Abrams, Leopard and Challenger 2 vs. T-72: How Western Tanks Compare to Russia’s Armor | WSJ

god that made me so mad when he said that.

@Jam Jia But literally it is "War Machine of Infrantry"

I went past the part by a couple seconds but had to rewind to make sure I heard correctly 😂

Because it makes a big *BUMP* sound when it's hit by anything

Let´s bump them up!

@robertbates6057 LOL that's funny. They'll show up the same time as the tanks everyone's excited about.

@TheGoodguy68 LOL! Yep, until the F 16s arrive.

@Da Trevmeister You know it really depends on whether the Ukrainians receive used or M1A1s that have been maintained in storage. I see your logic.

In my very, very humble opinion, I’d say leave the M1A1s in Kiev to be used only in the defense of the capital and other important places. Dont use them to go on offensives or counteroffensives. Let the lighter and more nimble Leopards handle that.

@Tom K Look, I understand your struggling. Don't let me confuse you with facts, I can see you have already made up your mind. I go back to what I have said before. Look at results. The Russians have lost 20 generals, 100 colonels, can't take Kiev, lost ground up to the Dneiper River, watched their flag ship the Moscow sink into the Black Sea, their chief of staff changed 4 times during this war, their soldiers demoralized and running away. You might not like those realities, but they are facts. All the Ukrainians have to do is stay in the fight with limited support from the West and this war is won. Once the ATAMCS is fielded near the front, everything will change. Russian logistics, command and control will be destroyed up to 150 miles from the front and the bridge linking the Crimea will be gone up in smoke.

Apfsds penetrates through blast door and boom they still die

@blackdification M1 has blowout panels in the floor for the ammo stored there - usually no ammo is there - but panels are still provided. T-14 has unmanned turret so there are no issues there - crew is totally protected & has no interactions with any ammo.

@Tom K Did you read my comment? I literally said that Leopard 2 only has blowout panels for the ammo stored in the turret. Also, M1 Abrams, Leclerc and K2 all have some ammo in the lower part of the tank, without blowout panels, too. Not sure about T 14, but I wouldn't be surprised if that thing had some rounds in the belly, too, that are not used with blowout panels...

@blackdification Negative. Leopard 2 does not have them for all ammo. T-90 does not have it for all ammo as well. Only designs after about 1980 start to have it - such as M1, Leclerc, K2 and T-14.

@Tom K Most western tanks had them for a long time. Only fir the turret ammo of course.

@Augusto Maybe, as long as they continue what they are doing - they are going to be fine. Better is always better but not needed for victory.

@Augusto Say this to several thousands of Ukries who have died because of Russian artillery in Bahmut. They will laugh. Oh, they won't...

​@Tom K 6x advantage of incompetence and demotivation

Exactly, so what anti-tank firepower does Russia have currently deployed, and which of those are the biggest threats to the Abrams and Leopard tanks?

@Crusader2014 I actually loaded the heat round quicker than the sabot and cam round. I did it it 4 seconds.

@ALPHA a good loader can load a round in 4 seconds. I haven't seen it done quicker. Mainly because of how the storage rack to the shells operate. Most of your time is waiting on the door to open and close.

@m00se They don’t need more T-72s though, that’s what they already have. They asked for western designs specifically because they knew they’d be better than what is already in their inventory, even if they would require a lot of training

@Strangely Ukrainian Thats still months of training and development for that, and not enough abrams to make a very strategic difference compared to the polish PT-91s which could be sent in the hundreds and is based off the T-72 design, which Ukrainians dont need months of training on just for driving and more months of training for repair/catabolize

just like war bring destruction war weapons too

@FRAG OUT i unfortunately don't have any t72 laying around, but it will happen soon in Ukraine anyways

@blablabla then go ahead and mount one and do battle with the Abrams.....

@FRAG OUT there are plenty of t72 models with thermals, nothing special

@CH Mullins Ok then my information wasnt totally wrong. That they dont get the latest electronics was to expected. I think besides sensors also communication in particular. Or does "sensors" include communications? American military jargon can be tricky for an outsider. 😄

@Mad Rooky They will ship Ukraine M1A2's just like the rest of the export models, M1A2S (Saudi Arabia) M1A2M (Morocco) and whatever they will name the Polish and Taiwanese variants. They all have "Export Armor and Sensors". Meaning no Depleted Uranium Armor or "Secret Composites". Not sure what exactly the "export sensor" package consists of. All other nations using any variant of the M1, do not have the same armor or sensors as the U.S. versions.

