🎥Watch the full video from the display here - th-cam.com/video/HBdf4Dk_LqY/w-d-xo.html 🎥Watch Dan's video from the display here - th-cam.com/video/dCtJczw9wbE/w-d-xo.html If you'd like to support Real Reporter: 💵Patreon - www.patreon.com/RealReporter 💵Boosty - boosty.to/realreporter/donate 💵PayPal - paypal.me/RealReporter
I am a US Army 95B Military Police Vet. that served for 3.5 years with the 1st A.D. assigned to Germany. Assigned and where you are is different.. America only exports a stripped down version of the Abrams. It is not US Military standard. Depleted uranium armor is removed along with some toys. Our version of this tank is not allowed to be sold or transferred. We had an Abrams roll down a hill like a ball, not on tracks and it collided with a boulder that broke a section of the depleted uranium armor. The flew us M.P.'s in a Black Hawk to secure the area so people couldn't see what was inside. We even evacuated the crew from the scene. America sells this version that Ukraine got to countries like Egypt, etc... It is not the same animal. I know and I know the protocol.
This “American” in Russia is a fucking traitor! He shouldn’t ever be allowed back in my country!Russia is pathetic! They can’t defeat Ukraine they stand zero chance against the US!
This is russian propaganda at its finest 🤣 😂 how many tanks has Russia lost again ??? The problem here isn't tanks OR who's equipment is better OR who's better at destroying each other's equipment...the real problem is arms manufacturers on both sides and the dictators forcing men and women to die for greed and delusion....who's really winning out of all this in the end ????
Saying it took Russia 2 years to capture 1 American tank is weird cause that’s how long the war is going not how long American tanks are at the front they joined just a few weeks ago
@@SterileNeutrino i've heard that the "war" actually started in ussr, ukraine was called by the russia as "the wild west". i kind of think that all of this was planned a very long time ago
without a complete package, 30 tanks will do nothing, it's not a miracle weapon. Ukraine has no air superiority or air dominance at all, those tanks are sitting ducks
It's enough for the US to keep Ukraine fighting and doing the work for the US. Meanwhile the US is thousands of miles away safe from the fighting. Ukrainians are being used
Bayraktar was a game changer, Javelin was a game changer, M-777 was a game changer, Patrot was a game changer, Gepard was a game changer, IRIS-T was a game changer, CAESAR was a game changer, Leopard was a game changer, Challenger was a game changer, Abrams was a game changer, HIMARS was a game changer... So many game changers and the game is still the same. In fact it is getting even harder and harder for Ukraine.
I mean the Javelin was.... Its stopped RU from using their tank advantage.... Same with the Patriot. RU is struggling to control the skies. They still haven't taken Kiev.
@@trooper838 No it wasnt. Nlaw was far more effective than the Javelin in the early days. Still didnt change the game Edit: how can you say RUAF isnt controlling the sky when they are blowing up vital Ukrainian infrastructure in western Ukraine. Ukraine still hasnt taken Bahmut, or Mariupol, or Crimea.
@@trooper838 А русские хотели взять Киев? Впервые слышу. Вообще-то изначально хотели только Донбасс и Луганскую область. А фронт растянули для того, чтобы проредить концентрацию украинских войск в районе Донбасса. Ну хотя б своих же военных слушайте. Кто б это такими малыми силами Киев брал? Задача была - дезориентация армии Украины, переброска войск противника на другие линии обороны. Ну а потом Украина так победно сражалась, что похоже, скоро придется брать и Киев и Одессу. Если заставят обстоятельства, то и больше. Каждое следующее предложение будет хуже предыдущего.
As a former Tank mechanic in the Marine Corps, all I can add is without experienced mechanics, a stockpile of parts and special troubleshooting equipment tanks can become lawn ornaments rather quickly.. 1 hour of operation = 8 hours of maintenance..
Thats kinda what a lot of people who werent on the hype train were saying before their deployment. The gas turbine engines for one thing must be finicky and unfamiliar to the Ukies
Those tanks are huge, expensive Consumables. Do you think US production can keep up if a huge land war happened that required tank to fight? I have my doubt.
One thing is for sure, the crew has a much better chance of survival than in a Russian tank because of the separated ammunition. The other thing that many people don't take into account is that if such a tank cannot be brought back to the front by the crew after being damaged, it is obligatory to destroy it as much as possible, but at least the internal instruments must not be left intact, as the Germans did with the Tigers in WWII. They can analyze the armor, which intelligence probably already knows everything about, except for the most modern ones, the cost-effective way of production or the technique, but what is more important in such a combat vehicle is the electronics and software. It needs to be taken out of service in a state that the analysts will have to lose what hair they have left to get useful information from it.
@@hamuArtу этого танка дроном повредили ходовую и экипаж покинул танк , боясь быть уничтоженным ( он простоял пару недель на окраине населенного пункта, пока русские не зачистили этот опорный пункт)
As a former Abrams tank crewman… New recruit tank crewmen are trained in simulators for three months, loaders and drivers are starting crew positions, as you gain years of experience you become a gunner then a tank commander. 3-6 months to become a decent loader 6-12 months to become a decent or good driver 12 months and more to become a decent or good gunner Several years to become an average or good Tank commander. Ukranians didn’t have the experience or training to effectively use these toys. Inactive air force other than “drones” doesn’t help either.
Thanks for your service, and you hit the nail on the head, at least in my opinion. Apparently the training course for Ukrainian Abrams tankers was about 12 weeks, so that’s only 75% of what a US tanker gets in their standard tanker training. And like you said, no matter how many drones Ukraine fields, and no matter how many Russian vehicles they destroy, that isn’t air cover. If anything, it appears as if Russia is the one gaining air superiority on different parts of the front. F16 might be good, but the training disparity between the Ukrainian and Western F16 pilots is going to be even bigger. A few squadrons of them might not be enough to regain the upper hand in the air
@@muhammadanshari3931 they have done it In several Leos crew captured the Tank commanders were foering legion german men not Ukranins. Non abrams crew was been captured but i would assume the same
What do they mean it took them years to capture abrams? xD They haven't even been used until recently and first months abrams seen any battle it has been destroyed and captured
I mean hes right with they dont know how to use Abrams/Leopard efficiently - they've used the Leopard as offensive when its a support and the Abrams defensive when its an offensive tool. Big facepalm to those drunk guys over there... you can clearly see why they are more russian than european - let Putin have them back so he leaves us alone! Never annoy a dog defending its territory or he will bite you hard...
just the usual ukro and western propaganda, they always twist reality and present it in their "free" media to suit their narrative just like Bakhmut was a strategicaly important city until the russians captured it
As a retired firefighter with 30 years of experience, I can assure you that you really don't want to touch or pick up anything related to mechanical engines that has previously been involved in a fire. These things are contaminated with toxic chemicals produced from the fire that will pass through your skin, enter your bloodstream, and sometimes stay there. Take precautions and wear gloves if you need to do that.
Why is the western guy in front of a camera allowed to climb on the tanks while all other people must stay behind the fence?….no need to answer, it is a rhetorical question.
@@RamonInNZ He has an interesting accent because his first language isn't English, it's Spanish. You can tell by two things, his Hispanic surname of Castellon(Spanish province) and in the b-roll shown in the the start of the video(specifically at 1:28) he is shown with a Mexican flag on his shoulders indicating that he is possibly of Mexican descent. Around five percent of the U.S. military consists of non-citizens with a majority being from Hispanic countries. He has a typical accent for a Spanish speaker who learned to speak English later in their life. Nothing BS about his accent which is incredibly common in the U.S..
Also interesting how those commenters always point out that during 91 Desert Storm, Iraq had one of the worlds biggest armies, when in reality their tanks were outdated export versions crewed by woefully unprepared soldiers, back then it didn't matter....But when their precious Abrams gets it's ass kicked, it suddenly becomes an outdated monkey model. Funny how that works huh?
It doesn't matter how experienced the tank crews are, this is not 'desert storm' of Iraq or Afghanistan in 2001. This is a different ball game, with russia using very powerful lethal weapons. The Iraqis and Afghans didn't have any of these to use to defend themselves at the war front. 🙄 😕
I'm just surprised this dude even traveled to Russia considering they just arrested another American on some bullshit. Stay the fuck out of that country. Nothing there worth losing your freedom over.
@@DoctorDoomJrit is an outdated tank though. Lol the chassis is from Desert Storm. The barrel, the mechanisms. All of them are old. The armor isn't the same as the one on America's modern Abrams. It was stripped down bc our armor tech is secret. It also doesn't have the same avionics or radar inside the tank bc those are secret as well
It does not matter. You think the newer versions of Abrams are plastered with depleted Uraniums from head to toe? Not at all, depleted uranium is heavy and its an awful choice to plaster it completely on an already 70 ton tank.
Hearing Chieftain opinion, he’s a former Abrams m1a2 commander who served multiple tours in Iraq btw would be more interesting , he definitely knows everything about tactics and all nuts and bolts about every Abrams generation
id say f16 instead of abrams but still, a tank is a tank... even a ww2 tank would do a decent job nowadays... thats if it never gets it, some people never get hit during war and its just a luck thing
@@unskilled822 I'd say it matters a bit more than that. Fire controls, sights have improved drastically with modern versions. Besides, they ship the tanks with worse armor to not give the depleted uranium plates or whatever to russians. WWII tanks are a joke nowadays.
nobody said it was a game changes. Only media outlets say that shit for more clicks. Nothing else. You got baited. Just like all the other russian bots out here.
The Russians have been in combat in the Ukraine a lot longer than the M-1's were in-country. The troll that said it took '3,000 Russian tanks to capture 1 Abrams' is patently absurd and intellectually dishonest. As for being 'outdated' the M1A1 is still a standard main battle tank around the world, and is essentially no different from the A2 other than bolt-on 'upgrades'. This is pretty much what I expected, though- first, trolls lauding the M1A1 as a game-changer, and when it gets whacked decrying it as 'outdated'. As for tank vs tank, it's worth noting that this one was destroyed by an anti-tank missile. This guy gets it.
Most of the Abrams have been a victim to drones. And there is simply nothing that the Ukrainians can do about it. No tank in real life is what one can call a game changer, and not outdated. None have been able to effectively adapt against drones. At the time when these Western tanks were often dubbed, "game changers", drones were not nearly as prolific on the front. Sure, they were there, but only in this year and 2023 has it gotten especially bad, with for instance Ukraine pledging production of 1 million drones this year. You also mention that it was victim to an anti tank missile, iirc a Kornet. Again, not much that could be done, without systems like the Trophy on the 1A2.
@@vector8877 Do not forget that the goal is not to turn into a pile of iron, but only to take it out of the battle. And so there are drones that just destroy it. Don't believe me, the entrance to the exhibition is free.
Absolutely true. These much-hyped US-NATO Tanks as game changers and will dominate the Ukranian battlefields. captured by Russians, the west suddenly changed the narrative, no it's an Old Cold War Era junks. A relics of past US global wars. President Vladimir Putin laughingly refered to these US game changers as "tin cans with gun"
Not OUTDATED so much as an EXPORT model. You do realize this does not have the advanced armor and munitions and the advanced targeting and optics of the 9,000+ domestic Abrahms correct?
I'm an infantry officer, and I love this marine's comment "you cannot export experience". That is the heart of the issue. I admire the guts of the troops, but from the little i have seen online and the testimony from those returning alive from this fight it is very clear the Ukrainians are not organized, experienced or equipped enough to fight an all arms war. Our tanks are amazing kit - but more valuable is the crew, and that takes years to perfect - ask any tanker. When the combination of tank and crew is as it should be , watching armor "do their thing" (which has not been shown in any footage of this war) is something to behold. Hell on wheels, rolling thunder, shock and awe - those phrases capture the essence of armored warfare done right. But that requires competence and coordination between armor, air, artillery, infantry and engineer assets. All of us working together in sync. Not this lone tank shit driving around aimlessly with no infantry support getting shot at from every bush or window, or some dumb asses leaving their hatches open for the flying hand grenades to drop into. Because of all those nuclear warheads we are not going to commit any more than we have. Every war Russia has fought starts out poorly - they need to weed out the corrupt and incompetent officers. However, once they do get rolling and organize that artillery and rocket support - well, you see the results. Every day I see more and more ground being gained slowly by the Russians. Ukraine simply cannot replace their losses. And now that people are seeing the meat grinder of poorly organized and fought trench warfare - the recruits are just not flocking there anymore, are they. Way different fight than 20 years in a desert.
I was only serving in the mountain division in germany. I have no clue about tanks. But also very well trained and experienced US-veterans have no clue about how it is to fight when the enemy has full air and artillery superiority. Not even to mention that this is the first war with extensive use of Dhrones against tanks. Using tanks under this circumstances for an offensive is a suicide mission. Experience whould have an effect but would not change the overall picture.
It's been more than 20 years since the United States fought against a legit military force A lot of british and American experts said that it's the ukrainians who should be training us not the opposite
In short notice, I think US government should take war serious, they just think Russia will explode within one year of the war. Now I think US military learned they aren't that powerful, but I didn't sure politician learned.
All tanks are susceptible to drones. Not sure why everyone's making a big deal about them being lost, no tank in the world effectively counters drones.
Потому что 100000 плохая цифра. Он бы показала промышленную мощь, а это тоже нельзя рассказывать. Россия отсталая бензоколонка и ничего не умеет, но теряет тысячи танков каждый месяц. Когда биология заменена социальными конструктами, математика ощущениями, а физика магией, отупение стада уже на финишной прямой к состоянию скота. Не стоит ожидать логики в озвучивании цифр. Спикер белого дома вот на днях сказала, что США и Украина во второй мировой войне боролись против Сталина. Все говорят о третье мировой войне, но та скорость, с которой запад деградирует, точно нас избавит от этого. Они вымрут сами от чего-то банального. Задушат себя кофтой, подавятся яблоком, ударятся током, разорвут кишку каким-нибудь предметом. Так что пусть называют любые цифры. Сначала это вызывало недоумение, потом злило, потом смешило, теперь просто наплевать.
I messaged him saying send your DD-214 he said I will on telegram. Bro is lying 🤥 He does many propaganda videos for russia. If he really is American imagine swooping so low that you would betray your own moral compass and military values.
During my time in the army as a tanker, I recall a Saudi Arabian soldier entering one of our tanks and remarking, "We don't have all this equipment inside."
On 26 February, Russian forces west of Avdiivka destroyed the first M1A1 Abrams tank of the war. Like the loss of the first Challenger 2 near Robotyne last September the event has provoked widespread commentary. So far 5 of 31 Abrams tanks have been lost! (As of April 2024)
@@j.dunlop8295 pretty good ratio for those Abrams, considering it took Russia this long shows how poorly Russia really is doing, considering their "2nd best in the world" status. So much hubris out of those clowns.
Of course. All of the major powers that export armored vehicles have specific "export" versions. The old Russin T-72 era tanks had a "M" version for export, and it was not as good as their best.
Why is that surprising? Western countries have THOUSANDS of "Used to be" Russians on display in so many videos. It's the nature of the propaganda game.
He is not American, or US Marine( and never was ) his name is Konstantin Rozkhov (very american name)and is reporter of RT1 for many years. And his english is as poor as Ruzzia itself xD
@@chriscampbell9191 read description of the channel. guy on the video isn't marine... he isn't even american xD Kremlin soviet propaganda is so weak in the times of free flow of information
Tbf Shermans can still lob a lot of HE and can provide a moving steel wall to infantry if possible. In those roles(as a pseudo IFV), it is still capable. Just because it's a tank doesn't mean that they are going to be used to 1v1 a 1970s MBT
I mean if you were to fit the shermans with modern optics and targeting systems and a skilled crew then they definitely would have an impact to say the least. Fact is that anti-tank missiles are so far advanced that essentialy armor doesn't really matter in modern combat. + They have to be used in appropiate situations like urban warfare where they can offer fire support and whatnot.
