whichever happens to be in the right place at the right time to stop the enemy advance. most western artillery systems have advanced capabilities over what ukraine currently possesses but to me harkening back to the WW2 Sherman philosophy i think the ground units think that the Artillery system that services their fire mission is the best Artillery system in the world. so whichever of these systems has had the most units delivered and has a reliable stream of shells will be the favorite of Ukraine to my mind.
The praise is deserved. If those guns were shit, Ukraine would be Russian right now. What's next, you're gonna claim Moskva was the bestest warship evarrrrr ?
@@TheNefastor Temper, temper. I was merely stating the fact that the title says "soldiers spill hard truths", and that phrase implies in the first place critique on the systems. Yet, hardly any critique was even remotely touched upon, it was almost all praise. Ergo, the title deliberately tried to clickbait. This is regardless whether it are good guns or not; that doesn't change the fact the title was clickbait.
@@TheNefastor Pretty sure higher fraction of Ukrainians have Russian as their native tongue than citizens of say London or Brussels. We are supposed to care about some wars, some invasions, the ones that benefit the MIC.
@@AniMageNeBy I dislike clickbait too, but I didn't fault this one because... 1) They do point out that 50% of the PzH 2000s are out of action for maintenance/repair - 7:16. 2) All the praise _is_ hard truth...for the RuZZians. 😄
Having actually spoken with a Ukrainian artilleryman, there is one main complaint about Western, specifically American, artillery. Combat endurance. The tubes wear out too quickly. This is actually a known problem. US arty has to be (comparatively) mobile, so it's designers made them as light as possible without compromising capability. Thing is, that capability, maintenance included, is with the logistics of the US Army in mind. Also, western doctrine focuses on short, sharp artillery engagements on the tactical level, with the weight of sustained bombardment handled by air support. Neither of these are problems for Western forces. But for the Ukrainians, who are always in need of day-long artillery bombardment and millions of shells, Western arty systems have trouble handling the wear and tear. They still get the job done, no question, but they do so by running much tighter margins on maintenance than most users are comfortable with.
That was discussed when people asked for these to be delivered. The Abrahms is the same. A lot of US systems are designed around the US supply capability. in general many NATO systems are designed around one of the best supply and logistics capabilities on the planet. Simply transplanting those systems was never going to work perfectly. That's why these things are called weapon systems, not just a weapon. And those systems are part of connected systems in the armies they were designed for. Which is exactly why all the talk about "what tank is best" etc is only done by amateurs that have no idea how a military works. It all depends on how it works together with its connected systems and whatever threat is was designed to defeat. All things considered, the systems are all performing incredibly well. But they are all no "Wunderwaffe". Just well designed systems.
Mostly an issue with the M777, which was designed for maximum mobility during the War on Terror. It will likely be replaced or at least have the barrels lengthened and made heavier/stronger, as focus shifts back toward large scale combat ops. The only other reason for barrel wear on the M777 and M109-which have relatively short barrels compared to other NATO arty pieces- is that the U.S. has used improved propellants as a stopgap to increase range while it decides what it wants in its new systems. The older systems were designed for lower muzzle velocities so they may have higher than normal barrel wear from newer shells/propellants.
The problem with the PzH2000 is, that thing was not designed to fire 20, 30, 40, 50 or more shots at a time. They are supposed to fire 3-6 shots and run, in order to avoid counter battery. Extensive use puts strain on the machine it was not designed to withstand.
Really valuable insight, especially coming from someone who’s been a PzH2000 commander. You’re right; it wasn’t designed for sustained high-volume firing. I’m curious, from your experience, do you think there are effective ways to adapt or upgrade it to handle the strain better, or is it always going to be a quick-strike weapon at its core?
@@Weapons.Of.Victory development startet in the 80ies and this is what you have to consider. Think about about, what kind of warefare was that thing designed for and were did artillery come from. prior to the PzH2000 it took a bettery about 2hrs to be ready to fire in peace conditions in war conditions something about 5 to 15 minutes, because you had to triangulate the exact position of the spot you wish to fire from, then you drive the howitzer into the spot and recheck position, then you have to determine the exact direction the barrel is pointing to including the elevation. With the PzH2000 you don't have to do any of that. The expected warfare was with an enemy that has a 3:1 and and locally 6:1 numerical supperiority and the artillery supperiority was insane. So the plan was to retard the forward progress while slowly moving backwards until the USA and other allies show up. So the expectation was that under no circumstance you would have the time to stay in position to fire a full magazine (60 shots for the 2000) not to speak of hundreds of shots. So you design the thing in a way that would excel in that kind of warfare which she does. I can't speak about the technical details, but i doubt that you upgrade the howitzer to a point that i can go on fireing 3 digits number of shells in a short period of time. Also consider, that thing has a superior range compared to all the soviet era designs, that means the shell has to be faster when leaving the barrel, that means the entire mounting mechanism has to handle much stronger forces. If the Ukrainians would limit the range to 6, 7, 8 km with less propellant the wear should be way less, but you loose one of the major advantages that hing has
@@Weapons.Of.Victory the problem is that ukraines armed forces and NATO forces like the bundeswehr have drasticly different approaches to artillery use. NATO forces use artillery for pinpoint strikes in mobile warfare with the big barrages being not the standard. Target area saturation can be achieved by a single battery of PzH2000´s firing their 5 round "burst". To achieve similar target area saturation would require 4-5 batteries of M109´s or 2S3´s. Rarely a more sustained barrages than such short engagements are needed when you got air dominance and can conduct precision strikes with your tube and missile artillery. Ukraine and Russia on the other hand are primarily using late 80´s 2S19 Msta-S or 2S3´s from the 70´s and field howitzers for tube artillery and generally unguided 122mm BM-21 Grad or 220mm BM-27 Uragan MLRS. These systems have acess to terminal phase guided precision ammunition, but those are expensive and rare (Krasnopol laser guided ammunition for example). They are primarily designed to act in an primarily unguided low precision barrage role of the 40´s - 80´s (so still deep in the cold war in respect to technology) Ukraine is due to several reasons not capable of effectively using modern western systems like PzH2000 to their intended effect (training, recon, air surperiority etc) and has to push these precision tools into the cold war era barrage role. Basicly Ukraine has to use a DMR as Squad Automatic Weapon, because their heavy mashineguns (airforce, MLRS, short range ballistic missiles, attack helicopters etc) have lost most of their equipment (the ukrainian airforce is doing a great job, but its basicly non existand today, same goes for the armies helicopter force etc)
Are there other problems in higher volumes of fire than overheating the barrel? If so, what are the biggest ones, and are they specific to PzH2000 or typical for most SPGs? I served many decades ago in FDF field artillery, and our 155mm towed field guns were often punished with 6rds/min fire volume sustained for several minutes in live ammo drills. To my knowledge the barrel heating was the only boogieman, but it would be interesting to know if SPGs have some other limiting factors.
Eh. Just couple things regarding Krab. One there was far more than 18 in Ukraine, likely total was around 70. Probably half of that number remains active at the moment. Krab is also combination of AS-90 Braveheart (which was just a design for modernisation of UK AS-90's but was cut out of budget, after which license was sold to Poland, in production actually no components came from UK) with slightly modified K-9 Korean hull made on License in Poland. With Polish Topaz fire control system. I'd say that Krab had it's time. It was mobile, accurate and reliable. And served in Ukraine for quite long time when it comes to serving in combat conditions. Topaz did help a lot. Poland handed over not only guns but modules ready to fight, with command vehicles. Krab was the gun that sort of enabled successful counteroffensive under Kharkiv. However it was never as sophisticated as PZH-2000 or Archer. It is a simpler gun overall. And lacks the superb armor of PZH-2000. But at the time it arrived to the front it did kick ass. And could handle... less delicate use, and any type of ammo that it was fed (Polish "invention" there was a bit more robust sealing system, which was added due to sub-standard quality of ammunition Poland used at the time - side effect was that gun ran quite well even if ammunition was out of spec, which is not really the case for PZH-2000 for example).
"was never as sophisticated as PZH-2000" and where is that sophistication located? In autoloader that do not hold well in this type of battlefield conditions and crew that is firing as much ammo per day as PZH-2000 was firing in a year in German army? Brits sold AS-90 Braveheart license but they lost the documentation for this tower, so this is a copy, even though it is legal copy -> and Krab is not using the same cannon as AS-90 Braveheart... kinda importand change if you ask me -> that is why the gun is nothing like all the other mentioned by you systems and from your comment someone can make the assumption that creating complete system out of different parts is like building from LEGO and there is no invention in the final product. The best PZH-2000 protection from being hit was not its armor but the fact that only as little as posible of them Germans provided and then they were constantly broken -> not firing on a frontline helps much more in the topic of not being hit than few extra mm of steel here and there. and the idea that PZH-2000 have strong armor able to protect against Lancet drones is just silly talk.
PzH2000 downtime isn't a suprise. Its the best system out there and therefore its used to its limits and above them. The ukrainians fire more rounds with a barrel than it is ment to fire from one, they just have to because of the situation. For the circumstances the PzH2000 performs incredibly well.
Since the beginning of the war until now there has been an organized effort to shit on everything German. Especially US, Polish and ironically German media was eager to do so. A simple maintenance warning, which can just be ignored by the operator, was blown up into the Pzh. 2000 breaking and being fragile. The M109 and Krab didn't have such messages and there are multiple pictures of them with exploded barrels. Meanwhile Ukranian soldiers reported that their pzh. fired 20,000 shells with one barrel without issue, while the advertised barrel life is 4500.
That’s a great point! The PzH2000’s performance under such intense usage is impressive, especially given the high demand for firepower in the current situation. Pushing systems to their limits can reveal both strengths and vulnerabilities. Do you think this kind of operational strain will lead to any long-term changes in how artillery systems are designed or maintained?
The precision of the Caesar is impressive, but it's frustrating that production can’t keep pace with demand. Investing in new equipment for efficiency is crucial to meet the needs on the battlefield.
From what ive learned, artillery men on both sides are developing VERY serious brain injuries akin to some boxers and football players at the end of their lives.
Also CTE in "encased" howitzers? that's surprising. Not for lanyard shots, Pion, towed arty etc. But I was surprised how effective the sound insuation is inside the tracked howitzers (other than Pion, obviously).
There's a good article on this topic out there somewhere. They studied U.S. artillerymen who'd served Afghanistan and the Middle East. I used to think it'd be cool to be an artillery guy until I read it.....
@@jiyushugi1085 Oh that I definitely believe , but that's all or mostly towed arty. That is nociferous. But I did not see many M109s in Iraq after a few months, iirc. But a lot of towed arty and mortars.
Absolutely, while a lot of Ukrainian artillery is based on Soviet designs, it's important to recognize their newer developments, like the domestically produced systems and adaptations they've made. These innovations reflect Ukraine’s ability to evolve its military capabilities despite the challenges. What newer developments do you think have had the most impact so far?
@@Weapons.Of.Victory Drones are the biggest new thing. I have a book 4th generation warfare, written in 2015 without a single mention of a drone. But militaries will adapt and come up with counters to drones. But the really important thing is fighting a technological enemy like the Russians. They have been able to block GPS signals meaning that some of the Wests high tech weapons will need to be redesigned. Ukraine has been a great testing ground for weapons.
They had more Pions than Russia did at the start of the war. It's still a formidable weapon, though slow. I understand that the crew have to dismount before firing, owing to the shock/blast wave.
You're spot on. The limitations in numbers, especially regarding ammunition, have been a significant challenge for Ukraine. Even with advanced systems, if there isn't enough firepower to support operations, it can hinder effectiveness. Do you think prioritizing increased production or diversifying sources could help address this issue?
@@Weapons.Of.Victory The west has infinite resources from their global influence but their military industries are geared towards boutique weapons that get produced in limited numbers to maximise profits. Quantity is just more important than quality in an attritional war. What people also don't realize is that Russian artillery is just as sophisticated as the west with thermobaric warheads, laser guided shells and active drone spotting. The only difference is that Russians also compliment their advanced systems with the overwhelming firepower of low tech systems including even WWII era pieces, giving them the quantity advantage in addition to tech parity. The Russians fight total war and this is what allows them to match the military support of all Nato countries combined.
It seems that Russia and North Korea have pissed of South Korea enough that South Korea is now likely to provide direct support to Ukraine. Maybe we will see some K9 Thunders in Ukraine. South Korea also has a large capacity for production of 155mm ammunition too. The K9 is also an excellent self propelled gun.
One of K9's main qualities is its high mobility. The Norwegian army tested it against the M109, the Caesar and the KMW Panzerhaubitze and the K9 was the only one that could handle the rugged Norwegian terrain. The K9 was still Norway's second choice though. They really wanted the BAE Archer but BAE couldn't deliver on time.
@@chrisbrent7487 They have actually said the will send attack weapons now, not just helmets, flak-vests etc, so...but I don't think they'll send troops, even if it would be convenient now. Don't really get it, they're not NATO, so its bot controversial there and they could actually fight/test NK troops.
