Would you mind posting new information if possible instead of the exact same tank repeatedly? If there are no new information (e.g. new analysis?) you are not obliged to to post it on a bi weekly basisPerhaps you're right. The ones in poor state appear in the village roadshows. The ones in better shape are reverse-engineered and deeply analyzed. If you have more photos of this tank from the contemporary conflicts, please post them here and do not complain.
M1 Abrams in recent conflicts
- Thread starter lastdingo
- Start date
-
- Tags
- cold war ii mbt post-cold war tank
err...that's not how it works. I don't have to post anything especially if I don't have anything. I, and others, are more than welcome to comment/criticise on repetitive postings of nothing new, especially when seemingly purported to be new.If you have more photos of this tank from the contemporary conflicts, please post them here and do not complain.
MrWidgeon
Avoid that sinking feeling, check your hull plugs.
- Joined
- 5 October 2017
- Messages
- 6
- Reaction score
- 8
It's not the tank, it's the user. Having crawled around on an M1A2 SEPV2 several times and having some time in the M1A2 simulators (and being a past M60 tank commander) I can promise you .... it's not the tank. It's the way it’s being used. M1s were not designed to used in 1s and 2s, they were designed to operated in a minimum of Platoon sized units of 4/5 tanks with attached Infantry on the attack. Sending ANY tank out on a solo mission is a death sentence even with a small infantry unit. The Ukrainians were warned about this, but did it anyway and have paid the price. No tank is invulnerable, all of them have a weakness somewhere, even the M1A1. But the M1 series was designed for the crew to survive far better than anything the Russian or any other current or projected enemy has. If you're lap loading main gun ammo (keeping a round in your lap) or have the ammo blast door locked open you get what you deserve for being stupid and lazy. That system was there for a reason, to keep your dumb azz alive. The new era of drones has raised the threat game, external screens help minimize that threat, but won't eliminate it. Keeping your hatches closed will go a long way too, it isn't hard to pop one open in a hurry if you have too. Most of the drone kills are rounds dropped into open turrets and that's stupid. Also, the Ukrainians need a better recovery system. Leaving damaged tanks for enemy recovery is also stupid and wasteful, even if they're burned out. Some of the images I've seen show tanks that SHOULD have been recovered, but were left for the enemy to snag giving them valuable technical info.
The Ukrainians were taught how to operate the tank, but not how to properly USE the tank and that's a shame.
The Ukrainians were taught how to operate the tank, but not how to properly USE the tank and that's a shame.
While I agree for the most part, I feel that in many cases the Ukrainians are doing the best they can with the limited resources they have. For instance, I am sure they would love to have the numbers to do things en masse or to have the recovery resources to not leave tanks for the enemy.
Abrams tank hit by a Fiber-Optic drone in the Kursk frontline.
PS to the malcontents: this vid appeared on SM only today.
PS to the malcontents: this vid appeared on SM only today.
We have no idea of the outcome of the video given the video stops. Do you have anything else?Abrams tank hit by a Fiber-Optic drone in the Kursk frontline.
PS to the malcontents: this vid appeared on SM only today.
BTW, it is not being malcontent to challenge you over repeats. And as for the video appearing today do you have any info from when it actually occurred.
I only found a resume of yesterday's activities, which mentioned the FPV drone attacks.
https://t.me/CyberspecNews/67923
There you can also find a link to a map showing the location of the attack.
https://t.me/CyberspecNews/67923
There you can also find a link to a map showing the location of the attack.
A damaged Abrams of the 47th Mech. Bde. abandoned on the battlefield in the Pokrovsk area being collected.
t.me
The entry appeared on SM on 13 Nov.
⚡️Сводки ополчения Новороссии Z.O.V. (ДНР, ЛНР, Украина, Война)
«Отважные» захватили американский Abrams на Покровском направлении Подразделения группировки войск "Центр" продолжают наступление к Покровску и Курахово, уничтожая и захватывая НАТОвскую технику. Танк M1A1 SA Abrams 47-й мехбригады ВСУ, облепленный советской динамической защитой "Контакт-1" и...
t.me
The entry appeared on SM on 13 Nov.
This SM entry appeared on 21 Nov.
t.me
Georeferencing: https://lostarmour.info/map?coord=51.3047853,35.2046482
Whether it's the same one as depicted on today's vid from the link below remains unclear.
The Right People Z
A Lancet loitering munition hits an M1A1SA Abrams tank of the Ukrainian Armed Forces in the Kursk region. Georeferencing: https://lostarmour.info/map?coord=51.3047853,35.2046482 #Lancet #Abrams
t.me
Georeferencing: https://lostarmour.info/map?coord=51.3047853,35.2046482
Whether it's the same one as depicted on today's vid from the link below remains unclear.
