Russian tanks aren't obsolete. They're being used wrong
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 дек 2022
- NOTE - This is a re-upload of a previous video
Russian tanks have taken heavy losses in Ukraine. Countless images of decapitated turrets and burnt-out wrecks have made headlines around the world with some proclaiming the death of the tank altogether. They argue that the threat of artillery, drones, and man portable anti-tank missiles makes them extra vulnerable on the modern battlefield and an unsustainable risk to their crews. But is that really true? It turns out that, rather than the tank itself, Russia's tactics may be to blame for these losses.
IWM's free photography display 'Ukraine: Photographs from the Front Line' opens at IWM London on 3 February: www.iwm.org.uk/events/iwm-lon...
Licence the archive clips used in this film: film.iwmcollections.org.uk/my...
For information about licensing HD clips please email filmcommercial@iwm.org.uk
Creative Commons Attributions:
Russian footage by Mil.ru (CC BY 4.0) creativecommons.org/licenses/...
Ukrainian footage by armyinform.com.ua (CC BY 4.0) creativecommons.org/licenses/...
Photograph of destroyed T-72 no turret by Kyivcity.gov.ua creativecommons.org/licenses/...
Photograph of destroyed T-72 with turret by Enno Lenze creativecommons.org/licenses/...
Photograph of destruction in Bucha by www.president.gov.ua creativecommons.org/licenses/...
Photograph of M777 Howitzer www.mil.gov.ua creativecommons.org/licenses/...
Photograph of CAESAR Howitzer www.mil.gov.ua creativecommons.org/licenses/...
Imagine screwing up a war so badly that museums over 100 years old, fine institutions of memorialising and respecting the sacrifice of soldiers, are making videos telling you to 'git gud'
But. Russia did not lose more Afghan soldiers in Afghanistan than it destroyed the Taliban. This is NATO. But no one cares about the Afghan military. It is the dead NATO members that are important to everyone. The same thing with the Ukrainians, no one cares how many of them will die. How crowded their cemeteries are. The main thing Russia screwed up.
I think you're forgetting ukraine is recieving massive amount of aid and is in its 7th mobilization which is very reminiscent of the iran-iraq war,where Iran was forced to fight a Iraq supported by two superpowers
I remember the Ukrainians frantically stuffing Molotov Cocktails and using old Guerilla techniques to halt the assult on Kiev. There was not much time for new equipment to arrive at that time.
Russia is as bad as Soviet, all they have is meat for the grinder and try to overrun the defenses with numbers instead of trying to use the brain.
@@Chaxar they weren't using guerilla tactics. They were establishing a defense in depth the difference is that you actually need to stop the enemy at some point or you loose.
They blocked the Russians in a few key spots, preventing them from linking up with their air assault and starving them out. For most of the war Russians and Ukrainians were in direct frontline contact.
If massive losses would be the only criteria for the obsolescence of a weapon type, then infantrymen would be obsolete since at least World War I.
Boston Dynamics - says you are correct.
Robots are the future .
I mean….your not wrong, because Infantry post WW1 got relegated to:
-supporting tanks
-small and light raiding/commando teams
-of garrison duty in the rear.
There not the go-to choice as they once were, thought the current war in Ukraine has forced them back into there WW1 roles.
You are half right. All armies accept the fact that infantry will die, in great numbers. But without infantry and a ruthless commander, commander in chief and head honcho, they are wasted. Infantry takes and hold ground long enough for the big guns and arms to come in.Just ask US Grant. Compare him and contrast with that idiot, Robert E Lee who wasted, used and abused his scare resources in silly napololeonic war tactics.
@@sealy3
I'm expecting relatively low cost remote controlled rapid fire smaller caliber weapons that can be positioned in a defensive line awaiting an enemy move forward. Expendable machine gunners.
Or even flown into position by 'offload and return' drones.
@@nobodyherepal3292 they didnt, WW2 was an infantry war. just as most wars in human history infantry are the main force and tanks are to support them
Former armor officer here. Some basic rules for combined arms:
-Use dismounted infantry (or scout teams) to find dismounted infantry
-Use tanks to fight tanks
-Fight infantry with infantry first, then use tanks to crush them
-Tanks should lead the formation only in wide open areas that give no concealment to infantry (deserts and such)
-Tanks are almost helpless against aircraft and infantry are almost helpless against artillery
-For infantry and ATGM crews: if the tanks don't know where you are, you have the advantage. If they do know where you are, you are dead meat.
Ignore these rules and you pay dearly (looking at you Russia). For more context look at Grozny in the 90's for another example of Russian tactical epic fails. Kiev is just a repeat with a new generation.
Russians don't know this. Why the hell you were not born before Dunkirk you would teach french and british to fight.
Great comment and I agree with everything you said. Regarding your statement that tanks should "lead the formation only in wide open areas that give no concealment to infantry", I think wide open areas in Ukraine that are large enough for that tactic are few and far between if you consider the range, accuracy and lethality of the current anti-tank missile systems the Ukrainian military are using, like the Javelin and NLAW systems. According to what I've read, the NLAW system has only a modest effective range of about a half mile, but the established "heavier" Javelin system has an effective range of 1.6 miles and the new lightweight Javelin system has a range of 2.5 miles (I'm not sure if Ukraine has any of the newer systems because they haven't made a lot of them). With the new agreement between America, Germany, UK and Poland to start sending 31 M1 Abrams, 28 Leopard 2 and 14 Challenger 2 main battle tanks to Ukraine (along with numerous other armored vehicles, including 90 Styker armored personal carriers, 53 MRAP's, 59 Bradley fighting vehicles and another Bradleys previously promised in January), I'm interested to see is they significantly increase the Ukrainian military's ability to counter any new large Russian advances and to ultimately drive the illegal invaders off every inch of sovereign Ukrainian soil. BTW, thanks for your service.
WRT wide open areas, it's not just the ranges and lack of concealment for infantry. It's also the fact thst tanks can mass in large numbers quickly to attack. So with even a first-rate AT weapon like Javelin you have a reasonable chance of picking off one tank, then there is added complexity when the other 11 start shooting back. Also tanks can reload and fire again in about 8 seconds, while AT weapons like that take minutes. That's defense, offense would be much harder because you're lugging one missile at a time on foot and there is still that lack of cover. This is why the Javelins were a godsend in Kiev urban fighting but now are somewhat in the back seat as they beg for tanks.
The thing that really strikes me as different here is that artillery is really becoming dominant. Artillery always inflicted the most casualties but was always considered a suppression weapon. Now it's reaching the point where large ground units can be defeated and forced to withdraw solely by artillery. The combination of precise targeting and small drones is making the same old deadly weapon much deadlier. It may be the case in the future that ground units are merely self-defending placeholders and you gain ground by massing artillery/drones.
"The added complexity of 11 tanks firing back..."
It ain't that complex, I'm dropping kit and running as fast as I can, while shrieking, hahah.
@@chrismedina54 So, you're a Staff Officer then?
Actually, ammunition down in the carousel is pretty well protected _from horizontal attack_ . One of the biggest tank lessons of WWII was that the vast majority of burning tanks was from ammo stored up in the hull sides and around the turret; this was for all combatants. When ammo was moved down low in the tank, it was far less likely to get hit by penetrating rounds, and the incidence of flamers went way down.
With top-attack munitions delivering a white-hot penetrator straight down through the crew compartment, though, the carousel becomes more vulnerable.
@@geordiegeorge9041 Good point; every tank has its weak points; there was a bit of a stink a while back when M1 Abrams were disabled with RPG hits in the lower rear hull.
PLUS, it takes a really ballsy crew to let tanks get close enough for precisions shots like this.
Seen a grenade take out a tank with this ammo storage configuration, a hand grenade dropped into the open hatch! If it just had a barrier of some sort like the Abrams has and others do, that would help alot. Especially with crew survival.
@@pyroarchySo russian tanks don't have hatches with locks?
@@Vincent98987 reduces visibility plus most of the t-72 are not fitted with the most modern imaging sights.
@@chumlanthung1063 locks on the hatch reduce visibility?
A air force pilot once told me" the aircraft is only as good as the pilot's training." He was right.
Tell that to the orc pilots who's planes leak oil, fall apart in mid-air. What is missing in reporting on this war is the more important aspect than pilots, it's maintenance infrastructure.
You have to train about 50 support staff to keep 1 plane running. Who wants to work for the Russian government when much better jobs are available in the private sector. Free vodka and beatings by your sergant can only take support staff so far.
Same person told me,: "Don't think, just do"
@@motomike3475 Exacerbated by Russian pilots getting a fraction of the training flight hours as NATO pilots
An, not A
I heard him say you have to feel: the need, the need for speed
The fact that retreating Russian soldiers aren't scuttling equipment as they leave is mind boggling.
They might not be "retreating" but rather fleeing as fast as possible after trying to hold out when it was simply not possible, because of inept orders from above.
They're only paid enough to destroy the other sides tanks ... not their own:))
Its also a strong hint that Ukraine's claims are somewhat exaggerated...
@@maryginger4877 No hint here, all this is quite documented on Oryx... Not much to doubt here.
When you don't give a damn about your country, your leaders and your military, who cares? Leave them for valiant wonderful people who can use them. It's like donating a nice running car to a poor women with 3 children trying to get a job.