What Ukraine need right now is man power rather than more equipment.No mater what equipment you send to the front there is often easy target for drones. Cheaper and more easyly replaceble Russian equipment so far is proving to be crutial fact to win the war.You can destroy more but they will still get more than you do. Western equipment no meter how advanced it sound in paper before the war in real war they dont do much more than the Russian equipment,and since they are more expensive and complex are much harder to replenish after losses.WW 2 showed clearly that quantity beats quality as long as teher is enough quantity No mater what the author of the video says Russians still have 5-1 or 10-1 artilery firepower advantage depending on which sector you go on the front.Its not me saying it its Ukrianians themselves in various interviews.And that firepower comes as more casulties compared to Russians.Ukrainians lose on average 3-5 man for every Russian killed,again its not me saying it its Ukrainians themselves.And that lack of manpower is the main reason what their lines are crumbling this year.
The biggest problem with Western artillery is that Ukraine only has 1/10 amount of ammunition that Russia has and no-one is willing to pay for more even if there are millions of shells available on the market.
There is plenty of cotton as that is pure myth, the Western supply chain has caused major problems with the Americans rushing through now-introduced legislation, the Ammunition Supply Chain Act, is designed to identify and address faults in the gunpowder supply chain. Some such as the Archer use insensitive propellant but its crazy the West has the supply chain problems it does where nitro-cellulose seems to be the bottleneck.
@@BC_Joshie There isn't a much difference as there is with range where western systems often outrange by some way. Artillery at least by Ukraine is often guided by better co-ords and feedback from 1st ranging rounds. The intel from drones in combination of infantry painting things with far more accuracy. The digital systems of target accusition also seem better on Western hardware.
Russia has had several ammunition depots go up in smoke and a couple of manufacturing facilities as well (major setbacks for the little guy and his minions). Meanwhile, both western Europe and the US are increasing ammunition production and Russia's economy is cooked (inflation is over 20% and GPD is stalling) and Iran can no longer afford to send ammunition to Russia for fear of attacks form Israel... the playing field is evening and, as it has been mentioned, western artillery is way more accurate.
Dude, why did you phrase the thumbnail like that? I thought you was gonna say Western weapon is crappy like Russian weapon but then it’s not come on man
I heard they like cesars a lot because the way the gun is easy to access at the back and due to how mobile it is, they are just moving the truck with no ammo onboard from one prepared firing position to the next, and even if you get hit by some drone during transit it causes damage, but theres nothing to explode so its more often than not, repairable. It's built-in intertial reference system is apparently also good enough in practice to change positions and re-aim fast which some other systems have problems with and it slows their actual fire missions time considerably. Cesar2 is gonna double down on that with more engine power and an automated gearbox for even better scooting and onboard drone jamming. Krab is good because they actually got almost a hundred of them and can handle some attrition, vs a lot of the other hardware which is given piecemeal and cannot last long that way. I think poland will keep more coming too, they aren't playing around with vehicle production compared to the rest of europe which is still shameful. As a french Im disgusted we charge millions for cesars when at the end of the day it's a truck with a 152mm bolted on and guidance modules ducttaped somewhere onboard. We should be able to produce it in the hundreds easily. The first exemples were shipped in the early 2000s so the R&D has long been paid off.
le cesar n'est pas juste un tube fabriqué vite fait. Sa précision vient de sa qualité d'usinage, qui justement demande du temps, les machines adaptées et le personnel compétent pour tout faire fonctionner l'ensemble correctement. Le manque de volume vient de là, et oui, faire de la qualité, ça coûte cher.
I served in an artillery unit and what I remember from the game is that being able to get the hell out of Dodge is as important as being able to deliver your payload accurately over a great distance. Having seen the impact of drones on the modern battlefield, I'd definitely NOT want to be operating an Archer. So, something armoured that can take a punch itself almost as good as throwing them. Wouldn't that leave me with the PzH2000 ? Live to fight another day. Which of the ones that you showed has the best survival rate for the machine and the crew ?
I understand the drone threat literally squashed the shoot and scoot concept in UA. If you leave your hideout you're easily identified and quickly dealt with. Models based on a heavily armored tank chassis theoretically should have the best survival chance. Yet their movement is constrained by its weight and the terrain that quickly become a deathtrap for the heavies.
It's remarkable that Western Artillery is good considering the west doesn't use much artillery in wars. The west is about air dominance. This make artillery having only a minor role in combat. It also the reason why the west have hard time providing Ukraine with artillery shells, we simply don't have massive amounts and only a modest production capacity at best.
I'm guessing that the focus on better artillery is to provide time-buffers to any country attacked to give NATO the time to put aircraft (carriers or air forces) into place. Slowing an invasion may be their purpose.
Less Artillery based, really? The first world war told us another story. In almost all wars the artillery was the biggest killer for tanks and soldiers. Now the drone operators have closed up for moving objects.
The US is about air dominance, but we've had capable artillery men since before we were a nation. 🤷🏻♂️ Western artillery is more precise than soviet versions. Prior to PGMs becoming common, artillery was the best method to defeat armor and emplacements. The defense plan for Europe depended on armor and artillery stopping or slowing the red army. You'll notice that most artillery systems predate the fall of the soviet union and those that don't likely use a gun which does.
dang, modern warfare is scary, complete and total overview in real time with drones and you can call in a 155mm artillery strike from 100km away, glad I am no longer an infantry man.
That's an exciting development! Rheinmetall's new shells with a 100km range could significantly enhance Ukraine's artillery capabilities. Do you think this will change the dynamics on the battlefield?
@@Weapons.Of.VictoryThat depends. Are we willing to pay for that to show up in numbers on the battlefield? It could shift the artillery force situation. Assuming a russian artillery range of 50km, UA artillery could fire at the frontline or even russian artillery behind it. Safe from counter artillery fire, maybe even safe from drone attacks. The threat of missile attacks would remain though, so its no total uno reverse card allowing them to bomb the frontline into powder, taking their time.
@@Weapons.Of.Victory Depends on whether they are more numerous than the already existing HIMARS. The advantage of cannon arty is quantity. Though giving it more flexibility is good too.
@Weapons.Of.Victory okay, well its been a month since i last checked so im a bit outdated. I knew the ratio would go down when ukraine hit a large ammo depot but i wasnt expecting to go down that low.
The mentioned 12 CAESAR 8X8 155 MM HAUBITS was ordered and paid for by the Danish Military Forces but before delivery donated to Ukraine. Perhaps the conversation with the French President was a final accept for the direct export to Ukraine and not to the DK.
The 12 CAESAR 8x8 155mm howitzers were originally ordered by Denmark but were donated to Ukraine instead. The final approval likely came from a conversation with the French President.
Yeah, the PzH 2000 was definitely pushed beyond its intended role early on. Relying on it as a kind of ‘wonder weapon’ put a lot of extra strain on the system. Do you think there’s a better way they could have managed its use to avoid wear while still getting the most out of it?
@@Weapons.Of.Victory Any design follows given specs, so that follows strategy and tactics - so any NATO army would not expect stationary fronts with high fire volumes without air superiority. So I would assume, mechanically there is not a lot that can be adjusted with such a mature design.
@Weapons.Of.Victory Beyond using clusters of 2-3 howitzers (unrealistic, given insufficient numbers), i always design a cooling system in my head. Like a shortened cartrige (probably without a shell) with striker-activated capsule of liquified air, discharging trough the barell and dampeners. If metal surface don't get shocked from t* change, it should multiply the number of shells that could be succeedingly fired without overheating or surface-melting the barell.
@@dannydetonator Let us guess, you don't have an engineering degree... that liquified air spends way too little time in the barrel to take up frictional heat by conduction. But you know what is actually a proven method? Water. Look at any (or many, I don't know them all) OTO Melara 76mm on vessels, they cool them with seawater. That helps.
NATO forces are indeed not structured for high-volume fire without air superiority. Your idea about a cooling system is intriguing-using liquified air could help manage barrel temperatures and extend firing capabilities. Have you thought about how such a system would affect the overall weight and complexity of the artillery?
Ukraine innovated and used what it could but from thier decision to build the 2S22 Bohdana it would seem wheeled shoot and scoot artillery is of preference that likely was from experience of the CAESAR and later Archer systems.
ATMOS, CAESAR, Archer all have moved to 'shoot and scoot' as the speed and accuracy of counter batteries and counter measures is now exceptionally quick. The cost of truck based crew capsule platforms is approx 4-5x cheaper than armoured track based systems that show no advantage. If you are static and imobile with a large radar/heat signature then on a modern battlefield your time is short. Its also untrue that Western guns are much more accurate, its the intel of air density, weather, wind, temperature and once more Drones replacing the role for forward observers with much more accurate target co-ords, is what is making a difference, especially after a ranging round the 'barrage' will be walked in. Any artillery is accurate when 'walked to the target, the only consideration now is how much time and rounds can be fired before you shoot and scoot. Drone forward observers for arty has become a game changer for artillery but also is the intel of modern sensors relaying data of the air space the projectile flies through. Wheeled, shoot-and-scoot, high mobility in terms of deploy and move is essential and cost allows more to be deployed. The armoured tracked systems of the US, UK and Germany are likely massively over engineered, overpriced and too imobile and create supply, support and maintenance problems that truck based systems just don't have, where maybe hybrid drives/hydrogen fuel cells maybe used to give as low a radar/thermal signature as possible as they deploy and relocate, but the guns themselves are not much different to the lessons learnt from WWII. Range is the next consideration but unlikely to change much, where the very same shoot-and-scoot design that has become equally important with systems such as Himars following the same design doctrine for extended 70-300 kilometers ranges and equally gaining preference.
1:00 It's over way around. Hull is an adapted Korean hull similar to K9. Turret was redesigned inside out from British AS-90 turret. Documentation send by British was incomplete at best. Most important factor of Krab is however BMS which is superior to competitors.
Don't let this distract you from the the fact that in 1966, Al Bundy scored four touchdowns in a single game while playing for the Polk High School Panthers in the 1966 city championship game versus Andrew Johnson High School, including the game-winning touchdown in the final seconds against his old nemesis, "Spare Tire" Dixon
Not sure how Al Bundy’s four touchdowns relate to military strategy, but I guess every victory, whether on the field or battlefield, involves taking down your toughest opponent.
30x British AS-90 155 mm armoured self-propelled artillery units were sent to Ukraine in 2023. The first batch of 20 were some of the first western supplied kit. At least 12 are no longer operational probably more are worn out parked up for spares.
Here are the hard truths - Krab, good but hard to maintain and external fuel means that Lancets can blow them up easily - Caesar : low level of automation - Paladin : cold war relic, even worse than Russian cw systems - Dana, good but unnessarly bulky - Archer : not fit for high intensity battles, that's why all the major armies who tested it are turning it down
Yeah, different artillery pieces have their strengths and weaknesses depending on the context they’re used in, but it’s clear that technology is evolving rapidly
I was on the 109 for four years, including Desert Storm. They did pretty well. We expended ammo, like the Ukrainian stated, maybe even more on the first few days of the ground war. The rate of fire is slow on the A3, though.
Thanks for sharing your experience. The M109 has certainly proven its value in various conflicts. It’s interesting to hear about the ammo expenditure in Desert Storm, as that’s a major factor in artillery effectiveness. Do you feel the slow rate of fire on the A3 affected its performance compared to other artillery systems?
The CAESAR is more than just devastating-its precision and mobility make it a force multiplier. It’s not just about firepower; it’s about delivering strikes with unmatched accuracy, changing the dynamics of modern artillery.
@@Weapons.Of.Victory And about mobility, Both tactical, being a truck it can go faster than a tracked SPG, being an artillery piece you're surely able to find a paved road in range to not have to go into mud, and strategic mobility, a full tank of gas and you can redeploy 600km away in a night without needing trains to transport the units on long distances.
M109A3 vs the A6 Paladin might as well not even be the same weapon series. I'm 99% sure there's no AC unless our gunbunnies were just holding out on us haha (I was FDC). But seriously, no. When the A6 came out it was revolutionary to a degree its hard to explain if you've never struggled with the time limits needed to get an artillery battery emplaced. 15 frenetic minutes from the guns rolling in to putting shells down range minutes with A3 is fast. The modern weapons like Paladin, Krab, and PzH just roll in, turn, and fire in seconds. Krab and PzH have longer guns for more range and the MRSI is a nice feature.
the use of cluster munitions resulting on russia removing their self imposed limitation as well, which has been way more devastating for ukraine than ukraine benefited. the whole reason to start using these munitions that leave ordinance on the ground that will be a danger for decades to come is because they didnt had any other left
Russia did not limit itself at all, it invaded and has used everything it can when it can. It knows if it uses Nukes Russia is finished along with many others but definitely Russia. Even Putin s not that Stupid. All because a little man wants a Soviet Union back. Do not quote quote NATO threat that is a Joke and the only Nazis sit in the Kremlin.
Firing 192 rounds in 24 hours when the new rounds cost $4,000 a piece is $768,000.. At the start of the war the cost was only around $2,300 a shot but with world shortages the cost has risen. What good could we do with $768K?
It really puts things into perspective when we think about alternative uses for that kind of money, but the value of maintaining firepower in the right circumstances can’t be overlooked either.
