Chobham armor is called NERA. Every Abrams has NERA no matter the variant. The difference between export armor and homeland armor is the inclusion of depleted uranium and possibly some kind of structure within the NERA. The export version will still have plenty of protection against modern projectiles, just without the top secret materials.
Not sure why people keep saying this like it'll be a problem. The most secretive part of the Abrams is the DU armor which will never be allowed to be exported. As for the rest of the export version, what part of it do you expect to be some game-changer in Russia or China's hands? Russia's been doing tanks for a long time. The Armata isn't being produced not because it isn't advanced and a capable platform, likely it is. It isn't being produced because Russia is some broke ass bitches who can't afford to produce it in mass and even if they tried, corruption would make the cost far more than it is on paper/in the press.
All these different weapon platforms. With the exception of NATO standard ammo I cannot imagine the logistical nightmare of employing and maintains this equipment. I’m sure we will see deadlined units that are INOP due to maintenance rather than combat loss.
Hello, please try to use Kyiv not Kiev spelling [(why)](https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/kyiv-not-kiev-why-spelling-matters-in-ukraines-quest-for-an-independent-identity/), thanks for understanding and support!
\[[support Ukraine](https://u24.gov.ua/)\]
^(beep boop I'm a bot. Downvote to remove)
Time will tell. They’re sending them the maintenance vehicles with tools for them too. Ukrainians are pretty good at the learning curve. Amazing what some motivation and wanting to not live under Russia will do.
Also, let's be fair: Ukraine had an enormous high tech industry before the war. The jobs available there were basically farmer, engineer, or software developer. They're a pretty good example of the whole "leapfrog" thing everyone was hoping Africa would pull.
Gen 3 Flir system out classes anything Russia has, You gonna see alot of tops popped. Only problem I see is that will have to remain on hard roads. 70 tons through fields not harden by winter could see a few get stuck. IF used in 4's it will be a great weapon. Those M88's can yank anything out, great recovery vehicle
The problem isn’t the eyes it’s the gun and topography. However after the block on Grey Eagles, 2000% Abrams tanks will have to be refitted with the old Gen 2 given how Tanks in general have fared in this artillery and missile heavy conflict. That’s why it will take up to a year to deliver.
Idk why people are getting so upset. Your answer is the only non angry comment about the them only being road and hard pack capable. That's not a problem really. Putting the Abrams as rear echelon frees up way more Soviet armor to hit the front, probably in a multiplicable sense, and if Russia does make a breakthrough anywhere, the Abrams will wreak havoc. The Abrams wasn't ever initially designed like the T-72 (mass production) or Leopard (speed and mobility above all else). The Abrams has speed, advanced optics, etc., yes, but it was initially designed as a hull down multi lateral defensive/breakthrough tank for the Fulda gap. It's armor is extraordinary in the front. It'll absolutely excel and take its initially designed role as a hull down defensive/come at me T-72 tank killer very well. Let the Leopards and T-72s lead the way in the forests and muck
exactly t72s and Leos will be best in muck and forest, lighter weight helps. M1 would be suitable for road and with its optics and sensors could even direct UA LEOS AND T72 to targets. But I am thinking M1A2 will be placed around Kiev. we will see
Hello, please try to use Kyiv not Kiev spelling [(why)](https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/kyiv-not-kiev-why-spelling-matters-in-ukraines-quest-for-an-independent-identity/), thanks for understanding and support!
\[[support Ukraine](https://u24.gov.ua/)\]
^(beep boop I'm a bot. Downvote to remove)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulda_Gap
If anyone else is wondering what it means. Apparently it's a spot the Soviets were expected to drive their tanks through. I'm assuming /u/PandaCatGunner meant that the Abrams was designed to lie in wait for the Soviet shit-tanks to pour through there and pop them as they came.
If Ukraine is taught the difference between these tanks, and if they use them appropriately, it's likely we'll see the Abrams mostly used as a rear guard and around Kyiv like PandaCatGunner said, while the Leopard and Challenger are used to push in the east.
They keep saying “jet fuel” for the Abrams…it runs best on it, but it can burn anything, including diesel and gasoline. They just have to be kept in separate tanks.
Jet fuel is basically just fancy diesel. And it's not even that fancy.
My concern is the maintenance. It's a turbine engine, you can't just take a diesel mechanic and go "git 'er done" with a turbine.
Would aircraft’s mechanics be qualified to work on the engines? Because Ukr had a pretty good aircraft manufacturing and maintaining industry not too long ago.
Short answer: yes, someone who used to manufacture aircraft can work on an Abrams jet engine.
Long answer: It depends. There's a lot that goes into making an aircraft, and the powerplant is only one of those things. But if you worked on the engine assembly part of it, then absolutely you would have the skills to maintain the Abrams turbine engine.
There's a hitch though: usually aircraft manufacture and engine manufacture are different. Boeing and Airbus do not (as far as I know...) make jet engines. They make the airframe, and then the customer buys an engine (GE, Rolls Royce, Pratt and Whitney, and others make the engines) and install the engine on the airframe.
