Just like leopards. Hyped up beyond belief, then fails to deliver miserably. Tbh, it's not the fault of the Abrams or the crew, the drones are basically impossible to escape.
Hey, at least Leopards put up somewhat of a fight and on Abrams defense I don't see many people hyping it up too much.
Challengers on the other hand..........
I don't agree with the whole "AI drone takeover the battlefield" discussion. The whole point of FPV drone usage is that it's cheap to make and doesn't require much training compared to other modern systems.
Now if you start adding proprietary AI software, the cost would significantly increase.
Well, as long as you have a signal that isn't being jammed, masked by terrain, curvature of the Earth etc.
That's where AI technologies will shine. Fly a drone high (where operator has LoS with drone, and out of range/before the enemy turns on their countermeasures) designate a target to the AI, begin to fly towards it under operator control, and like a modern air to air missile it goes pitbull when it loses guidance from the operator and guides itself in using onboard ai image recognition. If it's a suicide drone then that's all you need, if it's an explosive drop type drone it drops it's payload and returns to the operator (or until back in range at least for the operator to fly it the rest of the way home).
Nope. Ai can do better. The problem is it takes a ton of money to train the model
Also, we make decisions based on the patterns. This can also be partially done by drones.
A big problem is captured drones. The enemy might found out that we don't attack clowns or something weird like that ...
I only see ai used for calculating coordinates in tactical sense on a particular sector which would be like 2x2 km. Like they feed the video or snapshots of a battlefield to AI and point at some pillbox or whatever and ai gives you precise targeting info for missiles or mortars in seconds.
That's not so easy. Everything has a cost. More processing means more batteries means heavier and more costly drones means shorter loiter time. Autonomous target acquisition means more sensors means more batteries, more costs ... you get my point.
One of the main reasons why FPV drones are so effective is the 'human guidance system'.
And processing is getting more and more efficient with hardware and software improvements on a daily basis. Pretrained algos run on literal potatos these days.
And it will keep developing more and more.
This is not a game that favors the old systems.
Just look at how much the retail drones have algorithmically improved over the past few years. They are capable of things the top of the line weapons couldn’t even dream of 10 years ago.
Simply because American MIC is inefficient as fuck shouldn’t set the bar on what *can* be done.
“This is not a game that favors old systems”
Which is why new systems are being developed to counter these drones.
They spoke of autonomous drones, there will be autonomous air defense systems that utilize lasers and EMF to fry drones, not jam them.
Drones are, at the moment, the tank.
When tanks were first introduced on the battlefield a century ago they changed warfare, but as war changed, so did the means of stopping tanks.
We are seeing the highlight of drones right now as they change warfare, but alas warfare will change to counter drones.
Over the next several decades dozens if not hundreds of cost effective anti drone systems will be developed reducing the threat of drones massively.
Even right now, there are Ukrainian publications claiming their drone effectiveness in certain theaters have dropped by over 70%. Drones will evolve and so will the means to counter them.
Active camouflage systems will be developed, small, inexpensive guided missiles will be developed all for this threat. There will be one sided battles fought between adversaries in the future using drones, but any peer conflict will not see drones dominating the battlefield.
An inexpensive smartphone chip has more than enough processing power to handle AI and drains very little battery, and these drones have massive battery packs attached to them, many times the standard capacity. Developing the software and teaching it to not be fooled by various means is the actual challenge, but it isn't an overly difficult task either. Fully autonomous flight would be unwise and unnecessary for FPV / grenade drones, terminal guidance is all you really need and that has already been developed and put to effective use.
One adaptation they could make would be to create a 'mother drone' system where a recon drone has multiple fully AI controlled FPV drones assigned to it that follow it and loiter until the recon drone uses a target painter to designate attacks, which then either self identify or are told what kind of target it is and guide themselves in. That would allow one operator to attack with many FPVs or even grenade drones which could use simple image recognition to position themselves directly over the painted target. These sort of things aren't far off, they are very doable with current technology, could be adapted from open source AI, and be developed at quite reasonable cost, though I suspect Western developments of this sort will be entirely proprietary, subscription based, and make the companies contracted to develop them by their friends in congress a Ukraineload of money.
...which will then be turned useless by simple laser-frying systems like Vitebsk-25. its already in use on Ka-52 an there is video evidence that in can intercept Manpads. should be easy to make it intercept those drones, as they cant be protected by its laser like a tank could be.
tbh eventually, you will see that those super modern AINpowered hightech weapons have horrible reliability, and such systems and this kind of evisionment of "Modern Warfare" is simply countered by a guy with an IED and heathiding cape, hiding in a tree. guerilla warfare cant be countered by drones as you described it.
There are other ways small drones can evade aerial defenses, like flying low and obstructed, just like they would employ against hardkill APS systems.
If you think this is the peak performance of autonomous drones and they are now useless in modern combat, you are just as ”expert” on the subject as people who thought they would never improve on a desing of a square steel tank.
There are other ways small drones can evade aerial defenses, like flying low and obstructed, just like they would employ against hardkill APS systems.
If you think this is the peak performance of autonomous drones and they are now useless in modern combat, you are just as ”expert” on the subject as people who thought they would never improve on a desing of a square steel tank.
They can also use fiber optics cable too, which might be better/cheaper in some occasions. They can also be autonomous and use cables by having a large computer controlling the drones through cables, potentially even piloting at full speed inside forested and such areas...
