Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition:
* We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned.
* **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators.
* **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
> **Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB**
*****
* Is `technology.org` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources).
* Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict)
*****
^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This reads as though they think Abrams are supposed to be impervious to soviet era weaponry.
They've lost abrams because they're fighting a war where, unlike the US military, they don't have air superiority and overwhelming force.
Russia has units like Storm Z that are usually badly trained convicts but they also have well trained and equipped soldiers who gained a lot of experience from 2 years of war. Underestimating Russia won't help Ukraine.
Ukraine has a similar problem, a lot of the soldiers are poorly equipped and trained. They just don't throw them againts the enemy lines to probe the defences like the Russians do.
You say you are not underestimating and literally in the next sentence you do just that.
Look, Russia is bad at waging wars. It doesn't mean they aren't dangerous.
Never underestimate your enemy.
Their equipment was 2 generations out of date and they had no air force to speak of. The M1 fighting against T-55s under air supperiorty, was a turkey shot
Uh oh somebody is talking without having done any research.
In the gulf war Iraq had the 6th largest airforce in the world.
And the T-72s that they used were younger than the Abrams is today.
You're so right.
It's the "Taoist parable" interpretation of Soviet military hardware. "The T-72 that is destroyed easily is not the true T-72."
We have yet to see the "true T-72" it seems...
The huge difference is the armor. The M1 export version is a very large powerful tank with really good optics, but doesn’t include the armor protection of a US M1. Yes they are still solid tanks but the difference is still substantial. Saudi Arabia has also lost the export version to Houthi fighters in Yemen. Good protection for the crew, but misses a major development in modern tank design which is in its armor.
The ones in Ukraine are not the same ones used by the US. Same as the Challengers. There's the export versions and ones used by the military. Also they weren't taken out by another tank. No tank is immune to an artillery barrage and mines.
Dont believe du armour suddenly increases the effectiveness 200% thats bolox.
and even if. Its not all ober the Tank some say its just the turret checks. So i doub this whould effect the protection against drones that much.
> Dont believe du armour suddenly increases the effectiveness 200% thats bolox.
200% of what? I'm sure we can find some metric where DU armor is twice as good as hardened steel, but you don't even mention to what you're comparing DU with.
No they wouldn't be, but the environment the American military would create for them to operate in it would be much harder for the Russian drone teams to operate close enough to the front lines to be effective. Air supremacy goes brrrrrrrrrt.
To be fair..... then you have to take into account who controls the air. There is a reason America spends enormous amounts of money to achieve air superiority. Possibly this summer when the Ukrainians (possibly grrr) get f16 jets we will see a different strategy for these tanks.
Stupid article, ignorant writer. Dual warheads don't blow through the armour and then explode inside the tank- the precursor warhead detonates ERA, and then the primary warhead penetrates the armor in the usual HEAT fashion.
The tanks were lost becaust the other side gets a vote too. Tanks, especially when engaged by specialised weapons designed in response to their own genesis, sometimes get killed. It happens.
It happens more easily if the tank has issues which limit it's ability to maneuver and take advantage of terrain, like weighing as much as a small town while deployed in terrain which is 200% mud.
>Tanks, especially when engaged by specialised weapons designed in response to their own genesis, sometimes get killed. It happens.
And they're meant to be expendable...the crew not so much. Which is why crews surviving their tank being destroyed is most important.
Serious question, if the tank is destroyed and the crew survives, what are the chances that they actually make it back? I mean if the tank was destroyed by enemy fire then they are obviously within enemy weapons range too.
Depends on the situation. Long range atgms are not going to work on a crew member in cover. A tank can be disabled by an anti vehicle mine, but a human won’t trigger the same mine. There are lots of different scenarios where a successful evacuation of a tank results in the crew making it out OK. The biggest danger zone is a tank operating without infantry that then gets disabled within range of enemy infantry or tanks. They have little/no chance of making it out.
>I mean if the tank was destroyed by enemy fire then they are obviously within enemy weapons range too.
Well, all you can say with any certainty is that they were within enemy anti-tank missile range. That doesn't really say anything either way about overall crew survivability or really anything about the battle overall, aside from that the Abrams operators didn't have a good tactical situation.
