How Russia’s strategy in Ukraine failed, not the tank | It's Complicated
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 4 окт 2022
- Russian forces lost a vast numbers of tanks during the first few months of the war, prompting questions over whether they were becoming obsolete.
Subscribe to Guardian News on RUclips ► bit.ly/guardianwiressub
But the tank has previously appeared to have been consigned to the ash heap of history only to rise again to reaffirm its relevance. Josh Toussaint-Strauss examines Russia's early deployment during the invasion and asks: if tanks aren't the problem, why did they fail in Ukraine?
The Guardian publishes independent journalism, made possible by supporters. Contribute to The Guardian today ► bit.ly/3uhA7zg
Sign up to the Guardian's free new daily newsletter, First Edition ► theguardian.com/first-edition
Website ► www.theguardian.com
Facebook ► / theguardian
Twitter ► / guardian
Instagram ► / guardian
The Guardian on RUclips:
The Guardian ► bit.ly/guardiannewssubs
Guardian Australia ► bit.ly/guardianaussubs
Guardian Football ► bit.ly/gdnfootballsubs
Guardian Sport ► bit.ly/gdnsportsubs
Guardian Live ► bit.ly/guardianlivesubs
#Russia #Ukraine #Tanks #RussianInvasion #VladimirPutin #War
The Russians are fighting the last war. The Ukrainians are fighting the next war.
They have basically the same armored vehicles.
The Ukrainians listened to their Western trainers and totally reformed their military from 2014.
They adopted the Western style of war and added many of their own twists to it...
The tank is about like the battleships of ww2. From now on, unless in idea tank terrain, they will be used only in certain situations. Armored vehicles will always have a place but the big gun tanks are on there way out.
Its worse than that the aren't even up to first gulf war tactics, Apache and A10 firing hellfire missiles would decimate them. However NATO has moved on from this with Reaper drones and F35 stand off weapons means that the Russian wouldn't even see the incoming attacks. NATO would rollup the Russian offence in a week?
Sure, if by "the last", you mean WW2.
@@RonJohn63
try Afghanistan.
@@lokisg3 given that Ukraine is neither highly mountainous desert, full of illiterate tribal peasants and nor is this a guerrilla war, comparing this to Afghanistan is utterly bogus.
This video fails to mention the huge difference in between the Ukrainian army in 2014 and 2022 in regards to training, discipline and doctrine. The Ukrainian army was in no state to properly resist Russias' encroachment in 2014 both due to lack of equipment but also due to lack of training/doctrine. The Ukrainian army in 2022 has a lot more focus on the NCO and using NATO inspired battle doctrine than 'traditional' Soviet doctrine. For example NATO philosophy on logistics supply is PULL-based (request what you think you need to achieve an objective using your) while Soviet is PUSH-based (receive whatever the command thinks you need to achieve your object via the prescribed tactics)
NATO countries will stop supplying weapons to Ukraine after a nuсlеar strikе on their territory...
but how does that effect Tank's effectiveness?
@@xponen with PULL, you request enough fuel for the tank achieve your objective. With PUSH, you are given whatever commands gives you and you can ran out of it, like in the video. And that makes a tank a sitting duck waiting to be destroyed.
@@xponen combined arms offensives thats how ... the ukranians can perform this at brigade lvl right now .. and there making it work ... the russians tried it at the start had no clue what they were doing and the ukranians also had training in tank and column ambush and urban warfare the russians didnt
Somewhere I came across a comment by a Ukrainian that they had been preparing for this war for the last 8 yrs. i.e. since the invasion of Crimea.
Russia vastly underestimated the Ukrainian resolve especially early on. Ukrainians were literally fighting off Russian tanks with Molotov cocktails. I also think Putin underestimated the international response to his invasion.
That sums it up rather well.
It worked in 2014 well, right ?! Why change a winning strategy?
They thought that the Ukrainian army would be similar as in 2014. And they problably really thought that Ukraine doesn't exist for real and that Ukrainian is not a real language , not worth fighting for...
As if the Soviet Union and USA had not experienced how difficult it is to invade and control a country that keeps resisting ...
you dont say? this was news like a month after the war started, lol
Yes
When a handful of men on a small island tell Russia F you, you know you're in for a fight.
Russia is now the biggest donator of tanks and other vehicles now to Ukraine. Very nice of them 👌
So what I understand from this is,tanks are extremely dangerous when used by a professional, disciplined, well trained army,which the majority of the Russians appear not to be
It doesn't matter if Russian tank crews were properly trained or not in armored warfare, because from the T62 to the T90, all of them have a Design Flaw, and the tank wreckages in the video clearly shows the end result of that design flaw.
@@evilfingers4302 I wouldn't necessarily say it's a design flaw but certainly a weakness in some situations (situations the Russian crews have found themselves in due to poor training and maintenance, poor logistics and presumably poor intelligence).
The central ammunition carousel allows the tanks to have very low profiles compared to western counterparts. The trade-off for this of course being that one shot to the centre of the tank blows the turret off.
