But to be fair, Russia does have the best fleet of billion dollar yachts in the world.

@stephennewton2777

2 жыл бұрын

I think you mean “..did have..”.

@gamadame3852

2 жыл бұрын

@@stephennewton2777 THE US SANCTIONED THE VODKA ☠️

@marcryvon

2 жыл бұрын

And daddy's kids never get in the army. Like certain american ex-Presidents... 🙄

@arnovriends5873

2 жыл бұрын

uhhh *had*

@miles3263

2 жыл бұрын

Agree...

From being a feared army to being tank toast. Sitting in their broken down tanks waiting for a javelin to put them out of their misery, thinking what the hell are we doing here.

@michaelbastarache7124

2 жыл бұрын

By now? Those damned Russians know exactly why they are there, and always knew! Just my opinion! Respect!

@bdinaz

2 жыл бұрын

My guess is not enough fuel to retreat. They can't see the Ukrainian patrols that are sniping them with atgm so ammo is no problem. Slowly starving.... And day by day there are fewer of them. Morale is likely non existant.....

@e.m7116

2 жыл бұрын

T 72 - now known as the ”Ivan cooker”

@yamansaid2432

2 жыл бұрын

THEY NEVER EVER THINKING... AND HAVE NO TIME TO THINK... DEATH IS DO SUPER FAST...

@jimallen2461

2 жыл бұрын

Honestly I am surprised they're still fighting. Our air force could end this tomorrow if we really wanted to.

This design flaw (no separation of ammo and the crew) is indicative of the Russian military's disregard for their troops. In the Cold War when the USA had developed destroyers that used gas turbine propulsion, the Soviets raced to produce their own version, with one basic difference. One of the reasons that US warships cost so much is that they are built with a lot of compartmentalization which prevents any damage due to an explosion to destroy the entire ship. In contrast, a similar Russian destroyer had an explosion in their gas turbine - the ship broke apart and sank in 15 minutes.

I had no idea that a detonation of the ammo storage inside the tank could result into an instant death for the crew. Thank you very much.

@portnuefflyer

2 жыл бұрын

It was only "suggested", not stated as fact. The mystery remains.

@David-wk6md

2 жыл бұрын

No bro, it really can. lol PS Play nice.

@NaumRusomarov

2 жыл бұрын

if they're lucky. if the hatches are open, the crew just cooks to death. there's usually no explosion.

@stephenhumphrey7935

2 жыл бұрын

Believe it or not, it's not the ammo that makes a tank "Brew up" it's the propellant.

@twokool4skool129

2 жыл бұрын

I know, right? Next thing they're going to say is that if an airplane explodes from a missile, all of its crew die as well...

The T-72 is hardly a “Super Tank.” We faced them twice, in Iraq with very few losses. They’re just a plain, *old*, tank.

@therighthonsirdoug

2 жыл бұрын

Many (although not all) of the T72s the Russians are using are the 2016 B3M upgraded versions. Still perhaps not "super tanks" but significantly upgraded from the ones we faced in Iraq.

@MultiVeeta

2 жыл бұрын

They're are several variants of T72 more modernized ones have all the toys. Russia is not using those at the moment. Iraq T72 were vanilla and lacked night vision.

@therighthonsirdoug

2 жыл бұрын

@@MultiVeeta Er, they are using the most up-to-date T-72 variants as well as older versions, that's an undeniable fact when one looks at videos the burnt out hulls that are posted on here every day.

@therighthonsirdoug

2 жыл бұрын

@@MultiVeeta it's easy to tell the T72 B3M by the pattern of the "upgraded" ERA and other optics around the turret...not that it seems to be doing much good! As for the Iraqi T72s there was a mix of T72M and M1 both of which were export models which did have night vision although a system derived from the 1960s. They also had lots of Asad Babil (lions of babylon) which were a cheap Iraqi knock-off of the T72 and weren't as good as either the T72M or M2. If you're going to respond it's best you know what you're talking about first. All this stuff is easily available on the Internet if you utilise a simple search engine.

@steveguzman6141

2 жыл бұрын

El Cheapo.

I call BS on the "no blow out panels" on the T72s. It's called a blow out turret.

@whatever3749

2 жыл бұрын

Noice!

@donnash5813

2 жыл бұрын

Quick egress feature. (If you survive the blast.)

@emikaolatunje6572

2 жыл бұрын

@ Ferdinand Jimenez 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

@listerdave1240

2 жыл бұрын

@@donnash5813 The only egress they make is straight to the netherworld.

@828enigma6

2 жыл бұрын

More like a blow off turret.

If you are going to classify any of Russia's tanks as "super tanks", then you might be referring to the T 80 and the T 90. They still have the same issues with thin armor plate on top of the turret, making them extremely vulnerable to a Javelin missile. Unfortunately, a lot of the repair parts, particularly fire control components, for both tanks were made in........wait for it.........Ukraine.

@damianayre2130

2 жыл бұрын

T-14 is the Super Tank, production started this year, 3 years behind schedule.

@M_-sy1rw

2 жыл бұрын

*is the only russian Super Tank* and they don't even produce them

@stephenhumphrey7935

2 жыл бұрын

@@damianayre2130 Eh? The production of the T14 Armata has not started yet, and I don't think it will for another 5 or 6 years. The Russians have decided on the T90 M as a stopgap measure.

@mechaslav8520

2 жыл бұрын

To be fair every tank in the world has thin top plating. Javelin would pen right through an Abrams as well.

@mechaslav8520

2 жыл бұрын

@Nancy Rocks yep, they really need to change up stowage and get some blowout panels. Different design philosophy though.

Ok, a lot of people are just focusing on the tank itself here, but that's not necessarily the issue. There are two major issues that are interconnected and feed into the awful performance of Russia's military. I say this as someone with over 20 years in the military/intel communities with a focus on Eastern Europe and Russia in particular, not that it matters since most with a basic background in military leadership would be able to pinpoint these issues just as easily. 1. Poor doctrine. Russia operates on a modified Soviet doctrine. This doctrine utilizes large numbers of poorly trained conscripts and is officer-centric for command and control. This contrasts sharply with the NATO doctrines, which usually rely on mostly or all-volunteer forces who are led on the tactical level by professional NCO's. In NATO armies, officers are almost every level have a professional NCO equivalent. NCO's are in charge of maintaining discipline, training and exercising tactical control of small units. They are relied upon to exercise their own initiative and provide personal leadership at the small unit level (thereby enhancing discipline, morale and performance). Whereas the NATO system encourages initiative at lower levels, the Russian system discourages it and emphasizes a top-down command and control structure. This makes Russian forces less flexible than Ukrainian forces (who have spent the last eight years or so working to implement a NATO-style doctrine). Throughout military history, we see time and again that battlefield flexibility and low-level initiative give forces a huge advantage over less flexible enemies. Ukraine is just the latest in a long line of conflicts that prove this point out. 2. Russian forces are doing an awful job of implementing combined arms operations. Airstrikes and artillery often hit way too early or way too late (or miss their targets altogether). Tanks often advance without infantry, or infantry advances without armor. This like relates back to Point #1. Without low-level leaders having the initiative to lead small detachments, call for artillery or demand armored/infantry support...the whole edifice cracks in the chaos of the modern battlefield. Russian ground commanders are waiting for higher ups to approve armored support, or having to call back to a higher command to coordinate artillery and air...by which time the Ukrainians have likely displaced. Because they lack professional NCO's who can lead training, Russians units have been known to excel in set-piece battles (where the course of the fight follows their script). However, without the ground-level, tactical know-how provided by NCO's, Russian formations often struggle when confronted with unexpected or unforeseen situations (such as Ukrainian ambushes, sudden artillery strikes, etc). 3. And finally getting to the Russian tanks themselves. The T-72 is an old model tank. Yes, it has had many upgrade packages, but those packages were more to keep it relevant. Also worth noting is that the T-72 wasn't really an elite tank to start with. It was designed to be easy to transport, easy to maintain and easy to field in large numbers. Does this mean it's a 'bad' tank or completely irrelevant? No. The T-72 fielded in large numbers by an army that embraces combined arms doctrine is still a lethal force. However, because it is aging and aging 'quantity-over-quality' model, it means that it is even more dependent on combined arms doctrine than more modern MBT's. Thus, the T-72 is really a victim of circumstances. It's an aging model that is being misused and thrust into a situations that it was probably never going to excel to start with (even when it was newer). Notably, Ukraine has used its Russian-made/knock-off tanks quite effectively against Russian forces. This suggests that these vehicles are still viable when used carefully. The weakness of the T-72 is that it's stuck in the Russian army. All the footage I've seen (and some statements from Ukrainian troops that I've had access to) show that Russian are largely roadbound (possibly because they lack reliable GPS in all their vehicles). It also shows Russian tanks pushing into urban areas unsupported (a tanker's worst nightmare). With all these factors, it's no surprise that Russian tanks are being destroyed in high numbers.

@joelwillems4081

2 жыл бұрын

Thanks for the analysis. It's spring time in Ukraine and the country is famous for it's muddy fields. Those tanks and other trucks are sticking to roads for a while.

@aesirgaming1014

2 жыл бұрын

​@@joelwillems4081 the rains certainly won't help Russia. It will also bog down logistics convoys and require convoys to move more replacement parts. To compensate for muddy fields, wheeled vehicles often under-inflate tires, which makes them better in the mud but shortens their lifespan. This is one of those little things that can affect a campaign but a lot of people don't think about. Every truck that moves new tires is a truck that isn't moving fuel, food, water or ammunition. Logistics is the lifeblood of every army. People love to discuss vehicles, equipment and tactics, but nothing has any value without the right supply lines.

As a certain famous person might say, "A rapid unscheduled dissassembly". I guess the turret is the blow out panel.

@rescyou

2 жыл бұрын

Aka "Major Malfunction"...

@lamwen03

2 жыл бұрын

"A significant emotional event".

@danceswithmules

2 жыл бұрын

when hot pieces of metal are punching through your armor, you're having a really bad day.

"Reports suggest that such events are instantly fatal to the crew." No kidding! Being inside a tank has always been considered the safest place to be on the battlefield - and also the quickest way to die without prolonged agony. Tank crews get closed closed-coffin funerals for good reason.

@Draconisrex1

2 жыл бұрын

US tank casualties (killed & wounded) were 18% for each knocked out tank in WWII. The Soviets had 75% casualties (killed and wounded) in the same situation. Their equipment has been bad and they don't care how many men they lose. The US, OTOH, tries to keep its people alive.

@johannwolfgangohngemach2164

2 жыл бұрын

A metal coffin for 3 Comrades 😂ha ha ha haha 🤣

@hoodoo2001

2 жыл бұрын

@@Draconisrex1 The Russians admitted that the lend lease Shermans they used were far superior in ergonomics but they preferred the T-34 as a fighting tank, they were not concerned with death of a crew if it got hit. Russian tanks proved tougher but also were nearly blind when buttoned up and also only had a limited number of shells for fast firing. They relied on mass tactics. The Shermans were not so good with those tactics as they were easier to hit and knock out although the crews would live to fight another day. One main reason for keeping crews alive in the US was that these were citizen soldiers and the government worked for the citizens, not vice-versa. Russians have never appreciated that.

@matrix9452

2 жыл бұрын

@@hoodoo2001 Also while Rusdia mostly fight near their soil, that is easier to redeploy more troops. The US fights mostly overseas, so is a lot more costly to bring in new troops, also the US respects their soldiers and the way they're treated reflects on the government image at home.

@vapeurdepisse

2 жыл бұрын

They all left the tank at the end of the video so which is it

The issue is not the auto loader. It is the location of the tank rounds. Being located in a carousel under the floor of the tank, with no blowout panels, makes it vulnerable as is occuring with the Russian T-72. There are different auto loading systems that retrieve the tank rounds from the turret bustle, in which there is a Barrier between the cabin of the turret and the bustle that contains the tank rounds, and also contains blowout panels so that the tank rounds explode, but do not kill the Tank crew. As for the fourth person of the tank crew, that additional person could still be redeployed in the tank brigade, and when the Brigade Harbours up, they can then assist in tank maintenance.

@erke7835

2 жыл бұрын

Isn't the Russian Doctrine also just different than the western one? I heard that if a tank gets damaged the crew doesn't repair it at all but instead gets assigned a new tank while the damaged tank is repaired by a dedicated maintenance crew, is that right?

@TheDude50447

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah the rounds are stored there because of the auto loader :D

@hypercomms2001

2 жыл бұрын

@@erke7835 I cannot speak for the Russian doctrine, but I understand in the west, things have been heavily influenced by the experience of the Israelis, in which they reuse everything... for example the Isreali Tirans... Tiran-4 (T-54) Early type: New fenders, rear opening loaders hatch and antenna mount in front of TC Added to this .30 cal in MG ring on the loaders hatch, two gas cans on front fenders. 1970s Upgrade (before Yom Kippour war) 105 mm, new TC antenna, TC spotlight with red filter lens, Sherman-type aiming device, fire extinguisher, US headlamps, central .30 cal MG, and after 1973, twin antenna and IDF oil storage box. Tiran-5 (T-55) War of attrition (1967-70): new IDF fenders, covered IR lamps 1973: Central cal.30, TC’s box & gas cans left side of the hull, central cal .50 over the main gun, rubber ext. rear fenders. 1973+: Extra gas cans on rear stowage box, US rear infantry telephone, .30 cal swing arm mount Fall 1970s: Front glacis m60 style lights, left folded stretcher, bolted side step, specific operational markings, extra gas cans, ext. rubber fenders. 1980s. “Samovar”: Upgraded engine, thermal sleeve, extra antenna turret right, ERA on glacis plate, 10 round smoke discharger, side skirts, and later Magach style TC cupola, Merkava Turret basket. Tiran 5 Blazer ERA testbed. kzread.info/dash/bejne/rJmfm5tmnNqzqbg.html The first is making extensive modifications of existing tanks, providing new capabilities, and varying in range and depth. The scale starts with the early Tiran-5 barely distinguishable from the original T-54 to the Sabra MBT (based on the M60) destined to the export market and based on the Magach-7 series. These modifications were done with every single tank in the Israeli Army, starting with the Sherman (M50 and M51), the AMX-13 upgrade package, the Centurion Sho’t, the captured Tiran-4, 5 and 6 (T-54/55/62), Magach-5, 6 and 7. All these improvements were aimed at improving the firepower (the Tiran were given L7 derived 105 mm guns, the M50/51 had 75 mm and 105 mm French guns), mobility (with powerful American engines fitted on some Tirans and the AMX-13 for example), and perhaps moreover protection. For example, the Magach 6 Blazer Era was the first tank to feature this active protection in a zone of war. ERA became mandatory on frontline IDF tanks in the 1980s even before being adopted by other NATO countries. Protection in urban combat gave remote controlled MGs, shield-protected MGs, new cupolas (like the TC Urdan), extra protection against RPGs under the form of chains to block shot-trap passages, new side skirts designs, new grid-like shields, and moreover it was reflected on the scale of modifications on the Magach-7, basically a far up-armoured M60, and on the Merkava series. ....The third direction is total reconversion of existing tanks. The Sherman is one of the best early examples of this. The M-50 155 mm, Ro’em, Makmat 160 mm SPGs, but also the MAR-240, Episkopi (MAR-290), Kilshon (all rocket-launcher tanks), or the mine-clearing Sherman Morag (Crab), Trail Blazer (Gordon) ARV, the Medical Evacuation Sherman “Ambutank” and the Eyal Observation Post Vehicle. One of the apparent specialty of IDF was to convert tanks into APCs. No less than 250 T-54s, ex-captured vehicles that were already modified as Tiran-4s, were this time completely rebuilt as heavy APCs. Other heavy APCs were built on the Centurion (Nagmachon, Nakpadon…), and on the Merkava (Namer). These heavy APCs were designed with the experience of urban combat, and are tactically integrated to be used in a specific way alongside regular APCs like the M113. tanks-encyclopedia.com/israeli-tanks.php

@aesirgaming1014

2 жыл бұрын

The old autoloaders on most T-72's are not as quick a GOOD (key word here) manual loader on the Abrams. We tested this against T-72 tanks from friendly countries and found that a good Abrams crew can put out a higher rate of fire. However, using a manual loader makes the experience and training of the crew much more of a factor. Tanks work on gunnery drills for this reason. A good, experienced tank crew can put out a high rate of accurate fire. A less experienced crew will not.

I've seen it described that T72 era Soviet tanks were never designed to survive a penetrating blow. Their intended battleground is an environmental hazard - nuclear radiation, biological and chemical weapons, and if the crew had to bail-out they'd never survive that environment. So, bailing out is not an option. They're meant to be simple, easy to maintain, cheap to manufacture, to survive hits from weapons within a certain spec, but not to keep their crews alive.

@event4216

2 жыл бұрын

Russians always have considered manpower as a disposal material. Lads will churn out more, they say.

@thebikemike

2 жыл бұрын

and they will not start to repair it on the field, the Ts are not build for quick repairs. they come in big numbers.

The T-72 is far from "Putin's Super Tank" as it's a 50 year old design. It also has blow-off panels, it's call the turret...

@jakesully2868

2 жыл бұрын

Preach. I cant be convinced it was "super" even at the time of its creation. Turret blowoff valve is age old commieboo secret.

@BlatentlyFakeName

2 жыл бұрын

The newer ones all have pretty much the same flaws

@agoogleuseranonymous2658

2 жыл бұрын

@@BlatentlyFakeName Yeah I wonder if their Armata has the same problem. This would be a very dumb mistake if so.

@alwaysdisputin9930

2 жыл бұрын

@@agoogleuseranonymous2658 it seems the Kremlin was worried about the T-14 Armata getting destroyed in Ukraine? so they never used it

@tonyyarbray

2 жыл бұрын

@@BlatentlyFakeName yup they all have the carrousel of ammo at the bottom of the turret

The "huge damage" is explained by the fact that there has been 50+ years of technological advancement of weapons designed specifically to destroy such tanks.

@wryanddry2266

2 жыл бұрын

And tanks cost $10 million. Next think about $15 billion aircraft carriers.

@SvenTviking

2 жыл бұрын

No, it’s because the Russians are not getting out from their APCs and using their infantry on foot to clear the anti tank teams. I would point out that at the first successful tank battle in history, Amiens, in WW1, most of the British tanks got knocked out after out running the infantry and artillery support. German field guns took a terrible toll. Tanks only work with infantry support, infantry only works with tank support. There have been weapons that easily kill tanks since WW1.

@grampsinsl5232

2 жыл бұрын

There's only so much protection you can put in a tank this small, which makes it even more vulnerable to advances in antitank weapons. And Russia's planned modernization programs for its tank forces have never really worked out. T-80 had a bad record in the Chechen conflict, T-90 production was stopped in favor of T-14 but 10 years later that still isn't in service. I don't know of anyone ever calling any of these things "super tanks" in comparison with Western frontline equipment, they've consistently come off second best in conflict after conflict.

@kashmirha

2 жыл бұрын

So this is how it supposed to work? Great. (BTW: T72-s are upgraded multiply times, so they are not from the 70's.)

@RealPlatoishere

2 жыл бұрын

@@wryanddry2266 one russian hypersonic missile and whoof there goes $15 billion to sea ...such technologies are obsolete now

If you are a tank crew in this conflict there is no way you could ever feel relaxed.

