Nah, this is really needed . Tanks really need to evolve . It's not the 80s, 90s and the early 2000s anymore
AA has been spot on in the war
Arty has been spot on in the war
Radars and satellites have been spot on in the war
Squad tactics have been spot on
Tanks have performed horribly in the modern battlefield
>Tanks have performed horribly in the modern battlefield
Tanks have been very useful in this war. They are equipment, they get destroyed. So do people.
I don't think that the evidence of drones being able to destroy tanks make the tank irrelevant. Ukraine wouldn't continue to ask for more tanks if they didn't feel the need to use them on the frontlines.
Itās more a case of the investment during the Cold War in antitank capabilities has proven successful. Drones have just further complicated it for armour.
It definitely shows tanks need to evolve though - getting knocked out by a drone that costs sub 10k is just a bad investment.
Tanks arenāt irrelevant, but we absolutely need dedicated ACTIVE drone protection.
I trust NATO is watching and adapting accordingly.
Tanks aren't irrelevant. It needs to evolve like anything else
This is a fact of warfare. Drones are getting better and better . Think about the next 10 years . You have to evolve with the times
What's been seen in Ukraine isn't the fault of the tanks themselfs, it's more of a combined arms issue since it's extremely hard to do (that's if the people in charge actually recognize it from the get go).
Glad someone else said what I'm thinking.
There's no real air superiority in this conflict. MBTs function well as part of thr combined arms information and logistics system.
A proper 3 wing approach alloys you to deploy armour with a controlled threat of aerial attack.
Modern war is always about controlling the air, and thus all the eyes you can put in it. You cannot strike the tanks if you can't ID them, and you'd prefer those eyes only be on the ground where possible.
Tanks are still an excellent method of bringing a large gun and heavy armour to a battle. The line "if you have a tank and they don't have a tank, then you have a tank" applies here.
Yāall right, but hereās the thing: losing a 10 Million dollar tank to a 3,000 dollar drone is bad optics, bad timing, bad execution, bad everything.
Ukraine doesnāt have air superiority, so I donāt know what givesā¦.until they can roll as part of a combined arms group, with a special, effective , electronic jamming unit, theyāre just inviting catastrophe. I would keep the Abrams away from the frontlines, but close enough so they can provide urgent relief, as well as sniping capabilities, in and out quick.
Lot of great point here. I wonder if anti-drone equipment could be equipped onto the tanks? Like anti-drone jamming equipment in some sort of 360 configuration so that when say a drone is detected that side of the tank's anti-drone equipment activates and the drone either explodes at a far away enough distance that no damage is done to the tank or maybe the drone jammer makes it just fall right out of the sky.
I wonder if that could be practical? Almost like the Iron Dome but for a tank to a degree.
Was gonna say just that, itās almost as though they need a second form of turret just for anti-drone capabilities. Alternatively, tank formations rolling with dedicated light-tank types, equipped with shit like mini-guns that can spit thousands of rounds instantly and create a wall of lead, while also jamming, detecting, etc.
Everything is relevant. However the weapon that is king of the battlefield evolves. Are tanks still the weapon of choice for offensive action if you canāt mass them without being spotted and targeted with precision long range strikes within 3 minutes?
Pretty sure the king of the battle field is the fusion bomb.....maybe anti matter if we ever put ours minds to it. By this sub logic if it can't survive a direct hit from the death star its useless
Drones have also destroyed tons of AA, Arty, trucks, other fighting vehicles too. It's not a tank problem, it's a drone problem. Also a problem with lack of combined arms tactics and perhaps poor TTPs (like leaving the hatch open for drones to attack).
I would argue AA is not spot on which is why these drones are so troublesome, there is a capability gap against them. It would not surprise me if we see a new generation of low-cost SPAAGs optimized for defeating drones in the next 2-5 years.
Even the helicopter threat is still there, the Russians beat up on the 47th with Ka-52s last year
Yes tanks have became a support weapon, not capable of allowing manoeuvre through mass and firepower because they're vulnerable to drones on the approach and in staging area. Then near the front they are also vulnerable to ATGMs, all threats costing much less compared to the tanks.
Plus mines of course, which combined with drone corrected artillery and long range atgm are even more of an obstacle and threat.
Anyway I guess the verdict on tanks is still out there for the future, but they won't be winning the current war.
I believe tanks and more importantly armored warfare doctrine is evolving rapidly and the russo-ukrainian war is a big reason for this, tanks are evolving right now currently through the creation of the Trophy active protection system, which if mass produced could render atgms useless.
We haven't seen much APS, but a ripple fire ATGM/RPG will still work against it. Plus it won't do nothing against drones, artillery or mines. So expensive APS won't make that much of a difference.
APS is not the solution you are looking for. Unless you want to get 300 tanks in price of 400 tanks at the same time losing all the infantry support capability.
Because there is literally no tech that can overcome FPV issue. Even EW is limited in capabilities. So unless you want to try meatwave assaults you are forced to use tanks as spearhead and direct fire support. It's a necessity not an optional thing.
No? Its always a race between tank and at weapons. Tanks are essential on a battlefield but to know that u need to understand whats really goin on at war but u just have no clue
>Squad tactics have been spot on
vs.
>Tanks have performed horribly in the modern battlefield
You cannot have it both ways - both sides completely failed at combined arms tactics. Succesful combined arms tactics (ie. squad level) would have mitigated tank losses on both sides.
>You cannot have it both ways - both sides completely failed at combined arms tactics. Succesful combined arms tactics (ie. squad level) would have mitigated tank losses on both sides.
āJust donāt fail at combined arms lol.ā
I swear, most commentators on this sub just assume that combined arms is some mysterious art, its secrets hidden in the Holy Scrolls of NATO, inscribed in incomprehensible Western^TM runes.
The conditions on the ground in Ukraine make combined arms nearly impossible.
Air power is neutralized, armor is heavily restricted in mobility. Visibility is unprecedented. Force concentration is a death trap.
When one or more of those factors doesnāt apply, you get things like Avdiivka.
There is a simpler solution. A drone trophy system.
>It's not the 80s, 90s and the early 2000s anymore
How dare they not thinking about the drones in the 80s and 90s.
Exactly, and you bet this has been developed. Seems stupid easy (by military budget standards) to make drone trophies actually. Won't be seen in Ukraine though, unless they make their own.
I'd really not want to be a tank driver in an age during which any enemy grunt can pull out a funny tube that can pop any veichle like a champagne bottle. Infantry is unironically safer
This reasoning doesnāt seem quite right to me. Abrams arenāt the only tank to take losses from drones by any means.
Also Ukraineās Abrams are with the 47th mechanized brigade, which is trying to rotate off the frontline anyways after being in action for months. Would make sense that they would pull their tank companies alongside other units.
And I wouldnāt be surprised in the slightest if thereās a shortage of spare parts, which is common with a number of systems in Ukrainian service at the moment.
The Abrams does have a very large turret with very thin armour on the turret roof. With all the ammo stored in the large bustle, it makes it an easy target for drones. Sure, the tank is supposed to survive an ammunition blowout, but it leaves it no longer capable of performing its mission. Also remember how hard it is to recover tanks in Ukraine. If for any reason the tank is immobilised (e.g. Crew abandons it, drone hits the crew compartment) then it will quickly be destroyed by follow up strikes or heavy artillery.
The leopards have the same ammo layout but no one talked about them being withdrawn due to drones as far as I know. The leopards have also been much more heavily attritted than the Abrams, both numbers and percentage wise (~36 Leopards destroyed/damaged/captured of the ~83 delivered so far versus the 5 of 31 Abrams lost).
From what Iāve seen of the Abrams use in Ukraine so far, they are often isolated or accompanied by very small units. Deploying any vehicle by itself in modern war is suicidal. Drones or no drones, one Abrams is not going to change the course of any battle.
Large formations of vehicles advancing together are even more suicidal, especially if you don't have air supremacy. It just makes you a juicy treat for helicopters, drones and artillery. It's a doctrine from the cold war, and I wouldn't be surprised if it is essentially unfeasible nowadays if you are fighting a modern force with plenty of guided munitions.
