Are Russians Downgrading Their Tanks?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 1 фев 2023
- Several days ago, Russian media published a video showcasing a new T-72 upgrade, which features many interesting things, but some of them might not be as good as they first seem. One of those things seems to be the absence of the Sosna-U...
Patreon: / redeffect
![Skilla Baby - Misfit (Feat. Polo G) [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/IjsylSnNMyw/mqdefault.jpg)
The irony is that the T-72 was originally designed as a downgraded tank meant to be able to be produced en mass during war
Not really downgraded, it's more simple to use (and manufacture) compared to T-64, but not a downgrade. It's just T-64 that was far too complex. Like who the fuck designs a tank that requires an experienced officer (ranked somewhere around lieutenant or at least "praporshik") as commander and about 5 years of experience just to drive it and shoot the gun (not even aim that well)? I'm not even going to add that weird engine design taken from aircraft engine or something.
@@unknowncommenter6698 you are confusing it with T-80
@@Tonixxy nope, T-80 is one with gas turbine and T-64 is the one with stupid engine design and complex systems.
@@unknowncommenter6698 wasn't T-80 a T-64 with some improvements + that gas turbine engine
@@Tonixxy no, T-80 is completely new chassis. New chassis and new engine. T-64 got small "wheels" as a feature and T-80 doesn't have those. If I remember correctly.
During the Soviet era, all equipment was produced in to two requirements. The first had all the bells and whistles for use by the Soviet Army. Then the 2nd were basic models that could be produce in steady rate during war time footing. Usually these were the export model of the tank. The other idea behind the 2nd rate model is that during war, it would take less training for new conscripts to learn. Allowing them to train, and then able to take the field faster.
The first was for parades and showing off to foreign dignitaries and such, the B model was for the military
@@Sevenmountainisevil Not so simple, it's kinda obvious that showing best varians at parade gives more effect.
But as you probably already know most advanced T-90M tanks are on the battlefield, so they are for military without a doubt.
@@Sevenmountainisevil Yes that is partly true. Front line units in Group of Forces and Western Military Districts of the former Soviet Union were usually the units that had staffing. They were given the better models to counter what they felt NATO had superior Tanks so they could survive until production could ramp up. Or so as they story goes.
Tbf you can see the logic. Incredibly smart thinking
@@Sevenmountainisevil they had T-64 as Guards Model and T-72 for army and export
At first glance i'd say it's an upgraded T-72B and not a downgraded T-72B3
Are all the comments saying exactly what he said sone kind of meme?Or you just didnt even watch the video before you comment?
@user-ls9dg6lh6k no i didn't watch the video, now that i have watched it, it's exactly what he said lol, it's more of a response to the title
@@Goerge-lu3ok That's the effect of putting a clickbait-ish title to then basically state the opposite.
@@Niitroxyde this is not a clickbait title. In fact this is the most accurate title he could put. The video is literally an answer to the question "are russians downgrading their tanks?".
@@Goerge-lu3ok No, the most accurate title would be to put the answer in the title and name it something like "No, the Russians are not downgrading their tanks."
If it is an upgraded T-72B, then hey cheap thermals is better than an infrared spotlight
True, especially because there are not enough big tank on tank engagements to rectify a much more expensive fancy system, those thermals are more than enough for infantry or the occasional IFVs they most likely encounter.
I think this sight will be a very decent choice for modernized program of T 55 or T 62 tanks, if they don't wanna change the gun. 100 mm and 115 mm have pretty limited range compared to 125 mm so a 3000 m detection range is more than enough with these tanks. Integrate this thermal sight with DNS 2 day sight, slap it on a T 55 with slightly improved gun, old ERA and a new engine. Boom, you have a perfect tank for counter insurgency operation or low intensive conflict. This thermal will be fitted with Pakistani modernized T 55 from Serbia. which is only lack a cheap thermal sight to become a good budget tank.
3rd generation thermal sight on some T 55 modernization like the Vietnamese T 54M is a waste of money since the sight is expensive, the gun is still 100 mm and commander still don't have any new toys.
👀 up " Thailand drops a BOMBSHELL on Pfizer, they're PI*SED "
@@DerDrecksack87
Well, that's the whole thing: Russian tanks go in unsupported nearly all the time. Sure if you put a direct HE hit in infantry doesn't stand a chance. The thing is, they don't tend to stand still in the open much.
Now against something like Javelin that's a death sentence, but even simpler systems like the humble Panzerfaust allow infantry to blow up Russian tanks at 200-400 meters. Making it exceedingly lethal if the Russians are assaulting any position, since the Russians are at a spotting disadvantage.
Nevermind what happens when the more modern MBTs enter Ukrainian service.... Although that'll take a while. The sights on those are enough that multi-kilometer engagements are accurately possible. And the last thing you want then, is for your sight to be garbage that leaves you guessing 'Comrade, is pixel tank or house?' and having to drive well within range before you even see anything, nevermind spot, nevermind engage, nevermind engage succesfully.
@@nvelsen1975 But every west propaganda says that javelin and panzerfaust at4 destroys russans tank minimum 2km away, but now its 200 - 400 m , so the AT team is fucked like we saw on many russians videos. So again ukro propaganda. Holy javelina is same as bullshit ghost of Kiev, isn it.
Problem: Exists
Russia: Artillery and Tanks
Problem #2: Javelin, Stugna-P and Artillery.
@@gaborbravo1 problem half solved.
Bigger problem is unlimited meatwaves of Ukrainian reservists.
@@georgros4199 and they said in the West that Russia used human wave tactic. Lol. Should've show them Ukrainian human wave in Kherson last year.
@@mrmakhno3030 Judged by many sources from both sides - Compared to first echelons of Wagner PMC near Bakhmut Ukraine even in Kherson offensive used men with much caution. It was definitely attritional, but I wouldn't call it "human wave"
@@juliuszkocinski7478 the vatniks need something to cope with
This level of ERA coverage is what the B3 could have been, man.. I still don't understand why they don't switch out to the t90-style K5 turret ERA layout, those gaps are so irritating. Or relikt, just anything.
