Ukraine has sidelined U.S.-provided Abrams M1A1 battle tanks for now in its fight against Russia, in part because Russian drone warfare has made it too difficult for them to operate without detection or coming under attack, two U.S. military officials told The Associated Press.
The U.S. agreed to send 31 Abrams to Ukraine in January 2023 after an aggressive monthslong campaign by Kyiv arguing that the tanks, which cost about $10 million apiece, were vital to its ability to breach Russian lines.
But the battlefield has changed substantially since then, notably by the ubiquitous use of Russian surveillance drones and hunter-killer drones. Those weapons have made it more difficult for Ukraine to protect the tanks when they are quickly detected and hunted by Russian drones or rounds.
Five of the 31 tanks have already been lost to Russian attacks.
…
For now, the tanks have been moved from the front lines, and the U.S. will work with the Ukrainians to reset tactics, said Joint Chiefs of Staff Vice Chairman Adm. Christopher Grady and a third defense official who confirmed the move on the condition of anonymity.
…
The U.S. also confirmed for the first time that it is providing long-range ballistic missiles known as ATACMs, which allow Ukraine to strike deep into Russian-occupied areas without having to advance and be further exposed to either drone detection or fortified Russian defenses.
…
Ukraine has only employed them in a limited fashion and has not made combined arms warfare part of its operations, the defense official said.
During its recent withdrawal from Avdiivka, a city in eastern Ukraine that was the focus of intense fighting for months, several tanks were lost to Russian attacks, the official said.
A long delay by Congress in passing new funding for Ukraine meant its forces had to ration ammunition, and in some cases they were only able to shoot back once for every five or more times they were targeted by Russian forces.
Drone strikes on tanks and personnel carrier strikes in Ukraine used to show up regularly on a certain 'gore' site but they stopped several months ago. Often there were 2 views, one from a...
Drone strikes on tanks and personnel carrier strikes in Ukraine used to show up regularly on a certain 'gore' site but they stopped several months ago. Often there were 2 views, one from a surveillance quadcopter drone and one from the armed munitions winged drone as it zeroed in and struck the target. The results were pretty effective as the armored vehicles stopped, caught fire and sometimes you could see survivng soldiers making a run for it. Its amazingly effective and relatively cheap to kill tanks like that.
I didn't think regular drones could carry a large enough munition to destroy or disable a tank. What are they using? Or is there some sort of serious weak points?
I didn't think regular drones could carry a large enough munition to destroy or disable a tank. What are they using? Or is there some sort of serious weak points?
"Drones" just means unmanned vehicles that can steer themselves; there's not that much difference between a drone and a missile. A $10 000 kamikaze drone could easily carry enough explosives to...
"Drones" just means unmanned vehicles that can steer themselves; there's not that much difference between a drone and a missile.
A $10 000 kamikaze drone could easily carry enough explosives to bust a tank (here is a picture of Shahed 136 missiles (edit: drones) in a truck, for scale), and even if you pay $50k each and waste 10 of them for a single tank, you're still winning the economics considering that your equipment loss is only $500k whereas tanks cost multiple millions of dollars.
The key term for the Shahed here is "loitering munition", i.e. unlike a missile it can hang around in the sky for quite a while, to wait for a target to show up.
A standard quadcopter is not being used to blow up a tank unless some idiot leaves the tank's hatch open and switches off their brain.
Judging by the sheer number of videos, that alone is happening very often - the Russian tankers I've seen fleeing never care enough to stop and neatly close the hatch before cutting swastikas back...
Judging by the sheer number of videos, that alone is happening very often - the Russian tankers I've seen fleeing never care enough to stop and neatly close the hatch before cutting swastikas back to their lines, because another drone strike often isn't far behind.
Also, the roof armour is relatively thin to save weight, and an anti-tank grenade dropped onto it can penetrate more than enough to go through - hundreds of mm versus the tens of mm on a tank's roof.
That too. Or mines. Once a track is knocked out, the best case scenario is that the crew and tank are evacuated, but the reality is probably more often that the tank is abandoned due to the sheer...
That too. Or mines. Once a track is knocked out, the best case scenario is that the crew and tank are evacuated, but the reality is probably more often that the tank is abandoned due to the sheer number of mines all over the place which mean any vehicle you send after will drive over one and be similarly knocked out (if the artillery doesn't wipe it first).
IIRC, I'd videos online of modestly sized (think quadcopter) drones dropping killing tanks with dropped bombs from a few weeks/early months into the war. A quick search yielded this. Tanks no...
IIRC, I'd videos online of modestly sized (think quadcopter) drones dropping killing tanks with dropped bombs from a few weeks/early months into the war. A quick search yielded this.
Tanks no longer seem to be viable in the age of cheap drones. Relatively speaking, the tank is cheap to kill and expensive to replace.
Keep in mind that drone operators don't upload videos of their failures very often; you only see the highlight reel. Drone kills only tell us that drones can work, not that they're reliable. Tanks...
Keep in mind that drone operators don't upload videos of their failures very often; you only see the highlight reel. Drone kills only tell us that drones can work, not that they're reliable.
Tanks aren't going away unless they don't have utility. Wars aren't won by K/D ratio, they're won by achieving objectives (usually taking land). If you're trying to assault any sort of fortified position, then spending a few tanks to take otherwise-unconquerable ground can be priceless.
Also, I imagine the tank logic applies to APCs: APCs are used to transport troops in and out, and to evacuate the wounded. Even if APCs are vulnerable to drones, they aren't vulnerable to just any dickhead with an AK, which is a huge step up compared to a $500-per-use drone that's in short supply.
Come to think of it, kevlar doesn't actually stop bullets - it's a bullet-resistant vest, but people still use the stuff because wrecking a $1000 vest to block a $1 bullet is worth it to save a >$1000 soldier.
A grenade through the hatch will destroy a disabled and abandoned tank well enough, but even against a live tank, it's fighting something that was designed and built before drones were a...
A grenade through the hatch will destroy a disabled and abandoned tank well enough, but even against a live tank, it's fighting something that was designed and built before drones were a considerable threat.
The armour envelope of modern tanks is aimed forward, where the threat is expected to come from - you could pile more armour kn the roof to protect against drone strikes, but realistically it'd either add tonnes to the already considerable weight or involve "cope cage" armour that would make the vehicle easier to spot and harder to evacuate.
Also, the upper frontal plate of the Abrams is excellently sloped against frontal attacks but also relatively thin, which makes it another vulnerable spot for aerial attacks.
Tanks are best used when supported by infantry and other assets who can watch out for drones and ATGMs. Alone, they're little more than sitting ducks in the kind of drone-heavy war that this has become.
Think about what tanks are designed to fight. They're designed to fight other tanks, or sometimes infantry when supported by infantry of its own. How do tanks and infantry attack? They shoot...
Think about what tanks are designed to fight. They're designed to fight other tanks, or sometimes infantry when supported by infantry of its own. How do tanks and infantry attack? They shoot things horizontally across the battlefield to try and penetrate and/or explode the opposing side. If you look at the M1 Abrams you can see angled panels to try and deflect attacks as well as those lower bits which are designed to explode outward to stop incoming explosives. But the top of the thing is flat, and often has an open hole with a person in it aiming a machine gun. That flat surface with an open hole is much much more vulnerable to a little explosive flying down from above. You don't have to do much damage to the main body of the tank to disable it if you hit the right spots on the top.
Was thinking the same thing, but then I remembered to stop picturing a tiny drone like a civilian would have. Drone can be the size of regular aircraft and can carry anything they can.
Was thinking the same thing, but then I remembered to stop picturing a tiny drone like a civilian would have. Drone can be the size of regular aircraft and can carry anything they can.
It seems to depend, I remember during the earliest stage of the Israel-Hamas war Hamas was able to subdue tanks by using overhead drone-tactics (This was during the Oct 7 attacks). In terms of...
It seems to depend, I remember during the earliest stage of the Israel-Hamas war Hamas was able to subdue tanks by using overhead drone-tactics (This was during the Oct 7 attacks). In terms of that war, Gazan paramilitaries seem to get close enough to nullify the trophy system or hit specific weak points via coordinated attacks. But this is within Gaza, a completely different war than Ukraine. And they don't really use drones in this instance, just traditional anti-tank tactics.
From the article:
…
…
…
Is it just me (or maybe I'm misreading) but does only losing 5 tanks since Jan of last year seem like a low loss rate?
I don't think they have many and they probably weren't using them the whole time? Tanks are mostly useful for offense.
Drone strikes on tanks and personnel carrier strikes in Ukraine used to show up regularly on a certain 'gore' site but they stopped several months ago. Often there were 2 views, one from a surveillance quadcopter drone and one from the armed munitions winged drone as it zeroed in and struck the target. The results were pretty effective as the armored vehicles stopped, caught fire and sometimes you could see survivng soldiers making a run for it. Its amazingly effective and relatively cheap to kill tanks like that.
I didn't think regular drones could carry a large enough munition to destroy or disable a tank. What are they using? Or is there some sort of serious weak points?