Even old tanks like T55 isn't obsolete, it can still take small arm fire and provide support for infantry.
problem is they're thirsty, getting them to the front is difficult, they require more training cause a t55 needs larger crew than modern tanks. They're no longer able to mass produce spare parts for old models. They haven't been training men on repairing or operating t55s since the cold war, it's probably much harder to find or create instructors who can train Russians on the t55
@@AUstudios thirsty? You mean fuel wise? A soviet T55 has 3 times the range of an Abrams tank. And there are more parts available for the T55 than any other tank. And Soviet doctrine was simple and rugged. These tanks are just that, and easy to maintain and operate. The problem with all tanks is modern anti tank.
The plan to use combined arms in WW1 for an attack was devised by the Australian General Sir John Monash. Very highly regarded by his men. There are some very interesting stories about him during the war.
I don't think he actually invented it but agree he was an absolutely brilliant planner of battles. Not the only one in WW1 - see the Canadian attack on Vimy Ridge, Plumer at Messines and Rawlinson at Amiens - I think it was more that the army did actually learn from experience and by 1917 had better equipment, eg the Lewis gun, rifle grenades, mortars and the 106 fuze, sound and flash ranging, aerial observation and photograpy etc to say noth8ing of ample ammunition and artillery.
It goes even further back to Alexander the great but that in itself is a different type of war
In WW1, people said tank was obsolete because of Anti-Tank Rifles
In WW2, people said tank was obsolete because hollow charge became prolific
In Cold War, people said tank was obsolete because ATGMs became prolific
In modern times, people said tank was obsolete because etc. etc.
Tank will never get obsolete. It will only change shape.
No they didn't.
After WW1, some nations evaluated tank designed and made improvements because the recognized the current design was obsolete.
During WW2, many countries looked at their designs (Germany Mk1s) and found them obsolete and adopted new design.
During the Cold War many nations found there current tank design obsolete, thus the concept of MBT.
At present, there is a belief that once again the current design is obsolete... change is needed.
History is replete with obsolete tank designs and there tactical and operational usage.
@@johnbox271 thats the definition of Obsolete. Hence needs for new designs.
@@porsche-sandoesnotundersta8184 I would suggest that Navy Destroyer design has changed through its existence, yet it still is around and has a major role to play. Destroyer concepts have become obsolete, but the Destroyer itself hasn't.
Battleships on the other hand went through the same process as Destroyers of obsolete design concepts being replaced, until the Battleship hit a wall and could no longer fulfill its primary purpose effectively. It became obsolete.
The problem is that all the people saying that don't know what they're talking about..
Infantry is always going to want a big gun with them somewhere close by.
@@porsche-sandoesnotundersta8184 it's obviously not the definition of obsolete considering we still have tanks improving something doesn't mean it was obsolete, it just needed to be improved.. everything from the infantryman's boots, all the way up to the satellites above still have room for improvement.. They doesn't mean combat boots are obsolete, it just means they can always be better.
The vulnerability of the T72, is actually similar to the vulnerability of RN ships at Jutland.
The British captain's abandoned the careful storage of ammunition in order to increase the speed of salvoes.
The result. A single German hit could detonate many badly stored charges, with disastrous results.
Thats why most T72 and T64 of both sides just loaded thier tanks 21 rounds on the autoloader no more no less.
Some British ships. Not all. The poor ammunition storage practices were confined to Beatty's battle cruisers. The grand fleet had no such issues with exploding ships.
also the british cordite charges was "sweating" through the charge bags which then dried and as you handled the charge bags, the dried cordite "sweat" became cordite dust in the air and the surfaces all over the ship, that dust is highly combustible, even more so than coal dust and sawdust
@@Deilwynna But because the cordite was told to the crews as generally safe, it was treated as inert rather than a combustible explosion risk.
There were certain captains that didn't believe that and still observed proper storage regulation and cleanliness, saving their ships later on.
I get where Roman is going. But this is very much a popularist way of looking at things and isnt agreed with in most modern histories.
First off. It wasn't the captain's who decided on this. The chain of command complexities are way too in-depth to post here. But the reasons were... Well. Complicated.
It's important as well to note that stacking ammo next to the guns is as old as.... Guns being on ships. The most important and fastest firing happens at the very start of every engagement since carracks and galleons to the Denmark straight.
The Germans learnt at Heligoland bright the danger this represented in modern turrets. They put measures in place the RN didn't have a chance to learn pre Jutland.
Also
A single shot blowing up a battle cruiser just because of the Swiss cheese of circumstances that resulted in Queen Mary etc exploding is again a way of looking at things that has been set aside.
It wasn't a case of X ship had Y ammunition handling practices. So one shot = instant explosion.
Such a thing can happen even with the best of technology in turret battleships. Including ww2 tech and long after it was known that flash doors and not stacking powder was vital.
In short and why I write this..... History isn't something that can be dumbed down to a 5min soundbite. It is always far more complex. As a fantastic example. Look at TTM RUclips. The videos are wonderful and great intros to tank history for newcomers.
BUT
They have a huge museum full of exhibits, most of which aren't on public display and have experts with knowlage that literally takes up multiple volumes of books.
And that's one museum in one country.
So it's important not to accept the 'common' belief of Jutland. Anymore than it is is sensible to say the Germans invented blitzkrieg and had the best tanks in the world in 1939/40
Nothing is obsolete in war if it still kills the enemy.
1700s Napoleon era cannon and howitzer are 100% obselete tough
@@trk1b28varianrhesa4 true
It is if there’s a much more effective way. Fortunately for tanks, though, they’re still effective in their role.
The most important thing is crew training. A Javelin is going to kill an M1 Abrams just as much as it kills a T-90. Yes, we all know the M1 has blow out panels. Yes, literally everyone and their donkey knows the T-90 has a carousel. Doesn’t matter. There’s no way the M1 Abrams has any more than 30 mm of turret roof armor. The Javelin’s tandem shaped charge would easily blow through that and kill the 3 crewmen in the fighting compartment as well as put the turret out of action. It might not be as spectacular as a T-72, T-80, or T-90 kill, but it would be a kill nonetheless. Multiple M1 Abrams’ operated by poorly-trained Saudi crews were destroyed facing rebels in Yemen.
It comes down to the tactics not the tank.
And events in Ukraine have shown Russia isn’t really the most swell in that regard.
If they operated their tanks well, with infantry support and a regard for combined arms, things might be going better for them.
Any tank left on its own is a big, fat target.
Hell, this was all figured out like that German Stuka ace (Rudel) mounting 40mm guns on his wings and taking out over 520 Russian tanks in WWII. Shooting up high and down. AND a battleship and more. Seems like no one wants to learn any lessons from history; and that's likely because it takes an IQ of over 110 to actually read history, which most generals and politicians seems to not like to do.
"things might be going better for them."
You need to be aware that Russian casualties have been run through the Goebbels factory of western nations.
Go look up the differences in external items on Russian and Ukraine AFVs, then go look through those websites that "keep track".
And amazingly, you will find that at least 70-80% of "destroyed Russian x" can be identified as actually Ukrainian.
Cage armor is the most blatant example because one country has horizontal bars, the other has vertical.
But ERA also looks different. And Russia uses their domestic produced electronics that can sometimes be identified as clearly different from the Ukraine ones.
Also, do the same for videos showing tanks getting blown up. Some are VERY blatantly Ukrainian vehicles.
There's also a fair amount of completely faked video "footage".
The Saudi Arabian Abrams is a downgraded American Abrams with no depleted uranium armor package or TUSK Tank-Urban-Survival-Kit and everything else
@@Tanker000 That still doesn't change the fact that a Javelin would destroy every Abrams besides the sepv3.
@@voidtempering8700 So Americans are fighting Americans? Your guys Logic
What so many armchair experts seem to forget is that nothing will come close to the firepower, mobility and armor mix that a tank can provide. Ukraine needs tanks now more than ever, despite the overwhelming superiority of their anti-armor missiles, due to the fact that tanks are essential in maneuver warfare, direct fire support and even makeshift artillery. The tank is just that versatile as a platform.
Edit: please note that the tank has never been the end all be all of battlefield weapons even during its hayday in WW2. Lightskinned vehicles and infantry are vulnerable to autocannons and machineguns and lack the punch to destroy fortifications and entrenched positions. Artillery, no matter how accurate it is, cannot target specific portions of a building like you can with a tank, it also cannot land on the first hit which is why artillery fires in salvos.
A tank is a tool to be used in conjunction with the other tools in your tool kit people. I trust the opinions of soldiers, officers and analysts who have spent so much time in the battlefield and post battle analysis.
Tanks are the spearhead of modern mobile offensive warfare. Without them defensive anti-tank weapons have no use beyond the pure defense.
The sooner they can cannibalize all the captures from Russia, the sooner they can bolster their tank force.
@@TheGrenadier97 When the shield becomes greater than the sword - it is time to make a new offensive weapon.
When the lock becomes greater than the pick it is time to make a greater pick.
Un-crewed armored vesicles would at least remove the lose of life to the crew.
Drone vs. Drone.
We in Sweden think very differently in a tank you are blind clumsy easily defeated especially in Russian tanks there you don't even need to penetrate the armor to blow it up shockwave traverse the tank and blow it up due to unprotected ammo explosion. Its an expensive relic of an bygone age of warfare. today we can fire a swarm of intelligent self tracking artillery shells that detects and kill the target. Can I see you or a civilian capture you on a mobile phone you are dead . Drones and smart weapon's are the future of warfare. Tanks are simply put not cost efficient anymore.
Lots of things have come close to Russian tanks, and when those things do, then there's no more tank.
This isn't WWII. Weapons have moved on.
Nice work Goblin. Your rooms are spotless! (wishing) thanx for your input on status. Keep em coming buddy. Thanx for all your hard work to help us.
Nice really nice
One of the reason tanks are supposed to be used in mixed groups with other kinds of units is so that your infantry can attack enemy infantry that might be carrying anti-armor missiles.
