what is it that they shout whenever they are firing the gun, im guessing its something like "fire in the whole" or something but how do you pronounce it?
@@darktrojan00"орудие"-gun-orudye the command to the gunner to fire the gun "выстрел"-vystrel-shot (firing would be more appropriate in English)-gunner responding that he is in fact firing. They are screaming, from what i heard from my dad, to equalise pressure in the ears, especially for the gunner, so that no one goes deaf from the shockwave, which did happen if you were to fire multiple rounds in a row. I think it's placebo though... One idiot in dads company also decided to look DOWN THE SIGHT AS THE GUN WAS FIRING. Both his eyes were black as dirt as the gun sight left it's impression, which is a no brainer, considering how MUCH IT FUCKING RECOILS in the video
I was the truck driver, we used to call it Sniper, because it was so accurate at direct fire, and we called it Goat, cause that damn thing jumped as a goat every time you fired it, we tried everything,and nobody holds on to the laffete in combat conditions, as we were always on the front line. 🇭🇷But still a beautiful Soviet gun.
@@Ed-rt9qt Heavy recoil doesnt mean its inaccurate. As long as the round gets off after the recoil has settled, it will hit accurately, much a rifle. A Mosin has a hell of a kick in recoil, but its accurate af though.
@@Ostheim But it has a smooth bore barrel and this barrel is less accurate then rifled barrel. And accuracy depends also on type of projectiles that are used. HEAT rounds are less accurate then APFSDS. So I guess it is impossible to hit a moving target with this gun.
@@Ed-rt9qtYou answer your own question, ‘type of ammo used’. It’s almost like you don’t need rifling when the ammunition will spin and stabilize itself.
@@str8ballinSA jeśli masz ich dużo i masz do nich amunicję to dlaczego nie? Tylko że widzę że jeżeli robią to Rosjanie to jest śmieszne i bezużyteczne, jeżeli Ukraińcy to wspaniałe wykorzystanie potencjalu
Towed howitzer are still used in war, this can act as such, also most vehicles are not MBT so in direct fire this can wreck lighter vehicles, it jsut needs computerisation imo
@@wawaweewa9159 its big, clumsy and cumbersome. Todays wars are long range artillery and drone strikes. a direct fire weapon like this against tanks would be good.... for a few shots..... then drones and artillery. These things are now primarily indirect fire weapons and its not designed for that. honestly, even their "original thoughts" and design for these was to fight ww2 style battles.... in the 60's +... it was obsolete the minute it was drafted. better to just make an artillery piece that can also be used as a direct fire, anti-tank gun rather than this.
@@Winston-lf7sb it is sure better to produce modern AT guns but i think the sentiment here is that those already existing are not obsolete, but very much situational because of drones & guided munitions. They are for sure nothing for the scrap heep, militias & other irregular forces can still put them to great effect as 2nd or 3rd line defensive guns.
@@Winston-lf7sb T12 guns are use to this day by both Ukrainian and Russians troops in indirect fire mode . One reason is that both side have huge amount of T-12 ammunition left during the Soviet era .
This gun as well as very few post-WWII AT guns(there were less of them designed then during the war. Apparently recoilless rifles took the main part of the niche) showcases how their design requirements are different from normal artillery. These guns need to be as low as possible to have small target profile, need to have a very wide horizontal traverse instead of vertical elevation and ideally should have a ranging rifle(which this one lacks). The fun part is that soviets also had 125mm one, Sprut-B if I recall right. And that both it and this one can use barrel fired ATGMs from their respective tank counterparts(yes, there is a 100mm barrel launched ATGM designed for rifled gun of T-55).
@@Qbgarden that depends on how you view SAMs. For some reason rocket artillery including MLRSs and tactical ballistic missiles are artillery, but everyone pretends that ATGMs and SAMs aren't ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Anyway there are even fewer AAA designed post-WWII. The only "notables" I can recall is soviet 57mm S-60 autocannon, Bofors 57mm from which soviets copied it and 75mm M51 Skysweeper. AAA needs full freedom of traverse both horizontal and vertical, very fast traverse, doesn't care much about dimensions and visibility(aka the only branch where use of muzzle brake isn't frowned upon). While it CAN benefit from both increased velocity like AT and increased caliber like normal artillery, rate of fire was the characteristic that won out in the end(if you count only AAA without counting SAMs).
@@TheArklyte "Bofors 57mm from which soviets copied it" Uh, no? Seriously, one uses 57x348SR ammo, the other uses 57x438 ammo. There's not a shred of similarity except ballistics. The S-60 has a METER longer barrel... Which is why it has similar ballistics despite the much shorter ammo. Aaaand the S-60 actually PREDATES the Bofors 57L60. The first prototype was built in 1945. And it has more in common with the German 5.5cm prototype AA gun than the Bofors.
In JNA (yugoslavia army), no one move apart from gun while firing. Head is connected with optics all the time. But, what we learned is that average anti-tank gun crew can expect life time (when battle start) in minutes :-( This is the most prioritized target on battlefield. One more thing: if you do proper set-up (2 small holes in ground) this gun do not jump back so hard like on this movie.
Их не используют против танков. Против современных танков "Рапира" бесполезна. Её используют как обычное орудие для уничтожения огневых точек противника в домах. У рапиры очень высокая точность стрельбы.
Can't recall many of the latter. Most critique comes from being far from era the which they were designed for, being used plain wrong or it's a reaction to inflation of the former. And if I'll ever need former, I'd just need to turn on TV on 9th of May(or half a month prior when this show starts and doesn't end until late June)😅
@@TheArklyte There are a lot of people who underestimate Soviet equipment and call it crap either because they're blinded by propaganda and are idiots like Lazerpig, or they've just been fed misinformation their whole lives and just don't know any better.
@@Andre_Thomasson care to give an example that doesn't fall into previous categories, please? Заодно узнаем кто ты и откуда на основе твоих "предпочтений";)
@@TheArklytecome on, man. As an American I can attest almost every bit of information I see coming out about anything contemporary in the Russian military basically comes down to “look at this overhyped junk and how it pales in comparison to our super-awesome invisible sci-fi equipment”. It is assumed that they are almost universally incompetent and brutal. Unless it’s a pro-Russian source with the opposite bias. But you have to almost seek those out.
In the army, I was a member of the T12 crew. Its disadvantage is a crew of 5 people, and a weight of approx. 2.6 tons (as far as I remember after 40 years). Moving from one position to another without the help of a vehicle, especially on bad terrain, was a nightmare.
I had a couple of this beauties in my arty battery and strongly disagree that in indirect fire it is not effective. Actually in the ongoing war it is used as howitzer (I've never heard about MT-12 engaging armor targets). It has it's limitations - 8200 meters of max range in indirect mode with HE round, but the precision is astonishing. We were able to hit a window of a dugout from second shot, or make a direct hit on ATGM team with no problem. The main problem is that there always was a shortage of HE rounds (because they were produced in small numbers). But semi-HEATs did a great job also, but they have even a smaller range of 6000 meters in indirect fire.
I was a member of the MT12 crew in the Croatian army in 2005 Anti tenk division. I think that the cannon is no longer used, but we have it in reserves. We called sniper…and most od time cannon was dig into the ground…we are also trained to use the cannon in ambushes at close distances without an optical sight, using two threads on the top of the barrel…shoot and run
The gun could even be outfittet with a radar. Originally the Soviets wanted it as a tank gun but the shells were too long for handling in a tank turret. An awesome piece and pretty much the crown of at-gun design. (Oh well, you said it, lol)
I live in the city where this gun was developed. my friend's grandfather was directly involved in this. in his words, this gun is one of the most accurate guns of its time and the very first gun in the world with a smooth barrel
Russo-Ukro War, first days of the action, in Kherson City, Ukrainian Army used one of them to defend the West Bank of Dnieper river at the just exit of the Antonivka bridge, and left it abandoned when Russian forces succeed to overcome , which I spotted it at the photographs in the media
I don't think it was ment to be used on its own. A wall of these guns might had a chance, but 70 years passed since its design. A lot changed in those decades...
@@marrs1013 As I remember, initial stage of the Russian forces movement was a thrust towards the Kherson Bridge, and Ukrainian forces made a tactical fast retreat in order not to be trapped at the East Bank of the river. So, under such circumstances battle field and the management of it might have been chaotic that weaponry became scattered disorderly at the battle field and the whatever they had at hand in their inventory close to the bridge they might be employed. Another logic may be that, 100 mm is enough powerful to destroy all armour other than MBTs, and the bridge exit is a choke point , hence very advantageous for targeting , further any hit to the any armour would make the spearhead column to slow down or even stopped.
