Abrams for Ukraine. How does it Compare to Russian Tanks?
2023 ж. 25 Қар.
323 204 Рет қаралды
Grab Atlas VPN for just $1.70/mo + 6 months extra before the
BLACK FRIDAY deal expires: get.atlasvpn.com/RedEffect 💥
Last month, the US announced that all promised M1A1 tanks have been delivered to Ukraine. These tanks are right now most likely being used for training, before they will eventually be used on the frontline against the Russians. So, now we will take a look at what variant of M1A1 did Ukraine receive and how would those tanks perform when compared to the Russian tanks...
Patreon: / redeffect
Outro: "face away" - svard
Grab Atlas VPN for just $1.70/mo + 6 months extra before the BLACK FRIDAY deal expires: get.atlasvpn.com/RedEffect 💥
Hey dude ... what's the name of the OUTRO song you use ..?
Read description. At the end.@@trumanhw
thank ypu for the good information on this. i dont know if this is the right place to ask, but what happened to the little 'argument' you and Lazerpig had ? has it been resolved ? if yes and i simply missed it, my apologies.
I believe one of the 1st abrams has been destroyed in kryminky or somethin like that
The Abrams tank is not all that ask the Saudi they have Abrams tanks and guess what Yemen destroyed them so stop kissing the Abrams ass
If Ukraine has taught us anything is that no matter how cool your tank is or surperior it is, it can be destroyed or knocked out easily by artillery or other weaponary.
True ,and makes it scary and terrifying to be inside of a tank doesn’t matter which one it is. Drones and unmanned vehicles rules the battlefield.
Palestine too
@@killzone5079 I don't know if you should be scared of instantly blowing up. I bet a lot of tank kills are first disabled then the crew abandons.
Russian tanks are very crude. On average not “advanced”. They have the capability in theory but it’s never applied because corruption, and reasons. America has corruption too but the military industrial complex refuses to let that affect the tech they put out/get. In Russia it’s a free for all I guess.
No shit Sherlock homes you crack the truth that war machines are usually meant to be expandable
The problem is that these tank on tank duels are rare as most will be taken out by drones or artillery.
Exactly, tanks aren't being used to destroy other tanks for the most part. Why would you engage a tank with another tank, when you can use standoff weapons that can do the job from over 10 km away at virtually no risk to the operator? That's the difference between winning and losing.
yes, it makes more sense to compare weapons and their counterweapons. You always fight weaker ones with stronger weapons.
which is exactly why the lack of a useable Anti-Infantry ammunition is a big issue. M829 is a nice round, but it will not see much use because tank on tank duels are so rare. The biggest threats to the Abrams are arillery and drones, which it is vunerable against becasue of the weak roof and lack of ERA.
Ukrainian soldiers have said that's it's not as rare as you think... it's just that unlike artillery which needs drone spotting (and thus gives us video), tanks still rely on their own sights (no video). Massed tank battles is what doesn't happen, but these Abrams will be incredible in essentially escort roles for other armored vehicles - smashing any tank threats that the Russians can throw at them while surviving ATGM strikes.
@@nikolaykaradzhiev1889 Nobody does anything in Ukraine without drone cover. why would you?
This video was finished (and awaiting approval) before the pictures came out today which confirm that the tank is in fact the M1A1SA that Ukraine received, just wanted to update you about it.
Lol
What about M1 combat use near Kupiansk?
Same version as the Bradley. Makes sense I wonder if they pair them. Finally woodland cammo gets its day in the sun!
M1s are equally as useless shite as the rusian tanks... anyone with a $29K Lancet can take out the $10M tank. Tanks goodbye
@tomk3732 Unconfirmed. Just because a telegram channel says the Abrams is in one place doesn't mean ir actually is. Until we get combat footage it's impossible to say if it's on the front yet, but once it is trust me it won't be long before we get that.
Video starts 1:44
sponsorblock extension. thank me later
thank you
Thx m8
Thanks
Ahh Blin.
One very important thing to mention is that the abrams weighs around 70 tones witch is a lot heavier than most russian tanks and with what i have seen ukraine at this time of year is a muddy hell for armored vehicles
Its heavier than every Russian tank. 55 tons for the non-existent t14 that is being scrapped because new future requirements for tanks by the Russian MOD.
The ground pressure is more important for the mud, wheight matters for bridges and rail
The unique variante wich weighs more than 70 IS the SEPV3
Ground pressure is roughly the same, but once stuck, I’d rather be trying to extract 48 tons than 70 tons.
@@V-V1875-h True, but when an abraham gets stuck, there is a lot more weight to get unstuck again compaired to T72.
In short: Comparing the Abrams and other western tanks to russian ones is pointless since tank-to-tank duels are extremely rare, and the things that have killed most tanks in both sides have been: Artillery, ATGMs, AT Mines and Drones. Things ALL tank designs are vulnerable to.
Well, the video misses some aspects: Russian tanks are smaller and lighter wich allowes them to cross certain bridges. Most russian/soviet/ukrainian brigdes are tough enough to support russian tanks but not the heavier western tanks. Also, the Abrams is complex with its engine, a turbine instead of a common diesel engine. So you need extra training for repair crews, special tools, spare parts....
Keep coping!
@@johnny1893I mean he has a valid point
@@sujitbala1492 Copium is a hell of a drug!
dude what do you think is happening rn? I do not see politics being discusse here@@johnny1893
The best comparison is drone/mine/artillery resistance since the tank on tank battles are so few and far between. Also, many of the recorded ones seem to happen at almost point blank range, so whatever tank gets the first shot off will probably win. That being said, I am starting to wonder if tanks will start to be designed with an all around armor scheme since the primary threat is no longer from the front, but the top and bottom.
Basically a mine resistant tracked vehicle with a large caliber gun and electronic warfare or at least 2 layers of anti drone nets. And enough mobility to speed away from artillery fire.
The first shot almost always decides the outcome, the abrams has a superior FCS, allowing it to fire the first shot in most situations
you can't really do anything against mines. They will always blow your tracks off and if they're big enough they'll just flip you or destroy you.@@miroslavkutak9430
@@DummyThundernah. Thts on paper but Abrams are much easier to see the t72. Add dust confusion....... It can go both ways
@@DummyThunder Leopard tanks in Ukraine are all disabled by anti-tank weapons. Even in the Iraq war, most Iraqi tank casualties came from IFV's anti-tank missiles. Javelin has almost twice effective range compared to a tank
Most likely there won't be a battle between T-90M, T-80BVM and M1A1 Abrams. The key question is if it will be able to stand against Kornet, Lancet, Ataka, Vikhr, LMUR missiles, FPV drones with RPGs that hit its side armor? 😉
Kornet - no, in any projection, if without ERA. Lancet, FPV - possibly under some conditions Attack - possibly under certain conditions Vikhr - also not, in any projection, if without ERA. LMUR - no, even when hit nearby, the high-explosive warhead is 25kg
@@VIPER276 Projection? Why?
