Busting Tank Myths: Soviet MBTs
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 1 май 2022
- I've made videos talking about and busting tank myths in the past, but there wasn't an overall theme. I've recently decided to do more topical myth videos. For this one, we're going to be focusing on main battle tanks originally created by the Soviet Union. These would include the T-64, T-72, T-80, and T-90 (sort of). The T-90 isn't technically a Soviet main battle tank since it was built after the fall of the Soviet Union, but it was originally conceived as a massive upgrade to the T-72, so I think it still technically counts.
Check the channel "About" section for the link to the creator of my profile picture.
Sources:
Arming the Two Koreas: State, Capital and Military Power by Taik-Young Hamm
T-80B Manual - Ministry of Defense of the USSR
Soviet Armor and Artillery Design Practices - Marine Corps Intelligence Activity
BMP-1 Soviet Armoured Fighting Vehicle in Detail - Jan Martinec, Jaroslav Spacek
BMP-1 (1964-2000) - Sergey Melyshev
Tank Battles of the Cold War, 1948-1991 - Anthony Tucker-Jones
Russian Main BattleTanks - Eriy Borisovich
Ural Factory, 80 Years - Library of Tankprom
Songs used (in order from first to last):
Subnautica - Into the Unknown
Halo 3: ODST - Rain (Deference for Darkness)
Sound mods:
Epic Thunder (Pre-release)
Gunner HEAT PC Crew Voices Mod (Personal, go play the game: gunnerheatpc.com/ )
Sponsor: apexgamingpcs.com/pages/spook...
Second channel: / @spookstoon
Patreon: / spookston
Twitter: / spookston
Reddit: /u/spookston
Discord: See my Patreon page.
Twitch: / spookstonwt
Steam: goo.gl/BYQjC9
#warthunder #tanks #tankhistory 
Игры
Even with the AK comparison, they had teething issues initially, which was why almost all AK pattern rifles are called AKMs. The 'M' denotes the fact that the gun was made after they had sorted out the issues with stamped sheet metal receivers and were able to transition away from the vastly less efficient (though more robust) milled receivers.
Moving forward from there, AKMs are not a monolith even (or, perhaps, especially) today. There are models that are garbage and will fail at every price range and ones that are amazing and truly fit the reputation for being unkillable machines right alongside them.
As you said, a case-by-case basis is the best approach.
It's like the saying, you can bury an AK/AKM in mud and dirt and it will still fire. There are always teething issues with weapons. The Soviets wanted cheap, reliable and soldier proof. There are no perfect weapons.
And no matter how reliable your weapon is if you don't take care of it it's not going to take care of you, that goes for every piece of Machinery from rifles to tanks to all the Machinery in the factories that where the tanks and rifles came from.
@@clonescope2433 Exactly. You can, as with those really good AKMs, reduce, even drastically, the amount of maintenance they need, but they will still need some.
That as well. You need to maintain and service your vehicles and guns. Reports are the Russians did not properly maintain or have maintenance plans in place. Hence certain losses in ukraine
Soviet approach to reliability was different than Western. While Western tanks were more reliable in traditional sense, Soviet equipment was cheap and easy to replace in field conditions, even by relatively untrained conscripts. They were less sophisticated by design, so even a rural tractor/combine harvester driver could fix them, instead of highly trained specialist with complicated and pricey equipment.
Basically, Myths are formed due to a large group of people using a easy and simple answer instead of the long and complex one. Add heavy doses of Propaganda and now the M60 has no redeeming qualities but the NATO jets have no faults.
nato jets are generally superior to their soviet and russian equivalents this is fact
No equipment has no problems, it we made sure ours weren’t seriously flawed and our air crews were trained better.
Russia hasn’t upgraded their tanks to any modern standard.
@@PeterMuskrat6968 that's completely false, the vast majority of Russian T-72s and T-80BVs have been modernized
'no faults' 😂 those people forget about running costs and complexity of the machine which Soviet's is far less punishing than most western one
yes, running costs REALLY matter when your country is piss poor
@@Armorpiercer The USSR was not piss poor, this is probably the most nefarious myth of the entire Cold War.
the jealousy i felt seeing you have the is-7 and Object 279 :')
Such a shame both is behind a paywall now
Dont be jealous.... it cost me my soul and.time
Bro dw, model kits are better investments
Ah, yes. Bias Machines #1 and #2.
279 sucks tho, I always find it easy to kill them
Can we all take a moment to appreciate the new repair helping system? man, it's very useful 😃
about damn time they added it never understood why it wasn't like that at launch
@@iampurechaos gaijin is quick to add new features. But usually does not change older ones. This is seen by looking at the fact that we still play on standard rb maps instead of having an rb-EC queue. And EC is great for top tier jets. If you are able not to use the damn afterburner or once.
I've never really thought of Soviet MBT's as being reliable in that "it'll work in any condition 29 hours a day 10 days a week" reliable but more of Soviet MBT's were designed to be stupid easy to repair. A lotta countries in conflicts buy old T-55's because there's a crap load of them and because you can literally fix one up and get it running with basic mechanical knowledge
At least for the T-72, that is not true however. For example, a Leo2 is built so the engine can be replaced in an hour or so; for a T-72 that would take one or two days.
Im not even sure how true thats for the T-34, which Ive heard that "ease of repair" claim about a lot. That tank wasnt overly complex like some late german tanks, but its gotta be pretty difficult to maintain a tank that cramped and with the brittle armor. The tanks gearbox wasnt considered very reliable either. Cost-effective probably, although they took some crazy losses.
To be fair old Soviet tanks are going to be much cheaper than a brand new leopard 2.
