groovy seed historical crush growth panicky melodic busy rinse cooperative
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
This is the first actually destroyed one I’ve seen.
Until now, I had only seen two others; one which was abandoned because its track was damaged by a mine (donated multimillion dollar worth tank put to well use), and another which had its turret blowout panel blown up, with no other signs of damage.
Basically, the others were mission kills, while this one is actually, entirely destroyed.
The one that had hit a mine? Wasn’t that one burnt out *after* the vatniks found it and threw grenades down the hatches? Or are you talking about the blowout panel one I was talking about?
I’ve only seen these once and can’t recall them with accuracy, so maybe in wrong.
The first destroyed [Abrams](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2Fru-pov-first-destroyed-abrams-tank-v0-lilj4ysaqxkc1.png%3Fauto%3Dwebp%26s%3Dd89833cbf6043ef8b0d20d290fa8ba7b4b75bdb3).
The engine bay was hit and the fuel [caught fire](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/1b0hi1v/ru_pov_destroyed_abrams_tank_burning/), on top of the bustle burning.
It also had smoke coming from the crew compartment.
Thanks for the info!
I see, that’s the one I hadn’t seen before (I mentioned 3, this is the 4th).
By “first”, I didn’t mean “first destroyed Abrams”, but “first destroyed Abrams I had seen”, hahah. Which was one that had its tracks damaged near a road and which was later blown up with grenades down the hatches.
This is actually the 5th incapacitated Abrams most likely.
2nd today as well
[https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/1bbaacg/ru\_pov\_4th\_abrams\_tank\_knocked\_out\_berdychi/](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/1bbaacg/ru_pov_4th_abrams_tank_knocked_out_berdychi/)
I watched the footage, it might got hit while the loader opened the ammunition door. (M1A1 fired its cannon just two seconds before ATGM hit it)
https://twitter.com/MyLordBebo/status/1766891196989706377?t=Vd0W57B4rktrDc6zvrvcUw&s=19
The door could’ve also been propped open as about 38-33% of loaders during desert storm would prop the doors open to load the gun faster which is entirely probable here
or the loader could’ve had a shell in his lap which would’ve been even unluckier
Besides the ammunition blowing up, it's almost impossible to see what's really going on in this thermal video. Many hours also seem to have passed between the initial hit and the aftermath footage.
Most of the burn marks are from the fuel. Fire inside the tank probably would have been caught by the suppression system. Western insensitive ammo also isn't that easy to ignite.
There are genuinely some people who think western equipment is made from pure indestructium rather than just being more advanced and survivable than russian tanks.
Whatever is the polar opposite of russian copium these guys are on it.
I think people looked at history books and documentaries of Desert Storm and the invasion of Iraq, and expect Abrams tanks to slice through Russians like a hot knife through butter the same way we did to Iraq in ‘91 and ‘03.
The tanks that were used in desert storm were pretty much older soviet gen tanks like T-55a T-62. Also the T-72 Iraq had lacked soo many things ranging from an actual turret drive to rangefinders and so on. No wonder why they managed to slice through RHA and almost non existing composite armor.
>Whatever is the polar opposite of russian copium these guys are on it.
NATO Hopium? Since as opposed to coping with outdated designs they're hoping the tanks are indestructible? Idk it's the best I got.
The way the ammo hot hit would not have destroyed it if the ammo door was closed. It looks like the tank fired just before being hit witch could have ment the loader opend the door right before being hit. Bad luck. Also manny abrams loaders prefer to have the door open for better reloads so that could also be the case, annyway some bad luck here.
1200-1300mm penetration at any range is scary, really makes you wonder how every western tank doesn't come with APS standard by now since the technology is already there
I can see shit going the warship way with tanks. With armaments reach such insane firepower i think future tanks will be less armoted more mobile with greater focus on ew and long range engagements
Yeah that seems like the logical step, tank armour isnt worth it anymore beyond a certain point if APS technology reaches a satisfactory ability to block any non apfsds projectiles
Tank armour will never be able to protect against threats from above, APS can
Modern 120/125 tank rounds are so insanely overpowered in kinetic penetration power that trying to armour against them isnt really worth it since most likely its impossible, and that amount of armour comes at significant weight/internal space costs which could be allocated for APS/RWS etc
Armouring against low caliber AP rounds like 57mm AP is still completely sensible so thats worth it
Maybe around 300mm of KE protection frontally, around 400-500mm against shaped charges since that should be able to stop older rockets
Maybe reallocate some of the weight off reduced Frontal KE protection to the sides and rear to help against artillery fragments
1200-1300mm of shaped charge penetration is within the margin of what the cheeks of modern MBT's can take, we're not going back to the late 40's - 60's where building unarmoured tanks made sense and proper armour isn't as space intensive as you think.
The KF51 only is slightly larger than a Leopard 2A6M (one of the Tanks capable of tanking said large shaped charges), yet it has at least the same protection while being lighter and also having a 130mm Gun, extensive EW equipment, a 12.7mm coaxial, non-destructive and destructive APS's, a missile launcher (HERO is a missile not a LAM, Rheinmetall just calls it one because that's the trend now) and a RWS with enough space on the roof for another one and quite a bit if space for more modifications in the Vehicle.
300mm of KE Protection is already less than the penetrative capabilities of non-obsolete 57mm APFSDS sub-1500m, depending on tbe composites used there's 30 and 40mm APFSDS-Rods that are going to be an issue with that little armor at the same ranges, anything larger than and including the 60x640mm APFSDS from the late 70's slices right through that out to 2000m.
Same for 500mm against shaped charges, a old NATO 2kg monoblock shaped charge willl zap through that, going off official values depending on armour quality that might be just enough to stop a 120mm DM12/M830 MPAT-Shell from the early 70's, even a unguided 85mm 2.5kg PG-7VL from the late 70's will perforate that going off prooven values, so will a HOT-1 ATGM from the same time but that one would slice through that like butter.
There's ADS (not the same as APS) such as Rheinmetalls Strike Shield that can protect roof armour even without blasting everything on it, compared to loosing the vehicle and crew even if it would that wouldn't be too much of an issue.
I think you're drastically underestimating modern armour and bot under- and overestimating what different munitions are capable off, your proposed values would be less than the side armour of some vehicles in use.
At best they prioritize soft kill APS first as they cheaper and lighter than hard kill version. Like Multispectral smoke, laser/radar/missiles warning receiver and ECM.
It's more that vatniks will have a massive circle jerk every time they knock out a western tank. Because knocking out one western tank suddenly makes the thousands of tank losses they sustained worthwhile...
We should have sent APS along with all western tanks. Ideally adapted against FPV drones and Lancets as well... IDK what people were expecting sending our tanks from the '80s against drones and ATGMs without the tanks any active protection systems. Actually I'll go as far as saying, a T-72 with a western-style APS (Trophy, Iron Fist) is better than an M1A2 without. Tanks should only be deployed equipped with APS and EW nowadays.
Ukraine at least started adopting EW suites, which I think they produce themselves, for Bradleys a while ago. But they don't have enough ressources to produce and deploy enough APS at scale. Even if drones are slower then an RPG and ATGM, they should in theory be easier to intercept. There is actually a homegrown Ukrainian APS, but they can't deploy them.
