Are Ukrainians using Abrams Tanks Wrong? US Tank Commander gives insight.
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 26 июл 2024
- There has been a lot of debate online about the use of the Abrams tanks in Ukraine, whether Ukrainians are using them properly or not, especially after we have seen several of them being lost to enemy fire. So, I decided to interview an actual Abrams tank commander, in order for him to give his insight into the operation of these vehicles out there.
report: drive.google.com/file/d/17bm_...
Patreon with discord: / redeffect
Outro: "face away" - svard
T-80 T-72 : blame the tank
Abrams : blame the crew
Internet is a funny place
When a T-Series tank got knocked out: LOL BAD TANK LOL!!!!!!
When a challenger or Abrams get knocked out: No tank is invincible…
@@departmentoftheeruseanroya9106for me the main difference is crew survival rates which aren’t being published too much, as for the other it would be T series is used by the home nation who designed it to fit their doctrine whereas the Abrams is being used by a country who’ve had minimal training and in which it doesn’t fit the doctrine, also has seen success before (gulf wars) but they’re both 50 year old designs so of course neither can keep up with modern war zones
@departmentoftheeruseanroya9106 to be fair, only challenger had actually gone undefeated by enemy
You see the western tanks can sometimes return into service because they have blow out panels. Russian tanks get their damn turrets blown to heaven@@departmentoftheeruseanroya9106
@@Goddamndan200"Only Challenger hs gone undefeated by an enemy"
>99% of Challenger 2s service life has been against insurgents with old weapons
When there's no air superiority and drones everywhere, you can't amass forces without getting bombed to shit.
Yea NATO tanks in general are built to work only with air superiority.
Even then, tanks have been pretty much abandoned in the doctrine in favour of lighter vics lol
@@honkhonk8009 >Yea NATO tanks in general are built to work only with air superiority.
According to who? What features do non-NATO tanks have that somehow make them different?
@@cstgraphpads2091 according the US military doctrine, that's who.
@@cstgraphpads2091 Serious lack of anti-air.
@@cstgraphpads2091 It's not only about the tanks. NATO Electronic Warfare and short-range AA abilities are lacking. The Russians and Ukrainians use EW extensively and have numerous short-range AA platforms yet they still suffer tremendous losses. If NATO army formations didn't have air superiority they would've been exposed and losses would've been even more horrendous in comparison.
That's why the US is now scrambling to procure more anti-drone/short-range AA platforms right now. They saw the writings on the wall and are trying to adapt, with systems like LIDS, L-MADIS, Lattice, and Silent Archer all under development currently.
90% of the armor loss in this conflict seems to be either drones, artillery or mines, things a MBT has little to no response.
M1A1SA captured by Russia
ruclips.net/video/8eZA4X5KyZA/видео.htmlsi=yMWTNMoKpP3fx35F
All of this is true for every system, right down to the infantry man...
Yeah artillery has been devastating in this war. It is very different from the western way of war, and it looks like it's caused them to look at the risk. It would likely be hard for a western power to sustain a long, attritional war over many years with air power alone.
No tank is impervious to destruction. It's insane to pretend to think that Abrams won't be destroyed, anyone with that expectation or think it means Russians are somehow superior for destroying an Abrams tank here and there, while they've lost thousands of tanks themselves....they are kidding themselves.
People do not usually realize that Abrams performed as well as it did in Iraq is mostly attributed to US Air Force and Navy and in general US military as a whole. MBT did not win the war.
Calling tanks invincible is like calling Titanic, unsinkable. 🤣
damn right
Merkava tanks are something that should be taken into consideration when building a MBT
@@Alec-jo7ic🤡
Well ain’t that stupid? Who made that up again????
@@d.bcooper2271make a point
- Samir, you are breaking the tank
- Shut up
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Don't tell me how to drive
I just imagined a T-80 going at 70+ km/h in an Ukrainian field lol
TRIPLE CAUTION SAMIR
@@outrun7455 TRIPLE CAUTION
imo the Abrams looks much nicer in the forest camo
Only seen them before in video games
What? Geez
@@sooryan_1018 Oh nah, u can definitely find a lot of footage with them in forest camo. In fact, a few countries received woodland camo abrams in return for sending their soviet era mbts to ukraine during the first year of the war.
nah, I understand its the OG, but Tan is 10/10
What it needs is 3 stripes camo.
I am a former officer, and tank commander. I would agree with the Staff Sergeant's accessments. I began my Tanker career on the Sheridan in Vietnam. Then the M-48, M60A1, and the Abrams. With the weapons technology and drone technology today, I am glad I am retired!
shame our countries are Allied, (Sweden) you're a worse war criminal than Putin
which was your favorite and why?
@@N3003Q t-72
🧢🧢🧢
This kid said he was ancient when he was in the Army in 2016. I must be a wooly mammoth and you are a dinosaur to him lol.
The Abrams went from "MIGHTY GAME CHANGER" to "its not the tank, its how you use it." pretty quick.
Game changer was media hype anyone with even a little military knowledge knew differently, including the guys driving them to war. One point though, when a T72 is hit generally the crew goes up (literally) with it, if an Abrahams gets hit the crew is generally looking for a new tank.
31 Tanks won't make any difference. Numbers are waaaayyy too low.
@@davedixon2068media hype and home grown tanks expers with world of.tanks and war thunder experiences only. Mostly from USA and the west. I AM from Poland and I always said that M1 and chelanger 2 will burn the same because ruSSia is not donkey keeprs land with rusty AKS and few old RPG-7s
@@brianrasmussen2956 "31 Tanks won't make any difference. Numbers are waaaayyy too low."
310 wouldn´t make a difference either. M1 is just overengineered junk. Good for the training ground but completely useless in war.
@@davedixon2068 About blow up t-series... How long and how useful be survived on battlefiel, without armor and weapon, alone (without rescue)? Spg, bombs, rocket, drones all of this will shred survivers because on 1 (!) tank on this war - can sand 10 drones, 7 atgm and artillery barage for shure. Blow up panales usful on low or mid intense fight, you can see how many crew of bradley, leo-2, abrams and of corse challenger 2 survived on battlefield (not on poligon - hi t-14, hi bm oplot) in this conflict. If only 15% of crew (on t crew - 3, on leo, abrams, challenger - 4) survive when vehicle blow up (and of corse IF panel closed - worked), it's realy big diference?