Because T-90 has better turret, it's made of RHA and welded, it's more "cubic". You can't put ERA well if your turret is cast like in case of T-72.
Russia will be victorious. Glory to Russia
@@unknowncommenter6698 You can put ERA well, in fact it would be even better since there'd be a wider spacing between the panels and main armor in the angled part. No negatives there. There have already been examples of mounting straight lines of ERA panels on curved turrets, you needn't look further than the original T90 with cast turret. The coverage increase would outweigh whatever negligible negatives might arise by a long stretch.
@@unknowncommenter6698 False, just look at t64 and t80 examples, it’s just laziness.
I'm really glad it irritates you so much. I'm sure you don't find Putin's member rammed up your bass too irritating though
can't wait the the t-34 with off the shelf thermal hunting scopes
Same 😂
@Jasper Percabeth 30 which could be used for the war 💀
I'd bet more money on Ukraine running out of tanks first and they have T-34 too
I'd love to see it honestly. They already used a T-34 in this war, albeit as road block.
And the russians will say that's it comparable to bmp to it's not cringe (its absolute cringe)
The lack of more modern thermal sights is probably also due to noted engagement ranges and observations on combat practices. As many have noticed, including RedEffect, the engagement range of these tanks is usually less then 2,000 meters but more importantly, they are far more likely to engage infantry then another tank. Add to that the mobilization of new conscripts, it would be simply easier and cheaper to install a simple recognition thermal then to put in a complex sight with target lead that would increase training time.
Correct
The point is, the tank operators got lower survivability chances this was.
Still does not think russians see it as any sort of a problem...
If they know were are enemy positions - even simple thermal sigh is an win.
“Russian combined arms” that’s funny. Genuinely comedic.
Yeah, we have to recognise that Russian resources are far from infinite, they are trying to produce good enough vehicles, not the best possible.
More like T-72B 2.9
I would say 2.7, wait there will be later on 2.8 and 2.9 and tyhen gaijin can add more soviet line 10.3,10.7
Most tanks are getting destroyed by artillery doesn’t matter how much upgrade u add it’s not stopping an artillery round they just need to do better tactics
ATGMs and shoulder mounted AT weapons also are a big threat to tanks. A couple of T-90Ms were disabled and abandoned after being hit by a light AT launcher.
Covering the entire vehicle in ERA and extra armor is probably not a bad idea.
@@scatterlite2266 well usually these missiles are tandem shaped and/or hit the roof of the tank where armor can't be good enough physically, so covering the entire vehicle in ERA and extra armor will be beneficial mostly only vs tanks with their APFSDS' and not tandem shaped HEAT shells. So kinda meh decision imo, since it also adds weight as I understand.
@@Tichondrius- the reactive armor they are using works against shaped charge too
@@basharhafizal-asad8853 Tandem shaped charge weapons contain 2 charges to first detonate the ERA and then penetrate the armour with the second charge. This has been around since the 80's. The second charge around can in many cases exceed 500mm of armour penetration.
@@Ragedaonenlonely i was talking about the most advanced one but i forget to specify, the relikt should work against tandem too
Hey Red, this is a perfect example of why i like your videos. You are straight to the point, thoughtful in your analysis, and still somewhat entertaining while providing great information. KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK SIR!
There is hardly any space insider the turret of T72 B3 which is highly inconvenient for the tank crew inside. The Sosna-U sighting system takes plenty of space and it is positioned slightly to the left of the gunner therefore the gunner has to lean to the left to use it. This may create some issues for the gunner while the tank is moving. I also understand that it takes some considerable time to make thermal operational. On top of that the gunner has many issues getting access to many other pieces of equipment that are only partly accessible especially on the moving tank. The second sighting system T72 B3 has is 1A40 which used to to be the main sighting system and is positioned directly in front of the gunner (which is far more convenient to use than Sosna-U). The new modification in the above video appear to provide more space for the gunner and the main sighting system is positioned directly in front which is great for when the tanks is moving. Plus the sighting system is meant to connect with the helmet while in use. The rubber edges in the video allow for better helmet connection and prevent it from sliding (which is not the case for T72 B3 where for some reason one of the edges is missing). The new modification is much better for crew comfort and the crew has better access to other pieces of equipment inside, this makes new tank a lot better in my unprofessional opinion based on looking at this video.
i think sosna-u primarily just replaces the night sight and doesn't really take up much more internal room
Hey Red , meaning to ask what that t72 tank with the autoloader in the t90m video you made a while back was. love the videos by the way keep it up.
What????? Wile back was love? What’s to love
Man, War Thunder looks pretty promising in about 5-10 years. But then again the 2S38 got added and it's pretty new 🤔
Plenty of modern vehicles already in game, I give it 2 years before we have the t14 and m1a2C at most
Can’t wait to have all the different T-72 variants added as premiums, maybe we’ll even get the Czech and Polish T-72s with the better reverse speed
@@donovanchau3483 LoL, you kids and your video games.
@@user-ev4pb9xj7e go away. Videogames are fun. Better than selling your body and soul to whatever military or police uniform
let's not forget all the leaked documents of MBTs already haha the classify ones
Thanks for your well researched videos!
this tank is a mobilization tank. The front needs good tanks in a huge number. Most of the tanks of the Russian Federation are paired with a computer or with a tank with a good thermal imager, so many disadvantages are compensated. (in general, I'll tell you a secret, any modernization of the T-72 is based on the idea of giving a cheap but decent tank to the troops)
T-72s are perfectly decent tanks.
Sure, a bit aged, but perfectly usable on the modern battlefield when handled with care.
Whenever tanks are lost it's usually due to recklessness or unforeseen circumstances rather than any inherent failings.
