>>>Play War Thunder for FREE! Support my channel and get a premium aircraft, tank or ship and a three day account upgrade as a BONUS: gjn.link/RedEffectWarThunder Also available for free on PlayStation®4 and Xbox One.

@Andrewza1

4 жыл бұрын

cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/303852893667328002/648498717393158170/always_wear_helmet.gif

@giahuytran8484

4 жыл бұрын

Do you play War Thunder?

@Theo_Aubusson

4 жыл бұрын

@DarkstarTendor Gay

@Mite204

4 жыл бұрын

@RedEffect Please can u tell me what is the armor (im MM) on the T-80 BV with Kontakt-1 around 530 mm like t-72B? (against Apfsds)

@lesliedodds4011

4 жыл бұрын

The 1o5 Gun on the Arams was taken from the British 105 on the Centurion tank and it Destroyed RUSSIAN tanks in Israels wars including 6 day war so it was quite a Gun indeed .

remember when sturmpanzers kept killing M1 Abrams when they first came out?

@USSAnimeNCC-

4 жыл бұрын

Wut dor real XD

@ikill-98

4 жыл бұрын

@@USSAnimeNCC- Not to mention KV 2 just any tank that have ridiculous DERP gun and HE shell no one well survive

@ikill-98

4 жыл бұрын

They cooking M1 abrams crew members

@stateservant

4 жыл бұрын

Why doesn't armata use a 200mm derp gun? It will make quick work on anything.

@antimatter4733

4 жыл бұрын

@@stateservant they were planning on using a 150mm gun, but decided against it, it's not really needed. Russia's doctrine basically states that they don't need to defend themselves against other superpowers with anything other than advanced nuclear weapons, since on one is gonna attack Russia if they're gonna instantly have all their major cities nuked. The tanks, planes ect are just to keep their technology and industries alive

Yeah you can play the T72 or Abrams in War thunder... * *After year of painfull grind or hundreds of euro spent :D :D

@DOSFS

4 жыл бұрын

ORRRR PAID FOR PREMIUM :v

@scudb5509

4 жыл бұрын

Buy Premium. Play every evening and you’ll have them after 2 months. Before that you’ll reach fun tanks as well. It’s not those tank that are the only ones OP. There are plenty of others for their level.

@AssassinAgent

4 жыл бұрын

@@scudb5509 That's the problem, War thunder's economy is unbalanced making it pay to progress and one might argue, pay to play in high tiers/br's

@scudb5509

4 жыл бұрын

Commander Pinochet I’ve never bought a premium tank. Only premium accounts. Top top tier for Russians is shit atm anyway.

@noahsagutch8314

4 жыл бұрын

Buy it one day at a time of you don't play one day it won't waste

Thanks to everyone that pointed out that M1 didnt use M735, I had info that the projectile was in service, but guess it was wrong. The situation still doesnt change, Leopard 2 had superior protection and commander's independent sight, so it still holds the title as the best tank of 1980. But it is important to point out the mistake.

@JamesVDBosch

4 жыл бұрын

@Pommy Pie That's actually not entirely true, the M1 Abrams had a ready rack that was unprotected: imgur.com/a/MNjTC7O

@Hollycalvey

4 жыл бұрын

James V. D. Bosch it was a three round ready rack situated quite out of the way and behind the armored fuel tank & hull armor. Big difference compared to >20 shells sitting right clean in the front of the hull

@phased-arraych.9150

4 жыл бұрын

If we’re talking 1980, the M1 would’ve had access to the M774 shell with a DU penetrator and improved performance against angled armor.

@JamesVDBosch

4 жыл бұрын

@@Hollycalvey Ofcourse, however, it is still not the same as *ALL* ammunition being stowed behind the bustle rack, that's all I'm pointing out.

@isaquesevero4369

4 жыл бұрын

did the m774 has DU penetrator ? tought only the m833 and m900 had it for the 105

Ah yes WarThunder a beautiful *life spending game*

@manuelgamer3598

3 жыл бұрын

Jes i like to be spawn camped but the game is not bad at all xD

Yeah as a Bradley guy I think I see the Abrams in my battalion fueling up more than actually maneuvering

@flyenaodla376

4 жыл бұрын

I heard some M1s got stuck in Syria, they dont have enough fuel to get back home so now they have to stay there and guard the oilfields....

@piotrd.4850

4 жыл бұрын

In Desert Storm Bradley's used to cover 3x the distance that M-1s did on one ... uh....tank... I mean, fill up :D

@TheDude50447

3 жыл бұрын

They cant keep that turbine running during refueling :D

@joewicker9790

3 жыл бұрын

Not true. You can hot refuel and keep going.

