I was a 1sgt of a cav unit during the gulf war. We had 10 Hemtts in our unit. Each Hemtts carried 2,500 gallons of fuel. Behind us was an aviation support battalion. They also had 10 Hemtts. Behind them was a National Guard unit that had 15 5 thousand gallon fuel trucks. After two days we were out of fuel and had to send trucks back to get refueled. Logistics is the determining factor on the battlefield.

@highjumpstudios2384

Жыл бұрын

Atg1500 go scccchhhhhhhhloouuuuuuuuuuuppgh

@rogerr2796

Жыл бұрын

There is a saying. Amateurs think about strategy. Professionals think about logistics.

@billstapleton1084

Жыл бұрын

@@rogerr2796 Very true. There was a good book written after the gulf war titled Moving Mountains.

@gordonlawrence1448

Жыл бұрын

Logistics is always the issue. The only thing that helps is that modern engines use about half the fuel of WWII engines. Put a load of infantry and anti-air systems on trucks though then include say 96 tanks, and that is a colossal amount of fuel needed to move just 100km. By that stage you are measuring fuel by the tonne not by the liter.

@billstapleton1084

Жыл бұрын

@@jonathanm5661 There is no where safe on a battlefield regardless what your job is It comes with the uniform A soldier puts his/her life in jeopardy everyday I did two combat tours You never know when it is your time

I am a twenty year, now extinct, Marine Corps tanker. In my opinion, the reason the Russians are losing so many tanks is because they are using tanks without infantry in front.

@sumanneogi2679

Жыл бұрын

actually without proper reconassance

@MC-.-

Жыл бұрын

@@sumanneogi2679 yeah, infantry in front. Simplified. 🙂

@linusa2996

Жыл бұрын

@@MC-.- Aren't infantry supposed to be on the side and behind the tank?

@chrishoff402

Жыл бұрын

When they initially went in, they genuinely believed from Putin down that the Ukrainian people would be glad to be rid of a Nazi dominated regime that wanted to ethnically cleanse 2 million of their fellow citizens. They didn't realize the effect of 8 years of Nazi indoctrination on the Ukraine population combined with NKVD style intimidation and elimination of all opposition voices. They were using the Ukraine border as a training area for units from all over Russia, which was why they had so many different battalions hundreds or even thousands of miles away from their parent Brigades. Finally, they were heading back to barracks planning their return trip to parent units when Ukraine stepped up the shelling of the Donbass, killed two school teachers, and basically caused the Russian leadership to launch the go code as an emotional reaction. The Russians basically decided they couldn't let the Wests $hit slide by unpunished anymore.

@linusa2996

Жыл бұрын

@@chrishoff402 thank you for the comedy act

As a transporter in the US Army I’d love to see and even possibly help you cover US logistics and transportation because as you stated with the racing analogy, it’s a nightmare. I always thought we were too slow but looking at our near peers I’d say we are doing pretty damned good.

@Privat2840

Жыл бұрын

Some one once said, amateur's talk strategy, professionals talk logistics.

@marksnyder8022

Жыл бұрын

As a former Army logistician, I can say without hesitationthat supply is maddening. But try fighting without it. The Russians did.

@darbyheavey406

Жыл бұрын

@@Privat2840 he was a armchair general…and French so he was a loser…Napoleon Bonaparte.

@bighands69

Жыл бұрын

Tank warfare is more than just basic stats. It requires a complete approach. In WW2 in certain areas German tanks had an advantage when it came to speed but that was not enough for them to dominate.

@114Riggs

Жыл бұрын

@@darbyheavey406 Napoleon wasn't French you dunce. Yeah he ruled France, but read some history.

I was involved in logistics design for the LAV MC-25 back in the day. I can tell you that it is much harder than people think and as soon as your equipment goes into battle your logistical strategy goes out the window.

@gordonlawrence1448

Жыл бұрын

A military plan usually lasts all the way up to engaging with the enemy. IE sometimes it does not even last that long.

Glad to see you branching out! Love the content. As other commenters have requested, cover other military systems like Artillery, HIMARS, MLRS, APCs, Air Defense, and Combined Arms.

@frank1fm634

Жыл бұрын

People to be very honest I was completely stunned by how totally incompetent the Russian war machine is.What I thought would happen is how Russian tanks and infantry eventually ran over the German armies at the end of WWll.We all have to admit that before Russia attacking Ukraine they had some pretty good propaganda like the Nazis did.Going back in history when Italy invaded Ethiopia in the 30's all Ethiopia had were spears and arrows they bloodied Italy's nose.There is one big point not mentioned and that is the utter corruption in Russia.We all knew there was corruption but this corruption has led in part to the total collapse of the Russian military.Putin is worth a couple billion.Wonder how much he made when money that was suppose to go to military spare parts that money went to his pocket.

@AbuBawa-sw1ut

Жыл бұрын

​@@frank1fm634 going through the comments one will quickly understand that this pro-Ukraine crowd are bunch of illiterate clowns

The analogy of your experience with the Russian Army's complete and utter lack of preparedness was... amazing. Thank you for making this into a relatable concept for us non-military personnel. One thing you didn't contemplate, which is a catastrophic failing of the Russian Army and their bankrupt culture, is their continuous and pervasive corruption, which is a form of Stage 4 bone-cancer-level of failure.

@bighands69

Жыл бұрын

Russian doctrine was never sophisticated and involved the use of artillery to just act as a horde. The problem Russia and China have is that the US has a horde as well only it is a Roman Legionnaire horde that is highly trained, armed to the teeth and has a supply and inventory system that is hundreds of times larger than theirs combined.

