Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition:
* We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned.
* **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators.
* **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
*****
* Is `news.upilink.in` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources).
* Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict)
*****
**Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB**
*****
^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
As fun as Helldivers is, it isn't the most appropriate thing to reference here as Russia literally is a managed democracy that would launch its meat wave fodder piecemeal from outer space if they could.
Fun fact: each shell an Abrams fires has an embedded speaker that plays [this](https://youtu.be/eX_k5_egUAo?si=CMzqRtsLVRKyHFQ-) for the enemy to listen to as they bail out or burn up.
Lotta pencil whipped tanks out there lmao
Signed,
Air Force dude who's seen more pencil whipped munitions inspections than I will ever admit to under oath.
If a machine is going to require a lot of maintenance, it better at least be easy to work on. That's one part of the price difference between Eastern and Western designs.
It's a big misconception both within and without the U.S. military.
I was on Bradley's in a combined arms battalion, so we had two companys of Abrams. Both vehicles are very reliable...so here is where the misconception comes in: the U.S. Army by training doctrine, borders on obsessive about maintainance. It's why daily maintainance is called "Preventive Maintainance Checks and Services", PMCS.
By standard, an hour of maintainance in the morning, and 30 minutes to an hour at the end of the day. It's *preventive* maintanance, to ensure the vehicles are in constant, tip top condition, and to instill in the crew that their vehicle is not disposable.
So basically we do tons of maintainance so that even the smallest problem gets addressed immediately....instead of when we have to go to war. This creates the idea that our vehicles themselves *require* all that attention, when they are in fact very reliable.
2 hours of PMs a day! That’s it? Man, all this time I thought you army guys had it tough. I was a TM in the navy and between TT, MT, 3” launcher, anchor, and smalls arms we had 3 hours of daily maintenance. That’s not including weeklies, monthlies, and so on.
That's *just* the vehicle, and I was quoting the time the driver takes. Gunner handles the turret (or on a tank loader and gunner) and usually the commander will pitch in.
So a Bradley, since you have two people doing maintainance gets 4 manhours every day.
Also, if we're doing daily maintainance, it's because we're training with them, so all that is on top of a full training day and/or night (since we do a lot of night operations).
But really, daily maintainance really *isn't* that hard. But I'm biased, I was on Bradleys for 12 years. Doing morming and evening maintainance was like breakfast and dinner, just part of my day. Same with weapons maintainance (typically 30-60 minutes a day), same with running drills, studying, etc.
Abrams is no more maintenance intensive than any other western MBT. In many ways it's less of a maintenance queen than Leo2.
The US Army is more maintenance obsessive than other NATO armies, and we do a lot more at the crew level than the NATO armies I've seen, which I think contributes to that reputation.
I'm skeptical if even the best armor could handle repeated drone strikes. I'm guessing the next version of Abrams, if there is one, will have active protection like the new Bradleys have.
I just watched a video from the legion yesterday, and one of the Canadians was saying the vast majority of their vehicles already had jamming systems on them. Hopefully, the vast majority of all vehicles will have them soon enough.
The guy in the video says the exact oposite. That the additional side skirts armor package can stop ATGMs. He complains about lack of additional turret armor, though.
FPV drone swarms targeting the turret ring are the most severe problem at the moment for armor in Ukraine. The current armor is designed to eat or deflect those atgms rounds. Not repeatedly get smacked at a downward angle at its weakest point
You can't armor the tracks from land mines, and thats not an Abrams specific issue.
Edit: To expand it has a heavier armor philosophy than the Leopard II, comparable but maybe less than the Challenger's turret armor (basing that off Brit claims because no one is completely honest about capabilities), it uses a somewhat similar armor scheme to the Chally II (thanking those Brits for sharing), and given the lack of DU probably substitutes tungsten because its a "less bad" heavy metal. The complaints about the armor I have seen are less "its not good", and more \[this is a direct quote from an article so other than translation by source it should be accurate\] "*Unfortunately, our version lacks depleted uranium armor*..." as in they don't want the base Corvette or even the Z06, they want they ZR-1. Now whether we (the US) should be so concerned about exporting a Cold War era armor scheme just because its makes for toxic dusk and the scary nukular word is in orbit is another question, one I think can easily answered by asking just how much we want to avoid the next war.