Yeah it's the modern day T 34 76.
Yeah T 34 surely had a hell lot of problems and there are 12 thousands of them were destroyed in WW2, but at the end USSR still won the war with them. This modernized T 72B is much inferior than the T 72B3 but still a very capable tanks in this war and since Russia did lose a lot of tanks with modern optic, this is a much more cheaper solution and still make the tank better than it was. It has a thermal that is better than any infared sight and really good ERA coverage.
Only reason the T-72 is used for much of anything is because that's what they have.
@@leetommerson639 Well, except for the ammo placement that sends turrets hundreds of feet into the air.
"Cheap but decent" did so well in Iraq, right?
Red I have stage 18 cancer and still find a way to watch all of your videos. I am your biggest fan for about 3 more months.
Stage 18 cancer?
Wait what? There is 4 stages.
@WarPerspective Nah mate stage 18. They call it supercancer. Do your research smh.
@Marcus GH 🤣🤣🤣
Why does God punish you
When it comes to the ruso-ukraine war numbers kinda matter more, and tanks are mostly being used for direct fire support, so it isn't that bad to use that sight
just because this is ww3 really, EU/NATO vs some kind of eastern block. when it comes to world war, production numbers make VERY much sence
A lot of this buries the lede, which is that they're modifying T-72B tanks. In other words, the inventory of Russian tanks is depleted enough that they feel the need to make up numbers with a very old, basic tank, and when they upgrade it, they're upgrading it with much more basic equipment. They may, in fact, be able to produce Sosna-U, but clearly they aren't in free availability. It could also be that Sosna-U is difficult to produce (i.e. slow production rate). It could also be that Sosna-U depends on components of which they have a finite supply (i.e. key component that they had stockpiled, but which is now hard to get).
Given that Russia has previously send T-62s, you can say using an old model is nothing new. Except that the rationale, at the time, for T-62s was that they were ready to go. Also, that there were old guys who were being recalled who could already drive T-62s.
This does not mean Russia has no T-90Ms or other more capable tanks than the T-72B. What it does indicate that the *marginal* tank (i.e. the one that you get when you pick the next best thing from storage, for which you have the necessary parts to put it back into service) is apparently no better than a T-72B. This is a 1985 vintage model, with a less powerful engine - 840hp not 1140hp for T-72B3.
Something we'll probably never know absent a complete collapse of Russia - how many T-72Bs are being pulled out of storage to activate one useable tank.
You can rebuild tanks but you can’t build human lives.
I rather have 50 great tanks than 200 poorly built tanks. War has shown that the advanced and expensive weapons have won the war and especially in war of attrition.
Только вот это не война
@@bonearrowgamingcommunity3380 The Germans said exactly the same in 1942-1945, the result is known...
Idk about y'all, but I love the idea of moderanization of old tanks
They are not modernising as much as "antiquating" because they can't produce the more modern parts.
i think its kind of cool to see the venerable t62 soldiering on doing its job. i wouldnt necessarily want to be in one (or maybe i would since theyre not really used for offensives, but as reserves) but its cool.
Gentleman, hear me out........the M60.......but with an APS, ERA packs and a RWS!
@@randomka-52alligatorthatis34 would be a pile of shit lol
@@awesom6588 Yes, but it will be a Modular and Modern!
The Russian thermal can spot a tank at no less than 2000m? I watched a mouse play in the desert at night at 8000m using a Leopard 2 thermal.
It is a same as T-62M mod 22 - infantry support vehicle, modern turreted Stug III.
The new ERA armour layout looks very heavily based off of British Challengers in the gulf with the large ERA boxes on the lower frontal, large rectangular ERA on the sides and anti RPG chains
It's not though. T-72B has had ERA since before the 1990's.
We never had or have ERA 🙄
I should say you are right about the skirt placed ERA, but the bricks all over the hull are a T-72B standard
@@pestomystic I mean specifically the lower glacis layout of add on armour looks exactly the same as Challengers in Iraq
@@alangordon3283 it's more or less the same concept though, or even NxERA (non-explosive ERA) which is literally how most composotie armor works.
I love your analysis of these topics.
I didn't hear any mention that lack of supplies and components is or even may be impacting production of the better thermal imagers? They may well have legacy stocks of the older imagers, may have limited stockpiles of the components needed for the newer thermals, etc, all of which is consistent w/ limited availability of critical components, something we know they're experiencing from captured equipment which could not have ever been produced without Western tech
Russia is an aerospace superpower that controls a giant portion of global semiconductor market. Russia has technology to make some of the best thermals in the world; what used to be uneconomical to make is no more so. Grow up.
@@Conserpov That's why the Russian aviation industry have lowered their maintenance standards, stripping & cannibalizing aircraft to fix others, and regional airlines being told to make their *pilots* perform that maintenance, right?
@@RaptorJesus
Stop smoking that.
Iv love how they managed to include thermal sights but still cant move a metal plate properly
Drilling additional holes in 40 mm of reinforced steel armor is quite hard and probably not worth the effort
@@phunkracy Exactly, Russian soldiers are cheap and expendable, drill heads are not.
@@alexamann5729 You believe that a human life is less important than a drill head?
Making a hole in the turret does not sound like a good idea, you generally want to have as little holes as possible in the turret, isn't that what the armor is supposed to do.
Probably more to do with what's in front of the thermal sight on the inside of the turret. With the lack of room in tanks generally, and how compact a T-72 is, every nook and cranny in the tank is probably filled with something.
@@alexamann5729 it takes a lot of time and money do to that. It’s a war, you need to quickly produce and field equipment. Also, you’re confusing Russia with Ukraine. Russia uses slow paced methodical attacks sustained with heavy artillery barrages beforehand. Ukraine uses fast pace, risky attacks and a no retreat till almost everyone is dead doctrine for defence (Mariupol and bakhmut being prime examples).
what is the source of this where was it first put on the internet?
