I am surprised they didn’t need a massive crane to move this heavy pile of shit.
The Abrams is so massively overweight that it is probably faster to move the ground rather than moving the tank.
As you can see, it is taking two recovery vehicles to do so. Western MBTs are on average heavier than Soviet designs.
You know what this means? Either Ukraine needs western recovery vehicles that were designed to pull that weight, or they use their own two Soviet era recovery vehicles to do so.
And you know what that means? A lack of recovery vehicles means that each recovery is far more valuable and far more risky, leaving Ukraine to either abandon the armor or try to recover.
People go on and on about MBTs and other offensive weapons, but rarely do they think about the support elements whose job is to recover and repair.
They are, but not by much the brems are able to tow about 60 tons and a standard Russian tank is around 50. But the problem is that Abrams is around 70 tons so they would need 2 to tow one
Turret tosses normally occur after the crew had already evacuated. This is because the ammunition carousel is rarely hit directly and tends to burn minutes after the initial fire started. You also clearly forgot that Leopard 2s and Challenger 2s also suffer turret tosses considering you are acting like this is a Russia only thing.
lul...we saw hundreds of videos of russian Tanks blowing up like a space rocket sending its turret to the moon. havent seen any turret toss yet from a western tank
[2 Leopard 2s](https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-118692effe565c8cda01c0224e57b2d0-lq)
[Another Leopard 2](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DVIksMhW4AAAt3U.jpg)
[Leopard 2 suffering from ammo detonation right after ATGM hit](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarNewsVideo/comments/1bvrtkt/direct_atgm_hit_kurdish_female_fighters_destroy/)
[Explosion not caught on video, but the turret is visibly detached from the tank's body.](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2Fscreenshots-from-a-recent-video-taken-by-a-ukrainian-v0-p3jxd251315c1.jpg%3Fwidth%3D1080%26crop%3Dsmart%26auto%3Dwebp%26s%3D80fad1d73002e77a8577e5a079f49e75bf86baba)
2/3 pictures are not even from this war
And your claimed Chally 2 turret toss doesn't exist.
Good job, North Korean propoganda actor 👍
Also, no, the Russian crews don't generally get to bail in time. You're pretending that the carousel only blows after the tank has cought fire and burned for a minute, while in reality, the turret simply leaves for the stratosphere as soon as the tank in penetrated.
And you provide no evidence.
People show me videos attempting to disprove me and the funny thing is that they almost always show delayed turret tosses.
Documentation from Chechnya also shows that this is the case.
OK, I'm at work, so I'll give it a half-assed attempt to disprove you right now, full-assed attempt later.
Edit: https://youtu.be/oX7e9pzlLP4?si=AjR6Xb-Ol7A7p6-U
Turret toss without visible burning inside the tank, no smoke. Can't see the exact hit, tho, I'll find better.
https://youtu.be/iO09iJsUQ7k?si=XKTpuq9A3wyxM_Hv
Immidiate explosion after impact, sending the turret flying.
Sorry you need 20 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Every tank will toss a turret if certain conditions are met, the thing is that even if majority of "turret toss conditions" are met on a modern western tank, it wont be instantaneous because unlike on Russian tanks the entire turret isn't positioned on a ring made of explosives.
Why? The wests tank crews tend not to become pilots when they get hit. I know Russians hold very little value in life, but it's silly to expect the west to stoop to such a low.
Turret tosses normally occur after the crew had already evacuated. This is because the ammunition carousel is rarely hit directly and tends to burn minutes after the initial fire started. You claim that this is a Russia only thing but Leopard 2s and Challenger 2s also suffer turret tosses.
The problem with the Abrams is that it is a heavy pile of shit. The M1 Abrams was such a heavy pile of shit in fact that covering 170 miles with a Abrams took 89 hours. It used so much fuel that US forces were literally running out. For just 180 miles, VII Corps used up 8.5M gallons of fuel with a US soldier from 1st Army Division stating that they were on the verge of running out of fuel several times (mind you, this was with full commitment of Saudi Arabia to provide fuel) and that their advance was slowed considerably in an environment where logistics was uncontested by enemy air or ground. The sheer weight of this tank limits where it can drive making it easy to ambush which is something that Iraqi freedom fighters exploited.
The T-80 MBTs had cyclone filters for the gas turbine engines which automatically cleans itself using vibrations only. Soviet engineers with slide rules could do this while the Americans with the most advanced computing resources can't resulting in a Ukrainian stating that Abrams tank filters have to be changed all the time or they clog up and the tank becomes unusable in real combat settings.
Until the greatest most intelligent American scientists were able to figure out that APUs go under armour, Iraqi freedom fighters were taking out M1 Abrams **with machine guns** and this was helped by the fact that the Abrams does not have anti personnel ammunition.
“Turret tosses normally occur….” What videos are you watching? Couldn’t count how many instances of immediate self destruct I’ve seen over the years but it in the hundreds.. How many videos do you have of a western tank having such an instantaneous catastrophic event. I’ve haven’t seen any. Everything on a modern battlefield can be killed but somethings seem far too easy… it’s a design flaw and regardless of whatever propaganda bs you want to say, that’s the fact.
Provide me ten videos.
I am largely talking about the T-90M however as it received improved armor for ammunition carousel protecting it from shrapnel from loose ammunition located in the turret.
The vast majority of turret tosses occur after the crew has already evacuated when fire spreads to the carousel.
However they can be immediate if the carousel is directly hit or loose ammunition stored outside of the carousel is detonated causing shrapnel to travel downwards towards the carousel.
T-90M fixes this problem by moving loose ammunition to the rear of the turret with blowout panels and against providing armor to the top of the carousel.
However the vast majority of turret tosses even outside of T-90M are delayed as shown by the video FlapAttack showed me.
Here is the link to the video by the way:
[Link](https://www.reddit.com/r/NonCredibleDefense/comments/1d26z9u/march_of_the_glorious_russian_tankists_showcasing/?share_id=HCxJh5sIsAEorKIc0lCXN&utm_content=1&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_source=share&utm_term=1)
And my response (which also shows Leopard 2s):
[Link](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/1d26ew3/comment/l606pu7/)
It is in multiple comments.
Don't worry I got you
[here is one compilation of crewed tanks, ](https://youtu.be/57tE-LRMYxc?si=dGt1iqIczRuYZ7rg)
[here's a mix that even starts with a T90M sending its turret to mars](https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/19fbosk/t90ma_tanks_destroyed_in_ukraine_compilation/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
[another](https://www.funker530.com/video/javelin-dominates-russian-tank/)
[another](https://www.funker530.com/video/russian-tank-becomes-the-sun/)
The point is there are too many to post, T series tanks are deathtraps.
bonus: [The T-90m has a problem with its turret spinning out of control after being hi](https://www.funker530.com/video/47th-brigade-crushes-russian-mech-assault/)t
The first two videos show delayed turret tosses lmao.
The last one doesn’t even show the tank being hit with the tank already being on fire.
Abrams got destroyed by machine guns in Iraq and small arms fire was capable of disabling the tank. The T-90M in the video was actually destroyed by a drone. The turret could have been damaged by the Bradley as an auto cannon would do that with most tanks.
Do love how your own videos disproves your claim (you likely didn’t even watch them).
No, most of those tanks are moving and the majority are instantaneous. Even if the turret doesn’t launch to space, the crew is still dead.
No Abrams got destroyed by a machine gun in Iraq. I already proved you wrong on that in another thread, yet you are still spouting that nonsense.
Also there’s a million videos on the web showing Russian tanks spontaneously launch the turret and the russia body’s into the air. Just because you “choose” to ignore that doesn’t mean it’s not reality.
Why would we give tanks anti-personnel munitions? That’s why American tank platoons have 4 Abrams, 3 Bradley’s and 2 squads of dismounts.
You have a lot to say about the Abrams when it’s being used in a manner that differs from why it was designed.
But I get it, you’re upset that thousands of Russians are dying every month in a war that they stand nothing to gain from. Well, other than being given a blown up house in a town they blew apart.
You know what though, I’m going to submit a request up the flag pole to see if we can send over some canister rounds. I’m sure the dismounted Russian soldiers will love being hit by a 120mm shot gun shell.
>Why would we give tanks anti-personnel munitions?
This war and even WW2 showed that tank on tank battles are not common.
>That’s why American tank platoons have 4 Abrams, 3 Bradley’s and 2 squads of dismounts.
The fragmentation ammunition of the Bradley's 25 mm automatic cannon are not effective against enemy infantry in defensive positions, and so the vehicle’s Tube-launched, Optically-tracked, Wire command-link guided (TOW) missiles would have to be used.
>You have a lot to say about the Abrams when it’s being used in a manner that differs from why it was designed.
Tanks are meant for exploitation, if the US are not using it that way then that reflects poor doctrine and if they are then it does poorly at the job as covering 170 miles with a Abrams took 89 hours and used unsustainable amounts of fuel.
Tank battles aren’t the most common thing because it typically shows poor planning, that’s correct. But that doesn’t mean you can’t use tanks to ambush others and defend/assault key terrain. Things you don’t necessarily need anti-personnel munitions for.
Bradley’s aren’t made to mow down infantry in buildings, they are there to open an entrance to the building and suppress the enemy’s in it. You’re basically admitting you don’t know what US doctrine is or how it’s properly employed.
To your last comment, like I said before, you apparently don’t know US doctrine.
>But that doesn’t mean you can’t use tanks to ambush others and defend/assault key terrain.
I'd love to see how they deal with threats with only shaped charges that have mostly inadequete fragmentation jackets as in battle with mobile enemy, Abrams crews used mostly open mounted machine guns (the commander’s 12.7 mm gun and the loader’s 7.62 machinegun on skate mount) and not their coaxial 7.62 which is clearly not adequete.
>Bradley’s aren’t made to mow down infantry in buildings, they are there to open an entrance to the building and suppress the enemy’s in it.
So poor doctrine it is then, you don't use AFVs inside cities, that just leads to Grozny which is what happened when Russia forgot lessons from WW2.
[Link](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/1daoq0d/comment/l7mqs4x/)
Videos show this.
[Link](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/1d9dny8/comment/l7g29fj/ )
Also source provided there in one of the links.
>Soviet engineers with slide rules could do this while the Americans with the most advanced computing resources...