@@tihi79 He's just angry his favorite Cheese Pizza producer git invaded It's Russian so it must be bad. So says the most cringeworthy propaganda in history
There is a reason why large-caliber 150mm and 200mm howitzers exist and are popular, and almost no one wants to produce and use large-caliber anti-tank guns in combat. To begin with, I will say that in World War 2, the largest howitzers weighed about 5 tons, the same weight was a 105mm artillery cannon for firing from above to enemy positions. These are heavy non-anti-tank guns that are stationary in place, which people do not move around the field, but which can be transported by a massive truck with good power. In the regiment and in the battalion, they preferred to use guns much lighter. That is, at the forefront of the front, closest to 0, they tried to use guns of about 500 kilograms in weight, these are light towed 120mm mortars, 20mm anti-aircraft guns, 37mm anti-tank guns, and even light 75mm lelg mortars with a short barrel (they fired in a straight line at a short distance as guns against infantry and within the horizon of visibility a soldier at 3km like a mortar from above). These light towed guns were convenient. Did not fit into this 150mm SiG with a short barrel weighing 2 tons (it was kept only in the regiment as an infantry gun), a 105mm howitzer weighing 1,800 kg (2,500 kg) (these howitzers were listed in the artillery regiment), and a new anti-tank 75mm Pak 40 cannon weighing 1,500 kg (the American version was heavier than 2 tons). The point is that 1,500 kg of cannon is even more or less convenient for people to drag around the field and turn at an angle of 90. And guns weighing 2500kg and 3000kg are already heavy and they are almost stationary in conditions of snow and mud as 5-ton divisional products. Therefore, the Pak40 was preferred to be placed in an anti-tank division, the 105mm howitzer in an artillery regiment, and the 150mm Sig assault short gun was kept only in the regiment. In the battalions on the front line of the front, they preferred to have 500 kg of guns. If they used heavier guns, then from lack of alternative, extreme need, not because it is convenient, but because the combat situation forces them to do it. The towed paneter and firefly cannon would actually be stationary as a long 88 and it would need a panzer4 hull for mobility. The 100 mm rapira is jumping gun, it knocks down the sight and can injure a soldier by jumping. It should be heavier and rotate at 360 degrees, as it will be difficult to turn. The Americans calculated the anti-attack artillery with the help of reconnaissance aircraft and destroyed it with artillery. Or if, when moving columns of Shermans across the field, the 88th began to work on them and losses began, the tanks were quickly pulled back and artillery or aircraft worked at the place of smoke from the trunk of the ioi at the intended place from flashes or other things. A heavy weapon could not be removed quickly and therefore it was usually destroyed. It is probably understandable why there are no 150mm and 200mm anti-tank guns. A heavy anti-tank gun can be easily transported by truck and helicopter, it is cheaper and does not burn out with its land mines in the cabin body as it happens with a tank. But that's where all the advantages end. The gun is not mobile, it is difficult to turn it, and it is not suitable for shooting from closed positions at a long range from above. If detected by the enemy, it will remain in place until the arrival of an artillery shell or aircraft, or a shot from the bushes from a very long distance of an ordinary enemy tank. Tanks are more likely to be better suited for heavy 120mm and 130mm guns, a towed gun is more mobile due to trucks and helicopters, but it is difficult to predict where enemy tanks and storming infantry will go, it is difficult to disguise a gun from reconnaissance from the sky and imperceptibly and quietly move the weapon to another place. As for self-propelled anti-tank guns such as rhinoceros and slugger. That is, to have a heavy tank cannon, but bradley armor. According to statistics, in World War 2, the American military noticed that soldiers use such equipment much more often as a mobile cannon firing direct fire, that is, against houses, soldiers of fortifications, like a howitzer, but not from above but in a straight line. According to statistics, in World War 2, the American military noticed that soldiers use such equipment much more often as a mobile cannon firing direct fire, that is, against houses, soldiers of fortifications, like a howitzer, but not from above but in a straight line. Therefore, it is precisely the maximum penetrating power of armor at any cost that is not needed, balance, harmony and convenience are needed to help infantry battalions on trucks, and the convenience of interaction and communication with infantry.
@@realtalk6195 yup, and fuck English language in general I guess. Sometimes even I, a native Russian, can't tell wtf this guy wanted to say. P.S. lemme try to explain/fix some of the translations: "closed position" is a Russian way of naming situation when a gun does indirect fire (gun is set to a prepared position, i.e. a place with some trenches and piles of dirt or whatever). Your eyes are "closed", because between your target terrain, as opposed to "open position" where your eyes are "open" to see the target. That's not the actual logic behind the naming, but it's the best description I could improvise.
@@-WarCriminal-22 Yes, English is not my first language. I'm just too lazy to look for a military term. A closed position. This means a situation where you cannot see the enemy because he is beyond the horizon (the earth is round), but you shoot at the enemy with a cannon. Or a situation where the enemy is within the horizon, 4km, 5km, 3km, but you can't shoot in a straight line, you shoot from behind a building, from behind a hill, from a large pit or lowland, just like in the game of volleyball, you throw the ball over the net between the teams, and the projectile flies upward forward, and then down forward. In these cases, you don't see the enemy right in front of you and you don't shoot the projectile directly, you shoot at the tip of another person with whom you are talking on the radio. I make a lot of mistakes in any language in order to spend as little time as possible, readers will sort out what I meant and they succeed after spending their time. It's not sex, it's saving time, saving punctuation marks, words, letters, correct turns of speech. The term should be fast and economical. But Maximus will stop wanting an anti-tank big gun. I decided to help him go through the evolution of his command's thinking from 1915 and 1940 to 2024 faster. I get a lot of complaints in my native language. That I distort words, make mistakes, don't put commas and dashes. I do not want to take up Chinese characters there, I will be too lazy to display them correctly there, The wash will change very much. Therefore, let the squinty-eyed yellow men read Latin.
Interesting family story - this gun was invented by my grandfather Victor Afanasyev. For its time it was an ingenious weapon and is still in use. But it seemed that he was not impressed by the fact. He lived a long and modest life, loved math and remembered university math classes at the age of 85 to help me with it. Didn’t help though - I didn’t inherit his math talent 🥲
Brother, I know what you're talking about. My dad was a metallurgical engineer and a math genius. He'd be so frustrated with me because I didn't automatically "get it" like he did. Oddly enough, when it comes to functional and practical applications of math, I'm proficient. I learned to read a tape measure and add fractions after they gave me one to use on the job (having failed miserably to understand the textbook instruction behind the theory), I was good at land navigation in the Army, doing well with all that associated math. My pace count is 66 (100 meters) and I use it all the time to accurately measure distance while walking. Crazy how the brain works (or fails to work!)
Seeing a lot of people assuming this things only use is anti-tank, and therefore it is completely useless in modern warfare. Apparently the concept of direct fire artillery never occurred to them.
Not sure if you actually watched the video. Also don’t talk artillery if you don’t know what it is lol. INDIRECT artillery fire is what you are referring to. Direct is anti tank…. Sooooo
@@_Matsimus_ I'm not referring to indirect fire, I am speaking of direct fire artillery. Anti-tank guns have always had a dual-role once they got to a size where the shell can have a sufficient explosive filler. They're essentially field guns (a type of artillery) that have been given proper sights and some ammunition suitable for dealing with tanks. The are pretty much always supplied with high explosive as well, because they're dual-role. It would be incompetent in the extreme to not provide high explosive for use against fortifications or infantry in the open. Artillery is a term that isn't as specific as you think. Vehicles like the StuG were artillery platforms first, anti-tank second. They were ASSAULT guns. Direct fire artillery. Field guns are another type of artillery, most often used for direct fire and that have a low elevation. You're thinking of howitzers, which ARE mainly used for indirect fire. For someone trying to claim I don't know much about artillery, you clearly know even less. For your information, I was referring to people in the comments, not your video. But I guess you needed to show off your ignorance to everyone.
USSR made a lot of these and more than plenty of ammo, stockpiled all over the place. Successor states got them, so it makes sense to use it since you already have it. After all, 100mm shell still packs a good punch. As for indirect role, with drone fire correction, it will work fine. We see Russians do it even with tanks as old as T-55 all the way to newer ones (most of their tanks have indirect fire mode, especially the older ones and while their indirect fire aiming devices aren't good enough - once again, drone will provide corrections).
Btw this AT gun would be a cheaper alternative in static defense (like in Surovikin line) compared to literal tank. Even if it won't one shot tanks they still able to detrack them and massacre any IFV around. They can also pepper people with HE. Remember, cost of a gun+2 wheels will be cheaper than whole tank with gun,engine, armor, and tracks. (Trucks not included and even if it is, they will always be cheaper than whole tank)
these guns were present in the surovikin line to an extent as static artillery pieces behind the front line itself. the main role of direct fire anti tank/infantry was taken over by the kornet.
@@jadenpilled It is sort of like the US anti-tank brigades though. Without a armoured breakthrough to deal with the gunners do a bit of harassment fire to stay sharp.
So there a Romanian variant of this, that was further modified and fitted in our TR 85 Tanks inspired by the T55. We also still have them in service, and have probably also donated some to Ukraine. But considering the 1990s modernisation of the TR85M will get a modernisation of its own (which will also apply to our unmodernised TR85s),means this gun will continue serving into thw 2030s along side the Abrams and, mostlikely, fingers crossed, K2 Black Panthers, both in towed and tank form.