Or they had x amounts of sosna-u sights in stock and is running low on them, therefore prioritizing the better t-90m's to have them.
What would be the point of keeping a stock of advanced thermal sights just collecting dust on the shelves?
@@phunkracy spare parts for when stuff breaks.
@@sheeplord4976 parts but not the whole thing
@@phunkracy They mean spare units.
@@KSmithwick1989 you produce spare parts separately at a rate of usual attrition, but you don't keep the stock of entire units. If anything the Russians hit their production ceiling but not the stock of thermal sights . You don't produce new equipment with thermal cameras if you're already cannibalising the spare parts to maintain existing sightz.
does the abrams have that automatic targeting feature
What is the name of the closer song ? Shazam has no ideea )))
Thanks for this red effect everybody was saying it was a downgraded T90 and I didn't think it was I thought it was at72 thanks bro
The T90 is a slightly upgrade T72 hardly any difference
@Redscope To the point T-72 B3M is pretty much on par with T-90.
@@redscope897 t90 is upgraded t72 but base hull and turret have upgraded armor.
The T90 is essentially a modernised T72
@@redscope897 T-90 hull maybe, but turret is definitely different.
damn they really went hard with ERA coverage on this one XD
I am looking forward to your reaction when hohols pull up in their Ambrams/Leo with hastily welded Kontakt-1
@@danielkol477 leo2 with kontakt1 will still probably look better than leo2 with trophy aps XD
RedEffect:
T-72 this, T-72 that, it is bad.
RedEffect:
AMX-10C is a good tank.
:D
Clearly didnt watch his video on the amx... it's not even considered a tank.
@xXSERBKINGXx Yeah, it's basically a force reconnaissance vehicle. The cannon is there if you bump into something big. But really, more for infantry support if required.
@@KSmithwick1989 It does kind of make sense to give reconnaissance units a heavy weapon, just in case, if you can. 😂
Sorry if my question stupid but, So if enganged infantry not an vehicle the thermal generation doesnot mater or even not used for it?
Could you perhaps cover the topic of tank indirect fire in this conflict? Different experts seem to posses contradictory opinions, which range from a lack of accurate artillery support to the difference in doctrine and usage of UAVs.
What is direct /indirect fire support?
@shahul two different types of fires.
Direct fire is the fire via direct visual line of sight, I.e you can see the target and shoot it.
Indirect fire is fire via indirect contact I.e somebody sees stuff and tells you the angle and the elevation you need to shoot it.
@@joebidome1445 ohhh thank you 👍🏽
There's a chance that they are (most likely) intentionally downgrading their tanks so it's less of a loss if it ever gets to the front lines, it can also be an "urban warfare" optimized tank since it's RPG net on the turret ERA and cages on its side and back can safely deflect or hinder the effects of RPGs or other AT weaponry, lastly it could be used as test platforms for experimental modules or crew training since it's cheaper to use and less expensive to maintain than actual T 72 B3s.
I think it's more of a what's in the warehouses in some numbers and thus can be pulled out quickly.
Losing a cheap tank is still more expensive than keeping a good tank.
@@Sam-nx9ec And losing a good tank is still more expensive than keeping a cheap one.
@@vojtechpribyl7386 nah you underestimate how much tanks they can create in a moment's notice
@@Sam-nx9ec And a "good" tank doesn't necessarily have more chances of survival on the battlefield. So might as well send the cheap, especially in an attrition warfare and especially with the realistic prospect of NATO eventually joining the conflict. They're keeping their up to date tanks in reserve just in case, probably.
They can afford sending the cheap against Ukraine. They're not a bad military, but they're not up there either.
Love that "New" hole left by the weather system! lol
it's refreshing to see a neutral opinion on the vehicles used in this conflict for once
Propagandists from both sides cloud the real events in lies and half-truths, making a neutral analysis very difficult.
Red Effect tries really hard to hide his bias
Nice to learn from someone that knows their subject matter really well.
The narrator gave an interesting and informative analysis on the subject.
Some modernized tanks does not have a protruding thermal imager since a new system Orbos , an alternative to the aforementioned system, are preferred in certain conditions and are located in bicpheral space in between layer of the armor where it is more protected
considering that the Tanks are mostly shooting HE rounds are infantry possitions while stationary, i dont see it to much of a downgrade in battle performance
Not being able to recognize an infantry target at 2km could definitely be a problem
Nothing says that this war will go that way in the future.
@@meisterproper8304 well I presume it can pick up infantry signature at 2 km, but it's srill difficult to identify whether it's friend or enemy, because just seeing glowing dots on the sight doesn't mean you can shoot on everything, or else friendly fire casualties rise through the ceiling...
for now but when the 4 new armored brigades are added to the Ukrainian army we may start to see maneuver warfare
@@meisterproper8304 drone exist, and Russia now sends their drone first to hunt anti tank squads before sending their tank in. Those squads will then be rained by artillery shells. The process is tedious and time consuming but Russia can't afford to lose too many equipments just for one advance.
Thermal imaging doesn't mean anything if the tank works alone or without proper support and they get blasted with artillery because they don't have air superiority of any kind.
"How many ERA bricks you want?"
"Yes"
What BR do you guys think this Tank will be?
Since it's a Russian tank, 9.3 premium sounds fair
The same with T 72B model 1989. The side armor will be a module for reseaching.
@@quicksylverg9923 10.0
10.3, it's a T72B 1989 but with thermal.
10.3
The irony is that these capabilities they are loosing were not essential for now, but might be very needed when western IFVs and tanks hit the battleground.
Is it? Most of those MBTs will be old Leopards 2A4 which have worse thermal sights than Polish PT-91s and T-72 M1R.
@@kamilszadkowski8864 but still more than capable of taking out any Russian tin can you send to the Ukraine. So keep them coming.
@@user-ev4pb9xj7e Of course they can, heck, the situational awareness of the old Leo 2A4 is still miles better than any T-72 derivative.
Hopefully, more will come.
I would assume they are still making modern tanks but are also upgrading older ones at the same time. After all they were using those older tanks too in the war.
@@user-ev4pb9xj7e Too bad they will get destroyed by artillery before they even see the enemy...
Turkey's Roketsan released a T72 upgrade package for T72 customers. With a completely newly designed 105or 125mm auto loader turret, which looks like that of T90M and a new advanced armor package. Can you make a video about it?
"Roketsan MZK" look it up. They provide this upgrade for the M60 and T72.
That's a brand new, give it time to show in the next defense exhibition. And the information about it is pretty small, not much to cover in 6min video
No they are not downgrading their tanks, the pace of upgrading old stocks of T72B and T80BV is currently very high something like 3+ tanks per shift at UVZ , optics production is not keeping pace , production of Sosna U is being used only for T90 and these wartime upgrades get to use other optics models that can be made in larger quantites some of them are from export orders as you can see some 1PN96MT-01 issued with lettering stickers on the units (typically all the lettering is engraved, stickers cover foreign language engravings). Some of the T90 we have seen issued to Wagner is obviously taken from Indian contracts easily identified by specific turret reactive armor layouts. Just for comparison the T72 refit and upgrades done for NATO supply to Ukraine is limited to 4 tanks per week (3x less than UVZ does per day) at Excalibur army workshops , but T72M1(monkey model) they are refitting is basically T72A much less protected variant than B model Russians are upgrading
3 tanks a day ? they UVZ is producing 15-20 units per month
@@oceanlancer 3 tanks per shift 3 shifts per day 9 tanks per day. UVZ has massively ramped up production .
@@Mr.T-SI this information does not correlate with real figures
@@oceanlancer Trust him bro.
@@NotMe-bz9pl =)
Rostec said that Uralvagonzavod increased tank production by a fold of 10 times compared to last year. So Russia is upgrading and manufacturing a lot of tanks, and some are better and some are worse, but at least they're upgraded and there are a lot of them.
Russia can produce 200+new tanks a year. And refurbish 600+. Thats big number.
The relevant thing is.. why to manufacture T-72 and not T-90M. So very likely these are refusbished and recovered storage tanks .
Even if they increased the production by 10 times, losses still outnumber new productions. And most "New" production seems to be upgrading old stuff anyway. So we shall see how this will develop
And we should take Russian claims at face value because...?
Thats is bullshit. They are taking old T-72 out of storage and refitting them because they lost 1,000 on the battlefield. They are not making new T-72's at all. They made just 22 T-90M they shipped to the battlefield in Jan. I would not believe all the bullshit Russia state tells you.
It also comes with the pop up flying turret
Tanks explode, how surprising eh?
Hahahahaha
Nice one!
But you run away from Afghanistan, the moment after you realize that Ukraine will become a thing.
Why you may ask?
Well, we all know why! 😁😁
So did you run away from Afghanistan troll
@@ncc1701218 One Cold War superpower imploded because it invaded Afghanistan, the other didn't.
@@alexamann5729 because that one superpower fought against people with help from the other superpower
Great looking tanks. Too bad about that turret launching thing though.
what's that Thales inside.
T-72B3 is also just an upgraded T-72B though, just like T-80BVM is upgraded T-80BV. Both are still worse then T-90 and T-80U. No matter what russian propaganda claimed, they weren't cutting down and rewelding those tanks back to change the armor layout or autoloader(T-90A is the only russian tank that can use long rod penetrators as it has BOTH 2A46M5 barrel AND improved autoloader. Russians claim that T-80BVM uses 2A46M4 and T-72B3 - 2A46M5, but both are referring to barrel only as neither received new autoloader and thus can't use modern ammo). Thus T-80BVM is actually worse them fully upgraded(Shtora, Drozd, full hull length Kontakt-5 coverage. And I know that such version sadly was never made in 1989) T-80U from 1989!
T-80U and T-90A remain best available en masse to Russia tanks. And they weren't modernized for quite a while. Combine it with the fact that there is allegedly an upgrade package called T-90AM that uses T-90A to create T-90M(2A46M5 one, not 2A82) and the whole dancing around T-72B3 and T-80BVM becomes even more weird. I can understand if both were intended as export versions and upgrades, but nope, Russia intended them for domestic use. Tbh it was better to update and maintain T-90A fleet on same budget.
You have tank autism 😂
@@robinelliott-ni2eh nah, it's just:
1)professional deformation that causes to concentrate on engineering details;
2)love for old soviet equipment and how russian rentier kleptocracy misuses them ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
@@TheArklyte in other words... autism 😂👍
thermal sight in leopard 2 and abrams it's 6000 meters or 8000 meters or less ?
Waste of time. Ask Houthis and Kurds.
Only for the latest variants with 3rs or even 4th generation, but not the old Leo 2A4 which still has very old thermal (1st generation) with very bad quality (not even high definition) so it's only around 2~3 km for the Leo 2A4 at best
Does it have a higher flying turret?
Fly high like your mother
same flying turret as ukron@zis
What's the red metal thing holding the breach ? I'm guessing it stops the going moving about whilst moving as they have no stabilisation
@RedEffect what happend to the russian smoke luncher in theory if they use them around the vehicles other than the far assault smoke russians like, it would be a counter to the javelin if the russians useing ir save smoke do they? and why is this war not often seen that russians pop any smoke ?
For smoke to work you need to first spot the missile and then release the smoke in right time before it disperses. It has to be fully automated and i doubt it will fool modern missiles with their fancy algorithms anyway. This just seems like trivial thing to counter.
