The T-90: Russia's Main Battletank (And its Failure in Ukraine)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 май 2024
- Commonly considered to be one of the world's deadliest tanks, the T90 battle tank is the crown jewel of Russia's military vehicles. Capable of firing different types of ammunition, it is able to take out armored vehicles from over 5km's away and can travel up to 60km/h. But with more than 19 of these tanks already having been lost during Russia's war with Ukraine, the fault in it's design might be that it simply wasn't meant for urban warfare.
Got a beard? Good. I've got something for you: beardblaze.com
Simon's Social Media:
Twitter: / simonwhistler
Instagram: / simonwhistler
Love content? Check out Simon's other RUclips Channels:
Biographics: / @biographics
Geographics: / @geographicstravel
Warographics: / @warographics643
SideProjects: / @sideprojects
Into The Shadows: / intotheshadows
TopTenz: / toptenznet
Today I Found Out: / todayifoundout
Highlight History: / @highlighthistory
Business Blaze: / @brainblaze6526
Casual Criminalist: / thecasualcriminalist
Decoding the Unknown: / @decodingtheunknown2373
Note that the AC system isn’t for the crew really. It’s more for the electronics. The crew part is just a side benefit
😂
Former American Army tanker here, can confirm.
bit of waste of tax payer money unless its a general. only use it if target is 10 times cost of ammo.
Sounds about right, people are expendable an machinery costs in putins eyes.
Dude! I laughed out loud! 😆😆😆
"The T-90 is ranked among the deadliest tanks in the world..."
Yeah, especially for the tank crew.
Lmao,
T-90 are leveling all ukraine cities to the ground .
@@user1qaz2wsx3edc That's true! The exploded tops of the turrets probably do a good bit of damage when they come back down from 100 feet in the air.
@@user1qaz2wsx3edc of course they are levelling Ukraine cities full of civilians that don’t fight back …
To be fair, American tanks in WWII were so bad the German soldiers called them Ronson's, after the lighter.
The reason for that is the German commanders told their soldiers "aim for their gas tanks. If you hit them "they light up the first time; every time.""
@@user1qaz2wsx3edc The US alone is casually sending over more weapons and monetary aid in a week than Russia produces with entire military spending budget in a year. Hell, Russia is somehow losing a naval war to a country that doesn't have a single vessel. If I was Russia, I'd be *so* embarrassed right now.
My grandfather was in the 8th Panzer Division. In 1979 (?) he was contacted by a historian to go as a guest to Aberdeen Md to see the XM1 tank. When we got there we met other armor veterans. The US Army was very gracious and nice and asked all the men about the new tank. All of the men no matter where they were from said the same thing. “Will the electronics survive extended warfare” It was fun to hear US, British and the couple Wehrmacht tankers tell war stories. My mom did overtime as translator that day…
I’ll bet; I bet that was amazing! Air Force and Luftwaffe veterans were much the same.
I see y u support Nazis
@@jaybee9269 I walked in to my local pub in 2000 and there were 20 or so veterans of WWII from the RAF, USAF and Luftwaffe sharing a drink to commemorate 60 years of the Battle of Britain. Amazing to meet these old boys who were bitter enemies 60 years ago, now sharing a pint in an English pub.
I think the United States Military has developed into a niche Military force designed to fight small insurgent wars. Our equipment while world class is extremely expensive and complicated. In an all out conflict I don't think we could maintain and replace equipment fast enough.
The lesson I learned from watching lots of documentaries on WW2 is that it's not the country that has the best tank/etc. that wins, it's the one that replaces their lost tanks faster. The Germans tanks were fantastic, vastly superior to the Allied tanks in many aspects but the Americans deployed so many Sherman's that it wore the Germans down. Same with the Russians and their T34. Would anyone choose to go into battle in a Sherman or T34 when they could take a Tiger? I wouldn't think so, but Germany couldn't replace their tanks fast enough so it didn't matter. You don't need the best tank you need an OK tank and lots of them.
My father was briefly in the 31st SS Panzer Grenadier Div. in 1945, in eastern Hungary, commanding a Jagdpanther armed with the 88mm. Pak 43 gun. Was captured after running out of gasoline, a typical fate.
What occurred to me, and might be interesting to others, is the lesson of "all the firepower and tech are useless if not deployed in the proper context and without support" is an ancient lesson. Arminius used almost the very same tactic in 9AD.
I’m surprised that Simon didn’t mention the fact that the autoloaders in the Russian T90 have the ammunition in the central area, causing the middle of the tank to explode when struck from above, causing the turret to blow off and crew to be killed.
All autoloaders have this issue which is why Javlins are able to destroy Most Russian Tanks (most of them are Cold War Era Tanks just upgraded for Modern Standards like the Ukranian ones) spectacularly, the way the Soviets and Russians countred this issue was to increased the Armor to protect the centrally located autoloader with the T 90M the Shtora is also designed as a countermeasure but as with any countermeasure it can fail. (So as with any tank throughout history its not invincible)
You just don't understand the main purpose of those advance technological design: this is the fastest way to made fancy cabriolet.
@@inneou9553 Cheaper and faster loading, its way cheaper in the long run to use an Autoloader than a Human Loader who has to sleep and Eat and to get health benefits.
@@forickgrimaldus8301 ...do you really think that the main purpose of the Autoloader (in comparison to the Human version of it) is so hard to understand for the person with, lets assume, average iq? :)
For me, as ukrainian citizen, this Autoloader feature is just another benefit for NLAWs and Juvelines that was donated to Ukraine by democratic states (God bless all of them) to defend our freedom and independence...
@@inneou9553 yes it is vulnerable to Javelins (NLAWs not much on the open but in Cities they are very good) especially the older versions but thats an overestimation of the faults of the autoloading system which are known even during its 1st creation, remeber the Javelin didn't come to play until recently and the Tanks with theAutoloading system is just recently being upgraded to deal with it (and considering Russia has difficulty upgrading its older designs that would take a very long Time).
I understand the hatred you feel on the Russian army but don't let it cloud your judgement on the weapon systems hell the Autoloader is also used by Ukraine as they too rely on Old Soviet Tanks (yes the Autoloader is that old) but the more appropriate critism is the use of such vehicles and the questionable nature of the Russian invasion.
The Allied invasion of Ukraine? Don't think the Allies ever got that far.
glad i wasnt the only one to notice that lol
Yeah, I had to do a double take on that one.
Yep rewound that - my eyebrow nearly jumped off my face
not sure I've got to that bit but is he talking about the Russian invasion? because they were part of the allies then.
Russia and Belarus???
The design of the T-90 has very little to do with the T-72 BU it's based off of. The fact that it's engine, transmission, fire control system, ammunition, auto loader, armor profile and and dimensions are identical to the earlier tank are just a coincidence. It's got a great active protection system; which doesn't work against Javelin's, NLAW's or any other modern anti-tank missiles, but it looks really cool. It also doesn't work if any of the T-90's hatches are open, but how often does the commander or crew need to open a hatch? Can't they just stay inside the tank 24/7?
Some people have complained that in a situation where the type of ammunition that has been loaded needs to be changed to a different ammo type, the extra ammunition must be stored on top of the engine's gas tank until needed, and this increases the risk to the crew. This is simply untrue. The crew is already sitting on top of all of the T-90's ammunition. Having one shell sitting a few inches closer to the crew presents no added risk. So, all in all the T-90 is a great tank that also makes a nice fireworks display.
ruclips.net/video/4Q83AIJCGaQ/видео.html
Damn, bro! Sarcastic much? 😄
This is peak comedy
Voce esqueceu de dizer que ele não funciona se for usado.kkkkkk
Did someone watch armourcast
Great analysis. Thanks for all the great videos you produce.
I’ve learned a few things in 24 years of military service. It’s not the equipment that wins a war, it’s the people. It doesn’t matter how advanced your equipment is if the mechanics and operators are not well trained.
Logistics wins wars. Bar none.
Yeah, the best tank in the world is useless when it runs out of fuel. Should be a thing easy to account for in planning, but it seems to have skipped away at someones' attention in the russian military
@@michaeltamke8542 #TurbineEngineRunningOnRedbull
Concur. USMC Logistician, Retired.
This argument that people keep making that it is the man, not the machine that wins is tiresome. Obviously a well trained, well motivated and high moral army is going to have an advantage over a less well trained, motivated group. But, a well trained and motivated tank crew with an M1A2 SEPv3 Abrams or Leopard 2A7 can do more than that same crew with a T72A. Both matter, period.
Honestly, the NLAW seems to be doing fine. The javelin is more for new MBT's, the NLAW is for everything else with armor. P.S. some of the clips were NLAWs, not Javelins.
Ukraine is also using Panzerfaust 3-1600T anti tank rockets as well.
I think it's "or" rather than "versus". The NLAW seems to be for short range engagement and the Javelin for longer ranges; that's why the Brits use both in the same unit.
@@davidb8539 Yeah. The Swedish design is also much cheaper.
Most are NLAW. He doesn't know what he is talking about.
@@davidb8539 Well no. The Javelin is US made while the NLAW is British/Swedish.
A sidenote is that the US increasingly uses thermal targeting systems - which do not trigger the defensive systems such as found in the T90. Also, popping defensive system smoke does not hide the tank from thermal imaging and target acquisition.