Hell you have to even question the cost-effectiveness of the T34 as a fighting vehicle too, given the relative cost effectiveness of having a more capable and fixable tank like the Sherman, that wasn't abandoned nearly so easily. Perhaps the only area where they excelled was to get as many tanks on the border as possible, with the logic that tanks on the border did more to discourage enemy attacks than anything else would, and thus allowed more concentration of forces in important areas. Sorta like how fake tanks and defenses became an important facet of allied strategy to manipulate the Germans.
@@g.williams2047 Yeh the Soviet doctrine was a massive tank push. Hopefully so fast that the damaged vehicles were far behind the frontline, so you'd have enough time to recover them.
Fast repairability was just not considered a priority. Its all about doctrine.
yeah thats one thing the soviets old school tanks and IFVs did good was reparability. since Russia relies upon (and still relies upon) conscripts. having smth be easy to fix and maintain is a good move
Also doesn't hurt to mention that blowout panels didn't really exist when the T-64 and T-72 were being designed. It was a foreign concept at the time.
Yes, though he did say that these tanks these days are operating far outside of their designed timeframe... Before the T-80U, the most expensive soviet MBT, even went into service, work on replacements was already well under way because they knew they needed to step up their game in order to close the gap that was opening in the 80s. Some of these had high considerations for crew survivability, one of these projects ended up evolving into what we know as the T-14 armata today
and that is the reason why the first russian tank having that is the t90M
Was there really a need for those panels? Leopard 2 has them, True, but only for 15 of its rounds. The rest is stored... Well, you know where. And there are no blow out panels there. Does that make Leo 2 obsolete? I suppose it doesnt
@@user-qn3xu5ee3t the majority of its ammo stowage is in the lower front hull only the abrams has all its ammo in blowout panels
@@user-qn3xu5ee3t Leo2 stores ammo in the most protected part of the tank though. Its way harder to hit than the huge caroussel I imagine.
So the AK’s reliability is somewhat exaggerated. If it gets mud or grit in it, it will stop working like any automatic rifle. The advantage to it is that it’s more tolerant of being improperly maintained than most western rifles.
And the way I’ve heard the T-72 auto loader described is that it will take your hand off… if you stick your hand into it while it’s operating
That is a myth stemming from something hat happened with the bmp-1 once.
yeah, heavy machinery in general doesn't have much regard for squishy human bits getting stuck in them in the case of a violation of safety guidelines.
The AK thing probably stems from the fact you can beat it against the ground to clear foreign objects from inside the dust cover
it would be far easier to loose fingers in a manual loading breech. Autoloaders are almost always behind shields and barriers so that you cannot unwillingly stick your arm in it, while on the manual breech all it takes is for you to push the round in with your fingers and not your fist.
Insert InRangeTV AK mud test here...
Another myth is the ammo immediately blowing up if struck. Usually, in case of fire, they would have 1-3 minutes to either put it out or leave the tank. The popped-off turrets usually do so faaar after the crew has left to relative safety. Got this from a really old tanker, that's what they were told in training and in practice, it was remarkably true. In Chechnya most tank crew men died from being shot outside the tank and not from the ammunition fires
I think this depends on which part of the ammo is ignited. If it was he round, it would blow the turet if it wad powder part it started to burn. If the heat was low, becouse it has been hit by small amount of sparks it coul be extinguished, maybe. But if it was melted steel with high heat it just burned down in seconds.
When you think about it, given how cook off works the ammo blowing up immediately would be really unlikely, but you will still see all the western NPCs (even in the media) talking about how all the crew gets killed immediately and the turret flies off.
@@milanvnuk I think there were soviet studies that showed that the round being hit was very unlikely compared to the powder charge.
@@werrkowalski2985 you’re half wrong half right. Plenty of vids of tanks being hit with crap and it Popping it’s Top and plenty where it looked like the ammo went off and the crew gets out
@@werrkowalski2985 It's a smaller target, so yes, it's less likely to be hit
A lot of these myths are probably do to the Lazerpig loop.
Ah yes, a fellow Lazerpig enjoyer
A man of culture!
These myths are long before he even become a youtuber
@@piscessoedroen Yeah, it wasn't named yet
Mind explaining?
I remember reading that the T-54 tank scared the shit out of NATO when a destroyed one was brought to the British embassy in Hungary, mainly because its armor and firepower was better that the most recent western tanks like the M47.
Thats why the brits designed the 105mm gun the Leopards 1 and centurion AX used.
Yeah, until that time, only 90mm guns were used.
Primarily the armor. At the time western vehicles were armed with either a 90mm or 84mm gun, which was not up to the task of killing T-54s at distance with kinetic ammunition.
to the 84mm 20 pounder, they determined that at longer combat distance it was impervious to APDS.
@@Rafael96xD The Soviets also later one-upped everyone and still are bigger with the 125mm gun.
@@andyfriederichsen not really the 125 has similar if not worse performance to the 120s used by nato
Yes this kind of thing happened very often even with jets.
there is one thing their tanks do have going for them: they look amazing
The era on the sides looks so cool
Also the turrets really love flying far!
@@stephpompom6379 is it a bird? is it a plane? its a tank
They do but my first love will always be the M1 thing’s beautiful
@@stephpompom6379 so do the turrets of the leopard 2, leopard 1, m60, challenger 2, leclerc, amx-30 and any other tank which has ammunition stored within the crew compartment.
Fun fact, the USSR was the first to adopt hunter killer systems for their tanks, where by the commander could take control of the turret rotation to quickly get the gunner aimed at a target that had been spotted.
The survivability onion applies more closely to tank vs tank fighting than tank vs ATGM. It’s hard for tanks to avoid being seen by infantry anti-tank team in ambush position. I think Western 3rd generation tank’s focus on post penetration survivability was heavily influenced by the 1973 October War when Saggers destroyed huge numbers of Israeli tanks. Soviet tank designs go back to the T-64, which was intended for tank vs tank. It had enough frontal armor to stop the 105mm ammo of the time, so ammo safety was not of great concern.