@@robertkalinic335 its just that i saw a western company advertiseing a smoke screen all around the tank system smoke covered the whole tank and i was thinking hmm strange simple but as far as i understand the javelin has a ir sensor so when the tank is in the ir proof smoke its basiclly invisible with ir optic from the missile
i mean you can pack the tank full of smoke lunchers and as soon one tank explodes the other tanks hit the smoke and smoke again and again on the retreat (would be great if some where is cover XD)
and as i was thinking about that i was astonished by how many ukr war videos i saw and never they deployed smoke
@@fdsfggr I believe tanks only have sensors to tell if they are being lased, not capability to spot missiles already heading for them. Thats useless against modern missiles and could work against older if operator isnt skilled enough to guide missile close enough to the vehicle without aiming at it and only aiming directly at the tank when its too late for smoke to deploy.
As far as ukrainians not using smoke it could be just that there isnt enough footage or as i said, this isnt effective defence if you dont expect atgms.
You can always use smoke preemptively and maneuver around it or terrain to avoid even being locked on, doesnt matter how modern the missile is.
Or just have aps on your vehicle and slap every missile out of the air.
It comes all down to be good enough and have a lot of it. The Ukrainian tanks are not better in any way, and their number is dwindling fast. Tank on tank duels are getting rare. So having a thermal sight good enough to pick out smoking Ukrainians and their positions will do the job.
LoL, your fantasizing🤣 the Ukrainians don’t want to get into those Russian tin cans. Why do you think they are wanting superior Abrams and Leopards?!? You might as well give up on that 1960’s technology, all the Russian tanks you send to the Ukraine are going to be destroyed along with their crews.
I can't be the only one who thought that that box of "ERA" swung upwards a little too easily right?
that's because they are empty, the actual explosive panels aren't stored there all the time, but are supposed to be mounted before actually arriving to the combat zone.
I thought those things were heavy af😅
@@TheFivetimesdead ...they are not that heavy even when they are loaded, it is basically a thin sheet metal box with a bit thicker metal plate inside, a thin layer of explosive and some padding... it weights no more than a tool box or something like that. The whole point of ERA is to be light armor, light compared to steel plates :D
In my opinion there are many reason. 1: this can be modernized T 72B model 1989 with better ERA coverage.2: Russia are actually lacking thermal sight when they produce too many of T 90M. Russia has produced about 200 to 500 T 90M during last 10 months, together with a lot of modernized T 80BVM, T 72B3 model 2022 and even T 62 (lol) so that's a huge pressure on the Russian optic industry, which is kinda designed for maybe 20- 30 tank thermal sight per year in peacetime.
LOL 500 T90Ms? Where is your source?
It's not that I don't believe you, it's just that I have been trying to find how many T90M tanks Russia has at the moment for such a long time and I couldn't find anything. Could you possibly provide either a link to the source stating that Russia has around 200 to 500 T90M tanks at the moment? And if you have any other numbers for other type of tanks like different variants of T-72's and T-80's, can you provide these as well.
I'm just extremely curious lol.
@@theangrycheeto M*
@@andity2262 I'm not that sure about the number, some Facebook pages even go further by saying there are 1000 T 90M were produced. I asked some Vietnamese blogger that are living in Russia and has relationship with their friend in Nizhmy Tagil tank factory. They said different number but most of them around 400 to 500. The lowest is 200 which is well known because that's what media said.
@@theangrycheeto I don't know the exact number and most of us don't know. But even in the lowest estimate its still a huge number considering the fact that Russia could only produce about 30 T 90M per year in the previous years of the war.
Can u make a video about the brazilian mbt osorio?..
Automatic lead is nice, but not critical. If Russian tankers are anything like American tankers, gunners may not even be trained to use it and or will have been trained to manually lead a moving target anyway. Laser rangefinder makes it pretty easy to apply manual lead.
5:19 t72b3 thermal sight is a french thales system!!!!!
they wont get any of those ever again.
Not an downgrade imho but an upgrade of older T-72Bs as already mentioned at the beginning of the clip! So they won't be comparable to much more modern T-72B3 obr. 2016 or -2022 but are still more modern as the initial early Bs they are based of. Not a bad thing and pretty much what every army did and still does in prolonged war's, simplifying to increase production output.
That's pretty much the entire point of this video dude...
@@xAlexTobiasxB im not your dude! I was referring to the title of the video which might be misleading to those unable to watch the whole clip or to understand it. But hey, that you pointed that out is pretty much as helpful!
@@Mindflayer1978 headlines are often exagerated or adressing a certain poiint to draw more attention, you must be new to the internet or news media in general
@@xAlexTobiasxB oh really? 🤣🤣🤣🤣 Judging by the amount of your replys explaining the obvious to everybody who wants to know or not it's rather you who is attempting to draw as much attention as possible 🤣
It is not a downgrade, it is a very cheap upgrade of the basic model T72B.
The sosna-u seems to be based on thalesgroup thermal sensor.. so good luck getting them nowdays..
Given price to benefit ratio I see this as a good idea - savings on cost & ability to spin out more tanks. Most of the tanks job is helping infantry & targets don't really move too much or are super far.
Also with drones I don’t think tanks will be faced without knowledge of their whereabouts
@@majesticface3631 I heard something about drones falling from skies recently, wonder what happened to them.
@@unknowncommenter6698 likely electronic warfare systems at play.
Well that target compensation definitely helps at extended range
I think they learned from experience on the front and they are maximizing the benefit/cost upgrade on these older tanks that are going into an attritional war. As the footage from the factories show this is only a secondary - or tertiary - focus next to making newer better tanks, but it gives these older tanks a chance to punch first in a fight. Ukraine is running out of tanks, Eastern Europe ran out of old Soviet style tanks to send them ... while Russia is both upgrading and refurbishing the huge stockpile of stored old tanks and in parallel ramping up production of the new ones.
Russia is using rubber pads instead of ERA blocks now. This war is going to turn into how effective Ukraine is at night fighting vs Russia in the day. The Bradley's ukraine are sending are going to dominate the field at night.