@@user-tv7fg7wt2d It would be killed with a simple RPG from any side hit because a Sherman lacks Composite armor and composite armor was made to Stop Heat rounds
A good many people who gleefully tweeted out that these tanks are 'game changers' are the same ones who are now downplaying them as too old or outdated.
They are game changers, but the Abrams provided to Ukraine aren't the latest and greatest. It's almost 40 year tech. It doesn't mean they aren't lethal.
Exactly, they literally have no shame to change their opinion within days or even hours. Like they say "Leopard will shatered Russia" and then in the first week, we get the Leopard destroyed and they found another excuse like "outdated". Literally, some people just being karen in the war and denied the fact of the war
Media claimed these were game changers and anyone who takes military opinions from someone with a media studies degree deserves to be completely b######ted. Everyone with a brain knew they were likely not going to last long which is why every country that donated tanks sent obsolete version's not their current front line versions used by their militaries. These tanks are outdated by virtue of the fact none of this version of Abrams is currently in U.S army service therefore it's outdated does that make it useless absolutely not and with a good crew under the rights circumstances (air cover, trained infantry support and a fully qualified and supplied logistical system) it's a dangerous opponent. To be honest parading a few example's of destroyed western vehicles only makes civilians happy while Ukraine of course could display hundred's of T72's,80's and 90's but given how Putin has closed down the internet in Russia most Russians of course can't find that out.
@@obi666 drones are just very cheap for the damage they can cause, i mean a 300-1000usd drone can immobilize a 4-6m tank putting it out of a fight which followup hits of arty or other drones can cause the complete destruction of the vehicle, also drones can spot concentrations of troops, blow up logistics, etc, insane value in drones, and drone operators can stay in a somewhat safe spot while conducting operations
It does not have a jet engine. It has a gas turbine. Jets use exhaust thrust. Gas turbines power a mechanical shaft. Still explains fuel usage, though.
Unfortunately, Ukraine did not have the luxury of gaining years of experience with the tank before it had to be used in combat. If the Western countries had not delayed the delivery of their battle tanks for over a year, they would have had more time.
Prior to deployment in Ukraine, every article and blog said it was the most advanced tank compared to any other tank. I’m willing to bet that a soon as an F22 gets shot down it will be “outdated” as well.
Too subtle video for a russian mind, apparently. It's M1A1. This model was followed by two more. This one took part in the first Iraq war. But like I said : too subtle.
@@cryMoreLoL by outdated it means its outdated in the armor sector, this M1A1 SA abrams doesn't have good armor, it has basic composite armor, its not like it matters anyway considering any drone can destroy a tank.
air superiority is fine, but not in case of tanks usage, main problem for tanks are drones, both kamikaze and those used for artillery together with guided shells, for that is very important to be stronger in electronic warfare and be able to jam enemy drones
@@chrisryan8810я думаю, что без комплексного подхода ничего не будет панацеей. Превосходство в воздухе так же, как и танки, надо использовать в комплексе с чем то. Превосходство в воздухе используется для нанесения ударов бомбардировщиков. Хотя, если вспомнить, что мы так то щас только ракетами пуляем, это превосходство ничем бы и не помогло. Патриоты не спасают от ракет, а самолеты тем более. Вся проблема в подходе, у нас он разный, так как опыт так же разный.
I don't think that Russian army needed time to capture Abrams... People who said the opposite should remember that the US sent the tanks lately and they were not used at once to the battlefields
Not just freely walking around, but able to get right up to the “exhibit” and film in the presence of armed guards that are keeping everyone else behind the gates.
for americans an (often called shitty) T72 tank who does not need two fuel transports nearby, which also can magically be fixed by the crew in the battlefield is also a strange phenomenon Also, my dear militarily interested friend, you're aware WHY most western tanks keep their turrets after getting incapacitated? It is because of the design choice between autoloader (high risk, yet higher frequency of shots/DPS) and crew safety What we all in the west have underestimated is the russians ability to endure suffering to ensure victory TLDR: the blown up turrets of the T72-80 etc etc line are by choice of doctrin
I think he meant it more as a general statement towards tactics and how weapons are meant to be used. No skilled crew would be happy to operate with no air and artillery support, alone and in an open field. It's a suicide mission.
Hmmm, so a Russian-born reporter who formerly worked for RT is interviewingy a former Marine who stayed in Russia for years to cure his PTSD, and who has no experience with tanks, and both are somehow allowed in the fence and to touch the tank (touching burnt tanks can be very harmful). Castellon says the Ukrainians used the tank poorly because it is an offensive weapon and they used it defensively. No, the Abrams tank, like many MBTs, is an all-round fighting platform which can be used for many roles. Western advisors would have wanted the tanks to be used in breakthrough offensives. The problem is Russian defenses prevent the tanks from attacking en masse. They pile mines (this Abrams was most likely destroyed by mines, judging by the tracks) and use artillery and drones. To make that kind of breakthrough, Ukraine would need combined warfare capabilities including a strong air force, which it doesn't have, to damage Russian active defenses and allow for demining. The infantry-artillery-cavalry trinity essential for a war is not present here, which is reminiscent of WW1, when cavalry couldn't operate properly on the Western Front (they ultimately perfected infantry-artillery coordination and through attrition weakened the Germans sufficiently as to advance; tanks had a very limited role). Some people say that the use of drones is making tanks obsolete, but it is simply a question of time before countermeasures are installed. If the Trophy system can intercept incoming rockets, they certainly can produce anti-drone systems.
Trophy systems can't intercept drones because of the very low speed, Trophy system needs a projectile of at least 800m/s to intercept it even the lancet is not that fast
The reality is that no matter how good vehicle you have, it would be destroyed by 500$ drone. The same way I think an aircraft carrier is outdated as well, but we don't have a situation, where it would be easily destroyed by supersonic missiles or so. And I hope we will never have.
Thing is aircraft carriers when spotted and next to missle silos or air bases ur fucked, once spotted enemy can launch all missles and planes and the carrier pretty much stands no chance but we will never know as no modern carrier has ever been in a actual combat
Tanks are just a part of a vast machine that is an army. they have very obvious weaknesses that can be exploited. The fact that ukraine cannot deal with this indicates their overall army is not effective.
روسيا انتصرت في هذه الحرب الهجينه المكونه من عشرات الدول مقابل روسيا دوله واحده ومن لديه شك بأن روسيا لم تنتصر فأنه في الغالب يستمع للاعلام الصهيوني الغبي
Of course it took long time to capture it. They were hiding them to protect them. 🤣 Once on frontline, they were destroyed quickly 🤣 Great note "experience cannot be exported" Thanks for posting.
first day t-90m got on the field - they got destroyed. at this point no tank is invincible. they all can be disabled. only difference is either crew gets out or not... on russian ones - almost never.
@@rodesdaraIt was T 72s and T 80s that got destroyed in the Earlier phase later on the T 90s suffered once Advanced Armour and Battle Equipments from West Arrived
@@nope.118that is true there are videos of Russian tanks surviving multiple Fpv drone attacks. There are also a lot of videos of Russian tanks getting their turrets blown completely off. No tank is going to survive a direct hit that ignites the ammunition, Western or Russian
Not to mentioned any Abrams we sell or give to other countries do not and I repeat do not have the same armor and fire control system!! Former M1A2 Abrams master gunner here.
This is true for almost any weapon system sent to Ukrain. Except for Himars and Pzh 2000k were the limiting factor is just the ammo, not the platform. All other heavy tools are old, soon to be replaced, stockpiles
@@Влад-ч8ь1с 2 Abhrams were destroyed by an RPG-7 in Iraq, both were extremely lucky shots on either fuel tanks or top down. This was largely due to infantry issues, not the tank. Nothing is indestructible, proper infantry support is crucial to keeping a tank safe. Russia should know this quite well seeing as they keep sending tanks with zero infantry and end up getting destroyed.
@@WarlordEnthusiastты был на поле боя и знаешь как Россия использует танки? Прекрати верить мифам , которые распространяют продажные газеты.... PS обеими сторонами конфликта танки в основном используются как подвижное орудие, потому что танк стреляет очень точно.... А поддержка пехоты на такой войне невозможна, когда на одного солдата допускается расход до десяти дронов, то любые скопления пехоты - это очень большая цель...
@@Влад-ч8ь1с Ahuh, do you know what's more believable than news papers? Hours of footage of Russian tanks being destroyed with zero infantry support and some of the worst tactics I've ever seen in armoured combat. If they can't protect against drones, they shouldn't be using tanks. A simple electronic warfare package installed on each tank would fix that issue altogether.
Air superiority, let alone air supremacy is impossible over countries like Russia or China with latest multilayered air defence from short to extremely long range, up to 300-400 km
Are you quoting Russia and the USSR retreating from Afghanistan? Abrams were used in Iraq in big numbers, operation desert storm. Abrams only went to Afghanistan 9 years into the war 😂 not very well read analogy
Realistically all tanks are outdated right now. No tank effectively counters drones. Besides, at the time when these were called "game changers", drones were never this prolific. It's been particularly bad in 2023 and 2024 when both sides significantly increased production ( Ukraine claiming up to 1 million FPVs this year) and so on.
Outdated and subsidized, and in general they do not need it - a classic excuse for Ukraine. Every time the Ukrainian army loses another city, about which they recently boasted that the Russian army would never capture it. And so it is every time. The same goes for all the military equipment that the West "presented" to Ukraine. Ukraine makes such excuses, constantly, in the media, for its residents. Some Ukrainians, who were absolutely sick in the head, even called their newborn children bayraktars and javelins. It's schizophrenia. We boldly retreat to pre-prepared positions, and the enemy runs after us in disgrace. (C) Ukraine
@@vector8877 Drones today are like when Machine guns came out in ww1. These small wars are nothing but a simulation for the US to make these adjustment at the expense of its adversary's. Tanks need to go.
Claim it took Russia three (03) years to capture leopard, abraham tanks is a blue lie. The analysis must 😅start by responding to the question: when were these tanks introduced on the Ukrainian war front?
>took long time Abrams literally first time spotted on the battlefield on February. And reported destroyed just 2 days later. Imo actually I didn't expect Russian took it that quick, since they also took leopard 2 half a year later after it reported it got destroyed
No it clearly didn't work, what kind of mental gymnastics is that? That aside the crew didn't survive, you think the guys leaving a tank that's circled by drones and opposing forces were able to walk all the way back to their camp? No, there are plenty of videos where you can find the crew a couple feet away from the tank, they definitely didn't survive. A mobility kill at the frontline is a death sentence for the vehicle and the crew. No tank survives anti-tank mines or 152mm hits
I was an Abrams tanker that has seen the M1A1 and the M1A2SEPv2/v3. The A2 is basically a whole new tank with the commanders CITV, that makes the tank probably 2/3 times more effective at targeting. You could take a tank out and then press a button and take another threat out once reloaded in about 10 seconds and there are various other quality of life things that make the A2 a lot more effective. Absolutely agree that training makes them more effective. You can train an OK driver and loader in about a week, you need a lot more of specialized experience to be a gunner and especially a commander. I'd say you'd need a month or more of training. This isn't accounting for working with other tanks or units too, that would be another follow on month. These guys (Ukrainians) are not getting the right training and its really sad.
Targeting and training won't save you from ATGM lobbed from 10 clicks or loitering munition 'knocking' on either M1s foil-thin top armor or engine grille.
The Ukrainians have had the right training for the wrong type of conflict. The 47th mech which uses the M1A1 first used them in Avdiivka, which was under heavy artillery and multiple russian loitering munitions such as the LANCET, not to mention the tanks are operating in heavily mined fields. Which most of the Ukrainian western tanks has been lost to. You also have to remember whenever an Abrams is spotted on the battlefield, Russia will do every thing it can to knock it out. The Abrams and other western tanks and equipment are game changers when all the critera is checked and met. The tanks need air superiority and infantry, fighters needs to fly in an area that is not full of Anti Air and so on.
As a tanker, what would your thoughts be on the fact that most of the tank losses in current wars are rarely due to other tanks, but instead AT ordnance (i.e. mines, drones, ATGM, artillery, etc.)? Would the new upgrades increase the newer tank's survivability in such condition? If so, how long will you think the tank survive? If not, do you think designers need to re-think about their design philosophy?
@@rajamartua5531 I think it makes sense because we have new tech to destroy tanks. Just like any combat unit there will be strengths and weaknesses its just really easy for the average person to see the tank as the pinnacle of representing vehicle land warfare. Honestly I think upgrades would be possible but too expensive. Adding on more stuff cannot replace the actual ground situation. For example the Abrams tank was designed for defense and the crappy range shows that clearly. I think that tanks work best in defense moving from different firing areas as a mobile gun system. In the offense it is very much the full combined arms team effort with the tank being the most visible "punching" unit. I do not think the $ for better designs will be worth it, at the end of the day every piece of equipment should be expendable if you are going to commit it to an attack.
We Slavs are not your enemies. We never were and never will be. We are all just people. We share this world and why not invest all that money into making it better and making mankind expand into the universe? There is more than enough space and resources for everyone without the need to destroy our world.
Мы просто люди, а запад просто дегенераты, над которыми ставят опыты. Следующим шагом будет легализация педофилии. Это люди? Ты с ними хочешь жить в мире? Я не хочу жить с ними на одной планете.
Unfortunately it won’t happen because of the greed, envy and lust in this fallen world, never has been a time that one nation or another wasn’t scheming and planning how they would distroy their neighbor and get ahead, it never turns out like they plan but they won’t stop.
Challengers, Leopards, T72s, Abram’s, T90’s, whatever… it makes no difference without the right crew AND the right artillery and air support. Those tanks never had a chance to prove themselves in battle for the simple reason that the Russians were able to pound them with artillery, FPV drones, mines, and KA-52’s, while the Ukrainians didn’t have any way to counter them. In the summer counteroffensive, the Ukrainians literally sent Bradley’s and Leo’s into minefields without air support. The Abram’s tank being displayed was sent into a Russian artillery pocket.
"Yep that's a 240 and a .50, this tank was truly fitted and armed to the teeth even though it is missing 2/3rd of it's overall defensive countermeasures."
Если данный чел думает, что сев в Абрамс сможет против России, то предлагаю все же внимательно изучить подбитый танк сейчас в Москве, потом может не получиться уже рассмотреть свой уничтоженный. А превосходство в воздухе США умеет создавать только против туземцев с калашами. Против равных противников они очкуют.
Russia is barely winning against farmers and city folk in ukraine. They arent fighting against an army....russians getting happy over killing a tank when we have thousands is funny.
Но я уверен,что если хорошему Русскому полностью обученному танкисту дать Абрамс,то он сможет очень эффективно на нем воевать. Все зависит от скила. Это хороший танк и леопард хороший,но в неумелых руках они преврашаются в стальные гробы на гусеницах
@@markalex5136 Russia can only spare two ww2 tanks for their victory day celebration will the US only donated 30 tanks in two years. Sounds like Russia's running the junk.
He was a junior enlisted nobody, not an expert on armored warfare or aviation. His vocabulary is less than average. A smart person will not wake up one day and move to russia 😂 there is reason why you don't see thousands of Americans lining up in the airport to travel to moscow 😆
Basic fact is Abrams was only delivered in second half of 2023 . And it wasnt deployed at all on the front line. And when it was deployed it just tooks just a few days to few weeks to be hunted and taken out.
