Tobias' Channel: kzread.info/dron/SxGqfezvDwFSICCdyYV1pQ.html The mentioned / shown book: » Army Regulation Medium Panzer Company 1941 - www.hdv470-7.com

@rogerwilco2

2 жыл бұрын

I missed in the discussion how different models of tanks might affect tactics. For example I understand some Russian tanks are very slow in reverse. I also missed hoe supply issues might affect tactics. For example a shortage of ammo might have made people hesitant to fire. I understood some vehicles might not even have a full crew. Third would be the issue of morale.

@76456

2 жыл бұрын

Very important video of russo-ukrain war. Here T-90M engaged in combat in ukrain uses engine smoke screen kzread.info/dash/bejne/emp5tKWRoa-Zepc.html

@ad220588

Жыл бұрын

🛑It is part of the Soviet tank doctrine that you give up a tank that has stopped advancing in order to go to the next rendezvous point to pick up a new tank there. There the crew took over a new tank while the broken down tank was picked up and repaired by the rear guard.- that is exactly what Russian soldiers did in Ukraine. Their tanks broke down for various reasons, such as a lack of fuel. Then the crew disembarked and went to the next base and took over new equipment there. the Russian leadership did not expect that Ukraine would start collecting Russian weapons.

@TremereTT

Жыл бұрын

All of Nato thought of German tankers as beeing kind of super obidient schoolboys, as they were putting soo much effort in prepping their tanks to look like a bush or a snowy fir tree..., wich is a work all tankers hate to do , so at maneuvers many Nato nations didn't camouflage their tanks or just did some "almost good enough" camouflage ....they focussed more of the fun part of having a maneuver.

@swmark78

Жыл бұрын

I don't know if anyone mentioned it yet but the term you were looking for is "bounding overwatch".

He has a point, but conclusively I had to agree with what his bird said, you can't go wrong having enough millet in the turret compartment.

Just a note: when you said there may be a perception issue; it is almost certain survivorship bias plays a part. If you are in the Ukrainian army and you win a battle against incompetent and unprepared tankers, you can post photos and videos of that after the fact. If you are fighting competent and prepared tankers then you are either dead or retreating, no time to admire the scenery.

@tank_insight2011

2 жыл бұрын

But you still have the fact that both armed Partys record and post videos and also we got plenty of Videos and Pictures from Civilians. We saw also Videos of failed engagements where the Target survived like the Stugna that only hit the Commanders Machinegun of a T80.

@tirushone6446

2 жыл бұрын

@@tank_insight2011 that is why I said "plays a part" and not "is the soul cause of"

@sketchy5085

2 жыл бұрын

Yea but youd then expect see a clear discrepancy between ukrainian forces thriumphing and russian ones doing so, when observing pro russian sources, as in: "For every ukrainian loss there should be a pro russian video" sort of way. Well this is not the case, which is why im rather certain that UA seem to have armoured combat nailed down much more so than their russian counterparts. That could ofc also be down to defendors advantage, but well see

@unknowncommenter6698

2 жыл бұрын

​@@sketchy5085 well, there is an interesting source, not tank-related, though. It's UVO ("Southern Military District" in Russian, I suppose) recon unit that makes videos of them capturing or ambushing Ukrainian groups. Newest one I've seen was about Ukrainian commander committing unliving via grenade.

@macker33

2 жыл бұрын

@@sketchy5085 I think the only big tank v tank engagement so far was south of izyum and the russians thumped the ukrainians. Not sure of the details because it was just one of a string of reports that day.

there will be so many books written about this war, both about what new lessons were learned and what old lessons were forgotten.

@markcorrigan3930

2 жыл бұрын

And just like ww2 ones they will be garbage. Memoirs, biographies and kIlL rAtIOs nonsense

@shadogiant

2 жыл бұрын

Assuming it doesn't escalate to be nuclear

@rogerpennel1798

2 жыл бұрын

I watched half a dozen tank kill videos yesterday and the Russians aren't effectively using cover at all. Often they were moving along roads behind tree lines thinking they couldn't be seen. Every time they came under attack they stopped instead of seeking cover. Sometimes they even moved away from the treeline into open fields. So they are clearly only thinking in two dimensions and never considered they were under aerial observation.

@SnkHetz

2 жыл бұрын

your (ukrainian) love for being encircled and annihilated is timeless.

@petersmythe6462

2 жыл бұрын

And what new bullshit was learned so morons who think they're military geniuses can armchair general the wars of the 2090s.

Private Conscriptovic probably stole all the smoke munitions and then sold them on the second hand market. Either that or someone like Colonel Kleptovsky may have misappropriated funds for the smoke munitions towards funding his yacht.

@mweskamppp

2 жыл бұрын

Since no russian soldier expected to invade, they also sold fuel and equipment in Belarus.

@green_2159

2 жыл бұрын

Whoops, sorry about that m8

@christianweibrecht6555

2 жыл бұрын

Fellow Perun viewer

@NocKme

2 жыл бұрын

Can confirm. My dad was a bmp 2 driver in soviet army and after he found an unlocked window in warehouse where "battle ready" bmps were stored, he stole bunch of headsets and send them home.

@pascualfernandez3533

2 жыл бұрын

True russians like yachts

The issue with not using smoke is that older Soviet 3D6 smoke grenades which I would assume are still common were meant for offensive actions and would launch about 300m in front of the vehicle to give it room to maneuver unlike the more defensive style nato and later Soviet smoke grenades. In addition to this these smoke grenades do not block thermal signatures so thermal sights would still be able to see through the smoke

@pax6833

2 жыл бұрын

Well considering a large portion of Russian tanks don't have many tanks with thermal sights that's not much of an issue for Ukrainians. It's well known by now that Russians have woefully insufficient night fighting capability.

@Rokaize

2 жыл бұрын

But some of those smoke grenades are multi spectral, no? The ones on the t90 and t72b3 are as far as I understand.

@finnwade372

2 жыл бұрын

@@Rokaize I believe only on vehicles with shtora equipped however I may be wrong. And even if they can be fitted with multi spectral smoke the old smokes are probably still relatively common seeing as how poorly equipped and maintained the rest of the Russian army has shown to be

@Rokaize

2 жыл бұрын

@@finnwade372 Yeah probably. Or the typical Russian phenomena of certain units being well equipped, and others not. I would imagine a unit like the 1st Guards Tank Army would have access to them. As opposed to some random motorized division who no one cares about and only gets old gear.

@finnwade372

2 жыл бұрын

@@Rokaize that could also very well be true. I was just reading the tankograd article on them and it says that T-72b3s do in fact use them but I still wouldn’t be surprised if they don’t actually have a whole lot of them equipped or in stock

I dont know if its this case, but the Russians probably receive orders to not destroy the abandoned vehicles in the beggining of the offensive, because they (high-commanders) think ukraine will surrender very soon and they will got the tanks back...

@T33K3SS3LCH3N

2 жыл бұрын

With what we heard about the training and living conditions of many units, I think the theory that they flat out didn't give a damn or didn't know what to do also has some validity. Over time this has probably become less as units started taking the war more seriously, perhaps realising that even leaving their tank behind is not going to get them out of this war.

The discussion about shooting back even before you know exactly where to shoot reminded me of a book by a former Top Gun instructor. I think "Fighter Combat" by Robert Shaw, but I can't find my copy right now. He discusses basic maneuvers, 1:1, 2:1, 1:2 etc situations, interspersing quotes from real fighter pilots. There were two instances of pilots firing weapons as a last desperate measure to try to confuse the opponent chasing them; A WW II US pilot firing his guns to confuse a German on his tail, and a US Vietnam War pilot firing missiles to get a North Vietnamese pilot off his tail. Both worked; I wonder how many times it did not. His commentary was interesting: don't worry about wasting ammo, because getting shot down wastes even more.

@TLTeo

2 жыл бұрын

Yep, that's the one. Throughout the book Shaw stressed that putting a weapon in the air, even if outside of proper firing parameters, can be extremely beneficial.

@20chocsaday

Жыл бұрын

Rommel told his spearhead in France, the motorcycle sidecar troops, If you are shot at keep going and machine gun them. The tanks behind you will deal with them.

The tactics utilised often are lacking. One video of a tank duel between UA and RU tank (T-64BV vs T-72B3). The UA tank was hit but survived, decided to retreat... And because T-64 reverse speed is slow he had to turn around. But UA tank didn't deploy smoke to mask the retreat so it immediately got hit in the engine compartment and the crew had to bail out.

@phunkracy

2 жыл бұрын

Another problem is that tanks often just go on their own in urban terrain with no infantry support, as mentioned. And both sides are guilty of this. Maybe the infantry is afraid of artillery strikes?

@phunkracy

2 жыл бұрын

Now that I reached 1/3 of the video both issues are mentioned! Can't outsmart a veteran I guess 🙃

@davedavidson4203

2 жыл бұрын

It is a repeat of that Jagdtiger story in ww2.

@alangordon3283

2 жыл бұрын

@@phunkracy you meant incompetent and no tactical knowledge just from COD

@phunkracy

2 жыл бұрын

@@alangordon3283 umm what?

That bird's got some mighty strong opinions about armoured doctrine

@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized

2 жыл бұрын

😂

@martinfiedler4317

2 жыл бұрын

@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized You should insert subtitles. My Birdish is not really conversation ready ;)

One interesting part is the insanely low reverse speed of T-72 (around 5 km/h). There is footage where 3 Russian T-72 got caught out on a wide clear field. One was destroyed, and the other two started reversing. But they reversed so damn slow (and the footage was from a moving drone, making movement harder to see) that many viewers thought the tanks had already been abandoned right there. This may limit the usefulness of smoke in some situations, since they genuinely might not be able to get off that field before the smoke fades... I believe the only footage I saw of smoke deployment was a Russian tank driving quickly on a road that got chased by a spotting drone and targeted by artillery. The smoke trail it dragged behind was ineffective against the drone though, which was on the other side of the tank.

@princeofcupspoc9073

2 жыл бұрын

You can't control the wind.

@PropperNaughtyGeezer

2 жыл бұрын

reverse speed - That is exactly what has already been fatal to those in Iraq. When they were overrun, they could neither turn the turret, nor the whole tank, or move out of the fortified position.

@MatoVuc

2 жыл бұрын

Tank commanders from the T-80s commented on this specifically, that theie faster reverse speed allowed them to survive better than the T-72s, and their reverse speed is a whopping 10kmh. I wonder though if this will be upgraded in the future. The russians seem to understand the benefit of the concept as the T-14 has a claimed ability to drive at full speed both forwards and reverse, but can the transmission on the T-72/90 be adapted to achieve higher reverse speed and would it be economically viable? Of that, i am unsure

@davethompson3326

Жыл бұрын

Crippled by a doctrine that assumes they will always be advancing

A youtuber called Perun has an excellent video (June 12th 2022, "All metal, no manpower") on his take about why the Russians sent tanks and APCs in without infantry protection. It's an hour long but makes a lot of sense. Short short short version, the Russian BTGs are made up of professional soldiers and conscripts. Since this isn't a declared war, but rather a special operation, Putin can't send in all available forces and had to leave a lot of conscripts at home. I know some did go as a "training exercise" but, if Perun is right, each APC would have been planned as 3 crew and 8 infantry. The bulk of the grunts are conscripts who don't serve in "special operations" and the more well trained solders are professionals (tank crews, APC drivers, etc). The numbers of troops that can go means an APC might have 2 infantry in it, so they stay there. Some Russian APCs were found to only have their 3 crew and no deployable troops. This resulted in a very equipment-heavy force with inadequate numbers of infantry. I highly recommend his video. Obviously with recent events in the East, they pulled together the infantry and seemed to have redeployed them into coherent BTGs.

@princeofcupspoc9073

2 жыл бұрын

I can pretty much guarantee that Putin is not holding back. Instead, he's saddled with incompetent government appointed staff officers in the military. Some people also mentioned corruption crippling equipment and supplies, which is rampant. Of course they are going to throw in their under-trained militias first. That saves a lot on salaries, since you don't have to pay dead people. This war is all about gaining wealth, and the generals are getting rich off of it.

@staticgrass

2 жыл бұрын

Perun’s content is excellent. And the episode you refer to was extremely insightful.

@martinfiedler4317

2 жыл бұрын

@@staticgrass I heard from others , that Perun "knows nothing". As these people are clearly pro-Putin, I would guess that he is indeed excellent ;)

@hansvader4864

2 жыл бұрын

@@martinfiedler4317 As a matter of fact, Perun often uses RUSSIAN military bloggers, some of which are directly involved in this conflict, as source. It's really hard to call him a propagandist, so they just resort ro "know nothing"

@paullakowski2509

2 жыл бұрын

@@hansvader4864 alot of his content covers strategic aspects with data exploring implications. kzread.info/dash/bejne/eGak1qlqedvAYJs.html

Thank you Bernhard and Tobias. Excellent discussion.

Soviet era armour in general is designed for mass exploitation on an assumed NBC battlefield. Therefore there was a strong bias in Soviet doctrine on the infantry staying mounted, an assumption of mass and of superior numbers. Using armour and tactics designed for one style of war badly in another style of war was always only going to end one way. Also, armoured warfare theory can no longer ignore the increase in urbanisation.

@shoeby9273

2 жыл бұрын

I guess that's why they chose profile over gun depression. If everything is leveled flat by MAD.

@freezedeve3119

2 жыл бұрын

@@rogerpennel1798 modern antitank weapons can pretty much kill any existing tank, so it does not really matter which era tank you use, most important is how you use those what you have. there has not been war like this for decades where you fight against enemy who has equal firepower on battle, this war has gone to ww2 style total destruction just because either side have no total control of air space to bomb everything down like USA has done in their previous conflicts. You have to use your ground troops to defeat enemy and that usually means losses for both sides. Losses are normal thing in war like this and Russians know it and accept it. also infantry usually should stay inside armored vehicle and unload only if there is risk of antitank weapons which can take down that vehicle

@rogerpennel1798

2 жыл бұрын

The problem with Russian military hardware is that it was based on design considerations from World War II and built for a war that never happened. The idea was that like the T-34 of WWII weapons should be cheap to build, easy to maintain, reliable, and expendable. Their tanks were incremental upgrades and the same faults of poor crew safety, poor ammunition storage, and poor fuel storage are inherited traits common to the entire family tree. Having such a huge stockpile of weapons meant that new weapon R&D and procurement were delayed and only incremental upgrades of questionable value were completed. The Russians were relying on the weight of numbers so they didn't pursue highly survivable vehicles in the assumption that they wouldn't last very long anyway. The problem is when the Soviet Union collapsed Russia inherited all of these cheap and expendable weapons that were never going to be used in the numbers originally intended. So when they were used in high-intensity conflicts without a massive superiority in numbers they couldn't achieve the results that were expected. When used in huge numbers the chance of survival was greater. When used in smaller numbers the chance of survival declines.

@freezedeve3119

2 жыл бұрын

@@rogerpennel1798 Ukraine does not have any better either so they have equal situation

@fazole

2 жыл бұрын

@@freezedeve3119 Not the same because NATO is supplying modern weapons to Ukraine. Also the soldier defending the home country tends to be higher motivated over the propaganda motivated attacker.

In October 1973 my Tank Battalion was the farthest south in Germany. We were up working 24 hours painting all our Olive Drab tanks Red Rock and desert sand camouflage to go railhead through Italy, then by ship to Israel in support of Israel! They were loosing too many tanks to the suitcase anti-tank missiles, the Sagger! We tied down several times on rail cars at the hauptbahnhof in Augsburg. I am sure this was to show the Soviet intelligence that we were ready to jump on. We were told that the issue was addressed by Former South Vietnamese Army tankers that had ran into them, there. The operator had a very sensitive joy stick to steer the missile on to target and only about 25 meters of wire from the launcher. I think that it panned out to the right of the launcher. They found that if you fired in the vicinity of the launcher with everything you had! Coax, 50 cal. And even main gun you would cause the operator to flinch, the missile would ground out! Gut Gemacht! Love hearing from former tankers! USABOT member since 2013 and real TC C-33 3rd Bn 63rd Armor 1st Infantry Division Forward! Death before dismount!!

@paullakowski2509

2 жыл бұрын

THANKS FOR THAT.

@garrettanderson7764

2 жыл бұрын

Coming from the same time period and army, I remember this "revelation" of the weaknesses in the M60A1s. There were a lot of little things like the standard "cherry-juice" having to be replaced with very expensive "apple-juice" because the former was flammable when under pressure. I also remember a lot of the "sayings" that came out of the studies of Yom Kipper. "If you can be seen, you can be hit. If you can be hit, you can be kill." "The tank that fires first has a better chance of successfully completing the engagement. The tank that scores the first hit has an even better chance of successfully completing the engagement." "If you hit your target with a SABOT round, following it up with a HEAT round because the only destroyed target is a burning one." I think these probably still hold true today in Ukraine.

@davidrueth5894

Жыл бұрын

Thanks for your comment! I too remember the talk. The Israeli tankers liked our M 60's but as you said the "cherry juice" = hydraulic fluid, in our turret system was under pressure and would often spay the tank crews and it being flammable would often incinerate their crews. We like you replaced the red stuff with the non-flammable stuff. It however was clogging up the systems filters. SO we went back to the flammable stuff. Cannot have clogged filters! Suck it up crews! You got to love the Army!! Remember how that turret system used to scream when it recharged?? God I miss that sound and the sound of a round going into the breach and the breach block slamming up! Real TC, C-33 3rd BN 63rd Armor.

Great episode! Thank You!

Love the disclaimers like the one at the beginning of the video: makes me feel like the content creator is being open and honest with viewers.

@princeofcupspoc9073

2 жыл бұрын

Germany/Austria/EU have truth and privacy laws than are stronger than anything in the US, since we have to let Google, Microsoft, etc make a fortune off of our personal information.

@SirAntoniousBlock

2 жыл бұрын

Birds can be very distracting to tanks.

@michaelguerin56

2 жыл бұрын

Austrian legal requirement, as previously stated by Bernhard.

@martinfiedler4317

2 жыл бұрын

@@michaelguerin56 Do you by chance know the exact legal source? I asked that in comments in the past, but never got a reply.