@Tom K well yes, but the M1A1HA was before the fall of the USSR by three years, and the USSR didn’t see budget cuts until the very end. The US had caught up in armour and ammunition and had it handily beat in electronics for a while. The T-14 seems pretty good but the SU-57 just isn’t on the same level.

@Jacob Baumgardner The main reason US was leading is b/c at that time Soviet Union collapsed and nothing was made for at least a decade. T-90 fixed many issues but could not fix the underlying old design & is a stop gap measure. Sure it now has welded turret & quite decent armor BUT its main draw back is that even after modifications it cannot use super long rod ammo (among other issues). This is why Russians around year 2000 started experimenting with a new tank. At first it was a tank similar to T series of old but simply larger - than in 2010 they decided on a far more ambitious project with T-14. After a decade of work first T-14s started to roll out & are still having issues ironed out. They probably would have been adopted into service right now if not for the war. The main problem with T-14 (as is for Su-57) is their high price point. They cost 2x as much as T-90M. T-90M does the job well for current war. I guess Russians should invest more in active protection - but than again most kills are by artillery - so maybe its not such a huge priority. Incidentally you would think Russians would have a decent active protection system by now since they were the ones whom invented the dam thing like many decades ago - first systems were added to T-55 (!)

@Tom K eh, kinda. The M1 was adequate when it entered service in 1979, and was about on par with T-72A. What was superior was the T-80 which had entered service the year before the original M1. The T-80U entered service 6 years later in 1985, the same year as the M1A1 and it did have vastly superior armour with the addition of Kontact-5 heavy ERA. The Americans then upgraded some of their M1A1’s with DU in the HA variant in 1989 and the US was generally ahead after that.

M1 armor was so weak that it was inferior (by a wide margin) to T-72A. So US quickly added the uranium plates to make it a better protected tank.

@Robert Bates This is a tank that was designed around a supply infrastructure which the Ukrainians don't have. No amount of logistics training is going to change the conditions without US presence. This is why few countries care to use the Abrams.

@Milo Not sure who to pull for but I think the Abrams and Bradleys will cut through the Soviet era tanks and bmps like a hot knife through butter.

@GunstarGizmo Don't kid yourself. I'm sure the US is training Ukraine on logistics train.

Not only that, but the surviving crew will have much greater experience then some new conscripts, meaning that they can do far more damage

@n0codeRussia has been the biggest supplier of (captured) tanks to Ukraine. Ukraine also inherited the Soviet nuclear weapons stationed in Ukraine. They gave them up in return for a promise from Russia to respect Ukraine's borders.

​@Justin Taylor No doubt in my mind that there would be no ERA in the boxes. Definitly some corruption in the Russian Armed Forces. Im not sure where the conversation about stolen equipment came from but I still don't doubt that equipment was stolen. We are on the same page there ahahah. Yes it was cheaper and better to upgrade than produce a new tank because they are all practically the same tank. This one video by RedEffect explained the upgrading process of the T-series, not sure if you've seen it, brvid.net/video/video-sudDPsDaDxQ.html. When I meant a self-sufficent economy, I was talking about basic necessitates and human living resources like food and other stuff. When it comes to modern items like drugs, electronics and cars. The Russian economy has to import them like any other modern economy. Every country imports and exports, some at a deficit ( I believe the USA is at one right now, not sure about Russian) and others at an surplus. Talking about the greed that the Russian country has, again we are on the same page. No doubt there is greed. I like to say that you will always find dirt on any country, no matter what. Yes, sanctions does have a impacted and do work, until they are not enforced. Russia bypasses these sanctions by having third party countries like turkey, kazahistan and china import and export to russian economy. At this point, the sanction should have made the russian economy gone into a deprression right? Anyways, I haven't heard about the printing of money which I will look into. Most countries around the world are most likely printing money, like most of the western countries. Lastly, who knows what will happen, maybe the death of russia may happen. Thanks for having a good conversation with me ahah :).

