Abrams, Leopard and Challenger 2 vs. T-72: How Western Tanks Compare to Russia’s Armor | WSJ
Vložit
- čas přidán 14. 05. 2024
- The U.S., Germany and U.K. are sending M1 Abrams, Leopards and Challenger 2 tanks to Ukraine to support their war with Russia. How do these tanks measure up to the Russian T-72? These new vehicles, along with IFVs, are set to change the dynamics of the war along the front lines.
WSJ examines how the tanks that Kyiv will receive from its NATO allies compare with Russia’s vehicles.
Chapters:
0:00 Western tanks being sent to Ukraine
0:35 Why tanks are important to Ukraine
1:47 Survivability of tanks
2:49 IFVs: M-2 Bradley and BMP-2
Russia-Ukraine Conflict
WSJ’s latest news coverage around the 2022-2023 Russia-Ukraine conflict.
#Russia #Ukraine #WSJ
The Wagner Group has become the face of the Russian assault in Ukraine.
Our documentary, Shadow Men: Inside Russia’s Secret War Company reveals how the Russian private military company hides the flow of riches and resources that ultimately connect to the Kremlin: czcams.com/video/EMXnJMCoFYI/video.html
a documentary on the biden crime familys underhand deals with foreign powers and companys controlled by those foreign powers would be far more important than lies about Russia
And who has become the face of the American unprovoked aggression to Iraq?
❤❤🎉🎉 GB 0:11 🎉
I have never heard a BMP pronounced as a 'Bump' but I will definitely call it that now 🤣
Well it does have bumps on the hood
Haha that was a first for me too😂
All hail bump 💀
Who's doesn't like a good bump
The noise they make when hit by an NLAW quickly followed by a fry up.
My brigade lost 1 M1A1 tank in Desert Storm--temporarily. It was hit in the rear by a T-72. We replaced the turbine engine in about 4 hours. Cleaned up the ammunition rack and some of the melted plastic around the turret, and it was ready to be put back into the fight. No casualties to speak of. The Ukrainians just need to be sensitive to the fuel requirements, and keep the filters clean and free of excess water. One of the cool things about it, is when you hit another tank with a round, it is easier to use the HEAT round. It is a shape charge that momentarily creates a 360 degree arch about 6 feet in diameter like you see when someone welds a piece of metal. That is the easiest way to know you hit the target. If you use the SABOT round, you have to sit for a moment or two and wait for indication that you hit the tank like a fire. Otherwise, you sit there and wonder whether to shoot a 2nd round into the Russian tank.
I don't believe Ukrainians will have such recovery and repair capabilities. US could just win an encounter, control areas from air and safely recover the tank. In this war when you are hit, you leave burning tank in no mans land.
There's plastic?
Thanks for your service and intereting information about a large hole made by a hit. Knowing the target has been hit not only save a 2nd round, it allows the tank to move to a different position and away from possible harm. By the way, how do tanks manage to refuel on the battlefield? Do tankers follow not too far behind?
Didn't you wish to have the German MTU in the back? 35 minutes to change the whole unit..😂😘🍻
@@onespeedlite The plastic was probably what was left of the crew's gear in the bustle rack.
Will it survive a 30mm hole from a Terminator? That scary machine knocks out T-72 head on with a simple 30mm.
What you think will happen 10 days ago:M1,Leopard Challenger vsT-90M T-80 T-72
What actually happened: Leopard vs Drones Ka-52 9M-127 and D-30🤣
And Challenger vs Kornet
Turns out, Leopards burn the same as a T-72.
LOL. Leopards are burning pretty well...
Yeah. Too bad they can’t beat Russian T-series tanks in the turret tossing competition 😢
@@christopherchartier3017this is like WW2 with sophisticated German tanks up against more simpel Russian tanks, and who won that battle mate?
@@jasip1000 This isn’t anywhere near like that lol
@@christopherchartier3017 you can LOL all that you want, but yes its exactly like that.
@@jasip1000 Both sides (Ukraine with western vehicles, Russia with T90M’s and T80’s) are using peer to peer tanks. It’s not at all like “T34s vs a couple Tigers”
And now we just have to wait for the Abrahams to arrive at the front so that we can see the trio tanks destroyed
This didn't age well.
The Challenger got challenged.
The Leopard got hunted
The Abrams got destroyed. By shovels, like the other tanks.
@@Intel-i7-9700kanother abrams destroyed by T72B3 with an ATGM
Russia lost far more T72s, T80s, and T90s tho
@@The3nlightened0ne Soviets are being deployed from the start of the war abrams arrived 1 year later and after almost a year they were deployed and their lifespan was 3 days
It seems as though you are foolishly under the impression that these tanks could NOT be destroyed.
Well the Leopard2s that faced Russian artillery and helicopters this morning have proven themselves to very good at cooking 😅
Yes killing human beings nothing funny about that arm chair warrior.
@@contingency9called it "game changer" and then proceeded to fail is way funnier.
@@contingency9Preach 👏
3:13 Bro really just called the BMP-2 a "Bump 2"
That's what it's called int the US Army: a 'bimp.'
BMP-2 БМП-2 (Боевая Машина Пехоты) ( поколение 2)
Never thought that US, British & GERMAN Tanks will fight side by side!
And lose...
@@daniboi4067 Tbh NATO would sweep the floor with Russia in a purely conventional war, it wouldn't last long at all. Drip feeding Ukraine tanks will help, but really they should just put boots on the ground (along with their airforces) in a "special NATO peacekeeping military operation" and then see how long Russia lasts; i'd be impressed if a single Russian unit remained in Ukraine after a month.
@@daniboi4067 In your dreams, Russian bot.
@@RifleEyez Ok so Nato in a conventional war ( WHICH IT IS AT THIS POINT OF TIME ALREADY) will come and sweep entire Russia and Russians will do nothing i meant Nothing? Why is it so ? While together Nato can be powerful than Russia but when Russia and Nato fights there would noclear winner!! USA will taste Nuclear Weapons which they used on Japan . NATO is a Coward , Putin is not !! There lies the biggest difference .
@@daniboi4067 lol what?
Very good western pressure cooker tanks competing to defeat pop-corn in ukraine😂😂😂😂😂
burn propaganda tanks, burn
"only very few Bradleys have been lost in Iraq" (GPS problem), however in Ukraine none of them were lost, only transformed.(Russian mines, Drones, portable anti tank, & KA 52 problem)
A couple of precisions and errors: the composite Armor is not located on the side skirts of Abrams but on the front part of the hull and the turret front, although leopard don't use chobam Armor, they still use composites and, apart from Leo 2A6 with a modernised 120mm all guns on these MBTs were developed in the 70s. Just like the t72's and t80's
I think there is composite armour on the ide of the turrets in Abrams?
The western tanks have way better rounds though. Makes no difference when the gun was made
War thunder is wrong, Mbts can take main caliber hits up to 20 degrees angle on the side
Abrams has uranium armor plate.
The leopard is well protected has long its facing fire on the front, its thin on the back and sides, but so is the abrams.. although the 120mm gun is from the 70s, it has changes over the years, so did the ammo available. Also, the abrams initially used the 105mm, later adopting the german gun. Chobam armor is the british developed composite armor, the leopard also has composite armor so really i dont get what the guy in the video meant. Facing the front of the abrams, challenger or leopard is pretty much a similar thing, has long it isnt an older version.
lol this should be listed as 'for kids'.
Well the Leopard is gone now so who next? Abrams or Challenger 2?
Abram, the answer is casted in stone now.
Lancet 3 Suicide drones are successful against Leopard 2A8 and Challenger,waiting for Abrams tanks
It's the 5th abrams MBT and the 2nd minesweeper right now.
2A8? are you ruzzkies from the future?
One of the biggest differences is the way ammo is stored on western tanks and the blow out panels. If the rear of the turret is hit the panels blow out and the crew survives. The years of experience lost when a tank crew is killed is a major factor. If you can put an experienced crew into a different tank you have a decisive advantage over an inexperienced crew. When you add the thermal imaging it is also a game changer. With starlight scopes smoke blinds them, but thermals are unaffected.
I was surprised he didn't mention the "pop top" effect of ammo storage as well.
No. The Challenger 2's ammo storage is the absolute worst and the Leopard 2, despite having blow-out panels in the turret bustle still stores 2/3rds of its ammo in the crew compartment next to the driver and it's not isolated in any way.
@@JAnx01 The blow out panels in most western tanks have been exagerated greatly anyway. Once a round really penetrates the crew compartment, it's usually over. All you can do, is abandon the tank. If there is a situation where the enemy really manages to penetrate the armour and forcing the survivors to bail, they are very likely finished anyway. Either due to artillery, repeated enemy fire or enemy infantry. Tanks like the Leopard 2 or the Abrams are very sophisticated. But they are still "tanks". And once hey are hit, the stuff inside are soft, fleshy little humans. And those don't take tank shells very well. Regardless if it's a shrapnell, overpressure, a fire or well amunition blowing up.
@@CrniWuk while there is a chance that this can happen, weve seen both from testing and in combat that the blowout panels can do there job, and often the internal detonation of the ammo can kinda act as ERA(this is actually how the principle of ERA was discovered). its the reason you don't see Abrams getting decapitated like a T-72 would, tho theoretically something like a challenger 2 could suffer the same fate cus it has hull ammo storage, and infact one was nocked out by friendly fire due to ammo going off. Leopards can also suffer a similar catastrophic effect if their Ammo in the hull gets detonated. No tank is invincible for sure, but the have separate compartments for ammo can make a big diffence in how much tank and crew is left if the ammo gets hit.
Thermals are affected by smoke, it's not a miracle technology
It will be Abrams and Leo against Kornet and Su 34 and many guns of artillery😅
They forgot to say the part where these tanks need total air superiority just to make it to the frontline.
Oh no we need CAS to protect our billions of dollars squadrons from CAS.
There have been over 10,700 Abrams tanks built from the beginning. Most have been upgraded to varying extents. While in several wars, only three have been destroyed in actual battle. Pretty good.
True, unless you count the much worse export variant given to Saudi Arabia, who used them in Yemen without any proper support.
How many of Saudi Arabia's Abrams tanks were destroyed in Yemen?
Only 3 ? 😂😂😂
@@Swiftiee13 In Iraq? Yes.
@@Scar626 Not sure about the numbers, but probably a lot more than they should have lost. Considering that it's a way worse export version of the tank, and the Saudis just suck at knowing how to use them.
1:31 Ukraine had 3,309 tanks
1:41 now USA sends them 31 tank. They must win now!
If Ukraine loses any challenger 2’s then we’ll just say it’s a lack of training
They just lost one 😂😂
😂destroyed by a mine 2km from the front
@@carkawalakhatulistiwa. Nope, Artillery Fire
@@MoskusMoskiferus1611 Kornet. There is a video of it actually got hit. The verified destroyed Challengers are at least 2 right now
yes theyve lost 2 now they werent training deficiencies either just good aiming by the artillery of the ru. theyd all be lost by now if they dared to field them as front line units too.
Little correction here, I think the WSJ meant the Gulf War when talking about the Bradley.
In the Iraq War, the Bradley proved vulnerable to improvised explosive device and rocket-propelled grenade attacks, but casualties were light with the crew able to escape. Estimates for total losses are around 150 by the end of the war.
Its Russia, друг. Not Iraq. You will be sprayed.
Next please!
who is here today 😂 ?!
me
I revisited
Me 😂
Fun fact: the majority of tanks nowadays are destroyed not by other tanks, but by missiles, aircrafts or artillery, so probably it is better not to compare tanks of different countries, but compare firepower on the battlefield
The tactics used on the battle field greatly influence the out come of tanks in battle. The best tank used incorrectly on the battlefield will result in a smoking wreck.
Not nowadays, The majority of tank are destroyed by infantry anti tank weapons and anti-tank gun since ww2,
Well, I think it depends entirely on the battlefield and what weapon is available. For example, the Egyptians used sagger missiles against the Israelis in the Sinai 1967. That worked to a degree. We used aircraft and artillery to destroy most the tanks in Desert Storm. However, in this war so far, the Russians are only using tanks to destroy other tanks. They are not effectively using artillery, anti-tank or aircraft to destroy Ukrainian tanks. Why? Well, and here is the core problem for the Russians. Their intelligence gathering of enemy locations is terrible.
Ukraine frontline has seen a lot of tank x tank combat...
Yeah but Russia isn't known for its anti armor weapons. They have the kornet, which is similar to the TOW. That means it shares similar disadvantages, like not being usable in crowded environments or over water. The guy who fires it also has to stay in the open
As a former 19k1, in my opinion, the Abrams is very easy to operate. Maintaining it is a hassle, but our mechanics always kept us going.
Seeing as you have operated an Abrams I have one question. Is it true that the Abrams takes only 3 seconds to reload? Because if so then that’s beyond impressive
thats the issue, you need top tier mechanics and a LOT of fuel to keep that beast running. Leo on the other hand with conventional diesel engine is much easier on both mechanics and supply lines
@@Frostbite_001 there's lots of videos of exercises from inside abrams - here's a good one with a good loader, 3ish seconds to reload czcams.com/video/pOtBb3N23nU/video.html
@@Asghaad True about the Leo. But even the Leo requires a well working infrastructure in the back to operate efficiently. What ever if that can achieved in Ukraine? I have my doubts about it.
Neither the Leo, Abrams or Challanger ever saw a real, true, conventional warefare. Like where two nations fought each other in a total-war-type of scenario. Who knows how those tanks will do in such a situation.
@@Frostbite_001 Abrams are manually loaded, so it all depends on the skill and training of the crew.
We need to send more tanks , Russia keep blowing them too fast.
You said nothing about the Russian tanks
Imagine being a Russian conscript in a t62 (which was designed in the 1950-60s) and seeing a challenger or a Abrams in the distance
I bet Challenger 2 and M1 Abrams can see way farther than the T-62s even if they would be equipped with more modern 1PN96MT-02 sights
can't imagine that becuase this fascist cockroaches would be dead long time before he would be able to even see what shot him ;p
Imagine being a Ukrainian conscript in a M-55, seeing a T-90M in the distance...
@@eliasziad7864 so do ruZZian fascists have second one? :D with stolen ukrainian toilet glued on the top? :p but seriously...
Imagine being an abrams tank crew member in Ukraine confident on the tank armor and meeting a kornet atgm before you even realise what's going on..
It's really unfair to compare Iraq to Ukraine, Iraq engaged all alone and only using it's own very limited resources unlike Ukraine who's having unlimited support of USA & EU which without it they would've fallen way too early.
It's not really unfair when you are not comparing who is supporting who but rather the fighting machines themselves.
Iraq had the 4th largest army in the world at the time we invaded... They weren't small potatoes. USA's degree of success in the conventional phase of that war was greater than expected.
Thanks capitan, would be interesting to see how NATO will perform without Ukraine)
youtube.com/@wallstreettower
@@user-rm8fm3ip5h Moscow would be captured in a month and Putin would be hung for war crimes in the next month.
Getting the tanks isn't the issue it's supporting it. Anyone who has operated those tanks will tell you how complex those tanks are not to mention them having 4 different variants of tanks to up keep. Their original Russian model, US model, the German model and UK model this is a logistic part nightmare. Not to mention training crew and mechanics that's another headache of its own.
Given how narrow the occupied territory is, supply lines should be easy to maintain.
I'm just glad that most people in the US and Ukraine don't share you "It's too hard lets not do it" attitude.
But you know who does think logistics are too hard to develop an expertise in? Russia.
@@MinusEighty
Supply lines are a major problem for Ukraine.
That is why Russia has had ongoing missile attacks since 10th October (around 1200 cruise missiles so far).
Knocking out 70% of the electrical grid is NOT about making Ukrainian moms kry about heating up milk for their children but indeed to cripple Ukrainian logistics.
Most of their training network uses (used) electrical locomotive, that are now dormant.
Believe me, it's no fun carting around 55 ton tanks on crumbling roads.
I agree about the logistics but getting the tanks are also a major problem.
Very few of the pledged tanks are ready for delivery now and it will take the best part of a year to deliver all those tanks.
Other than that, the Western manufacture and supply lines are not ready to deliver more tanks in a reasonable time frame.
In the meantime, large numbers of new and refurbished Russian tanks are brought in by train all the time.
This is the most important part of the puzzle. Logistics are the ruin of an army.
The russians destroy 3 Abrams as soon as they reached the battlefield.
this reallyy didn't age well hahahahaha
Not so game changing weapons 😂
The British armour Chobam is a very old design. The US stopped using it in their M1A1 models starting in 1985, opting to use a domestic adaptation, later adding depleted uranium inserts during the gulf war.
The British went with an evolutionary design moving onto Burlington and then on Challenger 2’s, Dorchester.
The US a few years ago went with the new NGAP (next generation armor protection) armour on their latest M1A2C models, which is a completely fresh design.
US would risk that such advanced armor gets into Russian hands? Judging from Saudis, Ukraine will get M1A1, maybe with some more modern extras, but nothing even close to M1A2 SEPv3.
@@BojanPeric-kq9et yes, M1A1 doesn't use Chobham. I was educating about the differences. What made you think I was implying we should send our most advanced tanks.
@@BojanPeric-kq9et honestly it doesn’t matter because they wouldn’t be able to produce it. This is a problem the Chinese are running into with there stealth jet program they’re able to steal documents data, etc. but they aren’t able to produce the advance components because their manufacturing ability is poor so there’s still buying jet engines from Russia and native production ones are horrible
@@kylesutton5675 FYI: Soviet Union fielded first tank with composite armor. US lagged behind that almost 2 decades. So comparing that to China... Which, by the way, narrows gap very, very fast.
Those M1A2 Sepv3s will NOT be the Abrams sent over to Ukraine. Indeed, ALL the older models with DU plates will be striped and "monekey armor" added. And Ukrainian bridges can't handle the weight of M1s. With the Russian T 14s, At systems and loitering munitions we're about to witness a bloodbath.
Ah yes, my favorite IFV, the Bump-2
I’m still waiting M1 Abramses and wondering those are truly Wunderwaffen or overstated junks like others. Bring it on!
Overstated junk
The Bradleys actually killed more tanks during the Gulf war than the Abrams.
Also the Poles have several hundred leopards they say they can give Ukraine, especially since the Poles have purchased over 1200 newer Abrams and South Korean K2s.
The 1200 number seems a bit high.
"In July, Warsaw concluded a $5.8 billion agreement with Seoul to buy 189 K2 tanks and 212 K9 self-propelled howitzers, in what is the Asian country's largest-ever arms deal. Dec 6, 2022"
"Poland approves $1.4 billion deal to buy 116 Abrams tanks from US. Jan 4, 2023"
That's because the Abrams was spending more time at the fuel depot than on the battlefield.
They had like 200, and they are early production Leopard 2A4's without serious armor.
Turkey had the same tanks, and they had their turrets blown off in Syria.
Something like 450-500mm of armor frontally and few if none of the ammo is protected so in some ways they are worse than upgraded T-80's (apart from better reverse speed + better sights).
