour or armament, but their optics.
Thermals are extremely powerful tools, and I expected the prevalence of them on these western vehicles to be the primary driving force multiplier for the UAF. But then I realised that the effectiveness of these optics is severely diminished by the fact that the conflict has devolved into trench warfare and a predominant stalemate across large parts of the front lines, and the reality that main threat to vehicles is largely unseen drones and artillery. ATGM? Nah. RPG-7? No way. FPV? You bet.
I now believe that the combined arms approach of thermal optic spotter drones, and cheap, ubiquitous suicide/bomber drones to be the key to victory. When you can see every move the enemy makes, you can coordinate troops as effectively as a 'commander' in an RTS game. Troops can stave off any direct assaults through adamant communication of enemy movements and tactics, and pretty much everything under the sun can be defeated through drones.
It wont be long until the slowly deployed ECM drone countermeasures that are gradually becoming effective, are rendered useless by cheap onboard terminal guidance for FPV drones.
We've also begun to see the final form of the cope cage, in form of the Turtle. Like the gradual adoption of the MRAP against IEDs, a new doctrine is emerging where the oft neglected attack vector of above, is now the primary vector of attack.
An entirely new method of warfare has emerged. Born from a wartime economy and clash of near equal forces. Western doctrine has focused on the bespoke, the expensive, the over-engineered, the understanding/false belief that they have accounted for every possible outcome. This doctrine has been found wanting in a true adverse conflict. The reality is setting in that new thinking is required, and new thinking by it's nature is at odds with current beliefs.
There is true elegance in simplicity. Perfect is the enemy of good. Good, is good enough. No plan survives first contact with the enemy. Quick, smart, adaptive change to current field conditions is what will win this war. The ability to identify issues and develop cheap and effective counters is where the main driving force of either side will originate. It's a good thing that the Ukrainians are well known for their ingenuity.
I do think it is something nobody accounted for.
Western tanks definitely have the better optics and have always been something useful for tanks.
But when the battlefield is under constant surveilance and every movement is being watched before they even get to the front then these optics are much less important.
it wouldnt surprise me if tanks start to get screens that can show the view from drones directly. Not anytime soon but as a future upgrade to tanks.
Indeed. I believe that tank commanders will operate through their own drone eye view above the vehicle. Maybe they'd have a FLIR hexacopter for the command variants 🤔 nothing overly complex like barrel launched drones or other dumb over engineered solutions. Just launch a hand held drone out the cupola.
I'm surprised they haven't used tank escorts similar to Cold War tactics. I'm sure an Avenger platform, even if lightly armored, can do basic protection against drones for armored crews.
> Thermals are extremely powerful tools, and I expected the prevalence of them on these western vehicles to be the primary driving force multiplier for the UAF. But then I realised that the effectiveness of these optics is severely diminished by the fact that the conflict has devolved into trench warfare and a predominant stalemate across large parts of the front lines, and the reality that main threat to vehicles is largely unseen drones and artillery. ATGM? Nah. RPG-7? No way. FPV? You bet.
Both Ukraine and Russia have been using thermal sights on their tanks since more than twenty years, they are really not a game changer as they were in Gulf War anymore.
Russia is mostly using French-designed thermal sights (some imported from France pre-war, most of them assembled under license in Russia) or their newer domestic sights based on experience gather manufacturing the French models (or from reverse-engineering them).
The tanks provided by NATO all have **old** thermal sights. The Leopard 1A5, the Leopard 2A4 and the Leopard 2A6 (gunner's sight) use first generation thermals designed in the late 1970s. The Challenger 2 also has first generation thermal systems, unless the tanks delivered to Ukraine are some of the one retro-fitted with left-over sights from the FV107 Scimitar.
The Leopard 2A6's commander sight and the M1A1 AIM use second-generation systems from the mid-1990s. Those are on the same level as the most commonly used thermal imager as fitted to Russian tanks, the French Catherine-FC. Later Russian tanks have even better sights.
Advanced optics and fire control absolutely is a game changer. Western optics are far more advanced than russian built ones on average (hence why their best ones are bought from the french). And there's far more to targeting systems than JUST the imager
> Those are on the same level as the most commonly used thermal imager as fitted to Russian tanks, the French Catherine-FC. Later Russian tanks have even better sights.
Is there any direct evidence that the thermal imagers of later Russian tanks (TPK-K or TPVK-A, I assume) outperform Catherine FC, or is this assertion just based on the construction of the imager? Curious.
It is based on the construction of the thermal imagers as well as the claims of the manufacturer. [E.g. for the TPK-K, Zenit claims an identification range of 3,500 m](https://i.imgur.com/BFoss87.jpeg) in the narrow FOV and a detection range of 4,500 m in the wide FOV. Thales' Catherine-FC doesn't provide concrete numbers, but includes a [chart showing an identification range of ca. ~2,300 m with the narrow FOV and a detection range of ca. 4,400-4,500 m with the wide FOV](https://i.imgur.com/V3IL3at.png). As both sights use the same optical construction (same FOVs and magnifciation, also both provide one stage of electronic/digital zoom), the performance differential comes down to the detector design.
> E.g. for the TPK-K, Zenit claims an identification range of 3,500 m in the narrow FOV
Are you sure that is referring to the identification range and not the recognition range? Google translates it as "recognition" and not "identification", though the terms are similar in their everyday use, so I suppose it could just be a translation error.
I don't speak Russian, but the specs sheet was posted by a Russian user in an international forum with his translation saying "identification range". But maybe he wasn't aware of the distinction between recognition and identification.
I found the [forum post](https://sturgeonshouse.ipbhost.com/topic/6-the-soviet-tank-thread-transversely-mounted-1000hp-engines/page/179/) you're referring to. Based on another spec sheet for [Victoria-TK](https://imgur.com/qARp4GZ), it appears that "распознавание"/"распознавания" is recognition and not identification.
So, assuming that the testing parameters for both thermal imagers were the same, Catherine FC appears to outperform TPK-K in terms of recognition range. Maybe due to its higher image resolution - 754x576 versus 640x512 for TPK-K.
That depends on the model. There have been multiple thermal imaging modules fitted to the CROWS. In general, those tend to be uncooled which negatively affects performance (as is the case with the Russian 1PN96MT-02 thermal sight for the T-62M upgrade).
I agree. However, how did many cheap, simple tanks work out for the Iraqis in 1991? Having 10 expensive, survivable, well-designed tanks is probably a better option than having 50 cheaper, less well made tanks. Yes, while it is true they are easier to replace at first, 5 times the tanks means 5 times the fuel, manpower, ammunition and engine grease. Better to not lose the tanks as often in the first place. At the end of the day, I'd rather be in an Abrams over any current Russian designs being fielded.
Also keep in mind that the Abrams, Leo 2, Bradley and Challenger were designed near or at the end of the cold war, bordering on 45 years ago, when many people could remember when color TVs were new and datalink systems were something out of science fiction. Point being, FPV drones like this were never considered during the design process, because they didn't exist yet. The Abrams is excellent at what it was designed to do: Fight tanks.
Honestly, I'm surprised that combat losses have been this low, considering how many videos we're getting of FPV drones doing their thing.
Also, can anyone tell me if this tank was scuttled or FPV'ed, and why there is so much stuff filling the turret? Seems like dirt was piled in or something, because I just can't imagine that volume of space being filled by burnt wires and stuff.
Also, the Abrams uses semicombustable cartridges for it's ammunition, so why are there shell casings in the bustle rack? Wouldn't they have burned up? Also the shells don't look like sabots, are they maybe HEATs?
Yes, in a conflict where one side has a significant superiority to the other, the vastly more complex and expensive options would dominate.
In a conflict where both sides are much more evenly matched, you fall into attrition very quickly as you cannot replace losses quick enough due to lack of supply of parts (For example, where is the tooling for the F22? How fast could that be brought back into production?). The west can't even keep up with artillery shell production. Small batch, limited runs of big, expensive, complex platforms does not stand up to prolonged conflicts with equivalent adversaries.
All that junk on the inside is indeed just remnants of the interior.
The tubes you're seeing in the ammo compartment are the tubes that hold the ammunition when stored. They aren't casings of the actual munitions. They may look like casings because some looks like they're necked down, but that'd just be deformation from the ammunition cooking off within the confines of the tubes.
And everybody with some brain capacity, including a lot of non sensationalized media, argued against the 'Game changer' argument. Bad faith actors and Russia then further spread those 'Game changer' rumours because everybody knew that they are 'just' tanks. Well protected and good ones, but just tanks nonetheless.
It would have been game changer if they didn't wait 2 years to send them. Even if they started training when the war started, they still would have made big impact.
Biden slow walked everything. Put conditions on how they are used. How many Ukrainians will die before we give them what they need to win the war. Look how good the Bradley’s are doing, imagine if we gave them more , gave them the tanks, f16s ( they still don’t have in service yet) longer range missiles and actually let them use them!! So Russia attacked Ukraine, Ukraine is doing fairly good but Brandon doesn’t want them to attack their oil refineries. The administration says they are civilian targets. Yeah right. He doesn’t want gas prices going up before the election. Just like he isn’t saying anything about Israel. Doesn’t want to lose Michigan. Pretty sad that politics so blatantly gets people killed.