@BFBC2Tankbuster

3 жыл бұрын

@@joewicker9790 yeah not sure about tanks but with the Brad’s we could refill with the engines running. Most of the time the fuelers had us cut the engines. I’m guessing just a safety thing for training.

When i saw the notification, i read NATO vs UBER

@A-Forty3707

4 жыл бұрын

Russian bias comrade

@randomuser5443

4 жыл бұрын

Heavy coming with Uber

@dimitrycccp8255

4 жыл бұрын

Honda civic vs Abrams

@samuellatta6774

4 жыл бұрын

Oh no my uber is here! Im fucking doomed!

@freshfrozen3035

3 жыл бұрын

😂

Clearly you didn't add crew comfort because it would be an automatic win for the brits with their tea making facilities lmao. Jokes aside this is a pretty entertaining video. keep up the good work!

@Warhero1171

4 жыл бұрын

Russians would actually win due to having their vodka coolers.

@Slavic_Goblin

4 жыл бұрын

@@SerinaDeMadrigal Heh, tankers are generally picked from among the short guys. Except for Chieftain for some reason. xD

@skippy5712

4 жыл бұрын

@@Warhero1171 I think most USSR Tanks had something to keep there Tea hot. Or maybe the crews added that themselves. Had not heard about the Vodka cooler but I am sure inventive crews did work something out.

@iamseth9761

4 жыл бұрын

@@Slavic_Goblin Don't worry, that guy is only "tall" when he's wearing his 2" heel cowboy boots and 6" high cowboy hat. Don't mention it to him though or he'll cry and then we'll have to endure a bunch of new videos in which he spends almost the whole time talking about how he's "tall". It's very important to him that we believe it.

@Slavic_Goblin

4 жыл бұрын

@@iamseth9761 Well, if those videos also include some nice tank footage that we haven't seen before... I don't mind listening to him ranting about hight in that case.

Salty comments battle between self proclamed tank expert begin

@sigmar2331

4 жыл бұрын

Belka has the best tank no question about it

@toastytoaster2797

4 жыл бұрын

Yes, if only they could appreciate the full superiority of Belkan tachnology

@auburn8833

4 жыл бұрын

Lmao you are saying that under a video of someone that is probably a selfproclaimed "Expert", and has an obvious Bias for Russian vehicles on top of that.

@sannidhyabalkote9536

4 жыл бұрын

Oh come on, Bob Semple is simply the best without any doubt

@Warhero1171

4 жыл бұрын

I played the tank mission in CoD World at War, so I actually have a degree in tankology.

Its fair to say that in thr 80's most of the western and eastern tank fleets were still based on second generation MBTs like Leopard 1, M-60, Chieftain, AMX-30, T-55, T-62, early T-80, T-72 and T-64.

1:50 never underestimate a good pair of Zeiss binoculars

I knew this video was coming! Great one Red.

What about the Chieftain and Challenger tanks?

@ernstschloss8794

3 жыл бұрын

Challenger gets mentioned. Chieftain was inferior to T-64B in all but thermals, so it does'nt even make sense to include it here

Steven Zaloga had a relevant observation on this at the point where the T80u was king in penetration and armor. Since the use of smokescreens at the time was a given, and the stabilization quality made firing on the move realistic, the lack of thermal sights to see through smoke and auto-lead may have made the T-80u's firepower nearly irrelevant and left it as a potentially superior platform only needing some relatively small modifications to be the dominant force, but modifications that remained a step behind the needs of battle.

gajuble: historically accurate vehicles also gayjingles: ostwind 2

@zeke2408

4 жыл бұрын

It was planned but not build.

@obj.071

4 жыл бұрын

@@zeke2408 as a japanese o-i and other paper tanks

@poland.5986

3 жыл бұрын

Andy Didko Don’t forget the HE-162 being a beast while in reality not even a single one shot atleast light fighter

@gaiofattos2

3 жыл бұрын

HEHE BOI planes gonna hate

@potatojuice5124

3 жыл бұрын

I heard it was built though?

A marvelous analysis thank you so much

Also you seem to forget that Early Leopard 2 did not have thermal imaging gunner sight until Leopard2a1 which didnt start seeing fielding and implementing till late 1982 through 1983 it also used early Type A composite armor which is significantly less than what you stated the values you gave are on par with Leopard 2a4 with Type B composite armor.

Thank you for providing sources!

Congrats on the sponsorship! Keep up the good videos :D

Great video and good analyses, but in a war there are many other factors that contribute in achieving victory, like tactics and even pure luck. However like I said a great video, keep up the good work.

Great video bro

Now I know where Red Effect gets all those Sekrit Dokuments.

