Ukrainian M1A1 Abrams SA with Kontakt-1 Reactive Armor on the Eastern Frontline. Modern Tank Warfare
VloĆŸit
- Äas pĆidĂĄn 21. 06. 2024
- Our team had the opportunity to talk to the Ukrainian crew of an M1A1 Abrams tank in eastern Ukraine to find out how they perform on the battlefield and what challenges they face.
đșđŠ Firsthand news from the epicenter of global events
đ Like our content? Become our sponsor and get even more: / @united24media
âïžNews & Analysis: united24media.com
đ News on Ukraine and Ukrainian perspective on global security / @united24news
đȘ When fighting for freedom, every penny counts. Donate to support Ukraine now on u24.gov.ua/uk
âïž For collaborations, ideas & questions: welcome@u24.media
thumbs up for the subtle eagle screech at the begining
I thought it was outside tbh. Our local hawks have been doing the rounds. They sound exactly like that but without the dumb echo.
thats not an eagle thats a red tailed hawk
@@gefagnis Yup, eagles don't screach except when Hollywood throws in the voice of a hawk.
Thats a hawk, not an Eagle.
Since the Abrams was built in collaboration with the Germans, you could say the sound as made by a "REICH EAGLE" or the hawk o/
Some of these mighty machines will be destroyed and some even captured but in the end, the battlefield is where they belong, saving soldiers lives and sending invaders to the other side.
Idk how had ppl still believe ukrainians even western aid can defeat Russia.Even NATO cant defeat russians in a convetional war in Ukraine.I not mentoined nuclear weapons because if both sides start use it and God cant help us then
@@todorpamukov7435 Ukraine managed to stop ruzzia for more than two years with dripfed, second hand western weaponry and NO airpower AT ALL.
Rest easy that NATO would wipe the "mighty" ruzzian rabble off of Ukraine's borders with its airpower ALONE.
Hard to argue with the USâs reluctance to send the newest model, as it could be bad for everyone if Russia could capture and reverse engineer the classified armor. I guess Russia would have to first value its soldiers enough to add fancy armor thoughâŠ
@@FloorBed They'd also have to source the materials to construct that high tech armor. good luck under sanction from a majority of the world
on point!
Awesome tank crew. Good to see those tanks in action.
Are they on action?
Why donât you send you son to be apart of the crew since you are so happy about seeing it in âactionâ
@@user-jp4lt7xu2g you russian troll ?
@@AndrewC137 you russian trolling again ?
Did you miss the part where it is getting a new engine because they sent Abrams that are 40 years old and the slow maintenance times, quote âare killing our peopleâ, they have to wait for parts from the US and the enginesâ age is ruining all the engine seals? They even came without ERAs so they attached their own.
hahah gotta love the eagle screech
Red tailed hawk
itâs embarrassing to give tanks in this condition, without protection and why just 31,US has thousands of them in storage?
USA don't want to anger Putin even more....
They need air cover to be effective. Of course we have to supply that as wellâŠâŠ..
The main reason is to convince Germany to approve providing the more available and plentiful Leopard 2 to Ukraine. It is easier for Ukraine to obtain Leopard 2s from throughout Europe than to have Abrams sent across the Atlantic Ocean from the United States. The Leopard 2s currently make up the bulk of Ukraine's Western model tanks. Nevertheless, both the Abrams and Leopard have and will continue to provide good service for Ukraine's soldiers.
@@korypalmer4079 the main danger to tank is drone , I think NATO should research on electronic warfare to jam those suicide drone
The US hasn't deployed a armour solution to FPV drones for their own forces. There's wisdom in that to an extent, they're not currently fighting in a war and the drone situation is highly amorphic. In this footage you see about the most sophisticated armour addons for the platform in the world today, simply because they are in response to the most contemporary conflict. Australian Abrams, for example, are exactly the same base armour iirc (Thus why the Ukes want them when Australia replaces them). All the same, it's a worry there are outstanding logistical problems when there really shouldn't be. One of the arguments for supplying the tanks was that if Australia was capable of running them without an industrial infrastructure to supply parts, then why couldn't Ukraine? If the 47th are struggling, it's no good. So much admiration for that brigade. Three completely different type of tank in two years.
It's fascinating to see how these old bois do on the field of battle. They are not the newest nor most modern versions and they lack all the fancy toys that make the American Abrams what they are. They were also designed with American doctrine and American logistics - arguably the best in the world - in mind. These Abrams are therefor fishes out of water in the hybrid Soviet/Ukrainian/Western doctrine Ukraine is forced to play with.
They will do their job, though. More importantly, they were a message that the West is prepared to supply more (and more) types of equipment.
They were originally developed in the 70s and 80s with the intention to face soviet mass mobilisation in eastern European plains, so they suit it fine. No main battletank is doctrinally and tactically perfect for use during elastic defence situations such as that taking place now though, except for limited counter attacks.
They're Persian Gulf War-Era versions!
@@weronikazalewska2098 certainly weren't designed for Drone warfare which can bypass the heaviest Frontal armor & directly hit the weak spots.
lol, what? These were in service with the US Marine Corps just a few years ago.
@@USN1985dosthey may have seen service but thatâs because they are still useable. No reason to scrap equipment like this that still functions to this day.
Thank you very much for this interesting report.
Unfortunately, the RuZZians figured out a weakness, which is why the added armor was needed. The blast doors on the ammo storage (top of the turret) helps save the crew in a "normal" combat environment, but in Ukraine, drones are EVERYWHERE. And they figured out if you hit the blast doors with an FPV, you can easily disable the tank by setting off the ammo. The crew lives, but the tank is useless. This is how RuZZia got some "trophies" that they displayed in moscow. The added armor around the turret, and the improvised "cages" help protect it from FPV. Hard lessons learned by Ukraine, grateful to them all.
Funny how at the etart of the war everyone was laughing at "cope cages"
Turns ouf the "Ruzzians" had a good idea
@@PrayedForYou Funny that FPV drones weren't in wide use at the very start and the cages were meant to protect from Javelin and NLAW and were completely useless for that.
âruZZiansâ, Ukroid, you provoked this conflict. Also its that they neglect the equipment by using rubber tracks in mud. Their own fault. Plus the Abrams is too heavy and armour can save it from a lancet.
@@mclukas44lol25youâre a terrible human being.
@@mclukas44lol25 Dusk, vata.
they needed 300 abrams not 30. We have plenty in storage. I thought we refurbished these before we sent them. Why are the engines not rebuilt? not thrilled with my gov response.
Ukraine needs more tanks, sure, but it's nowhere close to their primary need. The priorities should be: artillery ammo and spare barrels; air defense munitions and systems (especially long range ones like Patriot); and armored transport, especially IFVs. With the way tanks are being used in this war (largely fire support, very little maneuver) they are not as important as other vehicles like IFVs. I would say if the US could spare more armor, we should send more Bradleys rather than more Abrams. The problem is the Bradley's replacement has not yet been selected yet, and is nowhere near production, so the US needs to keep a sizeable reserve to be upgraded for the future.
Donât wanna burst your bubble but thereâs no way we would give them 300 mbts lmao, maybe 300 Bradleyâs and ifvs. Plus they need artillery and AA way more than they need tanks. There will always be oversight in preparation for war no one is immune to it.
Let's just send everything to Ukraine and then pray that China doesn't do something stupid. The truth is we can only send so much without compromising our own safety.
dude,in this ukrainian battlefield tanks are siting ducks,drones just melt them....btw ukrainians do not air forces like atack hilos and theyr tanks are useless. Russians advatages with aviations,arty and drones make ukrainians tanks and BTR-s useless. And idk why continue this war....maybe western countrys wanna wipe out ukrainian state?