At least, we know that the ara of ATGM already came at 60s. It is still wierd that russians still use those old AT Gun, although it has it's own APFSDS. (Those steel APFSDS are obsolete, their technology is same as very old 3BM15 or 3BM22 of 2A46 tank gun)
Actually, USSR already HAD the BS-3 100mm antitank gun during WWII. But it weighs almost a ton more than the T-12! And whoah boy, damn that's massive recoil! "they're doomed" Except their flanks would be covered by mines and other units. Often maneuver units that would wait for an attack to be fully engaged with the line of guns, and then conduct flanking or even outright encircling attacks. They were not left in place as expendable, they were left in place to hold, with massive support from OTHER units. And they usually had enough vehicles nearby for the crews to be able to retreat if they were getting completely overrun. So, a lot less terrifying than you think. . "not capable" Wrong. It's not that they're GOOD compared to what is available overall today, that does not make them obsolete, just less useful. Any commander given a hundred of these SHOULD very much be capable of finding effective use for them. They are entirely effective against lightly armored vehicles(and from the sides and/or rear, even against heavily armored vehicles). That alone means they have a usefulness. But they're also quite flexible overall, combine them with GPS and a decent ballistics computer(essentially what you can get on a PHONE today), and this becomes a reasonably accurate backup artillery piece. They're just barely "light" enough that you can move them to unexpected and unusual positions. Meaning they're suitable for ambushes in places where the only other option might be ATGMs that you need more elsewhere. It used to be a great AT-gun with excellent secondary capabilities, but today it has instead become a lowend jack of all trades. And yes, because it's really REALLY cheap both to buy and to use, that makes it even better.
@@karlvongazenberg8398 …. I’m sure it is but due to gravity it has to shoot at an arch when used for in direct fire…. and radar can be used to find it……. Nice chatting with ya
@@thomasmyers9128 And since it is a flatter trajectory, it has a better chance to stay under the radar horizont and also, the projectile spends less time in the air, thus making detection, identification and tracking HARDER. Any more question?
@@karlvongazenberg8398 are you trolling me? lol…. A target 10 miles(16k) away …. The round would take 20-30 seconds to get there (rough guess) due to gravity the round starts dropping as soon as it leaves the barrel at 32ft per second sq. So …. 20 seconds is roughly 650 ft drop 30 seconds is a little under 1000 ft drop Radar can and will pick it up if used correctly Class is over…. If you do not have any more questions 😳 You have a wonderful day/night…. and I mean that
Most weight of the gun presses down on the pair of tiny tires, this makes the gun bounces around like crazy and have to readjust sight everytime after shot. if this gun has front-legs like modern howitzers today that will be alot of improving 🤔
Yeah you are using a 100mm which has to be be adjusted by hand, through a WWII against Abrams and Leos. IF you get fire ambushed it can be annoying, but if I look on the map, I know where you MT 12s are, and use artillery or infantry to deal with you quickly.
Maybe, but its still something like improving your horse saddle, while you are in a motorcycle race. Sure, in very VERY specific situations you will come victorious on a horse. Buuut in reality the time would be spent better on aquiring a motorcycle. The towed AT gun is obsolescent if not obsolete. Current war in Ukraine is just full of curios of this type, but overall, anything and all this gun can do, can be done better, faster, and cheaper
@@gronthgronth2628 Dont forget you need 10 guys to operate one of this things. Completely unprotected. But yeah its from a time of overabundance of men power and not much morale.
Безоткатные пушки действительно были неплохи, и используются до сих пор во всём мире. Однако по начальной скорости и бронепробиваемости всё равно уступают пт орудиям. У них преимущество это низкий вес и мобильность. При должной подготовке и сноровке, есть шанс подбить танк даже современного типа. Но только при стрельбе в борта. ПТ орудие Рапира может даже повредить современные танки, но тоже с определенными оговорками. Но зато БМП, и БТР поражаются на любой дистанции боя.
The last big conflict showed that any puka is priceless if it can fire landmines. The author is wrong. Modern technology in a big war usually ends quickly. Последний большой конфликт, показал, любая пука бесценна, если она может пулять фугасами. Автор ошибается. Современная техника в большой войне обычно быстро заканчивается.
This thing is a monster in the video game 'Warno' set in a fictional cold war conflict in 1989. It's featured there as the Rapira, currently used by East Germans and Russians, but probably will see use by polish and Czech SSR forces when those units are added in. It's great because of its dual role as a ATGM firing piece and its ability to toss out conventional AP. When a viable penetratable target rolls within its AP range, the gun crew will target and fire AP rounds, when the target is outside that range or cannot be penetrated, they load and fire ATGM. It's good because its very cheap- about 5 or so less than a Konkurs-M infantry team, maybe only a little more than a Konkurs-M equipped BRDM, whilst also being a hard target to hit and benefitting from stealth. In Warno ATGM fire is the decisive force that all other engagements pivot on, so the soviets having cute ATGM-AT guns in their tank-tab really gives them an unexpected edge. Thing is, its AP rounds struggle with any medium/main battle tank, but sometimes the crew can figure they can 'just barely, maybe' penetrate the front armor of a nato vehicle, resulting in wasted time. It will also engage infantry with some success. Its greatest drawbacks are obviously its incredibly poor speed once deployed from an MT-LB, and its habit of struggling to follow and lead a fast-moving target. The crew needs to maintain visual on a target for several unbroken seconds; hard to do if the targets moving laterally in front of you. They're not really a replacement for a dug-in infantry set ATGM system in urban terrain, but in open ground, ideally set to cover key roads, they are a very useful little tool. Their ATGM in particular is what makes them valuable. So far PACT has a lot of AT gun ordinance, mostly old stuff like Zis-2, Zis-3, or D-44's, but they can be very nasty if deployed in concentrations with proper support. Naturally, the slow speed of things makes them total victims to tactical bombers.
The guns has a lot of engineering areas that need improvement, 1- its requile system is not absorbing all the energy and the gun is jumping a a lot 2- the crew is completely venerable 3- the gun is huge
Those are not engineering areas, aside from "requile" (recoil?), they're employment and conceptual use issues. It also doesn't fly or have GPS guidance. Because it's not designed for use that way.
@@21kiwi24 the engineer new or should have known the operators could not be behind the gun shield when it was fired , they knew the size of the thing and how hard it would be to move in the field and could have reduced the ground presume or provided an APU to help move the gun . The engineer just did not or did not fight for the inclusion or such changes to protect the crew because the engineer did not care enough !
"3- the gun is huge" It's over 900 kg lighter than the Soviet WWII 100mm AT-gun. "2- the crew is completely venerable" Uh, no? "1- its requile system is not absorbing all the energy and the gun is jumping a a lot" Uh, yes? Because the force involved is MASSIVE. "The guns has a lot of engineering areas that need improvement" No, there isn't. The T-12 is effectively the BS-3 with almost everything fixed or improved.
I'll write what you haven't considered yet. Howitzers and cannons /howitzers for mounted shooting at long range also have great penetration. But they have separate charging. If we compare the experimental US tank rifled 105mm cannon and the 155mm howitzer/long Tom cannon, then Thomas's penetration with a CALIBER armor-piercing was greater than that of a 105mm CALIBER tank shell. 109 Paladin can also be given caliber shells against concrete or against steel. The howitzer can have both a cumulative and a uranium sub-caliber. Compare the 155mm carriage m40 and the 88 nashorn. Lighter, more shells, faster firing. Smooth guns are even better for cumulative and uranium bolts, in a howitzer they can be the same, but worse in efficiency. And one more thing. Howitzers and cannons are rarely used one at a time. This is usually a battery or a division. The modern battery has 110 soldiers, 8 self-propelled guns, 8 loading vehicles, command and transport armored vehicles together 5 units, trucks and jeeps 25 units. All this will stand idle or will be quickly destroyed. But all this also needs to be trained and equipped with shells and transport. The situation in the division is even more magnificent, there are more than 750 soldiers, about 30 armored transport vehicles of commanders and troops, 24 howitzers, 24 loading vehicles, about 180 trucks and jeeps. And they will only be trained on a 100mm rapier and receive a salary and equipment? To stand idly near the front line before being destroyed by aircraft and howitzer shells? Anti-tank large guns are rather the third specialty for 155 gunners and airborne cavalry, which will be used very rarely on the darkest day of the Titanic. In general, fuck paragraphs and fuck language rules and fuck turns of speech. Hehe.
I normally think of anti-tank guns as WW2 weapons. It's incredible to think that even after ATGMs became the dominant anti-tank asset on the battlefield the Soviets (and by extension the modern post-Soviet successor states) kept an anti-tank gun in service.
Look at the beefy towed carriage getting thrown around when firing, now imagine the beating the structure and suspension of a random carrier vehicle would get.
@@JeffBilkins there are videos you can watch of the firing on the mtlb-12 and they use hydraulic skids in the back that come down and lift the vehicle a little similar to some spgs it helps with recoil but I hear what you saying these vehicles weren't built for these kinds of gun recoil put on them and they're probably will be problems over time especially them being very old vehicles and the newer version of the gun the 100mm Rapier has a better recoil system that should damper it a little better than the original but still not enough
Like all of your videos, I learn a lot in terms of war doctrine, and changes in technology, thank you for keeping these videos accurate and to the point!