Running out of tanks ^^
Kinda funny how a superpower that is Russia is trapped in an attrition war with Ukraine :)
@@solaireastora5394 about as funny as how the US ran from Afghanistan? People falling off the planes, unable to secure even the last airbase, leaving billions of dollars worth of equipment? Oh wait, no, the Russians are fighting a NATO trained and equipped modern army not some goat herders from the mountains with barely any weapons and yet they are still advancing, not running away 🤔
Great video.
Can you update us on British Ajax project?
It is simple, if Russia could make any tank they wanted, they would make T90M, but they cant, they clearly have a lot of problems with production. So it seams that they cant produce even the T72 B3M variant and they are now downgrading to something inferior to that. And that tank (T72B3M) wasnt that great in the first place. So you can say what you want, but it is more than apparent that instead of making the best tank, they are pulling old stuff out of storage and making some make shift modernization and sending it straight to the front.
Well, if you actually WATCHED the video you would see that Russia is NOT DOWNGRAIDING their tanks...but you just chose to skip that part and went straight on to shit-talking.
@@menofwar1155 I agree..this thread is full of wide-eyed Western wargamers.
@@menofwar1155 Come on man, how is this T72B better then the T72 B3M it has worst optics, no lead, how is this better? Please explain it to me? And also explain why arent they making T14 and T90M instead of this crap?
@@lukakobal2103 Because we are making T90M and T14. Older tanks on modernization from stocks already existing. Completly diferent line. And way less of work and time.
@@omyasniko "Because we are making T90M and T14" no, you are not. T-14 is an engineering sample at best, it's not produced in large batches at all, there are less than 30 tanks existing. Oh, and it's so dogshit that it can't even move in a straight line on a perfectly flat ground during parades. Also, got any numbers on russian T-90M production?
T-72B "ERA"
T-72B “RIP”. Turret blown off and crew burnt to a crisp. Am I right saucy? 😂
@@user-ev4pb9xj7e These are the things western bots say. So no.
They cant get all components for Sosna U because of the sanctions.
I read somewhere that Russia is using some civilian tehnology in the Soyuz space rockets but also in military tehnology and that was before the sanctions so now its worse.
When the Ukrainians captured a T90M they wanted to see what tehnology was used and it was not good.
ruclips.net/video/mFB_wR223Gw/видео.html
This isn’t a T-72B3, since its not designed as such. Its more of a T-72B Obr. 2022. Russia has been producing T-72B3’s with Sosna-U sights, as RE mentioned before in a previous video. I think Russia is producing Sosna-U solely for its T-90M and T-72B3 line, with some going to the T-80BVM.
Man, u are more than GOOD👍👏, what u are saying makes a lot of sense, I have been waiting for this video 📹 from u because u don't talk out of ur ass like some people, u know what u are talking about
I can't believe what this channel has turned into
for real
The leo 1 a5 is not so disadvantaged now.
This looks like field repairs and modules, wont be surprised of that the case
Mr krabs stole the funds for it
Plot twist: mr krabs means Polish Krab SPH
Your channel is example how to provide objective information and destroy fake takes. Thank you
One of fucking few really.
Not afraid to just state facts without any "emotional" fake support.
I love this chanel very much.
@@ASS_ault и в чем же?
@@ASS_ault towards?
RedEffect Give me straight answer which one is better, western or eastern tanks?
That is not a straight question, it depends on which variants you are talking about.
How Leoperd II is gonna change the situation on the field? Make an episode on that.
It's NOT gonna make any difference, so why bother...
since most of them are 2a4, and russian still have a lot of konkurs, so, big buffet party for russian
Moral of the story Russian tonks are not made of vibranium.
For the war in Ukraine, thermo-imagery don't seems to be very important factor, it's mostly an artillery war, and a lot of reconnaissance (at least on the Russian side) is done with small to medium size drone. There are very few tank to tank confrontation. It's more an artillery war with guns and trenches, like during WW1. And Russia is controlling the entirety of the Ukrainian sky.
It's incredibly important.
Artillery can't be everywhere at once, so if you call in a fire mission it doesn't mean there's artillery ready to take it. They may have to move gun pieces.
Drones doing recon still require the tank crew to see what they're shooting at.
@@ChucksSEADnDEAD If thermo-imagery is so important as you mention, just wait for the next full moon to see a full scale Russian attack ( February 5 is the next full moon )
@@PopeBenedictXVIHollyman Moonlight benefits the IR NVG spectrum, not IR thermal.
Lol
All these thermal sights and optics and so forth and so on.......in combat in rough terrain there must be frequent cleanings of the lenses. How does THAT work during combat? What good is all that tech if you are constantly outside of the armor cleaning it?
I was wondering red effect. Would it be a feasible thing to turn many of russias t72 tanks into unmanned drones? The autoloader and inadequate protection make the tank dangerous to its crew. But a tank with an autoloader seems like a great platform to turn into an unmanned vehicle. Even if visibility from sensors inside the tank where to be be poor, small drones overhead could help guide the tank. Just wondering what your thoughts are. I can forsee that not having a crew would make transport, maintenance, refueling and small fixes difficult.
Drones are very very sensor and communication dependant, if we are not speaking about loitering munitions or cruise missiles build using *drone technology*.
Drones need way better sensors for operator remote operator than can be sufficient on manned vehicle
This would require serious R&D, modern electronics, and training. All this for what? Meat is not lacking, that has been and will remain the motto of the red army.
When he said "combat hardly takes place at ranges beyond 2k" I was thinking yeah like if neither side can see each other beyond that :D
You run out of Afghanistan.
And they didn't even have Russian support.
Hell they ain't even had tanks
more like because of the terrain where the fighting is taking place.
it is true it's a big steppe, but the modern agriculture and the density of the settlements makes it that you don't really have a line of sight of over 1,5-2 km really. if there isn't a settlement in the way, there is a treeline separating two agriculture fields
Tank engagements at place at way beyond 2k. Tanks are not limited by just what the human eye can see.