Depends on the smoke. Modern smoke grenades include phosphorous which obscures the vehicle's thermal signature as well as its optical one.
Err....I doubt that. I know Indian tanks use smoke grenades that obscure IIR sensors.
@@death_parade Smoke does not obscure thermal imaging, as it does not generate more heat than the object behind the smoke. It can impede FLIR systems, but even that is iffy. Smoke is best at diffusing laser-targeting systems.
@@csb78nm Nope. You are wrong. I've seen that image of TI getting defeated by purpose built smoke grenades for AFV, but since I can't post a pic on RUclips, let me explain the physics of this:-
Briefly, FLIR/Thermal Imager of any kind works by observing the thermal radiation emitted by a body hotter than its surroundings. Due to the kinds of temperatures most terrestrial objects have, as per Planck's law this thermal radiation is spectrally concentrated around infrared part of the spectrum of wavelength in range from 0.4 to 14 microns. We can stop these infrared rays from traveling to the observer from the body by creating a thick cloud of suspended particles of sizes between 0.4 and 14 microns between the radiating body and the observer. This causes the infrared radiation to scatter, thereby making it impossible for the observer to make out an image from the resulting scattered infrared radiation.
@@death_parade Thermal imaging works differently than FLIR (infrared system). While a special purpose grenade can be designed that emits intense heat, (white phosphorus or something similar) it does not create the same thermal image as, say, an engine block. Depending on angle of view, the grenade will not mask the target, as the signature is distinguishable. My experience is based on UH60L systems, and a tank isn't going to mask itself from an airborne platform by using a grenade-launching system, the signature difference is distinct between the two.
The ITAS is for fire control for the TOW. The Javelin has the CLU ( Command Launch Unit). Also the CLU does not paint or lase the target. It uses a more passive method that is not detectable as it does not emit anything.
Exactly. Also the ITAS thermal is much better than the Javelin. You can make out thermal signatures from an extremely long distance. We are talking about seeing small game at multiple kilometers away.
The autoloader is a fantastic bit of kit. It's fuelled by the arms of the crew and it's sent more Russians into space than the Soyuz.
Old BS made up to justify the failure to achieve reliable automation to replace the poor loader that has to manhandle explosives inside the crew compartment.
@@victorzvyagintsev1325 yeah, No they do have a bad habit of blowing the turret off when the ammo carousel gets hit. The arm thing though was fixed with later models.
😂😂😂😂😂
@@victorzvyagintsev1325 There’s a video of a turret easily flying over 100 feet in the air.
@@victorzvyagintsev1325 for old BS there is a lot of evidence showing them blowing up as a result but whatever helps you cope
something hardly anyone ever brings up is that the “omg red eyes are so badass” shtora-1 dazzlers are completely useless and actually make the tank worse because they require the removal of explosive reactive armor, which is actually useful. shtora-1 is about as effective against a javelin or nlaw as trying to bargain with them would be. that’s why they’re not on the t-90m, it’s one of the legitimately good design changes that model brought about.
It work for it time and older atgm , but not again new stuff hence remover
Doesnt matter that the reactive armor is being reduced since the Russian generals are stripping the explosives from the reactive armor and selling it on the black market anyway. The autoloaders also require ammo to be stored with the commander in the copula and penetration causes catastrophic explosions, sending the copula flying through the air.
@@jerryle379 Not really, the TOW 2 uses optical, wire guided to target and Dragon used the same SACLOS system as the Javelin, by the time turret made the turn, the missile is already on target. Not to mention the Javelin itself entered service the same year as the original T-90.
@@jhoag56 Can confirm, I was one of six Dragon gunners in my company at Bragg. But you had to stay in your firing position until impact, vulnerable to other elements that can return fire. The advantage with the Javelin is it's FnF, so much easier to shoot & scoot.
@@richardcheek2432 I was gonna bring that up! I've read reports of them finding ERA panels stuffed with straw or sand 'cause the explosive had been removed. We're learning that Russia's military is nothing but a paper tiger. I feel sorry for all those conscripts who have no idea what's going on & didn't want to be there in the first place.
Who would've thunk that throwing spears at tanks would actually be a viable tactic in real life and not just a gimmicky video game exploit.
I remember as a kid my friend's dad who'd been in VIetnam said that the trick to fighting alongside tanks is that you want them around, but you don't really ever want to be in one or even stand near one as they are big targets that will attract the first shots of any fight. I suspect with all of these Javelin missiles around they aren't the dominant force they were in past wars.
A similar aspect existed for machine gunners and flamethrower operators in wartime. Using such weapons made you a priority target for enemy forces and was not a desired assignment for people who wanted to stay alive.
This assumes that tanks ever were a dominant force, tanks have always performed best as part of a combined arms and generally sucked alone or without infantry support. Russia tends to use it's tanks very stupidly, acting like they are capable of winning zones and battlefields alone, which is not true and has never been true, however it likely heralds back to the T-34 which unfortunately many myths around it proclaim it like it was capable of defeating the Nazis and the Nazis had no answer to it's numbers; none of it really true, it was intelligence (espionage), mines, artillery and air superiority that broke the Nazi's advances on Russia, such as at Kursk. the T-34s were just tin cans on a fence for the Nazi Tiger and Panther tanks to shoot at.
Javelin does not use a laser rangefinder as part of its targeting process, it’s completely passive using thermal imaging and target recognition algorithms. Shtora is a wholly outdated countermeasure that was designed to work against older wire-guided weapons like TOW. It’s completely useless against Javelin or NLAW (which is also sans-laser and completely passive).
Older Javelin's require laser though right?
Thanks for the info.
@@gavin1506 No. Surface strike ATGMs like the Hellfire require laser targeting, but the Javelin is designed from the ground up to be a lightweight, fire and forget anti-tank platform. In fact, the whole firing assembly, tube and missile, is disposable. The thermal imaging equipment can be detached from the tube and attached to another tube very quickly to fire again. And the thermal imaging equipment is basically a whole unit in and of itself, capable of being used by infantry to increase situational awareness at night. I recommend Real Engineering's video on the subject, he does it much more justice than I.
The TOW system is not Laser guided either it is "Optically Tracked" which means you don't use a Laser to guide it. The missile is "Wire Guided" as long as you have a good sight picture of the target the missile will track to what you aim your cross hairs at and make corrections along it's flight path till impact. The TOW has IR but only on the rear of the missile that monitors it's position during flight back to the weapon system.
So no T90 Shtora system is next to useless against TOW systems too.
Only have to look up how effective TOW systems were turned against Russian built T90's in Syria
@@rileyflack8010 There are hellfire variants that are radar-guided as well, though only used by Longbow Apaches as far as I'm aware. But regardless, detecting a laser was the cheap solution at the time to detecting incoming missiles but was far from comprehensive. The ideal, universal solution is detecting the smoke and flame of a launched missile, like IRST systems do, but they are more expensive and won't tend to detect someone preparing to launch, just the launch and flight itself. IRST covers optical, radar, infrared, laser, GPS, etc. seeking missiles.
I thought that you might also mention severe weakness of both the T-72 and the T-90 is the Russian deliberate choice to put the auto-loader in the same area as the crew compartment, so that when the javelin penetrates the turret, everyone is immediately killed and the multi-ton turret is blown literally sky-high.
A separate sealed compartment would solve so many issues, but alas, that would require R&D and money.
@@clintonjfox A separate sealed compartment is what they have in the T14 Armata.
I've actually just watched a RUclips video that showed that exact thing - the turret was literally sent at least 200 meters into the air. Top shot.
@@user-dp4ok9ox5w shame they cant make them
@@user-dp4ok9ox5w it has no ablative armor though right?
I found it interesting that all he mentioned was the American Javelin, not the British NLAW that is claimed as responsible for 40% of all Russian armored losses. Also when talking about urban warfare, that is what NLAW was designed for, while Javelin is more for the battlefield thanks to it's greater range.
Not quite, the british army use javelins with specialised anti tank squads, but issue NLAWs down to section level infantry. They just have less range and are cheaper. Due to the arming distance of around 20 metres they arnt always best suited to urban fighting.
40% of Russian armor losses?!? lmao alright… I want what you’re smoking. I’d bet there isn’t one weapon system with that much dominance on the Ukrainian battlefield with the variety of Western, Soviet, and home grown Ukrainian weapon systems. If you had said 40% of Russian armor had been destroyed by “artillery” I wouldn’t doubt it. There were roughly 3,500 NLAWs sent to Ukraine. While there were 7,000 Javelins sent to Ukraine by the US in the first few months of the war and that’s not even accounting for any other NATO members who sent Javelins…
good job on info. Thanks, things are a changing.
11:00 : The javelin is fully passive when locking on and tracking targets, that means it does not point any laser to the tank, that means it is not possible to detect it.
Making infantry THAT much more important.
Yea he was way off when describing how the javelin works.
And the Javelin is fire and forget, so the soldier who fired it can run to cover before the missile hits the tank, making it less likely they will be hit by return fire.
It would be possible to detect it by radar, infrared (using its exhaust signature) and optic/light.
Sure, anything is possible but not with russian levels of equipment and anyway the t90 was subject of the video. What magical powers those 12 armatas supposedly have means very little on the field 😅
The other things that gets overlooked is russia's lack of night vision, this has meant that the tanks have been traveling during the day time making them sitting ducks but the javelin also has night vision so the ukranians can see the russians but the russians can't see them. the SAAB NLAW anti tank misile system is also in play and works by firing over the top of the tank with a HEAT round that points down, punching a hole in the weak part of the armour.
