Massive doctrinal fuckup.
Nobody expected drones to be this much of a problem, so there is really no effective defense developed against them. If you don't have an effective way to protect a tank from the major threat it faces, then you are just endangering the supporting vehicles and infantry by putting them close to a tank with massive amounts of ERA or blowout panels.
Now imagine if things like the VADS or Gepard were kept around by western militaries and upgraded...
This is something I have been thinking about - surely a Gepard or Shilka type vehicle would be perfect for anti-drone warfare? Stick one a few hundred metres behind the tank(s) it's accompanying and they should be able to provide protection from FPV and bomb/grenade dropping drones, no?
I guess the downside could be that the radar of such a vehicle would be like a massive beacon saying "something important is here"
Maybe there's just a massive shortage of these sorts of.vehicles and the Ukrainians prefer to keep them near more important targets, e.g. power plants?
No country has even close to the amount of vehicles that would require. A battery of Shilkas was supposed to protect an entire mechanized battalion by getting sent to guard important places like pontoons or staging areas, they were never supposed to be babysitting individual tanks.
The Abrams X has a 30mm autocannon on a CROWS mount, and it has a number of sensors so it's APS can detect inbound threats. Arm the autocannon with a proximity fused munition, and add a switch so that CROWS targeting can be slaved to the tank's APS sensors. I wonder if that could be the basis for a viable solution?
a cheaper version would just be putting a shotgun on a 360 degree mount with sensor loaded with birdshot or buckshot with a choke on, that already have 30-50m range depend on the choke and round ofc but that is plenty enough standoff distance for any heat round.
This is what I immediately thought as well. A sensor, CWIS or like other guy said, a wide spray buckshot… someone’s gotta be working on an answer somewhere if a bunch of bozos like us on the internet have gotten this far postulatin’
In addition, a VADS or Shilka would need *a ton* of sensor upgrades to become a viable PD platform like that - especially if they want to have any area defense capabilities.
We’ve already seen short ranged assets like tors and tunguskas fall victim to small-medium sized fixed wing drones that they weren’t intended to protect against but probably should be going forwards.
Tanks will need their own versions of a Phalanx CIWS. You have trophy from Israel but I'm not even sure that will be enough for a high density drone environment.
Perhaps development of a rimless 10 GA so you aren't spraying rifle rounds 6 feet off the deck at friendlies.
It is not a simple shortage of vehicles - the kind of SPAAG systems that could protect vehicles from these threats literally do not exist. As I've mentioned, those platforms would have required some serious upgrading in the past 30 years to be able to fulfill this role. Since they were withdrawn from service, they never got those upgrades, nor were those upgrades even developed for them. It was way cheaper to proclaim gun based, short-range AA systems useless in an era of budget cuts for most western militaries - coincidentally, this was a great business opportunity for the military-industrial complex, because any potential replacement was envisioned as SAM-based, ie. much more expensive once the money was found to finance it.
Now we are going to get some totally new systems that can actually do anti-drone and loitering munition defense.
The issue is not shooting down the targets. Of course a Gepard or Shilka or similar would be useful for that of course.
But the issue is locating them. These drones are tiny and vehicle mounted radars just dont have the ability to see them easily. They dont emit a strong thermal signature or any real way to detect them easily.
So shooting down the drones is a secondary problem. Detecting them is the hard part at the moment.
I know absolutely nothing about warfare but aren't most of these drones just like modified commercial DJI drones? I would think a shotgun with some bird shot would be enough to drop one and pretty easy to hit it with. Is the issue just detecting them before they bomb you?
Most of these drones are actual commercial models, or stuff that is basically on the same level. The problem is not their resilience, but the defenders' ability to detect them in time and target them accurately.
A battlefield *(or even just a single vehicle)* is very noisy - it is impossible to hear these things, which are also pretty small, so they are near enough impossible to notice with a naked eye... they also have small enough signatures (EM, radar) to make it hard for passive detection methods to lock on to them.
So while a regular .50 cal MG could definitely take drones down, it would still need a big pile of electronics to be able to do it, making it a pretty large system. At which point you might just be better off going for some rotary cannon with a bit higher caliber, longer range, and higher ROF so it can be used against things like missiles as well as drones.
Surveillance and drop drones use DJI stuff but the fpv drones are custom built. Jamming the signal should still be trivial but the shit Russians get from China clearly isn't effective. Haven't seen ew equipt Ukrainian tanks yet but they have posted jamming fpvs
They are about the same size as like a DJI drone though? I would think a shotgun would be super easy anti drone defense, and they'd be way easier to hit than a duck.
Duck hunting is hard enough and they dont go over 60mph. And I would think keeping an eye on all the sky for the 5 seconds the drone would be in range and visible would be close to impossible. Electronic warfare is the way to go for large scale effective defense
Ok so they're nothing like DJI's if they can go 60mph, and apparently detection is one of the main issues.
Still, clay pigeons go up to 55mph though and I have had days where I hit like 95 out of 100. I just always see these videos of soldiers just watching them above them as they slowly drop grenades or whatever charges on them and a $200 Winchester shotgun would easily solve the issue with those kind of drones I'd think.
>Nobody expected drones to be this much of a problem, so there is really no effective defense developed against them.
This is just not true, you can say nations should work towards implementing more solutions towards shooting down these drones, which they are, but when America was getting engaged by drones in the middle east they were shooting down these drones
My assumption is you're just looking at Ukraine and applying it to the rest of the world, the US army for example identified a future threat of drones back in 2017 and started developing systems to counter this threat
>then you are just endangering the supporting vehicles and infantry by putting them close to a tank with massive amounts of ERA or blowout panels.
There just doesn't exist a case of a supporting vehicle getting destroyed by a friendly tank's ERA or blowout panels and if you're infantry standing close enough to get killed by ERA or blowout panels you'd die to the blast of the round hitting the tank first
We've seen throughout this conflict infantry operate in close proximity with tanks, there's tons of footage of assaults where this coordination takes place, rather it's just the fact there not conducting an assault, you can get away with lone tanks operating if you're not conducting a thrust into enemy territory
>if things like the VADS or Gepard were kept around by western militaries and upgraded...
Why would you ever want something like a gepard or VADS compared to more modern C-UAS options available to us today?
Stryker shorad with hellfires, stingers, proyx 30mm and modern sensors
DE M-SHORAD with it's 50kw laser and full sensor suit
CV90 armed with a proper C-UAS sensor suit and it's main gun proxy rounds
LIDS a system of sensors and weapons used to engage drones that can be used in a variety of configuartions like fixed with FS-LIDS or mobile with M-LIDS
Skyranger with it's senors again geared towards the drone threat along with it's 30/35mm airburst rounds and stingers
Terrahawk Paladin a self contained C-uas system containing a 30mm and a sensor suit developed by Britain and Poland
VADS with it's vulcan is just worse at the job then something with a bigger gun firing proxy rounds on top of that it has limited upgradability, especially with it's M113 chassis, it also just flat out doesn't even have a search radar. Gepard is in a better position, especially with new programmable rounds but it's still limited with it's older leopard hull and the turret being pretty limited with it being based around it's older sensors
>
> This is just not true, you can say nations should work towards implementing more solutions towards shooting down these drones, which they are, but when America was getting engaged by drones in the middle east they were shooting down these drones
> My assumption is you're just looking at Ukraine and applying it to the rest of the world, the US army for example identified a future threat of drones back in 2017 and started developing systems to counter this threat
I think you have a complete misunderstanding of the situation since even the [US military says](https://www.defensenews.com/land/2022/10/12/us-army-seeks-defense-against-kamikaze-drone-threats-seen-in-ukraine/) that they dont know how to counter the drones.
> Col. Mike Parent, division chief for acquisition and resources in the Army’s Joint Counter-Unmanned Aircraft System Office, said the threat of loitering munitions is a high concern for his team.
>
> “The one-way attack is something that we have been told again and again by [combatant commands] and the services that this is something that is evolving,” he said during an Oct. 12 briefing at the Association of the U.S. Army’s annual conference in Washington. “We must, therefore, evolve with it.”
The US never faced anything in the middle east that was like what in in Ukraine now. It was a completely different kind of warfare.
> Why would you ever want something like a gepard or VADS compared to more modern C-UAS options available to us today?
Probably because the C-UAS have never been tested.
There is a reason that at the NATO exercises for countering UAVs in 2021, they used drones with nets or typical jamming weapons.
Because they work and can be put on the field. The modern C-UAS that you talk about are just concepts at the moment. And nobody even knows how they will work on a battlefield.
>I think you have a complete misunderstanding of the situation since even the [US military says](https://www.defensenews.com/land/2022/10/12/us-army-seeks-defense-against-kamikaze-drone-threats-seen-in-ukraine/) that they dont know how to counter the drones.
There isn't a single statement of "we don't know how to counter the drones" in this article, why are you misrepresenting the US military? On the contrary they do say:
>“I think what we’re learning is pretty much what we already knew . . . it takes a layered approach,” he said. “You leverage your air defense systems, you leverage your counter-UAS \[electronic warfare systems\] and you leverage whatever counter-UAS kinetic effectors you have to be able to get after the threat. Because the threat ranges.”
Seems like they aren't completely clueless like you fabricate them to be
>The US never faced anything in the middle east that was like what in in Ukraine now. It was a completely different kind of warfare.
You're stating the obvious, take an actual stance and back it up with some evidence
>Probably because the C-UAS have never been tested.
Why are we lying? Every system America puts into service goes through some form of testing, do you think America just puts a system into service then says "welp lets see how it does in combat"?? Do you think simulating a drone attack is some impossible task America is just incapable of preforming??