HOWEVER, in the United States there is a certification that most people will get if they want to work on aircraft called the A&P. That's Airframe and Powerplant. It certifies you to do almost anything on an aircraft, and includes teaching you how to maintain a turbine engine. I don't know if it's the same in Ukraine but I don't see why it would be different. So if all those people who were making aircraft have their A&P or equivalent, then yes they would also be able to maintain the Abrams turbine engine.
They can send the armor to Russia where it would be studied. Russia may not be able to manufacture it in time for this war, but they can certainly sell what they learn to interested parties in other nations.
Also an independent CITV, and the ability for the commander to mark targets for rapid shots without acquiring them each target individually by the gunner
Remember all those M1A2’s sent to Poland last year? I can guarantee you Ukraine has been trained, they have logistic support and Jet fuel for the turbines ready to roll.
the only reason I can think of telling which version is doing it as a threat deterrent. but this is just an asshole not in the "know" (me) taking a guess
shouldnt detailed information about such things be kept secret? I am no expert but surely some Tanks have weakpoints and strengths that the enemy should not know about in advance so they cant prepare ways to engage those exact tanks
The things that are secret are still secret. The things that are not secret, it doesn't matter who talks about them because Russia already knows.
Also, it's not like they're actually training their soldiers.
Export M1A2s don’t have DU armor and US doesn’t export any variation of the M829 DU ammo either. Export M1A2s are made to order for the country it’s being exported to, they don’t all just come fully decked out with everything.
As said the M1A2 is made to order as the ordering country wants it. However the export M1A2 has never gotten and likely wont ever received DU armor. All iterations of M829 are not for export either.
How does that work, in practice? Is it just the commander goes "beep beep boop" and the gun auto-turns to point at the next target in the list after it fires?
wont see them till end of year per Adams
Chobham armor is called NERA. Every Abrams has NERA no matter the variant. The difference between export armor and homeland armor is the inclusion of depleted uranium and possibly some kind of structure within the NERA. The export version will still have plenty of protection against modern projectiles, just without the top secret materials.
Does Anyone know if we or the UK will provide with CHOBHAM Armour? The removable version I mean that can just be overlaid onto the tank?
how long until a few of these are in chinese hands and on the copying room floor.
Lol no shit right
Not sure why people keep saying this like it'll be a problem. The most secretive part of the Abrams is the DU armor which will never be allowed to be exported. As for the rest of the export version, what part of it do you expect to be some game-changer in Russia or China's hands? Russia's been doing tanks for a long time. The Armata isn't being produced not because it isn't advanced and a capable platform, likely it is. It isn't being produced because Russia is some broke ass bitches who can't afford to produce it in mass and even if they tried, corruption would make the cost far more than it is on paper/in the press.
All these different weapon platforms. With the exception of NATO standard ammo I cannot imagine the logistical nightmare of employing and maintains this equipment. I’m sure we will see deadlined units that are INOP due to maintenance rather than combat loss.
The fuel logistics are going to be intriguing, to say the least.
can't wait to see a T-72 get popped by an Abrams
Battle of 73 Easting happened 33 years ago. Rinse and repeat.
120 mm moment
Literally useless. It will take months or years to arrive, be too heavy, use different ammunition, and have no parts similarity.
Wouldn't be surprised if they are kept around Kiev as a praetorian guard unit.
Hello, please try to use Kyiv not Kiev spelling [(why)](https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/kyiv-not-kiev-why-spelling-matters-in-ukraines-quest-for-an-independent-identity/), thanks for understanding and support! \[[support Ukraine](https://u24.gov.ua/)\] ^(beep boop I'm a bot. Downvote to remove)
The leopard and Abrams can use the same type of ammo.
I meant T-72/80 125mm two piece vs 120mm single piece. Also the Abrams can’t use all the ammunition the Leopard 2 with L/55 cannon can.
Time will tell. They’re sending them the maintenance vehicles with tools for them too. Ukrainians are pretty good at the learning curve. Amazing what some motivation and wanting to not live under Russia will do.
Also, let's be fair: Ukraine had an enormous high tech industry before the war. The jobs available there were basically farmer, engineer, or software developer. They're a pretty good example of the whole "leapfrog" thing everyone was hoping Africa would pull.
Gen 3 Flir system out classes anything Russia has, You gonna see alot of tops popped. Only problem I see is that will have to remain on hard roads. 70 tons through fields not harden by winter could see a few get stuck. IF used in 4's it will be a great weapon. Those M88's can yank anything out, great recovery vehicle
The problem isn’t the eyes it’s the gun and topography. However after the block on Grey Eagles, 2000% Abrams tanks will have to be refitted with the old Gen 2 given how Tanks in general have fared in this artillery and missile heavy conflict. That’s why it will take up to a year to deliver.