It's not that Russian tanks don't last night vision all together they just lack thermals for the most part
More importantly, they seem to lack infantry support……or air support……or any form of combined arms at all. Which is mad because we learned this shit in WW2
@@skorzalonsdale4426 all the hard lessons of past wars need to be relearned at start of news wars, that's just how things goes. Institutional knowledge fade over time, regardless how much you try to emphasis it in exercises, more so if you don't have the funds to conduct frequent realistic exercises. Unless you are constantly in wars like US does.
Indeed where the US army operates at night, the Russian army operates at day, ... it's ridiculous. And now due to the restrictions on Russia, they won't be able to get high tech chips and they are doomed to go back in time,...
@@xsu-is7vq that's only sonewhat true, while it's true that doctrines may evolve over time in war countries still have a plan, the Russian doctrine is large scale shock and awe, tanks supported by armoured infantry. However, Russia has 1. chosen to invade in the Rasputitsa (everything is a muddy hellhole essentially), the stupidest thing a country can do. This confined Russian forces to the roads in most cases, which leaves them vulnerable to just about everything, not only that but there is several cases of Russian forces being so uncoordinated that that they send tanks into cities without infantry support which is also extremely moronic.
Long story short, Russia has a doctrine which they deliberately chose to ignore in favor of just throwing their stuff at Ukraine and hoping for the best, a pretty horrible tactic as is evident by how the war is going.
When I was a national serviceman (conscript) in 1959 I asked a tank officer if the British tank was any good. He said the gun was good. It was clear he didn’t think much of the rest of it.
He is right. Look at leopards and bradleys your wonder weapons now. How did Ukraine offensive go? 😂😂😅😅
Good video ... very informative ... Bart
When your turrets spend more time in the air then your air force, you might just have a problem.
How many T-90M tanks have actually been destroyed for you to say this? The Leopard 2 and M1a2 Abrams tank were taken out by ATGMS in Yemen and Syria.
@@thephoenix756 there was an image of a T-64BV turret which was blown up and ended up on the second floor of a building. It won't fall back down until it removed from that second story floor meaning it's spending more time than the air force in the air. Not a T-90M though.
@@thephoenix756 I have yet to see any photos of T-90M deployed in Ukraine but plenty of blown up T-80/72/90A have been destroyed
@@timothygoodwin3287 Check Oryx site for confirmation. There are 1 T-90M that wad destroyed with picture, you can find it on Oryx site.
@@thephoenix756 so far 2 known T-90M with image as proof on Oryx. Beside unlike Abram and Leopard, T-90M hasn't seen combat like the other two and it newer.
10:50 I remember using this trick in the Battlefield series to pretty much guarantee a hit on an enemy tank. I had no idea it was an actual real world tactic. Imagine how fucking terrifying it would be to know you could get hit at any moment without any warning or protection from the tank's systems.
LMAO I also use this trick in BF ^^
I don't think most people realise how weak tanks accutally are. Even an old old at weapon like an rpg 7 and be fired at a tanks tracks from the side and if it hits now the tank can't move which makes it all but usless the area can be secured so the tank crew or some sappers can fix the track. Also javilen still exists so yeah....
@@tirushone6446 well getting close enough to a tank to fire an RPG7 at it without it engaging you means youve already taken some control of the battlefield or have completely surprised your enemy.
Really? I gotta try it
@@tirushone6446 Modern armour tactics are based on highly mobile combined arms warfare. If a tank is sitting still enough for you to hit it, and there is nothing and no-one protecting it (remembering most nations outside of Russia use tanks as infantry support) then you're either extremely lucky or you've already won the battle and just doing cleanup.
The video is titled failure of T90 tanks but it proves nothing about the failure of T90 tanks as such. If anything only thing video talks about is failure of tactics and if there is failure of tactics any tank can fail. It doesn't prove that any western or American tank have faired better than T90, which in fact remain untested in battle fields. Besides, neither are there any confirmed sources which prove actual number of loses of these tanks.
Good distinction! Thank you!
The Javelin is heavy AF and super clunky but, I was always happy to carry it around where I went. It's kind of like the M240B for training it sucks because it's also heavy and clunky. When Ish hits the fan can't ask for better equipment to have at your finger tips to save you and your battle buddies lives.
Thank you for your service. Quick question if you don't mind, but was the m240B not used in combat? I thought it was, especially for defensive battlements.
@@ryotv1747 definitely used in combat. Im saying it sucks to carry around during training but when combat starts you'll be happy you are the one carrying it.
I was a weapons squad kid and 240 gunner but when I was a SGT and saw privates carrying the CLU and rocket under fire but they had no targets because there were no tanks, I was pretty pissed. During a raid I screamed at a PVT carrying all that shit to give me some because he was going to slow and he was like, "No SGT...blah blah." I get it, during training, we suck it up. Under fire, we move. At the time I saw it as a giant liability. I'm happy it is not any more.
Of course I would be happier if nation-states and their insane leaders wouldn't send kids to kill for them.
Simon, I really enjoy your videos and you generally do a good job of explaining what are very complex subjects. Just FYI a few accuracy errors although most of what you mentioned was correct, Javelin does not 'paint the target' so STORA has no beneficial effect in disrupting the missile's targeting it uses fire and forget Infra-red homing which is passive (i.e. there are no active emissions for the tank to detect) and therefore is a very hard missile to counter as there is no command line of sight for the STORA to disrupt. It is old tech designed against older anti-tank missiles like TOW. Basically to defend against Javelin you need another generation of protective measures like a Defence Aids Suite (like Israel's trophy system) which tracks incoming targets using doppler radar and sends out a projectile at close range to disrupt the warhead whilst the missile is still in flight, preventing the shaped charge jet forming and penetration of the armour. Keep the content coming!
really?
It's a crap video as not one proof is shown that T-90 are even used in Ukraine.
@@stemill1569 If you search the internet you can find photos and videos of T-90s in Ukraine. But they don't seem super common
@k pez....really superb observation. I have not read such a clear comment anywhere. Fascinating. I am sure Russian engineers are onto this.
at 5:55 Simon also stated that the Allies had invaded Ukraine. I need to know that someone else heard that.
@@edoedo8686 it's no quick fix, and going by the current state of the Russian military industrial complex I doubt they are going to have a DAS capability rolled out for most tanks until 2030s...if at all, unless they can mass produce the T14 😂
HOw about an updated video on the the failures of LEapord 2 western tank in Ukraine?
Cope
Great segue into the segment on the javelin!
That beard was getting a bit unruly Simon...it looks so much better now you've given it a trim.
lol amen to that 😆
I was a javelin gunner, that missile and targeting system are crazy. You can see what someone has in their pockets because of the heat difference, and send a missile through the window of a home at 3000m 🤯
It costs 300 thousand dollars per shot
@@last_week_with_diogo_br8386 no, whole system is like 150k, missile is ~70k
Abrams would struggle against Javelins also. It's not just Russian tanks that would have a problem. It's all tanks.
Yeah you pretty much can't stop tandem warheads unless you want a tank that is twice the size and weight due to several kinds of armor stacked on eachother. The era of main battle tanks as a main offensive armament is over.
@@rubiconnn for now
The Centurion was not the world's first main battle tank. Tanks of that class of weight, armor and gun power existed before the Centurion, like the M26 Pershing, or even the German Panther.
Note: the T-90 wasn't based on the T-72...it was the T-72. Also, the weakest point was the dazzlers, that were left off the export model, making the export a better tank. Mind you the dazzlers were essentially useless when they came out so all you had was a vulnerability and a bad case of pink eye.
It also was incapable of firing ATGMs because it's auto-loader was the same as the one in the T-72 and couldn't handle them.
Not only did you talk about this tank as if it had all that capability when it was produced in the 90s, but you actually got a lot of the information wrong. This thing was nothing more than a T-72 when it rolled off the production line and had obsolete systems. LRF systems use a very specific laser wavelength and the SHTORA-1 system wasn't that good at detection of western LRF systems. They could pick up Russian ones. And the dazzlers were completely useless against everything but the oldest systems and then you had to look directly at UT and know it was coming and hope pray it wasn't a TOW because you wouldn't know it was launched, nor would you be able to stop it. There is no range finding its all passive sensing but the system is incredibly powerful. As for the idea that these things are anything to be called deadly, they have significantly tanked that reputation in recent months.
I agree 👍
You expect these RUclips videos to tell you about laser wavelengths? I've seen this same guy in other videos, on another RUclips channel, with totally different subjects being "presented". We've been clickbaited and that's it!
@@GholaTleilaxu no, I don't expect them to have the depth of knowledge I have on some subjects. My comment was not asking for information, it was informative. I'm sharing knowledge that you won't get in the video or correcting misinformed statements. I'm not critiquing, this is a community.
There were numerous errors in this, though the overall general aspects were correct. The main thing I want to mention, however, is the role of ERA and APS. Firstly, ERA is designed to counter chemical warheads. RPGs and Javelins use chemical, not kinetic warheads. APFSDS, Armor Piercing "Fin Stabilized" (not Finalized) Discarding Sabot, is a form of kinetic ammunition.