@michaelguerin56

2 жыл бұрын

@@martinfiedler4317 No. I suspect that it is a statutory requirement BUT Bernhard was not specific in that regard. I suggest that you start your query to Bernhard by putting his name in your first sentence, so that he is more likely to fully read and comprehend your words.

Great to hear feedback from a tanker! Very informative. Thanks

@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized

Жыл бұрын

Glad you enjoyed it!

@maszk9743

Жыл бұрын

Agreed. I myself am a gunner, but even I am scrolling through the comments looking for shared experiences.

@engineco.1494

Жыл бұрын

@@maszk9743 I'm sure you must find there are alot of armchair experts .

@maszk9743

Жыл бұрын

@@engineco.1494 I listen to everyone's opinion, as even armchair generals may have something useful to say. With the pitiful state of modern armoured doctrine, we need all the help we can get. With all due respect to the gentleman being interviewed, I know for a fact he hasn't seen combat, let alone had a kill, whereas I serve with a squadron in which more than a few people have had confirmed kills, yet I still think his input was valuable.

@engineco.1494

Жыл бұрын

@@maszk9743 yes good point always remain humble and listen, the best idea must win when lives are at stake wether it's from a new member or experienced, Iron sharpens iron.

The “Sagger Drill” is effective against human guided ATGM (AT-3, AT-4, TOW, etc.) but not so effective against “fire and forget” systems like Javelin which is not controlled by the operator.

@boosterh1113

2 жыл бұрын

The "shoot in the direction of the operator" part doesn't necessarily help as much against fire and forget (although it certainly makes follow up shots less likely), but popping smoke, moving erratically, and getting to cover are still sound practices. Erratic movement can be the difference between a penetrating hit and one that is deflected by armour/hits a less vital part of the tank, while even fire and forget missiles still need to see their target (admittedly, on IR, so just a bit of bush won't help) in order to track it. Plus, no self-guided AT missile in service is smart enough to plan an indirect route (the Javelin does have one by default, but it is a fixed, pre-programmed flight path, not one that adapts to the target's movement), so simply putting something in between you and the missile (or along its flight path for the Jav) will almost always save your bacon.

@whya2ndaccount

2 жыл бұрын

@@boosterh1113 Agreed, I was just trying to keep things simple, rather than reproduce a Pam on AFV manoeuvre.

@boosterh1113

2 жыл бұрын

@@whya2ndaccount That's fair then. Sorry. I've just had to deal with way too many hot takes about "ATGMs make Tanks useless" and "Manned aircraft are obsolete now that drones exist" and the like, so I have a knee jerk reaction to seeing statements like "X technology makes Y tactic/equipment ineffective."

@MatoVuc

2 жыл бұрын

Oddly enough i watched a video a week or so ago where a Javelin team fire at something and a few seconds later bullets start flying in their direction.

@rickmoreno6858

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah because the javelin has really worked huh another case of a western person believing whatever MSM tells them please turn off the TV box it's lying to you if these Javelin missiles actually works do you really think that the Russians wouldn't be taking territory like they are because the javelin system hasn't worked because the ukrainians are not winning.

Thanks Tobias and MHnV

I always make these type of observations when i see footage tho i know no v little on mechanized capabilities & doctrines, great to get such an informed perspective, highly informative conversation. Danke

Another informative discussion and interview.

Leaving tanks to the enemy is especially bad when the enemy uses basically the same tanks and has supply and maintenance chains for them already

@anthonyargent3964

2 жыл бұрын

Agreed. It's one thing when you abandon your Tiger II with it's broken transmission to the advancing allies, who don't have any spare parts, spare ammunition or spare trained crew to use it, it's another thing entirely to leave your T-62 to an enemy that can have that thing up and running and crewed within a few hours.

@mattjk5299

2 жыл бұрын

Perhaps, but so far yet to see credible examples of one side or the other using refurbished captured tanks outside of literally abandoned functional tanks. Though the longer the war progresses the greater the likelihood of tanks being refurbished from a disabled but recoverable state such as seriously damaged engines or etc. Would be interested to see anything to the contrary. It may not even make the most sense to try to field enemy tanks - it might be better to simply cannibalize recovered vehicles to maintain your own old tanks in service that share many components. That's me speculating though and as such I can't say I know.

@Grimmwoldds

Жыл бұрын

@@mattjk5299 They can be shipped to other former soviet states for refurbishment. While it's mostly Ukranians on one side of the shooting war, it's pretty much the entire world(sans Russia and Belarus) on that side where arms dealing is concerned.

It's not only inconsistent training. There are Luhansk and Donetsk fighters, people with Wagner group, and Russian federation troops. The Ukrainians are fighting three separate organizations, at least.

@somethinglikethat2176

2 жыл бұрын

the Luhansk and Donetsk Republics are down to Volkssturm levels of recruitment.

@christianh.1180

2 жыл бұрын

And keep in mind that before the war Ukraine had about 250k active personnel, and in 4 month this number increased to 1 mil, so no wonder that only 1 out of 4 soldiers is well trained, or at least better trained

@PropperNaughtyGeezer

2 жыл бұрын

That used to be completely normal for the Germans in the past. Fight against multiple organizations at the same time. But they always lost in the long run too.

@Flamechr

2 жыл бұрын

@@PropperNaughtyGeezer problem for Russia is that compared to Germany this time USA is providing lend lease to Russias enermy and not Russia 😉. And we know how that went.

@jiridrapal7512

2 жыл бұрын

@@Flamechr then it is not working Also British institute of war claimed west is unaable to keep ammo supply.

Thank you. Thanks Tobias.

🏆🏆🏆👍🇺🇲🙏 Thank you for sharing .

19:57 I saw that on both sides but mostly with artillery. There are not a lot of armor videos while crews are resting and when there are videos they are usually in tick forests, garages or factories where such natural camouflage is not that important. I seen artillery get destroyed with natural camouflage on both sides, but it's rare. In terms of covering your tracks it's impossible because Ukraine has large wheat fields that leave permanent track marks (There are a lot of video that show vehicles or positions lost because of those track marks). One thing that I also noticed is not a lot of people look up while moving or just siting in position even with a large drone treat. In terms of smoke I noticed a tactic by the Russian side, When they want to advance armor on dry days they shell a large area to create a lot of smoke clouds and confuse Ukrainian spotters, or at least make it harder to find the real advance.

@glennmitchell9107

Жыл бұрын

In regard to the inability to disguise the tracks of parked vehicles, would it make sense to create a multitude of fake tracks so it would be a wild ass guess as to which track led to an actual vehicle?

@fortweek_7389

Жыл бұрын

​@@glennmitchell9107 That could work but I don't know how practical it is.

Artillery is king in this conflict at this point. All the doctors and medics I've talked to in East Ukraine have said that 80% of the casualties they've seen have been from indirect fire weapons.

@rayzas4885

2 жыл бұрын

Ive heard a figure like that to

@bcluett1697

2 жыл бұрын

When I saw all the trenches they had in their lines years ago I thought WW1 again. Both sides do it suggesting they don't fight the modern mobile style. It really is about artillery and air drops and the numbers of pieces. Bad for the civilians in the cities that can't evacuate.

@Skenderbeuismyhero

2 жыл бұрын

@@bcluett1697 Russians sop is to sacrifice some troops and tanks to test defensive positions and then if they meet resistance, shell the shit out of the whole city until there's nothing left to defend. The only ways to counter are to attack and overrun artillery positions or use counter artillery and air strikes to hit the artillery. Neither option is very effective right now because attacking ends in huge numbers of casualties and they don't have enough arty or air power to put a big dent in the Russian arty.

@shimadwan8251

2 жыл бұрын

@@Skenderbeuismyhero that is call Reconnaissance by fire (recon by fire), also known as speculative fire, is a warfare tactic used in which military forces may fire on likely enemy positions to provoke a reaction, which confirms the presence and the position of enemy forces. NATO use it too..but nowdays there are UAV Survailance and Thermal Optics so they dont need tosacrifice men/armor .

@Skenderbeuismyhero

2 жыл бұрын

@@shimadwan8251 There's a difference between firing on likely enemy positions and literally shooting every building and house in an entire city until nothing is left.

BMD employed by airborne forces with limitations on weight, size, etc. BMP used by Mech, can use air transport, but not designed to be air-droppable - both IFV but BMD optimized for tactical insertion by air.

nice how you worked around the word "leap frogging", had to think a minute myself what it was called.

Well done!

I read that in the northen areas russian commanders were lured by Ukrainian secret service into towns, were traps were prepared. These commanders have been told by the secret service acting as "local politicians" , that in these towns the people were eagerly awaiting their arrival, and there is no resistance to be expected there. This might even have been partly true (the people awaiting the russians in the north-eastern towns), but there for sure was resistance by Ukrainian military with prepared traps in there. The lesson learned is, that Russians dont take any risks any more, but go slow with massive artillery preparation.

I don’t think a person who never was in combat situation can be called veteran

@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized

2 жыл бұрын

> I don’t think a person who never was in combat situation can be called veteran Words keep changing, nowadays it is called "combat veteran" what previously was a "veteran". Of course, depends also on the culture and language. See the entry for the US here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veteran#Veterans'_experiences_around_the_world since I generally use US terminology as a base line. "In the United States, a veteran is a person who has served in the armed forces (including the United States National Guard and Reserve) and was discharged under conditions other than dishonorable. A common misconception is that only those who have served in combat or those who have retired from active duty can be called military veterans."

As an ambusher, you never know when you are spotted. Even if you expect that the returning fire in your general direction is not really aimed at you... how sure are you about that? Because you life depends on it... soldiers may play safe. Which makes "spraying" even more effective.

In English: "Fire and Maneuver" used as an Infantry tactic also called bounding over watch when used by armored vehicles. Same thing.

@MrNigzy23

2 жыл бұрын

They actually are not. Fire and Manoeuvre is the overarching doctrine whilst Bounding Overwatch is a subset of fire and manoeuvre. (IE: Bounding Overwatch is a form of Fire and Manoeuvre.) Fire and Manoeuvre does not necessarily require the overwatch element to have direct Line of Sight to the other unit whilst Bounding Overwatch absolutely requires you to keep Line of Sight on the unit/element you're covering. Fire and Manoeuvre can also be used just to move, does not require you to be in contact to utilise. Bounding Overwatch is used when contact has been made and both elements of the Bounding Overwatch suppress and attack a position, or to fall back from a position. Line of Sight is key in Bounding Overwatch though. But to imply that armoured units have a different, than which is used by infantry, phrase all together is incorrect.

I once saw a "DasPanzermuseum" video of Rolf Hilmes on Eastern and Western tank development during the cold war. And if I remember correctly, he mentioned that the T72 series, unlike western tanks, only has one gear for reverse because the soviet doctrine was "only go forward". So no retreating, just attacking and do it in large numbers. With this philosophy in mind, and considering the Russians still use soviet style tactics, it makes sense why they don't use smoke grenades. They are probably not trained at it and their equipment is not suited to fight that way.

@jintsuubest9331

2 жыл бұрын

The reason why there are no reverse gear is simply because it is cheaper. Russian engineers and officials recognize the advantage of having better reverse gear. But then they look at their production facility and say to themselves, "what are the chances of the more complex transmission have an acceptable proof rate when some of our current factory can barely meet the standard of our current design?"

One of the best channels when it comes to military analysis! You can learn a lot about tank combat if you listen carefully!!!!!!! I hope somebody is teaching the ucrainians these basics,I mean the inexperienced fighters.

It would be very interesting to see examples of the video talked about. Maybe a live commentary on the action captured

Thanks Bernhard.

Should be mentioned that neither the Javelin nor the NLAW need guidance by the operator after launch which make suppressive fire from the target less efficient.

@actinium2754

2 жыл бұрын

Ukrainian troops, from videos that have been released, either seem to lack the training to trust the weapon so want to see the impact, are too engrossed in the anticipation of observing the impact or simply don't understand the tactics behind the deployment of such a weapon because more times than not they appear to stick around to watch the explosion.

@vendist

2 жыл бұрын

@@actinium2754 That behaviour can of course be detrimental to their health but it won't change the outcome for the tank. The missile is already launched and its chances of hitting the target does not change because the operator, now merely a spectator, is killed or not. The only way for a tank to defend itself, apart from relying on its armour, is to activate some type of APS and it's interesting to note that this is not mentioned at all in the video. Popping smoke can be effective against the Javelin if it's the right kind of smoke and the NLAW can be defeated by a change in speed or direction of the tank if the missile is spotted in time. Suppressive fire only affects the enemy's ability to launch a second missile.

