yes maybe for US and it's allies but Russia designed one in the 2000's but didn't actually use it until 2019. probably took them ages to use it because their glonnas system is such garbage
@@Danarator It appears evident that the “learning” should be returned to by someone else😂. The fact that they travel so slowly makes them much easier to shoot down with very basic weapons such as anti air flak cannons and 50cal adapted anti aircraft weapons. Due to their shape, they actually give off a fairly large and full radar signal, even more prominent at mid altitude flight.
@@Serinebanders slow meaning around 200ms or more plus it would only glide down to target unlike cruise missiles which flies at low altitude. Im no math expert but if we can say the .50s or Zsu 23-2 has a 2km reach then , they only have less than 30 seconds to shoot that thing down. Edit: No one has big enough balls to defend within 3 km to a target on a falling 500kg bomb
@supersst838 maybe you didnt watch the video, the bomb is not accurate but it gets its job done. You dont know where it lands, Im saying 3km because the one I replied said about small arms AA which could be placed around 3km or less to the defended position. But would you really take the risk positioning that close with a small chance to intercept? The gunners might have to be T1000 to be that accurate with .50 and 23mm to hit a bomb falling 200 meters per second
Fab 500 started to be produced since 1954, and yes you are right, m-62 is 1962 model, it was produced for a very long time, so Russia has almost inexhaustible stock of these bombs,
@@imrussian6638In a classic, close-quarters dogfight, the F-16 would likely have a significant advantage. Its superior agility, higher thrust-to-weight ratio, and smaller profile would allow it to outmaneuver the Su-34.
@@AaronDrake22 50 ročná F 16 nemá šancu ani v blízkom boji proti SU 34. SU 34 má radar na 320 km F 16 má radar max 160 km. SU 34 má oveĺa silnejší ťah motorov v pomerne k váhe.
@Samuel-hd3cp higher altitude increases the range, but the published range is already with the plane at max speed and altitude. Heavier bomb means plane flies slower and reduced altitude. Add larger bomb = more drag = reduced range
@@pogo1140 "A bigger bomb means the plane flies slower and at a lower altitude." No, it doesn't work that way. A plane loaded with bombs won't fly faster than an empty one, but there are other parameters. Like the weight of the fuel on board the plane, for example. You can take a 9,000 kg bomb and fill the plane with less fuel. You can take a 5,000 kg bomb and fill the plane with more fuel. The altitude and speed will be the same - only the range will change. For example, from 2,000 km to 800. However, a range of 800 km is quite enough to hit targets deep in the enemy's defenses.
@@Imprudentman the bomb imposes a greater drag and weight penalty than you can compensate for by reducing fuel. Reduced fuel means less fuel to burn climbing, accelerating
You’re so right bro! You’re so smart! Omg you’re so much smarter this this “expert”! You’re so much smarter than everyone who’s ever covered this!! There, you finish on yourself yet? Keep it moving.
1:19 there is already plenty documented evidence of the fab 3000 being used in combat and in production. For atleast several weeks before this video was uploaded. Not very up-to-date for 'professional journalists'.
this is a high quality video production that had its facts checked and thus is out of date for a few months since anything that was used lately, we just dont have concreete evidence of
There is no need for camouflage on the Russian tanks bcuz there’s more than enough camouflage covering the facts and statistics coming from the Kremlin.
That is what you get when the "expert" is not a military man or an engineer. wtf does he know? I'm sick of those smug soft faced academics running their mouth about matters they have no practical experience with.
@@canadianwhitewolf3688 Hm in fact, if you replace the stone with a hand grenade you actually got yourself a grenade launcher with potentially longer range and better accuracy than a modern one, depending on the skill of the slinger.
Why do every so called western military expert refuses to name Ukraines biggest issue? The lack of men what happened to the 700k strong they had during the first mobilization??
You would think so but they likely cannot build on their own GLONASS receivers. I bet they use chips that support both GPS and GLONASS made externally and use whatever they can.
I think it's pretty safe to say that the Russians stay away from Ukrainian territory with Russian aircraft, because of their own anti air defense system, even with friend and foe recognition systems....
Drones are winning, everything else is losing. There is no specific tank that is better than the other in this war because they are all being destroyed
yeah. it's like this battleship is ten times better than that battleship and two of these guns could outfire two hundred of those ones and...and...and... *aircraft carriers don't care*
True, for 2 and a half year I hear from pro russian media and comenters that Ukraine is about to fall next week, yet when week passes it just moves to a next week without absolutely no self awareness or admition of lying.
Tony Neophytou would be even more of a celebrated firearms designer if he lived in the US or western Europe. We South Africans appreciate his genius. Google his name and these creations of his: 1) Denel NTW-20; 2) Neopup PAW-20; 3) Neostead/NS2000; and 4) NeoStrike/iNkunzi Strike.
We (the USA) just tested a strapon for a dumb bomb called quick sink. It guides the munition right to the waterline. Our test took out something almost aircraft carrier in size down with a single blow. It was delivered by a stealth bomber after many other munitions failed to phase the massive ship.
That was an expensively stupid use of a big chunk of valuable metal wasn’t it, sinking a big ship. Sorry to hear this 😢. Taxpayer dollars go a lot farther if we reduce, reuse, recycle.
He he the Poms can talk, They had crap tanks right through WII, why??? The bloody minded class system eh what.! Right at the end they got the Comet, but way to late.
@@YoniBaruch-y3m The M/V Monarch Countess RoRo cargo vessel was sunk in coordination with The Okaloosa County Artificial Reef Program and their 5 year artificial reef program. You need an actual ship to test ant-ship munitions against and the additional benefit is the creation of more reefs. Are you saying they should test new munitions designed to sink large ships against tug boat sized vessels?
At 57:32, check the laws of war, my friends, because a 50 caliper round is an anti-armor round, and per the "rule of proportionality", anti-armor rounds should only be used for that purpose. Anti-personnel rounds are much smaller projectiles, the 5.56mm NATO rifle round, and the 7.62mm anti-personnel machine gun round. This larger round is used as a sniper round because of its weight. It flies further and straighter than the smaller rounds, increasing the odds of a kill, while keeping the sniper team further away from the danger. Nonetheless, it violates the Geneva Convention and the law of war.