Yep. They kept them near Polish border. First Abrams was destroyed literally the next day it entered combat. Followed by a few more, survivability of Abrams tank in ukraine is 1 mission.
Боты работают по методичке. Я тоже видел волну комментариев по поводу устаревшего Абрамса и тысяч "якобы" уничтоженных российских танков. Причем на разных каналах, в том числе англоязычных. Возникает вопрос, зачем посылать на Украину устаревшее оружие, которое не соответствует боевым задачам? И сравнить процентное соотношение Абрамсов, участвовавших в боевых действиях и выведенных из строя с таким же для российских танков.
Вообще, танки (особенно ОБТ) устаревшими быть не могут. Да, очевидно, что какой-нибудь Т-90М будет намного лучше Т-64. Однако, не стоит забывать, что совершенно любой танк, даже Т-55, лучше, чем его отсутствие. И это даже не учитывая то, что на современном поле боя прямые танковые битвы крайне редки. Эти факторы уже делают обвинения типа "танк устаревший" просто напросто бредом
No country sends the best of the best to another country to use. Exported weapons have equipment taken off of them and technology....Russia does the same thing when it exports tanks also....you dont give away your secrets and technology.
@@koisher-k Дело даже не в этом. Сражаются не отдельные виды вооружений, а комплексы и системы из разнородных сил. Какой бы ни был хороший Абрамс/Леопард/Т-90/Меркава, если нет прикрытия с воздуха, прилетит Ка-52 или Ми-28 и грохнет его ПТУРом. Вывод - нужно войсковое ПВО, а его практически нет. И так далее. Вертушки прикрываются авиацией, эшелонированным ПВО, действие должно быть согласовано, должна быть разведка. Это и есть комплексное взаимодействие родов и видов. Если этого нет, любые танки будут биты.
@@koisher-k О, боги, обвинения с чьей стороны? Со стороны американцев? Их еще можно считать разумными существами? Бред для них не стыдно, не позорно. Бред это образ их мысли.
Collective West Media tried to downplay the capability of the Russian army and said that they're fighting with shovels only....I would say pretty good shovel which took those tanks out 😂😂😂
Yep, Western media outlets are stupid, they don't know that overestimating and overhyping Ukraine while underestimating and downplaying Russia could backfire and result in a nasty surprise followed by a disaster
Yes so they wanna say , that is a overdated shit but the new is on another level . Gamechanger like every USA made weapons send to Ukraine ( according west media) . But the game is not changed yet .
War is usually "bring your own". If Ukraine wants to complain then maybe they can use their own F-16s and their own custom equipment. Oh wait, what, they don't have any? Well maybe they shouldn't have gone around poking the bear so much then. There's always the peace table.
Two things with the tanks One: Abrams is very much not outdated, it is not considered outdated, and considering five at most have been destroyed or knocked out, does not suggest they are outdated. Two: They have only been there for a couple of months, since August last year. So, the Russian losses is not nearly as bad when you compare like that, but it is still the fact Russia has lost at least 600 tanks since August, so it is very much a joke to be blunt
Some of yall aren’t understanding that the crews pretty much have no experience using the tanks which ultimately got them destroyed. You put the right weapon in the right hands and you’ll see the damage it can inflict, but you put the right weapon in the wrong hands and mistakes will happen.
I believe those ukranians have way more battle experience then your homies. You just hate the fact this equipment deal well only with unarmed jihadists.
@@JesusOfficialAccountSaddam’s army was not a bunch of “unarmed Jihadis,” and since you really want to mention fighting insurgents, let’s not forget that Russia lost in Afghanistan as well (except suffering twice the casualties in half the time compared to the US), and in Chechnya in 96’. The Russian military suffered more KIA in the 2 years in Chechnya than the US did in the last 2 decades in Afghanistan, and Russia had a huge location advantage considering Chechnya was right on their border. (Or in their borders I guess)
haha love that. 3000 Russian tanks... 5000 Russian tanks... 7000+ Russian tanks... Those NAFO bots living in their copium fantasies cannot even make up their minds XD
@@bertamaria-bender2889I fail to see anything amusing about this war. Putin's war is a tragedy for the Russian and Ukrainian people. No good will come of it.
Пётр Толстой сказал на французском телевидении- если французкие солдаты придут на украину-мы всех убьём" Это относится ко всему солдатам НАТО, кто придёт на Украину.
If its outdated than they're both on par with the T72bv ,T80bvm and the T90m. They're all "outdated" with continuous add updates to continue service. Just simply calling it *"outdated"* when it gets destroyed is really just coping and denial because when it was first sent the media and alot of people were dubbing it *"Game changers"* Bottom line is, the weapons and vehicles are only as good as the crew that operates it!!!
And at the beginning of the NATO / WESTERN WAR in Ukraine, the West made fun of the old Russian tanks! However, it just shows that it is a business! However, this applies to EAST & WEST. The old stuff has to go and Ukraine is the recycling place.
On par? How much of those T tanks you can get for 1 abrams? Nevertheless how can you even compare and how does it mattet in the war? (You dont, its video game sht) Also your conclusion is pretty much a NAFO when NATO tank is lost. Can Americans do better than Ukrainians? (Not at all, no silly US vets never saw this combat unless its their great great grandpa from ww2)
Tanks US or Soviet are not indestructible. Crew training and experience is important to success. Additionally you must fight with combined arms. Tanks must have infantry and air support to suceed. Even the best crews and best weapons will still get destroyed as a battle field is dynamic and the defenders just get luck based on the odds.
Exactly. The age of these behemoths mattered not, until the harsh light of the battlefield revealed their all-too-mortal flesh. Now, we witness a spectacle of mental acrobatics, a desperate bid to salvage their precious, faltering tanks and the inflated ego of their military prowess.
No you wouldn't. I have never been to Russia myself but I know a couple people who made vacation there or to visit relatives. Nobody cares if you're an American citizen or not
Обидно, что никто не показывает в этих репортажах памятник Антигитлеровской Коалиции(да, от выставки до него минут 15 топать, но это того стоит), где французский, советский, американский и британский солдаты стоят плечом к плечу. Никто этот памятник не сносит и историю переписывать не собирается.
Because there's little truth to RuZZia's story about WWII. RuZZia's orcs and Germany's Nazis created an alliance (Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact) and started WWII with the invasion of Poland. Like Germany's Nazis, RuZZia has always been a fascists warmongering country. Orcs and Nazis are one in the same.
Shoulder to shoulder? You forgot how you signed a treaty and wanted to step in their coalition first, before being betrayed lol? Then got the most American aid? It amuses me to see Russians always forget the Molotov-Ribentrov pact
@@houseplant1016 No one forgets. It was a non-aggression pact between Germany and the Soviet Union in the first place. And Poland, Great Britain, France, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and then Turkey had the same agreement with Germany. Or is it "you don't understand, this is different"? And what about help. It was a loan, and Russia assumed all debt obligations after the collapse of the Soviets. Not for nothing, but nevertheless. It's funny that Americans constantly forget whose money Hitler used to restore Germany's military power before the war or who sold oil and computers to the Nazis
Some Americans try to put the best face on an embarrassing situation for US arms manufacturers. Russia used cheap drones to disable more expensive tanks irrespective of the age of the Abrams tanks. There is a reason why the United States and the UK leadership wanted those tanks in the rear rather than close to the frontlines. Its because destroyed Abrams or Challenger tanks on the battlefields of Ukraine make those weapons harder to sell on the world market.
How is it embarrassing exactly? These weapons are export variants of more than 30 years old equipment? The Russians and their supporters should be more embarrassed of the fact that a country with no Navy is sinking a lot of Russian ships, and could not establish an air superiority over the Ukrainian airspace.
None of what you've said is accurate. Firstly, none of this is "embarrassing". Are the Abrams and Challenger better than pretty much anything being fielded by Russia currently? Absolutely. Do the Ukrainians have the skill or experience to use them effectively? Probably not. No one said the Abrams was invincible. It's good, but just like the Russian tanks, drones weren't a thing when it was designed and built. Hell, even insurgents in Iraq managed to take out a few. Very good does not mean indestructible. You have to understand, our media knows almost nothing about the military, it's weapons or it's tactics. They speak from ignorance and don't reflect what Americans who actually know about these things think. These retired generals they parade on the various news shows are cold war dinosaurs who haven't been relevant in years. Our government knew full well that some, maybe even most, of the tanks we sent would be destroyed. This war is chewing up armor on both sides at a ridiculous rate. More than sales, I think we wanted to see how they'd fare and look for ways to improve the tanks in our arsenal based on lessons learned. There is no "game changing" weapon. This whole thing will come down to whether or not the Ukrainians can hold out long enough for a prolonged war to negatively affect Russia's economy enough that Putin has to quit. At this point, a negotiated peace is all but inevitable. Neither side has sufficient advantage to obtain a total victory on the battlefield and anyone who says otherwise is either lying or not paying attention.
@@jetty92487 "Are the Abrams and Challenger better than pretty much anything being fielded by Russia currently? Absolutely." How do you know that for sure? I don't understand that kind of american arrogance and underestimation of an enemy. Looks like another bit of propaganda speech to skip. The fact is, at least what western propaganda writes, abrams is pulled back from the frontline. The rest of the Nato tanks (at least german) and old soviet tanks remain in use but the americans. It's a stupid partial decision if it was a strategy don't you think. As well they say to have to find another solution for tanks usage at the time when ukrainians alerting of the urgent need of them. It's very doubtful that they'll have that cosy conditions in this conflict to use them with all that backing weaponry that should be. The only answer that comes to mind is the propaganda loses that amaricans can face. So yes, "make those weapons harder to sell on the world market" sounds more than credible.
The thing is that the media does not understand military tanks or aircraft. When they heard leopard 2, they think of the leopard 2 pso, leopard 2a7+, leopard 2pl because they look badass and are the most advanced variants of these tanks, but the tank community gets down into the nitty gritty and understand oh, they are sending the leopard 2a4 and leopard 2a6 which are much older models, but they fire the same ammunition as modern variants. Same for the M1 Abrams. When people think of a M1 abrams, they think of the M1A2 Sep v3 or v4(they are no longer buying this model) which are the most modern variant of this tank. Now here is why we consider the abrams you see here as outdated, it has a generation 1 thermal sight which is extremely old and blurry. It is also missing its depleted uranium inserts which we have no clue which variant 100% has, we just expect it to be on the sep v3. The model of abrams that we sent to Ukraine is the export model of the m1 abrams that were sitting in European warehouses waiting for a war. Overall, though, I agree, under the right use cases, the M1 abrams is a formidable tank just like any other tank. Now lets get to the f16. The f16 is still a very modern platform as militaries throughout the world still do not have large fleets of stealth fighters with multi role capabilities outside of the United States. Though the design is quite old, the aircraft can still be equipped with very modern systems allowing it to compete with aircraft within its generation. Though, I also agree, the pilots that will eventually be using the f16 are not going to be as experienced as their American counterparts who have hundreds to thousands of hours in their aircraft. Though, if Ukraine can operate hundreds of these aircraft like the United States, that is when the f16 will be a complete gamechanger.
The F-16 would not have changed anything if its deliveries were not in the tens of thousands. The problem with the F-16 is that Russia is the world leader in air defense systems. And Russia has made a lot of them and continues to produce them. What chance does the F-16 have of gaining air superiority if this airspace is controlled at least by the outdated S-300 complex? And if the airspace is controlled by the S-400, how many F-16s will it take to gain air superiority?
@@Oleg111222333 the f16 is not a game changer in the sense that they lack numbers, but they do not need thousands, they just need a few hundred The f16 is still overall better compared to the mig 29 bc the f16 has much better cas and antisead capabilities. It also has a better radar, avionics, and electronic warfare suite. It also has a better range allowing it to stay much further away from the front. What i expect the f16 to do in ukraine is a deterrence against su 25 with their amraam missiles, but also constantly running sead missions to knock out a portion of russian sams clearing the area for su 25 or other f16 fighters to start ground pounding. Just like what the russians did by knocking out a patriot and then start sending cas into where the patriot is destroyed to clear a way for infantry
@@Oleg111222333 Get your orders of magnitude straightened out; no air force in the world has tens of thousands of planes, total, let alone of F-16s. It would also be impossible for anyone to have tens of thousands of F16s, given that less than 5000 were ever made.
@@xungnham1388 Is it Russia’s problem that NATO countries do not have enough F-16s? The F-16 is a light aircraft, it does not have the ability to carry a radar of sufficient size to see too far. Unfortunately, it is impossible to deceive physics and the wavelength of the radar, and accordingly its range directly depends on the size of the radar. Ground radars are not limited in size and will see the aircraft much earlier. And they are capable of launching a missile with a greater range. It's like ducks versus hunters. A duck, of course, can fly very low above the ground in order to be noticed as late as possible, but unfortunately the Russians use a doctrine of deeply echeloned air defense where long-range air defense is not used alone, but is protected by medium and short-range air defense. No air defense is an absolute defense; it can be overloaded with a large number of targets. That is, the attacker must have more aircraft than the air defense has missiles and will have to accept in advance a large number of losses among its aircraft. For such a breakthrough, you simply need a huge number of disposable aircraft. That is why the Russians, when attacking the Ukrainians, use waves of attacks; cheap drones attack first, and a little later, when the air defense is overloaded, Russian missiles reach their targets.
@@hyperconfidence650 That and a supposed US veteran living in Russia to find inner peace and somehow he's allowed near the wreck despite the fence and news cameras pointing right at him. 100% screams propaganda. Plus when he's trying to debunk the idea that it's an outdated tank just because it's effective... Just because it's effective doesn't mean it isn't old and outdated. That's like saying the T-62's Russia has been digging out of storage haven't been effective. They wouldn't be using them if they weren't capable of something and meanwhile this video is treating the Abrams like it's a wonder weapon as if the Russians killed the unkillable. As if 23 Abrams weren't lost in Iraq to a bunch of goat diddlers (though to be fair, most of those were lost to friendly fire and not a single one of them were destroyed from enemy tank combat.)
Abraham was definitely a fantastic tanks in 3 ways. 1- Bigger then most tanks, so you can easily target them from afar. 2- Desert paint so you can spot them easily in Ukraine forests and snow 3- gas guzzler, so it has to take a DIRECT rout to combat, cannot hide in secondary roads and do tactical maneuvering since not enough gas to do it, make it's movement easier to predict, so tank easier to find, easier to target. 4- Too heavy, so cannot use the fields to hide, attack or go forward, even when the ground is dry. AMAZING tanks in those 4 ways, and many more. Bradley is SIGNIFICANTLY more useful.
@@wolfik2552 Only if the ammo gets hit, there are lots of Videos where russian Tanks eat several FPV drones or ATGM hits and continue their Mission. Even a Leopard 2 and Challenger 2 can toss their Turrets thanks to stored ammo in the crew compartment.
@@Sheppart92 it has a high likeability to get hit if you aim on upper/lower plate which is most likely russian tanks have bad depression of the main gun
@@Richard_T800 There are loads of videos of these, and the crew escapes, and then the vehicle gets further destroyed by drones. This is how it is with ever western tank destroyed on the frontline, however, only a few of the russian ones have the same privilege of getting out alive.
US Abrams have a blowout so that when the ammo rack is hit it blows out the side and top near the rear of the turret. Thats why you don't see abrams turrets flying sky high. But this tank was definitely destroyed and more than likely the crew was knocked out based off the charred armor.