@Schnittertm1

2 жыл бұрын

@@actinium2754 It certainly might be that, or they are not afraid to stay in their position, due to RU tankers not engaging their position.

@egoalter1276

Жыл бұрын

Most of the footage you see arw of Stugna-P, which is commqnd guided. And the rest is survivourship bias. You only see fotage that was filmed, which is liable to include footage of the hit. You cant draw generalised conclusions in regards to light infantfy AT doctrine from it.

I would love to hear his thoughts on the new Panther tank.

I recall a battle during the Battle of the bulge where the Germans would bracket the assault route, both the left and right flanks with smoke shells from artillery/mortars. Not much has changed it seems

I've seen a news crew with tankers with proper camouflage. Invited by the unit.

Good video

The only tank combat footage I trust on KZread is from Tank Fest in Bovington.

@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized

2 жыл бұрын

lol

Bravo, bravo, bravo !!!

Ok i had never seen a fahrschulepanzer and i only found an article on German Wikipedia that I had to translate and wow it's a driver training vehicle with a turret for the instructor so cool

"My name is Two Beers". I salute you sir, an excellent name!

I find it interesting that the people who were, presumably, coming directly from training exercises in Belarus were the ones not doing what they were supposed to.

@glennmitchell9107

Жыл бұрын

Interviews with captured Russian troops who had deployed from those Belarus training exercises claimed that they had not actually been doing any training. That might have been a command decision to spare the equipment. U.S. tactical vehicles, including armored vehicles, suffer a lot of wear and tear during field training exercises. I imagine Russian equipment would suffer even more, and with less capability to repair and replace.

@reappermen

Жыл бұрын

Well, they made more mistakes, but the Russian troops in the south also did plenty. Two of the big differences between north and sotuh offensives at the start of the war were that in the south they had a lot more infantry per vehicle because they drew heavily on the Seperatist forces. In the north many APC's for example didn't even have a full complement of infantry to dismount. The other big thing was that Russia advanced a LOT faster in the north, and over longer areas. The speed makes for more mistakes and opportunities to get ambushed, while in the south they not only had slower speeds, but also got supply lines from the russian border and crimea, so a lot less logistics problems.

On the section on camouflaging tanks, I saw a video early on of the russians camouflaging their armored vehicles with all kinds of stuff including pieces of shed roofs. Yet they were being recorded by a Ukrainian drone already.

@freezedeve3119

2 жыл бұрын

on those smaller villages you can drive your tank in to small house and you that as camo

@davidbarcelona5083

2 жыл бұрын

@@freezedeve3119 unless the house has a cellar...

Bundeswehr cannot even man or equip a full division these days. It must be a great worry to former soldiers of the Bundeswehr in the current situation east and it will take many years to repair the damage of a crippled sourcing system and years of neglect.

@longyu9336

Жыл бұрын

That's what the 100 billions are for

19:00 "We see no camouflage on the tanks" That's because it's working

I was a progamer in cod2 and even I said: USE SMOKE. How can I bave better tactics by playing a video game? Well, its like real life in the end, right? Anyway. Our team was very good on a map due to smoke tactics. Its so strong also when you smoke enemies. They dont see anything, are dissoriented, while you can see inside the smoke to some degree.

@looinrims

Жыл бұрын

Reason is video game combat does still follow a lot of the same rules as real combat, just with different results and of course less reality in the shooty bang bang sword swing parts, but rules still apply

I guess when in the thrill of combat, all the training goes out of the chassis. If I remember, Turkish Leopard 2 tanks also seem to have made similar mistakes in Syria and were being blown up there, going alone, no infantry support. Idk how the variance in training and doctrine within NATO in but that's that. Also another point, I think if was the tank KZreadr RedEffect, if I recall, made a good point about the weakness of most Soviet/Russian tanks having very slow reverse speed, the few tanks they have that have faster reverse made quite the difference in survivability apparently. Also, I'm wondering which is inflicting heavier losses on armor, simple light AT (RPG, AT4), heavy ATGMs (NLAW, Stugna, Javelin), or artillery especially now with recon drones, what if fancy ATGM's are overrated over the others.

@petrophaga8523

2 жыл бұрын

that's why you drill in army and not just train. Difference is that with drill you react as drilled. You do not have to think. That's also why the lack of real and realistic exercises nowadays is such a big problem

@madcat4633

2 жыл бұрын

Well, some 20 years ago, mates of mine went for an official visit (4 weeks) to the Turkish army. And they reported the Turks doing things with their tanks which no German conscript in his 9th month of service would do. They were astonished and when they asked why (the fuck) they were doing things that way, they were told (by the Turks) to stfu since Germany hadn't been in a war since 1945 and the Turks on a constant base. This and a couple of other stories kinda influenced my estimation of Turkish tank combat capabilities. And when I saw how they lost their Leo2s I felt confirmed in that estimation.

@jasonisbored6679

2 жыл бұрын

Actually, the biggest AT kill counts aren't going to the big-name American systems. They're effective no doubt, but domestic Ukrainian platforms have been performing well, which is good because they are predictably more cheaper and available in larger numbers. Capability-wise, they are no javelins but they are more trained with and much better than unguided ones like the AT4. Best example is Stugna, but I think there's also the Pierun.

@Archer89201

2 жыл бұрын

@@jasonisbored6679 artillery (guns, mortars, rocket) corrected by drones is still the main weapon but since atgm launches are sexier they get more press, also their shorter range engagement means there is more close videos. But even then you can see more arty kills on tanks and ifvs these days

@Seth9809

2 жыл бұрын

@@jasonisbored6679 Bruh, there is a Russian guided weapon system called the AT-4. I'm aware which system you are talking about, but be careful.

you can't disrupt an NLAW, Javelin, etc, by shooting at the operator. Fire and forget missiles are more common now. And as pointed out, remote launchers are a thing.

@andrerothweiler9191

Жыл бұрын

Also easy to learn, easier to maintain

Delay action is absolutely critical to modern mobile warfare. There is no battle where you always outnumber the enemy.

