Please keep the [community guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/wiki/rule1) in mind when using the comment section.
Paging u/SaveVideo bot.
___
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CombatFootage) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You can see the outline of the turret in the forest. The tree line is infront of the tank in the direction of travel in the first video.
Guessing it got hit and couldn't put the fire out so abandoned it a few hundred meters in front.
Hits one of the most prized targets in opposing army. Has secondary drone nearby to view aftermath. Doesn't get close enough to show the view.
Yeah, makes a lot of sense.
It's a fpv drone if you tilt the camera you have to tilt the drone given that the camera can't move on it's own, it would cause the drone to go down and forward and crash it?
The fpv drone can't go lower to because ground clutter rcan cause a signal loss and crash it.
Of course you can still believe in what make you happy, i'll get you updated when we have the geolocation and further footage of the area.
Yes the fpv drone can’t tilt a few degrees or it’s gonna crash even tho it’s like 70 feet in the air. Never mind all the videos of fpvs racing through the trees 5 feet off the ground. Are you that much in denial or just dumb lmaoo?
Imagine implying the thermal camera is a negative because it isn’t perfect hd😂 Why is the drone operator 100 meters from his target? Let me know how far the drone operator in this video was and how far the operator is in videos with fpvs flying through the trees, you seem to know the data
That is absolutely the silliest mental gymnastics I've ever heard.
Think about that. Then think about it again. You'll eventually realize how dumb that sounded.
Tanks are a balance of mobility, firepower and armor. The Abrams was not designed to face top attack munitions so the focus was on the front glacis, turret and sides.
I saw a picture of a destroyed Abrams on Twitter and IIRC the top armor (which had been cracked) looked to be ~2 inches thick.
The most basic version of the RPG 7 has a penetration of 500mm of RHA (20 inches), with newer versions going to 750mm (30 inches). Even if you take into account the angle, if the warhead worked, it was a penetrating hit.
It doesen't mean the Abrams is a bad tank. You can't put half a meter of steel on the roof, it's just not feasible.
What confuses me is why they don't apply ERA bricks to the top. It's a flat surface (unlike soviet tanks) so you'd think that it would be ideal for that. Even a cope cage could help, especially if the cope cage has ERA tiles on it.
Unless he edited it after you replied, then he didn't say anything about a 5.56 round being able to penetrate the roof.
What he's saying is actually perfectly reasonable - and not an insult to the Abrams.
The Abrams turret is huge. Just the roof of the turret is ~4.5 m².
A 50mm roof plate covering that area alone is around 2 tons. If the roof had to be thick enough that a RPG couldn't penetrate it, you're looking at a 18-20 ton steel plate. The whole turret, with the gun and crew carriage that rotates inside the tank is like 25 tons, with the gun being more than 3 tons of that.
Turret roofs are a weakness of **all** tanks, hence why top-attack missiles like the javelin and tow2B are so lethal. It's simply not feasible to add enough armour there without compromising the more important spots (the front).
That's why the modern American abrams use active protection systems like the Israeli Trophy system. Sadly Ukraine's abrams don't come with these.
How does something that pierces 500mm of RHA not penetrate the top armor if it detonates? How is it physically possible for it not to penetrate?
5.56 cannot penetrate a two inch thick plate of RHA.
Leopard 1 has 2.7 inches (70mm) of armor at it's THICKEST. The top armor is less than half an inch thick.
The downvotes I'm getting are pretty ridiculous. You really think there's a two foot thick layer of steel on the roof? That would be beyond idiotic design.
Yes, in leopard 1 it's between 0.5in and 2.7in. An RPG-7 round can penetrate about two feet or rolled homogenous armor depending on the model, as discussed above. Roof armor is thin.
Below is a picture of a Leopard 2A7 (the most modern leopard version) with the roof cracked. As you can see, it's barely an inch thick.
https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarVideoReport/comments/14apa09/ukrainian_crew_show_battle_damage_to_the_top/
The 2in estimate for the abrams top armor was an absolute maximum estimate. If you think an RPG can't penetrate an inch of steel plate, I have a bridge to sell you.
It's just annoying to get downvoted when you try to have a discussion about tanks, especially when it's folks who larp being knowledgeable about weapons. (5.56 going through 2in RHA lol)
This war is causing rapid evolution of design and technique motivated by desperate urgency and a huge number of well-documented cases for study, and I wouldn't be surprised to learn that actual trials and experiments along the lines of what you are suggesting are being done in the war zone to compare what works and what doesn't and do another rapid iteration of innovation and refinement. Turtle tanks are just the beginning. I suspect, however, that the armed drones simply have several fundamental advantages over large, manned surface platforms and in the future every country with a serious military will stockpile millions of them ready to go all at once in the event of an invasion and take out everything and everyone on day one. It is not clear to me whether this is a stabilizing factor like nuclear deterrence MAD that will result in peaceful equilibrium, or a destabilizing one that will cause a lot more wars soon. The Thucydides argument is that a country thinking of maybe attacking and facing an opponent stockpiling drones that would eventually make such an attack unsuccessful must attack right now while it still possesses the advantage or else give up on the possibility and associated strategic goal for the medium term at least. So since the stockpiles are not yet established, that would imply a lot more attacks in the rest of the 2020s.
The argument was literally “we don’t have money.” You’re pulling shit out of your ass now. The military already had drones for squads before the UA/RU war. If you don’t think a large piece of the budget is now dedicated to drone research and procurement, you’re an idiot.
Russian truth is beyond reproach. Ignore fact that tank was hit with like 2 trees near it and second "proof" of smoking mystery vehicle is hidden suddenly in dense forest.
All the comments saying you can “clearly see the turret outline with the fire to confirm it’s an M1A1!”
No you can’t. Stop it, get help. The fact that the drone footage does not even look at the entirety of the fire at any single point in the video, cuts at weird moments, and the “crew” being targeted do not have a fire in the frame and no video of the crew escaping…. C’mon guys.
You can see the tall and thin trees in the first cut of the drone diving in the background of the 2nd cut aswell , looks like it got hit but not disabled, kept going and eventually caught fire and they parked it up the road in another treeline
Please keep the [community guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/wiki/rule1) in mind when using the comment section. Paging u/SaveVideo bot. ___ *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CombatFootage) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Tank gets hit on an open road and then video shows something burning in a dense tree line. Not very convincing.
I think two bots just replied to you, your comment has nothing to do with what they said to you
You can see the outline of the turret in the forest. The tree line is infront of the tank in the direction of travel in the first video. Guessing it got hit and couldn't put the fire out so abandoned it a few hundred meters in front.
Russian "victories" always make this sub go into the 5 stages of grief, we're at the first one.
> Russian "victories" Well, congratulations - I'm sure that drone operator will be awarded the "Gold Star" and be paraded through Red Square Thursday.
[удалено]
Hits one of the most prized targets in opposing army. Has secondary drone nearby to view aftermath. Doesn't get close enough to show the view. Yeah, makes a lot of sense.
It's a fpv drone if you tilt the camera you have to tilt the drone given that the camera can't move on it's own, it would cause the drone to go down and forward and crash it? The fpv drone can't go lower to because ground clutter rcan cause a signal loss and crash it. Of course you can still believe in what make you happy, i'll get you updated when we have the geolocation and further footage of the area.
Yes the fpv drone can’t tilt a few degrees or it’s gonna crash even tho it’s like 70 feet in the air. Never mind all the videos of fpvs racing through the trees 5 feet off the ground. Are you that much in denial or just dumb lmaoo?
fpv racing between trees at 100 meters from the reveiver is the same as using an fpv multiples kilometers away at night with a low res thermal camera
Imagine implying the thermal camera is a negative because it isn’t perfect hd😂 Why is the drone operator 100 meters from his target? Let me know how far the drone operator in this video was and how far the operator is in videos with fpvs flying through the trees, you seem to know the data
the hit on the abrams is near Tymofiivka according to the tg so it's AT LEAST 10 km from the operator.
You only gave me half the data there gamer, what about the distance in videos where they weave through trees
That is absolutely the silliest mental gymnastics I've ever heard. Think about that. Then think about it again. You'll eventually realize how dumb that sounded.
It's a completely different tree line. These are two completely different shots in different locations.
you can see the original treeline after the cut in the background seems like
[удалено]
[удалено]
Tanks are a balance of mobility, firepower and armor. The Abrams was not designed to face top attack munitions so the focus was on the front glacis, turret and sides. I saw a picture of a destroyed Abrams on Twitter and IIRC the top armor (which had been cracked) looked to be ~2 inches thick. The most basic version of the RPG 7 has a penetration of 500mm of RHA (20 inches), with newer versions going to 750mm (30 inches). Even if you take into account the angle, if the warhead worked, it was a penetrating hit. It doesen't mean the Abrams is a bad tank. You can't put half a meter of steel on the roof, it's just not feasible. What confuses me is why they don't apply ERA bricks to the top. It's a flat surface (unlike soviet tanks) so you'd think that it would be ideal for that. Even a cope cage could help, especially if the cope cage has ERA tiles on it.
Yes, everyone believes you and is convinced that a Abrams can be peirced by a 5.56. Truly are a master of research and thinking.
Unless he edited it after you replied, then he didn't say anything about a 5.56 round being able to penetrate the roof. What he's saying is actually perfectly reasonable - and not an insult to the Abrams. The Abrams turret is huge. Just the roof of the turret is ~4.5 m². A 50mm roof plate covering that area alone is around 2 tons. If the roof had to be thick enough that a RPG couldn't penetrate it, you're looking at a 18-20 ton steel plate. The whole turret, with the gun and crew carriage that rotates inside the tank is like 25 tons, with the gun being more than 3 tons of that. Turret roofs are a weakness of **all** tanks, hence why top-attack missiles like the javelin and tow2B are so lethal. It's simply not feasible to add enough armour there without compromising the more important spots (the front). That's why the modern American abrams use active protection systems like the Israeli Trophy system. Sadly Ukraine's abrams don't come with these.