@@Butmunch666 Bro this are literally anti-tank equipment, that's literally pure cope right there 😂
@@VIPER276 He basically gave an overview of whether he thinks the tank can withstand the mentioned weapons. I know they can be used that way, but I mean clearly some will be more effective. Don't see why its supposed to be a cope.
@@VIPER276 I mean realistically, I doubt there's any tank right now that could survive those. Tanks are right now if we're all honest becoming irrelevant. Too easy to take down by some cheap drone piloted by someone with an xbox controller...or whats the comparative on the russian side? XD the Russbox controller?
I think we’ll see a higher attrition rate for the Abrams due to the lack of air superiority, just like with every tank we’ve seen in this war.
One point I will add to the availability of anti-infantry projectiles. MPAT is, as the name implies, Multi-Purpose. However we would not use an MPAT against an infantry target unless absolutely necessary. For infantry we have the M1028 Canister shell which is essentially an oversized buckshot round for the 120. It contains roughly 1,100 .50 cal (12.7mm) Tungsten balls with an on paper max effective range of 400m. That being said I have had success in training with hitting troop targets out to 700m, but the spread has noticeable gaps at that range. There was also the M356 and later M908 HE-OR-T rounds which are just basic High Explosive shells which I know to have existed at one point, but are no longer used. I do not know how many are still in inventory collecting dust, but as of 2018 I knew of at least one ammo dump that had a single pallet of the M356 shells.
Isn't the gun compatible with standard NATO 120mm ammunition? There are German HE rounds for Leopard 2A4, aren't they?
Yea, NATO 120mm shells are standardized. however some nations use metal casings and that could clutter up the turret very quickly in an Abrams as its designed for semi caseless shells in mind. Not a huge problem with western doctrine as the hatches are usually left open and the loader can just toss it out, but can be an issue if operating closed hatch. If I were in such a situation I would just take an extra second to store spent casings back in the ammo rack itself. @@marty2129
So US uses a fkn 120mm shotgun? lmfao
@@iMost067 Yup lmao. I had a 1SG tell me once they used one on a compound with mud walls about 50m away that they were taking fire from. The infantry that did the BDA after said all they found were some shoes with feet in them…
What about the German DM11 that has been in use by the US Marine Corps for engaging soft targets including infantry for more than 6 years? Yes, its a multipurpose shell, but its programmable fuse and airburst capability will be much more useful than a 120mm shotgun in a trench war...
We don't have to compare it to Russian tanks, we just need to research how it's going to survive Russian anti-tank means!
or survive the mud with nearly 100 tons where 40 ton soviet tanks get stuck in
but R.E. mission is to misdirect because he is a western asset.
No tank , even Armata has tracks that can survive anti tank Soviet TM62 mines , they got 15 poinds of TNT and can destroy almost any tank track , tracks are Achilles heel of every tank.
I mean, We already have an idea of how russian tanks do against the Abrams thanks to the first gulf war. Granted, that wasn't exactly elite forces or super modern, but by the same coin the Abrams didn't exactly embarrass itself either.
@@guitarhausdoesntknowwhatac3285 at the time Iraq was considered the strongest army in the gulf region
The numbers is what matters in this war
And technology
@@rgbforever4561 It's more like good price for what it does that's how u win atritional war.
It's not ww2 anymore, there is always sweet spot between quality and quantity.
@@kajo509 well the job of high tech weapons is to create a more dynamic battlefield with more opportunities.
@@kajo509its not like ukraine is paying for these
Thanks for the info, see you again for the inevitable "first recorded destroyed Abrams in Ukraine" video in the future where we watch you analyze what would be the cause of its destruction.
yeah, i bet its not gonna take too long before that happends since artillery and drones are pretty frequently used but i am definetly curious on how well the reverse speed might help with that
@@schishne7546 Russias arty is more of an area effect asset and hits on the quicker M1's seem like they will be random occurrences as opposed to the precision arty being sent to Ukraine. But I'm a Sapper not a tanker, so I'm not really up to speed on how M1's fare under russian arty. We've got a 6×6 MRAP. It was good to go under tali mortars and rockets but never took a direct hit. As soon as they started coming in we'd juke and jive faster than they could get us dialed. The M1's are pretty quick, are they able to skeedadle and avoid getting zeroed? I've been thinking about going Cav when I re-up Any advice, Cav guys?
@@satanicmicrochipv5656I mean.... Minefields are pretty good at allowing ATGM crews and Arty to zero in on a tank. Methinks the Russians will just beef up the mines they use, give more Krasnopols to their arty crews and widen their minefields.
@@kremlguard9544 way easier said than done lol, especially since yknow, they’re being attacked now
@@LewisB3217which is even more convenient for setting up a defense in depth, having more in depth pre plotted target points for indirect fires, and getting supply for ammunition and food. Just because Ivan is in the defense doesn’t mean the Ukrainian has full advantage. Especially with numbers being what they are. Ivan also digs in layer after layer.
M1 is going to perform as good as the Leopards and Challengers that have been sent over already. Maybe a little better on something’s and little less on other things but overall not much different.
Only one challenger has been lost and no abrams yet even though they have been spotted on the front lines for over 2 months now
@@colejones594 Only one challenger is lost because UA give orders to save them for later, otherwise they will be scrap already.
how many Leopards2 have they lost by now? any news about Leo1 or Gepard casualties?
@@embreis2257if we compare the t-90m to the Leo 2 the ratio of lost to in service is about the same last time I checked.
@@Y_Y_K_Kand here we have a prime example of the Russian bias.
You forgot mentioning the weight problem. The Abrams is nearly 30 tons heavier than the average Soviet tank, and with mud season in its peak that could be a huge issue.
True
Not really. All tanks have the potential to get stuck just as they all have ways to get unstuck 🤷♂️
@@smyers820gm What a simpleton statement.
@@sullathehutt7720 low IQ indicative of MI6/CIA employees.