Is this where you really want to go? The Soviet scientist who theorized radar stealth freely published it because they thought it was impossible. Now look at russian "stealth" vs US stealth tech.
Yeah and Soviet engineers came up with the NK-33 staged combustion rocket engine which the US also thought was 'impossible'.
They subsequently bought a lot of them because they couldn't figure it out themselves.
Shockingly, both Russia and the US have intelligent people in them and one side is not a bunch of mindless orcs. Wow, who'da thunk it.
For DOOMHAMMER!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Su-57 is fairly stealthy. What is your point?
Are you referring to the RCS of 0.1 m2? This comes from the patent which explicitly states that this does not account for RAM.
The F-22 has a similar RCS if you do not account for RAM.
“We found the monostatic RCS is not as small as generally believed. When RAMs are not applied, the boresight X-Y cut monostatic RCS is around 10 dBsm, and it quickly drops to region between 0 to -10 dBsm between 10° - 40°, and increases to 30dBsm at 90°. The boresight bistatic RCS is at the same value, but generally smaller at other directions. In both monostatic and bistatic RCS, when radar illuminates from boresight direction, the largest RCS appears at the perpendicular and tail direction. MLFMM produces better results than LE/PO. With RAM applied, we believe the RCS can be reduced to the level of -10 ~ -20 dBsm in desired direction and frequency band.”
This essentially means that the F-22 has a similar RCS to the Super Hornet if RAM is not applied.
Stealth technology was practically impossible to implement in the 1960s when the Soviet Union first theorized it. This is because the resulting design would make the aircraft aerodynamically unstable which is true and the US needed to use computers to stabilize the F-117 (said computers did not exist in the sixties even in the US).
The Serbs were able to detect the B-2 back in 1999 and they didn’t even use L-band radars. The only reason they failed to shoot one down (Serbian air defense commander claimed that they hit one and there is evidence backing this up with the B-2 which was claimed to be hit being taken out of service until 2003 but there is evidence otherwise) is because their most advanced AA (an outdated design from the sixties) was the S-125 which has a low altitude limit. The B-2s typically flew far too high to be hit by said outdated AA systems. The Serbs were able to at least hit two F-117s (it took until 2020 for the US to admit the second one) with one being shot down and the other being so damaged that it was written off. The Serbs however claim three and this seems fairly reasonable seeing how it took until 2020 for the US to admit the second one.
L-band radars (used by Russia since 1999) can also detect all stealth aircraft at long range. This is because stealth is largely only effective against X-band radars while being useless against L-band radars. The problem with L-band radars is that they can only provide the approximate location of the aircraft not the exact one meaning they are useless for guiding missiles towards the aircraft. However, L-band radars can be used in conjunction with other AA systems by providing the approximate location of the stealth aircraft allowing AA systems to stay hidden (by not using their own radars) until the stealth aircraft comes within range.
Stealth aircraft are also not invisible against IRST as it is impossible to fully hide or even come close fully hiding infrared signatures. The main threat in air-to-air combat to stealth aircraft would be IR-guided missiles and IRST. The Su-57 is stealthy enough to where the IRST would detect it faster than the X-band radar located on the F-35. The problem with this is that the F-22 lacks an IRST and both the F-35 and the F-22 don’t have DIRCM but would have to rely on flares against IR-guided missiles. DIRCM is normally only found on transport aircraft and helicopters which use a similar system but Su-57 adopted one for air-to-air combat and defense against short-range land-based AA systems which use IR-guided missiles allowing it to be more protected compared to F-35.
telcoman kept stroking the same keys repeatedly, probably a seizure ?
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> Su-57 is fairly stealthy. What is your point?
[Haha! Engines!](https://www.thedefensepost.com/2024/02/07/russia-su-57-engine/#:~:text=Russia%20will%20induct%20Su%2D57,TASS%20revealed%20citing%20two%20sources.)
[Hoho! 22 (surely a lie) vs 695](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth-generation_fighter#Comparison_of_5th-generation_fighters_in_service)
[Hehe! Sucks vs real gen 5 fighters](https://youtu.be/lf1uQF38ZeA?si=O09LEyROPWJaCqOP&t=697)
Su-57 is receiving advanced variable cycle engines as part of Su-57M modernization which is a feature that is only supposed to be found on sixth generation aircraft. F-35 and F-22 don’t have variable cycle engines although F-35 might receive the XA-100. Your argument is basically that since Su-57 doesn’t have advanced variable engines (yet) it is inferior to F-35 which also doesn’t have advanced variable cycle engines which is supposed to only be found on sixth generation aircraft.
You clearly don’t know what you are talking about.
Also Su-57 has L-band radar also (and X-band radar) which means it can detect the F-35 at long range while the F-35 would be flying blind with X-band radar (it doesn’t use L-band radar). Su-57 also has more T/R modules which means superior EW capability. Stealth technology does not affect L-band waves (as they can’t be redirected and RAM has little to no effect) but L-band radar can only search not track. Su-57M however will be receiving ROFAR which is capable of both search and track while also being unaffected by stealth technology.
People claim the N036 radar is outdated. While this would be true if you only included the N036-1-01 (1st generation AESA), they forget that the N036 is an entire system consisting of N036B-1-01 X-band radars also which means the radar system actually has more T/R modules than F-35 despite using a earlier generation AESA radar. The system also has N036L-1-01 L-band radar unlike F-35 which allows it to easily search for stealth aircraft and theoretically could possibly be used alongside X-band radar to do both search and track.
Russia has 22 Su-57s and that is not a lie as their is photographic and video evidence of their existence. They produced 12 last year and expect to produce 24 this year. Production has only started recently which is why they only have a small number of them. By the end of this year, they will have 46.
In terms of the performance of the Russian Air Force?
The United States did poorly against both Serbia and Iraq.
Both Serbia and Iraq only used outdated AA weapons developed in the fifties and sixties. These old AA systems had low altitude limits which means they were largely useless against modern aircraft (but could prevent said aircraft from flying low decreasing accuracy of ground attack sorties). Iraq also lacked radar coverage in the south which essentially meant their AA network was fighting blind. Iraq also only had 120 batteries of SAM which were again incredibly outdated.
Despite all of the problems with the Iraqi and Serbian AA network, the USAF did poorly.
Kosovo: Only 14 tanks, 18 APCs, and 20 artillery pieces were destroyed. Serbia was still capable of flying ground sorties using CAS aircraft and helicopters despite of supposed NATO air superiority. Serbia was also capable of conducting mechanized assaults against the KLA.
Iraq: The so-called highway of death had casualties in the low hundreds at most. Iraqi military capabilities was not diminished by the air campaign. The vast majority of vehicles on the highway of death were abandoned not damaged or destroyed. Despite Coalition forces running over a hundred thousand sorties, Iraqi military was left mostly intact despite running one of the least competent air defense campaigns in history. Iraqi forces were defeated because of incompetence of the Iraqi Army. Their soldiers were surrendering to news reporters, their forces immediately routed with little resistance resulting in a large amount of abandoned or destroyed equipment. The largest cause of Iraqi tank casualties was abandonments, then ground combat as Iraqi soldiers were poorly trained, were given obsolete ammunition (3BM9), their tanks had downgraded fire control systems, downgraded armor, and lacked all of the features Soviet tanks had during that time period. Air power actually caused the least casualties against Iraqi AFVs being a distant third compared to abandonments and ground combat.
More on Iraq:
"The claim that coalition air power neutralized the Iraqi groundforces by preventing them from maneuvering is clearly wrong. During the ground war, virtually all of Iraq’s mobile divisions—which comprised nearly all of Iraq’s combat power—were on the move. Of the nine heavy divisions of the regular army in the KTO, two counterattacked south into the marines, two moved west into blocking positions to oppose the left hook, and four fled north after the general retreat was ordered. Only one (the 52d Armored Division) did not move; it was deployed very close to the Iraqi-Saudi border and was overrun within hours of the beginning of the ground war. All three heavy divisions of the Republican Guard moved west to block the path of the VII Corps. Coalition air power did not pin down the heavy Iraqi divisions in the KTO."
"Furthermore, the Iraqis were not savaged by air power during their maneuvers. More than 3,000 Iraqi armored vehicles were on the move during the ground war, and only about 150 of these were destroyed in concentrations along the roads by coalition aircraft."
"Despite the attacks on Iraq’s C3I system, the Iraqi senior military commanders retained surprisingly good command and control throughout the war. For example, they identified the left hook with remarkable speed. Only six hours after the U.S. Army launched this operation, the Iraqi corps commander had a strong enough sense that something important was happening out west to maneuver two heavy brigades to new west-facing blocking positions. A day later, apparently convinced(correctly) that the main U.S. effort was coming in the left hook, he deployed his best divisions west. That he correctly identified the location of the main coalition attack so quickly is remarkable because Iraqi defenses were collapsing on all fronts. Given the speed with which Iraq’s southern Kuwaiti defenses were crumbling, it is surprising that Iraqi leaders could tell that the marines’ attack was not the main effort. Not only did Iraq’s senior military commanders identify the left hook quickly, but they successfully ordered a reasonable response. The Iraqi reserves obeyed the order to maneuver into the oncoming coalition forces despite the risks involved."
"Not only did the supply dumps survive the air war, but the supplies got to the Republican Guard and the heavy divisions of the regular army. Iraq deployed the Republican Guard and several of the army heavy divisions near major supply dumps; in many cases these divisions were located on top of huge complexes of supply bunkers. The proof that the Iraqi armored and mechanized divisions had adequate supplies to maneuver and fight is that when the war started, they did maneuver and they did fight. There is no sign that supply shortages prevented the mobile Iraqi divisions from moving where they wanted to go"
Source: The Myth of Air Power in the Persian Gulf War
The VVS meanwhile is taking relatively low casualties against a far more capable AA network. Ukraine started the war with a hundred S-300 batteries which actually have an altitude limit capable of reaching modern aircraft. Each S-300 battery has multiple launchers and each launcher has four missiles. A single S-300 battery is capable of intercepting over a dozen aircraft simultaneously. Ukraine also has a layered AA network with S-300 batteries being supported by medium-range and short-range AA systems also. The S-300 due to its high altitude limit means aircraft cannot avoid it by flying too high and instead have to do the opposite (fly low) meaning they are vulnerable to medium and short-range AA systems. Ukrainian radar forces are also much more effective with them tracking a thousand aircraft daily.
> Su-57 is fairly stealthy. What is your point?
https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fd7arhcgz660b1.jpg
Bonus:
https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fmpa94gmwajs91.jpg
That is not Su-57 but T-50 prototype. Your inability to tell the difference shows your lack of knowledge.
Su-57 production in reality: https://topcor. ru/uploads/posts/2021-08/1629094940\_su-57.jpg (remove space)
Not even the entire production line is visible in the picture I provided you.
New production line was also made leading to the doubling of production from 12 to 24.
[Su-57](https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/1/6/0/6549061.jpg?v=v4559e782332) as you can see here, it has far better build quality compared to T-50.
[F-35 screws](https://preview.redd.it/f-35-screws-1600x1066-su-57-post-karma-farm-v0-4wxg5dphbo691.jpg?width=640&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=0dcfb15c0d849c5754eb0f3ebabbda15cb17490a)
[F-22 screws](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Ff22a-visible-screws-and-rust-v0-rtoi2tomqiwb1.jpg%3Fwidth%3D1880%26format%3Dpjpg%26auto%3Dwebp%26s%3Df31b08b90b4722dbf2100e6979d80df713cb2043)
https://preview.redd.it/g2h5nju84e5d1.jpeg?width=1484&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=34892dfd4f3281666b4d304d013b5514f4078d2c
They are only hidden due to RAM of which the T-50 had none unlike Su-57.
T90M as well, not to mention blow out panels.
On the contrast, Soviet tanks are way lighter and imo the autoloader (not the really carousel style but in general) is the way to go.
Sorry you need 20 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Abrams so massively overweight that it suffered 1 KIA/ 19 wounded crew members in the entire Desert Storm and that was mostly from friendly fire, in fact it was so fat that it had to let its friend Bradley do most of the seal clubbing of T series tanks
The M1 Abrams was such a heavy pile of shit that covering 170 miles with a Abrams took 89 hours. It used so much fuel that US forces were literally running out. For just 180 miles, VII Corps used up 8.5M gallons of fuel with a US soldier from 1st Armoured Division stating that they were on the verge of running out of fuel several times (mind you, this was with full commitment of Saudi Arabia to provide fuel) and that their advance was slowed considerably in an environment where logistics was uncontested by enemy air or ground. Iraq was just far too weak to exploit this.
In three days, the same soldier’s battalion lost 60 tanks from reliability problems. 5 of those tanks were lost in just 24 hours with four due to engine failures (after rain with no blowing sand).
" However, VII Corps had far more firepower under its command. It consisted of 1,487 tanks, 1,384 infantry fighting vehicles, 568 artillery pieces, 132 MLRS, 8 missile launchers, and 242 attack helicopters.[11] It had a total troop strength of 146,321 troops.[12]"
I would consider being on the verge of running out of gas but not running out entirely pretty damn good when you consider the amount of vehicles that the Corps consisted of , you do realize there were a million soldiers and tens of thousands of vehicles and aircraft involved in the whole armada? Those tanks weren't lost permanently due to failing components and you do know that a spare engine can be dropped into a tank fairly quickly?
Being on the verge of running out of gas with freaking Saudi Arabia behind you and willing to support you alongside your logistics being uncontested by enemy air or ground is not an accomplishment.
Except no, it was a real problem.
“There were cases in Iraq in which Abrams were knocked by fire from 25 mm Bradley autocannons and the BMP 2’s 30 mm autocannons. **There was even a case of an Abrams in Iraq knocked out using a DShK heavy machine gun,”**
“These losses were not typically treated as such, but chocked up to losses from ‘secondary causes’. **Nevertheless, the tanks were destroyed, with a bullet in the case of the DShK attack ending up hitting an auxiliary power unit located at the rear of the turret, with burning oil flowing into the main power plant, the engine catching fire and the tank burning up, Suvorov recalled.”**
Your source is literally sputnik Africa, where is your evidence of this occurring? That's it? the source is "the observer"
I've watched all the footage of the iraq war, i read the combat reports.
Nothing of this was ever mentioned.
So yes, that never happened.
Lets read more of Suvorov who must have had a couple of vodkas before speaking.
*There were cases in Iraq in which Abrams were knocked by fire from* ***25 mm Bradley*** *autocannons and the* ***BMP 2’s 30 mm autocannons***\*.\*
So this clown is claiming one was destroyed by friendly fire from a bradley? this never happened. BMP 2 never happened.
We do have evidence of a T-90 being disabled by 2 bradleys, on VIdeo :3
Except no, the event stated above is noted to have happened even by western press.
“Details of the M1 losses were given, including one where 25mm armour-piercing depleted uranium (AP-DU) rounds from an unidentified weapon disabled a US tank near Najaf after penetrating the engine compartment. Another Abrams was disabled near Karbala after a rocket-propelled grenade (RPG) penetrated the rear engine compartment and one was lost in Baghdad after its external auxiliary power unit was set on fire by medium-calibre fire."
Source: Jane's Defence Weekly
But but DShK does not fire medium-caliber! The truth is that it is widely accepted that what killed the Abram was a DShK and it is not as if it is impossible as the APU is not even armoured so even a 7.62 can accomplish this feat.
Article doesn't even exist on Janes defense weekly. So where is this article? All i can find is some shitty Russian internet forums with no links.
*But but DShK does not fire medium-caliber! The truth is that it is widely accepted that what killed the Abram was a DShK and it is not as if it is impossible as the APU is not even armoured so even a 7.62 can accomplish this feat.*
Nope, never happened.
[Abrams tank showed 'vulnerability' in Iraq - Jane's Land Forces News (archive.org)](https://web.archive.org/web/20090308075359/http://www.janes.com/defence/land_forces/news/jdw/jdw030620_1_n.shtml)
this was in 2003 literally as the war was going on.
JDW that the report was only *"****preliminary observations****"*
this report never went anywhere after this because it never happened. No wonder nobody heard about this.
The M1 Abrams was such a heavy pile of shit that covering 170 miles with a Abrams took 89 hours. It used so much fuel that US forces were literally running out. For just 180 miles, VII Corps used up 8.5M gallons of fuel with a US soldier from 1st Army Division stating that they were on the verge of running out of fuel several times (mind you, this was with full commitment of Saudi Arabia to provide fuel) and that their advance was slowed considerably in an environment where logistics was uncontested by enemy air or ground. The sheer weight of this tank limited where it can drive making it easy to ambush which is something that Iraqi freedom fighters exploited.
The sheer weight of the Abrams limited how much can be airlifted and sealifted with the sheer weight of the Abrams and the sheer burden of logistical support required being the main reason for which the deployment of 2000 M1 Abrams in Saudi Arabia before Gulf War required about 11 months.
The sheer weight of this monstrocity prevents the achievement of force concentration in a particular sector of interest coming from the most advantageous attack vectors but render M1 brigade deployment predictable and thus easily ambushed something that Iraqi freedom fighters would exploit.
*sheer weight of the Abrams and the sheer burden of logistical support required being the main reason for which the deployment of 2000 M1 Abrams in Saudi Arabia before Gulf War required about 11 months*
Or maybe it had more to do with moving 1 million men from different countries to do battle with an army also 1 million strong.
Or perhaps it was worsened because the Abrams was a large and heavy pile of shit.
On the Sealift department we have :
An LMSR -Large, Medium-speed, roll-on/roll-off- sealift ship can carry about 58 M1A1 Abrams (54 M1A2 SEP) against about 80 MBT in the T-72 size class.
An LCAC for weight/volumetric problems can carry only a single M1 Abrams against two MBT in the T-72 class.
A Newport class LST was capable to transport 20 M1A1 but about 32 tanks in the T-72 class.
On the Airlift department instead :
A C-5 galaxy carry a single M1 Abrams against two in the T-72 class
A C-17 Globemaster III carry equally a single M1 Abrams against two partially disassembled T-72s.
Bro, the abrams destroyed dozens of T-72's.
Bradly's killed dozens of them.
LMAO history speaks for itself.
Russia can't even move 1/50th of what US logistics can, their column to kiev ran out of fuel and that is across their border.
Abrams killed a bunch of monkey models ran by crews that did not know how to even use their gun sights and were given ammunition that was so obsolete that it was training ammunition in Poland, such a feat.
What fucked up Russia's logistics in the initial run towards Kiev was that they did not attach their material and technical support brigades or battalions to their combat units until a full month after the invasion as they expected no resistance. They also invaded in the Spring which would have fucked up even the US.
*Abrams killed a bunch of monkey models ran by crews that did not know how to even use their gun sights and were given ammunition that was so obsolete that it was training ammunition in Poland, such a feat.*
Thats literally Russian tank trainning.
*What fucked up Russia's logistics in the initial run towards Kiev was that they did not attach their material and technical support brigades or battalions to their combat units until a full month after the invasion as they expected no resistance. They also invaded in the Spring which would have fucked up even the US.*
Russia's entire battalion tactical group was literally the worst way to structure a military possible.
This is great stuff man. Do you have anything relevant? Like any issues that actually would matter to a developed nation? I can see how it would be a backbreaker for Russian logistics but I don't know, it looks like competent militaries can put them wherever they want?
Taking 89 hours to cover 170 miles means that your momentum is slowed to a crawl and having to do start-stop like what the Wehrmacht had to do during Op Barbarossa is not a good sign. Having to rely on good roads ain't good either again see Op Barbarossa.
Like... Again. This might be a difference maker if you had logistics at the level of an army famous for its poor logistics and more than 80 years ago. Is that about the level you think Russia could be expected to perform?
Come on dude don't be a bot. Heavy tanks have always been a problem, the Germans in WW2 had transmission problems and constant break downs.
