Why have Ukrainian ATGMs destroyed so many Russian tanks?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 13 дек 2022
- Anti-Tank Guided Missiles or ATGMs have become a defining symbol of the Ukrainian fight against Russian invasion. They have destroyed countless armoured vehicles and provided endless material for viral social media clips. But why have ATGMs been so effective in the war so far, and could that be about the change?
IWM's free photography display 'Ukraine: Photographs from the Front Line' opens at IWM London on 3 February: www.iwm.org.uk/events/iwm-lon...
Licence the archive clips used in this film: film.iwmcollections.org.uk/my...
For information about licensing HD clips please email filmcommercial@iwm.org.uk
Creative Commons Attributions:
Russian footage by Mil.ru - CC BY-SA 4.0 - creativecommons.org/licenses/...
Ukrainian footage by armyinform.com.ua - CC BY-SA 4.0 - creativecommons.org/licenses/...
Donbass War photographs by Noah Brooks Photo - CC BY-SA 2.0 creativecommons.org/licenses/...
I love these modern takes by the IWM! Using historical knowledge to further the understanding of modern conflicts.
If you don’t learn from history you are doomed to repeat it, Russia has proven this statement to be true several times this year.
shame the miss the main theme of why Russia is getting crushed
There's a video of a Stugna destroying 6 vehicles in like 2 minutes. Launch, load, change target, repeat. It's pretty wild.
do you have a link to that?
And the 6 shots were cheaper than an NLAW or Javelin.
@@NhatHuyNg RUclips deletes any links in comments, but it was on Funker 530
One of the best parts about the Stugna-P that separates it from Javelin or NLAW...the operator doesn’t have to be anywhere near the launcher. Far less danger of being hit by retaliatory attacks.
@@Brocuzgodlocdunfamdogson It's a trade off. Stunga's definitely great though.
The Stugna hitting the Ka52 is amazing
Yes, I have seen two such videos.
And they did it _twice._
@Menti Capti There is a video of a Javelin hitting a M 8 or M 17,
moreover, do not forget that Ukrainian reports are worth nothing at all, since there is scanty useful information, fakes
Finally! Someone recognized Stugna-P. While Javelins and NLAWs are considered more advanced technologically, Stugna-P has its own advantages in this specific war. It's mounted on a remotely controlled tripod, so soldiers can fire a tank without the need to go out of a trench for a direct line of sight. This helps a lot in trench war.
That does not mean we don't need Javelins and NLAWs. Each of those has its own advantages and having a lot of ATGMs helped us stand during this spring.
I read that Stugna-P costs $20,000 while a Javelin costs over $100,000. So you could get 5 Stugna-P missiles for one Javelin.
These missiles perform different roles. NLAW and Javelin are truely man portable and shoulder fired. Milan 3 is also fired from a tripod with remote TV.
@@user-uy1rg8td1v True but that's just for the missile, I haven't been able to find any estimates of the cost of the whole system, which could well be more expensive than Javelin. It also requires a 3 man team to operate optimally, so that is an added cost in manpower.
You were helped to survive the fields dotted with 100,000 dead Nazis. The Russian group consisted of about 120 thousand people. It was the special forces. Against 500 thousand Ukrainian Nazis. Now everything is moving into a stage of total war. The Russian leadership will not be limited to energy. After the destruction of the energy sector, it will be the turn of the transport system. Nazism must be destroyed at any cost.
@sheldon fords german panzerfaust 3 is best price for tank killing for short range. 6500 Euro complete set. Optics can used more times.
Just amazed that nothing was said in this video about the capability of the Stugna system to separate the firing post, launcher, and the aiming post. Being able to fire from a concealed position, some distance from the actual missile launch is a tremendous advantage. The lack of this capability was one of the drawbacks of the Milan system. With Milan, one shot and the enemy know where you are and even if they don't hit you, they can certainly put you off firing another round.
Agreed. Stugna have probably the highest kill count in Ukraine as they are a domestic produced system and not as expensive as a javelin for example.
@@MrCemicalX Indeed, and the warhead it packs seems to be incredibly powerful, not needing a top down attack to punch through without issues and sometimes even out the other side (!!!)
and you can stay warm without giving IR signature
@@yawangle90 Yes , I also didn't say in my original post that the Stugna firing post can be positioned in "dead ground", so the enemy cannot directly fire at the post. Just point it in the general direction of the enemy and the fire control system will pick up the missile and guide it to the target.
Akeron MMP and Milan 3 can also be fired remotely.
It's a small thing, but thank you for using proper English. I appreciate your efforts to speak clearly and accurately, presenting your content in a professional manner.
You have the most modern and state of the art ATGMs against vehicles designed largely in the 1960's and 1970's....
It's Russia. Everything they have is old. We can't do anything about it. They're broke
Keep in mind that a lot of these vehicles have been upgraded already with improved fire control systems, armour, and many other things
@@puma2334 but they are still 50, 60 Year old designs. Well the hulls atleast.