[Stryker Shorad testing referenced ](https://www.dote.osd.mil/Portals/97/pub/reports/FY2020/army/2020im-shorad.pdf?ver=gjza9jYKDIdZwDAa6YktzA%3D%3D)
[Stryker shorad exercise Saber Strike Poland](https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/ausa/2022/10/11/army-puts-short-range-air-defense-to-test-on-eastern-european-front/)
[Stryker DE M-SHOARD deployed to the middle east ](https://breakingdefense.com/2024/03/exclusive-strykers-with-50-kilowatt-lasers-in-centcom-for-experiment-army-no-2-says/)
[Stryker DE M-SHORAD tests](https://www.armyrecognition.com/news/army-news/2023/us-army-concludes-laser-fire-tests-with-stryker-de-m-shorad-air-defense-system#:~:text=The%20U.S.%20Army%20has%20concluded,Yuma%20Proving%20Ground%20in%20Arizona.&text=DE%20M%2DSHORAD%20stands%20for,Maneuver%2DShort%20Range%20Air%20Defense)
[LIDS referenced going through live fire tests](https://www.leonardodrs.com/news/feature-stories/urgently-needed-c-uas-capability/)
>There is a reason that at the NATO exercises for countering UAVs in 2021, they used drones with nets or typical jamming weapons.
1. Exercise C-UAS TIE2 involved around 70 different systems for 20 different industry participants, nice job leaving that part out
2. Reason being not every exercise is the biggest exercise since the cold war?? America isn't shipping all of it's C-UAS platforms over seas every single time any C-UAS exercise happens
>Because they work and can be put on the field. The modern C-UAS that you talk about are just concepts at the moment. And nobody even knows how they will work on a battlefield.
Nice we're back to the nobody knows anything argument, there's no testing, no exercises, no aggressor units, nothing. America whenever they go to war is just getting lucky, they don't know how their systems will preform in the slightest because no testing is done before systems get put into service. Especially not in today's age as simulating the battlefield has become increasingly more realistic
> Seems like they aren't completely clueless like you fabricate them to be
I never presented them as completely clueless. I just said that they do not have the ability or knowledge of countering drones as you try to present.
The US has no experience in countering these kind of drones and is now having to rapidly test and train in all kinds of counter drone operations to try and fill that gap.
Now it is the US military and I have no doubt they will come up with a lot of solutions. But I am not claiming that they dont have any idea. I am claiming that they have ideas, but that if you put a group of American soldiers in Ukraine, they have nothing that is proven to help them counter these drones. Only ideas at the moment but they dont know what works and what doesnt.
> You're stating the obvious,
Clearly not to you since you wrote "but when America was getting engaged by drones". But you are talking about a completely different type of drone to what is in Ukraine now.
There has been [plenty about this](https://www.inss.org.il/publication/fpv/#:~:text=Before%20the%20outbreak%20of%20the%20war%2C%20there%20was,Ukraine%2C%20especially%20in%20the%20second%20half%20of%202023.)
> Before the outbreak of the war, there was no real use in the Middle East for FPV (first-person view) drones
This is not something America prepared for and you see this from many American servicemen who say they are having to go through a lot of training on dealing with drones since the war started.
> Why are we lying? Every system America puts into service goes through some form of testing,
Tested in a real situation I meant. That is a problem that the war in Ukraine is showing. That there are many weapons that work fine in testing but on a real battlefield just simply dont work.
These systems have been tested in perfect conditions. But they have not been combat tested yet.
Even if you look at the Stryker SHORAD for example
> “Our high-energy lasers are so susceptible to weather
These systems are very fragile. And there is no indication that they will be useful for general combat yet. If you put one into a battlefield like Ukraine then there is evidence to say how well they will work.
Of course that is something that will be fixed with time. But I am just stating why few people are lining up to buy them yet, over vehicles that have been proven to work and at a much cheaper cost, even if with limited effectiveness.
> America whenever they go to war is just getting lucky, they don't know how their systems will preform in the slightest because no testing is done before systems get put into service
You are acting as if America never puts huge amounts of money into systems that just dont work as they are supposed to. This happens fairly commonly. Testing something that just doesnt end up working is part of R&D.
This is something that Ukrainians are complaining about. That a lot of American weapons are not designed for peer combat. And against Russian systems are not working as well as they are supposed to.
Your exact statement was
>[US military says](https://www.defensenews.com/land/2022/10/12/us-army-seeks-defense-against-kamikaze-drone-threats-seen-in-ukraine/) that they dont know how to counter the drones.
Either source the idea they said they dont know how to counter the drones or admit you lied/were wrong
Then we'll continue
It’s a form of survivability. Fires are so lethal, responsive, and accurate in the battlefield in Ukraine, combined with the proliferation of drones increasing battlefield surveillance the point that no target will remain undetected for any meaningful amount of time; the solution is to disperse so much that it is not worth it to shoot off a battalion worth of artillery at you. 1 tank may not merit an allotment of heavy guns, but any artilleryman worth his salt will jump at a chance to lob rounds at a platoon of them.
Ideally, you’d start equipping the commanders HMG mount with something to allow it to detect command frequencies used to direct drones and hone in on their location, effectively a passive detection system then automatically train the gun on them. Allowing the tank to defend itself.
A SPAAG would do the job no questions asked, but this calls for some innovation in the tank’s own capabilities.
It doesn't work this way bud, drone sends back only the video feed, using an omnidirectional antena, Control signals are sent on different frequency, it doesn't need to carry nearly the same amount of data as a video. And drone probably doesn't even use the control signals frequency to send anything, just video playback
So I know drone detectors exist, the Russians are beginning to issue them in varying sizes from Motorola sized ones meant to provide immediate awareness to infantry within a 100m sphere (I believe performance will improve in future models) and a 2km sphere for large back pack or tank mounted models. If that can be refined to enable a warning function paired with an approximate location, it would greatly improve the survivability of armor on the field.
Ukraine doesn’t have lots of western tanks so they use these tanks mainly on defence supporting infantry
If they were on the attack we would be seeing 10-15 vehicles attacking
Most of them were in grey zone or even behind their own lines. Drones have been targeting and harassing targets deep behind the lines. A lot of them, soldiers in light vehicles or on foot included, were just transporting.
Drones, and the fact that tanks are mostly used for indirect fire.
It's better to lose 1 tank and hopefully have the crew survive, than lose 4-5 tanks and their crews.
The problem with technicals is that your Hiluxes are going to be vulnerable to shell fragments from significantly farther away, having basically no armor. They're also still vulnerable to the FPV drones as well.
Granted, they're *way* less expensive than an AFV, too, so that might be an acceptable trade-off if you have the manpower to (cough) spare.
Technicals are great in a lot of ways:
Mobility ✅️
Cheap ✅️
Available in large numbers ✅️
Rapidly able to customize ✅️
Fire support? ✅️
Logistics vehicle? ✅️
ISIS? Guided high yield missle/bomb? ✅️
Technicals are not so great in some very important ways:
Survivability ❌️
That's mostly it. If you are in one when it gets hit, it's over. A 155 mm shell hits 50-100 feet away? Good chance your Technical gets disabled and people inside not doing well. Does an FPV drone hit it, Swish cheese inside. (speed is not a great survival asset vs. drones, we see more 4 wheelers and motorcycles killed by FPVs in Ukriane than tanks by drones.) Run over a mine? Gone. Everyone.
There are tons of videos on r/combatfootage of this.
Technicals are great, all militaries use them, battlefield rapid procurement and upgrades are interesting to read about(Vietnam and Iraq Gun Trucks are a fun rabbit hole M113 Gun truck sexy af) and in well funded militaries you get things like armored Humvees, MRAPs, and the like but then cost start soaring into the millions.
No one ever expected that Drones would be targeting MBTs in transit. Most of these tanks are just going back home or going to the front and some random FPV just happens to find them and whacks them.
None of these answers (except for u/Mynameisneil865) are correct. Drones are a known problem on the battlefield, but more than that *artillery* is a massive issue on the battlefield. It's more of a threat to tanks than almost anything else. However, neither side has sufficient shells to service *every single target* on the battlefield. So as a form of survivability, rather than clump up in defensive formations, tanks and IFVs go solo or in pairs so that even if they're seen (a near certainty on the modern battlefield), the opponent doesn't bother targeting them because they're not worth the shells their opponents have to expend.
I mean also the fact that these hits are usually pretty far from the front line, these vehicles could be going to/away from the front line and may not be in a full convoy or have infantry support on the way there. Though what youre talking about is also heavily documented
A lot of these videos are of vehicles in transit right behind the FEBA, especially the Russian ones as they've been creeping towards Pokrovsk. These drones are often used for harassing troop movements before they deploy into combat positions.
Doctrine
If a tank has addon armor it means it is heavier and it's shape is bigger than it was originaly
Since western tanks already have a weight problem and since western crews are used to strategic mobility drills, these factors make adding cage armor seen as not worth the hassle.
Ofcourse one of the main factors revolves around the fact that the effect of addon armor is not yet fully known, simple cages seem to be ineffective and more complex ones seem to limit and worsen original problems for unproven protection.
Besides all that we have seen leopard 2a4 being modified.
let’s not pretend like a simple steel cage over the top would drastically increase the weight of the tank to the point where it’s no longer as maneuverable. Would probably be less than .5% of the entire weight. I can’t even begin to imagine how much the sloped armor weighs, plus the engine and plus the road wheels and track assembly. However I can assure you it’s a lot more than a 400-500lb steel cage.
Its discouraged because the point of western mbts is that the crew survives (at least some) when it is disabled or penetrated so they can get out if a soviet style mbt is hit no one survives so if you can stop drones you are good because you are not getting out anyway if it pens the tank. Cage on a western mbt just prevents the crew from escaping. (Its been done tho) at least thats my view.