@fabio6170

4 жыл бұрын

They re not a secret anymore

@90enemies

4 жыл бұрын

@@fabio6170 r/woosh

@Alex-zg7vq

4 жыл бұрын

@@90enemies thats not a wooosh

@Durnelis8148

4 жыл бұрын

@@90enemies you clearly don't know when to wooosh someone

Very good analysis. I enjoyed your video.

Very good breakdown of all the tanks to the gulf war

Another nice video, this channel is very good!

1989, I say the T-80UD did win. Same installments as before but improved turret protection, plus a little cost for the diesel engine which is better than the gas turbine engine, but slow like the T-64.

"The engine wasn't very powerful, so the tank was kind of slow.." LOL

I dont know if it carried through - but at least some generations of western tank crews was trained to measure distance not on target, but to solid terrain features near the target. Not as much to avoid the warning systems of soviet tanks, but to get a better measurement. Quite a significant doctrine there which might have had an impact on the battlefield we luckily never had.

crew comfort would also be worth a word they often are in the tanks for a day or more and speaking about autoloader would also he great (do they work good or do they struggle) and the problem with autoloader you cant seperate crew from ammo (no blow out penal) but otherwise its a fair compare

Yeah yeah yeah you can totally play those tanks in war thunder only if you grind a country for more than a year not worth the time

I think if you were to do a video on the future of armor on the battlefield, that'd be pretty awesome. Perhaps you could make your predictions as to what features you think will become more common and which will be more successful. Maybe make a design of your own, that you think would be ideal for a given country.

@zhufortheimpaler4041

11 ай бұрын

Active Protection Systems, better 3rd Gen Thermal Imagers, All round Cameras, APU´s, Remote Weapon Stations

So no mention of the improved armour on the chally 1 mk. 3, or the DU rounds we put in them?

@reubenritchie6254

4 жыл бұрын

@@komradearti9935 it's still an improvement over the standard round, probably not as good as certain rounds at the time, but definitely better than what was loaded at the start

@dennis1701e

4 жыл бұрын

@@reubenritchie6254 wasnt Chally 1 MK 3 just ERA addon + Armored bins for ammo? and i guess youre Talking About L26 i guess it could be noted but would not make much i guess

@reubenritchie6254

4 жыл бұрын

@@dennis1701e mainly yeah, but I feel like not including the upgrades undermined how well armoured the chally was for its time. I think the fact none have been knocked out by hostile action only backs this up. I know the l26 wasn't the best round going, but it certainly improved the lethality that the system had. Although chally 1 wasn't the best tank for everything, it definitely suited the need of NATO for the time and as a defensive vehicle I don't think there was a better option at the end of the cold War.

@leopardcentury4079

4 жыл бұрын

Well in war thunder no one gives a f about the british

@dennis1701e

4 жыл бұрын

@@reubenritchie6254 firstly cant get knocked out if not facing big threats secondly armor wasnt that Special over all others chally Maybe has better all around armor against heat but thats probs it and bla bla yes you are Right most dont bother with brits in WT bc they mostly underperform or are just memes (for tanks and jets) props are awesome tho i still love spit f mk 9

Do a review of the leman Russ MBT of the imperium of man 😁

pls you can make a video on the italian c1 Ariete MBT?

please do a video on weaknesses in Al Khalid tank

I am one of the few Americans that dipped my toes in US equipment and Soviet equipment. Hands down, US is much better if you have the logistics. I prefer Soviet weapons because they can be used for multiple purposes, rugged and can perform a task for minimal cost. Talk crap all you want about the T55, I do myself. It makes for a great siege gun. 23mm cannons can be fashioned into rifles or on to a Hilux. A PKM is a lighter and is more weildy than a 240 via box hugging techniques. All I am trying to state is if you are in a situation that requires rugged weapons, Soviet is the way to go.

@MykolaSternenkoDroneBoyHoleMan

4 жыл бұрын

How is USA much better? Utes and Kord HMG are far superior. AGS systems as well. Manpads like Strela, Igla and now Verba are pretty much identical to US equipment. Soviets also had upper hand in artillery. US had many areas where they were leading, but so did Soviets.

@billyteflon1322

4 жыл бұрын

@@MykolaSternenkoDroneBoyHoleMan the question to ask is "How much better is the US?" and I can't quite answer that. I know that they require a constant supply chain and are tech dependent primed for 3rd generation warfare. If there is a break in the chain, the combat effectiveness starts to faulter. I didn't see this with Soviet Arms

@MykolaSternenkoDroneBoyHoleMan

4 жыл бұрын

@@billyteflon1322 gas turbine T-80s were garage queens, Soviet Tu-160 were also delicate. Some soviet weapons were really maintenance heavy as well. Soviets did also managed to overcomplicate some weapon systems, it's not just USA.