ERA counters chemical weaponry by detonating and dispersing the jet of hypersonic metal (no, chemical weaponry doesn't use "molten" metal) caused by the chemical warhead. The Javelin and other "Tandem " warheads counter ERA by having a charge detonate the ERA first, then set off the actual armor penetrating charge.
APS, or Active Protection Systems come in two primary forms. Disruption and Destruction. Disruption APS is like what the T90 uses, which "jams" the incoming missile and causes it to miss/fly into the ground. Destruction APS use what is essentially an anti-missile shotgun shell to intercept the missile, causing it to detonate a few meters before impacting the armor. As far as I can recall, all sovi... Er, russian, vehicles that utilize APS have it restricted to the direction the barrel is facing, the front of the turret, and thus that is why the tank rotates the turret to the direction of the incoming missile, not because the armor on the turret is better than the side. Turret armor makes no difference when the missile hits the side of the tank.
This has been my TED talk, thank you for reading.
The Javalin warhead is a High Explosive Anti Tank (HEAT). Definitely not a chemical warhead. It's explosive with a shaped charge.
@@zit11owner HEAT warheads are an exothermic chemical reaction. So he's correct.
@@zit11owner it seems you have no clue what you are talking about, HEAT munitions literally have chemical warheads
@@zit11owner *Javelin, not "javalin"
And what would a military equipment video be without the "um actually" comment that inevitably follows it? This is not a documentary, it is entertainment, stop confusing the two. In general, an easy way to determine which is which is, if you are watching it, it is entertainment; if you are reading it, it is education.
When you factor in corruption in the form of fictitious training, maintenance, and repairs, you can better appreciate why Russia is struggling so much.
Not to mention the government controlled mob raiding bases, demanding ransoms, and all the competent military leaders…disappear
Not to mention that the Russian strategy to stop their troops getting chewed up in a meat grinder by just throwing more bodies at it to clog it up hasn't changed since 1915.
@@TheRedneckAtheist "Uraaa" intensifies.
Those mega yachts weren't free.😄
@@RT-mm8rq Russian milionaire: oh no, our troops are dying 10:1 so tragic.
Simon saying “Fire Power” is the Churchill analogue we need today.
Quick thought about the critique against the autoloader's death carousel. I understand that it is very terrifying to see tons of explosives sitting below you, ready to launch you to space if they ever get hit, but I don't see it as a logical reason for it to be an "extra danger" for the crew.
Because if the enemy manages to penetrate your armour, especially from above, you're gonna die whether the ammunition below you explodes or not.
They aren't below. The ammunition is stored IN the turret around the crew. Tanks like the Abrams have the ammunition in a shielded storage area away from the crew, to prevent cookoffs. Even a round penetrating the roof doesn't guarantee the crew all die - that does.
Don't forget the impact a very large amount of relative inexpensive and very simpel AT4 have done to tanks. Without any fancy electronics perfect for medium range urban combat.
Sweden's contribution before joining NATO lol.
You guys know what size the at4 round is??
@@EriktheRaids82D 84mm
Its not supposed to penetrate the best tank armor anymore, but i just saw a clip a carl gustav took out a t-90.
@@Holykraut Yep, AT4
Javelin doesn't laser paint the target, it has a passive IR seeker. Dont know if it has a laser rangefinder but that does matter as it is not used to target the tank. Simon is most likely confusing Javelin and Stugna-P which is also used by Ukraine and the exakt tactic that he is describing is used by the Stugna-P operators.
@Sampa Norein It also stops it crashing into the ground as a bit wobbly initially till it gets up to speed LOL
Exactly, there’s plenty of videos of Stugna-P operators aiming slightly off and away from the vehicle only to paint the target at the last second or two.
Best example was that Stugna-P hit on a KA-52.
@@theglitch312 That was incredible. I believe they've taken out 2 choppers with Stugna-Ps now.
Yes plus he unfortunate makes the very massive, critical and insulting mistake of calling and NLAW at 10:05 a Javelin. I am really surprised he makes this mistake considering the two systems don’t look anything alike despite their similar functionalities. We’ve seen unfortunately many US channels also make this mistake of thinking NLAWs must just be some sort of U.S.-made weapon and just end up calling it a javelin anyway through laziness when they were made to high effectiveness in the UK and have now been doing a brilliant job in helping Ukrainian and volunteer fighters in taking out Russian armoured vehicles.
@Sampa Norein Javelin guide itself using IR signature of the vehicle not laser, and it also has a fire and forget mode.
You do realise that half of those "Javelin" images were of the NLAW system instead?
Not that it matters much, it's just as effective within it's shorter range.
genders cannot make the difference, even if labeled in big letters. mans do.
Like how you focus on the topic at hand without trying to choose sides. This makes your videos more authentic and believable ( assuming that's the right choice of words) 😂
Many countries, like Russia and China, have not been involved in conflicts where their equipment was or is actually used in battlefield conditions where shortcomings could be identified. "manufacterer" testing is always going to be somewhat suspect because they have the ability to modify how testing is conducted to make flaws less noticable while there is no hiding them on the battlefield. One of the things that is seldom talked about regarding the US military is that we have had almost 30 years of continual conflicts where our equipment can be implemented in small numbers, information about performance and flaws compiled, and modifications made to the equipment before mass production or release. Although being in conflicts over that duration is not a "good" thing in itself, it is a fantastic way to test equipment.
But their battles in ww2 were so much more deadly and hopeless than any American conflict except In terms of stakes the revolution and the civil war. 11 million dead soldiers and they still took Berlin, and hitler killed himself. Of course they had rather weak equipment. Most Germans died in the east
The problem with your words is that the United States has not been involved in such major conflicts for a very long time. Now in the American army there are problem areas that still need to be discovered. And when major conflicts took place, such as both invasions of Iraq, a huge number of abscesses were opened, like communication, logistics, as well as in Russia, this was revealed in 2008, which led to reforms, but insufficient, because it was very short and an over-successful conflict, and now, which leads to massive reforms in the Russian army right now, if you thoroughly follow the news of the military-industrial complexes. For example, it has already become known that the Russian army is going to completely reform the supply troops, they did not have the opportunity to check them before. Or, for example, they changed the designs of their corvettes, which did not have full-fledged air defense and put modules with an excellent Tor air defense system there.
@@Saiga-saiga THe US has been involved in conflicts almost continually since 1990, so I'm not sure where you are coming up with:
"The problem with your words is that the United States has not been involved in such major conflicts for a very long time".
I was in Desert Storm and have been directly involved in those conflicts up until 2017. Unfortunately, you have no idea what you are talking about in regards to the US military actions. The issues you claim were problems for the US, were not. Not in any way.
You may have some insite on the situation with the Russian military, nut it doesn't sound like it. The conflict in th eUkraine jas been going on now for months, and the changes you are suggesting will be happening soon, are things that should have been modified as part of the initial assault as the issues were revealed. That included defensive measures. You say this:
"Or, for example, they changed the designs of their corvettes, which did not have full-fledged air defense and put modules with an excellent Tor air defense system there."
somehow forgetting that Russia is the aggressor and had all the time they needed to update any equipment before initiating the assault on Ukraine. If those things were avaialable, they would already have been installed and in use from the beginning. No military strategy includes withholding available (non-nuclear) offensive or defensive weapons that are added later "if needed". Those types of advanced weapons provide the advantage needed to overcome the enemy and minimize casualties and equipment loss. It is not realistic to suggest that those things exist and will be implemented now.
Thanks for taking the time to write such a lengthy comment. We do not have to agree on things to have a good conversation. Cheers!
@@vanhattfield8292 What is happening after the second invasion of Iraq can hardly be called a "major conflict", and in general, the second invasion of Iraq in 2003 already looks more like a beating of poor gangs in slippers. That's why I mean that during "Desert Storm" a lot of abscesses opened up, bad communication, bad coordination, lack of supply, it was all there, it's useless to deny it, it's been repeated many times by thousands of people of various positions.
Well, maybe you were, but that doesn't mean you've seen everything, it's the survivor's fault. Dialectics, statistics, data from many people, in addition to important ones, they say that everything was, to put it mildly, not very good.
Wait, are you saying now that the changes should be made by Russia IN ADVANCE? But at the same time, you started your thought in the first message with the fact that all problems are revealed precisely when the army begins to act, arguing that the United States is constantly at war. You are contradicting yourself.
And yes, by the way, Russia is also constantly at war: Transnistria, Karabakh, Chechnya, Georgia, Ukraine 2014-2022, Syria, Libya, and so on. They also have experience, but these are all very minor conflicts, except for Ukraine since 2022, so the experience, knowledge, troops involved in these conflicts are not enough. Likewise, the US has little experience with minor conflicts in Afghanistan or Iraq since 2004.
The initial problems were identified and it even became obvious that Russia changed its tactics in principle when it became clear that Kyiv would not negotiate, it became obvious that now it was simply pointless to keep their grouping in the north of the country and they switched to the strategy of grinding troops with artillery and work of special groups, which they always did well.
You say that I forget that Russia is the aggressor. But you don’t keep in your mind the idea that Russia was a forced aggressor, she tried to resolve this conflict peacefully for eight years, she did not believe until the very end in the possibility of large-scale bloodshed, which we see in attempts to threaten the capital Kyiv and impose quick peace negotiations. You are not familiar with the history and details of this conflict.
