Ukraine keeps losing Abrams tanks...
2024 ж. 6 Нау.
359 551 Рет қаралды
After the first loss of an Abrams tank, we got several more confirmed losses. So far, there are 3 confirmed losses of Ukrainian M1A1SA tanks...
Patreon with discord: / redeffect
Outro: "face away" - svard
Maybe now Gaijin will be able to inspect the abrams in-person and maybe fix the tank lol
Exported Abrams do not include DU. knowing gaijin, they will make the Abrams much worse.
@@chocolat-kun8689 coping with the monkey export shit? lel.
@@chocolat-kun8689 Yeah, I was laughing so haed when I learned that... They send them gloryfied dune buggies, because they know Russia's first reflex is to capture enemy weapons...
5 second reload is not realistic 😐
@@chocolat-kun8689 You acting as if the DU actually makes a difference in modern warfare.. Nice cope
Surprised at how unbiased this is. "If stuff gets used, it gets destroyed". Wish everyone would understand that.
Cope
How is he coping? He didn't even mention a side@@mrwhips3623
@@mrwhips3623 huh?
That's Red Effect for ya. That's why so many of us have been watching us for years. He can point out the pros and cons in both western and eastern tanks without being a suckered for either one. A man who just truly loves learning about tanks. Makes sense why he's a lawyer irl, probably a damn good one at that.
@@Ghent_Halcyon right? Since when is not falling for propaganda a cope?? lmao
In Iraq America lost 23 Abrams, ranging from IED, Kornet hits to friendly fire. Idk why it's such a surprise to these people.
its becacuse a lot of people were acting like those are game changers... no joke I saw some person TODAY, saying on Twitter that all the Ukrannians need is 3 of those tanks with a entrenchement equipment to breakthroutgh Russian lines, TODAY, 07 of march of 2024
Because some tank fans can't accept that their favorite tank can be destroyed
They only lost 9 tanks, 7 being from friendly fire and 2 being self-destroyed to prevent capture, the rest were just damaged, on the other hand it is reported that the Saudi's lost about 20 abrams to the Houthis
@@ghostly6175 You should read something else than some propaganda bulletin from US :D
@@ghostly6175you telling me they shot their own team 7 time? 💀
I love how when a Russian tank gets knocked out it's "LOL RUSSIAN TANKS SUCK" but when a western tank does its "well... nothing is invincible, uh- uuum- uuh in war everything gets lost."
NATO warmongers crying about it is hilarious though
@@SinfullyHera soviets mbts: blame the tank Western mbts:blame the crew Westrn Copium at its peak
Funkin Kremlin bots
@@striker1689 Ukrocopium employee
@@SinfullyHera >NATO warmongers guess who started the war
RedEffect , what you said at the end . I wish more people accepted that . If stuff gets used it gets destroyed you should not get shocked at destroyed Abrahams or T90 tanks
CCN say this game changer. And Putin fear M1 Abrams kzhead.info/sun/f9OCabZpop-HoHk/bejne.htmlsi=Hpt2kXAeaBYJ40gM
No one is shocked. Just shocked at the pre-PR hu-ha nonsense (like those before it) about its game-changing tag. Btw, the RAF never claimed the T90 to be a game-changing tank.
natobots ans vatniks cant grasp that their ultra western russi destroyer/sigma Z power super tank got killed by a 300$ drone or kornet/TOW platforms
I think you mean Abrams, but Abraham does sound cool for a future tank.
Yep, that's the crux of the whole issue. A tank thaT isn't lost, is a tank that wasn't being used. In symmetric war, EVERYTHING is a consumable. From high-tech missile systems to boots on the ground and everything in-between.
The 3rd tank is 100% fucked.
Yeah
💯
nah yea that 3rd one was personal
Awesome!!!
that guy shotting it really want his lakeside mansion xD
There isn’t a single vehicle on this earth that cannot be destroyed, people need to accept this lol
But muh American narratives......
Wrong, the Renault 4
Bob simple tank op
@@John.S.Patton Now that is a tank I can stand behind, a true exemplary example of a beautiful tank
Yes, but leaving hatches open is asking for a tank to be destroyed by enemy. Looks like self-sabotage. It appears to me, that neither of the two parties actually take this war seriously. Russia refuses to call general mobilisation which is absolutely required by Russian doctrine to make units work properly. Ukraine on the other hand refuses to recruit people younger than 27 or chase deserters abroad. In comparision, in WWII conscript age was 18, and it was common for all parties to send 16 year olds to front, as well as people who failed medical assesments. Even West Allies did that.
When abrams are not being destroyed: people: american weapons are god-sends When abrams get destroyed: people: it's war duh! Ofc it gets destroyed (copium intensifies)
In every war tanks get destroyer no matter what... It doesnt matter how good T-90M, abrams or challanger is, it will still be destroyed, you cant change that fact
no tank burn brighter than chally
then they are not longer Game changers hahahah...the stupid ukronazis and western media belived that crap
The claim has always been that Western tanks are "superior". This is argued by every single "pro-Ukraine" type out there. Russians don't say their tanks are superior, maybe more numerous, or their crews better (because of actual combat experience). Westerners have always had this "inherrent superiority" belief. This is reflected by just looking at how they are choosing to face divisional attacks from Russians, with just brigades. It is inherrent in NATO thinking, which is why they are losing, not only militarily, but politically, morally. There was a interview with a Ukrainian tankman by a pro-UA news source, and he outright said, "the NATO soldiers told us, "just go around the minefield" as if it was a tiny thing". That is the type of "inherrent superiority" that guides European/American/Western "morals" at the moment.
Really,that wasn't the narrative before they came to Ukr.The Britt's were bragging about the Challengers too.
@@frododiddledeebipedybopedy9840 Well, they are superior in many regards, but that doesn't make them invincible.
The issue Abrams facing is exactly the same as the Leopard and Challenger - they drop more SL when destroyed. Every drone operator, kornet team, artillery will just focus fire on them, trying to get at least a kill assist.
Drones have op airspawns, they should be nerfed
They get bonus for every western tank get destroyed.
@@IlllIlIlIIlllit’s time for humans to get a nerf in the new incoming update of 2027
I thought Putin put big bounties for Abrams, Challengers, and Leopard 2s, so I am pretty sure those AT teams seek them out zealously. Still, Ukraine is now the world's largest weapon testing ground.
