@@Humanperson-l6m Cheap photography-wise, too. I'm a professional photographer, and my drone cost over $3000. Those POV drones are literally toys in comparison.
@@Humanperson-l6m saw time ago, the average cost of an "Ukrainian drone" was $680 (FPVs, Mavics, BabaJaga all bunched up) - it's not 100$ but still you can use 1000 drones to blow a single tank and be in positive 😱
$1,000 to $2,000 per for the cheaper drones. $10,000-20,000 for the low end kamakazi drones. But still a drop in the bucket compared to multimillion dollar tanks. Ukraine’s biggest long term issue will come down to manpower on the frontline. We are talking a country of 200+ mil invading a neighbor of 30+ mil. But I have faith that Ukraine will win with the help of the west. And once this war is over, Ukraine will have one of the most elite militaries in the world, based on actual experience.
Modern tanks cannot operate at 100% capability unless there is air support, if not outright air superiority. We've known that since WW2. Tanks must also operate with infantry. One without the other gets slaughtered on the modern battlefield. Russia just cannot do combined arms, they never have. They never had to develop any wartime strategy through their whole history other than overwhelm with numbers or just wait for winter.
Add to it that tanks also require competent trained tank crews for optimal results. I doubt that there are many well trained tank crews around now, especially trained on the older models.
With drones nowadays is it even possible to have total air control? One would need a full drone jamming scheme and soon AI will make that obsolete too.
That's not entirely true, since Bagration (1944) used heavy air support to break the German lines. Granted, German Air Power at the time wasn't great, but the soviets still used air to support their tank advances. However, since the Soviet era, when Russian air technology fell behind the US's, their doctrine consists almost exclusively in using tanks to overwhelm opponents, which isn't great, to say the least.
As to the tanks they have, did they not once test carouselled tanks in the field under combat conditions? Is this catastrophic brewing up of their tanks actually a surprise?
Hah, kind of an old philosophy though right? Clint Eastwood in firefox ;), or offering pilots a large sum of money and us citizenship for a mig15. Not sure if Stalin with the B19 counts..
Russia wildly ramping up military production. Meanwhile they don't have enough workers to keep normal industries functioning properly. The sooner it all comes crumbling down, the better.
so far they outproduce the entire western world , so yes they are slow , but they don't have our bureaucracy and there decision makers don't fight each other.
@@randythompson2681 What the Russians have is a failure to understand. No air superiority, no combined arms, they only have numbers on their side as always. All their capabilities have been well overestimated. I wonder what it is like to live in a world of lies, does one actually believe the lies after a while or do they always know the difference between truth and lies?
Reminds me of how people find the crew death rate of the Sherman being horrible and death traps even tho the rate is 24% but find the t-34 death rate is a-ok with up to 28%
The russians do not field their tanks effectively. Losses of "modern" tanks, properly trained crews, technical losses and abandonments, combined with Ukrainian drones, NLaws, Javelins, Stugna p's and German Telemark type anti tank mines and even Bradleys are battering away at russian armoured effectiveness. Before long I think Russia will have weakened itself so that her borders may become indefensible. This would be advantageous to China and Japan who both have territory seized by Russia - and they want it back. Now would be a good time I think.
@@The_whalesActually the Sherman had one of the best crew survival rates. 93 percent. The idea of the Sherman being a "deathtrap" was a total myth that came from one book.
Tanks. Putin has tanked the military. Putin has tanked the economy. Putin has tanked the oil and gas sectors. Putin has tanked the reputation of russia. We should all give tanks...
Putin was walking through Moscow and visited some grocery stores, Putin noticed none of the stores had potatoes. Putin asked his commerce minister “where are all the potatoes? you said we had a record breaking crop this year” the minister said, “Comrade Putin, they are on trains and at this very moment are headed to market” Putin satisfied continued on his way, once Putin was far enough away from them, the ministers assistant said “Comrade, there are no trains” the minister replied, “it’s ok, there are no potatoes either”
It is the same old story. The Japanese in WW2 still had planes, but the pilots were so ill trained they lost the aircraft and new pilots at an alarming rate. The Russian Command is showing it's incompetence. They are recruiting at the moment of need and then deploying directly into hot battle, with whole groups of rookies. There is no Georgy Zhukov, today.
Zhukov was a very competent commander. However he also had the advantage of working for a despotic dictatorship that didn’t care how many soldiers it lost just as long as the battle was won. Western generals didn’t have such luxuries.
That's not incompetence by the Russian military. They had only a two week warning before the war started, and as Donald Rumsfeld said, "you go to war with what you have".
Oh... with regard to Japanese planes and pilots... at the start of the war (Pearl Harbor) they were better than Americans. The pilots were top notch, and the Zero was better than anything the Americans had. But the Japanese couldn't train pilots well enough, fast enough, and they couldn't evolve their fighters to keep up. The Hellcat and the Corsair were both dominant over the Zeros. After the battle of the Solomon Islands (Guadalcanal) it was all terrible for the Japanese.
Well, the question is: Where are this plants? The two mentioned in this video were in Sibiria and I haven't heard of any Ukrainian weapon that could reach this far, yet. But if there is any plant near Moscow could be in serious danger. But there are more than enough other targets that should hurt Russia as much as destroying such a plant, e.g. its airfields and oil depots (without fuel it wouldn't matter if Russia have thousands of tanks left or not).
Why has Russia lost so many tanks in Ukraine? 1. Most of their tanks are outdated. 2. Most of their tank crews have barely any training or experience. 3. They use terrible tactics. Number 1 is actually the least important reason, because most of Ukraine's tanks are also outdated. Number 2 is actually the most important reason, because not only are poorly trained tank crews far less effective and far more vulnerable on a tank by tank basis than experienced tank crews, they also make it virtually impossible to use effective combined arms tactics, because those crews can barely do anything but advance in a relatively straight line. Number 3 is partly dictated by number 2, partly by ineffective ranking officers, and partly by Russia's failure to gain air superiority and the poor quality of their barely trained & badly equipped infantry.
lots of reasons missing, Ukraine determination, western supperior intelligence, Ukraine supported by western advanced anti tank weapons, insufficient tank maintenance, bad russian leadership, bad russian intelligence, etc...
One thing is clear. Putin has exposed many of the Russian military's weaknesses. He sure has wasted much of Russia's resources, and put Russia in a precarious position on the world stage. Putin is his own worst enemy, and he is destroying Russia's future!
number4 (kindoff). russian equipment design doesnt priortise protecting the people like western vehicles design. western vehicles need logistics and crew to maintain which is why it is expensive but save the crew... the very experienced crew. ( one feature is the ammo is at the back far from the crew) russian weaponry while cheap and easy to fix doesnt protect the crew while the russian bots brag about killing a leopard, bradley or abrams the experienced crew is preserved. ( one feature is the ammo is stored underneath the crew while fast makes involuntary astronauts). the russian army loses experience that is extremely hard to replace
@@Woolymammoth-db1lt good point, in my head I was kind of lumping that in with most of their tanks being outdated, but it's not really about that, because it's more about having a fundamentally different design philosophy.
Number 3 is partly dictated by Putin. He purged competent military leaders in favour of toadies who tell him what he likes to hear. With that happening at the top level, you can't expect the underlings to be tactical geniuses, especially when they've seen that competence is not rewarded.
Misses another significant point in 2022 majority of Russian tanks were T72, T80, T90…… now Russia’s fleet is T5#, T6# and small nrs of T90 ….. the quality is diminishing…..
@@ct92404 It was from a museum, thats why it was still in running and shooting condition. Museum guests said it vanished one day and reappeared on the post a few days later.
A Challenger commander pointed out it takes about 2 years to train and a get tank crew that can work together effectively in combat. Russia can't do this. Their experienced crews were seriously depleted in the Kyiv fiasco and now green crews are running around without camo, over mines and in the open to drones while facing seasoned crews. It doesn't help that if a Russian crew with any half decent level of experience lose their machine they don't get a new tank. They get a rifle and are thrown into the meat grinder.
My husband was a tank commander and I well remember his training. A commander MUST know how to work all the positions in a tank crew. When he was doing his loader/operator training, so was I! As he was repeating parts of it in his sleep. 😂🤣 The training is strict, as it must be, and as you said takes a couple of years. They need to practically be able to do their job in their sleep, it must become automatic as the lives of your crew mates might depend on you. On the other hand Russian crews were not trained as well, during the Cold War in particular, one reason was the fear that a tank crew might take it on themselves to abscond, possibly with said tank. Poor sods, little to no training, stuffed into a death trap of a tank and told to go and fight a war they know little about all to cater for one man’s ego.
@@zaintlouis Russia gained 1 meter per 1.000 dead and wounded. Also the "2nd biggest Army in the world" struggles for nearly 3 Years now to gain any ground against a country with a third of its population by losing all of its Mechanized material. What a decissive Victory...
This is the second report I have heard that predicts that russia would be unable to provide enough tanks and arms to fight through 2026. The reality is that russia has 6-12 months before it collapses from financial and social crisis. There are already oil wells that had to be turned off due to the lack of storage space. There is insufficient refining capacity as well, and even if they could refine oil, they don't have the storage to keep it. The national rail network is teetering on collapse. The electric generation and distribution networks are degrading quickly due to hits and lack of equipment to repair them. It's going to be a cold winter.
Agreed! I don't think the Russians will be able to sustain their war effort for too much longer. Putin is under pressure from everywhere now. All those oil refineries and storage tanks that the Ukrainians destroyed will create fuel shortages and many homes in Russia will be pretty chilly this winter. I think Putin's time is running out! He has miscalculated everything and really destroyed Russia's future. The Oligarchs are not happy.
Russia will have at least 20 cold winters. Their remaining oil wells will have to be shut down never to reopen, and their gas equipment will degrade without Western spare parts so will also suffer greatly reduced output. Within 5 years I predict China will just take over the Kremlin and annex the whole of Russia, because Russia won't have anything to resist them with. Russia has unpolluted farmland, resources, water, and for a limited time, oil. China will want the oil, so would have to act before it is all shut down.
Good post, but I would like to see the west show Ukraine how to build long range cruise missiles and drones and then Ukraine would not have to seek permission from the west to use western equipment to attack the interior of Russia nor could Russia accuse the west of escalating the conflict which I find that concept ridiculous.
What I keep asking myself and not finding an answer is this: Western analysts seem to always take the total number of tanks (or whatever equipment or personnel) into account when estimating what Russia can field in Ukraine. But in reality Russia has to keep vast amounts of their equipment and personnel spread along their borders. If Russia is baring all reserves, they can't defend their borders. And while NATO surely won't take advantage of this situation by seizing former Finish territory or even Kaliningrad, I wouldn't be so sure about China. The area around Vladivostok belonged to China pre WWII and Russia just kept it after the war in the Pacific had ended. So if Russia sends everything they have to Ukraine, China may seize the opportunity to occupy territory they feel was stolen from them. And since Russia is totally dependent on China by now, Russia won't be able to do much about it.
China is slowly getting that part of the country back in trade by backing the Russians. They just recently regained authorized use of the Amur river which had been off limits to them for decades. That is a massive deal in that part of the world. It means Russia has effectively lost control of its southern border with China. Chinese troops have been practicing artic warfare for nearly two years now. No reason for that other than to go after Russia.
The arctic units that were stationed along the Finnish border are all in Ukraine now. Satellite views of their marshaling yards/bases show them emptied of equipment . They must be down to 5-10% the pre-war manning. Same with Kalingrad units now in Ukraine. Which proves that them saying they were worried about Nato was a lie all along.
@@lemerdtool They also pulled every single artillery piece from all NATO borders and over half from the eastern borders. At least one T-34 has been reactivated and placed at one of these posts to replace that lost artillery on the Ukraine border. Few soldiers, no artillery, no AA, no armour at NATO borders... yup Russia knows its BS.
A diplomat from Taiwan was recently in the news for suggesting exactly as you did about China "reclaiming" Russian real estate instead of Taiwan's. Russia's military/nuclear doctrine ALLOWS nuclear attack if the homeland is attacked, so it's another case of nuclear saber rattling. Russia is a cornered rat, but Putin's willing to sink the ship of state if necessary to stay in power, just as Stalin was in WWII. He's SO dependent upon China now, he cannot realistically hope to "defend" anything China might grab. It might be good if they do, as that may hasten Putin's downfall.
Russia's "strength" is what's been keeping NATO fighters out of the war. The weaker Russia gets, the more the West is permitting weapons use inside Russia, and now several NATO countries are openly discussing sending in troops. The nukes are still the big deterrent, but if they turn out to have the same fuel problems the Chinese rockets are having, then I can see some NATO countries being increasingly tempted to take Russia out while they have the chance... Although also likely that China will come to the same conclusion and increase their incursions in to disputed territory.
If Russia's nuclear weapons are maintained as well as its conventional forces, their nuclear triad will likely be more dangerous to them than anyone else.
There's a difference between sending in fighting troops and supporting personnel. But the Swedish FMV (defence materials acquisitions organization) have committed to set up offices in Ukraine to aid/set up the equivalent Ukrainian agency.
This is the exact reason that the United States Marine Corps got rid of every tank they had a few years ago. The tanks are vulnerable. They are expensive when compared to the asset that can easily take them out. They change the tactics of any force using them. This means that if that force loses enough tanks to the cheap drones that take them out... the infantry doesn't know how to function due to their reliance on tanks taking ground. Russia is losing these vehicles and their infantry isn't able to effectively push the line forward, nor hold ground well, without them.
United States Marine Corps decision on tanks was also about doctrine. Tanks are powerful, but heavy. They are refocusing on lighter vehicles for expeditionary warfare and closer operations with United States Navy.
@@weirdo1060 correct. Speed and agility equates to less vulnerability when facing drones. Being a lighter fighting force has always been part of our doctrine. "High speed, low drag" has been a saying in the Corps for decades. So, as sudden and jarring as it felt, getting rid of the tank divisions accomplished both allowing for rapid deployment as well as having that lighter force be less vulnerable to where warfare is heading.
this is why i think everyone underestimates the baltics. anti tank weapons far outpaced tanks in both development and effectiveness, and fraction of the cost. The balts strategy of hit & run with anti tank weapons in fast off road vehicles that they practice is legit. And cheap enough for those small countries to use effectively.
that actually is a doctrine of the U.S. Military called 2 men and a jeep. they can move around behind the enemy or along side hit and run was strategy set up to beat the large amounts of russian tanks during the time russia actually was a threat but the tactic is even more useful today but keep in mind that drones also make the tactic a bit more risky due to no idea when one may show up.
There is also the recent announcement of the Baltic Defense Line. Estonia alone plans to have 600 bunkers on its relatively short border with Russia. Once that is set up, any attack on them by Russia will be like running into a brick wall.
the ukraine troops are not the inferior pushovers that Putin thought they were ...at this point he would be smart to withdraw before Ukraine kicks his ass all the way back to Moscow
Unfortunately since we’re over two years in there’s too much sunk cost into the war for Putin to pull out. Outside of just being embarrassing pulling out would mean that all the lost lives, equipment, and money had been lost for no gain. Putin wont accept that, even if the cost of taking Ukraine has already far surpassed any of the gains which could be made from winning
@@GeopoliticalMilitary_News Only if he wants to be the absolute dictator over a russia reduced to radioactive rubble and ash and be remembered by the survivors worldwide as the villainous egomaniac that destroyed his own nation and a good portion of the world just to save face--with whom?? (This scenario, of course, assumes some portion of russia's nuclear arsenal has been maintained better than his army's equipment.)
@@GeopoliticalMilitary_News Judging by the state of the military and country, they sold that button (and the "arsenal" it controls) for parts a long time ago.
There are many reasons why I think this war cannot last beyond 2025; I don't think tanks are in fact Russia's critical problem. It's already in much more desperate shape with IFV/APC vehicles -- Russian troops are now coming into battle in Chinese jitneys, or motorbikes, or even at considerable distances on foot. In this war, with the drones and the artillery with cluster munitions, this is just suicidal. And then there are the economic and manpower issues. Putin just signed a decree for another 180,000 men. He won't get them without conscription, and that conscription will have serious consequences on war production. Fundamentally, even Russia does not have the manpower to fight the "Russian way;" meat-wave tactics are unaffordable now. I don't think that Putin will get all of the 180 k, nor will they get good training, nor be well armed ... and the Russian officer corps is now a disaster. Winter is coming soon, the pace of the war will slow down. I doubt that Putin's decree demanding throwing the Ukrainians out of Kurst by Oct 1 will be met. That date is not entirely arbitrary, given the approaching winter. The issue of Ukrainian troops at least holding ground in Ukraine through the winter is problematic for both sides. It will impose harsh logistical needs on the Ukrainians, and they need to be well dug in and winterized. I don't assume automatically that they can succeed. But if they can the problems for Putin will mount dramatically. The domestic problems of having a lot of Kursk occupied, and more threatened, will be serious. It appears (???) that the Russian offensive toward Prokrovsk has culminated short of the city -- this is due to heavy casualties and Putin (finally) pulling manpower to fight in Kursk. With this assault stagnated the Ukrainians will build good defenses, possibly throw the Russians back. Again winter is coming, and the Russian salient will be hard to winterize. During the winter the drone wars will continue, and that is increasingly favoring Ukraine. None of this discussion addresses Ukrainian supply and logistical problems. I don't presume that these are easy or guaranteed. But all in all, if Ukraine can hang on it looks like "General Winter" will favor Ukraine, and that Russia's (and Putin's) situation is deteriorating very quickly now.
Both countries keep losing in this war, no matter if they win. However, Ukraine loses if they lose, so at least for them it makes some sense to keep fighting. Russia, though, is getting ruined by this fight.
Russia's Achilles heel may be fuel. Enough refineries have been severely damaged to an extent that their army may not be getting enough fuel for their supply chain or even their military vehicles.
@@bruzote When the war ends, whenever it will be, both Ukraine and Russia will feel the effects for years, but Ukraine will be able to bounce back due to western help, this can be seen after WW2 with a destroyed germany, one side supported by west and one side not. and later again in 1991 with poland/estonia/Latvia and lithuania. due to western help and eu continued financial aid, those countries were able to quickly improve their nations economically and socially. Biggest problem for Ukraine will be the lack of men in the country.
One of the biggest issues is manpower, and specially when it comes to the tankcrews. Training them takes a lot of time and resources, so it will not matter if they have even 5000 tanks standing ready if they have nobody capable of using them. Driving a tank is basically idiot-proof, you can train a complete idiot to do that, but the main gun, reloading station and tank commander? The same goes for all vehicles more advanced than a basic truck. Got not pilots? Can't use those fighterjets and bombers. Got no artillerycrews? No artillery for you. They can conscript as many men as they want and hand them old AKs and throw them at the front lines, it will not be effective but Russia has always liked fighting wars of attrition. But vehicles and advanced weapon systems require people that know how to use them, and Russia is quickly running low.
Russia won gold , silver, and bronze, in the turret toss. You need to be more respectful of a country who was once said to be the second most powerful army in the world, but was actually the second best in Ukraine.
It has to be considered that tanks need crews, that need training. That requires sufficient numbers of tanks to train with. With Russia having a demographic crisis entirely of its own making the number of troops available will decline. Another 300,000 sized mobilisation is possible. But Russia is burning through this amount each year. Take in to consideration the 1.5 million men, their brightest and best fled to find safety and work abroad. If Ukraine can be sustained for another two years then a peace acceptable to Ukraine is possible.
It's ok, Russia was never big on industrialization. The world did that for them. Now, Russians are accepting the Chinese language as their primary means of communication. They will be able to read Chinese when they sober up in a Chinese tank. Hej, look, my production is two fold. Hey the losses are six fold.
Can you imagine what it must be like to be a crew member, when those shells explode inside the tank, with enough pressure to blow the turret off? I imagine it's quick, but still a terrible way to die!
M1 has reactive armor and ammo is inside tank. Russian tanks have cages due to drones and corruption. The Jack in box is from ammo being stored outside and under tank due to auto loader.
@@weirdo1060not just M1s - Leopards and challengers are just as safe if not safer. Go check out how many rpg hits a challenger took in Iraq or Afghanistan and the crew where sat inside making cups of tea and all unscathed. I think only 1 has ever been taken out by the enemy and that was hit with artillery after hitting a mine and everyone walked in Ukraine
Yup...crew survivability has never been a priority in Russian armor. In WW2 there was a reason that M4 Sherman had a reputation for going up in flames, but it also had the lowest average fatalities when a tank was knocked out. The hatch design allowed the crew to bail out much quicker than other tanks.
วันที่ผ่านมา +74
The russians only achieved anything in WWII because of all the tanks, trucks and aide the US sent them. Great Britain too. It was only numbers that allowed Russia to finally overcome Germany.
Yep, Lend Lease saved saved them in the Battle of Moscow (some will dispute this but the Germany were wholly unprepared for British tanks just suddenly appearing on the battlefield).
That’s not true. Russia itself produced over 100,000 tanks during World War 2. Stalin had the entire industrial base taken apart and reassembled out if reach of the Germans. Try reading some actual history.
@@braxxian but they wouldnt have been able to produce those 100,000 tanks and move them without the hundreds of thousands of tons of boots, clothing, food, trucks and train cars the west provided russia to outfit their military and keep their production moving...maybe YOU should read some history....
@braxxian 75% of the land based vehicles the soviet union used during ww2 were supplied by the United States. All of the trucks they used were supplied by the US, and the United States manufacturered more than half the mosins rifle that were made. The mosin rifles were the standard issue rifle at the time and they were sent to the Russians during ww1 and ww2.
I'm amazed that some people think Russia is looking at other countries to invade... they haven't been able to handle the Ukraine! They would totally crumble if attacked by NATO.
Yes but a dictator of a country where life means very little can think it is a good idea to do a lot of things. Yes, he would loose if he attacks but a bad peace is better than a good war
He has multiple dissident operations occurring in what Putin considers politically weak countries. He does this by sending Russian immigrants into the foreign country to build and bolster a pro-Russian movement. He tried this in Ukraine. He did this in Georgia and Chechnya. He is trying to do this in Moldova, and several other Eastern European countries like Latvia, Lithuania and even Poland.
If your figures are correct then I would assume Russia is going to be out of tanks very soon. It has to maintain an armoured force to be able to face off any threats to the country. Could be game over by next year
I used Oryx as a source, as they broke down the tanks by types with photographic or video evidence. They list; 1,982 tanks as destroyed. Using this baseline, I've estimated the monetary value of tank losses to be; $3,450,308,000. This doesn't take into account lost fuel, ammunition, add-on kits, personal equipment, and crew. If added, that total would be over $4 billion. That's just for the identified tanks.
4 bil is not that much in the context of this war. Last year russia was spending that amount every month just on rocket attacks on Ukrainian infrastructure alone
China would be pooping where it eats if it invaded Russia. There are too many infrastructure projects and too much cross border traffic at risk. China would use economy to pressure Russia before using military.
China's tanks are probably even less reliable than Russia's any way. Just ask Pakistan, India, or any other country that has bought tanks from China within the last decade.
During World War 2 the Soviets ultimately defeated the Nazis simply by overwhelming them with numbers. Soviet commanders didn’t care how many men they lost just as long as the battle was won.
And that is basically the same doctrine they are still applying, although they do not have the overwhelming numbers in men (or tanks) they did back then.
Those drone pilots are heroes. The famous Russian tanks are singed into the recent memory of my people. Sad memory but maybe the wheel has turned on Russian tanks and Mother Russia...
3.197 tanks, not forgetting most of the crews that died when the Russian tin cans exploded, mostly trained crews at that time that Russia couldn't afford to lose
And about ww2, we must remember that most of the tank motors were americans, brought to north ussr by fleats of american and english cargos whose sailors lie at the bottom of the white sea for a number of them 😢
I recall Gray Zone observing that some of the Russian tank mounted jammers could only effectively jam drones that are directly above it due to the antenna alignment, and that they commonly had overheating problems… in one model it had a cooling fan that did little more than to contribute even more heat to the system because the device was entirely enclosed with no openings for ventilation.
How many of those restored tanks had their crews inside? Also, how to make crews go into combat knowing the apparent losses of crews before them? One would think they'd eventually say "I won't and you can't make me!"
Russia seems to have forgotten anything it might have learned from the Germans during the Second World War. The Germans developed a tank offense that still ranks as the best of its kind. The practice of blitzkrieg, lightning war, used tank columns like a spear, driven hard and fast into enemy formations. And because they linked tank-infantry-air operations almost seamlessly, they won many battles before the enemy could prepare secondary lines of defenses. Another thing that troubles me is Russia's willingness to expend tanks in the war against Ukraine in the same foolhardy manner they expended troops against the Germans.
Russian production may be close to what Russian claims. However, none of the “new” tanks would contain advanced or modern components. Of course they ate getting Chinese and North Korean tofu technology, which will not enhance anything.
"Quantity has a quality of its own" only really works if there is *some* quality as well, at least at the top, but anyone competent either left Putin long ago or was 'made to leave'.
Excellent video, but just scratches the surface of the knowledge NATO Allies have collected on ACTUAL Russian losses, capabilities, tactics, and strength. My guess is Putin needs to do a reality check, park his ego, and stop aggression immediately and stop making idle threats he can’t back up.
Producing 100 MBT per month = "resuscitating" old stock from storage with sub-par fitout and a quick spray job. Meanwhile they're losing at least twice that number every month.
I look forward to the Ukrainian veterans sharing their hard won drone warfare knowledge when this war wraps up. We taught them combined arms warfare and they will bring our military up to speed on this new for of combat capability. Thanks Putin! You just made the US military even stronger.
Yeah, I'd have to agree that the Ukrainians have proven themselves to be a more formidable opponent than Putin anticipated. And Putin turned out to be his own worst enemy. He seems blinded by his own ego, and doesn't know when to quit. A saner person would look at what little territory the Russians occupy in Ukraine, and the enormous cost that Russia has paid for that territory and said that this war just isn't worth continuing! And, Putin has now exposed all of Russia's weaknesses, and put Russia's future in a very precarious place. Not too bright of him!
From what I heard, there's no need to wait. The USA, our NATO allies, China, and other nations aren't merely sending aid. This conflict is the best test of modern weapons and tactics in a peer-to-peer conflict that we have, and our militaries are actively training with the lessons learned in this conflict now. To give one example, they've realized that one of the biggest threats on modern battlefields is cell phones. Make a phone call and you may as well stand up and shout "Here we are! Aim here!" And while I haven't heard much about it, I think it's safe to bet that drone technology is being adapted based on battlefield experiences--more of what works, less of what doesn't, and adapting training to the realities of this sort of conflict. The biggest lesson, I think, is that air superiority is a must. If Russia had managed that, we'd be looking at a totally different war. And it's no longer about keeping large, slow-moving bombers out of the sky; it's about small, agile craft that can slip past traditional air defenses. In that interview with the Chinese soldier that's one thing that kept coming up: the sheer exhaustion and debilitating fear produced by these drones when used effectively. This more or less plays to the USA's strengths--we love our technological toys, and nearly every man my age and younger grew up with a game controller in our hands!
It's already happening. Just watching how artillery and drones are changing the battlefield, several projects have undergone changes to reflect operational realities. This is the best field test the DoD could have asked for.
One of the most unique and interesting things about this conflict is we're seeing most of it happen in real time, and you can bet military analysts everywhere are taking notes and already adapting what we've seen, or at least they are if they're smart.
@@malcolmwilkins2495 Ukraine will receive 4000 javelin next year.. That is the end of rusia tank history this decade.. Courtesy of raytheon, lockheed martin and texas instruments..
If this war has done one thing, it is that the Russian Army, which many in the west thought was a formidable foe, is a mismanaged poorly trained force. I learned years ago that the lower ranks were not taught self-sufficiency in battle while western armies train their soldiers to take the action needed rather than having to rely on a command that may not arrive. Map reading, a simple task isn't taught to Russian soldiers as far as I understand. I appreciate the analysis of the attrition rate, now explain why Russia as a country is so darn paranoid.
This was mentioned a while back, in videos talking about how so many Russia Generals and other high ranks were being taken out by snipers. Russia apparently doesn't have much in the way of non-commissioned-officer ranks. In Western armies, the Generals pass orders down through the ranks until some 1st Lieutenant tells a Sergeant to "take that hill". Russia is too paranoid to allow small effective fighting units to be commanded by conscript NCOs, and they don't trust the reports coming from the front lines, so the Generals have to go see it for themselves. As soon as they get out into the open wearing their fancy uniforms, BOOM, another one bites the dust.
China and Russia technically have a defensive pact due to north Korea. NK has a pact with both countries so if Russia or China is attacked NK will join the fight which will in turn pull the one not attacked in.
Hit the Tracks - Stop that Tank - Sitting Tank Is a Sitting Duck - Stop That Tank! is a 1942 instructional film created by Walt Disney Productions for the Canadian military during World War 2
The definition of insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result. Russia keeps building these tanks that are complete garbage and having them blown up by a drone that costs a small fraction of the cost of the tank. 🤦🏼♂️🙄🤪
In 2024 or as of 2024? Currently known amount is around 1000 tanks for the whole course of war. Quarter is donated by Poland. Most are T-72, so if the question about modern ones, then around 200. There is no good list for 2024 alone though. So I assume there is more but we just don't know yet
Russia forgets the "bottom of the barrel" effect. Their estimates are based on restoring 100.0% of stored tanks/afv/artillery. This is simply not possible. A certain % of stored equipment will be too damaged to ever be restored. And naturally you always restore the vehicles in the best condition first. That means over time, the equipment in storage that remains becomes increasingly more difficult to repair and put back into service, until you get to the bottom 10-15% that simply cannot be repaired.
Great stuff as usual but you have to get more video footage. We've seen the same troops jumping off the same tank too many times. Keep up the good work though. Peace.
I remember hearing in another vid that the use of the older tanks was supposed to be a placeholder until the manufacturer could ramp up production on the newest models.
I don't think they are _unaware_ of their problems. However, _correctly identifying_ a problem and _being able to solve_ it are two completely different things.
Back in '23 on the Suchomimus channel a guy estimated a then record t80 turret toss at 108 meters based on his estimation of arc, hang time, mass/acceleration etc, all scientifically explained...
วันที่ผ่านมา +1
The latest news is that the Vienna Boys Choir beat back a russian assualt inflicting heavy losses on the invading russians. A captured russian soldier was quoted as saying "Those boys are so much tougher, better trained, and better equipped than we are". "Their choir director is so much better leader than ours is".
Actual production is approximately 500 tanks per year of factory produced minimal standard (@30%) t72 type variants. The rest bring rebuilds with very few being upgradable. As for their tank crews, the Russians sent their best trainers to Ukraine at the start of the war where they were slaughtered outright.
The Russian tank crews are so poorly trained that not only do they fail to close the hatches of the tank when they flee but they even fail to bring their personal weapon along. What good is a soldier without his rifle? Incredible.
Considering that Russia losing 3 tanks in a day is a very low number and they often lose more than 40 a day saying that if they continue to lose 60 a month seems awfully optimistic for Russia I'd say that on average Russia is losing about 20 tanks a day Though numbers have been lower lately, as Russia is using fewer tanks in their assaults
@@amberandrews6842 It is hard to say how many that they actually have left But considering that Russia covers 11 time zones they have to spread their resources over a large area The other problem is that Russia counts T34's in their official count of armored units to inflate their numbers
Yes Russia is running out of tanks but Ukraine has never had the same numbers and NATO is not supplying the numbers it needs so the war is heading to a stalemate.
Well the Afghans very much had 'the home advantage' and the landscape there made tanks etcetera very inefficiënt. The Russians ought to have prioritized helicopters there.
Ein Panzer ist nur so viel wert wie seine Crew. Es ist recht unwahrscheinlich, dass die Mehrheit der Besatzung russischer Panzer eine solide Ausbildung genossen hat.
One problem is that "modern" Russian tanks often aren't as good as the T80s and T72s. Many of the new designs have serious flaws. The Soviets were less creative, but flawed creativity is not really a good thing
It's not only tanks that Russia is wasting. They are facing manpower shortages, as well as other equipment shortages. And even when they get the required recruits, they are given minimal training before being sent to the front lines in Ukraine. The new recruits are not valued or taken care of, and suffer low morale. Putin has wasted much of Russia's resources, and has almost reached an unsustainable level.
The question is not about sustainability. The question is whether or not Russia can outlast Ukraine. Many Ukrainian people of fighting age have fled the country or dodge the draft. Ukrainian fighters also lack proper artillery support (including shells, missiles, rockets, and drones). Ukrainian tanks are not very effective, since Ukraine lack's air superiority and large numbers of tanks. Ukraine also lacks the proper training resources. Replacement troops can't get the job well. So, the experienced and healthy Ukrainian fighters keep doing the fighting and are exhausted. So, the country that supposedly has the will to fight seems to lack it in practice. Few are willing to fight and the country is not dedicating the resources to training. However, if they did, they would simply be sending more people to die. So, we see a war of attrition.
they probably belong to the second best equipped army in Ukraine - the Ukraine Farmer's Co-Op. Those guys were stealing everything with wheels or tracks in the early days of the war.
Russia is in big trouble and has been for many decades, even back well into the Soviet Union days. I don't care how good your tanks are, if you have piss poor training and tactics you simply are a scrap metal provider. Russia uses long seen as useless military operations, examples are; there is poor at best combined arms operations at the best, troops are taught to follow orders and never but never act on your own. Troops are still used as cannon fodder, often they have standards of send enough troops in and simply the enemy cannot hope to keep up. Russia is not going to make a MAJOR tactical turn around overnight, as it will take a TOTAL top down to the new recruit will take at a minimum of several years to achieve.
Multi-million dollar tanks against hundred dollar drones, send in the drones‼️
Let's go 2 million in 2025.
Way more then 100 dollars but still very cheap military wise
@@Humanperson-l6m Cheap photography-wise, too. I'm a professional photographer, and my drone cost over $3000. Those POV drones are literally toys in comparison.
@@Humanperson-l6m saw time ago, the average cost of an "Ukrainian drone" was $680 (FPVs, Mavics, BabaJaga all bunched up) - it's not 100$ but still you can use 1000 drones to blow a single tank and be in positive 😱
$1,000 to $2,000 per for the cheaper drones. $10,000-20,000 for the low end kamakazi drones. But still a drop in the bucket compared to multimillion dollar tanks.
Ukraine’s biggest long term issue will come down to manpower on the frontline. We are talking a country of 200+ mil invading a neighbor of 30+ mil. But I have faith that Ukraine will win with the help of the west. And once this war is over, Ukraine will have one of the most elite militaries in the world, based on actual experience.
Modern tanks cannot operate at 100% capability unless there is air support, if not outright air superiority. We've known that since WW2. Tanks must also operate with infantry. One without the other gets slaughtered on the modern battlefield. Russia just cannot do combined arms, they never have. They never had to develop any wartime strategy through their whole history other than overwhelm with numbers or just wait for winter.
Add to it that tanks also require competent trained tank crews for optimal results. I doubt that there are many well trained tank crews around now, especially trained on the older models.
With drones nowadays is it even possible to have total air control? One would need a full drone jamming scheme and soon AI will make that obsolete too.
Waiting for winter certainly didn't help them in Finland!!!!
That's not entirely true, since Bagration (1944) used heavy air support to break the German lines. Granted, German Air Power at the time wasn't great, but the soviets still used air to support their tank advances. However, since the Soviet era, when Russian air technology fell behind the US's, their doctrine consists almost exclusively in using tanks to overwhelm opponents, which isn't great, to say the least.
As to the tanks they have, did they not once test carouselled tanks in the field under combat conditions? Is this catastrophic brewing up of their tanks actually a surprise?
"How does that new tank modification work?" "dunno, lets go steal one". love it
Hah, kind of an old philosophy though right? Clint Eastwood in firefox ;), or offering pilots a large sum of money and us citizenship for a mig15. Not sure if Stalin with the B19 counts..
Most Eastern Europe mindset ever
"Who dares, wins!"
simple logic to figure out how it works. Strategically Transfer that Equipment to an Alternate Location
Russia wildly ramping up military production. Meanwhile they don't have enough workers to keep normal industries functioning properly. The sooner it all comes crumbling down, the better.
Yeah, putting optics onto T-55's!.
so far they outproduce the entire western world , so yes they are slow , but they don't have our bureaucracy and there decision makers don't fight each other.
What we have here is a failure of quality control
@@randythompson2681 What the Russians have is a failure to understand. No air superiority, no combined arms, they only have numbers on their side as always. All their capabilities have been well overestimated. I wonder what it is like to live in a world of lies, does one actually believe the lies after a while or do they always know the difference between truth and lies?
It will be the only opportunity to remove Putin from power
I think the loss of experienced crews will be just as critical as the loss of equipment.
Maybe more so. Having 3000 tanks doesn't do much if you don't have crews to operate them.
Tank on tank engagements have become onesided. Ukraine even has destroyed a few tanks with IFVs in direct company combat.
Reminds me of how people find the crew death rate of the Sherman being horrible and death traps even tho the rate is 24% but find the t-34 death rate is a-ok with up to 28%
The russians do not field their tanks effectively. Losses of "modern" tanks, properly trained crews, technical losses and abandonments, combined with Ukrainian drones, NLaws, Javelins, Stugna p's and German Telemark type anti tank mines and even Bradleys are battering away at russian armoured effectiveness. Before long I think Russia will have weakened itself so that her borders may become indefensible. This would be advantageous to China and Japan who both have territory seized by Russia - and they want it back. Now would be a good time I think.
@@The_whalesActually the Sherman had one of the best crew survival rates. 93 percent. The idea of the Sherman being a "deathtrap" was a total myth that came from one book.
Tanks.
Putin has tanked the military.
Putin has tanked the economy.
Putin has tanked the oil and gas sectors.
Putin has tanked the reputation of russia.
We should all give tanks...
**clicks**
69 nice
No matter how much money Putin sends to Trump, Russia will lose this war.
No tanks.😢
@@StonerHesperia Thanks, but no tanks 😂
Putin was walking through Moscow and visited some grocery stores, Putin noticed none of the stores had potatoes. Putin asked his commerce minister “where are all the potatoes? you said we had a record breaking crop this year” the minister said, “Comrade Putin, they are on trains and at this very moment are headed to market” Putin satisfied continued on his way, once Putin was far enough away from them, the ministers assistant said “Comrade, there are no trains” the minister replied, “it’s ok, there are no potatoes either”
😂👍
That I will soon live in a world where I can say, 'Russia has run out of tanks', is an amazing thing.
Russia has a great army. As long as they didn't use it. 😂
Well after the war they once again wanna fill up the warehouses
Russia will never run out of tanks completely, as long as they have museums 😊
@@obi-ronI don’t think a T 34-85 will last long. It will take longer to restore it to running condition than it will last at the front.
@@mattwyrick8394 they same can be said about US army.
I'm sure that many of russia's neighbors are now less fearful of being attacked...
The opposite.
Hence Finland and Swedern joing NATO.
being conquered maybe less fearful. But not of being attacked hence the ramp up of defense spending.
@@BlutoandCo the same 2 are licking there lips waiting for russia to attack !
Indeed. So all this endless hysteria by the western media that Putin will somehow roll over all of Western Europe should Ukraine fall is ludicrous.
@@ChristyBermingham No they aren´t!
It is the same old story. The Japanese in WW2 still had planes, but the pilots were so ill trained they lost the aircraft and new pilots at an alarming rate. The Russian Command is showing it's incompetence. They are recruiting at the moment of need and then deploying directly into hot battle, with whole groups of rookies. There is no Georgy Zhukov, today.
Zhukov was a very competent commander. However he also had the advantage of working for a despotic dictatorship that didn’t care how many soldiers it lost just as long as the battle was won. Western generals didn’t have such luxuries.
That's not incompetence by the Russian military. They had only a two week warning before the war started, and as Donald Rumsfeld said, "you go to war with what you have".
He also got humiliated and effectively sacked in 1947, because he was becoming more famous than the boss!!!
@@braxxian True Stalin didnt care how many men died for his cause. Putin doesnt have this luxury. Thus another disadvantage of this era.
Oh... with regard to Japanese planes and pilots... at the start of the war (Pearl Harbor) they were better than Americans. The pilots were top notch, and the Zero was better than anything the Americans had.
But the Japanese couldn't train pilots well enough, fast enough, and they couldn't evolve their fighters to keep up. The Hellcat and the Corsair were both dominant over the Zeros. After the battle of the Solomon Islands (Guadalcanal) it was all terrible for the Japanese.
Working in that tank factory must be very stressful. Under pressure all day with the clear understanding that your line is a prime target. Must suck.
They must be on danger money 😂
Well, the question is: Where are this plants? The two mentioned in this video were in Sibiria and I haven't heard of any Ukrainian weapon that could reach this far, yet. But if there is any plant near Moscow could be in serious danger. But there are more than enough other targets that should hurt Russia as much as destroying such a plant, e.g. its airfields and oil depots (without fuel it wouldn't matter if Russia have thousands of tanks left or not).
Better than being on the front line, that’s real incentive!
If you don't produce off to trenches
It would be even more stressful if Ukraine send in the Drones :)
As they have in other Russian strategic targets.
With all the modern models Ukraine has been seen towing back to re-purpose, Russia has been a major supplier of vehicles for Ukraine.
it's the LARGEST supplier of tanks by orders of magnitude!
Ukraine used to supply tanks and other vehicles TO Russia. If anyone can repurpose/repair Russian tanks, it'll be Ukraine.
@@ralphm6901 Except their facilities are likely to have been in Mariupol near the steel works. Gust a guess, don't flame me :)
@@einfelder8262 no flaming here! I'm sure you're right. It would be efficient to build tanks near where the steel is made.
Why has Russia lost so many tanks in Ukraine?
1. Most of their tanks are outdated.
2. Most of their tank crews have barely any training or experience.
3. They use terrible tactics.
Number 1 is actually the least important reason, because most of Ukraine's tanks are also outdated. Number 2 is actually the most important reason, because not only are poorly trained tank crews far less effective and far more vulnerable on a tank by tank basis than experienced tank crews, they also make it virtually impossible to use effective combined arms tactics, because those crews can barely do anything but advance in a relatively straight line. Number 3 is partly dictated by number 2, partly by ineffective ranking officers, and partly by Russia's failure to gain air superiority and the poor quality of their barely trained & badly equipped infantry.
lots of reasons missing, Ukraine determination, western supperior intelligence, Ukraine supported by western advanced anti tank weapons, insufficient tank maintenance, bad russian leadership, bad russian intelligence, etc...
One thing is clear. Putin has exposed many of the Russian military's weaknesses. He sure has wasted much of Russia's resources, and put Russia in a precarious position on the world stage.
Putin is his own worst enemy, and he is destroying Russia's future!
number4 (kindoff). russian equipment design doesnt priortise protecting the people like western vehicles design.
western vehicles need logistics and crew to maintain which is why it is expensive but save the crew... the very experienced crew. ( one feature is the ammo is at the back far from the crew)
russian weaponry while cheap and easy to fix doesnt protect the crew while the russian bots brag about killing a leopard, bradley or abrams the experienced crew is preserved. ( one feature is the ammo is stored underneath the crew while fast makes involuntary astronauts).
the russian army loses experience that is extremely hard to replace
@@Woolymammoth-db1lt good point, in my head I was kind of lumping that in with most of their tanks being outdated, but it's not really about that, because it's more about having a fundamentally different design philosophy.
Number 3 is partly dictated by Putin. He purged competent military leaders in favour of toadies who tell him what he likes to hear. With that happening at the top level, you can't expect the underlings to be tactical geniuses, especially when they've seen that competence is not rewarded.
Misses another significant point in 2022 majority of Russian tanks were T72, T80, T90…… now Russia’s fleet is T5#, T6# and small nrs of T90 ….. the quality is diminishing…..
The quality of their soldier's TRAINING is deteriorating, too!
They even need help from North Korea, things are bad for the Russians
At least one T-34 has been reactivated as well for use on a border post after the artillery was pulled for frontline use.
@@littlekong7685That's actually really sad...it should be in a museum.
@@ct92404 It was from a museum, thats why it was still in running and shooting condition. Museum guests said it vanished one day and reappeared on the post a few days later.
A Challenger commander pointed out it takes about 2 years to train and a get tank crew that can work together effectively in combat. Russia can't do this. Their experienced crews were seriously depleted in the Kyiv fiasco and now green crews are running around without camo, over mines and in the open to drones while facing seasoned crews. It doesn't help that if a Russian crew with any half decent level of experience lose their machine they don't get a new tank. They get a rifle and are thrown into the meat grinder.
My husband was a tank commander and I well remember his training. A commander MUST know how to work all the positions in a tank crew. When he was doing his loader/operator training, so was I! As he was repeating parts of it in his sleep. 😂🤣 The training is strict, as it must be, and as you said takes a couple of years. They need to practically be able to do their job in their sleep, it must become automatic as the lives of your crew mates might depend on you. On the other hand Russian crews were not trained as well, during the Cold War in particular, one reason was the fear that a tank crew might take it on themselves to abscond, possibly with said tank. Poor sods, little to no training, stuffed into a death trap of a tank and told to go and fight a war they know little about all to cater for one man’s ego.
Experienced in bad tactics 😂
@@beccabbea2511PO Pretty easy to learn when that is your dedicated job. The US Army takes the lowest ASVAB scores, their equipment is easy to use.
For the Ukrainian military, the column of Russian tanks was like shooting a row of ducks.
Easy task for Ukrainian drones
🤣😅😂 so who exactly is losing grounds?
@@zaintlouis Planning a vacation in Kursk in the near future?
@@zaintlouisTell me a recent captured town in Ukraine by Russia, none? Exactly.
@@zaintlouis Russia gained 1 meter per 1.000 dead and wounded. Also the "2nd biggest Army in the world" struggles for nearly 3 Years now to gain any ground against a country with a third of its population by losing all of its Mechanized material. What a decissive Victory...
Russia will remain the leader of the "art of spin". If your potential enemies believe you, you're way ahead of the game - until you're not.
Putin knows that he's not fooling the West. He's concentrating on fooling his subjects.
This is the second report I have heard that predicts that russia would be unable to provide enough tanks and arms to fight through 2026. The reality is that russia has 6-12 months before it collapses from financial and social crisis. There are already oil wells that had to be turned off due to the lack of storage space. There is insufficient refining capacity as well, and even if they could refine oil, they don't have the storage to keep it. The national rail network is teetering on collapse. The electric generation and distribution networks are degrading quickly due to hits and lack of equipment to repair them. It's going to be a cold winter.
Agreed! I don't think the Russians will be able to sustain their war effort for too much longer. Putin is under pressure from everywhere now. All those oil refineries and storage tanks that the Ukrainians destroyed will create fuel shortages and many homes in Russia will be pretty chilly this winter. I think Putin's time is running out! He has miscalculated everything and really destroyed Russia's future. The Oligarchs are not happy.
Bring it on
Awesome
Russia will have at least 20 cold winters. Their remaining oil wells will have to be shut down never to reopen, and their gas equipment will degrade without Western spare parts so will also suffer greatly reduced output. Within 5 years I predict China will just take over the Kremlin and annex the whole of Russia, because Russia won't have anything to resist them with. Russia has unpolluted farmland, resources, water, and for a limited time, oil. China will want the oil, so would have to act before it is all shut down.
Russia is mostly refurbishing old tanks and producing few new ones.
Is this the way I can get in contact with Scott Ratter
Their banking system is collapsing. Russia may not survive as a nation much longer.
Seems like Storm Shadow needs to pay the tank production facilities a couple of visits.
🙏
Or the trains that bring them to the front.
Good post, but I would like to see the west show Ukraine how to build long range cruise missiles and drones and then Ukraine would not have to seek permission from the west to use western equipment to attack the interior of Russia nor could Russia accuse the west of escalating the conflict which I find that concept ridiculous.
Not only tanks ,but more importantly, trained crews.
Yes. The crews become less competent, and the units suffer.
What I keep asking myself and not finding an answer is this:
Western analysts seem to always take the total number of tanks (or whatever equipment or personnel) into account when estimating what Russia can field in Ukraine.
But in reality Russia has to keep vast amounts of their equipment and personnel spread along their borders.
If Russia is baring all reserves, they can't defend their borders.
And while NATO surely won't take advantage of this situation by seizing former Finish territory or even Kaliningrad, I wouldn't be so sure about China.
The area around Vladivostok belonged to China pre WWII and Russia just kept it after the war in the Pacific had ended. So if Russia sends everything they have to Ukraine, China may seize the opportunity to occupy territory they feel was stolen from them.
And since Russia is totally dependent on China by now, Russia won't be able to do much about it.
China is slowly getting that part of the country back in trade by backing the Russians. They just recently regained authorized use of the Amur river which had been off limits to them for decades. That is a massive deal in that part of the world. It means Russia has effectively lost control of its southern border with China. Chinese troops have been practicing artic warfare for nearly two years now. No reason for that other than to go after Russia.
The arctic units that were stationed along the Finnish border are all in Ukraine now. Satellite views of their marshaling yards/bases show them emptied of equipment . They must be down to 5-10% the pre-war manning. Same with Kalingrad units now in Ukraine. Which proves that them saying they were worried about Nato was a lie all along.
@@lemerdtool They also pulled every single artillery piece from all NATO borders and over half from the eastern borders. At least one T-34 has been reactivated and placed at one of these posts to replace that lost artillery on the Ukraine border. Few soldiers, no artillery, no AA, no armour at NATO borders... yup Russia knows its BS.
What’s keeping China at bay? Can you say nukes?
A diplomat from Taiwan was recently in the news for suggesting exactly as you did about China "reclaiming" Russian real estate instead of Taiwan's. Russia's military/nuclear doctrine ALLOWS nuclear attack if the homeland is attacked, so it's another case of nuclear saber rattling. Russia is a cornered rat, but Putin's willing to sink the ship of state if necessary to stay in power, just as Stalin was in WWII. He's SO dependent upon China now, he cannot realistically hope to "defend" anything China might grab. It might be good if they do, as that may hasten Putin's downfall.
Russia's "strength" is what's been keeping NATO fighters out of the war. The weaker Russia gets, the more the West is permitting weapons use inside Russia, and now several NATO countries are openly discussing sending in troops. The nukes are still the big deterrent, but if they turn out to have the same fuel problems the Chinese rockets are having, then I can see some NATO countries being increasingly tempted to take Russia out while they have the chance... Although also likely that China will come to the same conclusion and increase their incursions in to disputed territory.
Nuclear warheads have to be maintained carefully...something Russians aren't known for.
If Russia's nuclear weapons are maintained as well as its conventional forces, their nuclear triad will likely be more dangerous to them than anyone else.
I don't see Nato having a taste for invasion.
China is salivating at the thought.
There's a difference between sending in fighting troops and supporting personnel. But the Swedish FMV (defence materials acquisitions organization) have committed to set up offices in Ukraine to aid/set up the equivalent Ukrainian agency.
Is no plan yet sent in any troops to Ukraine. The only west soldiers in Ukraine are mercenaries, so the same thing as Russia has.
This is the exact reason that the United States Marine Corps got rid of every tank they had a few years ago. The tanks are vulnerable. They are expensive when compared to the asset that can easily take them out. They change the tactics of any force using them. This means that if that force loses enough tanks to the cheap drones that take them out... the infantry doesn't know how to function due to their reliance on tanks taking ground. Russia is losing these vehicles and their infantry isn't able to effectively push the line forward, nor hold ground well, without them.
United States Marine Corps decision on tanks was also about doctrine. Tanks are powerful, but heavy. They are refocusing on lighter vehicles for expeditionary warfare and closer operations with United States Navy.
Doesn't the Corps have those M-10 Bookers now?
@@weirdo1060 correct. Speed and agility equates to less vulnerability when facing drones. Being a lighter fighting force has always been part of our doctrine. "High speed, low drag" has been a saying in the Corps for decades. So, as sudden and jarring as it felt, getting rid of the tank divisions accomplished both allowing for rapid deployment as well as having that lighter force be less vulnerable to where warfare is heading.
@@xmarine73 Doesn't it come from the War on Terror? You don't need many tanks to fight Insurgents so ..?
@@nordholz7723 comes from knowing speed kills. 50 mph gets you dead
Medvedev being in charge of security explains a lot
This guy only knows how to talk nonsense
this is why i think everyone underestimates the baltics. anti tank weapons far outpaced tanks in both development and effectiveness, and fraction of the cost. The balts strategy of hit & run with anti tank weapons in fast off road vehicles that they practice is legit. And cheap enough for those small countries to use effectively.
that actually is a doctrine of the U.S. Military called 2 men and a jeep. they can move around behind the enemy or along side hit and run was strategy set up to beat the large amounts of russian tanks during the time russia actually was a threat but the tactic is even more useful today but keep in mind that drones also make the tactic a bit more risky due to no idea when one may show up.
The Ruskies have picked up on this, that’s why they send their men to the front in Chinese gulf carts PML.
There is also the recent announcement of the Baltic Defense Line. Estonia alone plans to have 600 bunkers on its relatively short border with Russia. Once that is set up, any attack on them by Russia will be like running into a brick wall.
@@cubefreak123 Sounds like the French Maginot Line.
the ukraine troops are not the inferior pushovers that Putin thought they were ...at this point he would be smart to withdraw before Ukraine kicks his ass all the way back to Moscow
Unfortunately since we’re over two years in there’s too much sunk cost into the war for Putin to pull out. Outside of just being embarrassing pulling out would mean that all the lost lives, equipment, and money had been lost for no gain. Putin wont accept that, even if the cost of taking Ukraine has already far surpassed any of the gains which could be made from winning
Hopefully he doesn't want to press the button on his briefcase during this process.
@@GeopoliticalMilitary_News Only if he wants to be the absolute dictator over a russia reduced to radioactive rubble and ash and be remembered by the survivors worldwide as the villainous egomaniac that destroyed his own nation and a good portion of the world just to save face--with whom?? (This scenario, of course, assumes some portion of russia's nuclear arsenal has been maintained better than his army's equipment.)
@@GeopoliticalMilitary_News Judging by the state of the military and country, they sold that button (and the "arsenal" it controls) for parts a long time ago.
Uncle Vlad is balls deep in this mess he created. How can he pull out without being humiliated?
There are many reasons why I think this war cannot last beyond 2025; I don't think tanks are in fact Russia's critical problem. It's already in much more desperate shape with IFV/APC vehicles -- Russian troops are now coming into battle in Chinese jitneys, or motorbikes, or even at considerable distances on foot. In this war, with the drones and the artillery with cluster munitions, this is just suicidal.
And then there are the economic and manpower issues. Putin just signed a decree for another 180,000 men. He won't get them without conscription, and that conscription will have serious consequences on war production. Fundamentally, even Russia does not have the manpower to fight the "Russian way;" meat-wave tactics are unaffordable now. I don't think that Putin will get all of the 180 k, nor will they get good training, nor be well armed ... and the Russian officer corps is now a disaster.
Winter is coming soon, the pace of the war will slow down. I doubt that Putin's decree demanding throwing the Ukrainians out of Kurst by Oct 1 will be met. That date is not entirely arbitrary, given the approaching winter. The issue of Ukrainian troops at least holding ground in Ukraine through the winter is problematic for both sides. It will impose harsh logistical needs on the Ukrainians, and they need to be well dug in and winterized. I don't assume automatically that they can succeed. But if they can the problems for Putin will mount dramatically. The domestic problems of having a lot of Kursk occupied, and more threatened, will be serious.
It appears (???) that the Russian offensive toward Prokrovsk has culminated short of the city -- this is due to heavy casualties and Putin (finally) pulling manpower to fight in Kursk. With this assault stagnated the Ukrainians will build good defenses, possibly throw the Russians back. Again winter is coming, and the Russian salient will be hard to winterize.
During the winter the drone wars will continue, and that is increasingly favoring Ukraine.
None of this discussion addresses Ukrainian supply and logistical problems. I don't presume that these are easy or guaranteed. But all in all, if Ukraine can hang on it looks like "General Winter" will favor Ukraine, and that Russia's (and Putin's) situation is deteriorating very quickly now.
Both countries keep losing in this war, no matter if they win. However, Ukraine loses if they lose, so at least for them it makes some sense to keep fighting. Russia, though, is getting ruined by this fight.
Russia's Achilles heel may be fuel. Enough refineries have been severely damaged to an extent that their army may not be getting enough fuel for their supply chain or even their military vehicles.
Russian junior officers are little more than NCOs, with far less experience and respect than NATO NCOs.
@@bruzote When the war ends, whenever it will be, both Ukraine and Russia will feel the effects for years, but Ukraine will be able to bounce back due to western help, this can be seen after WW2 with a destroyed germany, one side supported by west and one side not. and later again in 1991 with poland/estonia/Latvia and lithuania. due to western help and eu continued financial aid, those countries were able to quickly improve their nations economically and socially. Biggest problem for Ukraine will be the lack of men in the country.
One of the biggest issues is manpower, and specially when it comes to the tankcrews. Training them takes a lot of time and resources, so it will not matter if they have even 5000 tanks standing ready if they have nobody capable of using them. Driving a tank is basically idiot-proof, you can train a complete idiot to do that, but the main gun, reloading station and tank commander? The same goes for all vehicles more advanced than a basic truck. Got not pilots? Can't use those fighterjets and bombers. Got no artillerycrews? No artillery for you.
They can conscript as many men as they want and hand them old AKs and throw them at the front lines, it will not be effective but Russia has always liked fighting wars of attrition. But vehicles and advanced weapon systems require people that know how to use them, and Russia is quickly running low.
"jack in the box explosions" AKA "turret tossing competition"
Russia won gold , silver, and bronze, in the turret toss. You need to be more respectful of a country who was once said to be the second most powerful army in the world, but was actually the second best in Ukraine.
@@frankduncan5685 And they're working on being the second best in Russia now.
Russia has lost more armored tracked vehicles in 2yrs than the US lost men in over 20yrs fighting 2 wars.
That is the difference between fighting a 3rd world insurrection force, or a 2nd world (borderline 1st word) organized state military!
🇺🇦Glory to Ukraine🇺🇦
So, if Russia has lost 3200 tanks, valued at the cost of a T-72 or 1.2 million per tank. The loses have cost Russia 3.84 billion dollars.
I don’t think money is the problem, replacing them is a different matter
Latest sources have said @4.2 billion plus the cost of shells,fuel manpower experience and so forth.
russian tanks may be valued at $1.2 bill, but the cost per tank is much higher due to everyone in the chain taking a bar or two of gold.
How many to crew the tanks?3200 x how many?
Figure 3 crew per tank.
It has to be considered that tanks need crews, that need training. That requires sufficient numbers of tanks to train with. With Russia having a demographic crisis entirely of its own making the number of troops available will decline. Another 300,000 sized mobilisation is possible. But Russia is burning through this amount each year. Take in to consideration the 1.5 million men, their brightest and best fled to find safety and work abroad. If Ukraine can be sustained for another two years then a peace acceptable to Ukraine is possible.
It's ok, Russia was never big on industrialization. The world did that for them. Now, Russians are accepting the Chinese language as their primary means of communication. They will be able to read Chinese when they sober up in a Chinese tank.
Hej, look, my production is two fold. Hey the losses are six fold.
Knock out an M1, crew survives, russian tanks not so much
Can you imagine what it must be like to be a crew member, when those shells explode inside the tank, with enough pressure to blow the turret off? I imagine it's quick, but still a terrible way to die!
M1 has reactive armor and ammo is inside tank. Russian tanks have cages due to drones and corruption. The Jack in box is from ammo being stored outside and under tank due to auto loader.
@@bobhamulak3646 True but everyone has a choice to defect and save their life. Instead they throw it away over a senseless war.
@@weirdo1060not just M1s - Leopards and challengers are just as safe if not safer. Go check out how many rpg hits a challenger took in Iraq or Afghanistan and the crew where sat inside making cups of tea and all unscathed. I think only 1 has ever been taken out by the enemy and that was hit with artillery after hitting a mine and everyone walked in Ukraine
Yup...crew survivability has never been a priority in Russian armor. In WW2 there was a reason that M4 Sherman had a reputation for going up in flames, but it also had the lowest average fatalities when a tank was knocked out. The hatch design allowed the crew to bail out much quicker than other tanks.
The russians only achieved anything in WWII because of all the tanks, trucks and aide the US sent them. Great Britain too. It was only numbers that allowed Russia to finally overcome Germany.
None of those pieces of equipment and the food would have got there, had it not been for the heroism of the Royal Navy's Arctic Convoys.
Yep, Lend Lease saved saved them in the Battle of Moscow (some will dispute this but the Germany were wholly unprepared for British tanks just suddenly appearing on the battlefield).
That’s not true. Russia itself produced over 100,000 tanks during World War 2. Stalin had the entire industrial base taken apart and reassembled out if reach of the Germans. Try reading some actual history.
@@braxxian but they wouldnt have been able to produce those 100,000 tanks and move them without the hundreds of thousands of tons of boots, clothing, food, trucks and train cars the west provided russia to outfit their military and keep their production moving...maybe YOU should read some history....
@braxxian 75% of the land based vehicles the soviet union used during ww2 were supplied by the United States. All of the trucks they used were supplied by the US, and the United States manufacturered more than half the mosins rifle that were made. The mosin rifles were the standard issue rifle at the time and they were sent to the Russians during ww1 and ww2.
I'm amazed that some people think Russia is looking at other countries to invade... they haven't been able to handle the Ukraine! They would totally crumble if attacked by NATO.
Dictators are imprevisible. In the winter of 1944 nobody expected a full offensive from a depleted and almost routed Germany in the west...
Yes but a dictator of a country where life means very little can think it is a good idea to do a lot of things. Yes, he would loose if he attacks but a bad peace is better than a good war
Why would they be probing other countries for air defense with drones
He has multiple dissident operations occurring in what Putin considers politically weak countries. He does this by sending Russian immigrants into the foreign country to build and bolster a pro-Russian movement. He tried this in Ukraine. He did this in Georgia and Chechnya. He is trying to do this in Moldova, and several other Eastern European countries like Latvia, Lithuania and even Poland.