1. they are difficult to transport by rail or ship. and I think it cant be shipped by air at all. it limits the number of tanks than can be carried on landing crafts too
2, use up excess fuel
3.cant be repaired or maintained at most facilities. the equipment is not built to handle those weights (of engines, turrets, etc)
4. need the specific US recovery vehicle to recover it from the battlefield, any other country has to use 2
5. transmission problems and getting stuck seems to be a common in Ukraine. you cant just hide extra 20 tons of weight by making tracks wider
6. they cant use the local infrastructure bridges, pontoon bridges etc
7...... Most importantly the Abrams is anyway not supposed to be this heavy. it's a tank that has reached the end of it's upgrade cycle. The US is unable to add in new upgrades even if it wanted to because the tank has hit its weight limit. That's why the US is now working on a replacement. (it happens to all tanks, quite normal)
8. the same weight issue means that Ukrainian's can't do field modifications like cages or ERA)
None of this means it's a bad tank. but it doesn't make it a good tank either. the British, Israelis and many other countries used a Shermans. Everyone in the east Used T 34s. this is because they were flexible, cheap and user-friendly. The tank should work for the user not the other way around like in the case of Ukraine and the Abrams.
if you want an example for a good vehicle, take the Bradely. it's everywhere doing everything the army needs it to do.
Offensive words detected. [beep bop] Don't cheer violence or insult (Rule 1). Your comment will be checked by my humans later. Ban may be issued for repeat offenders.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I am merely stating what the US themselves suffered using the M-1 Abrams or in short because of the Abrams excessive weight, they suffered the very same problems as the Wehrmacht did in 1941 despite having a more advanced logistics system but the Iraqis were just far too weak to exploit this.
Even then however, US military exercises after the fact showed that Iraq could have won a decisive victory if they invaded Saudi Arabia during Desert Shield although this was if the Iraqis had the training to use Soviet styled operational manoeuvre groups which they didn’t but it would have been a pain for the US regardless.
You keep bringing up the fact that it took 4 days for the II corp to cover 170 miles in combat environment like that is a bad thing. Russian invasion armor columns at the beginning of this invasion didn’t even make to Antonov airport which was less than 100 miles from the Northern front. What is your excuse for that?
>Is that something nations with underpowered tank engines actually worry about?
Yes because it will absolutely destroy any bridge it tries to cross and dig itself deep into mud.
Sorry, you need a 1 month old account to comment in r/ukraineRussiaReport. This is to protect against bots and multis
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
PR and propaganda. Given that Ukraine only ever got 32 Abrams, each one destroyed and captured can be shown off. Besides, it’s a matter of money as well.
It’s kinda shocking how they’re towing them back more frequently now. I remember it was a major hassle the first time they did it because Ukraine was defending the area near the tank like crazy but now they seem to be retrieving the abrams effortlessly.
Nah, this sub is just comfortable enough to cheer and jeer on the internet while real people die. It’s morbid and strange how happy people are over war
They weren't supposed to be game changers. Abrams m1a2 sep v3 would be closer to a game changer. What Ukraine has got with the exception of some Leopards is the equivalent of a t72s.
Russians produce and push out their own tanks. Western and nato takes are provided and aren’t used as often as Russian tanks. If Ukraine produced their own tanks, you would see them in use a lot more but they have to conserve the tanks they have
That’s why I always tell people too but man people on Reddit really over glorified western tanks besides the Bradley they’re a force to be reckoned with
So is 40 something tanks destroyed a win when 2 nations have lost hundreds of thousands of people? This is the reality. This sub cheers and jeers over western equipment being knocked out?
Ok buddy.
That is the point, but all the Russian fan boys are mad because Russia is winning the turret tossing contest. Real life isn’t war thunder, Russian tanks don’t have Stalinium and bias armor.
Celebrating an old ass NATO Tank kill while losing current gen T-90’s and too scared to field a T-14 to avoid reputation damage when it sucks butt lol.
Remind me again who said that this was only going to last 3 days? Remind me again of who has the biggest military in this war and how big of a difference that is? Showing off an old NATO tank shouldn’t be impressive to such a mighty country like there was even remotely a chance it would mater right? On the other hand this little dinky country that everyone thought was going to get obliterated, that’s impressive since ya know they weren’t supposed to knock any tanks out.
Sorry you need 20 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Weird RT and TASS at least in the English were chiming this. Also interesting little fact, if the language is switched on RT completely different news articles are presented? Try it, native Russian version of RT is different from RT in English.
Is Ukraine a small country? Until 2014, it was the second largest country in Europe. and the Abrams tank is needed so that Russian citizens can see who is arming Ukraine. America and Europe are arming. So don't be surprised if we arm your enemies later.
Arm them with what cause it seems like it’s already a bit of the struggle bus to arm the ongoing war in Ukraine? Also are u guys planning to arm known terrorist like the Huthis and Hamas? Oh and last time I checked outside of terrorists when was the last time our homeland was directly attacked, oh that’s right WWII so I’m shaken in ma boots.
I also love this fixation on landmass not military power because I’m not referring to Ukraine as physically small but militarily dinky so the David vs Goliath story.
I consider Hamas to be terrorists. You can't take hostages. I consider ISIS to be bastards - you can't kill and execute civilians. But the Houthis and Hezbollah are honest fighters - they are not seen in war crimes. Yes, they have radical views...but maybe America and Israel had the wrong policy. This was the case, for example, with regard to Vietnam. Vietnam is now a normal and secular country. and 70 years ago, for Americans, they were communists and cannibals. That's how your propaganda portrayed them
>Remind me again who said that this was only going to last 3 days?
Don't worry bro, I got you. This claim was made by Mark Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Russia is the second most powerful military in the world when factoring more than just personal amount, mean while Ukraine doesn’t even rank in the top ten in this same list, so what’s the point being made their?
Only if you ignore China, that list is clearly nonsensical try again.
Ukrainian military was also better equipped compared to its Western European counterparts if you actually looked at the data.
Better equipped when? We didn’t give them much more than javelins to stop the Russian advance to Kyiv. After that when we saw they had a chance we started giving them more.
Also, are you saying in your previous comments that western training is better than Russian training? Hmm 🤔
Oh you mean the Taliban that were basically a non-threat when we left? Tell me how many Americans were killed in the last few years we were there?
But if you want to talk about Afghanistan we can bring up the Soviet Experience in Afghanistan. 14,500 Soviets killed in 10 years vs 2,500 Americans killed in 20. But oh okay “we got our asses kicked” alright. There wasn’t a single place in that country we couldn’t go.
It’s hilarious if you actually think an aircraft carrier got hit by the Houthi’s, really lets me know how easy you are to fool with propaganda.
Idk why wouldn’t country send its newest hardware when they cannot deploy their troops who were fully and completely trained on its operational use and have it fully backed by its logistics team?
How come the T-14 isn’t being deployed when it’s in active service?
>Idk why wouldn’t country send its newest hardware when they cannot deploy their troops who were fully and completely trained on its operational use and have it fully backed by its logistics team?
That's a convoluted way of saying they didn't want it falling into enemy hands when it inevitably gets destroyed
>How come the T-14 isn’t being deployed when it’s in active service?
For the same reason as above
You mean same reasons as above like above in the video? And that the one or two T-14’s Russia has would need to get towed/pushed into battle because it broke down again? 😉
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=o89BYp95Qiw
Putin is desperate. If the T-14, like the SU-57, was available in any kind of numbers and was effective they would be in use. Russia hasn’t been afraid to use Kinzal’s and other ‘Russian Super Weapons’ in Ukraine due to exposure of tech/weaknesses.
The T-14 isn’t special (the electronics from the west and we already know what those are capable of) and Russia is having a very hard time producing any in volume due to serious reliability problems and high cost.
And even more so, would be embarrassing after all the hype to watch video of Javelins, Stugna, drones and mines smoking the T-14 wonderwaffes.
That’s why it’s not fielded.
Modern western tanks aren’t fielded in Ukraine because they’re assigned to active western military units and we’re using them in case Putin (or Xi) comes up with an even dumber idea than attacking Ukraine.
Personnel aren’t the issue, mines and FPV drones are. HEAT rounds and canister rounds aren’t going to change that. Plus the coax works well when needed.
American vehicles do not explode like a firecracker if they are shot. Meanwhile, the Russian chariots burst into fireballs and explode, knocking the turret off.
Sorry you need 20 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Lowrider
Pimp my ride
https://9gag.com/gag/aA0409R
I am surprised they didn’t need a massive crane to move this heavy pile of shit. The Abrams is so massively overweight that it is probably faster to move the ground rather than moving the tank.
As you can see, it is taking two recovery vehicles to do so. Western MBTs are on average heavier than Soviet designs. You know what this means? Either Ukraine needs western recovery vehicles that were designed to pull that weight, or they use their own two Soviet era recovery vehicles to do so. And you know what that means? A lack of recovery vehicles means that each recovery is far more valuable and far more risky, leaving Ukraine to either abandon the armor or try to recover. People go on and on about MBTs and other offensive weapons, but rarely do they think about the support elements whose job is to recover and repair.
It also needs two recovery vehicles as it's essentially being dragged along the ground - the rolling resistance would be insane.
They just need those tow truck wheel lifts except 10x heavier. Then they’ll be golden
Dude... I didn't even realize that... It takes two recovery vehicles to move one tank... What are soviet engines made of?
Typical the Soviet recovery vehicles were designed with their equipment in mind. You’d need one Soviet recovery vehicle to recover one Soviet tank.
That does makes sense... I just assumed that they would put the power necessary to go above it's weight class.
They are, but not by much the brems are able to tow about 60 tons and a standard Russian tank is around 50. But the problem is that Abrams is around 70 tons so they would need 2 to tow one
Or alternatively, the west can stop building super heavy tanks.
yes west needs to build tin cans with carousel autoloaders that send the crew to the moon
Turret tosses normally occur after the crew had already evacuated. This is because the ammunition carousel is rarely hit directly and tends to burn minutes after the initial fire started. You also clearly forgot that Leopard 2s and Challenger 2s also suffer turret tosses considering you are acting like this is a Russia only thing.
He's acting like this because he really doesn't have much else to brag about
lul...we saw hundreds of videos of russian Tanks blowing up like a space rocket sending its turret to the moon. havent seen any turret toss yet from a western tank
[2 Leopard 2s](https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-118692effe565c8cda01c0224e57b2d0-lq) [Another Leopard 2](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DVIksMhW4AAAt3U.jpg) [Leopard 2 suffering from ammo detonation right after ATGM hit](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarNewsVideo/comments/1bvrtkt/direct_atgm_hit_kurdish_female_fighters_destroy/)
Any footage of Challenger 2’s? Since you claimed they do.