Both sides are using jammers. It's mostly war of drones vs jammers now. So not really, if guys have a good jammer then drones are useless. Although I've heard rumors about AI drones that don't care about jammers, so maybe?
Yugoslavia had mix of AT tank guns, mostly MT-12 and AA guided rockets in artillery "divisions"(battalions), back in 1980s. But that guns would have been stationed behind large ditch, mine field, or both... Supported by AT rockets and support artillery.
Wuau ❤ 🇨🇺que recuerdos, los Use en mi Servicio Militar 🇨🇺 aquí en Cuba , hay bastantes baterías Antitanques, ya los han montado y modernizados en los BMP-1
2:58 I can already spot the NCO there getting pissed off at the junior enlisted for being distracted lol. Some things, from the DDR in the 70s to the US Army today never change lol
A T-12 with it’s MTLB weighs almost exactly the same as an M50 Ontos. Both were designed to kill tanks cheaply in the late 1950’s. The Ontos though is much more adapted to real combat situations, shoot and scoot. The 106mm recoiless was no slouch and modern Austrian round will penetrate 700mm. My feeling is the 106 in all of it’s guises is a better weapon. Its actually arguable that the 106 is more needed now than ever in the close support role. Blasting bunkers.
The most modern version of 100mm antitenk gun ''rapira'' have 100mm guided missile options like bmp3 or bmd4 have on its gun of 100mm.....an can hit to 5km targets with laser guided missile ......like cobra atgm on t80s or sniper atgm on t90's
Anyone that sees a T-12 doing it's little bounce and doesn't immediately want to get behind one, no matter how much of a pacifist they are, is clearly some sort of demon
While it IS obsolete, saying this is obsolete is a bit like saying the FAL is obsolete. Supassed by basically everything in service, but still capable of putting a round of .308 through your chest if you let it.
I saw a ukranian unit using as an indirect howitzer like role,they where ina glen full of trees they said they loved it because although it didnt have same effect as the 120_152 cannons,in their words "its the sniper of the cannon world" they said they could quickly get coordinates via drone operators and correct it,and then rain down a lot of fire accurately,they hit an ammo dump,a bmp that was parked and shelled tf out of a trench. All on video,it definitely isnt obsolete
Me personally i believe anti tank guns will stay due to the fact that its MUCH harder to intercept an APFSDS round than it is to intercept an ATGM thanks to their vast difference in velocities. They may be gone for now but when/if APS advances to the point of making ATGMs nigh useless i believe they will make a comeback. (Or just kinetic ATGMs like that on the LOSAT.)
AT guns are still useful against older tanks and all other armored and soft mechanazied vehicles. And crew has better chance to jump aside from drone attack, unlike crews in vehicles.
2 batteries of 6 guns each one each side of a 90-degree angle covering a low area was Used in the battle Kursk to great effect. I would expect modern positions would be similar Mine fields to force maneuver into preset kill zones.
I really like the MT-12, and I think they do, in fact, still have a place on the modern battlefield. Their role and use may be different, but they still pack a powerful punch, and there's no reason to dispose of a perfectly good weapon! If you haven't, I'd love to see you cover the L2 BAT/MOBAT/ConBAT/L6 WOMBAT 120mm recoilless rifle family from the UK. It's really interesting, and represents quite a wild period in British AT history!
I guess it kind of depends on how much you want to budget to stop tanks. Sure missiles are more portable and have a smaller battlefield footprint. But they are horribly expensive per round. Anti-tank rounds are relatively cheap. The real question is could you get the necessary kinetic energy without the large canon. Squeeze bores maybe? The Germans did use those in 40mm rifled guns in anti-tank roles early in the war. And the squeeze bore meant a jump in velocity. So I'm left wondering if a 40-50mm squeeze bore might actually put enough kinetic energy on target with a much lighter tube. Especially with a tungsten insert. With modern technology you could probably make it half the size of that beast and still make it work.
God forbid the target is moving. Imagine trying to aim that thing at a moving target and having to dive for cover before you fire it and the scope knocks your head off.
The T-12 served as the primary towed anti-tank artillery in the Soviet and Bulgarian armies from the early 1960s to the late 1980s.... And Russia calls its the best of the best....
A useful addition on a battle field that can't be easy flanked. May fool an adversary to charge you like Rommel fooled the British into charging into his 88mm guns. An army not flying drones ahead of armored columns is suicidal.
What is the intro music you used to use back in 2017/2018? I heard it on your 'Russian BTR-80 Armored Personnel Carrier' video and really want to hear the full thing. It's the intro music as your Matsimus intro rolls.
My dad was a commander of an MT-12 gun around 88-89. He was stationed in Moldova, though he is from Moscow himself. I love my dad.
what is it that they shout whenever they are firing the gun, im guessing its something like "fire in the whole" or something but how do you pronounce it?
@@darktrojan00"орудие"-gun-orudye the command to the gunner to fire the gun "выстрел"-vystrel-shot (firing would be more appropriate in English)-gunner responding that he is in fact firing.
They are screaming, from what i heard from my dad, to equalise pressure in the ears, especially for the gunner, so that no one goes deaf from the shockwave, which did happen if you were to fire multiple rounds in a row. I think it's placebo though...
One idiot in dads company also decided to look DOWN THE SIGHT AS THE GUN WAS FIRING. Both his eyes were black as dirt as the gun sight left it's impression, which is a no brainer, considering how MUCH IT FUCKING RECOILS in the video
@@darktrojan00 They yell "Weapon, Fire!"
The dude is definitely deaf
@@whiskywolff pretty sure all arty vets are deaf
I was the truck driver, we used to call it Sniper, because it was so accurate at direct fire, and we called it Goat, cause that damn thing jumped as a goat every time you fired it, we tried everything,and nobody holds on to the laffete in combat conditions, as we were always on the front line. 🇭🇷But still a beautiful Soviet gun.
How can it be precise if it jumps as a goat every time you fire it ?
@@Ed-rt9qt Heavy recoil doesnt mean its inaccurate. As long as the round gets off after the recoil has settled, it will hit accurately, much a rifle. A Mosin has a hell of a kick in recoil, but its accurate af though.
@@Ostheim But it has a smooth bore barrel and this barrel is less accurate then rifled barrel. And accuracy depends also on type of projectiles that are used. HEAT rounds are less accurate then APFSDS. So I guess it is impossible to hit a moving target with this gun.
@@Ed-rt9qtYou answer your own question, ‘type of ammo used’. It’s almost like you don’t need rifling when the ammunition will spin and stabilize itself.
@@Ed-rt9qt if you are firing at tanks you will use sabot, so this is a non concern
Is it old? Yes. Does it still work? Yes.
Send it.
The hardest part of winning is showing up as the saying goes
Oh it still does and works great. A litteral beast of a gun, shoots precisely where you aim it
@@AverageWarCrimeEnjoyerSo, like any gun made in the last 80 years?
@@str8ballinSA jeśli masz ich dużo i masz do nich amunicję to dlaczego nie? Tylko że widzę że jeżeli robią to Rosjanie to jest śmieszne i bezużyteczne, jeżeli Ukraińcy to wspaniałe wykorzystanie potencjalu
@@UnderTheBannerthe problem is that this type of guns is absolutely useless. Especially when you are on the attacking side
A 100mm cannon is always useful on the battlefield even if it's obsolete...
Yep, because not everything is a tank. Thin skinned AFVs are still prey.
Trucks fighting positions including bunkers, almost anything you can think of that isn't moving very fast is a target.@@Wastelandman7000
@@Wastelandman7000 and infantry hates HE coming in above the speed of sound : gives you no warning. Same situation as 88's in WW2
Obsolete??with new ammunition, don't think so mate
@@Wastelandman7000 trafienie z boku w czołg w zasadzce? nic tego nie wytrzyma. Poza tym dopóki jest amunicja należy uzywać.
It's obselete but still gorgeous. Like a classic car or motorbike.
Towed howitzer are still used in war, this can act as such, also most vehicles are not MBT so in direct fire this can wreck lighter vehicles, it jsut needs computerisation imo
@@wawaweewa9159 its big, clumsy and cumbersome.
Todays wars are long range artillery and drone strikes.
a direct fire weapon like this against tanks would be good.... for a few shots..... then drones and artillery.
These things are now primarily indirect fire weapons and its not designed for that.
honestly, even their "original thoughts" and design for these was to fight ww2 style battles.... in the 60's +...
it was obsolete the minute it was drafted.
better to just make an artillery piece that can also be used as a direct fire, anti-tank gun rather than this.
@@Winston-lf7sb it is sure better to produce modern AT guns but i think the sentiment here is that those already existing are not obsolete, but very much situational because of drones & guided munitions. They are for sure nothing for the scrap heep, militias & other irregular forces can still put them to great effect as 2nd or 3rd line defensive guns.
The sides of mbts are still weak even to this kind of ammunition
@@Winston-lf7sb
T12 guns are use to this day by both Ukrainian and Russians troops in indirect fire mode .
One reason is that both side have huge amount of T-12 ammunition left during the Soviet era .
Quite the barrel on that gun, and the awsome recoil.