Double-tap in the Kursk region as per sm reports:
t.me
Long/lat and date are mentioned here:
t.me
LOSTARMOUR | Carthago delenda est!
Практически синхронное поражение танка M1A1SA "Abrams" ВСУ ударами оптоволоконных FPV-дронов ВС РФ в Курской области. Геопривязка: https://lostarmour.info/map?coord=51.3275450,35.1460359
t.me
Long/lat and date are mentioned here:
Military Summary
#UkraineRussiaWar Place: #Leonidovo Date: ~10.12.2024 Coordinates: 51.3274606, 35.1470852 Squad: Description: Footage of the destruction of the M1 ABRAMS tank of the Ukrainian Armed Forces by a Russian FPV drone near Leonidovo. id: 11122024.0848 ✉️source: https://t.me/rusich_army/19224...
t.me
More footage of the Abrams in the Kursk region:
Ukrainian M1 Abrams Commander Talks Tank's Major Vulnerabilities, Advantages In Combat
The M1 commander highlighted glaring issues with the M1 that make it vulnerable on a drone drenched battlefield and praised its resilience.
www.twz.com
Cyberspec News
Allegedly the first American-made M1A1SA UKR Abrams tank destroyed by the Russian army during a new attempt by the Ukrainian Armed Forces to invade the Kursk region. Footage will appear soon hopefully.
t.me
An M1A1SA Abrams of the 47th Separate Mechanized Bde hit by a Lancet loitering ammo near the village of Viktorovka in the Kursk region.
t.me
Повёрнутые на войне
Возле оккупированного села Викторовка в Курской области американский танк M1A1 SA Abrams встретился с «Ланцетом».
t.me
Be careful of fake images being posted purporting to show vehicles lost in Ukraine.
For instance, this has been shown as an Abrams destroyed by Russians:
And yet, somehow here is the same tank in Iraq in 2003:
For instance, this has been shown as an Abrams destroyed by Russians:
And yet, somehow here is the same tank in Iraq in 2003:
jeffb
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 7 October 2012
- Messages
- 1,531
- Reaction score
- 2,943
- Joined
- 6 June 2006
- Messages
- 14,666
- Reaction score
- 20,604
@jeffb
Check your sources goddamn it !!
en.m.wikipedia.org
He is a fucking russian useful idiot. Took me 20 seconds to check it.
Check your sources goddamn it !!
Chay Bowes - Wikipedia
He is a fucking russian useful idiot. Took me 20 seconds to check it.
yeetmahboi
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 6 April 2022
- Messages
- 957
- Reaction score
- 1,332
To my understanding, the source is correct on this one instance. The captured Abrams with frontal ERA has been floating around combat footage forums for awhile now.
An M1A1SA Abrams of the 47th Bde somewhere near Kursk.
t.me
Повёрнутые на войне
Ещё одна подборка с трофейной или уничтоженной бронетехникой украинских оккупантов на освобождённой территории Курской области. Немецкий мостоукладчик Biber на шасси танка Leopard 1, ещё один американский танк M1A1 SA Abrams, французский БТР VAB, четыре американских бронеавтомобиля HMMWV...
t.me
At Zaoleshenka near Sudzha in the Kursk region.
t.me
The Right People Z
An RT report from Zaoleshenka near Sudzha in the Kursk region of the Russian Federation showed another previously unrecorded burnt M1A1 Abrams tank of the Ukrainian Armed Forces. #Abrams
t.me
- Joined
- 6 June 2006
- Messages
- 14,666
- Reaction score
- 20,604
Retreat from Kursk: Ukrainian troops tell of catastrophe and panic
Five soldiers tell the BBC of their withdrawal in the face of overwhelming firepower and drones.
www.bbc.com
Shaman Harris
ACCESS: Confidential
- Joined
- 26 March 2025
- Messages
- 56
- Reaction score
- 41
Not upper front plane,lmao
Slavyangrad
Rosgvardia fighters meet the enemy on the near approaches to the state border, controlling the enemy's main logistics routes in the border areas of the Sumy region. The video shows the flight of the fiber-optic FPV drone "KVN" in the direction of the settlement of Ugroedy, Sumy region with...
t.me
A photo of the interior of a Ukrainian Abrams.