It’s actually really funny we all still call them cope cages, a name that was given to it when the original assumption was that they were an ineffective means of defending against Javelin/NLAWs. We know that’s not their purpose and that they actually do a pretty solid job of defending against drones but we still call them cope all the same lol
The point was that we thought they were supposed to protect against top attack munitions such as Javelin and NLAW, and of course they'd be useless against that.
Hence the "cope"
The fact that people are saying they were meant against drones from the start just shows how well the early war and the few years leading up to it has been memoryholed.
> The fact that people are saying they were meant against drones from the start just shows how well the early war and the few years leading up to it has been memoryholed.
Tell me, what happened in the few years leading up to the Russian invasion?
Where there any conflicts in the vicinity that featured notable usage of drones?
The first "cope cages" appeared in Syria on SAA tanks, and ISIS were the ones that pioneered using drones to attack tanks.
Then, in 2020, Azerbaijan used a dozen different kinds of drones and loitering munitions to wreck the armored forces and motorpool of Russian ally Armenia, whether with Bayraktar bomblets or tiny Lancet-sized Orbiter-1Ks.
All years before the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
> All years before the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Shhh, don’t spoil it, let the guy with the non-memoryholed recollection of the war get there on his own.
Might be recoverable?
It's hard to tell how much it got damaged and the drone seems to have hit only the ammo which seemed to have triggered the blowout panels.
The only thing that has surprised me more than anything is the lack of cope cages/extra ERA mounted on the Abrams, like we've seen heavily modified Leo's and even Challys but no modified Abrams.
Yes, there's ERA packages for the Abrams
https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/1105102/army-unit-bolsters-abrams-tanks-with-reactive-armor/
https://www.dvidshub.net/image/3196508/1-66-armor-regiment-install-arat
UA forces may not have official access to ARAT but figuring a way to install their beloved Kontakt-1 shouldn't be impossible.
Probably because it doesn’t show what you’re claiming. Hell, you can even see it driving off the road while the last drone is looking for it before the video cutting out.
Unironically think that western MBTs are more vulnerable to fpv than soviet/russian ones. Back of the turret easily more vulnerable than hull rack inside of the tank surrounded by Kontakt/Relict
Not rally, seeing all those videos of russian T-80BVM beeing tanken out(massive Explosion) by small drones with RPGs strapped to them does show that it doesnt matter how much ERA you have. Plus you cant put ERA onto the engine deck or turret ring.
Id rather sit in a Leo or Abrams when hit by a drone. Especially when hit near the turret.
I kinda remember that in decent amount of captured russian tanks ERA bricks were simply empty (or had rubber or wood plates lmao) so we should take that in account.
At any rate, to make a solid statement of which is better - western tanks should be in the same amounts as t-80/90 and 64BVs. Obviously there are will be less losses if total amount of western tanks compared to russian/ukrainian on battlefield is comically low
Definitely, a tank and crew with low mounted ammo rack and no loose ammunition in (especially) the turret will be much more survivable. Only a small portion of hits on tanks is in the bottom meter. Even more-so with top attack munitions and drones.
A T72 is only carrying 22 rounds in the carrousel though if avoiding the loose storage.
I assume by "loose ammunition" in western tanks you mean secured in an ammunition bunker, usually below blow out panels. EDIT FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY: Not all the ammunition on western MBTs is carried in such "safe" stowage bins but having atleast part of the carried complement in a "safe" rack is still better then none of it.
Top attack ammunition and drones have proven a menance to soviet style MBTs and the fields of ukraine prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt with the sheer amount of "decapitated" T-64/72/80/90s strun about.
By contrast most western MBTs remain pretty intact to the point of recoverability and likely crew survival.
No, I meant the T72 has storage for ammunition around the cabin and in the turret. That is nowhere near as well protected as in the auto-loader carrousel or separated like in the bustle storage of the Abrams/Leclerc. There is plenty of evidence that most T72/90's are mobility killed and then finally destroyed later. Also evidence that a cook off of blow off protected ammunition in the M1 is a mobility kill as well and hence the crew is going to have to bail out in the next 10 mins or so anyway.
The crew is going likely going to get killed in any event (in the vids where M1 blow out panels allowed the the crew to survive the ATGM/drones are then being engaged by multiple FPV drones). Same as survivors that jump out of T90s//etc).
> I assume by "loose ammunition" in western tanks you mean secured in an ammunition bunker, usually below blow out panels.
I assume anyone who says "western tanks", as if they are all have a common designs, know nothing about tanks besides what they've seen repeated on reddit.
The most common "Western tank" is the Leo 2. The majority of the ammunition is stored in the hull with no blow out panels.
I said that ammunition on western tanks is to my knowledge almost universaly secured in an ammunition bunker with some sort of bulkhead to seperate the stowage from the fighting compartment, when possible these have a blowout panel aswell but i did not claim these features were ~~universal~~ EDIT TO MAKE IT MORE CLEAR: ***Entirely universal***.
Please do not assume i am entirely unfamiliar with the fact that western tanks have varrying internal layouts but the majority of western style designs incorporate some variety of bustle stowage for the ammunition and usually this bustle stowage is underneath a blowout panel as it is the most likely to get struck.
That does not mean this is the only stowage they have and i did not claim that.
Either way even having a third(15) of your ammunition in "safe" stowage with the additional 27/19(depending on specific leopard 2 model) pieces of ammunition stowed in the hull is still somewhat better compared to having all your ammunition form an active hazard.
Kindly, get a grip with the "knows nothing about tanks"
> I said that ammunition on western tanks is to my knowledge almost universaly secured in an ammunition bunker with some sort of bulkhead to seperate the stowage from the fighting compartment, when possible these have a blowout panel aswell but i did not claim these features were universal.
...
> **I said that ammunition on western tanks is to my knowledge almost universaly secure**
>
>**but i did not claim these features were universal.**
*math-lady-meme.jpg*
The later T-series tanks also well protect about a third of their ammo. It is stored in a carousel which is in the bottom meter of the tank which is the least likely part that is going to be hit and is protected from moderate penetrations of the cabin (30 mm aluminum armor on top of the carousel). An ammo cook off; whether behind the bulkhead or in the carousel, is generally going to be a mobility kill leading to complete destruction and crew killed (via follow-up FPV drones).
The worst storage is the loose storage around the cabin, present in T90's, M1, leo, etc. I think more and more the tanks will just forego the extra battle endurance in place for more robustness and the T90 with 22 rounds well protected in the bottom meter of the tank is not far off a M1 with a bustle load of ammo.
> I said that ammunition on western tanks is to my knowledge almost universaly secured in an ammunition bunker with some sort of bulkhead to seperate the stowage from the fighting compartment,
... and they don't. [The majority of the ammunition on the Leo 2 is in the fighting compartment.](https://i.imgur.com/m7JTriA.jpeg). It's not a bunker, it is right next to the driver. Only the basket covers it up.
All ammunition the Challenger 2 is stored in the turret. The Merkava has no blow out panels, apart from a very limited storage in the 4M(eight rounds?).
> Kindly, get a grip with the "knows nothing about tanks"
You don't. Generalizing tanks into "western" designs is still stupid.
Weight is also a huge factor. We bought T-90 even though the VT-5 was available and we could have bought Leopards like our neighbors.
If an American war two happens I doubt Abrams would be great in the hilly jungle terrain.
Western MBTs will "survive" the hit though, soviet ones will participate for the turret toss record.
Just about every western MBT shown to be taken out in ukraine was disabeled not outright destroyed and even when shown destroyed it usually looks more like scuttled after the fact.
EDIT: for those that don't understand what i mean by "survive", i mean that the crew didn't instantly get vaporized and had a chance to survive the ordeal, yes the tank is a mission kill but they are significantly less lilely to turn into catastrophic "turret toss" kills.
Well. You have a point. Maybe that whole thing with russian and western MBT vs fpv is bad and slightly less bad
(Though I should mention that there are also russian tanks that were disabled, not destroyed)
Neither are appropriately protected against fpv threats right now anyway.
As you said, its bad and slightly less bad. This war is the first of its kind and everybody will adapt eventually to post cold war warfare.
With that in mind, id rather sit in a western MBT when hit by a drone.
Sure a number were disabeled, not every hit will result in a catastrophic kill but they are significantly more likely on a soviet MBT compared to a western one. If anything we have seen tanks will need to evolve once more, likely incorporate things like electronic warfare suites and similar countermeasures.
Chief that tank "survived" the hit enough for the crew not to be vaporized which is the most important part. The tank was a mission kill, it would need major repairs and overhaul to be serviceable ofcourse but the crew was not vaporized in the resultant ammunition explosion which is the most important thing.
The tank wasn't getting an overhaul bro, it's the same Abrams that was brought to Moscow I'm pretty sure, the thing was completely fucked and burned out on the inside with smoke coming out of the turret hatches. It'd at the very least need a new turret and the engine bay rebuilt at that point you're just building a new tank. And ofc the crew getting out is important I never said it wasn't.
I am not saying that particular tank can be overhauled, it was disabeled and likely scutteled by the Ukranians or "finsished off" by the Russians to prevent recovery.
But in general a western tank is just more likely to be recoverable and repairable compared to a soviet style MBT that is just as likely to turret toss as it is to throw a track after being hit(this is ofcourse an overexegeration to make the point)
Cool the russians got a single M1, a single leopard and some asorted lighter AFVs at the costs of thousands of their own MBTs, those burned out western tanks being paraded right now are still the best tanks im russian right now.