@@rps215 No its stupid Ukrainians using trash tactics cuz Why those tanks were roaming no-mans land alone? Where was their infantry support and why they were deployed to the frontline, where commanders know for a fact Russian infantry have kornet. Abram can't engage Russians effectively at 6km range but they can spam kornets at it all day long cuz its very cheap.
From what I heard, these Abrams have conventional armor and doesn't have the classified ceramics that the US military uses. But it's a tank. Rpgs are powerfull. Shaped charges are hard to defeat. But those crews survived, that's the difference
Yes they are monkey export models, same thing when saudis lose their abrams to Yemeni goat farmers it dosent mean much
Экипажы не выживают, их преследуют дроны и артиллерии
"uhhh yahh it doesnt have the the classifieddddd armor that we got from aliens huhuhu,. so the lost is ok huhuhu" -john in his mom basement waiting for the next burger king order
@@xogeneral1512 you tried to be smart and made yourself look like a idiot well done
No guys look , they do have Chobham armor. But not all around. No tank is armored all over. There are always weak spots. Some more so than others. The Abram’s is no different There is a reason why they make tank recovery vehicles.
2:10 The third tank was destroyed by T-72 missile called 9M119M "Invar", not by ATGM team
How do you know it? I want to know how to identify missiles and other stuff in bad quality videos (drone footage).
@@slovakiancountryball9568 that's a claim from Russian Media that said the source from Russian Army
@@raiffaza9345 Yeah I know. How do I know itnis true?
@@slovakiancountryball9568you can tell actually from the fact that the tank can fire atgms and fired from far away also the footage we see the thermal sight is not stabilised meaning its just thermal binoculars or camera just to identify the tank if its destroyed or not that's what I believe
@@AlexanderK9519 ok thank you
This is why you should never bring an Abrams tank to a shovel fight.
terminally online u are
Amazing what Russian shovels can do isnt it
@@dirt-kw7cylol u don't have to be terminally online to make fun of nafo propaganda.
@@dirt-kw7cywhy are you so angry little boy
There is a reason we have to use the words like "shovel". As anything we talk against the popular narrative will be deleted or targeted by powerful corporations like Blackrock, NAFO and the wokies.
Everyone saying that hes pro russia or pro ukraine. Please shut up, hes about as neutral as you can get.
He is really the only one who is neutral and understands tanks
“T14 does not use WW2 German engine” Lazerpig legit proved this, while Lazerpig is biased in some ways, he lists all his sources and provides credible evidence
@@antoniochalking Lazerpig literally didn't provide sources in his response videos "so that people would be forced to do the same amount of research" and he often lists sources that contradict himself lol
@@xyphoon5013does that mean he just said "trust me bro"?
@@antoniochalkingsigh, its like saying the 747 uses a ww2 engine because its a jet engine. Very dumb low iq comparison.
Thank you for your work! It's nice to see a dedicated person. Your level of analysis is way higher than most of the Guardian or Washington post journalists (not kidding).
The "game-changing" Abrams tanks are no match for Russia's highly explosive shovels
Bwhahahahahaha 🤣
If people hadn't called these tanks "game changers" Russians wouldn't be celebrating when they're destroying "game changers" EDIT: Oh wow this blew up, my fault for commenting early I guess. Lets see what you've all written. Firstly, these men get bombed daily. Working, and fighting to near death yet many of you have not the common decency to respect what they go through. Shame on you. Secondly prewar of course Russia called its tanks impregnable superweapons. Its good propaganda. When the war started many of you watched footage awaiting for superweapons yet only saw real world tanks killing and dying in conventional warfare. So obviously many of you considered them to be obsolete. Russian commanders are quite aware of what they can and cant do with the tanks they have but are fighting an enemy with the same knowledge, so conventional war they fight. Thirdly westeners are now at fault aswell for aiding russian propaganda. Not just internationally against sending equipment to Ukraine but also locally for its troops. Imagine being a Russian soldier and hearing about these "game changers" one of the most modern tanks of America "something that can turn the war" then seeing these game changers get destroyed one by one. Its an immense moral boost. Fourthly the people who said these lines are all western media sites and people who regurtigate their articles. Ukraine and Nato brass knows quite well what the Abrams can and can't do. They knew they would be sending a modern tank to kill and die in a conventional war and theyve accepted that both personally and on paper with the very documents that allowed these tanks to be sent. Fifthly if the Abrams isn't a game changer why was it sent in the first place? Because its a goddamn tank. A tank is an important aspect of conventional warfare. Having more of them is a literal bonus no matter what angle you look at it from. Some of you touched on the topics of air power and big picture logistics but frankly this comment is large enough as it is. And thats all there is to say about that.
Imagine being so desperate for something to celebrate that all you can talk about is 3 lost tanks vs your own losses of 3000+ 🤔🤷♂️😂
Yeah, Russians do not give much of a shit when a Polish Crab or a Marder gets destroyed, as those were not memed to the Heavens and back by Westoid media. It's a propaganda victory that Westoids themselves gifted the Russians
@@smyers820gm I'm not defending Russians but that's a misplaced sentiment. They destroyed 3 tanks within the first month of their actual deployment, you can't compare that to the around 19/20 losses of T-90M in 2 entire years
@@smyers820gm Imagine finishing school and being unable to grasp the difference between relative and absolute values.
Should be now renamed to "Game Overs"
"Turret still attached, still repairable" No bruh... Is lost, the internals are fried and if someone in there was "lap loading", it's completely kaput
So? You can still repair the tank even if the fire control is gone
@@poopyickydoodooobama09 it's not just fire control. Fuel lines, suspension bars (under turret basket), gun breach and so on. There's a lot of stuff that goes in and near the crew compartment. And he didn't say fire control, he said "internals"
armor also got fried, so they have to replace the armor after the heat treatment. What remained of crew on the inside when they get the HEAT overpressure inside ? They are surely fine... noone got out Overpressure can blast the doors open from inside.
@@poopyickydoodooobama09 This amount of internal damage is so expensive to fix that it's better to get a new Abrams.
if i can remember there was an abrams that got obliterated by an ied in iraq and it was repaired.
Unbiased as always. Literally one of the only people covering this conflict that are actually unbiased. Keep up the great work man
History legends?
@@1Beta1 He's one of the other unbiased ones
No platoon maneuvers, always a single tank with no support. Just drive, get disabled, abandon the track. So stupid
Exactly right! Lack of training and support, open hatches inviting drone attacks and crews with 60 days training...... They were set-up to fail... King of the battlefield is also the biggest target and highest priority to destroy.
Amazing how you're able to tell so much about what the tank was doing the hours before these 30 second clips were taken. I guess if a half minute clip shows it doing one thing, then that's the only possible thing it ever did. It's almost like people forget that all these battle clips we see, from either side, are part of "information operations" (what used to be much less pretentiously called propaganda). If the Russians have 20 minutes of footage of a tank putting accurate fire on their positions and causing all kinds of havoc, and at the very end they manage to knock out the tank, which part of that footage do you think we get to see? Same thing goes for the other side. That big failed Russian attack with 20 tanks the other day. Ukrainians showed them destroying 12 of them. They never showed what the other eight got up to. One thing you will almost never see from either side is footage of an enemy tank firing or doing anything moderately effective. That's not good for boosting morale.
Now, you have just 1 picture and are making those concussions. So stupid. Ukraine received only 10 abrams. It's when russia is losing 10 tanks every day. Stupid
Armor piercing shovels are dangerous.
no serious publication ever said they were only using shovels...
Them Tandem warhead shovels are lethal 💯
@@user-nw4kc9ug3nmust have been penetrated by a human wave then
@@user-nw4kc9ug3n Ukraine war: Russian reservists fighting with shovels - UK defence ministry (BBC 6 March 2023) Russia sent troops into battle armed with little more than shovels against Ukraine's cluster munitions, report says (Business Insider 19 September 2023) Russian Soldiers Are Attacking Ukrainians With Shovels, UK Intelligence Says (vice 9 March 2023) Cope
@@user-nw4kc9ug3n I forgot, AP washing machines.
Amazing how Redeffect ends with that the Abrams is one of the safest tanks in the world, and the safest tank when it comes to post-penetration survivability - but that an increase in losses is inevitable when deployed, considering every tank can be destroyed, no matter how marginally "better" or "gamechanging" it is. Yet some comments here are written 2 to 4 minutes after the 6 minute video got uploaded - meaning they didnt even watch the video fully. This is a channel for insight and analysis of tanks. At least watch the videos properly. Peoples politicised screeching about losses of Abrams or T-90Ms or Leos is just obnoxious.
Maybe because his style of narrative pushing is more veiled but no less insidious. Or have you somehow just never read his comment sections? You won't see a higher concentration of pro-russian shills outside of Putin's idol concerts. It's not just accident that people who're extremely hostile to facts and only preach about Russian superiority are one, if not the biggest part of his fanbase. They wouldn't be here if his content wasn't geared towards them.
@@PAcifisti What narratives? nafo bots coping, thought ukraine was winning!
It must have been the guys overdosing on copium claiming that these models didn't have DU inserts.... as if they would have changed anything in any of those 3 losses (it's actually 5 with the demining vehicles). They must have typed that without even watching the video. They must be very distressed right now, it must be hard to come to terms with reality.
@@Narcan885 Pretty much no-one has claimed that abrams has good side armor on hull. It's a surprise to absolutely no-one that hitting an old Abrams to the side of the hull caused it to get internal damage. The turret hit is more questionable given the rather acute angle it hit to the composite. Even if it did penetrate it would've hit to the very far back inside the turret. Bonus points though, had this been a Russian tank this hit would've most likely caused an ammo detonation from the autoloader.
@@claqyagami6914 The types of narratives that keep the Putin bootlickers like you being the main audience to his videos. Or did you not even notice that pulls you here again and again?
There is a video where you can see how the crew left the Abrams (after the hits on it) moving away from it to the right side. Then the crew was attacked by several artillery shells and hit directly.
Honestly, all bias aside, it shows the Abrams are hard to put down. It's not even an A2, either, so it's basically a 80's era tank surviving hits and having to be destroyed by other means.
@@rbrick3685 Doesn't mean much when the actual expensive equipment (the well trained crew) don't get to come back and crew another tank. In Iraq they only need a kornet or 2 missles to take one down.
@@Jin-1337not saying human lives are not important, but you’re giving too much credit to each army, they can train many more crews for much less, but they can’t keep producing vehicles forever.
I forget, is Abrams a game changer? There have been so many.
I member the Javelins.
@@dansmith16 They did help for a while, and that's enough to serve its role
People are biased towards ground combat, meanwhile what Ukrainians most want and keep asking for it all the time are modern air defense systems to counter missiles such as Patriot.
@werrkowalski2985 last i checked Ukraine keeps asking for money and the 2 billion they got last year seemed to disappear in under 4 months roughly 😂
@@anarchy6446 Nah, they are really asking for weapons. They can't really produce much on their own.
"Yeah, the first ONE..." "Yeah, the first TWO..." "Yeah, the first THREE..."
Don't Forget Abrams in Yemen
@@PatriotOfPersia el cheapo saudi abrams
Tanks don't win battles. Utilization and doctrine around them does. Comments like this are just as shortsighted as the people with think *any* tank is impervious.
Fascinating how most of you Celebrate when Russian Tanks get destroyed. When NATO Tanks get destroyed your like , no big deal its a war shit happens.
4…
What the WWII has thought us is that wonder weapons can't change the course of war.
The weapon can make a difference IF it’s utilized and supported properly. Unfortunately, neither side in this war is doing either 😂😂😂😂😂
@@smyers820gmfacts, the abrams and bradley were designed to be used in turn with air superiority & other american tech, im suprised its even getting that far in the field, it was a mistake to give them OUR stuff
Yes, the "game changer" narrative became obnoxious quite fast. But we live in the era of clickbait so it is what it is...
@@smyers820gm well maybe aside from Ukraine's sea drones. They seem to be using those pretty effectively.
@@Vert_s You can't have air superiority in a war like this. All those F-35s and F-22s won't work. Airfields get hit. S300's take them down. Etc.
Any chance you would do a video on the decision to go with the m1e3 over the sep for the next upgrade?
I don’t know nothing about the e3
Was another game changer that failed to be a game changer
In 1987 I served as a Leopard2 A1 gunner.Back then I fellt invincable in this really bad ass tank.But now drones are dominating the battlefield.When they see you your done for.