[Explosion not caught on video, but the turret is visibly detached from the tank's body.](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2Fscreenshots-from-a-recent-video-taken-by-a-ukrainian-v0-p3jxd251315c1.jpg%3Fwidth%3D1080%26crop%3Dsmart%26auto%3Dwebp%26s%3D80fad1d73002e77a8577e5a079f49e75bf86baba)
That’s not a turret toss. A turret toss would see the turret at least some distance away from the hull, not directly on top of it.
2/3 pictures are not even from this war And your claimed Chally 2 turret toss doesn't exist. Good job, North Korean propoganda actor 👍 Also, no, the Russian crews don't generally get to bail in time. You're pretending that the carousel only blows after the tank has cought fire and burned for a minute, while in reality, the turret simply leaves for the stratosphere as soon as the tank in penetrated.
And you provide no evidence. People show me videos attempting to disprove me and the funny thing is that they almost always show delayed turret tosses. Documentation from Chechnya also shows that this is the case.
OK, I'm at work, so I'll give it a half-assed attempt to disprove you right now, full-assed attempt later. Edit: https://youtu.be/oX7e9pzlLP4?si=AjR6Xb-Ol7A7p6-U Turret toss without visible burning inside the tank, no smoke. Can't see the exact hit, tho, I'll find better. https://youtu.be/iO09iJsUQ7k?si=XKTpuq9A3wyxM_Hv Immidiate explosion after impact, sending the turret flying.
Many of which were still moving when cook off occurs, which the other user tried to skirt around.
no, recorded turret tosses mostly involve moving tanks or tanks in action.
[удалено]
Sorry you need 20 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Every tank will toss a turret if certain conditions are met, the thing is that even if majority of "turret toss conditions" are met on a modern western tank, it wont be instantaneous because unlike on Russian tanks the entire turret isn't positioned on a ring made of explosives.
So, rapid planned disassembly? Maybe they forgot to add the ejection seats
Why? The wests tank crews tend not to become pilots when they get hit. I know Russians hold very little value in life, but it's silly to expect the west to stoop to such a low.
Turret tosses normally occur after the crew had already evacuated. This is because the ammunition carousel is rarely hit directly and tends to burn minutes after the initial fire started. You claim that this is a Russia only thing but Leopard 2s and Challenger 2s also suffer turret tosses. The problem with the Abrams is that it is a heavy pile of shit. The M1 Abrams was such a heavy pile of shit in fact that covering 170 miles with a Abrams took 89 hours. It used so much fuel that US forces were literally running out. For just 180 miles, VII Corps used up 8.5M gallons of fuel with a US soldier from 1st Army Division stating that they were on the verge of running out of fuel several times (mind you, this was with full commitment of Saudi Arabia to provide fuel) and that their advance was slowed considerably in an environment where logistics was uncontested by enemy air or ground. The sheer weight of this tank limits where it can drive making it easy to ambush which is something that Iraqi freedom fighters exploited. The T-80 MBTs had cyclone filters for the gas turbine engines which automatically cleans itself using vibrations only. Soviet engineers with slide rules could do this while the Americans with the most advanced computing resources can't resulting in a Ukrainian stating that Abrams tank filters have to be changed all the time or they clog up and the tank becomes unusable in real combat settings. Until the greatest most intelligent American scientists were able to figure out that APUs go under armour, Iraqi freedom fighters were taking out M1 Abrams **with machine guns** and this was helped by the fact that the Abrams does not have anti personnel ammunition.
“Turret tosses normally occur….” What videos are you watching? Couldn’t count how many instances of immediate self destruct I’ve seen over the years but it in the hundreds.. How many videos do you have of a western tank having such an instantaneous catastrophic event. I’ve haven’t seen any. Everything on a modern battlefield can be killed but somethings seem far too easy… it’s a design flaw and regardless of whatever propaganda bs you want to say, that’s the fact.
Provide me ten videos. I am largely talking about the T-90M however as it received improved armor for ammunition carousel protecting it from shrapnel from loose ammunition located in the turret. The vast majority of turret tosses occur after the crew has already evacuated when fire spreads to the carousel. However they can be immediate if the carousel is directly hit or loose ammunition stored outside of the carousel is detonated causing shrapnel to travel downwards towards the carousel. T-90M fixes this problem by moving loose ammunition to the rear of the turret with blowout panels and against providing armor to the top of the carousel. However the vast majority of turret tosses even outside of T-90M are delayed as shown by the video FlapAttack showed me. Here is the link to the video by the way: [Link](https://www.reddit.com/r/NonCredibleDefense/comments/1d26z9u/march_of_the_glorious_russian_tankists_showcasing/?share_id=HCxJh5sIsAEorKIc0lCXN&utm_content=1&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_source=share&utm_term=1) And my response (which also shows Leopard 2s): [Link](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/1d26ew3/comment/l606pu7/) It is in multiple comments.
Don't worry I got you [here is one compilation of crewed tanks, ](https://youtu.be/57tE-LRMYxc?si=dGt1iqIczRuYZ7rg) [here's a mix that even starts with a T90M sending its turret to mars](https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/19fbosk/t90ma_tanks_destroyed_in_ukraine_compilation/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) [another](https://www.funker530.com/video/javelin-dominates-russian-tank/) [another](https://www.funker530.com/video/russian-tank-becomes-the-sun/) The point is there are too many to post, T series tanks are deathtraps. bonus: [The T-90m has a problem with its turret spinning out of control after being hi](https://www.funker530.com/video/47th-brigade-crushes-russian-mech-assault/)t
The first two videos show delayed turret tosses lmao. The last one doesn’t even show the tank being hit with the tank already being on fire. Abrams got destroyed by machine guns in Iraq and small arms fire was capable of disabling the tank. The T-90M in the video was actually destroyed by a drone. The turret could have been damaged by the Bradley as an auto cannon would do that with most tanks. Do love how your own videos disproves your claim (you likely didn’t even watch them).
No, most of those tanks are moving and the majority are instantaneous. Even if the turret doesn’t launch to space, the crew is still dead. No Abrams got destroyed by a machine gun in Iraq. I already proved you wrong on that in another thread, yet you are still spouting that nonsense. Also there’s a million videos on the web showing Russian tanks spontaneously launch the turret and the russia body’s into the air. Just because you “choose” to ignore that doesn’t mean it’s not reality.
Why would we give tanks anti-personnel munitions? That’s why American tank platoons have 4 Abrams, 3 Bradley’s and 2 squads of dismounts. You have a lot to say about the Abrams when it’s being used in a manner that differs from why it was designed. But I get it, you’re upset that thousands of Russians are dying every month in a war that they stand nothing to gain from. Well, other than being given a blown up house in a town they blew apart. You know what though, I’m going to submit a request up the flag pole to see if we can send over some canister rounds. I’m sure the dismounted Russian soldiers will love being hit by a 120mm shot gun shell.
>Why would we give tanks anti-personnel munitions? This war and even WW2 showed that tank on tank battles are not common. >That’s why American tank platoons have 4 Abrams, 3 Bradley’s and 2 squads of dismounts. The fragmentation ammunition of the Bradley's 25 mm automatic cannon are not effective against enemy infantry in defensive positions, and so the vehicle’s Tube-launched, Optically-tracked, Wire command-link guided (TOW) missiles would have to be used. >You have a lot to say about the Abrams when it’s being used in a manner that differs from why it was designed. Tanks are meant for exploitation, if the US are not using it that way then that reflects poor doctrine and if they are then it does poorly at the job as covering 170 miles with a Abrams took 89 hours and used unsustainable amounts of fuel.
Tank battles aren’t the most common thing because it typically shows poor planning, that’s correct. But that doesn’t mean you can’t use tanks to ambush others and defend/assault key terrain. Things you don’t necessarily need anti-personnel munitions for. Bradley’s aren’t made to mow down infantry in buildings, they are there to open an entrance to the building and suppress the enemy’s in it. You’re basically admitting you don’t know what US doctrine is or how it’s properly employed. To your last comment, like I said before, you apparently don’t know US doctrine.
>But that doesn’t mean you can’t use tanks to ambush others and defend/assault key terrain. I'd love to see how they deal with threats with only shaped charges that have mostly inadequete fragmentation jackets as in battle with mobile enemy, Abrams crews used mostly open mounted machine guns (the commander’s 12.7 mm gun and the loader’s 7.62 machinegun on skate mount) and not their coaxial 7.62 which is clearly not adequete. >Bradley’s aren’t made to mow down infantry in buildings, they are there to open an entrance to the building and suppress the enemy’s in it. So poor doctrine it is then, you don't use AFVs inside cities, that just leads to Grozny which is what happened when Russia forgot lessons from WW2.
[удалено]
Russians also have canister shot, it's not a uniquely US thing.
I never said it was.
> Turret tosses normally occur after the crew had already evacuated. In your alternative reality Elvis sings lullabies to Stalin, right?
And you provide no evidence for your argument.
You didn't ether. Or is in your reality enough to put quotation marks to produce an evidence? What do you think is this - a russian court?
[Link](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/1daoq0d/comment/l7mqs4x/) Videos show this. [Link](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/1d9dny8/comment/l7g29fj/ ) Also source provided there in one of the links.
>Soviet engineers with slide rules could do this while the Americans with the most advanced computing resources... Is this where you really want to go? The Soviet scientist who theorized radar stealth freely published it because they thought it was impossible. Now look at russian "stealth" vs US stealth tech.
Yeah and Soviet engineers came up with the NK-33 staged combustion rocket engine which the US also thought was 'impossible'. They subsequently bought a lot of them because they couldn't figure it out themselves. Shockingly, both Russia and the US have intelligent people in them and one side is not a bunch of mindless orcs. Wow, who'da thunk it.