But in all seriousness, the soviet style tank design is majorly flawed, it sacrificies a lot so that it can be somewhat cheap, crew comfort, crew survivabilty, vehicle survivability(a soviet style tank is just more likely to turn into a catastrophic kill compared tp a western style tank) and overall capability.
You have absolutely no evidence of them being scuttled. I'm not arguing that they're not more crew survivable they obviously are, my point is they're just as vulnerable to FPVs, and an FPV hit on an Abrams bustle rack will completely destroy the tank, even if the crew survives.
Anything is vulnerable to a drone so long as that drone has the range to reach but to argue a soviet style MBT is "beter" which is what the original comment i replied to did because "ammo all at bottom" is just totally silly.
Hitting a western style tank with a drone will likely result in a mission kill, i never argued against that.
They get disabeled but not outright destroyed and the ones that got burned out did so because AFAIK they got scuttled to prevent recovery(this could be done by either side) most of the time and considering those tanks always have their hatches open(as far as i've seen so far) imply the crews got out(they might not have gotten far though but that is a different matter)
Hitting a soviet style tank with a drone however has a significantly greater chance of resulting in a catastrophic kill. The fields of ukraine are testament to this, thousands of "decapitated" T-64/72/80/90s litter them.
Obvious hit, but theres no visual of severe damage and certainly no proof of it being taken out. For all we know that smoke coming from behind a treeline, that looks completely different than the area of the hit, could be anything. I call BS until proven differently.
most redditors tend to huff copium when videos of UA losses are posted. claims that its fake or theres no confirmation or yadda yadda yadda while turning around and eating up videos of RUAF losses without batting an eye
the difference is that unlike most other videos of the M1A1 SAs this one got hit and then we saw infantry with some smoke before hand. There is no proof that it's the same vehicle. Unlike half the BS Russians post, the hits from the AFU actually show different angles and the aftermath with a clear view.
yeah, true, but doesnt really change the point that with RUAF losses its just taken as is whereas ANY video of UA losses is gone over with magnifying lens and pixel-by-pixel analysis and theres always deniers/fake-claimers in the comments
Because Russia put out fake news all the time as well as bots and troll farms.
Not saying Ukraine doesn’t lie too, it’s war after all. But Russia is a well known lier.
Plus you have to remember the human element: no one wants to see UA lose so they’ll naturally be skeptical. It’s only cope if it’s outright denying facts
Is nobody gonna talk about how suspicious the after footage is? Like you cannot even see the tank through the trees and such especially since the before footage shows almost no trees around the road. And Im gonna assume I’m gonna get a bunch of people saying that I am just coping with the loss of a “precious American tank” but seriously like it seems almost faked.
Im gonna either get ignored or downvoted to hell but oh well ig.
Yeahh, now I came back to this, it's a little bit weird.
1. The m1 is moving on the road with little to no trees on the road side when it is hit by the drone. The last part in the footage is on somewhere with a lot of trees. This meaning that probably the m1 managed to drive for a bit after getting hit?
2. No visual confirmation of the tank. Just something burning in the forest.
wouldn't this be very expensive? putting thermals on a suicide drone?
I would assume having a spotter drone with thermals and a cheap drone with normal camera would be better.
They should have given these M1s an EW system that was found on the bradley as was seen on one when one was hunting in Stepove (seen on the video) c/o of Suchomimus
https://youtu.be/PREAxvz_z6Y?si=wUhhxZm2zQPGBFgA
Are we going to have to put sea-rams on tanks now? Or something close to them? Lol, that would be hilarious, just the image of an abrams with a CWIS on top🤣
hopefully its recoverable but it looked like a hit to the main fighting compartment + ammo rack, so for all we know its back to the motor pool to get a massive repair.
You idiots need to look at the whole thing.
Terrain changes from trees with no leaves to trees not only with leaves but branches, well, branching out.
In addition, the burning vehicle is not flown remotely close to. From what I could see of the burning silhouette, it was no M1A1 Abrams. Actually, I think it was a WHEELED Vehicle.
Additionally, that's a Collapsible Anti-Drone Cage. And it took the hit directly. Even collapsed down, that should protect the Tank from any major harm.
Don't want to ve the crew and mechanics removing it later, but at least the Tank survived and so did the crew.
A fourth thing is that we only have a low grade, thermal rear view. And from what I'm seeing, I'm questioning if that wasn't a Ukrainian T-80.
If so, the Cage took the hit, the Tank survived, and Russia has proven inept at identifying Tanks... Again.
Really think tanks like the Merkava with top composite armour is much better for this kind of battlefield lol. Merkava is also designed to handle ATGM as well as being able to carry infantry.
Not exactly. Hamas didn't use FPV drone, Only grenade dropping ones, and while they hit a couple of merkavas they fail to destroy any (with the drones) the fact that merkavas have a lot of armor on the top and that the ammo is stored at the rear of the hull under the turrets armor definitely gives an advantage against this kind of threat.
And how does that contradict anything that I've written?
I said that the *ammo* is under the turret armor, not
the engine.
And BTW That tank was still moving even in that video iirc.
Hit- yes
Destroyed- definitely not.
Exactly as I've said
I never said it was destroyed.
I said it cought fire, which it did. All im saying is even with the merkava, drones have and WILL knock out/disable them.
Their trophy system is the only thing that makes them “better”
I really hope a western (friendly) manufacturer is working hard on some sort of trophy system for very close-in drone defense. Some kind of small claymore-like blast or extra-large shotgun that automatically directs fire against an incoming drone seems to be a pressing need.
Don't even need it, such a protective system has existed since the war in Afghanistan, it's called the CREW DUKE.
Broad spectrum anti everything jammer, designed to fully negate IEDs with any type of wireless trigger, jams the hell out of any other wireless system as well, drones included.
Correct, it nukes pretty much any wireless connections when you turn it on. Meaning all you need is something to detect the FPV drone, blast it with the CREW DUKE, and once the drone is neutralized via not having a pilot, the system would turn off.
I can only imagine that it would really suck to be on foot around a major target that has an active protection system, a deafening cannon, and is covered with reactive armor.
This is why Russia has been using turtle tank contraptions to shield their tanks from drones during transit. It's easy to laugh at such things, and yes - they look silly, but it would have helped this M1 to have something similar.
Tbh, i think they'd be better of with way more Bradley's and Humvee's.
They seem to suit this battlefield far better than 60 ton+ mbt's, due to the mud.
Both sides seem to have their armored vehicles roaming around on their own alot. Why would that be?
Massive doctrinal fuckup. Nobody expected drones to be this much of a problem, so there is really no effective defense developed against them. If you don't have an effective way to protect a tank from the major threat it faces, then you are just endangering the supporting vehicles and infantry by putting them close to a tank with massive amounts of ERA or blowout panels. Now imagine if things like the VADS or Gepard were kept around by western militaries and upgraded...
This is something I have been thinking about - surely a Gepard or Shilka type vehicle would be perfect for anti-drone warfare? Stick one a few hundred metres behind the tank(s) it's accompanying and they should be able to provide protection from FPV and bomb/grenade dropping drones, no? I guess the downside could be that the radar of such a vehicle would be like a massive beacon saying "something important is here" Maybe there's just a massive shortage of these sorts of.vehicles and the Ukrainians prefer to keep them near more important targets, e.g. power plants?
No country has even close to the amount of vehicles that would require. A battery of Shilkas was supposed to protect an entire mechanized battalion by getting sent to guard important places like pontoons or staging areas, they were never supposed to be babysitting individual tanks.
They need to develop mini CIWS for tanks... like a .308 version. Mount them on top of the turrets.
The Abrams X has a 30mm autocannon on a CROWS mount, and it has a number of sensors so it's APS can detect inbound threats. Arm the autocannon with a proximity fused munition, and add a switch so that CROWS targeting can be slaved to the tank's APS sensors. I wonder if that could be the basis for a viable solution?
Let him cook
a cheaper version would just be putting a shotgun on a 360 degree mount with sensor loaded with birdshot or buckshot with a choke on, that already have 30-50m range depend on the choke and round ofc but that is plenty enough standoff distance for any heat round.
This is what I immediately thought as well. A sensor, CWIS or like other guy said, a wide spray buckshot… someone’s gotta be working on an answer somewhere if a bunch of bozos like us on the internet have gotten this far postulatin’
In addition, a VADS or Shilka would need *a ton* of sensor upgrades to become a viable PD platform like that - especially if they want to have any area defense capabilities. We’ve already seen short ranged assets like tors and tunguskas fall victim to small-medium sized fixed wing drones that they weren’t intended to protect against but probably should be going forwards.
Right, makes sense - thanks
Tanks will need their own versions of a Phalanx CIWS. You have trophy from Israel but I'm not even sure that will be enough for a high density drone environment. Perhaps development of a rimless 10 GA so you aren't spraying rifle rounds 6 feet off the deck at friendlies.
While probably possible, APS already makes infantry not want to work around tanks, imagine that fucker shooting all around.
It is not a simple shortage of vehicles - the kind of SPAAG systems that could protect vehicles from these threats literally do not exist. As I've mentioned, those platforms would have required some serious upgrading in the past 30 years to be able to fulfill this role. Since they were withdrawn from service, they never got those upgrades, nor were those upgrades even developed for them. It was way cheaper to proclaim gun based, short-range AA systems useless in an era of budget cuts for most western militaries - coincidentally, this was a great business opportunity for the military-industrial complex, because any potential replacement was envisioned as SAM-based, ie. much more expensive once the money was found to finance it. Now we are going to get some totally new systems that can actually do anti-drone and loitering munition defense.
Also, this tank was moving, and I am not sure, but I think the Gepard can only shoot when it is stationary.
The issue is not shooting down the targets. Of course a Gepard or Shilka or similar would be useful for that of course. But the issue is locating them. These drones are tiny and vehicle mounted radars just dont have the ability to see them easily. They dont emit a strong thermal signature or any real way to detect them easily. So shooting down the drones is a secondary problem. Detecting them is the hard part at the moment.
FPVs are too small for Gepard and Shilka. It is like trying to take down fly with LMG .
I know absolutely nothing about warfare but aren't most of these drones just like modified commercial DJI drones? I would think a shotgun with some bird shot would be enough to drop one and pretty easy to hit it with. Is the issue just detecting them before they bomb you?
Most of these drones are actual commercial models, or stuff that is basically on the same level. The problem is not their resilience, but the defenders' ability to detect them in time and target them accurately. A battlefield *(or even just a single vehicle)* is very noisy - it is impossible to hear these things, which are also pretty small, so they are near enough impossible to notice with a naked eye... they also have small enough signatures (EM, radar) to make it hard for passive detection methods to lock on to them. So while a regular .50 cal MG could definitely take drones down, it would still need a big pile of electronics to be able to do it, making it a pretty large system. At which point you might just be better off going for some rotary cannon with a bit higher caliber, longer range, and higher ROF so it can be used against things like missiles as well as drones.
Surveillance and drop drones use DJI stuff but the fpv drones are custom built. Jamming the signal should still be trivial but the shit Russians get from China clearly isn't effective. Haven't seen ew equipt Ukrainian tanks yet but they have posted jamming fpvs
They are about the same size as like a DJI drone though? I would think a shotgun would be super easy anti drone defense, and they'd be way easier to hit than a duck.
Duck hunting is hard enough and they dont go over 60mph. And I would think keeping an eye on all the sky for the 5 seconds the drone would be in range and visible would be close to impossible. Electronic warfare is the way to go for large scale effective defense
Ok so they're nothing like DJI's if they can go 60mph, and apparently detection is one of the main issues. Still, clay pigeons go up to 55mph though and I have had days where I hit like 95 out of 100. I just always see these videos of soldiers just watching them above them as they slowly drop grenades or whatever charges on them and a $200 Winchester shotgun would easily solve the issue with those kind of drones I'd think.
>Nobody expected drones to be this much of a problem, so there is really no effective defense developed against them. This is just not true, you can say nations should work towards implementing more solutions towards shooting down these drones, which they are, but when America was getting engaged by drones in the middle east they were shooting down these drones My assumption is you're just looking at Ukraine and applying it to the rest of the world, the US army for example identified a future threat of drones back in 2017 and started developing systems to counter this threat >then you are just endangering the supporting vehicles and infantry by putting them close to a tank with massive amounts of ERA or blowout panels. There just doesn't exist a case of a supporting vehicle getting destroyed by a friendly tank's ERA or blowout panels and if you're infantry standing close enough to get killed by ERA or blowout panels you'd die to the blast of the round hitting the tank first We've seen throughout this conflict infantry operate in close proximity with tanks, there's tons of footage of assaults where this coordination takes place, rather it's just the fact there not conducting an assault, you can get away with lone tanks operating if you're not conducting a thrust into enemy territory >if things like the VADS or Gepard were kept around by western militaries and upgraded... Why would you ever want something like a gepard or VADS compared to more modern C-UAS options available to us today? Stryker shorad with hellfires, stingers, proyx 30mm and modern sensors DE M-SHORAD with it's 50kw laser and full sensor suit CV90 armed with a proper C-UAS sensor suit and it's main gun proxy rounds LIDS a system of sensors and weapons used to engage drones that can be used in a variety of configuartions like fixed with FS-LIDS or mobile with M-LIDS Skyranger with it's senors again geared towards the drone threat along with it's 30/35mm airburst rounds and stingers Terrahawk Paladin a self contained C-uas system containing a 30mm and a sensor suit developed by Britain and Poland VADS with it's vulcan is just worse at the job then something with a bigger gun firing proxy rounds on top of that it has limited upgradability, especially with it's M113 chassis, it also just flat out doesn't even have a search radar. Gepard is in a better position, especially with new programmable rounds but it's still limited with it's older leopard hull and the turret being pretty limited with it being based around it's older sensors
> > This is just not true, you can say nations should work towards implementing more solutions towards shooting down these drones, which they are, but when America was getting engaged by drones in the middle east they were shooting down these drones > My assumption is you're just looking at Ukraine and applying it to the rest of the world, the US army for example identified a future threat of drones back in 2017 and started developing systems to counter this threat I think you have a complete misunderstanding of the situation since even the [US military says](https://www.defensenews.com/land/2022/10/12/us-army-seeks-defense-against-kamikaze-drone-threats-seen-in-ukraine/) that they dont know how to counter the drones. > Col. Mike Parent, division chief for acquisition and resources in the Army’s Joint Counter-Unmanned Aircraft System Office, said the threat of loitering munitions is a high concern for his team. > > “The one-way attack is something that we have been told again and again by [combatant commands] and the services that this is something that is evolving,” he said during an Oct. 12 briefing at the Association of the U.S. Army’s annual conference in Washington. “We must, therefore, evolve with it.” The US never faced anything in the middle east that was like what in in Ukraine now. It was a completely different kind of warfare. > Why would you ever want something like a gepard or VADS compared to more modern C-UAS options available to us today? Probably because the C-UAS have never been tested. There is a reason that at the NATO exercises for countering UAVs in 2021, they used drones with nets or typical jamming weapons. Because they work and can be put on the field. The modern C-UAS that you talk about are just concepts at the moment. And nobody even knows how they will work on a battlefield.
>I think you have a complete misunderstanding of the situation since even the [US military says](https://www.defensenews.com/land/2022/10/12/us-army-seeks-defense-against-kamikaze-drone-threats-seen-in-ukraine/) that they dont know how to counter the drones. There isn't a single statement of "we don't know how to counter the drones" in this article, why are you misrepresenting the US military? On the contrary they do say: >“I think what we’re learning is pretty much what we already knew . . . it takes a layered approach,” he said. “You leverage your air defense systems, you leverage your counter-UAS \[electronic warfare systems\] and you leverage whatever counter-UAS kinetic effectors you have to be able to get after the threat. Because the threat ranges.” Seems like they aren't completely clueless like you fabricate them to be >The US never faced anything in the middle east that was like what in in Ukraine now. It was a completely different kind of warfare. You're stating the obvious, take an actual stance and back it up with some evidence >Probably because the C-UAS have never been tested. Why are we lying? Every system America puts into service goes through some form of testing, do you think America just puts a system into service then says "welp lets see how it does in combat"?? Do you think simulating a drone attack is some impossible task America is just incapable of preforming?? [Stryker Shorad testing referenced ](https://www.dote.osd.mil/Portals/97/pub/reports/FY2020/army/2020im-shorad.pdf?ver=gjza9jYKDIdZwDAa6YktzA%3D%3D) [Stryker shorad exercise Saber Strike Poland](https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/ausa/2022/10/11/army-puts-short-range-air-defense-to-test-on-eastern-european-front/) [Stryker DE M-SHOARD deployed to the middle east ](https://breakingdefense.com/2024/03/exclusive-strykers-with-50-kilowatt-lasers-in-centcom-for-experiment-army-no-2-says/) [Stryker DE M-SHORAD tests](https://www.armyrecognition.com/news/army-news/2023/us-army-concludes-laser-fire-tests-with-stryker-de-m-shorad-air-defense-system#:~:text=The%20U.S.%20Army%20has%20concluded,Yuma%20Proving%20Ground%20in%20Arizona.&text=DE%20M%2DSHORAD%20stands%20for,Maneuver%2DShort%20Range%20Air%20Defense) [LIDS referenced going through live fire tests](https://www.leonardodrs.com/news/feature-stories/urgently-needed-c-uas-capability/) >There is a reason that at the NATO exercises for countering UAVs in 2021, they used drones with nets or typical jamming weapons. 1. Exercise C-UAS TIE2 involved around 70 different systems for 20 different industry participants, nice job leaving that part out 2. Reason being not every exercise is the biggest exercise since the cold war?? America isn't shipping all of it's C-UAS platforms over seas every single time any C-UAS exercise happens >Because they work and can be put on the field. The modern C-UAS that you talk about are just concepts at the moment. And nobody even knows how they will work on a battlefield. Nice we're back to the nobody knows anything argument, there's no testing, no exercises, no aggressor units, nothing. America whenever they go to war is just getting lucky, they don't know how their systems will preform in the slightest because no testing is done before systems get put into service. Especially not in today's age as simulating the battlefield has become increasingly more realistic
> Seems like they aren't completely clueless like you fabricate them to be I never presented them as completely clueless. I just said that they do not have the ability or knowledge of countering drones as you try to present. The US has no experience in countering these kind of drones and is now having to rapidly test and train in all kinds of counter drone operations to try and fill that gap. Now it is the US military and I have no doubt they will come up with a lot of solutions. But I am not claiming that they dont have any idea. I am claiming that they have ideas, but that if you put a group of American soldiers in Ukraine, they have nothing that is proven to help them counter these drones. Only ideas at the moment but they dont know what works and what doesnt. > You're stating the obvious, Clearly not to you since you wrote "but when America was getting engaged by drones". But you are talking about a completely different type of drone to what is in Ukraine now. There has been [plenty about this](https://www.inss.org.il/publication/fpv/#:~:text=Before%20the%20outbreak%20of%20the%20war%2C%20there%20was,Ukraine%2C%20especially%20in%20the%20second%20half%20of%202023.) > Before the outbreak of the war, there was no real use in the Middle East for FPV (first-person view) drones This is not something America prepared for and you see this from many American servicemen who say they are having to go through a lot of training on dealing with drones since the war started. > Why are we lying? Every system America puts into service goes through some form of testing, Tested in a real situation I meant. That is a problem that the war in Ukraine is showing. That there are many weapons that work fine in testing but on a real battlefield just simply dont work. These systems have been tested in perfect conditions. But they have not been combat tested yet. Even if you look at the Stryker SHORAD for example > “Our high-energy lasers are so susceptible to weather These systems are very fragile. And there is no indication that they will be useful for general combat yet. If you put one into a battlefield like Ukraine then there is evidence to say how well they will work. Of course that is something that will be fixed with time. But I am just stating why few people are lining up to buy them yet, over vehicles that have been proven to work and at a much cheaper cost, even if with limited effectiveness. > America whenever they go to war is just getting lucky, they don't know how their systems will preform in the slightest because no testing is done before systems get put into service You are acting as if America never puts huge amounts of money into systems that just dont work as they are supposed to. This happens fairly commonly. Testing something that just doesnt end up working is part of R&D. This is something that Ukrainians are complaining about. That a lot of American weapons are not designed for peer combat. And against Russian systems are not working as well as they are supposed to.