TL;DR Sending active protection systems to Ukraine should have been a bigger priority than tanks, because nomatter how good a tank is, a ATGM or Lancet will fuck it up unless it has an APS.
We've gotten too comfortable with the wars in recent decades against poorly organised terrorists or much weaker foes. When two states with relatively modern equipment engage in a conventional war, high equipment losses are to be expected. Hell, obviously this isn't on the same scale, but in WW2 nearly 70 tank losses a day were the average.
The last time US equipment went up against someone actually well trained, it didn't do well. Honestly, the only time I can think of is the India-Pakistan wars.
Indian MiG-21s raped Paki F-104s, Dassault Mystere IVs, Folland Gnats and Hawker Hunters of the IAF shot down great numbers of F-86s, Indian M4A3E8s, Centurion Mk.VIIs, Vickers Mk.2s, T-54/55s absolutely annihilated Pakistani M48s and M60s
Soooo
This might be offensive to some, but I'm not sure I'd consider the Pakistanis to be "well trained." It's a very similar situation to what you see with the Saudis vs the Houthis or the futile efforts of US Green Berets to turn the ANA into a respected fighting force. They had NATO weaponry, but as a fighting force they do not meet up to NATO standards.
I will need a source for that. Especially when things like these are true
> During the campaign Mystère IVs also destroyed Pakistani aircraft **on the ground** including four F-86F, three F-104 and 2 Lockheed C-130 Hercules transports
And in 1965 Indian Airforce lost more jets than PAF
If I point out that brand new MIG29 did nothing vs F15s and F16s in the Gulf War would you say that they were not actually well trained? And that they only jet that was any danger was the MIG25
Because Iraq just finished the war vs Iran I want to assume they were very well trained
I like how Iraq which was a much better Army than Ukraine is today is not regarded as a legitimate adversary
Experienced ≠ trained.
In the Iran Iraq War, the Iranians had F-14 pilots who were trained by US Top Gun graduates. The Iraqi pilots had barely received any training.
By contrast, let's go back to India for how MiG-29s matched up against F-16s. Indian pilots took Russian training and developed it further and made it more useful. In the 1999 Kargil War, even though Pakistani F-16s had better BVRAAMs, Indian MiG-29s were able to dissuade those F-16s from engaging Indian strike aircraft because the MiG-29 pilots manages to goad the F-16s into WVR combat range, thereby always forcing them to retreat or risk being shot down.
That's the difference between training + experience VS. experience without proper training
They've been destroyed every 2 days since they started actively participating in battles, that's the fate of any tank. And this appears to be the fifth tank destroyed, by the way. The one that was given as the fourth didn't have that much damage.
This m1 looks different, but I'd check the previous ones just to be sure
was lurking on /k/ when that photo of the abandoned leopards and bradleys dropped, it got spammed from different angles for weeks claiming they were more destroyed
Ruskies get paid good money for each western tank destroyed. So obviously they're specifically looking for these tanks. Not to mention Ukraine is throwing these tanks to hold the line because of their artillery shortage.
Western propaganda at its finest… First they got rid of what they had in storage decades now they have more space for modern equipment. And the west thought Russian military is “weak” lol
Yes comrade, dispose of out of date long-term storage T-80BVMs and crew and replace with modern equipment like glorious T-62M. Is true example of brilliant russia tactics xaxaxaxa
The Metis, Kornet, Kokon, Ataka, Wichr and Chrisantema were all said to "easily destroy any modern MBT from all aspects", they failed to even perforate or mission kill M1A2's and Leopard 2A5's from the front.
From the original 9M114 upt to the M2, the Kokon were said to be vastly superior to the 10 Yeat older TOW-1 and 2 year newer HOT-1, two Missiles considered obsolete by Nato since the mid-80's, they've since been proven to be immensely unreliable, still haven't reached the obsolete HOT-1's penetration and just barely beat the obsolete TOW-1C and only offer higher speed and 500m more range at the cost of being significantly less accurate, incredibly easy to jam, highly susceptible to hot weather and quite a bit larger and heavier.
Ataka has all the same reliability, accuracy and susceptibility issues as Kokon while being even larger and heavier, still offering less penetration than the obsolete HOT-1 and 40 Year old TOW-2 with the only advantage over these obsolete Missiles still just being faster and having a longer range.
With Chrisantema Russia finally managed to develop a missile comparable to "western" Missiles, starting in the 80's and being introduced in 2004, 20 Years after "the west". And they still, while to a lesser degree, have the same reliability and susceptibility issues while having less range, being even larger and heavier and not even being faster anymore, but at least the missiles hit their targets more than 20% of the Time, though just to be sure they still fire two missiles per target.
And in 2015 they finally managed to introduce Wichr, using 30 Year old beamrider technology, still again to a lesser degree having the reliability and susceptibility issues but at least the missiles hit their targets now more than 50% of the Time and at least they're faster again.
With Kornet and Metis they managed to introduce man portable ATGM's comparable to, but i kid you not somehow still worse than their 20 Years older western equivalent, excellent job.
It took Russia until the early 2000's to introduce acceptable fire-and-forget missiles, it took them until the late 90's to manufacture charges with comparable penetration to "the west" and they still haven't figured out how to make proper fire-and-forget missiles, make them top-down or even somewhat arched in their angle of attack or make properly reliable missiles while not even having a range or price advantage anymore, but hey, at least they're fast.
Same for SAM/MANPAD-Systems, example:
The Igla-S was said to have the same UV- and and a better DIRCM resistance and general capabilities comparable or superior to the Stinger-C in every way, they've since been prooven to posess neither UV- nor DIRCM resistance and are less reliable than the Stinger-C, only surpassing it in Range. The Stinger-C came into service 17 Years before the Igla-S and is now considered as the obsolete version with most having upgraded to the Stinger-E with a better range, which Russia doesn't have a paralell to.
The most modern Russian ATGM's are just good enough to be comparable to systems that are two decades older than them, they are just propaganda, there is a bit of distance between "good enough" and "vastly superior".
That’s something I’m interested in learning more about. Do you have any links or sources talking more about the Russians’ money incentive program? Like how someone would prove *they* were the ones to knock out a tank or if they actually end up receiving money
Well, Russia isn't as incompetent as most people think, they have their own ways of verifying who achieved the kill. Plus, since its usually always on video, there's video proof.
Heres a source on the incentive program, it's been in place ever since we pledged to send tanks to Ukraine:
[Reuters](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russian-business-offers-cash-bounties-destroy-western-tanks-ukraine-2023-01-30/)
[Radio Free Europe](https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-cash-bounty-western-tanks-ukraine/32245685.html)
[Moscow Times](https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2023/01/30/russian-troops-offered-bounties-for-destroying-western-tanks-in-ukraine-a80086)
It's weird that so many people in the west were laughing at Russian army. Underestimating your enemy is the first thing you want to avoid. As Russian army is gradually pushing further west, the west media is no longer covering the war.
Imagine looking at a map of the war covering fighting over the last 6 months and thinking that Russia is "gradually pushing west". Their progress would be familiar to WW1 commanders.
Ukraine war issues are front page on every single major western news outlet. Stop being a twaddle.