It’s interesting how opinions can vary. Different systems have their strengths, and sometimes it comes down to personal preference or what people are used to. Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
Krab's turret is not AS-90 turret. It's the turret designed to modernise the AS-90, but not used for the purpose because of budget cuts. Then Poles stepped up and bought this project over, which appeared very good idea. Hulls aren't Polish too - Polish ones didn't work well (suspensions kept breaking) so, had to be replaced with the Korean K-9 ones. All of it being produced in Poland now. Fire control system is Polish design and it's a truly modern thing (Topaz). Making it all work together so well, appeared to be one of the Polish greatest arm design successes of recent years.
It’s impressive how Poland stepped up and turned this project around, especially with the Krab’s unique mix of Polish and Korean components. The Polish-designed Topaz fire control system sounds like a real game-changer, proving that effective collaboration and innovation can produce something powerful.
The only way Russia is outshooting Ukraine is because they have more guns. Like way more. If they had the same amount, the Russians would lose handily. Check out how Russia ships it's ammunition. It's individually boxed in wood (per round) and the Russians have to break it open and manually load it one at a time. Even for their rocket trucks. They have to load each tube individually.
@@christopheripoll2580 Germany fighting against UK, US and Russia, no wonder they lost. Today, Russia fighting against the productive capacity of US, UK and EU. See what that gets them.
@@zedeyejoe 1/ At the moment, they are dramatically winning 2/ I worked during 10 years for a French military company. Productivity was near 0. And it is the same in the whole western world: military equipments cost 20 times more than Russian ones, for close performances. 3/ In the end, the western world is not only fighting the Russian military industrial capacity, which is important by its own. We are also fighting the North Korean, Chinese, Iranian industry. And that block overwhelms western capacities. Times have changed: we are not rulling the world anymore!
@@dupajasio4801 That is wrong. The figures mentioned are correct, but one additional thing to mention. The PzH 2000 doesn´t detonate under the impact of Russian UAVs. This means you can repair nearly all, but of cause they suffer damage and the things to fix cannot be done in Ukraine. It is like with the tanks. Yes the Leopard 2A6 needs much more repair; the T72 needs nothing anymore after a hit...
BTW: How is western artillery production evolving? Has our output increased by any significant number since the beginning of the war? Have any new factories gone online?
The BONUS (Bofors Nutating Shell) or ACED (Anti-Char à Effet Dirigé) is a 155 mm artillery cluster round co-developed and manufactured by Bofors of Sweden and Nexter of France. It was designed to fulfill a long range, indirect fire, top attack requirement against armoured fighting vehicles. 2 x autonomous anti-armour and anti-artillery submunitions Maximum firing range 27 km (17 mi) from 39-caliber barrels 35 km (22 mi) from 52-caliber barrels The Archer artillery comes with Saab Barracuda MCS camouflage
to be honest the m109 should be compared with 2S3 Akatsiya, the bith trucked howitzers possesses almost the same capabilities slow rate of fire sustained: 1rpm max: 4 rpm per minute and almost the same ranges17km for the standard rounds and 24km for the RAP rounds in the 2S3 Akatsiya compared with the m109 18km for the standard rounds and 30km for the RAP, so overall there not much differences in combat performances considering thst the 2S3 Akatsiya barrel length is L27 compared with the L39 for the m109, but the Soviet mobile howitzer is smaller in size make it easier to be transport and hide while being tactically and operationally utilized...
Good comparison! Both have similar capabilities, but the Akatsiya’s smaller size does offer an advantage in transport and concealment. That said, the M109’s longer barrel and slightly better range with RAP rounds give it an edge in certain scenarios. It all comes down to how they’re deployed and the conditions on the battlefield. Do you think the Akatsiya’s compact size outweighs the range benefits of the M109?
Don't ever talk about my nation not helping you and any insult on what we supply to you. We are really safe in the U.S.A. and yet pay you billions, yet my friends die because they don't have health care. Anyone in the Ukraine you should not complain about the U.S., we are spending more money on Russian war than our own Health Care system provides to our own people. You have to realize we are dying here also because we are spending billions to fight Russia. My dad fought in Vietnam, he died last year from wounds from Vietnam, they would barely cover medicine and a check up for him, a check up would be months away. I know war and what it means. My dad died fighting because of Vietnam and not realizing it was in defense of Russia for Ukraine and that part of the world. Now I do know it is important, just realize this is not just money to the people in the U.S.A., it is our lives, we are dying because we don't get federal health care and it all goes to the military. We put military above health, been that way since World War one. You are lucky to get anything from the rest of the world other than the countries that might be invaded next. Finland, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania guarding that area. Those countries are next to be attacked. Russia want's the Baltic and Black sea, Georgia, Moldova, Bulgaria, Turkiye, Armenia and Romania is next. You have to realize we are dying here in the U.S.A. while giving you money, don't ever insult us, I lost my dad because money sent to you could have saved him. All of NATO is spending billions to fight Russia and get little respect.
I'm sorry for your loss, and I understand your frustration-your family has paid a heavy price, and it’s infuriating that your dad’s care was neglected. But let’s be clear: Ukrainians deeply value the support from the U.S. and its allies-it’s a lifeline in our fight for freedom against tyranny. No one here is insulting or taking that aid for granted. That said, blaming Ukraine for the issues within the U.S., like underfunded healthcare, feels misplaced. Those are decisions made by your government long before this war began. Yes, this fight against Russia is costly, but it’s about preventing a threat that doesn’t stop at Ukraine’s borders. The stakes are global. Respectfully, anger about your country’s priorities should be directed at your leaders-not at those desperately fighting for their survival.
lol, it was so hard not to surround Russia with NATO infrastructure? or so hard to support pre-war normand-negotioations? maybe your country was the one who wants this war to happen?! Putin made numerous warnings and public letters and warnings again. are u was blind and deaf? of course i don't address it to Ukraine government - they are just nazi washed puppets of USA and Europe who cant see one step ahead. btw its sick to put Turkey and Armenia on a list. baltic states - maybe, they already let themselves talk too much to just forgive that :) zero taste in diplomacy - deserves fair punishment and homeworking old lessons of WW2, which they seems quickly forgot
It is hardly the fault of anyone anywhere other than the US that your healthcare system is famously atrocious. I understand you are hurt mate, but it's your politicians and people's attitude that is the problem here
The problem with Russian artillery is definition. Russian artillery is not part of infantry in Russia, but can be in the West. For instance a mortar is an infantry weapon in the West and an artillery piece in Russia. Also Russia has had to improvise a lot which had degraded its effectiveness while increasing the numbers. For instance the tubes on MLRS have been separated into their own artillery systems. These systems can't be adjusted so nobody knows the point of aim. Another redesigned artillery pieces are the cannons from BMPs and tanks that have been separated from those vehicles. Again, those cannons cannot be adjusted.
So you're saying that Russian artillery is severely handicapped and yet still the scourge of the Ukrainian battlefield? Man, if the Russians ever address the issues the war will be over.
You can tell when a channel is anti-American, see how every artillery system was given it's name and country of origin, except one in the middle: The Polish Crab, The French Ceaser, The M109, The Czech Dana, The Swedish Archer. The M109 is the American made Howitzer. Could've been unintentional, but considering they conveniently left out the artillery system that actually changed the war in May-June 2022 and became very known and commonly spoke about in the Media, which is the HIMARS artillery system.
The M109 isn’t named because the U.S. audience, which is the major one here, already knows it’s American-made. For the other artillery systems, the country is mentioned because most people aren’t familiar with them. Stop looking for conspiracies where there are none.
I bet if you interviewed the Wehrmacht soldiers about their equipment in late 44, or 45, you’d see the same thoughts. It won’t change the end result. War is about logistics and production capacity.
While logistics are important, I think the effectiveness of equipment and technology plays a huge role too. The experiences of soldiers can highlight both strengths and weaknesses in their gear, which can impact outcomes. What do you think?
@@Weapons.Of.Victory the effectiveness of equipment and technology will have a huge impact on logistics and production. Whatever does not brake down, does not need repairs, does not need spare parts. Whatever can be repaired in the field only needs to be towed dozens of kilometres not hundreds or more. I'd say it has a very big impact. In WWII it was hard to figure out the battle losses of tanks of the German Wehrmacht, because they towed away all the tanks quicly and fixed them up quickly as well. So, did they just lose 300 tanks? Not really, some probably appeared in the same battle again after having been 'destroyed'. And the next battle, 250 of them were ready again and the 50 missing were mostly with the maintenance bataillon, too and at least good for a lot of spare parts. So, even if you assume that a war is won in the end with logistics and production, the effectiveness of equipment can play into that a lot, too. Other than that, it is about capabilities. If someone gets capabilities with their equipment that the other side does not have, that can change everything.
I've been waiting for the "hard truth" for the entire video and I'm still wondering where it is, I don't doubt that these systems are effective but I expected to hear more about their shortcomings too. Other than that, voicing over subtitled stuff comes across oddly (particularly since the narrator voice is the same), particularly jarring since this meant an unforced error at 3:45 where you missed out "but the one thing that sticks in my mind". even intonation over such an obvious mistake combined with a few other things makes it seem like this is a TTS voice, which raises even more questions.
We highlight the capabilities of these systems because they’re proven effective in real scenarios-not just glossed-over strengths. As for the voiceover, if you’re focusing on minor glitches instead of the message, maybe it’s time to adjust expectations.
Kursk is running is it? From what I remember Russian troops were outside Kyiv, that’s a long way to bravely advance backwards while the Ukrainians cowardly chases after you.
@@anthonywilson4873 Umm pendejo, they ARE running in kursk. have you not noticed that almost all the forces that went in are now chewed up and gone and the remainder left are mostly trapped in pockets of 500-2k men without resupply? damn you idiots act like this is some %^#!%ing stupid football game, not life and death. Go F yourself and go to ukraine to fight since you think it's going so well, but we both know you are an armchair pussy who will never do that.
the main reason why they don't talk about towed artillery is their mass casualties on both sides but i also think they sould talk about it but in a different video so they can explain more in-depth about that situation
C'mon, who is using towed guns today? Outside of Russia? China, India or North Korea? M777 should only be a lightweight C-130 deployable stop-gap artillery. Not a basis of the Ukrainian fire-power. German 10x10 wheeled artillery fires on the move and hits a target on the move. The US came up with the idea of towed guns right into the XXI century. I could not believe you unscrewed the targeting support equipment from those guns? Why? To allow Russians to keep the edge? At this point, the US is helping Putin more than Ukraine. Why can't the wealthiest country in the world send something they have not pulled recently from their military junkyard?
The Ukrainians will most likely be heavily invested in the arms business after the war is over. They're considerable experience in using the best military technology that western countries has to offer, and making improvements to manufacture better versions of the equipment will put them in a strong position to do so. I suggest this because the Ukrainians have demonstrated they are wizards at engineering and improving existing machines. Plus, they now have an experience that can't easily be replicated by the west.
Ukraine’s hands-on experience with Western technology, combined with their ability to innovate and adapt, could definitely position them as key players in the global arms industry after the war. Their engineers have already proven they can make improvements to existing systems, so they might be able to produce even more effective versions. It’s not just about having the technology, but knowing how to make it work in the real world. Do you think this could shift the balance of power in the arms market in the future?
Artillery in the US Army is named the King of Battles because it produces the largest amount of death and destruction. The Infantry is the Queen of Battles because she has to take the ground which the King has pulverized. In reality the Queen will tell the King where to drop his balls on the battlefield to make their reign supreme.
Well said! Artillery and infantry really are a powerful team when they work in sync. Each has a role that amplifies the other's impact on the battlefield.
Napoleon is the one that coined the term actually, pretty much every western military calls it the king of warfare. You are absolutely correct on the rest, I was in commo but all the units I was ever assigned to were artillery units. The few times I was up with the forward observers (this was back in the late 80s and early 90s) the amount of damage they could do was mind blowing.
Yeah, I was a U.S. Army Artilleryman and was trained on the 109 Palladin. But, they found out I had a college degree and so they moved me into Operations to be a clerk, and then, after a couple of years I had been Head Clerk of the the 3rd Armored Division Artillery Brigade. Then I went to fort hood and became a humble Battalion Level Ammo Clerk. I'll tell you: The Devil's in the Details.
Sounds like you had quite a journey in the Army, moving from the field to the details behind the scenes. Must've been a big shift from handling the Paladin to managing logistics as a Head Clerk. You're right-people often overlook how crucial the small details are in keeping everything running smoothly. How did your experience with artillery shape your perspective when you transitioned to the operations side?
Ukraine is facing overwhelming challenges from Russia's larger military, along with logistical difficulties and reliance on external support. While Ukraine has been resilient, the situation remains tough due to these factors. That doesn't mean they're giving up, but the struggle is real.
@@Truthaholokz I posted that Ukraine was losing badly. Perhaps you think the territorial losses, manpower losses, mass desertions, destruction of infrastructure, flight of a large portion of the country's population, collapse of industry, continuation in office of a leader whose term of office ended more than six months ago, forcing elderly disabled men to fight etc. are all markers of success?