I was US Army Infantry 99-06. 2 years Iraq and 1 in Afghanistan. I'm thankful we didn't have to deal with drones. I'm amazed at how effective they've been in battle and how cheap and effective the technology has become.
Would you say Iraq was worse than Ukraine ?
@@dobridjordjeapples and oranges
In iraq and Afghanistan you americans fought unarmed civillians and not professional army.
We know your tactics yanks, "find small and unstable country and show them your military superiority" is your motto.
@@karrole88 The embarrassing thing is, they still lost in Afghanistan. Like, US forces suffered disproportionate casualties AND were forced to concede and leave.
@@karrole88yeah, like USSR wasn’t in Afghanistan fighting with Camel Jockeys either 20 years before right?
it's bizarre and almost funny how much of it translates into how i (used to) play arma.
when we got drones carrying explosives i remember someone telling me this is "battlefield-ish nonsense", i always thought it was funny and "but why would it *not* work irl?".
felt weird seeing them used that way, especially in ukraine.
Lmao it's true. We gamers invented the suicide drone pretty much😂😂
@@zhadox27The Japanese did it first.
@@wemakeasiansurveys4U They didn't have drones.
@@wemakeasiansurveys4Ukinda fucked up to consider kamikaze pilots as drones
Germans had kamikaze drones in the form of the Goliath@@korana6308
When he called 2016 ancient... I felt that in my soul. I served from 2014 to 2019. Feels like yesterday.
Hey I'm a Desert Storm tanker, so his comments really hurt
2005-2013 infantry. The gear modern infantry has now just boggles my mind.
Cold War M60A1, A3, M1 & M1A1 '84 to '88 prehistoric...
You are not old and you can't afford to Think Old
Thing isn't talked about now, is that sooner (or very soon) some military will make purpose built FPV drones with a laser designator fitted on it that partners with ATGMs. So in essence you won't even need LOS like with a traditional beam riding missile to shoot at a tank, you just pop the drone into the air and fire the missile indirectly like you would a 155mm Copperhead or any guided artillery shell.
A whole bunch of other stuff is coming out of this war as well. Ukraine has already started deploying comm relay drones so that the drone operators can be farther from the front. The real advances though are probably going to be in the EW/counter EW space. Expect to see dedicated semi autonomous anti EW drones that automatically home in on jammers. Expect to see drone swarms that can act virtually independently and contain a mix of types for various contingencies.
@@thekinginyellow1744 Already got my quad programmed with image recognition..... lets see if i can get some government contracts XD
Thats being done as we sit here typing
The battlefield is your home/mobile office
Road Warrior is Next Level shirt
Turkish MALE and HALE drones can lock on lasers to a target to guide shots by Turkish multi rocket launchers firing TRLG missiles.
Non of the US tank commanders has fought a war like this one, with drones everywhere etc.
yeah, things are different when your enemy can actually fire back
Yeah and ?
@@sinjehurlantThis is a modern war fought by modern armies, the wars fought in the middle east were against poorly armed militias whom pretty much had no capability to destroy tanks en mass
@@BreadPittAAAAHHHHyou forgot stuff like IED exist.
The "poorly armed militias" insurgents threatened up even with lack of anti tank weaponary except IED the m1 abrams just see the TUSK kit.
@@GKOYG_and_KAAF_is_epic pfft, colonial insurgency struggles, dont overhype it
I think the question itself was quite misguided, but the US tank commander gave a really good answer.
Misguided?! On this channel?! Never!
It's a question you will see all over the internet. Often framed in the opposite sense of "They aren't using it right" or "NATO wouldn't use it that way.". I suggest given Red didn't push back against him at all he agreed with the answer, but he asked the question because of how often its asked, not because he actually thought it was a good question.
its never trash if its nato equipment just used wrong every time
Isn’t this the guy who literally takes Russian sources more seriously than his life?
@@inkycat191 sources like manuals and schematics, not TASS statements.
Another great video, always good to have a subject matter expert who is currently, commanding the subject(Abrams) thank you to yourself and your guest
As a Scout in the US Army who's spent a lot of time on a Brad, and working with tanks and Aircraft, this dude pretty much hit the nail on the head in terms of how we look at things and utilization of Armor. And what's going on has already influenced changes in the US and by extension NATO. A lot more focus on LSCO (Large Scale Combat Operations) and specific things we are seeing in Ukraine currently, with a lot more going foward I would assume.
Good unbiased comments by your guest. Admitting that Lancet has opened a lot of eyes and how warfare will be forever changed now
Every weapon system changes the world. No true soldier will ever say it doesn't. How much it will 5 years from now may be big may not be. It's the thing about war and why you should avoid it you have no idea where it will go.
Or the Iranian Shahed drone.
The great russian Lancet
Yea nope lancet hasn't changed shit.
It's about drones in general.
The lancet hasnt changed Anything, as the lancet was a reaction to the drones that amerca was sending to ukraine. The only difference is Lancet is used as a loitering ATGM while the American ones come in 2 varients the larger one which is more or less a lancet then the smaller one which can be used for killed troops, sensitive equipment or softskin vehicles etc.
@@rgbforever4561 well argue that with the Tank Commander interviewed. He disagrees. From what I’ve read it’s considered one of the deadliest drones on a battlefield today and it’s certainly combat proven… but hey wave your flag and dream.. whatever
" Doctrinally, they are using it wrong ... "
but the doctrine is wrong and inapplicable under the circumstances
No, the doctrine is used by countries that can actually support their tanks, and not leave them their to die as a last stand, the Abrams wasn't built to do "Last Stands"...
@@Cesp43 said doctrines were developed way before the reality of constant surveilance and for countries that assumed that they would most likely never fight a so called "near-peer" opponent.
I bet they don't even concieve of the existence of a peer opponent, let alone one that is superior in even one capability
There is truth in his statement....
@@MatoVuc except these doctrines were designed to perfectly counter that, it's why the US is constantly developing new technologies in all fields, they rely on having support, so that each branch supports each other, and overall it's more effective. The Russians will never be able to counter the US in airforce or Navy, the US knows that, therefore they use their airforce to help with their ground operations, having that support on the Skies means that they only have to worry about frontal, ground threats. Ukraine doesn't have air superiority, so these tanks become as usefull as other Soviet era vehicles. This is also the hype around the f16, if they can get air superiority, the Leopards and Abrams suddenly grow exponentially in strength.