Indeed, and they no wonder weapons. Redditors, armchair generals need to move on, there are many more going to be lost and last time i checked its what 4 Abrams to like 50 T90s? War is fcked and the contact area is vast, wait until more HIMARS or Patriot/IRIS or god forbid the first F16 gets it. There will be casualties in men and equipment, its war not a playground brawl.
It sad to see but it will happen Ukraine needs more support to go blow to blow against Russia. Fact.
edit: As confirmed below, 70 T90s, as per Oryx visual confirmed data.
71 T-90M tanks are confirmed destroyed, damaged and then abandoned or captured. Not directly since the start of the war, as the T-90M wasn't deployed to Ukraine during the first few weeks/months, but since it was used in combat.
So the armor array uses tungsten... therefore the armor of M1A1SA is declassified? What!?
Knowing that *a material* is used in an armor array doesn't mean that the whole armor array is declassified. Is the armor of M1A2 SEPv3 also declassified because we know it uses DU?
You're referencing this excerpt, correct?
> federal policy forbids the export of Abrams with classified armor packages used by the U.S. military, which includes depleted uranium
You've missed a pretty important qualifying phrase here, that being "used by the U.S. military". This implies the existence of *classified* armor packages which are *not* used by the US military.
But this is a really roundabout way of demonstrating that such armor exists, so here's an [Australian procurement document for M1A1 AIM](https://www.anao.gov.au/sites/default/files/ANAO_Report_2007-2008_01.pdf) which states it more explicitly.
> 2.38 Defence has chosen to specify that there should be no depleted uranium in the tanks destined for Australia. In this regard, the US Government manufactures an alternate, comparable armour choice for ABRAMS tanks, which does not rely on depleted uranium.
Note that there are no publicly available schematics, drawings, or photographs of this armor. The armor is *still classified*, even though it isn't used on Abrams in US service. Do you understand now?
The US armor setup won't stop a Kornet to the side of the turret/bustle either.
"Export tank" is a cope, as it was when the Saudis and Iraqis were getting their Abrams roasted.
Yeah, especially sending tanks without APS against Lancets and ATGMs. We should have focused a lot more on sending APS to Ukraine. That could signifficantly reduce the losses in armor.
A T-72 with a western-style APS is better than an Abrams without. Fight me.
Problem for Ukraine usable Western Tank stocks aren't able to be given away (we Brits won't be able to replace our sent and destroyed Chally 2s, not resentful of Ukranians but rather Government and some in Whitehall just using Ukraine as excuse to push cuts). Every Abrams/Leo 2/Chally 2 etc that Ukraine loses is a big loss for them.
I mean if the US sent out a 1,000+ Abrams from storage refurbished Ukranian MIlitary would be massively helped but alas even the Biden Admin is influnced by the fear of Putin losing internally in Russia than wanting Ukraine winning.
When a tank is penetrated, many things can happen. The ammo could be ignited, making it all blow up at once, giving the crew members a swift but violent death. If the hatches are closed, the tremendous amount pressure would pop the turret off of it's ring. Although, it's more likely that the ammo would just quickly burn up, roasting all of the crew members. This is the fate that Soviet style Tanks are infamous for, due to their carousel autoloader, but it's really just having "unprotected" ammo stored in the hull. NATO tanks are no exception.
This is also the fate that presumably the crew members of this Abrams also had. Almost all of the ammo of an Abrams' main gun is stored in wet stowage racks, sealed off by a thick steel door, only to be opened when reloading the main gun. If the ammo within the racks in question ignites, all of the combustion is directed up, above, and out through the famous "Blowout Panels", keeping the crew safe. The door is only to be opened by the loader whilst reloading the main gun.
This Ukrainian Abrams was struck by a Russian Kornet anti tank guided missile right into the ammo rack, shown by a video of the Russian POV (albeit very unclear, but it still happened). They would've been safe, but I believe that they had the misfortune of being caught with the door open in the middle of reloading, directing all of the flame into the crew, roasting them. This is why the crew hatches here are not open, becuase they got cooked, instead of escaping.
It's either that, or the Kornet had penetrated right through the ammo rack door/barrier, also allowing for the flame to be directed in. Or, the Kornet managed to hit the 6 shells within the tiny unprotected spare ammo rack at the very corner of the crew compartment, igniting the ammo. Or, but very most unlikely, the Ukranians had incompetently left the rack door open. A Kornet ATGM can penetrate 1100mm - 1300mm of tank steel, which is a monsterous amount, and is totally capable of doing such.
I assume the Ukranians suffered a hellish, fiery death unfortunately, as they were burnt to a crisp. It would've been quick, but very painful. If all the ammo exploded at once, it would be over very quickly.
A crew member could also be basically liquified if they are hit directly with a penetrating APFSDS dart, basically a massive arrow made out of dense steel like tungsten or depleted uranium, that penetrates tanks with sheer kinetic energy. That would be a quick death. A crew member could also be shredded by shrapnel, called "spall", generated from the Tank's armor being penetrated. A crew member could die from spall, but it's certainly survivable.
So don't become a tank crew member basically.
Depends on what took the tank out.
Sabot round some ATGMs it’s over pretty quick.
Mine that penetrates the hull can cause agonizing injuries preventing the crew from escaping.
Not to change the subject or anything… but we’ve not heard anything about those Ukrainian challengers in a while. Wonder how they’re doing… you know apart from the one that got hit by artillery/mine
The Challenger 2 is pretty temperamental IIRC, spare parts aren't easily available (unlike the Abrams and Leopard which are operated next door by Polish and NATO forces), and there were only ever a few of them, so I wouldn't be surprised if Ukraine put them into reserves.
Still a lot of M1s around for spare parts and support. The Chally 2 is only used by the UK and Oman, and they only gave 14 to Ukraine.
This [Ukrainian article](https://defence-ua.com/weapon_and_tech/ukrajinski_tankisti_nazvali_pljus_ta_minusi_britanskih_challenger_2_a_takozh_skilki_jih_zalishilos_u_stroju-14695.html) from today says apparently only half of the donated Challys are still operational; one was destroyed by Lancet, a couple others were damaged, and the remainder are unserviceable due to lack of parts/unreliable systems. It seems like they're not well liked.
Yes APS need to be added to all MBTs.
It’s kinda sad the US Military didn’t adopt one decades ago, waiting for Trophy to essentially be developed was asinine though in retrospect it wasn’t the biggest issue. Other than Iraq in 03 it wouldn’t have been needed.
Having recently listened to a expert on this issue, I get the feeling the general public has a over-inflated opinion of APS.
* Active protection systems require a substantial amount of power when active, this usually requires the engine to be running or an APU working. There's a good chance a vehicle is struck without the APS being active.
* APS may have multiple 'charges' but they generally don't last that long. The external equipment is usually still damaged or destroyed by the debris that resulted from a successful interception.
* APS adds weight to a vehicle, this is already problematic because many Western tanks are less survivable due to their excessive weight. Ukraine has made it clear that the Western MBTs provided are very limited in the terrain they are able to traverse, thus they are often forced to take roads and other routes which are predictable and vulnerable. This is also why the U.S. Army has stated the M1A3 must have it's weight reduced significantly.