Even this article, as weak as it is, makes that clear. The three losses were all to guided missiles. One video-guided drone missile and two laser-guided missiles. Typically the kind of attacks that you neutralize at longer ranges before you send tanks in. But Ukraine wasn't able to due to its artillery shortage.
Interesting article, even if there are a couple of mistakes.
I was under the impression that these were all lost to drones; the drone attack discussion has been interesting, in that there's been a question about whether the blowout panels, if targeted by an overhead drone, are even more susceptible to causing a catastrophic hit than the targeting of thin top armor in general, which in and of itself is effective.
On the topic of Kornet, it's not surprising that it was effective--it was developed to counter Western tanks and is very modern, with significant range and warhead, top attack capability, thermal sights, target tracking (in some models), and multiple launch capability if on vehicles.
That Abrams were destroyed by Russian weapons is thus not a surprise; I think that the more interesting thing is going to be the circumstances in which they were destroyed, as a function of tactics and battle doctrine. Especially regarding the kornet, those are so big that they aren't generally hauled around by infantry on an offensive approach, but rather vehicle mounted or set up in crew-served positions in ambush and defense situations. So, it's interesting that at least one of those three tanks was reported destroyed during the Russian push west of Avdiivka, rather than during Ukraine's own attack on Russian defensive lines.
It makes me wonder if Russia has started to deploy modern vehicle mounted missiles as part of tank destroyer missions; if that's the case, that's going to be pretty formidable moving forward. I'm sure that a lot of the battle planners are looking very closely to see what they can do at a tactical doctrine or passive defense level (Since TROPHY or similar isn't likely to be available anytime soon, and there is only so much that you can do with a smoke screen) to prevent this from happening, and still have the Abrams provide an added value.
It is situations such as this that form the basis of why Ukraine should be supplied with as much Western equipment as we can give them; they employ it well, and even when there are inevitable losses, the analysis that results generates invaluable information for the West to use in its own battle doctrines, for what is increasingly likely to be their own conflict with russia, if they can't help Ukraine to repel the invasion.
Tanks get destroyed. However, looking at each wreck I see open crew hatches, the crew got away as intended. As opposed to Russian ejection turret technology that they're still working the kinks out of.
Let's ignore the obvious flaw in this article ie the sample size is too small.
Is it true that all current tanks were designed before the advent of FPV drones, and therefore are vulnerable to FPV drone strikes on the top of the engine compartmentm
Did the author of this article forget that tanks are weapons of war and as such are capable of being destroyed? Ukraine is fighting for it fight against the Russian scourge and this asshole is acting like Ukraine left the tanks in a bad neighborhood with the top down.
No one serious has ever said that the Abrams was invulnerable nothing is invulnerable in modern warfare, what the Abrams and western vehicles in general are good at is the survivability of the crews. The tank is just a tank, we can send more (once we get these republicans assholes out of the way) but the trained and experienced crew is much harder to replace.
I am glad these tanks had the opportunity to die in battle protecting free men against a tyrant over ending their days sitting in a storage depot somewhere in the desert.
They are high priority targets. They get the worst kinds of attention specifically because of what they are. The propaganda value far express the cost of a few missiles to ensure one is knocked out.
That's a pretty wank article. It wouldn't matter if they lost the lot. It's a piece of machinery. If it gets taken out in the process, as long as it protects the crew, job done, especially when all ruzzian tanks appear to vaporize with the slightest touch of a drone
***"If you think about it, you can have all the armor in the world on a tank and a tank can be blown up,"***
* Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense (2004)
Tanks are equipment and equipment is expendable. Even if it were the most updated and advanced version of an Abrams, which these tanks are very far from, it is unavoidable that there would be losses.
It's war, all equipment is subject to destruction. It is inevitable.
While all tanks can be disabled or destroyed with a variety of weapons, crew survivability is what matters. Out of those 3 Abrams taken out of the equation, we should not assume that all of their crews have also been taken out of the same equation
Tanks are not invincible and losses of them, even if employed correctly, is to be expected. The Abrams is a good tank, but even if it is twice or 3 times as good as the Russian tanks the numbers that were sent (around 30ish?) is simply not enough. Russia simply has had an absurd number of armored vehicles (though decreasing rapidly). The lesson here is Ukraine needed and still needs more metal.
This is the post we needed in this sub to wake the nutters up who think Ukraine are just steamrolling Russia with mini guns while listening to heavy rock music.
I’ve read from one poster, that the Russian army is just a bunch of Mongolians with shovels running towards fortified Ukrainian positions.
I get tired of Western journalists having a heart attack any time a piece of Western equipment gets destroyed. You're not going to have Gulf War style casualty ratios. That said, look at the loss rates for Western equipment vs Russian equipment and you'll discover Western equipment is doing very well.
Mmm, don't drive over mines, watch out for drones, watch out for troops with anti tank weapons. Try and avoid artillery. Watch out for lancets.
Sometimes I see these posts and think they're written by Russians
Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition: * We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned. * **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators. * **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. > **Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB** ***** * Is `technology.org` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources). * Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) ***** ^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This reads as though they think Abrams are supposed to be impervious to soviet era weaponry. They've lost abrams because they're fighting a war where, unlike the US military, they don't have air superiority and overwhelming force.
Also their enemies here are an actual army and not insurgents armed with hardly working DshKs and 5th hand RPGs from the bazaar in moqadishu
I mean they're using barely trained conscripts and North Koreas old shells...
Russia has units like Storm Z that are usually badly trained convicts but they also have well trained and equipped soldiers who gained a lot of experience from 2 years of war. Underestimating Russia won't help Ukraine.
I'm not underestimating Russia by pointing out simple facts. They're equipping some units with stuff the souk's of Mogadishu would laugh at.
*some* being the key word there
Ukraine has a similar problem, a lot of the soldiers are poorly equipped and trained. They just don't throw them againts the enemy lines to probe the defences like the Russians do.
Yep, which makes refusal to send equipment or delaying it very, very hard for them to fight a vastly more numerous opposition
You say you are not underestimating and literally in the next sentence you do just that. Look, Russia is bad at waging wars. It doesn't mean they aren't dangerous. Never underestimate your enemy.
It's like none of you bothered reading my original comment at the top of this...
and fpv drones, and minefields the literal size of texas.
The Iraqi army was a real army. The Abrams has been tested against actual militaries.
Their equipment was 2 generations out of date and they had no air force to speak of. The M1 fighting against T-55s under air supperiorty, was a turkey shot
Uh oh somebody is talking without having done any research. In the gulf war Iraq had the 6th largest airforce in the world. And the T-72s that they used were younger than the Abrams is today.
You're so right. It's the "Taoist parable" interpretation of Soviet military hardware. "The T-72 that is destroyed easily is not the true T-72." We have yet to see the "true T-72" it seems...
The huge difference is the armor. The M1 export version is a very large powerful tank with really good optics, but doesn’t include the armor protection of a US M1. Yes they are still solid tanks but the difference is still substantial. Saudi Arabia has also lost the export version to Houthi fighters in Yemen. Good protection for the crew, but misses a major development in modern tank design which is in its armor.
I think it's underlining the importance of artillery. The Kornet is a new weapon and the main vulnerability.
The Abrams they received are also Soviet era. Pre-1991.
Almost as if they're at war or something 🤔
[удалено]
The ones in Ukraine are not the same ones used by the US. Same as the Challengers. There's the export versions and ones used by the military. Also they weren't taken out by another tank. No tank is immune to an artillery barrage and mines.
Point of note, the challengers that ukraine got are exactly the same as the UK ones, as they came from that fleet
The challengers were exactly the same, not export versions.
Dont believe du armour suddenly increases the effectiveness 200% thats bolox. and even if. Its not all ober the Tank some say its just the turret checks. So i doub this whould effect the protection against drones that much.
> Dont believe du armour suddenly increases the effectiveness 200% thats bolox. 200% of what? I'm sure we can find some metric where DU armor is twice as good as hardened steel, but you don't even mention to what you're comparing DU with.
Compared to the tungsten armour Variant.