⚡️Сводки ополчения Новороссии Z.O.V. (ДНР, ЛНР, Украина, Война)
Армия США резко ускоряет модернизацию Abrams — вместо стандартных 10 лет на разработку новой версии M1E3 теперь хотят уложиться в 24–30 месяцев. Причина проста: танк в его нынешнем виде перестал быть релевантным — в эпоху дронов и ПТУРов это уже не «стальная стена», а дорогостоящая мишень на...
t.me
Slavyangrad
Russia captures another Abrams. She was there for the taking in Sumy. Ukrainian tribute? @Slavyangrad
t.me
Кирилл Фёдоров / Война История Оружие
ВС РФ вывезли из Сумской области два подбитых танка M1 Abrams производства США. Подписаться на канал
t.me
And another one with Kontakt-1.
⚡️Сводки ополчения Новороссии Z.O.V. (ДНР, ЛНР, Украина, Война)
Уничтоженный в Курской области американский танк M1A1 Abrams, облепленный "Контактом".
t.me
Cyberspec News
❕ The Russian army has destroyed almost all the Abrams tanks provided by the United States to Ukraine. Military strategist Christopher Kirchhoff said this in an interview with CNN, reports a PolitNavigator correspondent. “At the beginning of the war, we provided the Ukrainians with 31 Abrams...
t.me
Abrams at LA during the anti-ICE standoff.
t.me
Just wondering when the scenes from the 2024 "Civil War" movie shall come true.
Intel Slava
A Pentagon spokesman said the cost of stationing troops in Los Angeles is estimated at $134 million.
t.me
Just wondering when the scenes from the 2024 "Civil War" movie shall come true.
Ituns for 15 min until the gas tank is empty. This was done intentionally to protect the tires from overheating.
And where is your proof that this is in LA? It could just as easily be in Washington DC. Stop posting inflammatory posts!Abrams at LA during the anti-ICE standoff.
Intel Slava
A Pentagon spokesman said the cost of stationing troops in Los Angeles is estimated at $134 million.
Just wondering when the scenes from the 2024 "Civil War" movie shall come true.
EmoBirb
E.S.T
- Joined
- 18 January 2025
- Messages
- 2,210
- Reaction score
- 5,625
Post Iraq the M1 is only taking L's (compared to it's hyped up reputation that is, tanks are just tanks are generally perform comparatively equal in most situations)
Didn't they also experience losses during the Saudi led war against Yemen?
Didn't they also experience losses during the Saudi led war against Yemen?
Last edited:
Saying that is like saying small arm generally perform comparatively equal in most situation. Of course from navy or airforce point of view, most small arm, irrelevant 5.56mm, 7.62mm or 6.8mm are mostly the same tiny flash. But for infrantry, 5.56mm ball is very different with 7.62mm AP, especially when body armor is encountered.
And from fashion point of view, all military block of steel are the same irrelevant small arm, tank, ship or airplane, worthless piece of violence. And all core i5, i7, arm, amd are all the same for running word office, arent they?
The devil is in the details.
So know where your standing point is. For top planner, of course M1, T90 or Leopard are the same. Some mm of RHA is totally nonsense, you could exchange them for most mission, using quantity instead of quality. Even the most mm of steel can be blow up with enough of explosive, doesnt matter just some increasing in casualty. Of course war is violence and people all will die someday, so die sooner or latter, comparatively equal in most situations.
EmoBirb
E.S.T
- Joined
- 18 January 2025
- Messages
- 2,210
- Reaction score
- 5,625
I'm not saying they're exactly the same. But in most situations they fall to the same weaknesses. An M1/T-90/Leo2 handles a mine the same, they'll get immobilized and sustain significant damage, depending on how much explosives is involved the whole thing is blasted to kingdom come. Same with drones, they're equally susceptible to them. They're all fundamentally from the same era really, being late cold war designs heavily modernized to work to this day somewhat effectively. They have differences is subsystems, crew members, weight, logistical footprint, cost, loading mechanisms and ammo storage etc.
But generally speaking, something that can deal with one of them can deal with all of them and the results will be comparable. They have individual advantages and disadvantages but largely they're more comparable to one another than they're not in a operational condition.
What I was alluding to is that domestic US media has always tended to paint a certain picture of the M1 and that over the past decade it hasn't really lived up to that picture. I know that this is due to the threat catalog changing rapidly and not in the favor of a late cold war tank like the M1, but it doesn't change the fact that the last years were not kind to it. Obviously the emerging threats will be addressed sooner or later, but that's besides the point here.
yeetmahboi
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 6 April 2022
- Messages
- 957
- Reaction score
- 1,332
Anyone doesn't? It has success for once and the thing is hyped into oblivion. Then Ukraine happen and the "mil-nerds" get a slap of reality.
Seek for knowledge unbiased, people. Be better than those who don't.
I'll raise the point that the M1 was designed for a specific set/scope of engagement and insofar when these conditions were met their performance has been anything but subpar. These specifics however are more demanding than its Soviet contemporaries hence when put into unfamilliar hands we got Ukraine or Saudis. Ukraine really is a mediocre army with good people, tough people. But their framework is of the Soviet era. They doesn't have JSTARS, air dominance, the enablers for Army 1991. Put T-90As in 69th Armour and the battle would've gone much different simply. You have a system of equation, d1: fit into American battlefield logic, and d2: would win in Eastings. We've got one solution set, one only, the Abrams. No guarantee T-tank would do it.
It's a habit for people who gravitates toward one side to defame the other. It's just that one side has been winning for 40 years so the wake up call that is the 2010-2020 era of useless and poorly-executed, politics-driven warfighting is used by a bunch of buenos to "level the scale" in the sense that everything's equally bad but ours are cheaper and misunderstood. Obviously that's not the case. By all means the M1 is qualitively better and measuring by their respective toll on the macroeconomics the M1 is no worse than the T-tanks. It's just that ATGMs are much better now, something noone except for Israel has factored for but kinda because their economy revolves around war-driven techs and they has free reign on consistent and iterative force revamp.
EmoBirb
E.S.T
- Joined
- 18 January 2025
- Messages
- 2,210
- Reaction score
- 5,625
ATGMs aren't the driving factors behind tank losses, mines and drones are. Both of which generally immobilize the tank which then gets abandoned and finished off by drones exploiting hatches that were left open or artillery smiting the vehicle. Which is something the Merkava had to experience the hard way when it turned out to be inadequate to deal with drones upon October 7th and subsequent engagements.
My point wasn't that "all are equally bad" (especially as I'd generally argue they're all somewhat good at what they're supposed to do) my point is that tanks fundamentally encounter the same threats which exploit weaknesses which are intrinsic to the design of every tank currently in operation. And that as of now no upgrade package or new tank has addressed these emerging and/or persistent threats. That's mostly due to every tank currently in operation being the evolution of cold war designs which were never intended to encounter certain threats that exist today. And as a subsequent result I critiqued the notion certain popular outlets hold with regards to performance of individual systems when they're having a very hard time to adapt to the changing battlefield, with solutions still a couple years away. This applies to both sides of the entrenched tank connoisseur isle.
On a side note though, macroeconomics do not favor the M1 or any western tank whatsoever (although the M1 arguably does by far the best in the entire west, thanks to the former industrial prowess of the US). Especially with increased complexity, weight (and thus necessary changes to infrastructure and the logistical footprint) and inclusion of more and more subsystems with each new version, the increase in price leads to low production numbers at exorbitant prices which still display the same flaws earlier variants had. 105 Leopard 2A8s are a drop on a hot stone, 1050 would be more adequate but virtually impossible to finance for the Bundeswehr, to name an example.
Warfare is essentially applied economics. And sheer output can rarely be substituted for something else.
My point wasn't that "all are equally bad" (especially as I'd generally argue they're all somewhat good at what they're supposed to do) my point is that tanks fundamentally encounter the same threats which exploit weaknesses which are intrinsic to the design of every tank currently in operation. And that as of now no upgrade package or new tank has addressed these emerging and/or persistent threats. That's mostly due to every tank currently in operation being the evolution of cold war designs which were never intended to encounter certain threats that exist today. And as a subsequent result I critiqued the notion certain popular outlets hold with regards to performance of individual systems when they're having a very hard time to adapt to the changing battlefield, with solutions still a couple years away. This applies to both sides of the entrenched tank connoisseur isle.
On a side note though, macroeconomics do not favor the M1 or any western tank whatsoever (although the M1 arguably does by far the best in the entire west, thanks to the former industrial prowess of the US). Especially with increased complexity, weight (and thus necessary changes to infrastructure and the logistical footprint) and inclusion of more and more subsystems with each new version, the increase in price leads to low production numbers at exorbitant prices which still display the same flaws earlier variants had. 105 Leopard 2A8s are a drop on a hot stone, 1050 would be more adequate but virtually impossible to finance for the Bundeswehr, to name an example.
