First Photos of Destroyed Leopard and Bradley’s, confirmed

[aziqbal]

It is really shortsighted to make a blanket claim that Western equipment is overpriced and over-engineered. Different countries in the West develop their own weapon systems and it is important to understand how these fit into respective defensive schemes or plug capability gaps.

Ukraine was not equipped to fight a war with Russia, this much was apparent when Russia took Crimea in 2014. Ukraine attempted to improve its defenses but Western support was slow to come.

American tanks are far more survivable than any tank given to Ukraine:

M1A2 SEP baseline armor is better than T-90S with Kontakt-5 ERA.

M1A2 SEPv2 baseline armor is better than M1A2 SEP baseline armor. M1A2 SEPv2 can also be equipped with ARAT / TUSK / TUSK II ERA and Trophy APS.

M1A2 SEPv3 baseline armor is even better than M1A2 SEPv2 baseline armor. M1A2 SEPv3 can also be equipped with ARAT / TUSK / TUSK II ERA and Trophy APS.

This photo shows an American M1A2 variant equipped with ARAT and Trophy APS:

You can do the math now.

Russian Lancet loitering munition is good but American forces are no stranger to drone warfare:

How the Army Out-Innovated the Islamic State’s Drones - War on the Rocks

A few short years ago, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant’s improvised attack drones were widely believed to be a threat so grave they could become

warontherocks.com

American forces can also bring a large number of anti air defenses to the field:

M-SHORAD

American inventory = 162
Ukrainian inventory = 0

AN/TWQ-1 Avenger

American inventory = 1100+
Ukrainian inventory = 20

MIM-104 Patriot

PAC-3

Discover PAC-3: A world leader in defense technology for air defense missile systems, delivering unmatched capability across multi-domain environments.

www.lockheedmartin.com

American inventory = 60+
Ukrainian inventory = 2

Ukrainian forces have received a mix of air defense systems from different countries but inventory is limited in the present.

US has not claimed that Ukraine has superiority over Russia in the present.
US is making sure that Ukraine has a fighting chance against Russia.

Understand the difference.

Russia has spent years to prepare to fight a hybrid war with another country with a large variety of weapon systems and battle tactics. US has developed the required level of combined arms operations capability to defeat Russia (or another country) in a hybrid war but Ukrainian forces have capability gaps in this regime that US can help plug in time.

that is precisely my point

US has the full spectrum of warfare and yet refuse to supply Ukraine with any of it

handing over individual kits which are meant to work as part of a wider integrated defence network diminishes their capabilities or at at least greatly reducing them

they hand over HIMAR but not the M-SHORAD?

they hand over Bradley but no Mine clearing vehicles

do you really believe deep down that US cares about Ukrainians? you know fine well they are just out to damage Russia as much as possible for as long as possible even the Congress admitted it

the quicker they realise they are being owned on the battle field the more chance they will hand over better equipment

what they dont realise is Russia is growing stronger any by day and they have just United the whole nation

 

[NotSure]

they hand over HIMAR but not the M-SHORAD?

This and the Avanger are NOT real SHORAD systems, they are toys and the perfect example, why the USA and whole nato are amateurs in the ground based airdef.

Because it has tiny Manpads missiles with awfull bad kinematics. Even the Russian low tier Airdef Strela-10 has missiles weighting 4 (!) times the Stinger with it's ~10kg. You can't trick physics.

And systems like Pantsir and Tor are playing in a whole different league.

Regarding the topic:

https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/15cqbz7

Full version:

 

[LeGenD]

This and the Avanger are NOT real SHORAD systems, they are toys and the perfect example, why the USA and whole nato are amateurs in the ground based airdef.

Because it has tiny Manpads missiles with awfull bad kinematics. Even the Russian low tier Airdef Strela-10 has missiles weighting 4 (!) times the Stinger with it's ~10kg. You can't trick physics.

And systems like Pantsir and Tor are playing in a whole different league.

Both Ukraine and Russia have lost scores of Strela-10, Pantsir, and Buk family of systems in the war. This is visually confirmed.

Avenger and even man-portable stingers are doing well on the other hand. These have downed numerous drones and even Ka-52 gunships. Tiny and awful bad kinematics indeed.

You decide which explosive is better on the basis of its weight? Very smart of you.