That’s why we don’t see them right now , t’s a muddy mess out there
Note, the “blow out panels” only work if the doors are closed btw. If the tank is reloading, there is a high chance those doors will be open. Which if that does occur it can cook the crew.
Yes. It is also important to keep in mind that these blast doors are open only for a few seconds at a time, as they automatically shut on a timed basis after being opened.
Better then Russian tanks that don’t use them .
@@TemplarGamer56Russian tanks or nato tanks, once a projectile pierces into the cabin, fight is basically done.
@@Drownedinbloodthe crew has a vastly higher survival chance in an Abrams as opposed to any Russian tank takes time to train tankers and there are always more tanks that need to be manned
@@damio6865 have you ever seen what a dart does to the inside of a tank?
A correction for you on the Commander's Weapon Station, it was an unstabilized station with power traverse but a manual crank for elevation. This setup was difficult enough to use that the Army ditched it in favor of a pintle mount with the M1A2s (and later a CROWS). I served with it, and there was an article in an Army pub about how bad it was that was as old as I am. The only M1A1 variant to get a stabilized commander's machine gun were the USMC M1A1 FEPs which was the (uncreatively named) Stabilized Commander's Weapon Station. The SCWS had both a cooled thermal as well as a color day camera, and a slew-to-cue functionality. Honestly, I think the Ukrainians would have been better off with the USMC's M1A1 FEPs than the SAs they got. The FEPs have ammo datalink, slew-to-cue, and additional radio racks (or at least they did when they were divested). They would have given most of the capability of an M1A2, plus the ability to fire smart rounds ala the German HEMP to cover the US HE-Frag ammo gulch. The SA has... a backup camera and some TUSK pieces, if memory serves.
To be honest the low profile crows are pretty bad as well. Most of the time I'd see TC's just pop the manual locks open on them and free hand it, or oddly enough put the 50 in semi (not sure how that fixed it but was a reliable option while in the field) as they would constantly have software issues. When used in its intended state we would experience a strange mix of stoppages, jerking optics, or complete optics failure when firing. This was an issue between my unit and at least 6 others that we trained along side with.
Why give nazis anything?
That is incorrect. The Commander's weapon station is fully stabilized. The only unstabilized station was the M1A2 SEP and SEP v2 since they have Flex .50 CAL station compared to the CIWS on the M1A1 and M1A1SA. The only difference between the M1A1 and M1A1SA is the fact that the SA has a night vision system for the .50 CAL. I served 18 years and every variation to include the M1A2 IVIS system. Best Job I ever had.
New war thunder squadron tank for USA
There will be Ukraine war captured premium tanks pack for Russian tech tree. For 100€ premium Leo2,Bradley, Strv and Abrams lol
@@kunovondodenburg3332Add the Bradley to it 😂
M1's greatest weakness is Fuel Consumption! Don't see many fuel trucks making past the drones to bring the needed POL to the front line. That means either 1. the tanks need to return to the rear or 2. they have to limit their consumption by limiting operations. * M1 (IP) platoon leader Germany 1984-87.
Fun fact a M1 can run on almost any combustible, making it easier to supply then you think.
Trying to explain to the chicken hawks that the abrams, regardless of its forward thinking design and advanced subsystems is an 8 hour tank at the end of the day, is useless, propaganda and indoctrination run deep in the west
Luckily the lines move so slow in Ukraine, that wont be much of an issue, also there is an APU for the Abrams now, so there is far less fuel consumed while idling.
@@dariusbendasiuk5678it’s hilarious that that specific image is still the one cited by pro Russian sources, when it’s 6 months old and hasn’t happened again. Equipment will be lost, and the only people claiming any weapon is a super weapon that can’t be destroyed is delusional, no matter which side they’re on. To think it’s all going according to plans for the Russians just because a couple armored vehicles got destroyed is incredible cope.
Thats why the aid packages have included copious numbers of tanker trucks. It caught my eye before the Abrams was confirmed.
Out of all the variations of the M1A1 and M1A2 Series tanks I was on, I would have to say that the M1A1SA was the best. You had a night vision system for the .50 Cal which gave you the ability to fire that weapon from a stabilized platform. It was also the start of what is now the CROWS weapon system on the M1A2SEPv2 and V3's. at first they were introduced with the high profile crows most commonly used on the wheeled vehicles. eventually they made a low profile version which replaced the standard CROWS. I dont like either versions at all. As far as round for infantry is concerned, they had canister rounds to counter dismounted troops or obstacles.
Funny that you didn't even mention the weight.
orders are to say only the good stuff, because money from the employer comes then.
@@cdgncgn Yepyep. But but muh reverse gear!!! :D
4:35 That is a hellacious amount of firepower even without the main gun. What I like most about it is it seems to be very steady, unlike a tripod mount, stand-alone, MA2.
Australian M1s as well 🤙🏼
Fun fact the ammunition cook offs are primarily caused by the Russian/Ukrainian habit of storing spare ammunition in the turret not the ammunition carousel as commonly believed . Also the auto loaders main purpose is not to increase fire rate (T series tanks and western ones are very similar in fire rate) it’s instead to eliminate the need for a loader who must be standing to do his job which enables the tank to be much shorter making it a smaller target
Reverse speed and Blow out panels are a huge advantage
Zero side and top armour is a lot more important
isn't abrams like, very heavy and bad for mud terrain ?
@Dr.Flermannn the abrams is designed to fight in Eastern Europe
@@dust_gale3108the top armor is kinda important, but tanks fight with their armor to the front, so side armor is pretty much not a major factor.
Reverse speed will definitely assist in retreat.
The thing is, tank on tank contact is rare in Ukraine. Tanks are basically used as assault guns, so roof and frontal protection are highly important. Also, tanks in Ukraine are misused by both sides, and are used piece meal usually in column, with insufficient IFV and artillery support. Add to this the ridiculously small numbers, and it is highly unlikely the A-1 Abrams will change the scenery much.
