There a lot of factors in to why the Abrams isn’t doing as well in Ukraine. Like the article stated, drone attacks are a new threat that no older tank was designed for. Then there is the lack of training. The US has trained a lot with these tanks and know their weaknesses and develop their tactics with this knowledge in mind.
Because it’s good to get rid of old equipment, at least from the military’s perspective. They get money for the old hardware and now can justify getting more new stuff.
To people that don’t know what they’re talking about, or are still refusing to acknowledge that Ukraine has more tanks than it started with and Russia has many, many, many, fewer, sure.
The discrepancy is so large that Ukraine has more tanks than Russia now. That they’re effectively obsolete for their price is irrelevant, it’s still better and requires more firepower to deal with than a couple dudes with rifles.
For the same reason they have sent billions of dollars there…to show their support. This isn’t the first country that the US has provided equipment for with little or no training…or without critical equipment onboard (i.e. specialized RADAR or electronics systems)
Once again, it depends on how their are used, deployed, and how the crews are trained. The Ukraine may be using them in ways that they were not designed, or using tactics that put the tank in a bad position.
Right, they need close air support, infantry support, scouts, supply chain logistics etc. all working together to be peak effective. If you just give some dudes an Abrams and a crash course in driving it and firing the main gun, they will be better off than the same crew of randos in a technical made out of a Toyota Tacoma, but they will still be vulnerable to modern threats.
It’s easy to understand why the modern drone threat is uniquely game-changing if you think of war like chess. Most advanced powers have now figured out that having a developed drone program is like giving yourself infinite pawns. You keep trading pawns for the opponents more valuable pieces. If Russia is able to spend a few thousand in drone hardware and explosives and destroy a multimillion dollar tank, they’ll make that trade any day.
T-14 is a new design that’s currently being tested, meanwhile any kind of tank can be taken out. The fact that you think that’s remarkable shows that you’re utterly clueless on the subject you’re opining on. The question is how different tanks compare, and Abrams so far is the one tank that looks to be pure garbage.
Evidently you’re having trouble with the concept of something being in development. Try applying the same logic to F-35, how long has that turd been in development now with only 30% of them being functional?
They’ve been “testing” it for more than a decade at this point and even if Russia is able to actually bring the T-14 into service, they won’t be able to produce any significant number of them for the same reason their tank corps isn’t using many T-90M right now.
pure garbage
Go look up Operation Desert Storm and rethink what you wrote there.
If there’s anything here that’s garbage, it’s your notions about tank design.
They’ve been “testing” it for more than a decade at this point and even if Russia is able to actually bring the T-14 into service, they won’t be able to produce any significant number of them for the same reason their tank corps isn’t using many T-90M right now.
Go look up Operation Desert Storm and rethink what you wrote there.
LMFAO yeah, Abrams is great at blowing up tanks from the 70s with barely trained crews. Not so good at modern warfare against a peer competitor.
If there’s anything here that’s garbage, it’s your notions about tank design.
Any tank where electronics start to break down when it rains is very obviously a giant piece of shit.
One, parked under a tree, was almost immobile during CNN’s visit, due to an engine problem, the crew say, despite the vehicle having just been shipped in from Poland. They also complain of how, in rain or fog, condensation can fry the electronics inside the vehicle.
Given that Ukrainians have been trained up to NATO standards for the past eight years, you’re presumably admitting something about the quality of NATO training. Interesting…
There could be many reasons. I don’t know where they are deploying them, how much training the crews have had and many others that factor into survivability. I’m not saying the Abrams is the best tank ever, just saying that there are many factors that can contribute to why they aren’t doing well in the field for the Ukraine.
Sure, I agree with that. There are tangible factors that make T-72 a better tank though. It’s a simpler design, making it easier to produce and maintain. It’s more manoeuvrable, it’s lighter so it doesn’t get stuck in mud. Doesn’t use a turbine engine, which has been a cause for endless problems. So, while many factors combine to decide overall effectiveness, the quality of the weapon itself is important as well.
Each tank has their advantages, but if you’re going to have an army use a tank with little to no training or spare parts, the T-72 is definitely a no brainer.
Or you know a tank that will be used in actual battle conditions where you’re not going to have guaranteed support. The whole NATO strategy has been to invade small defenceless countries and brutalize people there. You don’t need to worry about stuff like logistics in these situations. A real war is a different animal.
Once again, it depends on where the tanks are deployed and what training the crews have. We do not know if these weapons were deployed and used in the same way. Unless you know this, you can’t really say.
Western media has been telling us that Ukrainians have been trained up to NATO standards. So, going by that we have to assume that that’s the quality of NATO training and weaponry on display.
There a lot of factors in to why the Abrams isn’t doing as well in Ukraine. Like the article stated, drone attacks are a new threat that no older tank was designed for. Then there is the lack of training. The US has trained a lot with these tanks and know their weaknesses and develop their tactics with this knowledge in mind.
So why did they send them to Ukraine?
Because <checks notes> money, the answer is money
Because it’s good to get rid of old equipment, at least from the military’s perspective. They get money for the old hardware and now can justify getting more new stuff.
Because having a tank is still better than not having a tank.