It still is. Problem is, that using single tanks without any support is stupid - drone or no drones.
Yes it's extremly stupid.We were Scouts therefore verry heavily armored to make first contact with the enemy and our battle runs with live fire would have blown you away.But now you see whole collums on both sides being destroyed by drone attacks.
lepard back then was vulnerable extremely. as proven you could not even feel invincible against akhmed with konkurs atgm
@@piotrd.4850 Bullshit, the little FPV drones are to small for air defense. The will fck up the German nazi tanks anyway.
Well apparently older systems like the gepard are pretty effective against drones.
Those Russian shovels have proven exceptionally powerful. We should amp up shovel production here in the US.
FSAPDSS (the second S is for Shovels baby)
You need to procure license from the Russians, their shovels are patented. 😂
they where bizzy how come your where bizzy with lghtb and shit wel done american dream
Россия должна после победы поставлять оружие в Сирию, на Балканы и везде, где оккупация от США
@@user-xq2pl1fp1n Even if Russia wins the losses are so bad that it will take years to recover. Russia had to dig deep into Soviet stockpiles. It may well take decades to fill those stockpiles up. To say nothing of the manpower lost (either through KIA, WIA, or men who left the country).
All three Abrams tanks were knocked out at the town of Berychi
You can tell its a abrams because the turrets are still attached
Lazerpig is furiously painting his nails somewhere.
*boochi played with
Why? I recall ages ago that he said he accepted that we would eventually see a challenger 2 burnt up and he was right
@@YoBoyNeptune 'Clock going backwards also is right eventually' kind of right. Fact remains given his pseudo videos, events like recent with Abrams showcases how utterly sensationalist and shallow his content is.
@ReichLife Certainly a lot more interesting that this lmao, plus it's just fact Russian tanks suck
@@ReichLife I don't recall him saying that the Abrams would do any better in Ukraine than the Leopard 2 or challenger 2. It doesn't take a genius to know that the Abrams did so well in US service because the US always had air superiority. It's a great tank but still just a tank at the end of the day
Lazerpig on life support
To be fair I think he said that abrams will definitely be lost. Not a surprise in real war.
@@murmenaattori6he believes in the facts his mid makes to be fair you learn more by eating rocks
@@basharalassad1073 I almost had a stroke reading that
@@dulguunjargal1199 he surely had a stroke writing that
@@u2beuser714as someone in the lgbt community we dont want lazerpig, you can have him 😂
Lazerpig fuming
FPV drones are very frequently used to finish off abandoned vehicles. In previous conflicts, a lot of knocked out vehicles could be recovered and returned to service quite quickly. Drones are changing this aspect of battle; the proportion total losses are much higher and this impacts the economics of making expensive techno-marvel "game changers".
That's crazy, tanks get shredded when sent out by themselves and unsupported. *Combined Arms has left the chat* Edit: The war in this thread is raging just as hard as the one in Ukraine.
Yea, why loose just one tank when you can loose the entire squad? As we all know Bradleys p!$$ on drones and Infantry eats artillery shells for breakfast.
@peterdenov4898 You are so very ignorant, and drones are a threat to all tanks currently and ifvs, Seriously, do you think wars are only fought through attrition?
Combined Arms give better armor stats ? When there is no ammo there is nothing to burn. Frag-he ammo disintegrates tanks from inside, Abrams doesnt use those.
@@cdgncgnidk what you are talking about but more tanks means more guns to shoot first and combined arms means threats are threatened by other threats. Armor is just to keep crew alive. Once a tank is hit it is lucky to get off one shot before its over
Combined arms is litreally a strategy all cold war arms been build to defeat. Furthemore Russian army still operates in its core by the logic of CA. War is not honourable gallop with a sticks anymore, if you can play dirty- play. It will save people from enduring war any further.
Russians informed that that was T-72B3M who destroyed 3rd Abrams. If that was true means that russian tank used its AGM's fired through the barrel, 9k120 svir.
To be more specific, they said third Abrams was damage by ATGM Kornet (or probably Kornet) and T-72B3 hit it for final, definitive destruction.
And youre gonna believe the shitstains?
T-72Bs have 9K120 Svir', the T-72B3(M)s have the 9K119 Refleks.
Why do you think that they didn't use APFSDS , not ATGM?
@@AlexanderTchperhaps to guarantee a hit
good video, thanks!
Logistically the Abrooms is a nightmare to operate compared to the T-72. compare the number of countries using T-72 and its MANY variants (including NATO) to how many countries use the M1 Abrams which is like only 3 countries including the US. nobody wants the 70 ton (20 Tons on the turret alone mainly due to the human loader) fuel guzzling monster that needs an entire logistics chain just to support it which includes a specialized recovery vehicle M-88 Hercules. T-72 meanwhile in only about 40 ish tons, and much smaller in profile can be towed around by normal commercial trucks etc. Also operating the Abrooms in Ukraine is basically a "PLEASE KILL ME I'M SPECIAL" sign.
It’s certain to say that their KD is ruined
It's almost as if their K/D was what it was because they had never fought a real war lmao.
Doesn’t it only count if it’s an American crew? Because many Abram’s have been destroyed before in the Middle East they were just not Americans ones instead Iraqi ones
The challenger was the biggest offender with its undefeated track record
3 abrams lost vs 6000 russian tanks. dunno seems a pretty good ratio.
6000! Are you sure?
the thing I've noticed with all these MBTs going down is that they have almost 0 allies within the area we can see
The problem is that if they send more vehicles and people-they are more likely to be spotted faster and then just more lives and equipment will be lost to artillery/drones that they have almost no means to counter, so the best they can do is send a lone tank and pray it makes it. That applies to both sides
The third one had two Bradley's, one of which was also destroyed.
@@user-qw6es4ly3gexactly when both sides have same capabilities they can't use combined arms they just send a single tank for distraction or bait to pull enemy fire on them and then sent drones on the location that's how i understand the war in Ukraine
Combined arms was a thing we learned in WW1 & knew well in WW2. That the former soviet-comblock people still don't seem to get that is amazing. I get limited people & gear, but this crap of isolated use is litteraly throwing them away.
@@xxxlonewolf49Even soviet doctrine involved combined arms and did for decades. So this has fuck all to do with former soviet anything. This is a case of nobody bothering to read their own manuals or training.