Thermal camouflage: makes me think, maybe they could create some self-heating blankets (chemical or electric), that simulate the thermal signature of a tank. Placing them somewhere nearby. Making it less likely that the real tank is targeted.

Wait I might be late here but is the disclaimer list of D then A a reference to the Panther designations being stupid?

@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized

2 жыл бұрын

yeah, I copied it from the Panther video and then did not update it. It is a nice inside joke as well.

Move over Carius, it’s a loader with 3 years experience of driving around Germany

Tobias' Channel: kzread.info/dron/SxGqfezvDwFSICCdyYV1pQ.html

Damn now I hear the whistling at 0:03 too

Relatively clean emission among the tanks,busses in N.Y.C in the 80s were worse couldn't see up 6th Avenue.

Regarding the fast loss of Kherson, it is now known that Russians had a high-placed mole in the Kherson SBU who betrayed all Ukrainian defensive positions, minefields etc. It was revealed not so long ago that Ukranians have arrested him.

@targe4070

Жыл бұрын

SBU liquidate their own diplomat and assign sabotuer status to their own people all the time so they have something to report for their gestapo HQ.

23:44 ACLOS missiles like the Javelin are guided by their own seeker head, Once it has been fired you have no one to suppress (and a T-72 zig-zaging backwards at 5 KPH is not going to help).

@longyu9336

Жыл бұрын

This is a truly scary weapon. Once the missile leaves the tube and the lock was good the fate of the tank is sealed.

@01Laffey

Жыл бұрын

Javelin guides itself by comparing the images of the thermal camera of the missile seeker to the command launch unit. The missile itself can be spoofed by smoke grenades

"bounding overwatch" is the term you were trying to remember.

4:30 It has long been Russian doctrine to use tanks as spearheads or battering rams, in the exact opposite way the west considers tank usage. 6:15 Russians don't have 'passive' smoke, they have 'active' smoke. Their launchers actually fire their smoke emitters out to a hundred meters in front of the tank in a wedge shaped formation. It's intended to fire the smoke, then use it as a view block and be able to maneuver around it. Russians do not practice the idea of 'defensive' smoke usage except with automated threat warning systems on their most modern tank variants, which we have seen they have very few of those available.

I was surprised how bad both sides is on camouflage their vehicles.

Interesting

Is that a parakeet in the video? I just walked outside furious that there was a bird at my bedroom window squawking at 6am.

@tank_insight2011

2 жыл бұрын

No, its two Lovebirds. One flown to my House and i kept him. Bought a second one so he is not lonely.

As a Ukrainian I am a bit annoyed that Europeans are calling a war conflict. Therefore, diminishing severity of situation. Anyways, good video.

@nyw100

2 жыл бұрын

Well to call it a war Ukraine needs to declare a war to Russia.

@theconcealedfourseasons6607

2 жыл бұрын

@@nyw100 Defensive side does not decalre war. Also, I will put you in the same trench I was, force to hear missile flying above sounds and ask is it war or not.

@nyw100

2 жыл бұрын

@@theconcealedfourseasons6607 C`mon, nothing can stop Zelensky from coming to UN and declaring a war on Russia due to the it`s aggression in Eastern Ukraine. And another thing, why are you still pumping Russian gas through your pipeline? You are literally allowing Russians to get tons of money to fund their operations. That makes no sense. If you are in war, how can you help invader? How can you trade with invader? How can you see that your president uses gray schemes to sell his movies to invader during the war and do nothing? The only reason could be: that`s not a war.

Here's a question: how often do both sides call in smoke support via artillery?

@reappermen

Жыл бұрын

Just talking from what I have seen on footage, satelite imagery etc. Since the start of the conflict, plus a verity of analysies, there doesn't seem to be all that much artillery smoke strikes. Part of that might be that the Ukrainians are very good on artiellery spotting and and coutnerbattery fire, and their artillery seems to be quite busy with that, as they don't have that many artillery pieces overall. For the russians it is probably just a lack of communication, or possibly a lack of suficient smoke munitions.

So charging ahead with tanks far ahead of infantry into urban areas is standard doctrine with many armies? That's news to me. But isn't this suicidal given the widespread use of potent anti-tank infantry teams who would be concealed well in such an environment? Thanks.

@reappermen

Жыл бұрын

You are right on both kinds. And yes, it is really dumb. Besides the war in Ukraine, where the Russian lost hundreds of tanks/IFV's to that, Turkey and Saudi Arabia lost of a lot of Leopard 2's doing that in Syria and Jemen respectively. And that's just naming conflicts with big tank losses in the last decade. But people, planning and politics are often not to intelligent. A bit like german politicians suddenly discovered that we need more renewables, because they don't realy heavily on constant fuel imports to keep energy flowing and cheap. Which has been a hughe argument for renewables for decades, but somehow it was completely new to politicians apparently, and we are now getting bitten in the ass by most politicians doing literally everything legaly possible to fight renewable buildout for the last 15 years.

Excellent video !! Many congrats for your job !! I will suscribe to ur channel now

07:35 Is that the Popemobile version?😁

@kwiecinski86

2 жыл бұрын

Driver training version.

The defense against ATGM part won't really work for the Russians. The T-72 and other tanks based on it, like the T-90 all have pathetic reverse gears. I think they go like at 9km/h top speed in reverse. So even if the smoke grenades weren't stolen and sold for vodka money, they couldn't maneuver and retreat. The tactic of scouting for cover and making sure you can reverse into cover in 10 seconds, would mean that all T-72 based tanks couldn't ever move anywhere from cover.

I'm an very experienced Leopard II gunner. Spent 1989 en part of 1990 on the front in the Cold War. I'd say we won.

@alexnderrrthewoke4479

2 жыл бұрын

Won regards to what?

@aboner2551

2 жыл бұрын

@@alexnderrrthewoke4479 The Cold War. We cetanly did not lose it. I call it a win, since our enemy came shopping bananas in november 1989.