But once the enemy infantry fires off a Javelin or NLAW, thats it. Its not like fighting against an ATGM where you still have a chance to kill or scare off the operator.
@@crome2021 Even against fully-domestic Stugna-P, that won't necessarily work, as the only exposed element is the unmanned launcher-designator turret, with operators being up to 50m away from it.
Think about drones hovering in the air behind enemy lines and raining down missiles from there. Tanks were not designed with that type of enemy in mind. They were designed to punch through concentrated anti infantry defense and then to reach urban centers quickly before the enemy could respond. Satellite data makes ground offense so much more vulnerable to long range defense.
correct epically in urban environments the biggest flaw of tanks is their lack of visibility the whole point of infantry is to sweep ahead and clear out anti tank positions
No, it's not the infantry's job to "protect" the tanks, they are not babysitters for the tanks... besides the infantry is also vulnerable themselves too, they getting killed by Sniper and Artillery fire...
Let alone the infantry can not always see every enemy on the battlefield to begin with.
The enemies are hiding behind cover, in bushes, trees, buildigs, so you don't always see them.
If it was that easy to simply "see and kill all enemies before he can shoot at you", then ambushes would never be possible.... but reality doesn't work that way.
War is harsh and brutal, the enemy will always try to get the most advantage possible and eventually get a chance to shoot at you sooner or later.
You can not simply "deny the enemy from shooting at you" that's not realsitic.
What is possible however, is to intercept the missile after it has been fire. This is where APS comes into play. This System was specifically designed for exactly this purpose, to intercept the missile before it can hit the tank. No infantry support, no crew training no tactics can ever replace this important equipment device.
Tanks will be forever required since they combine two important elements, firepower and passive protection. Their only replacement will be systems with the same aspects. Point is, they're not "do-it-alls", but must be part of combined arms tactics specially with infantry - things that Russia are clearly missing. It's odd that so many mistakes are committed in this day and age regarding the use of armor, given plenty of historical evidence - one can easily remember the israeli experiences against the arabs and of course, the II World War.
Fun fact: the argument of tanks being outdated can be traced all the way back to the 1973 yom kipper war(Ramadan war), as the sevear Israeli tank losses caused by rpgs and sagers(along with koronets in the future)made them so paranoid of them that we eventually got the trophy system, russia now is in the same position but somehow worse.
They also make lots of noise,
Are imposible to hide,
Are easily destroyed,
Consume lots of needed fuel,
Require bridges to cross rivers.
Require multiple crewmembers that are lost when the tank is destroyed.
Attract unwanted attention.
Take months to build.
Cost millions of (Name Your Currency),
(No sneaking up on your enemy) with a column of tanks.
And no replacing the tank quickly or its crew.
Drones are cheep and you do not lose anyone if the drone is shot down.
That is exactly the problem my man: passive armour. Both drones and portable anti-tank missiles have evolved so much to the point the tank passive steel armor is not that effective against modern projectiles anymore. Why bother carrying all the disadvantages of a vehicle that weighs 40 tons of steel (slow, noisy, high fuel consumption, easily spotable in open field, etc) if the tank will be destroyed by an enemy incoming projectile 9 out of 10 times anyway?
@@sealy3 That pretty much cover why we Swedes doesn't rely so heavily on tanks.
You got it. But a further detail, combined arms yes, but not attack vehicles on front lines. 1 mine, one MPR, one anything can destroy a million $ of equipment for only $200-$1,400 -$21,000. What deal. Step right up! Get your red hot Javelin! Destroy the silly orcs for pennies.
Russian tank design is from cold war, before Javelins. Russia decided to make tanks that are small, fast and can cross bridges that heavier tanks can't. Tanks are not the problem, tactics and crews are. Finland operated russian tanks for decades, we just adjusted our training and tacticts according to T-55/T-72 features (T-72 slow reverse was a big issue considering how Finland operates batlle tanks but some sort of innovative solution was found)
This was very enlightening and a great explanation!
You correctly call the Soviet doctrine "deep battle", but the German one was not called "Blitzkrieg", but "Bewegungskrieg" aka "maneuver warfare".
Blitzkrieg was a tactic within the doctrine
@@Hi_Im_KalashThe term "Blitzkrieg" was invented my British media. Is was not used in Germany outside of some speeches.
@@bastisonnenkind but it stucked. Plus it's easier for the normal day to day viewer to comprehend and understand by using the popular term.
if they said "Bewegungskrieg", few would understand it, but if they say "Blitzkrieg" then everyone, even you, would understand it
@@bastisonnenkind Did you know that the original pronunciation for "gerrymander" is with a "soft g" sound?
If tanks were obsolete, Ukraine would not want those new (or rather, completly rebuild) T 72 tanks that czech arms dealers are making
(American money, czech manufacturer and crowdfunding and Ukraine crew, truly international effort)
The Ukrainians are not fighting against a military that is using modern equipment and tactics, the Russians are.
Ukraine needs tanks fit counter offensive
Terrain plays a huge factor. The desert and steppes are ideal for tanks to maneuver and flank their opponent. But confined on roads, they are lined up like ducks in a shooting gallery. All their enemy needs to do is take out the first and last tanks, and the rest are blocked in between, easy meat. The Germans mighty King Tiger tanks were all but useless in the Battle of the Bulge for this reason, as well as the French and later US mechanized forces in Vietnam, since they were confined to roads that the VC could mine and ambush.
Thanks, depending on the type of country you are travelling through will dictate how the tank is used.
The closer the country (urban, hills, trees and creek lines) the more infantry support you need.
The russian tanks are designed to be depoyed in large numbers as they expect to take loses against superior equipment that are depoyed in fewer numbers. Much like in WW2 there the Germans were overcome in large part by weight of numbers.
Old saying in the IDF...."The best tank, is the one with the best crew".
So we need 4 guys named Bob Semple.
Eveyone gangsta till they pull up an m3 stuart
the best tank is the one with a good crew and THE BEST INFANTRY SUPPORT...
only because merkava mk4 or leopard 2 a5+ or m1a2 had better survival chances didnt mean they wount be annihilated as well if ambushed by enemy infantry with powerfull AT weapons...
@@Tonyx.yt. Such an ambush happened to Merkavas. Final tally was nearly a hundred ATGMs expended, a dozen hits, IIRC three of 24 Merkavas mission-killed, the others combat-ready.
ATGMs ain't magic, people.
@@jochentram9301 Interesting. Which ATGM were they using?
As a former tanker, watching early in the war the Russians advancing their armor in column when moving to contact was painful. There was also a complete disregard for using scouting formations ahead of the main element.
I live in the Ukraine, and you don't seem to understand why Russian columns stuck to the roads which made them easy targets for anti-tank teams. First, in this part of the world there is a season called "Rasputitsa" which loosely translates to mud season. There's a Wikipedia page on this subject. Second, the Russian military cut corners and put cheap Chinese made tires on their heavy trucks. These tires were absolutely useless in the mud.
Whoever came up with the great idea of invading Ukraine during Rasputitsa is a complete moron, and the Russians lost thousands of men due to this blunder. On a historical note, Rasputitsa defeated Napoleon, Hitler, and Putin!
There are countless videos of Russian armored vehicles and heavy trucks being pulled out of the mud by Ukrainian farm tractors and handed over with contents intact to the Ukrainian military
The real problem isn’t the hardware but the “wetware” that is the crews and the doctrine. It takes 3 years to train a tank crewman, an additional 2 years for a crew commander and a lot of work on doctrine THEN you have a logistics train and supply chain!
22 weeks for The United States Army M1 Armor crewman. This includes basic training and advanced individual training.
those numbers assume proper training. that's not a valid assumption. training costs money
No, the problem IS actually the hardware, or to be more exact, the LACK of propwer hardware such as APS that could effectively protect the tank against missiles.
It's not the crew's fault that the tank doesn't have the newest defensive technology. Stop blaming the crew for something they can not do to begin with.
Training or doctrine can not stop a missile from hitting the tank. Get real
@@mercifulterros5030 Yeah, about the same for Leo 2, which were originally mostly crewed by conscripts.
You can cut *some* corners on that, I expect, but you do quickly hit the point where inadequate training results in higher casualty rates, as well as failure to achieve mission objectives. And that'S really Russia'S problem, their personnel are not up to spec.
One notes that the T-6s Ukraine is running seem to be doing rather better . . .. and the T-64 is a contemporary of the T-72, both designs entered Soviet service relatively close together.
@@jochentram9301 I feel you never served in the late soviet or DDR army, especially in any soviet country after 1991. Usually you have training polygons, you have tanks, ammo, good officers, everything. But the local command will never give you a chance. All 2 years a conscript would learn how to march, clean their rooms and paint the fences or even the grass with the green paint. Just because of the high command are afraid if the soldiers would brake something at trainings and they will be forced to write hundreds of papers. So the full army system for the last 30-40 years are built around doing as little as possible to avoid bureaucracy. The concept is crazy, but nobody remembers how and also why you should do things different.
Also remember how all ideological people were forced to leave the duty since 1993 and after 2012, and even emigrate to Ukraine since 2015-2016, smart move
I have driven and commanded T72 for almost 6 years in Indian Army, and I strongly believe that Manpod and Heligunship are formidable threat to T70, however it's no outdated, it's more than enough for any battle field, even Abrams are vulnerable to Manpods
@rewrite123 most of the ABRAMS in Iraq were destroyed by IEDs , so the moral of the Story is ...Every tank has a weak spot.
