U.S. Abrams tanks withdrawn from front in Ukraine.

submitted by Dune1032 from msn.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Smalls 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Bradleys most certainly changed the course of the war. It's not always about firepower, either. This war is showing how all tanks are being defeated with drones. We're in a new era of warfare. Like u/Dune1032 stated, Ukraine is being used, in part, as a testing ground for old (and probably some new, un-reported) technologies for the U.S. with no official troop losses for the U.S.

[–]weavilsatemyface 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Bradleys most certainly changed the course of the war.

In what way?

This war is showing how all tanks are being defeated with drones.

Yes, drones have shifted the balance of power away from tanks. But you'll notice that Russia has adapted and is still able to use tanks effectively while Ukraine cannot.

What was hilarious was all the NAFO idi0ts laughing at Russia for putting up "cope cages" early in the war... until Ukraine started doing the same.

[–]Smalls 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Like your other comment, the Bradley is an infantry support vehicle (although it has been used in armored combat to some effectiveness). It is superior to anything else on the battlefield in Ukraine and with Ukraine having the shortfall of troops compared to Russia, they need all the help they can get. They not only outgun and outmaneuver, but also keep the guys inside alive more often to fight another day.

[–]weavilsatemyface 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

the Bradley ... is superior to anything else on the battlefield in Ukraine

I'm not saying this to downplay the bravery and skill of the two Bradley teams that took on and defeated the T90M, but they were only able to do so because they caught the tank at close range in a village where their maneuverability and the available cover prevented the tank from hitting them. Had the tank caught them in an open field at longer range, the T90M's main gun would have destroyed the pair of them in two shots. The Bradley is a good Infantry Fighting Vehicle, but they don't have a main battle tank's armour and a T90M would have eaten them for breakfast out in the open.

According to people who compare these sorts of things, the Russian BM-3 IFV is "clearly better" than the Bradley -- lower profile, lighter, faster, more maneuverable, with better weapons. Perhaps the only reason we haven't seen more of them is that with slightly less armour than the Bradley they are more vulnerable to drones. In a one-on-one shootout between a BMP-3 and the Bradley, most people expect the BMP-3 to win.

The Bradley comes with two TOW missiles, but because they are wire-guided it has to come to an almost full stop to fire them, not what you want to do if the tank you are firing at has you in its sights. The BMP-3 has only a single ATGM pre-loaded but it can fire it from full speed and reload from inside the vehicle for a second shot.

[–]Smalls 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah. I meant that the Bradley is superior to anything in its class. My bad.

Better in some aspects, but does that mean better on this battlefield? Is it better to be in a machine with more chance of survivability during assault that can see the enemy before they can see you? Which areas do you compromise for the better advantage?

I think this comes down to how many does each side have and how they use them. Each has is advantages and each is capable given the training/experience of the crews.

[–]weavilsatemyface 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Bradleys are not too shabby. Here are two Bradleys which managed to defeat a Russia T90M. The Russian crew all survived. It is interesting just how much "technical problems" the Bradleys had. Still, even with those issues, they did pretty good.

These guys have balls of steel. A single Russian T80 took on and defeated an entire Ukrainian armoured column.

And a Russian T72 destroyed an M1 Abrams with a single shot. Of course the Americans are all crying that Ukraine isn't using the tanks properly -- despite all that NATO training they don't know how to use NATO weapons or fight with NATO tactics 😂 🙄 -- and say that the right way to use the Abrams is to have it drive behind a screen of IFVs, with air support, and foot soldiers so that the enemy can't get close enough to fight it.

This is how the British Challenger tank is used: keep it in the rear so it never enters combat. That way it is unbeatable.

[–]Smalls 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Like you said, the problem with the Abrams is that it needs massive logistical support. The Ukraine military is not set up for it. The U.S. has told Ukraine to keep the Abrams off the front lines, too. They didn't.

As far as adapting, there have been countermeasures, and then counter-counter-measures, and then counter-counter-countermeasures, and it will continue until wars end. We have recently seen both the Russian and Ukraine drone operators adapt to the ECM's designed to thwart them. The cages. wooden barriers, et al, are being surpassed with multiple drone strikes, with each drone having a specific purpose.

[–]weavilsatemyface 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The U.S. has told Ukraine to keep the Abrams off the front lines, too.

Why on earth have Abrams then, if you can't actually fight a war with them? Are they for show, like the British Challenger? Only good for slaughtering Iraqi insurgents armed with AK-47s and Afghani goat herders armed with sticks?

The Ukrainian soldiers have been suicidally brave, Russia has been casualty-adverse. If Putin was Stalin, he would have declared a war, not just a special military operation, and sent in two million conscripts and Kiev would have fallen in six months. But Putin started the SMO with career soldiers, not conscripts, and they were outnumbered at least two to one, and still Russia has won every major fight with the NATO-armed, NATO-trained, NATO-supported second biggest army in Europe.

As far as adapting, there have been countermeasures, and then counter-counter-measures

Right. But Russia is adapting faster, and better, while NATO weapons and tactics have been failing badly.

Russia has taken about a fifth or more of Ukraine, not including Crimea, with relatively low casualties considering the nature of high-intensity combat in the 21st century. They have smashed something like the first three, or four, mobilized Ukrainian armies, while only needing to rotate their own once so far. They have gained full air superiority. Ukraine has been unable recapture any significant territory, they have only taken back territory Russia voluntarily withdrew from (Russia withdraw from the Kiev region as a good faith gesture for the peace talks in Turkey; they withdrew from Kherson when it became clear they were over-extended (captured too much ground too quickly).

This withdrawal so surprised Ukraine that they thought it was a trap. Zelensky said “It’s important to understand: no one leaves any place just like that” but the Russians did exactly that. The Ukrainians went against a light screening force of national guardsmen and LNR militia, walked into Kherson almost unopposed, and failed to inflict heavy losses on either Russian men or matériel.

Compared to the Ukrainian Army of 2014, which fled Mariupol without a fight when challenged by the half-trained Donbas militia, and only took the city back when Putin pressured the militia to withdraw from the city -- a strategic blunder which many people in the Donbas still consider to be a betrayal -- the modern Ukrainian forces have been brave and tough but even with a two-to-one advantage at the start of the war they never stood a chance.