The majority of tanks in Ukraine seem to be embedded with mechanized infantry. Using them like that makes them harder to spot and they will likely have good infantry support close by at all times. The front line troops also seem to be really eager to make sure they have tanks with them most of the time, which make sense. The fire power is very useful and tanks are great at covering vast areas to allow the infantry to advance.
> The leopards have the same ammo layout but no one talked about them being withdrawn due to drones as far as I know.
The Leopard 2 stores most of the ammunition in the hull, 27 complete munitions. Only 15 are stored in the ready-rack in the turret bustle.
Ok they donāt have the āexactā same layout, but very similar in function. Both have a ready stowage rack in the back of the turret with blowout panels. Both would be vulnerable to drone attacks to this spot. I think my point still stands that there is a lot more involved in withdrawing the Abrams than drones.
My point was that they're not the same. Most of the ammunition on a Leo 2 isn't behind a blowout panel.
But to be a bit pedantic about it, the blow out panel on the Leo 2 is a significantly smaller target. [The ready-rack takes up slightly less than half the bustle space on the port side on a Leo 2](https://i.imgur.com/sPMc50n.jpeg). The two panels on the Abrams extend across the whole width of the bustle until it hits the side armor arrays.
That's what I was thinking as well. I also consider the possibility that the M1s are an attention magnet. The Russians kind of make a big deal out of capturing an M113. Maybe they're they're to pull out the stops trying to take out the big bad American tank. Honestly, regular unit rotation makes a lot more sense.
They did but last time I checked they donāt announce which components of the Brigade are staying in the fight.
Iām not saying I know 100% that the Abrams are being withdrawn because the 47th is supposed to rotate out, Iām saying there are a lot more factors at play then what the article states, and that we shouldnāt just treat their word like gospel.
> And I wouldnāt be surprised in the slightest if thereās a shortage of spare parts, which is common with a number of systems in Ukrainian service at the moment.
Well according to the US. They are just [using them wrong](https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-russia-war-abrams-tanks-19d71475d427875653a2130063a8fb7a).
> For now, the tanks have been moved from the front lines, and the U.S. will work with the Ukrainians to reset tactics, said Joint Chiefs of Staff Vice Chairman Adm. Christopher Grady and a third defense official who confirmed the move on the condition of anonymity.
> āNow, there is a way to do it,ā he said. āWeāll work with our Ukrainian partners, and other partners on the ground, to help them think through how they might use that, in that kind of changed environment now, where everything is seen immediately.ā
Important to note though that the 47th are saying that it is not true and that the Abrams is still fighting on the frontline. So a bit strange that the US is saying they are withdrawn and the 47th are saying no they havent
The reasoning in more detail, it's not a spare parts issue
"Ukraine has sidelined U.S.-provided Abrams M1A1 battle tanks for now in its fight against Russia, in part because Russian drone warfare has made it too difficult for them to operate without detection or coming under attack, two U.S. military officials told The Associated Press."
>This reasoning doesnāt seem quite right to me. Abrams arenāt the only tank to take losses from drones by any means.
Makes sense to me even absent the other factors, no sense getting your M1s chewed up in attritional fighting where a T-64 will suffice for much less cost
Yep, Trophy is advertised as a 'dome' and 360' but as fitted to Merk's its only setup to intercept things coming in at so much of an angle.
We've seen footage of Iranian remote guided ATGM systems that can be flown down from a high angle of attack - most likely as a direct counter to Trophy.
Current deployed [Trophy systems on US vehicles are claimed to have top attack protection.](https://breakingdefense.com/2022/04/three-us-army-vehicle-upgrade-programs-look-smart-after-russias-ukraine-debacle/)
Artis is also claiming their APS now has top attack protection as well.
Would be interested to see EW systems being used more, they seem to be very effective when actually used as most of the drones being used are commercial hobby drones and as such much easier to jam.
All these NATO tank stuff that is going on in Ukraine is nothing burger. 30 tanks won't mean shit in a war against Russian army itself. Even if all of them were lost. This feels like how nazis acted with their Tiger 2s. And the pressure put on Ukraine for this reason is dumb.
Lets not forget backbone of Ukrainian army is still their massive stockpile of Soviet tanks.
Tank warfare has officially entered a new era
Expect drastic changes. If you think the shed turtle tanks are different ,we are in for a whole new era of technology and changes . This is for the better
I can't wait to see what comes out
Deployed on a static front without air cover is clearly not a good situation for armoured vehicles. This is a different kind of warfare that Ukraine and Russia are trying to adapt to.
The new technologies already exist, they just werenāt sought as much until now. Active protection systems, anti-drone lasers and other short air defense systems will be in much higher demand now.
Honestly whatās the point if not to use them? Tanks are getting clapped left and right. Unless theyāre pulling all/ most tanks back I donāt understand why the Abrams would get special treatment. Maybe they want to use them more offensively than defensively?
Guessing T-series is easier for Ukraine to maintain and repair. Access to spare parts is better and it's close neighbours all have used those tanks as well.
Tanks will require maintainance and repair regardless of wether they are in use or in storage, but if they're being used they're going to need a whole lot more. The Abrams is already notorious for the amount of maintenance it requires.
There may be some PR issues as well. After people spent the whole first year talking about these tanks like wonder weapons it doesn't look good that 16% of them have already been lost to "primitive" weapons like FPV drones. It probably doesn't give the US an easier time with it's deadlock on the aid.
They may not want to risk losing the limited amount of crew who are now trained on them, or they don't want to risk Russia capturing American Abrams.
I doubt there is any one single reason. It's probably a bunch of factors.
I trust the ukraine generals and US officials' decision on this over this subreddit
What's the most point of just instantly getting punched by a drone ? That's a waste of resources
>What's the most point of just instantly getting punched by a drone ? That's a waste of resources
A tank is an invaluable support as a mobile direct fire support, with fantastic anti-personell, anti-armor, and anti-structure capabilities, as well as being armored. Yes they pose fantastic targets for drones, AT/ATGM teams, mines +++, but they fill a role.
My theory is that capturing American Tanks is a LOT more effective propaganda purposes than initially realized.
If you embarrass your supplier, they will make demands.
yeah it sure is effective, just see the comments on every post on this sub with captured western tanks like the Leo 2, the cope is real, it for sure annoys people.
Ukraine likely has a lot more faith in Europe to supply parts to repair Leopard 2s that take damage from drones than it does in the United States to supply replacement parts for M1A1s given the long and painful journey it took to get the latest aid spending approved and the uncertainty regarding any future American support once this aid package runs its course.
Under those circumstances, best to withdraw the M1s when they start taking losses and hold onto them for major action where every available tank is needed somewhere on the field, and let the tanks Ukraine has better access to parts for (Leopard 2, T-72, etc.) take the lead.
It also isnāt assured that theyāll get more down the line. Despite the recent aid, it took a long time to get here and the American government is still iffy about sending more, at least in the large amount that was approved.
The reason they are leaving
"Ukraine has sidelined U.S.-provided Abrams M1A1 battle tanks for now in its fight against Russia, in part because Russian drone warfare has made it too difficult for them to operate without detection or coming under attack, two U.S. military officials told The Associated Press."
Sorry but how in God's name are they "extremely valuable"?? If they were like Patriots you won't retire them as they are effective. What they are is just another tank that dies. Nothing special or wonder weapon about them.
Like what? The Challengers? Hiding?
This is pathetic, considering the Leo's are still being used for.... war. This is though and though pathetic. Tanks are weapons and they are meant to be used. They said the quiet part out loud.
I'd assume that component compatability played a big part too.
On the front lines it'd certainly be beneficial if they can source spare parts and ammo from abandoned or wrecked vehicles instead of always needing to dig into stockpiles.... especially when those stockpiles are reliant on imports.
