>When we evaluate how weapons perform, it is important to note the conditions in which they operate.

>When we evaluate how weapons perform, it is important to note the conditions in which they operate. Abrams were committed into the fight this winter at a time when Ukraine had a lack of infantry as well as mines, ATGMs, air defense, and artillery ammunition. This may seem bizarre from the outside, but Ukraine often employs tanks in a manner to compensate for a lack of infantry or ammunition for other systems because those are the conditions they face.
>If you don't have enough artillery or ATGM ammunition, you may bring up a tank or Bradley to engage Russian armor or infantry instead. This could involve placing an Abrams or Bradley at greater risk than you would like, but these are the organic assets that the 47th Mechanized Brigade had, and they come with a different supply of ammunition.
>All weapons have vulnerabilities, and you mitigate those vulnerabilities through combined arms. When several of those arms are weaker (e.g. infantry, artillery, air defense), because of attrition or a lack of ammunition, others will be more vulnerable as well.
>So we need to be careful drawing conclusions that are too strong and sweeping about specific weapon systems or tactics without asking the Ukrainians what they think.
He's right: https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1786437807403102569?t=svHWQj_sgMdRZNOXLWqrDg&s=19

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    That seems reasonable, but what point are you trying to make? What unfair conclusions do you feel were being made based on examples that had been stripped of valuable context?

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Due to lack of resources they used tank as a tank

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Not OP. Tanks are meant to be used in a combined arms package. What they seem to being used as in Ukraine is some QRF Hail Mary.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        That would imply that you can do combined arms against someone like Russia. Maybe against someone like Sadam Hussein. But in Ukraine both sides use tanks for both defensive and offensive purposes.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >That would imply that you can do combined arms against someone like Russia.
          what a moronic comment, of course you can, especially that russians are moronic.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            To do that you need to get air supremacy over whole of russian huge airspace. Near impossible

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Air power is ONE of the potential components of combined arms tactics.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                And is the most crucial

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Yes, but combined arms tactics involve two or more arms. Not all of them. Not one plus air power.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Okay, you have a well dugged enemy and massive minefields but no efficient air support, wwyd? Send mine clearers? They get ATGM,ed or dronned. Paths that were cleared get mined with remote mining. You lift kamikaze drones to destroy enemy 5km behind frontline? They get jammed. Launch big drones to check? they get shot down with air defence. Precision munitions? 90% are jammed.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Not 100% sure why Ukraine didn't build their forces up in one area for a breakthrough during their counter offensive last year. Might have h
          worked.
          >Other stuff you said
          Tanks need infantry support. Sending a tank out on its own is just asking for it to get taken out. There are other issues within the situation in Ukraine preventing this, but how armor has been being used is far from ideal.

          >That would imply that you can do combined arms against someone like Russia.
          what a moronic comment, of course you can, especially that russians are moronic.

          Despite the memes there are a handful of capable Russian units and forces. If there weren't I doubt there would still be a war happening in Ukraine and not along the 1990 borders by now.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Have you seen how most of those tanks were destroyed? Most of them drove on the mine, then theres drones and ATGMS, what the hell would infantry support do with that?

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Infantry are normally out in front of your tanks screening for threats.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                How far in front? How will infantry stop vehicles from driving on the mine, getting bombed with artillery or getting hit with ATGM or dron?
                So you send infantry on the well dug enemy with artillery and drone support?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You're absolutely right. Mines, artillery, and guided anti-tank weapons did not exist before 2022. War has irreparably changed.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                these tourists ruined this board. it's gotten to the point i have "drone" wordfiltered because every person who uses it is a fricking idiot.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Well people talk about mythical combined arms as if it's something that can defeat anything and can't be countered if used properly without air defence.
                And oh you forgot the drones

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >31 out of 10k deployed
    >a few lost against hundreds of enemy vehicles
    >crushing defeat

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    hmmm, very illuminating

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Patriot and himars were game changing tho

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      HIMARS 100% was a game-changer THOUGH.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >media using clickbait titles to get more clicks
      hmmm, very illuminating

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Seven different news outlets used the same phrase in the span of two years in the context of Ukraine war. That's crazy Ivan. I bet Soros is behind this.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Remake this image without Himars mention unless you just want to have a nice day into foot again

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous
  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    > 31 abrams deliverd.
    Pathetic.

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Tanks were deployed without stuff to compensate for a lack of stuff.
    Uh, okay?

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Kherson and Kharkiv succeses were due to large part use of Himars. Patriot created a solid air defence system and reduced efficiency of russian air force.

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Hamish

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    why is this implying the abrams has some sort of unique weakness when the correct conclusion is that any tank will die if sent out on its own without support?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Do you expect sound logic from someone on Twitter reposting a Telegraph article?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        He is actually criticizing the article, he just linked it for context, he doesn't agree with it.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Oh okay, I don't open links on here anymore.
          Captcha: HKGAY

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Challenger gas ECM and heavy armor to stop this exact thing. The abrams has a 2m wide hole in the deathstar if you will. One only has to fart in the direction of the blowout panels and the abrams is a mission kill

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Rob is not trying to imply it, the article he is rightfully criticizing is tho.

