• aaaaaaadjsf [he/him, comrade/them]
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    Yes Ukraine is getting the export version of the Abrams with all the classified depleted uranium armour removed. This is a huge difference in armour protection levels. The difference between export and domestic models in tanks are stark, just look at how Iraqi T-72 export tanks faired in the Gulf war, vs domestic Eastern German T-72 tanks in tests against Western weapons after German reunification. Same thing is happening here. The export model Abrams has much less protection.

      • TrashGoblin [he/him, they/them]
        ·
        7 months ago

        Ukrainian crews say the fundamental problem is that the Abrams were built for advances aided by air power and artillery, which Ukraine lacks.

        It seems to me like this might be the absolute biggest problem.

          • 7bicycles [he/him]
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            base your entire military doctrine around air superiority

            fight the other former superpower that also knows this and therefore has world leading air defence

            ??????
            all my tanks broke

            There's gotta be like 100 US STRATCOM guys shitting, pissing, screaming about this exact scenario to no avail as they keep sending more equipment that gets owned by a by some late 70s soviet stockpile shit with an accountable value of "Wait, why do we still have this?"

        • Adkml [he/him]
          ·
          7 months ago

          All of Americas combat doctrine assumes you're doing strafing runs on rural farmers and have total air superiority.

          We have no idea how to fight an actual peer.

      • aaaaaaadjsf [he/him, comrade/them]
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        The export models also have different electronics as well, as some of the lastest sights/night vision is also classified. So likely some contractor did a shoddy job changing out the electronics for the non classified stuff, so everything shorts out, or the tank wasn't designed for it in the first place. It's definitely a ridiculous design flaw if the entire tank shorts out when changing electronic systems out.

        • BakerBagel@midwest.social
          ·
          7 months ago

          They have also veen in service since 1980. Western countries have just been unloading all their shitty old inventory on Ukraine. I would be shocked if any of the tabks Ukraine received are less than 20 years old

    • Staines [they/them]
      ·
      7 months ago

      The classified natoid armour was removed from frontal aspects that are designed to defeat APFSDS rounds in tank vs tank combat. Meanwhile, Russian drones are hitting spots that never had that armour in the first place by going for weakspots like the roof or the poorly protected ammo compartment at the back of the turret.

      Even if these tanks were rolling around with their original armour, it wouldn't have saved any of the tanks that have been defeated so far. peltier-laugh

    • RyanGosling [none/use name]
      ·
      7 months ago

      I get that they bastardize the export models so the enemy can’t reverse engineer it, but man. If your customer is also your supposed close ally, and they’re in the middle of a brutal war, maybe it’s worth giving them advanced technology to win if you actually care lol

      • Adkml [he/him]
        ·
        7 months ago

        To be America's enemy is dangerous, to be her ally is absolutely fatal.

        There is literally no historical or material reason to believe that America gives a single shit about its allies other than whether or not the check clears and if not what industries they'll let us take over.

      • 7bicycles [he/him]
        ·
        7 months ago

        If your customer is also your supposed close ally

        debatable

      • Meh [comrade/them]
        ·
        7 months ago

        Well I think you hit the nail on the head there. The US clearly doesn't care.

      • Gucci_Minh [he/him]
        cake
        ·
        7 months ago

        It's also gigantic, with a focus on crew comfort and survivability. Compare the side profile vs the T-72

        Show

        The chassis itself lends a lot of weight to the design. The armour on the frontal arc is guesstimated to be thicker in the later variants of the M1A2 vs say a T-90A, but the T-90 is also 20 tons lighter, can actually cross a bridge, and doesn't have the profile of a small house.

        Either way none of this matters when a Shahed/Geran/PG-7V tied to a DJI quadcopter can kill any tank.

        • bbnh69420 [she/her, they/them]
          cake
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          Is this why they were sinking into the ground and annihilating highways year or two ago, or is that just because of mud in Eastern Europe? (I’ve seen plenty of Russian vids with APCs stuck in the muck)

          • Gucci_Minh [he/him]
            cake
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            The mud is next level and any afv will have trouble with rasputitsa. The mud yields very easily because it's saturated with water, and you would need significantly lower ground pressure to get by, hence the logs on the back of Soviet tanks; tie it to the tracks and have the tank dig itself out.

            As for highways, it was probably a combination of the weight as well as poorly maintained/missing rubber track pads.