@@ThePhantom712 hilarious and delusional proves their point entirely, the usa has never fought even close to a near pear in its live time, even in ww2 japan was stretch on all fronts fighting with 21 other countries at the same time as the usa and the ija and the ijn were fighting a civil war too. so it was 30% of the japanese forces who were underfunded vs the entire us military and it still took so long to even do anything against a population 1/10th the size and no natural resources
@@JustSomeGuy8492 and it was the Iraqi after long years of war with Iran, with outdated equipments, especially no great power like Soviet back them up. And most of Iraqi force were focused on Kuwait, they didnt prepare much to be flanked, if they got better defense preparation, thing gonna be quite different
to be fair the iraqi t72s were downgraded versions of the russian t72s coupled to the fact that iraq was fighting a coalition of Nato Countries that have a pretty large military (US, UK,france etc.)
The Ukrainians can use NATO tactics if they can find a way to get through the minefields into open areas, and the way the west does that is by controlling the skies so ground forces can clear the mine field.
Even you have air dominance... it's useless if you fight a country who can pulverized you in a moment. It works in a country like Iraq, Afghanistan but in Russia if you punch him in the face he will punch you in the face too.
@@diegoflores9237 Ukraine sent in the Abrams to help secure the retreat from Avdiivka, within 2 days 5 were lost, of the 31, and Bradleys and more galore. There is to coping lol, they're dying....... if they weren't getting destroyed Ukraine wouldn't pull them from the front.
@strangelylookingperson Considering the U.S. Air Force is the worlds largest Air Force with the U.S. navy being the 2nd largest airforce in the world. It’s a safe bet to say that the U.S. would still rely on its air dominance, even over Russia.
@@Keith-jp6jw Considering all of that, you fled like there is no tomorrow from a bunch of bare footed poor equipped, although very well motivated, Taliban warriors.
@@strangelylookingpersonoccupied the country for 20 years the taliban only slithered out of their caves when the coast was clear you make out they won some historic battle 😂 on the otherhand the soviet union was destroyed and booted out of Afghanistan and this contributed to the soviet union collapsing entirely 😂😂😂
Drones have been around since 1918, the Kettering Bug mean anything? In the mid 1930's the US Navy were flying drones by remote for use as target practice. Loads of examples. Check your facts buddy.
@@mauricetoussaint7283You are taking advantage of the blurry definition of what a drone actually is. What he is referring to are the cheap to produce, live battlefield coverage, anti everything drones that can be created using civilian products. These are the drones that will change war.
@@mauricetoussaint7283 In 2015 the most a drone could do was burn a flag down with a lighter and a spray can attached to it. Now they're dropping bombs and kamikaze striking ships and tanks.
its cuz they are attacking the weak points, the russians came with a very smart and good idea to build metal armor all around the tank which only exposes the front of the tank to fire which was a very genius method but adds a lot of weight to the tank obviously
Another news report where Russia is losing yet gained about 10 km in the last two weeks. What is this news report talking about 3000 tanks and Ukraine lost five tanks this is some serious cop.
It’s just a way of the western media trying to make sense of their defeat. Russia has lost way more tanks than Ukraine (says who the same people that told us Russia would be defeated by Bradley’s then patriots missiles then leopard tanks). It’s a way of west coping with the defeat of their weapons. They are also now saying part of the problem is Ukraine not using Western tactics but then again the Ukrainians said their counteroffensive failed because they used Western tactics.
Except the Ukrainians can't use true NATO combined arms tactics, they don't have control of the air. It was unrealistic of NATO to expect Ukraine to use NATO tactics with out the required air support. Its wise to withdraw the Abrams, there is no point in taking unnecessary loses.
Quite - or it was stupid to send the Abrams. Just as it is stupid to send European troops this week, Ukraine has been losing badly from the start. What is clear is that Russia have been learning about Drone warfare for 2 years (and therefore so have Iran and China). But US hasn't learnt and is still teaching Ukraine the tactics to fight Iraq 20 years ago with complete air control. Heaven help the Europeans if they fight in Ukraine or the Americans if they send carriers to fight over Taiwan..
What makes you think nato will,we saw first hand in Vietnam,Afghanistan and currently in gaza how superior air power means nothing if the enemy can counter it with concealed positions and underground tunnels,in fact the Russians have already started tunnel tactics to literally undermine Ukrainian positions.
@@antique-bs8bb Losing badly? They have recovered over 30% of the land Russia took, and are pushing back on all fronts, only Russian drone infantry are appearing to win. However even those loses are unsustainable for Russia in the long run. Mean while the Challenger continues to obliterate Russian armour unabated.
@@thetruthhurts7675 But most of that land Russia didn't care about - much of it wasn't even occupied by Russian troops (ie anything between Kharkov and Russian border). And in doing that they didn't kill Russians - hence the laughter at Izium - look at how the Russians ran... which of course means they left before we got there. Meanwhile Ukrainians have died in large numbers every month of the war, Ukraine hasn't won a single battle in 2 years, and Russia hasn't chosen to withdraw from a town or city of over a year. The Spring/Summer/Autumn offensive crossed the first of 3 lines of defence only at Robotno and just ended up as a killing pit that Ukraine threw men into and they died. Challenger - watch the clip - another complete western failure. Withdrawn out of embarrassment. Russian losses are some 50k dead, while Russian volunteers are some 400k on top of the 300 K reservists called up in 2022. Ukrainian dead are some 500k. That after starting with 700k and calling up at least 1m (well dragging many off the streets). Probably 500k wounded (survival as an untrained Ukrainian is tough) and at least 100k AWOL and quite a lot of POWs. There ought to be 500K left but it is probably half that (more dead? More AWOL?) Unsustainable is a strange world where Ukraine does not have the troops to use the weapons it has now and European troops are appearing in W Ukraine in uniform).
True but at the end of the day Ukraine needs aircraft more than tanks. Ukraine just got the ATACMS with 190 range able to carry 500lbs warhead Thats going to be a major bane for Russian forces Submunitions are good for materiel and light armor but a 500lbs warhead is excellent for pin point strike against high value targets The Kerch bridge for example
This always happens. Once upon a time, the battleship was queen of the sea then air power rendered it obsolete. Tank armour was improved and tandem warheads were developed. One innovation leads to another. This is nothing new. Tanks will be fitted with anti-drone defences and then everyone will say drones are obsolete. Tanks were a solution to trench warfare and so it continues. The only thing you can guarantee is change.
True, which is why russia had these “cope cages” to defend against drones and now the russians just welded on a massive steel shed onto a tank to protect against drones
@@mikeB-sg1zs He didn't say Russian tanks are superior. Learn to read before typing. You'll looks less daft that way. His point was correct. American stuff only looks great when killing poor people in the sandpit.
@@mikeB-sg1zs Murica #1 main battle tank gets smashed like every other superweapon NATO sends, and all you can do is cope about a war that happened 50 years ago that was also a proxy war between the US and the USSR. Speaking of, how well did the US do in afghanistan? 8 billion dollars of tanks, jets, helicopters and small arms left behind, aftyer spending trillions of dollars, twenty years of invasion got toppled in two weeks? Sounds like a massive win to me.
3k killed tank is indeed propaganda but nonetheless russian got heavy tank casualties duo the overly aggresive tactics in the beginning and the use of improvised anti tank weapons ending up being threatening and dangerous yet cheap and widely avaiable like the drones droppinh anti armour rounds from the above.
It's hard to say how much they really lost. That goes for both sides. ORXY has a list of destroyed,abandoned,captured. That list ain't very good to go off of. Mainly because Russia and Ukraine were using the same equipment throughout the majority of this war and we can't really tell the difference between them. You need to have a item list to prove the loses. You could easily take a photo of the same tank 20x and call it 20 different tank loses. For instance. First it was damaged, then it was abandoned, then it was captured. Now that is listed as three different tanks, but it's all the same tank. The only ones we actually can keep track of is the western equipment because only one side is using them and we have a list of equipment sent. We will know years later.
@@jaydenmadden6986 Their super duper Armata tank isn't even in active duty yet. If they can't even field their own tanks, what good will it do them when they get their hands at a M1A1 from the 1980s?
Abrams never in it's 40 year life faced a worthy opponent, feasting on poor farmers and tribesmen. Now, it meets a peer foe and it fails miserably within weeks of its combat debut
The Abrams' non-admission to the front line is a violation of human rights. Russian soldiers have already issued a mortgage for these tanks. I demand that the tanks be returned to their place and that the violation of international law be stopped!
NATO needs to start changing its whole doctrine and focus on the drone threat. Drones have made such a change to modern warfare as the machine gun did in WW1.
It really doesn't, though. Drones can easily be defeated, whether by specific anti-drone or jamming weapons, or more SPAAG units - but we aren't supply Ukraine with anywhere near enough of them. The doctrine is not the issue - the equipment is.
It needs to change its whole doctrine full stop. It is losing big time, it needs to stick to fighting countries it can bully like Libya. More important Nato has to realise that the US is destroying Ukraine for its own purposes while economically destroying Germany and much of Europe by cutting it off from cheap gas and oil. This is as much a US war against Germany as a US slaughter of Ukrainians.
@@EnglishScripterYou literally have no idea what you're on about. Lol One drone now can avoid detection and spot troops many many miles away, even hidden in cover if it has a thermal. Able to call in precise artillery, airstrikes or drones with explosives. Then fly back to base. That alone removes the need for troops forward doing recon to try find targets and call in assets to knock out threats. But it's much more risky because of personnel, now drones are watching too. One cheap drone can become the eyes and ears of its owner or a deadly bomb. Drones have been the most important asset in this war. If they weren't so accessible say like 12-15 years ago Ukraine would of lost by now.