@billyteflon1322

4 жыл бұрын

@@MykolaSternenkoDroneBoyHoleMan I am not saying all arms. Their arms are more suited for war out of a NATO/Soviet conflict. Being able to weild a belt fed GPMG like you would a rifle, having automatic ability with an AK is extremely useful. The armored units can be broken down into useful objects. I am not talking about the high end equipment. Just that a T55 still has a place on the battlefield.

@usaisthebestiockdownpoiice816

4 жыл бұрын

@@billyteflon1322 believe it or not, rpg7s are actually a bit complicated/can be made simpler. its predecessor was more like the usual recoiless rifle, but some guy in the soviet union, definitely not drunk on vodka, came up with the idea of strapping a rocket behind the warhead, in addition to more boosters, making it more complicated as a result. so, you have first and second stage solid propellant boosters, then a third stage rocket. it works well though. this is why the world keeps using rpg7s and its the most popular general purpose anti tank weapon used by almost every country that exists(yes, US forces also use it). why i brought up rpgs? hmm.. i was watching spacecraft launches earlier.. rpgs came to my mind for some reason..

HOLY FUCK YOU ARE SPONSORED BY WARTHUNDER, im really happy for you! Keep it up!

These analysis need more soft factors as well. The independent commander’s sight is one such soft factor which makes a good difference. But having a good AC unit, sound protection and enough room to move for the crew can also be vital to keeping them at peak capabilities. Reloading a shell inside a cramped turret is simply going to be a lot more tiring and have a higher risk of it taking longer to properly load. You might be able to hold out for a few hours, but if this is your 12th day in a tank driving and maneuvering and you just spotted a target for the first time, you want your crew as unstressed and alert as possible. Maybe look for after-action reports, memoirs and the like to see how crew fared under conditions.

How many t80u's were available? As well as the ammunition?

Would be good to include parameters like maintenence ease (for example how much time does it take to swap engines) or crew survivability (like comparing M1s ammo stores and Challenger ammo stores) Crew comfort and internal/external storage space, Range and mobility ( it is rather important most soviet tanks couldnt turn in place) etc .Those are rather important factors. In this video its rather important to mention the armour comparison in front turret armour coverage. Most allied tanks have rougky equal turret coverage (except the Leopard 2a4 weakspot and the weak armoured Leclerc Mantlet) but in Soviet tanks turrets got only the cheeks armoured and th turret center has gaps in both special armour and reactiva armour. And that is a large gap. In order to make a video like this it needs those considerations included

@panterka.f

9 ай бұрын

russian tanks would still take the 1st place, nothing more rugged than those things, ease of repair and maintenance. Crew comfort is very subjective, you get used to everything with time.

@Rzymek85

9 ай бұрын

@@panterka.f russian tanks are famous maintenence monsters. In fact take days to what nato tanks do in hours

RedEffect Please can u tell me what is the armor (im MM) on the T-80 BV with Kontakt-1 is it around 530 mm like t-72B? (against Apfsds)

@shouhanyun8203

Жыл бұрын

This reply is pointless but Kontact 1 doesn't affect apfsds

You skipped over an Abrams varrient IPM1 and different important parts of tanks such as crew efficiency track and other reliability avg rate of fire weight

Btw. Chally Protektion from Front Tower ist 650mm againt Apfsds ans Hull is 470mm againt apfsds

@samuellatta6774

4 жыл бұрын

Your grammar gave me a stroke, and i don't know what you wanted to say.

Still , I think T-80UK was somewhat better . It was much lighter and the engine as you said was much more fuel efficient . Thus , it had more range . And also you didn't say anything about the gun range and the ATGMs accomodated to it and whether they can compete against M1A2 protection or not .

Don’t know if you’ve done one but would be awesome if you done one when basically the french and German tanks got big upgrades and new British challenger 2 came out. Also American and Russian upgrades to theirs

could you give your thoughts on the kaplan mmwt?

Have you done early and / or mid cold war comparison as well?

@RedEffect Please can u tell me what is the armor (im MM) on the T-80 BV with Kontakt-1 around 530 mm like t-72B? (against Apfsds)

@finnwade372

3 жыл бұрын

I believe it would be about the same as the standard T-80B. I’m pretty sure Kontakt-1 only substantially improved HEAT protection.

@user-tj9vp8re4d

3 жыл бұрын

kontakt 1 doesn`t improve protection against apfsds

My man RE with another great vid that isn't Challnger 2 vs T14. Come on dude when are you going to drop it on us?!