I don't think it's fair to say that it's an objective design flaw. In the same way that the greater survivability of western tanks is not an objective positive, because with that comes a larger profile, a heavier vehicle overall and as a result it can be more expensive to run. Each design philosophy comes with its own set of pros and cons, and encourages certain tactics over others.
@@evilfingers4302 Design flaws were a trade off that was decided by the Soviets doctrine.
Tanks require not only trained crew but efficient repair crews with spare parts as well as infantry support. The Russians supported BTGs with few tactical support units due to the rushed nature of their tactics
Dont use this video as education. View it as entertainment
Russia lost countless tanks to Chechen guerillas in the city of Grozny, who were armed with the basic Soviet RPG. Switch the setting from small Chechnya to sprawling Ukraine and change the weapons from RPGs to NLAWs and Javelins, and you have a recipe for disaster.
Yes. Tank battalions work well enough against under-equipped resistance, and especially well against unarmed civilians.
This
49 tanks is countless? You sure?
@@timaznosok5398 2,495 tanks destroyed in 8 months sound like a better number for "countless losses"?
@@hannibalusa Especially considering the hundreds of armor units which are unserviceable and parked in Russia for the duration.
4:11 Tank crashing into tree 😂😂😂
The balls on that guys asking if he can tow the tanks back to Russia 😅
The main difference: Russia was facing actual resistance this time
Yeah, it's not quite like bombing lightly armed Syrians or Chechens back to the Stone Age, or shooing off the smaller Georgian army, then going home. Instead of bullying smaller nations and defenceless people, they've attacked a large country determined and prepared to defend itself.
"Putin went to the oracle and asked if he should go to war and the priestess replied that, should Putin attack the Ukrainians, a mighty empire would fall. Gleefully, Putin launched his attack."
An oracular spectacular.
Russian tactics didn’t really seem to change since 2014, it was the Ukrainians that changed. It’s far simpler to defeat an enemy that’s basically a glorified militia rather than a professional army. The Ukrainian army was in shambles in 2014, it was basically just Azov and other partisans. In 2022 they had a semi reformed army that was willing to face the losses they’d take facing the Russians and learn through their teething issues. That, coupled with Russian doctrine being particularly vulnerable to ambush tactics (with the exception of simply carpet bombing cities) meant that Ukraine was put in a unique advantage as the Russians pushed into Urban areas.
Russian land warfare doctrine hasn't changed since WWI. We all saw how that worked out.
since WWII*
@@mso1ps4 No, WWI. Putin's going to get deposed by his own army.
Modern ground-based anti-tank weapons including man-portable missiles have greater attack range than their earlier counterparts. This means the infantry screen which is meant to keep enemies away from high-value tank targets has to sanitise a lot more ground around the tank columns than before. That means lots more infantry are needed to screen each group of tanks and the tanks are still vulnerable to a well-hidden ambush attack if the infantry don't do their job well enough.
The infantry screens are usually deployed alongside the tanks in "battle taxis", Infantry Fighting Vehicles and these IFVs can also be a worthwhile target for such missile ambushes, of course. Eliminate enough IFVs and infantry in a armour column and the tanks become further exposed and take losses.
Attack helicopters designed to protect ground troops protecting tanks become vulnerable to light/mobile anti-aircraft weapons. This one/two punch from a distance is causing the Ruskies headaches. And then drones.
How can a tank support infantry if a Javelin has a 2+km range?
@@gotherecom Drones are overrated. There, I said it. There's a lot of RUclips videos of pinprick attacks by small commercial drones, dropping mortar shells or even smaller weapons on troops in trenches or vehicles. We get to see the lucky shots, the ones that get a result and we don't see the dozen more attempts where there's no effect or the drone gets disabled or shot down or whatever. Winter is coming and operating those sorts of drones effectively in snowstorms and high winds with limited light each day is going to become more difficult to impossible for both sides.
The big military drones, the ones that can fly in bad conditions with night vision gear carrying more serious ordnance are basically small unmanned aircraft and they suffer from having to fly in contested airspace, facing MANPAD missiles and AA guns as well as fighter aircraft. They work very well in places where the opposition is armed with little more than pointed sticks but in a near-peer conflict like this they're of limited use. They're cheaper to operate than manned fighters and easier to replace, that's all.
You are also forgetting that Russia has not used their Air Force to the effectiveness it could have and combined it with the ground battle
Russia didn't use 5% of what they have, like Lingerie wrote aviation was mostly absent. People are still very ignorant when it comes to this things.
This might be the reason those ~300.000 soldiers didn't arrive yet, let's hope heads cool a bit until they do.
Funny how having your tank's turret blown away, can take the fight, right out of you!
"Funny" is your choice of words?
It can take your body right out as well.
@@Diana1000Smiles Hyperbole' got lost on you?
@@clavo3352 what is hyperbole if you don't mind me asking?
@@user-sk3nf2vv4p An exaggeration is hyperbole' Like: "Trump is a very honest man." that would qualify as hyperbole. it would also qualify as Bullsh*t! But "hyperbole" is the more civil way to say that.
It seems like nothing has been declared "dead" more often than the tank, and nothing has come back from the dead more often as soon as the next major ground war begins. I can't think of a better way of putting it than how The Cheiftain (military RUclipsr and former Abrams commander) did: The aircraft carrier didn't make the battleship "obsolete" because carrier aircraft could sink a battleship. What made the battleship obsolete was that the carrier and its air group could do the battleship's job better. An infantryman with an ATGM may be able to destroy a tank, but can't take its place on battlefield. The mere existence of a countermeasure doesn't make a weapon obsolete. Surface ships are not obsolete because of anti-ship missiles anymore than they were when the torpedo was invented. Anti-ship missiles are themselves not obsolete because warships have decoys, jammers and point defence systems. SAMs don't make aircraft obsolete. You could go on.
The telegraph is dead.
@@CountingStars333 Because the telephone and the internet do it's job better.
Tanks and Snipers have faced the same issue of being labelled as unnecessary until it becomes overwhelmingly apart they are
That's the best way of putting it for probably sure.
A tank is only as effective as the fuel line supplying it.
"We lost nothing."
"Also, I declare mobilisation."
-Vladolf Pootler
Just like ukranian keep saying they are winning and yet losing 1/5 territory
@@meepro1218 , and is the war over?
@@meepro1218 Russians keep saying they’re winning yet they only have 1/5 of the country when they had 2/5 6 months ago
@@meepro1218 but they are gaining back, right ?
The NLAW is a Swedish and British weapon…
the inlaws are weapons everywhere else.
yeah, but the guardian won't admit that.
Sweden probably don’t care too much about it being called British. Their reputation on arm manufacturing is already well known.
BBBbbbut alexander de pfeffel johnson builds each one by hand in-between making model double decker bus's....
Swedish designed, british built.
They would have felt safe, at first. Inside a tank or transporter, until they started getting annihilated. Then I'm sure word spread round the Russian forces that their safe place is actually a mobile coffin. It explains why so many were abandoned. Once one tank goes next to you, many will jump out and take their chances with small arms fire.
A BMP is literally a fuel can. It's armor can be penetrated by anything bigger than a 50 caliber machinegun and there are two large unprotected fuel tanks on the left and right of the crew compartment in the back. Pretty much any penetrating hit and the inside turns into an oven... and the ammo rack will detonate as a result.
That's a rational decision. When you're inside the target, get out and run!
It looked like Russia's war doctrine hasn't changed much since the cold war. They vastly underestimated Ukraine and it is quite shocking to see they've lost that many tanks. I do believe due to poor training and also the outdated capabilities of the soviet era T64, T72, and T80 tanks. Yes, they're cheap to produce but the crew survivability is ridiculous. They're not completely useless but taking a tank into an urban environment is a nightmare and I feel bad for ukraine and russian tank crews suffering heavy losses.
The biggest problem early war was lack of infantry. Russian army was designed to fight after mobilization. Most of the units were ar 60-80% strenght and as grunts are easiest to train, almost all the missing personnel (the ones who were supposed come from reserves) were infantry. A Russian BTG that is at 70% strenght and has all its vehicles, command elements etc. will have only 2-3 dismounts per infantry squad. With 2 people its impossible to pull security for the IFV they ride in, let alone all the tanks they are supposed to protect...
Their casualties are staggering too. You might have seen that in a few months they’ve managed to reach the same number of casualties as the US had throughout the entirety of the Vietnam war.
@@Pinkie007 Number of casualties are vastly exaggerated by NATO and western media. It’s nowhere close to number of Ukrainian soldiers killed or wounded. They must have lost around 100K soldiers.
@@realnapster1522 Right, that’s why it’s Russia who is out manned and needed to mobilize and not Ukraine. Soviet Doctrine is tolerant of very high troop losses.
@@Pinkie007 I mean is it even surprising at this point considering it's Russia? 🤷♂️🤷♀️
Tanks, properly handled, and deployed with a good combined arms doctrine, and proper supply, can be devastating. Russia has not done any of this.
True, but not better than less expensive and far more survivable weapons platforms. The tank is an anachronism today. It only performs a role because we create such. I killed armor for a living. I know how utterly worthless a tank is at most roles we assign it, especially when its dead.
@@mfuchs2004 So where would that be then? It's been over 20 years since anyone has fielded large numbers of tanks against a western power.
@@mfuchs2004 You've never hunted tanks for real. There are things tanks being to the battlefield you obviously don't comprehend.
It doesn't help when the tanks' armor is replaced with cardboard.
@@williamyoung9401 🤣😂🤣😂 To true.
I wish we didn't keep advising the Russians on their poor strategy. Remember Napoleon's saying "Don't ever tell your enemy they are making a mistake"!
they currently not have the resources to do massive changes in their military due to resource shortages their tactics may change but only on the top as the officers below will take time adapting to new tactics because they will have to undo the tactics they've been trained on
It really doesn't matter. It will take years, possibly decades, for Russia to absorb and assimilate the bitter lessons they are learning now, even if they get the chance to do so. Russia's forces are hemorrhaging experienced troops, who are being replaced by inexperienced and often completely untrained conscripts, so at the time of writing their problems are only going to get worse.
Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake. - Napoleon Bonaparte
If you think that Russians will give up and lose this war, you haven’t studied history. Soviet army was finished in winter of 1941 and they came back and hit hard. Pushed Germans all the way back to Berlin.
@@realnapster1522 note they did that thanks to the fact that Germany is having to split their resources on all fronts and the soviets took heavy casualties to reach Berlin which is something they cannot afford now as they are practically isolated and their population we're if the reports are correct not as willing to fight
I must note that Russia also failed because Russian active protection systems on their tanks are not only less widely deployed but have proven thus far to be far less effective at intercepting enemy attacks then their western equivalents like the Israeli Trophy system.
Because no Russian tank with hardkill APS was deployed to Ukraine, only T-90 series featuring Shtora softkill designed to deal with already outdated ATGMs like TOW. Shtora still can act as early warning and automated smoke screen, surprisingly we have no footage of that ever (?) used. Heck, even manually launched smoke screens are rare sight
Egg cartons don't do much against HEAT rounds.
Tanks bring gun power up fast to be applied to where it is needed but modern artillery can do that from twenty kilometers away now. Infantry and self-propelled artillery can do the job that the tank used to do without as much risk to the gun platform, which can stay miles away from the action now and still hit with pinpoint accuracy.
Artillery doesn't have anywhere near as much mobility as tanks though, tanks and mechanized infantry can quickly outrun artillery, then have the infantry dismount to attack positions
There is also another factor to consider. Who can get rounds down range faster? An artillery battery needs to confirm a target is where it is before engaging because you don’t want to pull a Russia and bomb an apartment complex full of civilians. A tank can see for itself where an enemy position is and start engaging it faster, giving immediate fire support to the infantry.
Tanks can be formidable weapons, but without supporting infantry they are just nice TARGETS for anti tank weapons and drones! During my 30 years of active duty, whenever we employed tanks, they were always supported by infantry!
Do you know the structure of russian armed forces? It is filled with vehicles and supporting infantry, unlike US airborne without heavy weapons, all russian units has armor and enough weapons. Ukraine already lost army size of at least Poland+UK. Completely.
@@kirilld6206 Yes I know the structure of the Russian Military. The truth is that they effectively reduced the amount of infantry in every squad, battalion, company to a point that was unsustainable prior to the war. Look into it, the research shows that Russia was trying to focus on professional contract soldiers and did not have enough to properly support their equipment. Thus, they have resorted to more conscription (partial mobilization) in an attempt to field more infantry support for their vehicles after the Ukrainian operation was failing. The same thing happened in Grozny, Russia did not have enough infantry support for their vehicles. The reality is that the disaffected Russian population, which is already not that big relative to Western European countries, is not enough to support their vast equipment reserves. They went for a hybrid model of volunteer-conscript army and it backfired, their vehicles are useless without proper infantry support. How else does a military power like Russia end up on the retreat without enough men to cover the front against a relatively small power like Ukraine?
@@sigurke Still Russia wins all wars, western Europe and USA not.
USA doesn’t fight wars to win
Amazing that Putin didn't learn from the Gulf war...
Not mentioned but also a factor is the loss of the tank crews, and likely the most aggressive ones. The tankers that a cautious and hang back, may survive more often but also more likely to run.
Pov : When u only focus on massive numbers to overwhelm ur opponent but lacks the neccessary tactics be like
4:12 it's like he was actively trying to find the biggest tree he could to crash into...
Funny cause we just saw Ukrain use tanks with great success in the southwest front to rapidly take over the areas north of Kherson haha. All with the same tanks Russia used, some literally the same ones. It's all about strategy.
By the way, Ukraine is very happy that Russia donated the tanks
The Ukrainians are using tanks when they already control the battlefield and the Russians are in retreat. The Russians lack infantry numbers and real motivation
Their tanks also failed the modern warfare test
Guess what? All Earthlings failed as Guardians of our own Planet.
No they didn't. _The same tanks_ used by Ukraine (admittedly with a few upgrades) have been very effective in the blitzkrieg on the eastern front, and now also on the southern front. The main difference is how they were used.
@@bobjohnbowles The irony is most of the tanks the Russians are losing were actually made in Ukraine before the Soviet Union collapsed. They're basically going home to die like some sort of migration lol.
@@Diana1000Smiles Who are you to declare that?
Russia will start producing more armatas after this.
It takes extensive training to learn how to operate tanks and infantry together as a well integrated team. After the fall of the Soviet Union the Russians went about 10 years without conducting comprehensive large scale trainings/exercises.
This means an entire generation of NCO's and Officers have risen to positions of leadership that have never maneuvered forces in the field on a consistent basis or for prolonged periods of time.
That lack of training shows in combat, which is what we are seeing.
Another thing to keep in mind... The Russian army hasn't got an NCO corps.
They just didn't have the opportunities the US has with all there wars of aggression on innocent populations. They will never be as dangerous as those American or British imperialists funny how the west doesn't understand this fact.
@@NuclearFridge1 The Russian Army has an NCO Crops, but it doesn't operate the same as those found in NATO Armies, the US Army specifically.