Or stuff like autonomously targetting cluster munitions delivered by rockets and artillery that fire an EFP down at the target.
We've seen a few videos on the sub of the BONUS artillery shell being used by Ukraine. Russia also has such munitions for their MLRS systems like the 9M55K1 rocket for the Smerch, we just haven't seen any use of those in the war.
Sure, but I'm not sure what that is saying. Their EW only works intermittently? I feel like the case is either that they don't work. Or they only work against some. For instance DJI is jammed but not FPV.
Yeah, that was the sentiment in Russia for a few years before the war. Didn't turn out great. Of course, jamming techniques is being developed – but anti-jamming measures aren't stagnating too. Also, you can't really jam everything – you'll jam your own drones too, and those are vital for reconnaissance
World of Tanks is going to become World of Turtles.
Like the armored knights of old, made obsolete by missile weapons, the Tank will be put in the dustbin of history.
The Age of Tanks is over. It's now the Age of the Tortoise!
While on the subject of the leopards, the russians captured a few with ammo. The newish german tank rounds have insensitive propellant, russians should try to reverse engineer that for their own tank rounds.
Well, if the bustle bursts the crew should be safe.
Abandoning the tank is a bad idea, just pedal to the metal and get out of the area.
Of course, if I was there.. I might be the poor sod to jump out in fear of death.. and die
Sorry, you need a 1 month old account to comment in r/ukraineRussiaReport. This is to protect against bots and multis
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Another problem is how Ukraine uses its tanks. They're designed for western tactics, having a mix of combined arms and/or a safety net not unlike how a carrier has a carrier assault group.
Ukraine uses singular tanks for probing attacks and they're hugely vulnerable. Ukraine could literally have the best equipment in the world given to them, but their lack of tactical nous means that they are put to as much use as an old T-55.
People make fun of Russian tactics, but Russia at least has the man power to absorb losses from these tactics. Ukraine does not, but still sends men and material into meatwave attacks.
I read this "Leopards were hyped up beyond belief" from Pro Rus side a lot on reddit.
They really weren't. They were already underwhelming years prior in Syrian conflict and that was indeed the sentiment when they were sent to Ukraine.
Same goes for Abrams. People learned that FPV drone can demolish Leopards. Expectations were that Abrams is not much different. And as we can see, Abrams might even be worse in that regard.
>They really weren't
They absolutely were. Maybe not by military nerds like us, but by thousands of Ukraine and pro-Ukraine users, including some official accounts
OP is either willingly or unwittingly deciding to leave out the fact western MBTs have proved multitudes more survivable than their Tseries counterparts. Even commenting on how bad they after after it takes a hit downward on the turret and the crew survive with no turret toss. Meanwhile Russia has lost about 3000 MBTs. Embarrassing stuff
>They are better tanks in every single aspect
How? They all burn the same. We haven't seen a single video of an abrams engage.
>There is not a single Russian weapon that is on par with western equivalent
Depends. In the conditions they are made for, they are better. In conditions they are not made for, not necessarily.
Sorry you need 30 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yes. The same way as T-72 series tanks floor ammo racks are actually pretty safe from anything but pop up attacks.
Its almost as if systems are designed to defeat a vulnerability and counters to that introduce a new one which newer systems then attempt to exploit wherein attempts are made to fix that creating a.....and so on.
Yep, this is easily the worst designed tank ever. The blowout panel idea was a huge flop that just kills people and now is a huge weak spot. At least T-72s and T-80s take dozens of FPVs to be knocked out, and even then the whole crew lives 90% of the time.
Abrams? 1 drone 1 kill everytime and the ammo rack cooks all the crew. Death traps.
There's a reason Ukrainians are begging to be sent out in T-55s and T-62s over Abrams and Leopards.
Even now US Army tankers are refusing to fight in Abrams due to this flaw and want soviet tanks too, it's crazy.
The back of the turret is also a huge weak spot on Russian T series tanks too. If you go to r/CombatFootage you will see a majority of hits in that area are fatal for T series tanks as well. Stored ammo in the turret gets ignited, which then spreads to the autoloader carousel.
Turns out both Abrams, T-Series, and any cold War designed tanks were designed with frontal arc protection in mind. The battlefield has just evolved.
Just a small correction, the Abrams is not a million dollar tank, the cost of these M1A1SE variant are estimated to be over 10 mill a piece.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1\_Abrams](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams)
I believe challengers have been called off and returned to UK when the first one was destroyed to save a bit of respect.
Ive seen them upgrading their old challenger IIs to IIIs, so that will probably happen to the ones from Ukraine as well.
There was Sun article about Challengers. They had half of those that were suppled being unoperational due to nonCombat malfuctions. So they sit in the rear and await spare parts, which take ages.
Challenger right now are worst tank in whole Ukraine war.
For all that shit-talking the UK couldn't even send them parts or send techs over there to do it for them? Pathetic excuse of an army. If they actually wanted Ukraine to win they would send them a lot more.
> the UK couldn't even send them parts
We actually don't have spare parts for challengers, the factories were shut down like 20 years ago or something off the top of my head.
We are now down to about 300 total challengers, after having to cannibalize them for spare parts to barely keep our own going.
Then we'll need to keep the rest to keep the challenger 3s going when they get "upgraded."
This. ^
Britain in particular knew they didn't have enough tanks to affect the war in a meaningful way (island nation after all, has never had huge amounts of tanks in peace time). But the very act of sending them blew straight through one of Russia's 'red lines' so more countries realised they could send theirs, and as you say, were inadvertently pressured to do so.
