- Play War Thunder for FREE! Support my channel and get a premium aircraft, tank or ship and a three day account upgrade as a BONUS: gjn.link/RedEffectWarThunder Also available for free on PlayStation®4 and Xbox One.
@ sadly, most of the infor about NK tanks are classifiled, or no one really into research
4 года назад+1
@@rudomikazuki8301 yup, but red is really good at "visual research". That plus the little info that we have can give you a relatively good view on things. He already did this on nk's older tank.
He doesn't have to actively use the product, the product is related to the content he creates and that's the target demographic as all people watching it are tank fans so a tank/armoured warfare game ad is just appropriate. Or would you much rather prefer Raid Shadow Legends lol? It's actually thanks to RedEffect i'm now a War Thunder veteran, never regretted the decision to try it and now I have 5 nations maxed.
Now letting our personal preferences aside and biases and fanboisms, as a wise man once said, there is not best tank, or those tanks are better than those tanks, because tanks do not exist in a vacuum, a 1 vs 1 duel on a flat plain. There are so many complex issues about tanks and bringing them to the field, long before the design of a tank is even finished. Price tag, the doctrine of the military that uses the tank, terrain, what a military needs from a tank, all come into play. Tanks have strenght and weaknesses relative to one another and to the things I mentioned. That rambling aside, the Bob Semple is the best tank. Damn, quite a few likes, thanks guys !
Well there does come a point, where if a group of tanks makes it through Helicopter and Tank Destroyer defenses, that it will have to be intercepted by other tanks. So at some point, one side or the other will breakthrough probably under cover of tactical air superiority or air equality (where air assets are too busy dealing with each other) and have to be engaged into what would be characterized as a pivotal massive tank battle lol. Tank destroyers are nice and all, but they're a bit like ancient light cavalry, great for hit and run, but can't really make a stand holding territory.
@@MarkVrem There is no such thing as tank destroyers nowadays. Heavy, medium, light tanks, tank destroyers all are replaced by the MBT, simply because it can do all those things.
@@spartanx9293 neither of them had even switched to L/55 in past decade, lol. Brits simply don't care, US is more focused on improving anti -civilian- infantry capabilities of their tanks which was the sole focus of upgrades for last 2 decades. Plus UK still has rifled 120mm gun. Should I remind you how they have gotten L7 from 20 pounder or how soviets got 115mm gun of T-62 out of 100mm gun?;) UK can create 130-140 mm gun and put it into service faster then anybody else. Just rebore them and after next 200-500 shots in training(depending how the guns were used to that point) replace them with newly produced ones. *Problem is not in making bigger gun, problem is in losing ammunition compatibility and making ammo storage smaller.* _But brits have neither problem as they neither use NATO ammo due to rifling, nor does reboring increase the length of case._
@@skwizzzb3904 t-34 can easily be shot in the underbelly with m61 and the sides too the kv-1 in the turret ring kv-2 on the turret? Even the m4a1 sherman can pen t34 - 57 if you're lucky enough
The Soviets where clearly ahead in Armour technology until the late 80's. There is a reason the US Army refused to take the M1 Abrams into battle with it's 105mm gun and instead waited for enough M1A1 Abrams tanks with the 120mm gun to be delivered. The Leopard 2 had a gun on par or better than the Soviet 125mm gun in the whole 80's but it's armour was not as good. The M1 Abrams had better armour but used a 105mm gun that could not reliably penetrate the T-72B even with modern ammunition. With the M1A1 the Abrams combined the German firepower with their own armour and with the early 90's Leopard 2A5 the Germans upgraded the armour of the Leopard. At this point in the early 90's Western tanks was unquestionably ahead of Russian/Soviet tanks, especially if one takes in the compartmentalized ammo storage and Thermal imager. The Thermal imager had come with the Leopard 2 and Abrams when they entered service, but this is Europe and a thermal imager while amazing is not a game changer in Europe as much as it was in the desert. Also only the gunners had Thermal imagers at that time.
True, but keep in mind that after Gorbachev came to power (1985) Soviet economy started decreasing dramatically, which meant that spending on Military, especially on developing new weapons of all sorts, including armor, were seriously cut. I mean Soviets had so many interesting projects, like obj. 195, which were abandoned after the fall of USSR. I'm pretty sure if it hadn't happened, Soviets still would've been leaders.
@@sloptek1807 Gorbachev said that the Soviet economy was in a downfall, aka the era of stagnation. Instead, the Soviet economy was the 2nd largest in both ppp and nominal, and even the Chernobyl disaster and Afghan war wouldn't do much of a heavy toll on it. Gorbachev ruined everything.
With nukes there's no reason for Russia to need to spend that much money on modernisation. If you look at the order numbers and contracts, this is more about the maintenance of a vital strategic industry with make-work instead of giving a substantive upgrade. There's no way that Russia can further their interests with so few tanks on order, but that's because there's no need to: that big red button is the _ultima regio regum._ So it's more about keeping the skilled engineers and scientists in a job than about actually making the Russian ground forces into anything resembling capable. I actually think that something similar is happening with the M1A3 program and the Leopard 2A7 programs. The prospect of full scale ground war is basically zero. At most, a tank company element _might_ be dispatched to a proxy war location. No brigades, no divisions. Those days are over. It's all about aerospace now.
@@MonMalthias using nukes is kinda gay way to advance your political interests, Israel has them but they never threatened to use them against their enemies, they prefer dealing with them in a conventional warfare
Siddesh Gannu US also have their own but i didn’t know they will developed together but maybe, because US also pick Trophy because maybe they will deploy their own after fully developed
redeffect: T90 might become obsolete by 2025. Indian sycophant: I knwe we shouldn't have bought T90s. BUILD MORE ARJUNK! redeffect: But that's even wor... Indian sycophant: *SILENCE* or i'll repair your Windows and ask you for your bank account personal details.
Indian 120mm rifled apfsds is relatively weak compared to 125mm Russian that the t-90 and t-72bms that India currently uses as well. The rifled apfsds can only penetrate somewhere in the 300smm vs rha vs Indian mango apfsds (from old soviet stocks) that can penetrate 450 not to mention the also Russian supplied Refleks atgm which can penetrate 800mm vs rha. Future plans to replace these 120mm rifled with a smoothbore that can fire atgms sound good on paper untill you realize that these will cause even more logistical problems as well. The era on the t-90s and 72BMs that India uses should be replaced with Kaktus. Kontak-5 is long obsolete. Thus, it would be better if the Arjuin were replaced with more T-90s. This as well as aquiring Russian depleted uranium apfsds for the 72BMs and 90s would allow India to have a better competitive edge against Chinese ztz-97/99s.
@Dev Narayan S.S it doesn't change the fact that arjun MK1A still has a lot of design flaws. (and indian gov is perfectly aware of it: they have the licenses to locally build T-72M1 + they have purchased lots of russian T-90 ) making a new design from scratch is hard, and sometimes it fails. it happened even to countries wich a huge budget. there's no shame in recognising that arjun is not a good design. now it's time to moove on, get more foreign equipment that is prooved to be reliable, get more licenses to build locally equipment, and use thoose equipment + technologies as a basis from wich to evolve. (like south korea did with it's MBTs ---> first they based themselves on american tech, and then, they used it as a basis from wich they evolved to make their own thing)
As far as I know Germany will only use the Trophy, till the Rheinmetall ADS (Active Defense System) is 100% ready. As far as development goes, it can defeat any anti tank projectile fired from a minimum distance of 5 meters.
@@Muscovy7 usa was impressed and confirmed a 97% success rate. Problem is that its more complicated to install on tanks and not tested in combat. Price is probably another problem.
As an israeli i gotta say, the rheinmetal ADS looks great, trophy needs 50 m while rheinmetal needs only 5 and lower radar signature BUT and heres a big but rheinmetal is sacrificing its radar signature, for protection from top attack, i think thats a huge disadvantage the tanks is now vulnerable to top attack ATGM's like spike and javelin, or literally any guided munition from a drone or plane or helicopter, leaving it only capable of defending from rpgs or kornets/konkurs perhaps germany is only realistically facing russia as a threat, and russia doesnt have spikes or javelins? in which case the rheinmetal ADS would be good for it but imo, theres a big hole in the armor with rheinmetal ADS
@@liljackass6998 a couple of months ago I read that they fixed this gap. It was stated that they can defend against rooftop attack. Author was Rheinmetall I think but I need to recheck that.
It was not just hype. The T-90M is an extremely good tank, so far there hasn’t been a single T-90M destroyed by Ukrainian fire. The T-80BVM although has its problems has performed quite well considering that it’s a modernization of a pretty obselete tank. The recent video posted by redeffect on a T-80BVM fighting (and destroying) a Ukrainian T-64 illustrates that pretty well. You could say that it was hyped up a lot (which I don’t disagree with) but it would be incorrect to say it is a bad tank
@@Insert-Retarded-Reply-HereQuite honestly, apart from the T-90M, T-90S and T-90MS, no other Russian tanks performed even moderately in Ukraine. Just accept the truth.