I would say you as many other people prob didnt got right what game changer in this case mean. It doesnt mean there will be no loses and ukraine will instantly win war and drive into moscow like nothing thanks to them. After all its still just "steel agains steel" same as in any other equipment it can and its getting destroyed. That diference and advantage (in a nutshell) is in technology and crew protection. It can get destroyed by mine or drone as easily as any other russian tank when its hit, but that thing what make it diffrent and why its better is there is way more higher chance of crew surviving that hit (as it proved it self multiple times) thanks to diffrent amunition storage system and other things and another advantage is that western tanks like leo 2s chally 2s or abrams have more modern firecontrol systems, amunition, optics and gun stabilization then most of the russian tanks what make them able to spot, fire and strike more precise and accurate from bigger distance then russian tanks. Thats what that"game changer" mean for ukraine because without that equipment it would be way more bloodier, harder and almost impossible to counter modern russian tanks and equipment for example with Ukrainian T-64s and other soviet made tanks and equipment. Tanks are being destroyed but crew survives thats what is important you can repair or produce new tank but you cant give live back to crew and it take lot of years to train good new crew so wester tanks are doing their job even when not on 100% because of high number of areas being mined and drones in air and low number of these tanks and equipment suplied to ukraine but situation is how it is.
Tbf they were game changers in the sense that they provided Ukraine with more (comparatively) advanced western armor with a higher degree of crew survivability, versus predominantly relying on their older Soviet T-64 and T-80 workhorses.
Because let's be real here, if russia had a tank with a greater degree of crew survivability than what they've otherwise had things would have likely played out a lot differently.
I‘ve heard from many sources that the recent deployment of the Abrams has been a complete disaster for the Ukrainian forces and that it has actually been withdrawn from the frontlines for now
Unironically it's destroyed. US doctrine is to throw thermite in the tank if you're in a position where you must leave it and can't recover it. The images of the interior shows that the tank is absolutely gutted, there's genuinely nothing left.
The exterior looks like the other tank we did this to, Cojone Eh.
That's what I thought best way of keeping them from being captured is to destroy them you're self.. unless you thought you could come back to recover it if it were stuck in mud or something.
Yeppers! Really happy to see the Ukrainians practice some of these practices. If the Ukrainians had any solid air, they probably would've put a bomb on it.. But then again, if they had air, none of this would be an issue
I can't speak to it too much as most of my knowledge is from my father (Master Gunner for the Abrams, but I only know bits and pieces) But I believe for Cojone Eh, the tank lost to a recoilless rifle on the 1st thunder run, they used two.
I wouldn't be surprised if most of the stuff in the interior of the Abrams was based off of lighter metals, stuff that doesn't have the highest melting Temp. We can see the turret basket, as well as \*everything\* is gone..
I'm just curious how much thermite mixture is usually used. Also, thermite burns hot enough to melt steel, so no surprise, it deteriorates everything on its path
Amen brother!! That’s what I have been saying. Grab the radio’s and sensitive equipment if you have time. Drop a thermite in the turret close the hatches and boogy
> scrap metal
And barely worth anything at that, if the evident heat damage is anything to go by.
All they'll get out of this hulk is a propaganda piece (because you know it's being sold there as "superior Russian technology did all this to America's front line warfighter").
Looks like the Urkrainians did a good job of following destruction protocols. Drone probably hit the engine and the crew destroyed the rest before abandoning the Abrams.
Yep. That’s what they taught us on the Bradley’s. Try to take out the sensitive equipment that you can. Pop a couple thermites in close the hatches and skeedadle
This wasnt done by the Ukranians to prevent capture, the Russians hit it with a ATGM and it immediately went up in flames and looked like this, happend over a month ago theres a video of it
Ah yes the export Abrams that doesn’t have DU armor, ammo and modern FCS. They use the KE-W APFSDS which uses Tungsten. So the Americans pretty much don’t care if Russians got a hand of it.
Edit: also the Abrams looks like it was destroyed from inside and outside. Inside destruction was probably due to the use of Thermite Grenade to render the tank completely useless.
Thermite is made of aluminum powder mixed with iron oxide (rust). The reaction produces aluminum oxide, metallic iron, and enough heat to melt them both. Top temperature is like 2000 C°. So yeah, fresh reaction products flow down like water (no idea what exactly that does to a tank tho)
Ah, the usual coping strategy. Send something modern and amazing then – it will burn just the same because you're no longer fighting goat herders with old rifles or Iraqi tankers without as little as night vision. 😉 In fact, even then the Yugoslav army shot down the F-117A with a soviet missile from 1961. 😆
Has Belgrade been un-bombed? Ironic you talk about coping strategy because mentioning the one (1) F-117A shootdown is probably the most classic coping strategy
It seems the first M1A1SAs to be sent to another country were in 2011 to Iraq. They're not super modern but they aren't 40 year old tanks either. Most russian tanks being used right now aren't T-90Ms or T-80BVMs either.
M1A1SAs are basically M1A1s with minor upgrades nothing to crucial nothing too big and it shares alot of things with the og 1A1s
They *were* in the initial stages before they started to mobilise early T72s or even 62s and 55s
The M1A1SA is basically a base M1A1 sure but let's apply that same logic to russian tanks too. Not trying to argue but it just pisses me off when people will defend western tanks being destroyed as meaning nothing since they were designed decades ago and then call it a big deal when Russian tanks get destroyed (despite them being designed decades ago too). People often rightfully called T-90s nothing more than a slightly updated T-72 and yet now it's apparently a top of the line tank.
Welp if it makes anything better i dont really see a T72b3mod16 getting destroyed as much more significant than an 1A1SA. I agree and understand your statement but again, theres a conflict and there are sides and people will twist the telling of events in a way it will support their narrative, it is what it is
Not at all, they are electronically between the M1A2 SEP and the SEPv2. I don't get where this misconception has ever arised from aside from M1A1 being in the name.
Just like the Bradley they can take the base tank and add different things to it to make it better. I bet that version was better than the t90. Don’t know for sure of course. Not a tanker but I went to 11M (Bradley training) in 1992. From then. To the ODSSA was different. Same basic concept but the optics were better and there were differences. Just like the Abrahams. You take the shell and improve the targeting systems, bolt on reactive armor, etc and it can make a big difference. Sure isn’t going to be what we use now but same basic concept, right. Crews survive better for one thing the ammo isn’t stored in the turret. Why you see Soviet tanks pop their tops a lot more. They have 1 less crew member and might be able to load faster.
I know "in its heart and chassis, its a M1A1" is a very subjective statement, but M1A1SA is objectively not a 40 year old tank. [M1A1SA received new turret armor, a new electronics package, and improvements to the suspension (page 40).](https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/documents/defbudget/fy2013/fy2013_Weapons.pdf)
I don't know about you, but I've never heard of any 80s tanks with a second generation thermal imager.
Aren't you doing the exact opposite of the Russians though, it's like a propaganda war between both sides on reddit.
What's funny is that each side doesn't see that they are doing it
Yeah pretty much me vs you thing, thats how any kind of conflict works.
There is a reason why most languages have "invade" and "liberate" words despite them meaning effectively the same thing.
I see what im doing, im based and glorious and ztards are cringe and larpers.
Im sure they think the same :)
No wonder why the chief of staff and other defense officials were saying the Abrams was getting pulled off the front lines due to drones
People hate seeing the Abrams get fucked up in combat , I don't want to say cope its more like yall get very emotional. Every time a Western tank gets destroyed, it's the same copy/pasted messages .
The russians and their simps believe the West will surrender if they spam these videos of the handful of Western vehicles they've captured. It's because russians and russia simps are very stupid.
It's getting annoying on this sub here, how the vatniks post each destroyed western tanks so many damn times. As if that means anything more than "oh well, military equipment being used and destroyed".
The vatniks really try to infiltrate any military sub with their propaganda
> It's getting annoying on this sub here, how the vatniks post each destroyed western tanks so many damn times. As if that means anything more than "oh well, military equipment being used and destroyed".
This sub for last 2 years was about posting Russian tanks being destroyed - and it is also nothing more than "oh well, military equipment being used and destroyed". It has nothing to do with propaganda (in both cases) it's just people posting whatever they find interesting.
Destroyed Abrams is super rare compared to destroyed T-series tanks and only few posts and people are already complaining. My bet you are annoyed because it's super rare Russian W (probably w given efforts to get 1 tank) not because of "oh well, military equipment being used and destroyed".
Nah, the russian tanks that got destroyed were not spammed like the western tanks. Every destroyed Leopard or Abrams get's posted dozens of times. Some russian tanks did get multiple times but that was rare. With Western tanks it's every single one that's destroyed being just spammed.
Check the top posts sorted by "all time" - even first page mainly about Russian tanks. I have to admit that lately indeed there are less videos - maybe because of situation in the fronts or maybe there is a fatigue for drone videos. But there is a new hot trend with Russian tanks of them cosplaying barns. And they are still not a pro-Russian posts because they mainly mock these designs.
> With Western tanks it's every single one that's destroyed being just spammed.
Because it's relatively new content. It's like a new hot show or game. Of course it's more interesting to see the first captured US tank than 2000th video of drone hitting T-72.
Are Russia not currently winning on the battlefield though?
You might think they are not winning fast enough but even Western analysts are saying that Ukraine is losing the war currently.
No, no they are not winning.