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yes. Sending the Abrams to Ukraine was stupid wunderwaffle cope. Agreed. The Abrams was designed for the Cold War fight. We should have never sent it without sufficient air support, infantry support, IFV support, air defense support, maintenance battalions, and refueling companies to refuel it every 8 hours. This was a major oversight by the US.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      why did they change his paint job?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This except unironically. The Abrams is the worst vehicle to gift if only because of it's high maintenance, it runs off a jet engine nuff said. I just don't get what the reason was in the first place, are these the DU hull models? If not then what was the point? The Abrams is outclassed by the Leopard 2's hydraulics and stabilizers for firing on the move, the thermals are good and better than Russian tech, but still nothing special.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >I just don't get what the reason was in the first place, are these the DU hull models?
        It's just the M1A1 HA and some M1A1 SEPs with DU armor. The US doesn't export DU at all.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        A little correction, it can run off of ANY fuel, it just performs the best with JP8. Which the US military uses to fuel a lot of its vehicles with. And no, these are exportified, no DU inserts and certainly not the most updated kits either. The point was more tanks they could use. Europe can't pony up all the Leopard 2's they have so the US/UK send over their tanks because having tanks is better than not having tanks at all. And the US has plenty to spare so why not. They don't need to be special, it's just more equipment the Ukies can use.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The US had to send something to prove their support, and there are a lot of politicians that are true believers about this war, that don't care about the details about how the tanks actually work.
        They'd send F35s next, if any were there to spare.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >it runs off a jet engine nuff said
        it runs off a turbine engine, the same general type that powers the t-80, and you can remove it in like 15 minutes by just craning it out. maintenance on the power pack is something specialists do, specialists won't be on the front line.

        ban war tourists.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >The Abrams was designed for the Cold War fight. We should have never sent it without sufficient air support, infantry support, IFV support, air defense support, maintenance battalions, and refueling companies to refuel it every 8 hours. This was a major oversight by the US.
      This. NATO should finally be serious about TZD

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >inside
      >implies the crew didn't just climb out and leave once the vehicle was disabled.

      what kind of ruzzia tank projection is this?

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    How does having infantry support prevent an MBT from being destroyed by FPV drones?

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    USA sending Abrams was just a symbolic gesture that Europeans are allowed by their Angloid masters to uncuck themselves and send tanks too.

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >due to large part of unfortified and unmanned russian lines
    What happened to Russian soldiers that used to man them?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous
  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    /k/ope will be /k/oping their way all the way to the grave

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I wonder if they at least got a few good hits in before going down. If those five made a tangible impact before being taken out, they were still more effective than 90% of Russian armor.

  16. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Is the Abrams magic or something? Your tank blows its top off when hit by said Abrams and we've known that for 3 decades now, I'd be far more embarrassed by that and cardboard armor tiles than anything else. If Hohols wanna drive our Leopards and Abrams directly into your lines and get blown up that is none of my prerogative.

  17. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >russia loses 1 gorillion T-72, T-80, T-90
    >crickets
    >ukraine loses a few WUNDERWAFFE ALIEN TECHNOLOGY ABRAHAMS from the mid 80s
    >NATO is finished
    that's crazy bro

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Ukraine lost 20% of Abrams fleet in just a few months. Now they are being pulled back.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        20% cooler

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        so that's like 10?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          6

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It's over, NATObros. We should recall all equipment from Ukraine and book a slot in Yandex calendar to sign the capitulation act.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          It they had more to lost they would lose more. No brainer

  18. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    I agree. HIMARS' effectiveness is completely mythical. Pic unrelated.

  19. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >the largest military defeat of this war
    *cough*

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Russians retreated from an overstretched position.
      They weren't punished in the extreme like the Ukrainians were, during *their* offensive.

      Russia still retained offensive capability after their failed offensive, the Ukrainians didn't.

      The Russians gained initiative and still retain it, the Ukrainians lost the south to such an extent that Crimea had a land corridor, etc etc

      In all aspects the summer offensive was a mistake, it was argued against by many many people aligned with ukraine, it was a needless waste of lives, while the russian northern attack still had *some* positives.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >retreated
        That's the defeat of the attacker.
        >Russia still retained offensive capability after their failed offensive
        No it was BTFO so hard it can't dream even about capturing the whole Donetsk oblast

  20. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Himars stopped russian wall of firepower by decentralising and moving their ammo storages much further from frontline. It fricked up russian logistics whic is why Kherson in particular fell and it also killed good russian commanders which caused Isum breakthrough

  21. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Throwing your tanks into the hottest part of the front line to directly engage enemy vehicles, while having a critical lack of every other part of the combined arms, and not even loses not even going into the double digits. Yet the russians (and moronic journalists) somehow think this means the Abrams sucks.