Russian NCO's tend to be more focused on troop discipline and organization and less on technical training and small unit tactics.
Those tasks tend to be the province of junior Officers.
A Russian Junior Officer would be amazed how much professional training an American Mid-Career NCO has and how much training he conducts.
No other battlefield weapon can bring direct fire support of a heavy machine gun and a 120 mm gun firing a high velocity heavy weight projectile. While the Armour protection may not stand up to new anti tank missiles, they will stand up to nearly anything short of that or another tank. If your infantry you would much rather the tank on your side than the other. What one must never think they are unstoppable armored beasts. They are a weapon system like any other with benefits, costs and weaknesses.
A Panzerhaubitze 2000 bring a 155mm gun to the battlefield....
@@andyf10 A PzH2000 does not provide direct fire support (it's artillery) and can be easily destroyed by autocannon fire since it has relatively thin armour.
Infact if we want to make a PzH2000 suitable for frontline combat we logically would increase its armour and we would end up with... a tank. So tanks are not obsolete
@@cloroxbleach9222 Many of Russia's tank losses in the war have been to Ukrainian artillery. Well targeted indirect fire can be just as deadly to a tank as direct fire.
The question you havent asked is Why does Russia not have enough infantry and what does this mean for the Russian state? Could this be even before the war started Russia did not have enough men of fighting age.
Agree with you. I'd say they are a paper army, just large numbers on paper indeed! They appear to have many for their military parades instead lol.
The Russian army has a peacetime skeleton crew, which is short on manpower but able to conduct small conflicts. During war, conscripts are mobilized to fill the gaps.
Because the invasion started with a peacetime army (and a larger concentration of forces would telegraph the invasion ahead of time instead of making it ambiguous) they had the infantry shortage.
@@ChucksSEADnDEAD So Tsar Putin's "Special Military Operation" was designed to avoid the definition of "War", thereby constraining his resources to a level that would only be successful if Ukraine simply surrendered.
@@ChucksSEADnDEAD This is correct. Russian units are missing people because they suppose to get them from reservists. This is by design.
War left undeclared, people weren’t called up, not enough recruits flocked to the banner like he’d wished.
Plus he probably didn’t expect this kind of resistance.
When your army is lacking a proper NCO core
The Chieftain (a tanker of renown among gamers and military enthusiasts) did an amazing video on this very subject. The tank is not obsolete for the simple reason that there is nothing that fulfills the same role BETTER than the tank. It is a fast, armored platform that provides direct fire and can support infantry or vice versa.
Consider the Battleship and the Aircraft Carrier. If it was about cost effective and capable weapon systems, the torpedo boat would've made the battleship obsolete ages ago. Aircraft carriers weren't just effective against battleships, they fulfilled the same role and did it BETTER.
A note on the numbers... Ukraine actually claims 2350 Russian tanks lost, Oryxspionkop already have 1300 Russian tank losses geolocated with images. Given Oryx is well behind on the reports, but nevertheless keeps on catching up with the Ukrainian claims, I'd say Ukraine's claimed tank kills are pretty close to the truth.
With the 2,350 number, pretty sure they're including IFVs with those (BTR-4s, BMP-3/2/1, etc).
Is not tank but ifv to
@@carkawalakhatulistiwa Nope. Read the figures for yourself.
These are crippling losses. Keeping modern tanks repaired and running is quite expensive. Basically the Russians seem to have lost about half their available main battle tanks .Bringing older ones out of storage is not simple. This is why Russia really needed outside support
@@WhoopityDoo No, the Russian IFV losses are over 5000.
The weapons system costs definitely did not give consideration to the cost of a javelin at around $180K per system and $80K per missile. The price of freedom is high, but worth it.
No. The auto loader systems used in T-72, T-80 and T-90 tanks do not provide enough protection to the separate propellant charges used by the main gun.
It’s not complicated it’s called training mechanical upkeep and tactical knowledge from leadership. Alas we now know Russia started with not an ounce of any one of these
So you trained Ukraine for 8 years and there is their army? Next year total capitulation and no Ukraine? Or NATO goes nuclear and we destroy all this planet?
At least this war , We discovered the hidden desire of the russian T-72....To be a tankcopter ... Russia deserves a "special invention mention " for the VTOL turrets used during this " special military operation" ...
They have seen this happen in a number of wars, it appears Russia didn't learn, or didn't care, about bad tank design.
Guy literally just threw 20 military buzzwords into a sentence and thought he was making a joke
A few other valid points was missing these Ukrainians effective uavs and Ukrainian innovations converting commercial drones as grenade droppers and Ukraine made anti tank weapons and tank's self propelled killer's. Uavs and drones became a barrier between the plane's and ground troops they were supposed to protect.
I've heard that the grenade-dropping drone is a middle-eastern invention, but still a valid point
Denis Morgan irrelevant. Russians did the same thing they did in 1995 in Chechnya and took similar heavy losses.
@@meegz149 at the time Russia had more of a population to do it with and get away with, plus Ukraine have not finished with destroying the Russian military yet. When finished with Russia will not have enough population to be considered as a nation.