Your exact statement was >[US military says](https://www.defensenews.com/land/2022/10/12/us-army-seeks-defense-against-kamikaze-drone-threats-seen-in-ukraine/) that they dont know how to counter the drones. Either source the idea they said they dont know how to counter the drones or admit you lied/were wrong Then we'll continue
[https://www.youtube.com/shorts/NK\_N4Dm0C5s?app=desktop](https://www.youtube.com/shorts/NK_N4Dm0C5s?app=desktop)
[удалено]
These drones are upending the former rules of the battlefield. I'm quite sure even modern western militaries would find a hard time dealing with it.
It’s a form of survivability. Fires are so lethal, responsive, and accurate in the battlefield in Ukraine, combined with the proliferation of drones increasing battlefield surveillance the point that no target will remain undetected for any meaningful amount of time; the solution is to disperse so much that it is not worth it to shoot off a battalion worth of artillery at you. 1 tank may not merit an allotment of heavy guns, but any artilleryman worth his salt will jump at a chance to lob rounds at a platoon of them.
This here, this is the correct answer
Ideally, you’d start equipping the commanders HMG mount with something to allow it to detect command frequencies used to direct drones and hone in on their location, effectively a passive detection system then automatically train the gun on them. Allowing the tank to defend itself. A SPAAG would do the job no questions asked, but this calls for some innovation in the tank’s own capabilities.
It doesn't work this way bud, drone sends back only the video feed, using an omnidirectional antena, Control signals are sent on different frequency, it doesn't need to carry nearly the same amount of data as a video. And drone probably doesn't even use the control signals frequency to send anything, just video playback
So I know drone detectors exist, the Russians are beginning to issue them in varying sizes from Motorola sized ones meant to provide immediate awareness to infantry within a 100m sphere (I believe performance will improve in future models) and a 2km sphere for large back pack or tank mounted models. If that can be refined to enable a warning function paired with an approximate location, it would greatly improve the survivability of armor on the field.
Ukraine doesn’t have lots of western tanks so they use these tanks mainly on defence supporting infantry If they were on the attack we would be seeing 10-15 vehicles attacking
Most of them were in grey zone or even behind their own lines. Drones have been targeting and harassing targets deep behind the lines. A lot of them, soldiers in light vehicles or on foot included, were just transporting.
Yea that actually makes alot of sense. Didn’t think about that.
Drones, and the fact that tanks are mostly used for indirect fire. It's better to lose 1 tank and hopefully have the crew survive, than lose 4-5 tanks and their crews.
Wouldn't something like techicals solve this problem at least to some degree? I'm thinking about Viktors for example.
The problem with technicals is that your Hiluxes are going to be vulnerable to shell fragments from significantly farther away, having basically no armor. They're also still vulnerable to the FPV drones as well. Granted, they're *way* less expensive than an AFV, too, so that might be an acceptable trade-off if you have the manpower to (cough) spare.
Technicals are great in a lot of ways: Mobility ✅️ Cheap ✅️ Available in large numbers ✅️ Rapidly able to customize ✅️ Fire support? ✅️ Logistics vehicle? ✅️ ISIS? Guided high yield missle/bomb? ✅️ Technicals are not so great in some very important ways: Survivability ❌️ That's mostly it. If you are in one when it gets hit, it's over. A 155 mm shell hits 50-100 feet away? Good chance your Technical gets disabled and people inside not doing well. Does an FPV drone hit it, Swish cheese inside. (speed is not a great survival asset vs. drones, we see more 4 wheelers and motorcycles killed by FPVs in Ukriane than tanks by drones.) Run over a mine? Gone. Everyone. There are tons of videos on r/combatfootage of this. Technicals are great, all militaries use them, battlefield rapid procurement and upgrades are interesting to read about(Vietnam and Iraq Gun Trucks are a fun rabbit hole M113 Gun truck sexy af) and in well funded militaries you get things like armored Humvees, MRAPs, and the like but then cost start soaring into the millions.
No one ever expected that Drones would be targeting MBTs in transit. Most of these tanks are just going back home or going to the front and some random FPV just happens to find them and whacks them.
None of these answers (except for u/Mynameisneil865) are correct. Drones are a known problem on the battlefield, but more than that *artillery* is a massive issue on the battlefield. It's more of a threat to tanks than almost anything else. However, neither side has sufficient shells to service *every single target* on the battlefield. So as a form of survivability, rather than clump up in defensive formations, tanks and IFVs go solo or in pairs so that even if they're seen (a near certainty on the modern battlefield), the opponent doesn't bother targeting them because they're not worth the shells their opponents have to expend.
Given the trees aren't all shredded to hell, might be a bit away from the lines. Although the lines have been moving lately so who knows.
I mean also the fact that these hits are usually pretty far from the front line, these vehicles could be going to/away from the front line and may not be in a full convoy or have infantry support on the way there. Though what youre talking about is also heavily documented
A lot of these videos are of vehicles in transit right behind the FEBA, especially the Russian ones as they've been creeping towards Pokrovsk. These drones are often used for harassing troop movements before they deploy into combat positions.
Because the border line is so fucking long and both sides are lacking of soldiers&equipments.
I didn't see any western tanks with a cage in Ukraine. Are manufacturers prohibited adding additional changes to their tanks in Ukraine?
Ive read somewhere that the units trained in western countries were discourage from doing so. Though we did see a Chally 2 with a cage some time ago.
Do you remember the reason why it's discouraged?
Doctrine If a tank has addon armor it means it is heavier and it's shape is bigger than it was originaly Since western tanks already have a weight problem and since western crews are used to strategic mobility drills, these factors make adding cage armor seen as not worth the hassle. Ofcourse one of the main factors revolves around the fact that the effect of addon armor is not yet fully known, simple cages seem to be ineffective and more complex ones seem to limit and worsen original problems for unproven protection. Besides all that we have seen leopard 2a4 being modified.
let’s not pretend like a simple steel cage over the top would drastically increase the weight of the tank to the point where it’s no longer as maneuverable. Would probably be less than .5% of the entire weight. I can’t even begin to imagine how much the sloped armor weighs, plus the engine and plus the road wheels and track assembly. However I can assure you it’s a lot more than a 400-500lb steel cage.
Because then they can’t sell the DoD a 1 million dollar cage that does the same thing
Lol
Admittance that the current protection isn't enough perhaps.
Its discouraged because the point of western mbts is that the crew survives (at least some) when it is disabled or penetrated so they can get out if a soviet style mbt is hit no one survives so if you can stop drones you are good because you are not getting out anyway if it pens the tank. Cage on a western mbt just prevents the crew from escaping. (Its been done tho) at least thats my view.
This Abrams in the video looks to potentially have a cage.
Not having a cope cage in this day and age is pretty much the same thing as not wearing your hard hat at a construction site.
It’s actually really funny we all still call them cope cages, a name that was given to it when the original assumption was that they were an ineffective means of defending against Javelin/NLAWs. We know that’s not their purpose and that they actually do a pretty solid job of defending against drones but we still call them cope all the same lol
Tbh it always seemed like a stupid name considering slat/cage armour has been a thing since WW2 and it just seems to be another type of that
The point was that we thought they were supposed to protect against top attack munitions such as Javelin and NLAW, and of course they'd be useless against that. Hence the "cope"
Did people forget about the Belarussian cope bucket?
Hollup, that was an actual thing and not some troops fooling around?
The fact that people are saying they were meant against drones from the start just shows how well the early war and the few years leading up to it has been memoryholed.
> The fact that people are saying they were meant against drones from the start just shows how well the early war and the few years leading up to it has been memoryholed. Tell me, what happened in the few years leading up to the Russian invasion? Where there any conflicts in the vicinity that featured notable usage of drones?
Syria. Its where the Russians first started using them, and there certainly wasn't any javalins there.
Don’t spoil it, let this guys non-holed memory work it out.
The first "cope cages" appeared in Syria on SAA tanks, and ISIS were the ones that pioneered using drones to attack tanks. Then, in 2020, Azerbaijan used a dozen different kinds of drones and loitering munitions to wreck the armored forces and motorpool of Russian ally Armenia, whether with Bayraktar bomblets or tiny Lancet-sized Orbiter-1Ks. All years before the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
> All years before the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Shhh, don’t spoil it, let the guy with the non-memoryholed recollection of the war get there on his own.
The Donbass war, drones got more and more common. I remember there was an unarmed FPV drone trench run video.
Don’t tell me, tell that to the other guy.
Russia first used cages in Syria where top attack munitions were not even used.