The reason why the Bradley defeated the T-90 is... not the Bradley's gun, operation history, nor T-90's design. It's the drone which got the video you've watched and which supplied the info to the Bradley's crew. That's it.
The drone pilot would have probably relayed the location of the T-90 to the Bradley, but it isn't what defeated it. The Bradley crew knew they couldn't penetrate the T-90's armor, so they fired high explosive rounds at the turret to take out its optics, effectively blinding it.
@@The-Droll-and-LazyJoker Yes, you're right. I saw a longer video that started with a different Bradley that was being pursued by the T-90 around the village before this one started firing. I don't remember seeing what the other one did after that...
No, it's the manner in which they so closely worked together without delays or indecision. The Ukrainians may not be the most experienced soldiers on the field, but they are unfailingly brave, clever and resourceful.
Great propaganda. Yes Its cool information for someone who knows very little but all that a below average mind will comprehend will result in manipulation of opinion and belief Russian tech is useless.
@@jessehachey2732no, I think he feels sorry for the 500k+ people who have already died during this war, not to mention the millions of displaced Ukrainians and people injured from both sides. I assume you're not one of those millions.
Just a small point, your animation had the wings on the glide bomb kit deploying back to front, If they deployed like that in reality the bomb would drop vertically as the trailing edge of the wings are facing forwards.
Bravo! You guys keep talking the talk while the Russians do the job as our prices in the West skyrocket. Yesterday, I discovered that public transportation costs have increased by over 30 percent. Let's continue to do the talking, DailyMail.
What rubbish are you talking about? RU started war in the heart of europe and DailyMail is reporting as it should. What job you mean that russians do, destroying other peoples homes and devastating another country?
The Ghost of Bakhmut is damn terrifying. No wonder soldiers get PTSD. Imagine if you had to deal with that on a daily basis, looking over your shoulder not knowing if you are the next target...
That would be interesting to see... the only question then would be "how many minutes does London have to remain on this planet before it is forever lost in a FIRE of radioactive proportions..." Likely less than 15min
So these so called experts said that Russia destroyed an Abrams tank but it didn't fully destroy it? Then a few weeks later the Russians destroyed more Abrams tanks. Which one is it? 😂😂😂
@@DarkCriimesdon't worry. Russia has been running out of ammo, personal, chips and what not since mid 2022 aas per western propaganda. Russia is fighting th stone and sticks these days
@@DarkCriimes 1 question: from the words of this so called expert the share of western armor was less than 5% of total armor of ukraine when they lost over 800 tanks(>95%russian technology) while russia lost 3000 tanks (100%russian tech). if the data is correct then russian tanks lost to russian tanks because of combat tactics. and the second lie was about abrams tanks could run on any fuel while entire universe knows it is the only tank that runs on jet fuel because of its jet engine.... how can u trust these ppl? the third lie was so blatantly obvious manufactured fabrication of utter nonsense that i would rather pipe my elobaritve mind down and let you scrutinize the rest. btw there would be no russia if the us did not send armed terrorists to chechnya which united russians and reestablished their statehood and empire...
@@humanityeliteschool9407you almost hit on an interesting point there before ruining it with the conspiracy nonsense. Especially earlier in the war, both sides had largely Russian/soviet gear, and yet the Ukrainians significantly outperformed the Russians. Maybe it's less about Russian equipment being crap, and more about Russian leadership, training and doctrine being crap? (Obviously I'm ignoring the effect of things like superior NATO surveillance and information gathering, as well as the defensive advantage which probably plays a role). Food for thought.
@@kristian2353 1. is it so hard to google who and why invented the term "conspiracy theory" that most of lazy people repeat like parrots instead of counterarguing with facts? 2. Success rate of most advanced western missiles and guided shells was over 70% against Russain military. now less than 20%(Stormshadow+HIMARS) and 4% in case of excalibur rendering it useless for further use. 3. i do not need googling in order to understand the Rothschilds are controlling flow of western weapons in quantities that is enough for Russians to study them and counterbuild and develop their own technology. and it perfectly explains why Russia invaded 40mln country, whos military was well trained well equipped and fully supported by the largest military block in history of mankind, with only 150k soldiers as if Russians had some kind of backing from heavens. and it also explains why the most superior advanced military on earth lost to cavemen of Afghanistan called Taliban, equipped with chinese replicas of soviet weapons... and if u did not see how the Rothschilds instigated WW1, great depression and WW2 for creating federal reserve, central banking system and then global currency then its no surprise you cannot see how they are weakening the US to get rid of obsolete USD with its global policemen because any country now is their police due to introduction of digital money and cryptoblockchain.
They ahve not lost many western tanks, its becasue they have been kept back after the initial major losses. Western tanks have been held back becasue they are Too heavy and get bogged down easily, or cant cross Ukraine bridges. So in other words most of the time they can only operate on roads in certain areas. They have been held back and most of the attacks are with Old Soviet kit whilst western game changers are held back. Add to this the yanks etc dont want the M1 to be seen as easy to kill. The guy talking about tanks is not really telling the truth on this. If western tanks went forward they would be massive easy destroyed sitting ducks.
@@tayler2396 Ukrainian tank crews gave a low rating to the Abrams tank's capabilities in a conflict with Russia, including preferring to use a modernized T64. The Abrams tank does not provide crew protection - commander of the Ukrainian Abrams tank - so what are you getting at?
@@VVV85650 Exactly, and then theres the Propaganda listeners who's only argument is "Russian tank's turrets fly in space" even tho abramses turret can also fly if it carries full ammo, same story with leopards
@@tayler2396 Sometimes there are dude. Even World War 2 veterans who participated in Naval battles in which a video is made about; have popped up in the RUclips comments. Some RUclips commenters are more expert than the experts, so this point is dud. The only criticism I have is that he should have put "Game Changers" in scare quotes like annotated above. Western legacy media is propaganda, especially when it comes to reporting on capital markets and warfare. One of the "experts" I've seen before, from King's College in London. That's a lobbyist mill like West Point in the US. They put their "experts" on TV news shows in order to put out whatever pro war propaganda is needed, just with stupid strategic and tactical jargon to woo the viewer. Just like the butchers of World War 1.