@@gnosticbrian3980 No, but suffering those losses while successfully defending against an aggressor is part and parcel. In Feb 2022 what were your expectations of the Ukrainian military? You can define success in any self-serving means you wish to, but Ukraine is still there extracting a very heavy toll on the aggressor, and nothing is going to change soon. Perhaps Ukraine is "losing", but the fact remains that Russia failed and they are far worse off for it. That isn't "winning" by my definition.
isn´t it interessting. The menatlity and the doctrin of german weapon development hasn´t changed so much. very precise, good craftet and Prone to failure. By the way the development of PhZ 2000 was an out of the box process. Originally, a self-propelled howitzer was to be developed in collaboration between Germany and France. They developed for many years and in the end they only came out with scrap worth millions. Without official approval, a Henschel manager in Kassel commissioned a small company with 30 employees, who delivered a functioning concept within six months. On which one of the best self-propelled howitzers is based. Unfortunately, corruption in the development of weapons is not only an issue in Russia, but also blocks many developments in Germany. Unfortunately, in order to develop something that works, you often have to abandon the given procedures
You’ve got a point there! The PhZ 2000’s development story is wild-official projects falling short while a small team managed to deliver a working solution. It shows that innovation doesn’t always follow the rules, even in Germany.
didnt know the US had any M109A3 museum pieces left. those have been OUT of us service for like 40 years now. thats like sending them M48 pattons. (not even M60s but M48s)
While the M109A3s are dated, they’ve been modernized and are still effective in certain roles. Comparing them to M48 Pattons is a bit of a stretch. Old doesn’t always mean obsolete-especially when paired with skilled operators.
How many footballfields are 18-24 miles ? And how many ford f250´s are a footballfield. And how many armslength are a ford f250 of a man that is 3 trashcans tall.
Seems like someone's trying to measure the absurd with even more absurdity! If you want to figure out distances using football fields, F-250 trucks, and trashcan-tall men, it might be easier to just grab a tape measure and some patience. Otherwise, I'd stick to good ol' miles and yards!
@@Weapons.Of.Victory Sure. Fair question. 1. 'Hard truth' in English (which I understand may not be your native language) means hard for the listener to hear. Since the listener is likely a Ukr. supporter, your info is not hard to hear. Thus, the title is clickbait; the viewer expects to hear deficiencies in Western weapons and they do not hear much of that. 2. You ask at the beginning, should some other technology supplant mobile artillery? Presumably not towed artillery, but there is no comparison with other weapons systems like tanks, Bradleys, or drones. Ukr has to use whatever it gets and it can get drones in the largest quantities. So, drones it is. But should Zelensky being pushing the West for more of which system? Your video does not say. 3. You are showing the various mobile artillery systems, spouting numbers here and there, but a graph showing public info, like ranges (weapon, fuel. etc.) would be helpful. Which is working best in Ukr? Germans have long had problems with maintenance keeping vehicles out of the field. Do the other features adequately compensate? 4. This video was too much just positive, like a child praising a toy in the hopes of getting another or a propaganda video. A more balanced report would have sounded like the real opinion instead of a paid advertisement. Hope that helps
@@aSnailCyclopsNamedSteve I think we are all guilty of thinking we can watch this war in 'real' detail from the comfort of our homes. But dont forget there is also an info war going on, and dont you think that if the Ukraine side was completely transparent that that would be something the Russian side could capitalise on ? We are being naive thinking that all the info we get is both 'true' and up-to-date. Its not in anyones interest in a war to release the 'truth' about anything.
@@aSnailCyclopsNamedSteve Western tech being superior to russian tech seems to be a tough pill for you to swallow. Theres a reason the west is superior in every aspect as their chip manufacturing is heading towards 2nm chips and Russia only managed 90nm ones on their own.
And not to forget, there is the Ukrainian 2S22 Bohdana self propelled howitzer; - considered as among the best wheeled 155mm on par with Cesar and Archer and DITA.
Our team would appreciate it if a real 'pro AI-identifier' could share the exact tools or services needed to create a video like this using AI-so we can hit our creator goals faster and more easily. Otherwise, spare us and move along.
4 shells hits at the same time ? Sorry for, the Pzhb2000 hits with 6 shells ! This Vids is nothing more than polish advertising and whitewashing! A good weapon, without a doubt, but no comparison to German SPG's... Thats's fact !
If you think this video is just Polish advertising, maybe you're missing the bigger picture. Every system has its strengths, and it’s not all about national pride!
Ukrainian artillery is effective, but calling it "the best" is debatable. Their experience and use of advanced Western systems stand out, though other nations also have strong artillery capabilities. The situation is evolving, and rankings could shift.
Angelo Giachetti - I didn't know you were fighting at the front. Anyway, Putin is losing - BIGGLY. That's why he called in the stupid, useless NK fake army.
I didn't know that Italy was fighting there. Nobody is losing just like nobody is winning. Ru is now gaining a few hundred meters of ground each month in some sectors. But it comes at the loss of 1000-1500 men each day. They are running so low on soldiers the PRK is now sending in troops. Fun fact is that last fact is leading to ROK ammunition delivery soon. And those are likely to be followed by more weapons heading into Ukraine.
Because Zelensky and his party refused to call and organize mandatory military service for over 2 years. It was against their neoliberal ideology and now they are abducting men and throwing them on the front without training. Same ideology as state-hating Anglo-Saxon. But money and tech toys can't win wars, only men can.
@calion7643 the casualties are wounded dead captured and MIA. Ukraine is handling a third to a fifth of that on their side depending on the area of front. But it is easier to convince a dog to speak than a nazi like you to think.
The West has a different tooth to tail ratio where they expect more frequent parts and supply deliveries. As a result they expect to replace worn out barrels if they have to so they are designed to be replaced relatively quickly and are rated for less wear and tear.
Western systems are built for high-frequency use, but the trade-off is that they’re often less durable over extended periods of time compared to older models, which are designed for prolonged use but can suffer from wear.
The West has sent Ukraine over 100 modern tanks, including Leopard 2s, Challenger 2s, and some M1 Abrams. Ukraine might prefer Leopard 2s for easier maintenance, but Abrams offers better tech and armor. What’s your pick?
I have recently watched a couple of arty videos from Ukraine one was singing the praises of the AS90 (although there appears to be a problem with the type of tracks the British used in N. Europe as opposed to what is needed for full mobility in the Ukrainian soil. The other was about the Czech Dita - now that is the most beautiful artillery weapon I have ever seen designed and if the gunnery is as good as other Czeh artillery has proven to be then I would rate that as arguably the best on the planet.
The AS90 is powerful, but its tracks aren't great for Ukraine’s muddy terrain. As for the Czech Dita, it's a beautiful piece of artillery, and if it lives up to Czech standards, it could be one of the best out there in terms of accuracy and performance.
Me at the age of 50 would have no issue fighting, I have training arming, and maintining F-16, Not attacking but in base defence, with normal arms. I dont want to die.. But.. Me before a 20 year kid
4:23 The Ukrainians are deploying West Tec T-60 power armor? Where did they get that? Who is supplying the fusion cores? I have a few complete sets of T-60 in my base at Starlight Drive-In. But when I deploy power armor, I prefer my T-51, which I've upgraded to T-51e It would have been a really good video if you had restricted the featured technology to actual, real life, weapons and defensive systems.
Interesting observation! Cage armor has become more common lately, so older footage might not show it. Newer deployments do tend to add that extra layer of protection.
It’s possible that some of the older MLRS systems from Desert Storm could be in use or even supplied to Ukraine, but most of the systems used in recent conflicts are newer models, like the HIMARS. The older systems might still be in service with some countries, though.
Sounds like you're quick to dismiss anything that doesn't bring instant results. If you actually followed what's happening, you'd know the F-16s are already making a difference on the ground-they're giving Ukraine the edge it needs to push back harder.
@@Weapons.Of.Victory What is your info source? I use a number of different ones. I'm a military/history buff dating back to the mid 1960s. However, over the past month I have cut back on the time spent on the war and mostly go with Weeb Union's daily reports. I also rely on the retired CIA and military officers who appear daily on Judge Napolitano's channel. Col Douglas MacGregor is another good one.
@@kjererrt7804 So apparently the front collapsed more than 3 weeks ago according to you and still no major changes in the frontlines. Care to change your bs statement?
Which Western self-propelled artillery do you think has made the biggest impact? Share your thoughts!
The one which had the most shells fired from. Without looking it up, should be howitzer M777?
@@dannydetonator He did state 'Self Propelled'.............so no, not the M777
You need to correct a few mistakes!
Denmark donated all of their brand new Caesar artillery to Ukraine! And then France decided to also do it!
1. HIMARS; 2. ATACMS 3. Bradley because it not only has a big gun, it has a rocket launcher. Maybe you could even put the Bradley first.
whichever happens to be in the right place at the right time to stop the enemy advance. most western artillery systems have advanced capabilities over what ukraine currently possesses but to me harkening back to the WW2 Sherman philosophy i think the ground units think that the Artillery system that services their fire mission is the best Artillery system in the world. so whichever of these systems has had the most units delivered and has a reliable stream of shells will be the favorite of Ukraine to my mind.
It's basically all praise, there's hardly any "hard truth" being spilled here... I so dislike clickbait.
The praise is deserved. If those guns were shit, Ukraine would be Russian right now. What's next, you're gonna claim Moskva was the bestest warship evarrrrr ?
@@TheNefastor Temper, temper. I was merely stating the fact that the title says "soldiers spill hard truths", and that phrase implies in the first place critique on the systems. Yet, hardly any critique was even remotely touched upon, it was almost all praise. Ergo, the title deliberately tried to clickbait.
This is regardless whether it are good guns or not; that doesn't change the fact the title was clickbait.
@@TheNefastor Pretty sure higher fraction of Ukrainians have Russian as their native tongue than citizens of say London or Brussels. We are supposed to care about some wars, some invasions, the ones that benefit the MIC.
@@AniMageNeBy I dislike clickbait too, but I didn't fault this one because...
1) They do point out that 50% of the PzH 2000s are out of action for maintenance/repair - 7:16.
2) All the praise _is_ hard truth...for the RuZZians. 😄
@@truthseeker9454 Well, I did. ;-)
Because the fact remains, however one might try to turn it, it *is* clickbait.
Having actually spoken with a Ukrainian artilleryman, there is one main complaint about Western, specifically American, artillery. Combat endurance. The tubes wear out too quickly.
This is actually a known problem. US arty has to be (comparatively) mobile, so it's designers made them as light as possible without compromising capability. Thing is, that capability, maintenance included, is with the logistics of the US Army in mind. Also, western doctrine focuses on short, sharp artillery engagements on the tactical level, with the weight of sustained bombardment handled by air support. Neither of these are problems for Western forces.
But for the Ukrainians, who are always in need of day-long artillery bombardment and millions of shells, Western arty systems have trouble handling the wear and tear. They still get the job done, no question, but they do so by running much tighter margins on maintenance than most users are comfortable with.
That was discussed when people asked for these to be delivered. The Abrahms is the same. A lot of US systems are designed around the US supply capability. in general many NATO systems are designed around one of the best supply and logistics capabilities on the planet. Simply transplanting those systems was never going to work perfectly. That's why these things are called weapon systems, not just a weapon. And those systems are part of connected systems in the armies they were designed for. Which is exactly why all the talk about "what tank is best" etc is only done by amateurs that have no idea how a military works. It all depends on how it works together with its connected systems and whatever threat is was designed to defeat. All things considered, the systems are all performing incredibly well. But they are all no "Wunderwaffe". Just well designed systems.
Mostly an issue with the M777, which was designed for maximum mobility during the War on Terror. It will likely be replaced or at least have the barrels lengthened and made heavier/stronger, as focus shifts back toward large scale combat ops. The only other reason for barrel wear on the M777 and M109-which have relatively short barrels compared to other NATO arty pieces- is that the U.S. has used improved propellants as a stopgap to increase range while it decides what it wants in its new systems. The older systems were designed for lower muzzle velocities so they may have higher than normal barrel wear from newer shells/propellants.
The problem with the PzH2000 is, that thing was not designed to fire 20, 30, 40, 50 or more shots at a time. They are supposed to fire 3-6 shots and run, in order to avoid counter battery. Extensive use puts strain on the machine it was not designed to withstand.
I should mention I am a trained PzH2000 commander from back in the days when that thing was introduced to the Bundeswehr.
Really valuable insight, especially coming from someone who’s been a PzH2000 commander. You’re right; it wasn’t designed for sustained high-volume firing. I’m curious, from your experience, do you think there are effective ways to adapt or upgrade it to handle the strain better, or is it always going to be a quick-strike weapon at its core?
@@Weapons.Of.Victory development startet in the 80ies and this is what you have to consider. Think about about, what kind of warefare was that thing designed for and were did artillery come from. prior to the PzH2000 it took a bettery about 2hrs to be ready to fire in peace conditions in war conditions something about 5 to 15 minutes, because you had to triangulate the exact position of the spot you wish to fire from, then you drive the howitzer into the spot and recheck position, then you have to determine the exact direction the barrel is pointing to including the elevation. With the PzH2000 you don't have to do any of that. The expected warfare was with an enemy that has a 3:1 and and locally 6:1 numerical supperiority and the artillery supperiority was insane. So the plan was to retard the forward progress while slowly moving backwards until the USA and other allies show up. So the expectation was that under no circumstance you would have the time to stay in position to fire a full magazine (60 shots for the 2000) not to speak of hundreds of shots. So you design the thing in a way that would excel in that kind of warfare which she does. I can't speak about the technical details, but i doubt that you upgrade the howitzer to a point that i can go on fireing 3 digits number of shells in a short period of time. Also consider, that thing has a superior range compared to all the soviet era designs, that means the shell has to be faster when leaving the barrel, that means the entire mounting mechanism has to handle much stronger forces. If the Ukrainians would limit the range to 6, 7, 8 km with less propellant the wear should be way less, but you loose one of the major advantages that hing has
@@Weapons.Of.Victory the problem is that ukraines armed forces and NATO forces like the bundeswehr have drasticly different approaches to artillery use.