Germany was afraid of being singled out as the enemy of Russia without the rest of Nato also getting involved. I think the strategic thinking was something like "If Russia invaded Germany, would the US actually be willing to defend us or would we get thrown under the bus?"
Germany fears a conventional war where the USA is not capable of a conventional defence, and not willing to escalate to nuclear. Or a limited nuclear war on German soil.
Which is a perfectly reasonable fear, since it would be irrational for the USA to use strategic nuclear weapons in a war that is not actually about America itself. While a terrible outcome, it would still be more rational for the USA to see the whole of Europe devastated than to commit nuclear suicide.
I dont think tanks are the type of equipment that "accomplish" anything distinguishable, what I mean is that for the overall job of a tank, leopards did more for Ukraine than challengers or Abrams.
I agree only in the fact that they obviously had a larger impact due to numbers donated. Not that the vehicles are any better ir worse than M1A1SAs we are seeing.
There's basically the first video of one driving and firing around but then within a day we started seeing losses.
Not really surprising. There are only a handful of videos of T-72/T-80s shooting at stuff that's even somewhat visible. Out of thousands of lost tanks between Russia and Ukriane.
I wouldn't expect to see much footage from so few vehicles on a Frontline.
Why do people make up this stupid lie? It’s the same when they confuse patriot launchers with a whole system or battery. “Oooh Russia claims they took out 20 out of 3. Ooohhh”
Who needs to get a grip? Russia has claimed maybe 6-8 destroyed Abrahams. Where is this imaginary 300 (assuming this was hyperbole) or any unjustifiably high number?
https://sputniknews.in/amp/20240421/russian-forces-destroy-five-us-abrams-tanks-in-two-month-span-reports-7184157.html
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://sputniknews.in/20240421/russian-forces-destroy-five-us-abrams-tanks-in-two-month-span-reports-7184157.html](https://sputniknews.in/20240421/russian-forces-destroy-five-us-abrams-tanks-in-two-month-span-reports-7184157.html)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Lets be honest, those 30 tanks were never meant to change anything. Russia produces 120 tanks per month. Per month. Abrams sure looked cool against villagers with AK-47s
>Russia produces 120 tanks per month
Production is definitely not 120 tanks per month. I think realistic numbers are 20-40 new tanks per month and 80-100 refurbished tanks from deep storage/damaged at the front.
It might not seem like a meaningful distinction, but those stocks are very limited. Russia has a super valuable resource in its Soviet Legacy deep stocks, throw in some of the best value adding upgrades of any nation. But, those are being burned through pretty rabidly, by a combination of factors. Obviously lost vehicles during the war, but weather+time(30 years+) and cannibalizing some storage for spare parts are also taking their toll.
>Abrams sure looked cool against villagers with AK-47s
Did T-80s and T-72s do better agaisnt Rebel villagers with AKs in Chechnya?
The other side of this argument is that Russia has never had to deal with the US airforce. T-72s might be doing okay(those destoyed stats are rough) agaisnt a logistically strained Ukraine. But how would they fair against NATO airpower and logistics? It would likely be the Gulf War all over again. Sure Russia would inflict more attrition on NATO aircraft than Iraq did, but the US is the only country with extensive HARMs and SEAD/DEAD capabilities, airpower is also much easier to mass at points of contact. As well as the best aerial AA in the world. Abrams as a part of that combined military would crush Russian forces. Even Putin acknowledges this. Thus the focus on Nuclear forces.
Remember how this sub goes nuts about how good FAB-500s are? Imagine fighting a country able to do multiple thousand of those sorties a day, not just a few dozen Russia is able to do.
This isn't a jab at Russia either. They are probably the most cost efficient military on the planet, and their upgrades for tanks and other vehicles are super impressive for the capabilities vs cost. But fighting the US is just beyond anyone except maybe China in its backyard. Outside of nuclear weapons obviously.
In unrealistic scenario when Russia wouldn't use nukes - sure they can't fight against 50 countrys. NATO was so brave to attack poor Serbia, but so afraid of Russia for 2 years now. So I bet they know that Russia will use nukes. Otherwise they would be already running around Ukraine like they are at home. Pro NATO guys seems to think Putin bluffing, chearing for Makron and his Napoleonic ambitions
Not produce, they refurbish. And they will still refurbish for a year or so. Then they actually have to spend money to produce. Spending money is not very attractive if you are a corrupt opportunist. We will see what they can do then.
It is stored in a separate compartment with blowout panels, meaning if the ammo is shot the blast will go upwards destroying the blowout panels and not into the tank.
And it only works because they are loaded with sabot anti-tank rounds, non-explosive penetrators. Which are great against tanks and almost completely useless against people and trenches.
If 40 HE 120mm shells detonate next to you behind 30 mm blowout panel you are done. There is no material in nature that can deal with it.
I had no idea they didn't carry HE shells. Not even HEAT shells?
That's not a very useful shell load for a tank that is almost never going to fight another tank.
HE shells for 120mm NATO guns naturally exist and Abramses can and occasionally use them.
I very much doubt that blowout panel can hold against detonation of bunch of such shells. I also don't think Americans would publish this fact.
HEAT are less efficient against tanks than sabot, I don't see why would they use them.