The Abrams is an outstanding tank, but as others have stated, its use on the modern battlefield is limited at best. Like Airborne (Parachutist) mass drops, the viability of tanks saw its biggest advantage in WWII. In Iraq in 2003, we heard armored battles (I was Light Infantry, in the 101st but attached to 3ID) in the distance and saw the results of tank-on-tank engagements, with often-turretless Soviet equipment (T-55, T-62, etc.) showing how dominant the M1 Abrams in its early-2000s incarnation was. That was over 20 years ago now, and by this time in 2003, we found ourselves attached to 3rd ACR in Husaybah, as their "button up under fire" tactic while conducting mounted patrols wasn't working. New RPG rounds were able to punch through armor, and the March 2003 tank engagements were long in the past, replaced by "insurgents" crossing over from Syria and taking out both M1 Abrams and M2 Bradley vehicles. On patrol one day, as I was daydreaming of being in Vietnam (surrounded by palm trees and the area looking like something out of "Full Metal Jacket"), I was jarred back to reality by an Abrams hitting an anti-tank mine. The crew was fine minus some concussions and hearing loss, but a few wheels were blown off and we had to set up a perimeter while waiting on the M88 recovery vehicle. So, some guy with a (likely Soviet origin) mine took out a 70-ton vehicle that was providing overwatch and support for us lowly "crunchies" who would have walked right over the mine without incident. Of course, I'm biased, again being a (now-retired) Light Infantryman. With drones, modern artillery, and portable anti-tank weapons, an Abrams is a big, heavy, and slow target that offers a false sense of protection to its crews. I don't think Ukraine will see much benefit from these acquisitions, but I may very well be wrong.
You left out getting stuck in the mud. They're heavy and have relatively narrow tracks.
Dominant compared to what?
@viktoriyaserebryakov2755 Stated in the previous comment--Soviet-era armor. I'm no Tanker, not a tank historian, or anything else, but the common person sees a big metal thing on tracks with a big gun and thinks, "That's impressive." Would a 20-year-old Abrams stand up to the latest Russian tank? I have no idea. The Cold War dinosaurs the Iraqis used, up to and including the T-72, were thoroughly dominated by the M1 Abrams in 2003.
@@anonymousm9113Those T-72 were downgraded for export purposes. had those been real Soviet T-72 things probably would have been different.
@@anonymousm9113 Soviet era armour? Which era is that? You're already not being very honest with me.
The M1A1 SA package improvements include second-generation Forward-Looking Infrared, Far Target Locate, Blue Force Tracking (BFT)/Force Battle Command Brigade and Below (FBCB2), a tank-infantry phone. Standard equipment of the M1A1 SA includes also an eye-safe laser rangefinder.
Tanker here The MPAT isn't just for helicopters it's a mode you can activate by twisting the nose cone to "AIR" MPAT is for light armor, trucks, infantry and the OBSTACLE REDUCTION version with a yellow nose cone is for field fortifications and rubble. Also MPAT isn't the only anti infantry round we also have the can round which is 1098 1/8 inch tungsten balls, huge shotgun shell basically. It'd be pretty interesting if Ukraine got sent some of those.
Who cares about abrams tanks vs tank capabilities, there is no tank duels in this war. Most of the info is irrelevant. I want to know how good is it protected from drones that attack from above or behind, or mines, or ATGMs.
Depends largely on drone's payload I would imagine, really difficult to quantify this going by armor thickness alone.
More than likely end up like the others before it.
Abrams is protected extremely well from mines, apparently it drove right through several Iraqi anti-tank minefields, but the Abrams is still vulnerable to munitions dropped from above and AGTMs from pretty much any angle.
Its a case of Better then 99% of the stuff that is on the battlefield rn, but still a tank so it's going to blow up if hit hard enough.
@@rgbforever4561that's is not true at all
Thank you for covering this.very interesting.
All that ultimately matters is the diversity of the crew. My DEI commissar told me so....
Lancet is keen so say 'Hi'
what about maintenance, availability of spare parts, is it suitable for the Ukrainian doctrine (i guess not), infrastructure limitations, etc. The abrams is made for a single purpose, fighting the ussr in central europe with american doctrine and logistic, and is optimised for.
two words: soviet bridges
It took so long to get there cause they were setting that stuff up in Poland for Ukraine.
Arent the units that have the Abrams (or other western equipment for that matter) trained in using them, so using them like the US (or other training country) would use them
yes but as evident by a number of videos flying around the interent the ukrainian comanders simply dont care for western doctrine and use western equipment with tactics created in the late 40s they got entire collums of vehicles killed like that@@kekkoinen
@@TheRifild to bad american gave ukraine portable bridges for this issue with the only issue being artilley and drones bit hasnt really stoped ukraines advances in the south
It all just doesnt matter if we speaking about ukraine
Very fair assessment of the capabilities of the Abrams. I'd also like to add on that the Abrams size/weight are also downsides while a positive is that crew comfort is higher(as with most western MBTs). I'll be very interested in seeing how it does in the modern combat environment and in more traditional combat against newer Russian tanks.
Not a fair comparison because Red intentionally “forgot” to stress just how worse Abrams are for the landscape where half of the hear the land is just mud, and where most bridges can not survive its weight.
@@tatianaes3354What are you talking about? The Abrams was designed and developed during the Cold War. It was specifically engineered to operate in Europe and to counter Soviet armor
@@StephenGleason0 it has obviously failed at that since the tank can not pass most bridges in Europe, the weight is too big. The reality is that the tank is built more for much drier climates, because the designers knew that this is where it will be ACTUALLY used, and not held just for the sake of its presence as in Europe. And it is much worse in mud because you have to have much heavier equipment to pull it out if it is stuck.
@@tatianaes3354 Which is why AVLBs and recovery vehicles were sent alongside it. Calling something a complete failure over a 10 ton weight difference between it and a Russian tank is pretty asinine. It’s not like Russia will be able to glide across the mud of the frontlines in their super-light tanks while the Ukrainians will have no choice but to sit with their Abrams tanks
@@StephenGleason0 I did not write it is a “complete” failure, the tank is good enough drier climates. The recovery vehicles are huge and heavy themselves, and they are never enough in quantity and in terms of exact place they are needed. And they do not solve the bridge issue. The tank is in major disadvantage in Ukraine. But they also have lighter thanks.
first photos have appeared in telegram in Kupyansk direction... waiting for the first one to pop up
Abrams doesn't pop like Russian tanks.
still burns from first rpg or kornet@@FloofyMinari russia have best tanks in the world deal with it and dont be a moron
@@FloofyMinari They said same about Leopard, and Challenger.... but they burned all the same.
@@maryginger4877 Burn? Maybe, but unlike Leopard or Challenger, Abrams only uses blowout panels while the other two still have hull ammo. Abrams doesn't pop like Russian Tanks. Simple facts.
yeah they only burn inside and its crew.. DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHY RUSSIAN TANKS TURRRET POP UP?? (its not ammo rack)@@FloofyMinari
An M1A1 was "supposedly" spotted in Kupiansk with a photo of it in some foggy muddy forest. Dunno if real but Ukraine needs like 2000 of those seeing how rarely we now spot their OG T-64BV and T-72s which they actually have thousands of in storage.