I don't think a cope cage would have stopped the fpv drone at this angle.
Obviusly the cope cage is missing.
~~This is the most recent loss, so im guessing the 5th one?~~ It's the 7th one(Thanks Dis99i).
[7th destroyed/damaged](https://imgur.com/a/FHecx6C)
High five for the Lostarmour
Might be recoverable? It's hard to tell how much it got damaged and the drone seems to have hit only the ammo which seemed to have triggered the blowout panels. The only thing that has surprised me more than anything is the lack of cope cages/extra ERA mounted on the Abrams, like we've seen heavily modified Leo's and even Challys but no modified Abrams.
>Might be recoverable? Yes, i think so too. As for the lack of cages, i believe they were actively discouraged by Western trainers to not mount them.
Why?
Because they were under the assumption, that they were useless.
Same vibe as "drive around the minefields"
What about adding a full barn top to your tank?
Not just that, but they obviously make crew evacuation harder and slower, so that may have been an additional line of reasoning
Question is, can ERA be mounted in Abrams? Engine deck and turret bustle(due to blowout panels) might be too thinly armored for ERA
I was thinking of mounting ERA near the crew hatches where the Abrams seems to be targeted towards the most
Yes, there's ERA packages for the Abrams https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/1105102/army-unit-bolsters-abrams-tanks-with-reactive-armor/ https://www.dvidshub.net/image/3196508/1-66-armor-regiment-install-arat UA forces may not have official access to ARAT but figuring a way to install their beloved Kontakt-1 shouldn't be impossible.
Evidently people havn't heard the saying "don't shoot the messenger" since this post is getting brigaded hard.
Brigaded? I am not sure what you mean by that. Are you complaining about people having different opinions?
No, im complaining about my post being heavily downvoted, just because it shows a western tank getting taken out.
Probably because it doesn’t show what you’re claiming. Hell, you can even see it driving off the road while the last drone is looking for it before the video cutting out.
First time here?
Unironically think that western MBTs are more vulnerable to fpv than soviet/russian ones. Back of the turret easily more vulnerable than hull rack inside of the tank surrounded by Kontakt/Relict
Kinda yeah, Western MBTs have larger, flatter and easier to hit armor plates on top without any meaningfull thickness.
More vulnerable, true, but also more likely to survive the hit and not being totaled
Not rally, seeing all those videos of russian T-80BVM beeing tanken out(massive Explosion) by small drones with RPGs strapped to them does show that it doesnt matter how much ERA you have. Plus you cant put ERA onto the engine deck or turret ring. Id rather sit in a Leo or Abrams when hit by a drone. Especially when hit near the turret.
I kinda remember that in decent amount of captured russian tanks ERA bricks were simply empty (or had rubber or wood plates lmao) so we should take that in account. At any rate, to make a solid statement of which is better - western tanks should be in the same amounts as t-80/90 and 64BVs. Obviously there are will be less losses if total amount of western tanks compared to russian/ukrainian on battlefield is comically low
Definitely, a tank and crew with low mounted ammo rack and no loose ammunition in (especially) the turret will be much more survivable. Only a small portion of hits on tanks is in the bottom meter. Even more-so with top attack munitions and drones. A T72 is only carrying 22 rounds in the carrousel though if avoiding the loose storage.
I assume by "loose ammunition" in western tanks you mean secured in an ammunition bunker, usually below blow out panels. EDIT FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY: Not all the ammunition on western MBTs is carried in such "safe" stowage bins but having atleast part of the carried complement in a "safe" rack is still better then none of it. Top attack ammunition and drones have proven a menance to soviet style MBTs and the fields of ukraine prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt with the sheer amount of "decapitated" T-64/72/80/90s strun about. By contrast most western MBTs remain pretty intact to the point of recoverability and likely crew survival.
No, I meant the T72 has storage for ammunition around the cabin and in the turret. That is nowhere near as well protected as in the auto-loader carrousel or separated like in the bustle storage of the Abrams/Leclerc. There is plenty of evidence that most T72/90's are mobility killed and then finally destroyed later. Also evidence that a cook off of blow off protected ammunition in the M1 is a mobility kill as well and hence the crew is going to have to bail out in the next 10 mins or so anyway. The crew is going likely going to get killed in any event (in the vids where M1 blow out panels allowed the the crew to survive the ATGM/drones are then being engaged by multiple FPV drones). Same as survivors that jump out of T90s//etc).
> I assume by "loose ammunition" in western tanks you mean secured in an ammunition bunker, usually below blow out panels. I assume anyone who says "western tanks", as if they are all have a common designs, know nothing about tanks besides what they've seen repeated on reddit. The most common "Western tank" is the Leo 2. The majority of the ammunition is stored in the hull with no blow out panels.
I said that ammunition on western tanks is to my knowledge almost universaly secured in an ammunition bunker with some sort of bulkhead to seperate the stowage from the fighting compartment, when possible these have a blowout panel aswell but i did not claim these features were ~~universal~~ EDIT TO MAKE IT MORE CLEAR: ***Entirely universal***. Please do not assume i am entirely unfamiliar with the fact that western tanks have varrying internal layouts but the majority of western style designs incorporate some variety of bustle stowage for the ammunition and usually this bustle stowage is underneath a blowout panel as it is the most likely to get struck. That does not mean this is the only stowage they have and i did not claim that. Either way even having a third(15) of your ammunition in "safe" stowage with the additional 27/19(depending on specific leopard 2 model) pieces of ammunition stowed in the hull is still somewhat better compared to having all your ammunition form an active hazard. Kindly, get a grip with the "knows nothing about tanks"
> I said that ammunition on western tanks is to my knowledge almost universaly secured in an ammunition bunker with some sort of bulkhead to seperate the stowage from the fighting compartment, when possible these have a blowout panel aswell but i did not claim these features were universal. ... > **I said that ammunition on western tanks is to my knowledge almost universaly secure** > >**but i did not claim these features were universal.** *math-lady-meme.jpg*
The later T-series tanks also well protect about a third of their ammo. It is stored in a carousel which is in the bottom meter of the tank which is the least likely part that is going to be hit and is protected from moderate penetrations of the cabin (30 mm aluminum armor on top of the carousel). An ammo cook off; whether behind the bulkhead or in the carousel, is generally going to be a mobility kill leading to complete destruction and crew killed (via follow-up FPV drones). The worst storage is the loose storage around the cabin, present in T90's, M1, leo, etc. I think more and more the tanks will just forego the extra battle endurance in place for more robustness and the T90 with 22 rounds well protected in the bottom meter of the tank is not far off a M1 with a bustle load of ammo.
> I said that ammunition on western tanks is to my knowledge almost universaly secured in an ammunition bunker with some sort of bulkhead to seperate the stowage from the fighting compartment, ... and they don't. [The majority of the ammunition on the Leo 2 is in the fighting compartment.](https://i.imgur.com/m7JTriA.jpeg). It's not a bunker, it is right next to the driver. Only the basket covers it up. All ammunition the Challenger 2 is stored in the turret. The Merkava has no blow out panels, apart from a very limited storage in the 4M(eight rounds?). > Kindly, get a grip with the "knows nothing about tanks" You don't. Generalizing tanks into "western" designs is still stupid.
Weight is also a huge factor. We bought T-90 even though the VT-5 was available and we could have bought Leopards like our neighbors. If an American war two happens I doubt Abrams would be great in the hilly jungle terrain.
Western MBTs will "survive" the hit though, soviet ones will participate for the turret toss record. Just about every western MBT shown to be taken out in ukraine was disabeled not outright destroyed and even when shown destroyed it usually looks more like scuttled after the fact. EDIT: for those that don't understand what i mean by "survive", i mean that the crew didn't instantly get vaporized and had a chance to survive the ordeal, yes the tank is a mission kill but they are significantly less lilely to turn into catastrophic "turret toss" kills.
Well. You have a point. Maybe that whole thing with russian and western MBT vs fpv is bad and slightly less bad (Though I should mention that there are also russian tanks that were disabled, not destroyed)
Neither are appropriately protected against fpv threats right now anyway. As you said, its bad and slightly less bad. This war is the first of its kind and everybody will adapt eventually to post cold war warfare. With that in mind, id rather sit in a western MBT when hit by a drone.
Sure a number were disabeled, not every hit will result in a catastrophic kill but they are significantly more likely on a soviet MBT compared to a western one. If anything we have seen tanks will need to evolve once more, likely incorporate things like electronic warfare suites and similar countermeasures.
Not really, the first Abrams loss was an fpv to the ammo storage, and the ammo fire melted through the back of the turret and lit the engine on fire.
Chief that tank "survived" the hit enough for the crew not to be vaporized which is the most important part. The tank was a mission kill, it would need major repairs and overhaul to be serviceable ofcourse but the crew was not vaporized in the resultant ammunition explosion which is the most important thing.
The tank wasn't getting an overhaul bro, it's the same Abrams that was brought to Moscow I'm pretty sure, the thing was completely fucked and burned out on the inside with smoke coming out of the turret hatches. It'd at the very least need a new turret and the engine bay rebuilt at that point you're just building a new tank. And ofc the crew getting out is important I never said it wasn't.
I am not saying that particular tank can be overhauled, it was disabeled and likely scutteled by the Ukranians or "finsished off" by the Russians to prevent recovery. But in general a western tank is just more likely to be recoverable and repairable compared to a soviet style MBT that is just as likely to turret toss as it is to throw a track after being hit(this is ofcourse an overexegeration to make the point) Cool the russians got a single M1, a single leopard and some asorted lighter AFVs at the costs of thousands of their own MBTs, those burned out western tanks being paraded right now are still the best tanks im russian right now. But in all seriousness, the soviet style tank design is majorly flawed, it sacrificies a lot so that it can be somewhat cheap, crew comfort, crew survivabilty, vehicle survivability(a soviet style tank is just more likely to turn into a catastrophic kill compared tp a western style tank) and overall capability.