@rickmoreno6858

2 жыл бұрын

@@aboner2551 yeah and then your masters United States federal government and your defensive Alliance started going around the world the past 30 years bombing invading and occupying Any Nation they wanted I wouldn't call that a win I would call that destabilizing the world making it a lot less safer actually pretty freaking scary because there wasn't another Nation or Alliance there to keep the US and nato in check the US and NATO Cold War win as you said again has done nothing except for making the world on the verge of disappearing

This is all well and good but what is your WN8 score on World Of Tanks Blitz?

had to pause the video for a minute because 4 Dutch air force F16's where flying circles at low altitudes over my house haha. fitting.

23:18 Suuuure zig zag reversing going 4kmh in a T72, 5kmh in the T90 and only the T80 having some reverse speed at 11kmh... thats waaaaaaay to slow for any zig zaging that would lower the speed even more. With such crap speed might as well just hit the smoke and reverse in a random direction(just not straight back)

I know it's not Military Future Theorised but what do you think a next generation tank will look like after the lessons from this conflict are processed? Will onboard UAVs become common for tanks? Will there be electronic warfare tanks equivalent to EA-18G Growler to deal with the threat of enemy UAVs and smart anti tank weapons?

@GhostScout42

2 жыл бұрын

onboard UAV detection, as well as training for uav awareness and camoflauge. Cope cages on anything without AC, because of the 40mm grenades dropped by drones. I wouldnt be suprised to see a weapon system just for shooting down lower flying surveillance drones like a mini Phalanx anti missle system. Like it could be smalll and do its job. Belt fed pistol rounds would probably work great All tanks will have blow out ammo storage. Secondary remote guns for the gunner, and would a wide view lense kill them? I dunno, im high

@mangalores-x_x

2 жыл бұрын

In essence the Rheinmetall Panther tank is their proposal for next gen: 130mm gun, autoloaders, fully digital, loitering ammunition and active protection against top attacks. Whether this is already seen enough for next gen one will see given military projects where remote vehicles are also a thing.

@PaulVerhoeven2

2 жыл бұрын

@@mangalores-x_x That thing, just like Abrams and Leo 2, would not be able to cross 99% of bridges in Ukraine.

@reappermen

Жыл бұрын

@@mangalores-x_x to expand on it's future proofing capabilities, the 4th man is also vrry important for it. They reducdd the actuall tank crew from 4 to 3 eith the autoloader and other tricks, and added a fully fitted out control/command station instead. So they got 3 crew + 1 person to just coordinate troops, process sensor data, control drones, oder artillery/airstrikes or whatever, depending on what kind of specialist they stick in there. That is probably the most important future proofing part, as that universal slot for a specialist allows the tank to morph even more into an armored fire support platform that is also a local sensor and command hub.

So, on the lack of smoke employment - perhaps smoke just doesn't work as well with Soviet/Russian designed tanks? The interviewed tanker talks about deploying smoke and then reversing buuuut, well, T-72s/T-90s can't reverse for shit. T-80s can do it better, but still not as well as Western model tanks.

Has there been any videos showing the use of APS when tanks are attacked?

@GhostScout42

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah, but you have to really dig on telegram or rumble

@vendist

2 жыл бұрын

@@GhostScout42 Thanks, unfortunately I don't have the means to do that. Have this use of APS been successful?

That bird is the Spirit of Guderian voicing his contrary opinion.

thermal optics see through smoke

13:53-14:20 Ah, yes the BMD. The chibi, and more cuter version of the BMP

That budgie squelch system need some work 🐦

Is it also where pyrotechnic smoke screens is supposed to be used, i.e. under fire, the situation would be too hostile for video filming? I mean if it has not been recorded even once it is probable that its simply harder to film.

@reappermen

Жыл бұрын

There have been recorded incidents of smoke usage by both sides, though far less than you would normally expect. Keel in mind, a lot of footage of active combat we're seeing from this war is drone footage. The drone operators are at least a kilometre or two away from the action usualy, and the drones used for that can't do anything exept filming. Plus, since they are mostly cheapish camera drones, there is plenty of combat footage as you can put them in more risky situations.

What is up with the tank with a windshield on the turret?

@alangordon3283

2 жыл бұрын

Why not 🤷‍♂️

@DaGillz9807

2 жыл бұрын

It is for driver training. "Fahrschule" on the rear means "driving school". Built on a leopard 1 chassis.

@Armageddon_71

2 жыл бұрын

Training tank. For the driving licence i think

@Whatisthisstupidfinghandle

2 жыл бұрын

If it was Russian they’d be pushing it into service for DPR LPR

@PaulVerhoeven2

2 жыл бұрын

@@DaGillz9807 But the driver is not in the turret, is he?

Could you do a video on smoke on tanks during the Second World War?

You know, WADR, you might want to dig up a German veteran from one of the bi-annual NATO Tank Gunnery competitions en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Army_Trophy

tobias hört sich an als wäre 2014 noch in der 7ten klasse gewesen xD ein paar bilder von tobias im einsatz oder in uniform hätten das ganze glaubwürdiger gemacht, ist ja schliesslich ein veteran

Did saw a t 90 deplyed smoke and the video said its was engaging a tank and a ifv.

Much of russian activity shows that they have spent most or too much time training on the parade ground against an unarmed enemy. What Tobias is explaining is what most proffessional field force soldiers learn in basic or introductory field training. Once again highlighting the difference between those trained to fight proffessionally and those trained to look good on parade to impress civilians.

🙏

Everyone is just talking about the different Training Levels in the Russian Army. But there are also a lot of DPR fighters present. Which might not be regular Russian forces.

Hmm, I wonder if these tips will work in Warthunder

15:50 they actually did fire back

Wasn’t he already on a red effect video?

that tank vs tank video, someone knows?

About surpression in video games I've had a few experiences in Arma 3 where suppression worked, but it was in very specific circumstances: 1 life games with no way of resurrecting a dead body. in that case I have been hiding in slight depressions in the ground for quite a while just because It's one of our few game nights in the week and I've sunk way too munch time in this OP to play chicken with the MG keeping us down.

@egoalter1276

Жыл бұрын

The key difference between mechanically realistic simulators, and reality, is that reality is a lot more casuality averse. You will rarely see actual aimed singleshot fire by infantry at visible targets in real combat footage. Most of it is unaimed automatic supressive fire, usually from a defilade, with 0% chance of actually hitting anything.