Posted on 09/08/2023 3:37:56 AM PDT by FarCenter
According to Defense News, the US Army has canceled its planned upgrade of the Abrams Tank and is considering a different approach for the tank’s future. The Army is basically saying the tank is too heavy and too vulnerable to enemy weapons.
Heavy European tanks and armored vehicles have faced operational problems in Ukraine, often getting stuck in the mud or running out of fuel. In addition, European tanks have proven vulnerable to enemy fire. In many cases, Germany’s Leopard tank – a tank that was considered superior to the Abrams – has not performed well.
The Russians have already destroyed around 15 Leopards using a variety of weapons ranging from artillery to rockets launched by helicopters to drones such as the Lancet. Billed as the next great thing to help Ukraine win the war, Leopard has proven a failure.
Unfortunately what happened to Leopards could happen to Abrams tanks when they arrive in Ukraine.
Neither the Abrams nor the Leopard has active protection systems or reactive armor. In the case of those Leopards delivered to Kiev, the Ukrainian army hastily plastered on reactive armor taken off of damaged Russian tanks.
Leopard was not supposed to need reactive armor because its composite armor is supposed to deflect anti-tank weapons including penetrator cannon rounds fired by opposing tanks or tandem warhead weapons. But even with first-generation reactive armor that the Ukrainians added to Leopard, the Russians destroyed them fairly easily.
(Excerpt) Read more at asiatimes.com ...
If we put solar panels on the tanks then fuel will not be a problem. Go Green, win wars!!!!! /sarc
Lots of NATO equipment and outdated strategy is being exposed in DC’s proxy war. The MIC got used to fighting these wars of US imperialism the last two decades against lightly trained and armed irregular soldiers. Now that the Pentagon rainbow warriors have come up against a first world, highly trained and motivated force they are realizing we can’t successfully fight one modern superpower let alone two of them at once.
I think the tank is having its battleship vs. aerial bombardment moment.
Honestly, for more than a decade there have been reports here on FR that question the role of the lumbering tank in modern warfare. Statements such as a tank is “a foxhole that attracts the eye,” come to mind. Second, the combat role of the helicopter is also questioned. Third, with advanced robotics the role of everyone from pilot to grunt must be reevaluated. Finally, ships are sitting ducks, the Navy just doesm’t realize it; however, the PRC does and must calculate very serious losses in taking Taiwan. I wonder how the military academies are approaching the future?
Be careful--Obiden's climate change fighting generals might want to replace the reactive armor with Chinese made solar panels if they get wind of you idea.
the deeper problem with our military is in the mindset of our military leaders. let’s face it...when your leaders demand the troops operate on rainbows and ride into battle on unicorns wearing dresses designed for real women? you’ve lost already.
“... after Leopards tank in Ukraine”
Ugh.
The trannies and skirts will come up with something 'colorful and fabulous' I'm sure.
I would hope they're boning up on drones and rocket artillery. Subs will remain relevant throughout. I have no idea how weaponized space based platforms are. One hears rumors of DEWs and Rods From God, but those are probably kept in the back pocket, reserved for the big one.
I mean who writes these articles?
The new Abrams is going to be a hybrid. That was announced over a year ago.
The current sp3 version is a 73 tons because of armor added to protect from IED’s and artillery.
Most western tanks lost in the Ukraine conflict have been to artillery fire. Mines frequently slow them, and then taken out by artillery. Not by tank on tank, or IED, but old fashioned land mines and artillery. Reactive armor will not help with this scenario.
NATO equipment was designed to be integrated into a battle plan with air power. Add western AirPower, like 400 F-16’s, 200 F/A18’s, 200 A-10’s, some global hawks, a few F-15’s, and cobra attack helicopters (all sitting in Arizona), with mavericks, rockets, napalm, GBU’s, and the Russian helicopters are an afterthought.
To my knowledge, less than 50 leopard II tanks have been delivered, 5 of these have been catastrophically destroyed. 24 challenger tanks have been given, with 1 destroyed. That’s 6 tank total losses, none tank to tank, with zero real air support. That’s not even close to a failed design.
Therefore, you cannot make direct comparisons with how they perform in Ukraine with how U.S. tanks would perform in combat.
Overall, how many tanks by type have been destroyed or damaged in the Ukraine – Russian Civil War? I don’t doubt the war is proving to be a good testing ground for old and new weapon systems. Are we learning and are we learning fast enough?
And couldn't, or maybe wouldn't, win those wars.
At around 140,000 pounds, where can a tank actually go without getting stuck or totally destroying the place by sheer weight? I imagine during the spring, fall, and winter, these are pretty useless, unless they stay on a well-established road.
I believe there is talk probably more than talk about an electric tank, what could go wrong
Yup the Russian numbers,
There is no tank that can survive a direct artillery hit, your points about supporting air power are well taken, let’s see what happens if the Ukrainians ever get a an Air Force with capacity and capability.
The much vaunted rebuke by a few American servicemen against 100 Russians er ah Wagner in Syria involved lots of air power
Right now we are telling Ukraine to fight a war the way we never would have. Imagine gulf 1 or any of them without airpower.
The report of the death of the tank is greatly exaggerated.
Our tanks are supposed to fight as part of a combined arms team, to include tac air. The Ukes don’t control the air. They’re basically fighting in two dimensions, not in three. Trying to break through prepared positions. Their options for strategic maneuver are severely limited.
Our tanks are capable of fighting in a variety of threat scenarios. Fighting a near peer is only one. We can’t optimize for any one scenario.
Our tanks are survivable, not invulnerable. Even if the tank is destroyed, we have a reasonable hope that the crew survives. The Israeli Merkava is maybe the most survivable western tank, but the Abrams and other western tanks are also good on survivable.
We have (or better have) much better logistics. This includes evacuation and repair of damaged tanks. Many of our tanks are damaged and then get back into the fight.
Having said all the above, it looks like western tanks have gotten too big. Strategic mobility, tactical mobility, strain on logistics, combined with the ability of drones to see you and of smart munitions, tips the balance to smaller tanks. Hence, the K2 Black Panther of South Korea, which is a bit smaller, is being adopted by several allies, and we ourselves are back in the business of producing so-called light tanks.
I’ll end by saying there’s no replacing the thinking and courage of the individual serviceman or woman. We, in the democratic countries of the world, are the best. We will figure things out, rebound from any defeat, and we will win.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.