edit 2 ok so only 5 so far, but 5 modernized abrams is still a LOT when properly supported, hopefully this delivery will change the tune about more tanks being donated to Ukraine, Ukraine is entering a localized high intensity counter attack stage of the war which tanks are critical for.
Earlier, it was reported that Australia began sending 49 refurbished M1A1 Abrams tanks to Ukraine after obtaining US export approval, overcoming concerns related to maintenance and battlefield suitability.
edit sorry I missed someone had already posted this, I can delete although I really do want to stress the headline I wrote to everyone…’
Now that Ukraine has sufficient artillery to field main battle tanks, I would not be so sure if I was Russia that these Abrams tanks are not going to be terrifying on the battlefield. Literally all the news I see that I have access to as a normal english speaker seems to portray the Abrams as obsolete and ineffective in Ukraine and it is really really REALLY obvious propaganda and just general western brain worms around AI and drones.
No, several dozen Abrams tanks with sufficient artillery support are a Russian soldier’s nightmare, especially at night.
The narratives around the Abrams in Ukraine are exhausting and weirdly twisted, most of the articles seem to emphasize all of the abrams tanks given to Ukraine have been destroyed as if that was evidence they are obsolete. I think that is an absurd framing however as 1.) They are a strategic target for Russia as destroying them is essential PR for Russia. 2.) Tanks get destroyed, especially when you are holding back an incomprehensibly big offensive 3.) the Abrams given to Ukraine were the shittiest, least updated Abrams tanks possible with no critical modifications or updates…
Yes, the Abrams tanks given to Ukraine were woefully underequipped and these are machines that take years to learn how to operate with a highly trained crew on, but the fact of the matter is we have not yet seen what the Abrams can REALLY do in Ukraine so any journalists who are actual journalists should hold their tongue and wait and see what happens. …which is not something I would do if I was a Russian and heard an Abrams coming… I would run…
Don’t take my word for it, look up US armored maneuver doctrine and it will become immediately apparent the idea of fielding Abrams tanks without sufficient artillery (or uncontested air support) is at a basic level absurd. It was being set up to fail. Now is different.
Also, from a political and strategic stand point Russia will be forced to hold on reserve more tanks the more tanks Ukraine has. This is because while most of the time main battle tanks are destroyed by other weapons on the battlefield, if Ukraine counter attacks and places Russia in a seriously compromised position, Russia will need a large amount of main battle tanks to maneuver in response to stop a threatening mechanized assault force penetrating deep into Russia. Of course, the tanks Russia are building right now are T-90m tanks which an even remotely modern Abrams tank will eat for lunch especially at night (nightlunch?) but from a PR and strategic planning standpoint Russia need tanks to address this still very remote (becoming less so every moment) threat and even now Russia is having to pay the cost for that by holding back tanks it could otherwise use to support soldiers and increase the speed of territory gained in their catastrophically failed offensive.
No… Ukraine getting these Abrams is huge news, I don’t care if the mainstream media is unconvinced, they don’t know what they are talking about either by design or by lack of competence.
This screenshot summarizing recent events at the front demonstrates a Russian mechanized tactical breakthrough and a reactionary Ukrainian mechanized response force mobilizing from the interior of Ukrainian territory. Since this was done on a previously inactive part of the front it is unlikely Ukraine would have had Abrams in the area even in the event they had them, but this kind of “tank destroyer” roles are exactly the kind of thing main battle tanks are devastatingly effective at countering. You do NOT want to be a russian tank crew or mechanized infantry riding in a BMP hurtling deep through enemy territory and run full tilt into an Abrams tank…
https://www.rfunews.com/articles/russian-columns-storm-new-northern-front
Abrams Round 2
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zAy3PdcQRT8
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qXmyEmQrllY
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GKotQyhlmos
Demonstration of abrams tanks firing in a target rich training exercise. Notice the surpisingly fast reversals and also how a tank will scooch up over the hill a bit before firing, from the perspective of the target which may be 1km away, the tank is peeking up and then reversing back under the rise of the hill. After firing a tank will usually reposition and peek from a slightly different position forcing AT or hostile tanks to readjust aim.
Something that is a fatal flaw of all Russian tanks being fielded in any significant number currently is that they have a very slow reverse gear which means they functionally cannot do this basic fire and reverse manuever, which severly hampers the effectiveness of every use of the tank other than suicidal front on charge. Did I mention the autoloaders in Russian tanks generally are not nearly well protected enough to actually survive tank combat without cooking off and blowing the turret off?