I do not see non-nuclear forces abandoned in the Russian doctrine. I don't quite understand what you mean by this argument. Russia has the same problems as the US during Desert Storm, a lack of communication, coordination and supplies.
Have a nice one you too.
@@Saiga-saiga I am not sure where you are getting your information regarding Desert Storm, but it is highly inaccurate. I was involved from start to finish, even being present outside of the tent in Safwan where the cease fire was signed and was assigned to the unit that remained in Iraq after the cease fire that was tasked with providing security to the refugees attempting to flee. We had no issues with supplies ocommunication or coordination. I was on the front lines start to finish, and if those things existed, it would be at that location, not the rear element. With all due respect, it is not possible for you to convince me that things were different when it is something I was directly involved with. You say I am not familiar with the conflict Russia, while also insisting that I am not familiar with the conflicts in Iraq, which I have been involved with extensively for the majority of my adult life. first in the military andthen as a civilian, so your assumptions about what I do or do not know are not exactly on point.
The history of Russia and the Ukraine is that there has been established borders for decades, ever since the break up of the Soviet Union, and Russia has crossed that border as part of a military action. The problem for Russia is that with the break up, the oil pipelines that feeds Russian oil to Europe now pass through the soverign country of Ukraine and tarrifs must be paid as a result. That has been an issue with Russia from the beginning. There is no other country in agreement with Russia regarding the current military action except Myanamar, and they are completely dependant upon Russia for their military, so their stance is not exactly unbiased. Additionally, Russia has been concerned about NATO for years, even though there has not been confromtation in the past, but with the current actions taking place, it is forcing other countries who have previously avoided involvement to join out of fear that Russia will continue it's advancement into their country as well. It is an unfortunate situation all around snd one that hopefully will be resolved in the near future.
Thanks again for taking the time to respond. Cheers!
Edited to remove some miss-information.
I think it's important to remember that while yeah, the Javelin *is* effective at what it's designed to do, the 2000 - 4000 thousands sent to Ukraine is a drop in the ocean compared to the numbers of N-laws (the one ironically depicted at 10:11 which is a completely different weapon), AT-4's and most importantly, Ukraine's own Stugna systems all of which are in much wider use.
The issues in Ukraine are much more nuanced than simply "the US supplied javelins which are killing all the Russian tanks" and it comes down more so to the tactics used by both sides as well as the climate mentioned but neither of these issues are ones that are exclusive to the t-90, it's an army wide problem.
To summarize a topic the Ukrainians themselves honestly know better than any of us, what I've read and heard from Ukrainian soldiers themselves a major reason for their success is due to the lack of infantry support. I wish I had the source at hand but I remember hearing a Ukrainian soldier describe how all they did was wait for the Russian tanks to pass them, then ambush the following infantry vehicles which lead to the infantry fleeing and then just taking out the now exposed and somewhat blind tanks from the rear and sides where, much like most western tanks, most Russian tanks have less protection as they are not intended to fight that way.
the javelin is great. But it's not the war winning weapon that a lot of people make it out to be, that's still the job of the cheaper and simpler Infantry carried AT weapons and other tanks. The javelin is a boon to Ukraine but not the only reason that they are winning against the Russians
All in all I think this video falls into the same pitfalls of a lot of media where it portrays the T-90 as this "god-machine that got completely countered and destroyed in the war due to *one specific weapon*" when in matter of fact, the T-90 isn't much different in performance compared to western tanks it's more a matter of how they are utilized.
Each russian tank unit is supported by only 500 men. 250 on screening and 250 on hard protection. Compare to the US where 1 tank unit is supported by 5000 men at a minimum. So yes, what the soldier said absolutely makes sense.
Not to mention the numerous other issues with Russian command caused ironically, by Putin.
Lack of men, supplies, flexibility due to not having NCOs or and equivalent to manage front line stuff, conscripted soldiers (usually lower quality), tactics that seem to be based off of impulse instead of logical targeting, little coordination, no night vision, no infantry support, outdated equipment, and very little advanced equipment for cqb. I think that a lot of this is because of the in my opinion outdated military doctrine. Russians seem to focus on power instead of logistics and planning. And of course we're not even talking about Ukrainian advantages such as military aid, large numbers of troops, and terrain knowledge.
Any way you look at it the Russian tanks were, and still are, way outnumbered by the sheer number of ATGMs Ukraine has right now. You add to that they will and are getting 155 mm Howitzers of varying types, they will be getting Ghost Phoenix drones, and various other armaments from NATO and other countries, and Russia is up against a very formidable foe. On top of all of that, the Ukrainian army is more like a modern NATO military that has an NCO corps and soldiers who can think for themselves this helped Ukraine in a big way as well.
Yes thank you for highlighting this. I also commented a very long message regarding that inaccuracy in his message about the NLAW v Javelin as well. I am really surprised for all of the massive accuracy this guy gives in his videos, that he makes such a massive massive mistake of labelling an NLAW a javelin considering how many the UK has sent to Ukraine and their massive success over there.The UK since many of them both before and after this stage in the invasion with high praise from the units that have used them yet we see many over in the US thinking that somehow they are all from the country and that they must be some sort of variant of their own javelin, when it is quite clear from the end that they look nothing alike. Even the Russians don’t make that sort of mistake. I truly hope that when the war is over Americans don’t continue to make this same annoying mistake. The only thing that the javelin in the end Laura have in common apart from being a fire and forget system and both being able to do streaks from above and the side of armoured vehicles, is that they are both taking far too long to reproduce. Both the US and UK will critically have to work on mass-producing these systems ASAP instead of one off bulk orders if Ukraine is to have enough of them to defeat the Russians quicker.
@@Lonewolfmike Couple that with the combat experience gained with the war in the Donbass region which started in 2014 and extended with Putin's ramp up of that war with the on-going training that Ukraine has received from NATO armies. You now have a well equipped, combat trained and seasoned, and extremely motivated army who is defending its home. The Russians have kicked open the mother of all hornet's nests.
Does each T-90 come with the song "Pop Goes the Weasel" to be played when their turret gets blown off? 🤣
You forget to mention prapably number one reason for Russian tanks failures:
Corruption; half of systems in T-90s, simply didn't work or got stolen and sold before invasion.
Yes but alway has been like that in russia
I'm sorry Simon but you got quite a few details with regards to the AT weapon systems mentioned in the video wrong, some of the more substantial: The javelin is not laser-guided but uses an automatic optical infrared guidance system that gives it fire and forget capabilities. The Shtora-1 system does not influence it.
Second. The weapon system shown around 10:15 is of the NLAW, another technologically impressive and more cost-effective modern system used in the conflict, with a similar or even greater impact on the conflict.
Lastly, a substantial point that might have been overlooked is the somewhat underwhelming sensor package on the t-90 with regards to the amount and quality of thermal sensors on the vehicle.
Re read your comment. Removing my ignorant unrelated response. Good day sir.
On top of that there are too a lot of vaguely checked facts, feels like a wikipedia college student presentation
Im pretty sure hes just the personality and his other faceless people do the hard work behind the scenes.
@@somewhereua Most of his vids are exactly that.
@@alexander1485 of course. He is the news anchor, not the author of anything.
You have a great presentation style, but, in this particular video, you simply missed the mark on substance. The T90 is a slightly improved T72. The Javelin is NOT a laser guided weapon. It uses passive optical / infrared data so the Russian counter measures are useless. The T90 is as vulnerable from above as any of the previous tank generations. Might have wanted to mention that.......
Bias doesn't let him judge properly.
Anyway, this is not scripted by him personally...
"The T90 is a slightly improved T72."
1:34
@@henryrollins9177 your biaZ is showing buddy
Depends which T-72 variant we're talking about. Compared to T-72As and Ms T-90 is vastly superior. On the other hand, T-72B3 have been modernised to be almost as good as the T-90, aside from the few most modern T-90s in service.
Agreed this is the worst that I've seen him do.. Addressing a whole bunch of features but without much nuance.
It has AC -- Added late and this is not atypical in modern tanks
IR dazzlers - Basically useless
Talks about javelins - Shows NLAWS
Autoloader - Doesn't mention ammo stowage issues
Mentions armour bias, but doesn't mention APS bias
Infrared Lasers for targetting... Umm?
One of the most indestructible tanks ever made... Umm.
Speculation of either blackmarket sales or russia never fitting the era
Do one on the leopard tanks now
Every tank has its own weaknesses, its really hard to assess tanks qualities because the tank does represent only one piece of military system, it was never designed to be standalone tool, but rather as a part of combined fighting force. Also its important to understand military doctrine under which tanks operates and we should not miss out the personal factor. T-90 is definitely not a pinnacle of Russian military system, but when it has a properly trained and experienced crew and it s deployed correct way it can be very effective machine, same as any other tanks used over the world. We should keep on mind that every piece of military tool has its own flaws and limitations and that flaws and limitations has been used against them. When it comes to war many people neglect one aspect, operational cost. So when it comes to comparing battle effectiveness and cost it has a solid result. Looking to past during WW II, German tanks were the most advanced pieces of equipment and when it comes to quality factor no one could compete with them but despite this factor they lost against soviets because they were outnumbered by tanks of lesser quality. Even during now days you can see on the conflict between Yemen and Saudis, where Yemen use old obsolete equipment against modern western military technologies and despite the age factor they are capable to harm even the newest pieces of military equipment.