@@cloudstrife5209 That's really not the case here. These tanks were not in active service. They were sitting in a storage depot waiting for a "just in case" scenario. This is that scenario. The war in Ukraine is fought on the ground. A war with China will have nothing to do with tanks, or artillery. It will be primarily a naval and air engagement, and it will actually be over pretty quick.
Either China will be able to establish a foothold on Taiwan early on and block the US navy and airforce from reinforcing Taiwan, or it's landing forces will be destroyed. If it's the latter China will lose the ability to complete their primary goal of taking Taiwan by force. It won't take long to figure out what the outcome of that conflict will be. A month, maybe two at most.
Two different theaters of war, two very different requirements. Old tech vs cutting edge tech. Helping Ukraine is helping us, because it's destroying Russia's ability to wage war, and assuring that if we do have a conflict with China that Russia won't factor into it.
That tank is old as heaven. I won't do miracles but will help in a right role
Can they put a small auto shotgun on top of the tank to take out incoming drones? A type of designed shotgun that can detect drones miles away and shoot at it automatically once it approaches its range? It would be very useful..
Those are M1A1 Abrams tanks not M1A2âs. The United States is currently upgrading the 1âs into the 2âs but Iâm pretty sure that they have more tanks either retired or in storage that they can spare.
â@@ElementalWarrior1999sounds a lot of like APS but with shotgun instead of explosive or kinetic impact object.
Denmark, Belgium and Netherlands are sending 80 F16s this summer. According to reporting by DW, these will enable Ukraine to change to balance of air power particularly in border areas.
Lol ok. Heard this before mate
Nothing of that is true but be my guest
â@@mahdidehghan7437
â@@user-jp4lt7xu2g
lol, sure they are. Where do you expect them to even fly from in Ukraine?
I think Ukraine has only lost one Abrams tank. This is a great, realistic video. Thank you.
She may not have the chobham armor, but abrams is better than no abrams. Kick ass, Slava Ukraini
They have Chobham, on the frontal hull plate both upper and lower, gun breach, turret sides and i would assume turret frontal plates in place of the depleted uranium armor, the U.S replaces the uranium armor with chobham for export sales
@@leandro9311 No depleted Uranium in anything outside the US Army, USMC, or National Guard.
@@HanSolo__ Thats what i said
@@leandro9311 Oh, sorry. I did not get it from your comment.
They have chobham, not the DU grapes
Very cool guys. Awesome vid, answered some of the questions I had about the makeshift armor, pretty well executed if you ask me. Seems designed to primarily defend against shaped charge rounds and artillery, of which there isâŠa lot on the battlefield. Very interesting.
Polymer slat armour works too + magnetrons.
3:56 that technician know about tanks and know about cars love to see wearing a t shirt Toyota đȘđŒ.
Toughest men in the world, no competition. Taking non familiar tech, running it and even tweaking it under battlefield conditions is something NATO has no experience with.
They had to add Soviet protection because their masters sent them the tanks after one year of preparation without reactive armour...
â@@user-jp4lt7xu2gwtf are you talking about? They came with reactive armor, did you not get anything from the video? The us has never fought a war where 500$ drones are being used in mass, no one has. It's not the us's responsibility to fund this war
So that's false. Battlefield modifications were common in Iraq until they accelerated the TUSK programs.
Symbolic aid at best. they need like 500 tanks and air support for them to make difference.
They are too heavy for that theater, anyway.
They got 500+ tanks from all over the europe and ruskies reckt them all
Damn and the wars pushing 3 years with russian oil refineries and airfields bruning on russian soil 500+ all dead your numbers are funnyâ@@stolek6908
Yet 3 years of war from a 3day operation đâ@stolek6908
They received only 16% of what they requestedâŠ. Which is less than 100 tanks total . Thereâs only that much you can do
â@@tinymoegaming russia never said it would be 3 days, the US said it would be 3 days.