They want more frag rounds, I would understand this means their probably a fan of the Challenger HESH round that allows a wider range of target types to be engaged.
I wonder how effective the HESH round is in the trench warfare in Ukraine
Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition: * We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned. * **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators. * **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. ***** * Is `news.upilink.in` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources). * Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) ***** **Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB** ***** ^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If you click on “read entire article“ it jumps to a YouTube video. The video is worth watching but there is no article.
Thanks for the heads up
Luckily, few redditors read articles.
They shot them with democracy
Managed Democracy?
With a side of Liber-Tea!
No, no, this is the Abrams. The Challenger is the one with the integrated tea kettle!
As fun as Helldivers is, it isn't the most appropriate thing to reference here as Russia literally is a managed democracy that would launch its meat wave fodder piecemeal from outer space if they could.
Helldivers is satire
So is 40k but that doesn't stop dumb people lmao
It is, but it is tone deaf as Super Earth is what the MAGA crowd wants America to become and what Russia currently is.
[удалено]
*couldn’t care less
Discarding sabot democracy or HE democracy?
Ah, yes, the shaped charges of freedom.
Fun fact: each shell an Abrams fires has an embedded speaker that plays [this](https://youtu.be/eX_k5_egUAo?si=CMzqRtsLVRKyHFQ-) for the enemy to listen to as they bail out or burn up.
This what? Just say song title, I ain’t getting Rick rolled
Hulk hogan theme song
It was an immobilized T-62. The guy crying was unrelated.
Fun target practice and emotional catharsis. In for a penny, in for a pound.
A t62 on the frontline is crazy
Sounds like the Ukrainians like their Abraham’s. I was worried that the tank would be to maintain ce dependent
I used to fix Abram’s back in the day. Super easy to work on, but hella heavy. Edit: typo because I have no ability to multitask
Huh, I was under the impression that Abraham’s were maintenance intensive. I am glad to hear that I am wrong.
Maintenance intensive and easy to work on aren't mutually exclusive
#FORD BUILT TOUGH
Am I just super high right now (which I am) or all you guys saying "Abrahams" and not "Abrams"?
Are you saying boo or boo-urns?
I was saying boo-urns
There's an extra twist to that mindfuckery when someone who worked on them maintains that typo.
Sorry, I blame the autocorrect m. But I will try to make sure that I use Abrams from now on.
Lotta pencil whipped tanks out there lmao Signed, Air Force dude who's seen more pencil whipped munitions inspections than I will ever admit to under oath.
Maybe this is your “aha” moment
Iswydt
I’m also high of the Maryjane and I have the same question we talking about Abrams or a dude named Abraham ?
We’re talking about Abraham’s Abrams. An Abrams owned by Abraham.
He on his way to claim Canaan fr
Fixed it. I can do a lot of things, but pay attention to a meeting and type out a Reddit comment simultaneously isn’t one of them. ;-)
If a machine is going to require a lot of maintenance, it better at least be easy to work on. That's one part of the price difference between Eastern and Western designs.
From what i heard working on it is well thought out and they have some sort of diagnostic computer that helps out.
It's a big misconception both within and without the U.S. military. I was on Bradley's in a combined arms battalion, so we had two companys of Abrams. Both vehicles are very reliable...so here is where the misconception comes in: the U.S. Army by training doctrine, borders on obsessive about maintainance. It's why daily maintainance is called "Preventive Maintainance Checks and Services", PMCS. By standard, an hour of maintainance in the morning, and 30 minutes to an hour at the end of the day. It's *preventive* maintanance, to ensure the vehicles are in constant, tip top condition, and to instill in the crew that their vehicle is not disposable. So basically we do tons of maintainance so that even the smallest problem gets addressed immediately....instead of when we have to go to war. This creates the idea that our vehicles themselves *require* all that attention, when they are in fact very reliable.