@@BroadHobbyProjects Ground Based radar can easily detect these drones, he is talking about drones being the threat themselves, and not acting as scouts. We have had more expensive version of these scouts for the past 3 decades, They have been used in Iraq, Afghanistan etc. It is only going to take a few years, till drones will be made very venerable. Also, how dare you say drones have been the most important asset, when there are hundreds of thousands of men dying or suffering on the front, these drones have not replaced these warriors. That is very disrespectful to all the great veterans, and serving soldiers are great nations have. Ukraine lost by now? You really have no clue. Anti tank guided missiles, have destroyed the majority of Russian armour, not drones.
The problem is with Western tanks none of them have been really truly tested in the theatre of war until now. And now we are seeing their startling vulnerabilities.
@@KungFuWizardOfJesus They haven't experienced a modern war in reality. They've come up against some very old Russian and Iraqi equipment which were no match for them. They haven't experienced a modern army with high tech and drones etc. They are now and they are getting destroyed.
@@myrants5836 Iraqi tanks in Desert storm were the best available for a foreign nation. Iraq was ranked 5th best Army at the time. The fact is you cannot use NATO tanks properly without NATO air support and air dominance. Just look at the Number of Russian tanks destroyed, literally hundreds because Russia doesn’t have air superiority.
The issue is not the tanks as theybhave proven themselves to be very capable in Iraq etc.. The issue is drones. And both parties suffer the same issues.
@@KungFuWizardOfJesus Air superiority or not, both sides will take casualties, lots of them! You can use tanks without air support but they are very large, vulnerable targets to air power and artillery!
The same way Russian tanks and APV's get smoked all the time by Ukranian POV drones. Tanks on either side can't survive a battlefield swarmed with drones.
Wtf guys here talking about control of the air? You dont just control the air if your enemy is a legit power. Do you think the allies control the air in world war 2? In the first major clashes? It was only controled when germany was about to lose.
@@Игорьсуздальский is that why they kept going? Most of the luftwaffe was directed towards the west to protect against bombers. The allies weren't going to do ground force invasion until air superiority was achieved.
@@ebiekem3000 Destroyed Russian Tanks is confirmed, and why are you surprised? Ukraine frontline is like a road from Warsaw to Barcelona, it's huge territory, and Russia has a lot of Soviet tanks, and Ukraine received thousands of Javelins at the beginning, additionally Ukraine first used drones against tanks.
Ever since the Abrams was designed there have been doubts about the gas turbine hot exhaust being easily detectable. In the past their foes did not have the technology to exploit the weakness, now they do!
Yeah you can only do so much damage to infrastructure until the enemy dosent have any yeah drones are being made in a factory which in future wars is target 1 and what drones then same with mines
@@mikeB-sg1zs meanwhile Ukraine is running out of troops and ammo while Russia is still spewing out troops. Never go to a prolonged war with Russia. Y'all never learned since the 1700's. They literally have more bodies than you have bullets. Napoleonic war , WW1 , WW2 has shown this very well. You can't change that fact. No matter how much copium you suck in. History has told this story so many times and I'm just mentioning 3 examples on the top of my head hahaha
@@rogerjensen5277 Well not according to Ukraine videos and media. But the British Army has Challengers in Eastern Europe right now. Some may well be in Poland ....
A drone can still fly in low and hit the engine deck or tracks, stopping it from moving. Then artillery has a stationary target. That is the issue they're talking about. Never mind the fact that Russia has remote minelayers (ie an artillery system that fires mines on mass over a wide area) and they seem to also hurt the tracks on a tank that will also immobilize it, so they don't even necessarily have to hit it with a drone to stop it from moving.
@@Scar626Mines can be cleared by using mine sweeper tanks sent ahead of other tanks. So, mines are an old issue that have a solution. But drones and attack helicopters are novel anti-tank platforms that can use anti-tank missiles more effectively than the ground forces can. And, this is the reason air cover is essential in modern warfare :)
@@syedhasan8181 yeah, normally minesweepers can cope with mines, but did you miss the "remote" of remote mine laying? An artillery launcher launching mines far behind the front lines. In other words, minesweeper advance and then the remote mine laying equipment lays more right behind and around those minesweepers, ie when infantry or supply trucks want to follow or the minesweeper wants to reverse it's "gg, well played". Did you miss the part that the counter offensive failed?
Nlaws and javelins are far and few between,the real threat is from fpv drones which strangely enough russia was aware would be a problem from day 1 of the invasion which is why they pre-installed them.
@@anthonyhulse1248 AH yes the Russian Washing machines with shovels using ww1 tactics ghosts, as we can only hear them in word but never see them in video :D
@anthonyhulse1248, well if you call precision bombing with FAB-500 bombs as meat wave attacks, then so be it! Ask yourself why the western media has stopped showing Frontline views? It's not pretty to watch for the NATO bullies!
The tank was state of the art in 1945. It’s really been a relic ever since. If you can’t achieve air superiority and in short bursts air dominance (there is a difference), then you can’t win a protracted war.
That’s a change from Afghan farmers. many weapons were left in Afganistan, he should have also left the Abrahams which would have been used to plow the fields.
Supposedly "all of Russias pre-war inventory of tanks has been destroyed". And yet, they still keep coming with unrelenting ferocity. Perhaps this claim isn't entirely true, eh?
Funny thing, US never said its indestructible. Ukraine was hyping up abrams like its a machine of global destruction. Its not, its a tank. Like a very good one, one of the best one's. It still can be destroyed, every machine can
They are not more vulnerable than any other tank. Just a tank. My understanding is that these were only sent to Ukraine so Ukraine could get leopards from Germany.
russia - visually confirmed tank losses ~3,000 America - loses 5 donated tanks, of which it has 3,700 in storage This guy: "US Industrial complex will be ruined if losses mount." !!!1!1
Are they now? Oh I remember the hype prior to the counter offensive. "The M1A1, Leopard A2, Stryker, Bradley, etc were in town, so watch out Russia! Turrents will fly sky high!!" Then the counter-offensive offensive began...and Russians began to use their washing-machine-chip-powered shovels blessed in Vodka. First the world's "best" tanks (Leopard 2s) went up in flames, and Bradley Square was created by Russian shovellers. French Armoured vehicles basically ran away with a few now on display in Moscow along with CV-90s. The Challenger 2 then showed up only for 2 to get piped in the bum with Russian shovels; the rest were withdrawn. And now the famous M1A1 Abrahms....apparently they burn pretty well. You folks thought you were fighting a bunch of farmers in sandals. Well, too bad cos its the RUSSIAN FEDERATION. So here's a free advice: Never EVER underestimate the Russian Grizzly Bear armed with a shovel.
Air power was only a massive advantage in ww2 when aircraft and even land systems were built in a few hours or a day. Today aircraft take hundreds and thousands of hours to build and an aircraft carrier takes 5 years to fabricate and construct.
@@peterstubbs5934lol the amount of coping you’re going through must be tough. unfortunately, your precious ukraine wont last until 2026 so why dont you go there and fight some orcs, banderite fanboy?
@@UgandanWarriorofHell russia is literally falling apart and they are dying en masse. It will only get worse for them as more aid arrives and aid will keep coming and only incraese. B9 countries are preparing a MASSIVE tank/ifv package for next year.
First of all any tank can be knocked out secondly tanks are an offensive weapon that. The war now is at a stale mate so any tank hanging around the front is going to get picked off eventually.
That's the record that the administration must stand on. It was never enable UA to win, only ensure UA doesn't loose. With a subtext of believe Crimlin lies and that 'escalation' would put ConUS at risk FSB misinformation is all going to plan..
The footage of their Defence Minister in the tank factory just shows how woefully under-armoured we are. Whilst Challenger 2 is excellent, and Ch3 will be even better, 148 units is simply NOWHERE near enough. Even though we're NATO. we must field a credible force to hold the line until reinforcements arrive. 148 CH3's (and all our combined arms assets is simply not enough).
Except as this video demonstrates, tanks are fast becoming redundant on the battlefield, so we need to develop drone technology asap as they are fast becoming more efficient? 🫡🇬🇧🇸🇪🇺🇦
@@lascm5237 Western tanks are becoming redundant. Just because the video claims (well repeats Oryx claims) that Russia has lost all its tanks does not mean anyone takes it seriously.
@@antique-bs8bb nope, ALL tanks are becoming obsolete. They are vulnerable, slow, expensive, logistically challenging to actually get to theatre, difficult to maintain particularly in the field and need a supremely well trained and drilled crew. In a word, they are fast becoming obsolete and a relic from both World Wars. They have a limited future if any.
@@lascm5237 Top Peer to peer warfare I agree. It is all stand off weapons. But much of the Ukraine war is not peer to peer. Ukraine are very much the weaker side. And the idea that Nato can fight in E Ukraine while supplying itself from 1000km away in Poland is not realistic, so tanks will serve a purpose for Russia (and unfortunately probably for Israel too till they face Iran).
Tanks are not designed to take ATGM hits on the sides, top or rear. That is what some of these drones are. ATGMs that can fly around and strike vulnerable areas.
Adaptation requires critical thinking and free will, but critical thinking and will will are the enemy of western democracy, hence the mindless rush into minefields and drones and losing half a million troops.
