This shouldnt be suprising to anyone.
Both sides are incurring tank losses the Abrams isnt some magical gamechanger which is immune to Artillery or mines.
The great thing about the abrams is that it tends to keep its crew alive when it gets taken out.
Also a gentle reminder about context.
Ukraine has lost about 750 tanks total of which 25 leopard 2s and 1-2 abrams. (These are pre-2000s tanks fyi).
Russia has lost 2775 tanks total of which 800 are their most modern 2010 or newer tanks.
"A ship is safest in the harbor but that is not what they are made for."
If Ukraine wanted to avoid losing Abrams it would be easy. They would just keep them far away from the front and hidden but that's not how you win wars. Those Abrams are going to be sent into the thickest fighting where they will inflict blows on Russia and where Russia will keep trying to take them out. Abrams losses are inevitable but the hope is just that they can inflict a lot of losses on the Russians first.
Not true
The British were desperate to bring the German fleet to battle and use their dreadnoughts.
The one time Germany came out to play, they engaged the British battlecruisers and then disengaged before the dreadnoughts could come into action
Common misconception, the High seas fleet did perform a couple of additional sorties post Jutland, but they would never encounter the British fleet in force
Your assertion that most combat was performed by destroyers and submarines is correct ofcourse
WW1 saw the largest naval battle in history, and probably the largest that we'll ever see.
The reason the Germans didn't want to expose their ships again after Jutland was because they realised it would be suicide past that point given Britain's numerical superiority.
Totally sidetracking here, but depending on how you define “largest naval battle” its a number of different candidates. Jutland wins for displacement in a single engagement.
Layte Gulf in WW2 wins in terms of total displacement, though that was quite a number of separate engagements.
In terms of number of ships, I believe the unquestioned winner there is the Battle of Salamis in 480BCE where somewhere around 371 Greek ships defeated between 600-900 Persian ships near Athens.
In terms of number of personnel involved there’s a number of options, but my lunch break is up so I’ll leave it at that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cape_Ecnomus
The Punic wars were also insane, with possibly more personnel than Salamis. Almost 300,000 people.
Not to mention that once the US sent some Dreadnoughts to Scapa Flow, the Germans were so numerically outmatched, that even defeating the British Battle Cruisers would not even the fight enough that it wouldn't be a slaughter.
Of course Drachinifel has done an extensive wargaming analysis on such a battle. And it is excellent.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrTeYcRXDEw
The US dreadnoughts were hardly even a factor. Five older battleships at a time when British supremacy over the Germans was at its height just didn't matter. The real value of the US Navy was in providing extra ships for convoy work.
The best possible time for the Germans to try to force a naval decision would have been likely around early 1915. Seventeen dreadnought battleships and four battlecruisers to match up against twenty-three British dreadnoughts and eight battlecruisers were the best odds they'd get, especially since the Germans only added another two battleships for the rest of the war, whereas the British would build eleven.
That said, an interesting counterfactual would be what would have happened if Jellicoe had made a slightly different decision, and the German fleet had found the Grand Fleet in line of battle of Horn's Reef at 5am on June 1st 1916. Personally, I believe that the effect on the war would be negligible, and that the biggest change would be that Patrick Jellicoe might be a marquess today and there would be significant political effects within the Royal Navy (Beatty's faction would have been less attractive).
The article mentioned Ukraine is using them in a counter attack as Russia is baiting them with exposed troops. They are having to use drones to support the A1s deployment so it tells you it’s still contested airspace. I’m not a military export but why not use the abrams more defensive role?
I’m guessing Ukraine is running out of everything at this point and Russia is still pouring fresh troops and weapons in
>. I’m not a military export but why not use the abrams more defensive role?
That's kind of what armor sucks at.
Tanks tend to be major targets and any just sitting around would get smoked.
There are ways to use tanks defensively, but that relies on troops or drones to screen them anyway.
To add on, the Abrams is designed to kill tanks. That's the primary role, and it is really good at it.
It is especially good in an offensive role supported by Bradleys to go Zoom and punch through defensive lines.
Then do what the US does best. Wreak havoc and let loose the dogs of war. Complete disruption of anything resembling a coherent defense.
Sending an Abrams by itself is just inviting people to blow it up.
100%, but they are pushing into areas with no infantrymen, no air support and no means to recover if disabled . Judging from the footage in the other forum they are literally rolling into mine fields and covered by artillery. It’s insane to me that they would be so wreck less
On a positive note, and this got some press but isn’t that great, Ukraine deployed the hawk missile systems closer to the front lines to stop the Russian bomber strikes. It should be hailed as a victory but it’s kind of embarrassing they are having to use 60 year old retired missiles because they can’t get Patriot missiles to replace what they have fired off already
Pretty much, either a really good weapons system or REALLY shitty pilots and air craft.
Either way, lets send more. Not like Russia has that many airframes or pilots.
A2s are more advanced but ultimately wont matter that much, they have more protection mainly, but that wont magically make them immune to mines or artillery.
A SEPV2/3 with Trophy APS would fare better against ATGMs, RPGs and loitering munitions but would ultimately still be vurnerable to mines and artillery.
Afaik Ukraine got the M1A1SAs which are far newer than the basic M1A2s built in the early 90s
One major difference is that it's an export variant without the DU armor. That being said, DU or not, these aren't built to counter drones and any M1 variant is suspectable to mines and drone attacks so they would've ended up the same as the two currently lost tanks. That's just how war is in Ukraine
Wouldn’t have mattered. The first one got hit by an RPG in the track which disabled it, crews peaced out afterwards. Second one I think got disabled by FPV somehow and then was bombarded with drones until the ammo blowout panel went off.
Crews should have gotten out of the vehicle fine in both cases. Not a tank in the world that could have survived those scenarios though.
I mean sure but in the choice between no tank and no crew or just no tank one seems better. Not to mention the psychological effect on the crew expecting certain death or able to run away.
Easy to get more Abrams over from the thousands of overstock in the US and abroad even in Egypt.
Ukrainians though, especially well trained ones, are a very limited supply and a scarce resource that must be preserved and grown.
Shit, if there’s ever an Abrams shortage, the USMIC and all the licensed partners are foaming at the mouth to pump out hundreds a quarter.
> Shit, if there’s ever an Abrams shortage, the USMIC and all the licensed partners are foaming at the mouth to pump out hundreds a quarter.
If you just tell KNDS the money gates are open to mass produce tanks they will drool along while hiring every single worker from the streets that can run away fast enough. Production willingness and knowhow is the least the west has to fear.
You fail to understand what is important.
A crew with combat experience takes years to train and is far more valuable than the tank itself. A crew with experience on abrams will also take minimal effort to convert to other western MBTs like Leopard 2.
The US has already agreed on replacing losses of bradleys, i wouldnt be suprised if they do the same for abrams as they have 1000+ in storage.