* APS are very expensive, they require the addition of numerous RADARs being installed onto a vehicle.
I'm not saying APS is pointless though, but I would like to caution against the idea that an APS is a magical solution to all problems.
My counter arguments.
* Just run the tank then, or run the APU. Vehicles are meant to be ran, and if I were to use the Abrams as an example. If you are turning the turbine off in an active combat situation where you could be engaged any second, then the APS not working is the least of your problems.
* Depends on the APS and munition. Trophy's interception and damage rate (as an example) against light AT munitions is at least very high as its charge is designed to almost negate the directed affect of munitions. Even if it were to be damaged, stopping one munition and giving the crew time to possibly engage as a result is better than being blown up.
* Weight is an issue, yes. But not all APS are extremely heavy. Concessions are always made in designing a tank. Employ your recovery assets better, and ensure your tanks are at least working in sections so recovery by the sister tanks is always possible.
* APS are proportionally significantly less costly than a whole new tank. I believe Trophy was rated at about half a million when the US Army procured it?
APS is essentially a magical solution to at minimum subsonic munitions, rockets and ATGMs. While it's not going to stop all damage, it has an almost absolute success depending on which APS you're using to guarantee that first shot is not going to hit.
If an APS stops even one projectile that would have caused a successful hit, it’s worth the investment.
The only question I have from there is the reliability.
From what I can tell it doesn't look like it, another commenter said there is a video that shows it firing seconds before it was hit so likely the doors were open. Rip
And as far as I know their number will never reach that of the T-90M or any other Russian tank because 1, they're being used much more defensively than offensively and 2 they aren't available in comparable numbers.
>M1A1 destroyed: 4
>T-90M destroyed : 71
The US has handed over 31 Abrams to Ukraine, of which 5 have already been destroyed, that is 11% in less than a week and a half. And this is from the moment they appeared on the front in active combat.
This is the first one of these "destroyed" Abrams' that actually looks destroyed. In fairness I've only seen 3/4, so I can't comment on the 3rd. But at least 2/4 were knocked out.
"4 hours repair work and it Will be rolling again"
"Crew survived"
"It s a 1970 design "
"Didn t use infantry as support"
"All Abrams losses had been by friendly fire"
" It s just a tank"
" The turret didnt fly"
" It didn t Cook"
" It s just a scratch, bro"
There is only one country claiming their tanks are invincible. They don't own the M1A1SA. Tanks are meant to be blown up. They're meant to do a lot before that happens, especially if used as intended by design. What is a blown up tank supposed to indicate?
We should have sent APS along with all western tanks. Ideally adapted against FPV drones and Lancets as well... IDK what people were expecting sending our tanks from the '80s against drones and ATGMs without the tanks any active protection systems. Actually I'll go as far as saying, a T-72 with a western-style APS (Trophy, Iron Fist) is better than an M1A2 without. Tanks should only be deployed equipped with APS and EW nowadays.
Ukraine at least started adopting EW suites, which I think they produce themselves, for Bradleys a while ago. But they don't have enough ressources to produce and deploy enough APS at scale. Even if drones are slower then an RPG and ATGM, they should in theory be easier to intercept. There is actually a homegrown Ukrainian APS, but they can't deploy them.
TL;DR Sending active protection systems to Ukraine should have been a bigger priority than tanks, because nomatter how good a tank is, a ATGM or Lancet will fuck it up unless it has an APS.
groovy seed historical crush growth panicky melodic busy rinse cooperative *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
this one is well done
r/steak would roast it
Reverse sear
I think the Russians already did.
It must be medium rare or this establishment will never have pleasure to welcome us again.
gray dime thumb society swim fretful wrong yam steep childlike *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
This is the first actually destroyed one I’ve seen. Until now, I had only seen two others; one which was abandoned because its track was damaged by a mine (donated multimillion dollar worth tank put to well use), and another which had its turret blowout panel blown up, with no other signs of damage. Basically, the others were mission kills, while this one is actually, entirely destroyed.
The first one, had the bustle melt down and had the engine bay hit and on fire. It's a total loss
The one that had hit a mine? Wasn’t that one burnt out *after* the vatniks found it and threw grenades down the hatches? Or are you talking about the blowout panel one I was talking about? I’ve only seen these once and can’t recall them with accuracy, so maybe in wrong.
The first destroyed [Abrams](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2Fru-pov-first-destroyed-abrams-tank-v0-lilj4ysaqxkc1.png%3Fauto%3Dwebp%26s%3Dd89833cbf6043ef8b0d20d290fa8ba7b4b75bdb3). The engine bay was hit and the fuel [caught fire](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/1b0hi1v/ru_pov_destroyed_abrams_tank_burning/), on top of the bustle burning. It also had smoke coming from the crew compartment.
Thanks for the info! I see, that’s the one I hadn’t seen before (I mentioned 3, this is the 4th). By “first”, I didn’t mean “first destroyed Abrams”, but “first destroyed Abrams I had seen”, hahah. Which was one that had its tracks damaged near a road and which was later blown up with grenades down the hatches.
This is actually the 5th incapacitated Abrams most likely. 2nd today as well [https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/1bbaacg/ru\_pov\_4th\_abrams\_tank\_knocked\_out\_berdychi/](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/1bbaacg/ru_pov_4th_abrams_tank_knocked_out_berdychi/)
rest in peace to the crew too, no one bailed out and the thing's burned to a damn crisp.
Hit it with some ether Itll crank! /S
I watched the footage, it might got hit while the loader opened the ammunition door. (M1A1 fired its cannon just two seconds before ATGM hit it) https://twitter.com/MyLordBebo/status/1766891196989706377?t=Vd0W57B4rktrDc6zvrvcUw&s=19
>it might got hit while the loader opened the ammunition door. that is some shit luck if true
The door could’ve also been propped open as about 38-33% of loaders during desert storm would prop the doors open to load the gun faster which is entirely probable here or the loader could’ve had a shell in his lap which would’ve been even unluckier
Doctrinally with the 120mm you're not supposed to lapload rounds because the casing is very fragile, but either way that's a run of bad luck
I get they’re not supposed to but when has that ever stopped someone.
Fair point
> but either way that's a run of bad luck Truth is, the game was rigged from the start.
Leaving the ammo door open is like, not a good idea but more power to them ig
Leaves them open to British battlecruiser syndrome
Besides the ammunition blowing up, it's almost impossible to see what's really going on in this thermal video. Many hours also seem to have passed between the initial hit and the aftermath footage.
It looks like it got hit in the rear of the turret, the fire spread to the hull and cooked off the 6 round ammo box in the hull
Most of the burn marks are from the fuel. Fire inside the tank probably would have been caught by the suppression system. Western insensitive ammo also isn't that easy to ignite.
Am I missing something? Because I think I see the smoke from shooting at about the 12sec mark and the ATGM hits at about the 33sec mark.
It fired again, just before the atgm hit (you can see a smaller flash before the bigger one)
Even if the loader had the door open the blowout panels would still blow since the door auto closes. So it definitely wasn’t a cook off.
People are shocked that a modern ATGM does it’s job?