3.1 tons The Soviet apartments were pretty tough a neighborhood of them is like a fortress. Russians successfully countered Jdam and accurate guided artillery. Anti material rifle for jets? Lol Like ghost of Kiev Ukraine has been lying unless the target is near
Cope and seethe. How's that Northern attack going for you guys? Have you yet enlisted at your nearest enlistment office? I'd love to see your name in a war "memorial" for the losing side of the war.
The muzzle brake is to keep the barrel as concentric as possible,if it wasn’t there the barrel would lift up or move to the left or right and it would take time to reposition.
Most of Ukraine's experienced servicemen are sadly no longer with us. The Bradley's got lucky and had a numerical advantage. The Challenger and Abrams are just as vulnerable as anything else, so they've been pulled from combat. They make nice trophies too.
They are not pulled from combat. The tactics employed for their use has changed. All things being equal, their crews have a much higher survival rate when hit than the Soviet and Russian designs
@@jimmcneal5292 The commander of the NATO training mission in Ukraine, Lieutenant General Andreas Marlow, spoke about the huge losses of the Ukrainian army since the beginning of Russia's special military operation. In his interview with the Swiss newspaper Neue Zürcher Zeitung, the general said that of the 200,000 professional Ukrainian fighters available as of February 2022, the majority have already been destroyed or have dropped out due to injuries.
@@ПетърХристов-к2е I've found only two news sites that stated that he said it, one is russian, another is obviously pro-russian. Is there even a independent confirmation of this quote?
Over 15000 children killed in Gaza (according to some sources) in under a year, won't sell as well as 600+ (according to UN by April 2024) children in Ukraine since 2022, it's easier if you just mention the millions of people displaced and 500k + losses (from both sides in total, although it's probably more). It's never about objectivity nowadays it's about taping into the emotions of the viewers, IMHO even 1 child dying is a tragedy, what sickens me is how the media use these children sometimes in their information warfare...
You're both wrong. It's the weight of the HE, which usually is TNT, so in that case doubles as a yield, if it's pure TNT. So saying that it's weight of the bomb is correct, if simplified for noobs like us. It's just NETTO weight, which is not mentioned in military speech. What do you mean "no, 1500"? They have 250, 500, 750, 1000, 1500, 2000-something and 3000kg FABs with glide kit and bigger ones claimed in production. I've no information of the purity of TNT, to confirm that HE weight equals yield, but what df is the difference to you?
@@dannydetonator No, I'm not wrong. The yield of a bomb is measured in the explosive power in weight of TNT. But it doesn't have to be using TNT. So a 1000 lb bomb detonates with as much force as 1,000 lb of TNT exploding, regardless of the actual explosive being used.
@@unbannablebob395 Nobody measures it like that. Generally the weight of the bombs is the weight itself not the payload. There are armor piercing bombs that weigh 1000kg and are called 1000kg armor piercing bombs but only have a payload of 100kg. Nobody is calling those "100kg bombs". The only time this rule doesn't apply is with nuclear bombs because the explosive power is so much greater.
thats what the Russian ask at the adult bookstore. in the video booths in the back you hear "glide bomb ready to explode who wants it? it's locked cocked and ready to glide into your backside" LMFAO
Do you think your words mean "we want to start World War III"? What if the Russians provided "assistance" to the nuclear weapons systems of Somalia or Lebanon or North Korea or Pakistan?
@@elanhelosdeblanco8476and why the escalation to nuclear? Did the US provide nuclear tech yo Ukraine? No, the oposite... ut requested that it gived up all its nukes... all 10 000 of them
@@drevilatwork Fine. Give your child a gun and say, “Come on, fight for your freedom.” And when a child kills someone, you simply answer: it’s not my fault, I’m just giving him a gun. And when the cops shot him with a big rifle, you blame the cops. Don’t try to fool me, you know that all these complex weapons are controlled by NATO officers and this is a war through proxy countries. War for gas, oil, power etc. No one respect USA anymore.
@@BojanPeric-kq9et what are you even talking about... you clearly have no idea about anything... IR is using the visual aspect(heat) Radar guided is using radar either of the planes radar or the radar in the missile... and that also depends on what kind of missile it is FOX 1, FOX 3
@@RePlayBoy101 sure, I have no idea about wavelengths of radars and IR spectrum. If you took basic course in physics, you would know that bot radio waves and infra red waves are actually electromagnetic waves, just is visible light. Alas, you skipped such course(s) or completely forgot what you (maybe) had learned. Or maybe US fighters and US missiles don't (have to) obey to laws of physics?
@@BojanPeric-kq9et since youre a special boy i will use a simple kindergarden explanation IR missile = Hawk(they use their eyes) Radar missiles = bats(they use their ears)
I think most underestimate the bradly because of the 25mm but it works the best against armor. Like how a bulletproof vest almost always stops a .45 cal yet 9mm are always sneaking through. Smaller faster rounds penetrate much better against armor
In World 2, the Red Army's anti-rifles were so effective against the flanks of the main German battle tanks, the Panzer III and Panzer IV, that, in 1943, the Germans thought it worth the effort to mount protective side armoured skirts ('schurzen') to both of these vehicles. I think I am correct in saying that these anti tank rifles used tungsten core ammunition, and they could be very effective. One Panther tank commander is purported to have said that when using the first model of the Panther, he was more concerned about massed Red Army anti-tank rifles than he was of it's anti tank guns.
in singing the praises to the Bradley, DailyMail forgot to mention the "counter" offensive and the piles and piles Bradleys left destroyed in the step.
Bradley vs a Tank is like MP5 vs M-82 barret in close quarter combat. M-82 is bigger, better snd expensive but in close quarter MP5 has a natural advantage.
Before doing this analysis, please explain how the best USA tanks cost many million dollars were destroyed Chinese drones converted to FPV drones cost few hundred dollars. This is absolutely mind blowing and that is why we don’t see USA and British tanks on front lines, because they are useless.
15:52 please don't call the Bradley a battlefield taxi... The Bradley is an infantry fighting vehicle IFV for short. The Striker is a M1126 ICV (infantry carrier vehicle) AKA Battlefield Taxi. The Buffalo (Bison) is an ICV, and a very impressive one at that, compartmentalize as a Armoured Personel Carrior. The Bradley is used to take troups right up to the front and delivers them, usually under fire, and fights with the troops alongside the Abrams M1A2 main battle tank
@alexhumble7653 you've obviously never served in a forward fighting unit. And I'd doubt you've ever even served at all. I served 16yrs in the USMC & USN, and only left after my left leg got blown off below the knee.
