Tap to unmute
Abrams, Leopard and Challenger 2 vs. T-72: How Western Tanks Compare to Russia’s Armor | WSJ
- Published on Jan 25, 2023 veröffentlicht
- As the U.S. and its allies start sending Abrams, Leopards and other tanks to help Ukraine, those vehicles are set to change the dynamics of the war along the front lines. WSJ examines how the tanks that Ukraine will receive from the West compare with Russia’s vehicles.
Illustration: Adam Adada
WSJ’s latest news coverage around the 2022-2023 Russia-Ukraine conflict.
#Russia #Ukraine #WSJ
Comments • 4 240
I have never heard a BMP pronounced as a 'Bump' but I will definitely call it that now 🤣
god that made me so mad when he said that.
@Jam Jia But literally it is "War Machine of Infrantry"
I went past the part by a couple seconds but had to rewind to make sure I heard correctly 😂
Because it makes a big *BUMP* sound when it's hit by anything
Let´s bump them up!
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.
@robertbates6057 LOL that's funny. They'll show up the same time as the tanks everyone's excited about.
@TheGoodguy68 LOL! Yep, until the F 16s arrive.
@Da Trevmeister You know it really depends on whether the Ukrainians receive used or M1A1s that have been maintained in storage. I see your logic.
In my very, very humble opinion, I’d say leave the M1A1s in Kiev to be used only in the defense of the capital and other important places. Dont use them to go on offensives or counteroffensives. Let the lighter and more nimble Leopards handle that.
@Tom K Look, I understand your struggling. Don't let me confuse you with facts, I can see you have already made up your mind. I go back to what I have said before. Look at results. The Russians have lost 20 generals, 100 colonels, can't take Kiev, lost ground up to the Dneiper River, watched their flag ship the Moscow sink into the Black Sea, their chief of staff changed 4 times during this war, their soldiers demoralized and running away. You might not like those realities, but they are facts. All the Ukrainians have to do is stay in the fight with limited support from the West and this war is won. Once the ATAMCS is fielded near the front, everything will change. Russian logistics, command and control will be destroyed up to 150 miles from the front and the bridge linking the Crimea will be gone up in smoke.
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.
@Real Napster Depending on what part of the turret you hit a western tank may only take damage to the ammo compartment. You pull the tank, put in a new turret and you are back out within 2 hrs. A hit anywhere on a Russian tank turret will destroy it.
It’s not just Russian tanks but even NATO tanks also explode when they are hit by modern ATGMs. It has happened before to Saudi Abrams and Turkish Leo 2.
Apfsds penetrates through blast door and boom they still die
@blackdification M1 has blowout panels in the floor for the ammo stored there - usually no ammo is there - but panels are still provided.
T-14 has unmanned turret so there are no issues there - crew is totally protected & has no interactions with any ammo.
@Tom K Did you read my comment? I literally said that Leopard 2 only has blowout panels for the ammo stored in the turret.
Also, M1 Abrams, Leclerc and K2 all have some ammo in the lower part of the tank, without blowout panels, too. Not sure about T 14, but I wouldn't be surprised if that thing had some rounds in the belly, too, that are not used with blowout panels...
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
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.
@Crusader2014 I actually loaded the heat round quicker than the sabot and cam round. I did it it 4 seconds.
@ALPHA a good loader can load a round in 4 seconds. I haven't seen it done quicker. Mainly because of how the storage rack to the shells operate. Most of your time is waiting on the door to open and close.
They don’t need more T-72s though, that’s what they already have. They asked for western designs specifically because they knew they’d be better than what is already in their inventory, even if they would require a lot of training
@Strangely Ukrainian Thats still months of training and development for that, and not enough abrams to make a very strategic difference compared to the polish PT-91s which could be sent in the hundreds and is based off the T-72 design, which Ukrainians dont need months of training on just for driving and more months of training for repair/catabolize
just like war bring destruction war weapons too
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
It’s not just Russian tanks but even NATO tanks also explode when they are hit by modern ATGMs. It has happened before to Saudi Abrams and Turkish Leo 2.
@Augusto Maybe, as long as they continue what they are doing - they are going to be fine. Better is always better but not needed for victory.
@Augusto Say this to several thousands of Ukries who have died because of Russian artillery in Bahmut. They will laugh. Oh, they won't...
@Tom K 6x advantage of incompetence and demotivation
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
@FRAG OUT i unfortunately don't have any t72 laying around, but it will happen soon in Ukraine anyways
@blablabla then go ahead and mount one and do battle with the Abrams.....
@FRAG OUT there are plenty of t72 models with thermals, nothing special
@CH Mullins Ok then my information wasnt totally wrong. That they dont get the latest electronics was to expected. I think besides sensors also communication in particular. Or does "sensors" include communications? American military jargon can be tricky for an outsider. 😄
@Mad Rooky They will ship Ukraine M1A2's just like the rest of the export models, M1A2S (Saudi Arabia) M1A2M (Morocco) and whatever they will name the Polish and Taiwanese variants. They all have "Export Armor and Sensors". Meaning no Depleted Uranium Armor or "Secret Composites". Not sure what exactly the "export sensor" package consists of. All other nations using any variant of the M1, do not have the same armor or sensors as the U.S. versions.
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.
@Tom K well yes, but the M1A1HA was before the fall of the USSR by three years, and the USSR didn’t see budget cuts until the very end. The US had caught up in armour and ammunition and had it handily beat in electronics for a while. The T-14 seems pretty good but the SU-57 just isn’t on the same level.
@Jacob Baumgardner The main reason US was leading is b/c at that time Soviet Union collapsed and nothing was made for at least a decade. T-90 fixed many issues but could not fix the underlying old design & is a stop gap measure. Sure it now has welded turret & quite decent armor BUT its main draw back is that even after modifications it cannot use super long rod ammo (among other issues).