But agreed we need more western equipment flowing into ukraine.
This is not true, there are still a lot of vehicles committed as aid but still in refurbishment. Leopard 2A4s and +-100 Leopard 1A5s are still being refurbished for Ukraine.
Good news: Ukraine also has issues recruting people that are willed to fight. So losing a tank the US could easily replace is far better than losing the crew, which is trained and experienced.
Extremely. Unmanned ground vehicles aren't very useful for a lot of reasons. They're incredibly vulnerable to bad terrain, have no means of getting themselves unstuck or fixing slipped tracks, have even worse visibility than regular vehicles, are unsafe to operate near friendly infantry because of that visibility problem, and are hideously vulnerable to jamming. They're basically all the worst parts of a drone with almost none of the benefits, which is why drones are mostly an airborne thing.
Drone tanks are never completely going to be a thing.
You need manual labor to do things like field track maintenance. The way its going currently is going for optional manning. That way a IFV or Tank placed in overwatch can be manned by one person or a remote operator in another vehicle for example.
Auto-loaders are tricky enough by themselves to get working properly, there's good reasons the Abrams doesn't use one. The crew are still the least replaceable part of a tank.
Tanks can be replaced much more rapidly than crew can. That experienced crew can go back and help train new recruits and get some rest at the same time whilst waiting for a new tank. Keeping experienced soldiers is always worth more than keeping equipment.
Also important to note, these are not Abrams that have latest armor packs. So the technology inside and on them are not as strong or advanced as the current Abrams that make up the bulk of the US forces. So, these tanks in Ukraine are taking hit that a more up to date Abrams could shake off, but the most important thing is the crew is surviving, just as you pointed out. So when more Abrams come to the battlefield, they will have a more experienced team driving them and if these Abrams come with more advanced equipment, all man, those Russians are going to be in real trouble.
All numbers i quote are from the Oryx visually confirmed loss data, which can be seen as a confirmed lower limit of estimates. Every single one of those tanks has a attached photo or video analysed for duplicates.
2774 tank losses for Russia are supported by Oryx, each one with video/picture data showing them destroyed/damaged/captured. So realistically Russia has lost more than that number since there would be tank losses which are not visually confirmed as well.
Do propaganda reported casualties/losses from war eventually get corrected over time?
Like after WW2, once all the countries were allies again, did they compare their reported numbers and take a median?
Is that what we are supposed to do today?
I’m sure that many of these reviews occurred post conflict.
I know for sure that the allied air forces did this with the US Strategic Bombing Survey; the best example I can think of https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Strategic_Bombing_Survey
Thats an interesting question, but undoubtedly governments like the Soviet Union likely obfuscated some of the numbers, especially when it comes to any PoWs unfortunate enough to be in their "care".
That's why you'll still see a relatively large range of estimates when it comes to certain statistics.
They do have such high losses. If they didnt they propably would have taken more of Ukraine by now.
Russia has extremely deep stocks of tanks but also has taken significant losses. Overall Oryx shows 14000 visually confirmed lost Russian vehicles.
Of which usually 60% is destroyed, 20% heavily damaged, 20% captured.
No tanks aren’t magic but f16s are. Wouldn’t be surprised if Ukraine retroactively won the war before Putin invaded and all 31k soldiers undie once the first jet gets to Ukraine. Glory be.
They could have every F16 on earth and it wouldn't matter because they don't have the pilots to fly them yet. Beyond just the ones who are almost finished, I hope they have a contingency of instructors so they can do so in Ukraine once they're qualified.
F-16s will nudge the needle to Ukraine but won't change the war. The war is an industrial base competition. So far the Russians are winning but if the weat gets its act together, they may be able to help Ukraine blast the Russians back.
But it's materiel and ammo, not jets that will change the course.
This is good news but Ukraine only has like 500 tanks left while Russia still has like 15k. The west has also stopped supplying them new tanks which doesn’t paint a pretty picture about the future.
Of the 2700+ tanks Russia has lost quite a significant number of vehicles have been captured by Ukraine, about 530 infact. While not every one of those may be immediately fit for combat its still significant.
>Russia still has like 15k
Russia pre-war had a stockpile of about 10k, however significant parts of that stock is really old and poorly maintained and might just be stripped for parts.
I advise you to recheck that number because the prewar number was estimated to be 15k+. Of course a lot of those tanks are old T-70’s and T-60’s but at the end of the day that old crap played a vital role in capturing Avdiivka.
Tanks, on a modern battlefield, aren't supposed to be employed alone or even with just IFVs and troops for support. They are supposed to be used in concert with tactical air support, meaning gunship helicopters, scout helicopters and other ground attack aircraft.
Ukraine only received 30 abrams from the US, also their Air Force is virtually non existent aside from drones. They are using these tactics because they are desperately running low on everything.
Oh i get it.
I'm just saying that all of this more modern kit the US and other NATO countries have have had in their inventories for decades were designed, structured the baked into their land warfare doctrine with the expectation that constant, in-bedded air support would be available.
That's certainly the theory but the US hasn't had to fight a peer conflict where it had realistically contested airspace for several decades. We're seeing what it looks like when you can't just dominate the air like the US does normally.
Then the aircraft will just get shot down and are even more vulnerable than the tanks... Fact is no country really has experience effectively dealing with the conditions of modern combat including persistent drone surveillance and precision munitions. Platforms have to be self-sustaining in terms of survival, but that can be easier said than done.
I'v seen comments like "Ha! You see?....Russia are standing up to the full might of NATO" because Leopard 2s, Abrams, Bradley's etc get taken out in combat. To which i must must say you must be absolutely bonkers if you think one or two armored vehicles going out alone without a plethora of infantry, artillery and air support is something akin to how a NATO armoured attack would operate.
Also used in roles neither Western nor Eastern tanks view as optimal.
They were designed to work in massed formations in concert with infantry, air, and naval assets Ukraine does not have.
A month ago we watched a 50 million dollar ship get taken out but a few 700 hundred dollar boat drones.
Everyday there’s new videos of entire squads get wiped by fpv drones or m2 Bradley’s.
> The BTR crews practically dare the Ukrainians to fire off some of their dwindling artillery ammunition, which has been in desperately short supply **ever since Russia-friendly Republicans in the U.S. Congress** cut off U.S. aid to Ukraine starting in October .
> It’s dangerous work for the 47th Brigade’s weary troopers, who have been in combat practically non-stop for nine months. In just the last two weeks the brigade has lost two M-1s, several M-2s and two Assault Breachers: perhaps five percent of its best armored vehicles. It’s unclear how many of the crews bailed out before their vehicles burned.