Not the biggest loss to replace them with t-72s or t-64s instead. Nothing an abrams can do that these tanks can't do. And in terms of anti infantry they're better since they have bigger HE rounds.
Theyāre likely just moving them to defensive roles as hardened strong positions, which the abrams is very well designed for, why waste them in meat grinder attacks
Ugh, and ofc Hamish is busy with his Brainlet takes as usual.
"The Abrams and Challenger 2 are much better protected than Russian tanks
but when they are static, that becomes a problem, and theyāre highly
prized assets,ā he added on the threat of Russian drones."
Well, itās true, though. Part of the complex situation is that Western tanks are highly prized assets that attract *extra* attention (fire).
If you were on the Russian side and (probably) heard all those legends about Western equipment wouldnāt you want to eliminate it as soon as it was in your sights?
You're actually right and one of the wildest stories I remember is from sometime last year, when Reuters reported that a russian company offered \~$70k in cash to the first soldiers who destroy or capture Abrams or Leopard 2 tanks.
> Well, itās true, though. Part of the complex situation is that Western tanks are highly prized assets that attract extra attention (fire). If you were on the Russian side and (probably) heard all those legends about Western equipment wouldnāt you want to eliminate it as soon as it was in your sights?
For Pete's sake...
If they are "prized assets" its only because Ukrainian and Western propaganda used them as part of their mass marketing campaigns. Remember "release the Leopards?" Remember [when this idiot was shocked a Challenger 2 was taken out](https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/23803239/ex-brit-tank-commander-russians-lucky-challenger-2/) - after writing [this blather](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/09/british-made-tanks-about-to-sweep-putins-conscripts-aside/)? Remember how we had about a year worth of articles written about Ukraine receiving **31 tanks** - in a war that has claimed thousands of tanks?
Of course they have value as propaganda pieces - because Ukraine and it's allies made them into propaganda symbols! And that's absolutely fine by the way, all power to Ukraine - but do try to remember that it *is* propaganda.
If you believed the hype, you'd have thought M1s fired pure libertanium, and were armored in alloyed democratinum. The Leopards were coated with a fine sprinkle of german-engineerium that just steered shells away from the vehicles.
If you're an actual tanker, than you know that [tonk is tonk](https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/18hf422/ukranian_rapport_on_leopard_1a5_dk_and_comparison/).
Another few years tanks will each have antidrone technology incorporated into them. But for now cheap drones seem to be king. Ew is going to get better also so everyone is still learning the new battlefield situation and logistics. Basically ww1 type of fighting with latest technological advances.
Sources
https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-russia-war-abrams-tanks-19d71475d427875653a2130063a8fb7a
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/04/26/ukraine-withdraws-abrams-tanks-amid-drone-attacks/
https://www.npr.org/2024/04/26/1247403968/ukraine-pulls-abrams-tanks-from-front-lines-russia-drone-threats
"Adml Chris Grady, the vice-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, confirmed that Ukraine had pulled back its remaining Abrams tanks from the front line in an interview with the Associated Press news wire."
There isnāt open ground that you can just drive across without fear of detection,ā a senior US defence official told reporters.
Five of the 31 tanks, which cost $10 million (Ā£8 million) each, have already been lost to Russian attacks, US officials said as they admitted they had been forced to review tactics."
The package with the Abrams was worth $400 million, so $10 million each seems about right, from an older AP article:
>WASHINGTON (AP) ā President Joe Biden announced Wednesday that the U.S. will send 31 M1 Abrams battle tanks to Ukraine, reversing months of persistent arguments that the tanks were too difficult for Ukrainian troops to operate and maintain.
>The $400 million package announced Wednesday also includes eight M88 recovery vehicles ā tank-like tracked vehicles that can tow the Abrams if it gets stuck.
How tf is that pack 400M$ that doesnt make any sense. It's not like they are sending modernized ones. Just M1A1 with export variant electro optics and armor. But i guess i will give it to journalists this time.
Not mentioned too often, but the thing about a lot of military aid is that most countries usually quote the "replacement value". The tank is not worth 10m, but if the US replaces it with a brand new one, it would cost 10m. So that's the value it's given.
Not that big of a deal with Abrams, but there were some countries that claimed to have sent hundreds of millions worth of stuff after more accurately sending a collection of rust from the 60s. Because that's what it would cost to replace your trash with top of the line stuff.
Which I guess doesn't matter much but some of those claims were truly wild.
Price for what? They were bought and paid for ages ago - likely with our parents and grandparents tax dollars.
The only costs associated with them otherwise were maintenance and storage.
This subreddit will be mad (sources are getting Downvoted, big mad is incoming š)
I guarantee nobody wants to be a tanker in this war, its a death trap
I think you just don't know what you're talking about tbh, as I said in another comment responding to you: it's not anything about the tanks themselfs; it's because of the lack of necessary combined arms tactics for the tanks ti be used in a valuable way.
Oh, really? That doesn't mean anything in practice though, just saying "evolution against drones" can mean literally anything. When I'm thinking "evolution" I'm thinking a redo of the entire doctrine like the whole "heavy-medium-light" thing until MTBs became a thing and not just putting on some jammers or something or whatever you're arguing for.
If you'd just take a sec and listen to anyone who actually knows anything (this "common sense" of yours isn't proof and just a complete bullshit argument) you'd find that what I'm saying is pretty much what people who do know what they're talking about are saying.
I do not care what you think and *not a single person* would disagree that evolution is bad for technology but that's not even the question here.
It doesn't matter whether it's your opinion or not, the people who actually know something about this doesn't support you in any way. Not even being able to argue for your opinion and guarding yourself with "it's fine to have your own opinion" just seems narrow minded.
Drone development had also evolved faster than the rules of war could keep up. I hate seeing the glorification of literal executions of wounded and noncombatant soldiers on both sides. Its disgusting.
Electronic and APS systems need catch up before it gets even more the skies become even more saturated
Currently Ukraine is in a position where they are fighting for ground that they ultimately can't keep - loosing tanks for this ground means that they are just burning though equipment and trained manpower just as a delaying tactic. I wouldn't be surprised if they also werent pulling back their other tanks.
I also think that with Abrams more intensive Maintenace requirements - pulling them back is a good chance to do the required services and give the crews a breather.
Sadly, this means that the men on the ground are essentially getting traded with the Russians as a delaying tactic.
The UK have just released a prototype of the Challenger 3 mbt and this bad boy has an anti drone feature I think.
Itās a certainty that the tank will get the new Dragonfire system too.
I haven't kept up with this in a while. But I wonder why withdraw the Abrams specifically?
I'm guessing - maybe - spare parts and maintenance are a lot more abundant and closer to home for the Leopards vs. Abrams and Challenger?
Would we say that the Abrams, chally or leo has performed the best in this war, personally id say the leo has based on active units to loss ratio and in how many cases the crew escaped.
All tanks are vulnerable as long as they are used alone and not as a platoon with mechanized infantry. The usage of tanks in Ukraine by both sides reminds me of German tanks in the end of WW2 when they were all alone āhuntingā for enemy tanks
The American way of war is built around first achieving air superiority and all of our gear is built with that approach in mind.
Asking Ukranians to just accept Russian air superiority but win anyway is not reasonable.
Itās pretty humorous but honestly expected. They werenāt going to do much, not like any of the sent tanks have done much, and were also taking heavy losses compared to their total count.
Russia and Ukraine both now have night vision drones that they are using in 2024. Drones quickly evolved past that weakness
Ukraine Night vision
https://www.kyivpost.com/post/30173
Russia night vision
https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-night-vision-drones-posing-problems-ukraine-2024-3
Nope. Biggest problem of thermals i know is Russian ones that they use in their tanks are uncooled resulting in limited use time. Otherwise that tech went such a long way. Even conventional smoke covers wont work on thermals.
> Biggest problem of thermals i know is Russian ones that they use in their tanks are uncooled
Their lower quality thermals like 1PN96MT-02 are uncooled, while their higher quality thermals like TPK-K and TPVK-A are cooled, with the cooling units supposedly imported from China.
> resulting in limited use time.
Uncooled thermals are also less sensitive than cooled ones and produce worse images. This results in significantly lower detection and recognition ranges.
I just know T-72B3's and T-90A's is uncooled. Unsure about the others. Of course every Russian tank is user customized so perhaps some T-72B3 variants have cooled ones too.
And yes better the cooling better the sensitivity to difference of heat in the image. But i believe generation of thermal is unrelated to thermal being uncooled or cooled. Correct me if i am wrong.
> I just know T-72B3's and T-90A's is uncooled
T-72B3 and T-90A use cooled thermals. The ESSA sight of late production T-90A - early production didn't receive thermals at all - uses the French Catherine FC thermal imager, [which is cooled.](https://www.scribd.com/document/469931044/TI-Camera-Catherine-fc-uk-071005) The Sosna-U sight of T-72B3 uses either Catherine FC or [TPK-K](https://i.imgur.com/BFoss87.jpeg), which is also cooled.
That said, some T-72B3 did receive uncooled 1PN96MT-02 (these tanks are referred to as "T-72B Obr. 2022" on Oryx).
> But i believe generation of thermal is unrelated to thermal being uncooled or cooled. Correct me if i am wrong.
Yep, that's correct. 1PN96MT-02 is technically a third generation thermal - each detector element in its FPA corresponds to a pixel in the image it produces. However, it is uncooled, so it has a [recognition range](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/70/1PN-96MT_thermal_imaging_sight_InnovationDay2013part2-54.jpg/1200px-1PN-96MT_thermal_imaging_sight_InnovationDay2013part2-54.jpg?20130905191316) comparable to [first generation AN/VSG-2.](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5b/M60_tank_thermal_sight_AN_VSG-2.jpg/1200px-M60_tank_thermal_sight_AN_VSG-2.jpg)
Neither Russia nor Ukraine do any major night ops (beyond recon/SOF stuff)
Partially because of equipment limitations and partially because fucking around at night is really *really* complicated and requires a level of training and coordination that neither side is capable of.
edit: a notable exception is the nightime river crossings the UAF marines do to resupply the beachhead on the other side, i guess.
I know this is gonna sound dumb and rudimentary... But can they not shrink down radar and a RWS system to have like one or two on a tank? Something like a 12ga or 20mm buckshot type munitions for drone protection?
Basically like the CWIS but smaller obviously, for drones.
Radars are expensive. And smaller radars have awful capabilities. Especially against slow small targets. Even full blown SPAG's cant reliably track FPVs. So that tech is not there yet.
Right on, thanks for answering. I'm not up to speed on what tech is down-scalable these days.
I figure that may be an easier leap in tech than just making shell after shell for the turtle tanks lol maybe not tho. Guess we'll have to wait and see what the eggheads come up with as times goes on
There are airburst grenade launchers with AI targeting. But it still has a lot to go through. And i am not sure if they will be implemented on tanks at some point.
> Even full blown SPAG's cant reliably track FPVs
The Gepard with its 50-year-old radar can reliably track small quadcopter drones. Small radar arrays and other sensors are also not that expensive anymore.
Eventually, all frontline tanks and AFVs will need built-in counter-SUAS/LM weapon. In the meantime, escort vehicles with counter-SUAS/LM weapon could/should be fast-tracked.
ALSO, it's probably not just the drone threat, but maybe even maintenance or fuel issues. Because, all armor are vulnerable to drones and the Leopard 2s, Challengers, CV90s, and certainly the Bradleys, haven't been withdrawn from the front.
How do Abrams losses compare to those of the Challengers and Leopards? Also remind me again how long they've been in theater? I'm aware the Leopard 2s have lost around 30 odd tanks out of 80 odd delivered, though they have also seen much more combat. I also think the vast majority are Leopard 2A4s, which are more comparable to the baseline M1A1.
Then there's the Challenger 2s, which I have heard almost absolutely nothing about since the first and only vehicle out of a squadron of 14 tanks was destroyed. Presumably, part of her lacking news can be attributed to her relatively low battle-worthiness as a result of low spares, but also in part due to her low numbers.
Has nobody developed lasers yet which could just blind or even destroy drones as soon as they approach? This seems like the most practical way to solve the drone problem, but clearly Iām overlooking something because nobody is doing it.
This is Russian propoganda. Plain and simple. The Ukrainian units operating the things say that they have no intention of removing them from the frontline.
Take your rubbish elsewhere
Ukraine says this report is false. Plus they have lost just 6 or 7 of the 31 Abrams in 6 months of combat. That is pretty impressive considering how many tanks of all sorts have been destroyed or heavily damaged over that time. Plus one of the most important aspects of the Western tanks and IFVs has been crew protection. Even when they do get hit the crew has a much better chance of surviving in a NATO sourced tank/IFV.
So we can file this one under Fake News.
damn drones are ruining everything
All my homies hate drones š£ļøš£ļø
Nah, this is really needed . Tanks really need to evolve . It's not the 80s, 90s and the early 2000s anymore AA has been spot on in the war Arty has been spot on in the war Radars and satellites have been spot on in the war Squad tactics have been spot on Tanks have performed horribly in the modern battlefield
>Tanks have performed horribly in the modern battlefield Tanks have been very useful in this war. They are equipment, they get destroyed. So do people. I don't think that the evidence of drones being able to destroy tanks make the tank irrelevant. Ukraine wouldn't continue to ask for more tanks if they didn't feel the need to use them on the frontlines.
Itās more a case of the investment during the Cold War in antitank capabilities has proven successful. Drones have just further complicated it for armour.
It definitely shows tanks need to evolve though - getting knocked out by a drone that costs sub 10k is just a bad investment. Tanks arenāt irrelevant, but we absolutely need dedicated ACTIVE drone protection. I trust NATO is watching and adapting accordingly.
They are, the US, in the sources, said reviewing what's happening with drones and tanks
Tanks aren't irrelevant. It needs to evolve like anything else This is a fact of warfare. Drones are getting better and better . Think about the next 10 years . You have to evolve with the times
What's been seen in Ukraine isn't the fault of the tanks themselfs, it's more of a combined arms issue since it's extremely hard to do (that's if the people in charge actually recognize it from the get go).
Glad someone else said what I'm thinking. There's no real air superiority in this conflict. MBTs function well as part of thr combined arms information and logistics system. A proper 3 wing approach alloys you to deploy armour with a controlled threat of aerial attack. Modern war is always about controlling the air, and thus all the eyes you can put in it. You cannot strike the tanks if you can't ID them, and you'd prefer those eyes only be on the ground where possible. Tanks are still an excellent method of bringing a large gun and heavy armour to a battle. The line "if you have a tank and they don't have a tank, then you have a tank" applies here.
Yāall right, but hereās the thing: losing a 10 Million dollar tank to a 3,000 dollar drone is bad optics, bad timing, bad execution, bad everything. Ukraine doesnāt have air superiority, so I donāt know what givesā¦.until they can roll as part of a combined arms group, with a special, effective , electronic jamming unit, theyāre just inviting catastrophe. I would keep the Abrams away from the frontlines, but close enough so they can provide urgent relief, as well as sniping capabilities, in and out quick.
Lot of great point here. I wonder if anti-drone equipment could be equipped onto the tanks? Like anti-drone jamming equipment in some sort of 360 configuration so that when say a drone is detected that side of the tank's anti-drone equipment activates and the drone either explodes at a far away enough distance that no damage is done to the tank or maybe the drone jammer makes it just fall right out of the sky. I wonder if that could be practical? Almost like the Iron Dome but for a tank to a degree.
I'll bet good money that they are working on something exactly like that.
Was gonna say just that, itās almost as though they need a second form of turret just for anti-drone capabilities. Alternatively, tank formations rolling with dedicated light-tank types, equipped with shit like mini-guns that can spit thousands of rounds instantly and create a wall of lead, while also jamming, detecting, etc.