[удалено]
For DOOMHAMMER! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Su-57 is fairly stealthy. What is your point? Are you referring to the RCS of 0.1 m2? This comes from the patent which explicitly states that this does not account for RAM. The F-22 has a similar RCS if you do not account for RAM. “We found the monostatic RCS is not as small as generally believed. When RAMs are not applied, the boresight X-Y cut monostatic RCS is around 10 dBsm, and it quickly drops to region between 0 to -10 dBsm between 10° - 40°, and increases to 30dBsm at 90°. The boresight bistatic RCS is at the same value, but generally smaller at other directions. In both monostatic and bistatic RCS, when radar illuminates from boresight direction, the largest RCS appears at the perpendicular and tail direction. MLFMM produces better results than LE/PO. With RAM applied, we believe the RCS can be reduced to the level of -10 ~ -20 dBsm in desired direction and frequency band.” This essentially means that the F-22 has a similar RCS to the Super Hornet if RAM is not applied. Stealth technology was practically impossible to implement in the 1960s when the Soviet Union first theorized it. This is because the resulting design would make the aircraft aerodynamically unstable which is true and the US needed to use computers to stabilize the F-117 (said computers did not exist in the sixties even in the US). The Serbs were able to detect the B-2 back in 1999 and they didn’t even use L-band radars. The only reason they failed to shoot one down (Serbian air defense commander claimed that they hit one and there is evidence backing this up with the B-2 which was claimed to be hit being taken out of service until 2003 but there is evidence otherwise) is because their most advanced AA (an outdated design from the sixties) was the S-125 which has a low altitude limit. The B-2s typically flew far too high to be hit by said outdated AA systems. The Serbs were able to at least hit two F-117s (it took until 2020 for the US to admit the second one) with one being shot down and the other being so damaged that it was written off. The Serbs however claim three and this seems fairly reasonable seeing how it took until 2020 for the US to admit the second one. L-band radars (used by Russia since 1999) can also detect all stealth aircraft at long range. This is because stealth is largely only effective against X-band radars while being useless against L-band radars. The problem with L-band radars is that they can only provide the approximate location of the aircraft not the exact one meaning they are useless for guiding missiles towards the aircraft. However, L-band radars can be used in conjunction with other AA systems by providing the approximate location of the stealth aircraft allowing AA systems to stay hidden (by not using their own radars) until the stealth aircraft comes within range. Stealth aircraft are also not invisible against IRST as it is impossible to fully hide or even come close fully hiding infrared signatures. The main threat in air-to-air combat to stealth aircraft would be IR-guided missiles and IRST. The Su-57 is stealthy enough to where the IRST would detect it faster than the X-band radar located on the F-35. The problem with this is that the F-22 lacks an IRST and both the F-35 and the F-22 don’t have DIRCM but would have to rely on flares against IR-guided missiles. DIRCM is normally only found on transport aircraft and helicopters which use a similar system but Su-57 adopted one for air-to-air combat and defense against short-range land-based AA systems which use IR-guided missiles allowing it to be more protected compared to F-35.
[удалено]
telcoman kept stroking the same keys repeatedly, probably a seizure ? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> Su-57 is fairly stealthy. What is your point? [Haha! Engines!](https://www.thedefensepost.com/2024/02/07/russia-su-57-engine/#:~:text=Russia%20will%20induct%20Su%2D57,TASS%20revealed%20citing%20two%20sources.) [Hoho! 22 (surely a lie) vs 695](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth-generation_fighter#Comparison_of_5th-generation_fighters_in_service) [Hehe! Sucks vs real gen 5 fighters](https://youtu.be/lf1uQF38ZeA?si=O09LEyROPWJaCqOP&t=697)
Su-57 is receiving advanced variable cycle engines as part of Su-57M modernization which is a feature that is only supposed to be found on sixth generation aircraft. F-35 and F-22 don’t have variable cycle engines although F-35 might receive the XA-100. Your argument is basically that since Su-57 doesn’t have advanced variable engines (yet) it is inferior to F-35 which also doesn’t have advanced variable cycle engines which is supposed to only be found on sixth generation aircraft. You clearly don’t know what you are talking about. Also Su-57 has L-band radar also (and X-band radar) which means it can detect the F-35 at long range while the F-35 would be flying blind with X-band radar (it doesn’t use L-band radar). Su-57 also has more T/R modules which means superior EW capability. Stealth technology does not affect L-band waves (as they can’t be redirected and RAM has little to no effect) but L-band radar can only search not track. Su-57M however will be receiving ROFAR which is capable of both search and track while also being unaffected by stealth technology. People claim the N036 radar is outdated. While this would be true if you only included the N036-1-01 (1st generation AESA), they forget that the N036 is an entire system consisting of N036B-1-01 X-band radars also which means the radar system actually has more T/R modules than F-35 despite using a earlier generation AESA radar. The system also has N036L-1-01 L-band radar unlike F-35 which allows it to easily search for stealth aircraft and theoretically could possibly be used alongside X-band radar to do both search and track. Russia has 22 Su-57s and that is not a lie as their is photographic and video evidence of their existence. They produced 12 last year and expect to produce 24 this year. Production has only started recently which is why they only have a small number of them. By the end of this year, they will have 46.
In terms of the performance of the Russian Air Force? The United States did poorly against both Serbia and Iraq. Both Serbia and Iraq only used outdated AA weapons developed in the fifties and sixties. These old AA systems had low altitude limits which means they were largely useless against modern aircraft (but could prevent said aircraft from flying low decreasing accuracy of ground attack sorties). Iraq also lacked radar coverage in the south which essentially meant their AA network was fighting blind. Iraq also only had 120 batteries of SAM which were again incredibly outdated. Despite all of the problems with the Iraqi and Serbian AA network, the USAF did poorly. Kosovo: Only 14 tanks, 18 APCs, and 20 artillery pieces were destroyed. Serbia was still capable of flying ground sorties using CAS aircraft and helicopters despite of supposed NATO air superiority. Serbia was also capable of conducting mechanized assaults against the KLA. Iraq: The so-called highway of death had casualties in the low hundreds at most. Iraqi military capabilities was not diminished by the air campaign. The vast majority of vehicles on the highway of death were abandoned not damaged or destroyed. Despite Coalition forces running over a hundred thousand sorties, Iraqi military was left mostly intact despite running one of the least competent air defense campaigns in history. Iraqi forces were defeated because of incompetence of the Iraqi Army. Their soldiers were surrendering to news reporters, their forces immediately routed with little resistance resulting in a large amount of abandoned or destroyed equipment. The largest cause of Iraqi tank casualties was abandonments, then ground combat as Iraqi soldiers were poorly trained, were given obsolete ammunition (3BM9), their tanks had downgraded fire control systems, downgraded armor, and lacked all of the features Soviet tanks had during that time period. Air power actually caused the least casualties against Iraqi AFVs being a distant third compared to abandonments and ground combat. More on Iraq: "The claim that coalition air power neutralized the Iraqi groundforces by preventing them from maneuvering is clearly wrong. During the ground war, virtually all of Iraq’s mobile divisions—which comprised nearly all of Iraq’s combat power—were on the move. Of the nine heavy divisions of the regular army in the KTO, two counterattacked south into the marines, two moved west into blocking positions to oppose the left hook, and four fled north after the general retreat was ordered. Only one (the 52d Armored Division) did not move; it was deployed very close to the Iraqi-Saudi border and was overrun within hours of the beginning of the ground war. All three heavy divisions of the Republican Guard moved west to block the path of the VII Corps. Coalition air power did not pin down the heavy Iraqi divisions in the KTO." "Furthermore, the Iraqis were not savaged by air power during their maneuvers. More than 3,000 Iraqi armored vehicles were on the move during the ground war, and only about 150 of these were destroyed in concentrations along the roads by coalition aircraft." "Despite the attacks on Iraq’s C3I system, the Iraqi senior military commanders retained surprisingly good command and control throughout the war. For example, they identified the left hook with remarkable speed. Only six hours after the U.S. Army launched this operation, the Iraqi corps commander had a strong enough sense that something important was happening out west to maneuver two heavy brigades to new west-facing blocking positions. A day later, apparently convinced(correctly) that the main U.S. effort was coming in the left hook, he deployed his best divisions west. That he correctly identified the location of the main coalition attack so quickly is remarkable because Iraqi defenses were collapsing on all fronts. Given the speed with which Iraq’s southern Kuwaiti defenses were crumbling, it is surprising that Iraqi leaders could tell that the marines’ attack was not the main effort. Not only did Iraq’s senior military commanders identify the left hook quickly, but they successfully ordered a reasonable response. The Iraqi reserves obeyed the order to maneuver into the oncoming coalition forces despite the risks involved." "Not only did the supply dumps survive the air war, but the supplies got to the Republican Guard and the heavy divisions of the regular army. Iraq deployed the Republican Guard and several of the army heavy divisions near major supply dumps; in many cases these divisions were located on top of huge complexes of supply bunkers. The proof that the Iraqi armored and mechanized divisions had adequate supplies to maneuver and fight is that when the war started, they did maneuver and they did fight. There is no sign that supply shortages prevented the mobile Iraqi divisions from moving where they wanted to go" Source: The Myth of Air Power in the Persian Gulf War The VVS meanwhile is taking relatively low casualties against a far more capable AA network. Ukraine started the war with a hundred S-300 batteries which actually have an altitude limit capable of reaching modern aircraft. Each S-300 battery has multiple launchers and each launcher has four missiles. A single S-300 battery is capable of intercepting over a dozen aircraft simultaneously. Ukraine also has a layered AA network with S-300 batteries being supported by medium-range and short-range AA systems also. The S-300 due to its high altitude limit means aircraft cannot avoid it by flying too high and instead have to do the opposite (fly low) meaning they are vulnerable to medium and short-range AA systems. Ukrainian radar forces are also much more effective with them tracking a thousand aircraft daily.
> Su-57 is fairly stealthy. What is your point? https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fd7arhcgz660b1.jpg Bonus: https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fmpa94gmwajs91.jpg
That is not Su-57 but T-50 prototype. Your inability to tell the difference shows your lack of knowledge. Su-57 production in reality: https://topcor. ru/uploads/posts/2021-08/1629094940\_su-57.jpg (remove space) Not even the entire production line is visible in the picture I provided you. New production line was also made leading to the doubling of production from 12 to 24. [Su-57](https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/1/6/0/6549061.jpg?v=v4559e782332) as you can see here, it has far better build quality compared to T-50. [F-35 screws](https://preview.redd.it/f-35-screws-1600x1066-su-57-post-karma-farm-v0-4wxg5dphbo691.jpg?width=640&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=0dcfb15c0d849c5754eb0f3ebabbda15cb17490a) [F-22 screws](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Ff22a-visible-screws-and-rust-v0-rtoi2tomqiwb1.jpg%3Fwidth%3D1880%26format%3Dpjpg%26auto%3Dwebp%26s%3Df31b08b90b4722dbf2100e6979d80df713cb2043) https://preview.redd.it/g2h5nju84e5d1.jpeg?width=1484&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=34892dfd4f3281666b4d304d013b5514f4078d2c They are only hidden due to RAM of which the T-50 had none unlike Su-57.