You look like that spongebob worm when you unlock the abrams

@alpejohnson491

4 жыл бұрын

Lol m1 abrams Him- I finally got to top tier YEAH M1 ABRAMS BEST TANK IRL SO ITS BEST TANK IN GAME OFC! Italian players- Heheheh yeah boi.....

@predattak

4 жыл бұрын

@@alpejohnson491 and every other top line mbt from the game .. gone are the days when the abrams was a good tank. It's paper now. The leopard1 of america. Worse than leo1 because leo 1 can deal with all it's opponents .. abrams can't ..

The one thing you didnt mention is numbers. The M1A1 vastly outnumbered the T-80 of the time which only had a few hundred produced.

@xAlexTobiasxB

4 жыл бұрын

Actually there were over 4.500 T-80s. only the upgraded T-80U variant was rare at the time since it was very new. But the M1A1 was also rather new, especially the M1A1HA was very rare at the time too. Most of the Abrams around at that time were still the old version with the weak 105mm gun (it was only phased out in the 90's)

@elanvital9720

4 жыл бұрын

@@xAlexTobiasxB That said past 1985 the M1A1s and HAs definitely outnumbered the T-80U. I think that there were something like 1000+ HAs by the time of Desert Storm.

@xAlexTobiasxB

4 жыл бұрын

@@elanvital9720 by the time of 1991 there were already some 500 T80U's too, so it was only outnumbered 2:1 by the HA. Meanwhile the Soviets also had additional 15.000 T-72BV and T64BV (not the weak downgraded versions that the Iraqis used, but the upgraded soviet T72 version with reactive armor, laser-range finder and increased composite armor arrays.

Hey what’s your favorite source for all this tank information. Would love to check it out

@AJ-happydad

4 жыл бұрын

russian sekrit dokuments

@Tepid24

4 жыл бұрын

Check out the description

Please make a video about tanks of Iran

@woahholdyourcomment

4 жыл бұрын

Slavik Chukhlebov also American m60s

@VladislavDrac

4 жыл бұрын

@@QualityPen they had American and British tanks, “inherited” from the days of Shah.

@mistergeopolitics4456

4 жыл бұрын

Their frontline tanks right now are T-72's from the early 2000's. However they have created their own version of the T-90 called Karrar, which is supposed to replace all of their older tanks. They still have some upgraded Chieftains in service, as well as a highly upgraded T-54/T-59 tanks they call T-72Z.

@zhuravl-m2285

4 жыл бұрын

@@mistergeopolitics4456 Type 72Z

I personally think a standard design diesel engine has many advantages over a turbine, any thoughts?

Also, what is the practical application intended of the anti tank missile used on the t64 and possibly later tanks? I believe you mention the t64, t72 and t80 all largely use the same main guns which you also note are/were superior. So with a superior main gun for use against armor. In what scenarios would the anti tank missile be used?

@user-tj9vp8re4d

3 жыл бұрын

AT missile used at longer ranges and against helicopters

@dyren7437

2 жыл бұрын

ATGM's were more accurate beyond 3 km than apfsds at that time.

Hey man can u do a video on china's mbt 3000 plz, much love thanks. :)

Well made and researched video but if I were you I'd put like title cards for each of the years so its easier to find which section you are talking about. Few things I noticed: No mention of L26 round (not L26A1 used with 120mm L30) for the British which the Challenger 1 used in the gulf war, though no idea on introduction date. Not sure weather it would have been able to penetrate T-80U either but would have been better than L23/L23A1. Also the L23A1 was introduced in 1985 so you could have mentioned that in the 1985 section rather than 1989. Yes you're right in saying this wouldn't have reliably been able to penetrate T-80U. Also if you're going by "Cold war" then technically T-90 doesn't fit this list as it was accepted into service after the Soviet union had disbanded, although it was developed during the timeframe so ill allow it.

Haven't finished video, but my guess is gonna be t-80U and M1A1 are gonna be tops with some challenger sprinkled in for flavor

@topbanana.2627

3 жыл бұрын

Leopard 2a4 honourable mention

True what you say tech doesn't always mean that a tank has an advantage the crew training is paramount . Let's just say I know this from what I have seen . For example a t72 may be old but crewed by well trained Russian guys could be best in the world on its day . Challenger 2 a dinosaur but as I say and I've seen combat record speaks for itself . One more thing your videos are the most accurate on KZread you are very impressive

could you also cover early and Mid cold war

When ever red uploads a video about abrams.... Ah shit here we go again

Did you delete the ztz99A video?

Thermal sight is quite a game changer. Western tank could just fire smoke grenades when engaged and return fire unopposed.

@smoljumb5984

Жыл бұрын

Smoke granades block thermal sight.