Really? Sounds like they just make easier targets
To people that don’t know what they’re talking about, or are still refusing to acknowledge that Ukraine has more tanks than it started with and Russia has many, many, many, fewer, sure.
The discrepancy is so large that Ukraine has more tanks than Russia now. That they’re effectively obsolete for their price is irrelevant, it’s still better and requires more firepower to deal with than a couple dudes with rifles.
What does that have to do with the tanks they have being blown up so easily?
Lol.
Vatnik cope has no intellectual limits.
What
Vatnik:
A perjoritive referring to a person that eagerly and without criticism repeats jingoistic propaganda claims of the Russian government.
In this context, someone pretending they don’t understand that it’s easier and cheaper to kill a person than a tank.
For the same reason they have sent billions of dollars there…to show their support. This isn’t the first country that the US has provided equipment for with little or no training…or without critical equipment onboard (i.e. specialized RADAR or electronics systems)
Lol nothing shows your support like tin cans that get blown up easy.
Once again, it depends on how their are used, deployed, and how the crews are trained. The Ukraine may be using them in ways that they were not designed, or using tactics that put the tank in a bad position.
Right, they need close air support, infantry support, scouts, supply chain logistics etc. all working together to be peak effective. If you just give some dudes an Abrams and a crash course in driving it and firing the main gun, they will be better off than the same crew of randos in a technical made out of a Toyota Tacoma, but they will still be vulnerable to modern threats.
It’s easy to understand why the modern drone threat is uniquely game-changing if you think of war like chess. Most advanced powers have now figured out that having a developed drone program is like giving yourself infinite pawns. You keep trading pawns for the opponents more valuable pieces. If Russia is able to spend a few thousand in drone hardware and explosives and destroy a multimillion dollar tank, they’ll make that trade any day.
and yet old Soviet tanks are doing fine in Ukraine https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/russias-t-72-main-battle-tank-why-it-might-still-be-best-earth-211037
That article talks about the t-14 armada like it’s a real tank, it’s obviously absolute garbage
There a list a mile long of visual t-72b3 visually confirm kills
T-14 is a new design that’s currently being tested, meanwhile any kind of tank can be taken out. The fact that you think that’s remarkable shows that you’re utterly clueless on the subject you’re opining on. The question is how different tanks compare, and Abrams so far is the one tank that looks to be pure garbage.
https://defence-blog.com/russia-abandons-armata-tank-due-to-its-high-cost/
It was never real buddy. All its achievements are as fake as the T95 it’s based on.
Evidently you’re having trouble with the concept of something being in development. Try applying the same logic to F-35, how long has that turd been in development now with only 30% of them being functional?
How many times has a defense minister said they’re not going to use the F35 because it’s too expensive?
How many times have F35s been used for anything other than crashing into the ocean?
Quite a lot by Israel right now.
They’ve been “testing” it for more than a decade at this point and even if Russia is able to actually bring the T-14 into service, they won’t be able to produce any significant number of them for the same reason their tank corps isn’t using many T-90M right now.
Go look up Operation Desert Storm and rethink what you wrote there.
If there’s anything here that’s garbage, it’s your notions about tank design.
Uh yeah, developing new weapons platforms takes a long time. Look at how long US has been fumbling trying to make F-35 work. Also, if you still think that Russia doesn’t have industrial capacity to mass produce these, then you might want to read what people with a clue have to say https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/attritional-art-war-lessons-russian-war-ukraine
LMFAO yeah, Abrams is great at blowing up tanks from the 70s with barely trained crews. Not so good at modern warfare against a peer competitor.
Any tank where electronics start to break down when it rains is very obviously a giant piece of shit.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/29/europe/ukraine-war-us-tanks-intl/index.html
So the superior Russian army destroying the ill trained Ukrainians is not the same thing? Interesting…
Given that Ukrainians have been trained up to NATO standards for the past eight years, you’re presumably admitting something about the quality of NATO training. Interesting…
There could be many reasons. I don’t know where they are deploying them, how much training the crews have had and many others that factor into survivability. I’m not saying the Abrams is the best tank ever, just saying that there are many factors that can contribute to why they aren’t doing well in the field for the Ukraine.
Sure, I agree with that. There are tangible factors that make T-72 a better tank though. It’s a simpler design, making it easier to produce and maintain. It’s more manoeuvrable, it’s lighter so it doesn’t get stuck in mud. Doesn’t use a turbine engine, which has been a cause for endless problems. So, while many factors combine to decide overall effectiveness, the quality of the weapon itself is important as well.
Each tank has their advantages, but if you’re going to have an army use a tank with little to no training or spare parts, the T-72 is definitely a no brainer.
Or you know a tank that will be used in actual battle conditions where you’re not going to have guaranteed support. The whole NATO strategy has been to invade small defenceless countries and brutalize people there. You don’t need to worry about stuff like logistics in these situations. A real war is a different animal.
Once again, it depends on where the tanks are deployed and what training the crews have. We do not know if these weapons were deployed and used in the same way. Unless you know this, you can’t really say.
Western media has been telling us that Ukrainians have been trained up to NATO standards. So, going by that we have to assume that that’s the quality of NATO training and weaponry on display.
Ah yes, there’s nothing quite like a 4 km/h reverse speed. That’s a really tangible factor making the T-72 a better tank.
ah the copes 😂