Lol what? They hid in the hills and gave up the main cities in the firet few weeks. They survived the united states by just giving up meaningful territory for 17 years until policy change brought us home. Oh, and the over 10 to 1 kill ratio in favour of americans does not mirror russia's losses at all lol. We took the "kiev" of afgahnistan and all the other major cities succesfully within a few weeks, russia had to give up most of the terrirtoy it gained in the first 6 months. @maemilev
@@thezombiepotato1and still you lost both of these wars in Vietnam Americans were killed like dogs and Russia is fighting literally all of NATO alone without US aid Ukraine won't even last a month
Any piece of military hardware is only as good as the soldiers using it, as well as the larger picture of support and sustainment. The abrams is a cog in the US military machine, on its own it is just a tank.
No tank with a cope cage has ever been knocked out right? "Land is where you are, and so you will carry it around with you." "Dirt. This is a jar of dirt." "Yes." "Is the jar of dirt going to help?" "If you don't want it give it back." "No". "Then it helps."
First, Ukraine denies withdrawing any armor. Second, all tanks are vulnerable to drones. It’s a shift in warfare that welding sheetmetal over the tanks won’t stop
i dont think people understand… everything that the tank had that made it a great tank was literally stripped off the abrams… the tank was heavily “nerfed” before it was sent to ukraine
The main issue preventing NATO tactics is the minefield. One can't fight ground manoeuvre warfare unless they have punched through or cleared the minefield. The way NATO does that is by ensuring the enemies ability to Observer, Orient, Decide and Act has been destroyed or diminished enough so that ground forces can clear sections of the minefield undisturbed.
Calling them cope cages, is pretty desrespectful, and ignorant. It's an armoured roof. Have some respect for brave people doing their best with what they have, at least.
mmm 14 challengers aren't enough but neither is 31 Abrams. Ukrainian tankers are using the challengers to punch through Russian defenses behind tree lines. So far they have managed to escape the drones that the Abrams suffer from. Apart from that one tank I'm not sure what got that chally 2?
Well the abrams got the same treatment as those Ts. So you can't really say much, we didn't really even see a tank to tank battle, these attacks against the abrams were drone and missile based attacks. These tanks are dependent on air support, which is something that ukraine lacks. Like every tank they are extremely vulnerable to the enemy if not properly protected, also ofc these tanks got targeted first, it was done to purposely humiliate NATO. All of a sudden you destroy 5 tanks from your most hated enemy and that makes you superior to the enemy. Abrams vs the Ts is like AR vs AK. Though we are yet to see true fair fight between the two.
@@spartan7119yes. But in western world, their tanks were the best (when facing flip flop sandals army), and Ruzzian tanks were trash. The reality is, not one survived the drone. Yet, the western hype was laughable.
@YaraMits western hype was fueled by the Western media, but I guess the same could be said to the Russians, believing that they would be able to take on Ukraine in a week or so, yet here we are with the war still raging on. Also, do note that the tanks were older models of the abrams of that of the m1a1s, meaning that they lack current day equipment and technology. One of these would be the isreali trophy systems that were installed on the M1A2 SPEV3 tanks, which are used to destroy incoming missiles or drones.
Imagine the war was in the baltics rather than Ukraine and these Abrams tanks were sent in with american crews. Thousands of body bags would be flying back to old Majorie Taylor Green homestate.
How on Earth do you expect Ukraine to use combined arms tactics when they don't have any NATO-standard aircraft?! If they had F-16s for the counter-offensive last year, they would at the very least have liberated Tokmak, and at most would have cut the land bridge to Crimea. But our leaders dithered. And now all humanity will pay dearly for the long war to follow.
'All humanity will pay', really? If they had F16s and the necessary infrastructure to maintain them, they would still have been destroyed by the Russians! And no doubt, a few of them would have been delivered to Russia by Ukrainian pilots who realize that their corrupt government uses them as cannon fodder and of course, the Russians will offer a reward for their surrender with NATO equipment intact! Fighting with a gun pointed at the back of your head isn't courage!
You really think some F16 are going to wipe out the Ruzzian? Ever heard of anti-air missiles? The Ruzzian had many of them. The reason your government were so incompetent when sending those jets was, they haven't fought a worthy opponent. This is Ruzzia, not some flip flop sandals army.
Very clumsy and impartial reporting. Ukraine has no possibility of using "combined arms warfare" and has NOT had that option at all. This means, among other things, you have to have an airforce, or at least not be facing 10+ to 1 odds. The other thing you are missing is that the world and warfare is now firmly into the drone age. Until rapid firing radar directed laser weapons are fielded in large numbers, combined with other arms (see how that works?), all vehicles are just going to get pulverized on both sides. If any nation were in Ukraines spot right now, the story would be the same, drones killing expensive tanks.
Hits a mine its done, it dont matter what tank it is. Drones also have complete control over armored vehicles. IFV's are the future they need more Bradleys.
As an ex19E glad I'm of retirement age. Any armor units without friendly air space are units with very brief lifespans. Drones have made Warthogs obsolete and those A-10s were the greatest winged armor killers in military aviation history.
In the Vietnam War the North Vietnamese Army never committed their T-55 and PT-76 tanks to the frontline because they knew it was suicide and had no chance vs an American M48A3 tank and Air power! Only on the final days of the war when the US was pulling out of South Vietnam then the tanks came rolling in.
In Vientnam war Vietnamese always used T-55 , PT-76 and even T-34-85 at front line. T-55 was comletly superior against American tanks of those times. Saigon was taken by T-55 columns attack. T-55 was superior against M48 in all aspects. and Usually americans just ran away. Same as Abrams tanks in this conflict.
@@AlexanderTch Technically speaking the T-55 has a slight advantage over the M48A3 but American crews were better trained and with superior air support the T-55 can't win. The same with an Abrams Tank crewed by Americans with massive air support no enemy can defeat an Abrams! Any tank or armoured vehicle are sitting ducks without air cover. NVA T-55 and PT-76 appeared in numbers when the US decided to pull out and the Air Force were ordered to stand down.
@@codfusilli5879 Yes, American tankmen in Vietnam was better trained for sure than Vietnamese tankmen. But Vietnamese were not cowards at all. They didn't run and were always ready sacrifice their lives. So, you statement, about "they ran away when saw M48" is complete fake and your fantasty. And numbers of T-55s in Vietname were much less than American types. Vietnamese even used decent amout of WW2 machines like T-34, Su-100, and IS-2 /IS-3. And they still won. Statement about PT-76 is comletely silly. PT-76 is not actually tank. it's boat with trucks. In areas with lots rivers, swamps, lakes it can be very useful. but it's not suitable for confronation agaist real tank. Americans didn't have total air superirity in Vietnam. You lie. Americans lost 40% of their aviation there. You can visit central park in Khanoi and see remnants of B-52 lying in swamp there. RUssia delivered there all kinds of SAMs. Besides, there were some amount of Mig-21, Mig-19s, Mig-15s. Mig-21 had total superiority against all american types. To destroy Abrams even in case of total air superiorty of the enemy is not very hard once you have at least good ATGMS, drones, artillery. Tank is huge, not maneuverable, easy to detect with hot engine. It's not big deal for a guy with ATGM to burn it. Plenty number of them was burnt in Iraq that even didn't have good ATGMs. So, anyone who wants can burn Abrams. It's not undefeatable and unbreakable whatever you fantasize.
They didnt deployed it to fight US, because NVA werent supported with tanks to deployed until the end stage of the war. The nature of the war in each stages were different. The early and mid stage were to build up the force and war infrastructure, they relied heavily on infantry to wage guerilla warfare. Only when the time was right, which their enemy severely weaken and their force grow stronger enough to fight conventional warfare, tanks and armor could be effective. There's no point for guerilla force to deploy tanks if you not going to fight conventional battle, and the supply line was still in developing in early and mid stage too so heavy equipments can rarely be transfered south VN. But in the end stage, they did deploy in 1971/1972, at that time ARVN still have US equipment and US air support, so T-55 did have fight with US equipments and air firepower
Have you seen how Ukraine is using Western armor? This has literally nothing to do with the tanks themselves. When Western countries agreed to send tanks to Ukraine, I GUARANTEE YOU they sent them believing that Ukraine was going to mass ALL OF THEM (Abrams, Challengers, Leopards AND their IFVs like Bradleys, Marders, CV90s, etc) in one spot...likely in the south of the country...and use them all together as a sledgehammer to smash through Russian defenses in one massive offensive push. Instead, Ukraine spread all of them out randomly along a 1,000 km+ front line and is using them exactly like they use their junk Soviet equipment. The footage is available online for anyone to see. You NEVER see multiple Western tanks or IFVs fighting together in a combined force. Instead, you see footage of ONE tank or ONE Bradley out in the middle of a field all by itself shooting at a random target and then retreating. Western countries have never, and would never, use ANY armor like that. Ukraine is just wasting this equipment. They are making good use of Western artillery, HIMARS, Patriots, etc...but they are straight-up wasting Western armor. ESPECIALLY the tanks. Sometime around January of 2023, two Green Berets who went to Ukraine voluntarily to train Ukrainian troops after Russia invaded came back home to the US and wrote an article about the biggest problems the Ukrainians were facing. This was BEFORE Western armor was sent to Ukraine. In their article, they perfectly predicted how Western armored vehicles were going to be wasted by the Ukrainians. They said that NATO countries were doing a fantastic job training Ukrainian troops. The problem? NATO countries WERE NOT TRAINING UKRAINIAN COMMANDERS! So we were training Ukrainian troops in Western military tactics on Western military equipment, then we were shipping these troops and this equipment back to Ukraine where the Ukrainian COMMANDERS were just throwing Ukrainian troops into unorganized mass attacks on Russian positions EXACTLY LIKE the Russians have been doing from day one. Just sending a small group of Ukrainian troops in Western armor straight into a mined Russian area with no air cover, no artillery cover, no backup, no plan, no nothing. Remember early on when the Russians posted video footage of like six or seven Bradleys and three or four Leopard tanks all massed in a pile and abandoned? The Ukrainians did LITERALLY EXACTLY what I just mentioned. Their commander just Leroy Jenkins'd these Western IFVs and tanks straight into a Russian minefield with no plan other than "attack this tree line". As soon as they hit mines and disabled their IFVs, they had no choice but to abandon everything and run away or else they were going to get smoked by Russian artillery. The Ukrainians inside those Bradleys and Leopards survived, and they eventually recovered those abandoned tanks and IFVs, but those pieces of equipment were completely wasted. They did NOTHING. They drove straight into a minefield, got disabled and damaged and then got shipped back to Poland to be repaired. These Green Berets predicted EXACTLY what was going to happen with all of this Western armor, but nobody listened. And apparently nobody bothered to train Ukrainian commanders in Western tactics. People got up-in-arms when Zelensky fired Valerii Zaluzhnyi as the C-i-C of the Ukrainian armed forces back in February because Zaluzhnyi was so well-liked by his troops. But I will bet you anything that firing him was 100% the correct move and it was 100% because he and his commanders were just wasting these Western-trained troops and this Western armor in Soviet-style failed attacks without EVER changing tactics. So the reality is that Ukraine should've kept ALL of these Western tanks parked in a Soviet-era nuclear bunker somewhere safe from day one. They never should've used them to begin with because they were always just going to waste them. This has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of the tanks themselves. Not Abrams or Leopards or Challengers. Those tanks are GENERATIONS BETTER than ANY tank Russia has. But if you are just going to use them as big armored targets, and the only good they do is keeping the Ukrainians inside of them alive when they are hit by Russian drones or mines or artillery, then what is even the point of having them?