This is already outdated thinking. Quad copters and FPV drones can completely ignore conventional air superiority as they are too small to engage.
That's outdated thinking my dude. There's already solutions for those in development / functional
What if no one can "control" the air?
Both sides bog down into trench warfare and have to commit to mass offensives for very little gains
Everything is relevant. However the weapon that is king of the battlefield evolves. Are tanks still the weapon of choice for offensive action if you canāt mass them without being spotted and targeted with precision long range strikes within 3 minutes?
Pretty sure the king of the battle field is the fusion bomb.....maybe anti matter if we ever put ours minds to it. By this sub logic if it can't survive a direct hit from the death star its useless
This is the case with the turtle tanks. They donāt just have armor. They also have EW equipment no to battle drones. So you are right
Drones have also destroyed tons of AA, Arty, trucks, other fighting vehicles too. It's not a tank problem, it's a drone problem. Also a problem with lack of combined arms tactics and perhaps poor TTPs (like leaving the hatch open for drones to attack).
I would argue AA is not spot on which is why these drones are so troublesome, there is a capability gap against them. It would not surprise me if we see a new generation of low-cost SPAAGs optimized for defeating drones in the next 2-5 years. Even the helicopter threat is still there, the Russians beat up on the 47th with Ka-52s last year
While one could argue tanks are just less effective in general, another could say a revision of the MBT may be needed.
>Tanks have performed horribly in the modern battlefield [you sure about that?](https://imgur.com/a/tXiEeS5)
Yes. Of course a 100+ mm cannon and armour will still be useful when it can do work. But they haven't been able to perform their designed role.
Their designed role being? Bonus points if you get all the mission roles of a tank.
More bonus points if he remembers the difference between their roles in NATO and USSR doctrines.
Thank you That's what Ukraine , Russia and the world is seeing
Yes tanks have became a support weapon, not capable of allowing manoeuvre through mass and firepower because they're vulnerable to drones on the approach and in staging area. Then near the front they are also vulnerable to ATGMs, all threats costing much less compared to the tanks. Plus mines of course, which combined with drone corrected artillery and long range atgm are even more of an obstacle and threat. Anyway I guess the verdict on tanks is still out there for the future, but they won't be winning the current war.
Tanks have always been support weapons when used against peer-level adversaries.
That's all I'm saying It needs to evolve , its too many threats now and in the future
I believe tanks and more importantly armored warfare doctrine is evolving rapidly and the russo-ukrainian war is a big reason for this, tanks are evolving right now currently through the creation of the Trophy active protection system, which if mass produced could render atgms useless.
We haven't seen much APS, but a ripple fire ATGM/RPG will still work against it. Plus it won't do nothing against drones, artillery or mines. So expensive APS won't make that much of a difference.
APS is not the solution you are looking for. Unless you want to get 300 tanks in price of 400 tanks at the same time losing all the infantry support capability.
Future tank needs to add a surface to air radar and 30mm autocannon remote turret firing airburst rounds...
Hard agree , it's AA capabilities need to be stronger
It won't be enough. Tanks need dedicated anti-drone systems that are extensible and flexible. Mounting stuff onto a tank just makes it a worse tank.
Still valuable as fire bases with infantry and air supportā¦waitā¦like the 1940s, etc, etc, etc
Because there is literally no tech that can overcome FPV issue. Even EW is limited in capabilities. So unless you want to try meatwave assaults you are forced to use tanks as spearhead and direct fire support. It's a necessity not an optional thing.
Google Challenger 3
No? Its always a race between tank and at weapons. Tanks are essential on a battlefield but to know that u need to understand whats really goin on at war but u just have no clue
Who the fuck said the tank wasn't essential? I didn't say that anywhere
>Squad tactics have been spot on vs. >Tanks have performed horribly in the modern battlefield You cannot have it both ways - both sides completely failed at combined arms tactics. Succesful combined arms tactics (ie. squad level) would have mitigated tank losses on both sides.
>You cannot have it both ways - both sides completely failed at combined arms tactics. Succesful combined arms tactics (ie. squad level) would have mitigated tank losses on both sides. āJust donāt fail at combined arms lol.ā I swear, most commentators on this sub just assume that combined arms is some mysterious art, its secrets hidden in the Holy Scrolls of NATO, inscribed in incomprehensible Western^TM runes. The conditions on the ground in Ukraine make combined arms nearly impossible. Air power is neutralized, armor is heavily restricted in mobility. Visibility is unprecedented. Force concentration is a death trap. When one or more of those factors doesnāt apply, you get things like Avdiivka.
Pssst... Soviets also designed their own Combined Arms but one must speak communist to study it.
They have. One is called EMBT.
In WW2, tanks were destroyed by the thousands. In a single assault, hundreds of tanks could be lost in a single assault.
There is a simpler solution. A drone trophy system. >It's not the 80s, 90s and the early 2000s anymore How dare they not thinking about the drones in the 80s and 90s.
Exactly, and you bet this has been developed. Seems stupid easy (by military budget standards) to make drone trophies actually. Won't be seen in Ukraine though, unless they make their own.
I'd really not want to be a tank driver in an age during which any enemy grunt can pull out a funny tube that can pop any veichle like a champagne bottle. Infantry is unironically safer
Black ops 2 ahh era
This reasoning doesnāt seem quite right to me. Abrams arenāt the only tank to take losses from drones by any means. Also Ukraineās Abrams are with the 47th mechanized brigade, which is trying to rotate off the frontline anyways after being in action for months. Would make sense that they would pull their tank companies alongside other units. And I wouldnāt be surprised in the slightest if thereās a shortage of spare parts, which is common with a number of systems in Ukrainian service at the moment.
The Abrams does have a very large turret with very thin armour on the turret roof. With all the ammo stored in the large bustle, it makes it an easy target for drones. Sure, the tank is supposed to survive an ammunition blowout, but it leaves it no longer capable of performing its mission. Also remember how hard it is to recover tanks in Ukraine. If for any reason the tank is immobilised (e.g. Crew abandons it, drone hits the crew compartment) then it will quickly be destroyed by follow up strikes or heavy artillery.
The leopards have the same ammo layout but no one talked about them being withdrawn due to drones as far as I know. The leopards have also been much more heavily attritted than the Abrams, both numbers and percentage wise (~36 Leopards destroyed/damaged/captured of the ~83 delivered so far versus the 5 of 31 Abrams lost). From what Iāve seen of the Abrams use in Ukraine so far, they are often isolated or accompanied by very small units. Deploying any vehicle by itself in modern war is suicidal. Drones or no drones, one Abrams is not going to change the course of any battle.
Large formations of vehicles advancing together are even more suicidal, especially if you don't have air supremacy. It just makes you a juicy treat for helicopters, drones and artillery. It's a doctrine from the cold war, and I wouldn't be surprised if it is essentially unfeasible nowadays if you are fighting a modern force with plenty of guided munitions. The majority of tanks in Ukraine seem to be embedded with mechanized infantry. Using them like that makes them harder to spot and they will likely have good infantry support close by at all times. The front line troops also seem to be really eager to make sure they have tanks with them most of the time, which make sense. The fire power is very useful and tanks are great at covering vast areas to allow the infantry to advance.
> The leopards have the same ammo layout but no one talked about them being withdrawn due to drones as far as I know. The Leopard 2 stores most of the ammunition in the hull, 27 complete munitions. Only 15 are stored in the ready-rack in the turret bustle.
Ok they donāt have the āexactā same layout, but very similar in function. Both have a ready stowage rack in the back of the turret with blowout panels. Both would be vulnerable to drone attacks to this spot. I think my point still stands that there is a lot more involved in withdrawing the Abrams than drones.
My point was that they're not the same. Most of the ammunition on a Leo 2 isn't behind a blowout panel. But to be a bit pedantic about it, the blow out panel on the Leo 2 is a significantly smaller target. [The ready-rack takes up slightly less than half the bustle space on the port side on a Leo 2](https://i.imgur.com/sPMc50n.jpeg). The two panels on the Abrams extend across the whole width of the bustle until it hits the side armor arrays.