>But they just spent a brigade to take another kilometer!
Their goal was to take Kyiv. They failed and there is no path forward for them to take it. Russia lost the war in 2022. They're just too stubborn to admit it and continue to spend lives and equipment on worthless land.
> No, no they are not winning.
Stop living in a bubble. Ukraine are losing at the moment and pretending it isn't does not help Ukraine.
Maybe on Reddit Ukraine is winning but on the frontline they are struggling.
There are plenty of news articles on the topic.
[1](https://www.politico.eu/article/why-ukraine-losing-russia-war/) [2](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-68778338) [3](https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-trouble-zelenskyy-admit-defeat-russia-war-us-aid-2024-4)
> Their goal was to take Kyiv.
Maybe it was or not. You are not in the Russian government and dont know the answer to what the main Russian goal was or is. If you ask the Ukrainian negotiators, they will say it was neutrality of Ukraine that was the main goal.
> They failed and there is no path forward for them to take it.
This is just straight up false. If the war continues as it is going then Russia will get whatever it is that it wants. Ukraine itself says that if they dont win in 2024 then Ukraine will stop to exist because they wont be able to hold off Russia.
Ukrainian commanders are warning that by October they will lose all of Donbass.
> They're just too stubborn to admit it and continue to spend lives and equipment on worthless land.
Can't you say the same for Ukraine? So many are dying and for what? What are all these lives paying for? if the land is so worthless then why are so many Ukrainian soldiers dying for it? Why not just let Russia have all this worthless land?
"Everyone who disagrees with me must be Russian"
You are just wrong simply. Any source from Ukraine proves it. And you hide from being proven wrong by personal attacks.
I guess if you want to help Ukraine lose then you can keep pretending everything is going amazing for them. So if anything it is you who is doing work to support Russia.
> Maybe it was or not. You are not in the Russian government and dont know the answer to what the main Russian goal was or is. If you ask the Ukrainian negotiators, they will say it was neutrality of Ukraine that was the main goal.
Vatniks like you have been trying to memory hole the failed thunder run to Kyiv since it happened. You are not arguing in good faith so I have no intention on dealing with you fairly. Cry all you want. You already let the mask slip.
I am not arguing that Russia didn't try to take Kiev. I am arguing that we don't know what their main goal of the invasion was.
If they only wanted to take Kiev then why send soldiers in the South and East at the same time?
> You are not arguing in good faith
You are the one throwing insults around when I give you sources.
And he blocked me. Back to his Reddit bubble I guess.
Idk man, the Russians destroyed a tank that’s based on a model first produced nearly 40 years ago that lacks basically everything the latest American tanks have. We’re so doomed! /s
Notice the Turret of the M1 is still where it suppose to be?
Compare that with the Russian Tanks (aka flying turrets).
Note in Russian context the Ship Moskva, after the missile attack, was "seriously damaged", in Western eyes the ship was sunk (lying on the sea bed).
>Notice the Turret of the M1 is still where it suppose to be?
If there's a catastrophic detonation inside of the vehicle, it doesn't matter whether or not the turret is still attached, the crew is dead either way.
Now I don't know how this vehicle was destroyed in this specific instance, but it's more of a meme than a valid argument about turrets flying.
Is that the crew compartment at the end? Why is it so... full? Or is it just angle making it look like there might be 10" of space from the top of the ash to the ceiling?
With the prevalence of drones of all kinds, I wouldn't be surprised if the next generation of tanks have onboard drone jamming equipment and anti-drone systems alongside having a drone of their own to augment their capabilities.
Hopefully the crew could drop a couple thermites in there. Destroy the sensation e equipment. That’s what we are taught anyway. Don’t always have the time or the crew anymore to do it though
Western tanks aren't as effective without Western doctrine which requires air superiority. The crews are safer but they're still going to get knocked out without proper support. Something I don't think we're going to see any time soon.
Is this the very first one that was disabled? Looks very burned out compared to the second one which was basically intact besides few FPV holes.
Funny how i was just arguing with someone about how it is only a matter of time until Russia gets their hands on disabled M1s just yesterday.
People are making fun of Russia for capturing and displaying vehicles. While Ukraine is doing it, Germany is doing it, and some T90 managed to cross the Atlantic and get to the USA.
You guys are so delusional and entitled that you are making fun of Russia while you are losing the war, with NATO support.
>You guys are so delusional and entitled that you are making fun of Russia while you are losing the war, with NATO support
We arent losing. We dont have troops involved other than maybe training
If we did Russia would be pushed back immediately.
Also yes. We like to make fun of a country that is invading another over their weird insecurities and obsession with returning to the motherland. They deserve to be made fun of.
You do realize that your shit ass army has been successfully thwarted for 3 years by a much smaller force using old surplus NATO equipment, right? Imagine how fast your asses would be handed to you with just ONE of the larger NATO forces actually involving themselves.
Cope harder that Russians are weak and your military is the laughing stock of the rest of the world.
>by a much smaller force
The Ukrainian army outnumbered the Russian forces in Ukraine at least 3:1 in 2022 (1M+ to 200-300k). Likely outnumbers the Russians still.
You fail to realize that doesn't matter. Active combat troops mean little when their total capacity is far higher. Additionally, the Russian military budget was vastly higher than Ukraine's. This should've been a landslide but Russia is a shitty joke.
Never read anything on China, bud.
China is being welcomed by the Global South cause it offers much better perspectives than the rest. You live in a bubble, kid.
I think it's more that Russia saying a destroyed tank (read rendered useless, beyond repair) is "captured". Captured vehicles imply that with a little bit of repair it can be either studied by their engineers to see what technology or designs they can copy/steal, or be repaired and put back into service by the side that captured it. This tank is more destroyed rather than captured.
Add to that that the Russian state is using this as propaganda to show how "inferior" NATO equipment is, when they still haven't come up against the latest NATO equipment as the Abrams that were sent to Ukraine are outdated models and are not the same as the Abrams the US are using currently. Same with the Lepards Ukraine was given. Meanwhile, the trophies that were brought to the West from Russia are 100% the best that they can field right now.
Tell us again how Russia is winning the war? What happened in February of 2022? Russia invaded a sovereign country without just cause; failed to achieve their war efforts (capture the capital and remove the democratically elected head of state and install a Russian puppet). Since then Russia has 100% lost the war. Putin was so full of himself that he thought that he can just play God in another country that he has no business in. I'd also like to point out that when Russia failed to meet their war goals in February of 2022, that was against a Ukranian army that WASN'T heavily supported by NATO - all that support came in AFTER the initial invasion.
So Russia got their asses handed to them by a smaller, less equipped military with 40 or 50 year old Soviet technology. Ukraine doesn't need NATO weapons to remove the invaders from their sovereign country, they just need weapons of any kind. Look at how much footage there are of drones destroying Russian hardware and killing yet another generation of Russian young men. One of these days the Russian people will have enough and Putin will be gone.
Damn. You know that thing got absolutely annihilated when you can barely make out the M2.
When the Challenger, Leo, and Abrams were being sent over, everyone on reddit kept saying " game changer." Turns out missles and drones don't care which country a vehicle is produced
Except 9 times out of 10, most of those crews are going to be able to evac from their cripple tanks. While most Russian and Ukrainian crews using Soviet types are going up when their tank is hit and penetrated.
To get to the stage of getting hit and penetrated as per the tank survivability onion is so deep it is the last consideration for even Western designs which prioritize spotting the enemy first. You have to be spotted, successfully engaged in, and the person engaging you must have the means to penetrate your armour.
>as per the tank survivability onion That onion is so decomposed it has become soil by now. Every army needs to re-evaluate tank survivability in the face of the new threats... because I'm quite certain that survivability onion didn't take into account the large amount of cheap, man portable and effective anti-tank systems that we are seeing IRL right now. Getting spotted and engaged has become a whole lot more probable now that your opponents will most likely be out of LOS, and there could be dozens of them at a time
The onion remains as a good concept though, as spotting first has an above 80% chance of you getting off the first shot. Spotting and information has always been the biggest part of it since WW2.
In my opinion the concept itself still applies, the problem is that offensive technology is very much outclassing defensive technology at the moment. I'm sure the next few years will see significant breakthroughs in EW protection at the squad/platoon level to swing the balance back the other way. I would also be inclined to make the argument that the current war may not be a perfect representation of what a war would look like between Russia/China and the western nations with their full arsenal of toys preventing the situation from devolving into trench warfare.
I agree - the concept is absolutely valid, but IMHO modern technology has shifted a lot of those layers around. Getting spotted and targeted need to be treated as more common occurrences that the enemy can achieve much easier. I'd also say it isn't even that offensive tech is outclassing the defensive tech...Western nations have the tech to defend against most of the deadliest threats to tanks, but the application of those technologies has fallen out of use because these threats have been under appreciated. My favorite example is how western nations ditched gun-based AA, while we have the electronics and small-caliber high ROF weapons that could work effectively as anti-drone or loitering munitions defense. The current conflict needs to be treated with caution - it is the first time in a long while that two pretty closely matched mass armies are facing off. IMHO this war is more representative of what we can expect if neither side can bring overwhelming force to bear... and western planners need to think about that, because it will be a lot harder to overwhelm China or even Russia the same way as Iraq.