@@Cesp43 so F-16 automatically guarrantees air superiority ? did you remember the hype before all these game-changer weapons were sent ?
pepperidge farm welcome Ukies refugee
Great interview! I’m sure lots of us were wondering that same question. “How affective is tanks in current warfare” and these drones are the new superior weapon in wars. Acquiring positions/dropping ordinances is hard to beat that
@Redeffect , thanks for a great interview 👍, great video explaining things happening now perfectly and whats coming in the future.
I kept waiting to hear "Greetings all, Chieftain here!"
Kind of relieved I didn't. The Chieftan's good but I like hearing some new perspectives.
@@PL-rf4hy Especially younger and more on the cutting edge.
While you make fun of NATO equipment here , Abrams tanks are quietly encircling Moscow
IMO Chieftain is likely familiar with the Abrams exported, doubt you would get a comment on an active battlefield deployment of one, perhaps a reminiscing of another day.
I think Chieftain would say pretty much the same thing…
This is the content we need the most, interviews with tankers
The real question is, are the US defense contractors making their profits, regardless of the Abrams ineffectiveness?
How is it ineffective?
Thats irrelevant about the money they make. The water companies are making money. The toilet tissue companies are making money. Why because those are necessities. War is war. You need tools and equipment. Home owners buy firearms for home defense. So do Countries.
No, they've already been sold to the Army decades ago
Old tanks the US doesn't use anymore. Who gives away new tanks to amateurs who don't have air superiority. When these tanks were designed in the 1970s and 80s there was no drones to worry about.
Bullshit … does not mean its ineffective … its a deal … US gives old gear to study Russia at war … theoretic think tanks and studies would has cost billions … here they only need to sit back and watch … priceless … contractors are paid of course as new gear will be bought.
Very intelligent person/tank commander... And I am saying this as a Serb, on the anniversary of US led NATO bombing of my country, so it have the weight
He is very realistic, not having a burden of prejudice and biased informations/thinking.
And being "all over the place" as he said, is the only way to describe today's situation for the tanks, because as a tank crew you have to watch and to think about 4Dimension nowadays in the 3D world.
dobar odgovor uvek je lepo videti srbina sa mozgom pozdrav iz kanade od Vojnovica
Kosovo is right, Abrams is good, Ukrainians are good, russia bad.
Just an analog girl living in a digital world.
@@covrtdesign5279 Guy Clark?
It's just 3D instead of "2D-ish". Tanks now need to have the space above them in their minds as well. But you don't need a 4th dimension here 😉
NAFO: Cope cage???.. Hahahaha
NATO Tankers: Cope Cage!!! 🧠💡... Good Idea!!!
The cope was the protection against javelin and NLAW which those cages were useless as protection against them.
@@MobinBrown No it is to protect the tank from the drones
@@Petar15630 Drone drops and FPVs were barely a thing when the cope cages started appearing. It was made for protection against Javelins
Tanks in WWII put cut logs on the side and armor to blunt AT weapons somewhat.
@@Petar15630originally to protect against javelins. They don't do much against drones because the operators don't target the top of the turret, what I usually see is them hitting the engine deck or the rear of the turret which usually has no additional protection
Arbams* in the thumbnail
Arbams
LOL the translation!!! 😂😂😂
Don't you mean the Abraham? 😂
@@Saffi____
The M1 Abrams was named after a certain General Creighton Abrams.
Not Old Abe
@@gotohyoshihisa3971 I know it was a joke. I was teasing because he misspelled Abrams and another comment in a different video called it Abraham so I borrowed it.
Great explanation sir, really. My friend is a tank commander out of Malmstrom at the moment (I know Malmstrom is AF). He doesn’t have near this insight. So thank you.
That's where I'm based out of lol
I think a big problem is the lack of support because they're stretched so thin they cant afford to have dedicated infantry/aircraft units to support them which leaves them exposed in alot of situations
You don't want to die from a kamikaze drone.
Which kind of put's them in a loss spiral where the lack of support can increase losses which leaves them stretched even thinner.
13:11 when your barrel gets destroyed in WT and you are pleading for your life
> Fine and fire
> Miss a shot
> This happened
Fr 😂😂😂
Nah, you don't turret-wiggle to beg. You turret-wiggle because Gaijin doesn't know how to code and if your barrel is moving when it gets hit it somehow turns into Stalinium and even 183mm shots wont turn it yellow.
They are using it to the best of their ability. People have the wrong idea about military things, and in this case the abrams. Its not some supertank, its another tank that will get taken out just like the other tanks have when hit by artillery, mines or anti tank guns. Thats why i dont understand the hype the f16's for ukraine is getting in the media. They are not superplanes, and they will get shot down fairly quickly, like it or not. Because russia has a solid airdefence system, and their own planes.
F16s radar is double the range of anything russkis have. That's enough.
Considering that Ukraine started with 20+ Planes able to launch Stormshadow and still has between 6-9 left is impressive.
@@xandr13 Objectively wrong. Open source information suggests that the specific f16 ukraine received from denmark and netherland has AN/APG-66 radars installed. Which has a detection range of up to 160 km. The current backbone of russian air superiority in ukraine, su-34 and su-35. both has a radar range of more than 180km. The only russian air superiority plane that has a lower radar detection range in su-27, which doesn't see much front line activity in ukraine.
@@xandr13 They said the technological superiority of the western tanks would be enough too...
@@W0pper1997 It's not that impossible. During NATO aggression against Serbia, they claimed 40+ destroyed mig 29. Yet we had like 3 operational and 12 in total.
Yet. They didn't destroy all of them. Actually 5 were left. 3 cannibalised for parts so only 2 operational after.
I'm susprised he never mentionned helicopters, which is was the major threat against tanks, or mb bc he's american, so US army never deploy their tanks without air dominance, so he never had to worry about helicopters, but other armies, speciall iraqi army had never had a chance against american attack helicopters.
Outstanding discussion! To hear from one of the troops who will actually have to go forward and face these new threats is eye-opening.
I dont think you could use the Abrams doctrinally even if you wanted to just as the Russians cant use their t series doctrinally. The nature of warfare changed since the 50s.
Well, the Abrams and the T series tanks were designed for Maneuver Warfare doctrines, as stated in the video the Russo-Ukraine war is Positional (or perhaps it is better to say Attritional) and the frontlines are far more static. Moreover, the doctrine that Abrams and the T series were designed for were (to my knowledge) both offensive, the slow reverse speed of many T series comes to mind.
I think it's a bad idea to say nobody can use the Abrams or even the T series doctrinally just because the Ukrainians and Russians are unable to do so. Speaking specifically to the Abrams, Uncle Sam has more toys at his disposal to use the Abrams according to doctrine that Ukraine does.
Obligatory "I am a civilian, take my thoughts worth a grain of salt."
No it hasn't.
@@damoclesecoe7184 Ukraine is still a maneuver war. The problem is that Ukraine has not fought a war as a nation in living memory, and it has been a long time since Russia has fought a war of this scale. Both countries have very top-down militaries, where the average soldier has basically no say in how an operation is conducted. RIght now Ukraine is entirely dependent on foreign support, while Russia doesn't want to squander more than it already has because they know their country is not very well off economically (with or without the sanctions).
@@cstgraphpads2091 Like I said, grain of salt.
well they are also meant to be used in combined arms warfare with USA's overwhelming air superiority in Ukraine they are basically used as anti tank SPGs
for defense
I just saw one in person for the first time an hour ago, it looks much cooler in person
did you get an autograph
@@SeminarioMAE sadly no, the NCOs didn’t let me that close
All tanks look cooler in person
This video is rad and the interview was awesome.
That was a great interview.
Regardless this shows it doesnt matter how advanced your tank is their are always ways to take it out even if your fighting a tank older than an abrams the T72 has shown itself to be a good tank when used correctly
There's not much age difference between the abrams and the t72 most tanks are the same basic model just heavily modernised.
@@SCARFACE-gp4fy true
@@SCARFACE-gp4fy your not wrong
@@SCARFACE-gp4fyyea
But the western design is clearly better. Otherwise Russia wouldn't be trying to establish a new design philosophy, while the westerners are still building on to leopard 2s with our new nations pride:
The kf-51 panther
Yes but your comparing tanks designed for war 20 yeaars ago, these tanks arnt upto date therefore have a huge lack of defense for modern threats. You should be looking at the future tanks and how they adapt then ask the question how tanks stack up aginst drones.
Dude any call of duty player could have told them drones are annoying as efff like back in 2009... :|
yeah and one communication disruption and it's all gone
@@lolasdm6959yes but it also would affect your own communication too both parties will be dark
Dragon fire drone much
@@messyjessem.3108
"hunter killer drone standing by..."
"Your predator missile is ready for launch."
"Reaper on stand by"
"RC car, ready for deployment!"
@@mctony0965 So you just open up your disruptor for 1 minute now all their drones are dropping to the ground then you turn it off.
Great unbiased interview; a guest who was measured, gave good well thought responses and was honest. It's something I notice when talking to lower-level officers, that most are actually really measured and don't underestimate their opponent and take things seriously, as apposed to higher level command which are arrogant and stuck in the past.
You simply cannot defend against a dozen tiny drones coming from five different direction. As nobody has solved this threat yet, the concept of the "tank" as a breakthrough and assault weapon is on hold for the time being.
@RedEffect
Bravo for the interview
15:11 - No apology needed.
I think it did not sound 'all over the place' in any way.
It seemed to be clear and make perfect sense, imho.
This was absolutely fascinating and highly educational to me.
Thank you greatly for this video.
☮
I think what people need to understand, the Abrams isn’t a super tank, never was and it wasn’t designed to be. It has the same venerability as any other tank. Most of the time you see a lone Abrams fighting… a tank alone is a target and usually a easy hit. They are meant to be teamed up with support infantry and other armored assets
Great interview, really interesting to get this insight, thank you
Love your videos Red, keep the good work up! ❤️
Military experts has already theorised that the arch enemy of the modern tank is the helicopter gunship.
The tank is just another tool. If you miss the nail with a hammer and hit your thumb, it's not the hammers fault
Damn comments are actaully so respectful and actaully insightful today.
Bruh these people are losing their mind with malice. Lol 😂
@@DisgruntledK28 nah like comparing to other comments like under willoam , its acatully really chill iv3 only seen nafo or orc be used like one or twice.
Just wait and click "new comment"
You will see it
Shut up, what you know?!
Nafos and russianbots are a sleep
Was on the SEP2 for 6 years. You own the sky and that tank will thrive. More importantly though, crew survivability, that's where she excels at. It's nice to have fancy tanks, even better being able to put a crew that just lost a tank into a new one quickly.
Yea but economy will play a role eventually no country not even the US can withstand losses of $10 million dollar tanks to drones that cost in the thousands and until something can be done about drones armored warfare will not be the same blitzkrieg is dead for the moment but iam confident we will eventually find a solution but not for a while.
Yes.
I need to vent for a second.
Red effects comment section is insufferable.
90% are yapping about shit no one ever said. And it's either "western stuff is just as good as the Russian stuff and will be immediately destroyed by 20 million lancets"
Or
"Western stuff is so incredibly good it's not even comparable"
Although I do have to say that the people with let's say favourable opinions about russian equipment are leagues ahead with being annoying.
A tank takes a couple weeks to be built, a tanker takes a lifetime to be built.
@@jesseterrell2109 Tbf the tanks themselves are very cheap materially due to economies of scale.
If you played games like Squad, tanks are still favoured. Its difficult to use AT tools.
A good armour player in that game can dominate if they know how to play with infantry. Bad armour players just waste tickets
What makes it survivable.
Love to exclusive info ty
Great interview! I agree 100% with all he said. I see the roof atop of tanks becoming the norm and I also see bullets for assault rifles with spread becoming popular(Having one mag of this would be very useful) Remember drones have come to stay
Am I the only one who feels a strange parallel to WWII with the proliferation of naval aviation which changed the naval doctrine of a “Decisive Battle” to small skirmishes/air raids? (“Grand battle” to individual tank/drone raids) 😂😂
But WW2 didn't do that. Midway wasn't a "small skirmish/air raid". The only thing naval aviation did was change the delivery method of munitions.
Maybe more like the invention of the torpedo before that? 🤔
@@cstgraphpads2091 I would count midway as the definition of an air raid battle, compared to the contemporary Decisive Battle doctrine at the time. You can also argue drones “change the delivery method of munitions.”
@@rnzafdude But they didn't. The aircraft carrier changed the delivery of munitions from a gun on a ship to an aircraft launched from a carrier. Are drones somehow not "aircraft" despite them also flying through the air in 100% of these cases?