@@saucyinnit8799 the abrams was also designed in the 70s and is still a state of the art mbt
@@puma2334 the Abrams never saw any true competition so you can't claim it's the best tank. The only thing it went against were outdated af T-72's not T-72B3's but old T-72's fielded by Iraq.
Imagine being a tank driver with crap visibility already, trying to spot those from a few miles away, nightmare fuel! :D Excellent defensive weapon.
There is a video of a Stugna destroying a helicopter. Actually the operator was pointing a bit away from the kamov until the last moment so that the anti laser sensors on the chopper won't be tripped
You mean Skif,instead of Stugna.
If you are shocked that ground troops have an easier time getting close to armor, wait until you are a pilot looking down at all those “ants” wondering which ones are carrying shoulder fired SAMS. 😉
That is why we have spent the last 30 years developing missile warning sensors and automated flares and jammers to defeat them. If you have a look at the C-17 shown in the video you may be able to spot its ALQ-24 LAIRCM sensors and turrets spread around the airframe.
What aircraft?
Then a little system in the planes begins to signal and the pilot deploys counter measures
@@Silver_Prussian Nowadays we try to automate it.
@@marvintpandroid2213 What is on what aircraft is not generally publicised but try googling AAR-57, AAR-54, PAWS MWS, MILDS, Miysis, Elix-IR, LAIRCM or Praetorian for a selection of equipment. Detectors can be IR, UV or radar-based while jammers may be IR lamps or lasers. Flare technology is also continually evolving.
Interesting note about nlaws and javelins being issued to Ukrainian militias at the start. I read one account where a group of these guys suddenly realized that they were up against a group of Speznaz dudes. Unfortunately for the Speznaz, the Ukrainians watched them take up a position in one particular house. Some of the amateur Ukrainians were a bit frightened at their prospects, but a more experienced leader said 'no problem.' and promptly fired a javelin into the aforementioned house. That explains why more such weapons have been used than have vehicles been hit, but it's all for a good cause in the end.
The Problem is that this means you use $78000 dollar system to take out infantry and consequently blow through too much ammo. This is fine until the supplies dry up.
a simpel RPG would have done the same trick...using a Javeloin for this is wasted potencial in a war were stuff is scarce.
@@2fat4airborne44 Thank god stupid bean counters are not commanders of the Ukrainian armed forces. $78K is cheap compared to Spetznaz soldiers being out of commission or dead, regardless of the fact that you could possibly save $70K for an RPG. The knowledge experience and potential harm the Russian soldiers can cause far exceeds $78K and the time and money needed to replace them will also cost far more than $78k. Pennywise pound foolish idiots will miss the opportunities available to them.
@@2fat4airborne44 Very true, but a lot of those guys defending Kiev in the first months of the war just arrived at the front off the streets with no training whatsoever.
@aika fuwa Missing the point. If you use a Javelin on every group of troops or other soft target then when hard targets roll up you have to use what you have left.
The US is running low in inventory and that means fewer sent to Ukraine.
Amateurs talk tactics professionals talk logistics.
There is a golden rule in the military - never stop (or advise) an enemy that they are making a mistake !
Agreed, that's why Russians are not in a rush to take Bakhmut and let the Ukranians feed more and more of their troops into the meatgrinder.
@@KondorDCS source: rt news
@@KondorDCS Russia and it's 100,000 dead in 10 months alone, to an army which did not exist in February, and 8 major vessels sunk to a country without a navy. We know Ukraine is winning.
@@KondorDCS Are you going to the front? Russia has announced plans to send clowns to the front. Be alert!
Why is that a golden rule? I think you are confusing the old saying.
NLAW has an overfly top attack mode as well as Javelin, your `expert` should talk to SAAB about the weapons capabilities.
Overfly and fire-down is not really the same as loop up and plunging attack. Though it does seem effective against the deployed armour.
The effectiveness is in the fact that a small fast moving unit operates from a hideout: big firepower but hard to detect. It also requires less training than operating a tank so many soldiers can learn the trick while few master a tank.
There is a good reason why Russian commanders do not allow the Russian troops to get ahead of their tanks and that is a very high defection rate. As soon as the Russian troops get close to the Ukrainians they will pull out a white piece of cloth and wave it at the Ukrainians and drop their guns and surrender. This is also the reason why over 50 generals and 100 kernels have been killed because they do not trust their soldiers out in the field so Putin has demanded that the commanders stay very close to their soldiers and enlisted. Now you know the real truth way Russian commanders won't allow their troops to get near the Ukrainian Army and defend their tanks. In short the desertion rate is high, very high, extremely high!
@@defectivedegenerate4046 too loud statements, uselessness or difficulty in using
the task of the tanks is to support the infantry in the attack, this is a breakthrough weapon, it is difficult to move to fortified positions without tanks, so your analysis is nothing, it is the overwhelming superiority in armored vehicles and artillery that causes colossal losses to the Ukrainian army
Extremely awesome video! Thank you for heads up about Stugna!
Interesting analysis. Thanks IWM. 🇬🇧💪
Made me feel ancient. I trained on Wombat
Thanks for a very illuminating presentation on ATGM.