You lost me at, “The autoloader reportedly reduces the number of tank personnel by 25%”

@paul75609

2 жыл бұрын

Lol

@war4peace1979

2 жыл бұрын

It's unconfirmed... /sarcasm

@zipz8423

2 жыл бұрын

Yes it tries to swallow the loaders arm.

I'm not sure it's a massive surprise that a 50 year old tank that's from an army with poor maintenance records and terrible supply issues is so easily defeated by weapons designed in the succeeding 50 years to destroy them.

@wessexdruid7598

2 жыл бұрын

The T-72B£U was introduced in 2014 and updated in 2016. The base design may be that old, but it's been regularly upgraded - it is similarly the basis for the T-90. These are the leading edge of Russia's armed forces. In exactly the same way that the Abrams has been developed.

@viceralman8450

2 жыл бұрын

@@wessexdruid7598 The design is over 49 years old somo add on tech is not going to cut it for a tank which is behind anything modern. Each Abrams variants is almost a new tank changing the canon, armor, all electronics etc., meanwhile Russia "modernizations" is putting new electronics on a dinosaurs but keeping the other old system.

@Confucius_Says...

2 жыл бұрын

But look at the bright side, the Russians still have a well supplied army of Internet Trolls.

@Confucius_Says...

2 жыл бұрын

@Ed Straker Nice try, Huilo...

@TroIIingThemSoftly

2 жыл бұрын

The design is old, but they receive modernization updates just like the Abrams.

An interesting one: so before I go further, it was never deployed in combat so we will never know about a fair comparison, but the Swedish S Tank (103) had an autoloader, and a crew of three. The S Tank was designed on the basis that on data from the then recent war in Korea, "turrets are vulnerable", was the take away, so they reduced the vehicle silhouette, by removing the turret by fixing the gun and reducing manpower with an autoloader. I have heard two sides to the reduced manpower debate from the Swedish, some said it did make things harder, but not impossible, and that would support the T72 theory on field maintenance, on the other hand I've heard the Swedish say that because they had a well planned out rear echelon support system, maintenance was not an issue in the field. What I do see, is poor troop tactics, and poor day-to-day maintenance on Russian equipment. I can only say what I see from a UK perspective, and my experience, but all equipment was repaired, cleaned, even if it wasn't due it. If there was spare time, we'd use it. I remember having ten minutes spare for example and grabbing French Chalk from Stores to put around door seals as per the manual, it wasn't due for another couple of months, but I had ten minutes to kill. The Russian equipment looks to be in very poor condition. The question is, was that because hey had already worn it into the ground in ten months of exercises, or is that the Russian Army way? Personally, I think the ammunition issue is a bit of a side show, if something has penetrated the inside of the tank, the energy and shrapnel created is going to turn the crew into shredded meat very quickly, ammo cooking off or not.

@colincampbell767

2 жыл бұрын

There are a number of issues with an autoloader and three man crew. The first is that there's another system that has to be inspected, calibrated etc - and one fewer person to do the work. Another one is sleep. You need two crewmembers ready to fight at all times so with a 4 man crew there is 50% more time for sleep than a three man crew. Sleep is something that is never really addressed and something that over time will degrade the effectiveness of a tank crew.

@checkyoursix5623

2 жыл бұрын

"Crispy critters"

@stephentyas4698

2 жыл бұрын

what a way to go.

@MrPirDir

2 жыл бұрын

Everything is bad in russian army because of corruption. The generals, realizing the large budgets, created fictitious repairs of equipment and put the money in their pockets. There are published examples of fictitious modernization of missile weapons, which, in fact, were not even touched and the money was spent. Tens of thousands of equipment are in warehouses, but officers plunder it, remove spare parts for sale. I was told an example of how they stole fuel from storage facilities, and for ten years no one paid attention to this.

@hypergolic8468

2 жыл бұрын

@@StefanHundhammer I would absolutely agree about not been there! As for the S Tanks top armour, I really can't say, but the hatches on the top are not that thick, so I'd be surprised if it was designed to take more than an air bursting shell above it. But in fairness it was designed for a different era, and it placed the armour protection in the best place for a 1950's / 60's design.

Super tanks is a term no one has used regarding T-72’s. ever...

And with T-80s, you’re literally sitting in the middle of a merry-go-round filled with explosives.

I was in the US Army back in the late 80's during the cold war. 19 Kilo MOS. M1 Abrams tank crewman. The ammo was(is still?) stored in the rear of the turret with heavy steel doors and bracing as at least some barrier from the crew inside the turret. When serving as the loader, you hit a big switch with your knee to open the door and get another round to load the main gun. I dunno how those older M1's / M1A1's would fare against a Javelin type anti tank missile. It felt like you had plenty of protection, granted I was in my early 20's and am only a "veteran" of the Cold War. Until this war, I didn't know how the ammo was stored in T-72 or apparently in a lot of the variations thru the years. Scary seeing pictures of it honestly. They are in a death trap with the ammo right below the turret in ring. All it takes is one round to explode and chain react to the rest, and the turret ejects killing the crew and destroying the tank. I have seen video of the driver getting out in one case. But when all the ammo cooks off, it must be instant death by fire to all. Hopefully painless for the men inside. I'm sure almost all have no desire to be in actual combat.

@littlemouse7066

2 жыл бұрын

those guys pass through cities destroying every single house without caring if there are civilians or not inside. so sorry if I'm not sympathetic to them.

@davidsalo8397

2 жыл бұрын

The definition of a Russian tank? A mobile BBQ pit that feeds a squadron of Russian cannibals.

@dionross1241

2 жыл бұрын

Another brain washed American telling lies

@dionross1241

2 жыл бұрын

@@littlemouse7066 you know this but it's a war and it's nothing that America Britain and whoever else hasn't done get over it Russia is not the problem here

@littlemouse7066

2 жыл бұрын

sure and it was propaganda in Siria too right? It was propaganda in Chechnya too right? It's always propaganda when the russians do something unacceptable right? And we all know Russia is a peaceful democracy where mass media are free and political opposition is respected right? So we can absolutely trust what the russian goverment and the free russian media say right again?

Russia has always depended on numbers & not quality. But with their crappy supply capability you simply run them out of fuel & they become easy pickings. So, the crews know this & are abandoning armor to avoid being sitting ducks.

@rajurastogi4611

2 жыл бұрын

see for your self Civilan homes in Donetsk destroyed (Partrick Lancaster - British Freelance Journalist) kzread.info/dash/bejne/d66Yw8p9d5zFcZM.html

@MA004FA

2 жыл бұрын

In WWII they used to send mens on waves against MG42 Germans machines guns, nothing change...

@nehronghamil4352

2 жыл бұрын

Ha, ha have a look at what Iraqi resistance did to Abrahams "super tank" in Iraq using Russian ATGMs and RPgs kzread.info/dash/bejne/qoKLz6hqacmbqJs.html

@tomaszzalewski4541

2 жыл бұрын

Nah, it's Russia. Nothing changed since Wiktor Suworow was around.

@mistergeopolitics4456

2 жыл бұрын

Yes Russia one of the largest fuel suppliers on the planet has fuel shortages. I believe you. I also believe that Ukraine is winning this war. Zelensky's troops will be liberating Moscow by tomorrow noon.

Anyone wonder what those small boxes are, outside the T-72 turret and hull? They are supposed to be a reactive armor layer designed to provide protection against High Explosive Anti-Tank (HEAT) warheads. Reactive armor is comprised of small explosive charges, which cause the HEAT round to detonate prematurely. But, I’ve seen T-72s close up and NEVER seen anything in those boxes. Lots of the footage I’ve seen coming out of Ukraine, however, rarely shows damage around those areas, anyway.

The main reason of the loses is that 1st 2 weeks they were thinking that this was some sort of a police operation. The largest part of the loses were among unprotected military columns and block posts. Right now loses reduced significantly. Tactics - rule.

@gwendolynsnyder463

2 жыл бұрын

and due to the fact that Putin probably stereotypes all Ukrainians as uneducated farmers who don't know how to use weapons, and as having no tech. It may be true that Ukraine's main source of income is agriculture, but that doesn't make a country technologically inept, like Putin probably assumed. After all, he assumed it would be a 3 days war. Seriously, who fed that Kremlin after midnight anyway?!

@zipz8423

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah those were tactics through arrogance, the Russsians did not respect the UKR military and did not cover their column flanks or support their armour properly with infantry, they got their clocks cleaned by the UKR military. Now in the Donbas, the Russians are back to Army 101 tactics but still suffering huge losses because the UKR military has been training for this offensive for 8 years.

@cyr8913

2 жыл бұрын

@@gwendolynsnyder463 Well i would say - have you ever got into situation where two family members are rude to each other and all the guests do not know what side to take . Russian-ukrainian relations are very far from european undestanding cause they lived together for about a thousand years. Better not to step in it - 2 countries where almoust everyone has relatives in the other.

I think when an analysis is done in the aftermath, the metallurgy of the armor will reveal that the armor and steel is not the quality it is supposed to be. High-quality steel and armor plate is expensive, and the Russian military and industry is so corrupt that they probably have been providing much cheaper and weaker steel for their tanks for many, many years. It would not surprise me if this has been going on for decades.

@mandolinic

2 жыл бұрын

Presumably the thinking was that the tanks were never going to be used in anger, so who'd know the difference between cheap and expensive plating... I wonder i the same thinking applied to their nuclear weapons?

@stefanlaskowski6660

2 жыл бұрын

There have been rumors to that effect for decades, so it's hardly a surprise if it turns out those rumors are right.

@stefanlaskowski6660

2 жыл бұрын

@@mandolinic Soviet-era tanks were designed to suppress the populations of the USSR and its puppet states if they got uppity. They are perfectly capable of intimidating angry peasants.

@joons3374

2 жыл бұрын

And now there are countries who use composite armors....

@Orcawhale1

2 жыл бұрын

It won't, because Soviet metallurgy was always behind the west, which is when these tanks were made. And part of the reason, why they are so fond of ERA bricks.