@little_weed192

8 ай бұрын

@@smoljumb5984if it’s ‘Steam’ or ESS then yes they can fire through the smoke with out any blocking, but if it’s smoke charges they detonate extremely hot so they would black thermal sights only for 6-10 seconds then it would cool down, allowing the thermal to see

Hello RedEffect where are you from ? just curious coz accent. Thx for good informative stuff.

@yereverluvinuncleber

4 жыл бұрын

You can't guess?

@grindererrofficial3755

4 жыл бұрын

@@yereverluvinuncleber and you are RedEffect ?

@scottmclaughlin2329

4 жыл бұрын

Grindererr Official I think he’s Australian 😂 🇦🇺

@ionutbalta6607

4 жыл бұрын

I think hes from Balkans.Possibly Serbia

@yereverluvinuncleber

4 жыл бұрын

@Grindererr Official Your lack of real-worldliness makes me assume you are American but most likely a Britisher with no experience of the world, that might fit. I can tell who you are without even hearing your accent. And yes Red Effect is definitely Indian. :)

Question: did anyone ever think about taking the T-72 hull and mating it with the T-64 turret? Or are they not compatible and replacing the engine/ upgrading the whole tank was the cheaper option.

@globalcitizen8321

2 жыл бұрын

Not exactly, but they did sort of with the first T-90s, aka T-72 BU. The hull of a T-72 and the turret of a T-80. The T-80 was based and a successor to the T-64.

@alexwest2573

2 жыл бұрын

@@globalcitizen8321 interesting ok

@lechendary

Жыл бұрын

i mean it could probably be done after some redesigns but just why

Csn you please do a video about the t-34 vs m4 sherman

@jonnybravo3055

4 жыл бұрын

T34 wins hands down.

@mrwehraboo5478

4 жыл бұрын

@@jonnybravo3055 well you had a much higher chance to survive in an m4 sherman than in the russian t-34

@jonnybravo3055

4 жыл бұрын

@@mrwehraboo5478 The T34 is widely regarded as the best massed produced tank of WW2. Soviet tank crews hardly had any training to get familiar with there tanks when they looked like they were going to lose the war. American and British crews were a lit better trained. T34 tanks had lasting effect on tank design. The combination of The 76mm gun , mobility with its speed and wide tracks and armour which was sloped and lower profile than many tanks of the time made it a great tank. The Germans copied the design in the Panther. Shemans were not good tanks. They were only good because of the industrial might of the US and the numbers produced.

@kaloyandraganov9462

4 жыл бұрын

Considering his obvious biast even if he compares the T-34 to an M1A2 the T34 is going to win

@mrwehraboo5478

4 жыл бұрын

@@kaloyandraganov9462 kinda impossible considering the m1a2 tank cannon had more penetration than the russian 85mm on the t-34 and lets not even talk about the armor on the t-34 it breaks much faster than the sherman hell even panzer 3 hullbroke the t-34 in barbarossa

The problem remains that the doctrine that determines how the tanks are used is more important than the tank's stats. you right hull on the abrams isn't great but the abrams was designed as a defense tank to fight behind cover with only the turret showing. That's the reason nato tanks have higher turrets it helps with depression(hill shooting) of the guns. Russia tanks are designed for an offensive war, which is why the turret is smaller and the hull armor is better. Please do a video on how the tanks fit their nations doctrines and why the design where such.

Red can you please give Gaijin your source for the T-80UD’s armor array. They have made it a copy and paste of the T-80U’s array.

It's ok for a technical comparision not to look on the costs, but there is one rather important issue always neglected by all this "what was the best", the reliability and servicebility. The best Armor is useless if the Tank can't move and the best gun if the sights are faulty.

Which tier tanks they are?

More like ~600mm of RHA equivalent for the turret protection vs KE for baseline M1A1 from 1985.

I have a question. During this time the A-10 and the Russian equivalent were flying around. Both I believe were supposed tank killers. I am guessing the missiles each carried made easy work of most tanks but were the guns pointless except for light armor? I mean the A10's gun seemed really cool but you were not really going to take out a tank with it were you?

@herptek

9 ай бұрын

Roof and rear armour are weaker than the front and the sides of the hull and the turret. The guns in ground attack craft are not totally useless, but it requires specific conditions to make a good use of them. Strafing a tank column on the road can work, but isn't necessarily the easiest way to deal with such a situation. For that to be successful you have to Be able to reach the column unavares while avoiding being shot down by AA fire. So technically possible I guess.