@@usaisthebestiockdownpoiice816 NPC detected....... the content of the video is different then the title. He did something similar before with the title NATO tanks are better then Russian ones.
I disagree! You see, NATO have this tank called Bob Semple if the russian armored forces were to try to fight againts one of these beast we all know the result would end in total defeat of the russians.
Objection! Everyone knows the tsar tank is the best tank that is on par with the bob semple tank and is capable of destroying it! NATO upon seeing it would immidiatly call a full retreat!
I sont know how that didnt aged well.Both Russian and west tanks losing in high speed,but there more soviet tanks then west tanks so yeah T-series tanks suffer higher cadualties
@@ChobeVelyashathere is much more T-90Ms in ukraine than abramses and leo2s combined, yet russia never lost 10 of them in less than a month. Yet, this is exactly what happened with abramses.
Hopefully, the nameless T-72 (as RedEffect called it in one of his vids), from tank Biathlon, shall become a T-72B3M or T-72B4, with a commander's independent thermal sights.
Well, after the gulfwars and the high lossrate now, I think that keeping your ammo in the same spot as the crew is a MAJOR designflaw. Would you agree mr. Red Effect? (I am no troll or so, it's an honest question, and I value your take on this a lot sir)
Yes, but Russia has very limited options as all Russian T series MBTs were never centered on protection for the crew. Changing it to a NATO blast door style ammo storage would essentially be creating a completely different tank, further straining the weak Russian logistics. With the T-90M being produced in greater numbers and the armata project looking murky, I think Russia has opted to protect the autoloader with armor around the ammunition and line the inside with spall liners
T-90m is better than western tanks, becose T-90m have exelent heat protection, have better fire control system, its lighter, can go 5 meters deep under water, can fire tandem ATGM, and have covered ammo and inside the tank is fire and schrapnel proof.
So we are ignoring the fact that equipement is only as good as its operator? Like not gonna lie, t-90's are a threat but your average american tank battalion with M1A2 SEP3s are already using aps systems. Plus training plays a MASSIVE difference while russia trains tanks as their own force the real difference is the integrated training from Nato countries. After all, germany invented mechanized tactics but America perfected it. Your T-90M doesnt stand a chance against any type of support artillery or airpower. And yes the same could be said about the Abrams. But heres the thing about the US. We Dont go ANYWHERE without airpower or artillery. We dont deploy tanks unsupported. And ALL of this hinges on russia even being Able to purchase all these upgrades. More than half that will be cancelled by 2023.
Well... it didn't age quite well... All the t-90s are burning down, blowing up, not because of NATO tanks, but because of some funny boi with funny tubes on their shoulders.
No, that is undoubtedly incorrect. The ONLY T-90M completely destroyed was immobilized/disabled by a Carl Gustav. Left stranded with no way to recover the video, a Russian T-72 scuttled the vehicle with a shot to the rear after the crew bailed out. All this is evident in the footage of its destruction
Could you make a video on the different mechanisms that affect tank maneuverability like transmissions, suspensions, tracks, steering wheels, tillers, etc.
Could there be issues of political patronage? I have heard stories about how tank production choice was sometimes influenced by things like that in previous times.
The Russian tank look like they are limited by the length of their penetrator because of the carousel, maybe the Ukrainian prototype with the rear turret autoloader would be a good idea to have longer apfsds and to renew the whole serie. That would also leave space under the turret, maybe put the crew lower so he is even safer in the hull.
I've been thinking lately it really does not matter who has the best.... because what really matters is Air Force if one side gains air superiority, well no tank stands a chance against 100's of apaches and A10's or even AC-130s.... Fish in a barrel
@@jackie520 I saw the gun barrel wobble a bit to either its a cardboard cover or they modify their T-62s and in the process messed up the gun's stabilizer
I think the russian ejection turret systems is the finest in the world.. As you can see by the many battles of Russian Tanks vs Western tanks , the Russian turrets ejects an travels 50~60 yards away from the its Hull, allowing the crew to escape .. Brilliant..
You say that T-80bvm and T-72b3m UBH have same base armor as old T-80b and T-72b but most modern M1A2 sepv3 have same hull as first m1 abrams model. Than Russia use kontakt-5 but western tanks don't use any era, and if yes its small number of tanks with era. Than, in russia tank gunners looking for a targets. But in T-90m and T-14 armata commander can too look for targets like gunner.
No, M1A2C's hull isn't the same as first M1. The difference is like between T-72 and T-72B, and even more. Abrams had 3 or 4 upgrades of armor package during it's service.
Even if Russian tanks are brought up to western standards (sure they exceed in some ways), the lack of manufacturing capacity and the lack of funds for upkeep would be hugely detrimental in a conflict. Even their "low cost" compared to western tanks, is too high for Russia to pursue large acquisition of the better tanks. The disparity on the field would be huge.
Yeah they really should just downsize the tank numbers as they are unnecessarily large for modern combat and budget. Use the funds for T14 project as recent conflicts show more mobile tactically efficient units are just more favorable. The days are gone for mass open ground tank assaults.
@@militaryanalysis5028 while that may be true, a few hundred "modern" tanks vs a few thousand is still a large disparity. One thing they do have going for them is compatibility in parts. Something the west lacks due to individual tank development
If T-72b find first m1a2 sepv3 and shoot first, (m1a2 sepv3 have same hull as first m1 abrams and have big weak spot under turret and) T-72b will at 70% penetrate abrams and tank will blow up, crew will be shocked, dead of wounded, and T-72b will shoot again and again... but same it is if m1a2 sepv3 will shoot first at T-72b.
One more time! The US never went with APS because the first Artie Barrage took out the System 95% of the time. Radar can be taken out because the Raydome can only be a thin material. As soon as the lead starts flying, APS becomes dead weight!
1.T-80B's turret armor only has 50-80mm less protection than T-80U also there are far more T-80B tanks in Russian service than T-80U's so upgrading the T-80U would be pointless also with Relikt ERA it would have protection exceeding T-90A.....not bad for a REAR echelon tank 2. While Both T-72B3M and T-80BVM don't have CITV the commander still can see in thermal however his thermal imager is slaved to the gunners. However this isn't much of an issue because in Soviet/Russian tank doctrine the Commander usually finds the target and lays the gunner on target to ease the gunners job so he can make his final lay. 3. Trophy is only being equipped to certain M1A2C's that are deployed to Europe it's not going to be standard issue for all M1A2C's and as it stand there isnt any Leopard2a7's with Throphy installed.
@@Gridlocked trophy is a foreign system unless they could secure domestic production its unlikely they would standardize on it it's far more likely they develop their own APS.
Never thought that way. I thought he had biases to certain systems like gas turbine which reduces his respect for the Abrams, but not a full Russian bias
I just criticise him for never properly accounting for targeting computers and other such tech which makes the real difference between 2. And 1. world tanks.
Yes, but no. Because NATO tanks also includes Leopard 1 and 2, which had proven themselves just as versatile, cost effective, relaible and capable of supporting modernisation. Plus there is also Merkava, which is basically a modern day infantry tank which despite being far from most advanced, is also liked by tank schools on both sides for being a unique solution to local problems. Which highlights that best tank is always 1)the one you have; 2)if it's adequate for task at hand.
however, one thing that must be taken into account: cost. (aka, what is the cost of thoose russian upgrades vs the cost of western upgrades). remember that brute performance and maximum potential and all are nice, but the cost, how much of it could be done reliably in a given period of time, reliability, ease to maintenance, etc... are also important.
Funding for upgrading Russian tanks will come from arms sales of other modern weapon systems (mostly fighter aircraft..) to the likes of Turkey (see that country signing contracts for such within the next year). Think N. Korea actually got things right in one regard. Mounting SAM's on their MBT's. Threats to tanks have evolved. Active protection seems to be way many countries are addressing threats from ATGM's & RPG's but 'death from above' mainly from drones seems their biggest threat these days.
Funding from arms sales they won't get due to terrible press they are getting from Ukraine puts the whole program on dust heap...no Armatas are coming and t90's are never going to cut it.
It’s interesting to see how desperate countries are trying to keep tanks operational in the field of battle. Modern anti tank systems are developing far quicker at the man portable level as we are seeing inYemen/Saudi war. The most up to date M1A2sep+ are being knocked out in the most advantages terrain for a tank. Trophy systems and the like are adding tons to combat weight but being defeated by simple paint shells that cover vision slots and siting equipment even if intercepted. The Germans have found the Trophy system ineffective in high vegetation/ trees areas as radar systems do not get clear enough fields for detection and deployment of of counter measures unlike in the open environment in Israel where it was designed for. More and more weapons are being developed to kill tanks from above where armour is the thinnest. Medium sized drones cost far less to build and operate but can carry charff to effect radar system while carrying warheads to destroy the tank. Are we seeing the end of tanks in WW3 as we saw the end of battleships in WW2
@@Gridlocked my point was not that every tank in the field is the latest version but that anti tank weapons and airborne munitions to attack from above are developing quicker than defence equipment on tanks. Defence equipment is adding to overall weight and have limited munitions for these systems. Simple paint bombs are blocking vision ports and lazier sensors . These are very cheap and light and come in numbers to great to defend against.