"The autoloader reportedly reduces the number of personnel needed by 25%." Good intel! Nobody would have guessed that.

@petersack5074

2 жыл бұрын

modern 'engineeers' think (but don't know) that the rest of '' us ' can read/write/ do aRithmetic.....so they word it accordingly......keyword here, is '' reportedly ''......should be '' the autoloader REDUCES the number of personnel required by one '' . The word '' reportedly '' indicates, the person writing this info....is '' not responsible ''. THAT , IS THE MODERN way, of revealing things......no one is to blame, just like faulty skyscraper builders, and warranties on store items .....most all tech stuff.....anyway...'nuff for now....take care, Mr Meister, not a sheister.....

@dickyt1318

2 жыл бұрын

the tank's amo' exploding reduces the number of personnel needed by 100%.

@gamingknight4763

2 жыл бұрын

*Reportedly* of course

@edwardschmitt5710

2 жыл бұрын

So there are 4 and then one less is 25%? Well only reportedly....

@liveitlikeitloveall2746

2 жыл бұрын

yeah I was thinking 23%😵

Initially at the start of the war I was sympathetic to the russian conscripts who were lied to and told they were on exercises or doing something good and any that died were another nail to be pushed into Putins coffin. But as it has gone on, seeing civillians shelled, machine gunned and deliberately targetted. Stories of the rapes and torture going off and the genocide based atrocities such as Bucha along with the mass looting of belongings, goaded on by family members at home, then I'm all for as many RU soldiers being evaporated in as many ways as possible. Slava Ukraine.

I drove a T62 in Afghanistan, in Spring '03, left over from the Russian retreat. It still had the basic load of 120mm rounds in it. There was a rack of I think 20 rounds on the right side of the crew compartment (turret) a little ahead of the gun breech and I believe one on the left as well. The T62 of course was a Vietnam era tank. So the "design deficiency" isn't recent. Also, the "jack in the box" effect happened to the tanks Russia used in the Hungarian Revolution in 1956. So, zero concern for your soldiers translates to 23,000 KIA in a couple months. Hmmm....

@R3XALPHA

Жыл бұрын

Bs about the 120mm rounds the t62 has a 115mm gun

@geraldmahle9833

Жыл бұрын

@@R3XALPHA Yeah, I was misled by the Italian EOD soldiers who were collecting the rounds for demolition. The Afghans even had the original Russian prime movers.

@R3XALPHA

Жыл бұрын

I see

Captured 163?! That tells me someone wasn't ready to make war, or the Soldiers were very indifferent about it.

@brunorct3022

2 жыл бұрын

Sure thing, most of the troops are just DRP and LPR citizens, basically everyone in old green pixel camo.

@nazarjumper8607

2 жыл бұрын

A very large number of fighters were not ready / did not want to participate in this. I can also confirm the words of the previous commentator

@Boyar300AV

2 жыл бұрын

Because it's total fairytale

@nazarjumper8607

2 жыл бұрын

@@Boyar300AV How can I understand your words?

@phoenixfox3379

2 жыл бұрын

its bullshit

It has been well known for decades that Russian tanks store their ammunition in the crew areas instead of behind a blast door. No experts are shocked when they see a turret laying beside the hull of a Russian tank, this is common in most Russian tanks. When the ammunition blows, the whole turret is blown off.

@genehollander43

2 жыл бұрын

Think where do they get their ammo inside where they are a few spots and bom.you. are gone.

@mannylugz5872

2 жыл бұрын

I surmise everytime it happens, the entire crew turned into mush.

@Jacmac1

2 жыл бұрын

@@mannylugz5872 Ammunition that explodes instantly gives the crew no chance of escape, but usually after a hit, anyone that can get out will get out and the ammunition slowly build up burning until something explodes. It's called brewing up, and makes a distinctive hissing sound similar to a blow torch; burning propellent and explosive that hasn't exploded. More often than you would think, people manage to get out, albeit burned or wounded badly.

@roquefortfiles

2 жыл бұрын

There's a good time as a crew member!!! Not.

Every battle the T72 fights in, they blow up in large numbers. Also - saying the ammo rackings are 'instantly fatal to the crew' then showing that NLAW hit in Ukraine - where you can clearly see all 3 crew members alive as they try to get out of the tank. One gets clear and runs towards his own lines and survives. One gets clear but runs the *wrong way*, if you watch you can see at least 8 bullets go into him from the Ukrainians to the left, pretty sure he is a goner. The other one unfortunately succumbs to the flames before he gets fully out of the vehicle (presumably his legs were broken or blown off by the hit), and falls back into the inferno that is the burning tank. He is microwaved, no way he survives.

@zipz8423

2 жыл бұрын

Either way that is a tank kill.

My job in the Marines was 0351 any tank assault. Watching a turret pop up off the main body is unique as hell.

Talking about super tanks the Russians have been boasting for years about this super T 14 tank but has been delayed because of so-called technical problems I think this sums up pretty much all of Russian military equipment whether it is the Navy airforce or army substandard poorly manufactured and the system Rife with corruption resulting in a large number of conscripts being sacrificed pretty much being used as Canon fodder.

@nehronghamil4352

2 жыл бұрын

Ha, ha have a look at what Iraqi resistance did to Abrahams "super tank" in Iraq using Russian ATGMs and RPGs: kzread.info/dash/bejne/qoKLz6hqacmbqJs.html

@nehronghamil4352

2 жыл бұрын

Ha, ha have a look at what Iraqi resistance did to Abrahams "super tank" in Iraq using Russian ATGMs and RPGs: kzread.info/dash/bejne/qoKLz6hqacmbqJs.html

@martstam2016

2 жыл бұрын

Armata design has simmilar issues

@nehronghamil4352

2 жыл бұрын

@@martstam2016 Ha, watch Abrams "super tanks" taken out by IRAQI resistance using RUSSIANI ATGMs and RPGs kzread.info/dash/bejne/qI6IxcV_dZPfacY.html

@jerryadams6799

2 жыл бұрын

the photon torpedoes were scheduled for delivery on Tuesday.

I think it's a mistake to call the T-72, who's design is now 50 years old, or any variation of it a 'Super Tank'. It's place on the battlefield today, as well as in many former Soviet republics stocks is due over 18,000 of them having been built before the fall of Soviet Union. The original purpose was to overwhelm any possible NATO armor resistence through sheer size of force. It is no longer being built, but existing ones have seen upgrades in tech and explosive anti-ordinance armor. In Russian tank heirarchy, the T-14 is the true Super Tank. Unfortunately (only to Russia) the planned obsolescence of the T-72 hasn't happened.

@louisfriend1

2 жыл бұрын

Everyone in the West should be thrilled that Russia saw fit the bring these dinosaurs onto the battlefield. Western anti-tank warfare weapons developers have destroyed many practice T-72 tanks in perfecting anti-armor systems like the Javelin and NLAW. Thanks personally from me to Vladimir Putin - WIthout your corruption the money which would would have gone to signficantly upgrading the capabilities of Russian combat units was instead diverted to lining the pockets of your cronies instead. Thanks again Vlad!

@asdfadafads

2 жыл бұрын

didnt have the t-14 the same base only a new turret? but even the t-14 is a overrated can of shit that cant protect the crew of a Nlaw or javaline misile Even if the t-14 is a good tank. Russia cant even build them that fast. Russian military is a shitshow and now the whole World have seen it.

@williamofy6376

2 жыл бұрын

The M1 Abrahms battle Tank design (1975) is almost as old as the T72, they upgrade it over time, T72 is just the first year they put it into production, nothing more than just a label.

@rogercamp2910

2 жыл бұрын

According to a friend of mine in the Ukraine, the ERM isnt fitted to over half the tanks being sent to the ukraine hence the tank crews are building cages over the turret which still doesnt stop a ATAG when its aimed at the side.

@blackforestbiker1045

2 жыл бұрын

@@williamofy6376 Leopard 2 mass production started 1978... today massiv upgraded but you can see the basic tank is nearly as old as the t72...

In which multiverse was a T-72 a supertank? It is a mass produced tank designed for a conscript army; often they still don't have NV capability other than IR searchlights...T-72s were getting wasted in Grozny over a decade ago, and haven't changed since. Tankers are cheaper to replace than tanks in Russia- and reinforcements are just over the border. U.S. forces, not so easy to replace, and a different mindset to soldier preservation. There was never anything to suggest that T -7 2s here were going to be better used than in Iraq in '91.... hardly supertanks...

Russian tanks have double ERA. One ERA is on surface of the tank and it is relative effective against HEAT missiles. Other ERA is ammo storage and it is completly effective against crew.

@viceralman8450

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah say that to tandem HEAT ATGMs they make most ERA useless.

I'm a retired canadian tanker. I worked on the Leopard C1 MBT back in the late 70s and early 80s, I can relate. There is no separation for the crew from the ammo. A 13 round ready rack mounted on the turret floor that revolves with the turret sits on the left side of the turret floor within easy reach for the loader. A 39 round bin sits inside the hull next to the driver. I can guarantee that if the leopard ever got hit, the Leopard would detonate and sent that turret into orbit. Crew survival would be zero.

@kn9ioutom

2 жыл бұрын

UKRAINE CAN SELL RUSSIAN TANKS FOR SCRAP METAL !!!

@magnificentgoldie2893

2 жыл бұрын

Sir, I hope west will stop send weapons, because it leads merely to escalation. I have family relatives in Ukraine, they don't want more weapon, they need more peace talk!

@chadhaire1711

2 жыл бұрын

@@magnificentgoldie2893 the system is all about money-----I can assure you all the weapons we are sending will NOT stop Russia but will just prolong this war another 3 years--which is what the west wants....more weapons to sell and more profit...........