Aircraft drops bomb, drone drops grenade: No difference
Aircraft launches missile, drone launches missile: No difference
Aircraft crashes deliberately into target, drone crashes deliberately into target: No difference.
How is Midway an "air raid battle"? It was a massive set-piece battle between two opposing fleets and lasted for three days. A "raid" isn't going to last one day, let alone three. Two carrier fleets squared off and launched wave after wave of planes at each other while trying to maneuver for better advantage. That is literally no different than a naval battle between battleships, like the Battle of Jutland, where it would be salvos of shells instead of waves of planes. Hell Jutland only lasted a single day.
@@cstgraphpads2091 Your arguments don’t counter any of my points?
At this point, I think you’re agreeing with me, and you’re just akshuallying and nickpicking on word choice? Lol.
Because yes, that is my exact point.
Just like we went from Battleship-oriented “Decisive Battle” doctrine to naval aviation doctrine,
I am saying the ground battle seems like it is going from Tank-Division level Manoeuvre-Warfare doctrine oriented “Grand Battle” (eg 73 Easting) to drone-oriented. Lol.
Great interview, I think would be great if you invite him again in the future.
Thank you for this interview. I've held a middling viewpoint on the Abrams in Ukraine, with drones and mines just being too effective. The insider view of it really helped me understand my own lack of information. Would you possibly do this with Bradleys or CV90s? I hold those two in a much better effectiveness in Ukraine and would love to learn more.
I don’t know what I’m talking about, but I think they can send in decoys with smaller groups. The problem is drones can see everything, but they can only see on outside. They know how and where to strike but not which one when presented with multiple possibilities
But again, I don’t much about modern warfare. And there’s the fact that this wouldn’t work if there are multiple drones swarming a target
Smaller groups? Major criticism of the failed offensive was the ongoing use of small independent teams instead of the use of the western trained tactics that considered the special situation in Ukraine. They said prior to the offensive the gear will be a waste this way.
The thing is drones will have such advanced detection technology that any decoy would probably need to be deceptive on multiple spectrums of light, infrared, electronic and magnetic signals, etc. in order to effectively draw significant fire. You are on the right path that the obvious solution is advanced cloaking or camouflage, but hiding next to dummies made of wood or blown up balloons are probably a by-gone Era.
Great interview!
Great analysis and opinion for the tank crew. To be honest, I was expecting the interview would ended up in bias one but I was wrong, it ended up well.
Thank you - a very interesting video. It's very enlightening to hear the thought process of a real military professional.
Appeal to Authority.
This one guy was great. But don't think "a real military professional" is a good quality.
_I'm_ a military professional. Or a Veteran, since I'm out of the force now. And I can tell you straight up that half the people there aren't worth listening to.
Is very good interview. I was in the navy and I used to drive the assault boats. The LCM 8 boat was big enough to handle the M60, but the Abrams wouldn't fit.So they end up phasing out the landing craft mechanized. went more for the air cushion assault craft. The Marine Corps understands what's going on.They've changed a lot of their tactics including the armor, they've phased it out. Is the tank obsolete? With all the new technology, only time well tell.
At 11:57 the term he's trying to reference is Large Scale Combat Operations (LSCO, pronounced as Lisco).
Even in the first shot I see a completely uncamouflaged vehicle completely out in the open. I'm not a tanker myself, but I know a few. Driving around in a completely uncamouflaged vehicle is considered almost as bad as painting a huge red-and-white target on your tank with the words "rocket please" underneath. Anything to break up that distinct boxy shape. Branches and grass in wooded areas, bits of cardboard and corrugated tin in urban environments. Even a little bit would help. Anything to break up that distinctive sillhouette.
Sadly, none of that matters anymore. We can no longer hide a single person, much less a tank.
Thermal imaging is evolving so quickly, that it is a new generation every six months. You can buy online, today, a thermal imager that will fit in a drone that will tell you whether the person you are looking at, in what seems to be a pitch black night, has glasses on or not.
That is why there are so many casualties in that conflict. Unless you are underground, you can't hide.
The shelf life of a drone is measured in days, so the newest technology is reaching the battlefield in weeks. During the Ukraine-Russia war, thermal imaging has gone from, there is a blob, let's use night vision to determine what it is, to that soldier forget to button his shirt. We are able to pick out tiny details now, and this has forever altered warfare.
You cant hide from drones.
Nonsense. Ever seen a moving bush and thought it suspicious?
@@alispeed5095 Sure you can. You can disable the drones with ECM. There is nothing a drone has that is somehow magical. Standard camera? Camo. Thermals? Signiture reduction measures. Drones are not new technology.
@@billyponsonby Who said anything about it moving?
It was really interesting, I do think it's a bit weird he mentions only drones as the main threat multiplier. I get that the scale at which they are deployed is unprecedented, but mines, trenches and fortified positions seem be as important as drones in this war.
Still very interesting talk and good job on getting on the interview.
Of course, but none of that tracks you, hunts you down and then drops something on you or spots for an artillery strike on you while your driver takes a piss. On the other hand, you are perfectly safe from mines if you stay out of the minefield. 😅 So, I get why these flying buggers are always on a tanker's mind.
All of those have been in combat for many many years now, NATO and Ukraine have trained to fight against them, however not so much against drones
@@Ganiscol >you are perfectly safe from mines if you stay out of the minefield
Which means you don't go anywhere and are now sitting ducks against artillery.
@@h.a8681 But drones aren't new though. They're just guided missiles and/or spotting aircraft. The same countermeasures that work against those things will work against drones.
@@cstgraphpads2091 spotting aircraft can easily be shot down air defenses missiles and guided missiles are one way trip. But drones can hover and watch you for hours and being controlled by a guy too
Very good and informative
The impact of drones v battle tank is a sort of "David and Goliath" scenario.. Brings back to mind an old safe-breakers principle: ... "If man can make it - man can break it".
He says that drones are the biggest threat, and they kind of are, however, that's in conjunction with a lot of other threats. Say for example the tank will run over a mine, which arguably has done a lot of work in this war, the tank will be immobilised, the crew will escape and then a drone will finish off the job by dropping a bomb down its open hatch.
This simplifies it a little bit, but really drones more or less render the recovery of vehicles almost impossible, and drones have also done fantastic work on soft skinned vehicles, as well as the passengers who ride on the top because of their fear of being blown up by a mine.
Also, let's not forget the fantastic job drones have done in complimenting artillery which can rain down accurate fire on moving armoured columns.