The new German insensitive SCDB propellants may solve the problem, if the Russians can make it themselves.
the T64 was designed and tested to be resistant to all HEAT projectiles of the time, at least frontally.
As spookston says, it's simply an issue of outdated tanks being pressed into service
Tank can and do still hide from infantry.
The survivability onion applies to all threats.
NATO's focus is not better against infantry ATGMs because anything penatrating frontally is going to break the bulkhead of separated ammunition and make the blowout panels useless. And even if it doesn't penatration of thick armour causes catastrophic post penatration damage which should kill the crew regardless.
Blowout pannels were created to protect the crew from penatrations of thinner armour plate that often leaves the crew alive but can cause ammunition jn the crew compartment to brew up.
I.e. Blow out pannels were for air attack, artillery attack and to a lesser extent side attacks (and that was only expected to be vulnerable at close range, inside the minium range of ATGMs. Because if the enemy is at your flank at long ranges then you did something seriously wrong).
Blow out pannels are for air attack, artillery bombardments and infantry close defense rockets. Both shaped charge jets and particularly powerful sprawling from artillery and Air attack HE. Not ATGMs. That is untill top attack missiles, which due to penatrating thinner top armour don't spawl as much and thus only have their copper jet to do serious damage.
There was an arguement to be made in the cold War that the Russian method was good enough not to be worth modifieing to also have blowout pannels/etc, especially with so called tactical loadouts. But modern pression mutions and top attack muntions are too much.
Honestly its amazing to see someone talking about our tanks with unbiased opinion, listing every pros and cons. Standing on neutral side is what I respect duing these days.
Thanks for the video.
Думаю, что нам естт, что улучшить в них и довести до ума
подписываюсь под каждым словом
@@longshadow3890 Я думаю, что сравнивать российские модификации советских танков уже становится неуместно. Многие из них довольно серьёзно модифицированы, хоть и остаются травмоопасными, если не соблюдать ТБ. Но довольно крупное количество ошибок было учтено и исправлено. Хотя РПГ-7 всё равно пробивает все существующие модели танков.
Feels a bit weird hearing spookston in his informative kind of voice lol
The best kind of voice
During my time in the military (2019-2020) we used to have a safety day. Basically officers and sergeants would walk us through various hazards which we could encounter during our service. Long story short but the autoloader can hurt you. If you're dumb enough to push your head or hand in its way. Same with the cannon breech. There was a story about a sergeant in a T-80U who pressed fire but the gun didn't go off. He proceeded to look in to the breech and the gun went off. He survived but had an ugly scar due to how the breech literally torn some of his skin off. Yeah and reliability is always an issue with older tank, BMP and truck models since it requires service. I saw plenty of BMPs and KamAZ trucks catch on fire.
I’m guessing it shattered his face, or was the damage just cosmetic?
@@Kurogumo given that he survived, I doubt it did significant internal damage.
how was the ride inside them?
@@kaljamaha22 could be russia, belarus, crypus, ukraine, Kazakhstan or even possibly south korea
@@sbh_tx I spent a month in a tank division and ended up serving the rest of the year in an artillery division on 2S19. But my good tanker friend praises 72s and 80s. Alas lots of problems with FCS and Thermals on older variants. There are next to no such issues with fresh models that come from factories.
the Autoloader on the T Series tanks are rather safe, you have a really small timeframe where you could get your hand infront of the projectile to be pushed with it into the breech, but even this is rather hard to accomplish. (there are also not really any reports about this aviable, and if it would be an issue, there will be reports, since its rather critical)
Also a lot of people say that Soviet tanks are super cramped and the crew has almost no space, this however is not entirely true, the tanks are designed with the average height of the people working in it. as example the driver on a T64 should be not taller than 1,75m wich is fine since the average Russian is around this height.
The possible risk is if the gunner is left-handed.
The awkward position could lead him to stick his elbow on the path ot the rising platform. Like handling a chainsaw or other power tool with oposite handgrips.
It also can be avoided with proper training.
I heard that the BMP-1 incident was caused by the gunner beying left handed, but it was in a docuseries on History Channel, so not very reliable source, also very biased opinions presented there.
Can you go over the “ Abrams can’t be killed” myth and see how the standard Abrams will match up with what other countries are using today?
Also good video. I enjoy content like this. Keep up the good work!
Everything can be destroyed, the goal is to make it very hard to do so, all 5anks will die to top attack missiles due to how thin the top armor of tanks is, hell I bet modern 20mm ammo can punch through the top of tanks
He already did it's the Abrams tank myth
@@raptor4916 looks like your right. Thanks for letting me know. Imma watch it.
@@charlescourtwright2229 No need to go through the top unless you're a missile. The sides on the majority of MBTs out there are 40-80mm. Most 20mm can deal to it, and all the 30+mm out there can go through with ease. Tanks are designed in VERY specific ways to be used in VERY specific ways. There's a reason that crews are trained (or supposed to be...) to ALWAYS present the front to the enemy. These days, it's the only place they really have any armour.
Abrams have been oblitered across various middle east conflicts. Look destroyed Abrams on RUclips. There's one from over a decade ago with a shit ton
Son of my neighbor was a t72 commander and he once told me that the crew didn't really care about the autoloader penetration/detonation, rather than that, he was strict about obeying those rules, since (as he was saying) "at commander academy, they've taught us, that abandoning a tank and giving up is considered as an undisciplined behavior, therefore we should fight till the last minute"
I like how the comments are full of people spouting even more tank myths and misconceptions.
Thanks for giving me some new things to think about in these tanks.