Love your work 👍
If I had an ATGM on my coffee table, it would be quite a conversation piece!
Minor correction: in Ukrainian it's actually pronounced Stuh-na not Stug-na. Г is pronounced /h/ and should be romanized as H in Ukrainian and Belarusian and not like /g/ in Russian
+
Бро
Cringe eastern slavs who pick ether g or h instead of pronouncing them as they are written. It's not gorizontal or hladno...
When worrying about depleting stockpiles of weaponry, it is somehow often overlooked who is the potential enemy the stockpiles are stocked for. This doesn't stand for every country that has helped Ukraine, of course, but for quite many of them the only imaginable large scale enemy to use those stocks against happens to be Russia.
Yes, for sure. for the obvious reason that they are the aggressor
It seems that Russia is again preparing to Attack Kyiv with 200,000 fresh troops in Febuary. There is only 6 weeks at most to get more weapons to the Ukrainians.
it’s the second time in large-scale warfare the weapons have fought who the weapons were intended for, be they NATO or USSR…but only the first time it has been weapons from the same generation. Ukraine may be using previous generation(70s/80s/90s) weapons, but so is Russia.
USA has incredible ability to ramp up production - so 7000 could become 50 000 if they really want
@@nicholasoriide6169 just like someone nowadays cares about agression or not
Stugna P is like the old Swedish Robot Bill, the ATGM that NLAW comes from. SAAB took the tech from Robot Bill and updated it. No wire is used in NLAW as it was in bill. NLAW is a Swedish weapon that being build in the Uk.
bravo aux ukrainien vous êtes un model pour nous courages vous n êtes pas seul
I’ve been waiting for TOW to enter the chat. We in 🇺🇸 have a huge stockpile of TOW systems that are dated enough we need to use them up and replace them for our stocks to be up to date.. send it! 👊 🇷🇺 💀
The U.S. gave Ukraine 2,500 TOWs during the Ukrainian war.
Imperial War museums thank you for this wonderful video. ❤
Stugna P is very capable. Longer range and heavier warhead than Javelin. Plus, some modest top down trajectory. Needs to be guided to target; but controller can be fifty meters from launch point enhancing survival.
Javelin is better as it is fire and forget plus it has three attack modes.
former Finnish president Urho Kekkonen wrote using a pseudonym during WW2.
This was about the destruction in southern USSR: (my translation)
"...we have no cause for sadness, it's russkies that are being killed. The more effective their destruction, the more confidence we can have in our own future."
And it continued something like "every bridge etc destroyed has to be rebuilt one day and that's less resources to put against us"
Excellent post. Can I suggest a follow up on why so many Russian tanks pop their turrets?
@@aggoor1 it's not the autoloader. Most people say it's the open circular ammo storage in a carousel within the turret. The Chieftan said in a video it was the loose spare ammo stowed in the turret on top of this carousel
Russian tanks store their ammo largely within the crew space as it allows them to build a cheaper system. So a detonation in that space will cook off the ammo
@@LWarrenF it's a horrible death to a tank crew
@@adameve2647 it is probably better seeming it would be instant
I think you all also need to understand that if a tank is penetrated with gaseous metal that is so hot it cooks off the ammo, the crew will be dead before the ammo goes off.
Same goes for other tanks. The difference is the other tanks are recoverable, while the crew has been vaporised anyway.
Well most Russian tanks were made in the 70s and although they are still extremely dangerous they are valuable to modern stuff specially designed to blow up Russian tanks.
The extent to which Russian armor is outdated has no impact on their hilariously-incompetent tactical use of said vehicles.
The liner doesn't turn into a jet of molten metal, it becomes an atomised/particalised jet that punches through the armour at a focused point. Easy mistake to make seen alot of other museams and channels make this mistake
The difference is academic and doesn't matter a single bit for understanding of the concept, nerd.
Normally said plasticided thin copper rod.
With winter setting in and the ground starting to freeze the choke points will still be dirt roads in the countryside. A few signs calling out a mined road is usually enough to channel an inexperienced tank group into a killing zone. Without infantry on the flanks or on point it is very risky for armor formations to advance. The area the battles are taking place are quite reminiscent of the hedgerow country of France in the 1944 battles.
Vice grip garage
Simple answer: cost of a tank, Gov can buy 40, 50, 80 or 100 ATGMs (mileage will vary)
Great presentation.
To the final remarks: And that's why on Feb 24th at the latest you start applying the lessons of WWII and go 24/7 on production on anything that is needed anyway. Not months later. Immediately.
I think part of the problem is the US has recently pored billions into trying to get the Afghan nation to defend themselves against the Taliban, and it didn't work because nobody there seemed to want to fight against the baddies. I imagine there is a lot of warm feelings generated now by the Ukrainian guts now. So, in February maybe people were reluctant to get overly excited and fire up the production lines, but by now everybody knows that everything the Ukrainians receive will be used with passion.
@@dtrain1634 Putler's economy is coping in dire circumstances, because he paid all of Russia's debt from the Yeltsin years. But the recession is much worse in Russia than Europe.