@alexhumble7653 Many, but just because the threat is thousands of miles away doesn't mean they are not a threat to us here. Pearl Harbour, 9/11, the Alamo
What I don't get, is why nobody during WW2 could figure out to put wings on bombs and make em glide. Its not like they had much accuracy when they dropped them regular ones. But they could at least have saved a lot of crews the bother of having to fly right over the target where all the Flak was. With a glide bomb, you can approach from any angle and drop remote, which would have made flak concentrations impossible
6:19 Russia copped it! It it was the Germans in the 1940s that first used the glide bomb and now you said the Russians copped it from Ukraine. Did Iraq have weapons mass destruction too
“JDAMs aren’t brand new weapons at all, they’re old weapons with new piece of kit attached” when we first saw them back in 1999.
yes maybe for US and it's allies but Russia designed one in the 2000's but didn't actually use it until 2019. probably took them ages to use it because their glonnas system is such garbage
Western propaganda doesn't care about the truth.
its JDAM, not JADM
@@freeskierdude_glonnas is as bad as the GPS used by the West, it's getting jammed into none existentance
@@Oliepolie Indeed. Corrected.
You forget that glide bombs are also extremely hard to shoot down due to their low radar signature, heat signiture & slow speed.
Fact..
That fella the expert needs to go back to learning 😏
@@Danarator It appears evident that the “learning” should be returned to by someone else😂.
The fact that they travel so slowly makes them much easier to shoot down with very basic weapons such as anti air flak cannons and 50cal adapted anti aircraft weapons.
Due to their shape, they actually give off a fairly large and full radar signal, even more prominent at mid altitude flight.
@@Serinebanders slow meaning around 200ms or more plus it would only glide down to target unlike cruise missiles which flies at low altitude.
Im no math expert but if we can say the .50s or Zsu 23-2 has a 2km reach then , they only have less than 30 seconds to shoot that thing down. Edit: No one has big enough balls to defend within 3 km to a target on a falling 500kg bomb
@@ymroo8299when did 500 kg bombs get 3 kilometer blast radius?
@supersst838 maybe you didnt watch the video, the bomb is not accurate but it gets its job done. You dont know where it lands, Im saying 3km because the one I replied said about small arms AA which could be placed around 3km or less to the defended position. But would you really take the risk positioning that close with a small chance to intercept? The gunners might have to be T1000 to be that accurate with .50 and 23mm to hit a bomb falling 200 meters per second
"The crews are the crocodile nearest the canoe. They take time." A very colorful metaphor, but I have difficulty grasping the analogy.
Here
You have never been in a small Jon boat in croc invested waters. If you had, you’d understand that you look yummy to Mr. Crocodile.
Spend time in the swamps of Louisiana and you will see
Their tanks our tanks had never faced drones. This video was educational experience thanks for sharing.
The largest one being used is 3000kg not 1500kg
9000kg
@@EmpireOfLies-s5v 10000000000kg
@@Juho-uf8sien.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FAB-9000
He mentionned it so you can't hear properly I am afraid
@@EmpireOfLies-s5v it hasn't been used yet
Love that the p.o.s T-34 still has the myth of being a great tank attached to it
They drive in straight lines because of mines not lack of maps
The man is embarrrassing.
I was kinda thinking the same. But maybe im missing something. I trust him more than my own oppinion though.
@@UpRisingDownwhat😂😂
Just following the vehicle in front, drivning straight...
You are supposed to use cover and concealment
62 - The YEAR it as MADE .. 🤣🤣. ya just lost ya credibility there . Its the MODEL year its design based upon,.
Fab 500 started to be produced since 1954, and yes you are right, m-62 is 1962 model, it was produced for a very long time, so Russia has almost inexhaustible stock of these bombs,
The Planes they Have to use them with Won't last long now with F-16'S in Ukraine😂@@imrussian6638
@@imrussian6638In a classic, close-quarters dogfight, the F-16 would likely have a significant advantage. Its superior agility, higher thrust-to-weight ratio, and smaller profile would allow it to outmaneuver the Su-34.
@@AaronDrake22 bro really compares 2 seat strike aircraft and a light fighter in a dogfight. Its like saying Su-27 can outmaneuver F-111 💀
@@AaronDrake22
50 ročná F 16 nemá šancu ani v blízkom boji proti SU 34.
SU 34 má radar na 320 km
F 16 má radar max 160 km.
SU 34 má oveĺa silnejší ťah motorov v pomerne k váhe.
Already use 3000kg.
@firstlast8637 bigger the bomb the greater the drag the shorter the range. Those Russian glide bombs and kits are not exactly low drag.
But if they're dropped from high altitude?
@Samuel-hd3cp higher altitude increases the range, but the published range is already with the plane at max speed and altitude. Heavier bomb means plane flies slower and reduced altitude. Add larger bomb = more drag = reduced range
@@pogo1140 "A bigger bomb means the plane flies slower and at a lower altitude." No, it doesn't work that way. A plane loaded with bombs won't fly faster than an empty one, but there are other parameters. Like the weight of the fuel on board the plane, for example. You can take a 9,000 kg bomb and fill the plane with less fuel. You can take a 5,000 kg bomb and fill the plane with more fuel. The altitude and speed will be the same - only the range will change. For example, from 2,000 km to 800. However, a range of 800 km is quite enough to hit targets deep in the enemy's defenses.
@@Imprudentman the bomb imposes a greater drag and weight penalty than you can compensate for by reducing fuel. Reduced fuel means less fuel to burn climbing, accelerating
1:20 Maybe not guided (I mean glide), but there's also the FAB-5000 and (it goes up to) FAB-9000.
The "expert" is not much of a technician, but more as an information warrior .
Rather propagandist
You’re so right bro! You’re so smart! Omg you’re so much smarter this this “expert”! You’re so much smarter than everyone who’s ever covered this!! There, you finish on yourself yet? Keep it moving.
Where did this come from@@AITCHESSPEE
@@AITCHESSPEElmao. He is correct though
Prof Bronk is hands down the best air expert. There was non statement from him since the start of the war that proved to be wrong.
