113
“Its armour is not sufficient for this moment,” said one crew member with the callsign Joker.
Yes Ukraine is getting the export version of the Abrams with all the classified depleted uranium armour removed. This is a huge difference in armour protection levels. The difference between export and domestic models in tanks are stark, just look at how Iraqi T-72 export tanks faired in the Gulf war, vs domestic Eastern German T-72 tanks in tests against Western weapons after German reunification. Same thing is happening here. The export model Abrams has much less protection.
There's definitely that, but in another article that was posted recently a Ukrainian abrams crewman says the fucking things don't work well in fog and rain because condensation shorts out the electronics. I'm sure these aren't well maintained hardware but that's just a ridiculous design flaw that could only "work" if your tanks only ever spend time in the desert.
Ukrainian crews say the fundamental problem is that the Abrams were built for advances aided by air power and artillery, which Ukraine lacks.
It seems to me like this might be the absolute biggest problem.
The entire NATO military doctrine mandates air superiority and despite all the wonderweapons, the US can only achieve air superiority against shpeherds
base your entire military doctrine around air superiority
fight the other former superpower that also knows this and therefore has world leading air defence
??????
all my tanks broke
There's gotta be like 100 US STRATCOM guys shitting, pissing, screaming about this exact scenario to no avail as they keep sending more equipment that gets owned by a by some late 70s soviet stockpile shit with an accountable value of "Wait, why do we still have this?"
"wait, why do we still have this?"
"Hey boss, found this in the back of the shed. Think it's useful?"
The subsonic Batman plane that can't fly in the rain will get there when it gets there, OK?
All of Americas combat doctrine assumes you're doing strafing runs on rural farmers and have total air superiority.
We have no idea how to fight an actual peer.
The export models also have different electronics as well, as some of the lastest sights/night vision is also classified. So likely some contractor did a shoddy job changing out the electronics for the non classified stuff, so everything shorts out, or the tank wasn't designed for it in the first place. It's definitely a ridiculous design flaw if the entire tank shorts out when changing electronic systems out.
They have also veen in service since 1980. Western countries have just been unloading all their shitty old inventory on Ukraine. I would be shocked if any of the tabks Ukraine received are less than 20 years old
The classified natoid armour was removed from frontal aspects that are designed to defeat APFSDS rounds in tank vs tank combat. Meanwhile, Russian drones are hitting spots that never had that armour in the first place by going for weakspots like the roof or the poorly protected ammo compartment at the back of the turret.
Even if these tanks were rolling around with their original armour, it wouldn't have saved any of the tanks that have been defeated so far. 
I get that they bastardize the export models so the enemy can’t reverse engineer it, but man. If your customer is also your supposed close ally, and they’re in the middle of a brutal war, maybe it’s worth giving them advanced technology to win if you actually care lol
To be America's enemy is dangerous, to be her ally is absolutely fatal.
There is literally no historical or material reason to believe that America gives a single shit about its allies other than whether or not the check clears and if not what industries they'll let us take over.
If your customer is also your supposed close ally
debatable
Well I think you hit the nail on the head there. The US clearly doesn't care.
I was about to ask this, because what little I know about the Abrams is that it is extremely heavy because it's so armored.
It's also gigantic, with a focus on crew comfort and survivability. Compare the side profile vs the T-72
The chassis itself lends a lot of weight to the design. The armour on the frontal arc is guesstimated to be thicker in the later variants of the M1A2 vs say a T-90A, but the T-90 is also 20 tons lighter, can actually cross a bridge, and doesn't have the profile of a small house.
Either way none of this matters when a Shahed/Geran/PG-7V tied to a DJI quadcopter can kill any tank.
Is this why they were sinking into the ground and annihilating highways year or two ago, or is that just because of mud in Eastern Europe? (I’ve seen plenty of Russian vids with APCs stuck in the muck)
The mud is next level and any afv will have trouble with rasputitsa. The mud yields very easily because it's saturated with water, and you would need significantly lower ground pressure to get by, hence the logs on the back of Soviet tanks; tie it to the tracks and have the tank dig itself out.
As for highways, it was probably a combination of the weight as well as poorly maintained/missing rubber track pads.
I often think about all the news reports in the 2000s of similar problems in Iraq and Afghanistan. That history has been completely erased by jingoistic morons, of course. The same problems Russia has had in the beginning of '22, the US army had - sometimes even worse. Like half the armored vehicles didn't make the first part of the drive into Iraq from Kuwait, and they weren't even under fire. They just broke down in huge numbers due to poor design and maintenance. Whole armor columns stalled out and couldn't move for weeks because the army's supply chain couldn't keep them supplied with fuel - and they were once again not really under fire or active defense by Iraq. Rumsfeld snidely saying that you don't go to war with the army you want, you do it with the army you have, while servicemen's families were scrounging coins together to buy body armor to send to their kids.
Anyway the US military was a joke twenty years ago and it's gotten even worse since then.
It's amazing to me the general reception to Generation Kill (HBO) was "wow!!! cool army!!!" instead of "good god!?"
Yea they were constantly murdering civilians and fucking up basic shit like abandoning their own supplies (including the special magic flag!) and having to ration their food because they abandoned all their MREs in the desert. Not to mention a bunch of friendly fire and other random fuck ups. I don't know how anyone could watch that series and come to the conclusion "waow the marines are heckin' based soldiers! Oorah!"
The hollywood initiative has paid dividends for the military. Consulting on basically every major picture that even wants to shoot a profile shot of a helicopter, with control of the script means that negative portrayals of the military are few and far between. The official podcast of hexbear talked about it 
load more comments
(1 replies)
Hollywood is one of main drivers of US propaganda for a reason.
the Pentagon asked Congress to stop making these tin cans, but the pork barrel doesn’t go away so easily in :amerikkka:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/army-says-no-more-tanks-115434897.html
Yet in the case of the Abrams tank, there's a bipartisan push to spend an extra $436 million on a weapon the experts explicitly say is not needed.