@@dtrain1634 Putin gambled that the war would be over before his foreign reserves run out. But his foreign reserves got frozen. Then he decided to keep going anyway, changing the plan and the scope along the way. Right now they have got to the point that the ultimate goal is to capture the garbage dump in Bakhmut. He is no longer maintaining the balancing act, he is in free fall. Let's just see if his mates in the FSB can keep him in power for longer, and do they actually want to?
@@dtrain1634 I would say the "gateway to the Donbass" (and considering this to be the part of the Donbass that Russia did not have before February 2022) is more Popasna, Sievierodonetsk and Lysychansk, or if you only want one then Popasna. Bakhmut is a nothing city on the eastern outskirts of the Donbass, of no strategic value to anybody but Wagner's Yevgeny Prigozhin and nobody can figure out why he has this weird fascination with the place, unless it is Putin who has this maniacal attachment to it. Why are the Ukrainians hanging on to it? Strategically important or not, it's Ukraine and screw Putin.
Putin was never gonna achieve a negotiated settlement. Even if he captured every square inch of Ukraine, the Ukrainians would have gone partisan on him much like the VC did to the Yanks. Some countries refuse to be conquered.
We don't know how solid Putin's position is. We do know he is a dickhead in the mold of Adolf Hitler, and even runs the same playbook where he nibbles bits and pieces of other countries and then goes completely ape and takes a big bite which is his undoing. We also know that a lot of his oligarch buddies have fallen out of upper story windows, yachts, etc. which indicates a bit of a struggle behind the throne. In that sort of situation, dictators have to keep winning or else they suddenly develop heart trouble or lead poisoning. And what with Kharkiv, Kherson, and even the Bakhmut garbage dump not currently under orc control you have to be really stupid to consider Putin a winner. And Russians might be alcoholic barbarian washing machine thieves, but they are not stupid.
Why is the West so pissed off at Putin? For many years now he has had a short man syndrome aggressive attitude to all and sundry, and this for a dictator who has a smaller GDP than Texas. And then he started messing in other countries' elections and politics so I strongly suspect that Western politicians knew he had to be stopped and all jumped at the opportunity to isolate him and start funding his downfall.
How long are the West gonna keep funding it? I suspect as long as it takes. Poland, the Baltics, Czech Republic and the smaller economies closer to the Russian threat have been giving to the point that it hurts and are happy to do more. Germany, France, UK, Italy, Spain and the rest have only given what they have lying around. Soon they are going to dig deep and Ukraine will have more reserves in material than they have had so far. And of course the USA is seeing the logic of emptying their limitless stockpiles of stuff which have been bought and paid for over the years with the goal of stopping the Soviets and Russians in the Fulda Gap. This war is wonderful for them, because it's not their blood, it is their shared goal to flatten Kremlin Shorty, and like I said the stuff is bought and paid for and now has to be replaced which is a nice bit of government spending good for the economy and politicians.
OPEC? Pu-lease. You won't get Iran, Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia to cooperate for more than ten minutes about anything and Venezuela is in the toilet.
Not sure about why quote on artillery was used in this video. However, over time loitering drones will make using massed artillery a thing of the past. Usage of drones will make any concentration of manpower and other resources a highly risky anywhere near the battlefront.
It's still hard to beat artillery on cost grounds. If you want to flatten a village, an artillery regiment is still the cheapest, quickest way to do it.
Russians are using both to destroy the Ukrainian army... Ukraine sold off most of the weapons/supplies sent by the west and never set up mass production of new weapons systems or kept producing for the soviet stuff they were given... They are the definition of a corrupt failed state
drones sure make things harder for enemy but those are not winning war alone, fire power drone itself can have is minimal compared to what artillery can do, but if you use those both together things start to work.
also hiding from drones is not any different than hiding from any other spotting method, it does not matter much if spotter is satellite, plane or drone.
@@freezedeve3119 Yep. That's why forward observers have loaded up on drones. Cheap and easy to launch and you're watching the target and the impacts in real time. Not fun to be on the other end of that system.
The Stugna even managed to shoot down 2 helicopters!
7:18 to 7:43 When a TOW missile hits or misses its target, what happens to the guidance wire? Does it remain connected to the now-empty launch tube, or is it disconnected?
If the missile travels close enough to maximum range it will automatically cut the wire (this would allow the missile to fly slightly further but without any more ability for the operator to guide it). If the missile hits a target inside 3,700 meters or so then the wire would still remain attached but the operator has a lever to cut the wire so the spent missile tube can be swapped out.
Correction: When the explosives HEAT rounds detonates, they do not turn the metal lining into liquid metal but rather , receives so much pressure the metal lining is forced to compress into a pressurized metal jet and it cuts through armor (doesn't melt them).
The infantryman has become king of the battlefield again after 100 years of being chased around by tanks and aircraft.....
Nah, Infantry needs support from tanks and aircraft, and both need support from the infantry
A small point but a HEAT warhead will not 'penetrate even the thickest of armour', although trials show there is a fairly relationship between cone diameter and penetration, at least for homogenous rolled armour. There are then several other types of armour including applique ERA and various tasty sandwiches designed to improve protection.