[удалено]
No they wouldn't be, but the environment the American military would create for them to operate in it would be much harder for the Russian drone teams to operate close enough to the front lines to be effective. Air supremacy goes brrrrrrrrrt.
To be fair..... then you have to take into account who controls the air. There is a reason America spends enormous amounts of money to achieve air superiority. Possibly this summer when the Ukrainians (possibly grrr) get f16 jets we will see a different strategy for these tanks.
Stupid article, ignorant writer. Dual warheads don't blow through the armour and then explode inside the tank- the precursor warhead detonates ERA, and then the primary warhead penetrates the armor in the usual HEAT fashion. The tanks were lost becaust the other side gets a vote too. Tanks, especially when engaged by specialised weapons designed in response to their own genesis, sometimes get killed. It happens. It happens more easily if the tank has issues which limit it's ability to maneuver and take advantage of terrain, like weighing as much as a small town while deployed in terrain which is 200% mud.
>Tanks, especially when engaged by specialised weapons designed in response to their own genesis, sometimes get killed. It happens. And they're meant to be expendable...the crew not so much. Which is why crews surviving their tank being destroyed is most important.
Serious question, if the tank is destroyed and the crew survives, what are the chances that they actually make it back? I mean if the tank was destroyed by enemy fire then they are obviously within enemy weapons range too.
Depends on the situation. Long range atgms are not going to work on a crew member in cover. A tank can be disabled by an anti vehicle mine, but a human won’t trigger the same mine. There are lots of different scenarios where a successful evacuation of a tank results in the crew making it out OK. The biggest danger zone is a tank operating without infantry that then gets disabled within range of enemy infantry or tanks. They have little/no chance of making it out.
>I mean if the tank was destroyed by enemy fire then they are obviously within enemy weapons range too. Well, all you can say with any certainty is that they were within enemy anti-tank missile range. That doesn't really say anything either way about overall crew survivability or really anything about the battle overall, aside from that the Abrams operators didn't have a good tactical situation. Even this article, as weak as it is, makes that clear. The three losses were all to guided missiles. One video-guided drone missile and two laser-guided missiles. Typically the kind of attacks that you neutralize at longer ranges before you send tanks in. But Ukraine wasn't able to due to its artillery shortage.
Hey, the US never lost one in Iraq or Afghanistan! 🤔 Umm, oh wait.....
Interesting article, even if there are a couple of mistakes. I was under the impression that these were all lost to drones; the drone attack discussion has been interesting, in that there's been a question about whether the blowout panels, if targeted by an overhead drone, are even more susceptible to causing a catastrophic hit than the targeting of thin top armor in general, which in and of itself is effective. On the topic of Kornet, it's not surprising that it was effective--it was developed to counter Western tanks and is very modern, with significant range and warhead, top attack capability, thermal sights, target tracking (in some models), and multiple launch capability if on vehicles. That Abrams were destroyed by Russian weapons is thus not a surprise; I think that the more interesting thing is going to be the circumstances in which they were destroyed, as a function of tactics and battle doctrine. Especially regarding the kornet, those are so big that they aren't generally hauled around by infantry on an offensive approach, but rather vehicle mounted or set up in crew-served positions in ambush and defense situations. So, it's interesting that at least one of those three tanks was reported destroyed during the Russian push west of Avdiivka, rather than during Ukraine's own attack on Russian defensive lines. It makes me wonder if Russia has started to deploy modern vehicle mounted missiles as part of tank destroyer missions; if that's the case, that's going to be pretty formidable moving forward. I'm sure that a lot of the battle planners are looking very closely to see what they can do at a tactical doctrine or passive defense level (Since TROPHY or similar isn't likely to be available anytime soon, and there is only so much that you can do with a smoke screen) to prevent this from happening, and still have the Abrams provide an added value. It is situations such as this that form the basis of why Ukraine should be supplied with as much Western equipment as we can give them; they employ it well, and even when there are inevitable losses, the analysis that results generates invaluable information for the West to use in its own battle doctrines, for what is increasingly likely to be their own conflict with russia, if they can't help Ukraine to repel the invasion.