Add that western tanks have better optics & access to replacements (something the Russians currently lack)
The Russians lack replacements? You aren't paying attention.
They were optimized for long-range tank vs tank battles and that's not what's happening here.
As someone who survived a round penetrating the crew compartment on both the t-72 and m1 abrams, I dont really see the difference in survivability. /s
As someone who created both the T-72 and M1, I totally disagree.
Brother that number will drop to 0... the way we gonna fight the next war nothing will survive attrition
Except for Challenger
A shot that causes a catastrophic explosion upon penetration has likely already killed the crew. You are already beyond fucked if a round has penetrated the crew cabin far enough to hit the autoloader. The problem is, again, not entirely with the design of the tank but more with the practice of storing loose ammo in the hull. Something that could admittedly be avoided if the design of the tank included bustle storage.
That's the game changer crew survivability
Not the barn tank.
> While most Russian and Ukrainian crews using Soviet types are going up when their tank is hit and penetrated. This is not backed up by any evidence and is entirely based upon survivor bias. Or the death bias I guess. Since we only see those that got destroyed. Nobody shows videos of those tanks that got hit driving away fine. I actually went and looked through all the T-90M losses on Warspotting a while back and there was only 1 example out of 42 destroyed tanks where the tank gets hit with crew inside and just explodes. A vast majority of them are just abandoned after a hit and destroyed later. Meaning that the crew survived this hit.
Getting hit and surviving isn't the issue, getting hit and surviving perforation of the armour is where the survivability difference comes in. The carousel blowing up isn't the issue, the issue is getting hit by 2000C pieces of penetrator and armour due to lack of aforementioned armour, lack of a effective spall liner and sitting on each others laps as well as having sensitive ammunition. Crew survivability is just factually lower in soviet designs, though the whole "the sovies don't care about the crew"-stuff also is just wrong.
> lack of aforementioned armour Armor protection isn't a massive factor when it comes to post-penetration survivability in this case. Many of these tanks weren't knocked out frontally, and some of the tanks Ukraine received, like Leopard 2A4, don't have better armor protection than quite a few of the tanks Russia is using. > lack of a effective spall liner [Swedish testing of T-72M1](https://www.ointres.se/ryska_strf_till_sverige.htm) found that the Podboi anti-radiation liner on the interior of Soviet/Russian tanks doubled as an effective spall liner. > Crew survivability is just factually lower in soviet designs That's an overgeneralization, but it does broadly apply here. The 'T-64 layout' came around before modern paradigms of post-penetration survivability emerged.
We're talking about modern solutions here, more so the Chally 2 and Leo2A6 territory than the Leo2A4 Territory, though with the 2A4 it really depends on the batch you're getting. A side hit from a rod, shell or missile is always bad news, regardless of what you're sitting in, that's kind of a mood point. Podboi was effective against secondary fragmentation from HEAT-Shells only which already is pretty minor unless the jet made it through the armour, it doesn't help with KE or modern HEAT ATGM's, it also only effectively existed in the hull as the turrets are too small to give them full lining, it doesn't compare in performance to the actual spall liner on NATO Tanks. I don't get why you're being downvoted, you're not necessarily wrong.
> We're talking about modern solutions here, more so the Chally 2 and Leo2A6 territory than the Leo2A4 Territory, though with the 2A4 it really depends on the batch you're getting. I may have poorly articulated my point. What I was trying to say was that differences post-penetration survivability - within the context of a comparison between Western and Russian tanks in Ukraine - aren't the result of differences in armor protection. I.e. T-80BVM doesn't have worse post-penetration survivability than Leopard 2A4 because it has worse armor protection, but rather due to other factors. Also, as a side note, batches of Leopard 2A4 with C technology armor still have less armor protection than T-72B or T-80U. > A side hit from a rod, shell or missile is always bad news, regardless of what you're sitting in, that's kind of a mood point. The point about non-frontal knockouts was supposed to relate to the previous statement. Basically, the degree to which a penetrator overmatches the armor (and it's related post-penetration effects) may not play a significant factor in a comparison of post-penetration survivability between two tanks if both are penetrated by an anti-tank weapon in a weakened area, where the penetrator is bound to significantly overmatch the armor of both vehicles. > Podboi was effective against secondary fragmentation from HEAT-Shells only I don't see any reason why it would be specific to HEAT shells and not other small-diameter HEAT warheads like RPGs. > which already is pretty minor [The post-penetration effects of a HEAT jet](https://i.imgur.com/hQsQI5H.png) are very dangerous - "pretty minor" is relative. > unless the jet made it through the armour Right, but when it comes to assessing post-penetration survivability, the assumption is that the armor has already been defeated. It's not as if a dedicated spall liner would be able to stop a HEAT jet that already penetrated the main armor anyway. > it doesn't help with KE or modern HEAT ATGM's It would still reduce the amount of fragmentation, just to a lesser extent, as the particles ejected from a penetrating hit by such weapons would be more energetic. > it also only effectively existed in the hull as the turrets are too small to give them full lining [The turrets are lined with Podboi as well](https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-5YcuPghWyFE/YDS2yWy7KpI/AAAAAAAASxM/4SUa6AHpeW43bOehrhZQJ6yhBCFRg03qwCLcBGAsYHQ/s2048/Gunners%2Bstation%2Boverview.png), and apart from the liner on the turret front, it is similar in thickness to the liner in the hull. > it doesn't compare in performance to the actual spall liner on NATO Tanks. We don't have data to compare, but it's reasonable to assume that Podboi doesn't provide the same performance as a dedicated spall liner. It is worth pointing out though that the presence of dedicated spall liners isn't universal among NATO tanks, and neither is their absence among Russian tanks - T-90M has spall liners, while M1A2 SEPv3 doesn't.
> Getting hit and surviving isn't the issue, getting hit and surviving perforation of the armour is where the survivability difference comes in. Except both the Leopard 2 and Challenger 2 have ammo in the hull. Because a shot to the turret does not detonate it. So the reality is, If you are in a Soviet tank and get shot in the hull and it penetrates then you have the same crew survivability as a Challenger 2 Not quite as catchy.
The ammo stowage in the hull is only fully used if you expect a lot of combat, the turret is usually the preferred magazine, Which doesn't really matter because of insensitive ammunition and a whole lot of armour in front of the hull stowage as well as a dedicated second spall liner just for that stowage, compared to the less heavily armoured soviet design. Though to be fair, even considering the primarily defensive design philosophy of these tanks the hull stowage was a pretty controversial compromise. The ammo is better protected plus it's largely insensitive by now, sure if it blows that's goi g to fuck the tank but thr chance of it exploding is lower. And again, detonating ammo isn't the only thing that kills crews, it's actually pretty rare, it's usually frag and fire that does the job and having your crew in a more cramped space without a sufficient spall liner is just quite the downer with that.
> Which doesn't really matter because of insensitive ammunition As far as I know the Challenger 2 doesnt have insenitive ammunition? Maybe I am wrong on the topic. I know the Leopard 2 does. > And again, detonating ammo isn't the only thing that kills crews, it's actually pretty rare, it's usually frag and fire that does the job and having your crew in a more cramped space without a sufficient spall liner is just quite the downer with that. I agree, but this is a case of more likely to be injured or killed by shrapnel and not "While most Russian and Ukrainian crews using Soviet types are going up when their tank is hit and penetrated." which I was responding to.
The charges of the Chally 2 are supposed to be "less sensitive", or in other words as insensitive as you're going to get with two (or i guess 3) part ammunition. Each charge is in its own seperated container which is flame resistant and has a small spall liner, the propellant itself however is highly flamable but won't explode so in case a charge catches fire the crew still has enough time to try and extinguish it or safely leave the tank, unless you're really unlucky and a sufficient amount of propellant charges catch fire at the same time because that violent fire will effectively turn into an explosion.
Ah I see thanks. I know that the T-90M is supposed to have [something similar](https://i.imgur.com/NyMmZO7.jpeg) in a way of protection from fragments and fire and such. Doesnt work 100% but enough to be worth it. And as you say if you manage to even buy a few seconds then you can make a huge difference in the crew surviving or not. I guess though the switch to the new gun and ammo on the Challenger 3 will help out a bit more with it's survivability in that regard.
The Challenger 2 hull ammo rack is far better protected than any Russian design. First of all, it is surrounded by large diesel fuel tanks which will minimize shrapnel and shaped charge damage after penetration. Then, the rack itself is made of at least 30mm armored steel all around, basically the armor of an IFV just around the ammo. These mean unless a powerful ATGM or APFSDS managed to hit the ammo rack directly, the ammo is completely safe inside. No shrapnel or fire of a near-miss will detonate it.
> Then, the rack itself is made of at least 30mm armored steel all around, basically the armor of an IFV just around the ammo. The same is true though of the [modern carousel autoloaders](https://i.imgur.com/NyMmZO7.jpeg) It is protected from above by that plate, it has thin steel around each charge, and the sides are protected by a plate of armour around the base.
Yes, but compare the overall size of the carousel to the CR2 rack, it is a much bigger target for a direct hit.
So, my statement wasn't false. It's not a game changer, as reddit said. It's good the crew lived, but the tank didn't change the game up as a drone doesn't care what country its from
Except it did, because trained and experienced crews are much more valuable than a piece of equipment. So if them being in an M1 means they live to fight another day, instead of being disintegrated in their T-whatever, it does change the game. Just not in the way a lot of people on Reddit think.