They were talking within the context of WWII
I think they meant to say EFP instead, which absolutely has relation between diameter and penetration. EFP's are freaking terrifying, I've been up against them in Afghanistan and they were the Taliban's secret weapon against our armor.
Patahto potato.
HEAT does have a relation between its size ( mainly diameter ) and penetration capability if the design is scaled properly and the manner of its employment is similar. ( ie. a different relative standoff distance, similar velocity, similar spin etc ).
And HEAT performance is much easier to scale up than pure kinetic energy penetrators fired from cannons.
It also technically isn't liquid, like the video states in that sentence. The metal is heated enough to deform under the extreme stress of the explosion. A good metaphor is forged metal (solid) vs. cast metal (liquid)
But the psychological effects to the tank crew is very effective
they work on anything you want to see blow up real good. including troop positions.
Good explanatory videos about this Russia-Ukraine conflict. Nice Work
I'm sorry, I know the video would explain more in depth about the topic, but the title is just too funny for me to pass.
"Why did Anti Tank Guided Missiles destroys so many tanks?"
"Because... it's their job in the first place?"
That's exactly why I clicked....
UAF reported many Russian tanks were destroyed in the first month of the war. Newly deployed weapons have a time window before counter measure techniques are developed.
One might reasonably expect the number to have significantly decreased since then. Will be interesting to re=assess after the war when accurate numbers can be made available..
losses in armored vehicles were caused by an attempt to quickly occupy territories, which was erroneous
moreover, do not forget that Ukrainian reports are worth nothing at all, since there is scanty useful information, fakes
Well done thank you
Excellent video. I just watched a few videos and it seems that they focused heavily on the tank and its role in the war. However, I am wondering if you could look into APCs and IFVs?
Now that NATO IFVs and APCs are making their way onto the battlefields, it would be cool to see you examine all of the various models that have appeared in the war.
it’s the first time since 1945 that tanks and infantry have been so close together allowing these to be effective in warfare.
sure, tanks and armored vehicles were destroyed and damaged by antitank rockets and missiles, but in 90% of those instances if not kore it was irregular warfare in ambushes not open warfare between standing armies.
Operation Desert Storm featured antitank missiles in use, but it was mostly from helicopters and jets not infantry soldiers.
@@dtrain1634 my Israel war knowledge is lacking, excuse the oversight it wasn’t intentional
@@dtrain1634 i disagree with them being the innovators in the past 50 years as they were usurped in that by newer weapons from NATO forces that have been proven in battle by Ukraine after limited use in the past 50 years elsewhere…USSR weapons were plentiful and cheap, but that doesn’t make them superior. Ukraine might have made the newest and best weapon in their Stugna as it’s cheap, portable, mountable, firing a cheap yet accurate projectile. it’s doing better than the weapons that are tried and true in the form of RPGs and requires weeks of training in the javelin and other weapons
I think it's important to learn the right lessons in this war. One is the increased emphasis on all arms cooperation. The quality of Russian infantry and command has been very poor to my mind and that must not be forgotten. Tanks have a place but even they will evolve like so will many other types of equipment and training.
Artillery has always been important but how it's used will no doubt change with mobility being a premium as demonstrated by the HIMARS system.
Ukrainian Aryan werhmacht are dying by hundreds a day. Loads of them on Telegram, but Russphobic West trying to ignore them.
The tanks role is permanently changed if not made obsolete with these advances in atgms. A big heavy target dominated but a much cheaper plentiful weapon; similiar to the demise of the battleship.
The battleship became obselete because aircrafts did its job better, not because they were easy targets.
We see a lot of Stugna video because the system has a screen you can point a camera at, other systems like NLAW and Javelin do not have screen like that.
Russians: TAKE NOTES COMRADES. TAKE NOTES.
Also Russians: Nah, let's just charge again and repeat our same mistakes
Commanders: Sounds good.
Ya right the russians are going to listen to a bunch of fools who know nothing about war youtube generals haha
Ukraine has given war specialists an invaluable study material for decades to come.
And politicians with stocks in weapons industry tons of money
Which could be a strong motivator for governments to donate weapons to Ukraine. After this war there will be two types of weapons, those that worked in Ukraine and those that didn't. If they were never sent they will be the afterthoughts when the military buys weapons.
I mean who thought Turkey had any idea how to make drones before they were proven in Ukraine? Now they will have sales for the next decade.
@@grogery1570 Nope. They are using the lives of Ukrainians and Russians to get rich
Antitank weaponry destroying tanks? No way :O
jokes aside, very cool stuff
It's interesting that sophisticated air defense and anti-tank weaponry mean that old-fashioned blitzkrieg is now problematic, at least in a fight between two sophisticated adversaries. Sure, you can use tanks to attack the enemy, but you better have an artillery advantage on the battlefield or your tank attack will end up like the charge of the light brigade.
The tank crews will not rest in peace within these Russian made tank system. They are immediately cremated leaving nothing left!