NATO forces use artillery for pinpoint strikes in mobile warfare with the big barrages being not the standard.
Target area saturation can be achieved by a single battery of PzH2000´s firing their 5 round "burst".
To achieve similar target area saturation would require 4-5 batteries of M109´s or 2S3´s.
Rarely a more sustained barrages than such short engagements are needed when you got air dominance and can conduct precision strikes with your tube and missile artillery.
Ukraine and Russia on the other hand are primarily using late 80´s 2S19 Msta-S or 2S3´s from the 70´s and field howitzers for tube artillery and generally unguided 122mm BM-21 Grad or 220mm BM-27 Uragan MLRS.
These systems have acess to terminal phase guided precision ammunition, but those are expensive and rare (Krasnopol laser guided ammunition for example).
They are primarily designed to act in an primarily unguided low precision barrage role of the 40´s - 80´s (so still deep in the cold war in respect to technology)
Ukraine is due to several reasons not capable of effectively using modern western systems like PzH2000 to their intended effect (training, recon, air surperiority etc) and has to push these precision tools into the cold war era barrage role.
Basicly Ukraine has to use a DMR as Squad Automatic Weapon, because their heavy mashineguns (airforce, MLRS, short range ballistic missiles, attack helicopters etc) have lost most of their equipment (the ukrainian airforce is doing a great job, but its basicly non existand today, same goes for the armies helicopter force etc)
Are there other problems in higher volumes of fire than overheating the barrel? If so, what are the biggest ones, and are they specific to PzH2000 or typical for most SPGs?
I served many decades ago in FDF field artillery, and our 155mm towed field guns were often punished with 6rds/min fire volume sustained for several minutes in live ammo drills. To my knowledge the barrel heating was the only boogieman, but it would be interesting to know if SPGs have some other limiting factors.
Eh. Just couple things regarding Krab. One there was far more than 18 in Ukraine, likely total was around 70. Probably half of that number remains active at the moment.
Krab is also combination of AS-90 Braveheart (which was just a design for modernisation of UK AS-90's but was cut out of budget, after which license was sold to Poland, in production actually no components came from UK) with slightly modified K-9 Korean hull made on License in Poland. With Polish Topaz fire control system.
I'd say that Krab had it's time. It was mobile, accurate and reliable. And served in Ukraine for quite long time when it comes to serving in combat conditions. Topaz did help a lot. Poland handed over not only guns but modules ready to fight, with command vehicles. Krab was the gun that sort of enabled successful counteroffensive under Kharkiv.
However it was never as sophisticated as PZH-2000 or Archer. It is a simpler gun overall. And lacks the superb armor of PZH-2000.
But at the time it arrived to the front it did kick ass. And could handle... less delicate use, and any type of ammo that it was fed (Polish "invention" there was a bit more robust sealing system, which was added due to sub-standard quality of ammunition Poland used at the time - side effect was that gun ran quite well even if ammunition was out of spec, which is not really the case for PZH-2000 for example).
Poland is on the wrong side of history.
@jakubgadzala7474
No, you
📠🙈
@@jakubgadzala7474 Gosh, the last time they trusted Russia, Russia rap*d their whole country. I have no idea why they resent Russia today.
@@jakubgadzala7474 what you mean?
"was never as sophisticated as PZH-2000" and where is that sophistication located? In autoloader that do not hold well in this type of battlefield conditions and crew that is firing as much ammo per day as PZH-2000 was firing in a year in German army?
Brits sold AS-90 Braveheart license but they lost the documentation for this tower, so this is a copy, even though it is legal copy -> and Krab is not using the same cannon as AS-90 Braveheart... kinda importand change if you ask me -> that is why the gun is nothing like all the other mentioned by you systems and from your comment someone can make the assumption that creating complete system out of different parts is like building from LEGO and there is no invention in the final product.
The best PZH-2000 protection from being hit was not its armor but the fact that only as little as posible of them Germans provided and then they were constantly broken -> not firing on a frontline helps much more in the topic of not being hit than few extra mm of steel here and there.
and the idea that PZH-2000 have strong armor able to protect against Lancet drones is just silly talk.
PzH2000 downtime isn't a suprise. Its the best system out there and therefore its used to its limits and above them. The ukrainians fire more rounds with a barrel than it is ment to fire from one, they just have to because of the situation. For the circumstances the PzH2000 performs incredibly well.
Since the beginning of the war until now there has been an organized effort to shit on everything German. Especially US, Polish and ironically German media was eager to do so.
A simple maintenance warning, which can just be ignored by the operator, was blown up into the Pzh. 2000 breaking and being fragile. The M109 and Krab didn't have such messages and there are multiple pictures of them with exploded barrels. Meanwhile Ukranian soldiers reported that their pzh. fired 20,000 shells with one barrel without issue, while the advertised barrel life is 4500.
That’s a great point! The PzH2000’s performance under such intense usage is impressive, especially given the high demand for firepower in the current situation. Pushing systems to their limits can reveal both strengths and vulnerabilities. Do you think this kind of operational strain will lead to any long-term changes in how artillery systems are designed or maintained?
The precision of the Caesar is impressive, but it's frustrating that production can’t keep pace with demand. Investing in new equipment for efficiency is crucial to meet the needs on the battlefield.
Some of the PzH fired more than 20k rounds before maintenance. Much more the manufacturers expected. And much more as recommended
@@85daniel 100rds a day is declared as "high intensity use".
From what ive learned, artillery men on both sides are developing VERY serious brain injuries akin to some boxers and football players at the end of their lives.
I heard Krab is "quiet" relatively.
Also CTE in "encased" howitzers? that's surprising. Not for lanyard shots, Pion, towed arty etc. But I was surprised how effective the sound insuation is inside the tracked howitzers (other than Pion, obviously).
There's a good article on this topic out there somewhere. They studied U.S. artillerymen who'd served Afghanistan and the Middle East. I used to think it'd be cool to be an artillery guy until I read it.....
@@jiyushugi1085 The other obvious is the constant eeeeeeeeee I have in my ears.
@@jiyushugi1085 Oh that I definitely believe , but that's all or mostly towed arty. That is nociferous. But I did not see many M109s in Iraq after a few months, iirc. But a lot of towed arty and mortars.
But the truth is the majority of Ukrainian artillery is still Soviet designs, same stuff as Russia is using.
Absolutely, while a lot of Ukrainian artillery is based on Soviet designs, it's important to recognize their newer developments, like the domestically produced systems and adaptations they've made. These innovations reflect Ukraine’s ability to evolve its military capabilities despite the challenges. What newer developments do you think have had the most impact so far?
@@Weapons.Of.Victory Drones are the biggest new thing. I have a book 4th generation warfare, written in 2015 without a single mention of a drone. But militaries will adapt and come up with counters to drones.
But the really important thing is fighting a technological enemy like the Russians. They have been able to block GPS signals meaning that some of the Wests high tech weapons will need to be redesigned.
Ukraine has been a great testing ground for weapons.
They had more Pions than Russia did at the start of the war. It's still a formidable weapon, though slow. I understand that the crew have to dismount before firing, owing to the shock/blast wave.
Numbers. There's not enough of it (esp. ammo) to go around. That is the main problem with Western artillery in Ukraine's arsenal.
You're spot on. The limitations in numbers, especially regarding ammunition, have been a significant challenge for Ukraine. Even with advanced systems, if there isn't enough firepower to support operations, it can hinder effectiveness. Do you think prioritizing increased production or diversifying sources could help address this issue?
@@Weapons.Of.Victory The west has infinite resources from their global influence but their military industries are geared towards boutique weapons that get produced in limited numbers to maximise profits. Quantity is just more important than quality in an attritional war. What people also don't realize is that Russian artillery is just as sophisticated as the west with thermobaric warheads, laser guided shells and active drone spotting. The only difference is that Russians also compliment their advanced systems with the overwhelming firepower of low tech systems including even WWII era pieces, giving them the quantity advantage in addition to tech parity. The Russians fight total war and this is what allows them to match the military support of all Nato countries combined.
It seems that Russia and North Korea have pissed of South Korea enough that South Korea is now likely to provide direct support to Ukraine. Maybe we will see some K9 Thunders in Ukraine. South Korea also has a large capacity for production of 155mm ammunition too. The K9 is also an excellent self propelled gun.
They are indeed very capable systems!
Wet dreams of mad xoxol 🤣
One of K9's main qualities is its high mobility. The Norwegian army tested it against the M109, the Caesar and the KMW Panzerhaubitze and the K9 was the only one that could handle the rugged Norwegian terrain.
The K9 was still Norway's second choice though. They really wanted the BAE Archer but BAE couldn't deliver on time.
@@chrisbrent7487 They have actually said the will send attack weapons now, not just helmets, flak-vests etc, so...but I don't think they'll send troops, even if it would be convenient now. Don't really get it, they're not NATO, so its bot controversial there and they could actually fight/test NK troops.
What Ukraine need right now is man power rather than more equipment.No mater what equipment you send to the front there is often easy target for drones.
Cheaper and more easyly replaceble Russian equipment so far is proving to be crutial fact to win the war.You can destroy more but they will still get more than you do. Western equipment no meter how advanced it sound in paper before the war in real war they dont do much more than the Russian equipment,and since they are more expensive and complex are much harder to replenish after losses.WW 2 showed clearly that quantity beats quality as long as teher is enough quantity
No mater what the author of the video says Russians still have 5-1 or 10-1 artilery firepower advantage depending on which sector you go on the front.Its not me saying it its Ukrianians themselves in various interviews.And that firepower comes as more casulties compared to Russians.Ukrainians lose on average 3-5 man for every Russian killed,again its not me saying it its Ukrainians themselves.And that lack of manpower is the main reason what their lines are crumbling this year.
Short question!!! Where exactelly are all of this right now! Because we cannot find them anywere near the front line!
Have you been somewhere near the frontline?
@@Weapons.Of.Victory Much closer than you ever be!
The biggest problem with Western artillery is that Ukraine only has 1/10 amount of ammunition that Russia has and no-one is willing to pay for more even if there are millions of shells available on the market.
There is plenty of cotton as that is pure myth, the Western supply chain has caused major problems with the Americans rushing through now-introduced legislation, the Ammunition Supply Chain Act, is designed to identify and address faults in the gunpowder supply chain.
Some such as the Archer use insensitive propellant but its crazy the West has the supply chain problems it does where nitro-cellulose seems to be the bottleneck.
yeah but only 1/10th of the ammunition works or is from this decade so its basically even 😂
Western Artillery are incredibly accurate compared to the Russians.
@@BC_Joshie There isn't a much difference as there is with range where western systems often outrange by some way.
Artillery at least by Ukraine is often guided by better co-ords and feedback from 1st ranging rounds.
The intel from drones in combination of infantry painting things with far more accuracy.
The digital systems of target accusition also seem better on Western hardware.
Russia has had several ammunition depots go up in smoke and a couple of manufacturing facilities as well (major setbacks for the little guy and his minions). Meanwhile, both western Europe and the US are increasing ammunition production and Russia's economy is cooked (inflation is over 20% and GPD is stalling) and Iran can no longer afford to send ammunition to Russia for fear of attacks form Israel... the playing field is evening and, as it has been mentioned, western artillery is way more accurate.
Dude, why did you phrase the thumbnail like that? I thought you was gonna say Western weapon is crappy like Russian weapon but then it’s not come on man
same 🤣
Clickbait. Thumbs down.
HAHA
Click bait
tricks
I can promise you that they are not talking Miles like two countries on the whole planet do. They use metric system
I think everyone knows europe uses the metric system congratz on telling us all the obvious woo I am enlightened today
@@MagicWandn only US, Liberia, Australia and New Zeland use - "miles" All others - KM
@@95valero Australia does NOT use miles. It converted from miles to kilometres in about 1974 so please now consider yourself enlightened.
@@alanramsay9842 - OK, but still, miles people use in few countries; majority - using KM
Cool story.
I heard they like cesars a lot because the way the gun is easy to access at the back and due to how mobile it is, they are just moving the truck with no ammo onboard from one prepared firing position to the next, and even if you get hit by some drone during transit it causes damage, but theres nothing to explode so its more often than not, repairable. It's built-in intertial reference system is apparently also good enough in practice to change positions and re-aim fast which some other systems have problems with and it slows their actual fire missions time considerably.
Cesar2 is gonna double down on that with more engine power and an automated gearbox for even better scooting and onboard drone jamming.
Krab is good because they actually got almost a hundred of them and can handle some attrition, vs a lot of the other hardware which is given piecemeal and cannot last long that way. I think poland will keep more coming too, they aren't playing around with vehicle production compared to the rest of europe which is still shameful.