Combined strike will face huge counter offensive from russians, because they will knew where it will be. Currently all along the frontline there is separate small fights with followed holding ground, small piece by piece. It's worked in 2022, but not in 2023, and in 2024 it begin fail badly because of lack of equipment.
Sticking them in one spot without air control would have been just a different recipe for disaster from the one that has been cooked. Of course the curious thing that no one wants to recall is how come Russia lined up so much equipment in a row just waiting to be attacked by air in the first few weeks and did not get punished for it? Because a) there was never a real attempt to conquer Ukraine, just to get enough artillery between the Ukraine forces and Donbas to defeat the attack on Donbas; and b) any air attack would have been welcomed and destroyed immediately.
Ukraine hyped them so much, they thought they are indestructible. Ukrainian tankers might have been trained with NATO SOP's but they still fight the same way that russia does, which doesnt work
@@operator9858 No ATACMS would wipe out that line Ukraine is not going to win this fighting tactically they have to fight strategically Abrams holding the line does nothing In two ATACMS strikes, Ukrainian shredded two Russia airfields. The first strike destroyed 18 helos which cost Russia 10 KA-52s The damage from the second is still unknown but that also was home to Russian gunships That is the kinda of fighting Ukraine needs to do massive asset denial
These weapons looked mighty and invincible because they kept using them on Ahmed the farmer.
They used them in Dessert storm with great success.
@@ThePhantom712Against illiterate Iraqi conscripts.
@@ThePhantom712 hilarious and delusional proves their point entirely,
the usa has never fought even close to a near pear in its live time, even in ww2 japan was stretch on all fronts fighting with 21 other countries at the same time as the usa and the ija and the ijn were fighting a civil war too. so it was 30% of the japanese forces who were underfunded vs the entire us military and it still took so long to even do anything against a population 1/10th the size and no natural resources
@@JustSomeGuy8492 and it was the Iraqi after long years of war with Iran, with outdated equipments, especially no great power like Soviet back them up. And most of Iraqi force were focused on Kuwait, they didnt prepare much to be flanked, if they got better defense preparation, thing gonna be quite different
to be fair the iraqi t72s were downgraded versions of the russian t72s coupled to the fact that iraq was fighting a coalition of Nato Countries that have a pretty large military (US, UK,france etc.)
Never bring a tank to a shovel fight.
Slava Shovelii 🇷🇺
😂😂😂
Bahahahahaha
Bum fight with shovels.
DIGGY DIGGY HOLE
They can’t use nato tactics without air dominance.
i came here to say this too !
Exactly!
The Ukrainians can use NATO tactics if they can find a way to get through the minefields into open areas, and the way the west does that is by controlling the skies so ground forces can clear the mine field.
Cope and seethe
Even you have air dominance... it's useless if you fight a country who can pulverized you in a moment. It works in a country like Iraq, Afghanistan but in Russia if you punch him in the face he will punch you in the face too.
Them tanks are good on paper when there is no airpower that has destroyed everything first
Keep coping
@@diegoflores9237 Ukraine sent in the Abrams to help secure the retreat from Avdiivka, within 2 days 5 were lost, of the 31, and Bradleys and more galore.
There is to coping lol, they're dying....... if they weren't getting destroyed Ukraine wouldn't pull them from the front.
@@diegoflores9237 Seethe. No air power = no win.
@@daemon7225 bro thinks air power is an automatic against a peer power..lmfao read a book lol
@@Apnah13 I’m agreeing with you. But my point was nato/USA always enjoyed air supremacy in most of the conflicts
'Game changer' left the game 😂😂😂😂😂
😂😂😂😂😂
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Hahahaha
Haha remembered when they started sharing posters of the leopard hahaha now its in moscow for public viewing lol
So the term "cope cage" is official now. Wow lol
Only ru trash say lol about mass murdet
What do you think “cope” would stand for in terms of military speak/abbreviations?.😂
Yet when the Israelis use it, it's not called that 😂
@@user-op8fg3ny3jbecause its "aNti-SeMeTiC" whilst they are not even 1% semetic at all lol.
They withdraw the tanks because they don't want their tanks to look like a hobo home
You can't use combined arms warfare without overwhelming air dominace
In other words, NATO tactics is mainly effective against guerrilla forces.
@strangelylookingperson
Considering the U.S. Air Force is the worlds largest Air Force with the U.S. navy being the 2nd largest airforce in the world. It’s a safe bet to say that the U.S. would still rely on its air dominance, even over Russia.
@@Keith-jp6jw Considering all of that, you fled like there is no tomorrow from a bunch of bare footed poor equipped, although very well motivated, Taliban warriors.
@@strangelylookingpersonoccupied the country for 20 years the taliban only slithered out of their caves when the coast was clear you make out they won some historic battle 😂 on the otherhand the soviet union was destroyed and booted out of Afghanistan and this contributed to the soviet union collapsing entirely 😂😂😂
@Erwinelwormo That is correct
New age of warfare 40 years ago we didn’t have drones we do now
Drones have been around since 1918, the Kettering Bug mean anything? In the mid 1930's the US Navy were flying drones by remote for use as target practice. Loads of examples. Check your facts buddy.
@@mauricetoussaint7283 They weren't really used for combat, their effectiveness was questionable.
Didn't see this qoute when T-72 was fighting in ukraine
@@mauricetoussaint7283You are taking advantage of the blurry definition of what a drone actually is.
What he is referring to are the cheap to produce, live battlefield coverage, anti everything drones that can be created using civilian products.
These are the drones that will change war.
@@mauricetoussaint7283 In 2015 the most a drone could do was burn a flag down with a lighter and a spray can attached to it. Now they're dropping bombs and kamikaze striking ships and tanks.
Lol. $10 Million tank destroyed by $5K drone.
Not even $5k drones. Russians and ukrainians are making home-made (trench-made actually) drones with ducktape
I think it was $500
its cuz they are attacking the weak points, the russians came with a very smart and good idea to build metal armor all around the tank which only exposes the front of the tank to fire which was a very genius method but adds a lot of weight to the tank obviously
Lol billion dollar tank force destroyed by less than 150$ drone
Same as T-90MS
Another news report where Russia is losing yet gained about 10 km in the last two weeks. What is this news report talking about 3000 tanks and Ukraine lost five tanks this is some serious cop.
It’s just a way of the western media trying to make sense of their defeat. Russia has lost way more tanks than Ukraine (says who the same people that told us Russia would be defeated by Bradley’s then patriots missiles then leopard tanks). It’s a way of west coping with the defeat of their weapons. They are also now saying part of the problem is Ukraine not using Western tactics but then again the Ukrainians said their counteroffensive failed because they used Western tactics.
Tonight Russians brought damaged M1 Abrams to exhibition in Moscow.
@@DanAth-il1uqwhat defeat the fact after 3 years still raising the flag and not going full vietcong proves how "powerful russia is"
@DanAth-il1uq I mean forces news isn't just western media, its basically the british mod news channel so it's going to be biased
Yeah, Ukraine is winning! They keep advancing to the rear, while Russia retreats to the front
Except the Ukrainians can't use true NATO combined arms tactics, they don't have control of the air. It was unrealistic of NATO to expect Ukraine to use NATO tactics with out the required air support.
Its wise to withdraw the Abrams, there is no point in taking unnecessary loses.
Quite - or it was stupid to send the Abrams. Just as it is stupid to send European troops this week, Ukraine has been losing badly from the start.
What is clear is that Russia have been learning about Drone warfare for 2 years (and therefore so have Iran and China). But US hasn't learnt and is still teaching Ukraine the tactics to fight Iraq 20 years ago with complete air control.
Heaven help the Europeans if they fight in Ukraine or the Americans if they send carriers to fight over Taiwan..
What makes you think nato will,we saw first hand in Vietnam,Afghanistan and currently in gaza how superior air power means nothing if the enemy can counter it with concealed positions and underground tunnels,in fact the Russians have already started tunnel tactics to literally undermine Ukrainian positions.