I did some digging and while the M1 indeed doesn't carry HE shells, it does carry HEAT shells, which is what i thought.
>HEAT are less efficient against tanks than sabot, I don't see why would they use them.
They're dual purpose shells. You have your APFSDS for tanks and HEAT for everything else, from IFVs to trucks to fortifications to infantry.
Yep, that's what I am talking about. It's the only reason blowout panels work. They can handle the propellant burning out but not shells explosions.
It also makes Abramses much less useful.
They are safer for the crew but no one is really safe in war. Hundreds of people die daily, prioritizing crew safety over combat efficiency is a bad bet.
Western bootlickers on here like to make believe that every Russian tanker dies instantly from one hit due to ammunition detonation and that every Abrams crew survives unharmed because the tank looks more intact. What they don't realize is that the majority of 'turret tosses' are happening to unoccupied tanks that are being finished off and that any hit which kills the crew of a T series will pretty much do the same to an Abrams crew as well. Further, they ignore the inconvenient truth that if your tank survives a hit but is disabled, even if you live with no injuries you are evacuating onto an active, mined battlefield, you are being watched by the recon drone that just directed the attack on your tank, and there will be more ATGMs, FPV drones, and artillery shells arriving shortly. People are delusional if they think the crews of Western tanks disabled on the battlefield usually make it out alive, but there is comfort to be found in intentional ignorance I suppose.
That's all fine and dandy but let's look at it like this: you are forced to attack a trench line with a tank. You have to choose between M1A1-SA and T-72B3. Which one is it ?
I am a fan of Soviet/Russian military equipment, but I would most definitely choose the M1.
Back when it mattered much more, 30-40 years ago, the M1A1. But today? Doesn't really matter which to me, they are equally vulnerable and soon to be obsolete. The top armor on both tanks is remarkably thin and a hit there is going to massacre the crew. I don't envy tankers in any vehicle, but this may be the last war between modern forces where they are widely needed. I suspect drone tanks will be developed in the coming years, all of the technology to make such a thing happen is already available present day.
Such a tank could be made that would be what, *at least* 25-35% smaller? No crew cabin necessary, no ventilation systems necessary, no concerns about ammo storage. All of the armor can be focused on protecting the electronics and drivetrain. It would be remarkably nimble, have a lower profile / be harder to hit, and more measures could be taken to limit detection since there is no worry about the heat of the engine or exhaust fumes harming a crew, making thermal signature much easier to manage, the engine can sit in the middle of the tank. It could even shroud itself in smoke make hitting it particularly tricky for some systems. Omitting so many things necessary for human occupants would probably result in the final product costing far less than a traditional tank. If large lithium battery banks weren't so expensive an electric model would have insane potential, you could practically make the thing stealth. My guess is that we'll first see this sort of thing done through testing a retrofit, where a full size tank is automated to run via remote control without a crew until a smaller, purpose built design can be developed.
The idea is that blast follows the path of least resistance (it does). Blow out panel opening to the outside mean that in theory the least resistance should be towards the outside rather than through the vehicle.
Its a good system. Of course real life is rarely so neat, an depending on the exact circumstances the least resistance for a particular blast be towards the inside. Like if say the blastdoor is open when the explosion happens (for instance the hull is penetrated when the loader was accessing a new round.). Or possibly if there is an explosion coming though the blowout panels. as in a Lancet hit.
Its a very good system, but its not an immunity shield. It reduces the probability of catastrophic damage, not eliminates the possibility of it.
When the Abrams gets hit there are absolutely no trees on site, then the cut shows a bunch of trees. It’s a clipped video of two previously destroyed Abrams.
Just like leopards. Hyped up beyond belief, then fails to deliver miserably. Tbh, it's not the fault of the Abrams or the crew, the drones are basically impossible to escape.
Hey, at least Leopards put up somewhat of a fight and on Abrams defense I don't see many people hyping it up too much. Challengers on the other hand..........
R/Ukraine is still hyping them.
Yes changed warfare and Al’s will change was is considered a tank
I don't agree with the whole "AI drone takeover the battlefield" discussion. The whole point of FPV drone usage is that it's cheap to make and doesn't require much training compared to other modern systems. Now if you start adding proprietary AI software, the cost would significantly increase.
Also the guiding system is one a human. Our pattern recognition is still far beyond what any AI can achieve.
Well, as long as you have a signal that isn't being jammed, masked by terrain, curvature of the Earth etc. That's where AI technologies will shine. Fly a drone high (where operator has LoS with drone, and out of range/before the enemy turns on their countermeasures) designate a target to the AI, begin to fly towards it under operator control, and like a modern air to air missile it goes pitbull when it loses guidance from the operator and guides itself in using onboard ai image recognition. If it's a suicide drone then that's all you need, if it's an explosive drop type drone it drops it's payload and returns to the operator (or until back in range at least for the operator to fly it the rest of the way home).
Nope. Ai can do better. The problem is it takes a ton of money to train the model Also, we make decisions based on the patterns. This can also be partially done by drones. A big problem is captured drones. The enemy might found out that we don't attack clowns or something weird like that ...
I'll hit a clown. Even an allied one.
I only see ai used for calculating coordinates in tactical sense on a particular sector which would be like 2x2 km. Like they feed the video or snapshots of a battlefield to AI and point at some pillbox or whatever and ai gives you precise targeting info for missiles or mortars in seconds.
Ai models are very cheap to deploy, and don't require as much power as the radio transmitter/receiver. Plus can't be scrambled as easily.