Bradleys are much more useful and easier to maintain. Letâs forget about sending anymore M1s and instead send more of the thousands of M2s sitting in storage and slated to be retired. Any conflict with the PRC will not include the use of IFVs or MBTs .
That's some pretty wishful thinking. And the prc isn't the only possible threat
The Bradley is in demand with the US until replacements are available
this may well be an accurate assessment. just look at what ukraine is doing with FPV drones, marine drones and other high-tech solutions. now imagine what the US could do with it's resources if it really needed to. unless there is an effective counter to drones IFVs and MBTs are going to be useless. Remember - future drones don't even need radio connection. Their onboard AI can guide them to their targets so they can't be jammed. Ukraine is already field-testing this.
@@anssiluomaranta34 oh I'm sure the powers across the world have been working on a solution that isn't just carpet bombing the f out of everything as a means to combat drones. They'll still have weaknesses. I half believe there's a chance the world goes backwards in battles due to the effectiveness of drones, and by that I mean usingemp's.knocking out all electronics would cause mass chaos in this day and age, not being able to call artillery no drones, ect.. they'll figure something out to get them out of the sky even if they're AI controlled.(I wonder how many of their own people ai drones will kill lmfao). I thought about it and had the same thought about tanks and being a dying breed but having a tank that's armored and you can roll up to a house and level it is just too important(?), they'll figure out how to take out drones before getting rid of mbt's and ifv's.. in some cases it's too dangerous to move troops without armor, and if you can't insert troops then the battle would never change.
I do give it to Russia for coming up with drone jammers and even "jamming guns" its really something no one expected and was so random but to ukraines credit, most countries have reapr's or other types of drones in the air to watch what's going on. Having a 1000$ drone that's compact and fairly fast is huge for a conventional war, it's natural that someone was sitting there watching the screen and thought "if only I could fly this thing into them". But like I said every country is working on a means to effectively protect against dronesz there will always be a weakness to exploit.
Lol shooting lasers at them... or have a mini gun that's essentially drone air defense
It's kinda surreal seeing the Abrams in a combat situation it was originally designed for. Good luck to the brave tanker crews
Good morning frmgingoog ctymendanao philippine
The US Military is a logistics company that sometimes fights wars. These complicated machines require countless spare parts to operate efficiently and competent maintenance personnel. They were designed to be used in an overwhelming Combined Arms scenario, not trench warfare. No tank on the battlefield can stand alone without support from infantry and air power.
Some errors made in this video to point out:
- Kontakt 1 ERA was developed, and mass produced by the Soviet Union not Ukraine
- Kontakt 1 isn't immune from AGMs, UVs, and Lancets and it can't withstand/block anything, all it takes is for the munition used to have/use a Tandem Shaped Warhead and Kontakt 1 would provide next to no protection against it.
Ukraine was in the Soviet Union dum dum
@@vfgfdfdf NII Stali (Russian: ĐĐĐ ŃŃалО), is a Russian research institute (NII) located in the capital city of Moscow dum dum.
@@usuariopimba707 Be that as it may, the previous commenter mentioned the Soviet Union as though it did not include Ukraine. Which is false.
@@vfgfdfdf It doesn't matter, the factory is Russian not Ukrainian as it says in the video
@@usuariopimba707 For Christ sake, by saying "Ukrainian Kontakt ERA" he only meant that is was some that they possessed. I don't think he meant any copy-write infringement.......for crying out loud.
Given how well the M2A2/A3 Bradleys are doing, wouldn't it be more combat effective to trade the M1A1 Abrams for M2A2/A3 Bradleys? For the cost, you can get multiple Bradleys.
Thats going against decommunization
Sending 500 tanks now won't make a difference, the Russians make projectiles of large caliber and precision, just like 9mm ammunition.
If you don't have air support it won't do you any good, and you won't get any decent support until you have adequate AA protection for your airfields.