1:19 there is already plenty documented evidence of the fab 3000 being used in combat and in production.
For atleast several weeks before this video was uploaded.
Not very up-to-date for 'professional journalists'.
This video is 8 months out of date
this is a high quality video production that had its facts checked and thus is out of date for a few months since anything that was used lately, we just dont have concreete evidence of
There is no need for camouflage on the Russian tanks bcuz
there’s more than enough camouflage covering the facts and statistics coming from the Kremlin.
You called the Su-34 deploying chaff "flares," which it very clearly did not deploy. There is a difference. Do better.
what's a chaff
Why aren't you working for a world class journalism source?
That is what you get when the "expert" is not a military man or an engineer. wtf does he know? I'm sick of those smug soft faced academics running their mouth about matters they have no practical experience with.
@@GrandDukeMushroom chaff is to stop a radar lock
@@GrandDukeMushroom It's bits of aluminum that get fired out of the aircraft. Basically it's used to break radar lock
old weapons that can kill you
Rule 303
A slinger can kill too.
@@canadianwhitewolf3688 Hm in fact, if you replace the stone with a hand grenade you actually got yourself a grenade launcher with potentially longer range and better accuracy than a modern one, depending on the skill of the slinger.
@@1112viggo Yep!
@@canadianwhitewolf3688 You think so too? Then we must contact Zelinsky immediately!
Why do every so called western military expert refuses to name Ukraines biggest issue? The lack of men what happened to the 700k strong they had during the first mobilization??
отдыхают дома на кладбище
just totally bias reporting, the so called free and liberal western media.
We've been hearing about manpower issues on every channel, over and over again, so I don't know what you're blathering about.
@@tayler2396I'm not hearing it.
Western countries will be sending their children and grandchildren if this doesn't come to an end soon.
Russia uses GLONASS system not GPS.
Lol I love how every comment is corrections
GPS
You would think so but they likely cannot build on their own GLONASS receivers. I bet they use chips that support both GPS and GLONASS made externally and use whatever they can.
@@iaan81 They can build a navigation system, but they can't build receivers for it... Seriously?))
it is GPS roboruz
Excellent
I think it's pretty safe to say that the Russians stay away from Ukrainian territory with Russian aircraft, because of their own anti air defense system, even with friend and foe recognition systems....
interesting video! enjoyed every moment of this ❤
Drones are winning, everything else is losing. There is no specific tank that is better than the other in this war because they are all being destroyed
Drones, mines and ATGMs have been a nightmare for tanks on both sides.
yeah. it's like this battleship is ten times better than that battleship and two of these guns could outfire two hundred of those ones and...and...and... *aircraft carriers don't care*
Not true. Look at the survival rates of tank crews in Western tanks. Losing a tank is one thing. Losing a tank and its crew is something else.
When Russian thanks lose their crew, they lose 25% less ppl. Which is a lot... I doubt that western armor increases survivability more than that.
@@Gorbyrev Do you realise how many tanks Ukraine really lost
ty
The condescension and gaslighting are impressive.
True, for 2 and a half year I hear from pro russian media and comenters that Ukraine is about to fall next week, yet when week passes it just moves to a next week without absolutely no self awareness or admition of lying.
Great reporting
The guy Tony describing that weapon knew his stuff and was very knowledgeable and interesting
Tony Neophytou would be even more of a celebrated firearms designer if he lived in the US or western Europe. We South Africans appreciate his genius. Google his name and these creations of his:
1) Denel NTW-20;
2) Neopup PAW-20;
3) Neostead/NS2000; and
4) NeoStrike/iNkunzi Strike.
....
BRAGGING...COMMENTATOR.
.
KNOWS EVERYTHING....
GREETINGS FROM ASIA
We (the USA) just tested a strapon for a dumb bomb called quick sink. It guides the munition right to the waterline. Our test took out something almost aircraft carrier in size down with a single blow. It was delivered by a stealth bomber after many other munitions failed to phase the massive ship.
That was an expensively stupid use of a big chunk of valuable metal wasn’t it, sinking a big ship. Sorry to hear this 😢. Taxpayer dollars go a lot farther if we reduce, reuse, recycle.
He he the Poms can talk, They had crap tanks right through WII, why??? The bloody minded class system eh what.! Right at the end they got the Comet, but way to late.
@@YoniBaruch-y3m The M/V Monarch Countess RoRo cargo vessel was sunk in coordination with The Okaloosa County Artificial Reef Program and their 5 year artificial reef program. You need an actual ship to test ant-ship munitions against and the additional benefit is the creation of more reefs. Are you saying they should test new munitions designed to sink large ships against tug boat sized vessels?
Amazing
At 57:32, check the laws of war, my friends, because a 50 caliper round is an anti-armor round, and per the "rule of proportionality", anti-armor rounds should only be used for that purpose. Anti-personnel rounds are much smaller projectiles, the 5.56mm NATO rifle round, and the 7.62mm anti-personnel machine gun round. This larger round is used as a sniper round because of its weight. It flies further and straighter than the smaller rounds, increasing the odds of a kill, while keeping the sniper team further away from the danger. Nonetheless, it violates the Geneva Convention and the law of war.
GW Bush, if you remember him, threw GC under the bus. Then Obama came and had done something similar again.
Impressive presentation, expert insight, and highly informative. Thank you.
The reason why the Bradley defeated the T-90 is... not the Bradley's gun, operation history, nor T-90's design. It's the drone which got the video you've watched and which supplied the info to the Bradley's crew. That's it.
The drone pilot would have probably relayed the location of the T-90 to the Bradley, but it isn't what defeated it. The Bradley crew knew they couldn't penetrate the T-90's armor, so they fired high explosive rounds at the turret to take out its optics, effectively blinding it.
@@tiredlocke I believe there was also a 2nd Bradley working in... tandem
@@The-Droll-and-LazyJoker Yes, you're right. I saw a longer video that started with a different Bradley that was being pursued by the T-90 around the village before this one started firing. I don't remember seeing what the other one did after that...
No, it's the manner in which they so closely worked together without delays or indecision. The Ukrainians may not be the most experienced soldiers on the field, but they are unfailingly brave, clever and resourceful.
Thanks for this useful information!