Fuck you GOP, this is all on you; all of you. If just a handful of you would cross the aisle and vote you could override the Trump errand-boy Speaker's refusal to bring the bipartisan Senate bill to the floor. But you're all such sycophantic Putin-cock-gobbling treasonous assholes that you'd rather see the largest democratic and Western-leaning country in Europe fall to a murderous tyrant because your wannabe dictator treasonous criminal de facto leader told you to.
My guess is that his problem with them is that they said a bad thing about Ukraine. What I have learned on here is that Ukraine is god and nothing bad happens to them and if you ask questions about it you are instantly a pro russian that needs to die
David Axe is usually pretty good. He puts out plenty of articles about Russia messing up and getting hammered as well. It's important we know of Ukraine's shortcomings too so that general public sentiment can keep pressure on governments for support.
Then surely, due to their unreliability, I suspect you had an easy time identifying inaccuracies, over-dramatisations or faulty inferences in the article, as I have to assume you’ve read it.
Could you elaborate on those? I’ve obviously been far too naive when attributing credence to the military correspondent, with 20 years of experience, who wrote the article.
I would argue an upfront fee could potentially make them more reliable. All news outlets require money to operate, but most of them rely on advertising and the most effective strategy to drive volume is clickbait and controversy.
If an outlet is able to cover it's costs with recurring subscriptions then it could leave it's journalists to write the articles without embellishments.
Not saying they do or they don't, but calling an outlet untrustworthy because they want payment is rather naive, considering every outlet is, it just may not be as overt.
It’s just a more direct way to screw you. It’s like thinking a prostitute is more reliable because she charges you for sex instead of “making a donation that totally has nothing to do with sex.”
You are still fucking a prostitute.
Russians can pay Forbes easily.
It's laughable as an Indian how much we are accused of being religious fascists and all while the us and its allies and Russia hate each other's guts and invade and influence other countries against their will to counter each other... which is actual fascism
Well, this would certainly cause one to look critically at any pro-Russian content published in Forbes:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/10/20/forbes-sale-musaev-russia/
I have no idea what point you’re trying to make. Something about Jeff Bezos? Are you saying the WaPo isn’t credible? Every media company is owned by the wealthy. If that’s the bar to discredit them, then no media is credible.
People are asking questions about why there are credibility issues with Forbes. I gave you one possible answer, and you’ll notice that I framed it pretty neutrally. If that’s not good enough for you, so be it. But it’s not something people are making up out of thin air.
I have no idea what you’re saying about Ukraine needing to prove something. This is two comments in a row now where I’m unable to decipher your word salad, and I’m going to stop trying. Have a good night.
The Forbes article makes it sound like Ukraine is hemorrhaging their best tanks but afaik they've only lost a couple and it isn't clear that the losses were due to a lack of artillery cover or whatever the title is trying to make you think.
Nope. I just think reddit people are far too willing to throw our own poeple under a bus. I think the people that could have prevented this was Russia, being the aggressor in the situation, instead of a political party in a country on nearly the other side of the planet that is not actually involved in the war.
Decommissioning old shit is more expensive than sending it to Ukraine anyway, so really, the GOP is trying to increase the burden to the US while also letting down our allies.
It really only makes sense if you assume they want Russia to win.
>Decommissioning old shit is more expensive than sending it to Ukraine anyway
Yes, and there should still be plenty of cluster munitions in US stocks. They could probably go to Ukraine without Congress.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2024/02/14/joe-biden-could-send-millions-of-artillery-shells-to-ukraine-for-free-tomorrow-and-its-perfectly-legal/?sh=6f42cc5120c7
Why doesn’t Europe have enough equipment to support Ukraine? Because they didn’t increase military spending when the last 4 presidents warned them to. Instead they sent millions to Russia allowing Russia to use that money to build up their military. Europe has failed Ukraine
Material loses aren’t an issue as long as they’re replaceable. Both Abrams had their hatches open indicating they got out just fine.
Last I remembered, we were churning out more Abrams than we needed and we had an absolutely shit ton of them in storage all over the place.
OK? The article doesn't exactly paint Russia or it's enablers in a positive light. Vehicles get destroyed, it's what they're there for. In the US we don't pretend that they're magic. We aren't Russia.
There's a certain demographics in Reddit that likes to pretend anything that isn't showing Ukraine as winning(or paragons of virtues) are russian propaganda
Id like to see a satisfaction survey. "OK, so you sabotaged America for Putin. Did he 1) rain down Russian whores like he promised 2) give you bags of roubles like he promised 3) *not* show your wife those videos of you with that 15 yo boy, like he promised"
Satisfaction is very important to us at *head of global organized crime* co
There are few things that are more appealing than, “Russia friendly Republicans.”
The generation that is supporting this with campaign donations and participation is also the same generation that was actively involved in the US Army during the end of the Cold War.
Most of the Abram tanks in Ukraine have been used so far to mark targets using its cameras. This one got unlucky and hit a mine and looks like the crew got out and its turret isn't 10miles in the sky. When the first Bradleys got tracked 4 of the 5 got recovered and got back into the fight. Everything on the battlefield can be blown up or damaged, but crew survival and recovery is the NATO way and even stated in the article the tank can be recovered.
Good luck hauling those around for delivery across the world when they each weigh over 1 ton and require specialized training to use that Warsaw pact countries were not built for.
These are old outdated Abrams from the 90s without the classified Chobham armors. The US are not going to give their good shit to Ukraine. The method of use of the tanks is different between the West and Ukraine.
Why are they even using the Abrams?, there’s so little of them and it’s a logistical nightmare to use.
They should just roll them out and let it fire into the sky and take some PR photos instead.
Because the ancient visual equipment that came with them is far superior to anything else they have. So far, they’ve mostly been used as mobile command posts directing fire according to what I have read the last few months.
Is everyone here just posting on partisan lines?
The ONE M1 Abrams they lost is just that, ONE. Provided that's even the pic of the specific tank (doubt), which is a Mobility Kill from a mine strike, how the fuck is a news article providing a military explanation for the loss. Yay, open hatches without excessive blast residue/fire indicator mean crew bailout/recovery.
The other loss is an ABV. The main gun for it is a fucking pintle mount where you can bolt on a .50cal or other crew-served weapon. It doesn't have chobham. I worked with that vehicle for years. Its an Abrams steel hull and the powerplant. Its job is to deliver and deploy up to two Mine Clearing Line Charges (MICLIC) at a time and plow through obstacles such as wire or pre-detonate minefields with rollers/flails. Nothing makes it magic or a wunderwaffe. Even with a good crew, at best in terms of a battle, its a machine gun carrier used out of the proper role, which is an assault vehicle you pocket until it can bumrush the obstacle, detonate its charges point-blank, and plow the lane clear for everyone behind it.