Bradleys used TOW missiles (now obsolete for the most part) and autocannon rounds fed by Depleted Uranium ammo, on which the Bradley and the Abrahms are both dependent .... not a good idea to send tanks firing DU ammo against Russia; they might escalate.
And as for the Abrahms, not sure if the US can actually send the latest versions, like the M1A2, which use DU armor (due to being DU).
If it's M1 or M1A1, those are not that great vs russian tanks, apart from the optics and reverse speed.
Yeah, the Bradleys were basically being used like tank destroyers from WW2, use their speed and smaller size to flank and strike with ATGMs, can do the same with any IFV that carries ATGMs, some fast APCs like the Striker and Ukraine's own BTR4 are even better as fast, sneaky tank killers.
That's true . We in the civiliced West must keep the delieveries to Ukraine...
3:14 The narrator pronounced it "BMP2" in a single word lol..... its supposed to be B-M-P-2
Bump 2 lol
Bump is the battlefield nickname.
Yeah , I think he knows that. The Short Magazine Lee Enfield rifle (SMLE) becomes the" Smelly" for example.
This aged really well.
Yesterday i saw a video from Russian drone operator, filming a clip that one Russian tanks took down 8 Ukraine's amour vehicles, 2 tanks included
Well, this aged like milk
"bump 2" XD
As with every piece of warfare equipment. Yes, it can provide you with a competitive edge, but in the end the difference is usually down to the operator.
So the west is now saying, after losing three Abrams, that all secret equipment has been removed from the Abrams prior to shipping to Ukraine. Sooo its the least survivable tank on the battlefield?
I think the Bradley’s will be more impactful in the interim than they’re getting credit for. They can still shred Soviet tanks.
They may hold them back if they can, rather than commit them early. I think they would rather integrate them into new Armored brigades with with the new tanks where they would really make an impact. Of course facts on the ground may dictate otherwise.
I agree, they actually scored more enemy tank kills in Iraq than Abrams did, which is wild
Not the guns, but the missiles for sure. The TOW is an insanely good missile.
@@darkodonnie2729 seriously? Soviet RPG can destroy Abrams tank ?
@@darkodonnie2729 interesting. I felt like Abrams had too much armor for a soviet RPG... possibly the shot got into the weakest place
Can't wait till a challenger casual walks out of a fireball of 70 RGBs and lets loose on the terrified T72s
Can't wait for footage of Challengers getting blown up like any other armoured vehicle in this war. They are not going to make a difference.
that would be sexy to watch
Sure,if it survives a single hit from a t-72 or from an actual rpg.
Russia uses a much more advanced version then what the media is portraying and is certainly a match against an Abrams, challenger 2 or leopard. It will come down to who’s the better tanker.
T-72B3 model 2016 or T-72B3M
Upgrade for T-72B3, with Relikt explosive reactive armour on the sides, side skirts with soft-container reactive armour and slat screens, 2A46M-5 gun with new ammunition, 9K119M Refleks-M guided missile system, V-92S2F 1,130 hp (840 kW) engine, automatic transmission, digital display and rear-view video.[43][44][45] Often incorrectly referred to as "T-72B4"
Acting like it won’t get cooked by AT missiles from Russia.
The Leopard 2 also uses composite armour. It just uses a different mix of materials than Chobham.
They made that Chobham armour better and figured out that sloping doesnt make any difference if hitted by tank rounds. That arrow head sloping in later models of 2a4 is just an extra layer without any other reason but to make a penetrator tumble before it hits the main plates. Its just few steel plates with air in between them added on the older turret.
Tank dog fights are rare.
Most tanks get destroyed by ATM's, airplanes, helicopters missiles or kamikaze drones in this day and age.
T-72 are medium weight tanks designed to fight in packs. They are mobile and have a small silhouette. During soviet times it was usually said that these tanks should survive only the first 10-15 mins of battle (offense).
Western tanks like Abrams, these are heavy tanks. They are better armored and have more powerful guns. It is a completely different war doctrine.
This is incorrect. Both the T-72 and Abrams are classified as main battle tanks (MBTs). How heavy countries decide to make a main battle tanks is dependent on many factors, but the T-72 and T-90 (T-90 is basically an overhauled and upgraded T-72) are certainly not medium tanks. The T-72 weighs more than the German Leopard 1 MBT for instance.
@@alexfrey4828 Main battle tanks means that they fit into the war doctrine the country developed and accepted. T-72 are much older than any of the western tanks. Also. I said nothing about its modifications. Heavy tank doesn't only imply that it is just heavy. It is a bit old formulation, but T-72 is as old.
@Agent because T90 is a suit up T62. Also Russia don’t have a lot left
@Agent might be due to the low qty of T-90. Just a guess.
@Agent My main point is that all these comparisons are incorrect. T-72 is a medium weight, cold war era tank. While abrams, leopard, challenger are modern tanks, that are both mobile and heavily armored.
not half bad. the segment on armour wasn’t great and there were quite a few minor inaccuracies here and there. but to be honest this was largely accurate and much higher quality than expected from WSJ and other news outlets.