As I saw somebody else comment, mines and artillery have been known factors for decades and centuries respectively. Drones, specifically the way they are used in the Russo-Ukraine war, are the new thing on the block.
@@damoclesecoe7184 Except that some western countries (not the USA) banned the use of land mines after a campaign by Princess Diana. All due respect to her, good intentions won't win a war and I believe that European countries should reverse that decision and stock up on cheap land mines and cluster bombs which have been shown to be incredibly effective.
As for drones, well, we should use our resources to create advanced imaging AI hooked up to short range flak guns mounted onto vehicles like humvees that can use its software and advanced camera sensors to quickly detect aerial threats and shoot them out of the sky. The west has an advantage in computing technology and now is not the time to be introducing laws to restrict ourselves on R&D.
@@The_Greedy_Orphan You misunderstand the point I'm making. The reason the Staff Sgt. is focusing on drones is because the examples you gave like landmines and artillery have been concerns of his throughout his entire career as a tanker. Drones used the way they have been in Ukraine have only been around a couple of years and as such are needing new tactics and technology to counter. Mines and artillery may be an equal or greater threat, but ones that have been understood and trained for.
You'll still have an ambrams then...
@@The_Greedy_Orphan Diana's campaign was against anti personnel mines, which aren't a threat for tanks. Conversely anti tank mines aren't that much of a threat for civilians.
Tank commander whoever you are, I love your response to the doctrine question as the US doctrine is written with air superiority in mind and without drones in mind. Great answers i love your realism especially with explaining how the Ukrainians are using their tanks much love!
40mm x 365mm HEVT with full IRST search and track capability's on an IFV with the tanks (preferably with the latest Gen Thermal Imagers plus anything to track the signals being sent between drones and operators...even if is just able to alert that drones are nearby would be useful)
it's interesting how much combat has changed, going from valleys with cannons on the end of them to trench warfare to tank ambushes to gueirlla warfare to speeding down a flat plain at 80kmh in 10000 a 40 ton tanks and more
This was really informative and eye-opening. Thank you!
I was over in behind vulvedar assisting the Ukrainian army, a lot of the points you brought up are spot on.
The use of mines is a larger issue than the drones with regards to tanks over there. Drones are crazy over there, they are changing the battlefield immensely. But it’s still the mine that’s dominating.
The issue the Ukrainians are having is artillery. They simply cannot match the density of the Russian fire. A normal day for our guys was getting pounded by Russian fire all day long with very little counter battery fire. That combined with the extremely light Ukrainian preparatory fire and not able to do effective depth and flank coverage is causing a lot of Ukrainian casualties. For example last day I was there our rear was hit by uragan rockets while the front was getting pounded by 152mm. 69 Russian incoming to 1 outgoing.
to bad tanks cant just hover over the battlefield like in starwars
Its almost like western powers not giving Ukraine long range weapons capable of slamming weapon depots deep within Russia was a terrible idea. I don't understand the reasoning behind kneecapping them with only short and med range weapons that leaves the war machine untouched in Russian territory. Those soviet era artillery stocks should have been smoldering rubble within a month.
@@Aercadian @verygoodtrofey3083 is a very well known minister of foreign affairs in Russia. It is definitely him who is coming up with the policy in Ukraine and not just another citizen who has very little choice in the matter.
@@Aercadian you dont know history. when the ukrainians started shelling eastern ukraine and outlawing spoken russian they sealed their fate. when victoria nuland did her cia color revolution and couped the elected gov they sealed their fate. zelenski promised peace and then went and did the opposite arming via usa and eu and waging war. this sealed his fate. without western interference this war would have never happend and ukraine would have remained as it has historically neutral. so get a freaking clue dude....
@verygoodtrofey3083 literally kremlin news CTRL+C, CTRL+V
Excelente video. In general your content.
@redeffect waiting for your vid on ‘Turtletank’ or ‘Tzar Mangal’ as it’s been nicknamed by the guys using it ))
The tactics will depend on the EW/anti-drone solutions that are invented to deal with drones. Let's say we develop some specialized vehicle whose only purpose is to carry a massive EW/anti-drone device that covers an area. You might, ironically, end up with tight groups of tanks "hugging" that EW/anti-drone vehicle for protection from drones. On the other hand, if reliable, strong EW/anti-drone devices can be miniaturized so that each tank has its own, then you might see truly independent lone wolf tactics, OR a return to tactics that ignore drones altogether (if the EW/anti-drone solution is reliable enough).
We currently have EW systems that protect large areas, but not enough to cover the entire front line. Many countries are working on vehicle mounted systems to defeat drones. It won’t be long before they are employed on a large scale. Just as the Duke and rhino were used to defeat IEDs, we will find a way to defeat most drones. It’s just a matter of time.
When is General Dynamics going to release the official cope cage upgrade kit?
It’s almost like tanks made for the us military are best used under the assumption it has the rest of the us military, and 90% of these comments didn’t even watch the first 2 minute of the video
I love how 99% of the comments are from people doing research and forming their own opinions .I would like to hear from actual soldiers in the field ,in Ukraine,operating tanks and what their real life experiences have taught them about the abrams.The majority of you guys commenting are guessing.
have to wait once they become veterans or at least when the war ends. WW2 German veterans who were snipers got interviewed as well on how they functioned and the kills they had so I'm sure regardless if this entire thing becomes a total bloodshed with one side being occupied, you'll still have at least some veterans talking about their experiences.
The main theme of the Russo-Ukranian war has been just how easy it is to mass fires & dangerous it is to concentrate forces on a transparent battlefield.
Everyone involved (and everyone watching) is trying to figure out how to either mass forces safely OR generate offensive potential in a dispersed posture.
That's just warfare then... Even in chess you have to be carful and how to attack when.
The issue is that neither side has enough firepower to suppress the other side. It isn't just that things are too transparent. Trench warfare in WW1 was primarily caused by what armies *lacked* (ammo most especially). The same is true here. Both sides are exhausted.
@@pax6833 I would argue that the positional fighting of WWI was primarily a result of the *excess* of firepower.
Back then, as now, tactics have struggled to enable free movement of large forces in the open in the face of rapidly massed fires.
@@jordanreeseyreI think you're right on point w your analysis
5:30
To be fair: the first cope cages were not installed on Russian tanks to prevent drone attacks, it was done to "protect" against Javelins and NLAWs and whatnot. That's why it was named a "cope cage" - because it just coping instead of actually being viable to work with. (This is also how we got silly shit like that one tank that someone welded a steel tube to and put a container full of hot coals in on the end of it thinking it would throw off heat-seeking munitions.)