Russia has been buying NK ammo that was produced in the 1950's and 60's. Seems to me that Russia is not making as much as it claims to be making
@@pogo1140 Why use better ammunition in a dead dog like Ukraine, very little of the most modern weapons were used, how many Zircon were used in Ukraine? 3? Meanwhile, more than 300 Kh-22s were used, without being intercepted, Russia only uses cutting-edge ammunition when they are testing, the rest is second or third line ammunition from the USSR and when they run out, they use North Korea's ammunition or will merge it , everyone who has some brain cells knows that Russians do not work without reservations, especially with a potential conflict with NATO, It's so obvious that it's almost comical if you don't know.
â@@pogo1140 And speaking of which, Korea will replace the old stuff with new ones also using fresh money and hard currency, congratulations to NATO, it managed to make its enemies stronger and more united, Iran, China, North Korea, Russia, etc.
@@usuariopimba707 Iran and NK are no threats if comes out to an all out war.
â@@ernestogastelum9123 The entire West disagrees, just seeing Russia's concern about supplying technology to Korea.
ХлаĐČĐ° ĐŁĐșŃĐ°ĐžĐœĐ”, ĐČŃĐ”ĐłĐŸ ĐœĐ°ĐžĐ»ŃŃŃĐ”ĐłĐŸ ĐČĐ°ĐŒ. ĐĄĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐŒ Оз ĐĐ»ĐŒĐ°ŃŃ, ĐĐ°Đ·Đ°Ń ŃŃĐ°Đœ)
ŃĐ°ĐŒĐŸĐ” ĐșĐŸŃŃŃĐŒĐżĐžŃĐŸĐČĐ°ĐœĐœĐŸĐ” ĐłĐŸŃŃĐŽĐ°ŃŃŃĐČĐŸ ĐČ ŃŃĐ”ĐŽĐœĐ”Đč азОО đ
They better add Leoâs with ERA in war thunder
I love that these are defending our brothers against Ruzzia. But, it feels weird to see Cyrillic writing in an Abrahams. đșđžđșđŠ
May you all come home safe
This tank is a 90âs era tank the M1A1. So you have to fight with it differently. I noticed some Ukrainianâs use it wrong. Itâs an older tank with older technology. They shouldâve sent the M1A2 tank. It has all the updated variants. But of course they wonât
the quote brad pitt said having the best job in the world isn't just about tankers, it's veterans themselves having the best job in the world.
I want to call this tank - Slavrams
NATO and America need to stop messing around and give Ukraine the equipment needed to gain air superiority
You can't just give the equipment. People need to be trained first and that take a while. Blame the EU for it
â@@dalveal01Most if not all the EU is in NATO.
The Czech Republic is a small country, but we gave what we had...
Itâs has give over 1 trillion in aid!!! Where did all that go huh?
Why?
If you you think the tanks are too high maintenance and a liability, donât use them. Honestly, should be grateful that you were sent aid.
Lets hope they go longer than last time when they were pulled back for mods
I wonder if Nozh Explosive Reactive Armour can be fitted to the M1 Abrams if yes then it can be protected from 3BM60 3BM32 Vant but still vulnerable to 3BK21 which is HEAT shell with DU liner 3BM69/3BM70
These are early model Abrams tanks. Probably M1âs upgraded to M1A1. They donât have DU mesh.
You can tell the difference by the rear drive wheels. Newer Abrams have a more sprocket looking design while older ones are circular
Abrams đ„đ„đ„đ„
Looks like war thunder would add that new Variant of m1 Abrams in their game đ
I'm not ripping on US tanks, but there is something oddly ironic about the fact that the Abrams is covered in the 'Cope Cage' armour package of chicken wire.
I saw this in Moscow!! It was in much worse shape than it is here lol
What happened to the start streak mobile anti air defence? I thought they were also deployed
How long before war thunder makes this a premium
I've said from the beginning that it will not matter what tanks are sent to Ukraine if they do not have aviation to support them.
Maybe they should have invested in their airforce in the 30 years they've been a sovereign country... instead they "elect" corrupt politicians that funnel money out of the country into their own pockets. I don't see why it's the US's responsibility to fund this war and hold their hands.