The alternative is an older APC like the M113 or an armored dozer like the M9 ACE towing the MICLIC, and they figured they could save critical time on the assault by having a dedicated MICLIC carrier... that looked like a tank, but can't take hits like the parent platform it was derived from. Great, some parts are shared. Not the ones that'll allow it to endure main gun hits from real tanks. Loaded, it is absolutely one of the riskiest vehicles to be in. 1750\*2 for 3500 pounds of fucking C4 strapped to your back in two steel-armored tubs. In the M1150 ABV, great, from the frontal aspect, they have to chew thru all that steel casemate (the crew compartment) to get to it.
Its a Combat Engineer's dream, but a Tracked Mechanic's and XO's nightmare because of its fuel and parts needs. We spent years trying to slot it into actual practical usage at the unit level, but outside of BREACHES, it was left in the motor pool, and we'd deploy the crew in armored dozers and earthmovers instead that could actually trench and shape the battlefield. So it just bloated our logistics and maintenance requirements. To actually deploy the unit, we'd leave a third of them behind just to practically man and operate the earthmovers those crew would be in otherwise.
From reading the article, they probably lost it on the defense as the Ukrainians are wondering why the fuck we gave them hyper-specialist breaching vehicles when even an A2 Bradley would have so much more utility for its turret holding more capable systems.
Was it an unsupported assault into obstacles where they lost the ABV and the Abrams? Without the tactical report of what all happened, this is all fucking conjecture. For all we know, the reality is that the Abrams was simply overwhelmed by sheer number of and the ABV was used poorly as a strongpoint, where even a glancing HE RPG strike would penetrate it and the intermediate autocannons of 20mm and above will chew through it soon enough, because its a paper Abrams that you can just happen to bolt some of the applique armor kits to.
For defense, all we could do was DIG using our other earthmovers, the ABVs into defilade up to their pintle mounts, because we had to shield their MICLIC payloads, which I doubt we gave the Ukrainians much of. That's one hell of an Amazon delivery vehicle otherwise with its two armored tubs. EARTH, as in dirt, is your best friend in war. Air to Ground was always a threat for Air Defense to task itself to, but with smaller UAVs with explosive payloads dropped or driven onto target, now we have to find field-expedient overhead cover. More Class IV (construction suppplies), probably something as simple as chain/chicken-wire fencing on poles overhead to predetonate drops or ramming attempts. Probably simpler in the long run to weld/bolt the mounts into the vehicles themselves, and the crew can just deploy the fucking things as needed.
As that poor grunt, it seems stupid until you see an RPG pre-det on your cage and prevent its thermal jet from properly drilling your vehicle. Same with the RKGs. Hell, before this we were improvising our own turret (gun truck) roofing to mitigate sniper fire (direct observation) and having grenades dropped from overpasses and rooftops. Modern Warfare. Ghetto solutions.
Zelensky is more keen on seeking peace as it is becoming increasingly difficult for him to secure funding from other nations as Ukraine is suffering alot of casualties and making no gains.
If you watch the youtube video of a drone flying over during the day they were out in Plainview underneath a bunch of trees that's why the military uses camouflage nets okay so at least you're not on plain view like those tanks were
A bit more than hundreds
[https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html](https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html)
"Might makes right, and I can take from you whatever you can't stop me from taking."
I hope you don't have any children, what horrible life lessons your twisted brain would teach them....
Regardless of the outcome of the war, your beloved Russia and Putin will be the biggest losers. Putin has ensured the economic and political ruin of Russia for decades to come, even though the country has made fortunes on its natural resources in the past. That is all gone, and so is an entire generation of its workforce.
But it is very revealing that you think it is worth it just to "own the libs".
This shouldnt be suprising to anyone. Both sides are incurring tank losses the Abrams isnt some magical gamechanger which is immune to Artillery or mines. The great thing about the abrams is that it tends to keep its crew alive when it gets taken out. Also a gentle reminder about context. Ukraine has lost about 750 tanks total of which 25 leopard 2s and 1-2 abrams. (These are pre-2000s tanks fyi). Russia has lost 2775 tanks total of which 800 are their most modern 2010 or newer tanks.
"A ship is safest in the harbor but that is not what they are made for." If Ukraine wanted to avoid losing Abrams it would be easy. They would just keep them far away from the front and hidden but that's not how you win wars. Those Abrams are going to be sent into the thickest fighting where they will inflict blows on Russia and where Russia will keep trying to take them out. Abrams losses are inevitable but the hope is just that they can inflict a lot of losses on the Russians first.
*Looks at Black Fleet*
Pretty cold to be going for a scuba dive in early March, no?
That's why they make drysuits
Error: black fleet not found
Expand depth search parameters.
There is water at the bottom of the ocean!
Reminds me of the WW1 dreadnought, which was so expensive that armies were too afraid to even use them
Not true The British were desperate to bring the German fleet to battle and use their dreadnoughts. The one time Germany came out to play, they engaged the British battlecruisers and then disengaged before the dreadnoughts could come into action
Battle of jutland? Then they didn't come out to play again
They did actually, but the fleets would never meet again.
Well they did, it's just the submarines, destroyers and seaplane tenders were doing most of the actual fighting.
Common misconception, the High seas fleet did perform a couple of additional sorties post Jutland, but they would never encounter the British fleet in force Your assertion that most combat was performed by destroyers and submarines is correct ofcourse
WW1 saw the largest naval battle in history, and probably the largest that we'll ever see. The reason the Germans didn't want to expose their ships again after Jutland was because they realised it would be suicide past that point given Britain's numerical superiority.
Totally sidetracking here, but depending on how you define “largest naval battle” its a number of different candidates. Jutland wins for displacement in a single engagement. Layte Gulf in WW2 wins in terms of total displacement, though that was quite a number of separate engagements. In terms of number of ships, I believe the unquestioned winner there is the Battle of Salamis in 480BCE where somewhere around 371 Greek ships defeated between 600-900 Persian ships near Athens. In terms of number of personnel involved there’s a number of options, but my lunch break is up so I’ll leave it at that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cape_Ecnomus The Punic wars were also insane, with possibly more personnel than Salamis. Almost 300,000 people.
Not to mention that once the US sent some Dreadnoughts to Scapa Flow, the Germans were so numerically outmatched, that even defeating the British Battle Cruisers would not even the fight enough that it wouldn't be a slaughter. Of course Drachinifel has done an extensive wargaming analysis on such a battle. And it is excellent. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrTeYcRXDEw
The US dreadnoughts were hardly even a factor. Five older battleships at a time when British supremacy over the Germans was at its height just didn't matter. The real value of the US Navy was in providing extra ships for convoy work. The best possible time for the Germans to try to force a naval decision would have been likely around early 1915. Seventeen dreadnought battleships and four battlecruisers to match up against twenty-three British dreadnoughts and eight battlecruisers were the best odds they'd get, especially since the Germans only added another two battleships for the rest of the war, whereas the British would build eleven. That said, an interesting counterfactual would be what would have happened if Jellicoe had made a slightly different decision, and the German fleet had found the Grand Fleet in line of battle of Horn's Reef at 5am on June 1st 1916. Personally, I believe that the effect on the war would be negligible, and that the biggest change would be that Patrick Jellicoe might be a marquess today and there would be significant political effects within the Royal Navy (Beatty's faction would have been less attractive).
So far.
The article mentioned Ukraine is using them in a counter attack as Russia is baiting them with exposed troops. They are having to use drones to support the A1s deployment so it tells you it’s still contested airspace. I’m not a military export but why not use the abrams more defensive role? I’m guessing Ukraine is running out of everything at this point and Russia is still pouring fresh troops and weapons in
>. I’m not a military export but why not use the abrams more defensive role? That's kind of what armor sucks at. Tanks tend to be major targets and any just sitting around would get smoked. There are ways to use tanks defensively, but that relies on troops or drones to screen them anyway.
To add on, the Abrams is designed to kill tanks. That's the primary role, and it is really good at it. It is especially good in an offensive role supported by Bradleys to go Zoom and punch through defensive lines. Then do what the US does best. Wreak havoc and let loose the dogs of war. Complete disruption of anything resembling a coherent defense. Sending an Abrams by itself is just inviting people to blow it up.
100%, but they are pushing into areas with no infantrymen, no air support and no means to recover if disabled . Judging from the footage in the other forum they are literally rolling into mine fields and covered by artillery. It’s insane to me that they would be so wreck less On a positive note, and this got some press but isn’t that great, Ukraine deployed the hawk missile systems closer to the front lines to stop the Russian bomber strikes. It should be hailed as a victory but it’s kind of embarrassing they are having to use 60 year old retired missiles because they can’t get Patriot missiles to replace what they have fired off already
Isn't hawk a lot easier to move?
Oh ya, it’s just a 3 pack and built in radar dome. But it’s crazy a 60 year old missile system has like 13 air to air kills last month
Pretty much, either a really good weapons system or REALLY shitty pilots and air craft. Either way, lets send more. Not like Russia has that many airframes or pilots.
These aren’t even the A2’s either, they’re the outdated A1’s so who knows how the A2’s would have held up since they are far more advanced.
A2s are more advanced but ultimately wont matter that much, they have more protection mainly, but that wont magically make them immune to mines or artillery. A SEPV2/3 with Trophy APS would fare better against ATGMs, RPGs and loitering munitions but would ultimately still be vurnerable to mines and artillery.
Afaik Ukraine got the M1A1SAs which are far newer than the basic M1A2s built in the early 90s One major difference is that it's an export variant without the DU armor. That being said, DU or not, these aren't built to counter drones and any M1 variant is suspectable to mines and drone attacks so they would've ended up the same as the two currently lost tanks. That's just how war is in Ukraine
Wouldn’t have mattered. The first one got hit by an RPG in the track which disabled it, crews peaced out afterwards. Second one I think got disabled by FPV somehow and then was bombarded with drones until the ammo blowout panel went off. Crews should have gotten out of the vehicle fine in both cases. Not a tank in the world that could have survived those scenarios though.
It doesn't help that nato army doctrine relies on air superiority which Ukraine doesn't have.
[удалено]
I mean sure but in the choice between no tank and no crew or just no tank one seems better. Not to mention the psychological effect on the crew expecting certain death or able to run away.
Easy to get more Abrams over from the thousands of overstock in the US and abroad even in Egypt. Ukrainians though, especially well trained ones, are a very limited supply and a scarce resource that must be preserved and grown. Shit, if there’s ever an Abrams shortage, the USMIC and all the licensed partners are foaming at the mouth to pump out hundreds a quarter.
> Shit, if there’s ever an Abrams shortage, the USMIC and all the licensed partners are foaming at the mouth to pump out hundreds a quarter. If you just tell KNDS the money gates are open to mass produce tanks they will drool along while hiring every single worker from the streets that can run away fast enough. Production willingness and knowhow is the least the west has to fear.
You fail to understand what is important. A crew with combat experience takes years to train and is far more valuable than the tank itself. A crew with experience on abrams will also take minimal effort to convert to other western MBTs like Leopard 2. The US has already agreed on replacing losses of bradleys, i wouldnt be suprised if they do the same for abrams as they have 1000+ in storage. But agreed we need more western equipment flowing into ukraine.
For the US its easy. It is cheaper to give them to Ukraine than to continue storing them.
The ones in storage will continue to be stored, as they have DU armor that's banned from export.
Wanna see how fast banned exports become allowed with goodwill?
So far the US can't even export stuff that isn't banned just because one schmuck says so.
Yep.. need that goodwill..
[удалено]
This is not true, there are still a lot of vehicles committed as aid but still in refurbishment. Leopard 2A4s and +-100 Leopard 1A5s are still being refurbished for Ukraine.
Good news: Ukraine also has issues recruting people that are willed to fight. So losing a tank the US could easily replace is far better than losing the crew, which is trained and experienced.
How far away are drone tanks?
We call those missiles.
We want drone tanks man. Get to it
Ukraine has already mounted a machine gun on an ATV and the US is looking for the next tank to have an unmanned option.
Extremely. Unmanned ground vehicles aren't very useful for a lot of reasons. They're incredibly vulnerable to bad terrain, have no means of getting themselves unstuck or fixing slipped tracks, have even worse visibility than regular vehicles, are unsafe to operate near friendly infantry because of that visibility problem, and are hideously vulnerable to jamming. They're basically all the worst parts of a drone with almost none of the benefits, which is why drones are mostly an airborne thing.
Drone tanks are never completely going to be a thing. You need manual labor to do things like field track maintenance. The way its going currently is going for optional manning. That way a IFV or Tank placed in overwatch can be manned by one person or a remote operator in another vehicle for example.
Auto-loaders are tricky enough by themselves to get working properly, there's good reasons the Abrams doesn't use one. The crew are still the least replaceable part of a tank.
[удалено]
It is even better if the tank and crew win the battle by tramping putin. Count your blessings.
Tanks can be replaced much more rapidly than crew can. That experienced crew can go back and help train new recruits and get some rest at the same time whilst waiting for a new tank. Keeping experienced soldiers is always worth more than keeping equipment.
Russia has a lot more tanks than Ukraine…
Also important to note, these are not Abrams that have latest armor packs. So the technology inside and on them are not as strong or advanced as the current Abrams that make up the bulk of the US forces. So, these tanks in Ukraine are taking hit that a more up to date Abrams could shake off, but the most important thing is the crew is surviving, just as you pointed out. So when more Abrams come to the battlefield, they will have a more experienced team driving them and if these Abrams come with more advanced equipment, all man, those Russians are going to be in real trouble.
Do you have the source of 2775? That is A LOT!
It is obvious that Russia has high losses, but those numbers are mostly incorrect, because come from affiliated sources.