This is why Russians around year 2000 started experimenting with a new tank. At first it was a tank similar to T series of old but simply larger - than in 2010 they decided on a far more ambitious project with T-14. After a decade of work first T-14s started to roll out & are still having issues ironed out. They probably would have been adopted into service right now if not for the war.
The main problem with T-14 (as is for Su-57) is their high price point. They cost 2x as much as T-90M. T-90M does the job well for current war. I guess Russians should invest more in active protection - but than again most kills are by artillery - so maybe its not such a huge priority. Incidentally you would think Russians would have a decent active protection system by now since they were the ones whom invented the dam thing like many decades ago - first systems were added to T-55 (!)
@Tom K eh, kinda. The M1 was adequate when it entered service in 1979, and was about on par with T-72A. What was superior was the T-80 which had entered service the year before the original M1. The T-80U entered service 6 years later in 1985, the same year as the M1A1 and it did have vastly superior armour with the addition of Kontact-5 heavy ERA. The Americans then upgraded some of their M1A1’s with DU in the HA variant in 1989 and the US was generally ahead after that.
M1 armor was so weak that it was inferior (by a wide margin) to T-72A. So US quickly added the uranium plates to make it a better protected tank.
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.
@Robert Bates This is a tank that was designed around a supply infrastructure which the Ukrainians don't have. No amount of logistics training is going to change the conditions without US presence. This is why few countries care to use the Abrams.
@Milo Not sure who to pull for but I think the Abrams and Bradleys will cut through the Soviet era tanks and bmps like a hot knife through butter.
@GunstarGizmo Don't kid yourself. I'm sure the US is training Ukraine on logistics train.
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.
I think you should have compared the new NATO tanks to the new T-90 tanks from Russia. They have been popping up more on the battlefield and production from Russia's far east has been producing more of these new Russian tanks. You should also talk about how most destroyed armored vehicles in this war has been from artillery, mortar, missle strikes, UAV and anti tank missiles. Tank to tank combat is rare, from what I know.
@Real Napster Difference is the numbers. Russian tanks are lost in the hundreds, Western tanks in the tens. No tank is invulnerable and no person should expect them to be.
@Real Napster No Ukraine has won in real life. Taken back 50% of the Ukrainian territory that Russia had captured in the initial 2022 invasion and inflicted massive losses on Russian forces. Hence the reason for Russia drafting 700,000 more men and bringing out tank reserves from storage. Russia simply cannot match the production of the 30 countries supporting Ukraine.
@Justin Taylor Ukraine is only winning on social media 😂
It’s not just Russian tanks but even NATO tanks also explode when they are hit by modern ATGMs. It has happened before to Saudi Abrams and Turkish Leo 2.
Actually Leopard 2 has also advanced multilayer composite armour in it, but it does not have exactly the same "Chobham" or also called "Dorchester" armour that Abrams and Challenger has. Leopards armour is quite a similarly constructed and also the use, is ofcourse, for the same exact purpose. To stop advanced kinetic or chemical antitank ammunition. Some Abrams models also has uranium armour plates.
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.
@Walling Naga Shahid 136 will be pretty effective; low cost Iranian drones plenty of them in stock.
Logistic part supplies are crucial for top performance.
The crew will probably be mercs or poles that have experience using them.
With some having hydropneumatic suspension while others have torsion bar.
Leo 2A4 + Abrahms use one type of ammo ... Leo 2A6 (if germany sends those) use a different type of shell, and Challenger II uses a different type of ammo altogether so about 3 types of ammo for 4 different tank types.
Then we get into the fuel being used, you can't get a diesel mechanic to fix a turbine engine.
Bradleys are probably the real gem in what they are getting.
Most of those tanks might be for training purposes for a while.
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.
@Joe Shaji Not really , also British tanks have a rifled barrel wich is outdated since decades . No smoothbore , they need DU ammo to even scratch the paint off modern tanks . 😅
@5CO7 • Challenger 2 tanks have DU bullets not tungsten. DU bullets are way better than tungsten.
Interesting point is that Russia also has depleted uranium rounds to be used in case of war. Not sure they deploy these. They would be used on older tanks.
The difference between Du rounds and non DU is marginal. Leopard 2s armor can stop a DU round easily.
Russia of course also has DU APFSDS rounds.
Its important to remember that the most important factor in the effectiveness of a weapon like a tank is doctrine / training. I think, in many ways, thr T-72 has gotten a bad rap for its design because of issues that actually stem from poor crew training, inappropriate battlefield usage, and lack of maintenance.
It’s not just Russian tanks but even NATO tanks also explode when they are hit by modern ATGMs. It has happened before to Saudi Abrams and Turkish Leo 2.
@Justin Taylor That is assuming that the round hits low enough. Many tank crews now only go in with the 22 rounds in the carousel and the rates of ammo racked tanks are much lower. It’s not a design flaw it makes sense considering. That Soviet tanks were much smaller and easier to transport as well as the fact it’s better against anything that isn’t a tank because in prolonged combat it can keep firing at a steady rate while a manual loader gets tired. Also 125mm is about the limit where a normal loader can’t load efficiently
@Winston Churchill Iraq is a great example of Russian tanks wiped out in tank vs tank battles vs Western tanks. Real life examples, always worth mentioning. And yes blast doors do prevent the propellant of ammunition catching fire and blowing up (brewing) the tank as happens with Russian tanks. You are right it was a theory that actual Russian tanks would be better than the ones the Russians sold to Iraq. As it turns out, the tanks the Russians have, blow up just the same. Because they are the same basic design (design flaw) once a round (any type of round) gets through the armour, the Russian tank goes boom.
@Justin Taylor I’m not talking about Iraq. You said Ukraine first and I am talking about Ukraine. Tank on tank engagements rarely happen. A blast door will not save a tank from artillery or an atgm (Assuming it penetrates) Also in the Iraq war, Iraqi crews were poorly trained and motivated. And those tank were bad export variants. Very different to a modern tank
@Winston Churchill Let me help you. The invasion of Iraq was tank against tank. Hundreds of Iraqi T72s destroyed as against 3 M1 Abrams (from enemy fire). The ammunition compartment of the M1 is behind a blast door, with a blow off panel in the roof. It works. In the real world, Western tanks (and you can count Israeli in that) survive better. They are better designed and better built. Try reading about some actual combat and you will understand why you have just posted nonsense.
While western tanks will require more training for Ukrainian crews, the fact that the vehicles are more survivable will mean that crews are more likely to walk away from a hit and transfer to a different vehicle, reducing the strain on the Ukrainian Military's already overstretched logistical arm (yes it's worse for Russia but even the U.S military struggles with logistics, see Generation Kill)
@Real Napster yes BUT specifically the Abrams has all of its ammo in an ammo rack, the tank will have no ammo and will be heavily damaged but the crew will survive and driving will still be operable. In most cases anyway. No tank can survive a tow missles without active defense systems
It’s not just Russian tanks but even NATO tanks also explode when they are hit by modern ATGMs. It has happened before to Saudi Abrams and Turkish Leo 2.
It’s just a myth. Western tanks are also vulnerable.
Not only that, but the surviving crew will have much greater experience then some new conscripts, meaning that they can do far more damage
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.
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
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.
US hasn’t fought a peer opponent since WW2 😂
100s have been destroyed. I.e. not economical to recover. 100s. Iraq lost 60 of them in the battle of Mosul to ISIS.
Only 3? Who the F gonna believe in it? Even on youtube i saw is around 10 footages. Tank is not invincible unit, wake up.
@Kishan Chali My government propaganda? Which government even? Because unlike in Russia, in the west there are many different opinions, and different views on the war. And we are actually allowed to say something against our government ;)
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.
If you want to see how they stack up to t72 tanks take a look at some of the tank battles in Iraq. Most of them taken out by Bradley's before Abrams or Challenger 2s could get a chance.
@HeinaCat no I don't I believe there highly reliant on Soviet machines and I think there newer platforms are sub standard compared to those in the west.
u believe Russia uses only soviet vehicles. you may be wrong. of course they will spend old ones first in terms of long war.
@Raptor243 still nowhere near western standard. Russian modified Soviet made tanks 🤣👌
What about the T-90s of all variants? And latest T-80s. The Iraqis received the dumbed down versions of T-72s with way inferior optics, fire control and probably protection as well
@Ralph Konstantine i think no t14 in this war, we must have some weapons, what do not participate in this war. for backup plan (i mean if ww3 will happening)
Imagine being a Ukraine maintenance personal, and having to be able to maintain all these vehicles from different countries with different standards.
People still underestimate how important maintenance and supply is when it comes to a war. Prime example are the Panzerhaubitze sent by Germany. While they have preformed really well on the battlefield, they haven’t been operational for months now, because Germany doesn’t have spare parts to preform maintenance. I don’t know if things will be that bad with the Leopards, but that still makes them unreliable.
You can't talk about how many tanks Russia has without talking about how many are combat-capable.
@SexyGod finally someone got the point! and we are only speaking bout the old T-72... what when Russia will start clear their old T80 and T90 stockpiles? Leopard 2 is a really good tank, i love it as 'tanks fan' but, same as in WW2... '50x T34 > 1x Tiger II'.. the fact that is 'better' doesn't mean it's invincible, easy to be outnumbered and btw, tanks have to fear infantry AT missiles and Air Attacks more than enemy tanks
@SexyGod dont forget russian antitank artillery, their tanks just mere support column
5000 out of total 12000 are capable. Do you really thin 14 Leopards can change here something?
I wonder how much of that stat are T34's in museums
Exactly. And even the combat capable ones don't seem to be all that capable.
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.
I'm not shore Ukraine 🇺🇦 would of fallen ever.🇦🇺🇺🇦
@Alexander Barkman The occupants left.. after winning the war.. and Iraq is now ruled by definitely not the 2003 government.
Its definitely not ruled by the people who “beat the occupation”
@m00se I'm Arab so i'm more aware of the other Arabs strengths and weaknesses than anyone else especially if that one was from the other side of the globe right.
Tell me you know nothing about military analysis and the power of iraq in the 90s without telling me you know nothing.
3 Bradleys were lost in the Iraq war and 2 of those were accidental friendly fire accidents that led to modern US battle space identification and communication protocols
Overall 100s were lost. Maybe up to a 1000.
@Winston Churchill talking about Russians
@Julius Walsøe Tveit No, not the Iraqis
Because no one else was shooting.
20 were lost in desert storm, 17 of those were from friendly fire.
The Leopard 2 also uses composite armour. It just uses a different mix of materials than Chobham.
A primary purpose of IFV in combined arms environment is to root out and destroy enemy ATGM positions to protect the tanks. Russia has said it will now deploy its most advanced tanks to Ukraine, so you need to do your comparison including T-90 and T-14 Armata tanks. Note, BMP is pronounced 'Bee Em Pee' not 'Bump' lol
@Tank Penguin There's like 15 different t-72 variants much like there's like 15 different M1 variants.
@Targe there are not even 10 armatas as far as we know of and russia literally doesnt have the money to produce them effecivly
@Targe The Russians abandoned an up to date T90 in the Kherson retreat so we'll have been picking it apart and finding out the best ways to kill the era etc. I'm sure its not up to taking on modern western tanks
@Targe His point was that T-14s are not really a threat since they come in very small numbers. Will be irrelevant on the battlefield
@Tank Penguin Yes as in their best, most upgraded tank, way better than a stock T-72. Ask the Ukrainian tankers if they'd rather fight a T-72 vs a T-90. I think they said T-72, easy. T-90? Can we have Leopard 2s please? The Armata is yes a prototype, but it is their next gen tank and the Russians are getting desparate. And if the UK is sending in 12 Challengers then we can discuss Russia sending in 10 Armatas.
It is a well known "secret" that the real problem with Abrams is fuel logistics. It is totally possible that Abrams are going to be sitting ducks in the Ukrainian battlefield because either (1) Ukraine could not maintain a viable fuel supply line or (2) Russian cut off the Abrams logistic support. Under those circumstances, the Abrams are going to be extremely vulnerable. It would be a total PR nightmare for the Abrams. Perhaps, that's the reason why the U.S. is hesitant to provide Ukraine with Abrams.
I think combined arms warfare is the key to survival for the western vehicles. The US Army is really good at this but it has taken a long time and a lot of blood and treasure for this to happen. I think the results may be mixed.
Not to mention the tanks being sent are 80-90s tech
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.
They have no shells. Denied access by Brazil, Iran, China and all South American countries holding some.
@Bill bob Its a common argument, no, its not an air war, the air war part of this conflict has been on all accounts, lacking.
The lack of SEAD on either side and the many, many air defences both side possess have restricted both country’s airforces to limited sorties.
@Eeeertoo What do you mean "again"? I didn't say tanks were obsolete in any shape form. I specifically that the tanks are not going to help Ukraine because this is not a battle between tanks and Ukraine lacks the air support to cover them. Reading is fundamental.
@Bill bob Again with this “tanks are obsolete”, they are not, they provide offensive abilities that artillery or air superiority cant provide.
@Matrose27 Yeah until the lancet gets caught in a camo net or misses LOL
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.
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.
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.
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.
One to one comparisons only work in theory, during the second world war if you had made the same comparisons between the T34 and the Tiger the Tiger would have come out on top , however the Soviets could afford to lose two tanks to every one the Germans lost,and they were replacing them three times as fast , also on paper what chance would you give a Sherman tank up against a Tiger, the allied tank crews still managed to knock them out though.
Meanwhile the panzer 38(t) and panzer 2: *living happily in the retirement home after being the main tank used in fall Weiss and the Ardennes breakthrough
Tigers were propaganda tanks. They were horrible anyways and were a logistics nightmare. T34s weren’t much better but the best German tank was the Panzer 4 or Stug
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.
@Birdstwin "No, looking to the far future, you can see these weapon systems are on their deathbed."
The US and Germany are developing and testing their next generation. Maybe they didn't get the memo that the weapon systems were on their deathbed?
No, looking to the far future, you can see these weapon systems are on their deathbed. They will be here a few while longer, but it is inevitable they will be replaced.
As a former 19 Kilo of GWOT, you are correct.
@falconeaterf15 I would consider this as crime, gorilla- crime if you like, but not war.
@Chuck Norris They tend to help on a battlefield too. At least that's why they were invented. Without infantry, the serfs/peasants can crawl on and disable them.
Not a game changer. These modern tanks are nothing without adequate crews skill experienced in operating it. Remember the Israeli achieved upper hands during 1973 war not because Centurion tanks is better than T-62 (T-62 has night sight device), but it was because Israeli tank crews were highly trained with it.
And remember it was not b/c Patton tank sucked that T-55 made a burning wreck of it in Indo-Pakistani war.
@AirWaffle yeah lol a whole 15 meters a day
@squidwardo poorly? since mid november the only advances were made by russians, and they were made every single day
@Joe But they don’t know how to operate western tanks
@Andrés Gael Hernandez Perez Ukrainians crews have experience, NATO crews dont
Abrams and Leopards both originate from the prototype American-German prototype "KPz 70 or MBT-70". They both has since specialized according to the requirements of their respective armed forces. Challenger is the only standalone battle tested tank beside Merkava that is capable of being send into battlefields of Ukraine. None of the other tanks of the other nations (besides Russian, offcourse) have actually seen battle or conflict. Just good-looking vehicles parked in a shed.
I served in the ARMY in the mid-90's and I was an electronics technician that worked on/repaired and validated the TOW missile system (MOS 27E). The running joke was that Bradleys were trash cans on treads. It's pretty sad that Russian tanks get outclassed by the Bradley Fighting vehicle.
@Dr Kirb Kenneth kirby then it wasn't destroyed by a Bradley. Same can be said for the Abrams then.
@tshds tow missiles can take out any tank, the only variant is difficulty
There is no way in this world that a modern Russian tank got destroyed by a Bradley.
Yeah just send Ukraine some A-10s Bc brrt lol.
I’m joking the A-10 is obsolete give them some F-35s and watch the fireworks
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
Отличная реклама для натовских танков - против российских(а точнее советских) пушек, гранатомётов и авиации.
@James Merkel Ооо дааа...4%ленд-лиза от Советской военной промышленности кардинально поменяло ситуацию😂Только за этот "ленд-лиз"СССР обязывался платить золотом😂лучше бы вместо ленд-лиза сразу открыли 2 фронт ,ещё бы раньше союзники одержали победу,но ждали аж до лета 44 ,когда Советы уже стояли на Германских границах,это факт!А по нынешней ситуации ,не переживай за нашу логистику и тех.обслуживание,переживай за вашу.И не Возможно,а Победа будет за нами😜 ,как бы ни прискорбно вам хотелось это осознать.
@James Merkel I agree. Never underestimate your opponents. But like u said, its going to be a huge task for Russia to turn this around. Anyway, nobody wins in a war
@What's next? I don't disagree that russia shouldn't be underestimated. However, historically, russia often needed backing not to collapse their economy or kill themselves. In ww2 they would have been crushed if not for the lend-lease supplies, simply from their troops starving and freezing, not to mention the lack of transport. In Ukraine they have a hard time feeding their troops just across the border. Russia has a lot of powerful weapons, but without the logistics to field those weapons, or maintain them, they're useless.
It's still possible they win this current war, however at this point it's going to require a massive push of their full military might and a hope that their logistics/poor maintenance don't see their military crushed in another boondoggle.
Заокеанские диванные войска😂Лучше всех на свете знают обстановку в Украине😂
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.
Never thought that US, British & GERMAN Tanks will fight side by side!
where have you been for 50 years
@Horrormaster13 Their stated goals were denazification and demilitarization of Ukraine, which they're achieving now. Just check the horrendous casualties of Ukraine in Bakhmut alone
@john doe Should I watching Sputnik?
The superior western tanks logically will be put into service in order to create a break-through on a certain part of the front; if that is established then a big move like the Charkiv offensive could again be possible with combined western and 'soviet' armoured vehicles.
Thank you for your support guys. We need any vehicle that can save our soldiers lives, help reclaiming our territory and returning people peace. Abrams is a game changer, not only in technology, but in the mindset and NATO integration.
No more $$$ for corrupt Zelensky. 😅
not without air dominance which is something Russia has plus cruise missiles
@Monumental Travel Your argument is flawless... and suited to the situation of the ethnic Russians in the Donbass as well
@Marcus Philius Maybe you don't and it is debatable but I think they are harming the most important reasons that people live. If you look around the world, places like Vietnam, people want to be living with their own people and controlled by their own people. This is perhaps the most basic aspect of being a human. We don't want to be controlled by horrible outsiders. It happens over and over again. Afghanistan is probably the most clear case, but places like Vietnam or Korea or Thailand or Poland these are all places that would rather be dead than have some outisde force control their life This is a principle that has become more and more clear over 2 thousand years of conflict. I certainly would rather be dead than not be able to chose who I live for. I don't want to be in a prison and either do Ukrainians. We have to support their wish. America is a country founded on this principle, they did not want to be British. Most coutries had this battle at some time in it's existence. Those people that did not fight became a form of slave, like the Indians in Canada or the Kurds in Iraq or even the Maya who really are quite spread out and disjointed.
@Paul Gibbon according to international observers and accounts of Ukrainian soldiers at the front
Experience and sufficient training are keys to operate a tank no matter what version or types of tanks u are driving. Sending undertrained crews driving the most advanced tanks in the world may not release the full potential of the armor and may cause more loss than gain
@MrSesebo that's two different weapon systems. Gepard is an AA weapon which has semiautomatic feature that only need few personnel to operate. Also, it is used as a defensive measure. No tactics are required at all. Tanks are both defensive and offensive. Most of time they work as a group.
@R A they are able to use the gepard succesfully which is not used by the german military anymore because it's training is time intense and complicated. so i have no worries they are able to use a tank succesfully
@Detlef Alle Tactics and teamwork need months of training to practice and mature.
They are training in Oklahoma right now. Have no fear, they will be ready for Ivan.
Being an M2A2 Bradley Gunner for 3ID in Mosul Iraq, The Bradley's thermals are horrible the sights picture is in red and after staring through that reticle for hours all you see is red once you leave the vehicle!! But I guess something is better than nothing!
The Challenger 2 is apparently quite rugged and reliable too
The problem with this and other opinions is the comparison of apples and oranges, The various platforms not only differ in capabilities, they differ in their application and combat exposure. The BFV did great against the smaller force in Iraq, and some have compared this to the BMP-2 performance in Ukraine. The two are wholly separate as the BFV didn't face a U.S. backed defense. There were no racing drones dropping charges, no infantry with an excess of anti-tank missiles, and no shared parts of the ultimate battlespace intelligence. It's still a question as to whether the survivability of Western armor beats the massive numbers of Russian armor, and then there's the three T's... Troops, Time and Training. Motivated warriors under pressure with little time to train and awesome equipment to fight with versus a horde of chaos.
" It's still a question as to whether the survivability of Western armor beats the massive numbers of Russian armor,"
It's crew suitability where they excel versus Russian tanks. If a trained crew loses a tank then moves to a new tank, that's preferable to losing a tank with the crew. You start running out of tankers.
" Motivated warriors under pressure with little time to train"
Probably beats unmotivated reserves with little time to train.
their prized PMC group and spetsnaz units are already receiving alot of losses, i doubt the unorganized chaotic horde of untrained men will last as much as people think they would
Honestly, redeffect (youtuber who makes a lot of videos about tanks) does a way better job in explaining the tanks, their impacts, pros and cons and everything about combat than this video and the comments.
I’m curious how they’ll manage the logistics though with so many different weapon systems.
Look it up. In one of the Gulf Wars, no Abrams tanks were lost to enemy fire. However, 7 were lost to friendly
fire, and two were blown up by US troops after they broke.
The Saudis also lost a staggering number of Abrams in Yemen. But that just goes to show how no tank is invincible and you need proper training and doctrine to maximize its potential. Undoubtedly, the western tank models will significantly lift the Ukrainian soldiers' potential, and I'm convinced we will see them make good use of them just like they made good use of MARS-II/HIMARS, Pzh 2000, Caesar, Gepard, and all the other systems that have been donated.
in my opinion I feel that vehicles more like Bradly's that are lighter and hopefully faster than tanks, at least more mobile are better suited for Ukraine than larger MBT's. If it was the US I know we would use the abrams to an extent but I know we would be using more lighter vehicles to fight the conflict especially the Marine Corps. Speed and intensity is key to getting Russia stomped out. time will tell though how these tanks will impact the war but the tanks are only as good as the crews that use them.
The Bradely and the M1 were designed to operate together. Have Bradley's and Challengers/leopards operating together and the tanks will have a hard time keeping up.
BTW - in wartime the Marines expect to get tank platoons loaned to them from the army.
But that 120mm gun... Bradleys and infantry roll with the tank in a mutually supported team. The infantry call in targets that the tank utterly destroys. It makes your enemy run like nothing else... That's how it's supposed to work...
2:47 of note that this isnt entirely true, as the Challenger keeps the vat majority of its ammo charges in a box under the turret, not too different from Russian tanks. In theory if a challenger 2 is struck and penetrated underneath the turret, the projectile could then hit and ignite the ammo and cause a similar large explosion. While the leopard 2 has blowout panels in the back of the turret on the left side, its limited compared to the Abrams, only carrying around 18 rounds, which often leads to Leopard 2 crew using the hull ammo storage in the front left next to the driver. The problem with the hull ammo storage on the leopard is that unlike its turret ammo storage it has no blowout panels and can lead to a massive ammo explosions, as weve seen happen to Turkish leopard 2A4's in Syria. While later leopard 2 variants have better armor they still haven't addressed this weakness.
These news sights talk about blowout panels when in reality most of the ammo is kept in unsafe secondary storage for western and eastern tanks.
When T series tank get ammo racked its due to the secondary ammo storage
3:02 Not 50, its now 109 Bradleys and 60 Strikers. Plus a few hundred more other modern IFVs, some even outclassing the Bradley.
Strikers??? good, Australia 🇦🇺 sent 90 bushmaster armoured vehicles and some updated 113m3b,we have ASLAVs like strikers that are being replaced by Boxers, we could send some off them maybe.🇦🇺🇺🇦
@Loki 76 Yes I know but with our air defenses there they shouldn't be able to do that. I guess what I should say is that they are going to need guided munitions that NATO vehicles can't counter if they want to take them out or try and overwhelm them
@GreenPhantom69 Cruise missiles are used on stationary high value targets. Not on a mobile battlefield with tanks on the move in an offensive.
If they have 5-10 tanks just sitting in a building for maintenance, then yes if they have the information it could be worth sending a cruise missile to that.
But not on a moving battlefield.
Continue to pray for the Ukraine troops and all of the allies fighting with them!!!
It seems that the average modern Western tanks can take out a Russian counter part at longer range which is an even greater advantage than armour thickness. If your enemy is dead before he can shoot at you then the power of his weapon is meaningless.
Its gonna be intressting how the newer leo 2 versions like 2A6 and 2A7 will perform because they have never seen any combat yet
Ah yes, my favorite IFV, the Bump-2
Finally we can see German tanks vs Russian tanks again in Ukraine.
This is going to be epic 🤩🤩🤞
Most tanks are destroyed on modern battle field not by other tanks, but by anti-tank portable missile lanuchers like Kornet.
@Milan Z I actually was against war in Afghanistan since day one and considered it pointless. But I would like to point out that rooskies spent a decade fighting there too, and now in Ukraine they have lost many times more men in a few months that Soviet Union lost 10 years in Afghanistan. But do you think that 2.5 trillion dollars was spent in Afghanistan? Are those dollars now somewhere in Afghanistan, where? No, that money is circulating in western economy. US and EU central banks can always print more money without currency losing value. Russia cannot. In fact, Russia has burnt a lot of money just to keep rouble afloat artificially. But that can only be upheld so far. It's coming crashing down after Russia loses war in Ukraine. The next war in Russia just might be a civil war. Nevertheless, I think we both can agree that there will be many interesting international things to watch in upcoming months and next couple years.
This is the kind of fanboy I like the most, a true believer. The kind of fanboy who actually believed all those reports about how NATO was building a successful democracy in Afghanistan and training a 300.000 strong, effective Afghan army. I'd like to see the looks on their faces when the entire lie and the 2,5 trillion dollar 20 year project came crashing and burning down in just 5 days.
But they just went to the next one - now it's Russians will be out of Crimea soon.
@AfroSyrianDude 🇸🇾 I mean sure, they have inherited old Soyuz tech which is reliable but they have not really developed it much or had significant achievements during post-soviet times. All the newer developments are elsewhere and China is doing more advanced space missions than the Russians can muster now.
Another absolutely astronomical advantage this video kind of forgets is just how much better the sensors and computing systems are in Abrams/Leopard 2A6's/Challis
Together with their guns being effective at much further ranges, simply put, these NATO tanks spot their Russian counterparts from way further away, can hit them from way further away, and defeat the armor on Russian tanks from way further away.
Also, there are several generations ahead on thermals specifically, meaning that where a T-72 tanker has to really squint their eyes and be good at spotting the enemies, even from closer up, T-72's light up like a Christmas tree to things like Abrams, and from far away.
Especially in the forests and rolling hills of Ukraine, these differences will make any fights a lot more one-sided, especially at night. Can't fight what you can't see, is too far away, and won't miss because their weapons are computer-guided
Did you just decide to make up your source for this.
This is false a T72B3 gunner sight is a 2nd gen thermal with 8x zoom. The Abrams being sent also have 2nd gen thermals. I don’t know where you got this idea of western sights being so much better
@H K How’d that strategy work out so far?
@H K Ah yes, glorious cyka sukhoi, gloriously crashing into residential areas behind Russia's own frontlines and using commercial GPS strapped to the console to find its targets.
Abrams/Leo2/Chally2 have nothing to fear from sukhois as long as they don't disguise themselves as orphanages
Sitting ducks for sukhoi
Interesting video from an anglo-saxon perspective! But experts regard the Leopard as the best main battle tank in the world in its respective generation. It is deployed in 15 armies and is widespread throughout Europe.