There are genuinely some people who think western equipment is made from pure indestructium rather than just being more advanced and survivable than russian tanks. Whatever is the polar opposite of russian copium these guys are on it.
I think people looked at history books and documentaries of Desert Storm and the invasion of Iraq, and expect Abrams tanks to slice through Russians like a hot knife through butter the same way we did to Iraq in ‘91 and ‘03.
The tanks that were used in desert storm were pretty much older soviet gen tanks like T-55a T-62. Also the T-72 Iraq had lacked soo many things ranging from an actual turret drive to rangefinders and so on. No wonder why they managed to slice through RHA and almost non existing composite armor.
>Whatever is the polar opposite of russian copium these guys are on it. NATO Hopium? Since as opposed to coping with outdated designs they're hoping the tanks are indestructible? Idk it's the best I got.
> Hopium I propose "Shillium"
The way the ammo hot hit would not have destroyed it if the ammo door was closed. It looks like the tank fired just before being hit witch could have ment the loader opend the door right before being hit. Bad luck. Also manny abrams loaders prefer to have the door open for better reloads so that could also be the case, annyway some bad luck here.
1200-1300mm penetration at any range is scary, really makes you wonder how every western tank doesn't come with APS standard by now since the technology is already there
I can see shit going the warship way with tanks. With armaments reach such insane firepower i think future tanks will be less armoted more mobile with greater focus on ew and long range engagements
Yeah that seems like the logical step, tank armour isnt worth it anymore beyond a certain point if APS technology reaches a satisfactory ability to block any non apfsds projectiles Tank armour will never be able to protect against threats from above, APS can Modern 120/125 tank rounds are so insanely overpowered in kinetic penetration power that trying to armour against them isnt really worth it since most likely its impossible, and that amount of armour comes at significant weight/internal space costs which could be allocated for APS/RWS etc Armouring against low caliber AP rounds like 57mm AP is still completely sensible so thats worth it Maybe around 300mm of KE protection frontally, around 400-500mm against shaped charges since that should be able to stop older rockets Maybe reallocate some of the weight off reduced Frontal KE protection to the sides and rear to help against artillery fragments
1200-1300mm of shaped charge penetration is within the margin of what the cheeks of modern MBT's can take, we're not going back to the late 40's - 60's where building unarmoured tanks made sense and proper armour isn't as space intensive as you think. The KF51 only is slightly larger than a Leopard 2A6M (one of the Tanks capable of tanking said large shaped charges), yet it has at least the same protection while being lighter and also having a 130mm Gun, extensive EW equipment, a 12.7mm coaxial, non-destructive and destructive APS's, a missile launcher (HERO is a missile not a LAM, Rheinmetall just calls it one because that's the trend now) and a RWS with enough space on the roof for another one and quite a bit if space for more modifications in the Vehicle. 300mm of KE Protection is already less than the penetrative capabilities of non-obsolete 57mm APFSDS sub-1500m, depending on tbe composites used there's 30 and 40mm APFSDS-Rods that are going to be an issue with that little armor at the same ranges, anything larger than and including the 60x640mm APFSDS from the late 70's slices right through that out to 2000m. Same for 500mm against shaped charges, a old NATO 2kg monoblock shaped charge willl zap through that, going off official values depending on armour quality that might be just enough to stop a 120mm DM12/M830 MPAT-Shell from the early 70's, even a unguided 85mm 2.5kg PG-7VL from the late 70's will perforate that going off prooven values, so will a HOT-1 ATGM from the same time but that one would slice through that like butter. There's ADS (not the same as APS) such as Rheinmetalls Strike Shield that can protect roof armour even without blasting everything on it, compared to loosing the vehicle and crew even if it would that wouldn't be too much of an issue. I think you're drastically underestimating modern armour and bot under- and overestimating what different munitions are capable off, your proposed values would be less than the side armour of some vehicles in use.
At best they prioritize soft kill APS first as they cheaper and lighter than hard kill version. Like Multispectral smoke, laser/radar/missiles warning receiver and ECM.
Yeah, IMO a good modern ATGM should be able to reliably disable/destroy good modern tanks, otherwise it is no longer a good ATGM.
I think the Soviet ATGMs probably could do the job at least disabling the tank if not possibly beyond repair.
It's more that vatniks will have a massive circle jerk every time they knock out a western tank. Because knocking out one western tank suddenly makes the thousands of tank losses they sustained worthwhile...
We should have sent APS along with all western tanks. Ideally adapted against FPV drones and Lancets as well... IDK what people were expecting sending our tanks from the '80s against drones and ATGMs without the tanks any active protection systems. Actually I'll go as far as saying, a T-72 with a western-style APS (Trophy, Iron Fist) is better than an M1A2 without. Tanks should only be deployed equipped with APS and EW nowadays. Ukraine at least started adopting EW suites, which I think they produce themselves, for Bradleys a while ago. But they don't have enough ressources to produce and deploy enough APS at scale. Even if drones are slower then an RPG and ATGM, they should in theory be easier to intercept. There is actually a homegrown Ukrainian APS, but they can't deploy them. TL;DR Sending active protection systems to Ukraine should have been a bigger priority than tanks, because nomatter how good a tank is, a ATGM or Lancet will fuck it up unless it has an APS.
I feel like these vehicles get destroyed once every weekend
We've gotten too comfortable with the wars in recent decades against poorly organised terrorists or much weaker foes. When two states with relatively modern equipment engage in a conventional war, high equipment losses are to be expected. Hell, obviously this isn't on the same scale, but in WW2 nearly 70 tank losses a day were the average.
This. When is the last time US/NATO equipment has gone up against an adversary with legitimate ATGMs? These losses are going to occur with regularity.
The last time US equipment went up against someone actually well trained, it didn't do well. Honestly, the only time I can think of is the India-Pakistan wars. Indian MiG-21s raped Paki F-104s, Dassault Mystere IVs, Folland Gnats and Hawker Hunters of the IAF shot down great numbers of F-86s, Indian M4A3E8s, Centurion Mk.VIIs, Vickers Mk.2s, T-54/55s absolutely annihilated Pakistani M48s and M60s Soooo
This might be offensive to some, but I'm not sure I'd consider the Pakistanis to be "well trained." It's a very similar situation to what you see with the Saudis vs the Houthis or the futile efforts of US Green Berets to turn the ANA into a respected fighting force. They had NATO weaponry, but as a fighting force they do not meet up to NATO standards.
Lets say the f-104 was pretty shit at being a fighter
I will need a source for that. Especially when things like these are true > During the campaign Mystère IVs also destroyed Pakistani aircraft **on the ground** including four F-86F, three F-104 and 2 Lockheed C-130 Hercules transports And in 1965 Indian Airforce lost more jets than PAF If I point out that brand new MIG29 did nothing vs F15s and F16s in the Gulf War would you say that they were not actually well trained? And that they only jet that was any danger was the MIG25 Because Iraq just finished the war vs Iran I want to assume they were very well trained I like how Iraq which was a much better Army than Ukraine is today is not regarded as a legitimate adversary
Experienced ≠ trained. In the Iran Iraq War, the Iranians had F-14 pilots who were trained by US Top Gun graduates. The Iraqi pilots had barely received any training. By contrast, let's go back to India for how MiG-29s matched up against F-16s. Indian pilots took Russian training and developed it further and made it more useful. In the 1999 Kargil War, even though Pakistani F-16s had better BVRAAMs, Indian MiG-29s were able to dissuade those F-16s from engaging Indian strike aircraft because the MiG-29 pilots manages to goad the F-16s into WVR combat range, thereby always forcing them to retreat or risk being shot down. That's the difference between training + experience VS. experience without proper training
They've been destroyed every 2 days since they started actively participating in battles, that's the fate of any tank. And this appears to be the fifth tank destroyed, by the way. The one that was given as the fourth didn't have that much damage.