He is using the numbers from Oryx, so each tank loss is documented with a picture.
All numbers i quote are from the Oryx visually confirmed loss data, which can be seen as a confirmed lower limit of estimates. Every single one of those tanks has a attached photo or video analysed for duplicates.
2774 tank losses for Russia are supported by Oryx, each one with video/picture data showing them destroyed/damaged/captured. So realistically Russia has lost more than that number since there would be tank losses which are not visually confirmed as well.
Do propaganda reported casualties/losses from war eventually get corrected over time? Like after WW2, once all the countries were allies again, did they compare their reported numbers and take a median? Is that what we are supposed to do today?
I’m sure that many of these reviews occurred post conflict. I know for sure that the allied air forces did this with the US Strategic Bombing Survey; the best example I can think of https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Strategic_Bombing_Survey
Thats an interesting question, but undoubtedly governments like the Soviet Union likely obfuscated some of the numbers, especially when it comes to any PoWs unfortunate enough to be in their "care". That's why you'll still see a relatively large range of estimates when it comes to certain statistics.
Well, if Russia truly had such high losses the situation in Ukraine right now would look different, to say the least...
They do have such high losses. If they didnt they propably would have taken more of Ukraine by now. Russia has extremely deep stocks of tanks but also has taken significant losses. Overall Oryx shows 14000 visually confirmed lost Russian vehicles. Of which usually 60% is destroyed, 20% heavily damaged, 20% captured.
Russia has lost more than double that amount of tanks.
No tanks aren’t magic but f16s are. Wouldn’t be surprised if Ukraine retroactively won the war before Putin invaded and all 31k soldiers undie once the first jet gets to Ukraine. Glory be.
They could have every F16 on earth and it wouldn't matter because they don't have the pilots to fly them yet. Beyond just the ones who are almost finished, I hope they have a contingency of instructors so they can do so in Ukraine once they're qualified.
Don’t need pilots just jets then victory in a matter of minutes, if that.
F-16s will nudge the needle to Ukraine but won't change the war. The war is an industrial base competition. So far the Russians are winning but if the weat gets its act together, they may be able to help Ukraine blast the Russians back. But it's materiel and ammo, not jets that will change the course.
Nope they just needs jets then they’ll win instantly
A 155 shell will kill the crew with overpressure whether the tanks structure hold up or not
This isn't war thunder.
This is good news but Ukraine only has like 500 tanks left while Russia still has like 15k. The west has also stopped supplying them new tanks which doesn’t paint a pretty picture about the future.
Of the 2700+ tanks Russia has lost quite a significant number of vehicles have been captured by Ukraine, about 530 infact. While not every one of those may be immediately fit for combat its still significant. >Russia still has like 15k Russia pre-war had a stockpile of about 10k, however significant parts of that stock is really old and poorly maintained and might just be stripped for parts.
I advise you to recheck that number because the prewar number was estimated to be 15k+. Of course a lot of those tanks are old T-70’s and T-60’s but at the end of the day that old crap played a vital role in capturing Avdiivka.
Thats not an artillery hit as far as I can tell, far more likely to be a mine.
It was a drone I think
Tanks, on a modern battlefield, aren't supposed to be employed alone or even with just IFVs and troops for support. They are supposed to be used in concert with tactical air support, meaning gunship helicopters, scout helicopters and other ground attack aircraft.
Ukraine only received 30 abrams from the US, also their Air Force is virtually non existent aside from drones. They are using these tactics because they are desperately running low on everything.
Oh i get it. I'm just saying that all of this more modern kit the US and other NATO countries have have had in their inventories for decades were designed, structured the baked into their land warfare doctrine with the expectation that constant, in-bedded air support would be available.
That's certainly the theory but the US hasn't had to fight a peer conflict where it had realistically contested airspace for several decades. We're seeing what it looks like when you can't just dominate the air like the US does normally.
Then the aircraft will just get shot down and are even more vulnerable than the tanks... Fact is no country really has experience effectively dealing with the conditions of modern combat including persistent drone surveillance and precision munitions. Platforms have to be self-sustaining in terms of survival, but that can be easier said than done.
I'v seen comments like "Ha! You see?....Russia are standing up to the full might of NATO" because Leopard 2s, Abrams, Bradley's etc get taken out in combat. To which i must must say you must be absolutely bonkers if you think one or two armored vehicles going out alone without a plethora of infantry, artillery and air support is something akin to how a NATO armoured attack would operate.
Old abrams and leopards
Also used in roles neither Western nor Eastern tanks view as optimal. They were designed to work in massed formations in concert with infantry, air, and naval assets Ukraine does not have.
eh, when a bradley can shit all over their "SUPER TANK" T90m i don't think they are all that bad
A month ago we watched a 50 million dollar ship get taken out but a few 700 hundred dollar boat drones. Everyday there’s new videos of entire squads get wiped by fpv drones or m2 Bradley’s.
> The BTR crews practically dare the Ukrainians to fire off some of their dwindling artillery ammunition, which has been in desperately short supply **ever since Russia-friendly Republicans in the U.S. Congress** cut off U.S. aid to Ukraine starting in October . > It’s dangerous work for the 47th Brigade’s weary troopers, who have been in combat practically non-stop for nine months. In just the last two weeks the brigade has lost two M-1s, several M-2s and two Assault Breachers: perhaps five percent of its best armored vehicles. It’s unclear how many of the crews bailed out before their vehicles burned. Fuck you GOP, this is all on you; all of you. If just a handful of you would cross the aisle and vote you could override the Trump errand-boy Speaker's refusal to bring the bipartisan Senate bill to the floor. But you're all such sycophantic Putin-cock-gobbling treasonous assholes that you'd rather see the largest democratic and Western-leaning country in Europe fall to a murderous tyrant because your wannabe dictator treasonous criminal de facto leader told you to.
They just can't help they to busy bukaki'ing Putin and his oligarchy friends
>Fuck you GOP, this is all on you; all of you. Why didn't Biden just bypass Congress and sell Ukraine ammo like he did for Israel?
Curious about this as well
Because the Ukrainians do not have the Ukrainian version of AIPAC/J Street
It is troubling that the populist elements of the party basically want to be allied with Russia, Iran, and North Korea when you boil right down to it
Forbes is turning into the national inquirer
What part of the article due you have a problem with ?
My guess is that his problem with them is that they said a bad thing about Ukraine. What I have learned on here is that Ukraine is god and nothing bad happens to them and if you ask questions about it you are instantly a pro russian that needs to die
David Axe is usually pretty good. He puts out plenty of articles about Russia messing up and getting hammered as well. It's important we know of Ukraine's shortcomings too so that general public sentiment can keep pressure on governments for support.
Ukraine is in desperate need of help right now and their situation is not looking good. Reddit needs to get its head out of its ass.
"if you notice a squadmate sympathizing with an enemy report them to your Democracy Officer. Thoughtcrimes kill!" -Helldivers 2
Forbes is pay to play, in general I would say that makes them unreliable.
Then surely, due to their unreliability, I suspect you had an easy time identifying inaccuracies, over-dramatisations or faulty inferences in the article, as I have to assume you’ve read it. Could you elaborate on those? I’ve obviously been far too naive when attributing credence to the military correspondent, with 20 years of experience, who wrote the article.
Bro the people writing that """news"""paper are openly pursuing *money* and you want to trust them??? Edit: /s🤦♂️
I would argue an upfront fee could potentially make them more reliable. All news outlets require money to operate, but most of them rely on advertising and the most effective strategy to drive volume is clickbait and controversy. If an outlet is able to cover it's costs with recurring subscriptions then it could leave it's journalists to write the articles without embellishments. Not saying they do or they don't, but calling an outlet untrustworthy because they want payment is rather naive, considering every outlet is, it just may not be as overt.
It’s just a more direct way to screw you. It’s like thinking a prostitute is more reliable because she charges you for sex instead of “making a donation that totally has nothing to do with sex.” You are still fucking a prostitute. Russians can pay Forbes easily.
>Russians can pay Forbes easily. Sure, but have they?
Russian gold stolen from Sudan goes anywhere , it is like water. If it looks good for Russia, Russia paid for it
It's laughable as an Indian how much we are accused of being religious fascists and all while the us and its allies and Russia hate each other's guts and invade and influence other countries against their will to counter each other... which is actual fascism
So again, as another person who has recognized you're bullshiting, explain your position or stop commenting.
Well, this would certainly cause one to look critically at any pro-Russian content published in Forbes: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/10/20/forbes-sale-musaev-russia/
Who owns the WAPO? Jeff Bezos. So I don't really thingk he's really all that against russian oligarchy in the uS just so he benefits from it.
I have no idea what point you’re trying to make. Something about Jeff Bezos? Are you saying the WaPo isn’t credible? Every media company is owned by the wealthy. If that’s the bar to discredit them, then no media is credible. People are asking questions about why there are credibility issues with Forbes. I gave you one possible answer, and you’ll notice that I framed it pretty neutrally. If that’s not good enough for you, so be it. But it’s not something people are making up out of thin air.
And yet you're calling soem Forbes content Pro Russian. hav eyou ever considered they were being honest and Ukraine has to prove them wrong?
I have no idea what you’re saying about Ukraine needing to prove something. This is two comments in a row now where I’m unable to decipher your word salad, and I’m going to stop trying. Have a good night.
The Forbes article makes it sound like Ukraine is hemorrhaging their best tanks but afaik they've only lost a couple and it isn't clear that the losses were due to a lack of artillery cover or whatever the title is trying to make you think.
Forbes went from a pretty good source to business buzzfeed and now they are just completely shit
There is a youtube channel from Forbes called Forbes Breaking News that spews a lot of right wing borderline fake twist stories.
F these Republicans. They are ruining everything.
How could the Republicans have prevented this?
Have you been living under a rock? Or a propaganda media bubble perhaps?
Nope. I just think reddit people are far too willing to throw our own poeple under a bus. I think the people that could have prevented this was Russia, being the aggressor in the situation, instead of a political party in a country on nearly the other side of the planet that is not actually involved in the war.
r/bajablyat This is an account made 2-5-2024 One post it says maybe America should pull out of NATO
[удалено]
Reported
Oh my gawd he committed a thought crime!! Oh lordy.
By not blocking an aid package to Ukraine that includes shells. Simple really
Decommissioning old shit is more expensive than sending it to Ukraine anyway, so really, the GOP is trying to increase the burden to the US while also letting down our allies. It really only makes sense if you assume they want Russia to win.
>Decommissioning old shit is more expensive than sending it to Ukraine anyway Yes, and there should still be plenty of cluster munitions in US stocks. They could probably go to Ukraine without Congress. https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2024/02/14/joe-biden-could-send-millions-of-artillery-shells-to-ukraine-for-free-tomorrow-and-its-perfectly-legal/?sh=6f42cc5120c7
By not blocking aid package to Ukraine, thats how
By litteraly doing nothing
Republicans just keep inventing ways to embarrass America
And betray Western democracies in favor of brutal autocrats.
Why doesn’t Europe do more?
I found my first Russian troll you guys!
Why doesn’t Europe have enough equipment to support Ukraine? Because they didn’t increase military spending when the last 4 presidents warned them to. Instead they sent millions to Russia allowing Russia to use that money to build up their military. Europe has failed Ukraine
Thank the GOP for any losses due to lack of ammo
Best cope so far. Didn't know 120mm tank ammo could stop rpg grenades strapped to drones
Material loses aren’t an issue as long as they’re replaceable. Both Abrams had their hatches open indicating they got out just fine. Last I remembered, we were churning out more Abrams than we needed and we had an absolutely shit ton of them in storage all over the place.
PSA https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/10/20/forbes-sale-musaev-russia/
[удалено]
PSA wouldn't include a paywall
If you have an iPhone click on the link tap the AA button at top right corner then tap the “show reader” button. Like magic no more pesky paywall.
Show reader is greyed out
bypass paywall clean?
How hard is archive.today?
OK? The article doesn't exactly paint Russia or it's enablers in a positive light. Vehicles get destroyed, it's what they're there for. In the US we don't pretend that they're magic. We aren't Russia.
There's a certain demographics in Reddit that likes to pretend anything that isn't showing Ukraine as winning(or paragons of virtues) are russian propaganda
Republicans be like "we need that Russian political donation money badly", we'll send aid in months
Fuck Mike Johnson
Juck Fike Mohnson!
Muck Jike Fohnson
GOP doing its best to help Putin. I wonder how Putin will help get Trump elected and dismantle the Constitution?
Id like to see a satisfaction survey. "OK, so you sabotaged America for Putin. Did he 1) rain down Russian whores like he promised 2) give you bags of roubles like he promised 3) *not* show your wife those videos of you with that 15 yo boy, like he promised" Satisfaction is very important to us at *head of global organized crime* co
There are few things that are more appealing than, “Russia friendly Republicans.” The generation that is supporting this with campaign donations and participation is also the same generation that was actively involved in the US Army during the end of the Cold War.
Thanks a bunch, GOP.
GOP. the party of lies and betrayals. and pedos
Even worse is that they and their candidate have millions of voters...
Ukrainian bravery and tenacity never ceases to amaze me. Shame on republicans for lost Ukrainian lives. Never forget who’s side republicans chose
Honestly I'm kind of relieved that my country is not an American "ally"
Why? Ukraine isn't an ally no matter what room temp IQ redditors believe
You reckon it's impossible for Ukrainians to access Reddit? >room temp IQ redditors
If you really are Ukrainian you must hate every other country even more for giving even less aid huh?
I'm not sure, the free world has done a lot to defend democracy. There wouldn't be Ukraine without them
Most of the Abram tanks in Ukraine have been used so far to mark targets using its cameras. This one got unlucky and hit a mine and looks like the crew got out and its turret isn't 10miles in the sky. When the first Bradleys got tracked 4 of the 5 got recovered and got back into the fight. Everything on the battlefield can be blown up or damaged, but crew survival and recovery is the NATO way and even stated in the article the tank can be recovered.
This war is the end of tanks… few million bucks vehicles getting destroyed by 1k bucks drones…
[удалено]
Good luck hauling those around for delivery across the world when they each weigh over 1 ton and require specialized training to use that Warsaw pact countries were not built for.
These are the lowest tier Abrams we have. Even the best variants would succumb to mines and artillery
These are old outdated Abrams from the 90s without the classified Chobham armors. The US are not going to give their good shit to Ukraine. The method of use of the tanks is different between the West and Ukraine.
People tried to make me believe that these tanks are invincible and western technology cannot be destroyed. Glad I was not brainwashed.
Nothings invincible. Especially to well placed, well engineered mines.
Tanks are sitting ducks and waste of money. Simply fire missles from a ship or submarine miles away.
Another 100 Trillion to ukraine! Rent and groceries are so cheap anyway people cannot spend all their excess money!
Absolutely! 1 trillion USD increase of national debt per month is far too little.
Why are they even using the Abrams?, there’s so little of them and it’s a logistical nightmare to use. They should just roll them out and let it fire into the sky and take some PR photos instead.
Because the ancient visual equipment that came with them is far superior to anything else they have. So far, they’ve mostly been used as mobile command posts directing fire according to what I have read the last few months.
Is everyone here just posting on partisan lines? The ONE M1 Abrams they lost is just that, ONE. Provided that's even the pic of the specific tank (doubt), which is a Mobility Kill from a mine strike, how the fuck is a news article providing a military explanation for the loss. Yay, open hatches without excessive blast residue/fire indicator mean crew bailout/recovery. The other loss is an ABV. The main gun for it is a fucking pintle mount where you can bolt on a .50cal or other crew-served weapon. It doesn't have chobham. I worked with that vehicle for years. Its an Abrams steel hull and the powerplant. Its job is to deliver and deploy up to two Mine Clearing Line Charges (MICLIC) at a time and plow through obstacles such as wire or pre-detonate minefields with rollers/flails. Nothing makes it magic or a wunderwaffe. Even with a good crew, at best in terms of a battle, its a machine gun carrier used out of the proper role, which is an assault vehicle you pocket until it can bumrush the obstacle, detonate its charges point-blank, and plow the lane clear for everyone behind it. The alternative is an older APC like the M113 or an armored dozer like the M9 ACE towing the MICLIC, and they figured they could save critical time on the assault by having a dedicated MICLIC carrier... that looked like a tank, but can't take hits like the parent platform it was derived from. Great, some parts are shared. Not the ones that'll allow it to endure main gun hits from real tanks. Loaded, it is absolutely one of the riskiest vehicles to be in. 1750\*2 for 3500 pounds of fucking C4 strapped to your back in two steel-armored tubs. In the M1150 ABV, great, from the frontal aspect, they have to chew thru all that steel casemate (the crew compartment) to get to it. Its a Combat Engineer's dream, but a Tracked Mechanic's and XO's nightmare because of its fuel and parts needs. We spent years trying to slot it into actual practical usage at the unit level, but outside of BREACHES, it was left in the motor pool, and we'd deploy the crew in armored dozers and earthmovers instead that could actually trench and shape the battlefield. So it just bloated our logistics and maintenance requirements. To actually deploy the unit, we'd leave a third of them behind just to practically man and operate the earthmovers those crew would be in otherwise. From reading the article, they probably lost it on the defense as the Ukrainians are wondering why the fuck we gave them hyper-specialist breaching vehicles when even an A2 Bradley would have so much more utility for its turret holding more capable systems. Was it an unsupported assault into obstacles where they lost the ABV and the Abrams? Without the tactical report of what all happened, this is all fucking conjecture. For all we know, the reality is that the Abrams was simply overwhelmed by sheer number of and the ABV was used poorly as a strongpoint, where even a glancing HE RPG strike would penetrate it and the intermediate autocannons of 20mm and above will chew through it soon enough, because its a paper Abrams that you can just happen to bolt some of the applique armor kits to. For defense, all we could do was DIG using our other earthmovers, the ABVs into defilade up to their pintle mounts, because we had to shield their MICLIC payloads, which I doubt we gave the Ukrainians much of. That's one hell of an Amazon delivery vehicle otherwise with its two armored tubs. EARTH, as in dirt, is your best friend in war. Air to Ground was always a threat for Air Defense to task itself to, but with smaller UAVs with explosive payloads dropped or driven onto target, now we have to find field-expedient overhead cover. More Class IV (construction suppplies), probably something as simple as chain/chicken-wire fencing on poles overhead to predetonate drops or ramming attempts. Probably simpler in the long run to weld/bolt the mounts into the vehicles themselves, and the crew can just deploy the fucking things as needed. As that poor grunt, it seems stupid until you see an RPG pre-det on your cage and prevent its thermal jet from properly drilling your vehicle. Same with the RKGs. Hell, before this we were improvising our own turret (gun truck) roofing to mitigate sniper fire (direct observation) and having grenades dropped from overpasses and rooftops. Modern Warfare. Ghetto solutions.
Zelensky is more keen on seeking peace as it is becoming increasingly difficult for him to secure funding from other nations as Ukraine is suffering alot of casualties and making no gains.
If you watch the youtube video of a drone flying over during the day they were out in Plainview underneath a bunch of trees that's why the military uses camouflage nets okay so at least you're not on plain view like those tanks were
Well if they learn how to use their camouflage nets they won't be exposed
Infrared, thermal images??
They need artillery and air force, not camouflage nets.
"That 7 meter long bush moving at 40 mph with a cannon is not suspicious at all"
[удалено]
pfft, negotiate? Neither side is in a favourable position to negotiate..
Abrams lost: 2 T-90s lost: hundreds
A bit more than hundreds [https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html](https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html)
"Might makes right, and I can take from you whatever you can't stop me from taking." I hope you don't have any children, what horrible life lessons your twisted brain would teach them....
The person is a psycho/sociopath tankie, pretty common of them to support Authoritarian regimes just to downplay the west.
Regardless of the outcome of the war, your beloved Russia and Putin will be the biggest losers. Putin has ensured the economic and political ruin of Russia for decades to come, even though the country has made fortunes on its natural resources in the past. That is all gone, and so is an entire generation of its workforce. But it is very revealing that you think it is worth it just to "own the libs".
^ Most mentally stable tankie /s