The T-90M would be on par with the best NATO tank, if the tank have that gun same like T-14 Armata. Should be the best as the rest of the other tanks in the world and would’ve replaced the T-72B3M and T-80BVM tanks in Russian service but too bad that Russia have to keep the obsolete 80s tanks which is completely cheap. And I’m getting a feeling that Russia would reject the T-14 Armata later the years if they wanted to upgrade all of their T-90A tanks into T-90M. It’s only a guess, so I think the rest of the Armata platform vehicles would be in service but not the T-14. And the new ERA for the T-90M from the T-14 Armata would be a great idea to be honest. Not gonna lie, but it should on par with the best NATO tanks. Only some plans to place that ERA onto the T-90M, but maybe I think you could be right on this one, since it’s probably not gonna happen. So much money they have to make.
T-72B3 are considered a 2nd echelon assets, T-90M/T-80BVM 1st echelon assets, while T-14 is the primary MBT. When it comes to manufacturing capacity Soviets/Russians were never in a habit of disclosing such information. There is no official way of knowing how many T-14 have been manufactured, and how many are really to be delivered.
@@jb76489 I specifically asked for a credible source. Instead you listed a shady propaganda mouthpiece for Center for Strategic and International Studies. I don't know if Borisov actually said that T-14 was not entering mass production, but that article was from 2018. In 2020 Putin changed the constitution, and Borisov quit his post. "On 7 May 2018, Borisov was nominated as Deputy Prime Minister for Defence and Space Industry in Dmitry Medvedev's Second Cabinet.[5] On 15 January 2020, he resigned as part of the cabinet, after President Vladimir Putin delivered the Presidential Address to the Federal Assembly, in which he proposed several amendments to the constitution." Credible, current source here: "The Russian Armed Forces earlier planned to induct 2,300 Armata main battle tanks during 2015 and 2020. However, the mass production of the tanks was delayed due to high costs of the new combat vehicles. The vehicles underwent field-testing in Syria. Serial production of the T-14 Armata tank is expected to commence in 2021." www.army-technology.com/projects/t-14-armata-main-battle-tank/
@@BigSmartArmed “your source bad because reasons, my source good because reasons” gods you are both predictable and pathetic. Here’s it in original Russian inosmi.ru/military/20180803/242901653.html Use google if your Russian is as bad as your English “Serial production of the t-14 is expected to commence in 2021” mhmm, they were supposed to have 2300 of them by now too. Su 57 was supposed to be in serial productions this year. Seems the Russians like to over promise and under deliver
You have to understand that enormous amounts of tanks in Russian arsenal would take time and lots of money, manpower to upgrade. Neither Unites States nor Germany have so many tanks. At the same time Russians want to have their military budget under control unlike US that is spending more than it can earn and is in an astronomic debt. Im not surprised by the decisions they are making. They are reacting to Western developments. Their doctrine is to stay on pair not to lead... However i do believe that Russian way of simple yet rugged solutions = efficient way of solving a problem is deeply embedded in their way of facing threats since WW2. For example Russians know their old T-72s are no longer on pair with modern Western tanks right? So what do they do with thousands of such tanks in their stockpiles? Would you put a crew inside such a tank and send them to battlefield with you AND them knowing fully well that they don't stand a chance? No... Would you scrap such tank when it would cost additional time, money and manpower? No such tank could still knock out even modern Abrams of Leopard in specific situations. So what do you do? Russian thinking: Lets robotize them cheaply. That way you can field hundreds of inexpensive but still sufficiently dangerous tanks without danger to human crews. Saturate enemy tank formations, break to their rear or flank them. In world war 2 it has been proven that even a quality German tanks and their crews ca be defeated by sufficient numbers of cheaper, easy to produce tanks that are sufficiently capable to do damage. In my view today pure Tank vs Tank battles are a thing of the past. In a serious war with a peer adversary it is a combined operation of many branched of armed forces of each adversary and how well can they coordinate among themselves that wins the war. Tank forces are just one element - even the venerable Abrams is useless when crew does not know where to go or where is the enemy. Mi-35 formation would turn those tanks into old rust. See my point? So this video lacks the description of environments these Russian tanks would be used in. Usually a very hard to cross terrain with extreme temperatures? Be that desert or Siberian taiga of east europe plains? All known places where heavy armored vehicles had problems to cross while Russian tank designs did not... Germans learned that the hard way in WW2, Americans learned that in Desert Storm. You see tank is not only about the thickness of its armor and power of its main gun. Its about mobility, how far can he go, how fast, what terrains can he pass, what is the mean time between failures of the engine, how many gun shots the main gun is rated for before it needs to be replaced, does he have a auto-loader - how reliable this auto-loader is, how fast can it shoot? All these overall characteristics make a tank. West lags in many of those aspects and western tank formations needs more maintenance and logistics than Russian ones. in plain terms: Don't judge a book only by its cover. So to sum it up: Tank warfare one on one is a thing of the past. If (god forbid) a war with Russia would broke out... western tank formations would be saturated with cheap, and disposable robotic T-72s (provided Russians would have manufactured enough robotic kits to convert them) that would have many casualties but at the same time would wreak havoc to American / German tank battalions.
@@affentaktik2810 brother have a life Now Russia now will be heavily Outnumbered By NATO tanks And Make the T90 obsolete In 2025 Russia will kick their own Ass china will be 1st by then now Btw it isn't all about the Tank while Planes or Helicopters will destroy them their economy Is Bad and Drone Warfare Is Gladly Making Tank warfare obsolete
@@ramirezyoutubeyt2373 you literally didnt say a single thing about why t14 would be outdated quickly and talked about everything else xD Im not talking about any numbers or planes or dronestrikes im talking about a tank design. The only thing you said was that t14 would be obsolete because of its weak turret armor WHICH IS LITERALLY THE POINT OF THE DESIGN I dont think you get anything about this tank
Remember when the T14 was first announced and Russian said they’d have 2300 by 2020? Instead they have ~20 lmao If ever there were chickens you should not count before they hatch, its Russian defense procurement, T14, su57, shtorm, an94 etc etc
My opinion is that they are about the same, i mean no "game changing" differences. In WW2 between Nazi tanks and Soviets there was a much much bigger difference... and in the and we all know how it went....
The biggest difference was the ability of soviets to produce large ammounts of tanks, unlike germans. Is-2 could easily penetrate tiger2s armor, because the metal quality was very poor at that part of war, meanwhile tiger 2 couldn't do anything. As for panther and t-34-85 - both could penetrate each other on similar ranges.
@@salamander4668 You are right. But there was a much bigger difference in tank quality in WW2 than what we see now. We don't see western tanks winning 1v4 or 1v5 tank battles (pretty common in German favor in WW2). To be honest we don't even have a video of a western MBT destroying a russian tank. 3 Years and we only have a video of 2 Bradleys damaging a T90M, disable it and the crew managed also to escape. I don't see this big difference between Western and Russian tanks TBH. Probably The biggest is price and better crew protection... that's it
@@francescozambaldi8212 bradleys werent the ones who disabled that tank. Before that video a drone hit it, which destroyed elevation drives. Tank simply couldn't aim and shoot. If not for that, both bradleys would have been destroyed.
@@francescozambaldi8212 as for the myth about germans winning 1v4 or 1v5 tank battles - it was only the case for tank destroyers working from ambushes. Quality wise - soviet tanks weren't worse than german at all. At the start of the war, soviet tanks were clearly superior to german ones. It only changed, when tigers and, especially, panthers entered the frontline (low numbers of tigers weren't significant enough to make soviets worry about them), which caused soviets to develop t-34-85, su-85 and su-100, and IS-2 - probably the best tank of ww2.
@@francescozambaldi8212 If we are talking about modern tanks, the biggest difference between western and russian tanks - their size and weight. Firepower, protection and electronics are pretty much the same. Western tanks have blow out panels, which can save crew from ammo fire, but T-90Ms have similar thing with protected autoloader, which gives enough time for crew to leave the tank. As for infamous turret throwings - those are the cases of HE explosion. Same thing happens to western tanks, when they carry HE ammo (check photos of turkish leopards in syria). Thats why untill recently, nato countries weren't using HE shells in tanks at all. Which was acceptable in wars against goat herders with full air superiority, but won't be the case in an actual war between similar militaries. In conclusion, western and russian tanks are indeed similar, but smaller size makes russian tanks harder to hit, while smaller weight makes them slightly more mobile. Russian tanks also cost less to make, but thats only because western countries have destroyed native heavy industry and moved it to asia or africa. P.S. Everything said above has nothing to do with british challenger 2. It's just horrible in pretty much every way.