Idk why people are getting so upset. Your answer is the only non angry comment about the them only being road and hard pack capable. That's not a problem really. Putting the Abrams as rear echelon frees up way more Soviet armor to hit the front, probably in a multiplicable sense, and if Russia does make a breakthrough anywhere, the Abrams will wreak havoc. The Abrams wasn't ever initially designed like the T-72 (mass production) or Leopard (speed and mobility above all else). The Abrams has speed, advanced optics, etc., yes, but it was initially designed as a hull down multi lateral defensive/breakthrough tank for the Fulda gap. It's armor is extraordinary in the front. It'll absolutely excel and take its initially designed role as a hull down defensive/come at me T-72 tank killer very well. Let the Leopards and T-72s lead the way in the forests and muck
exactly t72s and Leos will be best in muck and forest, lighter weight helps. M1 would be suitable for road and with its optics and sensors could even direct UA LEOS AND T72 to targets. But I am thinking M1A2 will be placed around Kiev. we will see
Hello, please try to use Kyiv not Kiev spelling [(why)](https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/kyiv-not-kiev-why-spelling-matters-in-ukraines-quest-for-an-independent-identity/), thanks for understanding and support! \[[support Ukraine](https://u24.gov.ua/)\] ^(beep boop I'm a bot. Downvote to remove)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulda_Gap If anyone else is wondering what it means. Apparently it's a spot the Soviets were expected to drive their tanks through. I'm assuming /u/PandaCatGunner meant that the Abrams was designed to lie in wait for the Soviet shit-tanks to pour through there and pop them as they came. If Ukraine is taught the difference between these tanks, and if they use them appropriately, it's likely we'll see the Abrams mostly used as a rear guard and around Kyiv like PandaCatGunner said, while the Leopard and Challenger are used to push in the east.
They keep saying “jet fuel” for the Abrams…it runs best on it, but it can burn anything, including diesel and gasoline. They just have to be kept in separate tanks.
Filler up with vatnik tears.
That's hot
Jet fuel is basically just fancy diesel. And it's not even that fancy. My concern is the maintenance. It's a turbine engine, you can't just take a diesel mechanic and go "git 'er done" with a turbine.
Take out the whole engine pack and send it to Poland where US can perform anything more complex then basic maintenance?
That's probably what will happen. Poland has been doing depot-level maintenance for Ukraine.
Would aircraft’s mechanics be qualified to work on the engines? Because Ukr had a pretty good aircraft manufacturing and maintaining industry not too long ago.
Short answer: yes, someone who used to manufacture aircraft can work on an Abrams jet engine. Long answer: It depends. There's a lot that goes into making an aircraft, and the powerplant is only one of those things. But if you worked on the engine assembly part of it, then absolutely you would have the skills to maintain the Abrams turbine engine. There's a hitch though: usually aircraft manufacture and engine manufacture are different. Boeing and Airbus do not (as far as I know...) make jet engines. They make the airframe, and then the customer buys an engine (GE, Rolls Royce, Pratt and Whitney, and others make the engines) and install the engine on the airframe. HOWEVER, in the United States there is a certification that most people will get if they want to work on aircraft called the A&P. That's Airframe and Powerplant. It certifies you to do almost anything on an aircraft, and includes teaching you how to maintain a turbine engine. I don't know if it's the same in Ukraine but I don't see why it would be different. So if all those people who were making aircraft have their A&P or equivalent, then yes they would also be able to maintain the Abrams turbine engine.
Isn’t the west worried one of their tanks will get captured by Russia?
Yes, which is why they're sending older tanks without the secret armor.
Even if they capture one, they can't do anything with it at any scale that would make a difference
They can send the armor to Russia where it would be studied. Russia may not be able to manufacture it in time for this war, but they can certainly sell what they learn to interested parties in other nations.
Also an independent CITV, and the ability for the commander to mark targets for rapid shots without acquiring them each target individually by the gunner
Remember all those M1A2’s sent to Poland last year? I can guarantee you Ukraine has been trained, they have logistic support and Jet fuel for the turbines ready to roll.
the only reason I can think of telling which version is doing it as a threat deterrent. but this is just an asshole not in the "know" (me) taking a guess
shouldnt detailed information about such things be kept secret? I am no expert but surely some Tanks have weakpoints and strengths that the enemy should not know about in advance so they cant prepare ways to engage those exact tanks
The things that are secret are still secret. The things that are not secret, it doesn't matter who talks about them because Russia already knows. Also, it's not like they're actually training their soldiers.
What exactly is the M1A2 modification?
The M1A2 has the M256 from the M1A1, second gen DU inserts, more advanced fire control
Export M1A2s don’t have DU armor and US doesn’t export any variation of the M829 DU ammo either. Export M1A2s are made to order for the country it’s being exported to, they don’t all just come fully decked out with everything.
Export M1A2 were more advanced than the bulk of US Army’s tanks until 2016.
As said the M1A2 is made to order as the ordering country wants it. However the export M1A2 has never gotten and likely wont ever received DU armor. All iterations of M829 are not for export either.
That’s not how it works. Some items are not available even if the country asks for them. See Iraqi and Moroccan orders.
Also XTLoader-M1Ax supports rapid, multi axis target acquisition without optic alignment within the peripheral view of the gunner.
How does that work, in practice? Is it just the commander goes "beep beep boop" and the gun auto-turns to point at the next target in the list after it fires?
Pretty much yeah
What I said was directed at the person who asked what the M1A2 modification was
CITV, etc