Eventually, USA/UK are likely to lose a lot of ABRAMS & CHALLENGER customers💙💙💙
Now they realize the best protection for tanks isn't advanced amour or computing system, it's air support
Its gonna be intressting how the newer leo 2 versions like 2A6 and 2A7 will perform because they have never seen any combat yet
You can't talk about how many tanks Russia has without talking about how many are combat-capable.
Yup. They’ll get overrun once enough Leo2 are delivered 😂.
@@vanrex7682 that implies these old tanks don't break down before they reach the battlefield 🤣
Exactly. And even the combat capable ones don't seem to be all that capable.
I wonder how much of that stat are T34's in museums
5000 out of total 12000 are capable. Do you really thin 14 Leopards can change here something?
Don't necessarily need tank to take out another tank.
nah but it helps… a lot
Well Ukrainians already proved that with Javelin and MANPADS
But on offensive however it still your spearhead to soften the hard targets for breakthrough
Russian kornet will do the job.
@@thewho5786 Russian junks litter Ukraine.
Imagine Leopards supported by Ukrainian soldiers with Javelins and Nlaws.
Well, just a few months we were predicting obsolescence for main battle tanks given drones and anti tank missiles
Hop we were wrong!
Maybe a more apt comparison would be between the Abrams and Leopard vs the T90 and T14.
I feel like this war has put logistics in the spotlight next to the vehicles
That's how it always is really.
Convenient for anyone investing in defense...or nations moving tax dollars into said defense companies.
"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
See what you did there: left out the T90. Neat.
My understanding is that the export models of the Abrams will not have the classified armor.
Yeah, their "custom make" is probably the reason why they will not arrive for another year or so. Otherwise the US could have sent some of the thousands in storage, but a need to remove classified parts would significantly increase preparation times.
I remember very well about 3-4 years ago. Many people in the military complex agreed that tanks were a thing of the past. They viewed tanks with little regard to future conflicts. As a Veteran of GWOT I strongly disagreed! I could see their pint of view, but the GWOT was a gorilla war. Not a conventional war. The coming wars will be conventional and you can’t win without tanks and other armored vehicles. The Army is going back to training on conventional warfare tactics.
You will always need a vehicle with a big gun on your side if you the enemy doesn't have air supremacy.
Gorillas do Not go to war! They are peacefull herbivores.
What you mean is guerrilla. That's Spanish meaning 'small war'. And btw guerilla war is a pleasmus like Sahara desert or tsunami Wave.
Coming wars will be using drones in their thousands.
Tanks won't stand a chance in open territory.
Armed helicopter can be a game changer
Air supremacy is the key.
One of the main reasons is ammunition - shells. While all soviet era tanks like t72 uses 125mm all three western tanks uses NATO standard 120mm. And with this tanks Ukraine will be able to use more modern 120mm rounds and have an ability to buy/get high number of those while already experiencing lack for old 125mm ammunition and spare guns. Also the guns on tanks are already worn out like on old Ukrainian t64 making some of them 130mm instead of 125mm making them inacurate. So modern shells and access to high volumes of standard NATO mamunition is one of the key parts on why Ukraine need those tanks.
Doesn't the Challenger 2 use different ammo to the Abrams and Leopard 2?
@@roberthoward9500 Yes, the Challenger 2 has a rifled barrel.
Each tank also needs 500 gallons of fuel….every 24 hrs. For the Abrams
And that’s all great on weapons, if you know how to conduct tank warfare or mechanized warfare
Until a Lancet suicide drone hits them. Aviators call tanks "easy bake ovens"
Why didn't you mention the reactive armor of the Leopard 2?
Sweden is also sending 50 CV90 IFVs and 12 Archer mobile artillery units.
"We tried to negotiate with Ukraine but their negotiators refused to die after we poisoned them. They are completely unreasonable!" -- V. Putin, 2022
Not sure if you follow the news. The Ukrainian negotiators were just playing for time and had no intention for a deal or peace. Also. one of the negotiator was assassinated by the their own Ukrainian intelligence.
Wooo you are part of this BS lie too.
That is literally how this conflict is being portrayed in the media, because MPAI (most people are idiots)
Keep regurgitating western propaganda
Lol. So true.
Most tanks are destroyed on modern battle field not by other tanks, but by anti-tank portable missile lanuchers like Kornet.
Hence the usage of modern western MBT's with armour designed to withstand said ATGM's
@@rustytanks9425 modern ATGMs have advanced faster than most tank armour - you can see videos of Abrams in Iraq taken out by such systems. Current gen Western tanks are focussing on Active protective systems to intercept missiles as a more effective countermeasure.
Wrong, artilery is the main killer in the Russo-Ukrainean conflict.