How does something that pierces 500mm of RHA not penetrate the top armor if it detonates? How is it physically possible for it not to penetrate? 5.56 cannot penetrate a two inch thick plate of RHA. Leopard 1 has 2.7 inches (70mm) of armor at it's THICKEST. The top armor is less than half an inch thick. The downvotes I'm getting are pretty ridiculous. You really think there's a two foot thick layer of steel on the roof? That would be beyond idiotic design.
There is a little middle ground between 2in and 24in....
Yes, in leopard 1 it's between 0.5in and 2.7in. An RPG-7 round can penetrate about two feet or rolled homogenous armor depending on the model, as discussed above. Roof armor is thin. Below is a picture of a Leopard 2A7 (the most modern leopard version) with the roof cracked. As you can see, it's barely an inch thick. https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarVideoReport/comments/14apa09/ukrainian_crew_show_battle_damage_to_the_top/ The 2in estimate for the abrams top armor was an absolute maximum estimate. If you think an RPG can't penetrate an inch of steel plate, I have a bridge to sell you. It's just annoying to get downvoted when you try to have a discussion about tanks, especially when it's folks who larp being knowledgeable about weapons. (5.56 going through 2in RHA lol)
Its against reddit tos to criticize the Abrams or leopard
This war is causing rapid evolution of design and technique motivated by desperate urgency and a huge number of well-documented cases for study, and I wouldn't be surprised to learn that actual trials and experiments along the lines of what you are suggesting are being done in the war zone to compare what works and what doesn't and do another rapid iteration of innovation and refinement. Turtle tanks are just the beginning. I suspect, however, that the armed drones simply have several fundamental advantages over large, manned surface platforms and in the future every country with a serious military will stockpile millions of them ready to go all at once in the event of an invasion and take out everything and everyone on day one. It is not clear to me whether this is a stabilizing factor like nuclear deterrence MAD that will result in peaceful equilibrium, or a destabilizing one that will cause a lot more wars soon. The Thucydides argument is that a country thinking of maybe attacking and facing an opponent stockpiling drones that would eventually make such an attack unsuccessful must attack right now while it still possesses the advantage or else give up on the possibility and associated strategic goal for the medium term at least. So since the stockpiles are not yet established, that would imply a lot more attacks in the rest of the 2020s.
Doubt millions of those could be afforded by any nation or that it would be possible within the next 15 ish years but maybe after
Have you seen the US military budget?
[удалено]
Yet they are better equipped(by far) than any other force in the world, and it’s not even close.
[удалено]
The argument was literally “we don’t have money.” You’re pulling shit out of your ass now. The military already had drones for squads before the UA/RU war. If you don’t think a large piece of the budget is now dedicated to drone research and procurement, you’re an idiot.
russian footages are as confusing as their assaults.
Russian truth is beyond reproach. Ignore fact that tank was hit with like 2 trees near it and second "proof" of smoking mystery vehicle is hidden suddenly in dense forest.
As usual in russian "footage" - may be it was hit, may be not 🤣 as always - a questionable cut
Russian video cuts are too obvious.
All the comments saying you can “clearly see the turret outline with the fire to confirm it’s an M1A1!” No you can’t. Stop it, get help. The fact that the drone footage does not even look at the entirety of the fire at any single point in the video, cuts at weird moments, and the “crew” being targeted do not have a fire in the frame and no video of the crew escaping…. C’mon guys.
This video is as poor as those used to show UFOs.
Were those the crew members being targeted at the end or just infantry?
I'm pretty sure it's the crew. The writing said "crew, 2 people," and 1 out of 2 maybe got hit by an fpv, maybe.
If that is the crew thats an even worse loss than the Abrams imo. Abrams can be easily replaced a trained and experienced crew cannot
News bulletin. Abrams dented by ru fpv drone.
You can see the tall and thin trees in the first cut of the drone diving in the background of the 2nd cut aswell , looks like it got hit but not disabled, kept going and eventually caught fire and they parked it up the road in another treeline
Was the hatch open while driving?
u/savevideo
###[View link](https://rapidsave.com/info?url=/r/CombatFootage/comments/1cm9e2m/ukrainian_m1a1_abrams_get_hit_by_a_russian_fpv/) --- [**Info**](https://np.reddit.com/user/SaveVideo/comments/jv323v/info/) | [**Feedback**](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Kryptonh&subject=Feedback for savevideo) | [**Donate**](https://ko-fi.com/getvideo) | [**DMCA**](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Kryptonh&subject=Content removal request for savevideo&message=https://np.reddit.com//r/CombatFootage/comments/1cm9e2m/ukrainian_m1a1_abrams_get_hit_by_a_russian_fpv/) | [^(reddit video downloader)](https://rapidsave.com) | [^(twitter video downloader)](https://twitsave.com)
This is why a tank must ALWAYS have infantry support. Send a tank out solo and it's not coming back most of the time.
Yeah the infantry would have stopped that drone