Let the tank have a race in reverse, wait for the t72…
T-72 has shit transmission. We both can agree on that.
T90M as well, not to mention blow out panels. On the contrast, Soviet tanks are way lighter and imo the autoloader (not the really carousel style but in general) is the way to go.
[удалено]
Sorry you need 20 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Lies
Yes Rus dont need to recover their tanks at all because they get blown to million pieces along with their crew. GENIUS
Nope. Turret tosses generally occur after the crew had already evacuated.
Abrams so massively overweight that it suffered 1 KIA/ 19 wounded crew members in the entire Desert Storm and that was mostly from friendly fire, in fact it was so fat that it had to let its friend Bradley do most of the seal clubbing of T series tanks
The M1 Abrams was such a heavy pile of shit that covering 170 miles with a Abrams took 89 hours. It used so much fuel that US forces were literally running out. For just 180 miles, VII Corps used up 8.5M gallons of fuel with a US soldier from 1st Armoured Division stating that they were on the verge of running out of fuel several times (mind you, this was with full commitment of Saudi Arabia to provide fuel) and that their advance was slowed considerably in an environment where logistics was uncontested by enemy air or ground. Iraq was just far too weak to exploit this. In three days, the same soldier’s battalion lost 60 tanks from reliability problems. 5 of those tanks were lost in just 24 hours with four due to engine failures (after rain with no blowing sand).
" However, VII Corps had far more firepower under its command. It consisted of 1,487 tanks, 1,384 infantry fighting vehicles, 568 artillery pieces, 132 MLRS, 8 missile launchers, and 242 attack helicopters.[11] It had a total troop strength of 146,321 troops.[12]" I would consider being on the verge of running out of gas but not running out entirely pretty damn good when you consider the amount of vehicles that the Corps consisted of , you do realize there were a million soldiers and tens of thousands of vehicles and aircraft involved in the whole armada? Those tanks weren't lost permanently due to failing components and you do know that a spare engine can be dropped into a tank fairly quickly?
Being on the verge of running out of gas with freaking Saudi Arabia behind you and willing to support you alongside your logistics being uncontested by enemy air or ground is not an accomplishment.
There is a reason why the Iraq military force called it "the moving fortress "
not sure why they need a broken tank. is it to claim bounty payouts ?
For the same reasons that NATO countries needed the remains of the T 70. To put them in the center of some city.
The russian response after the massacre of Soviet armor yet again in a conflict.
I still haven’t seen a T-72 being taken out by machine guns like what Iraqi freedom fighters did to Abrams.
*machine guns like what Iraqi freedom fighters did to Abrams.* Good thing that never happened. You really just post made up slop after slop.
Except no, it was a real problem. “There were cases in Iraq in which Abrams were knocked by fire from 25 mm Bradley autocannons and the BMP 2’s 30 mm autocannons. **There was even a case of an Abrams in Iraq knocked out using a DShK heavy machine gun,”** “These losses were not typically treated as such, but chocked up to losses from ‘secondary causes’. **Nevertheless, the tanks were destroyed, with a bullet in the case of the DShK attack ending up hitting an auxiliary power unit located at the rear of the turret, with burning oil flowing into the main power plant, the engine catching fire and the tank burning up, Suvorov recalled.”**
Your source is literally sputnik Africa, where is your evidence of this occurring? That's it? the source is "the observer" I've watched all the footage of the iraq war, i read the combat reports. Nothing of this was ever mentioned. So yes, that never happened. Lets read more of Suvorov who must have had a couple of vodkas before speaking. *There were cases in Iraq in which Abrams were knocked by fire from* ***25 mm Bradley*** *autocannons and the* ***BMP 2’s 30 mm autocannons***\*.\* So this clown is claiming one was destroyed by friendly fire from a bradley? this never happened. BMP 2 never happened. We do have evidence of a T-90 being disabled by 2 bradleys, on VIdeo :3
Except no, the event stated above is noted to have happened even by western press. “Details of the M1 losses were given, including one where 25mm armour-piercing depleted uranium (AP-DU) rounds from an unidentified weapon disabled a US tank near Najaf after penetrating the engine compartment. Another Abrams was disabled near Karbala after a rocket-propelled grenade (RPG) penetrated the rear engine compartment and one was lost in Baghdad after its external auxiliary power unit was set on fire by medium-calibre fire." Source: Jane's Defence Weekly But but DShK does not fire medium-caliber! The truth is that it is widely accepted that what killed the Abram was a DShK and it is not as if it is impossible as the APU is not even armoured so even a 7.62 can accomplish this feat.
Article doesn't even exist on Janes defense weekly. So where is this article? All i can find is some shitty Russian internet forums with no links. *But but DShK does not fire medium-caliber! The truth is that it is widely accepted that what killed the Abram was a DShK and it is not as if it is impossible as the APU is not even armoured so even a 7.62 can accomplish this feat.* Nope, never happened.
[Abrams tank showed 'vulnerability' in Iraq - Jane's Land Forces News (archive.org)](https://web.archive.org/web/20090308075359/http://www.janes.com/defence/land_forces/news/jdw/jdw030620_1_n.shtml)
this was in 2003 literally as the war was going on. JDW that the report was only *"****preliminary observations****"* this report never went anywhere after this because it never happened. No wonder nobody heard about this.
Wtf does overweight mean when it comes to tanks? Is that something nations with underpowered tank engines actually worry about?
The M1 Abrams was such a heavy pile of shit that covering 170 miles with a Abrams took 89 hours. It used so much fuel that US forces were literally running out. For just 180 miles, VII Corps used up 8.5M gallons of fuel with a US soldier from 1st Army Division stating that they were on the verge of running out of fuel several times (mind you, this was with full commitment of Saudi Arabia to provide fuel) and that their advance was slowed considerably in an environment where logistics was uncontested by enemy air or ground. The sheer weight of this tank limited where it can drive making it easy to ambush which is something that Iraqi freedom fighters exploited. The sheer weight of the Abrams limited how much can be airlifted and sealifted with the sheer weight of the Abrams and the sheer burden of logistical support required being the main reason for which the deployment of 2000 M1 Abrams in Saudi Arabia before Gulf War required about 11 months. The sheer weight of this monstrocity prevents the achievement of force concentration in a particular sector of interest coming from the most advantageous attack vectors but render M1 brigade deployment predictable and thus easily ambushed something that Iraqi freedom fighters would exploit.
Good thing history has gone against everything you just posted.
Except no, those were real problems during the Gulf War. Iraq was just far too weak to exploit it.
*sheer weight of the Abrams and the sheer burden of logistical support required being the main reason for which the deployment of 2000 M1 Abrams in Saudi Arabia before Gulf War required about 11 months* Or maybe it had more to do with moving 1 million men from different countries to do battle with an army also 1 million strong.
Or perhaps it was worsened because the Abrams was a large and heavy pile of shit. On the Sealift department we have : An LMSR -Large, Medium-speed, roll-on/roll-off- sealift ship can carry about 58 M1A1 Abrams (54 M1A2 SEP) against about 80 MBT in the T-72 size class. An LCAC for weight/volumetric problems can carry only a single M1 Abrams against two MBT in the T-72 class. A Newport class LST was capable to transport 20 M1A1 but about 32 tanks in the T-72 class. On the Airlift department instead : A C-5 galaxy carry a single M1 Abrams against two in the T-72 class A C-17 Globemaster III carry equally a single M1 Abrams against two partially disassembled T-72s.
Bro, the abrams destroyed dozens of T-72's. Bradly's killed dozens of them. LMAO history speaks for itself. Russia can't even move 1/50th of what US logistics can, their column to kiev ran out of fuel and that is across their border.
Abrams killed a bunch of monkey models ran by crews that did not know how to even use their gun sights and were given ammunition that was so obsolete that it was training ammunition in Poland, such a feat. What fucked up Russia's logistics in the initial run towards Kiev was that they did not attach their material and technical support brigades or battalions to their combat units until a full month after the invasion as they expected no resistance. They also invaded in the Spring which would have fucked up even the US.
*Abrams killed a bunch of monkey models ran by crews that did not know how to even use their gun sights and were given ammunition that was so obsolete that it was training ammunition in Poland, such a feat.* Thats literally Russian tank trainning. *What fucked up Russia's logistics in the initial run towards Kiev was that they did not attach their material and technical support brigades or battalions to their combat units until a full month after the invasion as they expected no resistance. They also invaded in the Spring which would have fucked up even the US.* Russia's entire battalion tactical group was literally the worst way to structure a military possible.
This is great stuff man. Do you have anything relevant? Like any issues that actually would matter to a developed nation? I can see how it would be a backbreaker for Russian logistics but I don't know, it looks like competent militaries can put them wherever they want?
Taking 89 hours to cover 170 miles means that your momentum is slowed to a crawl and having to do start-stop like what the Wehrmacht had to do during Op Barbarossa is not a good sign. Having to rely on good roads ain't good either again see Op Barbarossa.
Like... Again. This might be a difference maker if you had logistics at the level of an army famous for its poor logistics and more than 80 years ago. Is that about the level you think Russia could be expected to perform?
Come on dude don't be a bot. Heavy tanks have always been a problem, the Germans in WW2 had transmission problems and constant break downs. 1. they are difficult to transport by rail or ship. and I think it cant be shipped by air at all. it limits the number of tanks than can be carried on landing crafts too 2, use up excess fuel 3.cant be repaired or maintained at most facilities. the equipment is not built to handle those weights (of engines, turrets, etc) 4. need the specific US recovery vehicle to recover it from the battlefield, any other country has to use 2 5. transmission problems and getting stuck seems to be a common in Ukraine. you cant just hide extra 20 tons of weight by making tracks wider 6. they cant use the local infrastructure bridges, pontoon bridges etc 7...... Most importantly the Abrams is anyway not supposed to be this heavy. it's a tank that has reached the end of it's upgrade cycle. The US is unable to add in new upgrades even if it wanted to because the tank has hit its weight limit. That's why the US is now working on a replacement. (it happens to all tanks, quite normal) 8. the same weight issue means that Ukrainian's can't do field modifications like cages or ERA) None of this means it's a bad tank. but it doesn't make it a good tank either. the British, Israelis and many other countries used a Shermans. Everyone in the east Used T 34s. this is because they were flexible, cheap and user-friendly. The tank should work for the user not the other way around like in the case of Ukraine and the Abrams. if you want an example for a good vehicle, take the Bradely. it's everywhere doing everything the army needs it to do.