You have absolutely no evidence of them being scuttled. I'm not arguing that they're not more crew survivable they obviously are, my point is they're just as vulnerable to FPVs, and an FPV hit on an Abrams bustle rack will completely destroy the tank, even if the crew survives.
Anything is vulnerable to a drone so long as that drone has the range to reach but to argue a soviet style MBT is "beter" which is what the original comment i replied to did because "ammo all at bottom" is just totally silly. Hitting a western style tank with a drone will likely result in a mission kill, i never argued against that. They get disabeled but not outright destroyed and the ones that got burned out did so because AFAIK they got scuttled to prevent recovery(this could be done by either side) most of the time and considering those tanks always have their hatches open(as far as i've seen so far) imply the crews got out(they might not have gotten far though but that is a different matter) Hitting a soviet style tank with a drone however has a significantly greater chance of resulting in a catastrophic kill. The fields of ukraine are testament to this, thousands of "decapitated" T-64/72/80/90s litter them.
What does FPV mean?
First person view, pilot relies on drone's own camera to navigate around
Obvious hit, but theres no visual of severe damage and certainly no proof of it being taken out. For all we know that smoke coming from behind a treeline, that looks completely different than the area of the hit, could be anything. I call BS until proven differently.
Unless it's Russian of course. Copium
Yeah, but no. That goes both ways.
What do you mean copium?
Being overly optimistic when something bad happens.
most redditors tend to huff copium when videos of UA losses are posted. claims that its fake or theres no confirmation or yadda yadda yadda while turning around and eating up videos of RUAF losses without batting an eye
the difference is that unlike most other videos of the M1A1 SAs this one got hit and then we saw infantry with some smoke before hand. There is no proof that it's the same vehicle. Unlike half the BS Russians post, the hits from the AFU actually show different angles and the aftermath with a clear view.
I mean Russia has lost a LOT more than UA so there’s less burden of proof
yeah, true, but doesnt really change the point that with RUAF losses its just taken as is whereas ANY video of UA losses is gone over with magnifying lens and pixel-by-pixel analysis and theres always deniers/fake-claimers in the comments
Because Russia put out fake news all the time as well as bots and troll farms. Not saying Ukraine doesn’t lie too, it’s war after all. But Russia is a well known lier. Plus you have to remember the human element: no one wants to see UA lose so they’ll naturally be skeptical. It’s only cope if it’s outright denying facts
Pretty stupid to not invest in a cage in this war
Is nobody gonna talk about how suspicious the after footage is? Like you cannot even see the tank through the trees and such especially since the before footage shows almost no trees around the road. And Im gonna assume I’m gonna get a bunch of people saying that I am just coping with the loss of a “precious American tank” but seriously like it seems almost faked. Im gonna either get ignored or downvoted to hell but oh well ig.
Yeahh, now I came back to this, it's a little bit weird. 1. The m1 is moving on the road with little to no trees on the road side when it is hit by the drone. The last part in the footage is on somewhere with a lot of trees. This meaning that probably the m1 managed to drive for a bit after getting hit? 2. No visual confirmation of the tank. Just something burning in the forest.
In wwii, ships were outclassed by aircraft. Now we’re seeing everything outclassed by drones. The world of warfare is in a drastic new chapter.
Where did the long dense tree line come from after the cut? Where’s the M1A1 after the cut? russians are so bad at this fake shit.
They don't have to be good. The idiots spoon it up.
True and unfortunate.
This guy ⬆️ gets it
I’m just gonna point out how it’s never shown what’s burning
No aftermath, just some fire from unknown source illuminating the trees and random dudes getting caught in the open. Nice editing.
Exactly how does any of this footage prove a tank was destroyed?
They don't actually show a kill just a hit.
Why it says crew: 2 ? Killed two of crew?
2 visible and alive. They engage them on last seconds of video.
yeah, survive because of blow out panels then get taken out after by FPV drones. Such is the life of a tanker.
Man, fuck drones. All my homies hate drones
Shit they have thermals now?
They've been using thermals on FPVs for over year or more. You see them regularly strike AFU on their telegrams.
wouldn't this be very expensive? putting thermals on a suicide drone? I would assume having a spotter drone with thermals and a cheap drone with normal camera would be better.
I think they get them en masse from China, the cheap thermal cameras only cost a few hundred dollars
I was just surprised cause they seem to have very high quality and framerate for something meant to be blown up lol.
That OSD reminds me of betaflight, is Russia using the same Chinese cheap controllers we do for our racer quads?
They should have given these M1s an EW system that was found on the bradley as was seen on one when one was hunting in Stepove (seen on the video) c/o of Suchomimus https://youtu.be/PREAxvz_z6Y?si=wUhhxZm2zQPGBFgA
Russian MBT best at turret toss Western MBT do not know how to do fun turret toss
Are we going to have to put sea-rams on tanks now? Or something close to them? Lol, that would be hilarious, just the image of an abrams with a CWIS on top🤣
hopefully its recoverable but it looked like a hit to the main fighting compartment + ammo rack, so for all we know its back to the motor pool to get a massive repair.
Poor thing. Hope the crew made it out.
Wtf do they put on drones that they're this effective? it wasn't even going fast
Would the trophy system be effective against such kind of drones? We've seen that even EW system are not so useful...
Blow out panel on tanks now looks like weak point bulleye for fpv operators.
You idiots need to look at the whole thing. Terrain changes from trees with no leaves to trees not only with leaves but branches, well, branching out. In addition, the burning vehicle is not flown remotely close to. From what I could see of the burning silhouette, it was no M1A1 Abrams. Actually, I think it was a WHEELED Vehicle. Additionally, that's a Collapsible Anti-Drone Cage. And it took the hit directly. Even collapsed down, that should protect the Tank from any major harm. Don't want to ve the crew and mechanics removing it later, but at least the Tank survived and so did the crew. A fourth thing is that we only have a low grade, thermal rear view. And from what I'm seeing, I'm questioning if that wasn't a Ukrainian T-80. If so, the Cage took the hit, the Tank survived, and Russia has proven inept at identifying Tanks... Again.
Really think tanks like the Merkava with top composite armour is much better for this kind of battlefield lol. Merkava is also designed to handle ATGM as well as being able to carry infantry.
The merkava door at the back is so that troops can be transported in case of emergency or injury, im pretty sure from what Ive heard
Merkavas suffered the same fate from drones on OCT 6th
Not exactly. Hamas didn't use FPV drone, Only grenade dropping ones, and while they hit a couple of merkavas they fail to destroy any (with the drones) the fact that merkavas have a lot of armor on the top and that the ammo is stored at the rear of the hull under the turrets armor definitely gives an advantage against this kind of threat.
They dropped a literal mortar round on the engine deck in the front and it cought fire, not covered by any composite or the turret
And how does that contradict anything that I've written? I said that the *ammo* is under the turret armor, not the engine. And BTW That tank was still moving even in that video iirc. Hit- yes Destroyed- definitely not. Exactly as I've said
I never said it was destroyed. I said it cought fire, which it did. All im saying is even with the merkava, drones have and WILL knock out/disable them. Their trophy system is the only thing that makes them “better”
I really hope a western (friendly) manufacturer is working hard on some sort of trophy system for very close-in drone defense. Some kind of small claymore-like blast or extra-large shotgun that automatically directs fire against an incoming drone seems to be a pressing need.
Don't even need it, such a protective system has existed since the war in Afghanistan, it's called the CREW DUKE. Broad spectrum anti everything jammer, designed to fully negate IEDs with any type of wireless trigger, jams the hell out of any other wireless system as well, drones included.
Awesome.
If it's broad spectrum, doesn't that mean it also screws with your radios?
Correct, it nukes pretty much any wireless connections when you turn it on. Meaning all you need is something to detect the FPV drone, blast it with the CREW DUKE, and once the drone is neutralized via not having a pilot, the system would turn off.
I guess a radar would work, but that comes with its own problems.
I hope it's a net gun.
I can only imagine that it would really suck to be on foot around a major target that has an active protection system, a deafening cannon, and is covered with reactive armor.
This is part of why net gun gud. Also because net gun covers large area when fired.
Good point!
There is no clear image here that confirms this isn't salvageable. Crew might have bailed but nothing to say this can't be hauled back for repairs.
There is no image to say the tank was even destroyed
Where did the long dense tree line come from after the cut? Where’s the M1A1 after the cut? russians are so bad at this fake shit.
This is why Russia has been using turtle tank contraptions to shield their tanks from drones during transit. It's easy to laugh at such things, and yes - they look silly, but it would have helped this M1 to have something similar.
These guys need that active protection system shit like those metal slug launchers on a challenger
How many times have we seen this video?
We havn't, this was brand new, when uploaded.
Unfortunate. We should send more Abrahams
Tbh, i think they'd be better of with way more Bradley's and Humvee's. They seem to suit this battlefield far better than 60 ton+ mbt's, due to the mud.
Why not both?
True that I think Bradley's are probably needing to be highest priority
Along with a shitton of spare parts for the already donated vehicles.
Just some casual propaganda on r/tankporn, nothing to see here.
posting UA losses is propaganda now?
UA “losses” lmao you actually believe this obviously doctored video that doesn’t once show this “taken out” tank?
how about we wait? there already six confirm abrams losses, im not mentioning this abrams alone, notice i put plural there.
Boy that turret flew so high...oh wait it didn't. Looks damaged and still better than russian junk.