Look at this guys, he only forgot to pet himself out of such greatness 😂😂😂
Reminds me of that vile dictator Ras-Putin. 😂
Excellent documentary ❤
British media never fails to disappoint 😂😂
Funny, Vladimir Fridge
Ok Dimitri
Qqqqq 54:07 @@rosschops950911
Should watch Russian media lol. According to them they aren’t even at war..
They named they television company Big Black Cok after all...
Well done reporting. 👍
Great in-depth analytical review
Great propaganda. Yes Its cool information for someone who knows very little but all that a below average mind will comprehend will result in manipulation of opinion and belief Russian tech is useless.
This war needs to end before it gets worse
100%
Very sensible idea but we have chimpanzees ruling us.
You have a very simplistic, if not naive worldview. Are you not embarrassed to post this publicly?! 🙄
@@jessehachey2732no, I think he feels sorry for the 500k+ people who have already died during this war, not to mention the millions of displaced Ukrainians and people injured from both sides. I assume you're not one of those millions.
Very detail analysis!
It seems this guy was well instructed by his superiors. Now he optimistically tells how Bradley can destroy a T-90 with his 30 mm cannon. 😉
A Bradley did destroy a T90 in Ukraine. Look it up
@@philipc7273 yep
It did not,optic damage @@philipc7273
😆
@@philipc7273 they did not,it took the optics and got damaged by FPV,it latter got retrieved
Very interesting Chris, haven't seen you for along time. Your videos are excellent and frankly the best 👌
My brain needs a break man
Just a small point, your animation had the wings on the glide bomb kit deploying back to front, If they deployed like that in reality the bomb would drop vertically as the trailing edge of the wings are facing forwards.
Bro fab 3000 is now on the menu in Ukraine. Even the new thermobar drone is also on the menu.
Nicely done
Propaganda specialist is incorrect of the history of the T-34
Best part is when they showed KV-1 footage.
Clever stuff.....
No Lancet-3 or Geran-2?
Those rounds hitting that tank has to be loud AF inside
Bravo! You guys keep talking the talk while the Russians do the job as our prices in the West skyrocket. Yesterday, I discovered that public transportation costs have increased by over 30 percent. Let's continue to do the talking, DailyMail.
What rubbish are you talking about? RU started war in the heart of europe and DailyMail is reporting as it should. What job you mean that russians do, destroying other peoples homes and devastating another country?
ESSENTIALLY ESSENTIAL
If we could work together there wouldn't be any war.
Tell that to Putin who invaded Ukraine twice in a decade. and has been involved in 14 wars since Putin was elected.
Tell that to the West that wants endless war
When are you going to go to Afghanistan to work with the Taliban?
@@AaronBr00mfie7d why does anyone have to work with the Taliban?
@@AaronBr00mfie7d The irony is we DID try to work with them. But they would rather live in the dark ages instead of with the rest of the world
The Ghost of Bakhmut is damn terrifying. No wonder soldiers get PTSD. Imagine if you had to deal with that on a daily basis, looking over your shoulder not knowing if you are the next target...
According to Hamish de Bretton UK troops soon entering Vladivostok 😅
That would be interesting to see... the only question then would be "how many minutes does London have to remain on this planet before it is forever lost in a FIRE of radioactive proportions..." Likely less than 15min
Yes I hope this time the wars really peaceful and stopped it’s very important I need pertect my teams too
So these so called experts said that Russia destroyed an Abrams tank but it didn't fully destroy it? Then a few weeks later the Russians destroyed more Abrams tanks. Which one is it? 😂😂😂
Ok comrade. Keep watching RT 🤣🤣
@@DarkCriimesdon't worry. Russia has been running out of ammo, personal, chips and what not since mid 2022 aas per western propaganda.
Russia is fighting th stone and sticks these days
@@DarkCriimes 1 question: from the words of this so called expert the share of western armor was less than 5% of total armor of ukraine when they lost over 800 tanks(>95%russian technology) while russia lost 3000 tanks (100%russian tech). if the data is correct then russian tanks lost to russian tanks because of combat tactics. and the second lie was about abrams tanks could run on any fuel while entire universe knows it is the only tank that runs on jet fuel because of its jet engine.... how can u trust these ppl? the third lie was so blatantly obvious manufactured fabrication of utter nonsense that i would rather pipe my elobaritve mind down and let you scrutinize the rest. btw there would be no russia if the us did not send armed terrorists to chechnya which united russians and reestablished their statehood and empire...
@@humanityeliteschool9407you almost hit on an interesting point there before ruining it with the conspiracy nonsense. Especially earlier in the war, both sides had largely Russian/soviet gear, and yet the Ukrainians significantly outperformed the Russians. Maybe it's less about Russian equipment being crap, and more about Russian leadership, training and doctrine being crap? (Obviously I'm ignoring the effect of things like superior NATO surveillance and information gathering, as well as the defensive advantage which probably plays a role). Food for thought.
@@kristian2353
1. is it so hard to google who and why invented the term "conspiracy theory" that most of lazy people repeat like parrots instead of counterarguing with facts?
2. Success rate of most advanced western missiles and guided shells was over 70% against Russain military. now less than 20%(Stormshadow+HIMARS) and 4% in case of excalibur rendering it useless for further use.
3. i do not need googling in order to understand the Rothschilds are controlling flow of western weapons in quantities that is enough for Russians to study them and counterbuild and develop their own technology. and it perfectly explains why Russia invaded 40mln country, whos military was well trained well equipped and fully supported by the largest military block in history of mankind, with only 150k soldiers as if Russians had some kind of backing from heavens. and it also explains why the most superior advanced military on earth lost to cavemen of Afghanistan called Taliban, equipped with chinese replicas of soviet weapons... and if u did not see how the Rothschilds instigated WW1, great depression and WW2 for creating federal reserve, central banking system and then global currency then its no surprise you cannot see how they are weakening the US to get rid of obsolete USD with its global policemen because any country now is their police due to introduction of digital money and cryptoblockchain.
The Bradley is an ass kicker! Fast and tough
They ahve not lost many western tanks, its becasue they have been kept back after the initial major losses.
Western tanks have been held back becasue they are
Too heavy and get bogged down easily, or cant cross Ukraine bridges.
So in other words most of the time they can only operate on roads in certain areas.