@andyman8630

Жыл бұрын

@@bighands69 so highly trained that after 20 years fighting goat herders with AKs n RPGs they tucked tail and ran, abandoned US citizens behind enemy lines, abandoned 85 BILLION dollars worth of military equipment and sold out every Afghani who ever helped them

@bighands69

Жыл бұрын

@@andyman8630 When the US left Afghanistan there was only about 1500 personnel there. And most of them were just security and technical personnel. The fighting was all done at the start of the US intervention in Afghanistan 20 years ago. Once the Taliban ran away into Pakistan what remained was just terrorist attacks on children, women, tribal communities and US personnel. That 85 billion of equipment that gets brought up was all to be decommissioned as it had passed its usage period. That is the difference between US based equipment and other tin pot regimes is that the US actually replaces its inventory and is in a constant state of progress and up grading.

@andyman8630

Жыл бұрын

@@bighands69 1) after 20 years they LOST their illegal war against a nation which had nothing to do with 9/11 (nearly all the attackers were Saudi and Osama went into hiding in Pakistan) 2) they *ABANDONED* US civilians behind enemy lines 3) they abandoned 85 *billion* dollars worth of military equipment to muslim manimals 4) they betrayed every Afghani who helped them try to defend this *gargantuan* failure all you like, doesn't mattger, you *FAIL* just as the US military failed

@bighands69

Жыл бұрын

@@andyman8630 It was perfectly legal for the US to enter Afghanistan. Why do you think that was illegal?

Competency, or lack thereof, is part of the issue, supply logistics issues, and corruption is another part of it

I have NO OTHER source for this type of information. Thanks Alex for gathering it for us. We all need to be as well educated as possible.

Because Russia is not competent at war

@teddy.d174

Жыл бұрын

Yes…along with logistics, fixing things and the ability to refrain from stealing anything/everything.

@artiefakt4402

Жыл бұрын

They ended believing their own hype... Propaganda is cheaper than a well trained / well built / well maintained military... as long as you do not actually need to do something with it.

@williamperkins.9854

Жыл бұрын

​@@artiefakt4402 on no

@RainedOnParade

Жыл бұрын

Correction: the Russian culture is not capable of building a competent and non-corrupt military.

@Retly_Ai

Жыл бұрын

Expect Russia fan boys commenting how wrong you are. Even though they are wrong, they are too brainwashed even when the proof is literally shoved down their throat.

I'd argue that this is actually an episode of air power seeing as Russian tank turrets are an aerial phenomenon.

@Tree457

Жыл бұрын

@DiversityIsOurStrength To be fair the Abrams had inexperienced crews who were using them wrong, just like the Russians. For the Leopard? I don't know much about the Leo, but the Abrams crews usually had some time to get out before anything happened and sometimes didn't even have to get out when the blowout rack got hit.

@Mournful3ch0

Жыл бұрын

​@diversityisourstrength4223Abrams has blow-out panels and does not store ammo in the hull. You will never see an Abrams turret divorced from the hull for that reason - it's not possible by design. Crew survivability is the priority for Western militaries

@soulessshadow5356

Жыл бұрын

@DiversityIsOurStrength While the M1A1 Abrams used by the Iraqi Forces did suffer casualties, there were no instances of Abrams turrets being seperated from their hull that I'm aware of, and if you do know of a story of one with legit sources please link it as I'm not opposed to being proven wrong. That being said, as Mournful3ch0 said, the Abrams family of tanks have panels specifically designed to drop down closing off any cooking ammo before it can blow. The outside of the tank also has blowout panels designed to give way under pressure directing the force outwards away from the tank crew. The Leopard A1 and A2 did have issues with their turrets being popped for the same reason the T-80, T-72, and T-14 Armata do which is ammo storage in the turret attributed to their autoloading main gun systems. Something that is said to have been resolved with Germany's new main battle tank the KF51. The thing about these family of tanks is that they use Autoloads designed to pull ammunition from the turret, which is part of why the U.S was hesitant to use an autoloading system on the Abrams.

@MultiNike79

Жыл бұрын

@@Tree457 Russian tanks are better protected, the shells are at the bottom, inside the armor. Other things being equal, destroying a Russian tank is much more difficult. The illusion of their increased danger arises from the nature of the application, which we saw in Syria and Yemen, where Western tanks burned out much faster - from 60-year-old Soviet ammunition.

@MultiNike79

Жыл бұрын

@@Mournful3ch0 It is a myth. Finding abrams with broken turrets is easy. It's just that they are usually used in aggressive wars, before that they dropped a bomb on every local resident. Other things being equal - the lack of armor on ammunition, in the presence of land mines - is fatal for the tank.

2:38 The fact that this T-72 turret looks like a skull I think best describes the Russian tankers situation.

Awesome! Glad to see you branching out!! Loved it, tanks are amazing and of course they're a major part of any offensive, but a part not solo as with any part it needs the rest of them to be complete. Great video Alex

Awesome content, as always! As an Army MLRS/HIMARS instructor, I’m really glad to see that you’re branching out to cover ground combat stuff and I’m looking forward to seeing more. Keep up the great work!

@jeffbenton6183

Жыл бұрын

Would you mind if I asked you a few questions about GMLRS? It sounds like you're a real expert (although, you've probably been inundated with queries on the subject in the past few months, since that's the NATO weapon system that the media has most liked talking about in that time).

@Mars057

Жыл бұрын

@@jeffbenton6183 nice try, china

@jeffbenton6183

Жыл бұрын

@@Mars057 I know this is just a joke, but I feel compelled to say that I'm not going to ask how to build one, obviously.

@benjaminbranz7524

Жыл бұрын

For obvious reasons I can’t talk about specific capabilities beyond what is publicly available on the internet, but do you have any specific questions about GMLRS? I’d be happy to discuss any unclassified details, although there are probably more entertaining ways to learn about the platform here on KZread than any comments I can provide here.

@christophervaughan2637

Жыл бұрын

@@jeffbenton6183 hahahahaha now you have inadvertently become a suspect Russian or Chinese spy

Love the badge on the A-10 dash at 18:14 "Low speed, high drag" ! A-10 pilots have a great sense of humour 👍😂 #SlavaUkraini 💙💛

Loved it!!! Even more great reporting and smart discussions!! I'm in!