Anyone who thought that Abrams tanks were invulnerable needs to brush up on their critical thinking skills. Nothing can withstand direct hits from heavy artillery.
The new T-72 knocking out Abrams is interesting, the Abrams crew survived and abandoning the tank but T-72 caught them in thermal sight and started to bombard them with HE-Frag
Crew survived ™️ dudes really not feeling good rn
Russian Armor piercing guided 'shovels' are very powerful weapons .
washing machine parts can do wonders😁
get new jokes plz
They use dead Belgorod children as warheads
@@leofigoboh1611 NAFO mad? :)
APDS is returning in the form of Armor Piercing Discarding Shovels.
And to think, the people who we entrust with our countries defences and economies, or the people to provide truthful factual information, were, 12 months ago telling us Russia had nothing to counter Western armour and it would cut through Russian lines like a hot knife through butter. Makes you wonder how safe we are in these peoples hands....
It would if us army tankers were using it Russia would have no chance. Worse them the Iraqi army
@@beanzworld it would burns in same way but with us tankers inside lol there is no superman in real world and so us tankers did not make abrams invinsible while they are inside it.
@@beanzworld Твоя крутая армия Афган 20 лет взять не могла, посасывая талибам в арафатках, которых никто не поддерживал, которые воевали с оружием прошлого века, не хочу тебя огорчать, но фильмы, и реальность они не есть одинаковы))))
who said that? I don't remember that at all.
@@beanzworldUS tankers would face the same fate. The US tankers were the ones training the Ukronazi ones on the platform lol
I dont think thats a kornet missle i believe by the flight trail that is an A11 atgm fores from thw bore of a t72b3. That missle looks a lot smaller and less movement than a kornet missle
Correto, the Sight are not kornet ones and most important the same tank then fires other shells after it disables the tank.
thats not rock party on middle east where enemy only had a rocks and trees for fight, they thought those tanks are untouchable or what ?
There is a video with the last abrams crew, 2 or 3 people left the tank and got direct hit twice by the ATGM and some arty shell
Oof.
Source?😊
must be that superior abrams survivability, i guess the blast doors didnt protect them then
@@vadimivanov3627 People seem to forget blast doors don't come with you when you abandon a tank and you still have to get away from artillery, atgms, drones and precision guided bombs.
@@vladcadar8557 At least they got out the tank T72 and T90s crew get free cremation services 💀💀💀
No one saw this one coming
Good. The Russians are unpredictable. But we told you so...
В России все знали, что так произойдет. Тоже самое будет с F16.
@@Rinkashikitoka29 can you speak human ?
@@nygu557shoe size iq on display. What language does a large percent of ukraine use?
except anyone who paid attention to tank warfare in the past 30 or 40 years
I'd be dubious about the Kornet's armour penetration capabilities. The TOW-2 with tandem HEAT charge, with basically identical diameter, and weight can only do 900mm RHS behind ERA.... Not to mention even the M1A1 has Chobham composite armour, not RHA, and the lower hull RHA equivalence against HEAT rounds is 700-1100mm combine with ERA which will help even the second shape charge.
I would definitely go over the video footage of the first recorded HIMARS loss
During my time in the navy I’ve upclose to the Abram’s tanks and honestly they aren’t anything special. Plus most of the operators don’t even like them and constantly complain about their operational issues.
They are tanks from the late 70s what do you expect. It’s almost as if the US hasn’t relied on ground armor for half a century since after World War II, the US doctrine is catered towards Airpower and considering how we have over 1000 operational 5th gen stealth aircraft while Russian and China struggle to produce lackluster 4th gen aircraft, id say the US has a severe advantage in this aspect.
@@corneliusmcmuffin3256wouldn't say thier 4th gen jet's are lackluster but you're right the us has a strong Ariel advantage
@@BelugaChonky Compared to US and UK planes and air capabilities? Yeah, lackluster would be the word. From the wreckage recovered of an SU-57, it was the Foxbat all over again.
their "5th gen" jets are lackluster@@BelugaChonky
The problem is not in the tanks, but in the fact that the guys from the Pentagon, or from the government so persistently promoted propaganda about the invulnerability of these machines, which is understandable because you need advertising, but apparently did it so persistently that even themselves believe in it))))
How many old documentaries call the Abrams indestructible .....it's insane.....
*propaganda films*
Duh Americans love to act like America is all around perfect
@@MaticTheProtoidk where you’re getting that. Nobody thinks war is sunshine and lollipops.
You have to note some sensitive hardware or classified material has been stripped from the Abrams to protect US defense secrets and interests before handing the tanks to the Ukrainian military.
All countries say that about their kit ,You need to give the crews confidence in the kit...Some get more hype than others,,Some have better systems than others ,but as we have see a drone can take them out ...The only thing i can say it the west was of using tanks is not how they are being used ,,Air superiority and infantry support being 2 main criteria
Getting to exam the aftermath of the tank husks would probably provide some extremely valuable information.
2 weeks after these events it seems as though the Abrams has gone to ground though the fight at Berdychi continues. Reminds me of the Challenger; seen once (broken) and not seen again since.
M1s are only effective if used as a part of combined arms team. They are not indestructible, nor any type of superweapon. Each M1 relies on several factors to be successful: The crew's competence, a Wingman, good flank security, and the proper environment where it will always have the advantage. If any of these, including logistics, are missing the M1s are simply a "Hard Target", even if they prove very hard to kill.
A tool is only as good as the dudes using it Either Ukraine crews are subpar Or Russia has experience in taking out modern threats
If they have Combined Arms modifiers, their armor thickness improves. I mean that seems illogical, but that is the claim you are making.
Thank you this is what people need to hear
@@cdgncgncombined arms is not to help the tank survive, combined arms make the tank more effective in combat by having IFV,s and infantry nearby
@@cdgncgn Armor will only protect a vehicle for a short time. As the Ukrainian Bradley crew proved with launching 25mm AP against a T-90. Short form: everything in the US Army (and other branches) belongs in a team, as a part of it and not on its own. Only Nukes are the exception.
It was said that one of the M1 tank was first immobilized by an RPG7, then destroyed by following drone attacks.
Watch the video before comment, that 's exactly what he mentioned and showed in this video.
that armor supposed to be immune to rpg remember rpg is antipersonel not for armor.