Watching Spookston play the Object 279 is very cool
Nice video! Quite a good amount of new information for me
Thank you so much for showing your sources!
It's abit of a pet peeve of mine when a youtuber or someone doesnt show where they got the information from and then have their content compromised by inaccurate statements/facts
2:12 If anyone wants to think of the context, you might also want to think of the economy, availability of resources both in people as well as just raw resources. USSR(and Russia afterwards) was actually always the "underdog" comparing to all NATO countries. It had less people, smaller economy, smaller production capability, more damage to it after the war and so on. They still needed to at least match what NATO countries could field. If not quality, then at least in numbers. To my knowledge the whole arms race is one of the main things that ended the union. They couldn't keep spending so much on military and still have their population properly fed and supplied with everything they need.
I always wounder what world would we all live in now if after 1945 east and west could just fucking agree to leave each other alone. God forbid cooperate...
Cooperation would be nice, but that requires both sides to operate in good faith. The Soviets never did.
cough cough, operation Unthinkable, cough cough Operation RYAN, cough cough Able Archer 83
It's always the russians' fault, isn't it? Easiest answer for every questions that ever existed.
@@duongngole4785 Ask Eastern Europeans how much they loved the Russian occupation post-WW2. And as someone else said, just because you quote "Operation X" doesn't mean anything if like you you refer to training exercises and Soviet operations.
@@duongngole4785 When the Polish govt in exile were asked to return to Poland after WW2 by the Soviets to start a new election, they went and were arrested by the Sovs. This particular treachery was the genesis of Churchill's Unthinkable. But yeah sure, "western allies badddd".
@@HelghastStalker Yes indeed, the commies were so much worse than the Civilized Europeans. (please don't look at Africa or India nothing to see there.)
Also Cuban missile crisis? It was US missiles in Turkey, followed by the US throwing a hissy fit about the same being done to them and declaring a naval blockade. Some good faith right there.
Just a quick correction: The M60A3 TTS came out after the M1 came became operational in 1980. The M60 TTS was actually superior to the M1 Thermal Imaging System (TTS) due to the extra couple of years of development.
I consider Soviet designs as genuine tanks. That’s because tanks are an offensive equipment that punches holes in enemy lines, covers infantry when it assaults. Also its main purpose is not tank on tank combat, but to destroy leg units. NATO tanks on the other hand are designed with defense in mind: great vertical guidance for shooting from entrenched positions; a loader, who can potentially provide better reload times while vehicle is standing still(with better safety for crew). Of course both of these different branches have defensive/offensive mechanisms, but you can see where I’m going. I think the biggest flaw of NATO tanks is absence of HE round. No matter how hard you try, HEAT will never be as effective as simple metal shell filled with explosives. On the other hand, the biggest disadvantage of Soviet designs is their extremely hard and time-consuming maintenance. No matter how reliable are these machines, they are ~45 ton beasts which will eventually break. That’s why there are so many loses: not only because they are destroyed, but lost to attrition and simple mechanical problems. Building a tank is a very meticulous process and I appreciate both of those worlds. And also I hope we will never find out the real-world performance of that equipment. Otherwise that means another war.
@LibtardsStillCantSilence Me21 completely agree with survivability statement. Flechette does its trick very well until the point when the enemy is well-hidden. For example a multi-storey building will most likely safe the life. Also HE may be used as complete annihilation shell. Yes, it takes a lot of rounds to take down a bridge or completely destroy urban position, but concentrated fire does the trick. But we also need to consider how appropriate this is. Dense artillery fire or a squad with couple grenade launchers will make the job done without much hassle. But the option is always there. Also, flechette deals damage in a cone shape severely reducing effectiveness when fighting entrenched troops. HE explodes in a spherical shape. I’m not an expert, but I think it is how flechette works.
both types fit their doctrinal roles well within their respective militaries. i pray we will never see them tested against each other in a real war
Once again an informative video
I like the play and talk videos, but the post-commentary one‘s are still the best
Very refreshing to hear a balanced opinion.
Personally Ruski MBTs are my favourite.
Not if you had to actually fight in one.
They are cool, but you know whats cooler? A ammo racked Russian MBT
@@cattledog901 Never said i'd want to be the one in the tank.
The main issue with the autoloader is that you have only 3 crew members to do the daily maintenance instead of 4 which is almost impossible yo do after a march. And the second is that you need to maintain the autoloader itself to keep it functioning, otherwise you`ll have to load the gun by yourself.
the soviet/russian autoloaders are very reliable. yes, the maintanance would be hell with only 3 people.
Love ur vids! :)❤️
The one thing that is truly reliable: me smashing that like-button on your vids.
Incredible look at the doctrine and design principles that went into these machines.
Cursory and superficial skim over the surface, you mean?
it would be cool to see you do some live commentary playing arcade lol
Russia has actually been producing thermal imaging sights itself since 2018. НПО "Орион" produces them.
I like how he’s talking about soviet MBT doctrine with IS 7 gameplay.
The most common myth I know of about Soviet armor was that the driver always needed a 3 pound sledgehammer to change gears.
An Egyptian friend told me a story about Soviet tanks stating that quality control doesn’t translate into Russian. This was tied to the Egyptians receiving a large shipment of brand new T-72s. Having had prior experience with “Gifts from the Workers of the Soviet Union” the Egyptians disassembled the engines and transmissions right on the docks. They hadn’t even started moving them away from where they were placed after unloading from the ship. Every oil pan and transmission sump was filled with metal shavings. He claimed several pounds per vehicle. Even though his father was in the Egyptian Army before they emigrated here to the States in the mid ‘80s, I still take “several pounds” with a few grains of salt.
That hammer for the gear stick thing was for the T-34.
Heard about the metal shavings, but from american cars...