They thought the Brad was bad?! Thatâs venom. Now carnage is on the field. Not the tank you want square up with.
Hmmm how often are they cleaning the VPacks ?
They need air assets more urgently.
Good soviet kontakt 1 still holds up today.
Love and eternal admiration to the Ukrainian peopleâ„ïžâ„ïžâ„ïžâ„ïžâ„ïžâ„ïžâ„ïž
USA has 6000 Abrams in service and nearly 10.000 Tanks stored in desert. And they deliver 31.
That is false.
I know they should have sent 0 Abrams
If anything they should send more old M1A1s that we dont use, gets them into battle and gets the burden off our hands
@@duoblade332 Leo 2s are still a better choice for the Ukrainians.
@@obsidianjane4413 Germany already unloaded a heap of Leopard 1's and early Leopard 2's to Ukraine.
Ukraine should just be happy that they got some modern tanks and IFVs than the cold war relics they were using!
Pls show us some footage of t90 turrets flyinng
I can show you ukraines tank turrets flying!
I'm sure you can Kremlin bot..
How about some footage of Ukrainian Leopard turrets flying?
10.3 Russian Premium đ
Finally some food for thought, all those positive light videos of UKR but in reality many poor souls are getting smashed with aircraft and attack choppers. They are still missing many tools to fight this war properly I think.
i hope their armor is better than in war thunder đđ
The Ukrainians could use a couple hundred more of them (currently rusting in storage..) preferably equipped with the latest gen. of active defensive protection.
Yes because we want US tech falling into Russian hands because they flew a 500$ drone into it. They're getting our old garbage for a reason. Lol us wouldn't even sale tiawan f35's for fear that the gen 5 tech would be leaked to China. The stuff is top secret and will be for another 20-30 years... giving our best equipment to a 3rd world country is asinine.
No. As a US citizen these are my tanks and theyâre staying in storage
@@xxdmoneyxx4968 Yes, As a US citizen these old war chariots should be given to Ukraine, we are literally never going to fucking use them, they're going to rust in storage and just be scrapped, these tanks are older Abrams and are outdated, and we should let them do what they were built for or go out with a bang, you do not seem to understand that these things are going to be scrapped no matter what so that they can be replaced with newer M1A2 variants, nor are they your tanks either, the government will never sell an Abrams to a civilian
â @@Klimotineya no, not only did the citizens pay for the cost of the vehicle, but now we gotta pay for logistics in crossing the Atlantic! And then you wonder why everything is so much more expensive here, itâs because of unnecessary spending for things that donât benefit our people.
@@Klimotine " we are literally never going to fucking use them" I can't tell if you really have no idea what you're saying or if you think you're actually right. Ah yes, with that logic we should give them ALL of our entire military equipment. Cause were NEVER gonna use it! Who would attack America!?
Those are older varients probably 20 years or more years not the ones our country would go to battle with
Roll left cover right cover left cover right flank
Another piece of armor destined to be a smoldering heap of metal.
Yes that is the life of a war machine. Nothing new
They also on display in Russia I hear
VERY IMPRESSIVE SCARY-LOOKING MACHINE, BE SURE TO PICK THE MOST EXPERIENCE CREW FOR THE JOB.
I have noticed that almost all of the vehicles in use in Ukraine have a scorched look to them, its like everything has been covered in black and brown and I am unsure if it is intentional or just all the stuff caked onto the outside.
Warthunder better take notice and give me a free tank for this idea lol.
M1 KVT irl
02:45 Literaly says "this side toward vehicle"
You guys sure thats right?
đ€Ł
He pulled it off the tank to show the inside
Slava Ukraini đșđŠđđ
Kokaini
I mean, we got already be fixing these problems right? I kind of think that maybe this whole sending them stuff yeah it was a lot of money but in the end itâs gonna do more good than harmed us because we can fix our equipment.
Gajin when
There's a click bait Abrams already.
Send them boys some spare parts 4:12
This is exactly why the US was hesitant to deliver Abrams to Ukraine - the Leopard is much more suited to the situation.
AFU always wanted Leopards more. For a lot good reasons. People forget that these M-1s were given to get the ball rolling on tanks for Ukraine. No one wanted to go first, so the US did.
â@mcblaze1968 no they didn't the uk was the first to send mbts typical yanks no idea
@@mcblaze1968 Think you'll find the UK commited its challenger 2 MBTs first.
Germany refused to send leapards until USA sent Abrams thoughâ@@davidhopkins9021
No it isn't why. USA refused M1s because they're scared of "escalation" i.e. scared of Putin.
Definitely some mixed feelings watching this, its great that were helping them become a strong, free country and you can see the effort that is put in to send the vehicles and establish maintenance infrastructure etc. but its sad and embarrassing to see that we sent lower quality models that have age based issues. The comments about the aircraft is also very telling and makes sense, the reason western tanks have been so successful is because they have always had complete air supremacy and combined arms attacks. The tanks by themselves only have limited use on a modern battlefield
Why tf would the us send them top of the line latest generation tanks? I'm so glad people like younare not running the military. "Yeah I think we should send the best of western tech to a 3rd world country that has massive issues with corruption and the equipment will fall into the enemy's hands so they can replicated it and figure out how to defeat it" there's a reason the west is sending them old junk, because why tf would you risk top secret stuff falling into enemy hands? Lmfao there's agreements that if ukrsine captures specific systems they have to automatically hand it over to the US.
Battles aren't won by handing over your best equipment for the enemy to study and learn to defeat.
Slava Ukraine!
Heroes to Slava
this sound like hail hitler
Russian vodniks will cry when the Ukrainian tech tree becomes dominant in Warthunder in 2030.
Ah, the exigencies of war, but still, Soviet-origin ERA on Abrams makes my pp hurt
Soviet ERA will find its way onto any vehicle
Waiting abhrams vs T90m legendery battle
Horrific....but still, from an engineering point of view it would be a magnificent Battle Royale.
One of the M1A1s was destroyed by a T-72B3.
@@MarekKrassus53 How many T-72s were destroyed by the Abrams first? Don't bother.
@@rael5469 0???? They've never fought
â@kabochakabocha3561 No they have in the Iraq war.
I wouldn't say that it's modern
đđ±đ Slava Ukraini! Heroyam Slava! â€ïžâ ïžđ€
Slava sharovaram!!! Slava Usranii!!
They may be old but they're not as old as the Leopard 1's and 2's that Germany sent to Ukraine. An Abrams is better than nothing.
They lie. These modifications have not been made in an improvised workshop at the front. The reactive armor units, the steel supports and the density of units... that has been done by a professional in a workshop
And the units were removed from the front... they disappeared from the front for weeks and months... and now they have returned reinforced and modified
Another game changer????
Only the media claims that who of which know little to nothing about tanks, these tanks are just as vulnorable as any other tank so calling them a "game changer" is taking it a bit far.
There were so few M1A1 Abrams tanks there were sent to Ukraine. Only 31.. The US should send more rather than having these tanks in storage..
Nope
đ©đȘđ€đșđŠđâïžđ
đșđŠ
7:45 - the gap Max overcame in 2022 was 46 points buddy, not 69 or more.
Still loving your videos, but still going to continue to point out your errors, itâs nothing personal, itâs just important to get the facts and figures correct; it adds to your credibility. đ
Gaijin when
Tank 1000 cerita di tanah perternak onta..
Tp di petani vodca abram jadi besi tua..
Can you guys redo this one? You mention the rumours, say you're going to find out what's real and what isn't, and then don't even address the rumours you mention. Furthermore, those armour adaptations are fairly recent. They weren't present in the withdrawal from Avdiivka, but then maybe that's not your point and it's just that the 47th are "West of Avdiivka" I don't know, it's not exactly clear. Keep in mind this is the clarity of the video, it's direction and composition NOT an opsec issue. The other thing is, the anti fpv mesh shields are really interesting, even if they don't look the best. Reports are they were NOT field fabricated even though it really looks like it. That would be great to gain clarity over.
I've been commenting on many youtube videos, even before they finally float the idea of sending tanks to Ukraine, that Ukraine needs air superiority. If we look at how NATO fights in past war or conflicts, they always have air superiority, that's why they've been so effective.
This back and forth of the EU and US saying we're not sending something, but then agree to send it anyway few months later are costing more money & most importantly lives.
The usual only been effective in 1 conflict and that was desert storm and that was solely on the incompetence of the Iraq army being bunched up on a small highway. Yes the west should just give the most corrupt country in europe access to its whole arsenal no questions asked, cuz we already know there's crooked ukrainians that are handing over whatever tech they've been given to Russian sources
WHAT THE FUKK IS A KILOMETER!!!!!!! REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
Hmm yesh lets see a weapon designed for open ground in anti-armour role being sent to a battlefield in which mines, trenches, overwatch and long range fires dominate...
Hold onto those tanks for a year or two, wait until the F-16's (and other new jets) are doing work, pound down the AA ability with arty and HIMARS, then strike with unstoppable mass in 3 or 4 years.
Regarding the threat from Russian ground attack aircraft, don't they have Stingers, as well as other systems from NATO countries?
they have been running low on Stinger munitions but the recent aid packages should be fixing that issue here again soon.
Too little too late, 31 tanks and that's it!?!? America has a ton of tanks in storage. Now they're just a high logistic waste, deployed sparingly.
so what if 300 Abrams are sent? you need crews for them and repairmen to fix them. Getting ether of those will take another half a year and even then it'll only be a fraction of what's needed to field 300 Abrams
And refurbishing them or upgrading them for Ukraine takes time. Ukraine also has dozens of types of tanks in service at this point, they may not want a bunch of Abrams. The only reason they were even sent in the first place was to force Germany to stop denying Ukraine's request for Leopards. Not that Abrams aren't useful, but they don't make the most sense for Ukraine, it seems to me.
you can send all weapons in the world there but they do not man power so what is next.....direct conflict between nato and russia? Everyone know what will be the result.....bye bye humanity
I LOVE PROXY WARS đđđ I LOVE PROXY WARS đđđ I LOVE PROXY WARS đđđ
Never would have I imagined that an Abrams will be equipped by Kontakt ERA.
M1-KVT IRL
M1 KVT was real
Age is not the only reason why the Abrams engine requires a lot of maintenance, the engine is a Turbocharged Turbine.
What's a "Turbocharged Turbine"?
The Turbine does not have a Turbocharger.
And for everyone about to say that it needs jet fuel, the turbine will run on gasoline, diesel, vodka, kerosene, lamp oil, cooking oil, even the oil used to make french fries
SLAVA UKRAINIđșđđđ±đȘđđ„Ÿđ€đ= FREEDOM
Im surprised Russia allowed those heavy transport planes to deliver the tanks to the Ukraine.
They came by sea, train and truck. And even if they did come by air, Russian air have not been flying more than 5 km beyond the line of contact, most if not all of the fighters stay on the Russian side
they landed in Poland and other neighbouring countries with Ukraine then they were driven in by Ukrainians.
Unpopular information: It would cost the US more to keep these tanks on their books and maintain them. Donating them is even cheaper than scrapping them.
It is far better to donate them and build brand new top modern ones for their own forces, then everyone wins! (not the russians though! not the russians..)
considering we have about 8,000 of these things on hand we could easily offload around 500+ without it being a strategic threat to US capabilities.
Normally the engine has a sand filter. I heard it in a documentary about the war in Irak. Is it possible that the Americans didn't tough it was necessary to provide it since Ukraine is not in the Middle-Est?