It would also help if you properly maintain your tanks and dont have crews rip out all the electronics to sell on the black market, or buy reactive armor plates with the "reactive" part missing...
I would have to say Germany did not have the most advanced nor best quality of a tank. That’s the Americans. I have been in a Sherman and have been in German ww2 stuff and I would rather take the quality of a Sherman over any tank in the world, thing is the mansion of the tank world
Just a couple days ago we had our first confirmed kill of a T-90m model, the latest and most powerful tank Russia has in service.
I thought the t14 was there latest module
@@mbarkbiba Latest model officially deployed and in production, if I'm not mistaken, which I easily could be.
@@mbarkbiba T-14's aren't really in service yet.
T 14 Armata is officially in service in Russia
@@andychart Its not distributed rn masse with Russian units. There is only a limited amount Russia can afford to build. It is not in service.
The unfortunate side effect of the javelins impact is the flash of the missile impact followed by the Volcano Blast of the victims tank "Brewing" up in a stream of fire. When that happens you know that three soldiers have been burned / blown to bits.
All deaths in war are tragic wastes of lives, but it's a necessary tragedy in this case. The Ukrainian people deserve our support, and we cannot let Russia win.
There are some really bad people in the Russian military, but not all of them are murdering rapists many of these tank crews are being forced into this war, they are fathers, husbands, and sons and are dying senselessly they have no interest in continuing this war, it is said that the morale of the Russian soldiers is exxtremely low, they are being sent to their deaths
@@BILLY-px3hw you should see the UN reports on ukraine the last 8 years
LOL no. Usually all survive or we see 1 killed. Multiple hits on video. It takes usually on average 6 hits with a missile to take out a tank.
I lost any sympathy for Russian soldiers some time ago. Dead Russians are no longer able to kill innocent Ukrainians.
To my knowledge the targeting and optic system in the javelin is the CLU and the TOWs is the ITAS.
Another issue with the shtora-1 is that its an old system. Old ATGMs fired from helis, ground tubes, tanks, ect would be jammed or disrupted by the IR reflector/ jammers. But new TOW missiles and other modern anti tank weaponry either do not alert the shtora, or simply bypass the countermeasure.
The example "heavy tank" you open with (the FCM Char 2C) was very heavy, but in fact was, contrary to your description, rather under-armored. And the pre-MBT classification of tank types was much more complicated than is suggested.
The British, who invented the tank, never used the light/medium/heavy nomenclature. They divided tanks into infantry tanks, relatively slow tanks intended to support infantry on foot, and cruiser tanks, faster vehicles intended to fill traditional cavalry roles. They only abandoned this system when the Centurion came out, which was somewhere in the middle, a little slower than a traditional cruiser, but much faster than a traditional infantry tank, and very heavily armed and armored.
@@WalkaCrookedLine Development of the Centurion began in 1943, and the Conqueror (initially the "A45 Infantry Support Tank") shortly afterwards, though the appearance of the latter, heavier, tank, was much delayed (a decade). So the abandonment of the cruiser/infantry distinction hadn't at that point taken place.
The Tiger I wasn't a "heavy tank", iirc. It was a "breakthrough tank", again iirc.
My demur from the description of the Char 2C (a design that barely missed combat in WWI) remains.
It was actually the canadians who developed the tank. Google it. Combat tractors in ww1.
@@joshschneider9766 Don't be coy. Supply the link. This article says, "The 1st Canadian Tank Battalion was still training in [British] Mark V tanks in the U.K. when the Canadian Tank Corps was finally authorized two days after the armistice." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanks_of_Canada No mention of any "invention" earlier than that.
Of course, but then this would turn into a tank history video.
The clip of the Centurion tanks showed them with their fuel trailers. Over on the Arsenalen channel, the Swedish gentleman, who helps run the museum, showed a Swedish Centurion with the fuel trailer and explained it. A fascinating innovation. They could drive the tanks up near the front lines and transfer the fuel from the trailer. They could leave the trailer behind for support personnel to take them back to get them ready for the next mission. Apparently, it was a very fuel thirsty tank...maybe more so than many competing designs.
Wasn't really "an ingenious invention", more like a bandaid over the fact that the tank had abysmally low range on internal fuel tanks and no real way to refuel in the field
@@ZealothPL
Perhaps, but even today fighter jets will often carry auxiliary fuel tanks. If they can refuel before entering enemy territory they will use their built in tanks until they reach the flying fuel tankers and top off the regular fuel tanks and then switch to the auxiliary tanks for the rest of the journey. Should they run into enemy jets that they could not shoot down at a distance and need to do some quick maneuvering, they can drop those tanks so they are more agile and start the fight with completely full fuel tanks. Either to fight off the enemy jets and finish the mission or to fight off the enemy jets and make it back to base.
Although tanks like the M1 Abrams probably get better mileage, they usually travel with fuel tankers that follow them and when they think they are getting close to the enemy they top off their fuel tank before proceeding while the fuel tanker stays behind and out of danger and can be available to refuel the tanks afterward.
That is one reason why the US military likes to achieve air superiority before ground forces move in so the supply line does not have to worry about enemy aircraft attacking it.
@@oldtimefarmboy617 No, early Centurions had range as low as 30 miles in terrain/60 on paved surfaces and had to be refueled by hand from dozens of Jerry cans strapped to them all over, which took forever. That's why it's a bandaid
@@ZealothPL
I was not speaking about Centurions (introduced in 1945), early or late. I was speaking about The M1 Abrams tank (introduced in 1980).
@@ZealothPL I just quickly googled the fuel efficiency of the centurion and it was stated in gallons per mile - that alone speaks volumes!
I assume a more fuel efficient engine would have improved this somewhat
I love how the Saucer Sectiion detaches so easily.
You should do a video about M1Abrams too by now..
On how it fails quickly as soon as it came out from its hide out 😂😂😂😂😂
APFSDS.
Armor piercing fin stabilized discarding sabot.
Not “finalized discarding sabot”
Shtora: trying to prevent tank from being targeted
Javelin: doesn't target the tank but hits it anyway
Air conditioning isn't just for comfort. In tropical / equatorial areas the temperature inside the tank can reach temperatures that will kill the crew. Think Desert Storm type environments - AC in a tank is a necessity.
I also heard that the ERA armor on all Russian tanks are basically a steel plate with no explosive filler that makes ERA effective.
Plus the ammo is protected by a thin steel floor under the crew so each hit means at least 2 KIAs if the ammo explodes on impact.
but wait, there's more- already filmed the inside of the wannabe-tank defense of moscovians - it would be some explosive for neutralising the atacking rocket yes? so there was just some piece of gum - the genetical implanted thrive for stealing everything is so remarkable among slaves, and they stealed the special defense of their tanks during producing those tanks!!! and as of the waste fields of tanks, built in communist era - all stolen, even the engines, and if lucky, there is to be compiled one working tank out of 100. and those are not mormal tanks - those are ancient tanks t62 and t55 - t62 tanks smashed sczechoslovakian demonstrations in 1968... soon to be digged out also t34, made with english engines, and english front armor plates, impossible to be made in the mighty communistic empire in that times. and no any real life use of the tv-hero t14/armata, stuck dead in 2015 on the biggest military parade in the center of moscow - and their main ideology/religion is centered around asassinating people. as we all see during the last genocidal war in ukraine, after the multiple genocidal wars against caucasian natives in chechenia, in georgia, and in azerbaidzhan.
@@nusplus3985 honestly at this point, Russian and Chinese quality feels like a five year old who is asked to build a house with no instruction manual.
not all ERA needs to explode outward. ERA can simply be a empty buffer causing the round to explode before it hits main armor
@@therecusantluddite1133 I thought ERA is supposed to be explosive with the E referring to explosive in Explosive Reactive Armor. Plus a sheet of rubber is not really going to block modern APFSDS which can go through meters of composite armor.
Q. What do you call a Russian tank Battalion returning from combat in Ukraine?
A. An infantry platoon.
ruclips.net/video/khlCdhtlDSg/видео.html
Bold of you to assume they’re alive. Then again, since they refuse to take their dead back, I guess that is the only way they’ll get home, besides mutiny.
@@kevinbarber2795 Non-ambulatory supine battalion
62,000 dead Ukrainian soldiers and 100,000 wounded might disagree with you about that. In seven months Ukraine has suffered more battle deaths than the USA did during its decade long involvement in the war in Vietnam.
@@jb-xc4oh the 80k dead russians and 150k wounded, with their entire army crippled and retreating - for the 3rd time - might disagree with you.
I like the ability of the T-72 to launch the turret high in the sky when the temperature rises inside the tank. I hope they also installed that feature in the T-90.
Good news, they sure did!
@@the_mad_fool That is fantastic news. I hope they never give up on the auto-loader system. It is brilliant that they store all their ammo in the path of incoming western anti-tank munitions.
Russian tank crew ejection
They actually have new protection around the ammunition storage. You can see this with the one T90 that got destroyed In Ukraine. the torrent still in place on top of the main frame.
