I understand that the shell didn’t kill any crew members. But what you have to understand, is that the shot that he made one year ago would 100% disable an Abrams today. That shot will 100% take out the turret ring. He wouldn’t have died.
Yes the Abrams would have still survived to die on the next reload.
His shot still immobilized him, meanwhile i survived with my autoloader turning orange. But it’s convenient for you to ignore that.
They plan to fit it to tanks and IFVS you don’t need a lot of power because you aren’t shooting it miles away.
I am Hydro engineer
Supply lines impact FPV drones?
Again collapsing lines just shows poor Russian scouting/light infantry doctrine they should be sweeping and securing the flanks of a pocket and not allowing UA to push back in ambush forces.
Considering that many drones now fly at an altitude of 1 meter, expensive lasers and air defense systems are useless.
Drones are easier to produce, smaller, cheaper. I somehow doubt you’re a hydro engineer… but for now I’ll believe you.
Judging by how big that system looks, it is a massive burden that likely big down advances.
But that image you sent isnt all that great.
There were barely 200 MBTs supplied by the NATO to Ukraine. They didn’t even have the best upgrades since the US had to remove the DU from the armor and couldn’t send the M829 series of rounds due to DU export restrictions. The Pentagon also didn’t want to send the Abrams to Ukraine because they knew it wouldn’t perform well without all the supporting infrastructure
Clearly not and why do they fly at 1m?
Because of air defences, drones have massive RCS and even outdated systems like Gepard can detect and destroy drones so they fly low, which massively reduces FOV and the drone run low on battery and chose the next target usually some poor Soldier on a quad or in a trench while the camouflaged SPG/Tank is hiding in the woods untouched.
ven if the latest modification of the Abrams is used, it does not meet the standards of modern warfare and will have to be modified in a makeshift manner.
You swear the M1A1 could defeat a humble T72A? Who would have thought, right, Sherlock Holmes
Yes, they explode, they explode just like Leopards, just like Challenger, just leclerc if you hit ammo, so what a superiority from NATO wow
The number of tank is closer to 600, and that’s just counting tanks. There’s thousands of supplied vehicles. Including IFVs and so on.
Thousands of ATGMs xyz. It’s always easier to defend rather than go on the offensive. Aka why people camp so much in WT.
?
you know challengers dont have blowout panels right
and Leos only have blowout panels for the bustle rack
while abrams also has blowout panels for the hull ammo
This is the standard flight altitude for most drones.
Most modern radars and air defenses are useless against drones, as proven by hundreds of video frames.
These lasers would be destroyed by a barrage of FPV drones, fiber optic guided drones that are not affected by interference, and their production chain would be bombarded by geran 2, iskander m khinzal, kh101, kh59m
The Abrams is the only NATO standard tank that will truly protect its crew; the rest will explode like a good old T-62.
Yet you ignore mine. Suit yourself. Have a nice day.
The Leclerc doesn’t carry hull ammo anymore.
However, France still operates many Leclerc S2 and S1 models.
Laser systems are most likely intended only for the protection of rear cities.
not really
russian tanks are still much more likely to explode, because the scatter ammo all around the tank and use more reactive propellants