@Justin Taylor Ukraine also had lots of soviet era tanks that were stationed in their country before the collapse. Both parties have lost lots of tank no doubt. Ukraine still has plenty and Russia still has plenty. We will have to see how much tanks the western countries are able to scrape up to send to Ukraine. Also if Ukraine will be able to effectively use them and actually cause a good affect on the battlefield in Ukraine's favor. We have to remember that western tanks arent god like machines. They can still be blown up like any other tank on the field. We will have to see what will happen.

@Justin Taylor That is assuming that the round hits low enough. Many tank crews now only go in with the 22 rounds in the carousel and the rates of ammo racked tanks are much lower. It’s not a design flaw it makes sense considering. That Soviet tanks were much smaller and easier to transport as well as the fact it’s better against anything that isn’t a tank because in prolonged combat it can keep firing at a steady rate while a manual loader gets tired. Also 125mm is about the limit where a normal loader can’t load efficiently

@Winston Churchill Iraq is a great example of Russian tanks wiped out in tank vs tank battles vs Western tanks. Real life examples, always worth mentioning. And yes blast doors do prevent the propellant of ammunition catching fire and blowing up (brewing) the tank as happens with Russian tanks. You are right it was a theory that actual Russian tanks would be better than the ones the Russians sold to Iraq. As it turns out, the tanks the Russians have, blow up just the same. Because they are the same basic design (design flaw) once a round (any type of round) gets through the armour, the Russian tank goes boom.

@Justin Taylor I’m not talking about Iraq. You said Ukraine first and I am talking about Ukraine. Tank on tank engagements rarely happen. A blast door will not save a tank from artillery or an atgm (Assuming it penetrates) Also in the Iraq war, Iraqi crews were poorly trained and motivated. And those tank were bad export variants. Very different to a modern tank

@Winston Churchill Let me help you. The invasion of Iraq was tank against tank. Hundreds of Iraqi T72s destroyed as against 3 M1 Abrams (from enemy fire). The ammunition compartment of the M1 is behind a blast door, with a blow off panel in the roof. It works. In the real world, Western tanks (and you can count Israeli in that) survive better. They are better designed and better built. Try reading about some actual combat and you will understand why you have just posted nonsense.

@Justin Taylor Russian tank rarely go up against other tanks. It’s mostly artillery/atgms which no western tank would be safe from because if the ready rack door is breached it would kill the whole crew

@Walling Naga Shahid 136 will be pretty effective; low cost Iranian drones plenty of them in stock.

Logistic part supplies are crucial for top performance.

The crew will probably be mercs or poles that have experience using them.

With some having hydropneumatic suspension while others have torsion bar. Leo 2A4 + Abrahms use one type of ammo ... Leo 2A6 (if germany sends those) use a different type of shell, and Challenger II uses a different type of ammo altogether so about 3 types of ammo for 4 different tank types. Then we get into the fuel being used, you can't get a diesel mechanic to fix a turbine engine. Bradleys are probably the real gem in what they are getting. Most of those tanks might be for training purposes for a while.

@Joe Shaji Not really , also British tanks have a rifled barrel wich is outdated since decades . No smoothbore , they need DU ammo to even scratch the paint off modern tanks . 😅

@5CO7 • Challenger 2 tanks have DU bullets not tungsten. DU bullets are way better than tungsten.

Interesting point is that Russia also has depleted uranium rounds to be used in case of war. Not sure they deploy these. They would be used on older tanks.

The difference between Du rounds and non DU is marginal. Leopard 2s armor can stop a DU round easily.

Russia of course also has DU APFSDS rounds.

I’ve been in a T72 you don’t really have to be small maybe 5’11 max

They have no shells. Denied access by Brazil, Iran, China and all South American countries holding some.

@Bill bob Its a common argument, no, its not an air war, the air war part of this conflict has been on all accounts, lacking. The lack of SEAD on either side and the many, many air defences both side possess have restricted both country’s airforces to limited sorties.

@Eeeertoo What do you mean "again"? I didn't say tanks were obsolete in any shape form. I specifically that the tanks are not going to help Ukraine because this is not a battle between tanks and Ukraine lacks the air support to cover them. Reading is fundamental.

@Bill bob Again with this “tanks are obsolete”, they are not, they provide offensive abilities that artillery or air superiority cant provide.