@@ncc1701218 the US took over Afghanistan for 20 years while the Taliban hid in caves. US casualties were minimal, especially compared to Soviet losses in only 10 years. And the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan caused the collapse of the USSR 😂😂😂😂
@@ncc1701218 Learn your history lmao, Russia went to Afghanistan to kill everyone with a college degree and uproot every tree in the country, and failed.
Your country is evil, just like the rest of ours is.
Ok the side era finally looks pretty decent
It's sexy armor 🌚
if experience shows some features are useless, or not giving enough benefits, then its logical to refuse of it, especially in terms of mass production
So its a question of having less tanks with the more ideal systems on their tanks or many more tanks with thermal. On a war footing its always better to have more material than slightly better material as its all expendable.
Sure, if You have fuel
🤔 Diesel. Of which Russia is one of the biggest suppliers in the world, hence the current high fuel prices globally.
But in general yes. Fuel is very important.
Longest recorded distance on turret throw event? Will this tank be setting new world records?
I'm hoping farmers will tow them when they run out of gas or get stuck every tank Ukraine liberates counts more than a kill.
All that engineering and effort, only to be gone in a flash to a javelin.
Yes, yes, a good joke, but contact-1 on the roof does not bother you? Plus, many tankers noted that even without additional armor tiles, the javelin often hits the quadruple contact-1, or the commander's tower, without causing much damage, which is actually ridiculous
@@w.dgaster8701 I'm not sure if this true but does dat have to do with farther the target
@@w.dgaster8701 jokes are necessary for propaganda purposes
@@thesaltbaron2237 I agree, but they’re just so hackneyed that they don’t even evoke emotions, it’s like an infovacuum that always exists in some volume
@@w.dgaster8701 Actually javelin has a proven 93% kill rate after locking on, glad you could get some info from the remaining 7% though
Hey man, will you provide your thoughts on the leopard 1s being headed to Ukraine?
3:p7 why not upgrade t-80s or t-64s?
It makes more sense to make a cheaper tank with meaningful upgrades that are cost effective when you know you are going to be loosing a lot of these tanks. Western tanks are great and all but they have just as good of a chance of being destroyed as a T-90 or T-72 in this war.
Well not really, we’ve seen that a T72 cannot penetrate the armour of a Challenger 2 in Iraq. This mod screams of desperation
correct. fancy pants thermals and super duper composite isnt going to save you from drone corrected artillery and mines.
@@Someone2gooification yet a little RPG-29 severely severed Challenger 2 driver's leg? bruh... and RPG-29 is old tech...
@@Someone2gooification Dude, we get generally agree that Western tank in general is better than Russia, but that now how it's work bruh. Don't treat them as if their tank is invincible.
So, one lesson from the video is why make a good tank if they are just going to be destroyed anyway? BRILLIANT!
In the long run, quantity may beat quality. Why spend more, when the tanks can just be "good enough", and they will be destroyed anyway, so might as well minimize losses. It even shows in the video that no matter how advanced some of the tanks are, they are destroyed eventually.
@@galact1cphantom824 russia does not have infinte crews
@@galact1cphantom824 Because when you have a finite resource that you can replace anywhere near the rate at which it's being destroyed, you end up without any quantity!
@@michaeldonnelly6747 that's right they only have finite resources, so why spend those finite resources in a few high quality tanks when they can get more out of those finite resources by spending it on more lower quality tanks that are just "good enough". In the end no matter what happens, they will be destroyed, so might as well get the most out of what they have.
@@galact1cphantom824 Fantastic. So, they run out either way? The brilliance in this comment section knows no bounds!
Red Effect : Germany gave the export licence for Leopard 1 can you do video on those
If the target acquisition is made by integrated exteriors system, the only needs of a tank will be an Wifi antenna. Even the target viewer can be tele commanded.
So it's the usual soviet strategy of a few capable tanks mixed into a large amount of adequate tanks in order to keep numbers high. It's going to be interesting if the numbers will work when NATO tanks reach the front, or if it will be another 73 Easting
Taking into account the defeat of Polish tanks and a large number of armored personnel carriers, most likely, NATO tanks will not directly add dofiga to the strength of the Ukrainian army, especially considering their mobilization, however, if "volunteers" control the tanks, then there is already a controversial situation
@@w.dgaster8701 mgimo finished?
@@w.dgaster8701 Russia is still losing 6 tanks to every 1 Ukraine Tank. given the western tank, out range, out gun and have better armour then the turrent throwing T-72 that is only going to increase.
@@redscope897 This is certainly a good fantasy, but does it have any connection with reality, at least indirectly? I understand, of course, that jokes about javelins, about indestructible tanks, which by their mere presence on the battlefield are already destroying an entire division, are still being forced in Ukrainian news, but please proceed from reality, tanks are not delivered just like that and there is a reason for this, a disadvantage weapons
@@stariyczedun?
I can't believe we used to think Russia was hardcore.
It is, they demilitarised whole ukraine army in less then a year. Same army which nato funded and armed from 2014.
@@dzokavaac7307 xDDD, lmao. If anything ukraine is more militarised then ever.
@@madtechnocrat9234 Well you are boat right. Ukraine used to have 1800 tanks before war, some 850 were operational, now they need western made tanks to keep fighting the war and that is after former soviet now NATO nations gave them hundreds of their soviet era tanks, Poland alone gave more than 200 T72M1 tanks. In same time they have million man under arms, Ukraine did not see something like that since WW2.
@@youmad7068 Ukraine's army is expanding. They want Western vehicles to create new manoeuvre units, not just to backfill existing formations.
@@madtechnocrat9234 sure, thats why they are asking for fighter jets and tanks. And thats why they are doing forced mobilisation all over the country.
Looks like the washing machines and fridge processors are running out
love these call of duty experts trying to sound clever on real war :'D