@@antique-bs8bb Losing badly? They have recovered over 30% of the land Russia took, and are pushing back on all fronts, only Russian drone infantry are appearing to win. However even those loses are unsustainable for Russia in the long run. Mean while the Challenger continues to obliterate Russian armour unabated.
@@thetruthhurts7675 But most of that land Russia didn't care about - much of it wasn't even occupied by Russian troops (ie anything between Kharkov and Russian border).
And in doing that they didn't kill Russians - hence the laughter at Izium - look at how the Russians ran... which of course means they left before we got there.
Meanwhile Ukrainians have died in large numbers every month of the war,
Ukraine hasn't won a single battle in 2 years, and Russia hasn't chosen to withdraw from a town or city of over a year. The Spring/Summer/Autumn offensive crossed the first of 3 lines of defence only at Robotno and just ended up as a killing pit that Ukraine threw men into and they died.
Challenger - watch the clip - another complete western failure. Withdrawn out of embarrassment.
Russian losses are some 50k dead, while Russian volunteers are some 400k on top of the 300 K reservists called up in 2022. Ukrainian dead are some 500k. That after starting with 700k and calling up at least 1m (well dragging many off the streets). Probably 500k wounded (survival as an untrained Ukrainian is tough) and at least 100k AWOL and quite a lot of POWs. There ought to be 500K left but it is probably half that (more dead? More AWOL?)
Unsustainable is a strange world where Ukraine does not have the troops to use the weapons it has now and European troops are appearing in W Ukraine in uniform).
True but at the end of the day
Ukraine needs aircraft more than tanks. Ukraine just got the ATACMS with 190 range able to carry 500lbs warhead
Thats going to be a major bane for Russian forces
Submunitions are good for materiel and light armor but a 500lbs warhead is excellent for pin point strike against high value targets
The Kerch bridge for example
This always happens. Once upon a time, the battleship was queen of the sea then air power rendered it obsolete. Tank armour was improved and tandem warheads were developed. One innovation leads to another. This is nothing new. Tanks will be fitted with anti-drone defences and then everyone will say drones are obsolete. Tanks were a solution to trench warfare and so it continues. The only thing you can guarantee is change.
True, which is why russia had these “cope cages” to defend against drones and now the russians just welded on a massive steel shed onto a tank to protect against drones
Those tanks only help against third world countries. Not Russia
Did you take a break from welding tool sheds to your superior tanks? I heard the Russian tanks did really well in Afghanistan too
@@mikeB-sg1zs He didn't say Russian tanks are superior. Learn to read before typing. You'll looks less daft that way. His point was correct. American stuff only looks great when killing poor people in the sandpit.
@@mikeB-sg1zs Murica #1 main battle tank gets smashed like every other superweapon NATO sends, and all you can do is cope about a war that happened 50 years ago that was also a proxy war between the US and the USSR. Speaking of, how well did the US do in afghanistan? 8 billion dollars of tanks, jets, helicopters and small arms left behind, aftyer spending trillions of dollars, twenty years of invasion got toppled in two weeks? Sounds like a massive win to me.
@@ReikerForge Russian combat deaths in Ukraine: 150000.
NATO combat deaths in Ukraine: 0.
@@Melior_Traiano- yeah... because there's no NATO troops in Ukraine. Duh.
I love how the term 'cope cage' has now become official parlance
Only in the west and in English. Do you have some evidence the factory calls them that?
Not when its israeli
I’m not a Russia supporter but where is the proof they lost 3k tanks
3k killed tank is indeed propaganda but nonetheless russian got heavy tank casualties duo the overly aggresive tactics in the beginning and the use of improvised anti tank weapons ending up being threatening and dangerous yet cheap and widely avaiable like the drones droppinh anti armour rounds from the above.
Probably not 3k but definitely significantly large amount have been lost
From the oryx blog Russia has lost at least 1982 Tanks destroyed 155 damaged 318 abandoned 514 captured as of may 7.
@@LucasYoung-uc2ek right the pro ukrainian "osint" that totally not biased at all...
It's hard to say how much they really lost. That goes for both sides.
ORXY has a list of destroyed,abandoned,captured.
That list ain't very good to go off of. Mainly because Russia and Ukraine were using the same equipment throughout the majority of this war and we can't really tell the difference between them.
You need to have a item list to prove the loses.
You could easily take a photo of the same tank 20x and call it 20 different tank loses.
For instance. First it was damaged, then it was abandoned, then it was captured. Now that is listed as three different tanks, but it's all the same tank.
The only ones we actually can keep track of is the western equipment because only one side is using them and we have a list of equipment sent.
We will know years later.
Abrams have never had to fight in a real war.
Bro just casually forgets the main war it was used for. Iraq had the fourth largest army in the world when the U.S. invaded in 2003.
@gogogadgetGlock you're talking to a shill.
42 nations invaded, not just US.
US can't fight any nation 1v1, the result is always loss. @@gogogadgetGlock
@@lol311 that was purely political, the U.S. did the majority of the fighting and UK a bit too, cope.
@@gogogadgetGlock4th largest army? Well oh well.
What a surprise.
Nothing is invulnerable.
Too late ... Several have been captured one confirmed on its way to Moscow
all abrams that were sent are the old versions that arent in service in the us military anymore
@testsurname5679 blah blah butt hurt Russian bot.
@jaydenmadden6986 hmmm sounds like cope to me
@@jaydenmadden6986Doesn't matter, if a captured American tank is paraded around Moscow it isn't a good look.
@@jaydenmadden6986 Their super duper Armata tank isn't even in active duty yet. If they can't even field their own tanks, what good will it do them when they get their hands at a M1A1 from the 1980s?
The shovels are sharp. Even Abrahams are scared of them
Kyiv in 3 days!
@@mikeB-sg1zsyou keep quoting general milley
I mean where is the proof of 3000 tanks loses ?
Abrams never in it's 40 year life faced a worthy opponent, feasting on poor farmers and tribesmen. Now, it meets a peer foe and it fails miserably within weeks of its combat debut
Where was the tank battle?
They are using the M1A1 abrams not the most advance m1a2 sepv3
@@f50koeniggThey're fighting old russian tanks as well
@@yuno1707 it is not about tanks fighting against tanks. Abrams is still better then russian scrap metal. But drones can wrek all of them
😂😂😂@@photonicemitter9227
The Abrams' non-admission to the front line is a violation of human rights. Russian soldiers have already issued a mortgage for these tanks. I demand that the tanks be returned to their place and that the violation of international law be stopped!
За натовскую технику нашим солдатам хорошо платят.
NATO needs to start changing its whole doctrine and focus on the drone threat.
Drones have made such a change to modern warfare as the machine gun did in WW1.
No it does not, Ukraine just needs air defences. Drones have not changed warfare, they do the same thing as missiles, just alot lot, cheaper.
It really doesn't, though. Drones can easily be defeated, whether by specific anti-drone or jamming weapons, or more SPAAG units - but we aren't supply Ukraine with anywhere near enough of them. The doctrine is not the issue - the equipment is.
It needs to change its whole doctrine full stop. It is losing big time, it needs to stick to fighting countries it can bully like Libya.
More important Nato has to realise that the US is destroying Ukraine for its own purposes while economically destroying Germany and much of Europe by cutting it off from cheap gas and oil. This is as much a US war against Germany as a US slaughter of Ukrainians.
@@EnglishScripterYou literally have no idea what you're on about. Lol
One drone now can avoid detection and spot troops many many miles away, even hidden in cover if it has a thermal.
Able to call in precise artillery, airstrikes or drones with explosives.
Then fly back to base.
That alone removes the need for troops forward doing recon to try find targets and call in assets to knock out threats.
But it's much more risky because of personnel, now drones are watching too.
One cheap drone can become the eyes and ears of its owner or a deadly bomb.
Drones have been the most important asset in this war.
If they weren't so accessible say like 12-15 years ago Ukraine would of lost by now.
@@BroadHobbyProjects Ground Based radar can easily detect these drones, he is talking about drones being the threat themselves, and not acting as scouts. We have had more expensive version of these scouts for the past 3 decades, They have been used in Iraq, Afghanistan etc. It is only going to take a few years, till drones will be made very venerable.
Also, how dare you say drones have been the most important asset, when there are hundreds of thousands of men dying or suffering on the front, these drones have not replaced these warriors.
That is very disrespectful to all the great veterans, and serving soldiers are great nations have.
Ukraine lost by now? You really have no clue. Anti tank guided missiles, have destroyed the majority of Russian armour, not drones.
The problem is with Western tanks none of them have been really truly tested in the theatre of war until now. And now we are seeing their startling vulnerabilities.
They have experience war. Problem is that they haven’t experienced modern watergate against a near peer adversary.
@@KungFuWizardOfJesus They haven't experienced a modern war in reality. They've come up against some very old Russian and Iraqi equipment which were no match for them. They haven't experienced a modern army with high tech and drones etc. They are now and they are getting destroyed.
@@myrants5836 Iraqi tanks in Desert storm were the best available for a foreign nation. Iraq was ranked 5th best Army at the time.
The fact is you cannot use NATO tanks properly without NATO air support and air dominance. Just look at the Number of Russian tanks destroyed, literally hundreds because Russia doesn’t have air superiority.
The issue is not the tanks as theybhave proven themselves to be very capable in Iraq etc.. The issue is drones. And both parties suffer the same issues.
@@KungFuWizardOfJesus Air superiority or not, both sides will take casualties, lots of them! You can use tanks without air support but they are very large, vulnerable targets to air power and artillery!
No need to watch the video, we've already seen the Russian FOV videos of them offing the Abrams among other western tanks.