@@rustytanks9425 Ask how Leopards performed in Turkeys hands or how Abrams did in Yemen. Anything can be destroyed if the crew isnt experienced. Ukraine does not have time to train them to NATO standards because unlike NATO that has crews with years experience UAF will have only a couple of months. That is just the bare basics. Without training in combined arms with a large units as support it will be like a turkey shoot.
@@nizammiah6511 Too bad Russia doesn't have the actual modern ones.
I’m curious how they’ll manage the logistics though with so many different weapon systems.
It would had been more important to cover the stats of the Leopard 2 instead of the small number of Abraham tanks. The latter are way too heavy btw.
31 Tanks are not a gamechanger
3:14 Tbf DUKW Amphibious UV is also called “Duck”, so calling BMP-2 as “Bump” makes a lot of sense. 😂
You did well until the end. It's GROUND PRESSURE, NOT WEIGHT! The ground pressure of an Abrams is 15psi which is the same of a walking man. The ground pressure of the Bradley is 7.7 PSI which is slightly more than a standing man. The ground pressure of a 1960s T-72 is 13PSI while it's pushing 15PSI in the T-72B3's.
Now every civilian is going to be a tank warfare expert
BMP-2 losses stand at 699. That is some loss
this is never gonna end well
As a former AFV crewman, there's something people aren't talking about yet. If the Ukrainians are smart, and they've proven to be so far (apologies about all the jokes from the 80's and 90's), the addition of Western tanks adds to their effective strength in another way. Soviet style tanks are tiny on the inside necessitating small crewmen. Western tanks are not small. My crew commander was 6'4" (203 cm) and while he wasn't super comfortable, he also wasn't cramped enough to be ineffective. Also, in an ideal world every member of your fighting force is physically fit, which is not necessary in a tank. They only have to be fighting fit if they dismount and the Soviet style tanks may not be able to make that happen. This adds to your effective force by including people who wouldn't be able to fight otherwise.
I’ve been in a T72 you don’t really have to be small maybe 5’11 max
It's not going to be vs. T-72. It's going to be vs. Kornet anti-tank and KH-29 missiles.
Yeah like NLAW vs many russia tank
The media likes to gloss over the negatives, not to mention the Ruskis have T-80's and T90's which will put up more of a fight, especially the T90. Ultimately having extra armour will give Ukraine more of a fighting chance.
Clearly hasn’t worked out so far lol
They might be sending a small number of tanks but I can imagine the Ukrainians setting up the supply lines, training people and then getting more tanks when they can actually implement them.
If it moves, it burns!
We should send F-16 too, offering air coverage. Time to end the Putin’s regime
Honestly i think theese tanks will not be used against other tanks, but for assaults on fortified positions. wouldnt say that the russians had any big sucess with tanks either and Ukraine got loads of handheld equipment to deal with them i think they want armor against small arms fire combined with firepower not tanks vs tanks
I am no expert in warfare nor strategy but from the way the Ukrainians fought so far, I say the Ukrainian soldiers are good at adapting to situations and weapons given to them. Yes, they will take time to get used to the foreign tanks but I believed they are quick learners
Likewise the Russians are not well trained, equipped or motivated.
Your very survival makes you react quicker and with a little more motivation and urgency, the Russians haven't realised they have been defeated yet but once they do they will collapse!?!
@@thomasherrin6798 да, да конечно рухнем, вы только этого и ждёте, интересно как если у нас танков больше чем у НАТО?
@@thomasherrin6798 yes, but do not underestimate Russian army, remember Ukraine is fighting conventional warfare, not guerrilla warfare. therefore if we study Russian history, Russian are very capable of handling prolong conventional warfares, individual soldiers motivation is irrelevant, Russian always needed only political elite's motivation only. But every conflict is unique, will see what will happen.
@@_kruler_9449 yes, the T34 are cominf back from Laos 😅
Will certainly be better than having no tanks
Always a pleasure to see Hugh Grant give his opinion on burning issues.
2:24 How does it give them major advantge over the t72 ?The t72,also has composite armour, infact the soviets were the first to use it when they presented the t64.
And it doesnt matter how much armour you have as there is always a weak spot on a tank and atgms target this exact weak spot.
Obv, there have been examples, for instance the iraq war. Not a single challenger 2 tank has been destroyed by a hostile.
Lots of tanks are used in ukraine with no armour
@@EnglishScripter iraq had non upgraded t72 and older versions. They had no proper aiming of visual systems. Plus iraq forces were barely trained and were facing huge air force and huge amount of artillery. So it's not a surprise and has nothing to do with tanks themselves. Ukraine will face same issues iraq had
@@yellowtunes2756 They arnt though.. they have destroyed 1600+ tanks. They will be trained for the new ones.
@@EnglishScripter Ukrainians trained for years on their tanks. And it takes years to adapt to new tanks too. Ukraine also doesn't have ability to repair them in Ukraine, so they have to be send 500km away from the frontline to Poland. It's like buying Tesla in a country with no place to charge them
The reality is now out there.