Warfare is essentially applied economics. And sheer output can rarely be substituted for something else.
yeetmahboi
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 6 April 2022
- Messages
- 957
- Reaction score
- 1,332
Quite far from it. Drawing from my viewing experience the losses incurred from drones are mainly because of the unconventional vectors, granted though they're fighting in extremely built up area. My point still stand and I believe should be clearly understand is that, as you've said in this later post, losses are because militaries are increasingly become mismanaged and inadequately equipped to handle modern threats. If Black Ops 2 can predict that FPVs and handheld PGMs will open a new era of armour warfare then any competent and well funded military should be already tapping on vendors and labs for solutions. The US Army is very well funded and RIDE initiatives already took care of tech problems (trial by fire is the most effective proving ground). The reason why Abrams-es are so poorly updated is solely a human problem. This singular line of reasoning is applicable to every fault of the current Abrams. Composite anti-mine underbelly? Funded, developed and materialized. Anti HEAT armour? ARAT for cheap. APS are aplenty and Israel would gladly invest in a local OEM.
I understand your point on the fundamentals of tankineering and disagree with it. Fundamentals are always a broad concept to tangle with and pitching any tanks against overmatch threats is not representative of the actual differences in-between. For example, one might be designed to different level of mine resistance, then different employment of plows. Stuff like that just compounds on each other so much that minuscule dinstictions grows but not something that can prevent an overmatch threat.
The Abrams at its inception benefits massively from the concurrent macroeconomics state. Massive heavy industries and an infantile but exponentially growing electronics industry and robust supply chain and can re-tool at any moment to support the war effort, protected by CONUS geography. Close to an autarky. For a point of comparison F-16 production rate at its peak was nearly 300 a year for a far more limited niche. While the Soviets did built thousands of T-series, these rates were engineered by irrational fear, short term oversight and alot of dumb economists. Peak rates for the USG were no less bewildering.
Sure but it's instructive of relative capabilities.
For the sake of this thread, if you want to continue this discussion I can open a PM.
I know your points, that why I said you must provide your standing position. You should not come to a game forum and say all your scifi tank model are unrealistic, and should not come to a tank thread and say all tank are equal without providing further context. That is billion USD industry with people trying to improve design in everyway possible. Hardly equal in details. But I know your point.
The problem of macroeconmics military is also related to military industry complex. Basically, there are multiple military threats. The first threat is existent threat, basically nuke or something similar. Then there is geopolitical threat level, not existence crisis but power competition. The first fade off after the cold war, or can be accepted with mutal assured destruction. Now the second is more important, but with mulitpolar world, singulary power projection is not easy anymore. Let see Russia war in Ukraine, failed one side power projection without any significant achievement.
After that, its business, which military industry complex trying to make money. Nowaday, mostly this. So the more waste, the better. It's an open secret that everyone knows.
Yes, some people noticed the weakness you mentioned, but its business as usual. To exploit that weakness on a global scale is not easy. There are classical example of WW2, where Nazi and Japanese Navy exploited the weakness of the current system, but as long as the weakness is exploited, it triggerred the innovation of the losing side. The Soviet adapted to losing Barbarossa and the US adapted to Pearl Harbor.
So, yes, Leopard 2a8 or M1 or whatever, is not a real obstacle. Mind you, latest Leo2a7 is about 30mil a piece, that is not sustainable in a total war. But if someone somehow exploited it, not only tanks but airplane, hypersonic missle, ship.. etc based on tech or number or whatever, how much how long it can be exploited until something better come to adapt? The lesson from WW2 showed that.
So, yes, as the whole, it is still balanced, because, like game theory, you know anyone trying to exploited the weakness of the current system will be faced with the reaction of the whole system. And that is the main obstacle, not the tactical weakness.
But there are always players carelessly to game without calculation. I dont say it is bad, because of butterfly effect. Basically, any minor event can trigger a much larger chain reation with random or chaotic effect. So, nothing is unimportant. At least, a failed attempt will provide a good lesson.
Bruno Anthony
The Morons are winning
- Joined
- 5 August 2012
- Messages
- 976
- Reaction score
- 975
As someone who is probably older than you, let me clarify the Abrams reputation as SUPERTANK is definitely from 1991 on. There were plans to move on to newer MBTs by the late 80s. Several threads under ASM on here. Lots of late Cold War era stuff (majority of the equipment in most armies today) got updated to death since then.
And yeah, time caught up to them.
Colonial-Marine
UAVs are now friend, drones are the real enemy.
- Joined
- 5 October 2009
- Messages
- 1,641
- Reaction score
- 1,693
Before the Gulf War the popular uninformed media take on the M1 Abrams was the usual one of any new equipment of that era. It was overcomplicated, unreliable, and already outclassed and obsolete. Same as the M2, AH-64, and B-1 according to the talking heads.
Similar threads
-
-
-
-
-
Tank development if the Cold War had continued- Started by uk 75
- Replies: 15