"If we had our choice, we would use that money in a different way," Gen. Ray Odierno, the Army's chief of staff, told The Associated Press this past week.
healthcare pls 
no u get
Lol it even looks like a cybertruck
It reminds me of those ridiculous mockups they made of the CV90 with a 120mm.
Yahoo News article means there's a comment section.
The comment section:
It's like as if these clowns had fantasy goggles on about how cool and awesome the Abrams was. But remember what I said about their Honeywell engines...
Honeywell engines
I like that all my household appliances are made by people whose actual primary industry is death machines.
Ya know the brand "Ball" the glass jar maker?
They had an aerospace division that made lubricants and optical systems.
The Abrams is a good tank. But like all tanks it was designed during an era when technology was very different. As tanks go: it is far better than Russia's T-90.
A problem with the Abrams is that it was designed for Western Germany during the 80's which had far better road systems than Eastern Europe, and different weather conditions. The Abrams is a very heavy tank, it also requires a sophisticated level for maintenance, and it is designed to be used in a different way than how Russia uses its tanks. Ukraine is coming from the way Russia fights wars.
It's a good tank, though you can only drive around downtown Frankfurt in it, because it breaks down elsewhere, but it's a good tank, very capable. Well, provided you have a very specialized maintenance crew with it when you are driving around in German towns. (No drones please.)
As tanks go: it is far better than Russia's T-90.
I can't speak towards whether the T90 is any good at whatever but this really feels like the Tiger tank argument all over where on a stat card it beats the shit out of any other tank except of course in the real world where it boiled to our wondrous wunderwaffe tank vs. 15 T-32s
Thing that was never meant to get shot at from above... dies when its shot at from above... 
Hey it's not like every member of military command has been saying tanks are obsolete on a modern battlefield for a generation.
It's the new rock paper scissors.
Tanks can beat aa, but drones can beat tanks and aa beats drones. And we don't have any aa capabilities cus we've never fought people with air support, leaving us with a pile of useless rocks.
Would this make the United States rethink their foreign policy of belligerent causus beli and seek peaceful resolutions to future conflicts? 
Nah well just make sure we fight the farmers with aks that have been handed down through three generations and let our allies take on the people with air support and electronic warfare capabilities.
When you find out that your opponents made their paper tigers out of the flimsiest toilet paper imaginabe.
Though, on the other side of the coin articles like this never acknowledge Russian tactical or strategic competence. The West is so used to kicking over underarmed does in a lopsided match that when it takes combat losses against a peer adversary people lose their shit and start looking for hidden flaws. Like yeah the export model Abrams models probably suck, but maybe the Russians just got really good at tank hunting as well.
I think more importantly is the realization that the conscript army is well and truly over. It’s probably been over since the 80’s but Ukraine is the definite end if there was any doubts. The equipment used is just straight up too complicated to be operated by anyone who hasn’t spent their adult life training on it. Being an infantryman is just about the only thing a conscript could theoretically be. Move here, shoot there is about all you can do. It’s the exact reason Russias mobilization was so successful because they wanted people with relevant experience. Then when you compound the problem with US tank design needing a jet engine instead of diesel and you end up with a hunk of steel waiting to be annihilated.
US tanks run on jet fuel?
Diesel fuel and jet fuel are very similar. All military vehicles that can be deployed to combat zones can burn either diesel or jet fuel. It greatly simplifies logistics when you can burn the same fuel in everything. Now you only need one type of fuel in theater, and every fuel tanker you have can refuel any vehicle.
The M1 Abrams differs from pretty much every other ground vehicle in that it uses an actual jet engine - a turboshaft- rather than a piston engine. It is still capable of burning either diesel or jet fuel.
load more comments
(2 replies)
said one crew member with the callsign Joker.
Speaking to CNN, Ukrainian crews working on the tanks say the Abram M1s are not as robust as touted. “Its armour is not sufficient for this moment,” said one crew member with the callsign Joker.
🤡
The tanks usually come equipped with “secret” uranium armour, but the US donated modified versions with Chobham armour, the composite ceramic and steel protective material developed in Britain in the 1960s. The move was likely made out of fears the uranium armour could end up in Russian hands.
Ruzzianz cannot haz uranium 🤡🤡🤡
load more comments
(2 replies)
the age of tanks is over
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 31 May 2024
113 points (100.0% liked)
technology
23275 readers
124 users here now
On the road to fully automated luxury gay space communism.
Spreading Linux propaganda since 2020
- Ways to run Microsoft/Adobe and more on Linux
- The Ultimate FOSS Guide For Android
- Great libre software on Windows
- Hey you, the lib still using Chrome. Read this post!
Rules:
- 1. Obviously abide by the sitewide code of conduct. Bigotry will be met with an immediate ban
- 2. This community is about technology. Offtopic is permitted as long as it is kept in the comment sections
- 3. Although this is not /c/libre, FOSS related posting is tolerated, and even welcome in the case of effort posts
- 4. We believe technology should be liberating. As such, avoid promoting proprietary and/or bourgeois technology
- 5. Explanatory posts to correct the potential mistakes a comrade made in a post of their own are allowed, as long as they remain respectful
- 6. No crypto (Bitcoin, NFT, etc.) speculation, unless it is purely informative and not too cringe
- 7. Absolutely no tech bro shit. If you have a good opinion of Silicon Valley billionaires please manifest yourself so we can ban you.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS