Bradley is not considered a battlefield taxi. It's an infantry fighting vehicle. A M113 is a battlefield taxi. A Stryker is a battlefield taxi. A Bradley, with long range sensor and TOW missile launcher, is designed to fight the enemy.
The whole point of the Bradley was literally designed to transport squad of soldiers. But because of mission creep and add-on, they became more of a potent fighting vehicle. There's literally a movie covered on this subject.
@@RoyalDog214 It's a poor movie overall, but the part about mission creep is indeed factual. The Bradley became a jack-of-all-trades in the process, and the main reason it has been effective is because its crews (in the US at any rate) are highly trained to take advantage of its situational benefits rather than rely on any single one of its capabilities.
@@RoyalDog214 Please watch Spookston's video titled "The Problem With Pentagon Wars", while Bradley indeed is both a battlefield taxi and IFV citing the movie is just bad form.
@@babd3121 Bradley is an IFV. Explain to me why there are so many Recon variants of the Bradley if they were only a battle field taxi like the m113 or stryker?
The gunner said that he learned where to hit the T-90 from playing video games. The kamikaze drone flyers say the same thing. So parents, your kids playing games may just be preparing them for the future. 😊
Speriamo perché abbiamo una gioventù pappamolle, senza palle, che almeno serva a qualcosa .AL CASO! ALTRIMENTI, CONTRO GLI INVASORI QUI DA SCATENATE ABBIAMO SOLO,FEMMINISTE E CENTRI SOCIALI , DI " FUMATI!"
Ironically, War Thunder is made by Russian developers. Sometimes I wonder if it's an intelligience tool considering how many players leak classified documents to use as ammo in forum debates and cases for rebalancing.
Specifically, Warthunder. And it makes sense, since despite the game's horrid grind and absurd 'balance' decisions, it does somewhat realistically model tank armoring, internals and mechanics. And the vulnerability of the various systems and surfaces of an enemy armored vehicle is *EXTREMELY* valuable intelligence when engaging it.
Please. Stop calling the Bradley a "battlefield taxi". It's an infantry fighting vehicle designed to deliver dismounted infantry to the forward edge of an engagement and REMAIN there, fighting alongside main battle tanks and attack helicopters in what is called combined arms mechanized warfare. Armored personnel carriers like the U.S. M113 and the British FV432 are battlefield taxis.
He does call it a IFV, also the Bradley carries six dismounts. Those troops do not permanently stay onboard. So calling it a taxi isn't that far off. Yes I know an APC is the real battle taxi, but both an APC and an IFV both taxi men about the battlefield it's just that a IFV hangs around to provide fire cover.
@@tryaluck A APC is something very different from a IFV. A APC has no business being anywhere near the front line and is generally no longer used by most modern armies.
@@fatdoraemon2069 Teamwork, intestinal fortitude, confidence that you can destroy whatever you can see. U.S. armor is the most aggressive and hostile forward component on the battlefield. Ask any Iraqi.
Hugely interesting video Had no idea a trophy system would cost that much, but it feels like it’s magic with how fast they work, so makes sense. Top draw journalism here, been really enjoying the videos lately.
I knew the newer generations weaned on almost realistic FPS video shooter games would be real killers on the battlefield. Their battlefield instincts are already developed before they graduate high school.
The real weakness of the T-90M that is discussed here is very easy to see: It got off three shots, and they were ALL misses. That comes down to the comment that the expert made: CREW. This tank was destroyed because the Russian Crew didn't know how to use their machine... and that was true before the HE explosive blinding attack began. That's where the survivability of these machines really matters... the crew survives with their experience and training intact.
My thought too. early T-90 using western system (french catherine FC) and later one russian system which better than catherine also unlike T-72 they have full stabilization. Properly trained crew should able to aim properly
You are not providing the full info. The crew survived and escaped, the tank was later towed and put back into battle. The following week that Bradley was destroyed.
@@ledzepandhabs Weird for you to lie about the facts. The T-90M was destroyed by drones after and is even captured on video being destroyed. Impossible to tell if that specific Bradley was taken out though the crew were interviewed at least a week after it happened so they either survived or their Brad wasn't destroyed.
Everyone talking about war thunder and I came here to say the same thing. Separated by languages but joined together as one by playing war thunder and destroying each other 😂
It is a mistake to say that Russia developed the T-34 tank. The T-34 tank was developed by the USSR. There were a lot of resources and talented people involved that are no longer part of the USSR. In fact, Ukraine was part of the USSR and did a lot of heavy industrial design in Armor, aircraft and ships.
Always bothers me when I hear that. Like, both Russia and Ukraine have inherited soviet equipment, and the biggest tank factory was located in Ukraine...
@@haaxeu6501 Russia built its empire starting with Moscow principality. USSR is just an another name. That's why it was still called Russia in 20th century. You think that you are more clever than americans and the british of 20th century hahah.
I was a scout in a 113 in the 80's and I planned if we ran into a tank I would open up with the ma duce and go for the glass [while the driver worked on getting us out]. would it work, maybe, maybe not. Glad I never got to find out.
The T80 that ran into the tree after being hammered by the Bradley; Almost looks like it was done deliberately to stop the turret rotation and thus being able to exit the tank...
@@shawn576 Desperate situations require out of the box solutions to literally get out of the box, the burning metal box in this case. This is exactly what evolution shaped humans to be able to do.
@@FirstDagger i mean, wt doesnt simulate armour getting wittled down shot after shot, which i think is a factor in the bradley winning along with the crew getting stressed, the tank being hit causing a lot of noise inside etc
@@FirstDaggerYou’re pretty brainless for thinking war thunder is anything like real Life, The same game, has 3rd person views, Sights don’t matter, viewports aren’t a part of gameplay, you can fix broken barrels in a matter of seconds, you can get penetrated and your crew will stay Stone cold as they move their dead crewmates body so they can man the gun without a single emotion, your crew can fight in a vehicle with 2 people, So yes I think you’re a missing few brain cells for even thinking this
@@furinick Also from the video all the smoke and debris causing blindness to the tank. This is why old tank doctrine had tanks lined up side by side so you could have the other tank return fire when the first is blinded.
A lot of Australians that served in Chosen Company that have just rotated out in March including engineering teams said of all the tanks the Challenger Tanks where more trouble than their worth because they where extremely high maintenance and unreliable. For this reason they did not see a lot of action. They said they where too heavy for the terrain, the track pads constantly needed replacing and overly complicated design of both the targeting system and use of 2 piece ammunition are problematic. The leopards where much better in comparison but still heavy and costly to keep running. In the end most Ukrainians gravitated back to the T84 and simply preferred the Soviet tanks not just because of familiarity and reliability, they said in real world battlefield all the tanks ended up had the same survive-ability, but the T84's where more manoeuvrable and suited to the battlefield conditions and they where way more serviceable in the field which is critical to entering conflict and safely getting out again.
All the tanks are getting bogged down and in need of heavy maintenance. It's war and war and the reality of such conditions shows that wear and tear is different ball game compared to peacetime deployments. Anyway! The Challenger that was lost was lost due to a mine that disabled the tank. It was abandoned and the Ukrainians tried to destroy it with artillery. But at least the integrity of the tank after all the hits it received stayed together. As in the Gulf, where It was shown just how well protected the crew were. Even in urban combat A situation that no tank should be in unless there's no alternative. There is another reason. And that is, that there were only 14 deployed in the Ukrainian 82nd Airborne division. The Challenger at least has the British Chobham/Dorchester armour and is about the best armoured tank in the world. Anyway! No matter the tank, they can all be destroyed. What is paramount is that there should be no munitions or object penetration into the fighting compartment. The crew are the important of the tank asset.
@@paulbantick8266 We have just seen in Kursk another Challenger be defeated by a single lancet. The armour used in the challenger are not saving the tanks from these drones and from the footage it did not look like any of the crew got out. I think anti-drone systems is critical now days.
@@SonyJimable Really? care to share that? Especially your claim regarding the crew. There's no confirmation either. Just Pro-Russian claims. Anyway! Even the Challenger 2 is not immune. No tank is.
I refer you to my last. And just because a supposed 'lot' of Australians have alleged the problems with Challenger 2s. Britain's REME etc, haven't had trouble maintaining them in wartime conditions. And I state again. All the western MBTs have had trouble with getting bogged down. As for maintenance. The Australians are used to maintaining Leopards and M1s but not the Challenger. The Challenger is as reliable as the other two stated. And it's being used in combat. Loosing them in combat is no big deal. All tanks are liable to get knocked out.
probably,its not about sensors, its about crew expirience. if usa would fight in that bloody war for 2 years straightI doubt they would have time to propperly train their crews
As the Chieftain said, the tank is mobile, protected firepower. The protected leg of that triad has taken a hit from the ability of drones to strike at any point on the tank. In order to recover some of the tank’s resistance to damage, more armor, applied more widely, and/or active protection systems will have to be incorporated. This means more weight, something the logistics and transportation guys and the bean counters are loath to face.
Yes the blow off door needs to be protected while being still able to function. Also every vehicle on the battle field needs proper anti drone defence such as jamming or its own mini air defence system.
In an Armored Cavalry Scout Platoon there are 4 per platoon like in a regular mechanized infantry platoon. In the platoon of 4 vehicles they operate as pairs during a combat engagement like 2 riflemen in combat. One fires to cover his buddy to maneuver close or to break contact. The only difference is in a cavalry scout troop is they can dismount scouts for recon and infantry platoons will deliver infantry for combat on their objective while providing fire support. These Ukrainian crews were taught very well prior to deployment to combat. NATO tank crews practice the same tactics too. Both Bradley IFVs operate like the Wingman Concept like fighter pilots operate as to fly and protect each other. In the Field Manual 7-8 Mechanized Infantry manual which is close to NATO doctrine.
Much of Fleet Street has dropped the ball on reporting from Ukraine, and most of the US press seems to have abandoned the war all together. US public has the shortest attention span of any modern society.
The myth that the T-34 was the greatest tank in history has been debunked. They were pathetic; Russia just had a lot of them. It's the same story with the T-72. The reason the Soviet Union was able to resist Germany in World War 2 wasn't their domestic arms production; it was Lend/Lease, mostly provided by the United States.
@@williamyoung9401I agree. They lost nearly 45,000 tanks in WWII based off a quick search. I don’t know if this strictly the T-34 series that were lost or all tanks. Perhaps it was just bad doctrine, tactics, or crew, but they sure hell lost a lot of them.
@@krampsy The US built no T-34... That's why Russia lost so many of them. The Lend / Lease was providing older export tanks made in the UK and US like the Matilda 2 and M1A3 Lee tanks. Many of these were immediately raided by the Russian tank factories for their valuable parts like the gunner sights, binoculars, lights, air filters and other parts that Russia could not afford to produce themselves to any valuable quality. The US even sent Russian entire factories. Steel beams, walls, doors, the lot. Like one big IKEA flatpack build. Also they were given engines that the Russians copied to make their own versions of and all of which went on to be the best engines Russia would have during ww2. They also got trucks and jeeps. One of the most valuable resources they got surprisingly was tyres. The cold climate in Russia meant that natural rubber production there was producing brittle rubber that didn't last a week.
Let's be real not biased, the T-90M armor really handled the bradly continuous shots to not penetrate the tank for a while of time, but the T-90M gunner was blind to miss 2 close range shot, which really shows the lack of experience in Russian crews
@@amazingman63wait till you find out that loads of anti-tank missiles work that way and they still can have 3-6km range. In fact the Bradley's TOW missiles also use wire to control flight. This tech is very old now, it literally started back in WW2, the germans used electrically wire guided torpedoes, and it snowballed from there to missiles. Im pretty sure after all this time they figured out a way to make the wire as thin as it can be and as cheaply made as possible.... But compared to the missile it self, the cost of the wire is basically negligible
@@waifuracer6516 You are highly unlikely to be able to pull out anything even close to 4-6 km of optical cable with a drone, unless it is HUGE. Missiles are able to do that because the wire spools out so fast that it rarely ever even touches the ground, and they have MASSIVE amounts of thrust to quickly accelerate to very high velocities. A torpedo can do it for the same reason, there is nothing there to snag the line on, it just pays out behind it in the water. There are ways to make drones very difficult to jam, and ways to overcome GPS jamming, and both are not at all difficult. The type of drones mostly getting jammed are either GPS spoofed, or commercial grade junk. And IMU will solve the GPS jamming post haste. A small loss of accuracy, but not much.
@@FirstDagger They are APCs that are meant to stay in the fight and provide fire support to the infantry dismounts, which is a pretty important distinction compared to the regular APC which is not made to do that.
Future tank designs for any nation are going to have to include some kind of defense against drones. Drones for both sides, are currently the deadliest and most feared weapon.
Very biased and manipulative comments. How come t-90, a modernisation of t-72 is, called "state of the art the mist modern"? While Bradley supposed to be just "30 years old taxi". One well performed battle action isn't enough to draw all those conclusions. Analogically. What would you say when state of art, the most advanced and super expensive Abrams tank is destroyed by infantryman with rpg-7?
Because Russia has been calling the T-90 "state of the art the most modern" and the Bradley "30 years old taxi" constantly. And if there is someone we can trust on the matter, it's probably the manufacturer of the T-90.
RPG is an anti tank weapon that the reactive armor is adapted to dealing with. RPG is an old anti-tank weapon. The modern version in javelin and n-law, and these are also dealt with by reactive armor. So RPG is no problem.
Because the T-90M is the most modern version of tank the Russians currently have, being first fielded in 2017. It might be based on the T-72, but the T-90M is brand spanking new. While the Bradleys that are sent to Ukraine have been built in the late 1980s. Think of it like the difference between a Leopard 2A1 and a Leopard 2A8+. The former is a nearly 40 year old system not even close to cuting edge anymore, while the other is a brand spanking new tank. Or you could think of it like a 1990s Audi A4 and a 2023 A4. One is by now barely driving old junk, while the other is a brand new luxury sedan.
reminds me of the old Red Dwarf "Gunmen of the Apocalypse" line "I know this game, it's called cat and mouse.And there's only one way to win, don't be the mouse"
25mm is not capable of penetrating the armour. it hit the horizontal drive and knocked out all the electronics using HE shots. Driver was clearly panicking and so was the crew
@@hawk55732 too heavy and too big for Ukraine's terrain I believe, just like challengers and leopards but even more so. They end up being easy targets and a propaganda win for the Russians.
Why are you shitting on the T90 by saying it's defeated by American tanks that are 30 years old? The T90 is also 30 years old (hint: the name 90 is 1990). You're trying to mislead the viewer into thinking it's a 30 year old American tank against a 5 year old Russian tank.
Do you know how old the Abrams actually is? It's my understanding that the ones sent to Ukraine were earlier variants no longer in front line US service and already over 30 years old.
@@tonyunderwood9678 Yeah the Abrams is real old. Wiki says 44 years old. It took the Soviets a decade to make something comparable, and that's assuming the T90 hasn't been stripped down by corrupt commanders. The T90 is probably an excellent tank when it's maintained, has a trained crew, and has adequate spare parts (I'm guessing none of those conditions are true in most cases)
@@tonyunderwood9678 Your understanding is wrong, the version sent to Ukraine is a modernized tank and only lacks some of the features that you'd find on the top end models (which don't make up the entire stockpile US has for front line service either). These are obviously not some 30 year old clunkers dragged out of the boneyard.
@@herpderp7114 I will stand by my comments regarding the M1s sent to Ukraine as being less capable than what's in frontline service with the US military. Modernized, yes, but not to the degree that they could have been, simply because of where they had been previously stationed and with who. We're not gonna send our top of the line hardware anywhere. As far as being 30 years old...? Yeah they're 30 years old (or older) but they have received upgrades along the way, as have many frontline M1s serving with US forces. Lots of M1 hulls are old by today's engineer's standards. It doesn't mean they're at a disadvantage on the battle field when pitched up against equally capable (or supposed to be) former Soviet hardware. Likewise, I'm pretty sure that the M1s currently in service with the US military are more capable than anything in Ukraine because of improved armor and much better trained and experienced crews. Bottom line: The M1s in Ukraine are NOT as capable as what's in service with US forces.
@@tonyunderwood9678 You'd still be wrong, though. Yes, the Ukrainian tanks have worse armor in the front of hull and turret front, but it's irrelevant considering they never get hit there. Drones aren't known to target front armor. The armor is identical to the models US uses in other directions. The only disadvantage they have in terms of systems compared to the best models USA fields is lack of cooled thermals for commander and the inability for commander to override the turret controls. Does that make them less capable? Technically yes, but you're making it sound like these are some old clunkers taken out of a scrap heap rather than that they lack some of the most advanced features that aren't even that necessary for the tank to be effective. These are modern up to date M1 tanks.
I´d like to know more about Swedish vehicles and weapons. Such as the CV90, I think the Bradley would function about the same about the same as the same as the CV90. The anti tank rifle "Karl Gustav" is a great anti tank gun. I just wanna know if the Ukranianians like our stuff you know. Anything Swedish you know...
Arnold is a very smart man with a huge breadth of life experience - both first and second hand. He can also deliver an essential message, like this one, with belief and great persuasive skill. He is my personal hero.. Much respect to Arnold.
Anyone notice the candles on his mantle? HE even looks a little like Aleister. Many soldiers in the comments.... Whats up fellas. This vid got me amped... Maybe I missed my calling. - Civilian 💥💣
In 1992, I talked to a SFC bradley commander who was a desert storm veteran from 3AD. He said a mix up led them to have to fire training rounds (all they had) at T72s. He said they discovered that the training rds pen'd better than expected, and ripped through even turret armor. They didn't even need to fire their TOW missiles. It was a turkey shoot according to him.
The Leopard tanks have the similar ammo storage in the turret but the also stack reloads unprotected inside the hull that is very dangerous. They can kill their own crew very easily.
15 rounds in the turret rear,up to 27 rounds in the stack inside.So in my opinion the ammo storage of the M1 Abrams is much better for traditional tank warfare.But most of the western tank losses were to drones,artillery and Mines.To concentrate almost all ammo in the turret rear(M1Abrams) makes it perhaps more vulnerable to those drone attacks,because the much smaller ammo bunker in Leopards turret rear makes it more difficult to hit for the russian drone operators. Just a hypothesis of mine.
@@hansulrichboning8551 Leopard 2 loses space for other stuff, that is why the rack is smaller. Yes, Abrams has the best solution regarding ammo storage of all current MBTs.
I fully disagree that tank warfare hasn't changed. Kamikaze drones have made maneuver warfare nearly impossible. Tanks are purposely held back because all that's gonna happen is a $500 drone is gonna destroy a multi million dollar tank. The Russian side is far less conservative with its tanks for reasons that would require a whole essay to explain. But basically, it's not working very well. It's gotten slightly better since they've started welding sheet metal onto them. But when they hear about a western tank being in the area, there's no amount of sheet metal that'll save them, so they pull the tanks away. That combined with the kamikaze drone strategy is why there are no tank on tank battles happening in this war. Quite frankly, I think the age of the tank as we know it may be over. IFVs are the new tanks. Getting troops in quickly, providing covering fire against infantry and other armored vehicles like BMPs, and then loading up and getting the heck out. A tank can't transport troops like an IFV can. And a tank's anti-infantry and anti-armored vehicle capabilities are easily matched by drones, artillery, and IFVs. Big explosions, armor piercing, and machine gun fire. Even if an enemy tank shows up, what can a couple kamikaze drones not do that a multi million dollar tank can? Self-propelled artillery and shorad are basically the children that will inherit the remaining roles of the main battle tank.
Drones have been becoming less effective as time goes on. I suspect it's more likely that drone jamming technology will reach a point to where that stops being a viable option.
It’s interesting seeing an IFV beating an MBT…that all comes down to one thing though…Crew training and INFANTRY support. MBT’s aren’t supposed to work in a CLOSE IN ENVIRONMENT without any kind of support.. .and the crew should have known that. The crew of that MBT was obviously very poorly trained or idiotically deployed into that area by itself. Pretty dumb.
You could have just said they were Russian, and it would have covered the last two sentences with one word. If you've watched much of this war, it is just understood. Given the numbers, the Russians SHOULD have taken Ukraine in three days. Over the last two years and change they've lost more than they've gained, by far.
I saw a video somewhere on reddit that showed that many russian tanks had the reactive armor replaced with rubber blocks. the armor was probably sold on the black market somewhere
I was with the 5th Army in Michigan back in the 70's after my combat tour in Vietnam (101st Airborne). It was built at the Warren Tank Arsenal, in Michigan. It was supposed to replace the US APC. Different countries came during the construction with suggestions, for upgrades, etc... The first idea was an 80 Mile per hour track vehicle to carry Infantry men to combat... then ideas like rocket launchers, different machine guns and armor were added to help sell the unit to foreign governments.
I am an old tanker from the 1970’s and remember the early development of the Bradley,and the development of the tactical implementation of the Bradley. Early deployment of TOW missle carriers (jeep, M113, or tripod) was to give a huge standoff range and overwatch for tanks or dismounted infantry. At 4000+ meters, this far exceeded the effective range of Soviet tanks. The early version of the infantry version had I believe either 6 or eight AR ports to allow assault on the objective using the main gun and coax for killing and suppression. The cavalry version had the ports plugged adding additional missile storage plus only 4 scouts. My son was a cav scout in Bradley’s a s a scout, gunner and vehicle commander for the first 10 years of his 20 from 2001 to 2021. His experience was as others stated that Bradley’s and tanks were used as combined arms using each strengths. In Ukraine there is an amazing cooperation between drone resources and Bradley’s, which our Army is quickly developing similar resources.
I expect that is exactly where you want to attack any tank from, well out of THEIR firing range. I saw one tanker make a quip that one of the tanks had a 3000 (or whatever) meter reach, and he said that was coincidental, because exactly that range, plus 20 miles, was as close as he ever wanted to be to an enemy tank. Gotta have a sense of humor, I guess. I thought it was funny.
Russians lies - they lost nowhere near that amount. Most off these "destroyed" vehicles (which included ones that had just trown tracks) were recovered and repaired.
Si sente che è inglese!! Dovrebbe parlare un po' più lentamente, è molto che non parlo più inglese,lo parlavo molto X lavoro , in india, Thailandia , Europa ora ho perso molto!
There’s a technical error in the video. Only Abrams stores 100% of its ammunition under blowout panels. Leo 1/2 and almost everything else stores ammunition next to the driver, Merkava in the rear hull, Challenger in the hull and/or lower turret basket. They use armored canisters with liquid to manage fire risks but it’s not the same as Abrams.
Didnt want to watch this but this thumbnail picture is awesome - squashing the Abrams so its perfectly fit the high of soviet-school low profile tanks. Made my day
@@Erusean_pilot According to your super trustworthy, super legit "experts"? Go find the OG video and you can watch it for yourself. It got hit by at least one ATGM/Drone prior to the engagement.
The T-90M wasnt taken out (Just saying), The Bradley blinded the Comanders and Gunners sight which wasnt working well afterwards. The T-90M crew must have seen them coming but they didnt react fast enough to fire upon the Bradley, which is the crews fault. Also T-72A which is the first upgrade to the original T-72 had weaker hull frontall armor, later on T-72B got a huge upgrade on it, making it stronger and better to go agaisnt ennemys. In 1990 Russia made a new tank so cald T-90A which had thermal sight for the first time unlike T-72s. Later on They modified the T-90A in to T-90M which got Lots of ERA, Comander recieved Thermals, and Comunication system, with all the other things on the tank.
No kidding! 😂 The myth that the T-34 was "the greatest tank in history" has been debunked. The Soviet Union was able to fight Germany in World War 2 because of Lend/Lease, mostly provided by the United States. Not because of the T-34 and human wave attacks.
2:08 This is semi-correct, ERA is only designed to defelect HEAT projectiles e.g. RPG, and tank fired HEAT shells, ERA does not normally help against much more faster and non chemical rounds
I talked to an old guy who fought the Soviets on the Eastern Front. He told me they would often get the Soviet tanks to tip their hat to them. He told me even then the Soviet tanks would often blow off thier turrets.
War thunder bouta be a qualification on military resumes
From experience/observation, the young guys who play war thunder on their off time are significantly better at vehicle ID than those who don't.
@@AJLN but then those gaijin Accidental Intelligence incidents might be a detractor...
With UK's troop numbers dwindling as they are, the only requirement currently in force is the ability to fog a mirror. "Heartbeat? YOU'RE IN."
Under that logic im very scared of Chinese tank crews
@@vodac1206 Takes more than scared citizens and poorly manufactured military hardware to make an effective tank and crew.
Ain’t no way bro learned weak spots from war thunder. That’s wild💀
That's a great way to learn general characteristics of tanks.
You know he's talking about War Thunder when he mentions he learnt it himself
The fact that they compare a Bradley IFV to the most modern Russian Main Battle Tank in Ukraine is a huge testament to the Bradley.
that commander who plays videogames definitely practiced that strategy on war thunder.
Bradley is not considered a battlefield taxi. It's an infantry fighting vehicle. A M113 is a battlefield taxi. A Stryker is a battlefield taxi. A Bradley, with long range sensor and TOW missile launcher, is designed to fight the enemy.
The whole point of the Bradley was literally designed to transport squad of soldiers. But because of mission creep and add-on, they became more of a potent fighting vehicle. There's literally a movie covered on this subject.
@@RoyalDog214 It's a poor movie overall, but the part about mission creep is indeed factual. The Bradley became a jack-of-all-trades in the process, and the main reason it has been effective is because its crews (in the US at any rate) are highly trained to take advantage of its situational benefits rather than rely on any single one of its capabilities.
The Bradley IS A BATTLEFIELD TAXI, its Purpose is to carry and dismount infantry in a combat zone.
Source? 11 M Infantry 1997-2002.
@@RoyalDog214 Please watch Spookston's video titled "The Problem With Pentagon Wars", while Bradley indeed is both a battlefield taxi and IFV citing the movie is just bad form.
@@babd3121 Bradley is an IFV. Explain to me why there are so many Recon variants of the Bradley if they were only a battle field taxi like the m113 or stryker?
The gunner said that he learned where to hit the T-90 from playing video games. The kamikaze drone flyers say the same thing.
So parents, your kids playing games may just be preparing them for the future. 😊
Speriamo perché abbiamo una gioventù pappamolle, senza palle, che almeno serva a qualcosa .AL CASO! ALTRIMENTI, CONTRO GLI INVASORI QUI DA SCATENATE ABBIAMO SOLO,FEMMINISTE E CENTRI SOCIALI , DI " FUMATI!"
Ironically, War Thunder is made by Russian developers. Sometimes I wonder if it's an intelligience tool considering how many players leak classified documents to use as ammo in forum debates and cases for rebalancing.
Specifically, Warthunder. And it makes sense, since despite the game's horrid grind and absurd 'balance' decisions, it does somewhat realistically model tank armoring, internals and mechanics. And the vulnerability of the various systems and surfaces of an enemy armored vehicle is *EXTREMELY* valuable intelligence when engaging it.
War thunder moments
@@MJesDK Warthunder is not the single game that handles armored warfare combat buddy.
Please. Stop calling the Bradley a "battlefield taxi". It's an infantry fighting vehicle designed to deliver dismounted infantry to the forward edge of an engagement and REMAIN there, fighting alongside main battle tanks and attack helicopters in what is called combined arms mechanized warfare. Armored personnel carriers like the U.S. M113 and the British FV432 are battlefield taxis.
He does call it a IFV, also the Bradley carries six dismounts. Those troops do not permanently stay onboard. So calling it a taxi isn't that far off. Yes I know an APC is the real battle taxi, but both an APC and an IFV both taxi men about the battlefield it's just that a IFV hangs around to provide fire cover.
Maybe it is just the UK but we call IFVs battlefield taxis ,as that is what it does ..It takes the infantry to the battlefield
@@tryaluck A APC is something very different from a IFV. A APC has no business being anywhere near the front line and is generally no longer used by most modern armies.
@@tryaluck The M3 carries only a couple scouts. It is used to fight.
Bradley kalah telak kalau berhadapan dengan T-90 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Western kit is NOT a magic win button. The western TRAINING and MINDSET is what allows our gear to work.
What mindset?
@@fatdoraemon2069 Teamwork, intestinal fortitude, confidence that you can destroy whatever you can see. U.S. armor is the most aggressive and hostile forward component on the battlefield. Ask any Iraqi.
@@fatdoraemon2069
People are first priority; other factors are lower.
Hugely interesting video
Had no idea a trophy system would cost that much, but it feels like it’s magic with how fast they work, so makes sense.
Top draw journalism here, been really enjoying the videos lately.
I bet you that Bradley guner plays war thunder 😂😂
he does, he admitted so in an interview.
@@CryingPanSFX
Yep! The gunner said he learned from video games and was shooting with the intent to blind the T90!
I knew the newer generations weaned on almost realistic FPS video shooter games would be real killers on the battlefield. Their battlefield instincts are already developed before they graduate high school.
I was a gunner. And I do play it. 😅
The real weakness of the T-90M that is discussed here is very easy to see: It got off three shots, and they were ALL misses. That comes down to the comment that the expert made: CREW. This tank was destroyed because the Russian Crew didn't know how to use their machine... and that was true before the HE explosive blinding attack began. That's where the survivability of these machines really matters... the crew survives with their experience and training intact.
My thought too. early T-90 using western system (french catherine FC) and later one russian system which better than catherine also unlike T-72 they have full stabilization. Properly trained crew should able to aim properly
Thanks for being smart
You are not providing the full info. The crew survived and escaped, the tank was later towed and put back into battle. The following week that Bradley was destroyed.
@@ledzepandhabs Weird for you to lie about the facts. The T-90M was destroyed by drones after and is even captured on video being destroyed. Impossible to tell if that specific Bradley was taken out though the crew were interviewed at least a week after it happened so they either survived or their Brad wasn't destroyed.
@@smallfocusedmemes126 Russian bots get worst quality every day. They probably send them to meat assaults from time to time.
It was an odd stroke of luck that the AP jammed, because those HE really devastated all those sensors. Amazing tenacity, those guys.
The Ukrainians shredded that T-90. AP and HE. Russia's conventional arms no better that 3rd world countries.
@@TennesseeHomesteadUSA A lot of 3rd world countries get their weapons from Russia so that makes sense..
@@spodulathey are probably better at using it than russia
@zollyy last i heard the ukrainians werent even using TOWs on the bradleys as they prefer to keep them for their infantry to use
@@viper100290 That's ridiculous. You gotta tank, you use a TOW.
Everyone talking about war thunder and I came here to say the same thing. Separated by languages but joined together as one by playing war thunder and destroying each other 😂
It is a mistake to say that Russia developed the T-34 tank. The T-34 tank was developed by the USSR. There were a lot of resources and talented people involved that are no longer part of the USSR. In fact, Ukraine was part of the USSR and did a lot of heavy industrial design in Armor, aircraft and ships.
Always bothers me when I hear that. Like, both Russia and Ukraine have inherited soviet equipment, and the biggest tank factory was located in Ukraine...
@@haaxeu6501not too mention the t-64s made in Ukraine which is better then the t-72
@@twirlyturd4364 Yes and t-64s were more expensive to produce.
@@twirlyturd4364 At the time the T-64 was not better than T-72. But I'm not sure if Ukrainian T-64s were upgraded.
@@haaxeu6501 Russia built its empire starting with Moscow principality. USSR is just an another name. That's why it was still called Russia in 20th century. You think that you are more clever than americans and the british of 20th century hahah.
I was a scout in a 113 in the 80's and I planned if we ran into a tank I would open up with the ma duce and go for the glass [while the driver worked on getting us out]. would it work, maybe, maybe not. Glad I never got to find out.
@@gwc656g truth
your opinion means nothing boot
hardest comment here
The T80 that ran into the tree after being hammered by the Bradley;
Almost looks like it was done deliberately to stop the turret rotation and thus being able to exit the tank...
That's actually kinda brilliant if you think about it. Modern problems require modern solutions.
T 90 M not a T 80
@@shawn576 Desperate situations require out of the box solutions to literally get out of the box, the burning metal box in this case. This is exactly what evolution shaped humans to be able to do.
T-90M
@@MoskusMoskiferus1611 T 90M
War Thunder that's how the Bradley beat the T-90
When the Russian bias is stacked so much that it is easier to fight them in real life.
@@FirstDagger i mean, wt doesnt simulate armour getting wittled down shot after shot, which i think is a factor in the bradley winning
along with the crew getting stressed, the tank being hit causing a lot of noise inside etc
@@FirstDaggerYou’re pretty brainless for thinking war thunder is anything like real Life,
The same game, has 3rd person views, Sights don’t matter, viewports aren’t a part of gameplay, you can fix broken barrels in a matter of seconds, you can get penetrated and your crew will stay Stone cold as they move their dead crewmates body so they can man the gun without a single emotion, your crew can fight in a vehicle with 2 people,
So yes I think you’re a missing few brain cells for even thinking this
@@furinick Also from the video all the smoke and debris causing blindness to the tank. This is why old tank doctrine had tanks lined up side by side so you could have the other tank return fire when the first is blinded.
BF Desert Combat. Ver 0.7 I have BF web server in the other room.
A lot of Australians that served in Chosen Company that have just rotated out in March including engineering teams said of all the tanks the Challenger Tanks where more trouble than their worth because they where extremely high maintenance and unreliable. For this reason they did not see a lot of action. They said they where too heavy for the terrain, the track pads constantly needed replacing and overly complicated design of both the targeting system and use of 2 piece ammunition are problematic. The leopards where much better in comparison but still heavy and costly to keep running. In the end most Ukrainians gravitated back to the T84 and simply preferred the Soviet tanks not just because of familiarity and reliability, they said in real world battlefield all the tanks ended up had the same survive-ability, but the T84's where more manoeuvrable and suited to the battlefield conditions and they where way more serviceable in the field which is critical to entering conflict and safely getting out again.
Ukraine only ever had like 4 t84s I think you mean t64s
All the tanks are getting bogged down and in need of heavy maintenance. It's war and war and the reality of such conditions shows that wear and tear is different ball game compared to peacetime deployments.
Anyway! The Challenger that was lost was lost due to a mine that disabled the tank. It was abandoned and the Ukrainians tried to destroy it with artillery. But at least the integrity of the tank after all the hits it received stayed together. As in the Gulf, where It was shown just how well protected the crew were. Even in urban combat A situation that no tank should be in unless there's no alternative.
There is another reason. And that is, that there were only 14 deployed in the Ukrainian 82nd Airborne division. The Challenger at least has the British Chobham/Dorchester armour and is about the best armoured tank in the world.
Anyway! No matter the tank, they can all be destroyed. What is paramount is that there should be no munitions or object penetration into the fighting compartment. The crew are the important of the tank asset.
@@paulbantick8266 We have just seen in Kursk another Challenger be defeated by a single lancet. The armour used in the challenger are not saving the tanks from these drones and from the footage it did not look like any of the crew got out. I think anti-drone systems is critical now days.
@@SonyJimable Really? care to share that? Especially your claim regarding the crew. There's no confirmation either. Just Pro-Russian claims. Anyway! Even the Challenger 2 is not immune. No tank is.
I refer you to my last. And just because a supposed 'lot' of Australians have alleged the problems with Challenger 2s. Britain's REME etc, haven't had trouble maintaining them in wartime conditions. And I state again. All the western MBTs have had trouble with getting bogged down. As for maintenance. The Australians are used to maintaining Leopards and M1s but not the Challenger. The Challenger is as reliable as the other two stated. And it's being used in combat. Loosing them in combat is no big deal. All tanks are liable to get knocked out.
will Abrams also be blinded like that when under constant fire from HE rounds to all the delicate sensors?
No doubt.
probably,its not about sensors, its about crew expirience. if usa would fight in that bloody war for 2 years straightI doubt they would have time to propperly train their crews
@@nav14ok62if the the US was involved the war would have ended two years ago. American air power homie. The most powerful thing man has ever devised
@@T_81535 LOL exactly how the Iraq and Afghanistan wars ended. 10 years later each.
@@T_81535 meh overrated
As the Chieftain said, the tank is mobile, protected firepower. The protected leg of that triad has taken a hit from the ability of drones to strike at any point on the tank. In order to recover some of the tank’s resistance to damage, more armor, applied more widely, and/or active protection systems will have to be incorporated. This means more weight, something the logistics and transportation guys and the bean counters are loath to face.
Yes the blow off door needs to be protected while being still able to function. Also every vehicle on the battle field needs proper anti drone defence such as jamming or its own mini air defence system.
Tanks have proven themselves to be obsolete just like the army predicted.
In an Armored Cavalry Scout Platoon there are 4 per platoon like in a regular mechanized infantry platoon. In the platoon of 4 vehicles they operate as pairs during a combat engagement like 2 riflemen in combat. One fires to cover his buddy to maneuver close or to break contact. The only difference is in a cavalry scout troop is they can dismount scouts for recon and infantry platoons will deliver infantry for combat on their objective while providing fire support. These Ukrainian crews were taught very well prior to deployment to combat. NATO tank crews practice the same tactics too. Both Bradley IFVs operate like the Wingman Concept like fighter pilots operate as to fly and protect each other. In the Field Manual 7-8 Mechanized Infantry manual which is close to NATO doctrine.
Very impressive 3D models/diagram and the input of other tank commanders!! Badass video‼️
The reason they are "tethered" and moving in one line is anti-tank minefields. You would expect a tank expert to know this.
Well done video!! 👍
I am amazed at the amount of mistakes in this report or whatever you want to call it. Also, this is over 6 month old footage
Have you been in action in a tank
@@themcgeachys Suppose he hasn't. How does that invalidate his claim of mistakes in the biased video?
Legacy media. If you want expertise don't go to the media.
How many mistakes?
Much of Fleet Street has dropped the ball on reporting from Ukraine, and most of the US press seems to have abandoned the war all together. US public has the shortest attention span of any modern society.
A label saying T34 while pointing at several T-34, then a few KV-1 tanks.
The myth that the T-34 was the greatest tank in history has been debunked. They were pathetic; Russia just had a lot of them. It's the same story with the T-72. The reason the Soviet Union was able to resist Germany in World War 2 wasn't their domestic arms production; it was Lend/Lease, mostly provided by the United States.
@@williamyoung9401 Clown, how many T34 were produced in the USA?
@@williamyoung9401I agree. They lost nearly 45,000 tanks in WWII based off a quick search. I don’t know if this strictly the T-34 series that were lost or all tanks. Perhaps it was just bad doctrine, tactics, or crew, but they sure hell lost a lot of them.
@@krampsy The US built no T-34... That's why Russia lost so many of them. The Lend / Lease was providing older export tanks made in the UK and US like the Matilda 2 and M1A3 Lee tanks.
Many of these were immediately raided by the Russian tank factories for their valuable parts like the gunner sights, binoculars, lights, air filters and other parts that Russia could not afford to produce themselves to any valuable quality. The US even sent Russian entire factories. Steel beams, walls, doors, the lot. Like one big IKEA flatpack build.
Also they were given engines that the Russians copied to make their own versions of and all of which went on to be the best engines Russia would have during ww2. They also got trucks and jeeps.
One of the most valuable resources they got surprisingly was tyres. The cold climate in Russia meant that natural rubber production there was producing brittle rubber that didn't last a week.
@@krampsy He's probably talking about the M4 Shermans, M3 Lee, and the other different support, supplies and equipment the US sent to the USSR
7:42 it wasn’t the Iraqi “national guard” but the Republican Guard. They were decimated.
"decimated" means reduced by 10%. Much more than being decimated!
Obliterated may be a more accurate word to use.
@@caferacerinthailandheh decimated sounds much worse than what it actually means
@@DutchTDK Yup, IIRC it related to a punishment in the Roman army where they literally killed one soldier in ten. Those guys weren't f'in around.
I’m curious, why didn’t the Bradley’s use any Tows against the T-90M?
great content!!
They should change the Bradleys name to the Honey Badger.
It is named for General Omar Bradley.
@@davidlium9338 For real the OG Honey Badger, dude was the soldiers soldier.
why?
@@nav14ok62 Why do I have to explain that?
@@davidlium9338 I know, so?
Finally a video with a legitimate "expert"! 😊
Ha ha hah…..!😂
I remember 60 Minutes poo pooing the Bradley. Calling it "a target with men in it."
And they would be correct.
Military experts at 60 minutes...
They are correct, the tank here was blinded not destroyed, a bradley will melt if it was hit but a tank gun.
The same 60 minutes that put incendiary devices in Chevy trucks? Oh look, they catch on fire !
Let's be real not biased, the T-90M armor really handled the bradly continuous shots to not penetrate the tank for a while of time, but the T-90M gunner was blind to miss 2 close range shot, which really shows the lack of experience in Russian crews
Thank you guys
Great discussion, thanks!
re 26:20. The guy talks about Abrams tanks but shows a film of the interior of a Russian tank with Russian soldiers.
That solder is Polish. He has a Polish flag on his uniform. It also looks like the second one is German, and they are inside of Leoppard.
For 4 months now, the Russians have been flying FPV drones attached to fibre-optic wire. RF can't jam fibre-optic wire.
So they tethered drones to a finite amount of expensive wire? Isnt that the worst thing to do with an fpv drone?
@amazingman63 They say they can travel about 10 blocks. I think of it kind of like a TOW missile but guided with FPV.
@@amazingman63wait till you find out that loads of anti-tank missiles work that way and they still can have 3-6km range. In fact the Bradley's TOW missiles also use wire to control flight. This tech is very old now, it literally started back in WW2, the germans used electrically wire guided torpedoes, and it snowballed from there to missiles. Im pretty sure after all this time they figured out a way to make the wire as thin as it can be and as cheaply made as possible.... But compared to the missile it self, the cost of the wire is basically negligible
@@waifuracer6516 You are highly unlikely to be able to pull out anything even close to 4-6 km of optical cable with a drone, unless it is HUGE. Missiles are able to do that because the wire spools out so fast that it rarely ever even touches the ground, and they have MASSIVE amounts of thrust to quickly accelerate to very high velocities. A torpedo can do it for the same reason, there is nothing there to snag the line on, it just pays out behind it in the water. There are ways to make drones very difficult to jam, and ways to overcome GPS jamming, and both are not at all difficult. The type of drones mostly getting jammed are either GPS spoofed, or commercial grade junk. And IMU will solve the GPS jamming post haste. A small loss of accuracy, but not much.
Ifv are not taxi.
They are fighting vehicles...
The mtlb or the m113 are taxi.
There more like a hybrid of both. They aren't a dedicated fighting vehical because they carry infantry.
@@MichaelKemner-wj9nc but they can defeat t-90 and support infantry.
Ukraine soldiers love them!
The point of IFVs is literally to be a taxi that fight ...
IFVs are APCs with heavy weapons.
@@StephaneP-p8h drone do that not bradly
@@FirstDagger They are APCs that are meant to stay in the fight and provide fire support to the infantry dismounts, which is a pretty important distinction compared to the regular APC which is not made to do that.
Excellent video
Thanks
Future tank designs for any nation are going to have to include some kind of defense against drones.
Drones for both sides, are currently the deadliest and most feared weapon.
The FABs from Russia are pretty feared from what i was seen in videos
Very biased and manipulative comments.
How come t-90, a modernisation of t-72 is, called "state of the art the mist modern"?
While Bradley supposed to be just "30 years old taxi".
One well performed battle action isn't enough to draw all those conclusions.
Analogically. What would you say when state of art, the most advanced and super expensive Abrams tank is destroyed by infantryman with rpg-7?
Tanks obsolete! Order 10 billion RPG-7's or whine to the devs about a much needed nerf!
Because Russia has been calling the T-90 "state of the art the most modern" and the Bradley "30 years old taxi" constantly. And if there is someone we can trust on the matter, it's probably the manufacturer of the T-90.
RPG is an anti tank weapon that the reactive armor is adapted to dealing with. RPG is an old anti-tank weapon. The modern version in javelin and n-law, and these are also dealt with by reactive armor. So RPG is no problem.
que buen comentario
Because the T-90M is the most modern version of tank the Russians currently have, being first fielded in 2017. It might be based on the T-72, but the T-90M is brand spanking new.
While the Bradleys that are sent to Ukraine have been built in the late 1980s.
Think of it like the difference between a Leopard 2A1 and a Leopard 2A8+. The former is a nearly 40 year old system not even close to cuting edge anymore, while the other is a brand spanking new tank.
Or you could think of it like a 1990s Audi A4 and a 2023 A4. One is by now barely driving old junk, while the other is a brand new luxury sedan.
WOT heavy trying to fight a light while it out drives the heavy's turret. 😂
give me the cold sweats
why at 11:24 does the t-34 swap to a kv-1 video
❤❤Extremely well done and educational
When Brad met Vlad!
reminds me of the old Red Dwarf "Gunmen of the Apocalypse" line "I know this game, it's called cat and mouse.And there's only one way to win, don't be the mouse"
The bushmaster fires a mix of HE & AP rounds. It’s not just the HE going Splat! There are as many AP rounds tearing into those tanks.
Yes but as said in the vid their AP feed jammed.
@@gregs7562interesting i had always thought they were mixed in the belt not separate. That’s cool
A dual feed system. Many moving parts to pinch the devil out of your fingers if you are not careful.
25mm is not capable of penetrating the armour. it hit the horizontal drive and knocked out all the electronics using HE shots. Driver was clearly panicking and so was the crew
Incredibly well done video
To say he remembers playing a video game and thats how he knew how to defeat it is crazy.
ALL tanks, from every country require support from troops and air.
And support from other armor or artillery.
It all boils down to tactics.
I'm a tank commander I have thousand hour war experience, in WAR THUNDER
Ya but do you have a 'First on Track' badge for playing in the first beta-test. 'Old Guard' are noobs.
Thinking about the Quwait reaction, it is dispicable the we do not have 500 or 1000 Abrams in Ukraine.
Kuwait got an alliance and oil, Ukraine got neither.
The Ukrainians have withdrawn Abrams from the front because it's not fit for purpose
@@hernerweisenberg7052 Ukraine has a defence agreement with the US and UK, its called the Budapest memorandum. They also have oil.
@@longshanks7157 How is it not fit for combat?
@@hawk55732 too heavy and too big for Ukraine's terrain I believe, just like challengers and leopards but even more so. They end up being easy targets and a propaganda win for the Russians.
Awesome show!
Fantastic work Jake
Why are you shitting on the T90 by saying it's defeated by American tanks that are 30 years old? The T90 is also 30 years old (hint: the name 90 is 1990). You're trying to mislead the viewer into thinking it's a 30 year old American tank against a 5 year old Russian tank.
Do you know how old the Abrams actually is? It's my understanding that the ones sent to Ukraine were earlier variants no longer in front line US service and already over 30 years old.
@@tonyunderwood9678 Yeah the Abrams is real old. Wiki says 44 years old. It took the Soviets a decade to make something comparable, and that's assuming the T90 hasn't been stripped down by corrupt commanders. The T90 is probably an excellent tank when it's maintained, has a trained crew, and has adequate spare parts (I'm guessing none of those conditions are true in most cases)
@@tonyunderwood9678 Your understanding is wrong, the version sent to Ukraine is a modernized tank and only lacks some of the features that you'd find on the top end models (which don't make up the entire stockpile US has for front line service either). These are obviously not some 30 year old clunkers dragged out of the boneyard.
@@herpderp7114 I will stand by my comments regarding the M1s sent to Ukraine as being less capable than what's in frontline service with the US military. Modernized, yes, but not to the degree that they could have been, simply because of where they had been previously stationed and with who. We're not gonna send our top of the line hardware anywhere. As far as being 30 years old...? Yeah they're 30 years old (or older) but they have received upgrades along the way, as have many frontline M1s serving with US forces. Lots of M1 hulls are old by today's engineer's standards. It doesn't mean they're at a disadvantage on the battle field when pitched up against equally capable (or supposed to be) former Soviet hardware. Likewise, I'm pretty sure that the M1s currently in service with the US military are more capable than anything in Ukraine because of improved armor and much better trained and experienced crews.
Bottom line: The M1s in Ukraine are NOT as capable as what's in service with US forces.
@@tonyunderwood9678 You'd still be wrong, though. Yes, the Ukrainian tanks have worse armor in the front of hull and turret front, but it's irrelevant considering they never get hit there. Drones aren't known to target front armor. The armor is identical to the models US uses in other directions. The only disadvantage they have in terms of systems compared to the best models USA fields is lack of cooled thermals for commander and the inability for commander to override the turret controls.
Does that make them less capable? Technically yes, but you're making it sound like these are some old clunkers taken out of a scrap heap rather than that they lack some of the most advanced features that aren't even that necessary for the tank to be effective.
These are modern up to date M1 tanks.
Russia: We have the best tanks!
Ukraine: We have the best scrapyards for it.
also Ukraine have the best graveyards for its hundreds of thousands dead soldiers yeah
I´d like to know more about Swedish vehicles and weapons.
Such as the CV90, I think the Bradley would function about the same about the same as the same as the CV90.
The anti tank rifle "Karl Gustav" is a great anti tank gun.
I just wanna know if the Ukranianians like our stuff you know.
Anything Swedish you know...
Very informative and professional. Thank you
Excellent show. On the edge of my seat for a tank documentary. lol
Arnold is a very smart man with a huge breadth of life experience - both first and second hand. He can also deliver an essential message, like this one, with belief and great persuasive skill. He is my personal hero.. Much respect to Arnold.
Anyone notice the candles on his mantle? HE even looks a little like Aleister. Many soldiers in the comments.... Whats up fellas. This vid got me amped... Maybe I missed my calling.
- Civilian 💥💣
I'm not exactly sure what you're going on about, but I kind of like it.
❤😂
The Bradley is so popular in the Ukraine they have named a place called 'Bradley Square' after it.
They had one damage a t90 lol won’t be surprised if they make a whole movie about it
That Bradley was smoked like a day later
(For people that don't know, Bradley square is a Bradley graveyard nearby Robotyne. It has many destroyed vehicles for the museum.) ☠ 😁
In 1992, I talked to a SFC bradley commander who was a desert storm veteran from 3AD. He said a mix up led them to have to fire training rounds (all they had) at T72s. He said they discovered that the training rds pen'd better than expected, and ripped through even turret armor. They didn't even need to fire their TOW missiles. It was a turkey shoot according to him.
Great doco thnx Daily Times.
This was fascinating
Drones are messing everybody up?
The Leopard tanks have the similar ammo storage in the turret but the also stack reloads unprotected inside the hull that is very dangerous. They can kill their own crew very easily.
Leopard 2 hull ammo racks aren't supposed to be filled in combat for that exact reason.
@@FirstDagger If there is no ammunition, what will he shoot with?
15 rounds in the turret rear,up to 27 rounds in the stack inside.So in my opinion the ammo storage of the M1 Abrams is much better for traditional tank warfare.But most of the western tank losses were to drones,artillery and Mines.To concentrate almost all ammo in the turret rear(M1Abrams) makes it perhaps more vulnerable to those drone attacks,because the much smaller ammo bunker in Leopards turret rear makes it more difficult to hit for the russian drone operators. Just a hypothesis of mine.
@@IvanMartynenko-ir8xh Leopard 2 has a bustle rack that is supposed to be used during combat.
@@hansulrichboning8551 Leopard 2 loses space for other stuff, that is why the rack is smaller. Yes, Abrams has the best solution regarding ammo storage of all current MBTs.
Very interesting and well presented.
Can't believe that Imy watching educational concepts from dailymail!!
I fully disagree that tank warfare hasn't changed. Kamikaze drones have made maneuver warfare nearly impossible. Tanks are purposely held back because all that's gonna happen is a $500 drone is gonna destroy a multi million dollar tank.
The Russian side is far less conservative with its tanks for reasons that would require a whole essay to explain. But basically, it's not working very well. It's gotten slightly better since they've started welding sheet metal onto them. But when they hear about a western tank being in the area, there's no amount of sheet metal that'll save them, so they pull the tanks away.
That combined with the kamikaze drone strategy is why there are no tank on tank battles happening in this war. Quite frankly, I think the age of the tank as we know it may be over.
IFVs are the new tanks. Getting troops in quickly, providing covering fire against infantry and other armored vehicles like BMPs, and then loading up and getting the heck out. A tank can't transport troops like an IFV can. And a tank's anti-infantry and anti-armored vehicle capabilities are easily matched by drones, artillery, and IFVs. Big explosions, armor piercing, and machine gun fire. Even if an enemy tank shows up, what can a couple kamikaze drones not do that a multi million dollar tank can?
Self-propelled artillery and shorad are basically the children that will inherit the remaining roles of the main battle tank.
Drones have been becoming less effective as time goes on. I suspect it's more likely that drone jamming technology will reach a point to where that stops being a viable option.
11:24 The expert mentions T-34, shows KV-1 😅😅
AFTER showing T-34s
It’s interesting seeing an IFV beating an MBT…that all comes down to one thing though…Crew training and INFANTRY support. MBT’s aren’t supposed to work in a CLOSE IN ENVIRONMENT without any kind of support.. .and the crew should have known that. The crew of that MBT was obviously very poorly trained or idiotically deployed into that area by itself. Pretty dumb.
A lot happens in combat. Any occasion. It is stupid to draw conclusions based on one episode.
You could have just said they were Russian, and it would have covered the last two sentences with one word. If you've watched much of this war, it is just understood. Given the numbers, the Russians SHOULD have taken Ukraine in three days. Over the last two years and change they've lost more than they've gained, by far.
you've nailed it though.....it all comes down to "trained and experienced " crew, no matter what platform we are talking about
A quick note. Abrams is pronounced with a long "a" as in Crayon. Great video, thanks.
the tank didn't know what hit it then rolls away like a mal functioning Darlek.
Hilarious
22:04 A "K-Kill" is a "kinetic kill," not a "catastrophic kill."
Katastrophic kill 😂
This expert is just some idiot
I saw a video somewhere on reddit that showed that many russian tanks had the reactive armor replaced with rubber blocks. the armor was probably sold on the black market somewhere
I was with the 5th Army in Michigan back in the 70's after my combat tour in Vietnam (101st Airborne). It was built at the Warren Tank Arsenal, in Michigan. It was supposed to replace the US APC. Different countries came during the construction with suggestions, for upgrades, etc... The first idea was an 80 Mile per hour track vehicle to carry Infantry men to combat... then ideas like rocket launchers, different machine guns and armor were added to help sell the unit to foreign governments.
I am an old tanker from the 1970’s and remember the early development of the Bradley,and the development of the tactical implementation of the Bradley. Early deployment of TOW missle carriers (jeep, M113, or tripod) was to give a huge standoff range and overwatch for tanks or dismounted infantry. At 4000+ meters, this far exceeded the effective range of Soviet tanks. The early version of the infantry version had I believe either 6 or eight AR ports to allow assault on the objective using the main gun and coax for killing and suppression. The cavalry version had the ports plugged adding additional missile storage plus only 4 scouts. My son was a cav scout in Bradley’s a s a scout, gunner and vehicle commander for the first 10 years of his 20 from 2001 to 2021. His experience was as others stated that Bradley’s and tanks were used as combined arms using each strengths. In Ukraine there is an amazing cooperation between drone resources and Bradley’s, which our Army is quickly developing similar resources.
I expect that is exactly where you want to attack any tank from, well out of THEIR firing range. I saw one tanker make a quip that one of the tanks had a 3000 (or whatever) meter reach, and he said that was coincidental, because exactly that range, plus 20 miles, was as close as he ever wanted to be to an enemy tank. Gotta have a sense of humor, I guess. I thought it was funny.
legend says the bradley crew members could not disembark for 24 hours after the encounter. Due to the size of their balls
Perhaps you should analyse the 34 out of 100 Bradleys sent that were lost just in the opening days of Ukraine's failed offensive.
Russians lies - they lost nowhere near that amount. Most off these "destroyed" vehicles (which included ones that had just trown tracks) were recovered and repaired.
And if you want to talk about a failed offensive, let's talk about Russia's failed spring offensive in Kharkiv.
Love Hamish de Bretton-Gordon talking smack about Russian military rubbish in his Kentish accent.
Si sente che è inglese!! Dovrebbe parlare un po' più lentamente, è molto che non parlo più inglese,lo parlavo molto X lavoro , in india, Thailandia , Europa ora ho perso molto!
There’s a technical error in the video. Only Abrams stores 100% of its ammunition under blowout panels. Leo 1/2 and almost everything else stores ammunition next to the driver, Merkava in the rear hull, Challenger in the hull and/or lower turret basket. They use armored canisters with liquid to manage fire risks but it’s not the same as Abrams.
Didnt want to watch this but this thumbnail picture is awesome - squashing the Abrams so its perfectly fit the high of soviet-school low profile tanks. Made my day
This video brought to you by Raytheon. Do a video on how the Abrams was knocked out buy an rpg in Iraq
Every tank is vulnerable, to a greater or lesser degree, to every weapon.
This English " expert" is not biased at all 🙄
He is totally screwed up... He is not an expert, he is a moron.
@@fredkite9330 Sure he is America Last Boot Licker.
@@fredkite9330 So what tastes better: Ukrainian or Israeli boots?
ofc they fail to mention that the t90 was hit by 3 fpv drones before the bradley showed up
Thats just wrong. It only got hit after the Bradley disabled the t-90
@@Erusean_pilot According to your super trustworthy, super legit "experts"? Go find the OG video and you can watch it for yourself. It got hit by at least one ATGM/Drone prior to the engagement.
Hey I recognize the smiley face symbol on the paint on that Bradley! I WASHED THAT ONE!
I am curious, why those superior Challengers were pulled off the frontline ?
Drones are proving to be a major problematic issue!
I mean, if the range was any longer, the bradley's can do almost nothing about the T90M.
Yeah. Because ATGMs don't exist.
The T-90M wasnt taken out (Just saying), The Bradley blinded the Comanders and Gunners sight which wasnt working well afterwards. The T-90M crew must have seen them coming but they didnt react fast enough to fire upon the Bradley, which is the crews fault. Also T-72A which is the first upgrade to the original T-72 had weaker hull frontall armor, later on T-72B got a huge upgrade on it, making it stronger and better to go agaisnt ennemys. In 1990 Russia made a new tank so cald T-90A which had thermal sight for the first time unlike T-72s. Later on They modified the T-90A in to T-90M which got Lots of ERA, Comander recieved Thermals, and Comunication system, with all the other things on the tank.
Get out of here with your logic and facts.
@@albundy7699 Make me, someones may be Jealous that i knwo much.
@@why_did_i_make_thischanel7298 you’re ruing the circle jerk of Russian tanks are garbage.
Dont tell lazer pig about the T34 part
No kidding! 😂 The myth that the T-34 was "the greatest tank in history" has been debunked. The Soviet Union was able to fight Germany in World War 2 because of Lend/Lease, mostly provided by the United States. Not because of the T-34 and human wave attacks.
33:04 modern tanks already have reactive armour that just needs to be tuned to react to much slower incoming projectiles like drones.
Informative
So the mighty challenger 2 gets blown up by drones too??? 😂😂😂
26:08 They're literally slower my guy💀 And don't compare modern western mbt's with a stock t-72
You're not taking into account reverse speed my guy
@@luksocat Very useful in modern combat, real life isn't war thunder
@@BeamNG.enjoyer true seems more like Night of the Living Dead with all the meat assaults
AAAAAAAAAbrams Not ahbrams. Give it a try. You can do it.
2:08 This is semi-correct, ERA is only designed to defelect HEAT projectiles e.g. RPG, and tank fired HEAT shells, ERA does not normally help against much more faster and non chemical rounds
I think modern era also has some effectiveness against apfsds
ERA doesn’t help with sabot rounds since they don’t explode and are purely kinetic
I talked to an old guy who fought the Soviets on the Eastern Front. He told me they would often get the Soviet tanks to tip their hat to them. He told me even then the Soviet tanks would often blow off thier turrets.