Well, just a few months we were predicting obsolescence for main battle tanks given drones and anti tank missiles
Hop we were wrong!
How the tanks are used will play an important part in the survival - if the 28 Brit Challengers are going to be used as break through tanks against T80 & 90 in Kremiena with their latest ammo then its going to be like Kursk
Now every civilian is going to be a tank warfare expert
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.
@Vitalii Rudko The Abrams has a weaker gun. Smaller caliber and worse projectiles
@Alex Frey Being heavier than the Leopard 1 doesn't really prove the T-72 is a heavy tank. The leopard 1 prioritised maneuver warfare similar to light tank/tank destroyer doctrines used by the US during WW2.
@Don Al Capone lol Dunning-Kruger effect much?
@K W ‘Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience’
@Don Al Capone 😂 your education system failed you
I see there’s a lot of tank Vs tank comparison. Unfortunately tank vs tank combat is fairly uncommon. Artillery is the dominant force right now in Ukraine and the modern tanks might not be the big tipping point even once they come into the field of combat.
most of tanks actually destroyd by mines. they are in front of attack and mines is what kill them
Given how much Russia and their botski brigade are freaking out about the tanks, that seems to be a sign they'll work.
In this war, there were almost no battles of tanks against tanks, so it is useless to compare them
Also, RU has T90
Finally, RU has anti tank weapons so pls compare them against tanks as it's very likely that they would meet each other
This is the time that the western and Russian tanks will going face to face in the battlefield in Ukraine and show to the world who are the badass of them…
"It's still going to take a few months...". Very interesting theory out there that Ukraine crew training has already been happening in Poland. Plus, given Poland signed up in late 2022 (and a 2nd contract this month) for Abrams tanks, I'd say the logistics and maintenance setup is already well underway right next door to Ukraine.
C'mon, doesn't it sound just silly for any government to give ol Vladolf Putler MONTHS of warning that this is coming.
I think the Bradley’s will be more impactful in the interim than they’re getting credit for. They can still shred Soviet tanks.
A 25? Vs a tank?
@Mikhail RPGs can destroy any tank if shot to the roof or sides. Tanks are only decently armored in the front
@Lahandri Whether it's export versions in Iraq or upgraded versions in Ukraine, T72s have been destroyed in large amounts.
But it a upgrade T72s with well-trained Crews not export version of it with poor-trained Lahandri Iraqi crews.
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.
@Asghaad In fact 1980s Soviet tanks where superior to western tanks
@Asghaad According To the book of Soviet Army and Operation tactics. Heavy emphasis was placed on reconnaissance which would allow tank forces and artillery unites to accurately pin down and destroy western tanks. I assume the misconception of Soviet tanks rushing no matter what comes from movies and pop culture. Actual Soviet doctrine did not call for suicide rushing
@Winston Churchill yeh sorry to tell you but that is exactly how comblock tankers were "trained" we were supposed to be nothing else but cannon fodder using numbers in suicidal frontal charge to try to push through NATO lines
@Asghaad This is not true. Soviet tank doctrine never called for blindly charging. While soviets had numbers. Rushing across a field was certain to get it killed.
It doesnt matter what tank is being used if they are used in fighting without proper infantry and allied support. A lone tank operating by itself in urban combat, WILL be easily taken out.
Also, I bet the US and other countries will give an export version that does not have the more modern and secretive features and armor.
I can’t unhear the bump 2 and also yes the reason they didn’t mention the bmp3 was because it’s superior to the Bradley
United States, might use the same route for heavy logistics, or a C-17 Globemaster III plane per/tank/himars, via *Poland or Kyiv.
The logistics are expensive, as so, the direct route that is taken for pro-rata contracts, must be cost effective with risk management, applied.
The problems with tanks is they are very vulnerable when the enemy has space assets that can spot them easily and good anti tank missiles, they will not last long as the Russians found out at the start of this war, I do not expect even the older US Abrams tanks (not arriving for ages) to last long. will be surprised if the USA send more modern versions like the M1A2 SEPv4.
@Timothy Webb They don’t want their newest tank to be captured. And you can’t just start production on a prototype tank
@Winston Churchill Not a problem as the US will quickly put into production the AbramsX to replace them.
For the Tech to be captured? That will never happen
Properly employed numbers become almost irrelevant.
Look at Desert Storm, even after the air war the battle of easting and others show how an overmatch in technology can lead to hundreds of kills with barely any losses.
If you shoot first and kill first, the engagement cost you nothing but a single round or maybe 2.
Or a TOW from a Bradley vs. a T72 and three russian tankers.
@AfroSyrianDude 🇸🇾 Clearly this logic did not work out in Kharkiv or Kherson or Kyiv.
@Future Time Traveller what? A person who isnt anti russian and listens to Denys davydov, artus rehi, combat veteran and reporting from ukraine 24/7? Wow.
@AfroSyrianDude 🇸🇾 thank you for the common sense
Factor in Artillery and Russia having larger air dominance than ukraine flying constant sorties, its unlikely these vehicles will be used for a offensive.
I feel like this war has put logistics in the spotlight next to the vehicles
"You will not find it difficult to prove that battles, campaigns, and even wars have been won or lost primarily because of logistics.” - General Dwight D. Eisenhower
Convenient for anyone investing in defense...or nations moving tax dollars into said defense companies.
That's how it always is really.
Singapore 🇸🇬 Military SAF ARMY and Ministry of Defence had also then searched for Replacement for the older Light Tank and chosen the Current Leopard 2 A4 MBT.
The Leopard 2 have no chobham amour but a similar armour which is based on the chobham principle. So the amour shouldn't be much weaker.