@rewrite123 no doubt Abrams are saviors of crew, the immense weight and cost of Operation including maintainance of the turbine engjne and lack of maneuverability in city combat situations are the negatives aide, however I would still choose never to be inside a tank when there are RPGs and Manpods around
Doubt it..
Great commentary here on a very important subject. A question remains however - what has spent more time in the air; Russian jets, or Russian tank turrets?
Ukrainian Nazi propaganda has spent the most time in the air.
💀
what has spent more time in the air; Russian jets, or Ukrainian tank turrets?
the delusions/ignorance and/or drug use are over the top in this comment section
@@fred6319
No.
jets.
because of gravity, the turret flights last only a couple seconds
Although drones are challenging the tank's relevance on the battlefield, they may also be the crucial factor that would restore tanks to dominance. If a tank can independently deploy its own drones, then it essentially gains the ability to scout beyond LOS, screen for ATGM teams, or even engage enemy soft targets via the drone. In schools all over the US and Canada, research projects involving landing UAVs on ground vehicles or UAV-UGV coordination are getting all the funding they want.
Not just on tanks themselves. In Indian Army, Recce & Support Battalions that act as scouts for Armoured brigades and divisions are inducting new 4X4 Infantry Mobility Vehicles that have (apart from radars and optics) multiple drones, including tethered drone and loitering munition on the same vehicle. With such Armoured Recce modernized with drones, threats against tanks will reduce significantly. And that combined with even tanks having their own drones and being covered by modern SPAAG to cater against drone swarm threats, its evident how the age of tanks is far form over.
Imagine being a Western RC plane hobbiest and now your peace is time experience is now relevant.
Just like WT. ey?
They should also add ground scanning electronics to detect buried anti-tank mines and possibly even defeat them via countermeasures
Never interrupt your enemy when he’s making a mistake!
If I had a nickel every Time people said that the tank is obsolete I’d have like five dollars by now
5 dollars? My boy you should be a millionaire by now
Which isn't a lot but it's weird that it happened twice
@@itsmealex8959Imagine unironically using a Reddit meme
I think John Monash deserved a mention for coming up with the modern combine arms offensive.
The ammo on Russian tanks was also put there because it was less likely to be hit by a TANK round, as the ammo was as low in the profile as it could be. The rise in use of weapons like Javelins have all but removed the advantage of the ammo being way down low in the tank.
Well yes, but also no, this is war thunder youtuber tier of logic... Tanks most often get hit in the upper areas of them, which means that stowing ammo there is making it more likely to get hit, yes, the abrams has cool blowout panels on its bustle loader, but the M1 TTB, the US designers essentially going "screw this we are now gonna make the best tank possible from essentially scratch", they.... Placed the ammo down low. It was designed at around the same time as they were designing the javelin.. Its all a tradeoff, ideally, you want to have your ammo down low, but blowout panels tend to require it to be up high... The russian approach to it was to keep it down low even in the scratch built replacement design the T-14 (insert funny joke about a tank that hasnt passed trials yet not being in mass production) keeps the ammo low, in a seperate compartment with a massive bulkhead between it and the crew, the whole turret then serves as a blowout panel in case it gets hit... You dont actually want your ammo to get hit
@@domaxltv Lots of people miss this and are too sold on anti-Russian propaganda by media "experts" that it's all because of autoloader that rips off hands. They also miss significance of ammo and role of Russian tanks as opposed to Abrams and Leo-2
Any penetrating hit to a tank will scatter hot bits of metal inside the tank. My contention is that the ammunition propellant is not safely stored in a Russian tank. So propellant ignites and the tank goes boom.
@@zedeyejoe I was just going to post something similar, a sabot round is pretty small but when it reacts with the tank it’s a nasty boy
WW2 design thinking.
They are usable but have major shortcomings compared to modern tanks and struggle to compete. But it’s completely true to say they are terribly utilized from a strategic and logistic standpoint.
The implementation of these tanks is appaling, its not really 'russian' tactics of using them that are obselete, its more of a... Noone decided to fund training enough to even read the manuals, half of the time
@@domaxltv yeah the training all round is known to be severely lacking is many instances. But you also don’t need to be a genius to see that the tactics are just plane bad. The command structure is also a problem they aren’t allowed to decide anything themselves, they must do whatever they are told so if the big boss tells them to do something dumb they have no input or right to improvise/tweak a plan on the spot. Imagine obeying orders knowing you’ll likely die because the plan is obviously stupid.
@@sirstrinkalot No, that is the "I read something on the internet and russians arent' allowed to decide stuff on their own" interpretation of russian tactics. They have to have a commisioned officer doing decisions usually, personal initiative is also commended... The difference is, commisioned officers are presetn on almost every level of the military (they do roles noncoms do in NATO militaries) so they are technically allowed to do their own decisions... But poorly trained ones would be only putting off decisions for higher tiers of command because they dont wanna take the fall if something bad happens. The biggest reason why they might be afraid of being more independent (ofc, they still have to fill any direct orders given by command) would be back in the days of the USSR when being independent might end you up in political trouble (tho even then, there were many cases where soldiers got into trouble and got let off simply bc an investigation of an action showed that what they did still fulfilled everything they needed to do
Almost all russian/soviet commisioned officers, which were very common at most ranks, would have needed to be able to come up and implement a battle strategy on their own, if higher ranks of command didnt wanna listen to them, sure, it was a different matter and you might get into trouble... But at the same time, this happens in any power structure if the higher ups dont wanna listen to subortinate's opinion
That only matters in tank battles. There has not been tank battles in Ukraine, most tanks are destroyed by mines, artillery, and rockets.
Old tanks are still useful for infantry support and for breaching defensive strongpoints.
@@sirstrinkalot Training, as such, does little to make them less easy to kill.
1:00 "It struggles with accuracy when fired on the move" :) During movement, he does not shoot. It's impossible to hit anything.
The General who came up with the idea of combined arms in WW1 was an Australian he had control of both Aus. UK, and US soldiers. He also used aircraft as part of the battle plan. General Monash gave an exact time they would win and then stop Unfortunately he was out by approx 12 mins!!
It's not the size of your tank that matters but rather how you use it.
Vroom vroom.
Cringe
Ex-Sapper here, allot of the clips I've seen I've just wondered where the hell is the Infantry that should have kept the enemy ( as such) away?
I’ve been wondering the same thing.
I've mentioned the same.
If they used an infantry screen, they wouldn't of got anywhere near the losses they have got.
They're dead. Hypothermia, shelled, hazed to death.
Their Infantry got picked off by snipers & home-made bombs dropped by drones.
Russia initiated the conflict with many of it's units under strength and a doctrine that emphasizes military vehicle use. In order to have as many hull in use as possible the security perimeter was neglected. Besides which, many of the active duty, professional solider would have been vehicle operators and artillerymen, jobs that require more training and expertise than Russia is willing to give to conscripts. As the current conflict is not a "war" (in Russian definition) conscripts couldn't *legally* be deployed to Ukraine at the time. Those conscripts would have been the personnel who constituted the infantry screen
Being on the offensive is another factor for heavy Russian tank losses, being on the defensive for the Ukrainians is a force multiplier where they can sit back in prepared positions on terrain of their choosing and wait for the Russian tanks to enter their kill zone and pick them off from concealed cover as the tank has to navigate mine fields, artillery barrages and face attack from the air , one infantryman with a antitank missile can destroy a tank, so if you look at the cost one losing one soldier and a rocket launcher to kill one Russian main battle tank and its crew that is lopsided exchange from a price standpoint that would benefit Ukraine, one tank and trained crew that cost millions of dollars vs the loss of one infantryman and rocket that is a fraction of the tank cost, It really wouldn't matter how great a tank is ,It loses a lot of it advantages when on the offensive especially against a enemy with a lot of anti armor capabilities
The tank will only be obsolete when it's role can be filled better by different equipment.
This hasn't happened yet.
Now, are certain tank models obsolete? Yes. Though they can still be used successfully, depending on the model.
Inferior equipment can still be victorious with better tactics.
Lot of people seem to be using that "traversing" soundtrack in the background. And I got to agree it works with military stuff. I love it.
The problem is not so much of the ammunition in the carousel of the auto loader, which is under the floor. But rather than the extra ammunition loads, actually stored in the turret sides and on the floor so in the open. You get a penetration of the tank, will mean hot metal etc will strike this ammunition yet alone the crew which are in very tight cramped quarters.
_"the extra ammunition loads, actually stored in the turret sides and on the floor so in the open"_ **** This!
Yeah, i wish people would stop bringing up the carousel. Most hits that take out tanks tend to hit the turret, namely because its the thing that becomes targetable first and anti tank weapons aim to blow through the top of it.
If a hit like that is capable of detonating the carousel, it will have already obliterated the crew in the turret on route.
that's why nobody takes a full load of ammo, only a few shots
The problem is they go "BOOMSKI."
I've read somewhere (but I can't remember where so I can't verify accuracy) that those Soviet autoloader systems, to speed up the process, already brought the next round up while they were firing the previous one, meaning there was always a life round in the turret and that's the reason why, when hit, they often blew up so spectacularly.
So it's not the length of your tank column that matters, it's how you maneuver it?
I think the oddest part is that tank and combined arms tactics were developed in WW I and can be read in Guderian's book "Achtung Panzer". It appears the russian Command has never read the book that is essentially "Tank Warfare 101".
They took a gamble really, deciding not to go full in, and now the momentum is gone. They thought the Ukrainians would roll over, as did almost everyone when the war began.
Germans went full in trough the Ardennes and cut off the French. If the French repositioned well, or the Germans didn't go full in, it is mostly agreed WW2 might have ended quite a bit earlier with a French/British victory. Momentum and a bit of luck.