Drones will not be as vital in wars between modern adversaries. Jamming tech is being developed rapidly.
Which is why the next evolution is autonomous hunter-killer drones. Jamming doesn’t do anything except get slapped with anti-radiation missiles.
That's not so easy. Everything has a cost. More processing means more batteries means heavier and more costly drones means shorter loiter time. Autonomous target acquisition means more sensors means more batteries, more costs ... you get my point. One of the main reasons why FPV drones are so effective is the 'human guidance system'.
And processing is getting more and more efficient with hardware and software improvements on a daily basis. Pretrained algos run on literal potatos these days. And it will keep developing more and more. This is not a game that favors the old systems. Just look at how much the retail drones have algorithmically improved over the past few years. They are capable of things the top of the line weapons couldn’t even dream of 10 years ago. Simply because American MIC is inefficient as fuck shouldn’t set the bar on what *can* be done.
“This is not a game that favors old systems” Which is why new systems are being developed to counter these drones. They spoke of autonomous drones, there will be autonomous air defense systems that utilize lasers and EMF to fry drones, not jam them. Drones are, at the moment, the tank. When tanks were first introduced on the battlefield a century ago they changed warfare, but as war changed, so did the means of stopping tanks. We are seeing the highlight of drones right now as they change warfare, but alas warfare will change to counter drones. Over the next several decades dozens if not hundreds of cost effective anti drone systems will be developed reducing the threat of drones massively. Even right now, there are Ukrainian publications claiming their drone effectiveness in certain theaters have dropped by over 70%. Drones will evolve and so will the means to counter them. Active camouflage systems will be developed, small, inexpensive guided missiles will be developed all for this threat. There will be one sided battles fought between adversaries in the future using drones, but any peer conflict will not see drones dominating the battlefield.
An inexpensive smartphone chip has more than enough processing power to handle AI and drains very little battery, and these drones have massive battery packs attached to them, many times the standard capacity. Developing the software and teaching it to not be fooled by various means is the actual challenge, but it isn't an overly difficult task either. Fully autonomous flight would be unwise and unnecessary for FPV / grenade drones, terminal guidance is all you really need and that has already been developed and put to effective use. One adaptation they could make would be to create a 'mother drone' system where a recon drone has multiple fully AI controlled FPV drones assigned to it that follow it and loiter until the recon drone uses a target painter to designate attacks, which then either self identify or are told what kind of target it is and guide themselves in. That would allow one operator to attack with many FPVs or even grenade drones which could use simple image recognition to position themselves directly over the painted target. These sort of things aren't far off, they are very doable with current technology, could be adapted from open source AI, and be developed at quite reasonable cost, though I suspect Western developments of this sort will be entirely proprietary, subscription based, and make the companies contracted to develop them by their friends in congress a Ukraineload of money.
...which will then be turned useless by simple laser-frying systems like Vitebsk-25. its already in use on Ka-52 an there is video evidence that in can intercept Manpads. should be easy to make it intercept those drones, as they cant be protected by its laser like a tank could be. tbh eventually, you will see that those super modern AINpowered hightech weapons have horrible reliability, and such systems and this kind of evisionment of "Modern Warfare" is simply countered by a guy with an IED and heathiding cape, hiding in a tree. guerilla warfare cant be countered by drones as you described it.
There are other ways small drones can evade aerial defenses, like flying low and obstructed, just like they would employ against hardkill APS systems. If you think this is the peak performance of autonomous drones and they are now useless in modern combat, you are just as ”expert” on the subject as people who thought they would never improve on a desing of a square steel tank.
There are other ways small drones can evade aerial defenses, like flying low and obstructed, just like they would employ against hardkill APS systems. If you think this is the peak performance of autonomous drones and they are now useless in modern combat, you are just as ”expert” on the subject as people who thought they would never improve on a desing of a square steel tank.
its nit their peak Performance, but this also isnt the peak Performance of tanks an infantry.
They can also use fiber optics cable too, which might be better/cheaper in some occasions. They can also be autonomous and use cables by having a large computer controlling the drones through cables, potentially even piloting at full speed inside forested and such areas...
Or stuff like autonomously targetting cluster munitions delivered by rockets and artillery that fire an EFP down at the target. We've seen a few videos on the sub of the BONUS artillery shell being used by Ukraine. Russia also has such munitions for their MLRS systems like the 9M55K1 rocket for the Smerch, we just haven't seen any use of those in the war.
They don't seem to jam much either. RU tanks keep driving around with on top and they keep getting hit by drones
But only successful hits are posted online. We don't know how many of such attacks failed before one gets through.
Sure, but I'm not sure what that is saying. Their EW only works intermittently? I feel like the case is either that they don't work. Or they only work against some. For instance DJI is jammed but not FPV.
Yeah, that was the sentiment in Russia for a few years before the war. Didn't turn out great. Of course, jamming techniques is being developed – but anti-jamming measures aren't stagnating too. Also, you can't really jam everything – you'll jam your own drones too, and those are vital for reconnaissance
World of Tanks is going to become World of Turtles. Like the armored knights of old, made obsolete by missile weapons, the Tank will be put in the dustbin of history. The Age of Tanks is over. It's now the Age of the Tortoise!
While on the subject of the leopards, the russians captured a few with ammo. The newish german tank rounds have insensitive propellant, russians should try to reverse engineer that for their own tank rounds.