@topotamadre6653

2 жыл бұрын

@@magnificentgoldie2893 The russian troll farm spreading missinformation. T72 goes BOOOOOM!

@stephenhumphrey7935

2 жыл бұрын

That same scenario happened in Syria to a Turkish Leopard 2, the ATGM (fired by ISIS) hit the front side, where the ammo is stored, and, well you can guess what happened next. That incident happened in Al Bab, North Syria. You can see the video of it here on KZread.

Autoloader is cheaper,, but not for russia For russia human life cheaper than 1$ Sorry for my English, i'm from Ukraine

@rickmcdonald1557

2 жыл бұрын

Don't be sorry because you Ukrainians are Heros to us~!! We are pulling for you all. 👍💪✌🙏

@petersack5074

2 жыл бұрын

SLAVA UKRAINE. ! The main thing about swearing in Russian is the attitude. If you haven’t got the right attitude, using swear words can be very dangerous in Russia. There’s a very good word in Russian called “bychit’” (“бычить”) - it means to behave oneself like a bull. That’s what you should be doing. You should always have a concrete physical feeling of crawling on top of something and hitting it very hard with your head. You can tilt your head down, raise your eyebrows, and open your eyes wide open. That will work. Once you got the attitude, try saying: “ty che, blyad?” (what the .... ?). Use this expression to show confusion. If you want to attack, say, “idi syuda” (come here!) and then, “schas po ebalu poluchish, suka, blyad!” (now i’ll .... ing kill you bitch, mother....!) . Generally, adding “suka, blyad” to the end of each sentence is a good way to master swearing in Russian. Remember Russian swearwords sound very strong and have a powerful enchanting effect.

@kumargaurav9417

2 жыл бұрын

We too feel sorry for you being from Ukraine, poor grub

The fact that the anti-tank assault crews can get so close to these tanks seems like the problem. It doesn’t seem like the flanks are secured by infantry or helicopters. Just long lines of tanks ambling down the road utterly vulnerable to attack. Any thoughts on this?

@fcaughli

2 жыл бұрын

It has been obvious from day one that the russian plans and attacks have followed nothing but a way to lose badly. Seems hard to believe that they have been this inept unless they are this overconfident or expected no real resistance from Ukraine. And I can't see where that would come from if you know anything about Ukraine and its people. They were even part of russia not so far back.

@flori1b234

2 жыл бұрын

Die fahren da wie zum Urlaub lang. Keine Sicherungen zur Seite, keine Aufklärung der Straßen. Ein Desaster für die russische Armee.

everyone who tried soviet tanks in war thunder would know. everyone: vertical guidance is important. in russia, the tank depresses you.

@sheevpalpatine7588

Жыл бұрын

Neutral steering, or pivot-in-place is also an important function to help tanks maneuver in urban environments. Reverse speed saves lives too, imagine missing a shot and falling back at -4kmh while you are fatally exposed

'The T-72, therefore, has no barrier between the crew and the stored ammunition' - I kind of shuddered when I read that lol.

@Flat10squirrel

2 жыл бұрын

kaboom baby

@roceye

2 жыл бұрын

Its also located in a carousel around the turret so almost any penetrating hit to middle of the tank is going to reach it.

@CreatorCade

2 жыл бұрын

😬 Someone was clearly drinking on the job to let a massive design flaw like that to pass through production.

@ronskancke1489

2 жыл бұрын

I would want to completely empty my bowels before entering any of these tanks so as to not be shitting myself constantly.

INSTANTLY FATAL TO THE CREW. THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN FINE HAD THEY REMAINED IN russia.

@mistergeopolitics4456

2 жыл бұрын

Any tank is fatal to the crew once hit in the right spot. Ukrainians use the same equipment but inferior variants so then what do you think is happening to them ?

@tylerclayton6081

2 жыл бұрын

@@mistergeopolitics4456 Russian tanks become fatal no matter where they are hit. Even if there is not penetration. Heated shrapnel can still bounce around in the tank and hit the exposed ammunition. In an Abrams if that happens maybe someone will get injured but the tank will not explode into two pieces

@bigstuff52

2 жыл бұрын

@@tylerclayton6081 And your credentials for making this statement are what?

@elultimo102

2 жыл бұрын

Did they have a choice? Even GIs in the no-win Viet Nam era, had no good choices: Combat, Canada, Prison--- not to mention potential Firing Squad.

@emojidinosaur7300

2 жыл бұрын

so the war will be over soon, or is this just war porn?

That one that got blowed up and spewing flames at the end there, three guys jumped out of it and skedaddled.

0:54 this tank is not "shattered", this tank has been abandoned because it was stuck in the mud.

This weakness on the T-72 was well documented in Desert Storm. That "lesson learned" is a teachable item that could have been inherited by the Ukrainians. Those Bradley's got really aggressive on those T-72s once they found how easy it is to destroy a T-72. Before Desert Storm, the Bradley's let the M-1 tanks go up front when T-72s are spotted. Now the BTR is even confident to take on the T'72.

@nehronghamil4352

2 жыл бұрын

Ha, ha have a look at what Iraqi resistance did to Abrahams "super tank" in Iraq using Russian ATGMs and RPgs kzread.info/dash/bejne/qoKLz6hqacmbqJs.html

@1ambrose100

2 жыл бұрын

Russian tanks destroyed in Desert Storm were export versions without cutting edge armor. It's called "MONKEY ARMOR". It may not have dawned on you but why would you think that M1A2sep3 Abrams tanks coming off the line in Lima, Ohio are any less vulnerable to top-down munitions? Are you aware of what's happened to Saudi M1s battling the Houthis when hit by Russian AT weapons? Educate yourself. PS. The Fairchild Republic A10 Thunderbolt II 30mm cannon was incapable of penetrating Soviet tank armor when it was just a prototype. We all cling to cherished myths.

@gustavmeyrink_2.0

2 жыл бұрын

That would be good news for Ukraine because the Bradley's main armament is the 25mm M242 Bushmaster I chain gun. Those 58 BMP-1s that are coming to Ukraine as we speak were originally German. The Germans upgraded their armour and sold them to Sweden. Sweden upgraded their engines and transmissions before selling them to the Czech Republic. The Czechs in turn fitted them with Mk 44 Bushmaster II chain guns which come either in 30 or 40mm.

@AlE-kc7yw

2 жыл бұрын

@@1ambrose100 You are right that all tanks are vulnerable from top-down munitions, BUT, and this is a BIG BUT, Armor doesn't go anywhere without Combined Arms. Everywhere you see Armor, you see (or don't see) Infantry/snipers in the area, people are monitoring for mortars, artillery and so forth, not to mention jets looking for heat signatures over the past 1-5 hours before you go on patrols. Russian military lacks ALL the basic tactics of most modern (western) armies. It's not so much their machinery, but their tactics. That dude that hit the tank was 200m away from him. How do you not see him and his boys???? I'm not sure if they have FLIR sights (which have been on M1 tanks long before I ever got on one), but that system would have 100% seen the body heat, especially since it's cold in Ukraine, but they have some version of thermals at the very least. Also, if the Armor column relayed to their higher headquarters they were going through that road, a surveillance system (some type of ISR asset) should have been overwatching it earlier in the day looking for emplacement of devices and people, especially as they made their way down the road, they would have been looking for Ukrainian intelligence to fix and destroy them. I watch the Russian military with a sense of sorrow. While I want them to be beaten badly, I still feel sorry for that Private, Russian military rank equivalent conscript, that was volun-told to go there, not trained properly, and just wants to make it through their year and go back home to their hometown and play their video games. They are being sent to their deaths in greater numbers than their enemy military. Lastly, every tank in the column should have overlapping fields of fire to complete the entire clock, 1st Tank would be 10-2, 2nd tank would be 1-5, 3rd would be4-8, and 4th, 7-11. Non existent. They also ALL traveled on the same side of the road. It should have been a staggered formation using both sides of the street, not one duck behind the other. I am thoroughly disgusted with the Russian military. By the time a Soldier or Marine gets through their training, they understand those basic tactics, obviously serious tactics are learned while training at their permanent units, but not knowing some of these absolutely basics will ensure you fail your course and are recycled, having to complete the course with another class and staying at the schoolhouse longer, which sucks.

@mistergeopolitics4456

2 жыл бұрын

Saddams T-72s were old and outdated export variants. Also believe me Abrams tanks can easily be destroyed with one RPG-7 round in the right spot. No tank is invincible, that's a fallacy.

When the tank was first used, it was a disaster. It got stuck in the Flanders mud, broke down was vulnerable to the plentiful light artillery on the Western Front. It's first real success came at the battle of Hamel where a coordinated assault with infantry, artillery air dropped supplies, armored cars and the first pre-battle briefing saw victory achieved in the planned 90 minutes. The tank has failed the Russians due to mud, plentiful anti-tank weaponry, poor maintenance, lack of air and infantry support. In other words the tanks weaknesses haven't changed, nor have the ways to effectively use them. What is happening in Ukraine is a failure of planning and leadership which has doomed every Russian move.

@grahamstevenson1740

2 жыл бұрын

PLUS asymmetric warfare.. It's not tanks vs tanks is it ? It's tanks vs infantry with precision guided weapons.

@Russpng

2 жыл бұрын

The Israelis have always done well in tank battles - and their new Merkava's have "anti" anti-tank protections, helping to fend off missile launchers. Doesn't look like the T-72s have anything like that.

@oleksiychekin6756

2 жыл бұрын

​@@grahamstevenson1740 This is that he told - tanks requires infantry support. Also its a very bad idea to move tanks by roads without recons from both sides. Yes, its because of mud and hurry, that happens because of wrong expectations and planning. Idiots from Kremlin just obliterated their own army.

@Confucius_Says...

2 жыл бұрын

@@oleksiychekin6756 So simply put, the Russians were successful in de-Nazifying and de-militarizing their OWN military. Genius move there by Putin Huilo.

@mariasechi8537

2 жыл бұрын

kzread.info/dash/bejne/fKamuZuBoMzTY84.html

The capital Russian failure is also due to tactical and strategical incompetence. Who sends its armour out without supporting infantry? Who drives deep into enemy territory, on a single file, without air support and without controlling the flanks? Who uses unencrypted communication to issue orders? Who sends logistic support without proper infantry and armour support, on a road in an area not controlled? They number of mistakes are mind boggling. It’s like some child or perhaps Putin came up with the strategy and logistics plans.

I heard the auto-loader was slower than a human loader.

"The force of the blast from the ammo tears the tank apart from the inside, often detaching the turret with such force that is is thrown clear ...Reports suggest that such events are instantly fatal to the crew." UMMM...YA THINK???

The NLAWs and Javelins don’t have to destroy a Russian tank. Primarily, they pulp the tank’s crew.

@Urkinorobitch

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah they only need to send a few rounds between the track and back of the turret and the ammo cooks off, a lot of T72 were blown up by Ukrainian BMP only with incendiary 12.7mm.

@alpejohnson491

2 жыл бұрын

@@Urkinorobitch ? Dude you cracking me up a 12.7mm machine gun can not ben that you are talking about a BMP 30mm or the 100mm rifled gun. Honestly you can't be this dum. Russian use 14.5mm machine guns on their tanks. And no its not between tracks its little lower to the side lower haul where armor is weaker because all MBT's share this weakness. Ukraine has also lost a lot of tanks from air-strikes, russian RPG's, and russian tanks and ATGM carriers.

@Urkinorobitch

2 жыл бұрын

@@alpejohnson491 Yeah I meant 30mm my bad... no need for insults.

@alpejohnson491

2 жыл бұрын

@@Urkinorobitch Sorry bro its all good

The T-72 is, as the name suggests, an antique. How someone can call it a modern super tank is hilarious. Most civilised nations have retired their 60s and 70s tanks decades ago. The Russian military is a paper tiger.

@earthwormjim6962

2 жыл бұрын

It's so paper, the entire NATO and "#1" power in the world with countless AT and AA manpads and weaponry sent continuously to Ukraine cannot defeat it.

The turret IS the blowout panel.😂

Bro the damage to the tank is one thing..The human body wow !!

You should mention that the many ATGMs with top down attack capability blast their concentrated explosion straight through the turret roof down onto the ammo carrousel which only has some but still not enough armor in case of the latest T-90 models I believe, of which few are in service. Quite sure that's why not only the turret pops off but also the hull is blasted open.

@mistergeopolitics4456

2 жыл бұрын

It's not even about that. Modern ATGMs are so advanced now that tanks are basically no match. It costs millions for a tank, a crew takes months or train. An ATGM crew takes hours to train and the equipment costs tens of thousands.

@superwout

2 жыл бұрын

@@mistergeopolitics4456 well I wasn't talking about the economics of it but merely why they were wondering why so many wrecks were splattered to such an extent

@superwout

2 жыл бұрын

And not to mention the abscence of so many hard kill APS systems that they've designed and actually equipped their tanks with ... it's not only T-72 fleet out there but a lot of T-90 and T-80 where are the Dohzd and ARENA-E systems that should be the best answer to the ATGM threat. Can you imagine how things would have been different if they had the common sense to retrofit their best system, the Afghanit system on their existing fleet, instead of only the "2" production models of the Armata?

@mutazalmatani162

2 жыл бұрын

@@superwout problems with active protection systems are they are expensive, still the technology cannot be produced cheaply

@jonathanpfeffer3716

2 жыл бұрын

@@superwout Only their most modern APS can actually cover the angles Javelins approach at. Besides, it’s not like they chose not to, they can’t. APS is expensive and difficult to produce.

I don't understand, we receive emails saying that anything about the war will not be monetized but the first thing that I see is adds, mmm

Makes sense wondered why they always aimed for the top of the tanks and not the tracks.

I've said this in other videos, but no tank is going to be able to avoid getting hit by the over 20,000 anti-tank weapons Ukraine was and will continue to be provided. Punches in bunches.

@gratefuldead3750

2 жыл бұрын

Of course. In second world war the german tiger was the most advanced tank. But with anti tank weapons many of them were destroyed too.

@marybloodstone5486

2 жыл бұрын

You are wrong American made tanks can counter javelin

@ksangphunmaring966

2 жыл бұрын

@@marybloodstone5486 abrams can't even protect from ak47

@Insert-Retarded-Reply-Here

2 жыл бұрын

@@marybloodstone5486 Javelin will mop the floor with American made tanks, what do you smoke 😂

@flycrack7686

2 жыл бұрын

@@marybloodstone5486 better not comment at all.

I see, autoloaders supposed to be helpful but it turns out to be a headache, because if AP munition pierce inside the tank, then it will be a total disaster. Zero chance of survival of crews I think.

@daviddoran3673

2 жыл бұрын

"Open source data".....like Bellingcat???????

@kurousagi8155

2 жыл бұрын

Autoloaders aren’t necessarily an upgrade. They’re a design choice. You can replace a crew member with an autoloader which means you can spread your personnel on more tanks than you could without an autoloader tank. But this means that damage to the tank is more likely to result in more returns to factory rather than field repair as well as a lower rate of fire.

@kevak1236

2 жыл бұрын

@@daviddoran3673 there are others, one i like to look at has photographic evidence of every claimed kill/capture. 2366 russian combat assets photo'd as of writing this, including 407 tanks. He's also said he's really struggling to keep up at the moment because of the sheer number of data he is receiving with the retreat from Kyiv. Also, how many are not photographed? :)

@nehronghamil4352

2 жыл бұрын

Ha, watch Abrams "super tanks" taken out by IRAQI resistance using RUSSIANI ATGMs and RPGs kzread.info/dash/bejne/qI6IxcV_dZPfacY.html

@listerdave1240

2 жыл бұрын

@@daviddoran3673 It's not so much because it's an autoloader but more because of the way they designed it. An autoloader can be designed that has a separate ammunition compartment like in the M1 Abrams and have the autoloader remove the shells one by one closing the door each time, just as a human would. I think it would also make sense to have the turret volume completely sealed off from the crew, of which I think there really only should be two, a commander/gunner and a driver. The hatch at the top should be replaced with a good remote vision system and a remotely controlled machine gun.

Traditionally, if tanks aren't kept in a hull defilade position when they aren't on a high-speed run over open ground to the next hull defilade position, they're nothing more than death traps. Tanks are only truly effective when the hull is protected by terrain and the turret/gun is exposed just enough to fire on targets. The modern deadly accurate, tank-killing missles have nearly made heavy armor obsolete.

Only one guy got out of that tank and he had to have been SEVERELY burned. I'm surprised anyone made it out, that was actually a miracle to survive.

Gee, they looked so impressive in all those military parades in Red Square. The sloped armour. The composite armour. The explosive reactive armour. The ....

@FlaThunderstorm

2 жыл бұрын

Scott Mitchell And Xi's toy soldiers of the CCP. Sure look spiffy in a parade. In fatigues on the battlefield not so good. At least the girl soldiers are nice to look at.

@whereswaldo5740

2 жыл бұрын

They have explosive reactive armor. It’s just on backwards. Psst. Don’t give them a claymore.

The T-72 the 'Flying Tank" - when hit by an anti tank rocket in the right place - BOOM! and the turret and the unfortunate crew go flying.

@nehronghamil4352

2 жыл бұрын

Watch Abrams tanks being blown to hell by Iraqi resistance using Russian ATGMs and RPGs kzread.info/dash/bejne/qI6IxcV_dZPfacY.html

@nehronghamil4352

2 жыл бұрын

Watch Abrams tanks being blown to hell by Iraqi resistance using Russian ATGMs and RPGs kzread.info/dash/bejne/qI6IxcV_dZPfacY.html

@brucemorrison2132

2 жыл бұрын

Makes me LMAO !

Actually ejected turrets from T90's and T80's were found in the Guard Army near Kiev. They were clear hits by Javelin and NLAW. The T72B, T80, and T90 all have their ammo arranged for the autoloader with no blast protection for the crew. It's all of their tanks since they maximized ammo storage for the autoloader.

Nice analysis!

Cause Russia was always threatening and fluffing bragging about his military power , but when real combat comes, the true form has been revealed

@joMan1060

2 жыл бұрын

Its pretty strong, Ukraina just very large and opening large corridor, if Russian only open from donesk and Crimea, it might have diffeent story.. But i guess thats not the objective for Russian army. But you can compare it to Iraqi war, this war is much harder and much more land controlled

@paullangton-rogers2390

2 жыл бұрын

Conventional war military assets like tanks and even fighter jets, face new challenges in the 21st century with much more powerful and high precision missiles very mobile ones.. and also the deadly new drones that can fire precision guided cruise missiles and evade radar easily. I think it should make China pause for thought, and realise that modern warfare now means you need to rely more on technology and cutting edge defensive capabilities against such weapons, rather than conventional military power and sheer size.

@jackie7892

2 жыл бұрын

@@paullangton-rogers2390 yeah, the Way Russian fight is just out of date now in modern war

@LeftOverMacNCheese

2 жыл бұрын

@@jackie7892 doesn't seems like it if you also take the consideration that Ukriane is being constantly spoonfed by the west

@miroslavputinovic6650

2 жыл бұрын

@@joMan1060 Bro. Ukraine is ridiculously easy to invade. Russia has to go all the way to the Carpathian mountains to reach any natural defense. Taking the frontier all the way back to Moldova was always the objective. They've just failed. Now they're trying to settle for just saving Crimea, which requires taking back the entire east of the country.

Amazing, WOW, the Ukrainian army is doing a great job. A lot of the tanks before they are destroyed look old and poorly maintained. Rust? I’m rooting for Ukraine so I’m happy!!