Not really true there have been tanks that were hit in the ammo rack or the feul tank even with fire starting and crews still being able to escape
@@Silver_Prussian yes maybe but I remember the words of an Israeli tank commander from the 1973 Yom Kippur War describing what it was like to be in a tank hit by Syrian artillery: “very unpleasant!”
@@Silver_Prussian ok that's if it's an modernised. But plenty weren't hence why see so many tanks with a blown turret
@@murphy7801 its doesnt matter if the tank is modernised or not its depends on how the tanks is hit and where.
If western tank was hit with an atgm the result would be similar granted out of all of them the abrams has the most protection with all of its blow out panels but that doesnt matter cause the atgm is gonna still make the tank useless and in some situations depending where it hit it will likely kill the crew as well.
Good job Ukraine keep the Russia back just keep Ukraine safe don't let them keep attack civilian again I what civilians safe Ukraine will be safe
The main reason is that ATGMs are anti-tank guided missiles which means they are designed to destroy tanks, so that is why they destroy so many tanks, because their purpose is to destroy so many tanks.
Was about to say the same lol
They can also destroy air target.
@@xtreme7584 They can also destroy cars and horses and hot dog stands and brick walls and bellhops and surfboards.
That's an interesting 'statue' in the back left of the analyst's room.
Can you please clarify who are the Soviets mentioned?
I think a good takeaway from this war as a whole is that we as western nations need to have bigger stockpiles of certain weapons and munitions. You never know when they might come in handy.
Or don't put a proxy army on Russias border after being told not to by Russia
@@johnjacobsen1915 Or don't be and listen to Russian shills (like you). Russia turned out much weaker than anticipated, say welcome to Sweden and Finland in NATO, instead of NATO going back to 1997 borders as putin demanded
@@johnjacobsen1915 I think you'll find it was Russia which put proxies into Luhansk and Donetsk, along with their "little green men" into Crimea in 2014.
Vladimir Putin and Russia thought they could intimidate the surrounding countries into staying out of the NATO alliance, but in fact only proved through their aggressive actions (ie: invading Ukraine again in February 2022) that "membership has it's privileges" and that joining NATO was the best thing they could do to protect themselves.
In other words (to paraphrase Drake): Congratulations Russia, you played yourself.
@@johnjacobsen1915 No, because Russia started this in 2014, and because if we don't help Ukraine their country would have been overrun in the end and Russian troops would be at Moldova, Poland, and other countries' borders right now.
@@dtrain1634 *Russia* escalated any sort of animosity by *invading* their neighbour. The USA hand no hand in commanding *Russian* troops, armour and air power to invade Ukraine and to say anything of the sort is just ridiculous Russian propaganda.
Also: in case you hadn't noticed, there are zero (nix, nada, none, nil) US soldiers in Ukraine, except perhaps for a sprinkling of retired veterans in their foreign legion.
Ukrainian army even has 2 documented video kills on 2 KA-52 Alligator attack helicopters during the summer.
The Stugna-P rocket cost 20,000 dollars and the Russian KA-52 is $15 million dollars, so at the end of the day 2 Stugna-P is 40,000 dollars to kill 2 KA-52 is $30 million dollars combine pop is a good day at Wallstreet.
GLORY TO UKRAINE 🇺🇦
And also 4 KA52 pilots and copilots who costed thousands to train
@@CaptainDangeax and the weaponry and logistics
Another economics of scale- a Patriot missile costs $6million while an Iranian drone is around $40,000. The business of war
Yeah but each of these aligators probably killed dozens of Ukrainian vehicles costing dozens of millions and probably well over 100 lives.
@@tomk3732 all the more reason it was a good investment to take them down.
Those Javelin missiles cost around $75,000 each. That is just for the missile tube, not the targeting and guidance computer which it attaches to.
And a tsnk costs 2 to 5 million
this is gonna be one massive testing ground
Slava Ukraini!
Good to also see that the older TOW wire-guided ATGM still has it's place. Btw, Where is Abu 'TOW' when you need him? A living legend with arguably the most tank kills. ruclips.net/video/BM-EXi3lkVY/видео.html
The metal in a HEAT round is still solid, just superplastic
It’s a homegrown device, perfect for the open terrain.
In Imperial War Museums we trust
One comment I have to make is that the USA has been stockpiling Javelins for a war that Ukraine is now fighting so why would be worried of running low for ourselves?
If Ukraine is actually effectively using them against Russian tanks it`s as if we were using them ourselves any way you look at it.That is why IMO we shouldn`t hold back too much.
What war seems to be the most imminent at the present time?
The USA has military contingencies it has to consider like Taiwan or some hot spot flaring up requiring boots on the ground like the Middle East. Even if there aren't tanks, you want some kind of anti-Toyota/pillbox weapon. People will mount just about any weapon they can on those with devastating effect, including Ukraine. Helicopter rocket pods, machine-guns of all calibres, anti-air artillery, mortars, ATGM, recoilless rifles or for simple supply runs and commutes. Hell, I think I saw a video/picture of someone trying to mount a tank gun.