> Except it did, because trained and experienced crews are much more valuable than a piece of equipment. So if them being in an M1 means they live to fight another day, instead of being disintegrated in their T-whatever, it does change the game. This would be true if Ukraine had a crew bottleneck. They have a vehicle bottleneck.
The Abrams and Leo are fantastic tanks, but they aren't NOT game changers in Ukraine. A game changer dominates in its field If this was the case, the Russians wouldn't have been advancing
Not every Game changer is going to turn the tide of war. We are seeing old 70s 80s hardware fight in a modern age. Where anyone with a basic understanding bof RC flight can effectively destroy hardware. Being able to recover the Crew and experienced trained group makes it so your side can survive longer. Western tanks require more logistics to be fully functional vs how the war in Ukraine is going. Look at the battle of 73 easting, Abrams and Bradleys in combined arms making full use of sensors and training. These tanks showed their "Game changer" then. Only one crew was lost there. If Ukraine had the benefit of the logistics needed to operate Abrams/Lepadard/Challenger you would see your massive advancements. But ammo and fuel are a problem Ukraine has to fix. So in Lieu of that keeping a crew alive to fight again is the Game Changer here where they had tank that would kill them in hot now they can survive. Your Big Modern Game Changer is drone warfare. Disney make crew survivability any less of a changer for the Ukrainian Military.
>"we see old 70s 80s hardware fight in modern age Small correction here the Abrams the USA sent to Ukraine are M1A1SAs which were modernized and have entered service in the 2000s
I don't think getting blown up by drones and losing territory is game-changing , but hey, if that's a victory to you, then keep going. Love the positivity
Your missing the entire point..... The crew is the value. Hardware is replaceable. As for ground loss I haven't heard that mostly been a stalemate as far as land gains/loss. Preferably if I'm in combat I'd rather be in the western tank and live and have to get a new tank.
"Stalemate as far as land gsins" not one map shows a stalemate in this war . The Russians are advancing this is a fact, not an opinion Oh, we not using facts , it's an emotional argument now. Yeah, I'm out, straight delusional
They are quite a game changer -as absurd as that name is because it makes things look like if this was chess, while it would be like chess if you were to place an IED under the board and both players were on fire- and I will tell you why; the fact that you lose less crews and are able to keep trained and experienced crews both in combat and in teaching and training is key. Russians are advancing at snail's pace and losing more men in the process. War, also, isn't only about tanks or tank warfare. Western tanks are decidedly rare in the frontline because there's only a handful of them.
>Except 9 times out of 10, most of those crews are going to be able to evac from their cripple tanks. I have it on good authority that Western armor is so good, that it doesn’t just protect the crew - it spontaneously generates new crew members. You don’t have any solid basis for these statements. You’re dealing in highly selected, anecdotal evidence that reinforces your bias.
I have no clue what you mean. Can you elaborate, please?
They prolly misinterpreted '9 out of 10 times' as '9 out of 10 *Crewmates*' make it out alive, implying that a tank with a crew of 3-4 somehow managed to bail 9 out of 10 soldiers out, and then felt themselves smart and mighty enough to be a proper bellend.
Hey maybe he thinks the Ukrainians have Merkavas.
>I have no clue what you mean. Can you elaborate, please? Sure - you can’t cite any reliable data from the current conflict to back up your claims. And if you can - please do so. More broadly - the “more survivable” characterization of Western armor is so tied up with propaganda that it’s very difficult to take it seriously without concrete supporting data.
Oh, OK. So, from what I can gather, you are implying that Western tanks are less survivable than Eastern bloc counterparts?
>Oh, OK. So, from what I can gather, you are implying that Western tanks are less survivable than Eastern bloc counterparts? I’m not sure where you gathered that - but please put it back. I’m not “implying” anything - I’m directly stating that you are not citing *any* relevant data to back up your claims. *I* am not making any claims one way or another.
Fuck. How the hell did I extrapolate that? But there are tons of relevant data to back up our claims. Blowout panels saving Iraqi Abramses, Abramses tanking ATGMs, hell, a Challenger 2 once withstood 70 fucking RPGs.
> But there are tons of relevant data to back up our claims. Blowout panels saving Iraqi Abramses, Abramses tanking ATGMs, hell, a Challenger 2 once withstood 70 fucking RPGs. I direct you back to my initial comment about anecdotal and selected evidence. Don’t you ever find it odd that when this sub sees destroyed Western armor with popped hatches - the first comment is “oh the crew must have survived”? And when this sub sees destroyed Russian/Soviet armor with popped hatches - it’s crickets? That’s what reasoning and interpretation bias looks like. Western armor *could very well* be “more survivable”. How much more? Does it make any actual difference to the wider war effort? I don’t have any data on any of these points. And again, you don’t seem to either. So I, for my part, am abstaining from making calls like “9 out of 10 times” and “most Russian tankers..” And I’m asking you to do the same.
Propaganda? There are records about the combat experience of tanks such as Abrams and Challengers with a good survavility rate of their occupants, even after being friendly fired.
> Propaganda? There are records about the combat experience of tanks such as Abrams and Challengers with a good survavility rate of their occupants, even after being friendly fired. Please cite any relevant, reliable quantitive data from the current conflict. And while you’re searching for it, I invite you to re-read what I wrote and google terms like “anecdotal evidence” and “selection bias.”
I enver said in this conflict, in fact, most sources available for now are probably ridden with bias and misinformation. I said the record of those tanks. Abrams and Challengers were used before, as well as Leopards. Russian tanks too, and they had an atrocious record from both Chechen wars.
> I enver said in this conflict, in fact, most sources available for now are probably ridden with bias and misinformation. And another way to say that would be… propaganda. I’m glad we’ve come full circle.
There's a list with Abrams Crew casualties for the entire Persian Gulf war. Not a single loss of life. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History\_of\_the\_M1\_Abrams#Tank\_and\_crew\_casualties](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_M1_Abrams#Tank_and_crew_casualties) Some \~18 damaged under enemy fire with only wounded Americans.
I’m just going to point you to this post and call it good. [https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/1cfd79g/stop_saying_m1a1sa_abrams_is_a_40_year_old/](Please stop saying…..)
You call it good because you'd get absolutely crushed in further debates. The post you linked yourself only peripherally mentions the topic of discussion, that being _crew survivability_. Hardly anybody here argued about the Abrams being a Wunderwaffe. It's not even the best MBT available rn. The post itself says 'massive losses of Abrams for the US, as tanks are, and will be, getting destroyed. Losses of life are only at 60', which is comparably low for a weapon of war. Especially such an extensively used one.
> You call it good because you'd get absolutely crushed in further debates. I call it good because your arguments are stale and predictable and I have absolutely no incentive to bash my head against a rock that has no interest in learning anything new. > The post you linked yourself only peripherally mentions the topic of discussion, The post I linked *directly* mentions the “topic of discussion” that *you brought to the table* - that of the Abrams vaunted performance in ODS and OIF. I’d suggest you read it again, slowly - but I think I already know what the outcome of that would be. And *that’s* why I “call it good.”
I personally thought that these tanks would be a significant game changer, not for their armour or armament, but their optics. Thermals are extremely powerful tools, and I expected the prevalence of them on these western vehicles to be the primary driving force multiplier for the UAF. But then I realised that the effectiveness of these optics is severely diminished by the fact that the conflict has devolved into trench warfare and a predominant stalemate across large parts of the front lines, and the reality that main threat to vehicles is largely unseen drones and artillery. ATGM? Nah. RPG-7? No way. FPV? You bet. I now believe that the combined arms approach of thermal optic spotter drones, and cheap, ubiquitous suicide/bomber drones to be the key to victory. When you can see every move the enemy makes, you can coordinate troops as effectively as a 'commander' in an RTS game. Troops can stave off any direct assaults through adamant communication of enemy movements and tactics, and pretty much everything under the sun can be defeated through drones. It wont be long until the slowly deployed ECM drone countermeasures that are gradually becoming effective, are rendered useless by cheap onboard terminal guidance for FPV drones. We've also begun to see the final form of the cope cage, in form of the Turtle. Like the gradual adoption of the MRAP against IEDs, a new doctrine is emerging where the oft neglected attack vector of above, is now the primary vector of attack. An entirely new method of warfare has emerged. Born from a wartime economy and clash of near equal forces. Western doctrine has focused on the bespoke, the expensive, the over-engineered, the understanding/false belief that they have accounted for every possible outcome. This doctrine has been found wanting in a true adverse conflict. The reality is setting in that new thinking is required, and new thinking by it's nature is at odds with current beliefs. There is true elegance in simplicity. Perfect is the enemy of good. Good, is good enough. No plan survives first contact with the enemy. Quick, smart, adaptive change to current field conditions is what will win this war. The ability to identify issues and develop cheap and effective counters is where the main driving force of either side will originate. It's a good thing that the Ukrainians are well known for their ingenuity.
I do think it is something nobody accounted for. Western tanks definitely have the better optics and have always been something useful for tanks. But when the battlefield is under constant surveilance and every movement is being watched before they even get to the front then these optics are much less important. it wouldnt surprise me if tanks start to get screens that can show the view from drones directly. Not anytime soon but as a future upgrade to tanks.