@@johng8967 Additional protection doesn't solve the fundamental problem with this design, which is that your survivability onion has 1 fewer layer than everything else. Even with additional protection, you are still talking about a tank where the only way you get "don't die" is "don't get penetrated."
you forgot the part there all the explosives from the Kontakt armor had been removed and sold on the black market by corrupt commanders and refilled with cardboard. It does not seem to work so well in that configuration.
add to that that Javelin and other western AT weapons actually work as advertisd
Aged like the finest of wines
1:15 - Chapter 1 - Origins of the T90
3:10 - Chapter 2 - World's deadliest tanks
5:55 - Chapter 3 - The war on Ukraine
7:40 - Chapter 4 - Tactical errors
9:15 - Chapter 5 - The javelin
Thanks
You missed out that the auto loading system is a weak point too as when the javelin penetrates from above all the loaded shells detonate in a chain reaction, this is why all the images of defeated Russian tanks in Ukraine have had their turrets detatched
Thats applies to all russian tanks..... T72 and T80 also have autoloaders
@@davidty2006 do you think the javelin would still be as effective otherwise?
@@memphisdaniels3218 Yeah it'll kill the crew.
@@davidty2006 ah to my knowledge it was the chain reaction of the shells exploding that did that and was their biggest weakness so I had assumed that was what made the javelin so effective
Love watching the turrets pop 👊🏻
Incorrect the first classes of tanks were classed by role those being breakthrough, cavalry, infantry and cruiser/reconnaissance tanks)
good job
Shtora is actually to counter 1st gen TOW missiles. It emits a color light that matches the guiding beacon on the rear of the missile making it VERY hard for the operator to track and guide. It wont effect Javelin at all.
T-90s biggest problem is it still has all the weaknesses of the T-72. (T-90 was originally T-72BM) Making it look different and renaming it, didnt actually improve its abilities, it was just expensive.
Lol...that won't work on a 1st gen TOW.
You would need to hit the optic of the TOW operator in a very narrow place and a very specific angle. And the operator has to sit right in front of the Shtora.
And the optic can distinguish between an IR light/color light and the burning fuse of the guiding beacon.
There is an close to zero chance of that actually working even in one % of cases.😏
And we are talking 1st gen TOWs here.
Actually it did improve a lot of its capability. T-90 turret is now welded and far and wide better then the one on T-72. Also T-90M has blow out panels for all the extra ammo.
Its the best tank for a $ on earth - this is why it sells so well.
@@tomk3732 it sells so well, because it is cheap. Not because it is good.😏
Even the best upgraded versions lack significantly compared to german, turkish, swedish, british, american, french and some other counter parts.
Another reason it is sold that much is they lack of restrictions Russia has on the "whom to sell to" part of any trade.
For quite some countries Russia is the only viable source for tanks.
@@samfetter2968 it sells well because its good enough for its price for many and not because its just cheap. If it was not really that good in the first place why would countries bought it in the first place.
@@randomka-52alligatorthatis34 nope. It doesn't. The T90 hasn't seen very much combat untill a few months ago to even know if it performs well.
Or even well enough. They never were fielded against an actual military that could compete.
So this is the first real challenge it faces.
And now the flaws become obvious.
Lets see how well it sells from here on, shall we?
Cause I don't have to be a fortune teller to predict that sales will go down dramatically 😏🤣🤣🤣
The main issue is that Russia sent tanks in with no support, which meant easy pickings for Ukrainian anti tank weapons. And the T-90, while upgraded, is ultimately an outdated soviet era tank, and soviet equipment was designed with quantity, not quality, in mind. And as we have seen, soviet tactics don’t work in the modern day, especially on the attack, which is worsened by Russias overall poor logistics and use of conscipts.
They weren't even going to work.
Their tactics of "flood the enemy guns with their corpses" was loudly telegraphed by them so we built countermeasures.
They were always going to walk into a wall of lead.
They aren't using conscripts, their logistics seem to fine, based on the amount of artillery they're using.
Facts don't matter do they?
@@fatdaddy1996 I guess soldiers running out of food, absolutely devoid of any morale whatsoever, and their tanks running out of gas and long range missile launcher vehicles running out of missiles is great logistics. Oh, and they used a TON of conscripts, who didn't know how to fight at all. Maybe wake up. They (russians) thought they'd be welcomed as liberators, and they got hell.
Weather kept them on the roads. If they waited another month, different story
@@olafjensen4508
"If"
If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle, but she doesn't so she's my aunt.
Showing the Swebritt NLAW when talking about Javelin 😅
Very comprehensive
Also carry on the great weakness of T-72 which is ammo detonation. This is something only Soviet auto loaders had a problem with, because they thought it would be a good idea to store the ammo DIRECTLY UNDER THE CREW. If someone hits it, the crew dies, which is actually worse than just losing the tank, especially in situation like wartime were training is time limited and knowledge relatively scarce. This problem is less apparent on T-55 and some older t-64 variants due to lack of auto loader, and the slightly different design of the T-80 also negates some of these problems, but they still exist.
The autoloader isn't even the main problem. Lack of a separet ammo compartment is. As a result, spare ammo is spread all across the tank interior, so whichever side of armour gets penetrated, something is bound to explode, eventually setting off the autoloader "corousel" too.
The ammo detonation is not due to ammo stored in armored carousel deep in the hull. It's due to spare ammo that is stored inside the turret next to the commander and the gunner which is prone to detonation.
What I am saying is that the inherent nature of Autoloaders in soviet design makes them susceptible to ammo racking at a much higher rate than other contemporaries. Also, the point of the ammo carousel being below the crew eliminates possible blowout areas vertically, and therefore much less feasibly in its case horizontally. Again, this is an issue that is most common to Soviet doctrine, as any above turret weapon was either going to be a cruise missile (which the tanks can’t really do much about no matter how you slice it) or a bomb/Gau-8 attack, which designers were counting in the soviets vast and sophisticated anti-air defenses to handle, specifically some of the shorter range Iglas and Tunguskas, as they were designed for low ground attack aircraft, a relative soviet weakness. The auto loader design mandates for Soviet era were for dealing with rounds fire horizontally, and therefore blowout chambers were moot if the rounds were stored internally as if a round penetrated that far the tank was probably already knocked out. Also, having a separate ammo compartment makes no sense for Soviet doctrine for cheap and easy to maintain vehicles, as it would have to ensure that each container was sealed after every opening to grab a shell, another mechanical part that could break, instead of just grabbing from a carousel which the crew could operate manually if it became broken, just at a severely reduced rate of fire. These tanks were designed nearly 40 years ago, and not against its own arsenal of weapons. This is like saying why do submarines still have regular torpedoes If they don’t routinely fire them at ships even during wartime, with something like ~5 ships sunk due to mines/torpedoes since WW2, a very low number. They have it because subs are still built with surface action in mind, and having some way of hitting surface vessels without air or sea forces is still a good enough reason to continue them being developed and well stocked and maintained, and drilled. This still applies even if their main role is to serve as nuclear deterrents in the case of Britain, US, and Russia.
@@zakvitale1411
Leopards have second open ammo compartment next to the driver.
They fix this problem with the T90. You can see this with the one T90 that got distorted in Ukraine. The torrid didn't pop. New protection for ammunition storage under Crew.
The T72's evacuation procedure can be literally deadly for the driver. I don't think the T90's one is any better since it's based on the T72 and the overall layout is mostly the same.
The tank is incredibly cramped inside. If the driver's hatch gets blocked by the barrel, he is supposed to remove the back part of his seat and push himself through a tiny hole around the gun into the turret and escape through a turret hatch.
Now imagine the tank (and potentially the driver's uniform) starts burning. There's almost no chance of getting out in time before suffocating, or worse, burning alive.
I am 5'10" tall (1.8m) and I cannot even fit into the driver's position. Yes, I had the opportunity to try it....
Isn't that t72 turret full of unprotected dry store ammunition for the autoloader? It sounds like the t72 was designed to be fine until it got holed and then it suffers a catastrophic kill, no inbetween.
A Ruzzian monster burning alive you say? I do not see that as a design fault.
*Clears throat*
"Oh bother. The tank is on fi-"
*ammo cooks off and sends the turret to Jesus*
@@jaywulf Keep in mind that Ukraine is using the T72 as well.
And so are some NATO members like the Poles, Czechs and Slovaks. Burning alive isn't just an orc problem, it can happen to the good guys as well.
Why can't military channels never stop using the wrong imagery when discussing weapon systems. Like here, when they use images of the NLAW while discussing the javelin?
I am waiting for your video on leopard 2a6 and Bradley ifv and it's failure in Ukraine
Watch a recent video of Bradley dispatching T90M
Loving your Megaprojects, Simon, how about one about the massive 2S7 Pion (Malka) Self-Propelled 203mm Heavy Artillery - the biggest in the world. I think that would certainly qualify as mega and quite relevant as although dating from the Cold War era, it is currently being used by both sides in the Ukrainian War.
Could listen to history about Tanks & Weapons all day, so interesting.
The first flaw I see with the T-90 is the ability to put a round between it's turret and the body easily. Very clear target to aim for.
lmao maybe if your barrel is 10’ away from the target. My guy, this isn’t WoT or WarThunder.
THANKYOU..
Russian T-90 tanks are also becoming known as 'jack-in-the-box' due to the tank turret which flies up to 100m into the air when the tank explodes after being hit by Ukrainian anti-tank weapons... I presume that when the turret is starting on its airborne journey there are also tank commanders and soldiers inside!