,,under the right operator no weapon is outdated" i think he meant obsolete because the tank is outdated just like the russian stuff but it isn't obsolete it can still kill another tank but definitley outdated
1 was destroyed when it wasnt even in the front so they got scared and then another one had to be sent back to the UK for repairing because it gtot stuck and almost completely covered in mud
@@thesayxx That's not exactly a tank that is intended for primary fighting. Its main intention is to clear the way through minefields for tank column. But yes, it does resolve the drone problem.
On 26 February, Russian forces west of Avdiivka destroyed the first M1A1 Abrams tank of the war. Like the loss of the first Challenger 2 near Robotyne last September the event has provoked widespread commentary. So far 5 of 31 Abrams tanks have been lost! (As of April 2024)
Has this guy just said that tanks are not supposed to be used defensively? So in his mind a tank can only attack while he is driving toward the enemy and not be used to fend of attacking enemies and repostion quickly.
True the abraham only showed up in the ukrainian conflict few weeks ago, just like the challenger why didnt Russia catch one yet, because they are hidden somewhere not being used after the only one they sent to the front line got blown up. People not following the conflict and making such pointless argument are just immature timewasters...
@@johnc2438 It is.And this is a point why people call it that way.They belive in Chesus crist and only belive in american verthion of him.If Chesus loves you.Hawe a stash,but f you dont you life is trash.Just simple as that.
30 tanks is not enough for full scale war, also unlike leopards which poland agreed to help restore damaged tanks, challenger and abrams would deemed inoperable after taking moderate damage
Well, the M1A1 is fighting against the outdated Russian equipment that the M1A1 was build for. Of course, there are better and more upgraded versions, but it's already enough to fight the enemies it has to fight, with the exception of drones. But even newer Abrams versions are not build to withstand those. And yes, I would agree, these tanks can not only be used in a defensive war, they were developed to be used in a defensive war. That's why they have a fast reverse speed and a gun depression of -10°, so it can fight from hull down defensive positions. The Abrams was not designed to attack Iraqi positions in Desert Storm. It was designed to fight along the Bradley and decimate attacking Soviet Tank and Motor Rifle Regiments flooding into western Germany. What he is right is about the training. The Ukrainians are not capable to use these tanks as efficient as the Americans could, but there is no way to change this, without sending NATO troops to the frontlines to fight Russians directly.
@@MrFusselig The main issue is the Abrams isn't being destroyed by russian Armor, its being destroyed by artillery. Artillery is why neither side can use armor effectively. We honestly don't know how the M1A1 abrams would fair against Russian armor as it hasn't happened in the war yet. Its very hard to get the abrams to the front line in the first place due to Russians instantly targeting western heavy equipment with artillery. Its why the Leopard also couldn't be used on the front line as it kept getting artied when it gets anywhere near the front line. This is why the US and NATO focus on a strong airforce. Air superiority has been a deciding factor in war for 100 years now. Without it, you can't take out enemy artillery effectively and keeping air recon up is harder. Neither side at the moment has air superiority which is why air support is never really used anymore.
@@ryancraythorn8399 Soviet Army was always an artillery army, even more so than it is a tank army. And the Soviets are known for their hordes of tanks. The answer to this is dispersion and mobility. On both sides. Just response times of artillery has become quicker, and of course the main aspect is observation due to drones. There is also precision and guided artillery, but that's not very Soviet or even Russian.
@@MrFusselig that’s why the US is very focus on air superiority. Seeing how this war is going, the us could gain full air superiority which would render their artillery useless. Only thing keeping the US back are nukes
@@ryancraythorn8399 Yes, this is correct. We have to look at the "Active Defense" doctrine if we look at the design and purpose of the Abrams. Back then MLRS systems like HIMARS were meant to be used together with fighter bombers to engage the enemies rear and attack artillery and logistics points to weaken the soviet front. The "Active Defense" doctrine was updated to the "Air Land Battle" doctrine in the early 80s, when the Abrams and the Bradley were introduced. At this time, the Germans also already had the Marder and the Leopard 2 in action as well. Air superiority was always a matter of NATO doctrine, which is now missing in Ukraine. The Abrams and the Leopard 2 are very capable tanks, designed for an environment very similar to what we see in Ukraine. But there are differences, the missing air superiority and the heavy drone warfare are examples where the battlefield of today differs from the expected Cold War Soviet attack.
🎥Watch the full video from the display here - th-cam.com/video/HBdf4Dk_LqY/w-d-xo.html
🎥Watch Dan's video from the display here - th-cam.com/video/dCtJczw9wbE/w-d-xo.html
If you'd like to support Real Reporter:
💵Patreon - www.patreon.com/RealReporter
💵Boosty - boosty.to/realreporter/donate
💵PayPal - paypal.me/RealReporter
I am a US Army 95B Military Police Vet. that served for 3.5 years with the 1st A.D. assigned to Germany. Assigned and where you are is different.. America only exports a stripped down version of the Abrams. It is not US Military standard. Depleted uranium armor is removed along with some toys. Our version of this tank is not allowed to be sold or transferred.
We had an Abrams roll down a hill like a ball, not on tracks and it collided with a boulder that broke a section of the depleted uranium armor. The flew us M.P.'s in a Black Hawk to secure the area so people couldn't see what was inside. We even evacuated the crew from the scene.
America sells this version that Ukraine got to countries like Egypt, etc... It is not the same animal. I know and I know the protocol.
Guys, could I see Daniel in Moscow-city? A guy much alike him was walking there wearing a Peruvian poncho?
You are a stupid reporter 😂
This “American” in Russia is a fucking traitor! He shouldn’t ever be allowed back in my country!Russia is pathetic! They can’t defeat Ukraine they stand zero chance against the US!
This is russian propaganda at its finest 🤣 😂 how many tanks has Russia lost again ???
The problem here isn't tanks OR who's equipment is better OR who's better at destroying each other's equipment...the real problem is arms manufacturers on both sides and the dictators forcing men and women to die for greed and delusion....who's really winning out of all this in the end ????
Saying it took Russia 2 years to capture 1 American tank is weird cause that’s how long the war is going not how long American tanks are at the front they joined just a few weeks ago
And on top of that theywere not in front lines and when they did go in front lines they got captured same day
Yep, they were used near Stepove as a desperate attempt to stop the Russian advance. Once spotted, they were easily dealt with.
The war actually started in 2014, if you count properly. Possibly in 2008.
@@SterileNeutrino i've heard that the "war" actually started in ussr, ukraine was called by the russia as "the wild west". i kind of think that all of this was planned a very long time ago
And what's your point? This is talking about how long Abrams have been in service @@SterileNeutrino
without a complete package, 30 tanks will do nothing, it's not a miracle weapon. Ukraine has no air superiority or air dominance at all, those tanks are sitting ducks
I never saw anyone claim it was a ‘miracle’ weapon.
Also Russia can’t even take Kiev..
If you need air superiority then I have bad news for you brother
@@jeremyj5932 Oh, so now it's "Russia can't even take Kiev." Next year you'll be saying "Yeah but Ukraine was lame, not like Poland!"
@@jeremyj5932это ваши генералы говорили про Киев за три дня сами запутались в собственной лжи🤣😂
It's enough for the US to keep Ukraine fighting and doing the work for the US. Meanwhile the US is thousands of miles away safe from the fighting. Ukrainians are being used
Bayraktar was a game changer, Javelin was a game changer, M-777 was a game changer, Patrot was a game changer, Gepard was a game changer, IRIS-T was a game changer, CAESAR was a game changer, Leopard was a game changer, Challenger was a game changer, Abrams was a game changer, HIMARS was a game changer...
So many game changers and the game is still the same. In fact it is getting even harder and harder for Ukraine.
Значит, надо игру поменять!)))) 😂
I mean the Javelin was.... Its stopped RU from using their tank advantage.... Same with the Patriot. RU is struggling to control the skies. They still haven't taken Kiev.
@@trooper838 No it wasnt. Nlaw was far more effective than the Javelin in the early days. Still didnt change the game
Edit: how can you say RUAF isnt controlling the sky when they are blowing up vital Ukrainian infrastructure in western Ukraine. Ukraine still hasnt taken Bahmut, or Mariupol, or Crimea.
@@thesayxxyeah so in that sense, because Ukraine's messing up Russian oil rigs, they have aerial supremacy?
@@trooper838 А русские хотели взять Киев? Впервые слышу. Вообще-то изначально хотели только Донбасс и Луганскую область. А фронт растянули для того, чтобы проредить концентрацию украинских войск в районе Донбасса. Ну хотя б своих же военных слушайте. Кто б это такими малыми силами Киев брал? Задача была - дезориентация армии Украины, переброска войск противника на другие линии обороны. Ну а потом Украина так победно сражалась, что похоже, скоро придется брать и Киев и Одессу. Если заставят обстоятельства, то и больше. Каждое следующее предложение будет хуже предыдущего.
As a former Tank mechanic in the Marine Corps, all I can add is without experienced mechanics, a stockpile of parts and special troubleshooting equipment tanks can become lawn ornaments rather quickly.. 1 hour of operation = 8 hours of maintenance..
Thats kinda what a lot of people who werent on the hype train were saying before their deployment. The gas turbine engines for one thing must be finicky and unfamiliar to the Ukies
дай тан украйинцам они его просрут
@@mitchyoung93don’t the T-80s have turbines as well?
Those tanks are huge, expensive Consumables. Do you think US production can keep up if a huge land war happened that required tank to fight? I have my doubt.
@user-dw5ns8ul3k if both russia and the US went at it but somehow no nukes would be used under any circumstance the US would easily defeat russia
That Abrams wasn't captured, it was destroyed then recovered.
Yea, that's called a captured tank. It's captured if you recover it, no matter it's shape.
@@valentincadilhac5439 Capture is when it still in usable shape..... and recover is when you just pull out the wreckage....
@@hamuArt Indeed el touche 💯% 🙂
One thing is for sure, the crew has a much better chance of survival than in a Russian tank because of the separated ammunition. The other thing that many people don't take into account is that if such a tank cannot be brought back to the front by the crew after being damaged, it is obligatory to destroy it as much as possible, but at least the internal instruments must not be left intact, as the Germans did with the Tigers in WWII.
They can analyze the armor, which intelligence probably already knows everything about, except for the most modern ones, the cost-effective way of production or the technique, but what is more important in such a combat vehicle is the electronics and software. It needs to be taken out of service in a state that the analysts will have to lose what hair they have left to get useful information from it.
@@hamuArtу этого танка дроном повредили ходовую и экипаж покинул танк , боясь быть уничтоженным ( он простоял пару недель на окраине населенного пункта, пока русские не зачистили этот опорный пункт)
As a former Abrams tank crewman…
New recruit tank crewmen are trained in simulators for three months, loaders and drivers are starting crew positions, as you gain years of experience you become a gunner then a tank commander.
3-6 months to become a decent loader
6-12 months to become a decent or good driver
12 months and more to become a decent or good gunner
Several years to become an average or good Tank commander.
Ukranians didn’t have the experience or training to effectively use these toys.
Inactive air force other than “drones” doesn’t help either.
I just curious why Ukraine don't pay some tankers vet's for their volunteer at least those tank be use properly than being junk
Thanks for your service, and you hit the nail on the head, at least in my opinion. Apparently the training course for Ukrainian Abrams tankers was about 12 weeks, so that’s only 75% of what a US tanker gets in their standard tanker training. And like you said, no matter how many drones Ukraine fields, and no matter how many Russian vehicles they destroy, that isn’t air cover. If anything, it appears as if Russia is the one gaining air superiority on different parts of the front. F16 might be good, but the training disparity between the Ukrainian and Western F16 pilots is going to be even bigger. A few squadrons of them might not be enough to regain the upper hand in the air
У них нет таланта, а не того, что ты написал.
@@muhammadanshari3931 they have done it
In several Leos crew captured the Tank commanders were foering legion german men not Ukranins.
Non abrams crew was been captured but i would assume the same
Новое оправдание придумали!?😂 Главное ведь - американская техника- самая американская в мире!😂😂😂
What do they mean it took them years to capture abrams? xD They haven't even been used until recently and first months abrams seen any battle it has been destroyed and captured
😀th-cam.com/video/--6ffqOqDto/w-d-xo.html
😀th-cam.com/video/CP8JiqItigE/w-d-xo.html
I agree. Ukraine got them 3 months ago. And already 25 percent of all the Abrams sent are destroyed!
I mean hes right with they dont know how to use Abrams/Leopard efficiently - they've used the Leopard as offensive when its a support and the Abrams defensive when its an offensive tool.
Big facepalm to those drunk guys over there... you can clearly see why they are more russian than european - let Putin have them back so he leaves us alone!
Never annoy a dog defending its territory or he will bite you hard...
just the usual ukro and western propaganda, they always twist reality and present it in their "free" media to suit their narrative
just like Bakhmut was a strategicaly important city until the russians captured it
As a retired firefighter with 30 years of experience, I can assure you that you really don't want to touch or pick up anything related to mechanical engines that has previously been involved in a fire. These things are contaminated with toxic chemicals produced from the fire that will pass through your skin, enter your bloodstream, and sometimes stay there. Take precautions and wear gloves if you need to do that.
👍
It was probably Ukrainian ashes
Hydrofluoric acid, specifically
And ain't those tanks nuclear? I've heard they had something like that in the engines
Why is the western guy in front of a camera allowed to climb on the tanks while all other people must stay behind the fence?….no need to answer, it is a rhetorical question.
Yeah he has an interesting accent and keeps saying 'my friends'...... This has so much BS from both sides.....
It's because people from other countries are allowed to skip the line
@@jyothipkarkera4225 from Nato countries only, there was a sign
he probably paid a little extra for the tour
@@RamonInNZ He has an interesting accent because his first language isn't English, it's Spanish. You can tell by two things, his Hispanic surname of Castellon(Spanish province) and in the b-roll shown in the the start of the video(specifically at 1:28) he is shown with a Mexican flag on his shoulders indicating that he is possibly of Mexican descent. Around five percent of the U.S. military consists of non-citizens with a majority being from Hispanic countries. He has a typical accent for a Spanish speaker who learned to speak English later in their life. Nothing BS about his accent which is incredibly common in the U.S..
The Abrams were NOT sent 2 years previously. they were destroyed as soon as they appeared.
Very true, it's typical propaganda to say the Abrams has been in battle for two yrs
Thats how they cope
That's right, they have recently appeared on the battlefield. Now they have been hidden back so as not to be disgraced.
Also interesting how those commenters always point out that during 91 Desert Storm, Iraq had one of the worlds biggest armies, when in reality their tanks were outdated export versions crewed by woefully unprepared soldiers, back then it didn't matter....But when their precious Abrams gets it's ass kicked, it suddenly becomes an outdated monkey model.
Funny how that works huh?
It doesn't matter how experienced the tank crews are, this is not 'desert storm' of Iraq or Afghanistan in 2001. This is a different ball game, with russia using very powerful lethal weapons. The Iraqis and Afghans didn't have any of these to use to defend themselves at the war front. 🙄 😕
An infantryman's opinion on tanks is like asking a pilot about an M240
@@DoctorDoomJr wow man you're so smart
I'm just surprised this dude even traveled to Russia considering they just arrested another American on some bullshit. Stay the fuck out of that country. Nothing there worth losing your freedom over.