  22. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >largest military defeat
    Really? Well let's see what Oryx list would say on that

  23. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    This is true. Ukraine had soldier to soldier ratio of 4 to 1 in September 2022. Not its under 2:1, probably 1,5:1. Kherson wasnt diffensable due to being on left side of Dnepr

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Oh man and why didn't russians just used antonov bridge like they used before?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Its not that hard to hit entier bridge its not only HIMARS shooting it

  24. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Certainly stopped the offensiev, as shown by this war being ongoing over 2 years later.

  25. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >if we just had more of everything we wouldn't lose anything
    No shit sherlock.
    This isn't a counter, this is just saying that, "combat losses happen when you run into material and manpower limitations". Which is obvious.
    Ukraine doesn't have the infinite air/sea/monetary power the US has, and they aren't fighting Hadjis in the Desert either.
    The Abrams developed a cult of invincibility based on the US already being massively more well equipped than any opponents they were fighting. When placed in a more peer-to-peer context, its limitations will obviously appear.
    And Ukraine can't just magic more military might out of the air to return that 'invincibility'.

  26. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    So anon, if you were in the shoes of ukrainian tank crews fighting against Russia in the bloodiest spot would you rather be sent in an Abrams or a T series? And this is a binary choice.

    Everyone here, demand this guy to answer this or the converstation stops.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      abrams with 4 artillery pieces assigned to my platoon, bradleys in support, and several recon squads with thermals/uavs overlooking where i'm going. attack helicopters on call. frick anything less.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >why_the_us_has_lost_the_last_6_wars.aiv

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          6 wars, hmmm care to elaborate? And you still haven't answered my question, although all the videos of russian tank pilots being launched into orbit, becoming human torches or outright getting reduced to a mist in their hundreds while more often than not western equipped crews manage to bail out will answer that if you aren't into the raghead death cult hoping you will get in the afterlife the pussy you are clearly not getting here on Earth.

          Oh, and another thing, funnily enough you are writting in english using hardware made by non-western "citizens" working for a western backed firm so think carefully your answers.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          6 wars, hmmm care to elaborate? And you still haven't answered my question, although all the videos of russian tank pilots being launched into orbit, becoming human torches or outright getting reduced to a mist in their hundreds while more often than not western equipped crews manage to bail out will answer that if you aren't into the raghead death cult hoping you will get in the afterlife the pussy you are clearly not getting here on Earth.

          Oh, and another thing, funnily enough you are writting in english using hardware made by non-western "citizens" working for a western backed firm so think carefully your answers.

          are these two bots? genuine question. these responses make some sense lexically (not really for the second reply) but contextually absolutely none at all.

  27. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Ukraine didn't have shit, NATO would have used stealth bombers, jets and more and better long range missiles.
    During the Iraq war, the US used 69 tomahawks to support a kurdish assault on an enemy position, 69 (SIXTY NINE) tomahawks to support a single assault.

  28. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Let’s be perfectly honest. The reason why Ukraine has a manpower issue is because the Ukrainian government, reknown for next-level corruption / incompetence is running the Ukrainian military. I PROMISE that if it was a NATO or U.S.-run operation that manpower generation issues would evaporate. Any of you guys from Eastern Europe and the Baltics know that I’m 100% correct.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Things complement each other, western militaries win battles because the people in charge know how to use them and they were built by them, there is an institutional culture, while ukrainians inherited a lot of russian " institutional culture" one of the points of the war is exactly to cut out of russian vile influence, point of case, how is that a net exporter of oil such as Russia managed to get their military convoys still due lack of fuel back in february 2022? As things stand ukrainians have been fighting to a crawl a military force which was supposed to crush the entirety of Europe within a few weeks, again, while it is in part thanks to russian corruption there is still a great deal of merit on ukkies HQ surviving 2 years of war against a country many times stronger despite limitations and rats such as MRG and

      >why_the_us_has_lost_the_last_6_wars.aiv

      being fifth-columnists to monke (I am assuming the subhuman is only brown in soul).

  29. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's interesting because this was the actual use case for which Abrams was originally designed. In the beginning it wasn't the standard - issue all armor companies get an Abrams type thing, it was specifically designed to supplement the much more numerous M60s et al as a mobile reserve to react to breakthroughs. Thus the very high tactical mobility and focus on extreme anti-tank capability over more sustainability and greater numbers. It's interesting because this is as close as we will ever see to the Abrams being deployed in the manner which it was originally conceived of- as a mobile 'fire brigade' type responder to breakthroughs of armor from the Soviet 'Deep Battle' style attacks.

  30. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Kharkov only. The russian presence in Kherson was pretty well established.
    >a complete loss of the ukraine's offensive potential
    LMAO vatBlack person nevermind

  31. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yeah our tanks suck in certain ways.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *