“All the gear no idea.” Comes to mind.

@danjohnston9037

2 жыл бұрын

Epic Saying

@gold.2948

2 жыл бұрын

Strategy*

No, what is obsolete is using tanks without the support of infantry and air power. This is why NATO practices combined arms. (and had been for over a century, but even more so in urban combat)

@saltmerchant749

2 жыл бұрын

Using tanks without infantry has been obsolete as long as tanks have existed. Even sending WW1 era 'landships' against trenches was pointless without infantry following behind to exploit the breakthrough.

@matthewcinq-mars2349

2 жыл бұрын

I’m happy someone said this 👍👍

@roo1234

2 жыл бұрын

@scum Have you seen the recent pictures of Ukraine? I think you are deluding yourself.

@mark2tech

2 жыл бұрын

Infantrymen are just getting mauled by artillery along with the tanks. I think Russia is what’s obsolete.

@rt8hll

2 жыл бұрын

@Andrew Wright, it's the other way around. There's a saying in the Marine Corps, 03 everyone else is support.

Good frontal armour, a big gun, adequate manoeuvrability and good smoke generators, together with non-piecemeal combined-arms deployments, will keep the tank going in the prepared and elastic defence roles, and in the attack! Remember Guderian; 'two teams, each with 1000 tanks, choose their ground for use, team A commits all its tanks in favourable open ground, while B assigns its tanks piecemeal to infantry support, wasting their power in unfavourable ground'.... We should always remember 3rd and 23rd Panzer at the first battle of Kharkov, spring 1942...

@sergeant64

29 күн бұрын

Currently, in certain sectors, FPV drones are responsible for 90% of all Russian tank losses. A common situation unfolds as follows: the initial tank is taken out by a drone or another system. The remaining armoured vehicles are left on the battlefield with their hatches and doors open, making them vulnerable to FPV drones that hurl grenades into them, resulting in their destruction.

People have been calling tanks obsolete since the end of WW1 as they were considered to have been designed to overcome the stalemate of trench warfare. Didn't stop them being used in every war since then. Their effectiveness comes and goes in line with advances in arms and armour.

@landofthesilverpath5823

2 жыл бұрын

Tank warfare is very complex too. Armies often fail to use them properly. In the Iran Iraq war. Neither side had any idea how to use them properly and they lacked other weapons and systems, and they lacked the mechanized infantry, to support the tanks. They ended up becoming little more than self propelled artillery. If they understood how to properly use them, they theybcouod have broken the WWI type stalemate, however. Even with the lack of mechanization they could have made use of them. But they only learned how to use them in the first place, from westerners, in the context of a large and modern mechanized army

The British and Saab Nlaw has become an epic weapon for the Ukraine army .

@TolerablyInterested

2 жыл бұрын

The soldiers who use them seem to be putting in glowing reviews.

@j.j.anthony1200

2 жыл бұрын

If the NLAW javelin etc hadn't been supplied to Ukraine I doubt we'd be reading this post.

@hoidoei941

2 жыл бұрын

Also TB2 Bayraktar and even handheld drones combined with artillery fire

@ElSantoDeMostoles

2 жыл бұрын

Nlaw, Javelin, Panzerfaust, Stinger, Strela,... all of them helping massively

@miketaylor5212

2 жыл бұрын

@@ElSantoDeMostoles stugna p

The problem is their situation awareness. Their sight/sensors are pretty poor compared to Western armoured vehicles. But they have made so many tactical mistakes, that it's hard to make a real assessment 🤷‍♂️

@felixluisocasio8948

2 жыл бұрын

Another fact: Lack of "constant training"

@dougoneill7266

2 жыл бұрын

The biggest cause of the poor performance is the lack of cohesion between types. tanks without infantry support and air cover have always been useless.

@heinedenmark

2 жыл бұрын

@@dougoneill7266 Yes.. Pretty pathetic performance

@justicar5

2 жыл бұрын

unescorted tanks get killed by infantry, this isn't news, why on earth they are making this mistake is the question.

@SCH292

2 жыл бұрын

Fun fact: The Russian bot accounts, Ivans and Russian bootlickers are fighting really hard in the comment section of any video related to this conflict. 😂

I once asked my grandfather about tanks, since he faced them in WWII. His response was a chuckle and that tanks aren't a problem - break their treads and they stop, if they stop you can hit them or burn them. He talked about how soldiers used to even throw firewood in tracks and the tank would stop. Obviously the tanks are little more dangerous now, but the same principles apply - they don't do well in mud, they need lots of fuel, and they are indeed vulnerable. Add drones that have been made to fire straight down into the top of tanks like the Turkish drones that Ukraine is using, and guess what - they don't do so well.

@mehmet24a

2 жыл бұрын

tanks are vulnerable from top. and weak against drones

@randym7961

2 жыл бұрын

Think of how close you need to get to stick firewood into the road wheels of a tanks (it take some huge pieces even then) Tanks have had anti personal defenses for a long time to keep people from getting to close ..

@etiennegaming588

2 жыл бұрын

That's why Nato countries, unlike the Russians get air superiority first. America would have made it impossible for Ukrainian drones to have any substantial effect on the field of battle. After all that is done then the infantry proceed first and take out and suppress hostile anti-tank crews and infantry while tanks provide support to the infantry. Simple. As for being stuck in mud, just don't use your tanks where they can get stuck lmao, Russia should have attacked when the weather wasn't so bad.

@jogo798

2 жыл бұрын

And 3rd gen anti tank missiles like nlaw, javlins also creating a major headache for tanks.

@Mk1Male

Жыл бұрын

Your grandfather has no experience with tanks. Sorry, that is a fact.

The Russian tanks were not used as per their "promo" video, en masse, like the WW2 battle of Kursk largely because they attacked at the wrong time of year and the tanks were not able to go off road so were left vulnerable to modern weapons and precise , concentrated artillery fire.

@pisolo86

2 жыл бұрын

@wuoi zuiu yep especially when you push so far from your supply line and you dont have a clue of the enemy movement, situation awareness was and is a joke for russians.

Without ground troops and air support the tank is almost useless!

@WiredCountDuckula

2 жыл бұрын

Seen twelve Ukrainian soldiers mistake Russian tank for one of their own rolled up fired point blank range can’t be unseen

@MikeBrown-go1pc

2 жыл бұрын

When attacking they will have a very hard time, but while defending they are very serious. 10 tanks in a treeline covered with branches are going to be something no one wants to see while going across a field. They dig them in, back them into a barn, put them between two buildings. They are a tool that will get destroyed, but the regular towedfield gun will get stopped easier, because it has these fleshy humans out in the open and they go down really easy compared to a tank. Plus the tank moves on it's own. The towed field gun has to get towed.

@AstroGremlinAmerican

2 жыл бұрын

@@MikeBrown-go1pc A tank has a heat signature that pierces branches. Drones see in infrared (heat).

@willl7780

2 жыл бұрын

@@AstroGremlinAmerican they turn there engines off lol...jeez lol

@AB-ys4yn

2 жыл бұрын

@@WiredCountDuckula there are 3 videos from 3 different mobile phones circulating now... One is from the distance, one is by one of these 12 Ukrainian soldiers and 3rd is the aftermath... the 3rd one is the most horrid...

The tank isn't supposed to be your lead your attack it's supposed to be integrated among soldiers they're vulnerable in the cities.

@tonysu8860

2 жыл бұрын

Tanks are supposed to lead your ground forces. But, the territory to be attacked is supposed to be prepared first and cleared of weapons capable of damaging or destroying the tank. Only then the tank can lead the infantry into battle. And, tactics can be important to position the tank in less vulnerable postures as it advances. Also, when using tanks defensively, it's standard practice to no rely on its armor but to dig into a brm leaving only the gun's barrel exposed. Do this, and it's difficult for any ground based weapon, even a Javelin to hit it, but of course it'd still be exposed to airborne weapons.

@NA-ur2kg

2 жыл бұрын

@@tonysu8860 digging in tanks is not effective at all, it defeats the purpose tanks are meant for.

@burre01

2 жыл бұрын

look at desert storm tho, tanks lead the way, but in a triangle formation with all guns forward, spread out, and infantry fighting vehicles in the rear, attack choppers supporting from above aswell as air-assets. infantry clean up when stopping

@carbon1255

2 жыл бұрын

@@NA-ur2kg This is false, dug in tanks have been used very successfully during and since ww2. You can ensure good angles of attack, protecting its most vulnerable parts and can quickly disengage. Tank ambush is one of the most devastating kinds in a modern battlefield. See the S tank for example for vehicles designed for this strategy. IT hides the tank, improves its protection, allows more accurate calculations depending on aiming system, allows a kill window, and many more advantages. Tanks are great direct fire artillery and anti tank weapons when dug in, perfect defensively. They are a mobile bunker you can 'build' very quickly. Only advancing tanks benefit from firing on the move.

@Bob31415

2 жыл бұрын

@@NA-ur2kg He said "when using tanks defensively".

Good interview thank you.

Nice more boiler room news is just what we needed.

Expert says: Once a town is reduced to rumble with artillery that is when tanks can go in successfully... not always true as "rumble" equal more hiding places for infantry and anti tank weapon gunners. In non-ruble towns the attacking forces can look to windows and roofs where as in rumble the enemy could be ANYWHERE and EVERYWHERE. The US learned this lesson in Italy in WWII when we destroyed towns and buildings actually increased the number of cover and shooting points for the Germans (and the Germans used this to great effect.)

@dicko195

2 жыл бұрын

and the Panzers learned it after reducing Stalingrad to rubble

@miketaylor5212

2 жыл бұрын

and the fact that you put the city in the streets leads to your own vehicles not being able to navigate the streets reducing you to infantry and artillery.if enemy infantry decides to close for battle then your artilley will even be useless.

@jonathanpfeffer3716

2 жыл бұрын

Not quite true, rubble doesn’t offer verticality so you can’t directly attack the tops of tanks, which helps attackers.

@wefinishthisnow3883

2 жыл бұрын

You are exactly right, the 'expert' is an idiot because it depends on the situation. As you and others explained, battle history and many other experts have put forward valid arguments that reducing a city to rubble actually makes defending easier. Also rubble doesn't magically make IEDs, AT mines, RPGs, Javelins, NLAWs, drones, helicopters and guided artillery/munitions suddenly disappear. Tanks are sitting ducks in most situations in modern warfare. They would be better off being controlled remotely by a nearby soldier. @Jonathan Pfeffer - That may have been true prior to smart anti-tank weapons which automatically attack from the top down regardless of where the solider shoots it form. Snipers are the ones who like the high ground for the field of view of smaller targets (ie humans), but tanks are loud, large targets. History backs this up and this war is just further evidence of that.

@jonathanpfeffer3716

2 жыл бұрын

@@wefinishthisnow3883 Top-attack weapons still make up the minority of man portable anti-tank weapons in Ukraine, much less anti-tank weapons in general. Top attack weapons can also frequently not be used at short ranges. The Javelin, for instance, has quite a long minimum range and will frequently be unsuitable for use in urban warfare.

I love all these military experts telling the Russians where they are going wrong and how they can improve 🙄

@maquettemusic1623

2 жыл бұрын

Doesn't take a military expert to tell you they're failing though does it? Would it take a military expert to have told you where Hitler should've improved with the 6th Army, or when Custer should have retreated?

@thetrader9746

2 жыл бұрын

😂😂

@alexfortin7209

2 жыл бұрын

The Russians can’t change anything about their forces, doctrine or equipment for at least 6-12 months. By that time, they will be facing modern NATO equipment, not Soviet 1980s one.

@Erwin-eo7iv

2 жыл бұрын

I am not an expert not even a bit familiar with warfare or strategy, yet i wonder why is there no air support for the tanks, and why not more airforce action,

@christpower5402

2 жыл бұрын

I wouldn’t be too concerned about it. They’ve had a century to think about these things.And yet they still choose to do Things their own way. I doubt they will listen to and change their military philosophy based on western military analysts. They have a conservative and old way of doing things. They’ve been that way forever. And their military might has been overrated for centuries. They have land mass And a lot of people. But they’ve always been technologically less advanced. And nowhere near as capable of military strategy as much as Western powers. Germany almost beat them in World War II. With substantially less material and people. But they had better technology, better logistics and better military strategy. In World War II, the Russians didn’t even have enough guns for everybody. They also got their butts beat by Napoleon, China, and other Western powers. The fact that they’re still doing things in an old-fashioned way in 2022 leads me to believe that their not too concerned about how the west feels about how they do things.

Tanks were already a weapon in crisis when, in the 1960s and 1970s, wire-guided ATGMs forced tanks to reduce armor to increase speed. Leopard 1 was a classic example of this period. The birth of the modern MBT that combined speed, composite armor and the development of reactive ones rebalanced the situation Today, atgm fire and forget, which hit the roof of the turrets, notoriously a vulnerable part of the tank, are proving lethal thanks to the double hollow charge placed in tandem. This type of weapons have been found forms of reactive armor coupled with weapon systems that can intercept the incoming missile, but this has considerably increased costs, making a systematic diffusion on all modern tanks more complicated. Today, the tank has to look out for in addition to counter-tank planes and helicopters, artillery with self-forging bullets, also to an aggressive use of drones that are becoming a constant danger for crews. Of course, drone tanks are being experimented with. The Russian tanks then add the fact that to reduce the crew of a tank to 3 members in order to be able to deploy more vehicles, an automatic loading system was used which unfortunately tends to explode the reserves of bullets causing the now known ejection of the turrets that fly in the air for tens of meters. Crews are instantly killed horribly. Of course conscripts of conscripts and inexperienced field commands cause the mediocre military result that is being observed in the field.

@christophertownley9441

2 жыл бұрын

And Soviet Military Doctrin, which of course came from Russia!

@Mk1Male

Жыл бұрын

If you think the Leopard 1 was the birth of the modern MBT, please delete your channel. As for the rest of what you posted...what are you trying to conclude?

@fabrizioarvat1141

Жыл бұрын

@@Mk1Male No I didn't mean Leopard 1 was the first MBT, you misunderstood me. I think the speech was about the survival relationship between tanks and ATGMs. The Leopard 1 was mentioned because it is a typical tank designed for mobility in an attempt to counter wire-guided ATGMs. Consider that the theory has arisen many times that the tank was obsolete as a weapon system. What I meant is that due to modern atgms, drones and the increasingly massive use of artificial intelligence, the MBT is in a moment of considerable crisis. The war in Ukraine is changing many things.

@Mk1Male

Жыл бұрын

@@fabrizioarvat1141 I think it is changing the fact that MBTs are redundant. We have only seen many poorly designed and under equipped Russian tanks being embarrassed by very basic weapon systems. It could, of course, be a basic strategy of Putin to use all of his redundant cold war tanks to get completely destroyed in the Ukraine, to then bring his ultra effective Armata tanks to attack....err, where?

Tank is only one jigsaw piece. Other pieces are including artillery, air support, drones, infantries, etc. Without the tank, your picture won't be complete. Tank's shape and form may change over time, but tank itself will never be obsolete.

Early in the invasion I read a report claiming that peripheral systems and technologies which might be detached from military vehicles without making them completely inoperable may have been long since sold off by russia's ancient and enormous organized crime sector. Can anyone comment with more solid information on this? I also saw one analyst going frame-by-frame through a video of the paratroopers' landing at Hostomel in the first hours, who pointed out that these reputedly elite units had no optical sights of any kind on their rifles, which lends itself well to the same conclusion. Has this army long since had all its best gear sold right out from under its soldiers, who now pay with their lives for serving a regime built mostly on craven greed?

@fredflintstone8817

2 жыл бұрын

Yes... I also read a report about this about a year ago. That said this “skimming of the top” style of corruption starts at the top, right within Putin’s circle. And works its way down, in all aspects of Russian society. Especially within most government run organizations. From within all military branches etc., right on down to city workers, and everything in between. So by the time whatever works its way down the line, the end result is halve-ass, poorly done, and without proper Q.C. This even effects the quality of training Russian soldiers receive. So yes… This is absolutely a huge part of Russia’s problem. This same type of top down corruption is also rampant in China as well. Especially in construction, and again anything overseen by government officials.

@stevepowell6503

2 жыл бұрын

Short answer; yes.

@joemonroe9456

2 жыл бұрын

I heard the stole them for the precious metals.

@Whatdoesntkillyoumakesyo-cg6pd

2 жыл бұрын

Russia is one of the most corrupt nations on the planet so yes

@perfectionbox

2 жыл бұрын

But that's the best kind of greed

Tanks in a way are a big sitting duck for any ambush with todays weapons .

@tonysu8860

2 жыл бұрын

Tanks have been destroyed by infantry since WWII. The Germans had a very effective weapon that also fired a semi-indirect trajectory called the Panzerfaust. Since then, it has been a see-saw of tanks getting better and anti-tank weapons getting better.

@kristianhelgesen4455

2 жыл бұрын

That's what I think also👍

@q-anonandtheruskimirchelon1886

2 жыл бұрын

Just need some reactive interception system and tanks are back in glory.

@dan61131

2 жыл бұрын

Russians 40 miles of tanks column that went to attack Kyiv is reduced to 8 miles headed to East Ukraine... That means Ukraine has destroyed almost 30 miles of tanks column before they can run away back to Hitler Putin!

It certainly doesn't help when your enemy has more ATGM's than you have tanks. This is especially true when said enemy is fighting for it's homeland, and is willing to die for the cause. A single soldier hiding within a ditch, behind a bush, or from an open window can destroy a tank from a range of 30-yards to several miles away. Infantry cannot not stop/suppress ATGM-fire at that distance. During WW2 it was completely different. Bazooka's had a range of just over 100-yards, so close-support infantry were always close to a potential shooter. Even the fabled Cold War RPG7 had an effective kill-range of just 100-200 yards. Beyond that it was too inaccurate for anything other than a lucky shot. Nowadays, infantry would have to fan out miles ahead of armor to prevent ATGM strikes, leaving themselves highly-vulnerable to small-arms fire and ambush. Heavy tanks are a dying breed. They are simply too-big, too-slow, too-expensive, and far too-easy to hit. The money is more-effectively spent on drones, ATGM's and faster light-armor that doesn't have the same logistics burden. 100x NLAW's or 25x Javelins vs one T72 - I know which side I would rather be on. Actually, I'd prefer 50x NLAW's and 12x Javelins to keep all-bases covered and costs-down. Both of these ATGM's have >80% hit/kill rates when used by a skilled operator.

As an ex-tank soldier of the cold war, the difference between NATO tanks and Russian tanks is the storage of ammunition. Russian tanks use an auto-loader system where the crew sit amongst the whole magazine of explosive! One direct hit and it's goodnight Vienna! NATO tanks separate their projectile rounds from explosives in bins surrounded by coolant, loaded by real people.

I find this not very convincing. Also (perhaps even: especially) from "rubble"-positions a tank can be easily ambushed. Tanks are most useful in open terrain, deployed in a full force concentrated attack and accompanied by infantry and air support (as mentioned in the video). If these conditions are not met, tanks are very vulnerable to modern anti-tank weapons.

@AstroGremlinAmerican

2 жыл бұрын

Tanks in rubble can be spotted by drones. Unless they are under a great deal of rubble, they are at risk. The economies don't favor the tank owner.

@jorritheijma7964

2 жыл бұрын

@@AstroGremlinAmerican I think he meant to say that the ambusher is hiding among the rubble, not the tank.

tanks aren’t “obsolete”. they’re supposed to be with Infantry Fighting Vehicles and Infantry. it’s called Mechanized Infantry doing "combined arms". Tanks don’t fight alone and don’t jumble up together. the russians not only ran out of gas, but their tactics were poor…

@Lufr4

2 жыл бұрын

This tactic was chosen specifically to avoid the victims of peaceful people

@s.a.3894

2 жыл бұрын

@@Lufr4 Best tactic to avoid civilian casualties is to go home after you have completed your training maneuvers.

@fluffymadsquirrel5946

2 жыл бұрын

Similar tactic was used in Desert storm but was hailed as a success, I'm personally pleased that "shock and awe" tactic was not employed by the Russians which would have resulted if far more civilian casualties.

@eminencerain848

2 жыл бұрын

@@fluffymadsquirrel5946 Russia doesnt have a large supply of smart tactical munitions. They have a large inventory of artillery with dumb munition meant to carpet an area.

@fluffymadsquirrel5946

2 жыл бұрын

@@eminencerain848 That would explain their tactic in the east in pounding the Ukrainians best military units.

Very well explained

For a tank to be useful, one needs people like Heinz Guderian and Michael Wittmann!

Drummond is arguing that tanks play an important role in current military doctrine. The real question is whether military doctrine itself needs to evolve with the advent of small, and sometimes lethal drones in addition to highly portable AT weapons.

@TheBooban

2 жыл бұрын

Its already evolving. They already have APS systems that take out anti tank missiles reliably. But like everything else, the Russians aren’t using them. Probably because someone stole and sold them off.

@dstarboi9965

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah this war is the end of tanks as far as I’m concerned. Every country will build drones and more weapons to combat tanks. It’s gonna be bout air superiority going forward

@CorePathway

2 жыл бұрын

Drone capabilities are FAR outstripping defensive capabilities. If a squad-level unit can deploy a drone then a squad-level unit needs to be able to defend itself. Suicidal hunter-killers, within 5 years, could make any exposed unit, especially vehicles, nothing more than video-game targets.

@MikeBrown-go1pc

2 жыл бұрын

Sure, soon it will be a bunch of robots that look like the terminator model 101 and war will be completely different, because they don't care about getting hit. HuMans will become obsolete and wait until the AI fully gets that.

@TheSigmaGrindSet

2 жыл бұрын

It’s just an arms race of attack vs defence… The demise of the tank has always been heralded ever since the first Anti-tank weapons were developed; until defensive counter measures yielded yesterday’s weapons obsolete… When Active Protection Systems, like “Trophy” installed on Israeli AFV’s, become more capable and widespread. The pendulum will swing back to the advantage of the tank… A tracked AFV with a multi-role high caliber cannon is always going to be needed as long as there is infantry on the ground who require immediate fire support or exploit a defensive gap in the frontlines and advance through rapidly into the rear and beyond….

From the get go it's obvious they are not to blame, altough they have some problems for a contemporary MBT. Bad tactics are to blame.

@supersmileyclub544

2 жыл бұрын

What is a get go?

@wetincornwall6882

2 жыл бұрын

@@supersmileyclub544 the start, get up and go.

@mark2tech

2 жыл бұрын

How are they not to blame for their bad tactics?

@vad8339

2 жыл бұрын

Thats like saying a person didn't commit murder, the gun committed murder.

@Lufr4

2 жыл бұрын

This tactic was chosen specifically to avoid the victims of peaceful people

In the near future US tanks will have missile defense systems for anti tank missiles which will be a game changer in modern tactics.

@xAlexTobiasxB

2 жыл бұрын

In fact they ready have by now

Let's be truthful here. This is all about cost effectiveness. A disposable suicide drone can take out a multimillion-dollar armored vehicle. You can build a drone "swarm" for the price of one target vehicle. A drone swarm can overwhelm just about any anti-air countermeasure short of a tactical nuke. You simply send out more loitering drones than opposing anti-air capability can deal with. It is the same logic used to justify the manufacture of many thousands of nuclear warheads. You simply launch so many that any countermeasure will be overwhelmed. ICBMs are a heck of a lot more costly than drones, but then again, that is how the Soviets "lost" the Cold War. Reagan and Cap Weinberger basically spent the Soviets into the ground. Tanks are a similar avenue. You can quickly spend yourself into oblivion. So here is the truth part. The military Industrial complex has a very profitable thing going here. Of course, they are going to justify the production of a 20-million-dollar vehicle. Of course, an entire generation of military planners that were indoctrinated at an impressionable young age with training on logistic planning to sustain tank warfare are going to claim that armored vehicles are essential. This isn't just about the tank. There is an incredibly complex, expensive support system that goes along with it. A very profitable support structure. By comparison, Yamamoto never did buy in to the idea that a decisive battleship engagement would win the Pacific war. That is why, even after destroying the US battleship fleet in Pearl Harbor, he devised a risky plan to lure American aircraft carriers to Midway. From the beginning he knew that battleship dependent doctrine was obsolete. Innovative miliary thinkers in the field "get it" long before the war colleges and their retirement age instructors do. Further, the Pentagon staffers get lobbied every bit as hard by the skunkworks salesmen as the politicians do.

@visionist7

2 жыл бұрын

Are you sure you're a liberal, you're talking too much sense 🤠

@proudliberal605

2 жыл бұрын

@@visionist7 When you get caught in an echo chamber you stop listening. Your world view is never challenged and you have landed on a slippery slope. You become conditioned to paint people with a large brush. You categorize people into monolithic blocks and depict them as identically all the same. This is the first step to dehumanize them and become desensitized to violence against them. If you find yourself starting every statement about an opposing viewpoint as coming from "the left", I know precisely where and how you get your information. I also know you have been conditioned with great precision. FOX social engineering has been in its "trial and error" phase for four decades. They have become extremely good at it. When people stop watching FOX, this conditioning stops.

Finally, after weeks, I find someone who actually provides correct tactical analysis. This is not WW2 anymore, when tank armour could still defeat antitank weapons. No tank can stand up to modern antitank weapons, so just driving your tanks forward into the teeth of enemy defenses means that you will just lose your tanks. This lesson has been demonstrated many times since Oct. 6, 1973. Too bad for the Russians, they didn't pay attention.

@para-tanker

2 жыл бұрын

Ehm, a tankunit could destroy enemy battalions in minutes.... You need to operate them propperly!

@johnwhitehurst474

2 жыл бұрын

@@para-tanker YEP that is called training, and Sergeants to get it done, Russians do not have that expertise, they smart, smarter than us just ask one. Why they don't? IS trust too many people with info can be dangerous to Leadership. Only members of communists party are Officers, they can be trusted you see. Ukraine Army has Sergeants we, and NATO insisted on it in the force structure, one can see it pays off. "Bottom line is Officers come, and go, but sergeants make it GO!

@davidbrossman4215

2 жыл бұрын

United States Gulf War. 1990's. United States invasion of Iraq 2003. Both had combined air and ground offensive. So no.

@fluffymadsquirrel5946

2 жыл бұрын

Scott Ritter may be able to enlighten you considering his exp.

@victorfinberg8595

2 жыл бұрын

@@fluffymadsquirrel5946 Scott Ritter is excellent (actually, top of the line). However, his analysis tends towards grand strategy, not tactics.

I’m going to go with “no, since people have been saying that for 103 years.” They’re just being used incorrectly

Every time I try to hit a nail with my telescope, my telescope breaks. Can it be that a telescope is obsolete in our modern times?

This goes back all the way to what the British experienced at the Somme in September 1916; while their "lozenge" shaped tanks were a shock to the Germans, and scared the hell out of them, they either quickly broke down, got stuck in the trenches and/or shell craters, or were taken out by improvised methods. And those tank units that did succeed in penetrating the German trench lines "raced" ahead (with a turtle-like top speed of 6 kph, a man briskly walking could "out-run" it!) of the accompanying infantry, and many of them were also lost and had to be abandoned. This gave the Germans opportunity to study the new AFVs, and besides commencing development of their own tank (the A7V, it was a ridiculously ponderous beast, a habit that Germany would not forsake in the next war), developed anti-tank measures, including the "Tankgewehr", an up-sized Mauser-pattern rifle firing a 13.2 mm armor-piercing round. But the Brits learned from the experience at the Somme, and the following year, with improved Mark IV tanks, and better tactics which involved cooperation with infantry and artillery; i.e, COMBINED Arms", had better results in the Battle of Cambrai in November 1917. Not all armies learn that easily. The Germans themselves, going up against the out-matched Poles in September 1939, and having broken through the Polish frontier, with a great deal of the Polish army cut-up and surrounded in "pockets", sent a panzer regiment to race on to Warsaw, in an attempt to seize the Polish capital before the Poles could regroup with what they had left. This attack FAILED, miserably, as the Poles improvised trenches and anti-tank positions, which the Panzers, operating solely, attacked head-on. The Germans lost over 40 tanks in this ill-considered attack; and not only did the Poles have time to reinforce Warsaw, they even boldly counter-attacked the German spearhead in what was termed the Battle of the Bzura. Though ultimately the Germans won, it was a hard lesson that tanks, misused, are indeed quite vulnerable. Nor did the Israelis in the opening days of the Yom Kippur War in 1973. They had a tank regiment in the Sinai, to reinforced their fortress that overlooked the Suez canal, known as the "Bar-Lev" line. They sent it in w/o waiting for artillery and/or supporting infantry to arrive from Israel proper; figuring that what happened in the Six-Day War (1967) would happen again; i.e., once the IDF tanks showed up, the Egyptians would wet their pants and RUN. They did NOT. Already confident as IAF attacks against Egyptian positions had been thwarted by their cover of SAM missiles, the Egyptian infantry held their positions, let the Israeli tanks come up to them, then responded with the Sagger anti-tank missiles. The resulting battle was devastating to Israel, as EVERY tank in that regiment was lost; with about 80 percent of their crews killed, wounded, or captured. Again, they'd ignored their own doctrine and underestimated their opponents, and lost badly. Israel would recover, as the following day, they administered a drubbing to the Syrians on the Golan Heights, and, a few weeks later, successfully mount a counter-attack that took them across the Suez, cutting off an entire Egyptian Army on the canal's east side. Still, the lessons of the Yom Kippur War were bitter and many; and led to them developing their own domestic design, the Merkava.

@linmal2242

2 жыл бұрын

The German A7V tank is in the Queensland Museum (it was outside on the verandah but they realized its historical worth and brought it inside). I have stood next to it; very small !

I'm very surprised at what Mr Drummond said in that(a) he didn't mention the need for infantry support for the tanks, and also (b) that he seems to think that reducing a city to rubble makes it then OK to deply tanks in. The latter contradicts historical experience where wrecked cities give defenders far more places to hide that are hard to spot than intact cities. The Russian failings, so far as I can see are - Timing. Timing an attack when the ground is going to be like a quagmire is, to put it politely, sub-optimal. - Planning. It's clear that the Russian forces were in no way properly prepared for the situation they met, either in terms of troop training or logistics - Intelligence. You need to understand your enemy's strengths and weaknesses and your own too. - Morale. Not only have the Russians sent in raw conscripts into situations they can't handle, breaking their morale, they've also pursued a policy of brutality against civilians, which only serves to make the defenders more determined, as we have seen. - failure to use their forces in properly organised combined arms assaults, doubtless due to their risile intelliigence (expecting civilians to be happy to see them), plus inadequate training. The corruption that's widespread in Russia simply makes all of the above even worse. The Russians have been making military errors that would ake a tabletop wargamer blush with embarassment!

@georgemorley1029

2 жыл бұрын

I must admit, his remarks on Kherson and Mariupol perplexed me. Artillery has surely been the decisive force element in those areas of operations? The tank hasn’t made any difference in those areas that I can see. As far as I can see, ATGMs + Drones = delete tank.

@manasjena949

2 жыл бұрын

Americans gain a lot of combat tactics and logistics in past conflict as a part of their training. Russian will soon figure it out in a couple of month in Ukraine.

@DeltaEchoGolf

2 жыл бұрын

He seems to be looking at this through the eyes of a modern tactician. And can't seem to process that the Russians have reverted back to 1944/45 tactics.

@georgemorley1029

2 жыл бұрын

@@manasjena949 The problems we’ve seen the Russians encounter were because of systemic issues. I very much doubt that you can change the culture and structure of the Russian army in such a short time.

@manasjena949

2 жыл бұрын

@@georgemorley1029 yes obvious, They are unable change their strategy in a couple of month. This is not their main strategic interest to win ukraine with millitary force. Putin want to continue this offensive as long as possible so that west will realise cost of this war to their economy no matter how much Russian loose tanks or men.

People don't realize that tanks have always been like this. When they first came out in ww1 they were unstoppable until anti tank field guns and Armor piercing bullets were used. When that happens they find ways to make the armor better. The cycle repeats it goes from being out matched until they find a way to counter enemy arms this is nothing new.

@swordarmstudios6052

2 жыл бұрын

All of that is true. but weapons technology improves faster than Armor technology. There is likely going to be a point where the weapons are so good that armor will shrink in value in favor of mobility. I don't think tanks will ever be useless. But when a 30mm gun from a cheaper and more humble APC, that comes with it's own infantry, infantry who can be equipped with anti-tank weapons and reconnisance drones - there roll in war is maybe more narrow than people appreciate.

The Russians were also using tanks as transportation through urban areas which got them vulnerable to anti-tank rockets. Tanks are best used on wide open battle zones travelling at high speed with air cover.

THANK YOU! Anyone who thinks tanks are obsolete don't know history. And if you don't learn from history"you're doomed to repeat the same mistakes. Another example is guns/canons on fighter planes. Always has been a necessity and always will be.

@tonysu8860

2 жыл бұрын

😀 IIRC the F-35B and F-35C don't have guns/cannons, and the very successful F-4 Phantom never had a gun/cannon. That's largely because the specific features of these aircraft emphasized long range engagement and the belief is that adversaries would never get close enough to actually fire a gun/cannon... Which would literally be within hundreds of feet/meters and not thousands.

@jeffrachau3920

2 жыл бұрын

@@tonysu8860 after many losses,the F4 WAS equipped with a gun pod. If you get a chance to look at old photos,it's slung under the Phantom's nose and was very effective. The Americans thought guns were a thing of the past. We thought dogfighting was too. We were wrong. And we are in the same quandary today. Relying on missiles at long range is great and all,but a deadly mistake. When you and your opponent are closing at a thousand miles an hour (the merge) your going to be on top of each other in seconds. Especially in a stealthy plane. Visual dogfighting isn't a thing of the past,friend. And a gun/canon comes in handy. Missiles aren't foolproof and once your out of missles-how are you going to defend yourself?

@grahamtaylor6883

2 жыл бұрын

@@jeffrachau3920 There will be a time when tanks become obsolete, just like the battle ship became obsolete. Any army that gains air superiority, just about makes the enemy tanks obsolete from that point on. There'll also be cheap drones soon with enough AI, that you'll release them and they'll go hunting for tanks on their own, without any human interaction.

@jeffrachau3920

2 жыл бұрын

@@grahamtaylor6883 I agree,to a point. But,a historian pointed out several years ago this point. WW1 was artillery's heyday. WW2 wasn't much different. All this technology was to make sure those types of horrific things didn't happen so much. However,with all the missile technology,it's the same thing,only disguised. Eventually that will happen with everything. We kill just as many people today,just fewer things. The way armies use technology hasn't changed anything in the way they fight. At least not the Russians,who massacre civilians with missiles from afar.

@flipflopski2951

2 жыл бұрын

no... tanks are the new battleship...

The reason we successfully used tanks in Iraq and Afghanistan is because they didn't have very many anti tank weapons.

@NeuroScientician

2 жыл бұрын

Russian tankers dont have a any training or infatry support (also recevies no training) this combined wit no command and garbage equipment from 1970 and here we go.

@MikeBrown-go1pc

2 жыл бұрын

How do you know? Do you have the Iraqi weapon inventory list from 1991?

@captainamerica4685

2 жыл бұрын

@@MikeBrown-go1pc Sure do. I got the Iraqi weapon inventory from Saddam's son, Udday

@captainamerica4685

2 жыл бұрын

@@NeuroScientician That's true

@etiennegaming588

2 жыл бұрын

sure lol

General Armchair here. No, tanks are not obsolete. They're just more vulnerable when they can't drive cross country in the post frost weather through farmland. Stuck on raised farm road and central hi-ways, they are sitting ducks. Long lines block fuel trucks, ammo supplies and infantry that would keep the tanks moving. Air power opens the lines of advance. A Front should look like a front, not like a pin point.

As close up engagers against anti tank shoulder mounts they are probably more like death traps

12-Apr 22 Ukraine war . Russian Tanks ineffectiveness . 1) Capabilities of Attack Drones and 2) Shoulder Fire Anti tank Kamikaze Drones not seen before and not considered seriously.

@placeholder1237

2 жыл бұрын

Also there been used in urban warfare

@willl7780

2 жыл бұрын

yet russia still prevails....

The Russians couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag.

@jordanleigh8119

2 жыл бұрын

Doesnt really matter. The point is they are talking about tanks being pretty much useless in today's age. Why spend millions on building a tank when you can make a missile and a thing to fire it for a fraction of the price.

@GapeGang

2 жыл бұрын

*wet paper bag

@maquettemusic1623

2 жыл бұрын

@@jordanleigh8119 Because it is not useless if you've developed proper countermeasure like NATO already has done and Russia hasn't, and utilise it in combined arms.

@jordanleigh8119

2 жыл бұрын

@@maquettemusic1623 absolute nonsense. The nlaw and jalaivn will take out anything nato produce. A rpg would take anything they produce out. Stop being so brainwashed. Especially our nato tanks most are still big burzers and talk tanks which make it easier for guided missiles to hit. That's why the Russians produce small tanks because its harder to be hit.

@maquettemusic1623

2 жыл бұрын

@@jordanleigh8119 If you genuinely believe NATO would develop anti-tank weapons it has not developed a counter for itself, you are stupid. You have no idea what you are talking about with "big and small tanks", what is this 1944? No understanding of Armoured doctrine. Stick to war thunder.

Tanks are basically portable forts. If you plant a tank in a city square, the city was essentially yours. It was the same as building a fort, back in the day. However, drones have rendered them little tin can death traps for the men inside and those nearby. Interesting times.

It doesn't help that their active armour is very shoddy and in many cases, falling off the sides of the tank. Plus, these tanks are in some cases over 50 years old. It's ridiculous.

I've also seen vids on the T-72 that say when they automated the loading, the ammo is now in the same compartment with the 3 remaining crew (!). The Ukrainians have been targeting that area, and the results are disastrous for the tanks and the crews.

@miketaylor5212

2 жыл бұрын

the ammo in a t72 is supposed to be kept seperate from the automatic reloaded canon but they are loading extra rounds in that compartment when the atgm hits the turret it ignites the extra rounds causing the turret to pop off in chechniya they only loaded the specified 22 rounds and it stopped a lot of that from happening and increased crew survivability.

@thefisherking78

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah... so many videos of catastrophic detonations

@waynehankinson8210

2 жыл бұрын

I believe your referring to T80 and T90 tanks with the auto loader.

Actually, Ukrainian special forces are having the same success in the east. It just took time for them to leave the North and arrived in the east. See the footage on KZread.

@fluffymadsquirrel5946

2 жыл бұрын

Unfortunately the actual battlefield pics tell a different story and Ukraine's best troops look doomed.

@flipflopski2951

2 жыл бұрын

@@fluffymadsquirrel5946 that's why Russia was in full blown retreat right?..

@codelessunlimited7701

2 жыл бұрын

@@flipflopski2951 Yes by controlling more cities and towns. 😆

@flipflopski2951

2 жыл бұрын

@@codelessunlimited7701 name them...

@fluffymadsquirrel5946

2 жыл бұрын

@@flipflopski2951 Lets hope the Ukrainian army do not follow the retreat to closely or they will be hit. Still reports of shelling on Ukrainian military positions in the north keeping them pinned according to residents in the area. Lets see what happens in the Dombas? Any predictions?

Due to the widening gap between defence and offense (with offensive capabilities having become far more capable) I believe that armoured vehicles are probably obsolete, particularly if they are not used with proper strategy (as mentioned here), but also if they do not posses an active protection system.

@etiennegaming588

2 жыл бұрын

We should also just start stripping ourselves naked and chuck spears at people. No point in wearing body armour.

Make sure you give them all the tips to re organize well for the south front.

What has long been obsolete, is mindlessly advancing against overwhelming defenses. It was obsolete at Crecy, Agincourt, Poltava, Ulundi, numerous battlefields in WW1 France, Guadalcanal, and 'Valley of Tears'. Tanks are just another item in the toolbox. An item that changes the battlefield and forces the enemy to relate to. But tanks probably need to be big, expensive and advanced these days, to make investments in advanced, active anti-missile systems and situational awareness technology cost effective.

@tonysu8860

2 жыл бұрын

The alternative approach is to go light on the armor and extremely nimble to avoid incoming fire. Since today's long AT shots can be more than a mile, it takes awhile for the projective to arrive on target.

@Vermiliontea

2 жыл бұрын

@@tonysu8860 First of all, light vehicles already exist. But they're not tanks. Secondly, such a defensive scheme won't work. The projectile from a tank gun traverses one Mile in a second. That's too fast to react to. Even if we could react, one second is still too quick to be in a different place than the predicted. But ATGMs are slower? Yes, but they're guided and will follow. A light "tank" will have to defend itself against these kinds of threats the same way as a heavy tank: Situational awareness (basically: shoot first) and active anti-missile systems. Unfortunately, it's not protected against area weapons and lighter weapons.

Now you've only gone and told them what to do .

@sergiyb.i4186

2 жыл бұрын

So true

@mis4nthr0p3

2 жыл бұрын

If they have the capacity to learn and not the hubris to do it by the old Soviet handbook.

The American Bazooka, in ww2 freaked out the axis. One of the greatest anti tank inventions at that time.

Also those tanks are from such a long time ago. No APS. The T-72 aren't the T14

There ammunition storage isn’t protected in Russian tanks , so the turret and people blow up

@carbon1255

2 жыл бұрын

This isn't exactly true, they chose to protect the crew over the turret and ammo storage- it is no different for western tanks, most use unarmoured turret baskets to hold ammunition.

@xXshiftit33Xx

2 жыл бұрын

@@carbon1255 This isnt accurate. Russian tanks store ammunition under the turret carrousel and thats why you see their turrets being blown sky high, along with the crew inside the turret. Western tanks like the Abrams have a blow off panel where ammo is stored that sends explosion out of the tank and keeping crew safe from being cooked alive.

@dzonikg

2 жыл бұрын

Difference is that US tanks have manual load..there is 4 guy that pick up round manually and load them in gun while Russian tank have automatic loader..but for that to work rounds are stored around turret..advantage is that Russian have 3 people because there is no need for 4 to load gun..but is also more risky because if fire reach auto loader its mini nuke inside off tank..but majority off time its not instant..crew has some time to escape before cook off

@TolerablyInterested

2 жыл бұрын

@@carbon1255 actually the top and sides of the basket aren't well protected, but that's a deliberate decision, there is a blast door on vehicles like leopard and abrams between the ammunition and the crew compartment, so in case of a catastrophic ammunition fire or detonation the explosion is vented out blow out panels away from the crew who are protected by the blast door.

@miketaylor5212

2 жыл бұрын

@@dzonikg the disadvantage of not having a 4th crew member is that crew maintenance is spread over fewer people tell me would it be easier to replace a thrown track with 4 people or with 3 people also the lack of that extra crewman is telling in the lack of overall maintenance of russian tanks.

I can’t figure out why they keep those tanks in the roads…. You can pre-plot those grid types easily and fire for effect. They’re tanks on farmland. They don’t need roads.

@RobBCactive

2 жыл бұрын

Off road they became tractor fodder

@terrytumble162

2 жыл бұрын

It’s rasputitsa season in Ukraine so the fields are extremely muddy. You’d think Russia would know the dangers for an offensive force as it’s helped them defensively in the past. Just more bad planning.

@Chilly_Billy

2 жыл бұрын

Not only that but did Russia forget you never put tanks into close terrain without lots of dismounted Infantry to be their eyes and short-range defense? That's Combined Arms 101!

@stevepowell6503

2 жыл бұрын

@@terrytumble162 yes. Very few people mention that. Russia has its own rasputitsa, you would think they would have realized this was a horrible season to begin an armored attack.

@briankorth6763

2 жыл бұрын

They are so unorganized it doesn’t matter.

Tanks are not obsolete, old fighting methods are obsolete. Technology is obsolete to the ones that can use it effectively and with experience.

Rules say don't tell the enemy about mistakes and how to correct them / encourage the enemy up the garden path and use the advantage efficiency.

"We use them properly." You use them against countries that play in a significantly inferior league technologically. With massive air and artillery support.

@miketaylor5212

2 жыл бұрын

and when is the last time russia went up against a peer military 1945. the U.S. went against iraq which was the largest best equipped military in the world at that time we destroyed them in a little over 1 month.

@JLWestaz

2 жыл бұрын

@@miketaylor5212 "iraq which was the largest best equipped military in the world" No they weren't. They were equipped with T72 tanks and Migs.

@okotoksmarkh

2 жыл бұрын

@@JLWestaz thought they where #4 at the time of the 1st gulf war. I mean we also said Russia was #3 now so 🤷

@JLWestaz

2 жыл бұрын

@@okotoksmarkh Maybe by numbers the were. They had a lot of solders. As far as militarizes go US, China. Now if we rate according to equipment, training ability we have to add in Israel , Finland, UK. N. Korea has a ton of solders but they only attack S. Korea or China, no Navy. India has a large army but poorly armed with Russian gear.

@xAlexTobiasxB

2 жыл бұрын

@@miketaylor5212 The last time Russia went up against "a peer enemy" is today in Ukraine. The Ukraine army can be considered as a peer enemy to Russia, because they are just as well equipped, with the support of NATO weapons from USA, Germany and UK (which are important in helping them destroying Russian forces) And no, Iraq wasn't even close to the Top 10 most powerful, country at that time, even Germany, Poland and China were much stronger than Iraq. Also Vietnam was stronger than Iraq too, as the Vietnam proved to defeat the Americans in 1970. Numbers alone are meaningless if the weapons and equipent are old and outdated. Technology, equipment and training is just as important as numbers. Also the environment is completely different: Iraq is a flat open desert, nowhere to hide or barricade for ambush. Meanwhile Europe is a very complex and chaotic natural environment with forests, trees, hills, rocks, mountains, villages, buildings for defending infantry to hide and mabush the attacking enemy. It's a totally different setting than Iraq desert.

Short answer no. The Russian military was not designed to do the mission. This is part of the reason it failed.

Tanks for the Memory.

Artillery and air support so the tank is effective. I believe General Patton believed the same thing. If you are going to have tanks, you better know how to use them. I just can't believe these tanks are Russia's finest.

@timmarawo7164

2 жыл бұрын

🤣🤣🤣🤣

@robsan52

2 жыл бұрын

Not playing one upmanship but I read a pretty good book on the Germans in WW2 and right from the get-go when they attacked Poland in 39' and Europe in 40' they had the blitzkreig system (I think that's a name we gave the German style of attack) and everyone else paid the price at first...especially the French who had all these doddering old generals that had been in the service for 60 yrs and they couldn't adapt until it was way too late for the French army. There were a number of tank generals in the German army that had been involved in developing that type of offence in the 30's but I think it was Gen. Heinz Guderian that was the main mover and shaker in the 30's and into the war years. It's always seemed such a waste that the best army in WW2 was Germany yet they had to fight under this vicious monomaniacal leader who insisted on running the military and making all the big decisions. In the last book I read he talked about the 5 or 6 exceptional generals in the Red Army and one of them; Chekiov, I know I'm butchering his name, when asked about Hitler said something like: "Hitler is the best general the Red Army has!" Which I thought was pretty interesting.

This video just makes us realize this time next year, Russia will not even have one tank standing.

@silvertad3833

2 жыл бұрын

wishful thinking poor souls

@Parture

2 жыл бұрын

@@silvertad3833 NLaw and Javelins and various drones are just too powerful. You've seen it with your own eyes

@bobpadok5331

2 жыл бұрын

70k ukra soldiers death,100k wounded and 30k surrender..half their army is finished...majority of rest is encircled on Donbass and starving no food no petrol...Russians comfortably won war ...sorry dude but people on west are mislead by fake news of western press..it has nothing with reality.

@Parture

2 жыл бұрын

@@bobpadok5331 Over 1000 Russian tanks have been destroyed (they only have about 10,000 left), and over 3000 armored vehicles have been destroyed. Russia lost badly, embarrassingly.

@bobpadok5331

2 жыл бұрын

@@Parture Ukrainians pretend their tanks arei Russian ones..🦧🦧🦧

nothing like telling the enemy where they are going wrong , so they can adjust tactics

Being a recon vet from a tank battalion I see some errors in Russian strategy which the Ukrainians exploit to the fullest (and so they should) You can't use tanks if you don't control the skies. Tanks roll in behind scouts that guide air support onto anti tank threats and guide artillery onto large clusters of armor/enemy troops/enemy artillery than the tanks roll in to deal with the remaining heavy armor and the infantry right behind or just ahead to sweep up the rest. Modern missiles have longer range than tank guns, that's why you don't send tanks in without knowing what's ahead. The tank is a mighty weapon, but not the lead player, it should be like a back up singer, the lead singer is the scouts with air and artillery support, infantry (preferably armored, with say a bunch of cv90s or Bradley's) is like the band. When it all comes together and they start playing and singing it's like listening to Celine Dion, goosebumps and body bags, the perfect cacophony of precise brutal violence overwhelming all in it's path.

@tonysu8860

2 жыл бұрын

Maybe. Or not. In the early days of the WWII Germain Blitzkrieg, tactical aircraft bombing was described as "aerial artillery." In other words, before there were Stukas in WWI, the territory was prepared by regular artillery bombardment before the tanks rolled in. Russia appears to be doing the same when it doesn't have air dominance, but Ukraine also appears to have substantial artillery, possibly backed by superior intelligence (for identification of targets, then passing target information to the artillery units). That's significant, that Ukraine appears to be winning the war of artillery which provides the basis for many other successes.

@q-anonandtheruskimirchelon1886

2 жыл бұрын

Davit T: I tried to up vote your post then I got a: "American Backend Authentication Error" The Fug was that? LoL Strange things happen in YT since this war started.

@eminencerain848

2 жыл бұрын

@@tonysu8860 Definitely not. Ukraine number of artillery units are not substantial, what you're seeing is smarter use of artillery paired up with drones for accuracy. Ukraine is still losing the artillery battle in the East and South. The videos we've seen of Ukraine artillery so far is mostly of them ambushing Russian tank columns rushing towards Kyiv.

@miketaylor5212

2 жыл бұрын

@@eminencerain848 artlliry units are on the way though.

Russia has doctrinally failed. The tank is still a viable and important tactical asset and part of a greater strategic effort. For every anti-tank weapon created by NATO, NATO has also developed countermeasures and armour against this which Russia appears to have failed to do so.

@jxsilicon9

2 жыл бұрын

Russia has the new tanks that counter that along with everything else. The problem is you have to produce them. And Russia has cut its budget. So they use what's in stock instead of the new jets,tanks,etc. Hypersonic missile is the exception but I doubt they will produce a bunch of those.

@georgemorley1029

2 жыл бұрын

What countermeasure or armour that NATO has can stop an ATGM or drone attack smashing the top of their tanks?

@maquettemusic1623

2 жыл бұрын

@@georgemorley1029 far more advanced armour than we've seen from the Russian to begin with. Their use of Kontakt is very limited even in their most recent upgraded t-72s, as is their use of layered armour systems. All of our TES have reactive armour. That is why the crews have been making cage armour on the ground and welding it on for example when these are TES for NATO. But these are Passive; NATO and allies have also got Active Counter Measures. the Israelis for example have the Windbreaker system which is in NATO forces, there's Quick Kill and Iron Curtain, plus other actives we likely haven't seen for secrecy. True the Russians have looked at these but we haven't seen a single example in action, nor retrofitted. You could even count the new developments in camouflage into this. If a drone cannot detect your vehicle in hide, you don't even need to employ countermeasures. Look at the new camo system Britain wants to employ on C3 for example, McS.

@maquettemusic1623

2 жыл бұрын

@@jxsilicon9 But critically they haven't employed them in any way to be meaningful. Yes, they have active systems, but we've not seen a single example in action yet, despite the fact their biggest threat REQUIRES active solutions. this points to a severe lack as you said in both production an ability to upgrade to this capability.

@Jr-mj3bw

2 жыл бұрын

@@georgemorley1029 it’s called an active protective system (APS) Russian t72 dont have them, jammers and air superiority are used to counter drones

Yes

I would count however that during the first Gulf War the Iraqi's didn't have access to large quantities of state of the art anti tank weapons, so simply saying "There were no problems there" is is little bit inaccurate.

@mrgold3591

2 жыл бұрын

He was stating the Gulf War I was a combined arms advancement that utilized infantry, scouts, mortars, artillery, close air support, air defense, engineers, intel, logistics, and command & control on a single united battlefront. Everything infront was enemy territory and everything in the rear was friendly. Combined arms reduces the effectiveness of anti tank/anti aircraft shoulder weapons because the effectiveness of these weapons is pushed further away in combined arms. Taking territory and keeping it are two different types of warfare; especially, in urban areas. Keeping it is where USA and Russia had issues in previous wars. The Germans in WWII had to round up guilty and innocent people and execute them on the streets to keep the insurgency/guerrilla warfare to a minimal in unfriendly occupied areas. That tactic sound familiar like the city of Bucha, Ukraine.

Don't know if I agree with his conclusions. One of the key problems I've seen is that the tanks stay on the roads and they have no infantry support covering their flanks. The spring rains are coming which will force tanks on to the roads even more, and the road network in Eastern Ukraine isn't nearly as robust as it was around the capital, so they are going to be concentrated. This will leave them to continue to be sitting ducks if they don't get proper Infantry support on their flanks to keep the Ukrainians back.

@kalbomataba759

2 жыл бұрын

This is a big problem. Tanks on roads are easy targets.

just like in the video as they said: "If tanks are obsolete all vehicles are obsolete"

@pickleonions4277

2 жыл бұрын

Tanks are not obsolete because they are vehicles, they are obsolete because they are expensive to build but cheap to destroy. If a tank costs a million and an anti tank missile costs 6 thousand the tank looses out. A soldier with an atgm can hide behind the smallest obstacle pretty hard to hide a tank.

@koiyujo1543

2 жыл бұрын

@@pickleonions4277 yessss!!!!!!!! They deserve to stay

I think modern MANPADS/Anti-tank weapons have become so advanced that they represent a game-changer moment

Now , that's called an unbiased reporting

"Cowards, imbeciles, and fools will always blame anyone/everyone and anything/everything for their stupidity, silliness, foolishness, ignorance, narcissistic gullibility, and failures." Alexander Tran

@nellwhite7581

2 жыл бұрын

you missed greed

The German relied on the tanks to carry them to victory during WW 2. But at least they knew tank tactics. And their tanks were ahead of their time. It's exactly these things that made them such a ferocious fighting force. They didn't stick to roads, or loiter around. They had military doctrines, support group, and other personnel to help. That's how Tank Aces came to be. How do you think they manage to earn such high recognition amongst the armed forces?

@flybobbie1449

2 жыл бұрын

But shear weight of numbers finally defeated German tanks, for instance Allies had 10,000 Shermans, vs about 100 Tigers in the west. 100 Tigers break down, 100 Shermans break down, who wins.

@thaipankatima658

2 жыл бұрын

@@flybobbie1449 Exactly! This guy gets it!

@carbon1255

2 жыл бұрын

This isn't true, the Germans used drugs and horseback cavalry chiefly, the tank stuff was mainly propaganda videos. At the start of the war, the majority of their tanks were stolen from the czechs. They did reasonably well in north africa but it came down to logistics and command more than anything else, and was mostly desert warfare. The soviet union used mass tanks as doctrine in WW2 and it didn't work out great for them, they lost ten to one German tank, worse in some battles. That's partly because Germany didn't have that many tanks, it wasn't very fast at building them, they didn't travel well, they didn't have the oil to fuel them and they were very effective with their panzerfausts and other anti tank techniques. Despite the individual effectiveness that the Germans found in their tank forces, some scoring hundreds of vehicle kills- they just did not have enough of them to make that big a difference in the larger scheme of things- compare that to their bunker building, hell, 2/3rds of all of the german war effort went into anti aircraft shells alone. before the war nazi germany prioritized the navy for its steel over tank production. However, their mechanized vehicles were supremely effective with very effective motorised logistic trains.

@bat33.12

2 жыл бұрын

and exactly the same way Russia defeated Germany in WW2 with those self same tactics of 'blitzkrieg' but with vastly superior numbers along with tanks, ground attack aircraft and enormous amounts of artillery equal in ability to anything Germany was using by 1944/45 Those German tanks that were ahead of their time is, at least in part, a myth. Early Panzers couldn't manouvre off road in the Russian mud and snow of 1941 because they had tracks that were too narrow but Russian built T34's could due to much wider tracks and lower ground pressure. The T34 had better armour than any German tank in 1941 and a larger gun, most German tanks couldn't knock out a T34 in 1941 and it was only the 88mm anti aircraft guns that proved able at long range, much like in France when the British counter attack at Arras had Rommel in a panic and using his 88's to destroy British Matilda 2's that German tank shells just bounced off. Then you had the KV1 and KV2 that were so well armoured for the time that a single KV1 held up a battlegroup of the 6th panzer division for a whole day at the Battle of Raseiniai. It was Germany's use of combined arms and tactics that was so effective in the early phase of WW2 they didn't have any advantage in tank design. It took Russia 2 years to learn those lessons and put those tactics into use but when Stalin had killed or imprisoned over 30,000 army officers between 1937-1938 it was little wonder Russias army was poorly led. The t34 was not a super tank and had many faults in it's design that reduced it's effectivness but in 1941 it was far superior in armour, armament and mobility than anything Germany had in service.

@miketaylor5212

2 жыл бұрын

@@carbon1255 germans used cavalry but mostly as scouts where their main use of horses were with supply and towed artillery only about 10 to 20% of german army was mechanized they could have mchanized more of it if they had access to petroleum germany had plenty of tanks enen at the end of the war but they couldnt fuel them.

The lack of combined arms use and tactics are the biggest factor. The other is the Russians abandoning tanks that are still functional. Also when a tank has a mechanical issue they don’t recover the tank they just leave it. They have lots of tanks but will run out much sooner than they should.

@linmal2242

2 жыл бұрын

And will they run out of young men to crew them when losses become known back home. Or is the patriotic propaganda too strong? See Peter Zeihan's talks on Russian Demography !

If someone says that tanks are obsolete, it doesnt necessairly mean that all armored vehicles are obsolete 2:26

The systemic Corruptions contributed to the decline of the armies in many aspects. One can sold off parts for quick cashes, ranks and positions can be bought and sold.

Yeah essentially not using combined arms has lead to alot of Russian armour being lost. In alot of footage I've seen of tank columns you rarely see infantry moving with the columns to provide fire and engage anti-tank units. Also not having air superiority is rediclous as well.

@forresta65

2 жыл бұрын

They don't seem to realize they are fighting an entire country and they are always in movement to contact...not a road march in friendly territory.

A total of 23 M1 Abrams were damaged or destroyed in Iraq.....over 20 years! Nine or 10 of them were destroyed by friendly fire (blue on blue) and two were intentionally destroyed to prevent capture by the Iraqi Army. Others took combat damage with little effect on their operational abilities. Then, when we gave a bunch of Abrams to the Syrian resistance and the Iraqi military, Abrams were getting blown up left and right. Granted, those versions of the Abrams given to Syrian resistance and Iraq military were "export" models without the really sweet and highly classified systems aboard, but still, it demonstrates that survivability and success on the battlefield depend on three critical things; training, tactics, and a supply and support element. *The Russians had/have none of those in Ukraine.* They could have the absolute best, most modern tanks on the planet, and the outcome would be the same. *Without excellent training, tactics, and a strong supply and support element, the best weapon system ever created is USELESS.*

Strange to hear an argument about tanks’ continued relevance and not mentioning modern ATK weapon systems, among which drones.

The time of year is a huge factor. If it happened in the summer then the Russians wouldn't be so restricted to the roads ... Thankfully the Russians didn't think of this 😁

The Ukrops have lost some 2000+ armored vehicles.

@hendrikdependrik1891

2 жыл бұрын

Fortunately, they keep getting new supplies from the Russians.

@xAlexTobiasxB

2 жыл бұрын

2000? What time period? That's just nonsense. Maybe from the 2014 to this day they lost around 500 or so tanks, but surely not during the last 2 months. Since the Russian invasion, the Ukrain only lost around 50 tanks or so, while capturing 100+ new Russia's tanks, so overall they have more tnaks now than they did before the Russian invasion

"All the gear, no idea". A missed pun indeed.

1:05 you didn’t used them properly, they didn’t had any means to destroy them.

Nope tanks aren't obsolete its just russia doesn't have a clue how to utilise them properly

@realnapster1522

2 жыл бұрын

Russia whose whole army is based on armored warfare doctrine doesn’t know how to use tanks? This is just silly propaganda.

@tophodonthetrowel4730

2 жыл бұрын

@@realnapster1522 it clearly doesn't they are in disarray and losing tanks left right and centre their tactics are all wrong so yes the have lots of armour but no idea how to use it correctly.

There has been a question mark on the Russian tanks for many years as they have been poorly built, poorly maintained, poorly operated, and poorly commanded, this all adds up to failure on a grand scale. You can see with all their equipment that it's not only tanks but everything they have at their disposal even down to the Infantryman's personal equipment, Russia is just a very poorly trained and poorly supported Defense Force.

@mypeeps333

2 жыл бұрын

And Chinese tires 🤣🤣🤣

Tank you very much!!!🙃

2:40 Simple Answer: With Javelins, NLAWs, Panzerfäusten, Bayraktar, etc... SOME old men refuse to learn and are stuck in the 1970s.

🇺🇦🙏 Glory to Ukraine 🙏🇺🇦

Ukraine's used of anti tank mines have shown to be effective, they just need a lot more of them.

@nick4819

2 жыл бұрын

Pretty easy when your enemy is forced to follow roads and paths already hardened from previous traffic. You can literally see where they are going to drive.

In HYBRID WARFARE, there are factors to be considered using tanks as the primary column of attack: 1. The weather and terrain. Heavy armored vehicles cannot move on soft grounds during winter and spring. This has historical basis; 2. Tactics and equipment used by the defending forces. In HYBRID close combat urban/guerrilla warfare, drones used to be the advance forces coupled with man pads and anti-tank armaments that can penetrate heavy armor. It is being operated by small tactical advance defense units. Thus, in this kind of hybrid warfare, tanks are more of a liability to the infantry considering the logistics needed and its vulnerability.

The hey day of the Russian tank was during WW2 when they advanced against the Germans across wide open plains with little air power to obstruct them. Armies too often fight the last war, not this one. Anti-tank weapons, including drones, are now almost unbeatable and are very cheap. Probably only the Abrams M1 has much chance against most anti-tank weapons.

@protorhinocerator142

2 жыл бұрын

Two things. 1. The Russian T-14 Armata tank is supposedly "better than the M-1" according to the Russians. Where is it? 2. There have been many wars since WW2. We've almost run out of WW2 veterans. That was a LONG time ago. Even if Russia was only actively engaged in some of those more recent wars, they should have had observers paying attention. There's no excuse for the Russians being this clueless.

@richardcory5024

2 жыл бұрын

@@protorhinocerator142 They're not paid to think! I don't think it would be wise to wheel out their pride and joy tank or there could be tears when the first Javelin knocks it out. Best to keep the myth than risk the mirth!

I’m sure there were plenty similar voices trying to defend Battleships as an effective weapon late into WWII despite all the evidence to the contrary. Simple fact is that a small team of trained ppl with a modern drone, shoulder fired anti-tank weapon and control/tracking device can render any tank just as easily obsolete as a battleship, once aircraft carriers arrived.

@RrRr-or5tw

2 жыл бұрын

Battleship weren’t obsolete because they were easier to destroy then other ships their role just wasn’t needed anymore. And what is going to replace the tank if we just get rid of it .How many people would you need to operate those new weapons whatever they might be. How will you transport those weapons I mean they would probably be pretty heavy considering that they are replacing a tanks gun. How will you protect and transport the people and ammunition for those weapons. If we answer all those questions we end up with something that looks a lot like a tank. Any vehicle can be destroyed by modern anti armor weapons but that doesn’t mean we can get rid of them or give up the fight and just not armor anything and make it even easier for the enemy. Combined arms and well trained infantry are not optional and without them you can’t expect anything to work well including tanks. And yes even with adequate support tanks are by no means indestructible but they don’t have to be nothing is they just have to fulfill their role on the battlefield. And they have to fulfill that role until something that isn’t a tank is able to get the same job done just as good or better.

@DSW964

2 жыл бұрын

@@RrRr-or5tw Bismarck, Tirpitz, Musashi and Yamamoto

@DSW964

2 жыл бұрын

@@RrRr-or5tw 5 people~ $100,000 vs $3Mil Tank

@DSW964

2 жыл бұрын

@@RrRr-or5tw Pretty logical comparison

@RrRr-or5tw

2 жыл бұрын

@@DSW964 the cost wasn’t my argument. Military’s need big guns mounted on vehicles that can withstand small arms and auto cannon fire while driving 60 km/h they don’t need battleships. I’m pretty sure aircraft carriers are just as if not more expensive than battle ships and if we build battle ships with modern technology both would probably be equally as hard/easy to sink purely structurally speaking. Aircraft carriers are better at their job than battleships but what is better than a tank.

In ww2 an infantry had to be within a 100m to use anti tank effectively and hit the tank a couple of time. Now they can strike a tank from 2km to 5km away with one shot. I think things have changed for the tank and is no longer as useful. Probably more used as a mobile cannon on the battlefield to support infantry then the point of the spear. Long range sensors and drone with artillary will be far move effective now.

Always there are assertions that tanks are not obsolete yet. But I never see arguments for what tanks are really supposed to be for.

Tanks, like battleships, are large targets with poor manueverability in a world of smart-guided, extremely powerful, armour piercing munitions often deployed by guerilla tactics. They're bulky, fuel-hungry sitting ducks that get rekt by infantry arms like Javelins, NLAWs, IEDs, anti-tank mines, some RPGs, drones, helicopters and even guided rockets/artillery. Basically everything in modern warfare other than small arms rips tanks apart. APC's are also small arms resistant, but at least APC's can be designed to be cheaper, smaller, faster and mine/IED resistant. Future wars will be single soliders controlling squadrons of drones from a fortified position.

The parting remark of the guest-speaker threw me somewhat for a loop. Was he actually suggesting to deploy tanks in 'reduced' (to rubble or roubles) urban environment? There may have been a bunch of Germans who would have taken issue with that approach, based on their experiences in Stalingrad. As a (former) tanker myself, I would patiently bide my time and support the infantry while they perform (undoubtedly brave and useful) infantry things. Loader! My tea please! Cloud of milk, no sugar, if you'd be so kind and Gunner put a HESH on thing straight ahead at dot 3. It's bugging me, thank you!

1. Most of the tanks they deployed are obsolete. 2. No tank can survive a direct ATM hit. (yes even the abrams) 3. Poor logistics not to mention the lack of infantry support.

Just like everything else the tactics must evolve and change, just like the airplane over century ago during WWI, it was just used as recon and courier service.. yet they evolved numerous times and continue to do so.

It is good you help russian troops by explaining how the right tank and personnel is used properly.

@linmal2242

2 жыл бұрын

Yes, don't interupt your enemy when he's making a mistake !

in today's war tanks are limited to what they can achieve. the javelin proves that the battlefield has changed.

Its not about how good the tank is, its about how good the crew is.

It's not the tanks. It is that they lack fuel transport, food for the crew, no attack helicopters taking out anti tank units, and the infantry is either absent or staying to close to the tanks instead of fanning out across the landscape far in front of and to the sides of the columns.