This video is based on propaganda. Most of leopard2 tanks are a4 variant and most of m1 are a2. If someone thinks that NATO can equip all of his tanks on the most modern standard and with most modern projectiles in large numbers then...
The commander of the T80BVM usses dublar as his own sight so yes he does have his own sight.Another thing is that the svinets 2 exists wich is a DU variant of the svinets 1.Its penetration at 2km 0° 800-840mm claimed by Russian militarx experts wich would make sense.T80BVM is defenetly on pair with westren tanks.Its protection fire control system and the engine make it even better then the m1a2sepv3 sience the m1a2sepv3 still usses the same 2nd gen. thermal sight wich has indentification range of tanks at 3800m while the catharine FC has 4,500-5,500m indetification range and on top of that has automatic lead.The engine of the t80BVM speaks for it self the protection od the t80BVM is superior when compared to the m1a2sepv3.The CE protection is far superrior sience relikt provides 100% protection aginst ATGL'S and 95% protection against ATGM's.While the protection of the m1a2sepv3 at best is rated 1300mm at the turret cheeks part wich is nearest to thw gun mandlet otherwise the more you stray away from that part the CE protetion can only be rated at a disapointing 900-1000mm protection against CE.And the KE protection of the m1a2sep has been finally improved the strongest part of the turret cheeks should be 900mm while the weakest part should be 780-790mm.The t80bvm would be able to take a hit easily at 2km or less then 1km sience the m829a4 is at best suspected to have a lenght of 840mm minus the steel tip wich is pretty much ussles aginst the new relikt design sience it alredy gets destroyed by the plate launched by the ERA so the m829a4 should have 740mm penetration at 100m but is still wouldnt be enough to penetrate the turret cheeks of the t80BVM because relikt would take away about 40-45% of penetration from the m829a4 wich would mean it would have 444mm penetration behind era wich isnt even enough to take care of the hull let alone turret wich is rated to be 520mm at best and the weakest part of the cheeks is rated 470mm wich is still pretty bad but still enough.The t80bvm will be armed with svinets 2 says the tass agency and it will be able to penetrate the turret cheeks of the m1a2sepv3 with not a lot of problems.And as for the dm 73 wich is a equvalent to the svinets 2 stll woulsnt be able to pen the atrongest part of the cheeks sience era effects tungusten apfsds much more then DU ones.
Isn't that whole discussion who's got the nicest tank, plane, chopper or whatever not completely pointless without just looking at ones countries military expenses? And by doing so, whether liking it or not, you'll quickly realize that no, absolutely no army in the world can compare to the US. They spend more than ten times the money Russia does. And more than triple the money China or the whole EU does. Nuclear weapons aside simply no army in the world can barely touch this sheer amount of high tech weaponry. Like I said: like it or not. I don't but it's a fact
![Lil Uzi Vert - Chill Bae [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/D7F42F_JM3U/mqdefault.jpg)
- Play War Thunder for FREE! Support my channel and get a premium aircraft, tank or ship and a three day account upgrade as a BONUS: gjn.link/RedEffectWarThunder
Also available for free on PlayStation®4 and Xbox One.
I haven't found a professional review of it yet.
@ sadly, most of the infor about NK tanks are classifiled, or no one really into research
@@rudomikazuki8301 yup, but red is really good at "visual research". That plus the little info that we have can give you a relatively good view on things. He already did this on nk's older tank.
What you thin about new Serbian M-84AS1 an AS2, they was shown on a military exercise "Sadejstvo 2020".
You just started a war with this vedio
This man's being one of the larger warthunder RUclipsrs without playing warthunder
He probably plays it, but doesn't make videos about it
@@NotNicot I'd like to see him play some in that case
@Shoudday Cha They are in it for the money.. and that is completley fine by me.
He doesn't have to actively use the product, the product is related to the content he creates and that's the target demographic as all people watching it are tank fans so a tank/armoured warfare game ad is just appropriate. Or would you much rather prefer Raid Shadow Legends lol?
It's actually thanks to RedEffect i'm now a War Thunder veteran, never regretted the decision to try it and now I have 5 nations maxed.
@Shoudday Cha Everyone is in for the money, despite the players.
Now letting our personal preferences aside and biases and fanboisms, as a wise man once said, there is not best tank, or those tanks are better than those tanks, because tanks do not exist in a vacuum, a 1 vs 1 duel on a flat plain. There are so many complex issues about tanks and bringing them to the field, long before the design of a tank is even finished. Price tag, the doctrine of the military that uses the tank, terrain, what a military needs from a tank, all come into play. Tanks have strenght and weaknesses relative to one another and to the things I mentioned.
That rambling aside, the Bob Semple is the best tank.
Damn, quite a few likes, thanks guys !
Bob Semple vs MBT Arjun. Epic Tank Battles of History.
Well there does come a point, where if a group of tanks makes it through Helicopter and Tank Destroyer defenses, that it will have to be intercepted by other tanks. So at some point, one side or the other will breakthrough probably under cover of tactical air superiority or air equality (where air assets are too busy dealing with each other) and have to be engaged into what would be characterized as a pivotal massive tank battle lol. Tank destroyers are nice and all, but they're a bit like ancient light cavalry, great for hit and run, but can't really make a stand holding territory.
Bob Semple > modern MBTs
@@MarkVrem There is no such thing as tank destroyers nowadays. Heavy, medium, light tanks, tank destroyers all are replaced by the MBT, simply because it can do all those things.
@@Vlad_-_-_ The JGSDF Type-16, Centauro II, Sprut-SD and Stryker MGS would like to have a word.
So basically Russia wants a lot of things for their tanks and will cancel most if it by 2025.
Moscow politician = stronk
How are the generals supposed to afford their new summer homes
Rhinmetall already showed 130 mm gun, I bet we will see Leos with that gun than russian tanks with at least half of mentioned upgrades
@@plasot Challenger and Abrams are probably going to use it too
@@spartanx9293 neither of them had even switched to L/55 in past decade, lol. Brits simply don't care, US is more focused on improving anti -civilian- infantry capabilities of their tanks which was the sole focus of upgrades for last 2 decades.
Plus UK still has rifled 120mm gun. Should I remind you how they have gotten L7 from 20 pounder or how soviets got 115mm gun of T-62 out of 100mm gun?;) UK can create 130-140 mm gun and put it into service faster then anybody else. Just rebore them and after next 200-500 shots in training(depending how the guns were used to that point) replace them with newly produced ones. *Problem is not in making bigger gun, problem is in losing ammunition compatibility and making ammo storage smaller.* _But brits have neither problem as they neither use NATO ammo due to rifling, nor does reboring increase the length of case._
"Nyet T-72STDHIV is fine" - Russian government
Bruh but Abrams SEPV29472847 and Leopard2A25 are far batter.
@@andrelunkes1038 don't you Mean the leo2 A420 and the abrams SEPV69
@@maxdiak5954 It's a joke
@@andrelunkes1038 that is a joke
@@andrelunkes1038 i guess the STDHIV doesnt ring a bell to you huh.
Lemme help "T-72 STD HIV", how bout now?
"Russian Tanks Are Better Than NATO Tanks"
Video preview is war thunder
Is this some kind of meta meme or something
Russian bias reeeeeeeee
a t-34 can wrestle 3 tanks all at the same time and still win
@@skwizzzb3904 t-34 can easily be shot in the underbelly with m61 and the sides too
the kv-1 in the turret ring
kv-2 on the turret?
Even the m4a1 sherman can pen t34 - 57 if you're lucky enough
@@AmericanIdiot7659 new volumetric armor fucked that up mate, russian tanks are even more bullshit rn
@@AmericanIdiot7659 im a german user and matchmaking always pair russian-german and a pinch of allied tanks
The Soviets where clearly ahead in Armour technology until the late 80's.
There is a reason the US Army refused to take the M1 Abrams into battle with it's 105mm gun and instead waited for enough M1A1 Abrams tanks with the 120mm gun to be delivered.
The Leopard 2 had a gun on par or better than the Soviet 125mm gun in the whole 80's but it's armour was not as good.
The M1 Abrams had better armour but used a 105mm gun that could not reliably penetrate the T-72B even with modern ammunition.
With the M1A1 the Abrams combined the German firepower with their own armour and with the early 90's Leopard 2A5 the Germans upgraded the armour of the Leopard.
At this point in the early 90's Western tanks was unquestionably ahead of Russian/Soviet tanks, especially if one takes in the compartmentalized ammo storage and Thermal imager.
The Thermal imager had come with the Leopard 2 and Abrams when they entered service, but this is Europe and a thermal imager while amazing is not a game changer in Europe as much as it was in the desert. Also only the gunners had Thermal imagers at that time.
True, but keep in mind that after Gorbachev came to power (1985) Soviet economy started decreasing dramatically, which meant that spending on Military, especially on developing new weapons of all sorts, including armor, were seriously cut. I mean Soviets had so many interesting projects, like obj. 195, which were abandoned after the fall of USSR. I'm pretty sure if it hadn't happened, Soviets still would've been leaders.