@@DoctorDoomJr Suprisingly asking someone about something they did not work with does in fact change the fact of the matter
Hard pill to swallow but he is spot on
@@DoctorDoomJrit is an outdated tank though. Lol the chassis is from Desert Storm. The barrel, the mechanisms. All of them are old. The armor isn't the same as the one on America's modern Abrams. It was stripped down bc our armor tech is secret. It also doesn't have the same avionics or radar inside the tank bc those are secret as well
No depleted uranium armor, it’s an export version.
just like T-72s in Iraq
@@colmcmillan173
Yep. But T-72’s got knocked out from range before they could engage Abrams. Better optics, gun and training of Abram’s crew.
It does not matter. You think the newer versions of Abrams are plastered with depleted Uraniums from head to toe? Not at all, depleted uranium is heavy and its an awful choice to plaster it completely on an already 70 ton tank.
@@colmcmillan173 Tons of Russian t-72s and t-90s destroyed in Ukraine.
There is no DU on the top where drones can knock it down neither is there DU for track protection.
Calling the Abrams autdated is the same as calling an AK 47 outdated.
Hearing Chieftain opinion, he’s a former Abrams m1a2 commander who served multiple tours in Iraq btw would be more interesting , he definitely knows everything about tactics and all nuts and bolts about every Abrams generation
Русские воюют с АК - 12.
id say f16 instead of abrams but still, a tank is a tank... even a ww2 tank would do a decent job nowadays... thats if it never gets it, some people never get hit during war and its just a luck thing
@@Nikowalker007 does the M1A2 with SEP kit would make a better score?
Answer is no...
@@unskilled822 I'd say it matters a bit more than that. Fire controls, sights have improved drastically with modern versions. Besides, they ship the tanks with worse armor to not give the depleted uranium plates or whatever to russians.
WWII tanks are a joke nowadays.
I like how they still try to take cheap shots by calling it outdated, but a few months ago, it was the next big “game changing weapon”
outdated western equipment is still advanced compared to Russian equipment.
@@luigiwoo4469 Why the cope. I hope this is a troll
@@luigiwoo4469 Its so "advanced" that it is now being kept off the battlefield. The Russian army is advancing.
nobody said it was a game changes. Only media outlets say that shit for more clicks. Nothing else. You got baited. Just like all the other russian bots out here.
@@cosmosj7907 Your cope is calling people "bots" you are sad
The Russians have been in combat in the Ukraine a lot longer than the M-1's were in-country. The troll that said it took '3,000 Russian tanks to capture 1 Abrams' is patently absurd and intellectually dishonest. As for being 'outdated' the M1A1 is still a standard main battle tank around the world, and is essentially no different from the A2 other than bolt-on 'upgrades'. This is pretty much what I expected, though- first, trolls lauding the M1A1 as a game-changer, and when it gets whacked decrying it as 'outdated'. As for tank vs tank, it's worth noting that this one was destroyed by an anti-tank missile. This guy gets it.
Most of the Abrams have been a victim to drones. And there is simply nothing that the Ukrainians can do about it. No tank in real life is what one can call a game changer, and not outdated. None have been able to effectively adapt against drones. At the time when these Western tanks were often dubbed, "game changers", drones were not nearly as prolific on the front. Sure, they were there, but only in this year and 2023 has it gotten especially bad, with for instance Ukraine pledging production of 1 million drones this year. You also mention that it was victim to an anti tank missile, iirc a Kornet. Again, not much that could be done, without systems like the Trophy on the 1A2.
@@vector8877 Do not forget that the goal is not to turn into a pile of iron, but only to take it out of the battle. And so there are drones that just destroy it. Don't believe me, the entrance to the exhibition is free.
Absolutely true. These much-hyped US-NATO Tanks as game changers and will dominate the Ukranian battlefields. captured by Russians, the west suddenly changed the narrative, no it's an Old Cold War Era junks. A relics of past US global wars. President Vladimir Putin laughingly refered to these US game changers as "tin cans with gun"
Not OUTDATED so much as an EXPORT model. You do realize this does not have the advanced armor and munitions and the advanced targeting and optics of the 9,000+ domestic Abrahms correct?
@@kdw75 Хотите сказать - Украине продали бесполезный хлам? Злая шутка от западных партнёров?
I'm an infantry officer, and I love this marine's comment "you cannot export experience". That is the heart of the issue. I admire the guts of the troops, but from the little i have seen online and the testimony from those returning alive from this fight it is very clear the Ukrainians are not organized, experienced or equipped enough to fight an all arms war. Our tanks are amazing kit - but more valuable is the crew, and that takes years to perfect - ask any tanker. When the combination of tank and crew is as it should be , watching armor "do their thing" (which has not been shown in any footage of this war) is something to behold. Hell on wheels, rolling thunder, shock and awe - those phrases capture the essence of armored warfare done right. But that requires competence and coordination between armor, air, artillery, infantry and engineer assets. All of us working together in sync. Not this lone tank shit driving around aimlessly with no infantry support getting shot at from every bush or window, or some dumb asses leaving their hatches open for the flying hand grenades to drop into. Because of all those nuclear warheads we are not going to commit any more than we have. Every war Russia has fought starts out poorly - they need to weed out the corrupt and incompetent officers. However, once they do get rolling and organize that artillery and rocket support - well, you see the results. Every day I see more and more ground being gained slowly by the Russians. Ukraine simply cannot replace their losses. And now that people are seeing the meat grinder of poorly organized and fought trench warfare - the recruits are just not flocking there anymore, are they. Way different fight than 20 years in a desert.
Very interesting perspective! Thanks for sharing 🤝
I was only serving in the mountain division in germany. I have no clue about tanks. But also very well trained and experienced US-veterans have no clue about how it is to fight when the enemy has full air and artillery superiority. Not even to mention that this is the first war with extensive use of Dhrones against tanks. Using tanks under this circumstances for an offensive is a suicide mission. Experience whould have an effect but would not change the overall picture.
It's been more than 20 years since the United States fought against a legit military force
A lot of british and American experts said that it's the ukrainians who should be training us not the opposite
In short notice, I think US government should take war serious, they just think Russia will explode within one year of the war. Now I think US military learned they aren't that powerful, but I didn't sure politician learned.
The first MIAI Tank was destroyed the very first day the Abrams entered into battle.
From friendly fire
@counterinsurgencyadvisor4289 it was hit by a fpv drone
@@counterinsurgencyadvisor4289 crazy, right? US can't even manage their army, not to talk about somebody else's
@@sundownerfkninvincibleidk but Abrams can make a 120mm hole in your body from far away
The Russians had apparently constituted special task forces waiting to engage the Abrams tanks when deployed into battle.
The military equipment is as outdated as the proverb: A bad workman blames his tools 😀
Perfectly said
in Russia we say: Bad dancer blames his balls
Is that why this tank weighed over 10 tons less than the modern Abrams?
in south america some countries has a phrase "A bad fucker can blame his own balls" 🤣
All tanks are susceptible to drones. Not sure why everyone's making a big deal about them being lost, no tank in the world effectively counters drones.
Russia lost 7000+ tanks? Why not 100000?
Потому что 100000 плохая цифра. Он бы показала промышленную мощь, а это тоже нельзя рассказывать. Россия отсталая бензоколонка и ничего не умеет, но теряет тысячи танков каждый месяц. Когда биология заменена социальными конструктами, математика ощущениями, а физика магией, отупение стада уже на финишной прямой к состоянию скота. Не стоит ожидать логики в озвучивании цифр. Спикер белого дома вот на днях сказала, что США и Украина во второй мировой войне боролись против Сталина. Все говорят о третье мировой войне, но та скорость, с которой запад деградирует, точно нас избавит от этого. Они вымрут сами от чего-то банального. Задушат себя кофтой, подавятся яблоком, ударятся током, разорвут кишку каким-нибудь предметом. Так что пусть называют любые цифры. Сначала это вызывало недоумение, потом злило, потом смешило, теперь просто наплевать.
Because the Russian count is based on verified open source data. It's not like Russian numbers just pulled out of Putin's anus.
And russian army run out of shovels. 🤣
because if russia lost 100K, then they would be praising russian production capabilities
Какая глубокая мысль!...🤔@@rabbaniazzahra1784
There are literally thousands of tankers this guy could have talked to and he chose a dude living in Siberia who was Marine infantry 10 yrs ago……………..
"moves hands back and forth while talking" - knows what hes talking about
/sarcasm
He wasn’t a real marine, if you noticed they’re Russians imitating an American accent. You can still tell their Russian.
@@nightwatchersentertainment1360 So how could he have pictures of him from Afganistan?
I messaged him saying send your DD-214 he said I will on telegram.
Bro is lying 🤥
He does many propaganda videos for russia.
If he really is American imagine swooping so low that you would betray your own moral compass and military values.
@@Bartix520 its extremly easy. go mess around on photo shop, OT, SketchPad or gimp, lol.
During my time in the army as a tanker, I recall a Saudi Arabian soldier entering one of our tanks and remarking, "We don't have all this equipment inside."
On 26 February, Russian forces west of Avdiivka destroyed the first M1A1 Abrams tank of the war. Like the loss of the first Challenger 2 near Robotyne last September the event has provoked widespread commentary. So far 5 of 31 Abrams tanks have been lost! (As of April 2024)
@@j.dunlop8295 pretty good ratio for those Abrams, considering it took Russia this long shows how poorly Russia really is doing, considering their "2nd best in the world" status. So much hubris out of those clowns.
Of course. All of the major powers that export armored vehicles have specific "export" versions. The old Russin T-72 era tanks had a "M" version for export, and it was not as good as their best.
Thats because the saudi M1's are export models and have Generation 1 optics. so those tanks are outdated.
No weapon is invulnerable . None !
Never thought I'd see this before WW3.
I'd use "out of". but you're probably right my friend, "before" WW3. Good luck out there :)
It goes on already
you didn't
Она уже идёт. Пока только в таком виде. У запада нет выхода.
Well Abrams are in the front like 2 months ago so it was pretty fast and the firs one used in Ukraine was destroyed without even reaching the front
Wow, the Russians have a real live used to be American marine on display.
and america has fent addicts on display in every major city
Why is that surprising? Western countries have THOUSANDS of "Used to be" Russians on display in so many videos. It's the nature of the propaganda game.
He is not American, or US Marine( and never was ) his name is Konstantin Rozkhov (very american name)and is reporter of RT1 for many years. And his english is as poor as Ruzzia itself xD
@@zrobsobiekrzywde Konstantin is the "Real Reporter" guy with the camera, the vid maker. The US Marine guy is not Konstantin.
@@chriscampbell9191 read description of the channel. guy on the video isn't marine... he isn't even american xD Kremlin soviet propaganda is so weak in the times of free flow of information
"Under the right operator, no weapon is outdated", that's a laugh. Bring back Sherman tanks then.
Id rather be in a sherman tank than no tank when facing a machine gun...
Tbf Shermans can still lob a lot of HE and can provide a moving steel wall to infantry if possible. In those roles(as a pseudo IFV), it is still capable. Just because it's a tank doesn't mean that they are going to be used to 1v1 a 1970s MBT
I mean if you were to fit the shermans with modern optics and targeting systems and a skilled crew then they definitely would have an impact to say the least. Fact is that anti-tank missiles are so far advanced that essentialy armor doesn't really matter in modern combat. + They have to be used in appropiate situations like urban warfare where they can offer fire support and whatnot.
@@user-tv7fg7wt2d It would be killed with a simple RPG from any side hit because a Sherman lacks Composite armor and composite armor was made to Stop Heat rounds
@@WyattChilsonor they can just do what the Russians are doing with their T-55s, using them as makeshift artillery.
A good many people who gleefully tweeted out that these tanks are 'game changers' are the same ones who are now downplaying them as too old or outdated.
They are game changers, but the Abrams provided to Ukraine aren't the latest and greatest. It's almost 40 year tech. It doesn't mean they aren't lethal.
Exactly, they literally have no shame to change their opinion within days or even hours. Like they say "Leopard will shatered Russia" and then in the first week, we get the Leopard destroyed and they found another excuse like "outdated". Literally, some people just being karen in the war and denied the fact of the war
Хм... Фантазия... Хороша.. Только в космосе... А кто вам поставляет... Нууу.. С мелкого... Аллюминий хотя бы.. На Боинги)))
А должок..
За мировую первую... Ещё остался за вами.. Фрэнсис, чехи, и англы, и ЮэСэЙ))))
Media claimed these were game changers and anyone who takes military opinions from someone with a media studies degree deserves to be completely b######ted. Everyone with a brain knew they were likely not going to last long which is why every country that donated tanks sent obsolete version's not their current front line versions used by their militaries. These tanks are outdated by virtue of the fact none of this version of Abrams is currently in U.S army service therefore it's outdated does that make it useless absolutely not and with a good crew under the rights circumstances (air cover, trained infantry support and a fully qualified and supplied logistical system) it's a dangerous opponent.
To be honest parading a few example's of destroyed western vehicles only makes civilians happy while Ukraine of course could display hundred's of T72's,80's and 90's but given how Putin has closed down the internet in Russia most Russians of course can't find that out.
If anything is a gamechanger - the drones are.
People don't fully comprehend that anything will be taken out if hit enough times. Drones really have changed warfare forever.
drones are used cuz both sides are lacking precision ammo, anti tank rockets. Most of drones don't even hit targets.
not drone my friend, The Blyat Mobile is.
@@Freyashi696 The Blyat Mobile is fucking game breaking.
@@obi666 drones are just very cheap for the damage they can cause, i mean a 300-1000usd drone can immobilize a 4-6m tank putting it out of a fight which followup hits of arty or other drones can cause the complete destruction of the vehicle, also drones can spot concentrations of troops, blow up logistics, etc, insane value in drones, and drone operators can stay in a somewhat safe spot while conducting operations
People still have not realized most online comments are bots.
This is true 🤣🤝🏻
There's not really bots anymore. Both China and Russia use a lot of people to do all of it manually.
@@iUUkkSo, bots.
The bot is this CIA-plant "journalist" who made thise propaganda video.
Especially under this video. There's no way russia wouldn't be botting comments on a video like this.
Its no surprise the Abrams has a high fuel consumption, it literally has a jet engine lol
It does not have a jet engine. It has a gas turbine. Jets use exhaust thrust. Gas turbines power a mechanical shaft.
Still explains fuel usage, though.
The newer ones have the jet engine not the ones being sent to ukraine
As a former tanker myself I have to agree with him, you can't operate that tank to its full potential without an experienced crew!
That's not why it was sent. It was send to empty out old inventory so the military industrial complex can make brand new ones in the USA! Woo-hoo! 💸💸
i wish he jjust left it at that --- lots of ignorant comments fanboying over a single tank.
Unfortunately, Ukraine did not have the luxury of gaining years of experience with the tank before it had to be used in combat. If the Western countries had not delayed the delivery of their battle tanks for over a year, they would have had more time.
@@carador9286 bet you have an Israeli flag tshirt boomer
That's not profound.
You can't clean and operate a milk shake machine at McDonald's until you're trained.
Once captured fake Western media says tanks are outdated😂😂.Month ago it was different story.Lancet drones make it outdated 😀
Prior to deployment in Ukraine, every article and blog said it was the most advanced tank compared to any other tank. I’m willing to bet that a soon as an F22 gets shot down it will be “outdated” as well.
@@cryMoreLoL Exactly, if the type of warfare changes then a lot of military equipment goes suddenly outdated. Just like a trend.
Too subtle video for a russian mind, apparently. It's M1A1. This model was followed by two more. This one took part in the first Iraq war. But like I said : too subtle.
@@cryMoreLoL by outdated it means its outdated in the armor sector, this M1A1 SA abrams doesn't have good armor, it has basic composite armor, its not like it matters anyway considering any drone can destroy a tank.