@@user-hn3jj5iq1y Really? I have only ever seen it used by the Ukrainians, going back a few years... Did it get pioneered in Syria?
@@toad2117 I don't know, I've heard of limited usage, not really sure, but the Ukrainians are really using it to devastating effect and on a massive scale.
4:39 - The sound of this tank.
Effective with other supports. A tank on its own is a sitting target.
Confirmed tank loses for Ruzzia is now around 1300. Actual number would be a lot higher due to unverified kills.
who said 1300 is verified number?)
In the army, I learned that there are 7 principles of mission command: Commander's intent, Shared understanding, Mutual trust, Disciplined initiative, Risk acceptance, Mission orders, and Competence.
It seems like the Russians only have risk acceptance.
Finally people understood that its about tactics, not the tanks.
Its about the tactics in employing tanks
Well Russia has no main battle tanks but armored vehicles with 125mm cannon
"Russia has no main battle tanks "
Soon, probably.
I think the tank's next major evolution involves protecting the top just as much as the sides
Some newer tanks already do this, the Israeli Merkava being one. There just haven't been many actually designed and fielded over the last 30 years or so. Most we see in service right now are actually fairly old and still designed primarily around the Fulda Gap scenario.
4:10 failed drift -1000 points
Many concluded that tanks were obsolete at the end of world war 1 and here we are again.
The Ukrainians have received tanks from other countries, and the Ukrainian soldiers said it was like comparing Lada to a Porsche when it comes to Russian made or the one's they have received.
They received only derivatives of Soviet T-72 tanks from the countries of the former Eastern bloc.
ok, I've seen that interview were the ukrainian made that particular comparison and it was about him using the Polish Krab self-propelled howitzer as opposed to the Soviet Msta he initially trained on. It was MOST DEFINITELY not about tanks. What Arthur wrote is correct.
Guardian has become associated with these sorts of very quality contents.
As long as they learn who designed the NLAW, also called Robot 57. Saab Bofors Dynamics
I would say the biggest thing they missed is that APC and IFV didn’t deploy their infantry at least what from what I heard from
Russia didn't have much infantry to begin with. They only brought a very few.
@@Thunderbyrd. I would agree but not dismount when getting shot at is a bad idea
Success of war is always measured on the enemies strategic failures
Bollocks.
Well trained infantry can protect a tank from man-portable, anti tank weapons fired from ranges of 100, 200 or 300m. They can't protect tanks from man-portable anti tank weapons fired from ranges of 1, 2 or 3 km.
The latest generation of infantry anti armour weapons, such as the NLAW, are routinely fired from those sorts of ranges. They are also fire and forget weapons, so infantry can immediately duck for cover after firing, and can be set to specifically target the weakest armour on a tank, such as the top of the turret or engine bay.
Rifle armed infantry have precisely no chance of protecting tanks against that sort of threat.
The result: any tank not armoured specifically to defeat these sorts of weapons, are completely and irretrievably obsolete. And that includes every Russian tank used in Ukraine.
The same happened in the medieval ages with body armours. Speed and agility is the new skill war machines needs rather than armours
Thank you for reiterating that Humans cannot change. ✌ Not enough of us wanted PEACE.
@@Diana1000Smiles If you were correct we would already be at war.
Well that itself is subjective. You still need armor, you just need the technology to make the armor lighter, but still effective. Without armor, while you might run faster, you're whole body would still be vulnerable to fatal wounds, even if you're a skilled fighter. A concussion with a helmet is better than a split head.
"Ask not what you can do to the tank, but what the tank can do to you!"
Interesting analysis. Excellent quality video as well.
I couldn't see the WAR videos from the tears in my eyes. 😭 I wanted Peace.
Highly informative analysis and the one that actually does provide an insight on why things actually did unfold that way. It’s even more amusing after watching that video to think and realised how lies, treasonous mindset of the command and, indeed, the corruption actually caused the corrosion of the Russian military from the inside. So it’s even more humiliating to watch the war at this point with an increasing understanding of the idea that Putin’s managed to lose largely to himself.
Not treasonous enough.
Wasn't expecting treason from you, Sasha
Вы принимаете желаемое за действительное,мой друг.Sorry....
@@LogicSword3675 There's Russians fighting each other because they're devided. Legit.
Frankly, it's Putin that betrayed his own troops IMO.
BTGs are very new concept for Russia. In cold war they operated only by armored Divisions and Regiments.
styles make fights, holds true in warfare as well.
This makes a lot of sense. Thanks
Of course the other thing the did was stick to the roads (presumably because they went in during spring when the ground was too soggy). “Sitting ducks” springs to mind!!
The modern tank was first developed to help close with and destroy an enemy who was equipped with machine guns, (AKA WWI). So, as long as there are machine guns, there will be tanks. Of course, it's a lot more complicated than that, but that is still the "down and dirty" reason tanks, or some type of armored assault vehicle, still need to exist in a modern army.
I mean, if low caliber small arms fire is the main oroblem here, then a mere mechanized IFV or even something as simple as a Humvee would be enough.