@@sloptek1807 Gorbachev said that the Soviet economy was in a downfall, aka the era of stagnation. Instead, the Soviet economy was the 2nd largest in both ppp and nominal, and even the Chernobyl disaster and Afghan war wouldn't do much of a heavy toll on it. Gorbachev ruined everything.
Russian ministry of defense: "Lets upgrade our tank fleet"
Russian economy: "Not happening anytime soon lmfao"
With nukes there's no reason for Russia to need to spend that much money on modernisation. If you look at the order numbers and contracts, this is more about the maintenance of a vital strategic industry with make-work instead of giving a substantive upgrade. There's no way that Russia can further their interests with so few tanks on order, but that's because there's no need to: that big red button is the _ultima regio regum._ So it's more about keeping the skilled engineers and scientists in a job than about actually making the Russian ground forces into anything resembling capable. I actually think that something similar is happening with the M1A3 program and the Leopard 2A7 programs. The prospect of full scale ground war is basically zero. At most, a tank company element _might_ be dispatched to a proxy war location. No brigades, no divisions. Those days are over. It's all about aerospace now.
@@MonMalthias using nukes is kinda gay way to advance your political interests, Israel has them but they never threatened to use them against their enemies, they prefer dealing with them in a conventional warfare
@@darthimperius8057 not really in conventional, more with subversion, us help and asymmetric response
@@darthimperius8057, well Russia is playing smart because of the fact that they're taking all of the advantages available to them.
@Mstislaw AA Arabs are great fighters, they are the lions, lions that are unfortunately led by sheep
Hmmm, I can already tell the comments will be a salt mine
salt are essential.
@@duyhung2528 yes it is, brother
Down here, Salt is a way of life
@@90enemies basically
Salt Mine 😂
Trophy System on Leopard 2? Arent the Germans developing their own APS?
They are, but until its fully developed they will be using Trophy in the meantime.
Siddesh Gannu US also have their own but i didn’t know they will developed together but maybe, because US also pick Trophy because maybe they will deploy their own after fully developed
Trophy is only on 17 leo2s for VHRJTF rest will get Rheinmetall ADS in near future
@@crabbyjungle5670 can you send me a link to the source? I would like to read more
@the baron Rheinmetall aps still hasn’t finished. But currently, trophy is so far best.
redeffect: T90 might become obsolete by 2025.
Indian sycophant: I knwe we shouldn't have bought T90s. BUILD MORE ARJUNK!
redeffect: But that's even wor...
Indian sycophant: *SILENCE* or i'll repair your Windows and ask you for your bank account personal details.
@Dev Narayan S.S i don't check out the history trash bin sorry.
Indian 120mm rifled apfsds is relatively weak compared to 125mm Russian that the t-90 and t-72bms that India currently uses as well. The rifled apfsds can only penetrate somewhere in the 300smm vs rha vs Indian mango apfsds (from old soviet stocks) that can penetrate 450 not to mention the also Russian supplied Refleks atgm which can penetrate 800mm vs rha. Future plans to replace these 120mm rifled with a smoothbore that can fire atgms sound good on paper untill you realize that these will cause even more logistical problems as well. The era on the t-90s and 72BMs that India uses should be replaced with Kaktus. Kontak-5 is long obsolete. Thus, it would be better if the Arjuin were replaced with more T-90s. This as well as aquiring Russian depleted uranium apfsds for the 72BMs and 90s would allow India to have a better competitive edge against Chinese ztz-97/99s.
@Dev Narayan S.S it doesn't change the fact that arjun MK1A still has a lot of design flaws. (and indian gov is perfectly aware of it: they have the licenses to locally build T-72M1 + they have purchased lots of russian T-90 )
making a new design from scratch is hard, and sometimes it fails. it happened even to countries wich a huge budget. there's no shame in recognising that arjun is not a good design. now it's time to moove on, get more foreign equipment that is prooved to be reliable, get more licenses to build locally equipment, and use thoose equipment + technologies as a basis from wich to evolve. (like south korea did with it's MBTs ---> first they based themselves on american tech, and then, they used it as a basis from wich they evolved to make their own thing)
Seriously?
One video of RedEffect did this. Please check Arjun MK1A.
It is a very good Improvement, don't simply go around doing this crap.
@J L tf where are you from
Russia: *plans for comprehensive upgrades to their tank fleet to keep them competitive in modern warfare*
Russian Economy: "Oh, honey....no."
*sees war thunder sponsor*
*Immediately skips 40 seconds"
This video sure did not age well.
Well.we haven't seen Russian tanks fighting western ones maybe a couple years or so
@@Creppystories123They likely won’t. Tank duels are rare and are usually decided by who sees who first
The footage of a T90 being taken out by a Bradley footage is out now. Sry Bradley is not a tank though.
As far as I know Germany will only use the Trophy, till the Rheinmetall ADS (Active Defense System) is 100% ready. As far as development goes, it can defeat any anti tank projectile fired from a minimum distance of 5 meters.
ADS sucks though, the US completely dismissed it for Trophy. Lmao
@@Muscovy7 I'm not sure if we are talking about the same thing.
@@Muscovy7 usa was impressed and confirmed a 97% success rate. Problem is that its more complicated to install on tanks and not tested in combat. Price is probably another problem.
As an israeli i gotta say, the rheinmetal ADS looks great, trophy needs 50 m while rheinmetal needs only 5
and lower radar signature
BUT and heres a big but
rheinmetal is sacrificing its radar signature, for protection from top attack, i think thats a huge disadvantage
the tanks is now vulnerable to top attack ATGM's like spike and javelin, or literally any guided munition from a drone or plane or helicopter, leaving it only capable of defending from rpgs or kornets/konkurs
perhaps germany is only realistically facing russia as a threat, and russia doesnt have spikes or javelins? in which case the rheinmetal ADS would be good for it
but imo, theres a big hole in the armor with rheinmetal ADS
@@liljackass6998 a couple of months ago I read that they fixed this gap. It was stated that they can defend against rooftop attack. Author was Rheinmetall I think but I need to recheck that.
I just want to see T-80U/UD with relickt, even malachite, CITV and 2A46M5 guns.
That would make them very good imo
T80U is getting replace by t14's
ah yes beacause russia needs another top tier mbt, looks at everybody else with 1 top tier and russia with 2 top tier mbts already
@@einar8019 dude. Not EVERYTHING is a WarThunder reference. Grow up. I play WarThunder as well but I'm not so salty
No
No more T-80Us
I beg you
War Thunder : *How many sponsors do you want* ?
RedEffect : *YES*
5:38 Finally we got an actual picture of you 😎
imagine looking back and realising it was just hype
It was not just hype. The T-90M is an extremely good tank, so far there hasn’t been a single T-90M destroyed by Ukrainian fire. The T-80BVM although has its problems has performed quite well considering that it’s a modernization of a pretty obselete tank. The recent video posted by redeffect on a T-80BVM fighting (and destroying) a Ukrainian T-64 illustrates that pretty well. You could say that it was hyped up a lot (which I don’t disagree with) but it would be incorrect to say it is a bad tank
@@Insert-Retarded-Reply-HereQuite honestly, apart from the T-90M, T-90S and T-90MS, no other Russian tanks performed even moderately in Ukraine. Just accept the truth.
@@maitreytelang2312 T-80s have wrecked Ukrainian armor. I wouldn’t be so sure if i were you
@@Insert-Retarded-Reply-Here Those Ukrainian Tanks are T-64s and it’s variants.
@@maitreytelang2312 so? The Russian T-80s still have been effective, even with poor tactics and logistics facing off very experienced Ukrainians.
By the time the Armata is in active duty, the Leopard might already he using the new 130mm gun.
Someone disliked the video literally less than 10 seconds after it appeared. Haters gonna hate. :(
its beta defense and his arjun pride. amirite wonka?
Abraham bois be hating when they saw the title
Russian tanks are horrible. Why wouldn't we auto dislike? Also look at the T-14. Russia has less than 10. LOOOOOL
it’s probably the American NPC who saw the thumbnail and disliked without even watching the video.
@@usaisthebestiockdownpoiice816 NPC detected....... the content of the video is different then the title. He did something similar before with the title NATO tanks are better then Russian ones.
Ooooo new RedEffect video. What a way to have fun before reviewing for my exams :3
your title had me in the first half not gona lie
I disagree!
You see, NATO have this tank called Bob Semple if the russian armored forces were to try to fight againts one of these beast we all know the result would end in total defeat of the russians.
Objection! Everyone knows the tsar tank is the best tank that is on par with the bob semple tank and is capable of destroying it! NATO upon seeing it would immidiatly call a full retreat!
They will never beat the bob semple tank
Nobody beats the Bob semple...
MIAS mini tank: are you challenge me?!
This didn't age well.
