M-1 Abrams complaints

I think it is worth pointing out that all of the weapons the west is giving Ukraine are generally old (1960-1990 era) and in many cases have had all sensitive items removed so they are not the same weapons Russia will face if it drags its sorry arse over a NATO border.
 
NATO tanks if I can use that term aren't wonder weapons. They might increase the survivability of the crew, but they can be destroyed by must cheaper drones or anti-tank missiles
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
NATO tanks if I can use that term aren't wonder weapons. They might increase the survivability of the crew, but they can be destroyed by must cheaper drones or anti-tank missiles
Click to expand...
NATO does not really have an armoured or artillery heavy doctrine though, the "punch" of NATO has always been its air power.
But I think it is wrong to compare a stripped down M1A1 with an fully kitted out American equipped M1A2 SEP3/4, certainly no weapon is indestructible but the Ukrainians are not using the most modern version of any western weapon, even the Patriot systems are 1980s versions.
 
MontyB said:
NATO does not really have an armoured or artillery heavy doctrine though, the "punch" of NATO has always been its air power.
But I think it is wrong to compare a stripped down M1A1 with an fully kitted out American equipped M1A2 SEP3/4, certainly no weapon is indestructible but the Ukrainians are not using the most modern version of any western weapon, even the Patriot systems are 1980s versions.
Click to expand...
That's true. The West has provided Ukraine with weapons to survive (barely) and expecting them to win. But they are now allowed to attack Russians within Russia
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
That's true. The West has provided Ukraine with weapons to survive (barely) and expecting them to win. But they are now allowed to attack Russians within Russia
Click to expand...
I am not sure why they need to create these rules, surely the easiest way to handle it would be to say you can only use western weapons from Ukrainian soil, you can fire them at any valid Russian military target but only from the territory of Ukraine.

What the hell is the PBV302 and will it damage as many Ukrainian backs as the M-113?
 
George said:
Biden said he was arming to prevent defeat, not victory sometime ago, no official change.
Click to expand...
I think the west has been doing that from the beginning, but while Trump remains a threat I think western nation need to be planning for four years without the US.
I hear they have dusted off plans for a European defence force again.
 
MontyB said:
I am not sure why they need to create these rules, surely the easiest way to handle it would be to say you can only use western weapons from Ukrainian soil, you can fire them at any valid Russian military target but only from the territory of Ukraine.

What the hell is the PBV302 and will it damage as many Ukrainian backs as the M-113?
Click to expand...
I burst out laughing when I saw Sweden will provide Ukraine with the old 302. It would be much better if we provide them with the howitzer 77
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
I burst out laughing when I saw Sweden will provide Ukraine with the old 302. It would be much better if we provide them with the howitzer 77
Click to expand...
It is hard to say, I don't think anyone thought that the M-113 would have a role either but it seems to be filling a void and Ukraine seems to be able to adapt almost anything to make do.

It is rather amusing that Ukraine has been upgraded with 1960-2000 equipment and the Russians have been degraded to 1960-2000 equipment.
 
MontyB said:
It is hard to say, I don't think anyone thought that the M-113 would have a role either but it seems to be filling a void and Ukraine seems to be able to adapt almost anything to make do.

It is rather amusing that Ukraine has been upgraded with 1960-2000 equipment and the Russians have been degraded to 1960-2000 equipment.
Click to expand...
I thought we only had a few and they were in museums. It has a 20mm canon so it can bite more than the M-113. It must be fitted with better sights and night vision equipment to suit the modern battlefields.
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
I thought we only had a few and they were in museums. It has a 20mm canon so it can bite more than the M-113. It must be fitted with better sights and night vision equipment to suit the modern battlefields.
Click to expand...
I think the number is something like 230-260 vehicles.
 
MontyB said:
I think the number is something like 230-260 vehicles.
Click to expand...
It is/was a pretty good IFV, but it needs modern equipment to be suited for this war.

I have since the 1980s believed to combine the IFV with the MBT. IFVs and APCs are too easy to take out due to the thin armor and this war has fertilized this idea. MBTs have a higher level of protection and increases the survivability of the crew
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
It is/was a pretty good IFV, but it needs modern equipment to be suited for this war.

I have since the 1980s believed to combine the IFV with the MBT. IFVs and APCs are too easy to take out due to the thin armor and this war has fertilized this idea. MBTs have a higher level of protection and increases the survivability of the crew
Click to expand...
At the rate this is going I don't think we are going to need IFVs, battlefields will just be swarms of FPV drones destroying each other.
 
George said:
Retired General's response. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/worl...1&cvid=2ab9eb12d8964fb594dd6b2352ff9868&ei=74
Click to expand...
I have seen a number of discussions with Ukrainian tank crews about western MBTs and most of them were positive, the general complaint was that this is not the warfare they were designed to be used in as they are almost entirely operating without air and artillery support.

The Challenger gets an excellent write up from their crews who seem to regard them as armoured sniper rifles.

Most of the stories I see these days are talking about the removal of the best Western MBTs from the front in order to form a mobile armoured force to counter a any breakthrough in the expected Russian summer offensive.

I agree with him and the point is amplified by the seen in the early days of the Ukrainian counter offensive in the south where it appeared you had some Ukrainian units doing stupid things and losing vehicles by the truck load and others using their equipment in a more "NATO" way and suffering far fewer loses, Western equipment is designed to kept maintained and used in certain ways and I suspect some Ukrainians are still treating them like Soviet vehicles that you run into the ground then wander off to find something else.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top