 

[NotSure]

Both Ukraine and Russia have lost scores of Strela-10, Pantsir, and Buk family of systems in the war. This is visually confirmed.

Avenger and even man-portable stingers are doing well on the other hand. These have downed numerous drones and even Ka-52 gunships. Tiny and awful bad kinematics indeed.

You decide which explosive is better on the basis of its weight? Very smart of you.

It is, because i am taking the laws of physics and chemistry into account. All your arrogant polemic changes nothing about this.

The internal volume and the mass are growing cubical with the growing size of a missile, but the surface area and so the air friction only quadratic. And it is even more problematic, because you need a minimal mass of the warhead plus the guidance system. If you only have 10kg for the whole missile and 3kg are the mass of the warhead, well, then you don't have much mass left for the rocket fuel itself. And even the 3kg warhead mass are not much, the Strela-10 has 5kg out of 42kg, ~12% and not >30%, so the fuel fraction is MUCH bigger and the kinematics are much superior. Even if the range of both missiles is listed as similar.

And i really hope you don't wanna start arguing about Russian rocket engines ...

 

[jhungary]

You are a laughing stock. You don't even the know the most basic things about your own murican MBT or even the most basic things about every tank in the world: The turret cheeks are ALWAYS the most protected part. And then you start arguing and polluting this and other threads with huge amounts of garbage text. Every jhungary post the same story, the same behavrior pattern.

Are you for real??

Do you even read your own source? Can you read the RHA number on each of the sector? Do you know what is RHAe

We are talking about the armour protection, as in the thickness of the armour, not the effective armour number (or rolled homogeneous armour equivalency). The reason why the RHAe in that panel there is the biggest because it shot 90 degree perpendicular to a 30 degree angled armour, the spacing between 2 armoured plate are going to have the maximum thickness it can offer in that PARTICULAR angle. It can ONLY achieves that number theoretically when you hit at that exact angle because that's where the panel was laid out, the gap between different plate are at a different angle, a 100mm thick armour laid on a 45 degree slope will provide 200mm effective thickness if the projectile travel horizontally like so

But it still would be 100mm thick steel, because that ONLY worked if the round come at 0 degree. the RHAe number REDUCES when the angle is higher or lower. That does not mean any projectile shot at any range and at angle would have the same RHAe.

Even the same leaked document said the value is lower in front and side due to different geometric and technical constrain. Read the line highlighted in red

 

[NotSure]

Are you for real??

Do you even read your own source? Can you read the RHA number on each of the sector? Do you know what is RHAe

We are talking about the armour protection, as in the thickness of the armour, not the effective armour number. The reason why the RHAe in that panel there is the biggest because it shot 90 degree perpendicular to a 30 degree angled armour, the spacing between 2 armoured plate are going to have the maximum thickness it can offer in that PARTICULAR angle. It only achieves that number theoretically when you hit at that exact angle because that's where the panel was laid out, the gap between different plate are at a different angle, a 100mm thick armour laid on a 45 degree slope will provide 200mm effective thickness if the projectile travel horizontally like so

View attachment 942207

But it still would be 100mm thick steel, because that ONLY worked if the round come at 0 degree. the RHAe number REDUCES when the angle is higher or lower. That does not mean any projectile shot at any range and at angle would have the same RHAe.

Even the same leaked document said the value is lower in front and side due to different geometric and technical constrain. Read the line highlighted in red

View attachment 942206

The nearly 90° hit reduces some of the effective Armor of the sloped turret cheek? Orly, captain obvious? What else you wanna tell us? 1+1=2?

But the turret cheeks are still the most armored part and even if you take this into account, you still have the most armored part like the frontal part around the driver. And it got penetrated.

This again is a typical jhungary post: Blowing out obvious and complete irrelevant facts out of proportions and writing huge amounts of text to LARP here around as an expert and defend the Nato narrative.

I am looking forward to see burning abrams and your rhetoric circus tricks you will bring here, to cope with it. Maybe something like a copy of your "it's not the M777" attraction?

 

[jhungary]

The nearly 90° hit reduces some of the effective Armor of the sloped turret cheek? Orly, captain obvious? What else you wanna tell us? 1+1=2?

But the turret cheeks are still the most armored part and even if you take this into account, you still have the most armored part like the frontal part around the driver. And it got penetrated.