@Matrose27 Yeah until the lancet gets caught in a camo net or misses LOL

Отличная реклама для натовских танков - против российских(а точнее советских) пушек, гранатомётов и авиации.

@James Merkel Ооо дааа...4%ленд-лиза от Советской военной промышленности кардинально поменяло ситуацию😂Только за этот "ленд-лиз"СССР обязывался платить золотом😂лучше бы вместо ленд-лиза сразу открыли 2 фронт ,ещё бы раньше союзники одержали победу,но ждали аж до лета 44 ,когда Советы уже стояли на Германских границах,это факт!А по нынешней ситуации ,не переживай за нашу логистику и тех.обслуживание,переживай за вашу.И не Возможно,а Победа будет за нами😜 ,как бы ни прискорбно вам хотелось это осознать.

@James Merkel I agree. Never underestimate your opponents. But like u said, its going to be a huge task for Russia to turn this around. Anyway, nobody wins in a war

@What's next? I don't disagree that russia shouldn't be underestimated. However, historically, russia often needed backing not to collapse their economy or kill themselves. In ww2 they would have been crushed if not for the lend-lease supplies, simply from their troops starving and freezing, not to mention the lack of transport. In Ukraine they have a hard time feeding their troops just across the border. Russia has a lot of powerful weapons, but without the logistics to field those weapons, or maintain them, they're useless. It's still possible they win this current war, however at this point it's going to require a massive push of their full military might and a hope that their logistics/poor maintenance don't see their military crushed in another boondoggle.

Заокеанские диванные войска😂Лучше всех на свете знают обстановку в Украине😂

@HeinaCat no I don't I believe there highly reliant on Soviet machines and I think there newer platforms are sub standard compared to those in the west.

u believe Russia uses only soviet vehicles. you may be wrong. of course they will spend old ones first in terms of long war.

@Raptor243 still nowhere near western standard. Russian modified Soviet made tanks 🤣👌

What about the T-90s of all variants? And latest T-80s. The Iraqis received the dumbed down versions of T-72s with way inferior optics, fire control and probably protection as well

@Ralph Konstantine i think no t14 in this war, we must have some weapons, what do not participate in this war. for backup plan (i mean if ww3 will happening)

@Dr Kirb Kenneth kirby then it wasn't destroyed by a Bradley. Same can be said for the Abrams then.

@tshds tow missiles can take out any tank, the only variant is difficulty

There is no way in this world that a modern Russian tank got destroyed by a Bradley.

Yeah just send Ukraine some A-10s Bc brrt lol. I’m joking the A-10 is obsolete give them some F-35s and watch the fireworks

100s have been destroyed. I.e. not economical to recover. 100s. Iraq lost 60 of them in the battle of Mosul to ISIS.

Only 3? Who the F gonna believe in it? Even on youtube i saw is around 10 footages. Tank is not invincible unit, wake up.

@Kishan Chali My government propaganda? Which government even? Because unlike in Russia, in the west there are many different opinions, and different views on the war. And we are actually allowed to say something against our government ;)

Overall 100s were lost. Maybe up to a 1000.

@Winston Churchill talking about Russians

@Julius Walsøe Tveit No, not the Iraqis

@Tyler Norby Because no one else was shooting.

20 were lost in desert storm, 17 of those were from friendly fire.

not without air dominance which is something Russia has plus cruise missiles

@Monumental Travel Your argument is flawless... and suited to the situation of the ethnic Russians in the Donbass as well

@Marcus Philius Maybe you don't and it is debatable but I think they are harming the most important reasons that people live. If you look around the world, places like Vietnam, people want to be living with their own people and controlled by their own people. This is perhaps the most basic aspect of being a human. We don't want to be controlled by horrible outsiders. It happens over and over again. Afghanistan is probably the most clear case, but places like Vietnam or Korea or Thailand or Poland these are all places that would rather be dead than have some outisde force control their life This is a principle that has become more and more clear over 2 thousand years of conflict. I certainly would rather be dead than not be able to chose who I live for. I don't want to be in a prison and either do Ukrainians. We have to support their wish. America is a country founded on this principle, they did not want to be British. Most coutries had this battle at some time in it's existence. Those people that did not fight became a form of slave, like the Indians in Canada or the Kurds in Iraq or even the Maya who really are quite spread out and disjointed.