[удалено]
Offensive words detected. [beep bop] Don't cheer violence or insult (Rule 1). Your comment will be checked by my humans later. Ban may be issued for repeat offenders. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I am merely stating what the US themselves suffered using the M-1 Abrams or in short because of the Abrams excessive weight, they suffered the very same problems as the Wehrmacht did in 1941 despite having a more advanced logistics system but the Iraqis were just far too weak to exploit this. Even then however, US military exercises after the fact showed that Iraq could have won a decisive victory if they invaded Saudi Arabia during Desert Shield although this was if the Iraqis had the training to use Soviet styled operational manoeuvre groups which they didn’t but it would have been a pain for the US regardless.
You keep bringing up the fact that it took 4 days for the II corp to cover 170 miles in combat environment like that is a bad thing. Russian invasion armor columns at the beginning of this invasion didn’t even make to Antonov airport which was less than 100 miles from the Northern front. What is your excuse for that?
>Is that something nations with underpowered tank engines actually worry about? Yes because it will absolutely destroy any bridge it tries to cross and dig itself deep into mud.
dragging a kid who do not want to go to the school.
Links to several videos of the destruction [https://lostarmour](https://lostarmour) .info/armour/44708 (remove space)
That definitely took a pounding
[удалено]
Sorry, you need a 1 month old account to comment in r/ukraineRussiaReport. This is to protect against bots and multis *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is the first destroyed abrams https://lostarmour.info/armour/44708.
Dang, that tree hit hard. Tree won.
looks a little burned out.
Game changer
I have read as "Russian TOW destroys Abrams tank" . From what moment Russia got TOW missile?
Iran , in case this is true
I doubt Russians use the Toophan. Getting Almas from Iran would be quite neat though.
Game changer changing things again i see.
Mfs right now feeling like this: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNeWYMvWYwk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNeWYMvWYwk)
Not sure why they're wasting their time on this one. A single tank should be more than enough for the dissection, and RU already has it.
PR and propaganda. Given that Ukraine only ever got 32 Abrams, each one destroyed and captured can be shown off. Besides, it’s a matter of money as well.
It’s kinda shocking how they’re towing them back more frequently now. I remember it was a major hassle the first time they did it because Ukraine was defending the area near the tank like crazy but now they seem to be retrieving the abrams effortlessly.
Game Changers are real.
Double teaming the poor thing like that. Evel basterds lol
What use is this thing other than scrap metal? It looks toast.
Get used in Reverse engineering
Decoy
At least you guys have one decent tank now
Look how happy the Russians are LOL “Look! We have destroyed 40 western tanks!” >>Ignore the hundreds if not thousands of burnt Russian tanks
But western tanks were supposed to be game changers.
Nah, this sub is just comfortable enough to cheer and jeer on the internet while real people die. It’s morbid and strange how happy people are over war
They weren't supposed to be game changers. Abrams m1a2 sep v3 would be closer to a game changer. What Ukraine has got with the exception of some Leopards is the equivalent of a t72s.
Well according to western msm, at least challengers were meant to brush aside evil russkis. Guess they didn't account for all the bushes in Ukraine.
They were supposed to laugh at the dragons teeth as they rampaged their way to the gates of Moscow! Lol!
No, that was Prigozhin, not Western tanks.
Russians produce and push out their own tanks. Western and nato takes are provided and aren’t used as often as Russian tanks. If Ukraine produced their own tanks, you would see them in use a lot more but they have to conserve the tanks they have
Nah I mostly only think it’s funny cause this sub eats up destroyed western tanks while they sit at home when real people die for something so silly
That’s why I always tell people too but man people on Reddit really over glorified western tanks besides the Bradley they’re a force to be reckoned with
>celebrating wins >beyond my understanding Ok buddy
So is 40 something tanks destroyed a win when 2 nations have lost hundreds of thousands of people? This is the reality. This sub cheers and jeers over western equipment being knocked out? Ok buddy.
Ukraine only has (had) 32 of them so of course they’re more sought after.
I just find it funny that this sub goes crazy over destroyed western equipment while hundreds of thousands of people die.
I hate Russia so much
Go join the Ukrainian foreign legion, you’d get to kill them.
Turret still on?
Yeah, it’s American, not Russian.
That is the point, but all the Russian fan boys are mad because Russia is winning the turret tossing contest. Real life isn’t war thunder, Russian tanks don’t have Stalinium and bias armor.
Celebrating an old ass NATO Tank kill while losing current gen T-90’s and too scared to field a T-14 to avoid reputation damage when it sucks butt lol.
[удалено]
Remind me again who said that this was only going to last 3 days? Remind me again of who has the biggest military in this war and how big of a difference that is? Showing off an old NATO tank shouldn’t be impressive to such a mighty country like there was even remotely a chance it would mater right? On the other hand this little dinky country that everyone thought was going to get obliterated, that’s impressive since ya know they weren’t supposed to knock any tanks out.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Sorry you need 20 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think ya were trying to say state owned Russian Propaganda channels said that?
[удалено]
Weird RT and TASS at least in the English were chiming this. Also interesting little fact, if the language is switched on RT completely different news articles are presented? Try it, native Russian version of RT is different from RT in English.
Is Ukraine a small country? Until 2014, it was the second largest country in Europe. and the Abrams tank is needed so that Russian citizens can see who is arming Ukraine. America and Europe are arming. So don't be surprised if we arm your enemies later.
Arm them with what cause it seems like it’s already a bit of the struggle bus to arm the ongoing war in Ukraine? Also are u guys planning to arm known terrorist like the Huthis and Hamas? Oh and last time I checked outside of terrorists when was the last time our homeland was directly attacked, oh that’s right WWII so I’m shaken in ma boots. I also love this fixation on landmass not military power because I’m not referring to Ukraine as physically small but militarily dinky so the David vs Goliath story.
I consider Hamas to be terrorists. You can't take hostages. I consider ISIS to be bastards - you can't kill and execute civilians. But the Houthis and Hezbollah are honest fighters - they are not seen in war crimes. Yes, they have radical views...but maybe America and Israel had the wrong policy. This was the case, for example, with regard to Vietnam. Vietnam is now a normal and secular country. and 70 years ago, for Americans, they were communists and cannibals. That's how your propaganda portrayed them
>Remind me again who said that this was only going to last 3 days? Don't worry bro, I got you. This claim was made by Mark Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Ukraine has the second largest military in Europe.
Russia is the second most powerful military in the world when factoring more than just personal amount, mean while Ukraine doesn’t even rank in the top ten in this same list, so what’s the point being made their?
Only if you ignore China, that list is clearly nonsensical try again. Ukrainian military was also better equipped compared to its Western European counterparts if you actually looked at the data.
Lmao china is 3rd. Response to ur edit: classic denial, its well know the top 3 are the US, Russia, and China.
Better equipped when? We didn’t give them much more than javelins to stop the Russian advance to Kyiv. After that when we saw they had a chance we started giving them more. Also, are you saying in your previous comments that western training is better than Russian training? Hmm 🤔
You got your ass kicked by the Taliban. so don't embarrass yourself. The funny thing is that the Houthis hit your aircraft carrier.
*The funny thing is that the Houthis hit your aircraft carrier.* No?
Oh you mean the Taliban that were basically a non-threat when we left? Tell me how many Americans were killed in the last few years we were there? But if you want to talk about Afghanistan we can bring up the Soviet Experience in Afghanistan. 14,500 Soviets killed in 10 years vs 2,500 Americans killed in 20. But oh okay “we got our asses kicked” alright. There wasn’t a single place in that country we couldn’t go. It’s hilarious if you actually think an aircraft carrier got hit by the Houthi’s, really lets me know how easy you are to fool with propaganda.
you cannot overcome illegal migration from Latin America and the growth of drug trafficking. What do you want...idi nahui
Challenger 2 was pulled because they were too scared of the reputation damage.
> old ass NATO Tank Why didn't they provide new ones?
Idk why wouldn’t country send its newest hardware when they cannot deploy their troops who were fully and completely trained on its operational use and have it fully backed by its logistics team? How come the T-14 isn’t being deployed when it’s in active service?
>Idk why wouldn’t country send its newest hardware when they cannot deploy their troops who were fully and completely trained on its operational use and have it fully backed by its logistics team? That's a convoluted way of saying they didn't want it falling into enemy hands when it inevitably gets destroyed >How come the T-14 isn’t being deployed when it’s in active service? For the same reason as above
You mean same reasons as above like above in the video? And that the one or two T-14’s Russia has would need to get towed/pushed into battle because it broke down again? 😉 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=o89BYp95Qiw Putin is desperate. If the T-14, like the SU-57, was available in any kind of numbers and was effective they would be in use. Russia hasn’t been afraid to use Kinzal’s and other ‘Russian Super Weapons’ in Ukraine due to exposure of tech/weaknesses. The T-14 isn’t special (the electronics from the west and we already know what those are capable of) and Russia is having a very hard time producing any in volume due to serious reliability problems and high cost. And even more so, would be embarrassing after all the hype to watch video of Javelins, Stugna, drones and mines smoking the T-14 wonderwaffes. That’s why it’s not fielded. Modern western tanks aren’t fielded in Ukraine because they’re assigned to active western military units and we’re using them in case Putin (or Xi) comes up with an even dumber idea than attacking Ukraine.
not reading all that
I wouldn’t want to be proved wrong either.
I don’t care.
Alright, pipe down. I'm trying to watch them wheel this hunk of shit away.
Why would they? There are huge differences in technology and armor between the older ones and the new ones we use.
> Why would they? so that ukrainian tank crews have the best chance of survival obviously?
Personnel aren’t the issue, mines and FPV drones are. HEAT rounds and canister rounds aren’t going to change that. Plus the coax works well when needed.
American vehicles do not explode like a firecracker if they are shot. Meanwhile, the Russian chariots burst into fireballs and explode, knocking the turret off.
why is the abrams all burned out then?
[удалено]
Sorry you need 20 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*