"Drones" just means unmanned vehicles that can steer themselves; there's not that much difference between a drone and a missile.
A $10 000 kamikaze drone could easily carry enough explosives to bust a tank (here is a picture of Shahed 136
missiles(edit: drones) in a truck, for scale), and even if you pay $50k each and waste 10 of them for a single tank, you're still winning the economics considering that your equipment loss is only $500k whereas tanks cost multiple millions of dollars.The key term for the Shahed here is "loitering munition", i.e. unlike a missile it can hang around in the sky for quite a while, to wait for a target to show up.
A standard quadcopter is not being used to blow up a tank unless some idiot leaves the tank's hatch open and switches off their brain.
Judging by the sheer number of videos, that alone is happening very often - the Russian tankers I've seen fleeing never care enough to stop and neatly close the hatch before cutting swastikas back to their lines, because another drone strike often isn't far behind.
Also, the roof armour is relatively thin to save weight, and an anti-tank grenade dropped onto it can penetrate more than enough to go through - hundreds of mm versus the tens of mm on a tank's roof.
Drones are often used for surveillance. Once found, tanks can be hit in other ways, such as artillery.
That too. Or mines. Once a track is knocked out, the best case scenario is that the crew and tank are evacuated, but the reality is probably more often that the tank is abandoned due to the sheer number of mines all over the place which mean any vehicle you send after will drive over one and be similarly knocked out (if the artillery doesn't wipe it first).
IIRC, I'd videos online of modestly sized (think quadcopter) drones dropping killing tanks with dropped bombs from a few weeks/early months into the war. A quick search yielded this.
Tanks no longer seem to be viable in the age of cheap drones. Relatively speaking, the tank is cheap to kill and expensive to replace.
Keep in mind that drone operators don't upload videos of their failures very often; you only see the highlight reel. Drone kills only tell us that drones can work, not that they're reliable.
Tanks aren't going away unless they don't have utility. Wars aren't won by K/D ratio, they're won by achieving objectives (usually taking land). If you're trying to assault any sort of fortified position, then spending a few tanks to take otherwise-unconquerable ground can be priceless.
Also, I imagine the tank logic applies to APCs: APCs are used to transport troops in and out, and to evacuate the wounded. Even if APCs are vulnerable to drones, they aren't vulnerable to just any dickhead with an AK, which is a huge step up compared to a $500-per-use drone that's in short supply.
Come to think of it, kevlar doesn't actually stop bullets - it's a bullet-resistant vest, but people still use the stuff because wrecking a $1000 vest to block a $1 bullet is worth it to save a >$1000 soldier.
A grenade through the hatch will destroy a disabled and abandoned tank well enough, but even against a live tank, it's fighting something that was designed and built before drones were a considerable threat.
The armour envelope of modern tanks is aimed forward, where the threat is expected to come from - you could pile more armour kn the roof to protect against drone strikes, but realistically it'd either add tonnes to the already considerable weight or involve "cope cage" armour that would make the vehicle easier to spot and harder to evacuate.
Also, the upper frontal plate of the Abrams is excellently sloped against frontal attacks but also relatively thin, which makes it another vulnerable spot for aerial attacks.
Tanks are best used when supported by infantry and other assets who can watch out for drones and ATGMs. Alone, they're little more than sitting ducks in the kind of drone-heavy war that this has become.
Think about what tanks are designed to fight. They're designed to fight other tanks, or sometimes infantry when supported by infantry of its own. How do tanks and infantry attack? They shoot things horizontally across the battlefield to try and penetrate and/or explode the opposing side. If you look at the M1 Abrams you can see angled panels to try and deflect attacks as well as those lower bits which are designed to explode outward to stop incoming explosives. But the top of the thing is flat, and often has an open hole with a person in it aiming a machine gun. That flat surface with an open hole is much much more vulnerable to a little explosive flying down from above. You don't have to do much damage to the main body of the tank to disable it if you hit the right spots on the top.
Was thinking the same thing, but then I remembered to stop picturing a tiny drone like a civilian would have. Drone can be the size of regular aircraft and can carry anything they can.
It seems to depend, I remember during the earliest stage of the Israel-Hamas war Hamas was able to subdue tanks by using overhead drone-tactics (This was during the Oct 7 attacks). In terms of that war, Gazan paramilitaries seem to get close enough to nullify the trophy system or hit specific weak points via coordinated attacks. But this is within Gaza, a completely different war than Ukraine. And they don't really use drones in this instance, just traditional anti-tank tactics.