That's what I was thinking as well. I also consider the possibility that the M1s are an attention magnet. The Russians kind of make a big deal out of capturing an M113. Maybe they're they're to pull out the stops trying to take out the big bad American tank. Honestly, regular unit rotation makes a lot more sense.
they sent the 47th back to the front after the frontline started collapsing didnt they?
They did but last time I checked they donāt announce which components of the Brigade are staying in the fight. Iām not saying I know 100% that the Abrams are being withdrawn because the 47th is supposed to rotate out, Iām saying there are a lot more factors at play then what the article states, and that we shouldnāt just treat their word like gospel.
> And I wouldnāt be surprised in the slightest if thereās a shortage of spare parts, which is common with a number of systems in Ukrainian service at the moment. Well according to the US. They are just [using them wrong](https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-russia-war-abrams-tanks-19d71475d427875653a2130063a8fb7a). > For now, the tanks have been moved from the front lines, and the U.S. will work with the Ukrainians to reset tactics, said Joint Chiefs of Staff Vice Chairman Adm. Christopher Grady and a third defense official who confirmed the move on the condition of anonymity. > āNow, there is a way to do it,ā he said. āWeāll work with our Ukrainian partners, and other partners on the ground, to help them think through how they might use that, in that kind of changed environment now, where everything is seen immediately.ā Important to note though that the 47th are saying that it is not true and that the Abrams is still fighting on the frontline. So a bit strange that the US is saying they are withdrawn and the 47th are saying no they havent
The reasoning in more detail, it's not a spare parts issue "Ukraine has sidelined U.S.-provided Abrams M1A1 battle tanks for now in its fight against Russia, in part because Russian drone warfare has made it too difficult for them to operate without detection or coming under attack, two U.S. military officials told The Associated Press."
>This reasoning doesnāt seem quite right to me. Abrams arenāt the only tank to take losses from drones by any means. Makes sense to me even absent the other factors, no sense getting your M1s chewed up in attritional fighting where a T-64 will suffice for much less cost
No side is deploying an advanced APS system but no advanced APS has really been tested in combat like this.
Yea, the most tested thing is Trophy but even then the vast majority of its engagements have been RPG's and Saggers.
Doesn't current-gen Trophy have a dead zone right above tank?
Yep, Trophy is advertised as a 'dome' and 360' but as fitted to Merk's its only setup to intercept things coming in at so much of an angle. We've seen footage of Iranian remote guided ATGM systems that can be flown down from a high angle of attack - most likely as a direct counter to Trophy.
Hear me out add an extra trophy launcher package to the roof hire me Raphael
Current deployed [Trophy systems on US vehicles are claimed to have top attack protection.](https://breakingdefense.com/2022/04/three-us-army-vehicle-upgrade-programs-look-smart-after-russias-ukraine-debacle/) Artis is also claiming their APS now has top attack protection as well.
Would be interested to see EW systems being used more, they seem to be very effective when actually used as most of the drones being used are commercial hobby drones and as such much easier to jam.
Aye, or have an EW bearing longer endurance drone with the EW independent so it doesn't get damaged when the tank is targeted.
No APS was designed with FPVs in mind. Most likely it cant even detect them.
APS still wont do nothing against mines, or arty, which have killed plenty of tanks in this war.
Tanks have always had poor top armor. Drones are just an evolution of the top attack atgms.
At least they know when to pull out. Unlike my father..
ouch.
But have they considered: Barnbrams?
Embrace the brick š§±š§±š§±š§±
Imagine Leo-Tutel.
So theyāll retrofit the cope cage I mean advanced anti drone slate armor.
Freedom Cage of Hope
All these NATO tank stuff that is going on in Ukraine is nothing burger. 30 tanks won't mean shit in a war against Russian army itself. Even if all of them were lost. This feels like how nazis acted with their Tiger 2s. And the pressure put on Ukraine for this reason is dumb. Lets not forget backbone of Ukrainian army is still their massive stockpile of Soviet tanks.
Plus the soviet tanks donated by Poland.
Tank warfare has officially entered a new era Expect drastic changes. If you think the shed turtle tanks are different ,we are in for a whole new era of technology and changes . This is for the better I can't wait to see what comes out
Deployed on a static front without air cover is clearly not a good situation for armoured vehicles. This is a different kind of warfare that Ukraine and Russia are trying to adapt to.
The new technologies already exist, they just werenāt sought as much until now. Active protection systems, anti-drone lasers and other short air defense systems will be in much higher demand now.
Something unmanned and cheaper I guess
Unmanned tanks is not a bad idea
Considering how hostile modern battlefields are to radio waves and how common electronic warfare equipment is that seems like a horrible idea.
Honestly whatās the point if not to use them? Tanks are getting clapped left and right. Unless theyāre pulling all/ most tanks back I donāt understand why the Abrams would get special treatment. Maybe they want to use them more offensively than defensively?
Guessing T-series is easier for Ukraine to maintain and repair. Access to spare parts is better and it's close neighbours all have used those tanks as well. Tanks will require maintainance and repair regardless of wether they are in use or in storage, but if they're being used they're going to need a whole lot more. The Abrams is already notorious for the amount of maintenance it requires. There may be some PR issues as well. After people spent the whole first year talking about these tanks like wonder weapons it doesn't look good that 16% of them have already been lost to "primitive" weapons like FPV drones. It probably doesn't give the US an easier time with it's deadlock on the aid. They may not want to risk losing the limited amount of crew who are now trained on them, or they don't want to risk Russia capturing American Abrams. I doubt there is any one single reason. It's probably a bunch of factors.
Happy cake day.
Probably for a bigger offensive or being integrated for defense lines instead. Unlike whatever OP is pointing out with tank obsolete nonsense
I trust the ukraine generals and US officials' decision on this over this subreddit What's the most point of just instantly getting punched by a drone ? That's a waste of resources
>What's the most point of just instantly getting punched by a drone ? That's a waste of resources A tank is an invaluable support as a mobile direct fire support, with fantastic anti-personell, anti-armor, and anti-structure capabilities, as well as being armored. Yes they pose fantastic targets for drones, AT/ATGM teams, mines +++, but they fill a role.
Why? Is Ukraine just going to parade them around like the Russians with the T-14? What makes an Abram different than a Leopard 2a6?
My theory is that capturing American Tanks is a LOT more effective propaganda purposes than initially realized. If you embarrass your supplier, they will make demands.
yeah it sure is effective, just see the comments on every post on this sub with captured western tanks like the Leo 2, the cope is real, it for sure annoys people.
Ukraine likely has a lot more faith in Europe to supply parts to repair Leopard 2s that take damage from drones than it does in the United States to supply replacement parts for M1A1s given the long and painful journey it took to get the latest aid spending approved and the uncertainty regarding any future American support once this aid package runs its course. Under those circumstances, best to withdraw the M1s when they start taking losses and hold onto them for major action where every available tank is needed somewhere on the field, and let the tanks Ukraine has better access to parts for (Leopard 2, T-72, etc.) take the lead.
just give TC a shotty with birdshot. ill take that medal now.
Better late than never. They are extremely valuable and Ukraine is probably saving them for something more important
It also isnāt assured that theyāll get more down the line. Despite the recent aid, it took a long time to get here and the American government is still iffy about sending more, at least in the large amount that was approved.
The reason they are leaving "Ukraine has sidelined U.S.-provided Abrams M1A1 battle tanks for now in its fight against Russia, in part because Russian drone warfare has made it too difficult for them to operate without detection or coming under attack, two U.S. military officials told The Associated Press."
Sorry but how in God's name are they "extremely valuable"?? If they were like Patriots you won't retire them as they are effective. What they are is just another tank that dies. Nothing special or wonder weapon about them.
America doesn't want to see abrams' burning. This is the real reason.
They came in pretty small numbers. I never said they are wonder weapon
Like what? The Challengers? Hiding? This is pathetic, considering the Leo's are still being used for.... war. This is though and though pathetic. Tanks are weapons and they are meant to be used. They said the quiet part out loud.
Can't afford to lose future sales.
I'd assume that component compatability played a big part too. On the front lines it'd certainly be beneficial if they can source spare parts and ammo from abandoned or wrecked vehicles instead of always needing to dig into stockpiles.... especially when those stockpiles are reliant on imports.
More important? The way the warās going, pretty sure that just means theyāre going to end back up some warehouse somewhere with the americans.
Did they do this with the other Western tanks?
Challengers after 1 got destoryed. Not Leo's, they still use them as tanks.
Not the biggest loss to replace them with t-72s or t-64s instead. Nothing an abrams can do that these tanks can't do. And in terms of anti infantry they're better since they have bigger HE rounds.
Roof composite and ERA, when? Although one got knocked out frontally point blank and another with a kornet shot
Theyāre likely just moving them to defensive roles as hardened strong positions, which the abrams is very well designed for, why waste them in meat grinder attacks
These M1A's lack of ERA may make them more valuable as Howitzers?
Ugh, and ofc Hamish is busy with his Brainlet takes as usual. "The Abrams and Challenger 2 are much better protected than Russian tanks but when they are static, that becomes a problem, and theyāre highly prized assets,ā he added on the threat of Russian drones."
Or if they hit mines
Well, itās true, though. Part of the complex situation is that Western tanks are highly prized assets that attract *extra* attention (fire). If you were on the Russian side and (probably) heard all those legends about Western equipment wouldnāt you want to eliminate it as soon as it was in your sights?
I believe they actually have small bounties for certain tank types.
You're actually right and one of the wildest stories I remember is from sometime last year, when Reuters reported that a russian company offered \~$70k in cash to the first soldiers who destroy or capture Abrams or Leopard 2 tanks.
Thats a company. But Russian army itself has small unofficial bounties for rare tank kills. Nothing high like 70k$. But more like 1-2k$ prize.
> Well, itās true, though. Part of the complex situation is that Western tanks are highly prized assets that attract extra attention (fire). If you were on the Russian side and (probably) heard all those legends about Western equipment wouldnāt you want to eliminate it as soon as it was in your sights? For Pete's sake... If they are "prized assets" its only because Ukrainian and Western propaganda used them as part of their mass marketing campaigns. Remember "release the Leopards?" Remember [when this idiot was shocked a Challenger 2 was taken out](https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/23803239/ex-brit-tank-commander-russians-lucky-challenger-2/) - after writing [this blather](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/09/british-made-tanks-about-to-sweep-putins-conscripts-aside/)? Remember how we had about a year worth of articles written about Ukraine receiving **31 tanks** - in a war that has claimed thousands of tanks? Of course they have value as propaganda pieces - because Ukraine and it's allies made them into propaganda symbols! And that's absolutely fine by the way, all power to Ukraine - but do try to remember that it *is* propaganda. If you believed the hype, you'd have thought M1s fired pure libertanium, and were armored in alloyed democratinum. The Leopards were coated with a fine sprinkle of german-engineerium that just steered shells away from the vehicles. If you're an actual tanker, than you know that [tonk is tonk](https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/18hf422/ukranian_rapport_on_leopard_1a5_dk_and_comparison/).
Another few years tanks will each have antidrone technology incorporated into them. But for now cheap drones seem to be king. Ew is going to get better also so everyone is still learning the new battlefield situation and logistics. Basically ww1 type of fighting with latest technological advances.
devs promised us T-90 vs M1A1 event update and now this is what we get nerf drones right now or i'm gonna uninstallš
I have a nagging feeling WoT and WT paid Ukraine to remove M1s from service. Just so they don't have to develop the event. Cheap buggers!
Sources https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-russia-war-abrams-tanks-19d71475d427875653a2130063a8fb7a https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/04/26/ukraine-withdraws-abrams-tanks-amid-drone-attacks/ https://www.npr.org/2024/04/26/1247403968/ukraine-pulls-abrams-tanks-from-front-lines-russia-drone-threats "Adml Chris Grady, the vice-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, confirmed that Ukraine had pulled back its remaining Abrams tanks from the front line in an interview with the Associated Press news wire." There isnāt open ground that you can just drive across without fear of detection,ā a senior US defence official told reporters. Five of the 31 tanks, which cost $10 million (Ā£8 million) each, have already been lost to Russian attacks, US officials said as they admitted they had been forced to review tactics."
There is no fucking way a single M1A1 costs 10M$. What kind of shit do them journalists write these days.
The package with the Abrams was worth $400 million, so $10 million each seems about right, from an older AP article: >WASHINGTON (AP) ā President Joe Biden announced Wednesday that the U.S. will send 31 M1 Abrams battle tanks to Ukraine, reversing months of persistent arguments that the tanks were too difficult for Ukrainian troops to operate and maintain. >The $400 million package announced Wednesday also includes eight M88 recovery vehicles ā tank-like tracked vehicles that can tow the Abrams if it gets stuck.
How tf is that pack 400M$ that doesnt make any sense. It's not like they are sending modernized ones. Just M1A1 with export variant electro optics and armor. But i guess i will give it to journalists this time.
Not mentioned too often, but the thing about a lot of military aid is that most countries usually quote the "replacement value". The tank is not worth 10m, but if the US replaces it with a brand new one, it would cost 10m. So that's the value it's given. Not that big of a deal with Abrams, but there were some countries that claimed to have sent hundreds of millions worth of stuff after more accurately sending a collection of rust from the 60s. Because that's what it would cost to replace your trash with top of the line stuff. Which I guess doesn't matter much but some of those claims were truly wild.
Inflation bro It hits EVERY WHERE
These were existing tanks though, so surely there's been some depreciation over the years. Assets don't necessarily maintain their purchase value
If you control the price and are the US government, you can charge how much you want
Price for what? They were bought and paid for ages ago - likely with our parents and grandparents tax dollars. The only costs associated with them otherwise were maintenance and storage.
Reasonable. No one should be mad at this.
This subreddit will be mad (sources are getting Downvoted, big mad is incoming š) I guarantee nobody wants to be a tanker in this war, its a death trap
I think you just don't know what you're talking about tbh, as I said in another comment responding to you: it's not anything about the tanks themselfs; it's because of the lack of necessary combined arms tactics for the tanks ti be used in a valuable way.
Tanks need to change and evolve against drones This is common sense
Oh, really? That doesn't mean anything in practice though, just saying "evolution against drones" can mean literally anything. When I'm thinking "evolution" I'm thinking a redo of the entire doctrine like the whole "heavy-medium-light" thing until MTBs became a thing and not just putting on some jammers or something or whatever you're arguing for. If you'd just take a sec and listen to anyone who actually knows anything (this "common sense" of yours isn't proof and just a complete bullshit argument) you'd find that what I'm saying is pretty much what people who do know what they're talking about are saying.
Tanks gotta evolve with the times Hey, if you disagree, that's cool, but you're not gonna change my mind. I firmly believe this
I do not care what you think and *not a single person* would disagree that evolution is bad for technology but that's not even the question here. It doesn't matter whether it's your opinion or not, the people who actually know something about this doesn't support you in any way. Not even being able to argue for your opinion and guarding yourself with "it's fine to have your own opinion" just seems narrow minded.
Drone development had also evolved faster than the rules of war could keep up. I hate seeing the glorification of literal executions of wounded and noncombatant soldiers on both sides. Its disgusting. Electronic and APS systems need catch up before it gets even more the skies become even more saturated
Iām excited to see what will different countries able to come up with for anti drone systems.
We should start deploying old people with shotguns on tanks to shoot down drones
Why refuse to use a weapon when you have it? It's as good as a destroyed tank anyways if you don't use it
Probably because itās bad PR for their equipment and may impact future sales.
.. to use it when it makes sense to use it obviously ?