As a french Im disgusted we charge millions for cesars when at the end of the day it's a truck with a 152mm bolted on and guidance modules ducttaped somewhere onboard. We should be able to produce it in the hundreds easily. The first exemples were shipped in the early 2000s so the R&D has long been paid off.
le cesar n'est pas juste un tube fabriqué vite fait.
Sa précision vient de sa qualité d'usinage, qui justement demande du temps, les machines adaptées et le personnel compétent pour tout faire fonctionner l'ensemble correctement.
Le manque de volume vient de là, et oui, faire de la qualité, ça coûte cher.
Et on est assez mauvais en industrialisation aujourd'hui, de ce que je vois en tout cas.
J'ai cru comprendre que l'alliage du canon est spécial ? du coup on ne peut pas facilement augmenter la cadence
I served in an artillery unit and what I remember from the game is that being able to get the hell out of Dodge is as important as being able to deliver your payload accurately over a great distance. Having seen the impact of drones on the modern battlefield, I'd definitely NOT want to be operating an Archer. So, something armoured that can take a punch itself almost as good as throwing them. Wouldn't that leave me with the PzH2000 ? Live to fight another day. Which of the ones that you showed has the best survival rate for the machine and the crew ?
I understand the drone threat literally squashed the shoot and scoot concept in UA. If you leave your hideout you're easily identified and quickly dealt with. Models based on a heavily armored tank chassis theoretically should have the best survival chance. Yet their movement is constrained by its weight and the terrain that quickly become a deathtrap for the heavies.
@@yves2932yes because Tanks werent made to fight against Tiny flying Exploding Drones
The Archer actually has one of the best survivability rates of the currently deployed western SPGs.
@@Pallidum
Archer and CAESAR, that's surely why Ukraine is now producing their own version of truck based SPG.
It's remarkable that Western Artillery is good considering the west doesn't use much artillery in wars. The west is about air dominance. This make artillery having only a minor role in combat. It also the reason why the west have hard time providing Ukraine with artillery shells, we simply don't have massive amounts and only a modest production capacity at best.
I'm guessing that the focus on better artillery is to provide time-buffers to any country attacked to give NATO the time to put aircraft (carriers or air forces) into place. Slowing an invasion may be their purpose.
Less Artillery based, really? The first world war told us another story. In almost all wars the artillery was the biggest killer for tanks and soldiers. Now the drone operators have closed up for moving objects.
@@AudioVideo_IT You realize that WW1 was over a hundred years ago, right?
@@j.p.ijsblok5304 The sad truth about war and the basics of war tactics did not change so much than most people believe.
The US is about air dominance, but we've had capable artillery men since before we were a nation. 🤷🏻♂️
Western artillery is more precise than soviet versions. Prior to PGMs becoming common, artillery was the best method to defeat armor and emplacements.
The defense plan for Europe depended on armor and artillery stopping or slowing the red army. You'll notice that most artillery systems predate the fall of the soviet union and those that don't likely use a gun which does.
I was one of a crew of five on the M109 almost 25 years ago. We fired explosives, light and smoke grenades. I was in charge of aiming coordinates.
That sounds like a critical role! How did you find the coordination between the crew, especially when under pressure?
Rheinmetall recently delivered first samples of their new shells with 100km of range to UA.
dang, modern warfare is scary, complete and total overview in real time with drones and you can call in a 155mm artillery strike from 100km away, glad I am no longer an infantry man.
That's an exciting development! Rheinmetall's new shells with a 100km range could significantly enhance Ukraine's artillery capabilities. Do you think this will change the dynamics on the battlefield?
@@Weapons.Of.VictoryThat depends. Are we willing to pay for that to show up in numbers on the battlefield?
It could shift the artillery force situation. Assuming a russian artillery range of 50km, UA artillery could fire at the frontline or even russian artillery behind it. Safe from counter artillery fire, maybe even safe from drone attacks. The threat of missile attacks would remain though, so its no total uno reverse card allowing them to bomb the frontline into powder, taking their time.
@@Weapons.Of.Victory Depends on whether they are more numerous than the already existing HIMARS. The advantage of cannon arty is quantity. Though giving it more flexibility is good too.
Where did you get the statistic on the last part? cause last i heard ukraine is suffering ammunition shortages again
Try to google recent stats.
@Weapons.Of.Victory okay, well its been a month since i last checked so im a bit outdated. I knew the ratio would go down when ukraine hit a large ammo depot but i wasnt expecting to go down that low.
The mentioned 12 CAESAR 8X8 155 MM HAUBITS was ordered and paid for by the Danish Military Forces but before delivery donated to Ukraine. Perhaps the conversation with the French President was a final accept for the direct export to Ukraine and not to the DK.
The 12 CAESAR 8x8 155mm howitzers were originally ordered by Denmark but were donated to Ukraine instead. The final approval likely came from a conversation with the French President.
They overused the PZ-2000 since the beginning of the war the practically used it as wonderweapon
Yeah, the PzH 2000 was definitely pushed beyond its intended role early on. Relying on it as a kind of ‘wonder weapon’ put a lot of extra strain on the system. Do you think there’s a better way they could have managed its use to avoid wear while still getting the most out of it?
@@Weapons.Of.Victory Any design follows given specs, so that follows strategy and tactics - so any NATO army would not expect stationary fronts with high fire volumes without air superiority. So I would assume, mechanically there is not a lot that can be adjusted with such a mature design.
@Weapons.Of.Victory
Beyond using clusters of 2-3 howitzers (unrealistic, given insufficient numbers), i always design a cooling system in my head. Like a shortened cartrige (probably without a shell) with striker-activated capsule of liquified air, discharging trough the barell and dampeners. If metal surface don't get shocked from t* change, it should multiply the number of shells that could be succeedingly fired without overheating or surface-melting the barell.
@@dannydetonator Let us guess, you don't have an engineering degree... that liquified air spends way too little time in the barrel to take up frictional heat by conduction. But you know what is actually a proven method? Water. Look at any (or many, I don't know them all) OTO Melara 76mm on vessels, they cool them with seawater. That helps.
NATO forces are indeed not structured for high-volume fire without air superiority. Your idea about a cooling system is intriguing-using liquified air could help manage barrel temperatures and extend firing capabilities. Have you thought about how such a system would affect the overall weight and complexity of the artillery?
Pzh2000. Is it just me or does it appear to have the Apple logo visible on the gun breach?
Click bait title, dont bother guys.
Thank you for your important work
That isn’t armor on the M109. It’s aluminum.
Thank you for pointing that out!
Ever heard of aluminum armor?
It is lightly armored. It would deflect small arms fire, but nothing lager than 50 cal.
@@Snack-Sized-Femboy Lightly armored literally means absense of armor
@@Frille512No it doesn't lol... "armored" meaning it has armor, "lightly" meaning not much of it. But enough to stop rifle rounds and fragmentation.
0:56 isn't the krab chassis the one from the south korean K9 thunder?
Ukraine innovated and used what it could but from thier decision to build the 2S22 Bohdana it would seem wheeled shoot and scoot artillery is of preference that likely was from experience of the CAESAR and later Archer systems.
Likely, it is cheaper and faster to build than armored ones.
@@mrx2062 There is a crew capsule and cheaper means they can field more, cost is a big factor
The wheeled, shoot-and-scoot design seems like a smart move for mobility. It'll be interesting to see how this influences future artillery in Ukraine.
ATMOS, CAESAR, Archer all have moved to 'shoot and scoot' as the speed and accuracy of counter batteries and counter measures is now exceptionally quick.
The cost of truck based crew capsule platforms is approx 4-5x cheaper than armoured track based systems that show no advantage.
If you are static and imobile with a large radar/heat signature then on a modern battlefield your time is short.
Its also untrue that Western guns are much more accurate, its the intel of air density, weather, wind, temperature and once more Drones replacing the role for forward observers with much more accurate target co-ords, is what is making a difference, especially after a ranging round the 'barrage' will be walked in.
Any artillery is accurate when 'walked to the target, the only consideration now is how much time and rounds can be fired before you shoot and scoot.
Drone forward observers for arty has become a game changer for artillery but also is the intel of modern sensors relaying data of the air space the projectile flies through.
Wheeled, shoot-and-scoot, high mobility in terms of deploy and move is essential and cost allows more to be deployed.
The armoured tracked systems of the US, UK and Germany are likely massively over engineered, overpriced and too imobile and create supply, support and maintenance problems that truck based systems just don't have, where maybe hybrid drives/hydrogen fuel cells maybe used to give as low a radar/thermal signature as possible as they deploy and relocate, but the guns themselves are not much different to the lessons learnt from WWII.
Range is the next consideration but unlikely to change much, where the very same shoot-and-scoot design that has become equally important with systems such as Himars following the same design doctrine for extended 70-300 kilometers ranges and equally gaining preference.
@@Weapons.Of.Victory AND FRENCH! THAT'S IMPORTANT TOO !
1:00 It's over way around. Hull is an adapted Korean hull similar to K9. Turret was redesigned inside out from British AS-90 turret. Documentation send by British was incomplete at best. Most important factor of Krab is however BMS which is superior to competitors.
That's a solid point about the BMS, but I’d argue the hull and turret design still play a key role in overall effectiveness.
Don't let this distract you from the the fact that in 1966, Al Bundy scored four touchdowns in a single game while playing for the Polk High School Panthers in the 1966 city championship game versus Andrew Johnson High School, including the game-winning touchdown in the final seconds against his old nemesis, "Spare Tire" Dixon
Not sure how Al Bundy’s four touchdowns relate to military strategy, but I guess every victory, whether on the field or battlefield, involves taking down your toughest opponent.
I have a hard truth. Y'all never should have let the American intelligence services rip your country apart.
Still no match for the Russian SHOVELS and washing machine chips! LOL 🙂
So much ridiculous and wishful thinking propaganda.
U bet
Indeed, Ruzzian propaganda is ridiculous. Keep coping, bots.
Who is coping? Ukraine is collapsing!
30x British AS-90 155 mm armoured self-propelled artillery units were sent to Ukraine in 2023. The first batch of 20 were some of the first western supplied kit. At least 12 are no longer operational probably more are worn out parked up for spares.
Here are the hard truths
- Krab, good but hard to maintain and external fuel means that Lancets can blow them up easily
- Caesar : low level of automation
- Paladin : cold war relic, even worse than Russian cw systems
- Dana, good but unnessarly bulky
- Archer : not fit for high intensity battles, that's why all the major armies who tested it are turning it down
Yeah, different artillery pieces have their strengths and weaknesses depending on the context they’re used in, but it’s clear that technology is evolving rapidly
I was on the 109 for four years, including Desert Storm. They did pretty well. We expended ammo, like the Ukrainian stated, maybe even more on the first few days of the ground war. The rate of fire is slow on the A3, though.
Thanks for sharing your experience. The M109 has certainly proven its value in various conflicts. It’s interesting to hear about the ammo expenditure in Desert Storm, as that’s a major factor in artillery effectiveness. Do you feel the slow rate of fire on the A3 affected its performance compared to other artillery systems?
the CAESAR artillery is davastating....the ultimate artillery system, so accurate, deadly ! by far the best artillery, totaly unmatched.
The CAESAR is more than just devastating-its precision and mobility make it a force multiplier. It’s not just about firepower; it’s about delivering strikes with unmatched accuracy, changing the dynamics of modern artillery.
@@Weapons.Of.Victory
And about mobility,
Both tactical, being a truck it can go faster than a tracked SPG, being an artillery piece you're surely able to find a paved road in range to not have to go into mud, and strategic mobility, a full tank of gas and you can redeploy 600km away in a night without needing trains to transport the units on long distances.
M109A3 vs the A6 Paladin might as well not even be the same weapon series. I'm 99% sure there's no AC unless our gunbunnies were just holding out on us haha (I was FDC). But seriously, no. When the A6 came out it was revolutionary to a degree its hard to explain if you've never struggled with the time limits needed to get an artillery battery emplaced. 15 frenetic minutes from the guns rolling in to putting shells down range minutes with A3 is fast. The modern weapons like Paladin, Krab, and PzH just roll in, turn, and fire in seconds. Krab and PzH have longer guns for more range and the MRSI is a nice feature.
A7 version is a complete different system from the A0-4.
the use of cluster munitions resulting on russia removing their self imposed limitation as well, which has been way more devastating for ukraine than ukraine benefited. the whole reason to start using these munitions that leave ordinance on the ground that will be a danger for decades to come is because they didnt had any other left
Russia did not limit itself at all, it invaded and has used everything it can when it can. It knows if it uses Nukes Russia is finished along with many others but definitely Russia. Even Putin s not that Stupid. All because a little man wants a Soviet Union back. Do not quote quote NATO threat that is a Joke and the only Nazis sit in the Kremlin.
Nevermind that Russia had been using them long before.
Firing 192 rounds in 24 hours when the new rounds cost $4,000 a piece is $768,000.. At the start of the war the cost was only around $2,300 a shot but with world shortages the cost has risen. What good could we do with $768K?
It really puts things into perspective when we think about alternative uses for that kind of money, but the value of maintaining firepower in the right circumstances can’t be overlooked either.
Lol... first time I heard the Paladin was praised over ARcher or PzH2000. Must be for the audience
It’s interesting how opinions can vary. Different systems have their strengths, and sometimes it comes down to personal preference or what people are used to. Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
Probably mainly due to quantity tbh
Krab's turret is not AS-90 turret. It's the turret designed to modernise the AS-90, but not used for the purpose because of budget cuts. Then Poles stepped up and bought this project over, which appeared very good idea. Hulls aren't Polish too - Polish ones didn't work well (suspensions kept breaking) so, had to be replaced with the Korean K-9 ones. All of it being produced in Poland now. Fire control system is Polish design and it's a truly modern thing (Topaz). Making it all work together so well, appeared to be one of the Polish greatest arm design successes of recent years.
It’s impressive how Poland stepped up and turned this project around, especially with the Krab’s unique mix of Polish and Korean components. The Polish-designed Topaz fire control system sounds like a real game-changer, proving that effective collaboration and innovation can produce something powerful.
Whatever happened to the Air/Land Battle Doctrine? Not enough men and equipment for deep assaults?
The only way Russia is outshooting Ukraine is because they have more guns. Like way more. If they had the same amount, the Russians would lose handily. Check out how Russia ships it's ammunition. It's individually boxed in wood (per round) and the Russians have to break it open and manually load it one at a time. Even for their rocket trucks. They have to load each tube individually.
Palletisation is not something Russia as got into. Apparently 60 to 80% of Russian ammunition delivery time is spent loading and unloading.
Germany had better weapons in WWII, and they lost!
@@christopheripoll2580 Yes because whole world had way more weapons.
@@christopheripoll2580 Germany fighting against UK, US and Russia, no wonder they lost.
Today, Russia fighting against the productive capacity of US, UK and EU. See what that gets them.
@@zedeyejoe 1/ At the moment, they are dramatically winning
2/ I worked during 10 years for a French military company. Productivity was near 0. And it is the same in the whole western world: military equipments cost 20 times more than Russian ones, for close performances.
3/ In the end, the western world is not only fighting the Russian military industrial capacity, which is important by its own. We are also fighting the North Korean, Chinese, Iranian industry. And that block overwhelms western capacities. Times have changed: we are not rulling the world anymore!
What about Slovakian Zuzana artillery?
Yes, Ukraine uses the Slovakian Zuzana artillery, which is known for its mobility and precision.
Very short on the PzH2000 while you mention much more info about other systems. Seems biased.
I've heard it's like a Mercedes. Runs nicely, but not very reliable.
@@dupajasio4801 That is wrong. The figures mentioned are correct, but one additional thing to mention. The PzH 2000 doesn´t detonate under the impact of Russian UAVs. This means you can repair nearly all, but of cause they suffer damage and the things to fix cannot be done in Ukraine. It is like with the tanks. Yes the Leopard 2A6 needs much more repair; the T72 needs nothing anymore after a hit...
BTW: How is western artillery production evolving? Has our output increased by any significant number since the beginning of the war? Have any new factories gone online?
US production capability is so poor they even have to buy TNT from Turkey to fill shells with. Apparently deindustrializing was not such a good move.
The BONUS (Bofors Nutating Shell) or ACED (Anti-Char à Effet Dirigé) is a 155 mm artillery cluster round co-developed and manufactured by Bofors of Sweden and Nexter of France. It was designed to fulfill a long range, indirect fire, top attack requirement against armoured fighting vehicles.
2 x autonomous anti-armour and anti-artillery submunitions
Maximum firing range
27 km (17 mi) from 39-caliber barrels
35 km (22 mi) from 52-caliber barrels
The Archer artillery comes with Saab Barracuda MCS camouflage
to be honest the m109 should be compared with 2S3 Akatsiya, the bith trucked howitzers possesses almost the same capabilities slow rate of fire sustained: 1rpm max: 4 rpm per minute and almost the same ranges17km for the standard rounds and 24km for the RAP rounds in the 2S3 Akatsiya compared with the m109 18km for the standard rounds and 30km for the RAP, so overall there not much differences in combat performances considering thst the 2S3 Akatsiya barrel length is L27 compared with the L39 for the m109, but the Soviet mobile howitzer is smaller in size make it easier to be transport and hide while being tactically and operationally utilized...
Good comparison! Both have similar capabilities, but the Akatsiya’s smaller size does offer an advantage in transport and concealment. That said, the M109’s longer barrel and slightly better range with RAP rounds give it an edge in certain scenarios. It all comes down to how they’re deployed and the conditions on the battlefield. Do you think the Akatsiya’s compact size outweighs the range benefits of the M109?
Don't ever talk about my nation not helping you and any insult on what we supply to you.
We are really safe in the U.S.A. and yet pay you billions, yet my friends die because they don't have health care. Anyone in the Ukraine you should not complain about the U.S., we are spending more money on Russian war than our own Health Care system provides to our own people. You have to realize we are dying here also because we are spending billions to fight Russia. My dad fought in Vietnam, he died last year from wounds from Vietnam, they would barely cover medicine and a check up for him, a check up would be months away. I know war and what it means. My dad died fighting because of Vietnam and not realizing it was in defense of Russia for Ukraine and that part of the world. Now I do know it is important, just realize this is not just money to the people in the U.S.A., it is our lives, we are dying because we don't get federal health care and it all goes to the military. We put military above health, been that way since World War one. You are lucky to get anything from the rest of the world other than the countries that might be invaded next. Finland, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania guarding that area. Those countries are next to be attacked. Russia want's the Baltic and Black sea, Georgia, Moldova, Bulgaria, Turkiye, Armenia and Romania is next. You have to realize we are dying here in the U.S.A. while giving you money, don't ever insult us, I lost my dad because money sent to you could have saved him. All of NATO is spending billions to fight Russia and get little respect.
I'm sorry for your loss, and I understand your frustration-your family has paid a heavy price, and it’s infuriating that your dad’s care was neglected. But let’s be clear: Ukrainians deeply value the support from the U.S. and its allies-it’s a lifeline in our fight for freedom against tyranny. No one here is insulting or taking that aid for granted.
That said, blaming Ukraine for the issues within the U.S., like underfunded healthcare, feels misplaced. Those are decisions made by your government long before this war began. Yes, this fight against Russia is costly, but it’s about preventing a threat that doesn’t stop at Ukraine’s borders. The stakes are global. Respectfully, anger about your country’s priorities should be directed at your leaders-not at those desperately fighting for their survival.
I don't know about "people dying in US" but judging by the nonsense you wrote I can see your brain cells are dying en masse
lol, it was so hard not to surround Russia with NATO infrastructure? or so hard to support pre-war normand-negotioations? maybe your country was the one who wants this war to happen?! Putin made numerous warnings and public letters and warnings again. are u was blind and deaf?
of course i don't address it to Ukraine government - they are just nazi washed puppets of USA and Europe who cant see one step ahead.
btw its sick to put Turkey and Armenia on a list. baltic states - maybe, they already let themselves talk too much to just forgive that :) zero taste in diplomacy - deserves fair punishment and homeworking old lessons of WW2, which they seems quickly forgot
Your anger is misplaced.
It is hardly the fault of anyone anywhere other than the US that your healthcare system is famously atrocious. I understand you are hurt mate, but it's your politicians and people's attitude that is the problem here
Put it in WOT. 😂. It’s like an armoured artillery piece! 😂
The problem with Russian artillery is definition. Russian artillery is not part of infantry in Russia, but can be in the West. For instance a mortar is an infantry weapon in the West and an artillery piece in Russia.
Also Russia has had to improvise a lot which had degraded its effectiveness while increasing the numbers. For instance the tubes on MLRS have been separated into their own artillery systems. These systems can't be adjusted so nobody knows the point of aim. Another redesigned artillery pieces are the cannons from BMPs and tanks that have been separated from those vehicles. Again, those cannons cannot be adjusted.
So you're saying that Russian artillery is severely handicapped and yet still the scourge of the Ukrainian battlefield? Man, if the Russians ever address the issues the war will be over.
You can tell when a channel is anti-American, see how every artillery system was given it's name and country of origin, except one in the middle: The Polish Crab, The French Ceaser, The M109, The Czech Dana, The Swedish Archer. The M109 is the American made Howitzer.
Could've been unintentional, but considering they conveniently left out the artillery system that actually changed the war in May-June 2022 and became very known and commonly spoke about in the Media, which is the HIMARS artillery system.
The M109 isn’t named because the U.S. audience, which is the major one here, already knows it’s American-made. For the other artillery systems, the country is mentioned because most people aren’t familiar with them. Stop looking for conspiracies where there are none.
and people were shitting on the Russians for Using Cope Cages...........
King of Battle. Seeing you guys use FA as the hammer it is is inspiring. In the US, we say, Redlegs Rule!
The Archer can fire 50-60 km, over 70 with the new Bonus ammo.
Thanks for the info! That range is impressive.
How can a washing machine afford that expensive American Equipment and ammunition?
I bet if you interviewed the Wehrmacht soldiers about their equipment in late 44, or 45, you’d see the same thoughts. It won’t change the end result. War is about logistics and production capacity.
While logistics are important, I think the effectiveness of equipment and technology plays a huge role too. The experiences of soldiers can highlight both strengths and weaknesses in their gear, which can impact outcomes. What do you think?
@@Weapons.Of.Victory the effectiveness of equipment and technology will have a huge impact on logistics and production. Whatever does not brake down, does not need repairs, does not need spare parts.
Whatever can be repaired in the field only needs to be towed dozens of kilometres not hundreds or more. I'd say it has a very big impact. In WWII it was hard to figure out the battle losses of tanks of the German Wehrmacht, because they towed away all the tanks quicly and fixed them up quickly as well. So, did they just lose 300 tanks? Not really, some probably appeared in the same battle again after having been 'destroyed'. And the next battle, 250 of them were ready again and the 50 missing were mostly with the maintenance bataillon, too and at least good for a lot of spare parts.
So, even if you assume that a war is won in the end with logistics and production, the effectiveness of equipment can play into that a lot, too.
Other than that, it is about capabilities. If someone gets capabilities with their equipment that the other side does not have, that can change everything.
Hmmmm we learned in early 22 Russia failed. The vid goes on the note that Russia's capacity went from ten times greater to three. Not looking good.
I've been waiting for the "hard truth" for the entire video and I'm still wondering where it is, I don't doubt that these systems are effective but I expected to hear more about their shortcomings too. Other than that, voicing over subtitled stuff comes across oddly (particularly since the narrator voice is the same), particularly jarring since this meant an unforced error at 3:45 where you missed out "but the one thing that sticks in my mind". even intonation over such an obvious mistake combined with a few other things makes it seem like this is a TTS voice, which raises even more questions.
We highlight the capabilities of these systems because they’re proven effective in real scenarios-not just glossed-over strengths. As for the voiceover, if you’re focusing on minor glitches instead of the message, maybe it’s time to adjust expectations.
Then why UAF are constantly running and retreating ???
Tell your criminal boss in Moskau you are too dump to have an influence on our opinion.
Kursk is running is it? From what I remember Russian troops were outside Kyiv, that’s a long way to bravely advance backwards while the Ukrainians cowardly chases after you.
@@anthonywilson4873 so why cant ukraine get its lost teritory back?
@@anthonywilson4873 Umm pendejo, they ARE running in kursk. have you not noticed that almost all the forces that went in are now chewed up and gone and the remainder left are mostly trapped in pockets of 500-2k men without resupply? damn you idiots act like this is some %^#!%ing stupid football game, not life and death. Go F yourself and go to ukraine to fight since you think it's going so well, but we both know you are an armchair pussy who will never do that.
The truth is Mighty Russia(and now NK) is struggling against little Ukraine
How do you run low on ammo with over $ 36 billion in American tax money? Someone has been carrying that money in a leaky bucket.
Not a single mention of towed artillery speaks volumes.
I'm sorry, I'm not a war fanatic or anything - what do you mean by that?
Probably the M777 howitzer, a very good piece of machinery.
the main reason why they don't talk about towed artillery is their mass casualties on both sides but i also think they sould talk about it but in a different video so they can explain more in-depth about that situation
Based on my in depth knowledge of bugger all, I think towed artillery is crazy vulnerable now.
C'mon, who is using towed guns today? Outside of Russia? China, India or North Korea? M777 should only be a lightweight C-130 deployable stop-gap artillery. Not a basis of the Ukrainian fire-power. German 10x10 wheeled artillery fires on the move and hits a target on the move. The US came up with the idea of towed guns right into the XXI century. I could not believe you unscrewed the targeting support equipment from those guns? Why? To allow Russians to keep the edge? At this point, the US is helping Putin more than Ukraine. Why can't the wealthiest country in the world send something they have not pulled recently from their military junkyard?
The Ukrainians will most likely be heavily invested in the arms business after the war is over. They're considerable experience in using the best military technology that western countries has to offer, and making improvements to manufacture better versions of the equipment will put them in a strong position to do so. I suggest this because the Ukrainians have demonstrated they are wizards at engineering and improving existing machines. Plus, they now have an experience that can't easily be replicated by the west.