@nasumaa83 They aren't going to say no to more weapons, I absolutely seriously doubt they said "No" to more ATGM or NLAW or any weapon. If you were out there are you going to say no to more fire-power? There are still plenty of armour out there and strong points they can be used on. The Allies already know what UA want and it is "Yes". They aren't stupid or deaf mutes. We didn't ask UA what they need/want is such a dumb take.
If you are wondering why we haven't sent armour, it's political and Germany.
The Jav has a direct fire mode as well for soft skin targets or environmental concerns.
This is the key for the little guy to beat the big rich guy - cheap bombs that break expensive hardware.
I remember playing wargame back in high school, we would always prioritize troops with ATGMs. The meta shift from pre-70s to late cold war was enormous, as you could somewhat reasonably counter tanks doing hedge-row pushes with just recon units. It really feels like Russian tactical commanders don’t understand the nature of today’s weapon systems.
how many videos have you seen with the successful use of these systems, the titles on the video are always very loud, and what is essentially, in general, only 4-5 real defeats of equipment were shown to my requests for javelin, I mean that in a battle where hundreds are used, this is a drop in the ocean
you have a unique opportunity to go to the ru tg channels, there you will be able to watch from 10 to 20 daily videos of defeats of equipment and infantry of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, and if we take into account the love of Ukrainians for video recording of their successes, then in the auditory remainder we get questionable results
Yeah because Russia commanders should play wargame so they can be as advanced militarily as you are. 🤡🤡
Russia having reactive armour, well if you think rubber pads are reactive well then more power to you so
That's due to corruption, not the actual concept.
@@cliffordwebb3656 sure I know that lad, we've all seen the assessment video's on how corrupt Russia is, why'd you think I said rubber pads and what it should be high impact reactive armour comprised of high explosive to delete plasma bolts of metal
It's a false story. The rubber pads are a put under and on top of the main element of reactive armor on turrets. Ukrainians often remove the reactive parts along with ammo and other useful stuff from destroyed Russian tanks. Then, when other Ukrainian troops come by the same tank they film videos of Russian tanks missing everything.
It just seems to be the case that the Russian reactive armor fails to perform in most cases against modern AT weaponry. Possibly only working against lighter and older AT weapons.
Putting rubber pads inside makes no sense. Might as well leave the metal boxes empty if you don't have the real things.
Because Russia hasn't deployed their Armour effectively in a combined arms setting.
Smart, highly accurate, artillery is VERY important.
Obsolete unguided artillery is useless.
Have you seen the videos of the bad tactics and reactions of the Russian use of vehicles???
As long as Russia wants to keep sending tanks, armored vehicles, and troops into Ukraine to use these missiles on, I say we keep on sending as many of them as possible. It takes Russia a lot longer to build a new tank than it does the US to build a rocket. Slava Ukraine.
Only people in the battlefield have the right say slava Ukraini otherwise just you are just a simple warmonger more out there.
you are not at wat with Russia you are in a couch.
Yes... you would love your government to keep sending the missiles so you can enjoy watching people die from the comfort of your home.
You do not care how many of those brave, young Ukrainian men are killed and maimed in the process either.
Russia's got plenty of tanks in stockpiles. If I were Russia I'd be less worried about the tanks than the tank crews.
@@epikmanthe3rd Thing is that there are plenty of young men who are waiting for the opportunity to take a tank into battle.
Each has their own reasons and each feel invincible.
In the end of the day, far more infantry get killed than tank crews.
@@AhmedAdly11 Sure, plenty may be *willing* but Russia's losses are still out pacing their capability to train crewmen for those tanks.
All up with the missiles, the Stugna P weighs 92kilos.
I'll have the Javelin.
Yes, but one is supposed to be used with a tripod, on the other one you are the tripod.
Javelin is a top attack ATGM wherein the tank armor is thin as compare to its front and sides.....
Very strong Ukraine. Viva UKRAINE viva 🇺🇦💪🙏🎽🇺🇦
1. Large scale conventional warfare is rare
2. Anti tank technology development since last conventional war thru use in counter-insurgency
3. Russian Incompetence
4. Ukraine is defending, and ATGM's are best used from a defensive position
I saw a doc that examined some of the Russian reactive armour and they were filled with rubber not explosive?
A lot of Russian tank losses were caused by rooftop attacks. So a somewhat easy and maybe even s countermeasure to that would be to add more turret armor, though that might cause the turrets to get re-designed. But spaced armor does seem like a good candidate to increase survivability. However i'm no expert in tank design. It's just an opinion.
포탑의 위를 보강해야죠!
Most of the atgms have above 1000mm of pen even if they arent top attack the results will be no different for any western tank cause many of them dont have hard kill protection system like the t90m for example
@@Silver_Prussian not atgms, but roof hitting missiles, and yes your arguement is still valid but hard kill is a complex engineering thing to acomplish.
@@saucyinnit8799 it is, but its still more feasible and effective than just putting more armour on the roof. Putting more armour on the roof of a tank wont make it more effective but it will certainly make it massively heavier and bigger. It's really just easier to get some ERA or a hardkill system that's dedicated to protecting the top arc of the tank. Aside from that you'd also need "soft kill" systems and IR smoke launchers.