@kutuzovm3215

2 жыл бұрын

you need to drop the facad. What you are being told is completely different to what is happening in reality. You are being fooled by wartime propaganda.

@robdevilee1490

2 жыл бұрын

I think the rust comes from heat, maybe it was set on fire.

@sammy4538

2 жыл бұрын

​@@robdevilee1490 True, these are destroyed tanks so propably have been burning a while, heating them up... would indeed then look like this, already a few days after. Have heard of some iron naval vessels glowing partially red from heat, after burning some time before sinking... fire inside a ship and tank are different scales, but burning tank might also get surprisingly hot, there's ammo and fuel involved and all

I like at the end where the tank operators got out and scooting around the street. Someone should do a 3-stooge meme to it lol

A good example is a couple of books I read about Operation Desert Storm armored actions. M1 Abrams would fire their depleted uranium rounds and report upon impact that the turret would be blown off of the T72. An excellent visual example was when one of the imbeded news crews during Operation Iraqi Freedom caught on video an M1 Abrams taking on an Iraqi T72 and with one shot destroyed the T72 with the turret flipping up in the air when hit.

Iron coffin. Sad for the conscripts to die this way. We can blame only one man.

@alexandermelbaus2351

2 жыл бұрын

The issues of 8 years can all be blamed on one man?

@rexsceleratorum1632

2 жыл бұрын

@@alexandermelbaus2351 Yup, the 22 year dictator is the problem. He invaded Ukraine 8 years ago

@spaceman69

2 жыл бұрын

@@alexandermelbaus2351 yes. Dont fight if youre not gonna win

@jakefarronmerlin7963

2 жыл бұрын

Russia Only loses if everyone loses

@nehronghamil4352

2 жыл бұрын

Ha, watch Abrams "super tanks" taken out by IRAQI resistance using RUSSIANI ATGMs and RPGs kzread.info/dash/bejne/qI6IxcV_dZPfacY.html

They really sent them on a suicide mission and with a tank as their coffin.

Another thing nobody seems to point out. They keep driving down roads and highways in strait lines, as if there isn't an active war going on. You'd think they'd use tanks for going over rough terrain and being harder to predict.

I had been wondering about the completely blown off turrets and other strange substantial damage when you can see the attack munition probably was not the cause.

In Iraq you just put a sabot into the turret ring and popped the tops like a beer can. Over and over. 19k 90-96 Back then they also had inferior sights. You would see them skipping their rounds 300 yards out in front of us and their AP's were simple tungsten. But our big advantage was they could not see us at night like we saw them. They would glow so white on thermals due to trapped day time heat you just could not miss.

@meatrealwishes

2 жыл бұрын

Is it true that Iraq also made their own tanks?

@marcosburgos8415

2 жыл бұрын

@@meatrealwishes not quite, the russians sent them the kits for them to be assembled in iraq under a different name due to weapons restrictions

@erikouds3294

2 жыл бұрын

Iraqi T-72 were called "Lion of Babylon" wich in fact tended to be paper tigers of babylon

@gill5453

2 жыл бұрын

@@meatrealwishes Outside of Taji (Northern edge of Baghdad) there is a huge boneyard of scrap armored vehicles and artillery. Outside the wall of Taji near the camp is an old factory where they would rebuild those junk vehicles. That was the tank factory.

@user-fh9bt7gx8e

2 жыл бұрын

These are exactly the same tanks that were in Iraq. Ukraine plundered its entire military budget without a trace. Of those Soviet tanks that were in Ukraine, half simply did not start. Now all roads are clogged with these burnt-out Ukrainian tanks. I wouldn't be surprised if there will soon be a lot of Javelin and Stinger on the black markets of weapons

What are miracle works from the Ukrainian heroic fighters. We admire you courage to stay back in Ukraine to fight. You deserve recognition from the freedom lovers around the world. Bravo!

@lukez9567

2 жыл бұрын

WELL SAID, Mr. Le.

Its time to call Russian tanks the burger machine. Once the tank got hit, crew gets grounded into patties.

Who cares if your tank is a foot shorter? The Abrams is basically invincible. There was one that broke down in the Middle East, Taliban surrounded the tank and unleashed hell with over dozens of direct rpg strikes and thousands of small arms round and grenades. The Taliban left because they ran out of ammo, the Marines just sat inside and waited for the support team.

These aren’t even super tanks or new tanks they’re just updated versions of older tanks just like Abrams tanks. The T-14 Armata on the other hands is a new tank but still needs to be proven.

@s.f.2480

2 жыл бұрын

Sadly, the real Russian super tanks cannot be use in the war since they only have few units in production.

@xxmobstrxx8535

2 жыл бұрын

@@s.f.2480 yes very true it’s still in development

@dulanhasanthajayasooriya8284

2 жыл бұрын

Accept rge fact that Russian tanks for charred with the Javelines. Tanks were no match with top grade armies . Russian strategy is ww2 . The us technology next gen with advancements . All tanks entered the city weerw destroyed along the road the others fled. Or were abandoned.

@CochinKerala

2 жыл бұрын

@@dulanhasanthajayasooriya8284 Learn to write before you try to showoff your Super Tank expertise. 😑🤦🏻‍♂️

@CochinKerala

2 жыл бұрын

@Brîndușa D If you can decipher the garbled comment you'd see it is utter BS.

I'm not expert, but my understanding from what I've been reading is that US tanks, with a manual human loader, can outshoot these things 3 to 1 because the Russian loaders are actually slower, especially if you want to load different types of rounds.

@nehronghamil4352

2 жыл бұрын

Ha, ha have a look at what Iraqi resistance did to Abrahams "super tank" in Iraq using Russian ATGMs and RPgs kzread.info/dash/bejne/qoKLz6hqacmbqJs.html

@1ambrose100

2 жыл бұрын

The NEXT version of the M1A2 will finally have an autoloader.

@jerryadams6799

2 жыл бұрын

true.

@mistergeopolitics4456

2 жыл бұрын

No they cannot. A modern autoloader fires 10-12 rounds a minute. An autoloader also can't get sick or have morale issues or just leave the tank and after 100 rounds it won't be tired and slower. Automation always wins in the end that's why Korea, Japan, France all use autoloaders now as well.

@mistergeopolitics4456

2 жыл бұрын

No they cannot. A modern autoloader fires 10-12 rounds a minute. An autoloader also can't get sick or have morale issues or just leave the tank and after 100 rounds it won't be tired and slower. Automation always wins in the end that's why Korea, Japan, France all use autoloaders now as well.

"Putin's Super Tanks" isn't most of his army still stuck in the 70s in terms of design?

@joelwillems4081

2 жыл бұрын

Yes, most are still Cold War relics. And relics they are as at least half the tank numbers they count are mothballed in warehouses. T-72s aren't his supertanks even with a bunch of them having modern modifications. The T-14 Armatas are claimed by Russia to be the best in the world although they might not have any in service. T-90s are pretty adequate though.

Let's just all agree that it is great to see the Ukrainians being supplied with an effective weaponry and using it in an effective manner. Great to see the last portion of the clip as evidence of this tank is taken out ......and the fleeing Russians from the following tank .....because they appear to know they might be next. Sad to think this "war" is not really costing Russia very much if all these tanks have been sitting around as surplus equipment from 40 or 50 years ago. Oh well ......just keep destroying these tanks as fast a possible and hopefully the loss of Russian lives will get back to the Russia to counter the "propaganda" we keep hearing about. Russians can only deny so much until the loss of lives can no longer be explained. .

@P.H691

2 жыл бұрын

Vladimir really needs to be stopped, man is committing war crimes and thousands of people are losing their lives everyday. I am glad Ukraine is fighting back, but I wish this war would just stop as Vlad needs to be put on trial for what he’s done.

@SpookyFox1000

2 жыл бұрын

It’s a dream to see how shit the Russian equipment is !

@Lewis-jn8ry

2 жыл бұрын

It's actually going to hurt them a lot in human cost. We keep forgetting that a lot of countries including Russia are on the verge of population decline. They can't really afford to be killing their youth, also the material cost due matter. The Russian military cannot afford to be loosing or damaging equipment for to long. We know this based on how large their defense budget is and its to small to sustain a prolonged war. I think Putin knew about these problems and knew the time to pull something like the invasion off had to be now. If they waited to long their population would be to small and their economy would also be worse off. Meaning less funds for defense and war making.

The autoloader often times requires the turret to rotate back to a position suitable for autoloading. Not as fast as manual loading used in the US M1A2.

@bruh41232

2 жыл бұрын

Agreed, in military parlance this is, "if it ain't broke don't fix it." And then there's testimonial evidence. M1 crews love the M1 almost to a man. Ask a Russian tanker crew what they think of their MBTs. That is, if you can find one still alive.

I do not understand why this continues to bewilder people! I was in the first Gulf War in 1991. Russian armored vehicles were proven to be shit then and they still are! Nothing has changed. I was in the 24th Mech Infantry and we had Bradley IFV's killing Russian tanks and BMP's with their 25mm chain guns! The media and so called expert military analyst have been perpetuating this myth of the invincible russian military since the end of WW2. All of their equipment from the ground and the sky is shit!

@blitzbane4135

2 жыл бұрын

You are 100 percent correct ...

@rickjames18

2 жыл бұрын

Because many of them grew up thinking the Russian military was invincible and now that it has been disproven/broken. They have no idea how to cope, so they blame it on western propaganda or any other reason they can think of. Even with Indian media showing the same results they still don't want to believe Russian equipment is trash. Some are great but most just don't hack it anymore.

@mutazalmatani162

2 жыл бұрын

you were technically fighting inferior export variants of tanks along with air superiority, after the downfall of the soviet union, nato did get glimpse and tested some tanks that were advanced at that era, and nato admitted its gonna pain to defeat them, so keep your american equipment superiorty shit to yourself, not to add doctrines differ

@PrimericanIdol

2 жыл бұрын

The US is worse.