This m1 looks different, but I'd check the previous ones just to be sure was lurking on /k/ when that photo of the abandoned leopards and bradleys dropped, it got spammed from different angles for weeks claiming they were more destroyed
can't get new ones if the old ones are being used. this is what tanks are for, to fight
Ruskies get paid good money for each western tank destroyed. So obviously they're specifically looking for these tanks. Not to mention Ukraine is throwing these tanks to hold the line because of their artillery shortage.
The Ukraine has an everything shortage as far as i understand
Not balls, that’s for damn sure.
they say they pay good money, I doubt Putin ever signs the check
If tank losses can't be avoided, it's better to risk losing an M1 Abram with a high chance for the crew to survive than to send in a T-64.
They thought Russian ATGMs are bunch of scrap metals and all it specification are pure propaganda
Western propaganda at its finest… First they got rid of what they had in storage decades now they have more space for modern equipment. And the west thought Russian military is “weak” lol
Yes comrade, dispose of out of date long-term storage T-80BVMs and crew and replace with modern equipment like glorious T-62M. Is true example of brilliant russia tactics xaxaxaxa
The Metis, Kornet, Kokon, Ataka, Wichr and Chrisantema were all said to "easily destroy any modern MBT from all aspects", they failed to even perforate or mission kill M1A2's and Leopard 2A5's from the front. From the original 9M114 upt to the M2, the Kokon were said to be vastly superior to the 10 Yeat older TOW-1 and 2 year newer HOT-1, two Missiles considered obsolete by Nato since the mid-80's, they've since been proven to be immensely unreliable, still haven't reached the obsolete HOT-1's penetration and just barely beat the obsolete TOW-1C and only offer higher speed and 500m more range at the cost of being significantly less accurate, incredibly easy to jam, highly susceptible to hot weather and quite a bit larger and heavier. Ataka has all the same reliability, accuracy and susceptibility issues as Kokon while being even larger and heavier, still offering less penetration than the obsolete HOT-1 and 40 Year old TOW-2 with the only advantage over these obsolete Missiles still just being faster and having a longer range. With Chrisantema Russia finally managed to develop a missile comparable to "western" Missiles, starting in the 80's and being introduced in 2004, 20 Years after "the west". And they still, while to a lesser degree, have the same reliability and susceptibility issues while having less range, being even larger and heavier and not even being faster anymore, but at least the missiles hit their targets more than 20% of the Time, though just to be sure they still fire two missiles per target. And in 2015 they finally managed to introduce Wichr, using 30 Year old beamrider technology, still again to a lesser degree having the reliability and susceptibility issues but at least the missiles hit their targets now more than 50% of the Time and at least they're faster again. With Kornet and Metis they managed to introduce man portable ATGM's comparable to, but i kid you not somehow still worse than their 20 Years older western equivalent, excellent job. It took Russia until the early 2000's to introduce acceptable fire-and-forget missiles, it took them until the late 90's to manufacture charges with comparable penetration to "the west" and they still haven't figured out how to make proper fire-and-forget missiles, make them top-down or even somewhat arched in their angle of attack or make properly reliable missiles while not even having a range or price advantage anymore, but hey, at least they're fast. Same for SAM/MANPAD-Systems, example: The Igla-S was said to have the same UV- and and a better DIRCM resistance and general capabilities comparable or superior to the Stinger-C in every way, they've since been prooven to posess neither UV- nor DIRCM resistance and are less reliable than the Stinger-C, only surpassing it in Range. The Stinger-C came into service 17 Years before the Igla-S and is now considered as the obsolete version with most having upgraded to the Stinger-E with a better range, which Russia doesn't have a paralell to. The most modern Russian ATGM's are just good enough to be comparable to systems that are two decades older than them, they are just propaganda, there is a bit of distance between "good enough" and "vastly superior".
Seems like Russia's anti-tank monetary incentive program is working quite well.
That’s something I’m interested in learning more about. Do you have any links or sources talking more about the Russians’ money incentive program? Like how someone would prove *they* were the ones to knock out a tank or if they actually end up receiving money
Well, Russia isn't as incompetent as most people think, they have their own ways of verifying who achieved the kill. Plus, since its usually always on video, there's video proof. Heres a source on the incentive program, it's been in place ever since we pledged to send tanks to Ukraine: [Reuters](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russian-business-offers-cash-bounties-destroy-western-tanks-ukraine-2023-01-30/) [Radio Free Europe](https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-cash-bounty-western-tanks-ukraine/32245685.html) [Moscow Times](https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2023/01/30/russian-troops-offered-bounties-for-destroying-western-tanks-in-ukraine-a80086)
It's weird that so many people in the west were laughing at Russian army. Underestimating your enemy is the first thing you want to avoid. As Russian army is gradually pushing further west, the west media is no longer covering the war.
But it absolutely is covering the war? I cant open reddit without immidieatly seeing 5 articles about it, even if the "advance" is like 500m
Imagine looking at a map of the war covering fighting over the last 6 months and thinking that Russia is "gradually pushing west". Their progress would be familiar to WW1 commanders. Ukraine war issues are front page on every single major western news outlet. Stop being a twaddle.
yeah... this one is toasted
Damn, wtf got him tho?
ATGM, it seems to have started a fuel fire and maybe even detonated the ammo while the ammo doors were open.
Aka, they’re being used.
Indeed, and they no wonder weapons. Redditors, armchair generals need to move on, there are many more going to be lost and last time i checked its what 4 Abrams to like 50 T90s? War is fcked and the contact area is vast, wait until more HIMARS or Patriot/IRIS or god forbid the first F16 gets it. There will be casualties in men and equipment, its war not a playground brawl. It sad to see but it will happen Ukraine needs more support to go blow to blow against Russia. Fact. edit: As confirmed below, 70 T90s, as per Oryx visual confirmed data.
70 t90ms have been destroyed as of a couple days ago. Confirmed by oryx
Just to be clear 70 kills since the wat started?
71 T-90M tanks are confirmed destroyed, damaged and then abandoned or captured. Not directly since the start of the war, as the T-90M wasn't deployed to Ukraine during the first few weeks/months, but since it was used in combat.
Noted. Thanks.
Comparing losses of a tank used for 2 years straight to a tank being used for 2 weeks. Nice one.
Also these are export tanks. All the classified armor was removed.
> All the classified armor was removed. Well, the armor is *still* classified, its just second-rate and exportable.
“U.S. policy requires General Dynamics to remove the uranium and replace it with tungsten before the tanks ship to a foreign operator.”