They have been held back and most of the attacks are with Old Soviet kit whilst western game changers are held back.
Add to this the yanks etc dont want the M1 to be seen as easy to kill.
The guy talking about tanks is not really telling the truth on this.
If western tanks went forward they would be massive easy destroyed sitting ducks.
Oh, wow, we have a tank expert right here in YT comments!
@@tayler2396 Ukrainian tank crews gave a low rating to the Abrams tank's capabilities in a conflict with Russia, including preferring to use a modernized T64. The Abrams tank does not provide crew protection - commander of the Ukrainian Abrams tank - so what are you getting at?
@@VVV85650 Exactly, and then theres the Propaganda listeners who's only argument is "Russian tank's turrets fly in space" even tho abramses turret can also fly if it carries full ammo, same story with leopards
@@tayler2396 You don't have to be an expert to have common sense. A thing lacking by some people apparently!
@@tayler2396 Sometimes there are dude. Even World War 2 veterans who participated in Naval battles in which a video is made about; have popped up in the RUclips comments.
Some RUclips commenters are more expert than the experts, so this point is dud.
The only criticism I have is that he should have put "Game Changers" in scare quotes like annotated above.
Western legacy media is propaganda, especially when it comes to reporting on capital markets and warfare. One of the "experts" I've seen before, from King's College in London.
That's a lobbyist mill like West Point in the US. They put their "experts" on TV news shows in order to put out whatever pro war propaganda is needed, just with stupid strategic and tactical jargon to woo the viewer.
Just like the butchers of World War 1.
56:58 That's not a PTRS. The PTRS-41 was a semi-automatic AT rifle. What is shown here is the similar but single shot, bolt action, PTRD-41.
3.1 tons
The Soviet apartments were pretty tough a neighborhood of them is like a fortress.
Russians successfully countered Jdam and accurate guided artillery.
Anti material rifle for jets?
Lol
Like ghost of Kiev
Ukraine has been lying unless the target is near
Cope and seethe. How's that Northern attack going for you guys? Have you yet enlisted at your nearest enlistment office? I'd love to see your name in a war "memorial" for the losing side of the war.
The muzzle brake is to keep the barrel as concentric as possible,if it wasn’t there the barrel would lift up or move to the left or right and it would take time to reposition.
So Ukraines gaining all the experience and Russias is losing all the experience lol okay.
Most of Ukraine's experienced servicemen are sadly no longer with us. The Bradley's got lucky and had a numerical advantage. The Challenger and Abrams are just as vulnerable as anything else, so they've been pulled from combat. They make nice trophies too.
They are not pulled from combat. The tactics employed for their use has changed. All things being equal, their crews have a much higher survival rate when hit than the Soviet and Russian designs
Proof of the first statement?
@@jimmcneal5292 The commander of the NATO training mission in Ukraine, Lieutenant General Andreas Marlow, spoke about the huge losses of the Ukrainian army since the beginning of Russia's special military operation. In his interview with the Swiss newspaper Neue Zürcher Zeitung, the general said that of the 200,000 professional Ukrainian fighters available as of February 2022, the majority have already been destroyed or have dropped out due to injuries.
@@James-rl5tj I never saw any real world survival rate data. On a battlefield, surviving tank penetration doesn't mean survival for next tank.
@@ПетърХристов-к2е I've found only two news sites that stated that he said it, one is russian, another is obviously pro-russian. Is there even a independent confirmation of this quote?
we live in a time where wars are fought with drones and is all documented on media. Truly reaching the future.
Hamas in Gaza?? More like innocent children in Gaza.
Over 15000 children killed in Gaza (according to some sources) in under a year, won't sell as well as 600+ (according to UN by April 2024) children in Ukraine since 2022, it's easier if you just mention the millions of people displaced and 500k + losses (from both sides in total, although it's probably more). It's never about objectivity nowadays it's about taping into the emotions of the viewers, IMHO even 1 child dying is a tragedy, what sickens me is how the media use these children sometimes in their information warfare...
29:43 😂 damn those 1890s era tanks lol
No, 500 is not the weight of the bomb. It is the yield of the bomb. How do I know this and you don't?
It's 1500 that fella is clueless
You're both wrong. It's the weight of the HE, which usually is TNT, so in that case doubles as a yield, if it's pure TNT. So saying that it's weight of the bomb is correct, if simplified for noobs like us. It's just NETTO weight, which is not mentioned in military speech. What do you mean "no, 1500"?
They have 250, 500, 750, 1000, 1500, 2000-something and 3000kg FABs with glide kit and bigger ones claimed in production. I've no information of the purity of TNT, to confirm that HE weight equals yield, but what df is the difference to you?
@@dannydetonator No, I'm not wrong. The yield of a bomb is measured in the explosive power in weight of TNT. But it doesn't have to be using TNT. So a 1000 lb bomb detonates with as much force as 1,000 lb of TNT exploding, regardless of the actual explosive being used.
@@unbannablebob395 Nobody measures it like that. Generally the weight of the bombs is the weight itself not the payload. There are armor piercing bombs that weigh 1000kg and are called 1000kg armor piercing bombs but only have a payload of 100kg. Nobody is calling those "100kg bombs". The only time this rule doesn't apply is with nuclear bombs because the explosive power is so much greater.
youre very welcome
Excellent documentary very well done ✅
thats what the Russian ask at the adult bookstore. in the video booths in the back you hear "glide bomb ready to explode who wants it? it's locked cocked and ready to glide into your backside" LMFAO
Hilarious me too
It's called a manned missile 🎉
They have tens of thousands of the glide bombs 💣
6:46 The excellent Justin Bronk making an appearance, where are my Ward Carroll homies at?!
We know Russia is jamming US GPS guided weapon systems. Hopefully Ukraine is getting help jamming the GLONASS system as well.
Do you think your words mean "we want to start World War III"? What if the Russians provided "assistance" to the nuclear weapons systems of Somalia or Lebanon or North Korea or Pakistan?
