The problem was ukraine couldn't provide logistics in the battlefield. They don't use the u s military doctrine. Let alone these were older less armored versions usa 🇺🇸 sent them. Why would american give there best new version.
3:27
One of my favorite historical tanks right there. I've always loved the odd way it looks with the bigger gun being the one on the side rather than in the turret.
20:41 While talking about the M1A3, the images shown are of AbramsX, an unrelated project that was developed a few years back as a technology demonstrator. The M1A3 will look pretty much like the M1A2 from the outside, with the addition of a minigun instead of the HMG.
1:00 this isnt unique to the agt1500. every diesel in soviet main battle tanks are multifuel, able to run on gasoline, kerosene(jet fuel), and diesel. western multifuel diesels are only able to run on diesel and jet fuel.
12:56 the graph for diesel is not representative for all diesels. that one looks like the 5td or 6td engine, which were known for poor low end torque. the v46 and all subsequent variants had a very flat torque curve like the agt1500. for example, the v-46 at idle(1000rpm) produces 3011 N*m of torque. its maximum is at 1300rpm producing 3090 N*m.
15:18 reactive armor elements must be at an angle relative to the incoming heat jet. otherwise its effects are greatly diminished as it mainly effects the unfocused part of the jet on the outsides. its not the shockwave that disrupts the jet. air is not dense enough to disrupt a copper/tantalum jet going mach 5+. its the metal being thrusted into it at an angle which prevents all the flowing copper(not molten) from focusing.
15:50 DU doesnt just magically break up apfsds. its just very dense even compared to tungsten alloys and as a result, requires more energy to displace. the breaking up of apfsds is more about the non-m
I remember reading on a telegram channel that Ukrainian tank crews praised the tank for its armour and survivability. However, they never found the tank very effective, it used to get stuck in mud, it was fuel hungry, and it had no low profile picture, and sometimes repair units didn't have spare parts to repair any destroyed Abrams.
Because in a real war it is a consumable, just like gear, bullets or drones. The more it's used the higher the chance for it being hit. Nothing is eternal in 4 years of real war.
And yes, neither of modern tanks are protected against FPV strikes.
I realize the title is just clickbait, but as for the numbers:
They got a battalion's worth of m-1a1s in September 2023 and assigned them to Ukraine's elite fire bridge, the guys who got stuck in wherever things were most serious. You'd need a tank made of vibranium and running on a perpetual motion machine to have all of them still running today.
One small but very significant correction - for the illustration at 15:40 for how ERA works. ERA does NOT work if the incoming hyperplastic jet of the HEAT warhead is perpendicular to the plate being thrown against it - because the plate cannot really "disrupt" the jet with so much point pressure and speed. Instead, the plate of the ERA sandwich has to be at an angle to the incoming HEAT jet - and when it is thrown upwards by the explosion of the explosive filler - it acts like a sponge, absorbing part of the hyperplastic jet into itself, and thus preventing it from attempting to penetrate the tank's armor. This is why all Russian ERA packages come at a really strong angle - especially mounted on the turret and the front of the hull.
Title: Why America's Tank Failed in Ukraine
Video: 12 minutes explaining the history of tanks
We use cookies, device fingerprinting and cross-device tracking to personalise content, serve targeted advertising, and analyse how you use our site across your devices. By clicking Accept all you consent to the use of these tracking technologies. Your data may be used to build a profile of your interests and show you personalised ads on other sites.
Privacy policy
Comments (20)
Daily Junction discussion mixed with clearly attributed comments from the original video provider.
Join in — free. Comments on Daily Junction are for members, so real names stay rare and bots stay out.
One field. We email you a 6-digit code — no password needed. Your comment is kept while you do it.
Under 13? You’ll need a parent’s OK first — it takes them one click.
- It has a supercharged V8
- And you, what do you have?
M4A4 owners: a star 30
One of my favorite historical tanks right there. I've always loved the odd way it looks with the bigger gun being the one on the side rather than in the turret.
12:56 the graph for diesel is not representative for all diesels. that one looks like the 5td or 6td engine, which were known for poor low end torque. the v46 and all subsequent variants had a very flat torque curve like the agt1500. for example, the v-46 at idle(1000rpm) produces 3011 N*m of torque. its maximum is at 1300rpm producing 3090 N*m.
15:18 reactive armor elements must be at an angle relative to the incoming heat jet. otherwise its effects are greatly diminished as it mainly effects the unfocused part of the jet on the outsides. its not the shockwave that disrupts the jet. air is not dense enough to disrupt a copper/tantalum jet going mach 5+. its the metal being thrusted into it at an angle which prevents all the flowing copper(not molten) from focusing.
15:50 DU doesnt just magically break up apfsds. its just very dense even compared to tungsten alloys and as a result, requires more energy to displace. the breaking up of apfsds is more about the non-m
And yes, neither of modern tanks are protected against FPV strikes.
They got a battalion's worth of m-1a1s in September 2023 and assigned them to Ukraine's elite fire bridge, the guys who got stuck in wherever things were most serious. You'd need a tank made of vibranium and running on a perpetual motion machine to have all of them still running today.
(Edit: Thanks @jcraigie for the clarification)
:- )
Video: 12 minutes explaining the history of tanks