Ukraine’s hands-on experience with Western technology, combined with their ability to innovate and adapt, could definitely position them as key players in the global arms industry after the war. Their engineers have already proven they can make improvements to existing systems, so they might be able to produce even more effective versions. It’s not just about having the technology, but knowing how to make it work in the real world. Do you think this could shift the balance of power in the arms market in the future?
Talking about Ukraine's future is wild
Guided ammo is jammed by Russia so now it’s dumb.
So much so that Ukraine has said it doesn’t want any more.
WOW! This is outstanding news. Impressive how "The Big Dog" of battle operates in rain or shine.
...yep....and every day Ukraine is smaller and smaller.....
If the gear is so grreat why are they loosing hands down???
Artillery in the US Army is named the King of Battles because it produces the largest amount of death and destruction. The Infantry is the Queen of Battles because she has to take the ground which the King has pulverized. In reality the Queen will tell the King where to drop his balls on the battlefield to make their reign supreme.
Well said! Artillery and infantry really are a powerful team when they work in sync. Each has a role that amplifies the other's impact on the battlefield.
Napoleon is the one that coined the term actually, pretty much every western military calls it the king of warfare. You are absolutely correct on the rest, I was in commo but all the units I was ever assigned to were artillery units. The few times I was up with the forward observers (this was back in the late 80s and early 90s) the amount of damage they could do was mind blowing.
Seams this work not so good for the US during war against Germany. Both infantry and artillery were forced to constantly beg Air Force for help...
Its western troops operating western weapons..i include Polish troops in that.
for shame
Love seeing all those clean uniforms giving a ball washing praise to equipment that isn't any better than their rivals.
Yeah, I was a U.S. Army Artilleryman and was trained on the 109 Palladin. But, they found out I had a college degree and so they moved me into Operations to be a clerk, and then, after a couple of years I had been Head Clerk of the the 3rd Armored Division Artillery Brigade. Then I went to fort hood and became a humble Battalion Level Ammo Clerk. I'll tell you: The Devil's in the Details.
Sounds like you had quite a journey in the Army, moving from the field to the details behind the scenes. Must've been a big shift from handling the Paladin to managing logistics as a Head Clerk. You're right-people often overlook how crucial the small details are in keeping everything running smoothly. How did your experience with artillery shape your perspective when you transitioned to the operations side?
Why is Ukraine losing this war so badly?
Ukraine is facing overwhelming challenges from Russia's larger military, along with logistical difficulties and reliance on external support. While Ukraine has been resilient, the situation remains tough due to these factors. That doesn't mean they're giving up, but the struggle is real.
Why has Putin's 3 day war now into its 3rd year?
Wait... Russia is "winning"? LMAO 🤣
What have they won, tell me. I really want to know what Russia has "won"?
@@Truthaholokz I posted that Ukraine was losing badly.
Perhaps you think the territorial losses, manpower losses, mass desertions, destruction of infrastructure, flight of a large portion of the country's population, collapse of industry, continuation in office of a leader whose term of office ended more than six months ago, forcing elderly disabled men to fight etc. are all markers of success?
@@gnosticbrian3980 No, but suffering those losses while successfully defending against an aggressor is part and parcel. In Feb 2022 what were your expectations of the Ukrainian military?
You can define success in any self-serving means you wish to, but Ukraine is still there extracting a very heavy toll on the aggressor, and nothing is going to change soon.
Perhaps Ukraine is "losing", but the fact remains that Russia failed and they are far worse off for it. That isn't "winning" by my definition.
isn´t it interessting. The menatlity and the doctrin of german weapon development hasn´t changed so much. very precise, good craftet and Prone to failure. By the way the development of PhZ 2000 was an out of the box process. Originally, a self-propelled howitzer was to be developed in collaboration between Germany and France. They developed for many years and in the end they only came out with scrap worth millions. Without official approval, a Henschel manager in Kassel commissioned a small company with 30 employees, who delivered a functioning concept within six months. On which one of the best self-propelled howitzers is based. Unfortunately, corruption in the development of weapons is not only an issue in Russia, but also blocks many developments in Germany. Unfortunately, in order to develop something that works, you often have to abandon the given procedures
You’ve got a point there! The PhZ 2000’s development story is wild-official projects falling short while a small team managed to deliver a working solution. It shows that innovation doesn’t always follow the rules, even in Germany.
Hard truth would have been talking about all the systems that failed miserably.
didnt know the US had any M109A3 museum pieces left. those have been OUT of us service for like 40 years now.
thats like sending them M48 pattons. (not even M60s but M48s)
While the M109A3s are dated, they’ve been modernized and are still effective in certain roles. Comparing them to M48 Pattons is a bit of a stretch. Old doesn’t always mean obsolete-especially when paired with skilled operators.
Very good material! Slava Ukraini!
🔱 Героям слава 🔱
How many footballfields are 18-24 miles ? And how many ford f250´s are a footballfield. And how many armslength are a ford f250 of a man that is 3 trashcans tall.
Seems like someone's trying to measure the absurd with even more absurdity! If you want to figure out distances using football fields, F-250 trucks, and trashcan-tall men, it might be easier to just grab a tape measure and some patience. Otherwise, I'd stick to good ol' miles and yards!
2:53 Oh, look... The meshes around vehicles... Same meshes they ridiculed at the start of the war...
not much hard truth
Just trying to share the reality soldiers face. What would make it feel more genuine?
@Weapons.Of.Victory reality
@@Weapons.Of.Victory Sure. Fair question.
1. 'Hard truth' in English (which I understand may not be your native language) means hard for the listener to hear. Since the listener is likely a Ukr. supporter, your info is not hard to hear. Thus, the title is clickbait; the viewer expects to hear deficiencies in Western weapons and they do not hear much of that.
2. You ask at the beginning, should some other technology supplant mobile artillery? Presumably not towed artillery, but there is no comparison with other weapons systems like tanks, Bradleys, or drones. Ukr has to use whatever it gets and it can get drones in the largest quantities. So, drones it is. But should Zelensky being pushing the West for more of which system? Your video does not say.
3. You are showing the various mobile artillery systems, spouting numbers here and there, but a graph showing public info, like ranges (weapon, fuel. etc.) would be helpful. Which is working best in Ukr? Germans have long had problems with maintenance keeping vehicles out of the field. Do the other features adequately compensate?
4. This video was too much just positive, like a child praising a toy in the hopes of getting another or a propaganda video. A more balanced report would have sounded like the real opinion instead of a paid advertisement.
Hope that helps
@@aSnailCyclopsNamedSteve I think we are all guilty of thinking we can watch this war in 'real' detail from the comfort of our homes. But dont forget there is also an info war going on, and dont you think that if the Ukraine side was completely transparent that that would be something the Russian side could capitalise on ? We are being naive thinking that all the info we get is both 'true' and up-to-date. Its not in anyones interest in a war to release the 'truth' about anything.
@@aSnailCyclopsNamedSteve Western tech being superior to russian tech seems to be a tough pill for you to swallow.
Theres a reason the west is superior in every aspect as their chip manufacturing is heading towards 2nm chips and Russia only managed 90nm ones on their own.
And not to forget, there is the Ukrainian 2S22 Bohdana self propelled howitzer; - considered as among the best wheeled 155mm on par with Cesar and Archer and DITA.
The 2S22 Bohdana is definitely a strong contender in the wheeled howitzer game, giving the Caesar, Archer, and DITA a run for their money.
forget about your bohdana and run for your life. or it will become your g-rave.
ai slop
Our team would appreciate it if a real 'pro AI-identifier' could share the exact tools or services needed to create a video like this using AI-so we can hit our creator goals faster and more easily. Otherwise, spare us and move along.
no mention of AS-90 ??
4 shells hits at the same time ?
Sorry for, the Pzhb2000 hits with 6 shells !
This Vids is nothing more than polish advertising and whitewashing!
A good weapon, without a doubt, but no comparison to German SPG's... Thats's fact !
liberal
If you think this video is just Polish advertising, maybe you're missing the bigger picture. Every system has its strengths, and it’s not all about national pride!
I might walk back that statement about "Ukrainian Artillery being the best and most experienced Today "
Ukrainian artillery is effective, but calling it "the best" is debatable. Their experience and use of advanced Western systems stand out, though other nations also have strong artillery capabilities. The situation is evolving, and rankings could shift.
Ok. So why are we losing?
Angelo Giachetti - I didn't know you were fighting at the front. Anyway, Putin is losing - BIGGLY. That's why he called in the stupid, useless NK fake army.
I didn't know that Italy was fighting there. Nobody is losing just like nobody is winning. Ru is now gaining a few hundred meters of ground each month in some sectors. But it comes at the loss of 1000-1500 men each day. They are running so low on soldiers the PRK is now sending in troops.
Fun fact is that last fact is leading to ROK ammunition delivery soon. And those are likely to be followed by more weapons heading into Ukraine.
Because Zelensky and his party refused to call and organize mandatory military service for over 2 years. It was against their neoliberal ideology and now they are abducting men and throwing them on the front without training.
Same ideology as state-hating Anglo-Saxon. But money and tech toys can't win wars, only men can.
@@jacksonteller1337 oh cmon with that bs number of 1000-1500 soldiers per day.
@calion7643 the casualties are wounded dead captured and MIA. Ukraine is handling a third to a fifth of that on their side depending on the area of front. But it is easier to convince a dog to speak than a nazi like you to think.
1:05 technically it's a modified K9 hull
Garbage
The West has a different tooth to tail ratio where they expect more frequent parts and supply deliveries. As a result they expect to replace worn out barrels if they have to so they are designed to be replaced relatively quickly and are rated for less wear and tear.
Western systems are built for high-frequency use, but the trade-off is that they’re often less durable over extended periods of time compared to older models, which are designed for prolonged use but can suffer from wear.
How many tanks have the West sent to the Ukraine? AND if they could have one specific tank, which do you think they would prefer?
The West has sent Ukraine over 100 modern tanks, including Leopard 2s, Challenger 2s, and some M1 Abrams. Ukraine might prefer Leopard 2s for easier maintenance, but Abrams offers better tech and armor. What’s your pick?
@@Weapons.Of.Victory, being a US Marine vet, I’m more partial to the Abrams. But all tanks offer benefits and drawbacks.
I have recently watched a couple of arty videos from Ukraine one was singing the praises of the AS90 (although there appears to be a problem with the type of tracks the British used in N. Europe as opposed to what is needed for full mobility in the Ukrainian soil. The other was about the Czech Dita - now that is the most beautiful artillery weapon I have ever seen designed and if the gunnery is as good as other Czeh artillery has proven to be then I would rate that as arguably the best on the planet.
The AS90 is powerful, but its tracks aren't great for Ukraine’s muddy terrain. As for the Czech Dita, it's a beautiful piece of artillery, and if it lives up to Czech standards, it could be one of the best out there in terms of accuracy and performance.
Me at the age of 50 would have no issue fighting, I have training arming, and maintining F-16, Not attacking but in base defence, with normal arms. I dont want to die.. But.. Me before a 20 year kid
We Can not pay others to die.. My point from norway
4:23 The Ukrainians are deploying West Tec T-60 power armor? Where did they get that? Who is supplying the fusion cores?
I have a few complete sets of T-60 in my base at Starlight Drive-In. But when I deploy power armor, I prefer my T-51, which I've upgraded to T-51e
It would have been a really good video if you had restricted the featured technology to actual, real life, weapons and defensive systems.
Ha! If only T-60 power armor were real-would definitely change the battlefield dynamics! But for now, Ukraine's sticking with the real-world gear.
Great video, 👍👍👍 Thanks !
Thanks for watching!
I am surprised that most of these weapons do not benefit from any cage protection. (Perhaps some of the videos are old.)
Interesting observation! Cage armor has become more common lately, so older footage might not show it. Newer deployments do tend to add that extra layer of protection.
Wonder if we gave Ukraine any of those old MLRS systems we used in Desert Storm.
It’s possible that some of the older MLRS systems from Desert Storm could be in use or even supplied to Ukraine, but most of the systems used in recent conflicts are newer models, like the HIMARS. The older systems might still be in service with some countries, though.
Pictures of but no mention of the AS90
Game changer? You mean like all the other promised gamechangers? BTW, what happened with the gamechanger F-16s?
Sounds like you're quick to dismiss anything that doesn't bring instant results. If you actually followed what's happening, you'd know the F-16s are already making a difference on the ground-they're giving Ukraine the edge it needs to push back harder.
@@Weapons.Of.Victory What is your info source? I use a number of different ones. I'm a military/history buff dating back to the mid 1960s. However, over the past month I have cut back on the time spent on the war and mostly go with Weeb Union's daily reports. I also rely on the retired CIA and military officers who appear daily on Judge Napolitano's channel. Col Douglas MacGregor is another good one.
@@Weapons.Of.Victory instant results lol? the front has collapsed a long time ago.
@@kjererrt7804 So apparently the front collapsed more than 3 weeks ago according to you and still no major changes in the frontlines. Care to change your bs statement?
Smart 155 = parachute… Bonus 155 = wings
❤❤❤liked n commented 🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉
Appreciate!
Interesting Video, Thanks for Sharing !😊
09:18 ok, didn't know about the SMArt 155, incredible.