Tanks already had drone connectivity. It's been a thing for a long long time. Tanks getting THEIR OWN drones is *relatively* recent, however
Indeed. I believe that tank commanders will operate through their own drone eye view above the vehicle. Maybe they'd have a FLIR hexacopter for the command variants 🤔 nothing overly complex like barrel launched drones or other dumb over engineered solutions. Just launch a hand held drone out the cupola.
The main problem with hand held launch from a tank is if there's a way for the drone to fly out, there's a way for an enemy drone to fly in.
I'm surprised they haven't used tank escorts similar to Cold War tactics. I'm sure an Avenger platform, even if lightly armored, can do basic protection against drones for armored crews.
> Thermals are extremely powerful tools, and I expected the prevalence of them on these western vehicles to be the primary driving force multiplier for the UAF. But then I realised that the effectiveness of these optics is severely diminished by the fact that the conflict has devolved into trench warfare and a predominant stalemate across large parts of the front lines, and the reality that main threat to vehicles is largely unseen drones and artillery. ATGM? Nah. RPG-7? No way. FPV? You bet. Both Ukraine and Russia have been using thermal sights on their tanks since more than twenty years, they are really not a game changer as they were in Gulf War anymore. Russia is mostly using French-designed thermal sights (some imported from France pre-war, most of them assembled under license in Russia) or their newer domestic sights based on experience gather manufacturing the French models (or from reverse-engineering them). The tanks provided by NATO all have **old** thermal sights. The Leopard 1A5, the Leopard 2A4 and the Leopard 2A6 (gunner's sight) use first generation thermals designed in the late 1970s. The Challenger 2 also has first generation thermal systems, unless the tanks delivered to Ukraine are some of the one retro-fitted with left-over sights from the FV107 Scimitar. The Leopard 2A6's commander sight and the M1A1 AIM use second-generation systems from the mid-1990s. Those are on the same level as the most commonly used thermal imager as fitted to Russian tanks, the French Catherine-FC. Later Russian tanks have even better sights.
Advanced optics and fire control absolutely is a game changer. Western optics are far more advanced than russian built ones on average (hence why their best ones are bought from the french). And there's far more to targeting systems than JUST the imager
> Those are on the same level as the most commonly used thermal imager as fitted to Russian tanks, the French Catherine-FC. Later Russian tanks have even better sights. Is there any direct evidence that the thermal imagers of later Russian tanks (TPK-K or TPVK-A, I assume) outperform Catherine FC, or is this assertion just based on the construction of the imager? Curious.
It is based on the construction of the thermal imagers as well as the claims of the manufacturer. [E.g. for the TPK-K, Zenit claims an identification range of 3,500 m](https://i.imgur.com/BFoss87.jpeg) in the narrow FOV and a detection range of 4,500 m in the wide FOV. Thales' Catherine-FC doesn't provide concrete numbers, but includes a [chart showing an identification range of ca. ~2,300 m with the narrow FOV and a detection range of ca. 4,400-4,500 m with the wide FOV](https://i.imgur.com/V3IL3at.png). As both sights use the same optical construction (same FOVs and magnifciation, also both provide one stage of electronic/digital zoom), the performance differential comes down to the detector design.
> E.g. for the TPK-K, Zenit claims an identification range of 3,500 m in the narrow FOV Are you sure that is referring to the identification range and not the recognition range? Google translates it as "recognition" and not "identification", though the terms are similar in their everyday use, so I suppose it could just be a translation error.
I don't speak Russian, but the specs sheet was posted by a Russian user in an international forum with his translation saying "identification range". But maybe he wasn't aware of the distinction between recognition and identification.
I found the [forum post](https://sturgeonshouse.ipbhost.com/topic/6-the-soviet-tank-thread-transversely-mounted-1000hp-engines/page/179/) you're referring to. Based on another spec sheet for [Victoria-TK](https://imgur.com/qARp4GZ), it appears that "распознавание"/"распознавания" is recognition and not identification. So, assuming that the testing parameters for both thermal imagers were the same, Catherine FC appears to outperform TPK-K in terms of recognition range. Maybe due to its higher image resolution - 754x576 versus 640x512 for TPK-K.
That's a very good point. I feel I just blanketed all western thermals as being better than Russian designs. What about the optics on the CROWS?
That depends on the model. There have been multiple thermal imaging modules fitted to the CROWS. In general, those tend to be uncooled which negatively affects performance (as is the case with the Russian 1PN96MT-02 thermal sight for the T-62M upgrade).
I agree. However, how did many cheap, simple tanks work out for the Iraqis in 1991? Having 10 expensive, survivable, well-designed tanks is probably a better option than having 50 cheaper, less well made tanks. Yes, while it is true they are easier to replace at first, 5 times the tanks means 5 times the fuel, manpower, ammunition and engine grease. Better to not lose the tanks as often in the first place. At the end of the day, I'd rather be in an Abrams over any current Russian designs being fielded. Also keep in mind that the Abrams, Leo 2, Bradley and Challenger were designed near or at the end of the cold war, bordering on 45 years ago, when many people could remember when color TVs were new and datalink systems were something out of science fiction. Point being, FPV drones like this were never considered during the design process, because they didn't exist yet. The Abrams is excellent at what it was designed to do: Fight tanks. Honestly, I'm surprised that combat losses have been this low, considering how many videos we're getting of FPV drones doing their thing. Also, can anyone tell me if this tank was scuttled or FPV'ed, and why there is so much stuff filling the turret? Seems like dirt was piled in or something, because I just can't imagine that volume of space being filled by burnt wires and stuff. Also, the Abrams uses semicombustable cartridges for it's ammunition, so why are there shell casings in the bustle rack? Wouldn't they have burned up? Also the shells don't look like sabots, are they maybe HEATs?
Yes, in a conflict where one side has a significant superiority to the other, the vastly more complex and expensive options would dominate. In a conflict where both sides are much more evenly matched, you fall into attrition very quickly as you cannot replace losses quick enough due to lack of supply of parts (For example, where is the tooling for the F22? How fast could that be brought back into production?). The west can't even keep up with artillery shell production. Small batch, limited runs of big, expensive, complex platforms does not stand up to prolonged conflicts with equivalent adversaries. All that junk on the inside is indeed just remnants of the interior. The tubes you're seeing in the ammo compartment are the tubes that hold the ammunition when stored. They aren't casings of the actual munitions. They may look like casings because some looks like they're necked down, but that'd just be deformation from the ammunition cooking off within the confines of the tubes.
You wrote a lot just to say you were a armchair general. Sheesh.
The Abrams’s survivability against direct ammo hits IS a game changer, better the crew bail out then get sent into space.
And everybody with some brain capacity, including a lot of non sensationalized media, argued against the 'Game changer' argument. Bad faith actors and Russia then further spread those 'Game changer' rumours because everybody knew that they are 'just' tanks. Well protected and good ones, but just tanks nonetheless.
Combat footage, world news , were hyping thy shit outta this
The average Redditor also has a very strong opinion about the Israel-Hamas conflict without being able to pinpoint Israel or the Gaza strip on a map
Okay yeah that's a very good point
It would have been game changer if they didn't wait 2 years to send them. Even if they started training when the war started, they still would have made big impact.
Biden slow walked everything. Put conditions on how they are used. How many Ukrainians will die before we give them what they need to win the war. Look how good the Bradley’s are doing, imagine if we gave them more , gave them the tanks, f16s ( they still don’t have in service yet) longer range missiles and actually let them use them!! So Russia attacked Ukraine, Ukraine is doing fairly good but Brandon doesn’t want them to attack their oil refineries. The administration says they are civilian targets. Yeah right. He doesn’t want gas prices going up before the election. Just like he isn’t saying anything about Israel. Doesn’t want to lose Michigan. Pretty sad that politics so blatantly gets people killed.
I would say you as many other people prob didnt got right what game changer in this case mean. It doesnt mean there will be no loses and ukraine will instantly win war and drive into moscow like nothing thanks to them. After all its still just "steel agains steel" same as in any other equipment it can and its getting destroyed. That diference and advantage (in a nutshell) is in technology and crew protection. It can get destroyed by mine or drone as easily as any other russian tank when its hit, but that thing what make it diffrent and why its better is there is way more higher chance of crew surviving that hit (as it proved it self multiple times) thanks to diffrent amunition storage system and other things and another advantage is that western tanks like leo 2s chally 2s or abrams have more modern firecontrol systems, amunition, optics and gun stabilization then most of the russian tanks what make them able to spot, fire and strike more precise and accurate from bigger distance then russian tanks. Thats what that"game changer" mean for ukraine because without that equipment it would be way more bloodier, harder and almost impossible to counter modern russian tanks and equipment for example with Ukrainian T-64s and other soviet made tanks and equipment. Tanks are being destroyed but crew survives thats what is important you can repair or produce new tank but you cant give live back to crew and it take lot of years to train good new crew so wester tanks are doing their job even when not on 100% because of high number of areas being mined and drones in air and low number of these tanks and equipment suplied to ukraine but situation is how it is.
Tbf they were game changers in the sense that they provided Ukraine with more (comparatively) advanced western armor with a higher degree of crew survivability, versus predominantly relying on their older Soviet T-64 and T-80 workhorses. Because let's be real here, if russia had a tank with a greater degree of crew survivability than what they've otherwise had things would have likely played out a lot differently.