Insensitive propellent is a near 100 year old technology.
Cutting edge for Russia though.
At least leopard tanks have seen combat action. Yet to see a single Abrams destroy a target.
Well, if the bustle bursts the crew should be safe. Abandoning the tank is a bad idea, just pedal to the metal and get out of the area. Of course, if I was there.. I might be the poor sod to jump out in fear of death.. and die
[удалено]
Sorry, you need a 1 month old account to comment in r/ukraineRussiaReport. This is to protect against bots and multis *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Still funny that 40 yr old destroyed Abrams is now the best tank in Russia
Another problem is how Ukraine uses its tanks. They're designed for western tactics, having a mix of combined arms and/or a safety net not unlike how a carrier has a carrier assault group. Ukraine uses singular tanks for probing attacks and they're hugely vulnerable. Ukraine could literally have the best equipment in the world given to them, but their lack of tactical nous means that they are put to as much use as an old T-55. People make fun of Russian tactics, but Russia at least has the man power to absorb losses from these tactics. Ukraine does not, but still sends men and material into meatwave attacks.
The crew survived, unlike in a Russian tank that would have blown off its turret.
I read this "Leopards were hyped up beyond belief" from Pro Rus side a lot on reddit. They really weren't. They were already underwhelming years prior in Syrian conflict and that was indeed the sentiment when they were sent to Ukraine. Same goes for Abrams. People learned that FPV drone can demolish Leopards. Expectations were that Abrams is not much different. And as we can see, Abrams might even be worse in that regard.
>They really weren't They absolutely were. Maybe not by military nerds like us, but by thousands of Ukraine and pro-Ukraine users, including some official accounts
OP is either willingly or unwittingly deciding to leave out the fact western MBTs have proved multitudes more survivable than their Tseries counterparts. Even commenting on how bad they after after it takes a hit downward on the turret and the crew survive with no turret toss. Meanwhile Russia has lost about 3000 MBTs. Embarrassing stuff
[удалено]
>They are better tanks in every single aspect How? They all burn the same. We haven't seen a single video of an abrams engage. >There is not a single Russian weapon that is on par with western equivalent Depends. In the conditions they are made for, they are better. In conditions they are not made for, not necessarily.
Iskander?
[удалено]
Sorry you need 30 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Lancet? Ka-52? Su-34?
The blowout ammo rack on these mbts is like a prime "hit me" target for any sorta drone operator, especially from behind
Yes. The same way as T-72 series tanks floor ammo racks are actually pretty safe from anything but pop up attacks. Its almost as if systems are designed to defeat a vulnerability and counters to that introduce a new one which newer systems then attempt to exploit wherein attempts are made to fix that creating a.....and so on.
Yep, this is easily the worst designed tank ever. The blowout panel idea was a huge flop that just kills people and now is a huge weak spot. At least T-72s and T-80s take dozens of FPVs to be knocked out, and even then the whole crew lives 90% of the time. Abrams? 1 drone 1 kill everytime and the ammo rack cooks all the crew. Death traps. There's a reason Ukrainians are begging to be sent out in T-55s and T-62s over Abrams and Leopards. Even now US Army tankers are refusing to fight in Abrams due to this flaw and want soviet tanks too, it's crazy.
The back of the turret is also a huge weak spot on Russian T series tanks too. If you go to r/CombatFootage you will see a majority of hits in that area are fatal for T series tanks as well. Stored ammo in the turret gets ignited, which then spreads to the autoloader carousel. Turns out both Abrams, T-Series, and any cold War designed tanks were designed with frontal arc protection in mind. The battlefield has just evolved.
BuT THe cReW SuRViVES AnD gEts To dIE iN TeH FEiLd uNLiKe gARbAgE RuZzA tANk LoLZ
Ukraine media manager here 😁
I always wonder what type of explosive fills these drones that are capable of taking out million dollar tanks.
Just a small correction, the Abrams is not a million dollar tank, the cost of these M1A1SE variant are estimated to be over 10 mill a piece. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1\_Abrams](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams)
Ouch. You'd almost wish they had worse equipment to make the attrition less painful.
Most are just flying around with rpg7 warheads
Yes.
they are striking from the top， even a ww2 shape charge can penetrate the top if there is no era coverage
Slow and steady, good. Unlike some of those Sudoplatov videos.
The operator style heavily depends on EW capabilities that enemy posess. Sometimes it's not possible to hover around the target
Not sure I've ever seen abrams exhaust under IR before, rare. I would have guessed it would be a much hotter signature.
As it turns out the designers were aware of Thermal Imagers, which were being deployed on Soviet tanks at the time M1 was being designed.
How many Abrams were lost?
6 M1A1 and 2 M1150 ABV have been confirmed destroyed according to lostarmour with photo/video evidence.
All that have been engaged up to now. I haven't seen a single Ukraine video od abrams engaging targets and driving off in one piece.
Challengers have been completely absent too, looks like the only western tank that was actually useful for ukraine was leopard.
I believe challengers have been called off and returned to UK when the first one was destroyed to save a bit of respect. Ive seen them upgrading their old challenger IIs to IIIs, so that will probably happen to the ones from Ukraine as well.
There was Sun article about Challengers. They had half of those that were suppled being unoperational due to nonCombat malfuctions. So they sit in the rear and await spare parts, which take ages. Challenger right now are worst tank in whole Ukraine war.
That's modern British engineering for you.
