https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/26/m1a1-abrams-ukraine-drones-russia/
Five of the 31 M1A1 Abrams tanks delivered last year have already been destroyed by Russian forces
westoid tank designers when their tank is vulnerable to being blown up (how could those subhuman asiatics possibly figure this out???) 
TLDR: The weak spot is the entire top of the tank, and it's weak to drones, explosives, or anything bigger than an automatic rifle. Also the donors took much of the advanced armor off because they were afraid about those secrets falling into Russian hands.
"We have a supreme weapon, but we don't want to bring it out and use it, because our rivals might copy it."
Author recommends that Ukrainians stop camping behind the minefields and no-man's-land, and charge forward with their 50 MPH M1A1s that Churchill himself inspired, using "manaeiouvrability" to "run riot" behind enemy lines, a completely foreign concept to inferior Slavic strategy patterns.
I love how they have this obsession with manoeuvre warfare. Like sure Ukraine doesn't have the troops or the weapons needed to fight this sort of a war, but maybe they can just outmanoeuvre the Russian orcs by using clever NATO tactics. 😂
This is super easy to understand though in this guys' case, I remember that name back when he wrote about how the Challenger 2 is a game changer because he was a tank commander, guy has been writing about how all the tank wunderwaffens are going to send the russians to flee in terror several times and now he has to make up new copium why even though all those superior tanks are on Ukraines side they still can't win.
Like this minor british noble is quite literally just a tankie who thinks that tanks are the ultimate weapon and solution to everything.
It can't be helped after all. The officers were taught that maneuver warfare is the ultimate form of warfare and the apparent success against Iraq validated this.
And since Marx has been expunged from the academy there is no possibility of reorganizing theory such that positional warfare can stand on an equal or relational (or dare we say it dialectical) footing with maneuver warfare.
Churchill himself inspired
I can recall a Churchill inspired tank, it was slow fat beast with small gun, thin skin, and it was breaking all the time, so... i can see how that name came to be.
Author recommends that Ukrainians stop camping behind the minefields and no-man’s-land, and charge forward with their 50 MPH M1A1s that Churchill himself inspired
"Churchill inspired" my ass... They're recommending a blitzkrieg. I bet they're even aware of how bad that specific wording would sound, which is why they misattributed it to Churchill instead..
I didn't understand the Churchill part. What does he mean by manoeuvre here? Like is he saying that they should drive the tank really fast so that drones cannot hit them? Because if so that is extremely stupid.
What they're trying to say is to do a blitzkrieg, the famous nazi germany vehicle rushing fueled by meth, but they are actively avoiding saying the german word so they missttribute it to Churchill 😂
He's saying they should do NATO combined-arms showcase tactics, instead of Soviet probe-and-funnel tactics, to make the Russians less capable of predicting where and how they have to defend.
Also, my god you guys are tireless posting defenders. Da zdravsvuyet lemigrad.
As the German tactician General Heinz Guderian realised when he
My dude that's a Nazi general you don't have to save his ass like that
As the German tactician General Heinz Guderian realised when he got his ass beat, getting your ass beat is a bad strategy for winning
Not that I'd ever expect a Western journalist to actually research anything they print, but tanks have always been vulnerable to artillery. The supposed invulnerability of the Abrams/Challenger came from the fact that they never saw combat against a peer military until Ukraine, and now that they have eaten a precision barrage or three they turn out to be just another tank.
At least we can take solace in the fact that the value of about $10 million per tank is solidly grounded in reality.
The weak point of every tank is the bottom and the top, because those are least vulnerable in the combat for which tanks are designed, so they can be left way less armored. But long range 155mm artillery gun or a well placed mine hit exactly those parts. Note Soviets tried to take care of the roof at least by having round turrets, but all the modern NATO tanks have flat roofs since they never before had to fight when enemy had air or artillery advantage, they literally forgot it can happen.
He looks like if James Bond and William Shatner got transmuted into a late 70s record label manager.
The same for any tank, the top, the rear, and the treads.
also...
Five of the 31 M1A1 Abrams tanks delivered last year have already been destroyed by Russian forces
1/6th eating shit after a year of fighting a peer military is pretty good... unless the other 25 are hiding in the rear and never have taken fire.
where the armour is only thick enough to stop machine gun fire.
Pretty sure they can take smaller 40mm mortars and survive.
I believe experts have pointed out the vulnerability is how complex and hence expensive it is to keep these tanks running. It needs a crew of mechanics to regularly service a gas turbine engine which also guzzles jet fuel. They are very heavy which means they can't be driven on any roads or bridges that are too soft or weak without destroying them.
The tank crew themselves need a lot of skill and teamwork to be effective. They still manually load the main gun. Ukrainian troops would have no training on American tanks. So that time and labour for training up the crew to competency is another cost.
They are less of a resource drain just sitting in storage with the engine off.