I sont know how that didnt aged well.Both Russian and west tanks losing in high speed,but there more soviet tanks then west tanks so yeah T-series tanks suffer higher cadualties
It aged perfectly, lmao
@@ChobeVelyashathere is much more T-90Ms in ukraine than abramses and leo2s combined, yet russia never lost 10 of them in less than a month. Yet, this is exactly what happened with abramses.
I feel like I may have been clickbaited
Hopefully, the nameless T-72 (as RedEffect called it in one of his vids), from tank Biathlon, shall become a T-72B3M or T-72B4, with a commander's independent thermal sights.
I think the title was sarcastic.
Same still not sure
Congratulations, You have started a war
5:40 dat sneaky Mike O'Tren shot.
Well, after the gulfwars and the high lossrate now, I think that keeping your ammo in the same spot as the crew is a MAJOR designflaw. Would you agree mr. Red Effect?
(I am no troll or so, it's an honest question, and I value your take on this a lot sir)
Yes, but Russia has very limited options as all Russian T series MBTs were never centered on protection for the crew. Changing it to a NATO blast door style ammo storage would essentially be creating a completely different tank, further straining the weak Russian logistics. With the T-90M being produced in greater numbers and the armata project looking murky, I think Russia has opted to protect the autoloader with armor around the ammunition and line the inside with spall liners
My man, if you think that nato tabk won't obliterate it's crew, if he anno gonna explode - you are very wrong
@@Insert-Retarded-Reply-Herecrew in russian tanks are more protected though. What are you talking about?
T-90m is better than western tanks, becose T-90m have exelent heat protection, have better fire control system, its lighter, can go 5 meters deep under water, can fire tandem ATGM, and have covered ammo and inside the tank is fire and schrapnel proof.
Bruh M1a2 Sepv4 has better Firepower more thicker Armor And More And Better Frontal Armor and better Optics Btw Russia is Just Stupid
So we are ignoring the fact that equipement is only as good as its operator?
Like not gonna lie, t-90's are a threat but your average american tank battalion with M1A2 SEP3s are already using aps systems.
Plus training plays a MASSIVE difference while russia trains tanks as their own force the real difference is the integrated training from Nato countries.
After all, germany invented mechanized tactics but America perfected it. Your T-90M doesnt stand a chance against any type of support artillery or airpower.
And yes the same could be said about the Abrams. But heres the thing about the US. We Dont go ANYWHERE without airpower or artillery. We dont deploy tanks unsupported.
And ALL of this hinges on russia even being Able to purchase all these upgrades. More than half that will be cancelled by 2023.
You have got to be kidding, T-72 tinder box is not superior, nothing on the ground for RF is...
Well... it didn't age quite well... All the t-90s are burning down, blowing up, not because of NATO tanks, but because of some funny boi with funny tubes on their shoulders.
No, that is undoubtedly incorrect. The ONLY T-90M completely destroyed was immobilized/disabled by a Carl Gustav. Left stranded with no way to recover the video, a Russian T-72 scuttled the vehicle with a shot to the rear after the crew bailed out. All this is evident in the footage of its destruction
all i here is “oh x is coming in 202x”
Can we get trough 2020 first?
Could you make a video on the different mechanisms that affect tank maneuverability like transmissions, suspensions, tracks, steering wheels, tillers, etc.
Could there be issues of political patronage? I have heard stories about how tank production choice was sometimes influenced by things like that in previous times.
Probably, its kinda a monopoly in Russia
Yes he mentioned that in a previous video that they are upgrading their worse t-80s bc of political reasons
Russian tanks: Please give me money for upgrades
Western tanks: Please give me oil from middle east
North korean tanks: Please notice me world
*YES RED I KNOW!!* BUT DO YOU LIKE BANANAS!?!?!? just *ANSWER* it! >:(
Me when the
no not really, I like oranges
I am gonna
lmao
@@TheMadVulpen hey, why are you here xd
The Russian tank look like they are limited by the length of their penetrator because of the carousel, maybe the Ukrainian prototype with the rear turret autoloader would be a good idea to have longer apfsds and to renew the whole serie. That would also leave space under the turret, maybe put the crew lower so he is even safer in the hull.
DM73 and M829A4 are very rare. DM63 and M829A3 are also relatively uncommon.
Hi, do you plan to cover mobile anti-air vehicles like the Tunguska or else ? This would be interesting.
It would
Ibris K, something you might want to look into.
I've been thinking lately it really does not matter who has the best.... because what really matters is Air Force if one side gains air superiority, well no tank stands a chance against 100's of apaches and A10's or even AC-130s.... Fish in a barrel
Video of new North Korean tank when?
He already did.
@@qayz0989 he mean the newest one
I think it's just a replica to show off.
@@jackie520 I saw the gun barrel wobble a bit to either its a cardboard cover or they modify their T-62s and in the process messed up the gun's stabilizer
@@kengokaslana1776cw no they bought chinese type 96 and added a composite steel with active protection system
I think the russian ejection turret systems is the finest in the world.. As you can see by the many battles of Russian Tanks vs Western tanks , the Russian turrets ejects an travels 50~60 yards away from the its Hull, allowing the crew to escape .. Brilliant..
You say that T-80bvm and T-72b3m UBH have same base armor as old T-80b and T-72b but most modern M1A2 sepv3 have same hull as first m1 abrams model. Than Russia use kontakt-5 but western tanks don't use any era, and if yes its small number of tanks with era. Than, in russia tank gunners looking for a targets. But in T-90m and T-14 armata commander can too look for targets like gunner.
No, M1A2C's hull isn't the same as first M1. The difference is like between T-72 and T-72B, and even more. Abrams had 3 or 4 upgrades of armor package during it's service.
@@LeChat_Oleksii all modern abrams tanks have the same old hull as first m1 abrams. They only put on UPF some steel plates.
Even if Russian tanks are brought up to western standards (sure they exceed in some ways), the lack of manufacturing capacity and the lack of funds for upkeep would be hugely detrimental in a conflict. Even their "low cost" compared to western tanks, is too high for Russia to pursue large acquisition of the better tanks. The disparity on the field would be huge.
Yeah they really should just downsize the tank numbers as they are unnecessarily large for modern combat and budget. Use the funds for T14 project as recent conflicts show more mobile tactically efficient units are just more favorable. The days are gone for mass open ground tank assaults.
@@militaryanalysis5028 while that may be true, a few hundred "modern" tanks vs a few thousand is still a large disparity. One thing they do have going for them is compatibility in parts. Something the west lacks due to individual tank development
If T-72b find first m1a2 sepv3 and shoot first, (m1a2 sepv3 have same hull as first m1 abrams and have big weak spot under turret and) T-72b will at 70% penetrate abrams and tank will blow up, crew will be shocked, dead of wounded, and T-72b will shoot again and again... but same it is if m1a2 sepv3 will shoot first at T-72b.
@@Gridlocked its almoust same but m1a2 sepv3 have some added plates on it.
@@Gridlocked you can believe if you want, but its same.
One more time! The US never went with APS because the first Artie Barrage took out the System 95% of the time. Radar can be taken out because the Raydome can only be a thin material. As soon as the lead starts flying, APS becomes dead weight!
I really enjoy your work, keep up the effort😊
1.T-80B's turret armor only has 50-80mm less protection than T-80U also there are far more T-80B tanks in Russian service than T-80U's so upgrading the T-80U would be pointless also with Relikt ERA it would have protection exceeding T-90A.....not bad for a REAR echelon tank
2. While Both T-72B3M and T-80BVM don't have CITV the commander still can see in thermal however his thermal imager is slaved to the gunners. However this isn't much of an issue because in Soviet/Russian tank doctrine the Commander usually finds the target and lays the gunner on target to ease the gunners job so he can make his final lay.
3. Trophy is only being equipped to certain M1A2C's that are deployed to Europe it's not going to be standard issue for all M1A2C's and as it stand there isnt any Leopard2a7's with Throphy installed.
@@Gridlocked trophy is a foreign system unless they could secure domestic production its unlikely they would standardize on it it's far more likely they develop their own APS.
This didn't age well. 😂
But, can it defeat Bob Semple?
never
I love all those people who say you are biased for Russian tanks
I used to be one of those people lmao.
@@AmericanIdiot7659 Same, but I started watching more videos and realized, hw is critical of every single tank out there.
Never thought that way. I thought he had biases to certain systems like gas turbine which reduces his respect for the Abrams, but not a full Russian bias
@@randomuser5443 it is something many tend to critisise about him, it isn't true though
I just criticise him for never properly accounting for targeting computers and other such tech which makes the real difference between 2. And 1. world tanks.
another video on russian tanks that didn't age well
Yes, but no. Because NATO tanks also includes Leopard 1 and 2, which had proven themselves just as versatile, cost effective, relaible and capable of supporting modernisation.
