M1 Abrams Developments and News

Forest Green said:
The reality is that humans are completely unsuitable for modern warfare. Take the tanks away and you're just left with humans being gunned down by machine guns and having drones or artillery air-burst over their heads.
Click to expand...
I didn't want to upset you, but according to Russian data, Ukraine has lost 1,800 tanks...
 
paralay said:
I didn't want to upset you, but according to Russian data, Ukraine has lost 1,800 tanks...
Click to expand...
Is that the same data that determines friendly fire incidents? There's no independent source that agrees with Russian stats, none.

www.oryxspioenkop.com

Attack On Europe: Documenting Russian Equipment Losses During The Russian Invasion Of Ukraine

www.oryxspioenkop.com www.oryxspioenkop.com
www.oryxspioenkop.com

Attack On Europe: Documenting Ukrainian Equipment Losses During The Russian Invasion Of Ukraine

www.oryxspioenkop.com www.oryxspioenkop.com

Meanwhile, this is no longer even considered newsworthy.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1762447135549665508
View: https://x.com/astraiaintel/status/1762447135549665508?s=20
 
Last edited:
Note for some reason crew hasn't bothered putting additional protection agains FPV drones. And that concerns lot of other western tanks too.
Also, in this conflict main advantage of Abrams and Leo might be it's main disadvantage - ammo in rear turret is very vulnerable against drones due to low armor.
 
Anduriel said:
Note for some reason crew hasn't bothered putting additional protection agains FPV drones. And that concerns lot of other western tanks too.
Also, in this conflict main advantage of Abrams and Leo might be it's main disadvantage - ammo in rear turret is very vulnerable against drones due to low armor.
Click to expand...
And yet I haven't seen any sudden turret tosses.
 
It seems pretty clear that these FPV drones would be able to penetrate into the ammo stowage of the M1 with a solid hit to the side, rear, or top of that area but considering that they've also managed to penetrate down to the T-90's autoloader with a hit in the right area I don't think the Abrams is at more of a disadvantage here. From the crew's perspective the odds of surviving are a lot better even if the tank is knocked out or destroyed.

Seems like everything is called an FPV drone these days but to be more precise I am guessing these are mostly loitering type munitions like Lancet, Switchblade, or that budget Iranian one? How capable are the HEAT warheads they are usually carrying? I'd have to guess the charge itself isn't very powerful but their ability to hit the right spot very much offsets that. The roof mounted ERA casettes on the T-series might prevent penetration if they get hit but it is simply impossible to cover every part of the tank with this. The issue is that these munitions are usually able to get the best angle for a hit. They can circle around unopposed because there is a lack of assets to knock them out the sky. As for additional protection like the so-called "cope cages", those are probably only useful against the cheap drones dropping RPGs, grenades, or whatever sort of submunitions they strap to them.

If anything there must be a huge demand on both sides for short-range air/drone defense systems. While less than ideal for numerous reasons I've got to wonder why we haven't seen more examples of digging old systems like the Shilka or SA-9 out of storage, which is better than nothing. Despite thousands of Shilkas having been built they seem to have been pretty rare and most spotted are lacking their radars.
 
paralay said:
I didn't want to upset you, but according to Russian data, Ukraine has lost 1,800 tanks...
Click to expand...
Ukranian tank strength
Pre-War: c1000
Russian donations: c5-600
Western donations: c800

Known Lost*: 749+ (Oryx)

So by Russian claims they've destroyed Ukraine's pre-war tank strength almost twice over and Ukraine should be down to 5-600 tanks.

* Includes lost, captured, and c115 damaged/abandoned that might have made it back into service.
 
c5-600 - What are these numbers, I did not understand?

Here are the data for February 2024, 87 tanks of Ukraine. 87 * 12 months = 1044 tanks per year, of course approximately
 

Attachments

  • h-504.jpg
    h-504.jpg
    113.3 KB · Views: 13
paralay said:
c5-600 - What are these numbers, I did not understand?
Click to expand...
DWG says somewhere between 500 and 600 Russian tanks were captured by Ukraine, then put into Ukrainian service.
Disclaimer: I do not accept the claims from either combatant party blindly. If I had to trust any source in this matter, I would choose Oryxspioenkop.

The truth is the first casualty in any war.
 
quinn whitsitt said:
the gun systems and a lot of the technology has not been combat proven
Click to expand...
Right... You do understand that the AbramsX is a technology demonstrator don't you? Besides, if your only measure of something being good/bad is if proven in combat than I guess a lot of weapons systems must be bad...
 
well i do not think its a bad tank but i would say some pepole may be over indulging the tank with good luck kinda like the zumwalt
not only that a lot of the technology is from a failed program and as a matter of a fact the tank got reffused by the army
its still not a 100 percent chance though
 
quinn whitsitt said:
well i do not think its a bad tank
Click to expand...
And yet that is basically what you did say
quinn whitsitt said:
not only that a lot of the technology is from a failed program
Click to expand...
And which failed program would that be?
quinn whitsitt said:
and as a matter of a fact the tank got reffused by the army
Click to expand...
It was never really offered - as already stated it is a Concept Demonstrator and indeed has already been overtaken by the M1E3 program
quinn whitsitt said:
its still not a 100 percent chance though
Click to expand...
100% chance of what?
 
How about you try to put something coherent together in a single post rather than random disconnected statements without any references, context or data.
 
by 2009 future combat system had spent 18 billion with very little ,and some ,of those systems did not function on land vehicles, and 200 billion in total.
 
paralay said:
I didn't want to upset you, but according to Russian data, Ukraine has lost 1,800 tanks...
Click to expand...
the infantry are to protect the tanks from infantry anti tank infantry with anti tank systems and tanks have problems with fox holes exception being merkava mbt because it uses a mortar to deal with those problems not to mention there cheap meaning you can have a whole lot of them and for remote controlled systems i have 1 word for emp well no actually 3 elctromagnetic pulse my piont is infantry are not obsolete they just need to not have stupid officers
 
quinn whitsitt said:
a lot of the technology is from a failed program
Click to expand...
FCS was terminated for 1) cost and 2) technology readiness. That's not the same as 'failed', particularly if you're trying for 'didn't work' as the meaning of 'failed'.

The technology in the laptop I'm writing this on would have been too expensive and not ready 15 years ago.

It's not 15 years ago.
 
Arjen said:
DWG says somewhere between 500 and 600 Russian tanks were captured by Ukraine, then put into Ukrainian service.
Disclaimer: I do not accept the claims from either combatant party blindly. If I had to trust any source in this matter, I would choose Oryxspioenkop.

The truth is the first casualty in any war.
Click to expand...
Yes. Some people might not like Oryx, but it's the closest thing to a trustworthy, verifiable and neutral source that exists for this war.
 
never trust the dod the have lied several times same thing with genral dynamics its a propagnda
 
Forest Green said:
Yes. Some people might not like Oryx, but it's the closest thing to a trustworthy, verifiable and neutral source that exists for this war.
Click to expand...
you are correct but is still do not trust the hole systems not at least until you test it in combat heck we do not even no the composition or armor for the abrambs x all the tank was a propaganda and technology testing vehacle heck it might not even have armor.
 
quinn whitsitt said:
you are correct but is still do not trust the hole systems not at least until you test it in combat heck we do not even no the composition or armor for the abrambs x all the tank was a propaganda and technology testing vehacle heck it might not even have armor.
Click to expand...
We do not know the armor for a regular Abrams either, on account of it being secret....

And would it kill you to use proper spelling and punctuation?
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom