The Russian tanks seem to have taken a beating ...

[dogtag]

As they say "truth is the first casualty in war", so, if the pictures
and reports are to be believed, they did indeed take a beating.
Which begs the question; Was the tank's defence not up to par,
or were the weapons used against it just too powerful. If it was
the quality of the weapons, then how would Allied tanks fare ?
The Abrams has been in service for years - has it been updated ?
What about the British Challenger ? the German Leopard ? the
French Leclerc ?
Maybe the Battle Tank like the Battleship, has had it's day ?

[togor]

Any platform-centric army, including that of the United States, has to be mindful of what these new weapons can do.

[Vern Humphrey]

As they say "truth is the first casualty in war", so, if the pictures
and reports are to be believed, they did indeed take a beating.
Which begs the question; Was the tank's defence not up to par,
or were the weapons used against it just too powerful. If it was
the quality of the weapons, then how would Allied tanks fare ?
The Abrams has been in service for years - has it been updated ?
What about the British Challenger ? the German Leopard ? the
French Leclerc ?
Maybe the Battle Tank like the Battleship, has had it's day ?

The Abrams has been repeatedly upgraded -- in fact it was designed to take upgrades regularly. The most impressive are:

Upgunning -- from 105mm rifled gun to 120mm smooth bore.
Depleted Uranium (DU) incorporated in the armor.
"Glass cockpit" technology
Computer based graphic information system.

[dryheat]

I never thought tanks or submarines was something I wanted to sign up for.

[Vern Humphrey]

As a Mechanized Infantry Company Commander, I worked with tanks all the time. The standard American practice is to "cross attach" forming Company Teams composed of a platoon of tanks and two platoons of infantry (or vice versa.)

[dogtag]

Could the upgraded Abrams survive a Javelin hit ?
I know it depends on where it's hit so assume the worst place.

[togor]

Could the upgraded Abrams survive a Javelin hit ?
I know it depends on where it's hit so assume the worst place.

A lot of M1s were knocked out in Iraq and later repaired. So in the stats they're marked as getting dinged as opposed to destroyed. But if the Iraqis can do that with IEDs then one likes the Javelin's odds.

[dryheat]

Those tanks seem to rust pretty fast. War is kind of hell. Just when you think it's over, you get this craziness. I will stand by my assertion, that we should step over all this European stuff. That's what was said prior to the beginning of WWII. People. Jeez. You think the poor and women are abused? How about a percentage of the world? While we fret about Africans who have starved for thousands of years and are used to it. I'm not crazy about anyone close to Russia but with some work and a millennium (spelling that was work) they might turn out to be worthwhile.

[rayg]

Those tanks seem to rust pretty fast.

I would assume when all the oils, paint are burned off and it rusts fast!

[Vern Humphrey]

A lot of M1s were knocked out in Iraq and later repaired. So in the stats they're marked as getting dinged as opposed to destroyed. But if the Iraqis can do that with IEDs then one likes the Javelin's odds.

Almost all those were "mobility kills." Essentially damage to the running gear. The tanks themselves were quickly put back into action.

[Art]

Most of the tanks the Russians are deploying seem to be older T72s and T80s that have been upgraded and not the newer T90s. The Russian tanks are classed as main battle tanks but in an earlier generation when tank types were based on weight they would have been considered medium tanks.

No matter what platform you use it will not overcome poor training, poor morale and poor maintenance all of which seem to plague the Russians in The Ukraine.

Is the armor on the Abrams proof against a modern western missile like the javeline, probably not, especially if hit from the top, and definitely not if hit multiple times. The Russian Kornet missile came as a rude surprise in Iraq as if proved capable of defeating the armor of the Abrams. The armor has been upgraded since then but so have Russian anti tank missile systems.

On hitting more than once. I remember the story, confirmed by an Abrams crew of an incident involving a Soviet era T72 tank in Iraq. It seems the Abrams stopped within a few hundred yards of a T72 at night. The Abrams was oblivious to the T72. The T72 slammed a 125mm HEAT round into the side of the Abrams completely disabling its electrical system. The correct thing to do was to hit the Abrams again which the Iraqui's were apparently to afraid to do, instead they skeedadled out of there. The Abrams was back in action in a few days.

This brings me to the difference between "knocked out" and "destroyed." A "knocked out" tank can usually be repaired if it can be retrieved. This is why armies spend a lot of resources on Tank Retrievers. A destroyed tank is wrecked beyond repair.

The "rusty" vehicles. Ferrous material that is subject to great heat like burning fuel and ammunition rusts very quickly. Those destroyed Russian vehicles are rusting quickly because of burning fuel and ammunition.

Manueuver kills can be achieved with any weapon that can destroy the running gear including plain old RPG 7s.