Are you aware that if it was not for russia that Guderian's doctrine would have never happened? Russia were key to helping Guderian putting his theory into reality this of course was done outside of the treaty of Versaile. It is however interesting to see the T-72 being used incorrectly, Tanks during this conflict have been used as infantry support rather than on mass (Divisional strength approx 1 tank brigade or 3 battalions roughly 120 -140 tanks including HQ, this ofocurse is inclsuive of additional supporting elemetns and large contingent of infantry roughly 4000 inf to 1 tank battalion, again not accounting for all other supporting elements). The T-72 is excellent tank as it was intended to be used in massed amour concentrations which are meant to smash through the weakest defence and break lines. I've seen none of this during the conflict which has been nothing short of astonishing. On contrary to much belief the tactics of today are no different to ww2, however the equipment that supports it has seen signifcant leaps and bounds in capability. The problem of today with senior commanders has been the over reliance of technology to short fill for the number of actual trained combatants. Most nations are struggling to recruit the younger gernation so the reliance of technology has been paramount to meeting the short fall. This of course leads to the belief that the system that are implemenmt will work in wartime scenario. If History has taught us anything the simplest and most robust equipment will prevail. Enough of my rant would be good to hear your thoughts and discussion points
the t 72 is a good tank but because they send them lonely whitout infantiry support , they got destroyed very easy .
bad reverse speed unprotected auto loader without blowout panels are huge flaws
@@dew7025 ruclips.net/video/3pJClqnbVyo/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/GR4rXTFSHLQ/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/2zlhcbuN54s/видео.html
Let's not forget the testimonies of Russian POWs who talk about communication by waving flags. I'll never forget the story about the column commander who launched a drone that was immediately shot down by his own air defense vehicle riding at the rear of the column simply because it wasn't equipped with a radio.
Poor armour and poor optics and night vision as well.
@@petter5721 some models do have some decent thermals and night vision visibility itself in the tank is terrible though
As a self proclaimed individual that values history (Read my lore) I can say after studying about weapons such as the T-72. There is nothing truly wrong with them. They function fine despite issues such as the obvious ammunition storage. These tanks were designed for the original purpose of a conscript army easy to train easy to use, easy to replace. In modern combat, combined armed tactics is the name of the game of warfare and these older tanks can still function quite well in modern combat with combined arms which covers the obvious design choice of the cold war era and available upgrades or retro fits.
Russia meanwhile is showing exactly how not to treat a tank.
It's funny how few people actually seem to understand what the T-72 was meant for - great to know there's some who do. As you said, it was meant for conscripts; it was meant to be easy to use and replace. The T-72 was literally made because the T-64 was too expensive to give to everyone, so the T-64 would be issued to the more elite units (and later the T-80), while the T-72s would go to the lesser trained formations, such as those consisting of conscripts.
Russia seems to have forgotten its own strategy from the Cold War. If it was still treating its tanks the way it treated them back when they were the Soviets, they would be performing much better, because back then they had an actual grasp on how combined arms warfare operates. It's saddening, really, because it really shows how far they've fallen. I personally think the T-64 and T-80 are really cool (the latter of which is my favourite tank, despite its shortcomings), yet they're being done no justice, just like the T-72, by Russia's lack of proper usage.
These tanks were literally made for combined arms warfare, man, why aren't you using them for it???
@@hellohelloington9442 a big part of the lack of combined arms comes down to the internal political aspect of the conflict on Russia’s side. By not declaring it a war, conscripts were not legally allowed to be used (not that Russia doesn’t ignore their own laws when it suits them).
This has the effect of stripping away a lot of infantry support early on, and is why VDV, Naval Infantry, Wagner and LNR/DNR proxy forces have had to do a lot of heavy lifting.
The fundamental problem there is that combined arms tactics are difficult for conscript armies to pull off because they are conscripts, not career soldiers that spend months or years practicing doctrine.
@@LeCharles07 Russia is a hybrid professional/conscript army. Contract soldiers perform specialized roles, while the conscripts fill out the infantry grunts. A lot of Russian units were understaffed in the infantry department at the start. Which is why we saw stupid shit like unescorted tanks getting dunked on by ATGMs
I’d say the even bigger problem is the top down, inflexible command structure with a lack of an NCO corps in the Western sense, and inflexible battle doctrine.
@@LeCharles07 Even then that's why you have officers or people that can put them into a somewhat organized fighting force. Conscripted armies as you pointed out do not do well with combined arms, but there would still be some type of cohesion combined arms would be crap but if you have effective leaders and enough bodies you could potentially pull a win. The main issue here isn't the lack of training for conscripts and or combined arm tactics. Its the corruption. Whcih we see in full display in Russia's forces.
Some of the captured T72 in Ukraine were discovered to have rubber sheets in place of reactive explosives as designed due to Russian corruption. That probably has a lot to do with them failing during direct attack hits.
but, the first component of the reactive armor are the rubber plates, underneath them, the explosives
@@trk1b28varianrhesa4 They didn’t install the reactive explosive, just had the rubber. It was nothing more than a metal box with rubber. That’s not stopping anything except a 22.
The most important lesson in war is, when an enemy is making a mistake, don't interrupt them
whatever happened to the coordinated attack....
#1 heavy artillery support
#2 coordinated drone attacks and surveillance
#3 air support with missiles and live operators
ALL OF WHICH with Comm and chain of command in the loop
#4. Then and only then you move the tanks and infantry to take over the enemy positions.
Somebody somewhere seems to have missed this.
Seems like the Uks have that all figured out....one tank, one drone up ahead = lots of dead tanks and orcs.
That doesn't exist in Russia doctrine, it's "Murder as many civilians, they will surrender comrades eheheh"
They don’t have the air superiority, training, or munitions to do any of that.
the war was never meant to last so long and russia wanted to re-integrate ukraine as a federal state, leveling their cities isnt the smartest idea to achieve that.
then after they accepted that ukraine wont be fully integrated, nato military industry are already fully financing their ukrainian puppet regime with more weapon systems than russia.
“Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.” Napoléon Bonaparte
- sun tsu
"I could be next month in Moscow" also Napoleone Bonaparte
@@2adamast ha
@@2adamast well, he did reach Moscow after all, got his ass kicked later tho
exactly never tell your enemy what he is doing wrong
Still a bit outdated:
1: They still haven't fixed the gun breach weakness that existed since the T62&T55
2: Still using a BT7 Style engine and is effectively a hypermodified WW2 engine
3: Not as rugged and reliable as it is promoted to be.
I would imagine that tanks will go from being deployed as the tip of the spear in massive offensives to mobile field artillery
the t72 was a top notch tank for its time , when it came out we were using the m60 Paton and the t72 outclasses that tank by a lot .
T72 is a cut-corners version of T64, optimized to be cheaper to mass-produce.
Yeah people don't realize how superior T-64 and T-72 were in all aspects compared to Western MBTs of the time. Imagine being a guy in M60 Patton or Leo 1 and you have to fight against an onslaught of T-64s and T-72 while not even having composite armor or ERA.
@@Palach624 actually there really not UK and France MBT where much better. Just Germany was going for a light mbt and USA has the aging m60. Amx 30 would have wrecked a t72.
@@murphy7801 No way you just said that, AMX30 didn't even have composite armor lmfaooo. Also the 105mm cannon. AMX30 is nothing but a tin can in every possible aspect compared to T-72
Long post incoming (I was bored). I should state now that I'm not an expert, so I may be wrong in some regards, but this is my general understanding of the topic. Nothing here is searched up and is instead based entirely on memory, so I apologise in advance if I say anything incorrect. Though, I do strongly believe that most of what I'm about to say is accurate. Google it yourself if you want to check.
The T-72 was, in its essence, meant to be a cheaper alternative to the T-64 and T-80, as even Soviet sources themselves will say. That's why the T-72 was so much more widely exported.
Most of the time, the T-72 would be issued to lesser trained units, while things like the T-64 (and later T-80) would go to the much better and more 'elite' units of the Soviet and later Russian armies. That's in part why the T-72 was so much weaker - the Russians knew they couldn't produce as many T-80s or T-64s due to their cost, so they made the T-72, and produced thousands of those instead, hence their notorious shitty reverse gear and so on.
Also, comparing the AMX-30 to the T-72 is stupid. Russian and French doctrines were entirely different - French tanks were meant to be used solely in longer-range engagements, peeking out of cover only occasionally to fire. To the French, things like armour and gun stabilisers were un-necessary, because they didn't think their tanks needed to be able to fire on the move, and they didn't think their tanks needed to survive hits when they would be spending more time in cover. The same thing applies to the Leopard 1.
The Leopard 1, M60, and AMX-30 were all also much earlier designs than the T-72 - they were produced in 1965, 1960, and 1966 respectively, whereas the first T-72s rolled off their production lines in 1971. The T-64, on the other hand, was widely considered by both sides to be revolutionary; it was vastly superior to anything the West had for quite a while after its initial production in 1967 - only a year after the M60 - but it was also very expensive, and had its own issues (many of which were never resolved). The T-64B in particular was capable of surviving all NATO rounds in use at the time across its frontal arc thanks to its improved composite armour.
The T-72, on the other hand, was meant to be /cheaper/. The Soviets /knew/ that it was less effective and worse, and that it didn't have half the things that the T-64 and T-80 did, but what most people don't seem to get (as seen in this conversation) is that it was /not/ meant to be any better than its alternatives. It was meant to be good enough, and that's exactly what it was. It could survive /most/ rounds it needed to, it could fire back /well enough/, its mobility was /good enough/, and it was SIGNIFICANTLY more economical - it was cheaper to build, cheaper to run, and cheaper to fuel than both the T-64 and T-80 (the latter of which is a massive money sink, further incentivising the existence of the T-72).