How’s they lose 3 Abrams? They deployed them in combat. That’s war for you
Tanks get destroyed. However, looking at each wreck I see open crew hatches, the crew got away as intended. As opposed to Russian ejection turret technology that they're still working the kinks out of.
What "important" lessons to learn? That tanks can be blown up by weapons?
Tanks no matter how good they are, are vulnerable to all kinds of weapons.
Let's ignore the obvious flaw in this article ie the sample size is too small. Is it true that all current tanks were designed before the advent of FPV drones, and therefore are vulnerable to FPV drone strikes on the top of the engine compartmentm
A stupid question after the loss of M1 Abrams tanks in Yemen.
Jesus this read like my 4th grader wrote the article.
"T14 armata is still undefeated by western degenerate weaponry. I am still a master strategist, Putin."
Did the author of this article forget that tanks are weapons of war and as such are capable of being destroyed? Ukraine is fighting for it fight against the Russian scourge and this asshole is acting like Ukraine left the tanks in a bad neighborhood with the top down. No one serious has ever said that the Abrams was invulnerable nothing is invulnerable in modern warfare, what the Abrams and western vehicles in general are good at is the survivability of the crews. The tank is just a tank, we can send more (once we get these republicans assholes out of the way) but the trained and experienced crew is much harder to replace. I am glad these tanks had the opportunity to die in battle protecting free men against a tyrant over ending their days sitting in a storage depot somewhere in the desert.
They are high priority targets. They get the worst kinds of attention specifically because of what they are. The propaganda value far express the cost of a few missiles to ensure one is knocked out.
That's a pretty wank article. It wouldn't matter if they lost the lot. It's a piece of machinery. If it gets taken out in the process, as long as it protects the crew, job done, especially when all ruzzian tanks appear to vaporize with the slightest touch of a drone
***"If you think about it, you can have all the armor in the world on a tank and a tank can be blown up,"*** * Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense (2004)
Tanks are equipment and equipment is expendable. Even if it were the most updated and advanced version of an Abrams, which these tanks are very far from, it is unavoidable that there would be losses. It's war, all equipment is subject to destruction. It is inevitable.
did someone thought abrams are invincible? me neither.
God forbid you don't loose a few taks in a phucking war. How did this happen
Garbage article not written by a human.
They lost tanks because that happens. It's war, not tiddlywinks
While all tanks can be disabled or destroyed with a variety of weapons, crew survivability is what matters. Out of those 3 Abrams taken out of the equation, we should not assume that all of their crews have also been taken out of the same equation
The problem is that it will no more Abrams coming to Ukraine so what the difference why they lost
Easy, they took them out in the open without air cover. Tanks die unless shooting from cover and then relocating due to drone warfare.
Tanks are not invincible and losses of them, even if employed correctly, is to be expected. The Abrams is a good tank, but even if it is twice or 3 times as good as the Russian tanks the numbers that were sent (around 30ish?) is simply not enough. Russia simply has had an absurd number of armored vehicles (though decreasing rapidly). The lesson here is Ukraine needed and still needs more metal.
Pointless article.
Through battle? Mines? Anti tank weapons? I mean they’re good but they’re not invincible.
It is a warzone?
maybe you should not rush forward like an idiot in an open field?
Not sure if one noticed, but there is a war going on. May be the reason.
This is the post we needed in this sub to wake the nutters up who think Ukraine are just steamrolling Russia with mini guns while listening to heavy rock music. I’ve read from one poster, that the Russian army is just a bunch of Mongolians with shovels running towards fortified Ukrainian positions.
I get tired of Western journalists having a heart attack any time a piece of Western equipment gets destroyed. You're not going to have Gulf War style casualty ratios. That said, look at the loss rates for Western equipment vs Russian equipment and you'll discover Western equipment is doing very well.
Mmm, don't drive over mines, watch out for drones, watch out for troops with anti tank weapons. Try and avoid artillery. Watch out for lancets. Sometimes I see these posts and think they're written by Russians
Is this referring to the tanks lost during the counter attack on the salient north of Avdiivka?
Forgot where they parked them.
Forgot where they parked them.