This again is a typical jhungary post: Blowing out obvious and complete irrelevant facts out of proportions and writing huge amounts of text to LARP here around as an expert and defend the Nato narrative.

First of all, again, we are not talking about the RHAe

Secondly, that's what RHAe stand for, when you hit an point of armour in a particular degree, I had already show you the picture that show you how the sloped armour work. You seems to know shit about this, even after the picture

.

AND IT ONLY WORK IN CERTAIN ANGLE and that's also theoretically

Thirdly, driver is NOT inside the turret on a M1 Abrams. Driver compartment is separated and in the lower part of the tank

And finally, I can't tell you the exact number of the composite armour in a M1, but if you read the map in between the line, you know the skid pad (what we called as a tanker) on the turret is at least twice thinner than the hull, the reason why RHAe in the hull is low because of its angle, you literally cannot drive a tank if the surface you are on is on a 30 degree slope..

Well, guess what happens, when the HEAT beam penetrates the ammo bunker door from the inside, thats the point here. You have burning ammo with a huge overpressure and a hole from this to the crew compartment. Plus all the effects from the Kornet HEAT beam itself and the penetrated main armor.

The only way the crew could have survived this, is by not beeing inside the tank at all. Maybe this was the case, maybe, but this is not the archievement of the Abrams armor.

The video posted by jhungary is an another story, the Metis hits the ammo compartment from the side, so the blowout panels were able to work like intended.

That's the same incident dude and that Metis-M does not hit ammo compartment from the side, because the ammo locker is IN THE BACK.

 

[NotSure]

This again is a typical jhungary post: Blowing out obvious and complete irrelevant facts out of proportions and writing huge amounts of text to LARP here around as an expert and defend the Nato narrative.

Thirdly, driver is NOT inside the turret on a M1 Abrams. Driver compartment is separated and in the lower part of the tank

Oh really? The driver it not in the turret?? Wow!

And i thought, the driver is inside the engine compartment. I bet, our military expert of galactic proportions will now explain to me, that the engine is in the engine compartment. So much knowledge, so much expertise ...

 

[jhungary]

Oh really? The driver it not in the turret?? Wow!

So you admit you have no point on the other huh??

Okay I got it.

Here, have a banana

Jeff Daniel didn't even know why I bring up that point

And finally, I can't tell you the exact number of the composite armour in a M1, but if you read the map in between the line, you know the skid pad (what we called as a tanker) on the turret is at least twice thinner than the hull, the reason why RHAe in the hull is low because of its angle, you literally cannot drive a tank if the surface you are on is on a 30 degree slope..

 

[jhungary]

I seriously don't know what is stupider

A guy who talk about armour protection using RHAe as reference? Or a guy who think he knows more about American tanks than an American Tanker...

In case people don't follow our history of conversation

Nobody would EVER use RHAe when they talk about armour protection, because what RHAe means is armor protection for a vehicle is at its strongest in certain degree, but that also mean it would have been the weakest if they were hit with a certain degree, as this is what sloped armor do, which basically negate the discussion of armor protection. Yes at 90 degree angle, slide plate offers the best protection, but at the same time, on a top down strike, at nearly 30 degree, the side plate offer the LEAST protection. That's why top down ATGM attack is so lethal.

So, it is the strongest AND THE WEAKEST at the same time depends on angle, then why use this as a parameter to refer to armor protection?

As for the second point. Well, if he really do think he know more about Abrams from downloading maps or diagram from the internet than a person who spend 13 weeks in armour school actually learning the thing, then all I can say is BAWHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

 

[MeFishToo]

Regarding the topic:

https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/15cqbz7

Full version:

Mines stopped those vehicles. That russian tank was firing at abandoned vehicles to the right and into the wooded area where the dismounted infantry probably seeked cover.

 

[NotSure]

I seriously don't know what is stupider

A guy who talk about armour protection using RHAe as reference? Or a guy who think he knows more about American tanks than an American Tanker...

In case people don't follow our history of conversation

Nobody would EVER use RHAe when they talk about armour protection, because what RHAe means is armor protection for a vehicle is at its strongest in certain degree, but that also mean it would have been the weakest if they were hit with a certain degree, as this is what sloped armor do, which basically negate the discussion of armor protection. Yes at 90 degree angle, slide plate offers the best protection, but at the same time, on a top down strike, at nearly 30 degree, the side plate offer the LEAST protection. That's why top down ATGM attack is so lethal.

So, it is the strongest AND THE WEAKEST at the same time depends on angle, then why use this as a parameter to refer to armor protection?

As for the second point. Well, if he really do think he know more about Abrams from downloading maps or diagram from the internet than a person who spend 13 weeks in armour school actually learning the thing, then all I can say is BAWHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

View attachment 942226

You really, i mean REALLY, had to write this post, don't ya? The complexes are soo deep and heavy, heavier than the Abrooms behemoth itself.

I haven't even mentioned the term "RHAe" one single time. Not once. The point is and always was: The turret and the rest of the frontal area are the most armored part of any tank. The cheeks are losing some % from an not optimal angle? So what? They are still very good armored and they got pierced. And the Kornet would pierce you driver section like nothing and all the other parts of your garbage tank.

All your masturbation here is so irrelevant and only serves one thing: To larp here around and serve your complex ridden ego. It is all the same behavrior pattern, our ony trick pony jhungary shows in almost every post. I will not repeat myself again. Other user can read it and then make their own conclusions.

 

[NotSure]

Mines stopped those vehicles. That russian tank was firing at abandoned vehicles to the right and into the wooded area where the dismounted infantry probably seeked cover.

Ah, the ebil rooskies had the ebil mines there, so unfair. I wonder myself: Why didn't they drove around the minefield, like the one Bundeswehr moron mentioned it?

Ah (again) i forgot: This is the reality, not the fantasy world, where all you Nato bots are living after consuming Hollywood garbage for decades. And you are using Ukrainians as cannon fodder.

Simple as that.

 

[MeFishToo]

Ah, the ebil rooskies had the ebil mines there, so unfair. I wonder myself: Why didn't they drove around the minefield, like the one Bundeswehr moron mentioned it?

Ah (again) i forgot: This is the reality, not the fantasy world, where all you Nato bots are living after consuming Hollywood garbage for decades. And you are using Ukrainians as cannon fodder.

Simple as that.

Whats your point? I was addressing the claim. That “single tank crew” didnt do a thing to stop that advancing column. I actually doubt the russian and ukrainian vehicles had visual contact because of the wooded area. The russian tank was firing at the disabled vehicles to the right and the treeline next to them.
Now please dont tell me I live in a fantasy world, while using alternative facts as an argument.

 

[jhungary]

I haven't even mentioned the term "RHAe" one single time. Not once. The point is and always was: The turret and the rest of the frontal area are the most armored part of any tank. The cheeks are losing some % from an not optimal angle? So what? They are still very good armored and they got pierced. And the Kornet would pierce you driver section like nothing and all the other parts of your garbage tank.

Then do tell me where in this graph, which you quoted, said turret armour is better protected then the rest if you are not saying RHAe?

You use a graphic that listed RHAe as your reference point that tanks in that bit are better protected than the rest. Which is first of all, again, not what we had talk about, and second of all, it did not related to what we are talking about. Again, if tanks are better protected by certain angle at that particular point, then there ALWAYS exist an angle that were LEAST protected by the same point if the entry angle are different.

And still you are too stupid to realise why they use sloped armour in that part of the tank, which I had already explained but you nonchalantly burst it off as "It's obvious captain obvious comment" without even realise why I put that on, you don't have enough space to work in that area, that's why the armour is sloped, and that's what RHAe implied, because sloped armour will always be smaller in thickness, that's why you put it on a slope, otherwise you would have used spaced composited armour instead of slope. Again, if you read the leaked document between the line, you know that the frontal hull is around 60-80 degree slope, yet it offer 650-750 RHAe, you then look at the turret, it's on a 30 degree slope, ad it offer 1000 RHAe. That tells you that part of turret armour is at least half as thin as the hull armour. But you would not have a clue on that now don't ya?

That's your mistake, instead of owning up to it like a grown man, you ride it thru like a monkey.

THIS POST ONLY SHOW THAT YOU KNOW THE SQUARE ROOT OF JACK SHIT ABOUT TANKS. I do not expect this post of mind will be explained or refuted by any technicality from you, but what I do expect is name calling and personal insult from you.