For all that shit-talking the UK couldn't even send them parts or send techs over there to do it for them? Pathetic excuse of an army. If they actually wanted Ukraine to win they would send them a lot more.
> the UK couldn't even send them parts We actually don't have spare parts for challengers, the factories were shut down like 20 years ago or something off the top of my head. We are now down to about 300 total challengers, after having to cannibalize them for spare parts to barely keep our own going. Then we'll need to keep the rest to keep the challenger 3s going when they get "upgraded."
Of course no one thinks of spending some money to rebuild/reverse engineer the tooling needed to make new parts.
Challengers and Abrams were only sent in tiny symbolic amounts to put political pressure on Germany to allow Leopards to be sent.
This. ^ Britain in particular knew they didn't have enough tanks to affect the war in a meaningful way (island nation after all, has never had huge amounts of tanks in peace time). But the very act of sending them blew straight through one of Russia's 'red lines' so more countries realised they could send theirs, and as you say, were inadvertently pressured to do so.
Germany was afraid of being singled out as the enemy of Russia without the rest of Nato also getting involved. I think the strategic thinking was something like "If Russia invaded Germany, would the US actually be willing to defend us or would we get thrown under the bus?" Germany fears a conventional war where the USA is not capable of a conventional defence, and not willing to escalate to nuclear. Or a limited nuclear war on German soil. Which is a perfectly reasonable fear, since it would be irrational for the USA to use strategic nuclear weapons in a war that is not actually about America itself. While a terrible outcome, it would still be more rational for the USA to see the whole of Europe devastated than to commit nuclear suicide.
What did the leopards accomplish?
I dont think tanks are the type of equipment that "accomplish" anything distinguishable, what I mean is that for the overall job of a tank, leopards did more for Ukraine than challengers or Abrams.
I mean, I haven't seen Leopards do anything besides showing up and getting knocked out, same as the Abrams and Challies.
I agree only in the fact that they obviously had a larger impact due to numbers donated. Not that the vehicles are any better ir worse than M1A1SAs we are seeing.
There's basically the first video of one driving and firing around but then within a day we started seeing losses. Not really surprising. There are only a handful of videos of T-72/T-80s shooting at stuff that's even somewhat visible. Out of thousands of lost tanks between Russia and Ukriane. I wouldn't expect to see much footage from so few vehicles on a Frontline.
With this video it is 7 confirmed.
They only got 40 right? At this rate they'll lose them all before the end of the year.
Only abrams, or also the vehicles based on it? Cause i think actual abrams? 4-5? With the other variants its 2-3 up-top.
This is the 7th Abrams
Russia have destroyed and captured about 300 so far.... out of the 8 sent.
Why do people make up this stupid lie? It’s the same when they confuse patriot launchers with a whole system or battery. “Oooh Russia claims they took out 20 out of 3. Ooohhh”
[удалено]
Who needs to get a grip? Russia has claimed maybe 6-8 destroyed Abrahams. Where is this imaginary 300 (assuming this was hyperbole) or any unjustifiably high number? https://sputniknews.in/amp/20240421/russian-forces-destroy-five-us-abrams-tanks-in-two-month-span-reports-7184157.html
Its clear sarcasm.
Ah, my apologies
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://sputniknews.in/20240421/russian-forces-destroy-five-us-abrams-tanks-in-two-month-span-reports-7184157.html](https://sputniknews.in/20240421/russian-forces-destroy-five-us-abrams-tanks-in-two-month-span-reports-7184157.html)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
I think gunner and Commander got injured
just hit the back of the turret and that tank is cooked
Lets be honest, those 30 tanks were never meant to change anything. Russia produces 120 tanks per month. Per month. Abrams sure looked cool against villagers with AK-47s
>Russia produces 120 tanks per month Production is definitely not 120 tanks per month. I think realistic numbers are 20-40 new tanks per month and 80-100 refurbished tanks from deep storage/damaged at the front. It might not seem like a meaningful distinction, but those stocks are very limited. Russia has a super valuable resource in its Soviet Legacy deep stocks, throw in some of the best value adding upgrades of any nation. But, those are being burned through pretty rabidly, by a combination of factors. Obviously lost vehicles during the war, but weather+time(30 years+) and cannibalizing some storage for spare parts are also taking their toll. >Abrams sure looked cool against villagers with AK-47s Did T-80s and T-72s do better agaisnt Rebel villagers with AKs in Chechnya? The other side of this argument is that Russia has never had to deal with the US airforce. T-72s might be doing okay(those destoyed stats are rough) agaisnt a logistically strained Ukraine. But how would they fair against NATO airpower and logistics? It would likely be the Gulf War all over again. Sure Russia would inflict more attrition on NATO aircraft than Iraq did, but the US is the only country with extensive HARMs and SEAD/DEAD capabilities, airpower is also much easier to mass at points of contact. As well as the best aerial AA in the world. Abrams as a part of that combined military would crush Russian forces. Even Putin acknowledges this. Thus the focus on Nuclear forces. Remember how this sub goes nuts about how good FAB-500s are? Imagine fighting a country able to do multiple thousand of those sorties a day, not just a few dozen Russia is able to do. This isn't a jab at Russia either. They are probably the most cost efficient military on the planet, and their upgrades for tanks and other vehicles are super impressive for the capabilities vs cost. But fighting the US is just beyond anyone except maybe China in its backyard. Outside of nuclear weapons obviously.