Currently 3 major threats to tanks in Ukraine and mostly applied ot other places elsewhere : Drones, ATGM, and Mines. The Abraham is designed to take some ATGM hits but that is constantly changing in the game of cat and mouse. It may be able to avoid mines if the operators know where these are. Drones is another question.
Active defense can be used against Drones and ATGM. Mines is trickier question but the good thing is it is not always available to the defenders, or can be debatably neutralized or bypass somehow.
Tanks in a dense forest like in SE Asia or Latin America will not be easy to be hit with drones.
Some atgm hits? 😅 a Saudi Abrams was taken out by a single atgm, an Iranian knock-off of Russian made designed in 1970.
And who tf is stupid enough to drive a 70 tons behemoth in a forest let alone dense tropical rainforest in SE Asia/Latin America?
Very interesting and informative thank you for posting this 😊
Really excellent interview truly (BTW, very concise and easy to understand don't worry)!
And I couldn't agree more, they're going to really start to have have to start to focus on the individual unit and the individual in general and I think special forces is going to expand tremendously..! Essentially all Frontline US forces are going to be highly specialized they're going to have to be...
With that said, US Army finally found APS solution in the Iron Fist L/D, with at least 3 but up to 9 ABCT's worth of M2A4's(same APS as is likely to be used/incorporated into XM30 MICV/M2 replacement...)
Elbit advertised not long after the October 7th attacks the Dave Incorporated a software upgrade into the new Iron Fist(Iron Fist Light/Dis-coupled designed essentially for Bradley's) which enables the radar to surveil and track anything coming from above as well so they can protect against slow-moving grenade dropping as well as FPV and loitering UAV's(US Army agrees, and I would love to hear what this SEPv3 commander has to say about this/Trophy/APS's in general and their abilities...)
And don't get me started on where the F*CK is the Iron Fist L/D on the M10 Booker?!?
I'm hoping it's just like the fact that there isn't an RWS on the top, because it's just the bare bones minimum in order to get into production ASAP...!
the abrams was designed for combined arms use, that means with scouts, infantry, air assets etc.. it was never meant for solo use period.
Way too many people forget/don't know that doctrine plays a critical role in how vehicles and assets are not just employed, but developed and fielded. The Abrams was designed to operate within the US military's doctrine which places a heavy emphasis on firepower, particularly aerial firepower. If it were the US fighting, our doctrine calls for the amassing of combat power with fighting usually kicked off by the US Air Force.
The first stage of major operations involves a focus on SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defense). The US usually does this with its high-flying, high-tech stealth bombers which are capable of dropping high volumes of precision munitions on air defense radars and command centers. This is supplemented by US 4.5 and 5th generation strikecraft specially equipped for SEAD (anti-radiation missiles, etc) that target mobile radars and launchers closer to the frontlines. These operations can last for weeks or even months until BDA's show that the enemy's air defenses have been degraded to the point that large scale strikes can be conducted. Once that is determined, the US generally brings in swarms of Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force strikecraft that are used to target command and control centers, logistics and enemy troop concentrations. This causes the enemy's command/comms structure to breakdown, as well as depriving frontline units of needed supply and degrading both combat capability and morale.
Only once these missions are complete (in Desert Storm it took months) are ground forces sent in. By this time, the US has used its superior logistics infrastructure (around 80% of the Army is logistics/support personnel) to mass equipment and troops. US armor advances with close support provided by both strikecraft and attack helicopters, which have much greater freedom to operate since enemy air defenses are shattered and the US controls the skies. US armored forces then advance rapidly, often bypassing strongpoints or surrounding them and calling for the gunships that will come in and break the enemy strongpoint, which is then easy for mechanized infantry to mop up afterwards. In Desert Storm, this was so effective that many Iraqis, even veterans of the Iran-Iraq War, surrendered as soon as they saw US ground forces approaching. US troops go into battle having been taken care of before: well fed, medically screened prior to deployment and usually given substantial time to complete months of pre-deployment training. A lot of us don't see this because we take it for granted, but few militaries can send their troops to a month of realistic field training followed by a month of live fire gunnery every year.
Ukraine can do none of this. Whereas the US has a fleet of stealth bombers and swarms of 4.5 and 5th generation strikecraft, the Ukrainians have a handful of 4th generation fighters (maybe 4.5 generation if we are very generous about what upgrade packages are on the MiG-29's). Whereas the US is backed by a complicated but deep logistics base and one of the world's strongest economies, Ukraine is a nation whose economy is being systematically demolished in the war and whose logistics system is inherited from the same roots as the one that stalled Russia's early advances. Whereas US forces can advance with strike aircraft and helicopter gunships on standby to provide immediate close air support, Ukrainian troops are lucky if they have a few drones or an artillery battery on stand-by. Ukrainian forces also struggle to mass for the attack, since their air force isn't able to target enemy field artillery and force them into hiding (as the US often does). In other words, it's simply impossible for the Ukrainians (or anyone else in their situation) to use US equipment the way it is designed to be used.
* *Abrams burn in Iraq* *
"Those aren't _real_ Abrams"
* *Abrams burn in Ukraine* *
"They are using them wrong"
Coming soon
* *Abrams burn in Taiwan* *
"That's on an island, so it doesn't count."
Does this apply to every Russian tank model or? I’m just curious because they seem to be blowing up a lot
No one said that the Abrams that got destroyed in Iraq aren’t real. Gonna need a source for that.
Ukraine are using the Abrams wrong, it’s just fact. The issue is, they can’t use it correctly even if they wanted to. They have no air support and very little support vehicles, unlike NATO doctrine.
The abrams the Iraqis used only had steel/ceramic composite armor, and Ukraine isn't using the abrams how its meant to be used, in combined arms combat. Idk with Taiwan i don't really see them using the abrams if China invaded, probably smaller/lighter ifvs for the rocky terrain, but I guess we'll see when the time comes
@@DrywallMuncher_probably the m10 booker
@@lancehamlett3054 As a Russian I can say this: We do not cry about our tanks getting blown up. In war, equipments is used and destroyed in large quantities. THIS is the reality. Maybe we were taught this during WW2, but we do not believe in Wunderwaffels or Hollywood mighty Americans where 2 squads take out whole Iraq. The best thing you can make is good, reliable equipment which is also not expensive and make doctrines that actually work.