It knocked out a track.
@@alexsvilla7962treads are vulnerable on tanks since they have no countermeasures down there due to moving pieces. All you need to do is break a single track link.
That was initially said about the first M1, but it was a slight miscommunication that got corrected couple of days later. The confusion came from the fact that FPV drones that attacked the tank carry RPG-7 grenade as a charge, so when originally it was reported that tank got immobilized by an RPG-7 what really happened is that it got stopped and then finished off by drones that carried RPG-7 grenades.
RedEffect, have you seen 2A4 driver hatch broken in?
>the hatches are open so we can assume that the crew left the tank Unfortunately, in this war, on both sides of the conflict, for some reason, tank crews have a bad habit of driving with the hatches open. This was repeatedly seen in various shots of moving tanks from both sides of the conflict. So open hatches are not necessarily evidence that the crew left the tank safely.
The crew of the 3rd tank are mostly dead, there is a zoomed video of 2 guys running and another 1 (or2, hard to see) and artillery lands right ontop of the second group but the 1st group are caught in the explosion, only 1 person was trying to crawl away after the explosion and then another explosion happened there.
can you give me a link of video ?
@tin9759 no because it's sad tp watch
There is apparently one more destroyed, but this time by direct attack from T-72B3. There is a confirmation from MoD of Russia and there is a video confirming this claim. It is hard to tell if that was the tank duel or simply abandoned vehicle attacked by other tank. "A Russian T-72B3 tank crew destroyed a US-made Abrams tank of the Ukrainian army with the first shot in the Avdeyevka area over the past day in the special military operation in Ukraine, Russia’s Defense Ministry reported on Wednesday. "A T-72B3 tank crew destroyed a US-made Abrams with the first shot" in the Avdeyevka direction, the ministry reported."
I wouldn't believe everything the russian defense ministry says, they're known for inflating the hell out of their numbers. Pretty sure the footage they're claiming is the kornet footage shown in this video.
Yo please, provide the video
The Kornet ATGM knocked out the Abrams. T72b3 began firing high-explosive shells at him. (2:53) Most likely, the Russian Ministry of Defense wanted to say that the T72B3 fired at the Abrams for the first time.
@@vesmeb02 thanks for the info
I believe it.
Hi RedEffect, I may have a video recomandation for you about Russian artillery. There have been some reports that the Russians started using the Krasnopol-M2 ammo in Ukraine. This specific ammo is in 155mm NATO caliber, which makes the situation complicated and interesting. And as such, the only artillery systems which could use this ammo are captured equipment or the 2S19M1-155 spg, which was intended for the export market, but didn't see much success. There are many questions for which I wasn't able to find answers. The first one being, are the report of this specific shell being used, real or an error? Does that mean that the Russians use 155mm guns, in this conflict? Was the 2S19M1-155 spg produced in any meaningful numbers and is there any evidence of its service.
RedEffect we actually have footage of the crew abandoning the tank of that third Abrams loss. In it you can see at least three crew members moving away and coming under mortar attack. It is impossible to tell if the third crewman is helping the fourth by supporting him on his shoulder, or if there is no fourth one at all.
Well judging from War Thunder's damage analysis and the spot the tank was hit by the first missile it's highly likely the driver was wounded by shrapnel or killed on the spot. Probably why only 3 crew members left the tank.
Can you point the timeframe on the video on which the crew is visible, I couldn't see it.
bro that driver got atomized by the first hit no doubt. the rest of the crew bailed out and also got smacked by mortars. rip but thats war
That's what many don't understand. It's true that all tanks can be easily destroyed, especially if they don't have APS. However, at least this war has shown that NATO and USA tanks have a higher crew survivability rate compared to Soviet tanks, and that alone makes them superior
@@KingMen1Force In the Abrams for the driver to escape the turret needs to be elevated or positioned in such a way that the crew can escape. But yes the driver is most likely dead or heavily wounded.
There is already a 4th knocked out just behind the 3rd one shown in the video !
уже есть 5
Pretty sure that's a recovery vehicle and it didn't go well. They're based on the Abrams frame
@@fredbyoutubing Not talking about the recovery version . There is another video where a 4th M1A1 got hit on the move by HE round by what is claimed to be a T-72B3 .
Except there isn't
hey red, i have to say this is very unbiased. im glad to see it.
havent u seen the video of t72 taking out abram ? came out few days ago
Tanks just cannot survive the way they are right now against drones
Why do I hear this so goddamn much, only one of the tanks shown in this video MIGHT have been taken out by drones. This is not a drone problem, it’s a combined arms problem.
Tanks need infantry
Besides AT capabilities, drones are a $300 alternative to several million dollar satellites. They can easily recon. It doesn't matter if Abrams are better than T-90's, if the T-90's get first shot advantage. Because there are less Abrams than T-90's, the T-90's can continue to flank because the Abrams simply do not have enough numbers to watch all their flanks. Also, artillery doesn't care how much armor or training you have. I don't even think plot armor protects against it.
@@TarsonTalon What? Ukraine doesn't have large tank v tank battles. Tanks are used in small numbers, they are primarily being used to initially attack trenches/front lines before quickly withdrawing while infantry storm those defenses. Stop theory crafting.
The tanks are retrieveable, Watch 'em at Kubinka Tank Museum.
that RE passive aggression vs Russians is quite something. Fried armor on its own furnace, eh. Penned and wiped on the inside ? Repairable bro. ... he is invested in the US winning. And portraying his idols as indestructible.
👍👍👍👍
@@cdgncgn Mate what are you on about. He said the frame was all in place. It does have damage but it is repairable. He didnt say some ductape will fix it. Of course the wiring inside needs to be fixed up. But any damage that is so heavy it knocks out a tank doesnt mean its unfixable. Only if the tank exploded like we see with Russian tanks happen then it is unrepairable. Because it would be harder to dig up all the components all over the field and that were melted together in the explosion. Easier to just build a new tank at that point when the turret is gone and all the insides are molten together.
@@maka6134cheaper and quicker to build a new one. Some parts may be salvaged for spare parts.
@@maka6134how does he know if it's repairable ? He hasn't seen the inside so it's impossible to know and the fact he's calling this the safest tank in world when no evidence of that, first time I've seen him coping
The real question i have is ; what are those Abrams doing specifically ¬ Are the really trying to counter attack into prepared defences or are they being used for some kind of fire support or patrol? alone too?