@@mekingtiger9095 There's multiple factors that lead to a tank . . . being the thing that does the job of a tank.
The protection against direct rapid fire weapons is one aspect, yes, so is the all terrain capability of a tracked chassis. And so is the large direct fire cannon.
@@Bustermachine I'm still leaned towards the opinion that heavy armour in general is kinda useless or at least redundant nowadays. If the main requirements for a tank to be a "tank" and do "the job of a tank" are:
1. Can resist small arms fire and other lighter rapid direct fire weapons (easiest one);
2. Can traverse rough terrain with tracks;
3. *B I G G U N;*
Then why aren't we just sticking a modern cannon into a Leo 1 chassis or even turning back to the early Cold War tank design philosophy (mobile glass cannons) in general already?
@@mekingtiger9095 Makes sense to me, though I suppose it'd be weak to other tanks in addition to anti-tank weapons, not sure if that's a deal breaker or not
Very informative.
Two big mistakes the Russians made in this war, thank goodness, was their complete underestimation of the Ukrainian fighting spirit/skill and the unending military support of the West. They foolishly did not place either in their war plan thinking, to their clear detriment. These two factors have cost Russia dearly, including their status in the world along with an untold number of soldier deaths. Many of their soldiers, based on their disgusting behavior, clearly got what they well deserved. Slava Ukraine 🇺🇦
How you can believe in this? Russia's attack was HEAVILY undermanned. It's currently 1:3 (ukraine has 3 soldiers per one russian). In Kherson counteroffensive it was reported to be up to 50:1 (in attack spearhead). Town of Balaklyea was defended by two companies (~100 men per each) none of each was in fact even military! (they were police SWAT/National guard spec ops team analogues). Russia tried to force the war of artillery in summer (russia still has more than 1:10 arty superiority). but after Ukraine 3 waves of conscript mobilization - the infantry lack became over-than-crit. You see what you've never expected to see: small (actually - tiny) 150-200к russian army is being beat by vast Ukrainian 600k army.
it might have worked in Iraq, where US tech superiority was absolute, but there the tech level is +-on par.
4:10 Can you drift a tank?
Yes, it is simply a matter of momentum and friction coefficient between the tracks and the ground. As a matter of fact, in order for a tank to turn the tracks have to slide on the surface. Sometimes it isn't so much the tracks sliding on the surface as it is the the surface sliding under the tracks (destroying the road surface in the process). It was done in James Bond Golden Eye and there are videos on RUclips of tanks from various militaries drifting tanks. I know I've seen videos of tanks drifting on icy roads in Sweden during joint train exercises between the U.S. Marines and the Swedish military.
@@The_Opinion_of_Matt I'll rephrase that- can a Russian tank driver successfully drift a tank?
@@gerry343 Oh, I gotchu. I think they showed a video clip of that. The driver drifted for half a second but didn't have enough speed(momentum) to continue drifting, caught traction and promptly drove headfirst into a very large tree.
A longer version of that clip was posted on reddit a few weeks back. The tank had Russian troops sitting on the top of it so they didn't have to walk. The tank driver got scared apparently and took off at a "high" rate of speed and you could see the Russian troops falling off left and right. It looked like one of them may have gotten tangled up in the tracks when they fell off. Horrible way for a poor man to go when fighting a rich man's war.
@@gerry343 damn you missed your *edit: notice me🤳 moment*
"if you're going hard enough left, you'll find yourself turning right" - Doc Hudson.
You shouldn't sent Cavalry into the forest in a war.
Agreed
Interesting analysis. Thanks. 🇺🇦💪🇺🇦🇬🇧
The Russian turret is the most succesfull spaceship lanced by accident.
Getting more airtime than their air force.
One thing George Patton proved in WWII is that it's not the the hardware you own, but how you use it that counts.
Thanks Guardian for assuring me all the Tanks are still around in future wars! Now I can sleep peacefully tonight!
When you are ignorant of the enemy but know yourself, your chances of winning or losing are equal. If ignorant both of your enemy and of yourself, you are sure to be defeated in every battle
The situation in Ukraine is eerily similar to what happened in WWII with the French and Germans in May-June 1940. The French had more Tanks, larger Tanks and they were better machines than the then small German Tanks but the tactics by the Germans were far better coordinated so the French Tanks were destroyed one by one. The Germans had trained for years specifically using Tanks as a part of their offensive Blitzkrieg strategy which had Army and Air Force units working together while the French Army was very poorly coordinated and had trained very little because their leaders thought their big defensive line called the Maginot Line would stop any German attacks. The other similar aspects are that the Germans in 1940 had trained as small units with lower Officers being able to make battlefield decisions while the French had to wait for orders. Also on May 10th, 1940 when the Battle of France began German morale was very high while the French were confused and poorly led until it was too late.
Fun fact. The French never assumed the Maginot line would ever stop an attack. Just slow it down or force it from another direction. And it did exactly that. The problem as you say is the tactics used but the Germans which wasn't expected and the ineptness of French commanders to move forces fast enough.
Thanks
The whole world though that the Russian military was a well trained military. But this war has shown otherwise; the Russian military is not a well trained army or is it a modern army.
By and large, Russians don't take kindly to training.
You can have the best equipment in the world but when there's no set doctrine or strategy, they are just expensive toys waiting to be blown up.
Failing to provide sufficient support for tanks is a tactical failure, not a strategic failure. I have been shocked at the number of videos I have seen of tanks and afvs out in the open (where they belong) but apparently operating without support. Either that or bunched up in urban settings. This suggests that the tankers have a false sense of security while the infantry have an overdeveloped sense of survival.
Russian tanks have not aged well. My dad told me stories of how they got their first T-72 as a "new tech" when he was drafted in Poland around 1970s. So yes 50 years old..
Really nice synthesis if info!
Well done Video!!
We've known since the Battle of Hamel in 1918 that Tanks need air support and air superiority to be effective. The fact the Russians never achieved air superiority doomed them from the start.
They can still do well but they don't use dens wide front offenses, what is a infantry man in a tree line with a javelin or nlaw if the tree line gets shelled by mortars, arty and tanks and auto canons and smallarms.. all at the same time
Russians have overwhelming air superiority, and have had since day one. Ukraine flies virtually nothing today, and why would they? They can't survive air-to-air because they lack the numbers to survive attrition. They don't need air-to-ground beyond their obviously superb use of drones combined with ground forces.
That said, you are correct that Russia has not shown the slightest intelligence at exploiting their air to ground capabilities. Every day Russian air hides from the fight is a great day for Ukraine, and Ukraine has done an outstanding job of exploiting that!
You failed to mention the British supplied anti-tank equipment is made by a French company in the North of Ireland, and a Swedish company in Wales.
Yeah, and designed in Sweden.
¿nothing from the USA?
@@jorgegonzalez-larramendi5491 The USA supplies those made by the USA
Great Britain, France, Ireland, Sweeden... *everyone is against Russia* 😐
@@Ed_Stuckey I'm irish I'm not!
Failure carries a range of costs, duh!
Great video, thanks
I know how they simply crashed the tank into a tree like some old japanese driver
Russia was the only country relying on such a high count of tanks. They aren't going to rebuild that tank force to the same extent, even if they could. So in a sense, the Russian tank force is indeed largely obsolete.
Aged terribly. No wonder, it's the Guardian.
At least they admitted it's not the tanks fault
The problem is when 60 year old tanks meet modern anti tank like the Javelin or Matador.
The problem is not the tank but the lack of infantry to support it.
If this was China, then story would be entirely different.
@@ajaykumarsingh702 If this was China, then the story would be entirely different. Yeah. True because their knock off product would of broken down faster. 🤣
@@SCH292 I think you are talking about China in the 90s and early 2000s
Look at your iphone or maybe android 99% of it made in China
Look at any modern electronic you have 70 - 90% made in China.
The have the best and modern train/railway system in the world, beating even Japan
China is on a completely different level than Russia.
But @Ajay Kumar Singh it would only slightly look better. Mordern Anti-Tank weapons can reach up to 5KM China would face the same losses.
Satellite recognisance, drones and precise artillery strikes will have the same effect on Chinese tanks, the difference is the Chinese army could do the same to the attacker so both sides will lose tanks at the same speed.
@@LetoxxIant "Look at your iphone or maybe android 99% of it made in China" -- It was mainly not designed by China though. Almost all the software and complex ICs in a modern phone are Western designs built on decades of knowledge. I think you know this?
I assemble my own PCs, that doesn't make me an expert on fabricating processors and modern microelectronics design, does it ?
China has made massive strides this past few decades but let's be realistic.
Because the russian tank designers have not learnt the lessons of ww2 instead theput ammo storage in the bottom and the crew on top so when thd tank is high they have a flying turret
*Stragedy* : _'strategy that became a tragedy'_
Thanks Guardian simply explained
What was this tree doing in the middle of the road?
Lol😹😹
There is something to be said for smaller, faster/more maneuverable tanks - a main battle behemoth is not always the best tool for the situation at hand.
They work best when your side has air superiority. Then any tactical errors you make on the ground are not likely to be so devastating.
Um the tank failed miraculously as well. The rounds are literally up by the turret.
Nlaw ,himars,bayraktar and javelin make a tank like a burning cottage.
Coffin?
To analyze this more fully, you need to zoom out a bit and think about the tactical need being fulfilled. The need is for a powerful and versatile gun (direct and indirect fire for anti-personnel, fortifications, vehicles, tanks) with high mobility and the survivability to be on the front lines.
So what can do this? Well tanks, helicopters to some extent, and certain wheeled vehicle platforms. So yes, tanks are very vulnerable to small anti-tanks units and yet they are often still they best thing available to perform this critical role. As pointed out in the video, proper deployment of supporting troops is critical to the tanks survivability. You must have troops that can quickly neutralize anti-tank forces or you will be a sitting duck. Not only have the Russians failed in this regard, they have struggled with maintenance and ammunition supply, significantly limiting the benefits of their own tanks.
Supporting infantry for 5 km on each flank? That is a huge number of troops for each tank squadron. And the range of ATM will no doubt increase.