No they didn't have thousands in storage...
*had in storage.
You rarely see Ukrainian T-64s and T-72s because most of those are destroyed in battles. For example, I remember on the 2nd day of the war I saw a video of 10 destroyed T-64s on a highway in the Kherson region, but no one ever mentions it, and Oryx completely ignores it.
@@winstonsmith2539 again no they didn't lmao they got rid of the majority of their military equipment before any of this happened as Russia signed a fucking treaty to never violate their territory but we know Russia is a snake who can't be trusted which is even worse than how it was with the USSR days.
@@takoto2610yep now they just use the hundreds of captured Russian vehicles that units like the 1st GTA so generously abandoned when they got routed.
It will be interesting to see how it will play out. I think it will be performing similarly to the Leopard 2's but probably a bit worse, since the tanks are very similar in design. The introduction of a loader will probably be an issue, since basically every Ukrainian tank that the crews are used to have autoloaders. The lack of ERA on the roof of Abrams will also probably make it more susceptible to dropped RPG rockets when compared to something like a T-72, so I expect to see some Abrams with cope cages.
I think the Ukrainians had their rude awakening already in the beginning of their summer offensive and lost some leopards. It’s winter rn so I’m doubting we’ll see a lot of losses until the spring
Pretty sure the Ukrainians field lots T-62's which do not have autoloaders.
@@chaosXP3RT they are mostly used as static artillery as eve the russians do the same , its mostly t 64 or some western tank
@@lee.as.in.l.e.e.7394We are talking about tanks after all yes. Well let's hope the best and back our hopes with a bit more juicy western equipment I suppose.
Piece of shit Leopard is such a overhyped garbage. Ruski and American tanks are at least battle tested, but what large conflict Leo 2 took part in?
during combat operation, how long can a abrams could stay active before withdraw to refuel is also worth mentioning, tank stay idle during refueling or have to stay not far from frontline due to operational range limit is worth concering.
Abrams does have an HE shell, M908 HE-OR. It’s MPAT with a steel penetrator cap and HE filler instead of HEAT Penetrator. Also M1147 is fully adopted and in service, it’s called HEMP-T, not AMP. High Explosive Multi Purpose with Tracer. Dont get me wrong, 125mm HE-FRAG is better overall than HE-OR, but Abrams does have it.
Do they come with some reverse cameras? Or is the driver at the mercy of the commanders directions when blasting full speed on reverse? Cant imagine how you would even do that in combat, if you dont want to turn your turret away from the threat and also dont want to put your head out of the hatch.
Yeah there's reverse cams. Some tanks even have night vision and thermal reverse cams.
Never had reverse camera on none of the Abrams tanks I was on. Gotta listen to your commander. Tank crewman have to be able to multitask. That's one of the main requirements.
with most tank engagements being with infantry anyway i feel like the lack of a proper HE shell is a massive downside to the abrahams sure its got plenty of machineguns but the ability to destroy entire resistence nests with a well placed shell is important
Abrams, and it had canister shells as well as MPAT (multipurpose Anti Tank), think of it like a HE shell that can work on light vehicles too.
@@LewisB3217 canister is not He its litterary only shrapnell And the otherone is a heat round with only a small HE explosion
@@tavish4699 yeah I know what canister shot is, it’s literally in the name, it’s very effective against infantry not behind hard cover, and if they are behind hard cover, use MPAT, it’s not a “small” explosion, the shell weighs 50 lbs, is it as effective as a dedicated HE shell that has no pen against light vehicles? No, but it is still very effective, and it’s multipurpose leading to less ammo waste with ammo racks, you don’t need to carry 20 HE shells, 20 HEAT shells and 20 APFSDS shells like the Russians might, you only need APFSDS/MPAT, leaving more room for APFSDS for example.
There will now be a competition who can cook the first Abrams. There are no tank on tank battles anymore. It's a tank against a slew of ATGMs, including top attack Lancets and other FPV type drones. Besides, no ERA, no infantry or air support.. They're done for.
Lol
Iraqis and Saudis already won that trophy a long time ago, don't know what you're insinuating since these Abrams are not indestructible.
As a former M1A1 TC the lack of a cheap, mass produced HE round has definitely been brought to light by the war in Ukraine. Fortunately 120mm HE is somewhat available in the NATO inventory and can be manufactured.
The M1A1 Abrams is a good tank, but if the best tanks which are the leopard 2A6 were destroyed, I don't think a few abrams will change anything specially this late in the war
2A6 ? Did i miss somithing, we Ukrainians received the older 2a4 or am i wrong ?
@@noobikus5475 there are many videos of leopard 2 a6 getting destroyed, Google and KZhead it.
@@noobikus5475Ukraine received both the Leopard 2a6 and 2a4
@@noobikus5475 you got 2a6 and 2a4 (also 2a5?) and several were destroyed because the ukrainian fighting doctrine is incompatible with western designs (plus normal attrition, it's high intensity after all). They fell to mine, helicopter, drones, etc.
@@noobikus5475 if i'm not mistaken 2A6 was in the first 3 destroyed leopards, i think there is a video on this channel with first losses of them
I imagine due to the version, there is no ADS. Might as well be in a box without the proper support.
History proves speed on tanks is a great thing having the ability to move to a completely different location or just to get off a firing position in a short amount of time is an amazingly good ability.
Yeah, except its weight - 67 to 72 tons, compared to ~45 tons of T-72. Which will lead to a complete disaster on mud in the fields of Eastern Europe(which are there for 7-8 months a year). Speed on the flat asphalt means nothing there xD
They sent export M1A1 variants. Pretty much the same thing the Iraqis have.
Wouldn't matter even if it was top of the line US variants. No ERA or air force support, they're sitting ducks for Lancets or other ATGM complexes.
@@DAIadvisorwhat kinda nonsense is this? Lancet rarely penetrates any tank from T-72, most if not all the time it's mobility kill or multiple lancet hits leading to pen, don't compare an ATGM to a lancet 😂
@@ashblythe9598 there are dozens of videos of Lancets taking out Leopards and challengers in one hit. I can assure you, it will 100 percent smoke any Abrams in existence. Especially the newest Lancet 3
@@ashblythe9598😂😂? Mobility kill is a kill? Even getting stuck in mud count as a kill if you sit there for ever You play a lot of games don't you Tanks not always need to blow up in flames to be taken out off action
@@DAIadvisorthere aren’t even dozens of leopards or challengers visually confirmed in total. In fact the single challenger confirmed destroyed was by a mine. Lancets are pretty lethal against SPAA and SPGs, but MBTs? Please.