Old Tanker here. Logistics are what keeps us rolling. You saw in Desert Shield/Desert Storm as well as OIF where Abrams tanks were screaming across the desert, but commanders were sure not to advance too far without their log packs and you can bet those that did got a real chewing. Another reason why the Abrams is governed is because of this as well as to save fuel. Combined arms is definitely the way to go; however, I would be very remiss to be in one today. I am not 100% sure CWIS would give me enough confidence. Maybe with the combined arms of Scouts ahead, Artillery behind, duck hunters and drone hunters surveying the sky and Infantry dismounting close by would bring down my anxiety, but dang those manpads would scare the crap out of me. If the enemy had air superiority, forget it. That's the part that baffles me. Why didn't Russia use their air power? Could it be they were too concerned with Ukraine's air defense or that they hold their air power like a jewel that they actually believed Ukraine wasn't good enough a foe for them to use it? The Russian strategy was as if none of their Generals ever read a book about war. So over confident that they believed all they had to do was show up and the Ukrainians would surrender. In a way, giving up Crimea like they did was probably the best strategy to play against Russia. It made Russia over confident for what was to come.

@rhensontollhouse

Жыл бұрын

Good insights, thanks for sharing.

@havenhemmings3574

Жыл бұрын

Even Patton got himself into trouble advancing too fast at times.

@bloodyspartan300

Жыл бұрын

@@havenhemmings3574 The fact that his "Logistical deliveries went awry" might have helped, Love the Brits, but buy your own fuel Monty. When Patton did his about face, he proved what Logistics, and True Will are capable of. The Russians are not playing hard ball yet., this is practice for the Bear. And there are no Churchills or Trumans left in the Western World , or not yet found.

@bigyote

Жыл бұрын

Bingo. An army runs on its stomach and so does the equipment! Really miss working at Wilson Tank Range, Ft. Knox

@randy5761

Жыл бұрын

The biggest mistake Russia made is the first rule of fighting, NEVER underestimate an opponent!

Awesome content. One small correction… the tank was actually instrumental in winning WWI. It was key to the success of the hundred day offensive. Content ideas… can you cover the artillery usage/ doctrine differences between Ukraine and Russia. In it please discuss counter battery fire, how it’s mitigated, how many shells are being used by each side, how much they cost, the types of shells, how long they take to produce and just when Russia or Ukraine might run out?

@lhkraut

Жыл бұрын

Great ideas!

@TheDavidlloydjones

Жыл бұрын

Small problem, Tully: nobody won WWI -- until 1945. You can make the case that the tank won the war at Kursk, or perhaps earlier, at Stalingrad, but that brings us to the Great Military Secret. The Great Military Secret is that every military has to keep it from their own tank crews that in almost every tank-to-tank confrontation almost everybody on both sides dies. Tanks are good against horses, as in Poland. They are good against essentially unarmed infantry, as in WWI. But tanks against tanks are a losing proposition -- for the tanks on both sides.

@r3l4x69

Жыл бұрын

@@lhkraut You can collect this information for yourself if you would like to. Oryx and kaggle are helpful places.

@lhkraut

Жыл бұрын

@@r3l4x69 I think that might be an answer to someone else, but thanks. I will still look into this information.

@IrishCaesar

Жыл бұрын

Watch perun if you want in depth economic analysis

Yup, you said pretty much what I was hoping you would say. The tank is not dead, Russia is just using them poorly. Tanks need infantry support to keep the anti-tank missile teams away. Combined arms, it's a pretty standard requirement for most armies.

@alexdunphy3716

Жыл бұрын

They are using them together. But modern atgms have ranges that match or exceed tank guns. So "just use an infantry screen duh" doesn't guarantee you much at all anymore. The real reason is mostly that this is a large near pier war so lots of equipment gets lost

@skyrask1948

Жыл бұрын

Most tank kills are attributed to artillery, not atgms.

@buddystewart2020

Жыл бұрын

@@skyrask1948 ... No doubt I've seen a lot of video with Russian tanks being taken out by artillery.

@buddystewart2020

Жыл бұрын

@@alexdunphy3716 ... Well, what I typed it pretty much what The Chieftain said, and he's a pretty smart guy when it comes to armor. I think I'll go with his assessment. But I do agree with your near peer and lots of gear gets lost statement.

@madkabal

Жыл бұрын

@@alexdunphy3716 incorrect. this situation you are describing is what Artillery is for, so again Russia is failing at COMBINED ARMS. The "Combat Triangle" is what one of my COs called it, Infantry/Artillery/Armor. All three need to work together like an "Orquestra Of Destruction" to achieve victory on the battlefield. Without Artillery, enemy using long rang weapons from protected positions can't be killed effectively. Without Tanks, Infantry attacks will stall or halt the moment they run into prepared machine gun positions, enemy armored fighting vehicles even certain passive defenses. Without Infantry, tanks become vulnerable to infantry with anti tank weapons firing them from concealed positions.

Loved it, Alex! I'm glad you are parting out some of the work to give us more content.

Great new content. Delivered with the same dedication and quality that I've come to expect from you and your team. Looking forward to more.

We love all of your content. Please try to branch out as much as you like. Your loyal audience will watch whatever you put out.

@mikelittle5250

Жыл бұрын

nice reply

It is cool that this channel is expanding. I trust the content here which is factual without desperate speculation or hype. Keep expanding. Do naval vessels and perhaps interviews

@Three-LeggedCat

Жыл бұрын

Lo

@Three-LeggedCat

Жыл бұрын

L

Your comparison to something you could personally attest to, racing, was great in demonstrating the nightmare of logistics. Looking forward to this new series!

I think the age of manned tanks is rapidly drawing to a close. There really aren't any functions performed by the crewmembers inside a tank that couldn't be done via remote control. Get the human spam out of the can and you won't have to add so much weight protecting them and the tank can be much smaller, lighter, and perform better. Do it right, and you can make the tank essentially disposable.

Love the new content Alex. Always been a fan of land systems and looking forward to more!

@ridethecurve55

Жыл бұрын

I Totally Agree. I would push back on one point of the Russian Forces, though. Their Color Guard and Ceremonial Drill Brigades choreography looks Great!

I love the information Sandboxx puts out. They do in an informative manner that actually teaches me something about the subject. Other military channels just scratch the surface most of the time and leave me with a feeling that I just wasted my time.

Appreciate you and the people over at sandbox for your contribution to informing us about the situation over in Ukraine and how it uncovers a lot of questions about war that people like me can easily follow. Independent journalism is cool!

AWESOME JOB THANK YOU SO MUCH, I'VE SHARED THIS SHOW TO ALL MY FRIENDS

Excellent, informative commentary as usual. Alex, you are the finest source of military information on the channel. Thanks for all the deep dives into these important questions. And now that I know you're also a car nerd and qualified drifter, I'm a bigger fan then ever. :-)

As a former 11B40, certainly appreciate Firepower, and your take on combined arms doctrine. I think war colleges will be studying what has happened the last year from a position of what not to do versus how a small coordinated and highly motivated force cannot only hold their own, but take control of portions of the battlefield. There is no replacement for well trained well supported boots on the ground.

@mikelittle5250

Жыл бұрын

also, the UK's have a basic desire to protect their country...If the U.S was handled like thattttt by another country, we have more national guns then they would know what to do with!!! This country is armed to the teeth as it is...we can't be held by guerilla warfare, no way!!!

@mikelittle5250

Жыл бұрын

hahaha...looking back, I meant---we have tons of weed 'n gunzzz in NY

@shenmisheshou7002

Жыл бұрын

The Marine Corp already figured it out. Several years ago, the Marines decided to give up heavy armor. The Marines no longer use tanks ( except in a limited role of aggressor training). The Marines recognized the issues with logistics of modern tanks and the mobility in less than open terrain, and decided that they were no longer relevant to the mission of the USMC. While I am sure that they could learn much from the Ukrainians, but many of the weapons that the Ukrainians are getting from the US are the same weapons that the Marines were using in place of heavy armor. While tanks might still be useful in some situations, they are not the core of a modern fighting force. When the Marines said they were giving up tanks about 5 years ago, eveyone seemed to think that it was a bad idea, but having been a Marine myself, I thought it was the right move.

@VajrahahaShunyata

Жыл бұрын

Tanks are needed in an offensive manouver when used against entrenched positions that must be taken with little or no cover

@VajrahahaShunyata

Жыл бұрын

Semper Fi brother 🙏

Excellent episode! I look forward to your expanded format.

The last part reminds me on how Alexander the Great always keep his army well balanced. People think that Alexander was heavilly relied on the phalanx units. This is not true. Alexander actually use various type of units like standard hoplites, light infantries, javelin throwers, Persian horse archers, scouts, engineers, and inteligence. And he train them to work together. So even people from the ancient time understand the important of combined arms.

@bunzeebear2973

8 ай бұрын

If I am not mistaken, Persians tried to take Greece & Xerces lost to the Greeks. Am doubting that Alexander would want Persians in his army(as they were the LOSERS) nor do they speak Greek(take out the Persians and leave the rest). Archery was still in its INFANCY. You forget "Greek fire" Modern scholars are still not sure what that was. . Google it, I am pretty sure I am right. . Alexander also ACCEPTED a countries Religion and way of living and did not try to upset that. People are the same everywhere any time -- just leave me the fluck alone. I couldn't care less who is running the country "just so long as it does not bother me." The Greek Empire took over the Egyptian Empire and Alex was buried like an Egyptian Pharaoh(when it was time) His Second in Command ran Egypt who was Ptolemy ran Egypt while Alex was moving across Asia to try and conquer India. ("But as Alex did not have a good cell phone plan and was not interested in one)....they were not going to allow him to conquer India. He turned around and went back to the Mediterranean and died in Egypt of Malaria(I believe) and was done up the Egyptian way somewhere. Ptolemy had a son with same name and then a daughter named Cleopatra V. Why she is the 5th, I don't know but she is the one that dinked Caesar and had a son Caesarian. Meanwhile Caesar got into a knife fight in Rome(he lost), then Mark Anthony went in for sloppy seconds with "Cleo" but Rome was not happy about it so HE Terminated Himself Cleo did herself with a poisonous snake...as Augustus Caesar approached?. Whatever happened to Caesarian? Well, it is a big desert. He disappeared from the records. . I can't remember the rest but that was the DRAMA. Egypt no longer was an Empire. It was a Greek Empire until the Romans showed up. Then it was part of the Roman Empire. There are other Cleopatra's in Egypt(like the IV or III) but they were not as important as Cleopatra V . It seems they did a lot of name copying in Egypt. I believe there were 5 Ramses that ruled Egypt in the earlier years, 3 Amenhotep(the 4th one changed his name from Amenhotp4th to Akenaten with the monotheist religion of 1 God. King Tut was his son. There is about 30 pharaohs that ruled Egypt(as it goes back to 4000BCE(maybe earlier) Sumeria started at about this time in the North East of the Mediterranean Sea as they left the Ziggurats and writing on clay tablets...that must have gotten in a fire for they are ceramic....and last a long time.

Glad you are expanding your content. Love all that you do to keep us informed.

Loved it. As you are aware many of us out here just love all things military, and the situation in Ukraine has only spiked our interest in finding out more. Brilliant first episode. Good on you Alex.

@thehusketeers4319

Жыл бұрын

Before the war I knew nothing about Ukraine but now I know all about this cesspool of money laundering, organ harvesting and sex trafficking. May Russia burn it all down

@AbuBawa-sw1ut

Жыл бұрын

Going through the comments one will quickly understand that this pro-Ukraine crowd are bunch of illiterate clowns

Great information as always. Thank you for your work!

Thank you -- keep these coming.

I really appreciate your analysis of modern tank warfare! I normally stop by for your "Air-Power" content, but now I'll stay around for this series, as well! Top-notch!

Sharing your insight into logistics added even more to an extremely well written, edited and presented episode.