1992 the new t-80 absolutely rocks

I read US tankers called the additional frontal turret armor on T tanks the dolly parton and super dolly parton mod

It's important to note that the Abrams was the standard main battle tank of 95% of American armored units by the 90s. T80U is a very rare, elite, and expensive tank. Most Soviet units were stuck using modernized T64s and T72s, which were really bad by 90s standards.

@IceAxe1940

6 ай бұрын

T-72B 1989 was on par to the T-80U and fired the same APFSDS rounds and ATGM T-72B was more than a match for the M1 Abrams

@Southerly93

6 ай бұрын

@IceAxe1940 HAH, I have no idea where you got that from but that's very not true. The following are all worse on T-72B than T80U in 1985 - reverse speed - power to weight ratio - optics - commander visibility And an Abrams can see a T72 sooner, engage it with greater accuracy at greater range, AND its turret front is invulnerable to the most common 125mm the T72 would have in the 80s. Sorry but the T72 is just not a great tank and every upgrade it gets makes it just good enough to not be hopelessly outdated on the battlefield. That's why even the Chinese abandoned it once they stole enough technology to make their own good enough mbt

@IceAxe1940

6 ай бұрын

@@Southerly93 I said on par not better than T-80U do you know what on par means? The T-72B 1989 had better commander optics than all M1, IPM1, and M1A1s from the 1980s onwards until 2000 when M1A1SA and M1A1HC introduced thermals for the commander HMG, so at night the Commander of a T-72B would have a better chance of spotting an M1 Abrams than vice versa since the commander didn't even have night optics the only thing the M1 has over the T-72 in terms of optics at night was thermal vision and that was only for the gunner and the gunner needs to spot the target first, if the commander can't see the threat before the gunner they're toast. Not only that the T-72B fired the 3BM42 "Mango" APFSDS round which could reliably penetrate the M1, and M1A1 from the front the only Abrams that would give the 3BM42 trouble was the IPM1, and M1A1HA both of which were rare on the field the majority of M1s were the first M1A1 from 1985 and M1 from 1981. The T-72B also could fire the 9M119 ATGM which had over 800mm of penetration regardless of range so that could also reliably pen the M1, M1A1 and IPM1 from the front. The only Abrams variant that blew the T-72B out of the water was the M1A2 which was only introduced in 1992-93 and even then they were rare to see since they were new and would take a further five or so years to fill half of the U.S. Army Armored brigades. So for a period of four years 1989-1992 the T-72B was a potent threat to any Abrams variant from the M1 to the M1A1HA. One final thing the T-72B 1989 also could mount Kontakt 5 ERA same ERA that was used on the T-80U and it's sub variants which added more protection to the turret and UFP against kinetic and HEAT projectiles M829A1 and M829A2 has trouble going through K5 at range which is M829A1/A2 made up the majority of M1A1-M1A2 APFSDS ammunition in the 1990s until M829A3 was introduced in the 2000s. Unlike the Iraqis which had either badly domestically produced T-72s with no ERA or composite armor or T-72s from the early 1970s T-72 Ural and T-72A/M1 the Soviets had thousands of T-72Bs that were on par or even in some cases slightly superior to M1A1 variants. This isn't counting the thousands of T-64BVs, T-80B/BVs, and the newer at the time T-80Us the Soviets were a competent effective fighting force that would give the U.S. Army a run for it's money.

Anyone please help me, between a 1990s model of T-64 and T-72, which one in the strongest? what i know is that T-72 is a downgrade of T-64, but with constant upgrade, please help me determine which is better?

@nemanjaredzic9534

4 жыл бұрын

T72b 1989 was last t72 mbt(if you consider its up to 1990 as you stated) T72b had much better composite armor and k-5 ERA on that T64bv only had k-5 and no composite on a lvl of t72b T72 by that time was mbt soviets still worked on,t64 was forgotten

@stateservant

4 жыл бұрын

@@nemanjaredzic9534 Thanks for the answer.. Very helpful. Btw, is it still hard to kill a T80 by 2010s using western tanks?

@nemanjaredzic9534

4 жыл бұрын

@@stateservant no since m1a2 and m298a3 apfsds ammo Also charm-3 and i think dm-63 apfsds(british and german) posses that ani-era tip that will negeta kontakt-5 ERA T-80bvm posses relikt ERA that is doouble layer heavy era and it can reduce penn of those rounds but not enough for base composite of t80 to absorb(probably,not sure) T-80 is preety old btw and is not in wide use in russian army anymore T-90M PRORYV-3 is beast you lookin for on russian side togheter with t-14 armata

What about crew ergonomics?

Do us a favour and don't copy challenger armor values from Gaijin for crying out loud they are entirely wrong. Every document states it has superior CE protection to M1 and the Hull was upgraded to 500mm vs KE in the MK2 iteration onwards (about 1986). Loved the rest of the analysis though.

what about t-72m4cz ?