Plus there is also Merkava, which is basically a modern day infantry tank which despite being far from most advanced, is also liked by tank schools on both sides for being a unique solution to local problems. Which highlights that best tank is always 1)the one you have; 2)if it's adequate for task at hand.
however, one thing that must be taken into account: cost. (aka, what is the cost of thoose russian upgrades vs the cost of western upgrades). remember that brute performance and maximum potential and all are nice, but the cost, how much of it could be done reliably in a given period of time, reliability, ease to maintenance, etc... are also important.
The title works.
Russian modern tanks:
2500+ T-72b3's
500+ T-80u's
500+ T-90a's
100+ T-80bvm's
60+ T-90m's
100+ T-14 armatas
Older tanks:
7000+ T-72b's
1500+ T-64bv's
3000+ T-80bv's
Modern American tanks:
1500+ M1A2's (standart model)
1500+ M1A1's (standart model)
500+ modern m1a2's
Older tanks: 5000+ standart m1 abrams
@@militaryanalysis5028 no russia have around 2000 T-72b3's and 500 t72b3m UBH, 500+ t-80u and 3000+ t-80bv and 100+ t-14's
@@jaroslavdudas7227 they have only built 20 so far and they are suffering from reliabilaty problems
@@einar8019 thay have 100+ T-14 armatas at 100%. Its everywhere evan Red effect and Matimus says it on video.
T72b3 and t80bvm do have excellent firepower though
5:40 is that you?
That's what Red looks like in real life when editing a video? Gotta hit the gym.
Every modern Rossian tonk are gangsta until the clouds start speaking "freedumb and democrazy"
Snow*
Every US jet fighter are gangsters until ground and cloud speaking “Flanker, Felon and Triumf, Prometey”
@@captainnutt2995 ok putin
every american pilot is gangster until they run into sophisticated air defence network and coordinated airforce
@@Killdozer-do4mc sakai ruskiu analo govnet geriau? ruclips.net/video/2uh4yMAx2UA/видео.html
👇Let’s show the T-80 some love👇
The only reason I’d be happy about enemy tank development is to encourage competition and allied tank development
Funding for upgrading Russian tanks will come from arms sales of other modern weapon systems (mostly fighter aircraft..) to the likes of Turkey (see that country signing contracts for such within the next year). Think N. Korea actually got things right in one regard. Mounting SAM's on their MBT's. Threats to tanks have evolved. Active protection seems to be way many countries are addressing threats from ATGM's & RPG's but 'death from above' mainly from drones seems their biggest threat these days.
Funding from arms sales they won't get due to terrible press they are getting from Ukraine puts the whole program on dust heap...no Armatas are coming and t90's are never going to cut it.
It’s interesting to see how desperate countries are trying to keep tanks operational in the field of battle. Modern anti tank systems are developing far quicker at the man portable level as we are seeing inYemen/Saudi war. The most up to date M1A2sep+ are being knocked out in the most advantages terrain for a tank. Trophy systems and the like are adding tons to combat weight but being defeated by simple paint shells that cover vision slots and siting equipment even if intercepted.
The Germans have found the Trophy system ineffective in high vegetation/ trees areas as radar systems do not get clear enough fields for detection and deployment of of counter measures unlike in the open environment in Israel where it was designed for. More and more weapons are being developed to kill tanks from above where armour is the thinnest. Medium sized drones cost far less to build and operate but can carry charff to effect radar system while carrying warheads to destroy the tank.
Are we seeing the end of tanks in WW3 as we saw the end of battleships in WW2
@@Gridlocked my point was not that every tank in the field is the latest version but that anti tank weapons and airborne munitions to attack from above are developing quicker than defence equipment on tanks. Defence equipment is adding to overall weight and have limited munitions for these systems.
Simple paint bombs are blocking vision ports and lazier sensors . These are very cheap and light and come in numbers to great to defend against.
The T-90M would be on par with the best NATO tank, if the tank have that gun same like T-14 Armata. Should be the best as the rest of the other tanks in the world and would’ve replaced the T-72B3M and T-80BVM tanks in Russian service but too bad that Russia have to keep the obsolete 80s tanks which is completely cheap.
And I’m getting a feeling that Russia would reject the T-14 Armata later the years if they wanted to upgrade all of their T-90A tanks into T-90M. It’s only a guess, so I think the rest of the Armata platform vehicles would be in service but not the T-14.
And the new ERA for the T-90M from the T-14 Armata would be a great idea to be honest. Not gonna lie, but it should on par with the best NATO tanks. Only some plans to place that ERA onto the T-90M, but maybe I think you could be right on this one, since it’s probably not gonna happen. So much money they have to make.
me and the boys heading to nizhny tagil
Red post some videos with you playing WT with T72B3, M1A2, LEO 2a5 ...
This video did not age well
He just showed the opposite
"Tanks from 1930 to 2016" remember t72b3 exists and its not fair.
No one complained about chally 2 or m901. But T-72B3 is a problem. It literally doesnt have the things it has irl. And FCS is not a thing in wt
@@stilpa1 true
@@stilpa1 sure but the the chally 2 is 90s and the m901 is 70s and the b3 is 20 years newer than everybody elses mbt's
@@einar8019 i meant the later chally 2. The second one. It is from 2000s. And M1A2...
@@stilpa1 m1a2 is from the 80s and the the 2f is still from the 2000's not mid 2010's
Thanks for the video
No. Just no.
The why you say Ukrainian makes me laugh. You definitely don’t like them
How dangerous is APS for infantry support? How do they deal with this?
Depends on the aps. It can kill infantry within a couple metres. Only german aps is "safe" up to 2m next to the tank.
@@JjjCDsjsjshs thank you!
T-72B3 are considered a 2nd echelon assets, T-90M/T-80BVM 1st echelon assets, while T-14 is the primary MBT.
When it comes to manufacturing capacity Soviets/Russians were never in a habit of disclosing such information. There is no official way of knowing how many T-14 have been manufactured, and how many are really to be delivered.
@JOHN GAGE According to what facts? A credible source link please.
@@BigSmartArmed thediplomat.com/2018/08/russia-will-not-mass-produce-t-14-armata-main-battle-tank/
@@jb76489 I specifically asked for a credible source. Instead you listed a shady propaganda mouthpiece for Center for Strategic and International Studies.
I don't know if Borisov actually said that T-14 was not entering mass production, but that article was from 2018. In 2020 Putin changed the constitution, and Borisov quit his post.
"On 7 May 2018, Borisov was nominated as Deputy Prime Minister for Defence and Space Industry in Dmitry Medvedev's Second Cabinet.[5]
On 15 January 2020, he resigned as part of the cabinet, after President Vladimir Putin delivered the Presidential Address to the Federal Assembly, in which he proposed several amendments to the constitution."
Credible, current source here:
"The Russian Armed Forces earlier planned to induct 2,300 Armata main battle tanks during 2015 and 2020. However, the mass production of the tanks was delayed due to high costs of the new combat vehicles. The vehicles underwent field-testing in Syria.
Serial production of the T-14 Armata tank is expected to commence in 2021."
www.army-technology.com/projects/t-14-armata-main-battle-tank/
@@BigSmartArmed “your source bad because reasons, my source good because reasons” gods you are both predictable and pathetic. Here’s it in original Russian
inosmi.ru/military/20180803/242901653.html
Use google if your Russian is as bad as your English
“Serial production of the t-14 is expected to commence in 2021” mhmm, they were supposed to have 2300 of them by now too. Su 57 was supposed to be in serial productions this year. Seems the Russians like to over promise and under deliver
Not uh, better than NATO ATGM's though. Even with cope cages.
Me who already suffers through the grind of war thunders mid tier towards is 4m and t72a and owns no silver
You have to understand that enormous amounts of tanks in Russian arsenal would take time and lots of money, manpower to upgrade. Neither Unites States nor Germany have so many tanks. At the same time Russians want to have their military budget under control unlike US that is spending more than it can earn and is in an astronomic debt. Im not surprised by the decisions they are making. They are reacting to Western developments. Their doctrine is to stay on pair not to lead... However i do believe that Russian way of simple yet rugged solutions = efficient way of solving a problem is deeply embedded in their way of facing threats since WW2. For example Russians know their old T-72s are no longer on pair with modern Western tanks right? So what do they do with thousands of such tanks in their stockpiles? Would you put a crew inside such a tank and send them to battlefield with you AND them knowing fully well that they don't stand a chance? No... Would you scrap such tank when it would cost additional time, money and manpower? No such tank could still knock out even modern Abrams of Leopard in specific situations. So what do you do? Russian thinking: Lets robotize them cheaply. That way you can field hundreds of inexpensive but still sufficiently dangerous tanks without danger to human crews. Saturate enemy tank formations, break to their rear or flank them. In world war 2 it has been proven that even a quality German tanks and their crews ca be defeated by sufficient numbers of cheaper, easy to produce tanks that are sufficiently capable to do damage. In my view today pure Tank vs Tank battles are a thing of the past. In a serious war with a peer adversary it is a combined operation of many branched of armed forces of each adversary and how well can they coordinate among themselves that wins the war. Tank forces are just one element - even the venerable Abrams is useless when crew does not know where to go or where is the enemy. Mi-35 formation would turn those tanks into old rust. See my point? So this video lacks the description of environments these Russian tanks would be used in. Usually a very hard to cross terrain with extreme temperatures? Be that desert or Siberian taiga of east europe plains? All known places where heavy armored vehicles had problems to cross while Russian tank designs did not... Germans learned that the hard way in WW2, Americans learned that in Desert Storm. You see tank is not only about the thickness of its armor and power of its main gun. Its about mobility, how far can he go, how fast, what terrains can he pass, what is the mean time between failures of the engine, how many gun shots the main gun is rated for before it needs to be replaced, does he have a auto-loader - how reliable this auto-loader is, how fast can it shoot? All these overall characteristics make a tank. West lags in many of those aspects and western tank formations needs more maintenance and logistics than Russian ones. in plain terms: Don't judge a book only by its cover. So to sum it up: Tank warfare one on one is a thing of the past. If (god forbid) a war with Russia would broke out... western tank formations would be saturated with cheap, and disposable robotic T-72s (provided Russians would have manufactured enough robotic kits to convert them) that would have many casualties but at the same time would wreak havoc to American / German tank battalions.