The position was in the Grey zone
Can't wait for 'World of Tanks' to introduce 'Drones' ----- 😎
Unrealistic for ww2 game
The big difference is that Abrams tank are not being used against third world countries with AK-47s, the Russian army has tools.
Yes, they have powerful shovels
HAHAHa, that is the best you can come up with?!?!?...1 dead Abrams and 2 mobility kills and you're gonna brag about that?!?!...It took the orcs almost 2 years to get their first Himars kill...At this rate it will take the orcs 12,000 years to take out all the Himars and Abrams tanks in Ukraine...Laughing at you...
Russian army and tactics are a joke. If they were facing the US military they’d have been pushed out of Ukraine a long time ago.
Bait or mental retardation, call it.
@@silversurfer427 1st week of combat and 10% of abrams wiped out from ukranian stock , simple math says 10 weeks to wipe out all abrams unless america provides them with more.
This is something I see with the most advanced tanks in Ukraine from both sides (T90Ms, Abrams, Leopards ETC) the tanks are disabled beyond use, the crews abandons them and then they are claimed destroyed, soon after they get bombarded by drones, Artillery and finally destroyed
Its because they become priority targets
@@2goober4u Yeah that's pretty easy to guess
So it looks like economy and production are very important factors to consider when producing tanks. In this case T90Acost about 1/5 that of an M1, (T72B3 1/7)for a seemingly, similar level of effectiveness and survivability. in this type of war diminishing returns are a very real concern so I spend five times or more on a vehicle that’s not going to grant you significantly better results. Becomes a war of economics and efficiency.
@@Mortablunt "seemingly similar level of effectiveness" my dude T-72s have 3500+ confirmed losses, and that is 45% or more of the total amount compared to less than 10% loss rate for M1
@@2goober4uBro forgot that T-72 has been used since the beginning and little Abrams was being hid like a baby until recently.
small longburning fire on a tank most probably means there is a fire that is going to burn the tank to ashes without any chance to be extinguished.
Hi redeffect I saw a video on TikTok that suggest a t90 took out 5 Ukrainian vehicles Im not sure it was so could you do an analysis on it?
The age of cheap and yet very effective drones is here. Mitigation is very limited. Cost of drone/damage inflicted ratio is pretty insane.
Drones are still mosquitos to a tank. They occasionally get a lucky hit, but the damage is done with mines and ATGMs. But wait, you say, [insert NATO tank] is made to withstand a mine. So, the Russians just stack 2 mines. None of these tanks were designed for an environment where individuals carry multiple ATGMs.
Two things have happened that military brass idiots buried their heads in the sand about, for decades. 1. Antitank guided missile. 2. Suicide drones
In some cases not others. Lot of systems in use, particularly with the US (i would argue too many systems) that fuck drones up in a variety of interesting ways. DGIs may work in some cases but once EW really gets going, once the actual systems designed to deal with drones get deployed most drones become useless and only the expensive hardened military ones are worth a damn. Warfare is an ever evolving tech race. If a system seems unbeatable then there are counters already being made to deal with it. You may not be familiar ( i only looked into it recently) but drones are not the superweapon/ super cheap option people seem to think they are. They will take a major role in warfare going forward but dont overestimate them.
@@hobblesofkarth3943robots are next
Totally true. Considering expensive tanks and more expensive warships are getting destroyed by those tiny little pukes that cost 100 times less - is phenominal.
"2 years it traveled to ukraine to fight for 20 minutes" - Russian soldier who droned it to scrap
Like your Black Sea Fleet lol
@@malph123 yes yes the war is at sea now 🌊
@@konstantinzdorovtsev3513cuz drones are still kings when you couldn’t achieve air superiority at all lmao. Look at how helpless Russian tanks are as well
@@malph123 Lol Cope. Since when the SMO is fought in the sea? And since when did the Black sea fleet participated any major action in the SMO? We see none of it of course. 😂😂😂 Diversion, Copium, distraction and PR is all we see in those attacks. The war is on land not in the sea and Ukro Banderastan is losing it. 😂😂😂
@@Gyyghhhhjjjkk "Drones are king" Lol. Artillery takes that title. Not drones.
There are claims saying that the third abrams was destroyed by a T-72B3. but it showed the same scene for the Kornet missile.
Yes because that is not a Kornet sight
Kornet wasnt used.
Never herd that one. I always understood , we lost serval. I remember video of one that was hit by an RPG in the rear engine compartment
At least they actually used them while Challengers 2 just staying around somewhere
Yes they aren’t seen very much, but Challenger 2 have also been lost.
Почему где-то, один Челленджер сожгли в прошлом году, а он не успел даже доехать до 0. Думаю их сразу отозвали и они в Польше.
best feul tank
"Challenger 2 is the best tank in the world because it has the heaviest armor" mfs when their beloved tank is permanently stuck in the mud
@@lovepeace9727 а в каком месте у него это броня?
Lazerpig is rolling on his own filth as we speak😂😂😂.
Impressive to me, how many people does not get the difference between America’s M1 and Abrams and exported Abrams
Yes, these are clearly retired US Army M1A1 Abrams, not the export variant
So? It would still be destroyed.
@@FoxD-vy5ju you must have no idea of the differences
@@OpDab 🤣
@@FoxD-vy5ju I’ll school you real quick. The M1 Abrams export variant is much weaker than the M1 Abrams used by the US Army. The US Army gives the tank without DU layers placed in the armor, without the M829 series, without the propper optics, and without the fully-capable engine. They basically sell it to countries that are desperate to buy a tank. While it is MUCH MUCH weaker than the original, it is still better than many tanks such as the TR 85M1.
Tanks and other frontline vehicles will have to be like ships that have EW/ESM and a CIWS-like counter-SUAS/LM weapon that's automated, with a mini-radar and high ROF MG or cannon that fires prox-fused/programmed airburst rounds.
for the tank hit by missiles, the first impact has most likely killed the driver on the spot. For the second missile, if the rest of the crew didn't exit very quickly, they are probably dead too. But it is difficult to know and the fact that hatches are open could mean that they escaped.
Well we can definitely say it lasted more than Challenger 2, the C2 couldn’t even manage to fire a single shot and its turret got popped off
But it didn't have it's turret 'popped off'?