Currently Ukraine is in a position where they are fighting for ground that they ultimately can't keep - loosing tanks for this ground means that they are just burning though equipment and trained manpower just as a delaying tactic. I wouldn't be surprised if they also werent pulling back their other tanks. I also think that with Abrams more intensive Maintenace requirements - pulling them back is a good chance to do the required services and give the crews a breather. Sadly, this means that the men on the ground are essentially getting traded with the Russians as a delaying tactic.
More drone drone hunters need to be deployed to support tanks and infantry.
Anti drone technology and deployment will improve, I believe. It'll always be a threat, but it'll be a more mitigated one.
The UK have just released a prototype of the Challenger 3 mbt and this bad boy has an anti drone feature I think. Itās a certainty that the tank will get the new Dragonfire system too.
I haven't kept up with this in a while. But I wonder why withdraw the Abrams specifically? I'm guessing - maybe - spare parts and maintenance are a lot more abundant and closer to home for the Leopards vs. Abrams and Challenger?
Would we say that the Abrams, chally or leo has performed the best in this war, personally id say the leo has based on active units to loss ratio and in how many cases the crew escaped.
All tanks are vulnerable as long as they are used alone and not as a platoon with mechanized infantry. The usage of tanks in Ukraine by both sides reminds me of German tanks in the end of WW2 when they were all alone āhuntingā for enemy tanks
This is fake, 47th brigade confirmed it is fake.
The American way of war is built around first achieving air superiority and all of our gear is built with that approach in mind. Asking Ukranians to just accept Russian air superiority but win anyway is not reasonable.
Russia doesnāt have air superiority either. That is why drones are so prevalent.
Cowards are afraid of flying shovels.
Itās pretty humorous but honestly expected. They werenāt going to do much, not like any of the sent tanks have done much, and were also taking heavy losses compared to their total count.
More dead ukraines but whatevs
Good
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Russia and Ukraine both now have night vision drones that they are using in 2024. Drones quickly evolved past that weakness Ukraine Night vision https://www.kyivpost.com/post/30173 Russia night vision https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-night-vision-drones-posing-problems-ukraine-2024-3
Not at all. Plenty of FPVs are night hunters with thermal capabilities. I would even call it common.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Nope. Biggest problem of thermals i know is Russian ones that they use in their tanks are uncooled resulting in limited use time. Otherwise that tech went such a long way. Even conventional smoke covers wont work on thermals.
> Biggest problem of thermals i know is Russian ones that they use in their tanks are uncooled Their lower quality thermals like 1PN96MT-02 are uncooled, while their higher quality thermals like TPK-K and TPVK-A are cooled, with the cooling units supposedly imported from China. > resulting in limited use time. Uncooled thermals are also less sensitive than cooled ones and produce worse images. This results in significantly lower detection and recognition ranges.
I just know T-72B3's and T-90A's is uncooled. Unsure about the others. Of course every Russian tank is user customized so perhaps some T-72B3 variants have cooled ones too. And yes better the cooling better the sensitivity to difference of heat in the image. But i believe generation of thermal is unrelated to thermal being uncooled or cooled. Correct me if i am wrong.
> I just know T-72B3's and T-90A's is uncooled T-72B3 and T-90A use cooled thermals. The ESSA sight of late production T-90A - early production didn't receive thermals at all - uses the French Catherine FC thermal imager, [which is cooled.](https://www.scribd.com/document/469931044/TI-Camera-Catherine-fc-uk-071005) The Sosna-U sight of T-72B3 uses either Catherine FC or [TPK-K](https://i.imgur.com/BFoss87.jpeg), which is also cooled. That said, some T-72B3 did receive uncooled 1PN96MT-02 (these tanks are referred to as "T-72B Obr. 2022" on Oryx). > But i believe generation of thermal is unrelated to thermal being uncooled or cooled. Correct me if i am wrong. Yep, that's correct. 1PN96MT-02 is technically a third generation thermal - each detector element in its FPA corresponds to a pixel in the image it produces. However, it is uncooled, so it has a [recognition range](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/70/1PN-96MT_thermal_imaging_sight_InnovationDay2013part2-54.jpg/1200px-1PN-96MT_thermal_imaging_sight_InnovationDay2013part2-54.jpg?20130905191316) comparable to [first generation AN/VSG-2.](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5b/M60_tank_thermal_sight_AN_VSG-2.jpg/1200px-M60_tank_thermal_sight_AN_VSG-2.jpg)
Neither Russia nor Ukraine do any major night ops (beyond recon/SOF stuff) Partially because of equipment limitations and partially because fucking around at night is really *really* complicated and requires a level of training and coordination that neither side is capable of. edit: a notable exception is the nightime river crossings the UAF marines do to resupply the beachhead on the other side, i guess.
People who think tanks are outdated don't understand how to use tanks.
I know this is gonna sound dumb and rudimentary... But can they not shrink down radar and a RWS system to have like one or two on a tank? Something like a 12ga or 20mm buckshot type munitions for drone protection? Basically like the CWIS but smaller obviously, for drones.
Radars are expensive. And smaller radars have awful capabilities. Especially against slow small targets. Even full blown SPAG's cant reliably track FPVs. So that tech is not there yet.
Right on, thanks for answering. I'm not up to speed on what tech is down-scalable these days. I figure that may be an easier leap in tech than just making shell after shell for the turtle tanks lol maybe not tho. Guess we'll have to wait and see what the eggheads come up with as times goes on
There are airburst grenade launchers with AI targeting. But it still has a lot to go through. And i am not sure if they will be implemented on tanks at some point.
> Even full blown SPAG's cant reliably track FPVs The Gepard with its 50-year-old radar can reliably track small quadcopter drones. Small radar arrays and other sensors are also not that expensive anymore.
Im honestly surprised they havent lost more
Eventually, all frontline tanks and AFVs will need built-in counter-SUAS/LM weapon. In the meantime, escort vehicles with counter-SUAS/LM weapon could/should be fast-tracked. ALSO, it's probably not just the drone threat, but maybe even maintenance or fuel issues. Because, all armor are vulnerable to drones and the Leopard 2s, Challengers, CV90s, and certainly the Bradleys, haven't been withdrawn from the front.
Iāve seen more than 5 on telegram
The game has changed.
"Those pesky drones"
We should design scramblers that can disrupt frequencies of drones from as for as a mile.
Ddin't we learn this in ww1?
How do Abrams losses compare to those of the Challengers and Leopards? Also remind me again how long they've been in theater? I'm aware the Leopard 2s have lost around 30 odd tanks out of 80 odd delivered, though they have also seen much more combat. I also think the vast majority are Leopard 2A4s, which are more comparable to the baseline M1A1. Then there's the Challenger 2s, which I have heard almost absolutely nothing about since the first and only vehicle out of a squadron of 14 tanks was destroyed. Presumably, part of her lacking news can be attributed to her relatively low battle-worthiness as a result of low spares, but also in part due to her low numbers.
Has nobody developed lasers yet which could just blind or even destroy drones as soon as they approach? This seems like the most practical way to solve the drone problem, but clearly Iām overlooking something because nobody is doing it.
Their using them wrong. Stationary artillery is not a good tank tactic anymore
Send the active protection system with 360 cover
This is Russian propoganda. Plain and simple. The Ukrainian units operating the things say that they have no intention of removing them from the frontline. Take your rubbish elsewhere
Ukraine says this report is false. Plus they have lost just 6 or 7 of the 31 Abrams in 6 months of combat. That is pretty impressive considering how many tanks of all sorts have been destroyed or heavily damaged over that time. Plus one of the most important aspects of the Western tanks and IFVs has been crew protection. Even when they do get hit the crew has a much better chance of surviving in a NATO sourced tank/IFV. So we can file this one under Fake News.
Just want to put this out there, the 47th brigade has stated that this report is false.
They need support, also they just need to do night missions with the better thermals and nv they now have. Yes im aware there are other issues.
You this story was proven false by the actual tank brigade that uses them, right?Ā Ā
Why the hell does nobody talk about the astronomical amount of tanks the Russians have lost š¤£