@rickjames18

2 жыл бұрын

@@mutazalmatani162 Laughing my ass off, the results speak for themselves. Inferior export variants? Just like not all exports are inferior. UAE Leclerc Tanks are better than French army tanks. But that is always the excuse with you guys. Not all the Iraqi tanks were "Inferior exports". They also had just finished fighting Iran, so they had experience. You can make excuses all you want. It doesn't change the fact that we are once again witnessing Russian equipment get decimated on a mass scale.

Former US Army brat here. I have nothing to contribute to this technical discussion. All I have to say is that there's a reason that tanks are often referred to as "coffins on wheels". Among his various assignments, my dad was stationed at Ft. Hood, TX.

Those things were designed 50 years ago and are far from being a "super tank"

These things don't even qualify as heavy tanks. They're really just medium tanks designed to support infantry. It's no match for Abrams.

@nehronghamil4352

2 жыл бұрын

Abrams tanks being blown to hell by Iraqi resistance using Russian ATGMs and RPGs kzread.info/dash/bejne/qI6IxcV_dZPfacY.html

@donsise1126

2 жыл бұрын

True, the russians' T-72s are no match to the US Abrams. They are not in the same class, T-72s are smaller and lighter. Generally, the russian tanks have always been smaller, see WW2 for comparison.

@johngurley8815

2 жыл бұрын

@@donsise1126 Abrams die to Javelins, too. The heavy tank concept does not compete well ( too much sunk capital in one object and crew) in today's intelligent lightweight missile environment.

@joseole1117

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah but heavy tanks got even more logitical issues than the smaller ones, not to mention getting stuck in the mud.

@denistaray368

2 жыл бұрын

@@donsise1126 javeline would smash easily Abrams hahah why you talking about

h ago As an American, I can't even imagine the fear that the Poles might have as they watch Ukraine being destroyed city after city. Even after 75 years the memory of the destruction done to Poland during World War II can never be forgotten. I just hope for a miracle here and pray for peace to come soon. Peace and love to everyone involved in this terrible w4r

@fcaughli

2 жыл бұрын

But you don't think that the other nato countries would not immediately defend it from incoming missiles including going on the offensive against them if necessary? And we now have time to think and plan for what could (although I think unlikely to) be coming.

@hb1338

2 жыл бұрын

Poland is in NATO. NATO has a collective defence mandate which should ensure that any of its members will receive immediate full-scale military support in the event of an attack. Any conflict there would be very different from Ukraine, especially as Russia would have to send all its forces through Belarus, Ukraine or Latvia and Lithuania.

I really struggle to understand what the Russian generals were thinking, they could have pinned down the main Ukrainian army in the East, their defensive positions are known, and conducted a proper air campaign in the rest of the country. Once the main Ukrainian force was encircled, they could have negotiated their terms. What they did is akin to trying to get rid of a wasps nest by swinging a bat at it. Even the US led coalition, which had overwhelming superiority over Iraq, avoided urban areas in the first Iraqui war and this was after having "softened" the target with a prolonged air campaign.

The first casualty of War is the truth.

"The autoloader reportedly reduces the number of personnel needed by 25%" LOL 😄😄 OBVIOUSLY.

@sid2112

2 жыл бұрын

The javelin reduces the required crew by 100%.

@romanpul

2 жыл бұрын

It also reportedly reduces the number of crew arms by 50%

@stephenhumphrey7935

2 жыл бұрын

@@romanpul 😅😅😅

What is very notorious is that almost all the Russian tanks hit, have the turret decapitated, or blown away.

@nehronghamil4352

2 жыл бұрын

Ha, ha have a look at what Iraqi resistance did to Abrahams "super tank" in Iraq using Russian ATGMs and RPGs: kzread.info/dash/bejne/qoKLz6hqacmbqJs.html

@robertmaybeth3434

2 жыл бұрын

...a sure sign the internal stowed main gun rounds have detonated. And no crew can survive that, of course.

@nehronghamil4352

2 жыл бұрын

@@robertmaybeth3434 Ha, watch Abrams "super tanks" taken out by IRAQI resistance using RUSSIANI ATGMs and RPGs kzread.info/dash/bejne/qI6IxcV_dZPfacY.html

@nehronghamil4352

2 жыл бұрын

@@BalancedPortfolio50 Ha, watch Abrams "super tanks" taken out by IRAQI resistance using RUSSIANI ATGMs and RPGs kzread.info/dash/bejne/qI6IxcV_dZPfacY.html

@t-90atank35

2 жыл бұрын

If you play war thunder, that's how like 90% of Russian tanks are destroyed, their turret popping out and kaboom

Another important contributing factor to the huge losses of Russian Armour is the way it is being deployed. In all the footage I have seen I have yet to see any coordination of any combined supporting arms. No Infantry to seek out anti-tank crews, no mutually supporting tactics. If you fail to use this basic plan and deploy armour in built up areas then expect losses. The Ukrainian forces, including the civilian population have been completely under-estimated by Russia.

Autoloaders demand that a shell be in the feeder line, and when a penetrating round enters the tank, a catastrophic explosion shoots the turret sky-high. A lot of T-72s were blown that way in the 1991 Gulf War. Any modern tank with an autoloader would do the same thing.

Over the years of combat footage from the Russian military makes it clear that the systemic challenges to force capability may be insurmountable.

@glenbolderson2479

2 жыл бұрын

Really? it shows all that does it? pfft.

@tylerclayton6081

2 жыл бұрын

@6 String Therapy Actually the US won both the 1991 and 2003 Iraq wars with very few casualties. The US also defeated Afghanistan in less than a month in 2001 and conquered 95% of the country’s and all major cities and held them for decades while the Taliban hid in mountains and caves until we decided it wasn’t worth the cost anymore and left Afghanistan for good. As far as conventional warfare goes the US in unrivaled and unstoppable. Research Operation Desert Storm in the 1991 Gulf War when the US defeated the 4th strongest military in the world in just one month while taking less than 500 casualties. Every nation in history has struggled against gorilla warfare and the US is no exception to that. But in Afghanistan the US still was much more successful than the USSR because America was actually able to conquer most of the country and only took 2000 casualties as opposed to the USSR which took over 15,000 men killed

@deankruse2891

2 жыл бұрын

@6 String Therapywe conquered both Iraq and Afghanistan simultaneously. Check out desert storm too, you know Putin and Xi thought if they could replicate the US success haha, little did they know they are too corrupt and incompetent to pull off what the US is capable of achieving.

@jacobjorgenson9285

2 жыл бұрын

And yet, they are clearly winning the war . So much for that then

@jacobjorgenson9285

2 жыл бұрын

@6 String Therapy losing to guys fighting in sandals with old AK'S is a time tested tradition for America now

Like battleships, upon which nations lavished their biggest war budgets a few decades ago, tanks might be on their way out as crucial weapons

@AiRPasternak

2 жыл бұрын

Tanks came to stay but only in open fields or deserts where they can easily overwhelm the enemy with sheer firepower because getting a tank inside an urban area is suicide, the days tanks could get inside cities or villages are over.

T72 being called a super tank 😂😂😂 Lmfao

Nicely reviewed, but c'mon, Ashish, at the end we REALLY could've used longer clips to watch the results of the Ukrainian attack on the tanks. It was just getting interesting seeing who got out, who was running, which guy fell after getting out, and being able to watch the scramble starting as the sudden turn of events was going south for the Russians. There were some fascinating dynamics just starting, and then >BLIP Believe me, you DON'T have to edit ALL your scenes down to 2-and-3-second clips for the hamster-attention-spans modern social media is producing..... SOME of us with more analytical and interested minds appreciate a longer sequence that reveals more continuity!

what do we learn from this: ammunition in the extra compartment separated by a firewall, loaded with a "belt loader" through a door in the firewall hardly larger than the caliber and nanoceramics in armor plates with blind holes as additional armor all around. A Leopard2 with the Leclerc's turret could be so equipped.

@leoray1234

2 жыл бұрын

we also learned that russian military planners don't care about their personnel

@sys3248

2 жыл бұрын

Those tanks should try on the receiving ends of ATGMs and AGM missiles.

@josephking6515

2 жыл бұрын

@@leoray1234 russian leadership has *never* cared about their people. Remember that _all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others._ George Orwell said it all those years ago and nothing has changed in 80+ years.

A reason for the Russian tanks turrets being blown off is because they use auto loaders. That means there are 12 or more shells in a circle. Although it allows the T72 to be much smaller than the Abrams which uses a strong 19 yr old kid. So if a shell hits it you have a circle of shells that will go off and ejecting the turret off..Voom.. In Desert Storm there were turrets blown off and looked like huge lollipops in the sand..

@LyricalPradaxan

2 жыл бұрын

If Russia promised free college to their soldiers they would have strong 19 year olds to load their shells too. Big mistake, Putin!

@arcturionblade1077

2 жыл бұрын

Ammo cook off = popped turret tops.

@BlatentlyFakeName

2 жыл бұрын

The extra crew member can do more than just haul shells as well.

@observinglife7366

2 жыл бұрын

"VOOM!!" Love that description.

@geoffhunter7704

2 жыл бұрын

SS Major Diekmann the leader of the Ordradour su Glane civilian massacre in France June 10th 1944 himself was burnt alive in his Pz 4 75mm tank just five weeks after he and his men murdered men,woman and children mainly by fire in that infamous atrocity justly deserved death and here we have a war just as brutal 78 yrs later!

Back in the early 1990s I got to know a couple of russian soldiers in (then east) germany. One evening they told me, that it was a running gag in the soviet tank force, that the soviet army choir got its falsetto singers from among the tank crews due to the autoloader - they viewed the autoloader as more dangerous to the crew than the enemy ;)

I wonder how much money a blown up tank is worth at the scrap yard