@@L5GUK the turret was dislocated
@@L5GUK UK military fail 2023
@@bolshevik1017 not 'popped'. Different words have different meanings and connotations. Use the correct ones. Also, the crew survived, unlike when a turret of its russian contemporary.
@@L5GUK if chellenger was hit in the ammunition directly then that would happen too, there is 20 times more footage of russian tanks surviving hits and escaping alive. the first abrams and another lepard had a instant ammunition cookoff while the blast door was open or blast door destroyed by the projectile because flames were bursting into the crew.
The thing is it's not the tank or the helicopter itself who is a game changer, it is the way they are used and by who that makes it better
Sometime ago I read a problem of the abrams tank, that maybe has something to do with theses loses: It heat signature is huge (somethig similar may happen to merkava series), that makes them too easy to spot to any thermal device, also the vehicule is huge, so its easy to spot too with anything. The footage of this video seems to provide some probe in favor of this hypothesis, since you can se how clear is the abrams in the images, but the bradley is barely visible.
I can agree with this, I remember standing behind one to dry off after we got rained on in the army.
I guess the one good thing about Ts is that they're smaller
@@unterhau1102 is hard to say if that side difference has been an advantage, 40 years ago it was for sure some advantage to be a bit smaller, but T series still being huge vehicles, just the Abrams is even bigger and produces a larger thermal signature.
It’s war you’d expect them to take losses especially given how attritional this conflict is
A 4th abrams was lost today!!
5th already
Oh look!! When Leopard 2A6s, Challenger 2s, and M1A1 Abrams are put in a symmetrical warfare, they get destroyed pretty quickly. Who would have thought 🤯? Desert Storm and the Gulf War was almost as asymmetrical as the Vietnam War.
how was Desert storm asymmetrical if they use the same equipment as the Russians?
@@maka6134 Not exactly the one they had was very old and wasn’t used by the Russians
More like when you’re poorly or hastily trained, lacking almost all elements of combined arms and still get send out there virtually alone, anything would get raped 😂
@@mbtenjoyer9487 But then the same thing could be said about the Abrams in Ukraine. Ukraine received the oldest variants and also export versions without the armor upgrades the US military uses on their tanks against ATGMS
@@maka6134u compare ukrainian soldiers to arabic soldiers…
Easy come, easy go. No one ever expected this.........ever.
Well… uhhhj…. F16 will be totally different! Yeah. F16 will change the entire game
@@TeenyHatHarold😂😂
@@TeenyHatHarold hahaha new game changer F16, the game changed so many times that i am afraid this time it changes for russia's favor
@@calm694 no way. I’m sure this time a handful of 1970s tech aircraft that they have no experience flying and will have trouble hiding from missile strikes will definitely do it this time. Dennys told me so
I did.
Bradley Square and now, Abrams Avenue. There are already more than 3 confirmed!
All tanks are vulnerable, albeit t series have added feature of flying turrets with crews sitting on ammo. Drones are new threat, but it is not immune and counter measures can be created
God I love the schadenfreude when I compare the Pro-NATO comments from the T-90 video to this one. In that one they're all about how it just shows how inferior the tank is, how badly Russia is doing, etc. But here they suddenly act like they're serious military thinkers with the "well if you put it in combat you should expect losses". It's almost like they're completely hypocritical.
То же заметил. Как только оказалось что абрамсы то же горят, все сразу стали говорить, что любой танк можно уничтожить.
And they are now saying that no one claimed the Abrams to be game changers. Dudes are trying to gaslight people on the internet as if no one could see their months of comments on the subject
Surprise surprise
@@mrlogek1810 с Лео было точно так же
I mean yes you are correct. also, I think it should be of note that most if not all of the Abrams sent to Ukraine do not have much in the way of upgrade packages. and while all vehicles can be destroyed, it doesn't mean that Russian tanks are not dumpster fires compared to Nato tanks. and I'm not even meaning this from a fanboy status. I WISH Russian tanks worked as they intended them to because frankly military technology is stagnating because Russia and China are realistically 10-15 years behind the US in active military technology and if those tanks worked as advertised the US and Nato would be forced to innovate and develop faster. but since they prove little threat NATO is getting complacent
Without airpower any tank is just like other tank. No matter how legendary their reputation is.
Legendary reputation only facing weaker armies until Russia fighting the second strongest european army Ukraine
@@basharalassad1073When you're the strongest nation, every army is weaker.
Abrams is "legendary" because they litterally fighting goat herders with old soviet guns
@@purgharty505 i mean, "weaker" like Russia or China or "weaker" like literally sandal wearing mfs with IED and RPG at best?
How would “air power” prevent an infantryman using an ATGM from 5 miles to destroy an Abrams? How would air power prevent an infantryman from shooting an Abrams almost point blank? How would air power prevent hidden artillery or MLRS from destroying an Abrams? How would air power prevent Abrams from driving over a large mine and turning into scrap metal? How would air power ever eliminate all enemy tanks and IFVs?
theres some ready rounds stored in the crew compartment, I think
It's all about the military in a whole not just a tank.
The Americans claiming the Leopard 2 would be weak as it got destroyed in the past are REALLY quiet right now 🤨
1:48 the two drone feeds had all hatches popped, my guess is the drones hit the tank afterward to try and get a more spectacular explosion.
No tank is invicible... and certainly not these second hand ones!
They're not second hand, they're from USA reserves
@@SergyMilitaryRankings Still like 2nd hand. They had their superior armor striped off
@@davidchang5265 that's how exports work, like Iraqi T-72Ms had their composite armour removed and their fire control systems downgraded. Still a capable tank against other 2nd Gen systems also M1A1SA has everything an Abrams has just doesn't have depleted uranium armour not that it would make much difference on the whole, probably meant that the T-72B3 that used it's sabot would have to fire again
@@SergyMilitaryRankings You're right, they aren't "second hand"... Technically they are third or fourth hand after the Army gave them to the Marines (who have decommissioned theirs) and/or the National Guard. They wound up in the reserves because they were considered "still useful," but not useful for continued frontline service compared to the current mark and model.
@@jamessanders8895 that is utter nonsense, M1A1SA are less then 20 years old, with fully digital fire control systems and FLIR imagers. You don't know what you're talking about