Russian/soviets do have a reputation for... less than stellar manufacturing quality. But they are not the only ones.
Still, if I had the choice between russian quality and american quality, I guess I'd go for ACME every time...
The hammer for shifting was with early to mid production T-34s, and thst has indeed been stated by several in interviews. I have never heard of those issues in Cold War Soviet tanks.
@@Bird_Dog00 the difference between having a US car with metal shavings in the oil vs having a Soviet car with metal shavings in the oil, is at least you have a car. The US produced more cars from 1950 to 1970 than the Soviet Union did from 1950 to 1991
@@imperialmodelworks8473 US car industry: "Yes our cars suck, but hey at least we make A LOT of cars that suck."
Everyone, a round of applause for Captain Ambitious over here please.
☺
Good video Spookston
most Of the ammo cooks off on soviet/russian tanks come from the fact that most of the time crew usually choose to bring the whole warehouse of ammo with them :)) and most of the rounds are place everywhere in the tank, which can easily be cooked off with buch of things
while not removing a limb, I've heard from more than one place the placement of the gunner in soviet MBT's mean the autoloader could castrate the gunner.
I would love you to cover AUTOLOADERS as a whole. be interesting to see the origins of the design. 👍
This is basically going to be a Wehraboo and Freeaboo fapfest.
@@lector-dogmatixsicarii1537 🤣
i can easily summarise the cold war tank development starting from the end of ww2
soviets show their new toys, west try to counter it
10 years later west made a counter, now the soviets try to make a counter to it
5 years later the soviets made a counter, but wasnt that good so they developed another counter what was more reliable, easier to make and cheaper 5 years later
west make a counter for the new soviet counter, who also upgrade their counter
now its the 80s and 90s, the soviet union soon will collapse so they cant spend another 5-10 years for countering the west, and since there is no new soviet counter for the western vehicles both side start upgrading their counters
as of today both nato and the east use heavily outdated equipments but glued on some cardboard to look like improvements
It is safe to say that as of right now, the doctrine and premise for most Russian tank designs are outdated. They may still be easy to mass produce, but the armor is no longer as viable as it used to be. This heavily takes in account more modern anti tank weaponry, especially top down missiles and aircraft deployed munitions. In a comparison to the Yamamoto battleship, these were made to be perfect weapons for a different time.
Well most tanks don’t have good upgrades
No APS like arena
No infantry support
It’s a recipe for being destroyed by infantry anti tank guided missiles
Not really the Doctrine more the strategy and if comapring to most NATO stuff the Tanks themselves, Russia's performance in Ukraine is less than expected for the Russian army even with NATO analysis, the tanks are often left by themselves and astray often losing fuel and being targeted by Ukranians, most Russian Tanks are updates of old Soviet Tanks like Ukraine their most modern tanks are the T 90 which are small in number and the Armata which is grounded for now. (In other words the Doctrine wasn't used properly so its likely not yet outdated, just unproperly implamented)
The world is not a War Thunder battlefield. You can see NATO tanks performing well, and you can see Soviet/Russian tanks performing well. On another hand, there are instances where both sides' armour failed and was destroyed with ease. It is silly to analyse tanks ideologically, because after all, it is a machine made by man, that has its strengths and weaknesses, mainly, depending on the economy. Admin said correctly that everything must be looked at with context in sight.
In the 70s, with the T 64 and T 72, the soviets had qualitative as well as quantitative advantage. It was in the 80s that the west regained qualitative advantage with the Leo 2, Abrams and Challenger.
the t-64 was no slouch either, it was very much better than the likes of the chieftain and m60.
What’s the name of that movie for m60 tankers you mention around 1:45? I’d be interested to see it
Problem with storing your ammo at the bottom of the hull is that its a nice way to protect it against horizontally hitting shells (typically tank shells of various types), however its not that good against vertically hitting shells (top attack missiles), as those tend to hit that magazine wayyy tooo often. And its no big surprise. If the tank is penetrated at the top, the fragments are heading to the bottom, where the ammo is.
granted if the tope is penned the crew inside are most likely toast anyways
Top attack penetration will always hit any ammo stored in the turret before it reaches hull bottom.
Considering the T-64/72/80 were designed well before top attack munitions were a reality, I believe the designers can be forgiven. Hell, even for crew survivability, they were even with NATO tanks up until the Leo 2/M1 came about and started adding stuff like blow out panels and the like. To call all Soviet tanks trash, (as some people in the comment section probably have done), is like calling an F-86 sabre trash when its having stingers shot at it. The designs are thoroughly old; like iirc the T-80, (which is the newest of the three) is coming up on being in service in one way or another for something like 50 years now, and even then its a sort of offshoot of the T-64 iirc, so you could think of the root design of all three basically coming about in the late 1950's. I think they have put in more than enough service at this point to warrant a graceful retirement, but its not like Russia can afford that; Im pretty sure the T-14 is gonna be DOA, same with the Su-57 after this Ukrainian War concludes one way or another.
Oh! Hey dont forget mines in that top attack assessment; mines actually would lead to just as many cook offs, but I guess thats why these tanks all had mine plows to easily attach. Ah well, thats enough out of me
As mentioned in the vid most Russian Tanks are Cold War old and because of economic reasons they can't just change them, all they can do is update them and hope for the best.
@@PimpofSolSquadron no, they were superior to all nato tanks until the introduction of the abrams and leopard 2. and, for the record, the abrams was introduced in 1980 and the leopard 2 in 1979, they are almost as old as the t-80 which was introduced in 1976. ofcourse, all 3 of these tanks have undergone numerous and drastic improvements over the years.
This vid autoplayed on my second monitor while I was playing subnautica, I heard the music, was confused because I heard a voice and a tank minimized discord to see that the an hour of silence randomly interrupted by what the dog doin, had autoplayed to this vid, 20 seconds later and I die to the ghost lev in the lost river.
I kinda wanna see a video on probs my favorite tank thats out there dusfar, the Chi-Nu. The Chi-Nu in WT just looks and feels great to play, and im sad that the tech tree one went from rank III to rank II, and that the Chi-Nu II went from 4.0 to 4.3. Im wondering how it was IRL compared to shermans and such.
the word is thus far, but if you're dutch I can see where the misunderstanding comes from, groeten!
@@lionidor1132 LOL
Spookston's Busting Tank Myths videos usually follow the same path of I like this _______, but here's why its not as good as you think. Its never "I hate this and I am going to give it a impartial view"
Wow coboy..the leopard does have some bow out panels it still stores much of the "load out" outside of the container with blowouts
Thanks
Could you cover the Chieftain tank? It has quite a complex reputation
A good video would be something about Stug or basicly german TDs from start of the Ww2
More such videos please.
0:41 this actually brings up a question ive had for a while: Do the Hull ammo racks on the leo 2 have blowout panels or any other measure of protection ?
as far as i am aware of, from how turkey has lost leopard 2's, it doesn't appear to be the case.
they don’t have any , what they have is ammo with different propellant that makes it harder to ignite , and automatic fire extinguisher ( not as good as a blow up panels but that’s better than nothing I guess )
It was interesting to listen to some local "expert" on the news lambast Russian tanks and how they don't protect the crew, and how our tanks are way better, and I'm reminding myself of all the Russian tanks and IFVs we have in our arsenal.
I mean samething on the other side but basically its mostly fueled bh misconceptions and misunderstanding of doctrine (Russian MBTs are suppose to be low on the ground and fast so gun depression isn't an issue most of the time as Eastern Europe is a sea of grass for example)
British ww2 tanks would be an interesting topic to cover if you haven't before, I've heard many odd things about them but I do not know how accurate those things are
You’re referring to the built in kettle all British tanks have to make tea, aren’t you
babe wake up Spookston uploaded a new vid
Well Leopard's ammo rack survivability also depends quite a bit, the ready rack in the turret will vent but if someone manages to strike the hull ammo, yikes
hey spook i know its not in game yet, but could you talke about South Korea's K-2 Black panther
I love spookston for this unbiased and practical approach to talking about things.. its about time people stop giving shit to russian tanks
You can spray a hunk of shit in perfume all you like, it's still a hunk of shit.
I was wondering spookston is low br better than high br? What would you find much more better
my favourite series of wine bottle: the russian mbt. their tops go pop!
Can you make a vid on tanks the were mounted with dumbfire rockets? attempt #4
On the M1A1, if the TC let's his left elbow stick out, it'll get broken by the breach. Grab that handle TC's.
So basically, Lazer Pig Loop.
Lmfao
How about the rumor ( I guess, not sure if it’s true or not) of Russian and Soviet MBT’s including the new ones. Having in general lower quality armor?
Some myths I remember about soviet armor:
The russian crews were dwarves... the rear-door on the bmp could be lit on fire by .50 cal fire, because it had an external fuel tank... also heard of autoloaders eating hands...
@@HelghastStalker That would make them appear to be rather small by western standards (the average male german is about 178.9 cm tall).
@@HelghastStalker True. But I'm not sure why you bring it up.
I was just making an observation about perception.
It is a frequently quted fact that you can exchange the power pack of many western MBTs like Leo 1 & 2 in the field in under an hour with only a crane.
I read once that exchanging the engine alone on a T-72 could take a fully equiped repair shop up to 20 man-hours. How close to the truth is that?
Soviet/russian MBTs are generally smaller than western MBTs.
From what is generally said, repairability and ease of maintenance (or the lack theroff) is one of the compromises soviet engineers acepted to keep the tanks compact and light.
How do the two different design-philosophies compare and how doe they affect - or for that matter are affected by - combat doctrine?
I am not educated enough to give you a comprehensive answer to all of your questions, however, one thing I can think of from the top of my head - the lighter weight of Soviet MBTs allows them to drive over bridges that would be unaccesible to some of their NATO counterparts. This is useful in a fast-paced offensive operation (i.e. Fulda gap rush); should your enemy not sabotage the bridges quickly enough, your tank forces can push through without waiting for bridgelayers/pontoon bridges.
@@crazymachinima1 and as we’ve seen, traveling single file over known routes is a suicide pact. Ambushing bridges is a garuntee
20 man hours means it would take 20 hours for one man to preform maintenance
@@Chroniclerope Always was an excellent tactic. Doesn't change the fact that armies still kinda need them.
With autoloaders replacing the lowest seniority crewmen, I.E. the guy who sits and learns what everybody else does while waiting to load a shell, do you think this creates a proficiency gap further up the chain?
New topic: floating APCs and their effectiveness in conflicts
Can you cover PRC tanks too? Please?
Could you do a video covering tank myths from the gulf war?
Export munition and outdated T-72 variant
And Iraq didn’t maintain there tanks properly
One myth/misunderstanding I see all the time is that the autoloader is responsible for the tanks blowing up, and that's why having a manual loader is safer.
The Soviet autoloader is though, because the ammo HAS TO be stowed in the carousel to be indexed and loaded. Behind it is an unarmored firewall with things that go up [see Chechnya lol fest of T-80 cook-offs]. In front of it is pretty exposed fuel that will burn into it. When it cooks, it PRESSURE COOKS wholesale. Slight damage into misalignments is a thing you need to pay attention to with autoloaders or you pancake shells into a detonation. This is also how you can disarm yourself dealing with it. Machines go CACHUNK.
I am saying tanks like an M60 as it sits can put the equivalent amount of rounds anywhere in its capacity by comparison. Nothing needs be in the ring read rack, the forward racks or the bustle. T series tanks also have extra ammo just strewn around to feed manually into the system which is super sketchy in combat. So they have their carousel loaded with a ring of 22 in the required place vs 22 you can spread and avoid being launched in bits.
The core really is this:
Russians wanted a lot of strong vehicles that could reliably outnumber the enemy while being able to win direct assaults.
To get good combat power at an affordable price, the tank had to be relatively light (= smaller/cheaper engine and transmission) and extremely compact. This also worked out for relatively easy maintenance requirements and a slim logistical footprint, which makes them so popular in the third world.
The downside for this is that they're extremely hard to repair (not made for quick field repairs) and could not do anything to improve survivability if penetrated, because there was simply no volume or weight to spare.
They also tend to have horrible situational awareness, extremely low reverse speed (5-10 km/h vs 30-40 for NATO tanks), last gen optics and fire control, and are tedious to operate.
NATO in contrast wanted very versatile tanks that could deal with any situation. They are bigger and heavier, tend to require more maintenance and have a higher logistical footprint (extreme example: 60 ton Abrams with 1500 hp gas turbine). In return they get field repair ability, crew ergonomics, better situational awareness, can be made survivable even if penetrated, and are usually equipped with better optics and coms. In some gens they also had notably better fire control and stabilisation.
For example when Germany trialled T-72 vs Leopard 1 after the reunion in the early 90s, they found that T-72 would be way worse for their doctrine because it could only effectively see and fight straight ahead and because crews would tire quickly in demanding situations. That it had very poor night fighting capability and targeting on the move, and that its effective rate of fire was only 1/3-1/2 of the Leopard's because it took so long to reaquire the target after each shot.
In return they found it had a somewhat better armour, but they didn't really consider it relevant at the time (despite the Leopard's notoriously thin protection) since it only made a difference against few weapons.
>makes video about MBT
>uses heavy tank
I was recently watching Jarosław Wolski video he's polish military expert and according to him during cold war soviet tanks had edged over western tank when it comes to protection against kinetic penetrators
The Soviets had a panic over the sniper heavies that could pick away at their pre T-64 production tanks. The problem with the western MIC is it never went forward with its composite armors and special projects that were good years ahead of the Soviet from the post war period to the 70's.
@@lector-dogmatixsicarii1537 I would say that even up to end of cold war soviet tanks were superior to western counterparts even introduction of Abrams and Leopard didn't really shifted the tide leopard 2A4 in cold war design had Burlington armor witch wasn't that good only after Germany introduced they homemade design featuring ceramic with NERA leopard 2 amor became significantly more resistant to penetration.
It's important to remember that the experiences in WWII greatly influenced the developmental doctrines that the USSR and NATO used when planning for what was believed to be WWIII which many believed would rapidly result in the wholesale use of nuclear weapons.
The USSRs experience in WWII compared to the Western allies was so drastically different. The annihilation of the Ost front was something that had never been seen before and, naturally, the Soviets went on developing g their forces with the mind set that WWIII would be like WWII on the Ost front-but orders of magnitudes worse.
Annihilation of the Ost Front? Im curious, would you be able to extrapolate?
@@PimpofSolSquadron the soviets took incredibly heavy losses on the Eastern Front, what with their lack of air superiority (having lost many planes and pilots during the initial stages of Barbarossa when they got caught with their pants down ), and the heavy fighting, especially in Stalingrad. Their battles are usually won with extensive use of artillery and tanks supported by infantry, with said artillery being more for striking areas deemed important by higher level command.
Compare that to America, where their radioman could call in artillery or air support (their industry being untouched allowed them to produce immense amounts of ammunition and vehicles, allowing for this sorta stuff), where air control was contested and won by the Allies (allowing for said air support) and where tanks didn’t need to be produced as quickly as the soviet ones and could be made to good standards (Soviets, being more desperate for AFVs often made them to poor quality just to pump out more of them).
They learnt completely different lessons from the war.
That autoloader chopping limbs was supposedly a matter that happened with the T-64 prototypes.
I heard it more in connection to the BMP-1, apparently it took some fingers or hands. Not sure about the details.
Shoot until they explode is a statement that Tankers have always used.
The traditional way to evaluate tanks is Firepower, Protection, and Mobility. Russian designs since the T34 have sought to emphasize a balance between those points. But history teaches us there is another factor: Optics/Communications.
In WW2 Panzer 3’s had great success against T34s which on paper we’re superior in every way. The German crews were better trained, but more importantly they could actually see the enemy.
Russians have always been behind on optics and comms. In Ukraine they’re using civilian phones and unsecured radios. Most vehicles appear to lack the digital horsepower of an ipad.
well, soviet mbt have crampped interior, because they make it compact in a small size tank, I think this is the reason when they made the t64, if they had the same thoughts as the nato tanks at that time, maybe we would see a soviet tank with a design similar to the nato
Guy I got my instrument rating with, who was a close friend that I deeply admired, talked about how inferior Russian aircraft were to ours in the 60's and 70's. He was a part of a very secret group that flew the Mig 19 and came up with tactics to fight it, I also got this convo with the other guy in the program. This was an aircraft that was given to the USA by a defector, my buddy said it was impressive in certain things but nowhere near the standards of our stuff. Avionics were trash, and its performance was easy to counter. They talked about how it appeared to be poorly built as well, a lower pride in work if you will.
In college one of my professors got to tour a couple of Russian military craft (my first throw in college was aviation maint, I am a pilot), he stated that he was surprised at how the Russians had gone down the road of vacuum tubes. That again, they weren't as good as our stuff, and he thought the workmanship was OK but again, new stuff he was not overly impressed at quality. The USA is pretty intense with inspections and rejections (i've worked on a project for defense, the inspection levels are nuts).