This gun as well as very few post-WWII AT guns(there were less of them designed then during the war. Apparently recoilless rifles took the main part of the niche) showcases how their design requirements are different from normal artillery. These guns need to be as low as possible to have small target profile, need to have a very wide horizontal traverse instead of vertical elevation and ideally should have a ranging rifle(which this one lacks).
The fun part is that soviets also had 125mm one, Sprut-B if I recall right. And that both it and this one can use barrel fired ATGMs from their respective tank counterparts(yes, there is a 100mm barrel launched ATGM designed for rifled gun of T-55).
Wonder how it compares to FLAK
@@Qbgarden that depends on how you view SAMs. For some reason rocket artillery including MLRSs and tactical ballistic missiles are artillery, but everyone pretends that ATGMs and SAMs aren't ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Anyway there are even fewer AAA designed post-WWII. The only "notables" I can recall is soviet 57mm S-60 autocannon, Bofors 57mm from which soviets copied it and 75mm M51 Skysweeper.
AAA needs full freedom of traverse both horizontal and vertical, very fast traverse, doesn't care much about dimensions and visibility(aka the only branch where use of muzzle brake isn't frowned upon). While it CAN benefit from both increased velocity like AT and increased caliber like normal artillery, rate of fire was the characteristic that won out in the end(if you count only AAA without counting SAMs).
@@TheArklyte "Bofors 57mm from which soviets copied it"
Uh, no? Seriously, one uses 57x348SR ammo, the other uses 57x438 ammo. There's not a shred of similarity except ballistics.
The S-60 has a METER longer barrel... Which is why it has similar ballistics despite the much shorter ammo.
Aaaand the S-60 actually PREDATES the Bofors 57L60. The first prototype was built in 1945.
And it has more in common with the German 5.5cm prototype AA gun than the Bofors.
Sprut-SD
@@robbypolter6689 B. SD is СД - Само Движущийся ie Self Propelled. B is Б - Буксируемый ie Towed. Thus Sprut-B.
Just like PAT-B or MSTA-B.
Fun Fact : its a 100mm T12 that partialy caused the collapse of the control tower of the Donetsk International Airport
I saw footage of an AT firing at it and wondered what it was. Thanks!
thanks for the info
when it misses a control tower how is it supposed to hit a moving tank?
@@michaelpielorz9283 in your world maybe , in ours it didint missed the tower
@@michaelpielorz9283 It definitely hit that airport control tower. There’s some really good footage of it. They slammed multiple rounds in it.
In JNA (yugoslavia army), no one move apart from gun while firing. Head is connected with optics all the time. But, what we learned is that average anti-tank gun crew can expect life time (when battle start) in minutes :-( This is the most prioritized target on battlefield. One more thing: if you do proper set-up (2 small holes in ground) this gun do not jump back so hard like on this movie.
Их не используют против танков. Против современных танков "Рапира" бесполезна. Её используют как обычное орудие для уничтожения огневых точек противника в домах. У рапиры очень высокая точность стрельбы.
@@VWP1976 makes sense.
Thanks for making this, it is hard to find videos on Russian equipment that aren't heavily biased for or against them.
Can't recall many of the latter. Most critique comes from being far from era the which they were designed for, being used plain wrong or it's a reaction to inflation of the former. And if I'll ever need former, I'd just need to turn on TV on 9th of May(or half a month prior when this show starts and doesn't end until late June)😅
@@TheArklyte There are a lot of people who underestimate Soviet equipment and call it crap either because they're blinded by propaganda and are idiots like Lazerpig, or they've just been fed misinformation their whole lives and just don't know any better.
@@TheArklyteno many videos are heavily against them, especially when made by americans but thats understandable i guess
@@Andre_Thomasson care to give an example that doesn't fall into previous categories, please? Заодно узнаем кто ты и откуда на основе твоих "предпочтений";)
@@TheArklytecome on, man. As an American I can attest almost every bit of information I see coming out about anything contemporary in the Russian military basically comes down to “look at this overhyped junk and how it pales in comparison to our super-awesome invisible sci-fi equipment”. It is assumed that they are almost universally incompetent and brutal. Unless it’s a pro-Russian source with the opposite bias. But you have to almost seek those out.
In the army, I was a member of the T12 crew. Its disadvantage is a crew of 5 people, and a weight of approx. 2.6 tons (as far as I remember after 40 years). Moving from one position to another without the help of a vehicle, especially on bad terrain, was a nightmare.
5600?
I had a couple of this beauties in my arty battery and strongly disagree that in indirect fire it is not effective. Actually in the ongoing war it is used as howitzer (I've never heard about MT-12 engaging armor targets). It has it's limitations - 8200 meters of max range in indirect mode with HE round, but the precision is astonishing. We were able to hit a window of a dugout from second shot, or make a direct hit on ATGM team with no problem. The main problem is that there always was a shortage of HE rounds (because they were produced in small numbers). But semi-HEATs did a great job also, but they have even a smaller range of 6000 meters in indirect fire.
I was a member of the MT12 crew in the Croatian army in 2005 Anti tenk division. I think that the cannon is no longer used, but we have it in reserves.
We called sniper…and most od time cannon was dig into the ground…we are also trained to use the cannon in ambushes at close distances without an optical sight, using two threads on the top of the barrel…shoot and run
The gun could even be outfittet with a radar. Originally the Soviets wanted it as a tank gun but the shells were too long for handling in a tank turret. An awesome piece and pretty much the crown of at-gun design. (Oh well, you said it, lol)
I live in the city where this gun was developed. my friend's grandfather was directly involved in this. in his words, this gun is one of the most accurate guns of its time and the very first gun in the world with a smooth barrel
100mm shell & 63 calibers that is a loooong gun.
Russo-Ukro War, first days of the action, in Kherson City, Ukrainian Army used one of them to defend the West Bank of Dnieper river at the just exit of the Antonivka bridge, and left it abandoned when Russian forces succeed to overcome , which I spotted it at the photographs in the media
I don't think it was ment to be used on its own. A wall of these guns might had a chance, but 70 years passed since its design. A lot changed in those decades...
@@marrs1013 As I remember, initial stage of the Russian forces movement was a thrust towards the Kherson Bridge, and Ukrainian forces made a tactical fast retreat in order not to be trapped at the East Bank of the river. So, under such circumstances battle field and the management of it might have been chaotic that weaponry became scattered disorderly at the battle field and the whatever they had at hand in their inventory close to the bridge they might be employed. Another logic may be that, 100 mm is enough powerful to destroy all armour other than MBTs, and the bridge exit is a choke point , hence very advantageous for targeting , further any hit to the any armour would make the spearhead column to slow down or even stopped.
yeah I remember that gun, although I was not sure if it was T-12 or Sprut
Major Samm has a video from 2014 Donetsk airport fighting. it shows DPR militia firing on and hitting the control tower with one of these. very cool
I remember that. Off to the side of the road with the gun pointed across the river. Scary if you're in the sights.
The Russians know a lot about artillery.
That's what they wanted us to believe.
@@scratchy996 Well I'm a believer.
@@scratchy996What’s wrong with Russian artillery? Let me guess because its Russian right?
@@tihi79
He's just angry his favorite Cheese Pizza producer git invaded
It's Russian so it must be bad. So says the most cringeworthy propaganda in history
@@tihi79 Maybe they are saving their best for later, right ? ;)
It is wrong to post a comment before I finish watching?
Your sins are forgiven
Repent for your sins. Just kidding, ofc it is ok. Sometimes I star writing comment before video ends if wanna point mistakes or something inacurate.
Nyet
Nyet
proper etiquette is to finish the video before commenting LOL
There is a reason why large-caliber 150mm and 200mm howitzers exist and are popular, and almost no one wants to produce and use large-caliber anti-tank guns in combat. To begin with, I will say that in World War 2, the largest howitzers weighed about 5 tons, the same weight was a 105mm artillery cannon for firing from above to enemy positions. These are heavy non-anti-tank guns that are stationary in place, which people do not move around the field, but which can be transported by a massive truck with good power. In the regiment and in the battalion, they preferred to use guns much lighter. That is, at the forefront of the front, closest to 0, they tried to use guns of about 500 kilograms in weight, these are light towed 120mm mortars, 20mm anti-aircraft guns, 37mm anti-tank guns, and even light 75mm lelg mortars with a short barrel (they fired in a straight line at a short distance as guns against infantry and within the horizon of visibility a soldier at 3km like a mortar from above). These light towed guns were convenient. Did not fit into this 150mm SiG with a short barrel weighing 2 tons (it was kept only in the regiment as an infantry gun), a 105mm howitzer weighing 1,800 kg (2,500 kg) (these howitzers were listed in the artillery regiment), and a new anti-tank 75mm Pak 40 cannon weighing 1,500 kg (the American version was heavier than 2 tons). The point is that 1,500 kg of cannon is even more or less convenient for people to drag around the field and turn at an angle of 90. And guns weighing 2500kg and 3000kg are already heavy and they are almost stationary in conditions of snow and mud as 5-ton divisional products. Therefore, the Pak40 was preferred to be placed in an anti-tank division, the 105mm howitzer in an artillery regiment, and the 150mm Sig assault short gun was kept only in the regiment. In the battalions on the front line of the front, they preferred to have 500 kg of guns. If they used heavier guns, then from lack of alternative, extreme need, not because it is convenient, but because the combat situation forces them to do it. The towed paneter and firefly cannon would actually be stationary as a long 88 and it would need a panzer4 hull for mobility. The 100 mm rapira is jumping gun, it knocks down the sight and can injure a soldier by jumping. It should be heavier and rotate at 360 degrees, as it will be difficult to turn. The Americans calculated the anti-attack artillery with the help of reconnaissance aircraft and destroyed it with artillery. Or if, when moving columns of Shermans across the field, the 88th began to work on them and losses began, the tanks were quickly pulled back and artillery or aircraft worked at the place of smoke from the trunk of the ioi at the intended place from flashes or other things. A heavy weapon could not be removed quickly and therefore it was usually destroyed. It is probably understandable why there are no 150mm and 200mm anti-tank guns. A heavy anti-tank gun can be easily transported by truck and helicopter, it is cheaper and does not burn out with its land mines in the cabin body as it happens with a tank. But that's where all the advantages end. The gun is not mobile, it is difficult to turn it, and it is not suitable for shooting from closed positions at a long range from above. If detected by the enemy, it will remain in place until the arrival of an artillery shell or aircraft, or a shot from the bushes from a very long distance of an ordinary enemy tank. Tanks are more likely to be better suited for heavy 120mm and 130mm guns, a towed gun is more mobile due to trucks and helicopters, but it is difficult to predict where enemy tanks and storming infantry will go, it is difficult to disguise a gun from reconnaissance from the sky and imperceptibly and quietly move the weapon to another place. As for self-propelled anti-tank guns such as rhinoceros and slugger. That is, to have a heavy tank cannon, but bradley armor. According to statistics, in World War 2, the American military noticed that soldiers use such equipment much more often as a mobile cannon firing direct fire, that is, against houses, soldiers of fortifications, like a howitzer, but not from above but in a straight line. According to statistics, in World War 2, the American military noticed that soldiers use such equipment much more often as a mobile cannon firing direct fire, that is, against houses, soldiers of fortifications, like a howitzer, but not from above but in a straight line. Therefore, it is precisely the maximum penetrating power of armor at any cost that is not needed, balance, harmony and convenience are needed to help infantry battalions on trucks, and the convenience of interaction and communication with infantry.
Fûck paragraphs, mi right?
@@realtalk6195 yup, and fuck English language in general I guess. Sometimes even I, a native Russian, can't tell wtf this guy wanted to say.
P.S. lemme try to explain/fix some of the translations: "closed position" is a Russian way of naming situation when a gun does indirect fire (gun is set to a prepared position, i.e. a place with some trenches and piles of dirt or whatever). Your eyes are "closed", because between your target terrain, as opposed to "open position" where your eyes are "open" to see the target.
That's not the actual logic behind the naming, but it's the best description I could improvise.
@@-WarCriminal-22 Yes, English is not my first language. I'm just too lazy to look for a military term. A closed position. This means a situation where you cannot see the enemy because he is beyond the horizon (the earth is round), but you shoot at the enemy with a cannon. Or a situation where the enemy is within the horizon, 4km, 5km, 3km, but you can't shoot in a straight line, you shoot from behind a building, from behind a hill, from a large pit or lowland, just like in the game of volleyball, you throw the ball over the net between the teams, and the projectile flies upward forward, and then down forward. In these cases, you don't see the enemy right in front of you and you don't shoot the projectile directly, you shoot at the tip of another person with whom you are talking on the radio. I make a lot of mistakes in any language in order to spend as little time as possible, readers will sort out what I meant and they succeed after spending their time. It's not sex, it's saving time, saving punctuation marks, words, letters, correct turns of speech. The term should be fast and economical. But Maximus will stop wanting an anti-tank big gun. I decided to help him go through the evolution of his command's thinking from 1915 and 1940 to 2024 faster. I get a lot of complaints in my native language. That I distort words, make mistakes, don't put commas and dashes. I do not want to take up Chinese characters there, I will be too lazy to display them correctly there, The wash will change very much. Therefore, let the squinty-eyed yellow men read Latin.
@@hamster8449
>it's not sex it's saving time
🤣
These guns are good at clearing buildings from afar. Especially if track mounted
Interesting family story - this gun was invented by my grandfather Victor Afanasyev. For its time it was an ingenious weapon and is still in use. But it seemed that he was not impressed by the fact. He lived a long and modest life, loved math and remembered university math classes at the age of 85 to help me with it. Didn’t help though - I didn’t inherit his math talent 🥲
Brother, I know what you're talking about. My dad was a metallurgical engineer and a math genius. He'd be so frustrated with me because I didn't automatically "get it" like he did. Oddly enough, when it comes to functional and practical applications of math, I'm proficient. I learned to read a tape measure and add fractions after they gave me one to use on the job (having failed miserably to understand the textbook instruction behind the theory), I was good at land navigation in the Army, doing well with all that associated math. My pace count is 66 (100 meters) and I use it all the time to accurately measure distance while walking. Crazy how the brain works (or fails to work!)
Those DDR helmets are almost as good as the Fedayeen Saddam ones 😝😝
but cool to see. i am proud of our NVA veterans
DDR MENTIONED ALL MUST, EINS-ZWEI-DREI DIE BESTE PARTEI UND VIER F
ÜNF SECHS DER BESTE KONNEX
Ballistically, they were the best helmets in service until the introduction of kevlar. A left over from the 3rd reich.
@@ShaggNasty-yk1ie The M-54 (was used until 1989) is a direct evolution of the model from 1943 (a prototype/study).
@@ShaggNasty-yk1ie ugly but good 😂
Seeing a lot of people assuming this things only use is anti-tank, and therefore it is completely useless in modern warfare. Apparently the concept of direct fire artillery never occurred to them.
Not sure if you actually watched the video. Also don’t talk artillery if you don’t know what it is lol.
INDIRECT artillery fire is what you are referring to. Direct is anti tank…. Sooooo
@@_Matsimus_ I'm not referring to indirect fire, I am speaking of direct fire artillery. Anti-tank guns have always had a dual-role once they got to a size where the shell can have a sufficient explosive filler. They're essentially field guns (a type of artillery) that have been given proper sights and some ammunition suitable for dealing with tanks. The are pretty much always supplied with high explosive as well, because they're dual-role. It would be incompetent in the extreme to not provide high explosive for use against fortifications or infantry in the open.
Artillery is a term that isn't as specific as you think. Vehicles like the StuG were artillery platforms first, anti-tank second. They were ASSAULT guns. Direct fire artillery. Field guns are another type of artillery, most often used for direct fire and that have a low elevation. You're thinking of howitzers, which ARE mainly used for indirect fire.
For someone trying to claim I don't know much about artillery, you clearly know even less. For your information, I was referring to people in the comments, not your video. But I guess you needed to show off your ignorance to everyone.
@@_Matsimus_I’d just take the L and delete this one my brother
USSR made a lot of these and more than plenty of ammo, stockpiled all over the place. Successor states got them, so it makes sense to use it since you already have it. After all, 100mm shell still packs a good punch. As for indirect role, with drone fire correction, it will work fine. We see Russians do it even with tanks as old as T-55 all the way to newer ones (most of their tanks have indirect fire mode, especially the older ones and while their indirect fire aiming devices aren't good enough - once again, drone will provide corrections).
Old ones yeah, aren't exactly good by themselves. New T-90M? Nah, that one can do 4 kilometres with its own thermals.
Btw this AT gun would be a cheaper alternative in static defense (like in Surovikin line) compared to literal tank.
Even if it won't one shot tanks they still able to detrack them and massacre any IFV around. They can also pepper people with HE.
Remember, cost of a gun+2 wheels will be cheaper than whole tank with gun,engine, armor, and tracks. (Trucks not included and even if it is, they will always be cheaper than whole tank)
these guns were present in the surovikin line to an extent as static artillery pieces behind the front line itself. the main role of direct fire anti tank/infantry was taken over by the kornet.
@@jadenpilled It is sort of like the US anti-tank brigades though. Without a armoured breakthrough to deal with the gunners do a bit of harassment fire to stay sharp.
I love that the wheels speen from the recoil.
It would also probably make a very good coast defense gun
Good idea since most of the black sea fleet has been promoted to submarine, they'll need to start defending from the shore.
@@smb.4900 yeah, sure....maybe stop watching jake broe...
1:04 ouch that hurt, poor gunner, would leave marks for weeks 😭
1. looks like an altered pak 40.
2. if it's too slow for tanks, it's still good for buildings.
3. attach to a vehicle maybe?
Thanks, love the Soviet artillery videos!!
Blimey! That muzzle brake needs some work! The displacement of the emplaced gun is incredible! Also, no ear defenders?!
I don't think it even is a muzzle brake. Just a flash hider...
Heard of ear plugs?
It's reminds one of that deadly German Pak - 43 Anti - Tank gun from WWII, Almost same design !!! 🤔✊
Something I don’t think I saw you cover, is that it could actually shoot barrel launched ATGM’s.
So there a Romanian variant of this, that was further modified and fitted in our TR 85 Tanks inspired by the T55. We also still have them in service, and have probably also donated some to Ukraine. But considering the 1990s modernisation of the TR85M will get a modernisation of its own (which will also apply to our unmodernised TR85s),means this gun will continue serving into thw 2030s along side the Abrams and, mostlikely, fingers crossed, K2 Black Panthers, both in towed and tank form.
The British had similar wepons wombat, morbat. 120 mm rifle barrel A. To. LMG for targeting tracer round
At least, we know that the ara of ATGM already came at 60s.
It is still wierd that russians still use those old AT Gun, although it has it's own APFSDS. (Those steel APFSDS are obsolete, their technology is same as very old 3BM15 or 3BM22 of 2A46 tank gun)
Can you review some old military toys again? I remember those videos gave me so much joy haha!
Actually, USSR already HAD the BS-3 100mm antitank gun during WWII. But it weighs almost a ton more than the T-12!
And whoah boy, damn that's massive recoil!
"they're doomed"
Except their flanks would be covered by mines and other units. Often maneuver units that would wait for an attack to be fully engaged with the line of guns, and then conduct flanking or even outright encircling attacks.
They were not left in place as expendable, they were left in place to hold, with massive support from OTHER units.
And they usually had enough vehicles nearby for the crews to be able to retreat if they were getting completely overrun.
So, a lot less terrifying than you think.
.
"not capable"
Wrong. It's not that they're GOOD compared to what is available overall today, that does not make them obsolete, just less useful.
Any commander given a hundred of these SHOULD very much be capable of finding effective use for them.
They are entirely effective against lightly armored vehicles(and from the sides and/or rear, even against heavily armored vehicles). That alone means they have a usefulness.
But they're also quite flexible overall, combine them with GPS and a decent ballistics computer(essentially what you can get on a PHONE today), and this becomes a reasonably accurate backup artillery piece.
They're just barely "light" enough that you can move them to unexpected and unusual positions. Meaning they're suitable for ambushes in places where the only other option might be ATGMs that you need more elsewhere.
It used to be a great AT-gun with excellent secondary capabilities, but today it has instead become a lowend jack of all trades.
And yes, because it's really REALLY cheap both to buy and to use, that makes it even better.
True that gun is a beast.
One supposed advantage - besides being available - on today's East Front is the flat trajectory which makes anti-arty radars' job harder,
If you can see the target from the gun
….. the target can see you…. 😮
@@thomasmyers9128 It is also used with drone spotters ín indirect fire riles
@@karlvongazenberg8398 …. I’m sure it is
but due to gravity it has to shoot at an arch
when used for in direct fire…. and radar can be used to find it……. Nice chatting with ya
@@thomasmyers9128 And since it is a flatter trajectory, it has a better chance to stay under the radar horizont and also, the projectile spends less time in the air, thus making detection, identification and tracking HARDER. Any more question?
@@karlvongazenberg8398 are you trolling me? lol….
A target 10 miles(16k) away …. The round would take 20-30 seconds to get there (rough guess) due to gravity the round starts dropping as soon as it leaves the barrel at 32ft per second sq.
So …. 20 seconds is roughly 650 ft drop
30 seconds is a little under 1000 ft drop
Radar can and will pick it up if used correctly
Class is over…. If you do not have any more questions 😳
You have a wonderful day/night…. and I mean that
когда я учился на военной кафедре института, из нас готовили артиллеристов против танков. Это чудо тогда в 1984-86 гг называли МТ-12))
Regarding your mention of the 105mm Royal Ordnance L7. The Chieftain was equipped with the 120 mm Royal Ordnance L11.
That gun is a death sentence to operate.
Most weight of the gun presses down on the pair of tiny tires, this makes the gun bounces around like crazy and have to readjust sight everytime after shot. if this gun has front-legs like modern howitzers today that will be alot of improving 🤔
Yeah you are using a 100mm which has to be be adjusted by hand, through a WWII against Abrams and Leos.
IF you get fire ambushed it can be annoying, but if I look on the map, I know where you MT 12s are, and use artillery or infantry to deal with you quickly.
Maybe, but its still something like improving your horse saddle, while you are in a motorcycle race. Sure, in very VERY specific situations you will come victorious on a horse. Buuut in reality the time would be spent better on aquiring a motorcycle.
The towed AT gun is obsolescent if not obsolete. Current war in Ukraine is just full of curios of this type, but overall, anything and all this gun can do, can be done better, faster, and cheaper
@@gronthgronth2628 Dont forget you need 10 guys to operate one of this things.
Completely unprotected.
But yeah its from a time of overabundance of men power and not much morale.
It didn't bounce around so much when the NVA was firing it. They had them more securely emplaced.
You can never have too much Anti tank guns
That's a true war relic from Soviet era. It was very widespread among former Warsaw Pact armies.
Watching the vicious recoil the gun seems to be more dangerous to its crew than to a enemy tank.
Безоткатные пушки действительно были неплохи, и используются до сих пор во всём мире. Однако по начальной скорости и бронепробиваемости всё равно уступают пт орудиям. У них преимущество это низкий вес и мобильность. При должной подготовке и сноровке, есть шанс подбить танк даже современного типа. Но только при стрельбе в борта. ПТ орудие Рапира может даже повредить современные танки, но тоже с определенными оговорками. Но зато БМП, и БТР поражаются на любой дистанции боя.
The last big conflict showed that any puka is priceless if it can fire landmines. The author is wrong. Modern technology in a big war usually ends quickly.
Последний большой конфликт, показал, любая пука бесценна, если она может пулять фугасами.
Автор ошибается. Современная техника в большой войне обычно быстро заканчивается.
i served on that antitank sniper,2800m effective range7,5 m lenght barrel,but it was modify version mt 12
This thing is a monster in the video game 'Warno' set in a fictional cold war conflict in 1989. It's featured there as the Rapira, currently used by East Germans and Russians, but probably will see use by polish and Czech SSR forces when those units are added in. It's great because of its dual role as a ATGM firing piece and its ability to toss out conventional AP. When a viable penetratable target rolls within its AP range, the gun crew will target and fire AP rounds, when the target is outside that range or cannot be penetrated, they load and fire ATGM. It's good because its very cheap- about 5 or so less than a Konkurs-M infantry team, maybe only a little more than a Konkurs-M equipped BRDM, whilst also being a hard target to hit and benefitting from stealth. In Warno ATGM fire is the decisive force that all other engagements pivot on, so the soviets having cute ATGM-AT guns in their tank-tab really gives them an unexpected edge. Thing is, its AP rounds struggle with any medium/main battle tank, but sometimes the crew can figure they can 'just barely, maybe' penetrate the front armor of a nato vehicle, resulting in wasted time. It will also engage infantry with some success. Its greatest drawbacks are obviously its incredibly poor speed once deployed from an MT-LB, and its habit of struggling to follow and lead a fast-moving target. The crew needs to maintain visual on a target for several unbroken seconds; hard to do if the targets moving laterally in front of you. They're not really a replacement for a dug-in infantry set ATGM system in urban terrain, but in open ground, ideally set to cover key roads, they are a very useful little tool. Their ATGM in particular is what makes them valuable. So far PACT has a lot of AT gun ordinance, mostly old stuff like Zis-2, Zis-3, or D-44's, but they can be very nasty if deployed in concentrations with proper support. Naturally, the slow speed of things makes them total victims to tactical bombers.
A beastly canon for beastly nation!
This thread is about AT Guns. Though it's obvious you don't know anything except eating a diet of propaganda re. Russia.
@@Slaktrax Just ask the ukrainians...
@@cane6074 no asks for Nazi's
The guns has a lot of engineering areas that need improvement, 1- its requile system is not absorbing all the energy and the gun is jumping a a lot 2- the crew is completely venerable 3- the gun is huge
Those are not engineering areas, aside from "requile" (recoil?), they're employment and conceptual use issues. It also doesn't fly or have GPS guidance. Because it's not designed for use that way.
@@21kiwi24 the engineer new or should have known the operators could not be behind the gun shield when it was fired , they knew the size of the thing and how hard it would be to move in the field and could have reduced the ground presume or provided an APU to help move the gun . The engineer just did not or did not fight for the inclusion or such changes to protect the crew because the engineer did not care enough !
"3- the gun is huge"
It's over 900 kg lighter than the Soviet WWII 100mm AT-gun.
"2- the crew is completely venerable"
Uh, no?
"1- its requile system is not absorbing all the energy and the gun is jumping a a lot"
Uh, yes? Because the force involved is MASSIVE.
"The guns has a lot of engineering areas that need improvement"
No, there isn't. The T-12 is effectively the BS-3 with almost everything fixed or improved.
I'll write what you haven't considered yet. Howitzers and cannons /howitzers for mounted shooting at long range also have great penetration. But they have separate charging. If we compare the experimental US tank rifled 105mm cannon and the 155mm howitzer/long Tom cannon, then Thomas's penetration with a CALIBER armor-piercing was greater than that of a 105mm CALIBER tank shell. 109 Paladin can also be given caliber shells against concrete or against steel. The howitzer can have both a cumulative and a uranium sub-caliber. Compare the 155mm carriage m40 and the 88 nashorn. Lighter, more shells, faster firing. Smooth guns are even better for cumulative and uranium bolts, in a howitzer they can be the same, but worse in efficiency. And one more thing. Howitzers and cannons are rarely used one at a time. This is usually a battery or a division. The modern battery has 110 soldiers, 8 self-propelled guns, 8 loading vehicles, command and transport armored vehicles together 5 units, trucks and jeeps 25 units. All this will stand idle or will be quickly destroyed. But all this also needs to be trained and equipped with shells and transport. The situation in the division is even more magnificent, there are more than 750 soldiers, about 30 armored transport vehicles of commanders and troops, 24 howitzers, 24 loading vehicles, about 180 trucks and jeeps. And they will only be trained on a 100mm rapier and receive a salary and equipment? To stand idly near the front line before being destroyed by aircraft and howitzer shells? Anti-tank large guns are rather the third specialty for 155 gunners and airborne cavalry, which will be used very rarely on the darkest day of the Titanic. In general, fuck paragraphs and fuck language rules and fuck turns of speech. Hehe.
Wow. This is that same 100mm cartridge the Russian navy mounts in an automatic gun for thier arctic patrol vessels. Impressive.
I normally think of anti-tank guns as WW2 weapons. It's incredible to think that even after ATGMs became the dominant anti-tank asset on the battlefield the Soviets (and by extension the modern post-Soviet successor states) kept an anti-tank gun in service.
Price performance is king in war...
The British L7 105mm was never mounted on the Chieftain it had a 120mm main gun
63 calibers long barrel length. That is the exact same length as the 100mm cannon that was used on the powerful SU-100 tank destroyer in World War Two
Are there any of these Anti tank guns on trucks on track vehicles today?
Bunch of them mounted on MTLBs.
MTLB-12 it basically uses the same type of round it's called the T 12 100mm Rapier
Look at the beefy towed carriage getting thrown around when firing, now imagine the beating the structure and suspension of a random carrier vehicle would get.
That's what the Ukrainians improvised on top of MT-LBs in 2022.
@@JeffBilkins there are videos you can watch of the firing on the mtlb-12 and they use hydraulic skids in the back that come down and lift the vehicle a little similar to some spgs it helps with recoil but I hear what you saying these vehicles weren't built for these kinds of gun recoil put on them and they're probably will be problems over time especially them being very old vehicles and the newer version of the gun the 100mm Rapier has a better recoil system that should damper it a little better than the original but still not enough
There's some nice footage of the NVA I've not seen before.
Damn that gun has some serious zip
Like all of your videos, I learn a lot in terms of war doctrine, and changes in technology, thank you for keeping these videos accurate and to the point!
Id like to meet the infantry man that looks at that behemoth of a shell and says 'eh, obsolete'
Wouldn't modern day offensive drones quickly deal with these guns when spotted ?
"When spotted" key words.
You don't have unlimited drones
Both sides are using jammers. It's mostly war of drones vs jammers now. So not really, if guys have a good jammer then drones are useless. Although I've heard rumors about AI drones that don't care about jammers, so maybe?
Yugoslavia had mix of AT tank guns, mostly MT-12 and AA guided rockets in artillery "divisions"(battalions), back in 1980s. But that guns would have been stationed behind large ditch, mine field, or both... Supported by AT rockets and support artillery.
Приятно видеть армию ГДР с советской пушкой!
In my opinion, it’s a good secondary defence option and for breaking defence positions of surrounded enemy troops.
You can also see how cumbersome the thing is. These guns are way too big for an easy front line use these days without a motorised carriage.
Regardless of what they say about moving between fire-positions. Towed anti-guns either held or died.
Wuau ❤ 🇨🇺que recuerdos, los Use en mi Servicio Militar 🇨🇺 aquí en Cuba , hay bastantes baterías Antitanques, ya los han montado y modernizados en los BMP-1
Based Soviets developing based guns
Can i put it on the back of my Toyota ?
2:58 I can already spot the NCO there getting pissed off at the junior enlisted for being distracted lol. Some things, from the DDR in the 70s to the US Army today never change lol
A T-12 with it’s MTLB weighs almost exactly the same as an M50 Ontos. Both were designed to kill tanks cheaply in the late 1950’s. The Ontos though is much more adapted to real combat situations, shoot and scoot. The 106mm recoiless was no slouch and modern Austrian round will penetrate 700mm.
My feeling is the 106 in all of it’s guises is a better weapon. Its actually arguable that the 106 is more needed now than ever in the close support role. Blasting bunkers.
The most modern version of 100mm antitenk gun ''rapira'' have 100mm guided missile options like bmp3 or bmd4 have on its gun of 100mm.....an can hit to 5km targets with laser guided missile ......like cobra atgm on t80s or sniper atgm on t90's
Actually from what I have heard, off the record this thing caused issues for US armored troops in the Desert Storm.
dang thats massive recoil
Anyone that sees a T-12 doing it's little bounce and doesn't immediately want to get behind one, no matter how much of a pacifist they are, is clearly some sort of demon
While it IS obsolete, saying this is obsolete is a bit like saying the FAL is obsolete. Supassed by basically everything in service, but still capable of putting a round of .308 through your chest if you let it.
I saw a ukranian unit using as an indirect howitzer like role,they where ina glen full of trees they said they loved it because although it didnt have same effect as the 120_152 cannons,in their words "its the sniper of the cannon world" they said they could quickly get coordinates via drone operators and correct it,and then rain down a lot of fire accurately,they hit an ammo dump,a bmp that was parked and shelled tf out of a trench. All on video,it definitely isnt obsolete
Me personally i believe anti tank guns will stay due to the fact that its MUCH harder to intercept an APFSDS round than it is to intercept an ATGM thanks to their vast difference in velocities. They may be gone for now but when/if APS advances to the point of making ATGMs nigh useless i believe they will make a comeback. (Or just kinetic ATGMs like that on the LOSAT.)
what do you mean stay, they are all ready gone, all that remain are examples built in the 1960s
AT guns are still useful against older tanks and all other armored and soft mechanazied vehicles. And crew has better chance to jump aside from drone attack, unlike crews in vehicles.
5.46 on the right hand side watch the man on the gun behind,he might have concussion.
2 batteries of 6 guns each one each side of a 90-degree angle covering a low area was Used in the battle Kursk to great effect. I would expect modern positions would be similar Mine fields to force maneuver into preset kill zones.
I really like the MT-12, and I think they do, in fact, still have a place on the modern battlefield. Their role and use may be different, but they still pack a powerful punch, and there's no reason to dispose of a perfectly good weapon!
If you haven't, I'd love to see you cover the L2 BAT/MOBAT/ConBAT/L6 WOMBAT 120mm recoilless rifle family from the UK. It's really interesting, and represents quite a wild period in British AT history!
AT cannons like this probably still have another few decade of use in island and mountain valley areas
In an age of drones, air burst ammunition, and ultra accurate missiles I have to believe that relatively immobile crew served cannon are obsolete.
The Kalashnikov of AT guns. Everybody used it once.
I guess it kind of depends on how much you want to budget to stop tanks. Sure missiles are more portable and have a smaller battlefield footprint. But they are horribly expensive per round. Anti-tank rounds are relatively cheap. The real question is could you get the necessary kinetic energy without the large canon.
Squeeze bores maybe? The Germans did use those in 40mm rifled guns in anti-tank roles early in the war. And the squeeze bore meant a jump in velocity. So I'm left wondering if a 40-50mm squeeze bore might actually put enough kinetic energy on target with a much lighter tube. Especially with a tungsten insert. With modern technology you could probably make it half the size of that beast and still make it work.
Seen more AT guns than expected in Ukraine war. Lot of direct fire, anti infantry/bunker/APC/etc. They are extremely accurate.
But i still love more 152Mm Gun:)
That is true beast.
I really dont see this kind of weapon in a moderm battle field. Not in the drones days...
God forbid the target is moving. Imagine trying to aim that thing at a moving target and having to dive for cover before you fire it and the scope knocks your head off.
Shells of this cannon go lower artillery-search radars so its harder to find this cannon while it's shooting.
The T-12 served as the primary towed anti-tank artillery in the Soviet and Bulgarian armies from the early 1960s to the late 1980s....
And Russia calls its the best of the best....
Big freekin gun!
Once you have fire a round you have to reset all as it moves so much that there is no way you kept your aim.
Single baffle?!!... I'M baffled!!
I think they're still useful for fixed defense at strategic choke points. A low cost, low tech solution.
A useful addition on a battle field that can't be easy flanked. May fool an adversary to charge you like Rommel fooled the British into charging into his 88mm guns. An army not flying drones ahead of armored columns is suicidal.
What is the intro music you used to use back in 2017/2018? I heard it on your 'Russian BTR-80 Armored Personnel Carrier' video and really want to hear the full thing. It's the intro music as your Matsimus intro rolls.