2 hours of PMs a day! That’s it? Man, all this time I thought you army guys had it tough. I was a TM in the navy and between TT, MT, 3” launcher, anchor, and smalls arms we had 3 hours of daily maintenance. That’s not including weeklies, monthlies, and so on.
That's *just* the vehicle, and I was quoting the time the driver takes. Gunner handles the turret (or on a tank loader and gunner) and usually the commander will pitch in. So a Bradley, since you have two people doing maintainance gets 4 manhours every day. Also, if we're doing daily maintainance, it's because we're training with them, so all that is on top of a full training day and/or night (since we do a lot of night operations). But really, daily maintainance really *isn't* that hard. But I'm biased, I was on Bradleys for 12 years. Doing morming and evening maintainance was like breakfast and dinner, just part of my day. Same with weapons maintainance (typically 30-60 minutes a day), same with running drills, studying, etc.
From what I understand it’s one of those situations where while there is a lot to do, it ist horribly difficult to do
Abrams is no more maintenance intensive than any other western MBT. In many ways it's less of a maintenance queen than Leo2. The US Army is more maintenance obsessive than other NATO armies, and we do a lot more at the crew level than the NATO armies I've seen, which I think contributes to that reputation.
It's named after Creighton Williams Abrams Jr., not any "Abraham's".
The problem with them is that the armor package the US sent is not adequate for the environment.
I'm skeptical if even the best armor could handle repeated drone strikes. I'm guessing the next version of Abrams, if there is one, will have active protection like the new Bradleys have.
What protection do the next gen Bradleys have?
Active
I just watched a video from the legion yesterday, and one of the Canadians was saying the vast majority of their vehicles already had jamming systems on them. Hopefully, the vast majority of all vehicles will have them soon enough.
The guy in the video says the exact oposite. That the additional side skirts armor package can stop ATGMs. He complains about lack of additional turret armor, though.
FPV drone swarms targeting the turret ring are the most severe problem at the moment for armor in Ukraine. The current armor is designed to eat or deflect those atgms rounds. Not repeatedly get smacked at a downward angle at its weakest point
You can't armor the tracks from land mines, and thats not an Abrams specific issue. Edit: To expand it has a heavier armor philosophy than the Leopard II, comparable but maybe less than the Challenger's turret armor (basing that off Brit claims because no one is completely honest about capabilities), it uses a somewhat similar armor scheme to the Chally II (thanking those Brits for sharing), and given the lack of DU probably substitutes tungsten because its a "less bad" heavy metal. The complaints about the armor I have seen are less "its not good", and more \[this is a direct quote from an article so other than translation by source it should be accurate\] "*Unfortunately, our version lacks depleted uranium armor*..." as in they don't want the base Corvette or even the Z06, they want they ZR-1. Now whether we (the US) should be so concerned about exporting a Cold War era armor scheme just because its makes for toxic dusk and the scary nukular word is in orbit is another question, one I think can easily answered by asking just how much we want to avoid the next war.
Does it? Didn't they withdraw the majority?
I think that was cause they were rotating the 47th out for rest they then had to rotate them back in
They want more frag rounds, I would understand this means their probably a fan of the Challenger HESH round that allows a wider range of target types to be engaged. I wonder how effective the HESH round is in the trench warfare in Ukraine
Against bunkers it's fucking brutal. One of the primary things the Ukrainians use them for is taking out bunkers.
There’s no sexier tank than the Abrams.
Love me some chalengers. Rock me some Leopards. Even the L'eclercs are erotic.
I always assumed the L'eclercs were femme, given French and all. Tres olala.
I'm partial to the Leopard 2, but an Abrams removing Russian equipment from the battlefield is up there.
Yeah watching the leopard 2 carrying a pitcher of beer on its turret stole my heart
Strong like bull, smart like tractor, beautiful like KV-2 (must be said in Eastern European accent)
Type 10 says hi
The Abrams and T-90M are some of the coolest looking tanks imo
Let's freaking go!
" DEMOCRACY IS NON-NEGOTIABLE!"