@@elanhelosdeblanco8476the fact you think they didn't already is naive
@@elanhelosdeblanco8476they did to north korea
@@elanhelosdeblanco8476and why the escalation to nuclear? Did the US provide nuclear tech yo Ukraine? No, the oposite... ut requested that it gived up all its nukes... all 10 000 of them
@@drevilatwork Fine. Give your child a gun and say, “Come on, fight for your freedom.” And when a child kills someone, you simply answer: it’s not my fault, I’m just giving him a gun. And when the cops shot him with a big rifle, you blame the cops. Don’t try to fool me, you know that all these complex weapons are controlled by NATO officers and this is a war through proxy countries. War for gas, oil, power etc. No one respect USA anymore.
Holy smokes they made a 3ton shovel
Special heavy ductile alloy: titanium mixed with depleted uranium and some stalinium.
"We are winning" Napoleon, probably.
Hitler too. Both were fans of Bob Dylan... Knockin' On Heaven's Door.
@02:49 That window sealant iis Non Compliant! 😂
does not look like flares on the russian jet , looks more like chaff
chaf and flares are prettymuch the same this ... just depends on what kind of missile you want to evade... radar or IR
@@RePlayBoy101 just like radar waves and IR waves are pretty much the same: around 3cm versus 1-3um, that is 10000-30000 times smaller.
@@BojanPeric-kq9et what are you even talking about... you clearly have no idea about anything...
IR is using the visual aspect(heat)
Radar guided is using radar either of the planes radar or the radar in the missile... and that also depends on what kind of missile it is FOX 1, FOX 3
@@RePlayBoy101 sure, I have no idea about wavelengths of radars and IR spectrum.
If you took basic course in physics, you would know that bot radio waves and infra red waves are actually electromagnetic waves, just is visible light. Alas, you skipped such course(s) or completely forgot what you (maybe) had learned.
Or maybe US fighters and US missiles don't (have to) obey to laws of physics?
@@BojanPeric-kq9et since youre a special boy i will use a simple kindergarden explanation
IR missile = Hawk(they use their eyes)
Radar missiles = bats(they use their ears)
I think most underestimate the bradly because of the 25mm but it works the best against armor. Like how a bulletproof vest almost always stops a .45 cal yet 9mm are always sneaking through. Smaller faster rounds penetrate much better against armor
I love how the ghosts of Bakhmut roll around with a soft pink blanket. 54:31.
In World 2, the Red Army's anti-rifles were so effective against the flanks of the main German battle tanks, the Panzer III and Panzer IV, that, in 1943, the Germans thought it worth the effort to mount protective side armoured skirts ('schurzen') to both of these vehicles. I think I am correct in saying that these anti tank rifles used tungsten core ammunition, and they could be very effective. One Panther tank commander is purported to have said that when using the first model of the Panther, he was more concerned about massed Red Army anti-tank rifles than he was of it's anti tank guns.
You have done a mistake, jdam has been used against civilians in gaza which is an act of terrorism from Israel.
You beat me to it mate .. well said.
The bushmaster chain gun on those Bradley's are absolutely terrifyingly powerful.
That is why there is single video of it, discussed ad nauseum. And there is bunch of destroyed Bradles.
in singing the praises to the Bradley, DailyMail forgot to mention the "counter" offensive and the piles and piles Bradleys left destroyed in the step.
You are extraordinary. I've never written this in a comment previously. Thank You.
Sorry, but calling the freedom fighters of Gaza "terrorists" earned you a thumbs down and bye
Bradley vs a Tank is like MP5 vs M-82 barret in close quarter combat. M-82 is bigger, better snd expensive but in close quarter MP5 has a natural advantage.
Many "experts" ignore simple fact: that happened once, maybe two or three times. With many Bradleys destroyed.
Before doing this analysis, please explain how the best USA tanks cost many million dollars were destroyed Chinese drones converted to FPV drones cost few hundred dollars. This is absolutely mind blowing and that is why we don’t see USA and British tanks on front lines, because they are useless.
Maybe you should just go there and walk around in an suv? Tanks are useless, why bother, just take your honda crv ey??
@@HVAC356🤣🤣🤣👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼
The airfoil of the wing in the thumbnail is backwards😂😂😂
I thought I was the only one realizing this! I didn't know if the picture was wrongly created/manipulated or was Russian quality assurance at work
Great summary documentary. Like the input from the experts. 👍
Propadanda!
15:52 please don't call the Bradley a battlefield taxi... The Bradley is an infantry fighting vehicle IFV for short. The Striker is a M1126 ICV (infantry carrier vehicle) AKA Battlefield Taxi. The Buffalo (Bison) is an ICV, and a very impressive one at that, compartmentalize as a Armoured Personel Carrior. The Bradley is used to take troups right up to the front and delivers them, usually under fire, and fights with the troops alongside the Abrams M1A2 main battle tank
If they deliver troops to the battlefield, why not to call them battlefield taxi?
@alexhumble7653 you've obviously never served in a forward fighting unit. And I'd doubt you've ever even served at all. I served 16yrs in the USMC & USN, and only left after my left leg got blown off below the knee.
How many thousand miles from the borders of your country did you fight in the battlefields defending it.
@alexhumble7653 Many, but just because the threat is thousands of miles away doesn't mean they are not a threat to us here. Pearl Harbour, 9/11, the Alamo
@alexhumble7653 the Revolutionary War, the French Indian War, the Spanish American War, the War of 1812, etc...
I don't really think you need to do anything extra to make the Bradley any more visible/noticeable. LOL.
The expert seemed a newly grad student, not more than 25 I guess?
His voice sounds old. Probably retired 35+, but he is army dude which means his brain is not too big, therefore he is words sound like a young kid.
What I don't get, is why nobody during WW2 could figure out to put wings on bombs and make em glide.
Its not like they had much accuracy when they dropped them regular ones.
But they could at least have saved a lot of crews the bother of having to fly right over the target where all the Flak was.
With a glide bomb, you can approach from any angle and drop remote, which would have made flak concentrations impossible
6:19 Russia copped it! It it was the Germans in the 1940s that first used the glide bomb and now you said the Russians copped it from Ukraine.
Did Iraq have weapons mass destruction too
SMART
Semantics, narrative and pure propaganda. Save your brain cells..
Interesting that you still use video tape for these recordings.
UMBD D 30 & UMPK Glid boom Fab 250, 500, 1000 , 1500, FAB 3000, FAB 5000 & FAB 9000
cant wait for the memes on these
1:03:29….. M2 Browning? Fire the editor.