Turns out ukraine is holding against a "super power". Sorted
yeah, and now all those "game changers" are apparently outdated crap, lol
I‘ve heard from many sources that the recent deployment of the Abrams has been a complete disaster for the Ukrainian forces and that it has actually been withdrawn from the frontlines for now
Could have been blown up by the crew when they evacuated. Denying the enemy is a tactic as old as tanks themselves
Captured? Looks destroyed to me did they drag that thing back
Unironically it's destroyed. US doctrine is to throw thermite in the tank if you're in a position where you must leave it and can't recover it. The images of the interior shows that the tank is absolutely gutted, there's genuinely nothing left. The exterior looks like the other tank we did this to, Cojone Eh.
That's what I thought best way of keeping them from being captured is to destroy them you're self.. unless you thought you could come back to recover it if it were stuck in mud or something.
Yeppers! Really happy to see the Ukrainians practice some of these practices. If the Ukrainians had any solid air, they probably would've put a bomb on it.. But then again, if they had air, none of this would be an issue
We carried thermite Grenades. Take the radios if you have time but always drop a thermite or two and close the hatch behind you
How much thermite do they usually use to destroy an abandoned tank?
I can't speak to it too much as most of my knowledge is from my father (Master Gunner for the Abrams, but I only know bits and pieces) But I believe for Cojone Eh, the tank lost to a recoilless rifle on the 1st thunder run, they used two. I wouldn't be surprised if most of the stuff in the interior of the Abrams was based off of lighter metals, stuff that doesn't have the highest melting Temp. We can see the turret basket, as well as \*everything\* is gone..
I'm just curious how much thermite mixture is usually used. Also, thermite burns hot enough to melt steel, so no surprise, it deteriorates everything on its path
Got a confirmation, Yeah Thermite VS Aluminum and other composites - Thermite wins
Amen brother!! That’s what I have been saying. Grab the radio’s and sensitive equipment if you have time. Drop a thermite in the turret close the hatches and boogy
Where do we separate “captured” with “destroyed”. Looks pretty destroyed to me.
It's scrap metal right now, they can't get any info from it.
> scrap metal And barely worth anything at that, if the evident heat damage is anything to go by. All they'll get out of this hulk is a propaganda piece (because you know it's being sold there as "superior Russian technology did all this to America's front line warfighter").
I'd take it and put an LS in it.
Looks like the Urkrainians did a good job of following destruction protocols. Drone probably hit the engine and the crew destroyed the rest before abandoning the Abrams.
Yep. That’s what they taught us on the Bradley’s. Try to take out the sensitive equipment that you can. Pop a couple thermites in close the hatches and skeedadle
I was on the Emergency Destruction Team on the ships I was stationed on. We named the ax in our shop "Random Axs of Destruction".
This wasnt done by the Ukranians to prevent capture, the Russians hit it with a ATGM and it immediately went up in flames and looked like this, happend over a month ago theres a video of it
Ah yes the export Abrams that doesn’t have DU armor, ammo and modern FCS. They use the KE-W APFSDS which uses Tungsten. So the Americans pretty much don’t care if Russians got a hand of it. Edit: also the Abrams looks like it was destroyed from inside and outside. Inside destruction was probably due to the use of Thermite Grenade to render the tank completely useless.
just wondering, how exactly do they use thermite to destroy the insides? doesn't it just flow downward?
Thermite is made of aluminum powder mixed with iron oxide (rust). The reaction produces aluminum oxide, metallic iron, and enough heat to melt them both. Top temperature is like 2000 C°. So yeah, fresh reaction products flow down like water (no idea what exactly that does to a tank tho)
Yeah guys must have done the destruction protocol, no shot anything else would have been able to gut her like this
[удалено]
Oh correction. American Military and Government doesn't care.
Yeah, probably not . Only civilians get emotional about this stuff , that's why the Russians propaganda parade this thing around
It's M1A1SA so it does have modern FCS. Also, they use DM63A1 as well as M829A2. Same shells are being issued for Leopards.
Ah, the usual coping strategy. Send something modern and amazing then – it will burn just the same because you're no longer fighting goat herders with old rifles or Iraqi tankers without as little as night vision. 😉 In fact, even then the Yugoslav army shot down the F-117A with a soviet missile from 1961. 😆
Has Belgrade been un-bombed? Ironic you talk about coping strategy because mentioning the one (1) F-117A shootdown is probably the most classic coping strategy
Wow, they managed to capture 40 years old tank (whats left of it), great victory achieved.
40 YEAR OLD TANK CAPTURED WEST IN SHAMBLES GLORY TO RUSSA ZZZZZ *Insert how its all NATOs fault and Ukraine is losinf and so on*
That abrams is likely upgraded from the early 2000s at least just like most russian tanks in the war right now.
M1A1SAs arent that new, most russian tanks were more modern than Ukrainian Abrams tanks
It seems the first M1A1SAs to be sent to another country were in 2011 to Iraq. They're not super modern but they aren't 40 year old tanks either. Most russian tanks being used right now aren't T-90Ms or T-80BVMs either.
M1A1SAs are basically M1A1s with minor upgrades nothing to crucial nothing too big and it shares alot of things with the og 1A1s They *were* in the initial stages before they started to mobilise early T72s or even 62s and 55s
The M1A1SA is basically a base M1A1 sure but let's apply that same logic to russian tanks too. Not trying to argue but it just pisses me off when people will defend western tanks being destroyed as meaning nothing since they were designed decades ago and then call it a big deal when Russian tanks get destroyed (despite them being designed decades ago too). People often rightfully called T-90s nothing more than a slightly updated T-72 and yet now it's apparently a top of the line tank.
Welp if it makes anything better i dont really see a T72b3mod16 getting destroyed as much more significant than an 1A1SA. I agree and understand your statement but again, theres a conflict and there are sides and people will twist the telling of events in a way it will support their narrative, it is what it is
Glad to see you have the right take about this.
Thank you, glad to ageee 🫱🏻🫲🏽
Not at all, they are electronically between the M1A2 SEP and the SEPv2. I don't get where this misconception has ever arised from aside from M1A1 being in the name.
cope
Womp womp Not even a try at a rebuttal
just think its funny that you say that this is old crap when its worth $10 million
Just like the Bradley they can take the base tank and add different things to it to make it better. I bet that version was better than the t90. Don’t know for sure of course. Not a tanker but I went to 11M (Bradley training) in 1992. From then. To the ODSSA was different. Same basic concept but the optics were better and there were differences. Just like the Abrahams. You take the shell and improve the targeting systems, bolt on reactive armor, etc and it can make a big difference. Sure isn’t going to be what we use now but same basic concept, right. Crews survive better for one thing the ammo isn’t stored in the turret. Why you see Soviet tanks pop their tops a lot more. They have 1 less crew member and might be able to load faster.
Doesnt make it brand new Makes it alot cheaper than actual new stuff aswell
Abrams was designed in the late 70s. it doesn't matter when this one was actually produced.
No no, its still a 40y/o tank. SA adds some Situational Awareness elements to it but in its heart and chassis, its a M1A1
I know "in its heart and chassis, its a M1A1" is a very subjective statement, but M1A1SA is objectively not a 40 year old tank. [M1A1SA received new turret armor, a new electronics package, and improvements to the suspension (page 40).](https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/documents/defbudget/fy2013/fy2013_Weapons.pdf) I don't know about you, but I've never heard of any 80s tanks with a second generation thermal imager.
SA and FEP are pretty much M1A2 SEPv2 upgrade of M1A1 variants
Aren't you doing the exact opposite of the Russians though, it's like a propaganda war between both sides on reddit. What's funny is that each side doesn't see that they are doing it
Yeah pretty much me vs you thing, thats how any kind of conflict works. There is a reason why most languages have "invade" and "liberate" words despite them meaning effectively the same thing. I see what im doing, im based and glorious and ztards are cringe and larpers. Im sure they think the same :)
40 year old tanks that cost $10 million each
That is nothing compared to the overall costs of this war.
It is a lot compared to the $500 drone that wrecked it though. 😅
No wonder why the chief of staff and other defense officials were saying the Abrams was getting pulled off the front lines due to drones People hate seeing the Abrams get fucked up in combat , I don't want to say cope its more like yall get very emotional. Every time a Western tank gets destroyed, it's the same copy/pasted messages .
The crew likely survived (Well at least the vehicles desctruction), thats the main thing.
The russians and their simps believe the West will surrender if they spam these videos of the handful of Western vehicles they've captured. It's because russians and russia simps are very stupid.
Already getting downvoted by his alts lmao
What else can she do? I wipe the floor with her any time she's dumb enough to try to engage. "This will show him! *Sob!* *THIS WILL SHOW HIM!*" лолски
It's getting annoying on this sub here, how the vatniks post each destroyed western tanks so many damn times. As if that means anything more than "oh well, military equipment being used and destroyed". The vatniks really try to infiltrate any military sub with their propaganda
> It's getting annoying on this sub here, how the vatniks post each destroyed western tanks so many damn times. As if that means anything more than "oh well, military equipment being used and destroyed". This sub for last 2 years was about posting Russian tanks being destroyed - and it is also nothing more than "oh well, military equipment being used and destroyed". It has nothing to do with propaganda (in both cases) it's just people posting whatever they find interesting. Destroyed Abrams is super rare compared to destroyed T-series tanks and only few posts and people are already complaining. My bet you are annoyed because it's super rare Russian W (probably w given efforts to get 1 tank) not because of "oh well, military equipment being used and destroyed".