@@saucyinnit8799 you mean top attack missile which are also atgm.
Gard kill is not so hard to develop but its hard to produce it in large numbers cause it involves a lot of sensors and tech
May the dead tank crews rest in peace. War creates misery.
They are resting in pieces... in HELL
They're providing fertiliser for sunflowers to grow.
Ruzzians
I see Western bots getting mad in the comments.
@@saucyinnit8799 they need satan- 2 to humble them
OMG WOW NO WAY!😨😨 AN ANTI TANK ROCKET DESTROYING A TANK???!
Interesting thanks.
What's with the big chunks of styrofoam you often see on the ends of these things, like on the Javelins?
Bumper pads, so they are somewhat Squaddie proof whilst being moved around 🤟🏼
Rumor is: Russian corruption played a factor. Instead of explosive defense units on Russian tanks, they have containers filled with rubber blocks.
Idk, ost ATGMs are advanced enough to destroy those "blocks" or even use top attacks where the armor is weaker
🤣🤣🤣🤣
it's logistics. not weapons. stone and sling vs. invading cavallery. defense means the invader has no real target, while defenders are autonomous units or persons not requiring much communication. no central CPU. no bots. attackets have to coordinate but are meeting almost no resistance. no target. exhaust. when attackers are exhausted, cause jams in supply lines. close in. starve them. no prisoners. no attackers. it works with any weapon. as long as the defenders can penetrate the hull of the vehicle. but a burning magnesium alloy rim would do the job when tanks are immobilized. defenders should not take any prisoners. wrecks strategy. seek and destroy.
In most conflicts, causing casualties (not fatalities) would be the most effective measure. They cost more on logistics, take more resources, and require their fellow soldiers to facilitate their evac and care.
Unfortunately, Russian troops don't worry about their comrades, which makes maximum fatalities and cutting logistics the maximum priority.
Hey I saw an interesting vehicle at 5:13, it looks like a PT-76 but the gun isn't right. Wtf is it?
Someone i know said his company gone from making 2 to 6 missiles per day.
I need you to do a video and explain why are Ukraine with the military three times the size of the number of Russians in Ukraine fighting can’t defeat them? Even with all the missile systems and tanks and aircraft given to them it’s incredible that that small 190,000 Russians took so much land and still hold most of it. It seems the Ukraine fighting forces motivated maybe it’s just a leader ship is so corrupt where unqualified people are in positions making decisions.
Russia has a bigger military than Ukraine though?
M72 is great as anti sniper, you do not need to hit the shooter but get close.
Thank you . ( 2022 / Dec / 19 )
I think it's a very good idea to tell the Russkies where they are going wrong, and to tutor them in correcting their mistakes ... very humanitarian, in fact: ergo, clever.
Well done!
I'm an atheist, but I now worship at the altar of Saints Javelin and Stugna . . . Slava Ukriani! Heroiam slava!
Modern Russian "reactive armour" seems to be made of high tech yoga mats 👍😂
#SlavaUkraini💙💛
It’s almost like that’s what they were designed to do
It's not that Russian tanks are bad,their strategy is bad. Tanks and other ground assets cannot be successful on the battlefield unless they're supported with extensive air power. So far, Russia has underestimated Ukrainian forces.If they had used Blitzkrieg tactics in the beginning, the war would probably be over.
If they had actually pushed into Kyiv en masse instead of sitting outside it and only sending smaller/probing attacks into its outer districts that the Ukies easily repelled, they would have ended the war within 2, maybe 3 weeks. Would have been bloody, but they would have done it.
Plus, the tanks that the Russians are using simply aren't equipped to counter weapons like Javelins and N-LAW's.
@@Firebolt193 Oh no, that's what they were trying to. Except in stroke of military genius, they tried to do it in the middle of mud season. This was Russia's pathetic attempt of blitzkrieg. Got stuck in the mud and run out of fuel because could not get their supply convoy. Ironically it was too much machines they could support logistically.
Russia will fall apart, it's a matter of time for bunch of warlord wannabes would end it from inside.
Javelin missiles have been licence built (By Airbus Defense) in Germany for many years. The US isn't the only source.
Additional points that hindered Russian tank effectiveness was the start date of 24th Feb. The ground was still soft and in some cases staying on the road was the only option.
Some captured Russian tanks have been found to have reactive armor cases filled with rubber and sand, not explosive material!
Things like the Excalibur 155 mm GPS-guided artillery shell make parking up vehicles for resupply dangerous. The situation would be untenable if large numbers of MQ-1 Predator drones were prowling around with Hellfire missiles and other guided ordnance, and ground attack aircraft with JDAMs were flying 24/7.
The battlefield in Ukraine is currently ruled by artillery.
Because the Russian military is not capable of operating its infantry, artillery, armor, and air power in a combined arms structure. Also, Russia either never bothered to, or was incapable of, taking complete control of Ukrainian airspace. In today's modern warfare scenarios, if you don't gain control of the airspace over your area of operations before sending in your ground assets, you are in a no-win situation.
That's what happens when one man fears a smarter person under him.