Butt hurt cream is on sale in Walmart😂
Tanks on their own achieve nothing. Without air superiority there just nice juicy targets.
all tanks are outdated now, cheap drones with attached RPG could destroy any tank. Basically it's a flying RPG with a dozen miles range
I think you mean is without air superiority a nation's tanks will not achieve much against a more air dominant enemy.
air superiority is fine, but not in case of tanks usage, main problem for tanks are drones, both kamikaze and those used for artillery together with guided shells, for that is very important to be stronger in electronic warfare and be able to jam enemy drones
@@chrisryan8810я думаю, что без комплексного подхода ничего не будет панацеей. Превосходство в воздухе так же, как и танки, надо использовать в комплексе с чем то. Превосходство в воздухе используется для нанесения ударов бомбардировщиков. Хотя, если вспомнить, что мы так то щас только ракетами пуляем, это превосходство ничем бы и не помогло. Патриоты не спасают от ракет, а самолеты тем более.
Вся проблема в подходе, у нас он разный, так как опыт так же разный.
NAFO could never achieve air supremacy that argument just doesn't apply
I don't think that Russian army needed time to capture Abrams...
People who said the opposite should remember that the US sent the tanks lately and they were not used at once to the battlefields
A Marine fixing his PTSD in Russia?!
Russia is big, you can live literally in forest hundreds km from any civilization
Yeah, west bad, Russia good for mental. You know? Also having a thick Russian accent helps from recovering evil Western wars.
@@Kaarlo
Ikr? As soon as they started to speak I realized they weren’t Americans. lol
And I guess we can ignore the fact that he draped himself in a Mexican flag. Weird for a U.S Marine.
@@Kaarlo What are you talking about? The accent is clearly Spanish, the guy's name is Daniel Castellon ffs.
The mere fact that these Americans are walking around in Moscow freely makes them suspicious
Thats the truth.
Why would Russia care? There are plenty of Russians walking around freely here in the states.
@@mizzamir_gaming why? It's propaganda. How can I trust ex american soldier who is living in the middle of Syberia? They are paid by russian orcs.
Why? Were not a war with Russia Ukraine is.
Not just freely walking around, but able to get right up to the “exhibit” and film in the presence of armed guards that are keeping everyone else behind the gates.
Abrams came at the frontline a few weeks ago
@@allanknudsen2490 they didnt? They were at the Polish border or the rear. Never in the front
for russians a destroyed tank with it's turret still in place is a strange phenomenon LOL
Lol your kids trans
for an american seeing non-trans kids at this event must be hard.
So is your mother, take a look at her mustache and all the hair on her back 🤣
for americans an (often called shitty) T72 tank who does not need two fuel transports nearby, which also can magically be fixed by the crew in the battlefield is also a strange phenomenon
Also, my dear militarily interested friend, you're aware WHY most western tanks keep their turrets after getting incapacitated?
It is because of the design choice between autoloader (high risk, yet higher frequency of shots/DPS) and crew safety
What we all in the west have underestimated is the russians ability to endure suffering to ensure victory
TLDR: the blown up turrets of the T72-80 etc etc line are by choice of doctrin
@kodacv1612 because crew safety is a low priority according to russian/third world doctrine
Russia is waiting for the F16, so they can display that as trophies in Moscow too.
obtaining a plane as a trophy is kinda hard, there will be just a bunch of scrap
Получат. Вот увидите.
Funny considering how terrified they are of UKR getting them 🤣🤣🤣
@@FvckHushno one is terrified buddy i dont where you got that from, they would meet the same fate as all the other equipment
@@FvckHush у украины были советские самолеты, которые по характеристикам либо равны, либо превосходят ф16, но почему то им это не помогло
Lol under the right operator no weapon is outdated... the russian drone crews are laughing right now😂
Including those killed by ukrainians? I hear they're quite a few !
exactlyyy people need to stop blaming the gear and start with logistics!!!
Misha El Rusito !!! (Misha the Russian) ?? 😁😁i dont even speak Spanish but i think i understand what that means! Well Done Alexandrovich
I think he meant it more as a general statement towards tactics and how weapons are meant to be used. No skilled crew would be happy to operate with no air and artillery support, alone and in an open field. It's a suicide mission.
A sword is a deadly weapon in the right hands on the battlefield of Ukraine, right? Nope.
crazy that the russians just let guys like you inspect the damaged equipments like its nothing
It's free and it's the main purpose
Its the goverment letting them past the barricades so i think they are probably on payroll.
Lol. And what could be the reasons for the ban?
Yes it got destroyed in a matter of weeks in the frontline .
@@hoangtiendung9984 God bless him for that!
Hmmm, so a Russian-born reporter who formerly worked for RT is interviewingy a former Marine who stayed in Russia for years to cure his PTSD, and who has no experience with tanks, and both are somehow allowed in the fence and to touch the tank (touching burnt tanks can be very harmful).
Castellon says the Ukrainians used the tank poorly because it is an offensive weapon and they used it defensively. No, the Abrams tank, like many MBTs, is an all-round fighting platform which can be used for many roles. Western advisors would have wanted the tanks to be used in breakthrough offensives. The problem is Russian defenses prevent the tanks from attacking en masse. They pile mines (this Abrams was most likely destroyed by mines, judging by the tracks) and use artillery and drones. To make that kind of breakthrough, Ukraine would need combined warfare capabilities including a strong air force, which it doesn't have, to damage Russian active defenses and allow for demining. The infantry-artillery-cavalry trinity essential for a war is not present here, which is reminiscent of WW1, when cavalry couldn't operate properly on the Western Front (they ultimately perfected infantry-artillery coordination and through attrition weakened the Germans sufficiently as to advance; tanks had a very limited role).
Some people say that the use of drones is making tanks obsolete, but it is simply a question of time before countermeasures are installed. If the Trophy system can intercept incoming rockets, they certainly can produce anti-drone systems.
The US marine is part of the display to enhance the experience
Trophy systems can't intercept drones because of the very low speed, Trophy system needs a projectile of at least 800m/s to intercept it even the lancet is not that fast
this is how ruzzian propaganda works.
The reality is that no matter how good vehicle you have, it would be destroyed by 500$ drone. The same way I think an aircraft carrier is outdated as well, but we don't have a situation, where it would be easily destroyed by supersonic missiles or so. And I hope we will never have.
Thing is aircraft carriers when spotted and next to missle silos or air bases ur fucked, once spotted enemy can launch all missles and planes and the carrier pretty much stands no chance but we will never know as no modern carrier has ever been in a actual combat
Ну Ваши политики делают все для того что бы это случилось к сожалению )
Tanks are just a part of a vast machine that is an army. they have very obvious weaknesses that can be exploited. The fact that ukraine cannot deal with this indicates their overall army is not effective.
Надейтесь😂
"easily"
روسيا انتصرت في هذه الحرب الهجينه المكونه من عشرات الدول مقابل روسيا دوله واحده ومن لديه شك بأن روسيا لم تنتصر فأنه في الغالب يستمع للاعلام الصهيوني الغبي
Avg terrorist view
Yes and same like Is r ahel ll lost the war aiginst Hamas and Hezbollah.
Russia has not won and will never win the war in Ukraine.
Salam Aleykum bro
@@thebellamoor7747 We Alejkumu Salaam. Brother I pray to God Almighty to give us his unmatched mercy on the Day of Judgement.
Ameen.
Of course it took long time to capture it. They were hiding them to protect them. 🤣
Once on frontline, they were destroyed quickly 🤣
Great note "experience cannot be exported"
Thanks for posting.
first day t-90m got on the field - they got destroyed. at this point no tank is invincible. they all can be disabled. only difference is either crew gets out or not... on russian ones - almost never.
@rodesdaraпочти никогда?) ты видел, насколько у нас танки живучие? В интернете полно видео, как восьмидесятки, например, переживают рой дронов
@@rodesdara i wouldnt say so,only if ammo rekt but most of russian mbt crews get out because moslty tanks go only damaged and not totaly destroyed
@@rodesdaraIt was T 72s and T 80s that got destroyed in the Earlier phase later on the T 90s suffered once Advanced Armour and Battle Equipments from West Arrived
@@nope.118that is true there are videos of Russian tanks surviving multiple Fpv drone attacks. There are also a lot of videos of Russian tanks getting their turrets blown completely off. No tank is going to survive a direct hit that ignites the ammunition, Western or Russian
Fake Reporter, fake US Marine.
Nice propaganda)
yea you can hear is russian accent
Yup, his name is Konstantin Rozhkov and is a RT employee.
@@bigsmoke4345 he doesn’t look like a Russian
@@alexbayer2365 what makes someone look russian?
@@bigsmoke4345 blue eyes or grey eyes, brown or brown red beard, hair is usually brown or blonde.
Not to mentioned any Abrams we sell or give to other countries do not and I repeat do not have the same armor and fire control system!! Former M1A2 Abrams master gunner here.
This is true for almost any weapon system sent to Ukrain. Except for Himars and Pzh 2000k were the limiting factor is just the ammo, not the platform. All other heavy tools are old, soon to be replaced, stockpiles
Это не важно, в современной войне с обилием дронов нет танка который будет в безопасности..... (В Ираке настоящие танки Абрамс уничтожались рпг7 ,)
@@Влад-ч8ь1с 2 Abhrams were destroyed by an RPG-7 in Iraq, both were extremely lucky shots on either fuel tanks or top down. This was largely due to infantry issues, not the tank.
Nothing is indestructible, proper infantry support is crucial to keeping a tank safe. Russia should know this quite well seeing as they keep sending tanks with zero infantry and end up getting destroyed.
@@WarlordEnthusiastты был на поле боя и знаешь как Россия использует танки? Прекрати верить мифам , которые распространяют продажные газеты.... PS обеими сторонами конфликта танки в основном используются как подвижное орудие, потому что танк стреляет очень точно.... А поддержка пехоты на такой войне невозможна, когда на одного солдата допускается расход до десяти дронов, то любые скопления пехоты - это очень большая цель...
@@Влад-ч8ь1с Ahuh, do you know what's more believable than news papers?
Hours of footage of Russian tanks being destroyed with zero infantry support and some of the worst tactics I've ever seen in armoured combat.
If they can't protect against drones, they shouldn't be using tanks. A simple electronic warfare package installed on each tank would fix that issue altogether.
Afghanistan is not Ukraine though, and no matter how good the tank is without drone protection and air superiority it's a 60 tonne paperweight.
Air superiority, let alone air supremacy is impossible over countries like Russia or China with latest multilayered air defence from short to extremely long range, up to 300-400 km
Are you quoting Russia and the USSR retreating from Afghanistan?
Abrams were used in Iraq in big numbers, operation desert storm.
Abrams only went to Afghanistan 9 years into the war 😂 not very well read analogy
Exactly... Tank by itself is just a deathtrap
@@captaron Were drones being used then? 🤔 Stop trying to be clever.
@@captaronhello Herr NAFO Gestapo? How is your day ja?
Shrodingers Abrams.
A game-changer and outdated at the same time.
Realistically all tanks are outdated right now. No tank effectively counters drones. Besides, at the time when these were called "game changers", drones were never this prolific. It's been particularly bad in 2023 and 2024 when both sides significantly increased production ( Ukraine claiming up to 1 million FPVs this year) and so on.
Outdated and subsidized, and in general they do not need it - a classic excuse for Ukraine. Every time the Ukrainian army loses another city, about which they recently boasted that the Russian army would never capture it. And so it is every time. The same goes for all the military equipment that the West "presented" to Ukraine. Ukraine makes such excuses, constantly, in the media, for its residents.
Some Ukrainians, who were absolutely sick in the head, even called their newborn children bayraktars and javelins. It's schizophrenia.
We boldly retreat to pre-prepared positions, and the enemy runs after us in disgrace. (C) Ukraine
@@vector8877 Drones today are like when Machine guns came out in ww1. These small wars are nothing but a simulation for the US to make these adjustment at the expense of its adversary's. Tanks need to go.
Russia literally is deploying T-55s, so a 40 year old Abrams can be outdated, yet still be a game changer.
@@jaybird2148 It's a game changer in a sense that we see that American tech is actually far behind Russian.
I mean it's a war. It doesn't matter how advanced the tank is, or how experienced the crew is, some of them are going to be destroyed.
Hey, any updates on Andrey? How is he doing?
He might be deployed near Bakhmut. Chasiv Yar he is a paratrooper right?
@@asavelakuse6865 the dangerous zone. wishing him luck
Hope we are going to hear more from him, and he is doing well
He will be back soon.. ministry of Defense knows he is popular, they kept him in defense instead of offense !
@@TsarOfRuss Then he is in Kremmina or Zaporozhe then alot of VDV have defence units there
Claim it took Russia three (03) years to capture leopard, abraham tanks is a blue lie.
The analysis must 😅start by responding to the question: when were these tanks introduced on the Ukrainian war front?
Just weld an old serial number onto an old tank and suddenly??
2 MESIACE ANI TOLKO
>took long time
Abrams literally first time spotted on the battlefield on February. And reported destroyed just 2 days later. Imo actually I didn't expect Russian took it that quick, since they also took leopard 2 half a year later after it reported it got destroyed
PUTIN POVEDAL ZE DA ODMENU VOJAKOVY KTORY ZNICI TANK ABRAHAMS A LEOPARD AKO PRVY A ZA KAZDI JEDEN
Thats a mobility kill. Turret looks fine, look at the tracks. Still a kill, but let's stop with the destroyed. If the crew survived, it worked.
Very funny. You Murican?
No it clearly didn't work, what kind of mental gymnastics is that?
That aside the crew didn't survive, you think the guys leaving a tank that's circled by drones and opposing forces were able to walk all the way back to their camp? No, there are plenty of videos where you can find the crew a couple feet away from the tank, they definitely didn't survive.
A mobility kill at the frontline is a death sentence for the vehicle and the crew. No tank survives anti-tank mines or 152mm hits
I was an Abrams tanker that has seen the M1A1 and the M1A2SEPv2/v3.
The A2 is basically a whole new tank with the commanders CITV, that makes the tank probably 2/3 times more effective at targeting. You could take a tank out and then press a button and take another threat out once reloaded in about 10 seconds and there are various other quality of life things that make the A2 a lot more effective.
Absolutely agree that training makes them more effective.
You can train an OK driver and loader in about a week, you need a lot more of specialized experience to be a gunner and especially a commander. I'd say you'd need a month or more of training.
This isn't accounting for working with other tanks or units too, that would be another follow on month.
These guys (Ukrainians) are not getting the right training and its really sad.
Targeting and training won't save you from ATGM lobbed from 10 clicks or loitering munition 'knocking' on either M1s foil-thin top armor or engine grille.
The Ukrainians have had the right training for the wrong type of conflict. The 47th mech which uses the M1A1 first used them in Avdiivka, which was under heavy artillery and multiple russian loitering munitions such as the LANCET, not to mention the tanks are operating in heavily mined fields. Which most of the Ukrainian western tanks has been lost to.
You also have to remember whenever an Abrams is spotted on the battlefield, Russia will do every thing it can to knock it out.
The Abrams and other western tanks and equipment are game changers when all the critera is checked and met. The tanks need air superiority and infantry, fighters needs to fly in an area that is not full of Anti Air and so on.
they are more potent in combat but they would have had the same fate
As a tanker, what would your thoughts be on the fact that most of the tank losses in current wars are rarely due to other tanks, but instead AT ordnance (i.e. mines, drones, ATGM, artillery, etc.)?
Would the new upgrades increase the newer tank's survivability in such condition? If so, how long will you think the tank survive? If not, do you think designers need to re-think about their design philosophy?
@@rajamartua5531 I think it makes sense because we have new tech to destroy tanks.