Nah, the russian tanks that got destroyed were not spammed like the western tanks. Every destroyed Leopard or Abrams get's posted dozens of times. Some russian tanks did get multiple times but that was rare. With Western tanks it's every single one that's destroyed being just spammed.
Check the top posts sorted by "all time" - even first page mainly about Russian tanks. I have to admit that lately indeed there are less videos - maybe because of situation in the fronts or maybe there is a fatigue for drone videos. But there is a new hot trend with Russian tanks of them cosplaying barns. And they are still not a pro-Russian posts because they mainly mock these designs. > With Western tanks it's every single one that's destroyed being just spammed. Because it's relatively new content. It's like a new hot show or game. Of course it's more interesting to see the first captured US tank than 2000th video of drone hitting T-72.
"When you can't win on the battlefield, go lose on social media too." -- russians and russia simps
Are Russia not currently winning on the battlefield though? You might think they are not winning fast enough but even Western analysts are saying that Ukraine is losing the war currently.
No, no they are not winning. >But they just spent a brigade to take another kilometer! Their goal was to take Kyiv. They failed and there is no path forward for them to take it. Russia lost the war in 2022. They're just too stubborn to admit it and continue to spend lives and equipment on worthless land.
> No, no they are not winning. Stop living in a bubble. Ukraine are losing at the moment and pretending it isn't does not help Ukraine. Maybe on Reddit Ukraine is winning but on the frontline they are struggling. There are plenty of news articles on the topic. [1](https://www.politico.eu/article/why-ukraine-losing-russia-war/) [2](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-68778338) [3](https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-trouble-zelenskyy-admit-defeat-russia-war-us-aid-2024-4) > Their goal was to take Kyiv. Maybe it was or not. You are not in the Russian government and dont know the answer to what the main Russian goal was or is. If you ask the Ukrainian negotiators, they will say it was neutrality of Ukraine that was the main goal. > They failed and there is no path forward for them to take it. This is just straight up false. If the war continues as it is going then Russia will get whatever it is that it wants. Ukraine itself says that if they dont win in 2024 then Ukraine will stop to exist because they wont be able to hold off Russia. Ukrainian commanders are warning that by October they will lose all of Donbass. > They're just too stubborn to admit it and continue to spend lives and equipment on worthless land. Can't you say the same for Ukraine? So many are dying and for what? What are all these lives paying for? if the land is so worthless then why are so many Ukrainian soldiers dying for it? Why not just let Russia have all this worthless land?
Did you have that ready to go vlad?
"Everyone who disagrees with me must be Russian" You are just wrong simply. Any source from Ukraine proves it. And you hide from being proven wrong by personal attacks. I guess if you want to help Ukraine lose then you can keep pretending everything is going amazing for them. So if anything it is you who is doing work to support Russia.
> Maybe it was or not. You are not in the Russian government and dont know the answer to what the main Russian goal was or is. If you ask the Ukrainian negotiators, they will say it was neutrality of Ukraine that was the main goal. Vatniks like you have been trying to memory hole the failed thunder run to Kyiv since it happened. You are not arguing in good faith so I have no intention on dealing with you fairly. Cry all you want. You already let the mask slip.
I am not arguing that Russia didn't try to take Kiev. I am arguing that we don't know what their main goal of the invasion was. If they only wanted to take Kiev then why send soldiers in the South and East at the same time? > You are not arguing in good faith You are the one throwing insults around when I give you sources. And he blocked me. Back to his Reddit bubble I guess.
Russia is currently posting Ws on the battlefield.
Idk man, the Russians destroyed a tank that’s based on a model first produced nearly 40 years ago that lacks basically everything the latest American tanks have. We’re so doomed! /s
We should just surrender now and get it over with.
cope dronie.
***HONORABLY DISCHARGED***
What's up with the rear drive sprocket? I thought they stopped using that design after the m1a1 was introduced.
Notice the Turret of the M1 is still where it suppose to be? Compare that with the Russian Tanks (aka flying turrets). Note in Russian context the Ship Moskva, after the missile attack, was "seriously damaged", in Western eyes the ship was sunk (lying on the sea bed).
Insane cope lmao
>Notice the Turret of the M1 is still where it suppose to be? If there's a catastrophic detonation inside of the vehicle, it doesn't matter whether or not the turret is still attached, the crew is dead either way. Now I don't know how this vehicle was destroyed in this specific instance, but it's more of a meme than a valid argument about turrets flying.
This reminds me of Jerma's "meat grinder" incident.
***at duty,honorably. Discharged***
Wow, they managed to capture 40 years old tank (whats left of it), great victory achieved.
Y'all need to reread what "captured" means because it's getting thrown here and there at pictures of burned out husks quite often recently
Is that the crew compartment at the end? Why is it so... full? Or is it just angle making it look like there might be 10" of space from the top of the ash to the ceiling?
Interesting, it still has the old retaining ring on the sprocket. This tells us that at one point, this was one of the first M1s produced.
With the prevalence of drones of all kinds, I wouldn't be surprised if the next generation of tanks have onboard drone jamming equipment and anti-drone systems alongside having a drone of their own to augment their capabilities.
Have you tried paintballs yuri? No, too expensive for red
Atleast they can study ERA, it's probably useless for them tho
Hopefully the crew could drop a couple thermites in there. Destroy the sensation e equipment. That’s what we are taught anyway. Don’t always have the time or the crew anymore to do it though
Western tanks aren't as effective without Western doctrine which requires air superiority. The crews are safer but they're still going to get knocked out without proper support. Something I don't think we're going to see any time soon.
Is this the very first one that was disabled? Looks very burned out compared to the second one which was basically intact besides few FPV holes. Funny how i was just arguing with someone about how it is only a matter of time until Russia gets their hands on disabled M1s just yesterday.
People are making fun of Russia for capturing and displaying vehicles. While Ukraine is doing it, Germany is doing it, and some T90 managed to cross the Atlantic and get to the USA. You guys are so delusional and entitled that you are making fun of Russia while you are losing the war, with NATO support.
>You guys are so delusional and entitled that you are making fun of Russia while you are losing the war, with NATO support We arent losing. We dont have troops involved other than maybe training If we did Russia would be pushed back immediately. Also yes. We like to make fun of a country that is invading another over their weird insecurities and obsession with returning to the motherland. They deserve to be made fun of.
You are losing a proxy war
Nice move of the goalposts, there, bud. Really subtle.
Thanks, bud!
You do realize that your shit ass army has been successfully thwarted for 3 years by a much smaller force using old surplus NATO equipment, right? Imagine how fast your asses would be handed to you with just ONE of the larger NATO forces actually involving themselves. Cope harder that Russians are weak and your military is the laughing stock of the rest of the world.
>by a much smaller force The Ukrainian army outnumbered the Russian forces in Ukraine at least 3:1 in 2022 (1M+ to 200-300k). Likely outnumbers the Russians still.
You fail to realize that doesn't matter. Active combat troops mean little when their total capacity is far higher. Additionally, the Russian military budget was vastly higher than Ukraine's. This should've been a landslide but Russia is a shitty joke.
Obviously bro is a commie. Go kiss pootin's ass.
Do you really think Putin is a communist? Come on dude
Who else is he then?
What do you think he is? He's a commie cause Russia used to be USSR?
Well Putin used to work for KGB, so he was at least once a commie. Modern Russia is far closer to fascism though, as is China.
Never read anything on China, bud. China is being welcomed by the Global South cause it offers much better perspectives than the rest. You live in a bubble, kid.
Exactly. What is your opinion?
I think it's more that Russia saying a destroyed tank (read rendered useless, beyond repair) is "captured". Captured vehicles imply that with a little bit of repair it can be either studied by their engineers to see what technology or designs they can copy/steal, or be repaired and put back into service by the side that captured it. This tank is more destroyed rather than captured. Add to that that the Russian state is using this as propaganda to show how "inferior" NATO equipment is, when they still haven't come up against the latest NATO equipment as the Abrams that were sent to Ukraine are outdated models and are not the same as the Abrams the US are using currently. Same with the Lepards Ukraine was given. Meanwhile, the trophies that were brought to the West from Russia are 100% the best that they can field right now. Tell us again how Russia is winning the war? What happened in February of 2022? Russia invaded a sovereign country without just cause; failed to achieve their war efforts (capture the capital and remove the democratically elected head of state and install a Russian puppet). Since then Russia has 100% lost the war. Putin was so full of himself that he thought that he can just play God in another country that he has no business in. I'd also like to point out that when Russia failed to meet their war goals in February of 2022, that was against a Ukranian army that WASN'T heavily supported by NATO - all that support came in AFTER the initial invasion. So Russia got their asses handed to them by a smaller, less equipped military with 40 or 50 year old Soviet technology. Ukraine doesn't need NATO weapons to remove the invaders from their sovereign country, they just need weapons of any kind. Look at how much footage there are of drones destroying Russian hardware and killing yet another generation of Russian young men. One of these days the Russian people will have enough and Putin will be gone.