The same way Russian tanks and APV's get smoked all the time by Ukranian POV drones. Tanks on either side can't survive a battlefield swarmed with drones.
@@Theveganshift77 duh
@@Theveganshift77@shinji1264 lol, really?. So Ukraine is winning? And now in Moscow? Are you serious?
@@JayJay-xy5ch never said. Only stated the same as Ukraine is losing tanks to FVP drones Russia is also losing them and also IFVs
Difference is the c2 and abrams crews are living to fight another day.
Wtf guys here talking about control of the air? You dont just control the air if your enemy is a legit power. Do you think the allies control the air in world war 2? In the first major clashes? It was only controled when germany was about to lose.
Allies had overwhelming air superiority in Europe from d day to the end.
@@daniellee2343but d day was in 1944, when Germany was destroyed by USSR basically
@@Игорьсуздальский is that why they kept going? Most of the luftwaffe was directed towards the west to protect against bombers. The allies weren't going to do ground force invasion until air superiority was achieved.
@@daniellee2343 not make that big sense, cause all sources were for the east front.
@@Игорьсуздальский learn to speak. You are speaking gibberish. Only the western allies threatened German cities with bombers.
1year ago Russia lost 5800 Tanks now Russia lost 3000 Tanks 🤡🤡🤡🤡
😂😂😂😂
The claimed number itself is incredible. Yes, Russia lost a number of tanks. But THREE THOUSAND TANKS??? Now that's grade A bullshyte
@@ebiekem3000 Destroyed Russian Tanks is confirmed, and why are you surprised?
Ukraine frontline is like a road from Warsaw to Barcelona, it's huge territory, and Russia has a lot of Soviet tanks, and Ukraine received thousands of Javelins at the beginning, additionally Ukraine first used drones against tanks.
Western propaganda
@@ebiekemthere's this thing called Google, use it sometime. It's well over 3 thousand tanks.
Ever since the Abrams was designed there have been doubts about the gas turbine hot exhaust being easily detectable. In the past their foes did not have the technology to exploit the weakness, now they do!
You mean china because russias are worse than consumer grade
all tanks are now useless in this war
Yeah you can only do so much damage to infrastructure until the enemy dosent have any yeah drones are being made in a factory which in future wars is target 1 and what drones then same with mines
For one hour of service this tank gives it requires 8 hours of maintenance.
But they media told us that Russian Army was fighting with shovels and sticks
Kyiv in 3 days. 450K Russians rotting in the ground. And you’re on TH-cam lmaoo
@@mikeB-sg1zs meanwhile Ukraine is running out of troops and ammo while Russia is still spewing out troops. Never go to a prolonged war with Russia. Y'all never learned since the 1700's. They literally have more bodies than you have bullets. Napoleonic war , WW1 , WW2 has shown this very well. You can't change that fact. No matter how much copium you suck in. History has told this story so many times and I'm just mentioning 3 examples on the top of my head hahaha
@@mikeB-sg1zshahaha, moan harder
@@mikeB-sg1zsyup, i remembered it was gen Miley said that.... Wait... he's russian right?.... right?
They are.... but Strong シャベル[Shovel] it's indeed, too strong
The Abrams joins the Challenger in the rear.
The Challenger is in the front line. Tovarish.
With your dad?
@@1chish In Poland!
@@rogerjensen5277 Well not according to Ukraine videos and media.
But the British Army has Challengers in Eastern Europe right now. Some may well be in Poland ....
@@1chish yes the barbequed ones.
In modern warfare, tanks can only be used with air cover. It simply won't do without it :)
A drone can still fly in low and hit the engine deck or tracks, stopping it from moving. Then artillery has a stationary target. That is the issue they're talking about.
Never mind the fact that Russia has remote minelayers (ie an artillery system that fires mines on mass over a wide area) and they seem to also hurt the tracks on a tank that will also immobilize it, so they don't even necessarily have to hit it with a drone to stop it from moving.
@@Scar626Mines can be cleared by using mine sweeper tanks sent ahead of other tanks. So, mines are an old issue that have a solution. But drones and attack helicopters are novel anti-tank platforms that can use anti-tank missiles more effectively than the ground forces can. And, this is the reason air cover is essential in modern warfare :)
Keep coping
@@syedhasan8181 yeah, normally minesweepers can cope with mines, but did you miss the "remote" of remote mine laying? An artillery launcher launching mines far behind the front lines.
In other words, minesweeper advance and then the remote mine laying equipment lays more right behind and around those minesweepers, ie when infantry or supply trucks want to follow or the minesweeper wants to reverse it's "gg, well played".
Did you miss the part that the counter offensive failed?
No my guy it's just because the US has never fight an army but rebels
The US is a paper tiger.
You mean Russia also?
Tonight Russians brought damaged M1 Abrams to exhibition in Moscow.
USA 🏳️🌈🤕
How about the thousands of tanks Russia lost? Who's the paper lol
@@sudfacWOW you guys captured a 40 year old tank. Congratulations.
Nlaws and javelins are far and few between,the real threat is from fpv drones which strangely enough russia was aware would be a problem from day 1 of the invasion which is why they pre-installed them.
Russia retreating forward Ukraine advancing Backwards 😂😂😂
I guess you could call Meatwave attacks retreating forward
@@anthonyhulse1248please
Provide proof nato bot
@@anthonyhulse1248 AH yes the Russian Washing machines with shovels using ww1 tactics ghosts, as we can only hear them in word but never see them in video :D
Whats the count of Russian KIA? At this rate all China has to do to take eastern Russia is to walk over the border.
@anthonyhulse1248, well if you call precision bombing with FAB-500 bombs as meat wave attacks, then so be it! Ask yourself why the western media has stopped showing Frontline views? It's not pretty to watch for the NATO bullies!
The tank was state of the art in 1945. It’s really been a relic ever since. If you can’t achieve air superiority and in short bursts air dominance (there is a difference), then you can’t win a protracted war.
It's just in: tanks not invulnerable
I think the Abrams tank would do well in the Museums, look majestic sitting inside..
That’s a change from Afghan farmers. many weapons were left in Afganistan, he should have also left the Abrahams which would have been used to plow the fields.
Oh dear it’s almost like all western media was laughing at Russia at the start of the war saying there was no way Ukraine could lose essentially
Supposedly "all of Russias pre-war inventory of tanks has been destroyed". And yet, they still keep coming with unrelenting ferocity.
Perhaps this claim isn't entirely true, eh?
Who told you that, the MSM? The same MSM that has been lying to you 100% of the time ever since this war started,
Air dominance then ground dominance, first rule of war.
Us told them their Abrams were indestructible as the the 'game changers'
Funny thing, US never said its indestructible. Ukraine was hyping up abrams like its a machine of global destruction. Its not, its a tank. Like a very good one, one of the best one's. It still can be destroyed, every machine can
They are not more vulnerable than any other tank. Just a tank.
My understanding is that these were only sent to Ukraine so Ukraine could get leopards from Germany.
Wonder weapon runs away from the fight....I wonder what those countries buying this very expensive piece of 💩 think now
US Industrial complex will be ruined if losses mount.
russia - visually confirmed tank losses ~3,000
America - loses 5 donated tanks, of which it has 3,700 in storage
This guy: "US Industrial complex will be ruined if losses mount." !!!1!1
@@thetryleague7978😂😂 Who gave you this data, kid? BBC?
Even in the rear, Abrams still got spotted and destroyed with one drone.
Well, this headline didn't work well, there are Abrams in Kursk right now.
Yep and another 49 M1A1s being gifted from Australia as announced yesterday.
Not just the abrams but all kinds of Tanks are vulnerable to drone attacks.
i smell cope
Would've helped if you told us 8 months ago
now you said it mate. i barely cant hear that opinion last year
Are they now? Oh I remember the hype prior to the counter offensive.
"The M1A1, Leopard A2, Stryker, Bradley, etc were in town, so watch out Russia! Turrents will fly sky high!!"
Then the counter-offensive offensive began...and Russians began to use their washing-machine-chip-powered shovels blessed in Vodka. First the world's "best" tanks (Leopard 2s) went up in flames, and Bradley Square was created by Russian shovellers. French Armoured vehicles basically ran away with a few now on display in Moscow along with CV-90s. The Challenger 2 then showed up only for 2 to get piped in the bum with Russian shovels; the rest were withdrawn. And now the famous M1A1 Abrahms....apparently they burn pretty well.
You folks thought you were fighting a bunch of farmers in sandals. Well, too bad cos its the RUSSIAN FEDERATION. So here's a free advice: Never EVER underestimate the Russian Grizzly Bear armed with a shovel.
@@ebiekemyeah but all those losses are litteral pennies compared to russias
I dont think there is any mass produced tank thats not vulnerable to drone attacks
The cutting edge turtle tanks have been immune to drones
OH 💩 Col. McGregor predicted this would happen.
The political system in UK is rotten 😂😂😂
Abrams, invincible.. only in videogames..or against flip flop desert rebels..
Whaaat? These tanks are only as useful as the crews inside them and the tactics they’re using. This is why sending them modern equipment is a waste.
American soldiers and weapons are bad ass, Until they face Caucasians 😂
There is no Caucasians in the front line🤷Russkies only.
Even the newscaster called them cope cages 😂😂
Both parties have the same issue. In ww1 it was the machine gun, in this war the drones. Whoever solves that issue will gain the initiative.
NATO's answer would be air dominance.
The victorious , is the one who can sustatin the logistics on war times. Ukraine is losing bad.
Russia seems to have already solved it with 'Turtle' Tanks
MGCS does. If germany can make it quickly that is
@@cyber8000"Shoigu's funnies" only work for now in some cases because ukraine is low on artillery shells.
Air power was only a massive advantage in ww2 when aircraft and even land systems were built in a few hours or a day. Today aircraft take hundreds and thousands of hours to build and an aircraft carrier takes 5 years to fabricate and construct.
whaaaat Ukraine is losing who could’ve guessed???
those shovels
Desperate 2nd half of video to pretend Ukraine is not losing big time. Do they think we don't know a lot better?
its not that they won't use combined arms tactics, they don't have the aircraft to do it
What!? According the msm Ukraine are winning 10:1
They do but not by using Abrahms.
Abrahams is unsurprisingly to most not as effective as the Americans hype it up to be,.
@@Amradar123@shinji1264 lol, really?. So Ukraine is winning? And now in Moscow? Are you serious?
What msm are you watching because they're all saying Ukraine is in danger of losing and desperately needs ammunition.
@@JayJay-xy5ch is russia winning?
It's been said that after man fights WWIII they will only have stones to fight WWIV.
the amount of braindead nato bots in these comments 💀
LOL, are the Russians suffering MASSIVE armour losses or not IVAN?
@@peterstubbs5934lol the amount of coping you’re going through must be tough. unfortunately, your precious ukraine wont last until 2026 so why dont you go there and fight some orcs, banderite fanboy?
@@UgandanWarriorofHell russia is literally falling apart and they are dying en masse. It will only get worse for them as more aid arrives and aid will keep coming and only incraese. B9 countries are preparing a MASSIVE tank/ifv package for next year.
you trogolydyte tankies are equally if not worse
Where is CNN and BBC'S propaganda 🤣
First of all any tank can be knocked out secondly tanks are an offensive weapon that. The war now is at a stale mate so any tank hanging around the front is going to get picked off eventually.
No stalemate there have been big advances by russia for weeks. A entire ukrainian brigade routed and was disbanded for that
Stalemate? That would be hilarious if it wasnt so morbidly depressing that so many believe it...
Stalemate? The Russian just went balls deep lol
Keep coping
Stalemate? Oh man, someone get this man a newspaper, ASAP!
Let me guess, they will blame America for not enough money.
You yourself contacted Ukraine, time will pass and Zelensky will call you traitors for giving too little and too late, you can’t expect gratitude
That's the record that the administration must stand on. It was never enable UA to win, only ensure UA doesn't loose. With a subtext of believe Crimlin lies and that 'escalation' would put ConUS at risk
FSB misinformation is all going to plan..
The footage of their Defence Minister in the tank factory just shows how woefully under-armoured we are. Whilst Challenger 2 is excellent, and Ch3 will be even better, 148 units is simply NOWHERE near enough. Even though we're NATO. we must field a credible force to hold the line until reinforcements arrive. 148 CH3's (and all our combined arms assets is simply not enough).
Except as this video demonstrates, tanks are fast becoming redundant on the battlefield, so we need to develop drone technology asap as they are fast becoming more efficient? 🫡🇬🇧🇸🇪🇺🇦
@@lascm5237 Western tanks are becoming redundant. Just because the video claims (well repeats Oryx claims) that Russia has lost all its tanks does not mean anyone takes it seriously.
@@antique-bs8bb nope, ALL tanks are becoming obsolete. They are vulnerable, slow, expensive, logistically challenging to actually get to theatre, difficult to maintain particularly in the field and need a supremely well trained and drilled crew. In a word, they are fast becoming obsolete and a relic from both World Wars. They have a limited future if any.
@@lascm5237 Top Peer to peer warfare I agree. It is all stand off weapons. But much of the Ukraine war is not peer to peer. Ukraine are very much the weaker side. And the idea that Nato can fight in E Ukraine while supplying itself from 1000km away in Poland is not realistic, so tanks will serve a purpose for Russia (and unfortunately probably for Israel too till they face Iran).
@@lascm5237wrong. Stick to video games
Tanks are not designed to take ATGM hits on the sides, top or rear. That is what some of these drones are. ATGMs that can fly around and strike vulnerable areas.
Well, learn and adapt.
Both sides are.
Adaptation requires critical thinking and free will, but critical thinking and will will are the enemy of western democracy, hence the mindless rush into minefields and drones and losing half a million troops.
I'm afraid it's too late.
based solely on losses basically every piece of equipment can be considered obsolete.
F15 104 and 0
Remember Vietnam? America…..All the gear and no idea….
That’s Ruzzia in Ukraine
Just look at Afghanistan. Clearly the enemy is not afraid.
And remember Afghanistan you commie? That war collapsed the whole soviet union lmao
Lol what? They hid in the hills and gave up the main cities in the firet few weeks. They survived the united states by just giving up meaningful territory for 17 years until policy change brought us home. Oh, and the over 10 to 1 kill ratio in favour of americans does not mirror russia's losses at all lol. We took the "kiev" of afgahnistan and all the other major cities succesfully within a few weeks, russia had to give up most of the terrirtoy it gained in the first 6 months. @maemilev
@@thezombiepotato1and still you lost both of these wars in Vietnam Americans were killed like dogs and Russia is fighting literally all of NATO alone without US aid Ukraine won't even last a month
Any piece of military hardware is only as good as the soldiers using it, as well as the larger picture of support and sustainment. The abrams is a cog in the US military machine, on its own it is just a tank.
If everyone is using "cope cages" despite everyone saying "cope cages" don't work then they do work.
No tank with a cope cage has ever been knocked out right?
"Land is where you are, and so you will carry it around with you."
"Dirt. This is a jar of dirt."
"Yes."
"Is the jar of dirt going to help?"
"If you don't want it give it back."
"No".
"Then it helps."
First, Ukraine denies withdrawing any armor.
Second, all tanks are vulnerable to drones. It’s a shift in warfare that welding sheetmetal over the tanks won’t stop
Atleast withdrawal of American Abrams is a news unlike the withdrawal of British tincans called challengers😅😅
5 vs1 lose
i dont think people understand… everything that the tank had that made it a great tank was literally stripped off the abrams… the tank was heavily “nerfed” before it was sent to ukraine
The main issue preventing NATO tactics is the minefield. One can't fight ground manoeuvre warfare unless they have punched through or cleared the minefield. The way NATO does that is by ensuring the enemies ability to Observer, Orient, Decide and Act has been destroyed or diminished enough so that ground forces can clear sections of the minefield undisturbed.
Calling them cope cages, is pretty desrespectful, and ignorant. It's an armoured roof. Have some respect for brave people doing their best with what they have, at least.
What about the rarely spotted Challenger 2?
They are literally a drop in the ocean, insignificant in the overall scheme of things
mmm 14 challengers aren't enough but neither is 31 Abrams. Ukrainian tankers are using the challengers to punch through Russian defenses behind tree lines. So far they have managed to escape the drones that the Abrams suffer from. Apart from that one tank I'm not sure what got that chally 2?
they use the chally to snipe and the otherone more in the offense, or thats what it looks like to me
The weapon the challenger uses is great for range, and the US has been criticizing for ages, but its the reason the challenger is still effective.
Doubt any of them still working lol
The US Abram tanks that were abandoned when the US military ran away from the Taliban in Afghanistan are all in like new, never used, perfect shape.
One big problem- most Talibanians don't have a driver's licence
SO THE GAME CHANGER WAS UTTERLY USELESS and a glass cannon.
Well the abrams got the same treatment as those Ts. So you can't really say much, we didn't really even see a tank to tank battle, these attacks against the abrams were drone and missile based attacks. These tanks are dependent on air support, which is something that ukraine lacks. Like every tank they are extremely vulnerable to the enemy if not properly protected, also ofc these tanks got targeted first, it was done to purposely humiliate NATO. All of a sudden you destroy 5 tanks from your most hated enemy and that makes you superior to the enemy. Abrams vs the Ts is like AR vs AK. Though we are yet to see true fair fight between the two.
@@spartan7119yes. But in western world, their tanks were the best (when facing flip flop sandals army), and Ruzzian tanks were trash.
The reality is, not one survived the drone. Yet, the western hype was laughable.
@YaraMits western hype was fueled by the Western media, but I guess the same could be said to the Russians, believing that they would be able to take on Ukraine in a week or so, yet here we are with the war still raging on. Also, do note that the tanks were older models of the abrams of that of the m1a1s, meaning that they lack current day equipment and technology. One of these would be the isreali trophy systems that were installed on the M1A2 SPEV3 tanks, which are used to destroy incoming missiles or drones.
Imagine the war was in the baltics rather than Ukraine and these Abrams tanks were sent in with american crews. Thousands of body bags would be flying back to old Majorie Taylor Green homestate.
How on Earth do you expect Ukraine to use combined arms tactics when they don't have any NATO-standard aircraft?!
If they had F-16s for the counter-offensive last year, they would at the very least have liberated Tokmak, and at most would have cut the land bridge to Crimea.
But our leaders dithered. And now all humanity will pay dearly for the long war to follow.
No they wouldn't F16 will be the next "game changer" that fails to deliver.
'All humanity will pay', really? If they had F16s and the necessary infrastructure to maintain them, they would still have been destroyed by the Russians! And no doubt, a few of them would have been delivered to Russia by Ukrainian pilots who realize that their corrupt government uses them as cannon fodder and of course, the Russians will offer a reward for their surrender with NATO equipment intact! Fighting with a gun pointed at the back of your head isn't courage!
You really think some F16 are going to wipe out the Ruzzian? Ever heard of anti-air missiles? The Ruzzian had many of them.
The reason your government were so incompetent when sending those jets was, they haven't fought a worthy opponent. This is Ruzzia, not some flip flop sandals army.