The abrams sent are basically on par with the export ones sent to saudi arabia. And those have gotten cooked by stuff much weaker then what russia is running around with. So in summary, more standard tanks that will die to Kornets Ka52s Mines, (Maybe) FPV drones And rarely like a t90M or t80 Edit: forgot artillery
Rarely, the talk about a Unicorn Event, it's more likely to be fucked by drones and artillery.
forgot mines, mines, and mines again.
The difference is, the saudi army is horribly incompetent
tbf Kornets are literall overkill againt any tank today that doesnt have hard kill APS, but are not that common compared to other AT munitions , KA52s are almost exctinct and cant really fly as indended since none side has air superiority, still the king of tank kills in this war is direct artilery fire and will be till the end
@@kekkoinen well the Abrahams isn't really designed for the War in Ukraine either, like most of the Tanks sent.
You’re some what wrong about the Abrams tank armor being classified. The DU (Depleted Uranium) Armor is subject to export restrictions and is not equipped on Ukraine bound M1s. Abrams tanks that are going or are in service with UAFs have the export armor package installed. The reason we haven’t flooded Ukraine with older Abrams tanks is because very few have the export armor package installed. They either have to be built from scratch or retrofitted. Retrofitting is expensive as very few companies are authorized to do this specialized work.
the blow out pannels and the general all ammo at the rear design is relly showing its weaknesses against drones and similar weapons, it is good in a face to face conflict but drones dont care about your frontal armor anyways.
Even then it's not a tank kill, a mission kill sure. It's separated from the crew, and the vehicle can still drive away back to base. Unlike any sucker who gets stuck in a T series tank... which would be a total vehicle loss when it dets.
Can you do an analysis of merkava tanks in gaza based on available footage? Great video and informative content 👍
he did one analysis already but i think before real invasion. surely he will do it again but i think not right away
Red, I think a factor you forgot is that Ukraine has access to other NATO compliant shells such as DM-11 from the leopard 2's they already have thus the anti infantry problem could be solved by simply loading DM-11 into the gun breech of the abrams. Now, the issue is programming the shell fuzes but given that it is ukraine we are dealing with, they would probably find some way to make it work.
It’s definitely possible to load and fire German ammunition, but their rounds are still designed differently than US ones. They’re a lot dirtier and cause a bit more breech wear than equivalent American ones. Not that it will probably matter given the tank isn’t likely to survive long enough to need a replacement barrel or breech parts of course
no need to program an impact shell
German HE-FRAG does use a sensor to determine where it will detonate. The SEP V2 has a programmable warhead system for the gunner, but I don't believe any are present on the M1A1s@@tavish4699
@@theginger7148if we consider all known battelfield losses of leopard 2s, your assessment of the situation is in a position where I would accuse you of having a Russian bias.
@@theginger7148they won't ever fire nearly enough shells for that to be a concern. As they will be destroyed
The MPAT round is not meant for air targets exclusively. It’s a dual purpose round that is capable of destroying APCs, personnel and helicopters. Also there absolutely is an anti personnel round- the canister round. Hundreds of tungsten balls with an effective range of around 1k.
Thanks, Red Effect.
Well know more when we see it destroyed
kzhead.info/sun/q7KQnappcJhrq3A/bejne.html
Regarding the shells the Abrams could use; don't forget Ukraine gets shells from other nations too; the Abrams gun can use the anti-infantry shells other nations have supplied to Ukraine for the same caliber tank gun.
Not to mention Abrams higher fuel usage, louder engine, but a marginal upside of being able to use many more different fuel types.
Not every 120mm gun breech (and therefore shell) is the same, but the Abram's gun is based on the German 120mm. So (as you suggested) maybe the Germans can supply some HE rounds, if they make them and they are still compatable.
@@jordansmith4040 Rheinmetall DM11. The US Marines have been using it for more than 6 years. Its a multi-purpose shell for medium armored or unarmored targets with a programmable fuse for airburst - just what you need for trench warfare.
@@Ganiscol sounds perfect!
@@Ganiscol The USMC no longer has any tanks. Not for a year or 2 now.
I don’t understand what you mean here 3:59 Am I confused abt commander’s weapon station thermal viewer compared with Russian CITV or Abram’s CITV?
Thanks. Good analysis.
You should compare m1 abrams with t 90m because they only send few tank
T90m's are the minority too, so the chances of the two meeting on the same front, not to mention getting stuck in a tank duel, are incredibly low.
@@Gapis321 true
The M1A1 also has an APU which means it don't need to run it's very hot gas turbine in an overwatch position and it will keep the fuel consumption down. The tank does have a good shell against infantry at close range the Canister shell which is basically a 120mm shotgun. Limited in the situations it can be used but a very useful tool to have. It also has the M908 HE-OR obstacle reduction round which would be excellent against fortifications. The M1A1 might lack a high explosive shell which is a big minus but the US has a lot of specialized ammo for this tank as well
i dont think fuel is the big problem , think is how many of those cannister rounds .. not that many tank plus even less ammunation all is see is same situation no real change .
@@prateekmahapatra1789 Tank ammunition doesn't get used as fast as Artillery ammo... im confident we have enough in storage to last a loooooooong time.
I doubt that shells would be an issue, the ammo should be pretty interchangeable with the Leo 2. Id be more concerned with the weight in soft soil, so I would expect M1s to be used in a winter counter offensive
В зимнем контрнаступлении? 😂
I feel like the any important differences would be in mobility, optics, and crew survivability.
I noticed a lot of people are very quick to criticize the Abrams. I haven't seen this much criticism on the comments from the Leopard 2 or T-90. Very interesting phenomenon... 🤔
that's just your very subjective own (and wrong) view
@@militaryanalysis5028 What's wrong?
@@chaosXP3RT What you call "phenomenon" 🙄
@@militaryanalysis5028 Why are people so quick to criticize the Abrams but defend the Leopard 2 or T-90?
@@chaosXP3RT you're acting as if there aren't any Ameriboos who think their Abrams is somehow invincible. Some of them even believe to this day that no Abrams was ever destroyer LoL
You didn't mention a crucial thing. The Abrams has a gas turbine engine, which means that it's going to emit in the IR spectrum like crazy. The Russians will be able to see them from space with a naked eye... Abrams is also maintenance-heavy and fuel-hungry. This puts them at a clear disadvantage.
While actual abrams side and UNDER-side armor is thinner than soviet-era tanks, meaning that abrams is actually much worse against mines, while it weight is around 67 to 72 tons, so good luck trying to recover it from mud(which are there for at least 7 month per year). Especially damaged abrams under fire of artillery and drones.
Not true at all
Can you make the review the video after the hit of three ATGMs on the T-64 Bulat, where the ERA "Nizh" worked?
I wounder how would it fair against those barrel launched atgms that allow for a massive range advantage over any western tank. Can I penitrate the Abrams?
Depends on where it hits. Side profile? Yes. Steep angle? Maybe. Lower frontal plate? Yes. Turret cheeks? No. Upper frontal plate? Maybe if it will deflect into the turret ring.
Tank Vs tank is rare in Ukraine. Drones, mines and arty are the main killers.
Even if a hit gets completely blocked by the armor and results in no failure of any major subsystem, the crew is still very likely to GTFO in an instant. We civvies tend to forget that War Thunder logic is lightyears away from reality.
Not with the upgraded armor. A lucky hit might damage an Abrams and even make it operational, but it's very unlikely that any Russian ATGM in Ukraine should "penetrate" an Abrams and kill an Abrams for the first time in history.
@@tonysu8860 You clearly have no idea about tanks. ATGMS will very easily penetrate the sides, Turret neck and lower frontal plate. The upgraded armor is only included in the turret cheeks, which in only one part of the tank. Tanks in general without APS are vunerable to ATGMs, both Russian and American. The thin roof is also very vunerable to Lancet drones and kornet ATGMs. No roof ERA means even dropped rockets will be deadly. Also a lot of Abrams have been "Killed" in the middle east by EFPs, ATGMs and rocket launchers. When they get destroyed in Ukraine its not going to be a first.
I thunk you should have mentioned the logistical problems connected to the wieght of the tank. Especialy with our good olf friend, mud.
Learn that t72 gets untracked on mud before saying something will struggle
@@tetispinkman9135 it doesnt I have seen videos of them just plowing through it. Also sorry but most western equipment tends to be heavier and ill equiped to deal with the conditions present in ex soviet countries. Ukrianians have had to pull their max pros out of the mud more than they had the chance to drive them.
@@Silver_Prussian learn about t72. Soviet designs are usually terrible. T72 can't drive in mud, because too much mud stick to the wheels of a track, unlike t64, so t64 are often pull t72 out. But we will see how abrams shows, because weight doesn't matter, the design of a track does And maxpro is not good example because it's wheeled.
@@tetispinkman9135 🤦🤦🤦 weight doesnt matter, jesus christ dude. Just go and read a book on what weight distribution and what ground pressure means, things especially important for tanks. Also the t64 and t72 share a lot of similarities so your claim would not make sense that an inferior model would be able to pull through mud but its successor wont.
@@Silver_Prussian HAHHAHh, JUST learn, learn it, use "Shawshank redemption" video for example, but it's in russian. YES , it's good to learn that t72 despite is successor of t64 is an outstanding garbage and is down grade in most from t64. Its tracks are much wider , and they don't have holes unlike t64. In t64 the wheel pushes out mud through holes, and it doesn't stuck. Put more emojis lol, it's much easier than to use more sources than red effect, is it? And keep comparing wheeled maxpro to an tracked tank calling them both "western tech" so in your logic tank will perform the same in mud. Lol.
7:24 you wrong. You said "all ammunition located in ammo racks", but there also additional ammo inside tank. And second - ammo racks didn't help if HE ammo exploded. It only help if tank filled with AP rounds.
There are just no wonder weapons. The men behind the machines and the overall cohesion of the military are more important than fancy weapons.
Q is whether they come with cope cages.
I don't see the Russians using Javelins
@@HazmatUnit it's drones raining on their hats.
@@HazmatUnit I don't see the Ukrainian using Javelins either
@@RustedCroaker oh you sweet summer child, they have or the Russians wouldn't be using cope cages.
With the 120 smooth bore, the Abrams is able to use NATO shells with no problems, just like the Leo2.
Very favorably, including the anti-blow-the-turret-off ammo storage system.
Note at 7:00 We do have a canister round by the designation of m1028 that is good for infantry and light vehicles.
У нашей пехоты есть корнет , есть FPV дроны ещё есть ТМ-62. Так что Абрамс будет гореть как миленький, так же ярко как его собратья по НАТО 😂
Can anyone translate lmao
@@darkhawkgaming3238 basically "abrams will burn from kornet and drone" etc anyway, the canister is a mean fucker, only issue is the range is only like 600-800 meters, pretty cool though
In regards to an anti personal round, the USMC supposedly used a DM 11, designed and built by Germany. There might be some leftovers and pending the arms treaty Germany has, etc, if there are leftovers, they could possibly go there… something to possibly check out.
you cannot win wars with what is left over. Russia produces its anti-personnel rounds more than its anti-tank rounds because it understands the purpose of the tank in modern warfare, which is to support the infantries to take, and hold the ground, not to focus on destroying other tanks. to destroy other tanks, they focus on ATGMs, RPGs, artileries and now drones which is again a correct formula, not like the west who focus on building overweight tanks.
Tank on tank combat has been almost irrelevant so far in the Ukraine War. The real question is: how will the Abrams perform with Ukraine's current tank doctrine and against Russian FPV drones and/or Lancets, Kornet ATGMs, and I don't feel like I know any more about this than before I watched this video.
Up today 4 abrams are lost while transporting. 2 are damaged due to faulty usage. They didn’t make it to action yet. 😅
Nice footage of the aussie M1 training up north
wow zelensky was waiting so much for that tank
And it took them a year just to get 32 Abrams tanks
@@testmaxfad 32 tanks cant fight a thousand russian tank
@@2dhistory197much less than that now. And keep in mind the UAF still got quite a few leopards, strvs and old Soviet vehicles. But all doesn't matter when the drones and arty got the highest kill count lol
@@xanderrednaxx yes you are true both sides now rely on artillery and drones
@@2dhistory197Unfortunately, Russian tank is not what they should concern in this war.
It doesn't really matter. That 30 Abrams will not change anything vs the 1500 Russian tanks that are produced/modernized each year.
nah that is the wrong typ of Thinking. They probably won't meet at all. Drones gonna be huge Problem for the Abrahams though.
Russia doesnt have logistics to deploy so many tanks. Those, which they have at the frontline, are still being used like cannon fodder, what will change if they cant use tank efffective? Nothing…. They will have still a massive casulties and no good breakthrough.
Not 1500, more like 600-800 but you are right. What the heck west thinks. They have thousand available tanks but the best they could is 30 abrams and 100 leo2?
1500 produced/modernized? lmao please come back to the real world bruh
@@Kubulin24 you are both kinda thinking wrong about warfare. One just compares the raw numbers disregarding the Logistics, Terrain and other Types of Weapons System and the Air War. And you Clearly think, just one side is throwing Material into the Meatgrinder. This is a Forever War and both are losing big time. And little movement on the map doesn't make up for the loses.
Driver has about an inch of armor on top of him. Anything coming in above horizontal or with a substantial high explosive charge is going to put a hole in it.
How come you never seem to talk about canister rounds for anit infantry, both the Abrahms and the Challenger has it; but i don't recall you ever mentioning it when talking about munitions.
so let me guess. game changer right.
wtf, how do they compare to russian tanks? How many Abrams will get destroyed by russian tanks and how many by mines, artillery, AT, drones... They will burn, but not because of russian tanks...
tank on tank combat basically does not exist
The comparison exists because they operate on the same battlefield. While the Abrams has some shortcomings its advantages to the large majority of Russian equipment give it better overall tactical power.
@@mando_dablord2646 What is "larger tactical power" worth when it gets wrecked by anything else on the battlefield? lol
@@majormassenspektrometeranything can be wrecked if not employed properly and with the proper support 🙄
With depleted Uranium rounds and longer range than the T90 Abrahams can be used as sniper tank pucking off tanks quicker than artillery. If they are combined with recon drones or tanks can be instructed via drone operators then the above can be done.
That has become SOP with the leopard 2, it's probably gonna be the same with the Abrams. RIP anything that isnt a T-90
M1028 Canister might be issued for anti-infantry but I have no idea if that round is in use anymore.
It's a tank, like all others can be destroyed. That being said if any of you had to be in a tank battle I'm certain you would choose the Abrams over a Russian tank all day long.
I'll choose t-90. It has some protection from above at least.
@@RustedCroaker lol T-90 is a pile fo shit you would be luckly to reach the front line before the engine broke down or ran out of fuel.
@redscope897 american patriot always who says that their tanks are the best😂 Let's see how your biased tanks will show themselves without any artillery, air or other support) It's rly funny when you guys were talking the same about Leos and how they would be a "gAmE CHanGeR" but where are they now?? I rly hyped up to see what's gonna happen with this ONE M1. Is this your NEW "GAME CHANGER"??? 😂😂😂
@@FallSine lol in 18 months Russia has taken just one town of 75 SQ KM and lost 4,000 SQ KM to Ukraine. Russian invaded Ukraine and has lost ground how is that not a Game Changer lol. So far Russian has lost 3,000 tanks to just 10 Nato that is a very good ratio.
@redscope897 oh yeah, buddy, you surely know how many tanks have Russia lost or should I say journalists know :D It's rly stupid to believe in numbers when you're just WATCHING it from somewhere. I was also told that Russians already have only shovels and their all army destroyed) They are holding with shovels, can you believe that???
Of course M1A1 is superior to T-64 to T-80's and is on par with T-90M. But the chances of them facing each other is next to neil in current war. Both will have to run through FPVs, mines, artilleries, and ATGMs.
M1 is not on par. When you see them burn, they will start saying that it is export, even when means of defeat come from above or sides, where there is no difference export or domestic.
The t-90 is rubbish it is little more than an upgrade T-72 hull. The tank was so bad they choose to upgrade the whole T-72 fleet rather than make T-90's They are too expensive, the engine is not powerful enough, it burns more fuel than they can supply it with in the field.
Great video but I have a question from an old video. We know that there are the t62 and the t62 2023 with cheap thermal There is also the t80bvm orb 2023 with these same modifications But something I didn't quite understand is about the t72 and the b3 variant. We know that the sosna u was discontinued in the new and repaired t80bvm. But of the t72b3 You said that Russia is modernize Its older t72 (a, b, ural) adding that cheap thermal sight and that it was not taking away from the t72b3, which somehow we could call a different variant like "t72bm" or "t72b2" Do you know if the same years as the t80bvm happened to them or are still being produced with the sosna u
A video on the Leo 1a5 would be cool
Will make a fine addition to the captured vehicles section in Russia's war museum.
They had to decommission that exhibit due the T-72s being hunted to near extinction in Ukraine
They'd already trained the crew long time ago. There has already been reports that those Abrams tanks were seen and taking battles near Kharkiv .
Yea?? Hope I could see a video somewhere of them. Been waiting to see its performance
@@oc4964 there are photos of it on the telegram.
I heard they were spotted in Kupyansk too
lots of hear say @@bluebud169
How about the protection against heat ammo from top attacks?
You forgot to mention the maintenance for the abrams and the engine
Can it survive Krasnopoly? Can it survive new Lancet? Can it survive mines?
No tank can survive those bruh
Plenty of tanks including the t-72 are hard to penetrate on a single hit by lancet, mobility kill is the best thing lancet does. In terms of artillery, not a tank in existence can survive that, so it's useless to make a comparison. only comparison that can be made is tank vs tank and crew survivability, both of which western designs have advantage on.
Can a Russian tank survive Javelin, Stugna, TOW or some other ATGMs? Can a Russian tank survive Excalibur? Can a Russian tank survive FPV drone hit? No? Does it mean Russian tanks are bad? No it just means that they aren't indestructible.
@@fabik805 That's exactly the point of my comment. Pretty much all the tanks we see today are similarly bad and unfit for the modern battlefield. All those small advantages they have are becoming irrelevant. Armor? Not thick enough, the threat is landing from above. Thermals? When obstructed by terrain or trees, there is no help. Reverse speed? Everything is faster, waaaay faster, drones, bicycles... Skateboards... Firepower? T-55 can level down a house
What about canister rounds? I heard storys about them being surprisingly effective against infantry.
I cant see how it could be all that effective in a trench war. The Russ arent exactly storming the Ukrainian lines like the Huns, are they?
Canister can't be fired into a trench like HE can.
specs for armor protection for m1a1 is widley known from swedish report from early 90th, cause it was tested by the army
What about the weight of the tank and its ability to move on soft soils, fragile bridges and country roads? And what about fuel consumption in conditions of its shortage and logistics problems? What about routine repairs in the field?
And 10% of them have been destroyed...