There is a video from an overhead drone of a tank throwing its turret. I thought the turret was going to hit the drone😁
This is the case for T64, T72 and T80 aswell because of the carousel autoloader.
This Russian design philosophy has its advantages, ie smaller profile which makes it a harder target to hit, at least in theory and the smaller surface allows for heavier protection while keeping the mass low. But then again the compact design means that all vital components are very close to each other, crew is cramped etc. Obviously we will be seeing footage of tanks getting wrecked, regardless of being Russian or Ukrainian, but no footage of misses or when a hit was scored but the tank was not disabled and was able to stay combat worthy.
Also fun fact, early Leopard 2 variants had really weak ammo storage as well, this was made obvious by the Turkish loses of 2A4s in Kurdistan, though later versions appear to have improved that.
When the T90 first came into Russian service, the tank was immune to western tank ammo, due to it's kontakt 5 ERA, now the T90M has taken that mantle, and in my opinion is the best tank in the world.
@@stephenhumphrey7935 Russian tanks are not bad, they have flaws/limitations like any design. Plus since cheering for Ukraine is the norm now, people will make Russian tanks look bad, only to forget that Ukraine is using the same vehicles. And T90M has not seen extensive usage, only 1 was seen destroyed, probably by Russia after being damaged in a firefight
"two 3d6 smoke grenade dispersion systems" You know you've played too many TTRPG's when your immediate thought on hearing that is "Why don't they have a consistent number of smoke grenade systems?"
It’s a little joy to read 10 months old comments than the fresh ones:))))))
The image at 6:55 isn't a tank, that's an APC of some sort, perhaps a tracked BTR-50 variant
One thing you might have added is that with the automated loader in the T-80 the ammunition is stored in the ring that connects the turret to the body. This is even unarmored from the top! So, when the Javalin hits from the top it has a high chance of igniting the ammunition store.
Commonly referred to as turret toss Olympics
Also apparently the reloading mechanism is slower than a person doing it. It does give the tank a lower profile but the extra crew member doubles up as a mechanic etc.
@@oskahuxley6322 There's a caveat to that, sure a human loader can be faster, specially if the tank has good ergonomics, but that's only for the first couple rounds within easy reach, the more you fire, the further away he'll have to reach to get more rounds, and ends up being slower than the carousel autoloader.
@@maxwell120L55 that's interesting. Is there perhaps a way of combining the two? Semi automated.
@@oskahuxley6322 Some tanks do, like the Merkava which has armored ammo boxes that dispense rounds for the loader to grab, but at that point you're adding extra mechanisms for only a marginal upgrade for the loader, and you still have to deal with the extra space he requires.
The reason the Merkava does it is because it had a manual loader when initially made, and this was just an add on to try and improve it somewhat.
Besides, casette style loaders are actually faster than a human loader, the japanese type 10 with its casette style autoloader is said to have a 2 to 3 second reload, plus with a casette style loader you can actually separate the ammunition from the fighting compartment to avoid ammo explosions killing the crew if the ammo in the turret bustle is hit.
Also to add to your previous comment about the extra crew member being another pair of hands to maintain the tank, the french with their leclerc tank just shove the 4th crew member in an armored car that follows the tank from base to base.
I've come to accept the T-90 is an upgrade package for the T-72, just with a fancy name and less protection than the T-80U.
And in part that they couldn't keep the T-80U engine maintained. And we always forget that Russia's #3 industry is arms export. They sell as much of their own stuff as they keep. The T-90 is more sellable.
The US and Russia may make similar amounts of money selling arms, but the scale of relevance to GDP is wildly different. #3 industry vs #24. The US won't go bankrupt if nations stop buying their missiles and vehicles.
Edit: And right behind both of them is France in total dollars of arms export, but highest per capita for GDP. The worlds least paid attention-to war profiteer.
Its not about the protection, its about the ammo layout. T-64/80 line in this war unsurprisingly are the losers in the T-64/80 vs T-72/90 contest.
Thats exactly right. The T-90 with the cast turret was originally a T-72 upgrade (T-72BM) but with performance in the gulf war the T-72 had a poor reputation so they renamed it. Even the brand new T-90M doesnt fix the T-72 flaws.
Less protection? It has a more advanced NERA armor package than the T-80 series
@@victorzvyagintsev1325 I mean, you could also say that about the T-90 and it's transmission destruction problems when shifting from 3rd to 4th gear too quickly. T-90 becomes a 46.5 ton paperweight. But hey, ammo layout, am I right?
Now do Leopard 2
In most cases when they are referring to tanks as being T80 ,T90 or T 72 letter T stands for the word Type, as in Type 90 or Type 72 I have been asked regarding the use of the letter .
It doesn't matter how good or effective a tank is if you don't have infantry in sufficient number to act as a screen or if you don't have the NCO and jr. officer corp to lead them. Combined arms is the best system, at least at present, and they simply can't pull it off and it is literally costing them their lives. Hoisted on their own petard.
Lack of infantry isn't the only problem. Lack of air superiority is also a massive issue. They still don't have have it.
Soviet, Er, Russian doctrine is notorious for not giving junior officers any flexibility. Compared to NATO, which tends to trust them a lot more in the chaos of battle.
@@TalesOfWar Ukraine has 280 s-300 launchers. Here in Serbia we had old 1960s SA 3 and low range SA6 and still NATO bombers only operated in areas where there was constant supression of air defense. At one point 1000 NATO aircraft were part of the air war, you had aircraft dedicated to launching missiles at SAM units almost every day for 3 months, to make sure that some stationary targets like bridges were hit. In Bosnia NATO lost 3 planes to Strela manpads, after few dozen strikes against moving targets. Low flying aircraft are extremely vunerable.
@@1GTX1 yes, suppression of air defenses, SEAD, is a full-time job, and Russia just is not dedicating the time and forces required to do it.
@@disregardthat Let’s not assume they have the training or tech to do it effectively.
Even being road bound is not excuse for the tanks getting ambushed so easily. Tanks on a road march should have their turrets pointed to alternating sides. This allows the gunner to scan the area using stabilized high-power optics. Instead, we see the tanks following each other and the gunner looking at the tank directly ahead of him. (And I don't understand why the other tanks don't have a problem with a rather obvious safety issue that results from having a loaded tank main gun and machineguns pointed at friendly targets.)
Another thing that really annoys me is the fact that the Russian Tank Commanders don't have their heads out of the turret so they can see what's going on around them. If they're inside the turret the only thing they can see is the same thing the gunner sees - meaning that they are wasting a pair of eyeballs. Tanks are carefully designed so that any bullets that hit then are not deflected into optics or a crewman with his head out of the hatch. And the Russians need to do what the US did and issue bulletproof CVC (Combat Vehicle Crewman) helmets to tank crews.
And figuring out where to look isn't that hard. All you have to do is look at the terrain and ask yourself where you would set up if you were an ATGM team. Because if you think that a spot would be a great place to set up an ATGM team - the enemy will likely agree.
Why would the Russians making blunders annoy you?
Great video but you forgot to mention the NLAW. The British/Swedish launcher which is just as, if not more lethal than the Javelin.
Some of the shots used in the video were actually NLAWs too!
NLAWs are replacements for short-range rockets like the the M72 LAW and AT4. The Javelin has 4x the range of the NLAW.
You put NLAWs with infantry teams as a way to let them kill tanks they encounter, and issue Javelins to groups intentionally hunting tanks.
ERA isn't so much for kinetic munitions as it is shaped charge munitions like RPG-7 grenades etc.
As you say, no tank has ever been used effectively in urban warfare unless you are dealing with really low-tech guerrillas. They are always vulnerable when they are hemmed in and unable to utilise their full potential.
If they are supported by infantry they do fine. But sending them in unsupported is foolish
@@martinjrgensen8234 exactly, in the open the armor is there for the infantry's protection. In urban fighting the infantry are there for the armor's protection.
It's a symbiotic relationship.
@@martinjrgensen8234 In which case the infantry is still really doing all the work. It's just a big gun in an urban setting, and infantry can carry around big guns. A tanks main purpose let's remember is to break through enemy lines and create encirclement opportunities, to work effectively with tanks the infantry unit attached to them or vice versa will need combined arms training and probably a lot of mechanised equipment, at which point in an urban setting they really don't need a tank. Tanks work best against mobile enemy lines and static defenses, they should be in their element in Ukraine really, but eh.
Not entirely true, first gulf war it was used in an urban setting, against other tanks though.
Wasn't WWII pretty urban?
Many years ago, the first Javelins were so scarce and expensive ($80k !) that only the soldier who topped his (very big) class got to fire one live on the range in front of everyone, a tremendous perk.
Not much has changed in the US armed forces peacetime training syllabus. Still not many live rounds fired "on the range".
@@jds6206 if these ukranians survive and speak good english they ought to get H1B visas to come teach class. Imagine firing more live javs in a month than most do in a career.
@@JinKee One thing Ukraine isn’t short of is anti-tank weapons. Got to be the most-sent gift in Ukraine’s Christmas stocking. Enough to expend two per tank, 3 for anything else with wheels. Other countries will need to restock because of how many they’ve sent to Ukraine 🇺🇦
They go for 200k each.
@@graememceachren1118 you say it like they are getting it for free. They will be in debt for a very long time. On top of rebuilding.
As the video played early while speaking about the British tank note a star on one of the tanks in the picture.....change the timing