Considering the Abrams was designed with a doctorine of overwhelming air and fires superiority, along with never being a solo tank always traveling in platoons of 3-4, as well as ALWAYS having cavalry (scouts or mounted infantry) support. Yes Ukraine is essentially throwing them away.
things are different when your enemy can actually fire back
It is not so much about the design, but about the way of use and more importantly against whom the abrams was used, for example in the first gulf war the Iraqis did not have any weapon with which the abrams could be penetrated from the front, in the second gulf war the situation was almost the same, only they had a couple of cornet missiles from Syria. And there were generally 200 tanks on one Iraqi position, since the coalition forces were the ones who dictated where and when the battle would take place, and now in Ukraine it's all very, very different, a professional army is at war that is more than decently armed and then it shows how vulnerable the tank is to whoever made it.
@@zayedbinimran957that’s bullshit. They’re not using them correctly at all 🤦♂️🙄
@@zayedbinimran957 the US would completely dismantle russian air defense in a few weeks lol. 400+ f-35s and f-22s, 7 carrier fleets, meanwhile russias 12 Su-57s that are barely even air worthy and a navy that is getting ships sunk by a country without a navy...
having more abrams or "cav" just wont make any difference theyll get picked apart by drones and arty just as quickly its cool to have more protection against infantry but at the end of the day 20 russians sitting 30km away spamming fpvs are enough to destroy an armored collum esp if it cant even move properly due to large minefields theres a reason why armored offensives are so difficult atm
Good work guys God bless you
Thanks, RedEffect.
Now, I'm interested to see if the same issue occurs with how they deploy the F-16s.
Wouldnt it gi through a teething process first though, plus they only have 6 in comparison to the russain airforce its miniscule.
Furthermore they will be hunted so i personnally dont think ukraine can afford the pr or material loss.
It would be the same as how they’re currently using there MIG 29/SU 27
The F-16 would bring more as it’s a modernize variant but it’s not gonna be a huge difference
Great video, thanks for sharing it.
I can appreciate this commander's viewpoint. The problem is that no one knows how war is going to play out. Sun Tzu said you avoid it if you can. Cuz you don't know. Well they're not drones will be as important in The next war remains to be seen. Between now and then we don't know what levels of progress in tracking drones will happen, nor the counter measures that will be produced. Drones may become King of the battlefield, or they may become something that has to sit off 2 km and just watch useful. Suicide drones may become impractical, or not. Really what suicide drones are guided munitions, I think what we've seen is is that unguided munitions are becoming less and less useful in the battlefield. And a spike in guided munitions especially small. But that doesn't mean that we might not see a counter. Something like mini phalanx's. We just don't know
Great interview, I’m not sure why he apologised at the end.
He tried to be fair but western equipment always benefits from positive bias and from the assumption that it’s flawless and if it gets destroyed it’s because “times changed” or “another technology came up”.
I just note that Russian or Chinese equipment would never benefit of the same excuses if/when it is struggling in battle.
I thought this guy would be a dope who just castigated the Ukrainians for not sticking to US doctrine, but he was actually extremely thoughtful and a very interesting interview. You can tell he’s given this a lot of consideration. Great video!
Idk...but this much I'll tell you those Abrams are the obsolete M1A1 models the US phased them out back in the mid 90'a and Moth balled them They were either going to scraped them or just ship them to Ukraine.
using small scale drones in war has been possible for two decades. the only change is they dont just carry cameras anymore. as someone who grew up using rc and basic robotics. I find it pretty amusing the US department of defense DOD never considered this a possibility. until someone fighting on a budget used it because it makes sense. love this 2001 thinking going on across the world being surprised. I had thought of this stuff in high school as its pretty simple concepts.
FPV drones employ a concept akin to television-guided missiles from the post-WW2 era. Over time, missiles have become more costly and automated, leading to the use of Soviet-era TV-guided missiles exclusively by militants.
Yes
It's a great(although scary)addition to the fighting force.
@@anchorread68 They're exactly the same in concept.
@@anchorread68Problem is, as weapons become more complicated, they also become harder to use. Do they want an electrical engineer in the front just to service and operate the zoomy-boomy things?
"Never considered this a possibility" where do you betards get this shit? Anti drone tech has been being worked on for 20 years.
T90 gets destroyed: Lol funny tank got rekt
Abrams and Leopard 2 get vanished: We have to consider the crew training, conditions, drones, bla bla bla
To expand on the topic of Drone warfare. Some might be thinking about how "Drones" have been around for a long time, but back then it meant a big, full size plane drone that launched missiles from afar. And yes. It's just that they mean the proliferation of very cheap, very plentiful drones that can suicide dive into a tank from the top. And while small, handheld drones have been around in the consumer market for a long time, it's only in the past 10 years they've just ballooned into ubiquity.
Prepare to see more commonly used terms for drone subcategories to represent their size and use cases.
the document is not in the description
A Tank was not designed to sustain damage from above...
Unless they change that Drones gonna make Tanks obsolete
A tank can be designed to feature an unmanned turret, which would be lightly armored, while the crew operates from within the chassis that is reinforced with additional top armor. This unmanned turret concept was pursued in the T-14 Armata & BMPT Terminator.
I guess they gotta cut the front armor down and use that to create a better roof with spaced nera/era
@@anchorread68yeah no, that's the worst possible idea. Because then one enemy drone easily disarms your tank. Chasing weight reduction in the turret is a stupid idea. Use the weight savings to up armor the turret and the hull roof instead.
@@thelordofcringe only problem is not just hull roof or turret also engine and side are weak points . basicly tanks needs to be an armored box
@@thelordofcringe Enemy drones disarm your tank easily anyway bruh
Okay here is my problem with asking someone who has used an M1A2 as opposed to an M1 base model. Which, by the way, are being replaced with the M1E3. The M3 is being replaced by the XM30. But the M3s performance in Ukraine is very impressive.
The Tank commander have a point, but ngl the thing is that when you fighting an enemy that actually equal or stronger, any combat losses like this are completely acceptable in my point of view. No matter how good the doctrines, crews, and tanks itself
Speaking to a tank commander, who knows his stuff, brings real understanding of the issue in question.
Does he though? The M1 was made for how the United States fights wars. We'd have dominance in the air and in the electronic spectrum. We'd go in en masse. So this is not comparable.