@tarmaque

Жыл бұрын

It's long been said that only mediocre Generals think of tactics. Great Generals think about logistics.

Thanks for a great presentation: lucid, thoughtful, well structured and highly informative.

Excellent presentation! Keep up the good work and as usual an outstanding delivery of short and precise tactical revelation to the understanding of such mechanisms working in tandem.

"I am Alex Hollings. And this is firepower" needs something like a radio chat from a tank or artillery crew like "Stand by! - FIRE!" 💪 EDIT: Nice video once again. Also to mention is the russian tank design and doctrine fits in their soviet role to aim for greater goals. Means the T-72, T-80 and so on was never developed to beat an M-1 Abrams or Leopard tank in a 1vs1. They always planned to win the battle with overwhelming manpower. On the other hand it means that you abanndoned your tank way faster. for example while the engine of an Leopard tank is connected with four pins to easily change it on the battlefield, the Soviet tanks doesn`t have any kind of these features.

@DaveMathison503

Жыл бұрын

Here's how the 1973 chatter goes...Track commander (TC) ; Gunner,2 o'clock....Loader, HEAT (high explosive anti tank) ; loader loads the round and says "UP" when the round is locked in the breach of the main gun, meanwhile the gunner is acquiring the target and once sighted in says "ON THE WAY" and 💥 boom. 2-3 seconds. Its all shouting and if your not the Brotherhood you'll never pick it up. So forget needs a different intro. 2/2 ACR USAREUR Germany

@Error_404-F.cks_Not_Found

Жыл бұрын

This needs more upvotes !!!

@williamzk9083

Жыл бұрын

To an extent the fact that Russia is still producing the deeply flawed T-72 instead of the safer T-90 (both fit their doctrine you mention ) is an indictment to the weakness of their economy and likely political interference and corruption. The main problem with the T-72 is not so much that the auto loader carousel magazine is in the hull with the crew instead of isolated and with a blow of panel in a bustle magazine but that the extra ammunition is stored in the hull and this has lead to most of the 'flying turret' experiences. Russian Tank designers and operations research had concluded that most hits are on the turret so storing the magazine carousel low down should be relatively safe but then they put the spare ammo in the turret anyway. The T-90 still has the carousel but the spare ammunition is now in a bustle with a blow of panel. The carousel is a but lower and has some extra armour. Many western tanks have a spare hull magazine and it often isn't protected with a blow off panel though its probably in a box with some Armour against fragments. -The T-72 should have been phased out of production long ago.

Your videos on stuff you know nothing about strangely are just as good as stuff you know something about, and just as interesting. Also if you want some feedback. Excellent is an understatement. Subscribed and was like number 400 out of an eventual millions, maybe even ...billions.. Love it!

Good condensed content on an interesting and relevant topic that is not always covered. Look forward to your future analysis videos.

First time viewer! I love tank strategies and armor in general! You did an awesome job! Keep up the good work! I will be awaiting your new videos and will watch your previous content as well!

I am loving that you are branching out of airpower. Obviously I am wanting something like airpower, firepower, and seapower but this is a great start.

Great job Alex and everyone at Sandboxx News! As someone who's interested in military technology and tactics, I really appreciated this video on tanks and ground warfare. It's awesome to see you guys branching out from your usual coverage of air power and exploring different aspects of military culture and strategy. Keep up the great work!

@MultiNike79

Жыл бұрын

It's funny that these propaganda things are surprisingly far from reality. If everything was as they say, the Americans would have attacked Russia long ago. But the fact is that the American army, although suitable for aggression against the weak, is not very meaningful for attacking Russia. This allows Russia to defend the Free World, and the Nazis to go crazy because of it (all this European Nazism, hysteria and witch hunts - I look like animals in a cage).

@AbuBawa-sw1ut

Жыл бұрын

Going through the comments one will quickly understand that this pro-Ukraine crowd are bunch of illiterate clowns

Great video! Thanks for the hard work!!

Great video! The inability too see their mistakes and correct them is priceless…in an enemy!

Cool! Thank you Alex. I came from Naval aviation in the late 70s so tanks and artillery are things I know little about. This is much appreciated. Be safe.

Some of the reasons we love watching sandbox news it's not only entertaining but you actually learn something new about the subject matter being presented especially when something is being explained about why something works whether it's technology, tactics or policy And I respect his work for also explaining the same for when something doesn't. Right now one of the best KZread channels of its type Don't change anything., This works

We appreciate your hard work. Thanks for the videos

Stoked for this new series.

A really good quote to describe why the tank is still valuable comes from Nicholas Morgan (The Cheiftan). "If not the tank, then what?" The implication being what will provide armored heavy fire support for advancing infantry to either destroy other armored threats, lighter skinned IFV's, or hardened emplacements like bunkers. If Infantry come up to a pillbox, they have to spend hours dealing with that pillbox because they're squishy and vulnerable. And even if they have heavy weapons, it either might not quite be enough, or may take a while to properly set up. And even then, it's still risky. Meanwhile, if a tank is with them, it will take a few seconds since that pillbox will soon be rubble since the tank can safely engage that pillbox with high explosive with little risk to the tank or crew inside. Tanks are not the nearly invincible juggernauts they once were to infantry back in WW2, but they still have a purpose.

@vmpgsc

Жыл бұрын

Infantry support is purportedly why the US Army is fielding a "tank that's not a tank" in the Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF) program. Japan's Type 16 Manuever Combat Vehicle has a simlar role.

@Registered_Simp

Жыл бұрын

@@vmpgsc A role they indeed have. Rapid-response vehicles that can be airlifted and deployed very quickly. Even then in the case of Type 16 or the Italian Centauro, the vehicles themselves are very fast on road, so they can keep pace with APC's

@gamingrex2930

Жыл бұрын

imo my theory will be that all tanks will be either some unholy baby between the Pereh, Namer APC or Boxer IFV. Modern atgms are too too deadly and recon/target spotting is counted in minutes. I genuinely think we will see future tanks slugging it out with >10km range ATGMs and accompanying CWIS or AA to nail as many projectiles being slung back at them. Because its not just going to be arty trying to kill tanks anymore, and tank guns being only really useful below 5km will be a death sentence.