The Challenger 2 is apparently quite rugged and reliable too
I'm afraid, the new kind of equipment causes a logistic nightmare. They got 4 new tank systems with totally different needs. Only a truck damage may causes a full immobilization!
Where are Russia's T-14 Armata tanks? In fact, where are all of the wonder weapons that Russia boasted about before the war like the T-14 Armata, the Su-57 fighter, and the S-400 and S-500 air defense systems? 🤔
If for some reason one gets destroyed it looks bad and won’t sell well. if they want to do that route later. And if it’s captured the enemy of Russia which is Ukraine will send these to NATO for testing to get a advantage on how to destroy them easier, their capabilities and effectiveness of their armor and technology inside. You don’t use your best weapon’s right out the gate. Especially when Russia believes a war with nato will come eventually so why use em. My thought process on the subject
My favorite quote about this topic is “Russia has a large and modern army. But the large part isn’t modern and the modern part isn’t large.”
T-14 is parade showpiece of battle unproven concept ... and full of import tech that they kinda lost access to ...
they cant even produce T-90 right now let alone something that barely passed prototyping stage
S400 has footage in ukraine already.
The Russians have learnt not to put all their eggs in one basket, knowing they are fighting NATO in a NATO proxy war that might last few years ! Their Kenzhal missile was used only 2 times in Ukraine. 😉😉😉
3:02 Not 50, its now 109 Bradleys and 60 Strikers. Plus a few hundred more other modern IFVs, some even outclassing the Bradley.
Which IFVs outclass the Bradley?
@@segalliongaming8925 I’d guess they’re referring to CV90.
90 Strykers.
By this time next week it'll probably be over 250.
@@segalliongaming8925 Nothing that we've seen so far that Russia has. There is a reason why only 3 were destroyed in The War of Iraq which Russia is using the same equipment the Iraqis used in that war. They aren't indestructible though and Russia does have more capability to destroy them since they have cruise missiles, so Ukraine will still need to learn how to use them just as well as our military does. I'm sure that another NATO country has something just as good or better though. CV90s are good and the new German IFV Lynx looks awesome. Wish they'd send the Lynx to see what it could do.
Training the crews to fight and drive the tank is actually the easy part. In the end it comes down to how they will use them. Turkey had no clue about tactics and lost some Leopard 2A4s. Its all about mobility and firepower using the best ground to kill your enemy.
Los leopard 2 turcos ya eran bulleados por tropas mal armadas y con entrenamiento nulo ahora imaginate eso pero con un ejercito profecional con recursos de sobra entrenadas y bien armadas
Tanks never face battles alone, there are anti-tank mines, anti-tank weapons, air support, ground support, these comparison are just propaganda. It's a pity that many people believe on them.
I too find it rather interesting to see the M1 Abrams fighting another country on different soil. I dont want this to happen, but I must say it'll be interesting to see how they fare in these conditions.
30 years, the Russian Federation used the new technologies of the West for its militarization.
Bureaucratic delay will lead to the fact that in six months “ tigers ” and “leopards” will end up in a Russian “zoo”.
The command of Ukraine exaggerates the losses of the occupying Russian troops in order to mislead Western partners, creating the illusion of controlling the situation. This is an illusion of peace for the west, with which the west is satisfied. Without satellite correction, pinpoint strikes on locations of deployment of Russian troops, right now, there will be no victory for the Western countries.
The Abrams depleted uranium APFSDS has one unique quality compared to the tungsten APFSDS from everyone else.
It has the ability to self sharpen in flight (making its effective penetration power much higher) and when it hits armor it has the qualities of APHE because it causes an explosive sprawling effect.
The DU (depleted uranium) armor is also 2-2.5 times denser than steel which means an equivalent thickness of armor would be effectively almost 2.5 times thicker in retrospect and its assumed that the armor in some places is easily a meter thick in armor.
For the tanks being sent to Ukraine, it’s going to be a logistical issue especially with the Abrams as it needs a ton of supply just to not get bogged down.
youtube.com/@wallstreettower
They won't use DU ammo in Ukraine and it's not that much better than tungsten .
Ukraine isnt getting DU armor.
Well, the variant being sent is the US domestic M1A2 and currently we don’t know if they are going to remove that portion of armor but I think it’s not worth it since the M1 is already due to be replaced any these are from the US marines who retired all their tanks.
russia has warned that use of depleted uranium ammunition will be considered the equivalent of a dirty bomb and will invite consequences.
More emphasis should be put on the fact the U.K has lead the way in these donations of tanks and the Germans and Americans have been painfully slow to follow the decision of the U.K. We should be proud of this in the U.K, it isn't the first time we have jumped in too support a fellow nation being bullied, especially in Europe.
Will they be equiped with active armor?
Well how they're used is more important than what's being used
1) most used and fallen tank in Russia is the t80, not t72. 2) Abram’s account it is 0-4 Russians advantage in 2 weeks of usage. One of them destroyed by one t72. A bit of time put things in perspective