If performed correctly this basic firing tactic involves reversing the tank just enough so that the vertical drop disappears the tank turret behind cover again after firing. Again, Russian tanks aren’t designed to do this quickly, which is kind of insane if you think about it.
https://armypubs.army.mil/ProductMaps/PubForm/Details.aspx?PUB_ID=1031408
reversing quickly is a basic necessity for an effective modern main battle tank
https://smallwarsjournal.com/2025/05/28/t90-tank-failures-ukraine-combat-analysis/
A rundown of the issues with the T90m tank, I don’t agree with everything on this blog, but this is a fundamentally sound and thorough analysis.
https://offbeatresearch.com/2024/01/an-offbeat-research-guide-to-tank-spotting-soviet-origin-tanks/
A good rundown smallwarjournals cites for Russian tanks and their weaknesses.
Yes, yes it will, or rather it will be won by Ukraine being able to credibly threaten a huge Ukrainian mechanized assault deep into Russian territory that encircles massive sections of the Russian army in ways that take them out of the fight existentially for Russia. We probably won’t see that armored offensive, hopefully we won’t at least (for the sake of Ukrainian soldiers having to put their lives on the line more), but the threat of it will be precisely what actually ends the war in Ukraine it can be no other way.
Ukraine could certainly use more aircraft, but I think artillery and then main battle tanks are still more useful to Ukraine. I think the aircraft Ukraine really could use at scale right now are like the Aero Shark… electronics warfare and jamming platforms able to be affordably scaled up in production and fielded in large numbers to create a comprehensive backline defense for Ukraine (ok my list of most important equipment for Ukraine then goes 1. artillery ammunition and cannons of the self propelled and towed variety 2. ultralight electronics warfare and jamming aircraft 3. main battle tanks, armored fighting vehicles, MRAPs and APCs.)
I don’t agree, I think that this slow, persistent overwhelming grind down of Russia that Ukraine is doing by defending itself will ultimately cause LARGE, seemingly instantaneous abrupt failures in the Russian war machine. This is how systems collapse unless they are being subjected to extremely warping forces that nullify the context of the collapse.
It is the consistent loss in tactical interactions and normal operational manuevers that begins to punch problematic holes in the assaulting enemy. The function of these holes will evolve from being useful to stage raids and counter attacks at Russian logistics trying to reach the Russian frontlines to being direct threats to the Russian army and logistics from being flanked by deep mechanized assault forces penetrating into Russian territory and encircling entire swaths of Russian forces.
I think “western” powers have been content to maintain the Ukraine war as a WW1 like situation by providing aid but never enough artillery pieces and ammunition or other decisive weapons to give Ukraine an actually fighting chance. I would argue that these western players massively underestimated how hard and effectively Ukraine would fight and now have begrudginly come around to more seriously aiding Ukraine. This is quickly turning the war from a manufactured WW1 like pseudo-stalemate to looking more like the combined arms blitz style warfare of WW2 but supercharged with drones and the extremely good intelligence and battlefield awareness that afford highly coordinated combined arms forces like the Ukrainian army.
I’m not sure the cauldron strategy is as viable as it was in the past. This isn’t the Red Army of Stalin’s day, this army retreats en masse when you shatter its lines, as we saw in the Kharkiv offensive a couple years ago.
Do their missiles and big drones have inertial guidance? If not, more jamming systems could work really well.
No the Red Army of Stalin’s day actually had trucks, artillery it could defend and use decisively, mechanized capability, consistent production of ground attack aircraft allowing for high attrition and tanks at a large number that were modern and competitive… (The t-34 was FAR more technologically advanced for its time than the T-90 is for current day warfare, it isn’t even close, sem-modern western tanks are categorically superior to all currently mass produced Russian tanks)
No, the current Russian army is in FAR WORSE of a position than the Red Army ever was so long as Ukraine continues to fight with a modern combined arms approach. Just the fact that the Russian military is almost completely demechanized at scale (not even having enough unarmored vehicles) means that Russia’s military is contantly a liability to itself because it is always in danger of being encircled by a much smaller mechanized force.
In a way I think this offensive Russia is conducting right now is partially a defensive action inherently since Russia’s mostly infantry only army is far more vulnerable if Ukraine isn’t being challenged for iniatitive all up and down its frontlines… because when the mechanized counter attacks start to happen being stuck deep in a trench doesn’t do much for you when you are entirely encircled… so the situation quickly becomes trying desperately to respond fast enough to punctures through the Russian frontlines to stop a runaway Ukrainian armored assault from simply leaving Russian infantry in the dust and charging deep into the Russian backlines. This is what the media and people in general fail to understand about the role of armor in combined arms maneuver warfare, the idea is to leave the enemy in the dust not blow up every last enemy combatant with a magic weapons system that is impervious to enemy counterattack, this isn’t an anime mech show or something…
Tanks are so frighteningly quick vs. how much power they concentrate that the fatal flaw in their usage is almost always that they simply outrun friendly infantry (which is almost ALWAYS a death sentence for tanks).
The only decisive advantage Russia has right now are its glide bombs, which are a massive problem but notice they are inherently a weapon most useful against static targets and guess what armor doesn’t typically do…