Another thing that is interesting is scopes in shooting, I am an avid shooter and if you look at current soviet errr Russian scopes, they appear to be attempted copies of Schimdt & Bender, but a few guys that have gotten to look through them say the glass isn't as good. Germany/Austria have really good crystal, it makes me wonder what the soviets errr Russians are doing to get this addressed.
It's really good that we challenge popular myths but to be honest I've never thought of the Soviet tanks as being better, just more numerous. I'd pick a Centurion over a T-55 or a T-62 any day of the week, Even with the Engine issues i'd pick a Chieftain over a T-64 and an Early T-72 same with the Leopard 1 same with the Vickers MBTs, the M60s or the AMX 40 as for a modern T-72 or T80 variant. There is no way in hell I'd pick them over a Challenger or a Leclerc, Leopard 2 or any of the modern Western Tanks. I'm sure I'm biased and the Soviet tanks probably had many good features but I've never heard anyone say Soviet Tanks were better for any sustained period of time only really brief interludes like the IS3 scare in the late 1940s but that soon passed and a few isolated other incidents that quickly led to new NATO developments like the L7 gun. I was always told that they had massive numbers and were wanting to overwhelm people with numbers. Although to be honest a lot of that is probably the effects of NATO propaganda and like any arms race I'd expect in reality that it changed on a year by year maybe even month by month basis and just that with the better industrial capability of the west especially in electronics the Western Tanks were able to build a lead as Tanks gained complexity and extend it over time. Being from a military family with strong Naval and Airforce connection (I even joined the Navy myself) I was always brought up with a strong respect for Soviet Air equipment like the Migs and the Helicopters etc as well as a respect for the Soviet Submarine force but that the Army was a bit of a paper tiger large but not a major threat and the Surface Navy was a complete joke and were to be treated with professional contempt for being the clown school that they are even in my time as a Naval officer I never gained any respect for the Russian surface Navy and even today I give them a lot less respect than they probably deserve.
It is really simple
Electronics feom 2010
Mechanocs from 1980's best.
Yeah, reactive armour good, but 1'st Chechen war (and Syrian conflict) showed that without good supply tanks are big driving pieces of metal with cannon.
Btw, main gun can be hand-loaded by crew,but it ain't fast process.
Their biggest probability is consistency one factory would make them fine and too standard the other would cut so many corners it would be a piece of junk this has been an issue since the t-34
Biggest myth is that they are good
3:22 Heh; see the InrangeTV AK Mud Test compared to the AR-15 mud test. The AK completely crapped out while the AR functioned nearly flawlessly.
If my memory serves my right they've tested a Wasr against a relatively modern AR. Also, the recoil spring of the AK was suspiciously _'weak',_ I don't think the mud was the only problem.
+@UCV3VcRfaNKEZ6mSYI6_-qsg+ They did it with at least 3 AK variants and the first one was the only one that even kinda worked; it got reduced to bolt-action status. Clearly when your dirty AK has the functionality of a Clean Mosin Nagant it ain't functioning correctly...
@@cnlbenmc
Yeah, lad, both rifles have differences, the AR does a better job at keeping things *out* of the action, while in the case of the AK, it's a lot easier to *clear* it. You can see it in the video yourself, a fast and simple re-charging motion - could've - made the AK function again, while in the case of the AR, the magazine had to be re-inserted and the rifle cocked after most of the failures. This coupled with the fact that the recoil spring of the AK was loosened, and the AR being a lot more modern, I'd say the AK performed quite well.
+@@mikhail-yug-9581+ They did the test on the Retro AR-15; a civilian clone of the Vietnam era M16 and had the same results. Letting stuff in at all is what killed the AK all those times; you get gunk into the locking recesses of a gun it will seize up no matter what the design is and getting that out basically mandates tearing the gun apart to remedy. Plus did all those other AK variants have malfunctioning springs too even though the AKM variant had a marginally better time (the one you specifically said has the loose springs). There were a half a dozen designs that did better at the mud test than the AK with only some of those being related to the AR-15 and none of those were reduced to bolt-action status.
The Soviet Union and Russia, for a number of reasons, have been largely unable to introduce the clean sheet designs or deep redesigns they need to address the fundamental flaws of the T-triad that have been there since Object 432 in 1961.
Most Western tanks (save for the Challengers that kept most of the fundamental problems of Chieftain) are clean sheet designs with 1970's or late 60's base technology and layouts, rather than late 50's/early 60s like the Soviet MBTs. This made the former somewhat more advanced than the latter (more capable powertrains, less limitations on penetrator length, better guns, blowout pannels).
The Soviets and Russians did and still do have the technology to bridge the gap, but they suffer from Peace Dividended funding as much as the West.
SPOOKSTON MADE A NEW VIDEO
i would appreciate a video why they suck so much rn. (or at least why we think they suck so much rn)
The defense of Western Europe relied heavily on nuclear weapons and a willingness to use them first until the mid 80's: when a winnable degree of conventional parity was achieved.
i love the subnatica music lol
But Russians do not purchase thermals form France from 2016, today they have their own domestic produced thermals (Sosna-U for T-90/72/80, ТКН-4ГА for BTR-82A, BMP-1AM and another).
In USSR they had Agava (gen 1) thermals and only collapse of the USSR broke their plans for using this thermal in T-80/90 and for the Armata predecessor.
Yeah and they stole their thermal tech from the west 🤣 imagine
@@4zap7 got some proofs?
@@pavelmelnik1569 I’m not your tutor , it’s pretty common knowledge you can find the info if you actually are capable of challenging what you already believe
Fun Fact: If you punch a Soviet MBT square in the nose it will cry and run away.
Can you make a video about the shitbarn
It all comes down to Military Doctrines.