@Registered_Simp

Жыл бұрын

@@gamingrex2930 You actually just pointed out a reason we haven't seen this transition already and that even now many are suggesting bigger cannons. Hard-Kill APS's are becoming more and more common. And they are becoming better and better, requiring more and more munitions to saturate. HEAT-based ATGM's are also incredibly expensive by comparison to KE munitions. Just one FGM-148 costs in the realm of $250,000 USD compared to just hurling a rod at someone at extreme velocity. Of course, you could always just try to revive something like the LOSAT program, but that comes with it's on set of downsides... Kinetic will always be cheaper, and that matters. ATGM's also give the people they're being shot at plenty of time to reverse behind available cover if the launch is spotted. For example, the TOW-2 missile travels at a maximum speed of ~330 meters per second with a range of 3750 meters. The people you're targeting, at best, have more than 10 seconds to find cover if launched at maximum range, which is their whole advantage in the first place. However, it is not as if the potential uses of stand-off weapons are lost on many militaries. The stand-off range and precision strike ability provides a whole plethora of attack possibilities. There are efforts underway right now experimenting with the idea of integrating loitering munition launchers into MBT's in limited capacity (at cost to main gun ammunition) to enhance ranged ability. This exact sentiment of just full-sending missiles to replace main battle tanks was first had in the early cold war when ATGM's were first invented (yes, I'm aware it's not a perfect comparison). Many thought the tank gun was dead, and as a result, built vehicles exclusively to carry ATGM's because of their range, but found them limited in use due to the aforementioned issues. Due to the rapid-fire, cost-effective nature of the modern tank cannon, and its lingering effectiveness against every kind of threat besides fixed wing aircraft and helicopters beyond 3000m, it's not going anywhere. It still has a place, and will continue to have a large role to play for the foreseeable future. It's just that now it's not the end all, be all.

I can.t speak about Russian tanks, but as a former Strategic Air Command KC-135 tanker pilot, I can tell you that we were in a state of war 24/7 for every day of the year (weekends and holidays included). Always drilling, always testing, always preparing for what the USSR could bring to the table. I can't imagine fighting a different way. With my military brothers from all branches and our allies we kept the peace.

A terrific addition to intelligent conversations on warfare and its equipment. Thank you.

Good coverage, well presented.

Great content Alex, thank you! Please could you cover Ukrainian mobilisation and training - we've heard a lot about Russian efforts, but not as much about Ukraine.

@TorianTammas

Жыл бұрын

Ukrainians keep a tight security.

I won't lie. Having worked in logistics/operational support, this war has once again really showed how important the work is the people in the back do so the people in the front can excell. Sometimes you'll get laughed at a bit, jokingly ofc since people mostly know. But this has just fully reinforced what happens if the back isn't properly kept up and capable of keeping up. Sorry for the bad English.

That was one of the most clear and informative vid. I've seen in a while. Great job Thank you an God bless Ukraine

Glad and exciting to see your enterprise grow :) Keep it up Alex!!!

The dictum that Russia's premise of "QUANITY has a QUALITY all its own! Now that Russia has lost so many of its tanks, that dictum is no longer applicable to Russia. They keep trying the same tactics to the same devasting effect to their numbers. Victory to Ukraine!

The lack of fuel for the tanks was mainly due to the Belarussian hackers work in diverting Russian supply trains to parts unknown during the first few days of the initial invasion. Also U.S. intel was vital to defending Antonov Airport in Hostomel. As the closest to Kiev, it was vital to stopping the Russia assault tasked to take the airport. For Russia it was the primary resupply of shock troops to take vital targets in Kiev, and Russia's hopes of a quick victory.

@shanetonkin2850

8 ай бұрын

I have come across no credible evidence whatsoever that “Belarusian hackers diverting Russian supply trains” had any impact at all on Russia’s infamous fuel debacle. In fact, the only instance of this scenario even being mentioned that I could find was a single article from the Guardian in January 2022 that discussed it in purely hypothetical terms.

@zvexevz

8 ай бұрын

@@shanetonkin2850 I also thought it was a tall tale, but it seems like there's a good dose of truth to it. WaPo did some reporting in April 2022 about it, quoting numerous sources. Belarussian authorities made statements and propaganda exercises about how they had stopped the saboteurs, as the story became very popular in Belarussian media and opposition circles. Search "The Belarusian railway workers who helped thwart Russia’s attack on Kyiv" in Washington Post. I have no doubt that aspects of the story are embellished, and it's impossible to know how big a disruption it was to Russian logistics. But it definitely helped contribute to the general chaos that was Russia's invasion.

@feedyourmind6713

7 ай бұрын

US intel is vital in everything in this war.

@hifinsword

7 ай бұрын

@@feedyourmind6713 So true, especially when it was U.S. intel that saved Zelensky's life at the very beginning of Putin's WAR. He did not believe the U.S. when they told him Putin would try to assassinate him, until the U.S. gave him a detailed briefing on what they knew.

@jefclark

7 ай бұрын

@@shanetonkin2850 yeah at the very most there was scattered cases of 'rail sabotage' but no details really ever emerged

Glad to see you branching out! Love the content.

I appreciate how you read the quotes, skipping over the distracting description and just reading out the actual quote. The skipped material is often appropriate for written expression but just gets in the way when someone is using the quote within a narration. So full marks on understanding the demands of the format and making your presentation a cut above the majority of stuff out there on KZread.

As a tank driver in the British Army facing the USSR in the late 80's, I have been watching the the horrendous invasion of Ukraine unfold and the terrific destruction of the Russian tank force with great interest. The content of this video is excellent. Thanks for posting. Have subscribed

@MultiNike79

Жыл бұрын

You live in a totalitarian country, one of the most deceitful on the planet. Do you realize it? Russia has already destroyed the Ukrainian army twice. Russia did this with very small forces (the main ones are protecting against NATO invasion from Belarus). The fact is that the Ukrainians hate you, and after liberation they will kill everyone who was a supporter of Europe.

An excellent piece, with, I think, good judgement overall. One small quibble: yes, a huge percentage of the Russian tanks defeated wer simply abandoned, many of these for simple lack of fuel. Some of those abandonements, however, were for a very good reason: rational fear. I was struck by one aerial photograph of four abandoned tanks -- surrounding one that had just been eviscerated from the air, by a Javelin or its equivalent. Those four crews left for a very good reason: running for their lives!

@tackytrooper

Жыл бұрын

Yeah watching some of your buddies become McNuggets a few dozen yards away would be a pretty big NOPE moment, especially if you didn't know where the fire was coming from...

@williamzk9083

Жыл бұрын

I suspect that if the US had of been faced with a peer opponent with state of the art ATGM the M1A2 would also have been knocked out in large numbers just as Russian tanks were. Imagine an peer opponent armed with say Koronet Missiles, missiles such as the superb French Akeron MMP missile or the Spike. All with ranges over 4km and the latter two with top attack capabilities. It's hard to see "combined arms" knocking out a guy dug in 3.2km/2 miles away firing his missile remotely. The difference would have been that 1 The US would have excellent logistics and not run out of fuel. 2 The US would have have had quite a few precision weapons and aircraft firing remotely using stand off weapons but they would be vulnerable. 3 Surface to Air missiles would also destroy many US aircraft, I don't think SEAD would be fool proof. MANPADS can't be taken out by SEAD and some missiles such as SA-24 are very capable. 4 Until APS comes in US tanks and IFV will be extremely vulnerable though they certainly wouldn't suffer a flying turret effect and 75% of the crew will survive.

Long time fan of the channel. Very thoughtful content. Impressive. Full stop.

Awesome thanks for all your informative content!

Even the Russian tanks were pretty effective when used by the Ukrainians. The UAF used some 30 Soviet era T-72's to route the entire 1st Guards Tank Army and retake all of Kharkiv Oblast in a week.

We need a video on why German tanks and US AFVs are failing in Ukraine

This was pretty interesting. Great job

Hell yeah! I, for one, will be consuming every single one of these just like your air power episodes. Thank you!

the russian soldiers were given 2-3 days training to operate their tank, then sent to the front lines to battle professional highly trained Ukranian tank corps, thats all what happen here. Then there's the American AWAC's & Satellites and Ukrianian drones providing the GPS coordinations of russian tank formations for artillery to blast.

Knew this was going to happen before hostilities started. I've fought Russian made tanks in direct action during Desert Storm. My unit was on the frontline at this time 32 years ago and popping turrets while invading Kuwait. 1/8, 2nd Mar Div Marine Infantry battalion and an Iraqi Tank brigade or higher unit. Al Wafra oilfields. Kuwait. I have pics. I'm an 0341 81mm Mortarman. My unit started the battle, 1st Mar Div and the US Army Tiger brigade units came up to help hold the line. Hit the turret in a T-72 or older, it sets off the ammo and pops off. We destroyed over 30 tanks and armored vehicles as I recall. I was also briefed by DoD officials a few years ago about the possibility of Russia invading Ukraine. A lot of the Russian tanks and equipment had major flaws as has been proven now. bad armor and cheap Chinese tires rotted in the sun. No replacement equipment. GRIFT is the Russian Army's major enemy. Sooooo much grift. Putin sent a badly armed Army; into a war he knew he couldn't win.

The middle tank turret in the thumbnail looks like a disfigured skull. I’m assuming that’s the intended effect but, pretty interesting to look at.

At last I can make sense of this conflict, in terms of the regulars losses and why. Thank you

Thanks Alex, great content. I know that us ex-grunts understand the importance of combined arms at an instinctive level (It's been bashed into us) Civilians may understand it as a team sport thing. "You can only win if you play as a team, not as individuals"

@danielbeshers1689

Жыл бұрын

Team sport is a great analogy, since many people can understand the idea that a great quarterback with no receivers, no run game, and no blocking is a bad quarterback.

Enjoyed this and hope you'll do more. In fact, you should go for the trinity and do "Seapower" too.

@lhkraut

Жыл бұрын

My thought as well. Hit on all fronts.

How I love coming home from work and seeing there is a new one, I really appreciate ur work and I enjoyed it to the fullest drinking a cold one , shears and keep up the good work

Great stuff. Keep it up. 👍

Hi Alex, I really enjoyed Firepower. Looking forward to more episodes. Keep them comings, please? How about covering how long it would take and what it takes to train Ukranians to use Abrams, Bradleys, and Strykers. And how you can't just have one type of vehicle as a solution because of their specific abilities, limitations, and roles they were designed for. This is in response to those that think that just sending Abrams and Bradleys is a quick solution. Thank you for your shows and your service.

Very informative and well thought out. You touched on the conscripts problem but the tactics and command problems are frightening. Now the Ukraine are leveraging through tactics mines to slow and obliterate Russian advances. It is rapidly becoming a WW1 style battle. Mines, artillery and trenched formations with the twist of drone warfare. Big lessons in changing battlefield tactics.

Thank you for your service.

Great one! Start to finish.

LOVED this episode Alex. If I could contribute one thing I would say, as it pertains to videos with descriptions like this, I would have liked LESS history of tanks and more time spent on what was "advertised" Other than that, even the history portion was stellar. Would love to see more videos where you touch on other "Firepower"

You realize, that " "Firepower" was my favorite discovery channel show when I was a kid? Not that I am complaining about its namesake being picked up by someone with your credentials. Keep up the good work, and I look forward to seeing more material like this.

@Ilyak1986

Жыл бұрын

Weekday Wings for my favorite Discovery show ^_^

@TheOriginalFaxon

Жыл бұрын

Bro hearing him say it was amazing, I used to live for that kind of show as a kid. Future Weapons was my jam just because the engineering detailed was so fucking insane.