M1 had M774 introduced at the same time.

Idk where this guy gets his arm out ratings for abrams and challenger? Those ratings are still classified. So he is guessing based off of Soviet guesses on the ratings.

i read that germany got their hands on a T-80 after the cold war, and they test fired 5 rounds with a L44 on it and only one projectile manged to penetrate(hull). which lead to the devlopment of the L55. apperently the americans didnt had that problem with their DU-ammuntion. PS: u should mention, that the low profile of russian tanks is bought with bad gun-depression, which hinder their tactical use in some circumstances. but its probably not that easy to rate :D

@carkawalakhatulistiwa

Жыл бұрын

Because eastern Europe is flat and you don't need -10 gun in their

What I always found curious is that here in Germany the Leopard 2 keeps getting serious upgrades towards anti tank warfare while the M1A2 received its biggest upgrades towards urban warfare.

@clouster75

3 жыл бұрын

The historical experience of these nations. Germans had "Ze Soviet tank rush" in the mind, while the US was stuck with some RPG-7 goat-lovers in the Middle east.

@peterl3417

2 жыл бұрын

Because most of the modern combat takes place in Urban environments and insurgents or infantry with RPGs and ATGMs are the biggest threat to all modern tanks in Guerilla warfare...

really a bummer you couldnt talk about the leopard 2a5, since it was introduced in 1990, and formally introduced in 1993. But its ok.

RedEffect could you do a video on why Soviet Tanks performed poorly in against Abrahams in first Gulf War, was it that they were mostly obsolete models or poor training and tactics or no air power. How would Soviet Tanks of performed with Soviet crews and more modern tanks.

@mbtenjoyer9487

Жыл бұрын

Those were not the best Soviet tank And had export ammo

So the M1A2 should be better in war thunder? The leopard 2a6s dm53 should not be able to pen the turret cheeks?

Yea you can take control of the tanks mentioned in the video in war thunder.... but only after you paid around 500€ or played several years....

When I was on the M60A1, the T-72 worried me and the T-64 (or disinformation around it), scared me. When I was on the M60A3, the T-64 didn't worry me and I knew I could take the T-72 from dusk to dawn; dawn to dusk was less of a sure thing. When they rolled out the M1, the T-72 became an object of pity and the T-90 was mildly interesting. Oh, how times change.

Were Russian tankers on these newer tanks usually professionals, or also conscripts? That might be a factor against all-professional US tank crews. I'm not trying to throw shade at the Russians. It's just that highly trained pros usually do better than the latter, no matter willingness or bravery. Again, I'm not going after Russian tank crews, I'm just curious if that would change your calculations. But I'm only asking because I have no clue as to what types of crews the Russians were fielding during each period. Great video, btw. Very informative. Thanks!

What about the Israeli Merkava(sp)? Also, it seems the Chieftains and M60's were fairly effective against the soviet built tanks (probably cheaper quality) thrown at them during the Yom Kipur war.

What about Arjun, i havent seen it in comparison?

@Kalashnikov413

3 жыл бұрын

kzread.info/dash/bejne/i46ostOkpdrUqrg.html

Red: "If you play WT you're going to have to wear this snazzy armband, you filthy untermench!" Also Red: *"Hei EvRi fRiEnDs, kupite War Thunder!"*

Can you talk about ERA being deadly to any close infantry support, meaning russian tanks are less effective in a combined arms conflict especially in tight urban environments?

@user-tj9vp8re4d

3 жыл бұрын

considering that all nations put era on their tanks it`s not the case

RedEffect will you make vidoe about why soviets kept such terrible revese speed on their tanks?

What about the leopard 2a5... it came out in 1990...

I hate the term “best” anything. Each State designs and fields pieces of kit and platforms that meet-and all States have specific doctrines practiced. Whatever piece of kit they have is most likely the “best” piece of kit...to have at that time and for whatever doctrine a state/military adheres too at that time. Like the M4 Sherman for the US and allies-it was the best tank in the world...for the US at that time.

here is issue. Looking at performance, not price. So one ultra modern tank vs 100 modern tanks for same price. is it fair to compare them 1v1 or 1v100? German tigers never were knocked out with penetration to front armor, but there were seas of garbage t34 which were unreliable as hell etc, yet they won. Quantity over quality sometimes matters and quality costs.

@yaya_is_real

11 ай бұрын

This isn't war thunder there is no garbage just different doctrines

Yea no idk where u got those values for the leopard 2a4 but it was way less againts apfsds t 72 t80 by far best armor and best firepowerd just slow

1989 defiantly new t-80ud

And what the kill lose ratio then?