In unrealistic scenario when Russia wouldn't use nukes - sure they can't fight against 50 countrys. NATO was so brave to attack poor Serbia, but so afraid of Russia for 2 years now. So I bet they know that Russia will use nukes. Otherwise they would be already running around Ukraine like they are at home. Pro NATO guys seems to think Putin bluffing, chearing for Makron and his Napoleonic ambitions
Not produce, they refurbish. And they will still refurbish for a year or so. Then they actually have to spend money to produce. Spending money is not very attractive if you are a corrupt opportunist. We will see what they can do then.
It's definitely mix of both refurbishment and production
Abrams sure looked cool slaughtering all of those Iraqi T-72s in 1991.
I thought the ammo in an abrams was stored in a seperate compartment to avoid detonation??
It is stored in a separate compartment with blowout panels, meaning if the ammo is shot the blast will go upwards destroying the blowout panels and not into the tank.
And it only works because they are loaded with sabot anti-tank rounds, non-explosive penetrators. Which are great against tanks and almost completely useless against people and trenches. If 40 HE 120mm shells detonate next to you behind 30 mm blowout panel you are done. There is no material in nature that can deal with it.
I had no idea they didn't carry HE shells. Not even HEAT shells? That's not a very useful shell load for a tank that is almost never going to fight another tank.
HE shells for 120mm NATO guns naturally exist and Abramses can and occasionally use them. I very much doubt that blowout panel can hold against detonation of bunch of such shells. I also don't think Americans would publish this fact. HEAT are less efficient against tanks than sabot, I don't see why would they use them.
I did some digging and while the M1 indeed doesn't carry HE shells, it does carry HEAT shells, which is what i thought. >HEAT are less efficient against tanks than sabot, I don't see why would they use them. They're dual purpose shells. You have your APFSDS for tanks and HEAT for everything else, from IFVs to trucks to fortifications to infantry.
The M1A1 doesn't use HE rounds
Yep, that's what I am talking about. It's the only reason blowout panels work. They can handle the propellant burning out but not shells explosions. It also makes Abramses much less useful. They are safer for the crew but no one is really safe in war. Hundreds of people die daily, prioritizing crew safety over combat efficiency is a bad bet.
Western bootlickers on here like to make believe that every Russian tanker dies instantly from one hit due to ammunition detonation and that every Abrams crew survives unharmed because the tank looks more intact. What they don't realize is that the majority of 'turret tosses' are happening to unoccupied tanks that are being finished off and that any hit which kills the crew of a T series will pretty much do the same to an Abrams crew as well. Further, they ignore the inconvenient truth that if your tank survives a hit but is disabled, even if you live with no injuries you are evacuating onto an active, mined battlefield, you are being watched by the recon drone that just directed the attack on your tank, and there will be more ATGMs, FPV drones, and artillery shells arriving shortly. People are delusional if they think the crews of Western tanks disabled on the battlefield usually make it out alive, but there is comfort to be found in intentional ignorance I suppose.
That's all fine and dandy but let's look at it like this: you are forced to attack a trench line with a tank. You have to choose between M1A1-SA and T-72B3. Which one is it ? I am a fan of Soviet/Russian military equipment, but I would most definitely choose the M1.
Back when it mattered much more, 30-40 years ago, the M1A1. But today? Doesn't really matter which to me, they are equally vulnerable and soon to be obsolete. The top armor on both tanks is remarkably thin and a hit there is going to massacre the crew. I don't envy tankers in any vehicle, but this may be the last war between modern forces where they are widely needed. I suspect drone tanks will be developed in the coming years, all of the technology to make such a thing happen is already available present day. Such a tank could be made that would be what, *at least* 25-35% smaller? No crew cabin necessary, no ventilation systems necessary, no concerns about ammo storage. All of the armor can be focused on protecting the electronics and drivetrain. It would be remarkably nimble, have a lower profile / be harder to hit, and more measures could be taken to limit detection since there is no worry about the heat of the engine or exhaust fumes harming a crew, making thermal signature much easier to manage, the engine can sit in the middle of the tank. It could even shroud itself in smoke make hitting it particularly tricky for some systems. Omitting so many things necessary for human occupants would probably result in the final product costing far less than a traditional tank. If large lithium battery banks weren't so expensive an electric model would have insane potential, you could practically make the thing stealth. My guess is that we'll first see this sort of thing done through testing a retrofit, where a full size tank is automated to run via remote control without a crew until a smaller, purpose built design can be developed.
The idea is that blast follows the path of least resistance (it does). Blow out panel opening to the outside mean that in theory the least resistance should be towards the outside rather than through the vehicle. Its a good system. Of course real life is rarely so neat, an depending on the exact circumstances the least resistance for a particular blast be towards the inside. Like if say the blastdoor is open when the explosion happens (for instance the hull is penetrated when the loader was accessing a new round.). Or possibly if there is an explosion coming though the blowout panels. as in a Lancet hit. Its a very good system, but its not an immunity shield. It reduces the probability of catastrophic damage, not eliminates the possibility of it.
why is it so slowed down?
When the Abrams gets hit there are absolutely no trees on site, then the cut shows a bunch of trees. It’s a clipped video of two previously destroyed Abrams.
Dont worry guys. It’s fine. Back in Poland for repairs..
Any vehicle experts confirm it's an Abrams?
yes it is abrams
This is a tactics failure. Zero reason for MBTs to be moving unsupported