@Paul Gibbon according to international observers and accounts of Ukrainian soldiers at the front

@Paul Gibbon Nurse , Come quick He died after An attempt to be Funny!

@Birdstwin "No, looking to the far future, you can see these weapon systems are on their deathbed." The US and Germany are developing and testing their next generation. Maybe they didn't get the memo that the weapon systems were on their deathbed?

No, looking to the far future, you can see these weapon systems are on their deathbed. They will be here a few while longer, but it is inevitable they will be replaced.

As a former 19 Kilo of GWOT, you are correct.

@falconeaterf15 I would consider this as crime, gorilla- crime if you like, but not war.

@Chuck Norris They tend to help on a battlefield too. At least that's why they were invented. Without infantry, the serfs/peasants can crawl on and disable them.

@Winston Churchill Meanwhile the panzer 38(t) and panzer 2: *living happily in the retirement home after being the main tank used in fall Weiss and the Ardennes breakthrough

Tigers were propaganda tanks. They were horrible anyways and were a logistics nightmare. T34s weren’t much better but the best German tank was the Panzer 4 or Stug

Not to mention the tanks being sent are 80-90s tech

​@SexyGod finally someone got the point! and we are only speaking bout the old T-72... what when Russia will start clear their old T80 and T90 stockpiles? Leopard 2 is a really good tank, i love it as 'tanks fan' but, same as in WW2... '50x T34 > 1x Tiger II'.. the fact that is 'better' doesn't mean it's invincible, easy to be outnumbered and btw, tanks have to fear infantry AT missiles and Air Attacks more than enemy tanks

@SexyGod dont forget russian antitank artillery, their tanks just mere support column

5000 out of total 12000 are capable. Do you really thin 14 Leopards can change here something?

I wonder how much of that stat are T34's in museums

Exactly. And even the combat capable ones don't seem to be all that capable.

I'm not shore Ukraine 🇺🇦 would of fallen ever.🇦🇺🇺🇦

@Alexander Barkman The occupants left.. after winning the war.. and Iraq is now ruled by definitely not the 2003 government. Its definitely not ruled by the people who “beat the occupation”

@m00se I'm Arab so i'm more aware of the other Arabs strengths and weaknesses than anyone else especially if that one was from the other side of the globe right.

Tell me you know nothing about military analysis and the power of iraq in the 90s without telling me you know nothing.

@Tank Penguin There's like 15 different t-72 variants much like there's like 15 different M1 variants.

@Targe there are not even 10 armatas as far as we know of and russia literally doesnt have the money to produce them effecivly

@Targe The Russians abandoned an up to date T90 in the Kherson retreat so we'll have been picking it apart and finding out the best ways to kill the era etc. I'm sure its not up to taking on modern western tanks

@Targe His point was that T-14s are not really a threat since they come in very small numbers. Will be irrelevant on the battlefield

@Tank Penguin Yes as in their best, most upgraded tank, way better than a stock T-72. Ask the Ukrainian tankers if they'd rather fight a T-72 vs a T-90. I think they said T-72, easy. T-90? Can we have Leopard 2s please? The Armata is yes a prototype, but it is their next gen tank and the Russians are getting desparate. And if the UK is sending in 12 Challengers then we can discuss Russia sending in 10 Armatas.

where have you been for 50 years

@Horrormaster13 Their stated goals were denazification and demilitarization of Ukraine, which they're achieving now. Just check the horrendous casualties of Ukraine in Bakhmut alone

@john doe Should I watching Sputnik?

And remember it was not b/c Patton tank sucked that T-55 made a burning wreck of it in Indo-Pakistani war.

@AirWaffle yeah lol a whole 15 meters a day

@squidwardo poorly? since mid november the only advances were made by russians, and they were made every single day

@Joe But they don’t know how to operate western tanks

@Andrés Gael Hernandez Perez Ukrainians crews have experience, NATO crews dont

@MrSesebo that's two different weapon systems. Gepard is an AA weapon which has semiautomatic feature that only need few personnel to operate. Also, it is used as a defensive measure. No tactics are required at all. Tanks are both defensive and offensive. Most of time they work as a group.

@R A they are able to use the gepard succesfully which is not used by the german military anymore because it's training is time intense and complicated. so i have no worries they are able to use a tank succesfully

@Detlef Alle Tactics and teamwork need months of training to practice and mature.