The prime example of this inherent simplification is the T-72's autoloader, which was MASSIVELY simplified, with less moving parts - it was just the shell and the charge stacked on top of each other, which would raise up and get shoved into the breech by a plunger. The T-64/T-80 vertical autoloader instead had the charges on a vertical rack around the crew, and the round in the floor. This would then rotate up to line up behind the breech, and then both would be shoved inside. It had more moving parts, so it was more expensive... so the T-72 got a new one that was less expensive. The T-72's engine was also weaker, but it was much more fuel efficient than the others, especially the T-80, the gas turbine of which consumed about 750 litres of fuel for only 100 kilometres travelled.
Thus, I don't really think it's at all fair to compare the T-72 to Western tanks in the way you guys are doing. Both NATO and Soviet tanks were really good for their time, there was no 'much better', and it wasn't like the T-72 was meant to be superior. It was able to hold its own in a fight, especially when operating in tandem with the other elements of the Soviet military, just like NATO tanks could, because you have to remember that both sides had a different idea of what warfare should look like. Soviet doctrine necessitated having a lot of tanks, so instead of burning all their money on T-62s, T-64s and T-80s, they made a cheaper version and burned it on that instead.
for people that thought tanks are obsolete, Ukraine is using the same tanks pretty well
they seems to be mostly destroyed barely see any tank video other than shooting their own
Ukraine is actually doing horribly in the tanks department. For one thing they deploy their armor piece meal without Support so the Russians just get it with artillery. And even more importantly in just about every tank fight we’ve seen in the war the Russians dominate the Ukrainians. The Russian crews are just better and the Russian tanks are just better. Cranes are my losses are so bad they now drive normal civilian cars up to combat because they don’t have armored vehicles to get them there anymore.
@@Mortablunt Russia lost more tanks than Ukraine ever had, Russia gave to Ukraine more tanks than every other country combined. What are you on about? Yes they have those T 90, that clearly aren't working very well tho
@@carval51 What drugs are you on? There are planty videos of Ukrainian tanks. If they were destroyed Ukraine would barely be able to attack Russian positions.
@@NoMouthNoScream ukrainian cannot attack russian position actually, most of their tactic involve just sending light fast moving vehicle through gap of russian line since it's not manned too much.
"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake..." -Napoleon Bonaparte Might want to send accolades and good wishes instead. Thanks for the video!
The rapid decline in the cost of high precision indirect fires through the development of relatively inexpensive precision guidance kits that fit on standard 155mm artillery shells and 120mm mortar shells combined with the large number of cheap yet highly capable UAVs might yet be a combination that turns a tank into an easily spotted target that can be rapidly and very precisely targeted with first round kill capability with no ability to defend itself against its attackers.
GPS, drones, PGMs & loitering munitions make it very difficult to build survivable tanks in large numbers. They're not obsolete, but the days when we used them like horse cavalry are probably over.
The Soviets looked at it like this: if your tank has been hit, it is lost. They were not thinking about protecting the crew, because they were not imagining that they would be fighting the kind of war where they could just scoop up their wounded tank crews and regroup. They were planning to either defend Moscow again, or race into West Germany.
Not just that, but a tank hit by a penetrating round likely has the crew lost regardless, or at least the majority. In 1967, as T-72 was being designed, being a smaller, harder target was perceived to be the best option, compared to, for example, M60. Nothing yet had blowout racks (and wouldn't until Leo 2 and Abrams), and an M60 or Leo 1 with ammunition struck has the crew equally dead.
Yes. Also, Soviet doctrine emphasises relentless assault. First echelon hits NATO defences, pushes them back, then 2nd echelon, then 3rd, th, 5th . . . never, ever, giving NATO as much as a single *day* to settle in new positions, absorb replacements, resupply, nothing. Just *another* battalion of tanks and IFVs hitting your company, outnumbering enemy forces at up to 20 to one in "breakthrough" sectors. It's actually pretty effective, if you have the manpower.
The USSR, with a mobilised army somewhere around ten million personnel and 10k MBTs could do that, and assume NATO would run out of everything, including space, before the Soviet Army would run out of tanks and crews.
Russia isn't the USSR, and the Russian military isn't the Soviet Army.
"Soldiers win battles. *Logistics, wins wars!"*
So, javelins and drones aren't a problem if you're attacking with a division: 300-400 tanks, planned artillery barrages, and infantry support. Javelins would run out of ammo without halting the attack, and tanks would penetrate to within range of the drone operators themselves, and perhaps some of the artillery. The problem is, such a Soviet tank division would constitute about 1/12th of the entire Russian army.
It doesn't help the Russians simply don't have enough infantry.
Russians support a tank regiment [94ish tanks in 9 companies] with a single company of infantry.
US supports an armored brigade [similar level of organization with ~75 tanks in five companies] with four [larger!] infantry companies]. And the draft plans for the US armies reorganization indicate such a brigade will be going to 6 companies [and ~90 tanks] supported by six companies of infantry [who are themselves larger then Russian companies].
They used to have 3 companies worth of infantry [larger companies, not as big as US ones, but closer] per 9 companies of tanks... but they cut the size of their units so that they could raise more units and claim "We increased the number of battalion tactical groups in the army by 50%, fear us westoids!"
Tanks without infantry support get chewed up in fighting in anything except a featureless open wide plain. [AKA: An unrealistic battlefield]
@@VhenRaTheRaptor Yes, precisely--the BTG is essentially unable to use the Soviet equipment as it was designed.
However, we should keep in mind that Russian doctrine does not involve really using the BTGs like they did at the war's start. And they are behaving more "normally" now. That is, they have built their force structure around artillery, such that they envisioned that one BTG could hold a position with open flanks, and that those flanks would be protected by drone reconnaissance and artillery fires. Very similar to what Ukraine has been doing a better job of (in some areas; we should keep in mind there are documented cases of Ukrainian mechanized assaults with no artillery or drone support, and not enough tank and infantry support, which means there are many more undocumented cases).
So, to play devil's advocate, the Russians have created such a different army at this point that they won't be able to mimic the Soviet doctrine. That said, we should then remember that tank and infantry losses are not as important for Russia as they would have been for the Soviets. The Soviets wanted to conduct maneuever warfare on a large scale, and that requires attacking a defender with at least a 3:1 local advantage. The Russians will likely never have this, and the Ukrainians had it only in Kharkhiv because that flank had been depleted and was held largely be internal security detachments (militarized police etc).
So what we have is an artillery war with just enough infantry to absorb the artillery strikes on both sides, and just enough tanks such that they are being used, like in WW2, as tactical bore-sight (or now drone-guided) artillery. And we have some piece-meal platoon/company-sized assaults here and there, which then come under immediate artillery fires.
I am quite sure that the artillery is only so overwhelming, however, because neither side can mass a maneuver force and maintain offensive momentum. If we compare this war to the Soviet operations in Ukraine, what we have here looks to be a couple Corps-sized units spread along the same front along which the Soviets deployed close to 3 million, the Germans close to 1 million.
Yeah and losing a lot of material and human lifes in this process which ends in very questionable results...
OR you could just equipment the tanks with APS to actually protect them against missiles and likely not lose any of them, or only very few at most (definitely not as much as in the first rexample of "RUSH B" tactic), while saving a lot of material and human lifes and winning the battle on top of it
@@xAlexTobiasxB APS isn't the war-winner you think it might be.
Yes, it can help you survive a single missile, maybe two.
But many systems completely fail if someone salvos a few missiles all at once. A few of the known systems only carry a few interceptors so you can run them out of ammo essentially and of course if you fire more missiles at once then it has the ability to intercept... well, saturation attacks are a viable option.
@@VhenRaTheRaptor I never said something about winning the war, stop assuming too much.
I was only talking about defensive protection for tanks, not winning the war. These are two totally different things. But it can help to win the battle at least.
APS increases the protection and survivability more than any other solutions, that's exactly the point. This is the purpsoe of defensive measures to increase protection. What else do you expect? Of course it doesn't make the tank invincible, no sane person ever thought such thing other than you. Nothing is completely invincible of course. Just like bullet-proof vests for soldiers it can only increase protection to some extent but not make the soldier complely invincible. The only one with such a childich and unrealistic expectations is you. Wake up and get a reality check. Some losses are always to be expected anyway, afterall this is war and not a family piknick. Losses are inevitable in a war. But at least it can help to minimize the own losses as much as possible.
Yes, the APS can be oversaturated with enough force at some point Mr. Obvious, just like literally any other kind of defensive measure, again this is common sense. But that still doesn't take away the fact that it's by far the best and most effective defensive solution for tanks against missiles yet, at least much better than anything else. So what is your point again? What is your alternative then?
Leaving the tank completely without protection so it can get easilly killed by the enemy without any effort at all? Yeah that surely will help to win the war... for the enemy side!
And let's not forget, that the enemy soldiers also can not carry infinite amount of missiles with them either. They can only carry a few limited numbers of missiles with them per team/squad, so they will quickly run out of missiles as well...
If it takes many missiles just to destroy one single tank, then this already proves the usefulness of the APS. It makes it a lot harder and much more difficult for the enemy to destroy just 1 single tank alone, so the enemy has to put alot more effort just to destroy 1 single tank, when compared to without APS the enemy could easilly kill much more multiple tanks with the same amount of missiles much easier. So what do you think is better? It's all about to keep the own losses as minimal as possible so the own tanks can stay alive for a longer time.
So yes, APS defintiely does make a big difference on the battlefield! At least much more than just "crew training" or "Doctrine" or "infantry support" or any other nonsnese that completely ignore the real issue that you cannot "deny" the enemy from shooting a missile a tank at some point sooner or later.
7:48 It's not necessarily about the piece of equipment. It's about how it's employed.
"..it's quick and maneuverabale..."
Not always - it has dreadfully low reverse speed and has worse cross-country performance than T-64.
Turret hatches being fixed vertically when opened is quite inconvenient feature for crews, as is turret mounted MG with no remote control (except on some newer modifications, but not on B3).
We'll. Don't tell them how to use them properly. That might just listen
They already know, but can't really do anything to fix it, either due to incompetence or a lack of time to retrain.
Anyone I follow who has the slightest expertise just laughs at the ‘tank is dead!’ Statement.
Land battleships.
You're following the wrong people.
@@Poliss95 Well, funny you say that because I was just thinking how sometimes you get that bandwagonesque thinking. Ok, sure, the Russians used their tanks poorly but maybe they would have suffered the same anti armour problems if they had? The argument is that the Ukrainians are using tanks properly and so there! But maybe there’s another factor at work and maybe tanks really re going to have to change or evolve or get massacred. They did say the same about air power and armour tbh.
@@geordiedog1749 Tanks have been obsolete since the guided shoulder launched missile was introduced. The fact that Ukrainian tanks appear not to have suffered the same amount of losses will be because the Russians either don't have, or haven't used those missiles. Ukraine also has the US long range artillery system which makes mincemeat out of tanks. You shouldn't forget that Ukraine doesn't have any of the even more advanced tank busting aircraft and ground launched missiles that NATO has.
No. The king of the battlefield is now medium and long range precision guided artillery and missiles.
people are forgetting thatz its a 2010 weapon(Nlaw Javelin) against a 1960-1980 Tanks problem is no one saw this anti-tank weapons against modern tanks and people are forgetting that they shoot more rockets than tanks. And yes Tanks are not dead just used false in this case
Like all military tech it evolves, the counter measures are improved to counter the improvements, the technology improves and so on. It's a story of constant evolution of weapons and counter weapons
Heck it’s not even that they are being used improperly. The lack of modern enhancement such as thermals and the changing of the autoloaders to be similar to the T84 series are what holds these tanks back. As is the case with most of the Russian military’s vehicles. Most of them are still missing thermals and those are either in transit to the front or have been destroyed.
Tanks "have been dead" since the first time they were used. The Mark I broke in place, didn't start or got stuck in the mud. Only a handful of them were able to get to the German trenches. But once there, they wrought absolute chaos and enabled infantry to take otherwise unassailable German lines.
In WWII tanks were killed by the tens of thousands. They still did the job. Most people tend to think that if a military asset suffers casualties, it's obsolete or useless. It's a war, Jim. Casualties are expected.
It’s like saying the infantryman is obsolete because they can be shot and killed 😅
If USA was fighting as capable adversary, they would also lost tanks.
@@Sklb Ukraine is better armed than any opponent of the USA has been since North Vietnam.
@@TheBooban I'd have said "stabbed and killed", but otherwise, agreed.
@@TheBooban This.
Why go into a grave that's going to get blown up? At least on foot as long as you are more mobile/smarter you can relocate and play cat and mouse with guerrilla warfare tactics which are proven to be more effective.
The early T72 certainly had its limitations…battles were to be fought in large numbers on vast open country areas like Ukraine’s wheat belt and as in WWII he who has the most wins. A lot of this commentary is based on early days of the intervention when Russia adopted a go soft strategy mistakenly believing their fellow Slavs would not resist. Now the gloves are off, the earlier multiple command structures are unified under one central body and more and more state-of-the-art equipment is in use, the effectiveness of which is evident for all to see on the daily conflict maps on the Military Summary channel.
The T-72 is obsolescent. Its most glaring drawback is its awful reverse speed.
That could be overcome with the rather simple measure of replacing the gearbox, and possibly also the transmission.
The best option would be a four-speed gearbox and three-speed transmission, with a single forward/reverse. Select Forwards or Reverse, engage Low, Medium, or High according to surface (friction/suction, slope), and then row through gears as you gain inertia.
Only having a single, and slow, reverse speed seems moronic, but recall that Soviet military doctrine is that you always move forwards; and this is rigidly enforced by surrounding the tanks (in practice if not in war) with infantry and not providing those tanks' drivers with, oh, say, *rear-view mirrors* (Most Western European nations), or backing cameras (Israel, South Korea), or even an external input for an intercom connection for a ground-guide to direct the tank driver (earlier and the newest U.S. tanks)! Soviet tanks rely completely on the tank's commander getting out of the turret, looking backwards at a ground-guide (usually the infantry commander or senior leader), and giving orders to the driver over helmet intercom. The American Abrams has the identical issue in most of its versions. (Stupid cost-cutting? No; too hard to run a comm line through the armor!)
Your voice sound familiar. Are you one of the two guys who hosts Visual Politik?
The T-72 is simple to improve without going overboard in spending. Just redesign a turret with a bustle ammo rack with blow out panels, move the driver from between the 2 fuel tanks in the front of the hull and put the entire crew into the hull together, improve the drive train so the tank can reverse quickly at not 4kmph .
simply build a new tank
You've basically just described the T-14 Armata. But to be more grounded in reality, you could just buy Abrams or Leopard 2 tanks for less if you're in favourable terms with the west.
@@porkpie2965 the same Armata that due to corruption never left the prototype stage and tanks with egg cartons instead of reactive armor should it really be called a tank ?
I Dont know why they dont just cut the tank fleet in half, sell the more obselete models to Africans or middle eastern armies; and standardise on upgrading the better T72 hulls into T90Ms.
You clearly know nothing about what are you talking everything you said isn't practical
I agree. In WW2 both the Germans and Russians used combined arms very effectively. The Russian military seems to have forgotten that.
Zhukov is turning in his grave.
Yeah combined arms is vital in warfare
or maybe because ATGM, Drones and Preciosion-guided Artillery rockets with Sattellite GPS navigation didn't exist back then
@@xAlexTobiasxB but AT, Tank Destroyer, and rocket launchers exist, your point?
@@drmaulana2600 things were much more simpler back then.
Just 30 years ago (1990's) smartphones, laptops and internet didn't exist yet, it was a completely dieffent world to live on. And that was just 30 years of time. The WW2 was 80 years ago, which was even much more different than today. So you can not compare modern world with the 1940's and before, it doesn't make sense. It's pointless
It's like the Russian forgot entirely the idea of combined arms, tanks, air power and infantry need to work together to operate properly.
The original purpose of tanks are to provide armour protection to an assault force.
They are still useful for that purpose, but they have become vulnerable.
The tank crew are protected, but the tank itself need protection now.
Tanks is far from obsulete but they need modernazation to still work. For MLAW and sutch do have counters against the MLAW,Javelin and other man porteble anti tank systems. But main issue for Russia is their lack of this equipment like Soft and hard counter systems even ERA, Thermals and night vision sight. And its not only for the tanks either Infantry have to buy medical items from civilian markets.
Corruption is also very common in the Russian ministry of defense. There were reports of explosive reactive armor blocks only containing wood and no explosive charge and a plethora of other money mismanagement. But outside of corruption, I do agree with your statement
@@coleman4840 yeah it ate up 20% of the budget and was sutch a big issue the Ukrainian anti curroption authorties praised the Russia defence minister for letting it become so curropt.
The soviets chose to put the main ammunition in a carousel below the turret crew specifically because it was less likely to get hit, but then they put extra ammunition all over the hull, which negated all the benefits of a carousel autoloader, because that extra ammunition is usually what sets off an ammunition cookoff
Napoleon Buonaparte - 'Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.'
It struggles with accuracy no matter if it firing on the move slowly , fall speed or hulled down
Ukraine uses infantry to support the armor, kinda like it’s supposed to be .
Not in a fairly static war, it's the other way around.
@@motomike3475 k
Ukraine doesn’t have any armor they turn up to the front now in civilian cars because the Russians have gone up their vehicles.
So many people have prematurely said the tank is obsolete, but what I want to know is what it would actually take to make the tank obsolete. What system or machine could replace it like the tank replaced horse cavalry. That's a question I'd like to know.
The Tank didn't replace horse cavalry at all. Motor cavalry in the form of jeeps and their descendants(Look up French combined tank/LAV units), IFV cavalry, like stryker/bradley cavalry in the US and air cavalry in the integration of helicopters are the main vehicles that outmoded horse cavalry, you also get more niche examples like motorcycle and bicycle cavalry.
But either way Tanks are a heavy attack option and not suited for the mobility and lighter footprint active scouting requires. Even the USA, who uses very aggressive scouting to contact typically does so with IFVs being the heaviest vehicles employed that don't sacrifice mobility. Likewise the French which operate hybrid and very aggressive scout/tank units don't use the tanks for scouting, the 4 tanks are used for the heavy punch of the unit, with the 4 VAB scouts doing the scouting.
Have you not been watching this war, any war?
@@motomike3475 tanks are still useful in this war. People have been declaring the tank obsolete for over a century
@@motomike3475 When you Lack knowledge of knowing anything about a tank and how it's supposed to be used💀
@@motomike3475 do you have a point to make or is your whole schtick just posting snide, incredulous responses?
I really hope you're not saying that Javelins will replace tanks, because oh hunny, no they won't.
Than you
7:48 reminds me of the quote "It's Not the Plane, It's the Pilot" from Top Gun Maverick
Despite appearances, Ukraine, after all, not the richest country, had one of the most extensive air defense systems in Europe at the outbreak of the war. It wasn't most modern missiles, radars etc., but there were plenty of them.
Yes, one of the early takeaways from this conflict is that Soviet-style integrated air defence systems are a bear to deal with. Of course, NATO has an entire playbook for cracking such an IADS, but that playbook has never truly been tested . . . .
I thought they were using them to catch Javelins. Seems to be working.
we already are making counter measures to this threat of drones and such just like any existing weapon system adapts is a fact I've been in ROTC and Sea Cadets and I've learned that vulnerable lesson in terms of war is always adapt your way of fighting and including using the existing weapons with new kinds of ways and even new counter measures since the newer next generation of tanks like the KF51 Panther is a monster and amazing how game changing for tanks like what it can do is gonna make tanks more valuable in war than ever sense it has a built in launcher for drones, kamikaze drones like the hero 120 i think it was that has a range um i think it was like 25 or maybe 250km which is amazing for a drone that has a warheadcould give the tank so much more than it ever could in warfare, surface to air missiles, or even anti tank missiles etc and even a Remote weapon station with a 12.7mm machine gun or other options but manly the .50cal for both covering fire, laying down lead down range, or also for what it was also designed to do was to detect and be use as one of the many counter measures the panther has against drones! This is one of the ways tanks are gonna be even more protected. The tank has more than plenty of room for improvements and the tank is here to stay! And will stay until the doctrine of tanks changes.
Tactics and training, both supporting each other and combined arms.
Hot metal hitting the propulsive section of shells is whatexploded. Even one creates lots more hot metal igniters.
Too much is being made of the T72 storage of ammo in the turret. Yes it is spectacular to see them pop, but they obviously only explode if an enemy explosive gets inside the turret. When that happens, I am not sure it matters much to the crew whether their own ammo also explodes or not. They are likely dead in any event. The goal of a MBT should be to avoid enemy explosives penetrating the turret in the first place. Had you sent the M1 abrams to the first Gulf war with a pile of ammo in the turret it would not have made much difference on the battlefield as very very few of them got penetrated by enemy fire.
that's actually false statement, because the carousel is below the turret, so side centermass hit, which in case of other tanks very likely would only made the crew piss themselves or made them a little hot, maybe wounded, would pop the turret too, also not every turret pen end up in killing crew.
@@jakubw.2779 Actually that's not really relevant. Basically all the turret poping is due to the loose ammunition stored all around the turret and fighting compartment and hits to the autoloader are very rare
@@jakubw.2779 Listen, if you've been caught in a position where a round has entered the side (and not torn apart the turret crew), the next round will end you regardless, and it's coming faster than you can recover from being rung like a church bell.
@@PandaMan-xy1he you listen too, there's actual story of british challanger 2 tank in Afghanistan or iraq which got strucked with 17 various AT granades and missiles, at various angles, even from sides, yet stil got back to base on its own tracks with one crew member wounded or dead, there's also multiple records of M1's getting struck multiple times during desert storm and iraqi freedom and got home safely. So it's not a rule that if first hit didn't kill you, the second will do for sure, it's a flaw of russian designed tanks.
@@jakubw.2779 A hit by an RPG and a hit by a sabot to the side are vastly different things. A penetrating sabot creates a concussion wave, as well as sending hot shrapnel all over the place. A non-penetrating RPG round (Which isn't hard if you have ERA; there's a few T80s from Chechnya that ate a number of RPGs.) carries little concussive energy to do anything without a penetration.
Much of the Russian tanks issue come from storing ammo in the crew compartment. We had T-55 and T-62s a Ft Know in the 70's for training we got from Israel. They were crude with poor optics compared to our M60A3's. A tank without infantry support is about helpess.
Definitely, things like their optics and their ammo placement is a huge drawback, but it was also the norm at the time - gotta keep in mind the T-55 and T-62 were first produced in 1958 and 1961 respectively.
Unfortunate that the Russians have forgotten how to use their own tanks, which were designed for their own version of combined arms warfare.
A heckin' great big gun on a mobile, armored platform will never be obsolete, it will just evolve like it always has. Just like fighter planes have their generations, tanks go through the same revolutionary process. The next generation of tanks will be a tour de force and will be some incredible machines.
Yes, you could, of course, build a 1000ton moving behemoth of 20m length... oh, wait... there is no road and no ground that can carry it. :-)
Does your narrator from RUclips the Hoof GP? thanks
If anyone thinks the tank is obsolete, one they have no idea what a tank is, two they don't know how a tank is suppose to be used
This whole thing will be forgotten when this is over. This headline came from the need for propaganda. Russia started the conflict with a risky 'force negotiations' approach. This gave the west and Ukraine some great dead tank pics to use as propaganda. Russia destroyed all of Ukraines tanks within days so Russias handful of tank losses as they over extended was great for an uncontested media campaign. This video will age badly as the discussion will change from 'tank is dead' to 'effectiveness of media spin'
@@r200ti actually, the Ukrainians still have tanks, plenty of them, there as been plenty of images of tank duels, were Russia loses big, but from Russia we only have them destroying their own,
Well if it's an iraqi t-72, t-55 and t-62 in the gulf war it is 100% obsolete
@@evanxavs2625 those are the ones Russia is using
I thought that this video was uploaded a few months ago?
i was thinking the same thing
It's not just where the ammo is placed. They can't reverse, making the first shot very important and since their accuracy isn't there. Once they shoot, they lose any advantage they had and they can't get out of danger. Their tank commanders have even given up entirely, trying to reverse and would rather just turn the whole tank around.
So having lone tanks wandering across open fields is a poor tactic?
Yes,who would have thought it...😂
Of course, you need to sent a screen of infantry in front of the tank otherwise the defender's machine gunners get bored.
The drone is in its early days. Drone clouds will get more and more dominant.
Which goes against Soviet/Russian doctrine that has AA units embedded with forward units giving them an AA screen.
So, yes, they're using them wrong.
Anti drone tech will catch up. Kinda like it caught up to the tank and the plane and the battleship etc..
@@tmclaug90 it already has, there are LAVs that fry drones alone with conventional AA guns like the gepard that can easily destroy drones.
@@night7185 comprehension is 🔑🗝
@@tmclaug90 So is comprehensible writing. If you mean "anti-drone", say that.
The only way to make the tank modern is to get rid of the crew and make it unmanned, make it smaller, more agile and install drone protection system. There ya go, sorted.
what the backround music here? 2:15
Unless we got a human-sized super soldier able to handheld a 120mm cannon while running at a speed of 100km/h, tanks are forever needed. Saying tanks are obsolete and dead are equivalent to saying fighter jet are obsolete as well.
Anti-aircraft missiles are bringing that day closer.
Well....I guess you haven't kept up with this war or any other war in the last 40 years, and I could go on about jet aircraft and aircraft carriers being obsolete since after WWII, but that's for another conversation. And yet, fighter jets are obsolete and they just don't know it yet, but it's worth trillions of $ to the greedy, incompetent and stupid people (lifer generals) who promote them in government.
@@Poliss95 So infantry is obsolete because a bullet can kill a man?
@@Poliss95 There is a reason why stealth features exist.
Is this a reupload? I feel like I've seen this before.
More like a "Russia Sucks 2: Ukraine Boogaloo"
Multiple RUclips channels have videos on this topic already
This discussion started in 1917 basically but it looks like the tank had another century before reaching the end of the line.
Me too
The ammunition stowed in the autoloader carousel is not the problem with the T-72 brewing up and popping its top. That is caused by the spare ammunition scattered around various nooks and crannies of the fighting compartment relatively unprotected.
I would note Turkish Leopard 2's - which stow their reserve ammo in the hull front and like the Russian tanks not separated from the fighting compartment - tended to also brew up and pop their tops when hit in Syria.
When Alexandar the Great introduced the use of mounted cavalry, shock cavalry or heavy cavalry, the importance of heavy armored, fast-moving and heavy-hitting units developed as a must-have for any modern army with its main role being line breakers, that has not changed,
Tanks as weapons support platforms are an essential part of warfare yes, however, the problem is that tanks are not always going to be fighting tanks, you don't send a tank to fight in a swamp, just like you would not send an aircraft carrier to climb a mountain, tank vs infantry is not impossible because with the infantryman they can work without the confines of the armored steel box, similar to how wolves and lions hunt in packs, however, while they are not as well protected manpower is still essential in any situation and while any tank loss can be recovered both are costly, in resources from materials, money, manpower and time in the production, maintenance, upgrades, training, housing, of both the vehicles and crews, it's very complicated, yet coordinates dance, that in the right rhythm can work if done right, in short, you cannot do shit if you don't have the manpower, even then if your brain is in your ass you doing jack shit,
However logistics and countless other factors need to be addressed and the biggest one of all is plain human stupidity, Russia has kept most of its tanks, the reserves from what many saw, in very poor condition where they would have been either sold off to black market, cannibalized for parts, etc, next is the ammo, Russia has not addressed that big old problem of its ammo cooking off the crew if hit, other nations took this notice a long time ago and tried fixing it, other not so much,
I agree and I do think that the Russians have learned somewhat and next summer will see a lot more armour being concentrated with actual support.
Next summer? If the Russians last until next summer I’ll be genuinely shocked.
@@ChipCheerio you should try to get a better grasp on reality. Don't believe everything which Infotainment propaganda like this video tells you. (I have no horse in this race btw)
@@matthiasmuller7677 Says the German, opinion invalid
@@DogeickBateman please elaborate
@@matthiasmuller7677 Your statement shows that your most certanly supports russia