Just like any combat unit there will be strengths and weaknesses its just really easy for the average person to see the tank as the pinnacle of representing vehicle land warfare.
Honestly I think upgrades would be possible but too expensive. Adding on more stuff cannot replace the actual ground situation. For example the Abrams tank was designed for defense and the crappy range shows that clearly. I think that tanks work best in defense moving from different firing areas as a mobile gun system. In the offense it is very much the full combined arms team effort with the tank being the most visible "punching" unit.
I do not think the $ for better designs will be worth it, at the end of the day every piece of equipment should be expendable if you are going to commit it to an attack.
We Slavs are not your enemies. We never were and never will be. We are all just people. We share this world and why not invest all that money into making it better and making mankind expand into the universe? There is more than enough space and resources for everyone without the need to destroy our world.
I hear you friend. Im candian.
We're certainly not their enemy. But if NATO(US) make us disappear, we will drag the west with us.
Well put my friend.
Мы просто люди, а запад просто дегенераты, над которыми ставят опыты. Следующим шагом будет легализация педофилии. Это люди? Ты с ними хочешь жить в мире? Я не хочу жить с ними на одной планете.
Unfortunately it won’t happen because of the greed, envy and lust in this fallen world, never has been a time that one nation or another wasn’t scheming and planning how they would distroy their neighbor and get ahead, it never turns out like they plan but they won’t stop.
Challengers, Leopards, T72s, Abram’s, T90’s, whatever… it makes no difference without the right crew AND the right artillery and air support. Those tanks never had a chance to prove themselves in battle for the simple reason that the Russians were able to pound them with artillery, FPV drones, mines, and KA-52’s, while the Ukrainians didn’t have any way to counter them.
In the summer counteroffensive, the Ukrainians literally sent Bradley’s and Leo’s into minefields without air support. The Abram’s tank being displayed was sent into a Russian artillery pocket.
That is the point, all the front is a Russian artillery pocket
When they said the bradley took out t-90, it wasn't real things. Drone which eliminate them. Similar to abrams,leo, and challenger
Mate, I think your POV is wrong, T72 and Leopard have a lot of differences. Thay have been create in different vision of applying.
Just drive around the minefield ~ NAFO -armchair- general
Half of ka-52 had left the chat
"Yep that's a 240 and a .50, this tank was truly fitted and armed to the teeth even though it is missing 2/3rd of it's overall defensive countermeasures."
Если данный чел думает, что сев в Абрамс сможет против России, то предлагаю все же внимательно изучить подбитый танк сейчас в Москве, потом может не получиться уже рассмотреть свой уничтоженный. А превосходство в воздухе США умеет создавать только против туземцев с калашами. Против равных противников они очкуют.
Russia is barely winning against farmers and city folk in ukraine. They arent fighting against an army....russians getting happy over killing a tank when we have thousands is funny.
Это другое. можно и бизнес потерять.
Но я уверен,что если хорошему Русскому полностью обученному танкисту дать Абрамс,то он сможет очень эффективно на нем воевать. Все зависит от скила. Это хороший танк и леопард хороший,но в неумелых руках они преврашаются в стальные гробы на гусеницах
@@andreyshaldybin3901 зачем он нам , когда есть свои ? Пусть сами катаются на этом барахле
@@markalex5136 Russia can only spare two ww2 tanks for their victory day celebration will the US only donated 30 tanks in two years. Sounds like Russia's running the junk.
So he's an expert on armor and fighter jets? Did he serve in either?
probably knows more than all the news anchors that have spoken about these pieces of equipment.
He was a junior enlisted at best
No armor or cav experience.
He a multi tour frontline Afghan war vet. Bot
He was a junior enlisted nobody, not an expert on armored warfare or aviation. His vocabulary is less than average. A smart person will not wake up one day and move to russia 😂 there is reason why you don't see thousands of Americans lining up in the airport to travel to moscow 😆
Basic fact is Abrams was only delivered in second half of 2023 . And it wasnt deployed at all on the front line. And when it was deployed it just tooks just a few days to few weeks to be hunted and taken out.
Yep. They kept them near Polish border. First Abrams was destroyed literally the next day it entered combat. Followed by a few more, survivability of Abrams tank in ukraine is 1 mission.
Given the PR stunt they did around that delivery, they might as well have paint a bullseye on it.
Apparently the russian soldiers are paid a bounty when they take out foreign armour, especially US armour.
He's a former Marine. The title is misleading.
There is no such thing as a former marine. There’s a saying once a marine always a marine
Боты работают по методичке. Я тоже видел волну комментариев по поводу устаревшего Абрамса и тысяч "якобы" уничтоженных российских танков. Причем на разных каналах, в том числе англоязычных. Возникает вопрос, зачем посылать на Украину устаревшее оружие, которое не соответствует боевым задачам? И сравнить процентное соотношение Абрамсов, участвовавших в боевых действиях и выведенных из строя с таким же для российских танков.
Вообще, танки (особенно ОБТ) устаревшими быть не могут. Да, очевидно, что какой-нибудь Т-90М будет намного лучше Т-64. Однако, не стоит забывать, что совершенно любой танк, даже Т-55, лучше, чем его отсутствие. И это даже не учитывая то, что на современном поле боя прямые танковые битвы крайне редки. Эти факторы уже делают обвинения типа "танк устаревший" просто напросто бредом
No country sends the best of the best to another country to use. Exported weapons have equipment taken off of them and technology....Russia does the same thing when it exports tanks also....you dont give away your secrets and technology.
@@koisher-k Дело даже не в этом. Сражаются не отдельные виды вооружений, а комплексы и системы из разнородных сил. Какой бы ни был хороший Абрамс/Леопард/Т-90/Меркава, если нет прикрытия с воздуха, прилетит Ка-52 или Ми-28 и грохнет его ПТУРом. Вывод - нужно войсковое ПВО, а его практически нет. И так далее. Вертушки прикрываются авиацией, эшелонированным ПВО, действие должно быть согласовано, должна быть разведка. Это и есть комплексное взаимодействие родов и видов. Если этого нет, любые танки будут биты.
@@valentinasmolenskaya7260 спору нет, полностью согласен
@@koisher-k О, боги, обвинения с чьей стороны? Со стороны американцев? Их еще можно считать разумными существами? Бред для них не стыдно, не позорно. Бред это образ их мысли.
Collective West Media tried to downplay the capability of the Russian army and said that they're fighting with shovels only....I would say pretty good shovel which took those tanks out 😂😂😂
Нет. Матерными ругательствами.
Source about "shovels only", please?
This is your measuring scale?
Yep, Western media outlets are stupid, they don't know that overestimating and overhyping Ukraine while underestimating and downplaying Russia could backfire and result in a nasty surprise followed by a disaster
Yes so they wanna say , that is a overdated shit but the new is on another level . Gamechanger like every USA made weapons send to Ukraine ( according west media) . But the game is not changed yet .
They will still give an outdated F-16s for another excuse 😂
They can give Ukraine F-18 aircrafts with Tom Cruise as the instructor and make a new film called TOPGUN: Maverick in Ukraine.
@@commanderiosifstalin4938And still fail. I am sure they will edit that part out. 😂😂😂
@@commanderiosifstalin4938 Maverick is nothing without "Goose" :)
War is usually "bring your own". If Ukraine wants to complain then maybe they can use their own F-16s and their own custom equipment. Oh wait, what, they don't have any? Well maybe they shouldn't have gone around poking the bear so much then. There's always the peace table.
Yeah while Russian losing the newer T90M
Two things with the tanks
One: Abrams is very much not outdated, it is not considered outdated, and considering five at most have been destroyed or knocked out, does not suggest they are outdated.
Two: They have only been there for a couple of months, since August last year. So, the Russian losses is not nearly as bad when you compare like that, but it is still the fact Russia has lost at least 600 tanks since August, so it is very much a joke to be blunt
With the development of FPV drones and anti-armor UAV all tanks are now "outdated" until the appropriate countermeasures are developed and fielded.
the war is basically a testing ground for NATO tech against Russian tech.
Bandera crying 🤣🤣🤣
Nein Nein Nein Nein!
@@iamprovidence-xj5wf Heil Elensky 😆😆😆😆😆
@@SterileNeutrinoJa ja ja 😆😆😆😆😆
@@760HorsePowerI smell a qualified Zbot tbh, go cope over Russia losing tens of thousands of men for advancing like single square kilometres 💀
Russians crying 🤣🤣🤣
Some of yall aren’t understanding that the crews pretty much have no experience using the tanks which ultimately got them destroyed. You put the right weapon in the right hands and you’ll see the damage it can inflict, but you put the right weapon in the wrong hands and mistakes will happen.
I believe those ukranians have way more battle experience then your homies. You just hate the fact this equipment deal well only with unarmed jihadists.
the moment u think u're invincible when u're in a tank, u're already effed lol. no armour is impenetrable
@@JesusOfficialAccountSaddam’s army was not a bunch of “unarmed Jihadis,” and since you really want to mention fighting insurgents, let’s not forget that Russia lost in Afghanistan as well (except suffering twice the casualties in half the time compared to the US), and in Chechnya in 96’. The Russian military suffered more KIA in the 2 years in Chechnya than the US did in the last 2 decades in Afghanistan, and Russia had a huge location advantage considering Chechnya was right on their border. (Or in their borders I guess)
Yes that’s what the bots in the comment section don’t want to admit or understand thanks for watching
@@CoalitionStopmotioneverything you said is what I’ve been trying to explain but don’t try too hard to explain because 99% are bots 🤝🏻
If he was a Marine in Afghanistan, he simply did not serve next to M-1A1’s or Bradley’s there…so I call BS already.
haha love that. 3000 Russian tanks... 5000 Russian tanks... 7000+ Russian tanks... Those NAFO bots living in their copium fantasies cannot even make up their minds XD
😂 russia lost yesterday
1 billion soldiers 200 millions of them were buryats
5 deathstars
1289 jedis
25 millennium falcons
3 darth ivans
99999999999+ tanks
@@bertamaria-bender2889 Darth ivans is the best one i have heard in my life
No. It appears Russia has lost about 3,000 tanks.
@@bertamaria-bender2889I fail to see anything amusing about this war. Putin's war is a tragedy for the Russian and Ukrainian people. No good will come of it.
да плевать что там танки из себя представляют. всё будет уничтожено
Пётр Толстой сказал на французском телевидении- если французкие солдаты придут на украину-мы всех убьём" Это относится ко всему солдатам НАТО, кто придёт на Украину.
Этот танк как минимум представляет собой музейный экспонат!)) На забаву детям)
@@andorisunray4541 Just like most of the Russian tanks on Ukraine battlefield.
If its outdated than they're both on par with the T72bv ,T80bvm and the T90m. They're all "outdated" with continuous add updates to continue service. Just simply calling it *"outdated"* when it gets destroyed is really just coping and denial because when it was first sent the media and alot of people were dubbing it *"Game changers"*
Bottom line is, the weapons and vehicles are only as good as the crew that operates it!!!
And at the beginning of the NATO / WESTERN WAR in Ukraine, the West made fun of the old Russian tanks!
However, it just shows that it is a business! However, this applies to EAST & WEST. The old stuff has to go and Ukraine is the recycling place.
@@Majorsunny-y1l Bingo 💡
On par? How much of those T tanks you can get for 1 abrams? Nevertheless how can you even compare and how does it mattet in the war? (You dont, its video game sht)
Also your conclusion is pretty much a NAFO when NATO tank is lost. Can Americans do better than Ukrainians? (Not at all, no silly US vets never saw this combat unless its their great great grandpa from ww2)
Tanks US or Soviet are not indestructible. Crew training and experience is important to success. Additionally you must fight with combined arms. Tanks must have infantry and air support to suceed. Even the best crews and best weapons will still get destroyed as a battle field is dynamic and the defenders just get luck based on the odds.
Exactly. The age of these behemoths mattered not, until the harsh light of the battlefield revealed their all-too-mortal flesh. Now, we witness a spectacle of mental acrobatics, a desperate bid to salvage their precious, faltering tanks and the inflated ego of their military prowess.
Why would you out yourself as a marine in Russia dawg your gonna get arrested
Allowed behind the fence to make propaganda videos for Russia. I don't fall for ruski bs
No you wouldn't. I have never been to Russia myself but I know a couple people who made vacation there or to visit relatives. Nobody cares if you're an American citizen or not
Обидно, что никто не показывает в этих репортажах памятник Антигитлеровской Коалиции(да, от выставки до него минут 15 топать, но это того стоит), где французский, советский, американский и британский солдаты стоят плечом к плечу. Никто этот памятник не сносит и историю переписывать не собирается.
Because there's little truth to RuZZia's story about WWII. RuZZia's orcs and Germany's Nazis created an alliance (Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact) and started WWII with the invasion of Poland. Like Germany's Nazis, RuZZia has always been a fascists warmongering country. Orcs and Nazis are one in the same.
Ты еще извинись перед ними за то, что уничтожили их танки. В некоторых готовность унижаться перед белым господином неистребима.
@@funnywind6443 че то тебя понесло. В сторону гитлера и бандеры. даллеса и прочих.
Shoulder to shoulder? You forgot how you signed a treaty and wanted to step in their coalition first, before being betrayed lol? Then got the most American aid? It amuses me to see Russians always forget the Molotov-Ribentrov pact
@@houseplant1016 No one forgets. It was a non-aggression pact between Germany and the Soviet Union in the first place. And Poland, Great Britain, France, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and then Turkey had the same agreement with Germany. Or is it "you don't understand, this is different"?
And what about help. It was a loan, and Russia assumed all debt obligations after the collapse of the Soviets. Not for nothing, but nevertheless.
It's funny that Americans constantly forget whose money Hitler used to restore Germany's military power before the war or who sold oil and computers to the Nazis
Some Americans try to put the best face on an embarrassing situation for US arms manufacturers. Russia used cheap drones to disable more expensive tanks irrespective of the age of the Abrams tanks. There is a reason why the United States and the UK leadership wanted those tanks in the rear rather than close to the frontlines. Its because destroyed Abrams or Challenger tanks on the battlefields of Ukraine make those weapons harder to sell on the world market.
Russians has lost a half million men to death and crippling injuries. That's embarrassing, they thought they'd win this war in a few weeks.
How is it embarrassing exactly? These weapons are export variants of more than 30 years old equipment? The Russians and their supporters should be more embarrassed of the fact that a country with no Navy is sinking a lot of Russian ships, and could not establish an air superiority over the Ukrainian airspace.
They left them depleted
None of what you've said is accurate. Firstly, none of this is "embarrassing". Are the Abrams and Challenger better than pretty much anything being fielded by Russia currently? Absolutely. Do the Ukrainians have the skill or experience to use them effectively? Probably not. No one said the Abrams was invincible. It's good, but just like the Russian tanks, drones weren't a thing when it was designed and built. Hell, even insurgents in Iraq managed to take out a few. Very good does not mean indestructible. You have to understand, our media knows almost nothing about the military, it's weapons or it's tactics. They speak from ignorance and don't reflect what Americans who actually know about these things think. These retired generals they parade on the various news shows are cold war dinosaurs who haven't been relevant in years.
Our government knew full well that some, maybe even most, of the tanks we sent would be destroyed. This war is chewing up armor on both sides at a ridiculous rate. More than sales, I think we wanted to see how they'd fare and look for ways to improve the tanks in our arsenal based on lessons learned. There is no "game changing" weapon. This whole thing will come down to whether or not the Ukrainians can hold out long enough for a prolonged war to negatively affect Russia's economy enough that Putin has to quit. At this point, a negotiated peace is all but inevitable. Neither side has sufficient advantage to obtain a total victory on the battlefield and anyone who says otherwise is either lying or not paying attention.