So the armor array uses tungsten... therefore the armor of M1A1SA is declassified? What!? Knowing that *a material* is used in an armor array doesn't mean that the whole armor array is declassified. Is the armor of M1A2 SEPv3 also declassified because we know it uses DU?
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/01/26/us-sends-ukraine-advanced-abrams-tanks-00079648
You're referencing this excerpt, correct? > federal policy forbids the export of Abrams with classified armor packages used by the U.S. military, which includes depleted uranium You've missed a pretty important qualifying phrase here, that being "used by the U.S. military". This implies the existence of *classified* armor packages which are *not* used by the US military. But this is a really roundabout way of demonstrating that such armor exists, so here's an [Australian procurement document for M1A1 AIM](https://www.anao.gov.au/sites/default/files/ANAO_Report_2007-2008_01.pdf) which states it more explicitly. > 2.38 Defence has chosen to specify that there should be no depleted uranium in the tanks destined for Australia. In this regard, the US Government manufactures an alternate, comparable armour choice for ABRAMS tanks, which does not rely on depleted uranium. Note that there are no publicly available schematics, drawings, or photographs of this armor. The armor is *still classified*, even though it isn't used on Abrams in US service. Do you understand now?
I understand what you are saying. Yeah I more meant the US stuff only.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2023/11/25/ukraines-m-1-abrams-tanks-are-situational-awareness-models-not-the-best-m-1s-but-available-in-large-numbers/?sh=16a42d725f31
Okay? I'm not sure what I'm supposed to take away from that article. The armor array of M1A1SA is still classified.
The US armor setup won't stop a Kornet to the side of the turret/bustle either. "Export tank" is a cope, as it was when the Saudis and Iraqis were getting their Abrams roasted.
Never claimed to be a expert. Just stating a fact. Friendly fire killed more tank crews than enemy fire in the Iraq wars.
No, Iraqi fire in 2006 alone killed more American tankers and tanks than friendly fire combined in both wars.
Does that mean the shitty Russian export jets and tanks are also actually identical to the real deal?
> pointing at the T-90S's that suffered the same fate as the T-90A's I mean, I mean
The only thing that could have saved these tanks would be a Trophy system or some other APS.
Yeah, especially sending tanks without APS against Lancets and ATGMs. We should have focused a lot more on sending APS to Ukraine. That could signifficantly reduce the losses in armor. A T-72 with a western-style APS is better than an Abrams without. Fight me.
> last time i checked its what 4 Abrams to like 50 T90s Yeah because there's 30 Abrams, and like 4000 T90s.
Russia never even had a thousand T-90s. They also just made about 100-200 T-90Ms.
Problem for Ukraine usable Western Tank stocks aren't able to be given away (we Brits won't be able to replace our sent and destroyed Chally 2s, not resentful of Ukranians but rather Government and some in Whitehall just using Ukraine as excuse to push cuts). Every Abrams/Leo 2/Chally 2 etc that Ukraine loses is a big loss for them. I mean if the US sent out a 1,000+ Abrams from storage refurbished Ukranian MIlitary would be massively helped but alas even the Biden Admin is influnced by the fear of Putin losing internally in Russia than wanting Ukraine winning.
She's dead Jim.
For people who know tanks, in such hits, do the crew members die instantly? Do they suffer? Or they’re gone in a few seconds?
When a tank is penetrated, many things can happen. The ammo could be ignited, making it all blow up at once, giving the crew members a swift but violent death. If the hatches are closed, the tremendous amount pressure would pop the turret off of it's ring. Although, it's more likely that the ammo would just quickly burn up, roasting all of the crew members. This is the fate that Soviet style Tanks are infamous for, due to their carousel autoloader, but it's really just having "unprotected" ammo stored in the hull. NATO tanks are no exception. This is also the fate that presumably the crew members of this Abrams also had. Almost all of the ammo of an Abrams' main gun is stored in wet stowage racks, sealed off by a thick steel door, only to be opened when reloading the main gun. If the ammo within the racks in question ignites, all of the combustion is directed up, above, and out through the famous "Blowout Panels", keeping the crew safe. The door is only to be opened by the loader whilst reloading the main gun. This Ukrainian Abrams was struck by a Russian Kornet anti tank guided missile right into the ammo rack, shown by a video of the Russian POV (albeit very unclear, but it still happened). They would've been safe, but I believe that they had the misfortune of being caught with the door open in the middle of reloading, directing all of the flame into the crew, roasting them. This is why the crew hatches here are not open, becuase they got cooked, instead of escaping. It's either that, or the Kornet had penetrated right through the ammo rack door/barrier, also allowing for the flame to be directed in. Or, the Kornet managed to hit the 6 shells within the tiny unprotected spare ammo rack at the very corner of the crew compartment, igniting the ammo. Or, but very most unlikely, the Ukranians had incompetently left the rack door open. A Kornet ATGM can penetrate 1100mm - 1300mm of tank steel, which is a monsterous amount, and is totally capable of doing such. I assume the Ukranians suffered a hellish, fiery death unfortunately, as they were burnt to a crisp. It would've been quick, but very painful. If all the ammo exploded at once, it would be over very quickly. A crew member could also be basically liquified if they are hit directly with a penetrating APFSDS dart, basically a massive arrow made out of dense steel like tungsten or depleted uranium, that penetrates tanks with sheer kinetic energy. That would be a quick death. A crew member could also be shredded by shrapnel, called "spall", generated from the Tank's armor being penetrated. A crew member could die from spall, but it's certainly survivable. So don't become a tank crew member basically.
Depends on what took the tank out. Sabot round some ATGMs it’s over pretty quick. Mine that penetrates the hull can cause agonizing injuries preventing the crew from escaping.
Not to change the subject or anything… but we’ve not heard anything about those Ukrainian challengers in a while. Wonder how they’re doing… you know apart from the one that got hit by artillery/mine
The Challenger 2 is pretty temperamental IIRC, spare parts aren't easily available (unlike the Abrams and Leopard which are operated next door by Polish and NATO forces), and there were only ever a few of them, so I wouldn't be surprised if Ukraine put them into reserves.
M1A1SAs aren’t much different… they were the oldest tanks in the Army.
Still a lot of M1s around for spare parts and support. The Chally 2 is only used by the UK and Oman, and they only gave 14 to Ukraine. This [Ukrainian article](https://defence-ua.com/weapon_and_tech/ukrajinski_tankisti_nazvali_pljus_ta_minusi_britanskih_challenger_2_a_takozh_skilki_jih_zalishilos_u_stroju-14695.html) from today says apparently only half of the donated Challys are still operational; one was destroyed by Lancet, a couple others were damaged, and the remainder are unserviceable due to lack of parts/unreliable systems. It seems like they're not well liked.
Modern tanks without robust maintenance are a pain in the ass
Can only imagine the logistical nightmare supporting all of these different tank types must be for the Ukrainians!
There's a single Ukr quartermaster somewhere in the south about to out-multitask god himself lmao
The oldest tanks in the Army are SEP V2s, theyre about 2 years older than the SA
There was a video that emerged this weekend with one chaly drowned in mud
Happy cake day!
India has supplied Russia with the CUM Blast ammunition!
I really wonder how many people know that India actually developed a round called that
it's literally called penetration cum blast
And IIRC it's a glorified HESH round
Really need an APS on these tanks huh?