@Pikeandglaive

Жыл бұрын

@@Ilyak1986 Oh heck yeah!

@Pikeandglaive

Жыл бұрын

@@TheOriginalFaxon 100% I used to do the all day "wings" new years day marathon, 6am to 11pm! Man, what a day that was!

You've said everything very well

Branching out is good, getting a team to help out is better. Keep up the good work!!

Respect the branching into new territory for you, and especially valued the comparison to your history in racing logistics. It made me realize I'm not aware of Russian motorsports, which could indicate a wider lack of innovation. After all German Motorsports between WW1 and WW2 lead directly into their engineering developments to support engineering war machines into WW2. Theres one component I think you missed in the Russian catastrophic invasion and its a big complex issue which would require a video on its own. Perun has a great in depth (hour long) look at the topic. The big issue was systemic corruption. Corruption was prevalent along every line of the military, often to make up for the meager pay for lower ranks and just because they could for the higher ranks. Corruption so rotted out the standing no reports flowing up the chain of command could be trusted. The irony is western, or US Intelligience would err on the aid of caution and overestimated based simply on the size of forces and disposition, especially after Afghanistan, and the end result Russian leadership assumed they were looking good becuase enemy Intelligience assumed them to be at least competent. Corruption meant tanks and APCs didn't have the proper maintenance and had subpar replacement parts. There's images of BMPS riding on undersized, but iverpressured Chinese tires because what else did they have to go into battle on? Meanwhile Russian troops would have been under enforced, under trained and under armed. Western hardware is expensive and requires extensive maintenance, but the service life can be twice on long as Russian weapon systems. Militaries looking to save money fielding Russian equipment likewise save money by undertraining their units. Since this channel mostly cover airpower, this systemic failure resulted in undertrained Russian pilots. Where US forces are trained in advanced maneuvers like the Wild Weasels to lure out enemy AA with a plane acting as bait while his squad mates are ready to target any AA systems that pop up, Russian pilots just fight low. I will say however, I don't think Western tanks will be the panacea people think it may be. Ukraine has had extensive tanks already, and while their losses have been quite so numerous as Russia's, Ukraine being the smaller military means theyve lost a larger proportion of their supplies. Western tanks generally have better armor as many Russian tanks may be better classified as medium instead of heavy tanks, and NATO typically values crew protection over other elements, but as you stated clearly, NATO resources are designed with NATO combined arms, which in larger part relies on American deployment. This mean relying on American doctrines of overwhelming firepower be it air resources, missiles, rockets, artillery, tanks, APCs, infantry based weapons, mortars and robust logistics to get everything supplied. Ukraine lacks that capacity for overwhelming everything, and lacks some of the capacity for combined arms. I expect Ukraine to utilize the resources more intelligently than their Russian opposites would. But ultimately the resupply of Western tanks is intended as backfill to make up their lossesx especially as the offensives get ready to get off the ground with Spring On the subject of out of date weapon systems, the thing that is often overlooked is military planners for the next war always use what they know from winning the previous war. The naval Carrier and supercarrier is a great example of that. It's a great platform for intimidation and even humanitarian aid? It's literally a small nuclear powers city of highly trained and capable people who can do everything. But strategically it's a lot of resources and near peer states will target those first in an attack, partly to cripply American response and partly for the message that it would send. American War games have estimated that war with China will see the loss of at least 2 carriers. Battleships were discontinued due to technological advances and costs to operate the ships. Tanks are expensive. In fact the US has failed to really field a light tank because the limited deployment of such would often cost just as much if lot more than an Abrams to deploy because the Abrams cost per unit has gotten so cheap after 40 years of constant manufacturing. However considering the cost of a tank compared to a fighter jet, it's easier to field a battalion of tanks than a single advanced air fighter. Finally since this is an air channel, I wanted to get a dig on the use of images of the A10 in describing American combined arms capacity. While Ukraine is begging for F16s, arguably the most affordable of America's conventional air assets, what Ukraine and no country has ever asked to import is the A10. It's lack of avionics being its biggest downfall.

@MultiNike79

Жыл бұрын

Europe invaded. Russia defends itself, as during the Second World War. Do you know what was the first law passed by the Nazis when the Americans overthrew the democratic government?

@MultiNike79

Жыл бұрын

In Russia there is a term: "spreading cranberry". This is about Europeans who say all sorts of incredible nonsense. When they don't even understand the meaning of the words. That's what I just read - this is it :))

No plan, no idea, no idea for a plan, and no will to carry out any if someone actually has one.

@ProfessorFickle

Жыл бұрын

Comment of the day.

Great presentation! Being a Marine vet like yourself, I also have been watching this clusterfluck with great interest. After a year of this, it's obvious that the Russians training was non-existent, no leadership, and no equipment or spares. Most importantly, NO MOTIVATION!

Whoa, that thumbnail! That turret looks like a skull - whomever made the thumbnail 👏 and 👍🏼 for "Firepower"

For a moment I had to make sure someone wasn’t copying your channel. Looking forward to this expansion of content.

@spartancrown

Жыл бұрын

As I’ve been saying forever to anyone who will listen. Absolutely no one has the logistical capability to bring war to your door like the US, this war has proven that. Russia can’t even manage to handle logistics against its neighbor.

Hey Alex you should start another part of your channel. Take your news articles and have them read. It would be a little bit like a podcast. I like to listen and I can't always watch

Firepower is Fire! 🔥 More plz, the Firepower angle is a great idea that has great potential & a lot of material to source.

So Wise , Thank You .

99 likes in 9 mins well done SB

Now you need a series called "Desert Power" where you discuss whether giant sand worms are still relevant on the modern battlefield. :) I'm looking forward to the new content!

@carlfromtheoc1788

Жыл бұрын

...well, if you use family atomics on the Shield Wall...

Would love to see you dive into ifv’s. Either a specific one or just them in general!

From a grateful Ukrainian: brilliant analysis of Russian tactics (or, rather, the lack thereof). They started a XXI century war embracing WWII mentality - a great recipe for defeat.