@@jetty92487 "Are the Abrams and Challenger better than pretty much anything being fielded by Russia currently? Absolutely."
How do you know that for sure? I don't understand that kind of american arrogance and underestimation of an enemy. Looks like another bit of propaganda speech to skip.
The fact is, at least what western propaganda writes, abrams is pulled back from the frontline. The rest of the Nato tanks (at least german) and old soviet tanks remain in use but the americans. It's a stupid partial decision if it was a strategy don't you think. As well they say to have to find another solution for tanks usage at the time when ukrainians alerting of the urgent need of them. It's very doubtful that they'll have that cosy conditions in this conflict to use them with all that backing weaponry that should be.
The only answer that comes to mind is the propaganda loses that amaricans can face. So yes, "make those weapons harder to sell on the world market" sounds more than credible.
The thing is that the media does not understand military tanks or aircraft. When they heard leopard 2, they think of the leopard 2 pso, leopard 2a7+, leopard 2pl because they look badass and are the most advanced variants of these tanks, but the tank community gets down into the nitty gritty and understand oh, they are sending the leopard 2a4 and leopard 2a6 which are much older models, but they fire the same ammunition as modern variants. Same for the M1 Abrams. When people think of a M1 abrams, they think of the M1A2 Sep v3 or v4(they are no longer buying this model) which are the most modern variant of this tank.
Now here is why we consider the abrams you see here as outdated, it has a generation 1 thermal sight which is extremely old and blurry. It is also missing its depleted uranium inserts which we have no clue which variant 100% has, we just expect it to be on the sep v3. The model of abrams that we sent to Ukraine is the export model of the m1 abrams that were sitting in European warehouses waiting for a war. Overall, though, I agree, under the right use cases, the M1 abrams is a formidable tank just like any other tank.
Now lets get to the f16. The f16 is still a very modern platform as militaries throughout the world still do not have large fleets of stealth fighters with multi role capabilities outside of the United States. Though the design is quite old, the aircraft can still be equipped with very modern systems allowing it to compete with aircraft within its generation. Though, I also agree, the pilots that will eventually be using the f16 are not going to be as experienced as their American counterparts who have hundreds to thousands of hours in their aircraft. Though, if Ukraine can operate hundreds of these aircraft like the United States, that is when the f16 will be a complete gamechanger.
The F-16 would not have changed anything if its deliveries were not in the tens of thousands. The problem with the F-16 is that Russia is the world leader in air defense systems. And Russia has made a lot of them and continues to produce them. What chance does the F-16 have of gaining air superiority if this airspace is controlled at least by the outdated S-300 complex? And if the airspace is controlled by the S-400, how many F-16s will it take to gain air superiority?
@@Oleg111222333 the f16 is not a game changer in the sense that they lack numbers, but they do not need thousands, they just need a few hundred
The f16 is still overall better compared to the mig 29 bc the f16 has much better cas and antisead capabilities. It also has a better radar, avionics, and electronic warfare suite. It also has a better range allowing it to stay much further away from the front. What i expect the f16 to do in ukraine is a deterrence against su 25 with their amraam missiles, but also constantly running sead missions to knock out a portion of russian sams clearing the area for su 25 or other f16 fighters to start ground pounding. Just like what the russians did by knocking out a patriot and then start sending cas into where the patriot is destroyed to clear a way for infantry
@@Oleg111222333 Get your orders of magnitude straightened out; no air force in the world has tens of thousands of planes, total, let alone of F-16s. It would also be impossible for anyone to have tens of thousands of F16s, given that less than 5000 were ever made.
@@xungnham1388 Is it Russia’s problem that NATO countries do not have enough F-16s? The F-16 is a light aircraft, it does not have the ability to carry a radar of sufficient size to see too far. Unfortunately, it is impossible to deceive physics and the wavelength of the radar, and accordingly its range directly depends on the size of the radar. Ground radars are not limited in size and will see the aircraft much earlier. And they are capable of launching a missile with a greater range. It's like ducks versus hunters. A duck, of course, can fly very low above the ground in order to be noticed as late as possible, but unfortunately the Russians use a doctrine of deeply echeloned air defense where long-range air defense is not used alone, but is protected by medium and short-range air defense. No air defense is an absolute defense; it can be overloaded with a large number of targets. That is, the attacker must have more aircraft than the air defense has missiles and will have to accept in advance a large number of losses among its aircraft. For such a breakthrough, you simply need a huge number of disposable aircraft. That is why the Russians, when attacking the Ukrainians, use waves of attacks; cheap drones attack first, and a little later, when the air defense is overloaded, Russian missiles reach their targets.
Another thing is the f-16 will never be an outdated design because its almost perfect for what its designed for.
Poor guy. Trapped in Russia. No free speech, and probably couldn't leave if he wanted to.
Maybe a 240 he says, if he was a marine infantry combat vet he would sure as hell know what an 240 would look like
💯
Its burned out, so all the furniture melted off, only the metal bits remain, hence perhaps why he hesitates.
@@hyperconfidence650 That and a supposed US veteran living in Russia to find inner peace and somehow he's allowed near the wreck despite the fence and news cameras pointing right at him. 100% screams propaganda. Plus when he's trying to debunk the idea that it's an outdated tank just because it's effective... Just because it's effective doesn't mean it isn't old and outdated. That's like saying the T-62's Russia has been digging out of storage haven't been effective. They wouldn't be using them if they weren't capable of something and meanwhile this video is treating the Abrams like it's a wonder weapon as if the Russians killed the unkillable. As if 23 Abrams weren't lost in Iraq to a bunch of goat diddlers (though to be fair, most of those were lost to friendly fire and not a single one of them were destroyed from enemy tank combat.)
@@MikeeCZ doesn’t matter, the 240 still looks like a 240 when it doesn’t have its furniture on.
@@Eli-pf5og I do agree that the guy is less than convincing in a lot of things he says.
Abraham was definitely a fantastic tanks in 3 ways. 1- Bigger then most tanks, so you can easily target them from afar. 2- Desert paint so you can spot them easily in Ukraine forests and snow 3- gas guzzler, so it has to take a DIRECT rout to combat, cannot hide in secondary roads and do tactical maneuvering since not enough gas to do it, make it's movement easier to predict, so tank easier to find, easier to target. 4- Too heavy, so cannot use the fields to hide, attack or go forward, even when the ground is dry. AMAZING tanks in those 4 ways, and many more. Bradley is SIGNIFICANTLY more useful.
Если у них пустынная окраска, значит они не собирались нападать на Россию, как говорит роспропаганда.
and the russian tanks love flying up after getting hit
@@wolfik2552 Only if the ammo gets hit, there are lots of Videos where russian Tanks eat several FPV drones or ATGM hits and continue their Mission.
Even a Leopard 2 and Challenger 2 can toss their Turrets thanks to stored ammo in the crew compartment.
@@Sheppart92 it has a high likeability to get hit if you aim on upper/lower plate which is most likely russian tanks have bad depression of the main gun
@@wolfik2552 lucky for them Ukraine is flat so depression is irrelevant, it is like they designed their tanks to fight there
I see the turret is still attached…
You didn't see the inside... " Crew surviveability " I rather explode than burn to death
@@Richard_T800 There are loads of videos of these, and the crew escapes, and then the vehicle gets further destroyed by drones. This is how it is with ever western tank destroyed on the frontline, however, only a few of the russian ones have the same privilege of getting out alive.
Unlike its Russian counterparts, the American M1 Abrams is not designed to kill its own crew when hit on a weak spot or whatever.
Not the hull though. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
US Abrams have a blowout so that when the ammo rack is hit it blows out the side and top near the rear of the turret. Thats why you don't see abrams turrets flying sky high. But this tank was definitely destroyed and more than likely the crew was knocked out based off the charred armor.
The most advanced tank in the world:
Superior ❌
Game-changer ❌
Outdated ✅
That's wild he was able to film that. Meanwhile another us soldier was arrested and questioned in Russia. Makes you wonder if he works for Russia.
Are you reading
A lot of propaganda
@@gomunkul_ogorodnik3744 Truth hurts ehh Orc!
He has had interviews with Russian State Media. So tells you enough.
He probably does but where sre any falsehoods?
@@mitchyoung93 th-cam.com/video/4CRTZzrxEKQ/w-d-xo.htmlsi=pW_s3rVBIeeJoUZ5
"Smell that I know" - spoken like a true soldier.
Cancer. It's cancer.
Дэниел классный мужик, очень давно на него подписан
Thanks for the support my friend 🤝🏻 please share the video if possible
@@Wild-Siberiathank you for your work
Клоун он
Так он же америкос - наш злейший враг...как-то не срепно ты себя ведёшь дружок. За тобой уже выехали.
,,under the right operator no weapon is outdated" i think he meant obsolete because the tank is outdated just like the russian stuff but it isn't obsolete it can still kill another tank but definitley outdated
Still coping i see
Has anyone seen British Challenger IIs yet, btw? I hear they are being "held back" because "too vulnerable".
1 was used a couple of months ago but didnt make it to the frontlines, due to it going up in flames. After that no Challengers were spotted.
All tanks are vulnerable. Drones. Nothing, absolutely nothing is futureproofed against them.
1 was destroyed when it wasnt even in the front so they got scared and then another one had to be sent back to the UK for repairing because it gtot stuck and almost completely covered in mud
@@vector8877 The russian Turtle tank of an abomination seems to be taking FPV hits like a champ.
@@thesayxx That's not exactly a tank that is intended for primary fighting. Its main intention is to clear the way through minefields for tank column. But yes, it does resolve the drone problem.
RealReporter😂. Joke of the century right there, holy crap it is too good.
Ya, its like Scott Ritters little Brother.
On 26 February, Russian forces west of Avdiivka destroyed the first M1A1 Abrams tank of the war. Like the loss of the first Challenger 2 near Robotyne last September the event has provoked widespread commentary. So far 5 of 31 Abrams tanks have been lost! (As of April 2024)
Another bot
Your existence is nafo. And your fentanyl habit
Pentagon clarified that this is not Abrams tank but its cousin the 'Isaac' tank.
Why trust what the pentagon has to say, lol
Isaac is ABraham's son not cousin. Isaac is the father of Jacob and Isau and the forefather of Joseph the Dreamer.
😂😂😅 oh i see. Cousin from ismael brother to abraham.😂
Must be related to Thomas the tank
What about the one called moses?
Has this guy just said that tanks are not supposed to be used defensively?
So in his mind a tank can only attack while he is driving toward the enemy and not be used to fend of attacking enemies and repostion quickly.
True the abraham only showed up in the ukrainian conflict few weeks ago, just like the challenger why didnt Russia catch one yet, because they are hidden somewhere not being used after the only one they sent to the front line got blown up. People not following the conflict and making such pointless argument are just immature timewasters...
"Abraham" tank? Sounds Biblical.
@@johnc2438 It is.And this is a point why people call it that way.They belive in Chesus crist and only belive in american verthion of him.If Chesus loves you.Hawe a stash,but f you dont you life is trash.Just simple as that.
Not being used because they were sent for the anti tank role and whet the Ukrainians need at the moment is anti personnel firepower
30 tanks is not enough for full scale war, also unlike leopards which poland agreed to help restore damaged tanks, challenger and abrams would deemed inoperable after taking moderate damage
Yes, I'm sure this Mexican Marine Infantryman Expert Tank-Sniffer knows a lot about air superiority.
100%
Game changer label a few months ago and now outdated?
Cant make that up lol
Your two dimension mind merely can't comprehend how both descriptions can co-exist.
@@jaybird2148yeah the tank is a game changing super weapon and outdated junk at the same time 🤣🤣 you are definitely not delusional buddy
FYI don't ever touch or get close to destroyed armor. often covered in uranium dust or other toxic materials
export variants of US military vehicles don't use uranium
Amerika chto s ebalom?
перекосило...
Only half of America cares. Hard to keep pumping funds to a lost cause when the half of the country with the funds doesn't want to
😂
@@BG-bx4ey
Вы типа поняли что он написал?)))) потому что английскими буквами))))
Уши торчат, топорно работаете
Raz ti d amerikanckom ytube, znachit u nix supergut
Sends quality equipment, equipment completely gets destroyed, retcons info and claims it’s outdated to save face. 🤣
Thumbs up for retcon
He's completely wrong the M1A1 is outdated by several upgraded versions. And they can be used effectively in a defensive war
Well, the M1A1 is fighting against the outdated Russian equipment that the M1A1 was build for. Of course, there are better and more upgraded versions, but it's already enough to fight the enemies it has to fight, with the exception of drones. But even newer Abrams versions are not build to withstand those.
And yes, I would agree, these tanks can not only be used in a defensive war, they were developed to be used in a defensive war. That's why they have a fast reverse speed and a gun depression of -10°, so it can fight from hull down defensive positions.
The Abrams was not designed to attack Iraqi positions in Desert Storm. It was designed to fight along the Bradley and decimate attacking Soviet Tank and Motor Rifle Regiments flooding into western Germany.
What he is right is about the training. The Ukrainians are not capable to use these tanks as efficient as the Americans could, but there is no way to change this, without sending NATO troops to the frontlines to fight Russians directly.
@@MrFusselig The main issue is the Abrams isn't being destroyed by russian Armor, its being destroyed by artillery. Artillery is why neither side can use armor effectively.
We honestly don't know how the M1A1 abrams would fair against Russian armor as it hasn't happened in the war yet. Its very hard to get the abrams to the front line in the first place due to Russians instantly targeting western heavy equipment with artillery. Its why the Leopard also couldn't be used on the front line as it kept getting artied when it gets anywhere near the front line.
This is why the US and NATO focus on a strong airforce. Air superiority has been a deciding factor in war for 100 years now. Without it, you can't take out enemy artillery effectively and keeping air recon up is harder. Neither side at the moment has air superiority which is why air support is never really used anymore.
@@ryancraythorn8399 Soviet Army was always an artillery army, even more so than it is a tank army. And the Soviets are known for their hordes of tanks.
The answer to this is dispersion and mobility. On both sides.
Just response times of artillery has become quicker, and of course the main aspect is observation due to drones. There is also precision and guided artillery, but that's not very Soviet or even Russian.
@@MrFusselig that’s why the US is very focus on air superiority. Seeing how this war is going, the us could gain full air superiority which would render their artillery useless. Only thing keeping the US back are nukes
@@ryancraythorn8399 Yes, this is correct. We have to look at the "Active Defense" doctrine if we look at the design and purpose of the Abrams. Back then MLRS systems like HIMARS were meant to be used together with fighter bombers to engage the enemies rear and attack artillery and logistics points to weaken the soviet front. The "Active Defense" doctrine was updated to the "Air Land Battle" doctrine in the early 80s, when the Abrams and the Bradley were introduced. At this time, the Germans also already had the Marder and the Leopard 2 in action as well. Air superiority was always a matter of NATO doctrine, which is now missing in Ukraine. The Abrams and the Leopard 2 are very capable tanks, designed for an environment very similar to what we see in Ukraine.
But there are differences, the missing air superiority and the heavy drone warfare are examples where the battlefield of today differs from the expected Cold War Soviet attack.
only reached the field a few months ago not years ago
And by "Captured" they mean a seized destroyed tank.
just remember in the battle lossing a tank is just a normal
"Well... ok, it's an Abrams tank but it's not a REAL Abrams tank."
Uh huh.
the abrams doesnt identify as a real abrams tank you cant make this shit up 😂