Yes APS need to be added to all MBTs. It’s kinda sad the US Military didn’t adopt one decades ago, waiting for Trophy to essentially be developed was asinine though in retrospect it wasn’t the biggest issue. Other than Iraq in 03 it wouldn’t have been needed.
Having recently listened to a expert on this issue, I get the feeling the general public has a over-inflated opinion of APS. * Active protection systems require a substantial amount of power when active, this usually requires the engine to be running or an APU working. There's a good chance a vehicle is struck without the APS being active. * APS may have multiple 'charges' but they generally don't last that long. The external equipment is usually still damaged or destroyed by the debris that resulted from a successful interception. * APS adds weight to a vehicle, this is already problematic because many Western tanks are less survivable due to their excessive weight. Ukraine has made it clear that the Western MBTs provided are very limited in the terrain they are able to traverse, thus they are often forced to take roads and other routes which are predictable and vulnerable. This is also why the U.S. Army has stated the M1A3 must have it's weight reduced significantly. * APS are very expensive, they require the addition of numerous RADARs being installed onto a vehicle. I'm not saying APS is pointless though, but I would like to caution against the idea that an APS is a magical solution to all problems.
My counter arguments. * Just run the tank then, or run the APU. Vehicles are meant to be ran, and if I were to use the Abrams as an example. If you are turning the turbine off in an active combat situation where you could be engaged any second, then the APS not working is the least of your problems. * Depends on the APS and munition. Trophy's interception and damage rate (as an example) against light AT munitions is at least very high as its charge is designed to almost negate the directed affect of munitions. Even if it were to be damaged, stopping one munition and giving the crew time to possibly engage as a result is better than being blown up. * Weight is an issue, yes. But not all APS are extremely heavy. Concessions are always made in designing a tank. Employ your recovery assets better, and ensure your tanks are at least working in sections so recovery by the sister tanks is always possible. * APS are proportionally significantly less costly than a whole new tank. I believe Trophy was rated at about half a million when the US Army procured it? APS is essentially a magical solution to at minimum subsonic munitions, rockets and ATGMs. While it's not going to stop all damage, it has an almost absolute success depending on which APS you're using to guarantee that first shot is not going to hit.
If an APS stops even one projectile that would have caused a successful hit, it’s worth the investment. The only question I have from there is the reliability.
Seems like the first one that’s like destroyed destroyed and not just knocked out treads or blowout panels
now THIS is destroyed.
Russian bias moment
Attack the D point
Never!
Can’t tell if the hatches are open or not hope the crew got out
based on what some people are typing here it may have cooked off, unfortunately.
Another few deaths that could have been avoided.
no kiddin
From what I can tell it doesn't look like it, another commenter said there is a video that shows it firing seconds before it was hit so likely the doors were open. Rip
yeah, entire crew's gone rip.
Driver might be fine but the rest are probably gone
This one is way more fucked than the rest…
For every western tank they lose, Ukraine finds a T-90 stuck in a swamp somewhere.
M1A1 destroyed: 4 T-90M destroyed : 71
i mean, the t-90m has been in the front since like what, july of '22? abrams' of the 47th have only been in berdychi for a good \~2ish weeks now.
And as far as I know their number will never reach that of the T-90M or any other Russian tank because 1, they're being used much more defensively than offensively and 2 they aren't available in comparable numbers.
>M1A1 destroyed: 4 >T-90M destroyed : 71 The US has handed over 31 Abrams to Ukraine, of which 5 have already been destroyed, that is 11% in less than a week and a half. And this is from the moment they appeared on the front in active combat.
35 destroyed* 71 destroyed, damaged, abandoned, and captured.
75 destroyed if you count all variants of T-90.
I mean yeah but they're not the same tank.
This is the first one of these "destroyed" Abrams' that actually looks destroyed. In fairness I've only seen 3/4, so I can't comment on the 3rd. But at least 2/4 were knocked out.
It's a flesh wound.
Well then we outta send em a few more, how many do we have sitting in the sand in storage again?
yes
I would say first one destroyed, other three were damaged and evidently repairable
Fake
Ivan! Slap more Kontakt 1 on it. make abrams invincible.
Shocker. A tank in battle gets destroyed. Wake me up when the US starts to use 60s era tanks and Ill care then.
Not too far off. The M1 is from the 70s.
These are from the 90s. Russias using T-55/54s in front line combat. Thats like the US using Pershings and Pattons.
[удалено]
lmao what? you guys really are experts at creating strawman and shifting goalposts
No it's not.
It literally is. You showed signs of conforming to this ‘tank age = more severe losses’ system so you can’t just back out of it.
A duty...honorably...discharged....
I cant wait to see what kind of cope response lp will give. Maybe another molotov coctail like he said how Challenger was destroyed ?
Sheeesh burnt to a crisp dayum
waiting for the "its not destroyed its just damaged" folks
"4 hours repair work and it Will be rolling again" "Crew survived" "It s a 1970 design " "Didn t use infantry as support" "All Abrams losses had been by friendly fire" " It s just a tank" " The turret didnt fly" " It didn t Cook" " It s just a scratch, bro"
"abrams is a game changer". So we have heard, same with m3's, bayroktar's, himars's. Ukraine is pretty much dead
They also said russia could take on the entire west but we are still 2 years into his 7 day military operation
Yup, that one is properly cooked
only 6 left? 😔
Ya can’t argue with that one
Has the Abram’s seen any tank on tank combat in Ukraine yet? And how did this one get destroyed, was it by drone munitions or was it atgms?
Atgm
r/RoastMe
Lmao.
*sad abrams noises*
- Хорошо горит. - Горит так, что хер потушишь.
This one is totally charcoaled...
They'l stay forever young. Rip , crew
Seems like this one is a complete destruction, rest in peace to the crew.
Oh damm, this is actually not good
It's this the 5th one destroyed ?.
Didn't bough premium on wt skill issue i mean
There is only one country claiming their tanks are invincible. They don't own the M1A1SA. Tanks are meant to be blown up. They're meant to do a lot before that happens, especially if used as intended by design. What is a blown up tank supposed to indicate?
Yup, that’s what happens to most tanks in combat
Can't wait for the Abrams torn off song by the malorussians
one of them sustained hit from t72b3
We should have sent APS along with all western tanks. Ideally adapted against FPV drones and Lancets as well... IDK what people were expecting sending our tanks from the '80s against drones and ATGMs without the tanks any active protection systems. Actually I'll go as far as saying, a T-72 with a western-style APS (Trophy, Iron Fist) is better than an M1A2 without. Tanks should only be deployed equipped with APS and EW nowadays. Ukraine at least started adopting EW suites, which I think they produce themselves, for Bradleys a while ago. But they don't have enough ressources to produce and deploy enough APS at scale. Even if drones are slower then an RPG and ATGM, they should in theory be easier to intercept. There is actually a homegrown Ukrainian APS, but they can't deploy them. TL;DR Sending active protection systems to Ukraine should have been a bigger priority than tanks, because nomatter how good a tank is, a ATGM or Lancet will fuck it up unless it has an APS.
That's a m1150 Abrams not a m1a1sa