They are training in Oklahoma right now. Have no fear, they will be ready for Ivan.

" It's still a question as to whether the survivability of Western armor beats the massive numbers of Russian armor," It's crew suitability where they excel versus Russian tanks. If a trained crew loses a tank then moves to a new tank, that's preferable to losing a tank with the crew. You start running out of tankers. " Motivated warriors under pressure with little time to train" Probably beats unmotivated reserves with little time to train.

their prized PMC group and spetsnaz units are already receiving alot of losses, i doubt the unorganized chaotic horde of untrained men will last as much as people think they would

Did you just decide to make up your source for this.

This is false a T72B3 gunner sight is a 2nd gen thermal with 8x zoom. The Abrams being sent also have 2nd gen thermals. I don’t know where you got this idea of western sights being so much better

@H K How’d that strategy work out so far?

@H K Ah yes, glorious cyka sukhoi, gloriously crashing into residential areas behind Russia's own frontlines and using commercial GPS strapped to the console to find its targets. Abrams/Leo2/Chally2 have nothing to fear from sukhois as long as they don't disguise themselves as orphanages

Sitting ducks for sukhoi

These news sights talk about blowout panels when in reality most of the ammo is kept in unsafe secondary storage for western and eastern tanks. When T series tank get ammo racked its due to the secondary ammo storage

@Vitalii Rudko The Abrams has a weaker gun. Smaller caliber and worse projectiles

​@Alex Frey Being heavier than the Leopard 1 doesn't really prove the T-72 is a heavy tank. The leopard 1 prioritised maneuver warfare similar to light tank/tank destroyer doctrines used by the US during WW2.

@Don Al Capone lol Dunning-Kruger effect much?

@K W ‘Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience’

@Don Al Capone 😂 your education system failed you

most of tanks actually destroyd by mines. they are in front of attack and mines is what kill them

Given how much Russia and their botski brigade are freaking out about the tanks, that seems to be a sign they'll work.

@Milan Z I actually was against war in Afghanistan since day one and considered it pointless. But I would like to point out that rooskies spent a decade fighting there too, and now in Ukraine they have lost many times more men in a few months that Soviet Union lost 10 years in Afghanistan. But do you think that 2.5 trillion dollars was spent in Afghanistan? Are those dollars now somewhere in Afghanistan, where? No, that money is circulating in western economy. US and EU central banks can always print more money without currency losing value. Russia cannot. In fact, Russia has burnt a lot of money just to keep rouble afloat artificially. But that can only be upheld so far. It's coming crashing down after Russia loses war in Ukraine. The next war in Russia just might be a civil war. Nevertheless, I think we both can agree that there will be many interesting international things to watch in upcoming months and next couple years.

@Rex This is the kind of fanboy I like the most, a true believer. The kind of fanboy who actually believed all those reports about how NATO was building a successful democracy in Afghanistan and training a 300.000 strong, effective Afghan army. I'd like to see the looks on their faces when the entire lie and the 2,5 trillion dollar 20 year project came crashing and burning down in just 5 days. But they just went to the next one - now it's Russians will be out of Crimea soon.

@AfroSyrianDude 🇸🇾 I mean sure, they have inherited old Soyuz tech which is reliable but they have not really developed it much or had significant achievements during post-soviet times. All the newer developments are elsewhere and China is doing more advanced space missions than the Russians can muster now.

A 25? Vs a tank?

@Mikhail RPGs can destroy any tank if shot to the roof or sides. Tanks are only decently armored in the front

@Lahandri Whether it's export versions in Iraq or upgraded versions in Ukraine, T72s have been destroyed in large amounts.

But it a upgrade T72s with well-trained Crews not export version of it with poor-trained Lahandri Iraqi crews.

The Bradely and the M1 were designed to operate together. Have Bradley's and Challengers/leopards operating together and the tanks will have a hard time keeping up. BTW - in wartime the Marines expect to get tank platoons loaned to them from the army.

But that 120mm gun... Bradleys and infantry roll with the tank in a mutually supported team. The infantry call in targets that the tank utterly destroys. It makes your enemy run like nothing else... That's how it's supposed to work...