in 5-10 years the T14 will be outdated i have already made a T24 Super Armata virtual version of the tank
t-14s design is pretty damn perfect for very long modernisation periods so it wont be obsolete any time soon, it will just need modernization
@@affentaktik2810 bruh it will be obsolete because of the weak turret armor you know that Russia lies about its stuff
@@ramirezyoutubeyt2373 its obvious you dont understand anything at all about the tank or probably tank development in general
@@affentaktik2810 brother have a life Now Russia now will be heavily Outnumbered By NATO tanks And Make the T90 obsolete In 2025 Russia will kick their own Ass china will be 1st by then now Btw it isn't all about the Tank while Planes or Helicopters will destroy them their economy Is Bad and Drone Warfare Is Gladly Making Tank warfare obsolete
@@ramirezyoutubeyt2373 you literally didnt say a single thing about why t14 would be outdated quickly and talked about everything else xD
Im not talking about any numbers or planes or dronestrikes im talking about a tank design.
The only thing you said was that t14 would be obsolete because of its weak turret armor WHICH IS LITERALLY THE POINT OF THE DESIGN
I dont think you get anything about this tank
Remember when the T14 was first announced and Russian said they’d have 2300 by 2020? Instead they have ~20 lmao
If ever there were chickens you should not count before they hatch, its Russian defense procurement, T14, su57, shtorm, an94 etc etc
There are around 100 T-14 Armatas so...yeah you haven't noticed what else the Russians produced in the meantime(mostly from 2017 till now)?
@@matovicmmilan very cool, now they only need another 2200 in the next 2.5 months and they’ll be good!
My opinion is that they are about the same, i mean no "game changing" differences. In WW2 between Nazi tanks and Soviets there was a much much bigger difference... and in the and we all know how it went....
The biggest difference was the ability of soviets to produce large ammounts of tanks, unlike germans. Is-2 could easily penetrate tiger2s armor, because the metal quality was very poor at that part of war, meanwhile tiger 2 couldn't do anything. As for panther and t-34-85 - both could penetrate each other on similar ranges.
@@salamander4668 You are right. But there was a much bigger difference in tank quality in WW2 than what we see now. We don't see western tanks winning 1v4 or 1v5 tank battles (pretty common in German favor in WW2). To be honest we don't even have a video of a western MBT destroying a russian tank. 3 Years and we only have a video of 2 Bradleys damaging a T90M, disable it and the crew managed also to escape. I don't see this big difference between Western and Russian tanks TBH. Probably The biggest is price and better crew protection... that's it
@@francescozambaldi8212 bradleys werent the ones who disabled that tank. Before that video a drone hit it, which destroyed elevation drives. Tank simply couldn't aim and shoot. If not for that, both bradleys would have been destroyed.
@@francescozambaldi8212 as for the myth about germans winning 1v4 or 1v5 tank battles - it was only the case for tank destroyers working from ambushes. Quality wise - soviet tanks weren't worse than german at all. At the start of the war, soviet tanks were clearly superior to german ones. It only changed, when tigers and, especially, panthers entered the frontline (low numbers of tigers weren't significant enough to make soviets worry about them), which caused soviets to develop t-34-85, su-85 and su-100, and IS-2 - probably the best tank of ww2.
@@francescozambaldi8212 If we are talking about modern tanks, the biggest difference between western and russian tanks - their size and weight. Firepower, protection and electronics are pretty much the same. Western tanks have blow out panels, which can save crew from ammo fire, but T-90Ms have similar thing with protected autoloader, which gives enough time for crew to leave the tank. As for infamous turret throwings - those are the cases of HE explosion. Same thing happens to western tanks, when they carry HE ammo (check photos of turkish leopards in syria). Thats why untill recently, nato countries weren't using HE shells in tanks at all. Which was acceptable in wars against goat herders with full air superiority, but won't be the case in an actual war between similar militaries.
In conclusion, western and russian tanks are indeed similar, but smaller size makes russian tanks harder to hit, while smaller weight makes them slightly more mobile. Russian tanks also cost less to make, but thats only because western countries have destroyed native heavy industry and moved it to asia or africa.
P.S. Everything said above has nothing to do with british challenger 2. It's just horrible in pretty much every way.
atleast the seperatists in the donbass are making progress with the T-72b3 tanks.
really made a difference🤣😂🤣
well this didn't hold up
This video is based on propaganda. Most of leopard2 tanks are a4 variant and most of m1 are a2. If someone thinks that NATO can equip all of his tanks on the most modern standard and with most modern projectiles in large numbers then...
This significantly aged well
The commander of the T80BVM usses dublar as his own sight so yes he does have his own sight.Another thing is that the svinets 2 exists wich is a DU variant of the svinets 1.Its penetration at 2km 0°
800-840mm claimed by Russian militarx experts wich would make sense.T80BVM is defenetly on pair with westren tanks.Its protection fire control system and the engine make it even better then the m1a2sepv3 sience the m1a2sepv3 still usses the same 2nd gen. thermal sight wich has indentification range of tanks at 3800m while the catharine FC has 4,500-5,500m indetification range and on top of that has automatic lead.The engine of the t80BVM speaks for it self the protection od the t80BVM is superior when compared to the m1a2sepv3.The CE protection is far superrior sience relikt provides 100% protection aginst ATGL'S and 95% protection against ATGM's.While the protection of the m1a2sepv3 at best is rated 1300mm at the turret cheeks part wich is nearest to thw gun mandlet otherwise the more you stray away from that part the CE protetion can only be rated at a disapointing 900-1000mm protection against CE.And the KE protection of the m1a2sep has been finally improved the strongest part of the turret cheeks should be 900mm while the weakest part should be 780-790mm.The t80bvm would be able to take a hit easily at 2km or less then 1km sience the m829a4 is at best suspected to have a lenght of 840mm minus the steel tip wich is pretty much ussles aginst the new relikt design sience it alredy gets destroyed by the plate launched by the ERA so the m829a4 should have 740mm penetration at 100m but is still wouldnt be enough to penetrate the turret cheeks of the t80BVM because relikt would take away about 40-45% of penetration from the m829a4 wich would mean it would have 444mm penetration behind era wich isnt even enough to take care of the hull let alone turret wich is rated to be 520mm at best and the weakest part of the cheeks is rated 470mm wich is still pretty bad but still enough.The t80bvm will be armed with svinets 2 says the tass agency and it will be able to penetrate the turret cheeks of the m1a2sepv3 with not a lot of problems.And as for the dm 73 wich is a equvalent to the svinets 2 stll woulsnt be able to pen the atrongest part of the cheeks sience era effects tungusten apfsds much more then DU ones.
Could I see a footage of you playing war thunder?
What is your main tech tree???
Arena sistem can be put any any russian tank"
Can i put it on my T-34
Tanks are nothing but targets without air superiority.
Go away air drone atgm tank trash man.
@@militaryanalysis5028 yeah, that's why the US won in Vietnam/Iraq/Afghanistan so easily. Oh wait...
so if the t72b3ubh gets turret relict will it also feature the era in the game ?
Isn't that whole discussion who's got the nicest tank, plane, chopper or whatever not completely pointless without just looking at ones countries military expenses? And by doing so, whether liking it or not, you'll quickly realize that no, absolutely no army in the world can compare to the US. They spend more than ten times the money Russia does. And more than triple the money China or the whole EU does. Nuclear weapons aside simply no army in the world can barely touch this sheer amount of high tech weaponry. Like I said: like it or not. I don't but it's a fact
Yeah...this was answered back in 91.
F for the Russian Economy in 2025 i guess...
So in other words Russia is giving up on the T-14 Armata to focus on upgrading the T-90?
and both fucked by the Ukrainians😂😂😂🙂
I really like the T-90M tank better.