Soviet tanks are the best! Especially T-72 with modernization upgrades. I successfully invaded Guatemala with the T-72 and defended against a government counterattack easily...If every government upgraded to the T-72, modern warfare would be a stalemate.
😉 hee hee
If Ukraine wants more tanks they got to make deals which benefits the nation sending them like for example If Britain send Tanks in return Ukraine agrees to buy British military vehicles once the war is over which would benefit Britain as it would help to rebuild the British military vehicle industry which would also benefit Ukraine and as British has been training Ukrainians since 2014 the infrastructure already exists to train Ukrainians in new military vehicles
3:13 Bro really just called the BMP-2 a "Bump 2"
BMP-2 БМП-2 (Боевая Машина Пехоты) ( поколение 2)
That's what it's called int the US Army: a 'bimp.'
The formidable , modern and heavily protected Israeli Merkavas were decimated by old RPGs and Coronet missiles in 2006 Lebanon war. Tank battles now only happen in movies. The current war has more to do with heavy artillery and combined arms war.
Challenger 2 tanks are heavily armored and have taken numerous RPG hits. No tank has been destroyed by enemy fire
No tank is invincible
I believe that those tanks took hits in urban combat. No tank that I know of does well in urban combat. Tanks are best suited to relatively open fields where attacks can be anticipated to come from a certain general direction.
Bradley is the more armored type of ifv but it is one of the slowest ifv in the world
I guess we will see who has the better assessment of tanks in the coming months. I have been researching Russian tanks in the last few days, this is a fluff piece to make the west feel good. The T72 along with the T90M has updated rounds that can penetrate the armor of some of the older western tanks. While the western tanks do have their own advantages, it would be stupid to think Russia has done nothing to improve these tanks over the years.
When it comes down to it, crew training can give an inferior tank an advantage.
In WWII, Germany has far superior tanks to Russia's T34 and the US M4, but the numbers where on the side of the allies.
All these tanks are VERY similar. the biggest difference is how they are designed to be used.
Russian tanks have worked great in the past even if a lot were destroyed. western tanks are not necessarily more capable than Russian tanks. would not be the first time "older" tanks went toe to toe. not that all Russian tanks are older. what makes tanks effective is how good their support is and how their used.
I wonder whether the spring offensive will coincide with the timing of the german spring offensive of WW2 and also wonder just how long Ukrainian tank crews have already been training covertly on these machines. Hopefully, peace will come to Ukraine soon
@JustRandomPerson • 67 years ago • edited both things are very different, eating food and saying something is not the same as doing something
@Tututu Tututu Yes and Mussolini used to say “Ciao” and eat pasta, same like many Italians today think about it and don’t deceive yourself.
Not enough time to train crew and deliver these tanks. All numbers are for deliveries during whole this year.
@Tututu Tututu Before you write your nonsense you should learn how to translate "Slava Ukraine" correctly.
But the Russians use T90M and Wagner uses T90S. they use the t72 for close fire support to clear trenches in tree lines
Always a pleasure to see Hugh Grant give his opinion on burning issues.
The US Department of Defense has stated, off the record of course, that they will be sending M1A2 Abrams Tanks to Ukraine but they will NOT be equipped with the Chobum Armour package as this armour is not cleared for export due to its highly classified composition. An alternative armour package will be replacing the Chobum Armour on the recently recalled US Marine M1A2 Abrams Tanks.
Edit: General Dynamics Land Division, who has exclusive production rights to the Abrams Tank, has said they will be installing a Tungsten/Ceramic/Rubber/Steel Meshed Armor instead of the Chobum Armor currently installed on the US Marine Abrams A2's Ukraine will be receiving... They estimated they can convert 3 tanks a week to this "exclusive export" version as soon as the tanks arrive at their manufacturing/modification plant.
Reactive armour tech is usually top secret and not exported by anyone. The Challenger 2s sold to Oman didn't have the best stuff either.
@Brian I have heard of this upgrade but unsure if it has been applied to the older A2 versions. I have heard rumors it is being applied to the A4 versions and possibly even the A3 version.
The Chobham armour package has now been upgraded for the newer Challenger 3, and is now named Dorchester.... A Challenger 2 took 7 consecutive RPG hits in Iraq, from very close rage, but none penetrated the Chobham armour....and the crew were unhurt.
The advantage of Western tanks over Russian ones is they actually have armour.
Sweden is also sending 50 CV90 IFVs and 12 Archer mobile artillery units.
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
Despite the survivability and the modern ammunition, the Russians will make all these vehicles high priority. Russia has always found a way to counter all but the javelin.
I have no doubt the UK will send more challenger 2 tanks in time, as will other NATO countries will send their Leopards. As for Abrams, I think they are going to be more of a problem than they are worth. Speed on delivery and maintenance, special fuel, low mileage per tank of fuel. Not what anyone wants to be worried about when fighting on the front line. More Bradleys would be more sensible.
@Shiranui Australian M1's aren't diesel.
They don't need special fuel; Australia runs them on diesel by default just fine. I think one big advantage the Abrams could have is that there are literally thousands stored in the desert -- and whilst Washington won't send these due to concerns over their classified armor scheme, they could still provide numerous spare parts for those newly built custom export M1s that will be sent to Ukraine some day. With the Leopard I'm not quite so sure just how many parts are available, as European militaries are operating considerably smaller fleets.
Operating both tanks could ultimately, paradoxically make logistics easier as a single supply chain for more vehicles of just one type could more easily run into procurement issues.
Tanks are so hard to maintain, especially when you have different variants with diff ent calibers and parts needed. This is gonna be bad imho and will see them littered. They are not going against flip flops and rpg-7’s
Generally speaking, Russian fighting vehicles are smaller and lighter, making them hard to hit. This should not be ignored.
The big difference to other conflicts is that both parties involved are fighting with minimal air combat support.