Strikers??? good, Australia 🇦🇺 sent 90 bushmaster armoured vehicles and some updated 113m3b,we have ASLAVs like strikers that are being replaced by Boxers, we could send some off them maybe.🇦🇺🇺🇦

@Loki 76 Yes I know but with our air defenses there they shouldn't be able to do that. I guess what I should say is that they are going to need guided munitions that NATO vehicles can't counter if they want to take them out or try and overwhelm them

@GreenPhantom69 Cruise missiles are used on stationary high value targets. Not on a mobile battlefield with tanks on the move in an offensive. If they have 5-10 tanks just sitting in a building for maintenance, then yes if they have the information it could be worth sending a cruise missile to that. But not on a moving battlefield.

90 strykers

Challenger 2 tanks are heavily armored and have taken numerous RPG hits. No tank has been destroyed by enemy fire

No tank is invincible

I believe that those tanks took hits in urban combat. No tank that I know of does well in urban combat. Tanks are best suited to relatively open fields where attacks can be anticipated to come from a certain general direction.

"You will not find it difficult to prove that battles, campaigns, and even wars have been won or lost primarily because of logistics.” - General Dwight D. Eisenhower

Convenient for anyone investing in defense...or nations moving tax dollars into said defense companies.

That's how it always is really.

@AfroSyrianDude 🇸🇾 Clearly this logic did not work out in Kharkiv or Kherson or Kyiv.

@Future Time Traveller what? A person who isnt anti russian and listens to Denys davydov, artus rehi, combat veteran and reporting from ukraine 24/7? Wow.

@AfroSyrianDude 🇸🇾 thank you for the common sense

Factor in Artillery and Russia having larger air dominance than ukraine flying constant sorties, its unlikely these vehicles will be used for a offensive.

@Asghaad In fact 1980s Soviet tanks where superior to western tanks

@Asghaad According To the book of Soviet Army and Operation tactics. Heavy emphasis was placed on reconnaissance which would allow tank forces and artillery unites to accurately pin down and destroy western tanks. I assume the misconception of Soviet tanks rushing no matter what comes from movies and pop culture. Actual Soviet doctrine did not call for suicide rushing

@Winston Churchill yeh sorry to tell you but that is exactly how comblock tankers were "trained" we were supposed to be nothing else but cannon fodder using numbers in suicidal frontal charge to try to push through NATO lines

@Asghaad This is not true. Soviet tank doctrine never called for blindly charging. While soviets had numbers. Rushing across a field was certain to get it killed.

The Saudis also lost a staggering number of Abrams in Yemen. But that just goes to show how no tank is invincible and you need proper training and doctrine to maximize its potential. Undoubtedly, the western tank models will significantly lift the Ukrainian soldiers' potential, and I'm convinced we will see them make good use of them just like they made good use of MARS-II/HIMARS, Pzh 2000, Caesar, Gepard, and all the other systems that have been donated.

@JustRandomPerson • 67 years ago • edited both things are very different, eating food and saying something is not the same as doing something

@Tututu Tututu Yes and Mussolini used to say “Ciao” and eat pasta, same like many Italians today think about it and don’t deceive yourself.

Not enough time to train crew and deliver these tanks. All numbers are for deliveries during whole this year.

@Tututu Tututu Before you write your nonsense you should learn how to translate "Slava Ukraine" correctly.

😉 hee hee

@Timothy Webb They don’t want their newest tank to be captured. And you can’t just start production on a prototype tank

@Winston Churchill Not a problem as the US will quickly put into production the AbramsX to replace them.

For the Tech to be captured? That will never happen

BMP-2 БМП-2 (Боевая Машина Пехоты) ( поколение 2)

That's what it's called int the US Army: a 'bimp.'

@Shiranui Australian M1's aren't diesel.

They don't need special fuel; Australia runs them on diesel by default just fine. I think one big advantage the Abrams could have is that there are literally thousands stored in the desert -- and whilst Washington won't send these due to concerns over their classified armor scheme, they could still provide numerous spare parts for those newly built custom export M1s that will be sent to Ukraine some day. With the Leopard I'm not quite so sure just how many parts are available, as European militaries are operating considerably smaller fleets. Operating both tanks could ultimately, paradoxically make logistics easier as a single supply chain for more vehicles of just one type could more easily run into procurement issues.