You can’t fight a combined arms war when you haven’t been supplied with the necessary equipment, like aircraft!!
Very clumsy and impartial reporting. Ukraine has no possibility of using "combined arms warfare" and has NOT had that option at all. This means, among other things, you have to have an airforce, or at least not be facing 10+ to 1 odds. The other thing you are missing is that the world and warfare is now firmly into the drone age. Until rapid firing radar directed laser weapons are fielded in large numbers, combined with other arms (see how that works?), all vehicles are just going to get pulverized on both sides. If any nation were in Ukraines spot right now, the story would be the same, drones killing expensive tanks.
Hits a mine its done, it dont matter what tank it is. Drones also have complete control over armored vehicles. IFV's are the future they need more Bradleys.
Every country that ordered them should reject the deal lol
As an ex19E glad I'm of retirement age. Any armor units without friendly air space are units with very brief lifespans. Drones have made Warthogs obsolete and those A-10s were the greatest winged armor killers in military aviation history.
In the Vietnam War the North Vietnamese Army never committed their T-55 and PT-76 tanks to the frontline because they knew it was suicide and had no chance vs an American M48A3 tank and Air power! Only on the final days of the war when the US was pulling out of South Vietnam then the tanks came rolling in.
In Vientnam war Vietnamese always used T-55 , PT-76 and even T-34-85 at front line. T-55 was comletly superior against American tanks of those times. Saigon was taken by T-55 columns attack. T-55 was superior against M48 in all aspects. and Usually americans just ran away. Same as Abrams tanks in this conflict.
@@AlexanderTch Technically speaking the T-55 has a slight advantage over the M48A3 but American crews were better trained and with superior air support the T-55 can't win. The same with an Abrams Tank crewed by Americans with massive air support no enemy can defeat an Abrams! Any tank or armoured vehicle are sitting ducks without air cover. NVA T-55 and PT-76 appeared in numbers when the US decided to pull out and the Air Force were ordered to stand down.
@@codfusilli5879 Yes, American tankmen in Vietnam was better trained for sure than Vietnamese tankmen. But Vietnamese were not cowards at all. They didn't run and were always ready sacrifice their lives. So, you statement, about "they ran away when saw M48" is complete fake and your fantasty. And numbers of T-55s in Vietname were much less than American types. Vietnamese even used decent amout of WW2 machines like T-34, Su-100, and IS-2 /IS-3. And they still won. Statement about PT-76 is comletely silly. PT-76 is not actually tank. it's boat with trucks. In areas with lots rivers, swamps, lakes it can be very useful. but it's not suitable for confronation agaist real tank.
Americans didn't have total air superirity in Vietnam. You lie. Americans lost 40% of their aviation there. You can visit central park in Khanoi and see remnants of B-52 lying in swamp there. RUssia delivered there all kinds of SAMs. Besides, there were some amount of Mig-21, Mig-19s, Mig-15s. Mig-21 had total superiority against all american types.
To destroy Abrams even in case of total air superiorty of the enemy is not very hard once you have at least good ATGMS, drones, artillery. Tank is huge, not maneuverable, easy to detect with hot engine. It's not big deal for a guy with ATGM to burn it. Plenty number of them was burnt in Iraq that even didn't have good ATGMs.
So, anyone who wants can burn Abrams. It's not undefeatable and unbreakable whatever you fantasize.
They didnt deployed it to fight US, because NVA werent supported with tanks to deployed until the end stage of the war. The nature of the war in each stages were different. The early and mid stage were to build up the force and war infrastructure, they relied heavily on infantry to wage guerilla warfare. Only when the time was right, which their enemy severely weaken and their force grow stronger enough to fight conventional warfare, tanks and armor could be effective. There's no point for guerilla force to deploy tanks if you not going to fight conventional battle, and the supply line was still in developing in early and mid stage too so heavy equipments can rarely be transfered south VN. But in the end stage, they did deploy in 1971/1972, at that time ARVN still have US equipment and US air support, so T-55 did have fight with US equipments and air firepower
Made by Boeing 😂
Have you seen how Ukraine is using Western armor? This has literally nothing to do with the tanks themselves. When Western countries agreed to send tanks to Ukraine, I GUARANTEE YOU they sent them believing that Ukraine was going to mass ALL OF THEM (Abrams, Challengers, Leopards AND their IFVs like Bradleys, Marders, CV90s, etc) in one spot...likely in the south of the country...and use them all together as a sledgehammer to smash through Russian defenses in one massive offensive push.
Instead, Ukraine spread all of them out randomly along a 1,000 km+ front line and is using them exactly like they use their junk Soviet equipment. The footage is available online for anyone to see. You NEVER see multiple Western tanks or IFVs fighting together in a combined force. Instead, you see footage of ONE tank or ONE Bradley out in the middle of a field all by itself shooting at a random target and then retreating. Western countries have never, and would never, use ANY armor like that. Ukraine is just wasting this equipment. They are making good use of Western artillery, HIMARS, Patriots, etc...but they are straight-up wasting Western armor. ESPECIALLY the tanks.
Sometime around January of 2023, two Green Berets who went to Ukraine voluntarily to train Ukrainian troops after Russia invaded came back home to the US and wrote an article about the biggest problems the Ukrainians were facing. This was BEFORE Western armor was sent to Ukraine. In their article, they perfectly predicted how Western armored vehicles were going to be wasted by the Ukrainians. They said that NATO countries were doing a fantastic job training Ukrainian troops. The problem? NATO countries WERE NOT TRAINING UKRAINIAN COMMANDERS!
So we were training Ukrainian troops in Western military tactics on Western military equipment, then we were shipping these troops and this equipment back to Ukraine where the Ukrainian COMMANDERS were just throwing Ukrainian troops into unorganized mass attacks on Russian positions EXACTLY LIKE the Russians have been doing from day one. Just sending a small group of Ukrainian troops in Western armor straight into a mined Russian area with no air cover, no artillery cover, no backup, no plan, no nothing.
Remember early on when the Russians posted video footage of like six or seven Bradleys and three or four Leopard tanks all massed in a pile and abandoned? The Ukrainians did LITERALLY EXACTLY what I just mentioned. Their commander just Leroy Jenkins'd these Western IFVs and tanks straight into a Russian minefield with no plan other than "attack this tree line". As soon as they hit mines and disabled their IFVs, they had no choice but to abandon everything and run away or else they were going to get smoked by Russian artillery. The Ukrainians inside those Bradleys and Leopards survived, and they eventually recovered those abandoned tanks and IFVs, but those pieces of equipment were completely wasted. They did NOTHING. They drove straight into a minefield, got disabled and damaged and then got shipped back to Poland to be repaired.
These Green Berets predicted EXACTLY what was going to happen with all of this Western armor, but nobody listened. And apparently nobody bothered to train Ukrainian commanders in Western tactics. People got up-in-arms when Zelensky fired Valerii Zaluzhnyi as the C-i-C of the Ukrainian armed forces back in February because Zaluzhnyi was so well-liked by his troops. But I will bet you anything that firing him was 100% the correct move and it was 100% because he and his commanders were just wasting these Western-trained troops and this Western armor in Soviet-style failed attacks without EVER changing tactics.
So the reality is that Ukraine should've kept ALL of these Western tanks parked in a Soviet-era nuclear bunker somewhere safe from day one. They never should've used them to begin with because they were always just going to waste them. This has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of the tanks themselves. Not Abrams or Leopards or Challengers. Those tanks are GENERATIONS BETTER than ANY tank Russia has. But if you are just going to use them as big armored targets, and the only good they do is keeping the Ukrainians inside of them alive when they are hit by Russian drones or mines or artillery, then what is even the point of having them?
Russian chat gpt?
Combined strike will face huge counter offensive from russians, because they will knew where it will be.
Currently all along the frontline there is separate small fights with followed holding ground, small piece by piece. It's worked in 2022, but not in 2023, and in 2024 it begin fail badly because of lack of equipment.
Sticking them in one spot without air control would have been just a different recipe for disaster from the one that has been cooked.
Of course the curious thing that no one wants to recall is how come Russia lined up so much equipment in a row just waiting to be attacked by air in the first few weeks and did not get punished for it? Because a) there was never a real attempt to conquer Ukraine, just to get enough artillery between the Ukraine forces and Donbas to defeat the attack on Donbas; and b) any air attack would have been welcomed and destroyed immediately.
I just saw what you said abou5 concentration of tanks in one direction and I can tell that you must be a mastermind tactician.
Wow!!! What an expert! I must have plenty of combat experience. Ukraine must hire you
Ukraine hyped them so much, they thought they are indestructible. Ukrainian tankers might have been trained with NATO SOP's but they still fight the same way that russia does, which doesnt work
Misleading those are not new tanks…. Those are reconditioned T80’s from reserve stocks.
Washing machine chips, shovels and now anti drone potato bags.
The REAL game changers!
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Turtle tanks are a real game changer compared to M1
Abrams isnt as effective as ATACMS
Can atacms hold the line?
@@operator9858 apparently Abrams can't
@@TheIvanMilky touche.
yes the russians have better
@@operator9858
No
ATACMS would wipe out that line
Ukraine is not going to win this fighting tactically
they have to fight strategically
Abrams holding the line does nothing
In two ATACMS strikes, Ukrainian shredded two Russia airfields.
The first strike destroyed 18 helos which cost Russia 10 KA-52s
The damage from the second is still unknown but that also was home to Russian gunships
That is the kinda of fighting Ukraine needs to do
massive asset denial
I doubt those abrams can effectively defend against drone attacks on its top armor, so those cope cages the russians used don't seem so bad now.
OOOOOH THE NAFO COPE!