I am blue in the face saying this ! You are spot on
If your figures are correct then I would assume Russia is going to be out of tanks very soon. It has to maintain an armoured force to be able to face off any threats to the country. Could be game over by next year
Pootlestan basically has no T90 tanks left. You know their backs are to a barb wire wall when they ate bringing out mildly refurbished WW2 tanks.
Russia needs to surrender to Ukraine. I mean think 🤔 about it, they're sending troops who aren't a fully trained soldier yet.
I used Oryx as a source, as they broke down the tanks by types with photographic or video evidence. They list; 1,982 tanks as destroyed. Using this baseline, I've estimated the monetary value of tank losses to be; $3,450,308,000. This doesn't take into account lost fuel, ammunition, add-on kits, personal equipment, and crew. If added, that total would be over $4 billion. That's just for the identified tanks.
4 bil is not that much in the context of this war. Last year russia was spending that amount every month just on rocket attacks on Ukrainian infrastructure alone
@@yuriy5376 Yes, but that's just the tanks. There's still the infantry-fighting-vehicles, APCs, and all the other equipment not taken into account.
Pooh doesn't want to give Russia Chinese tanks, because Pooh needs them to invade Russia.
How effective will Chinese imitations of Russian tanks be against Western tanks?
China would be pooping where it eats if it invaded Russia. There are too many infrastructure projects and too much cross border traffic at risk. China would use economy to pressure Russia before using military.
China's tanks are probably even less reliable than Russia's any way.
Just ask Pakistan, India, or any other country that has bought tanks from China within the last decade.
@@charlesharper2357 Not very, but they do have a lot of them.
@@suziechapstick8236
Yes, but they need crews...
A special military scrapping operation.
Thats class, nice one.
It wasn't a good idea from the Russians
During World War 2 the Soviets ultimately defeated the Nazis simply by overwhelming them with numbers. Soviet commanders didn’t care how many men they lost just as long as the battle was won.
And that is basically the same doctrine they are still applying, although they do not have the overwhelming numbers in men (or tanks) they did back then.
Those drone pilots are heroes.
The famous Russian tanks are singed into the recent memory of my people. Sad memory but maybe the wheel has turned on Russian tanks and Mother Russia...
3.197 tanks, not forgetting most of the crews that died when the Russian tin cans exploded, mostly trained crews at that time that Russia couldn't afford to lose
And about ww2, we must remember that most of the tank motors were americans, brought to north ussr by fleats of american and english cargos whose sailors lie at the bottom of the white sea for a number of them 😢
If their tanks fall to below 1k, they wouldn't have enough to protect their own borders.
From China.
The invasion of Kursk shows that they can't protect their borders now.
Russia's military bases next to NATO borders are down to a skeleton crew. Kremlin knows, that NATO isn't going to attack them.
I recall Gray Zone observing that some of the Russian tank mounted jammers could only effectively jam drones that are directly above it due to the antenna alignment, and that they commonly had overheating problems… in one model it had a cooling fan that did little more than to contribute even more heat to the system because the device was entirely enclosed with no openings for ventilation.
It isn’t just the tanks. It’s the loss of soldiers inside which are depleting Russian resources.
Ummm ...no. that's not a problem so much. Replacing personnel is fairly easy still
How many of those restored tanks had their crews inside? Also, how to make crews go into combat knowing the apparent losses of crews before them? One would think they'd eventually say "I won't and you can't make me!"
Destroyed not restored.
Good point.
I’m sure the tank crews are given the options of do their job or get reassigned as infinity and be sent to charge a trench line anyway.
@@MandalorV7 Oh they have much much simper choice. The one they can't decline.
@@nelsonted1 you can edit comments you know.
This is an excellent video. I am believing that they will run out of tanks mid-2025. Honestly, most days it is as if they already ran out of them.
Hahahahahahahahh
This war will end when Russia's economy collapses
There's a tank museum collector, crying somewhere in the world everytime one of the rarer Russian ww2 and cold-war vehicles gets dispatched.
I actually got kind of mad that Russia is sending out those antique tanks just to get destroyed 😡
Russia seems to have forgotten anything it might have learned from the Germans during the Second World War.
The Germans developed a tank offense that still ranks as the best of its kind. The practice of blitzkrieg, lightning war, used tank columns like a spear, driven hard and fast into enemy formations. And because they linked tank-infantry-air operations almost seamlessly, they won many battles before the enemy could prepare secondary lines of defenses.
Another thing that troubles me is Russia's willingness to expend tanks in the war against Ukraine in the same foolhardy manner they expended troops against the Germans.
It’s because Russia doesn’t want to acknowledge that Lend-Lease was a big reason why they had the material to keep fighting at the pace they did.
Nazi tank greatness is a myth that hasn't stood the test of time. After France the fabled Blitzkrieg was never a real thing.
While true in ww2 they did win granted at as you said fucked levels of cost @@cubefreak123
Russian tanks have re-enforced the Russian Air Force 💙💛
Russian production may be close to what Russian claims. However, none of the “new” tanks would contain advanced or modern components. Of course they ate getting Chinese and North Korean tofu technology, which will not enhance anything.
Not enhanced enough? Yes they are but if you even look at them the wrong way they break 😂
"Quantity has a quality of its own" only really works if there is *some* quality as well, at least at the top, but anyone competent either left Putin long ago or was 'made to leave'.
Excellent video, but just scratches the surface of the knowledge NATO Allies have collected on ACTUAL Russian losses, capabilities, tactics, and strength. My guess is Putin needs to do a reality check, park his ego, and stop aggression immediately and stop making idle threats he can’t back up.
Producing 100 MBT per month = "resuscitating" old stock from storage with sub-par fitout and a quick spray job. Meanwhile they're losing at least twice that number every month.
Certainly, this is the most annoying 3-day special operation that Putin has ever seen.
I look forward to the Ukrainian veterans sharing their hard won drone warfare knowledge when this war wraps up. We taught them combined arms warfare and they will bring our military up to speed on this new for of combat capability. Thanks Putin! You just made the US military even stronger.
Yeah, I'd have to agree that the Ukrainians have proven themselves to be a more formidable opponent than Putin anticipated. And Putin turned out to be his own worst enemy. He seems blinded by his own ego, and doesn't know when to quit. A saner person would look at what little territory the Russians occupy in Ukraine, and the enormous cost that Russia has paid for that territory and said that this war just isn't worth continuing!
And, Putin has now exposed all of Russia's weaknesses, and put Russia's future in a very precarious place. Not too bright of him!
From what I heard, there's no need to wait. The USA, our NATO allies, China, and other nations aren't merely sending aid. This conflict is the best test of modern weapons and tactics in a peer-to-peer conflict that we have, and our militaries are actively training with the lessons learned in this conflict now. To give one example, they've realized that one of the biggest threats on modern battlefields is cell phones. Make a phone call and you may as well stand up and shout "Here we are! Aim here!" And while I haven't heard much about it, I think it's safe to bet that drone technology is being adapted based on battlefield experiences--more of what works, less of what doesn't, and adapting training to the realities of this sort of conflict.
The biggest lesson, I think, is that air superiority is a must. If Russia had managed that, we'd be looking at a totally different war. And it's no longer about keeping large, slow-moving bombers out of the sky; it's about small, agile craft that can slip past traditional air defenses. In that interview with the Chinese soldier that's one thing that kept coming up: the sheer exhaustion and debilitating fear produced by these drones when used effectively. This more or less plays to the USA's strengths--we love our technological toys, and nearly every man my age and younger grew up with a game controller in our hands!
If Ukraine wins, they could definitely become a valuable Intel source to NATO.
It's already happening. Just watching how artillery and drones are changing the battlefield, several projects have undergone changes to reflect operational realities. This is the best field test the DoD could have asked for.
One of the most unique and interesting things about this conflict is we're seeing most of it happen in real time, and you can bet military analysts everywhere are taking notes and already adapting what we've seen, or at least they are if they're smart.
No country has the right to win friends on another country is territorial rights
Yes Pootin shouldn't have tried to steal the neighbor's land, and resources. They definitely shouldn't be murdering women and children.
"infringe". Guessing you had an autocorrect attack.
They are losing approx 10 per day and making 3 per day..... durrrrrrrr.
10 new per month its the true number..
Refit 10 old ones at day..
but they are gaining and they are accelerate.
@@chegist Nope..
They are not "gaining" , they have even less money to pay for production increase..
@@malcolmwilkins2495 Ukraine will receive 4000 javelin next year..
That is the end of rusia tank history this decade..
Courtesy of raytheon, lockheed martin and texas instruments..
@@aocg1914 Money is an american thing. They don't need money. They won WW2 and send man in to the space without money.
2:15 - _Asterix?_ I'm pretty sure he's from Gaul, not Russia.
I'm pretty sure he's fictional.
@@guythomas7051 - So, like most of Russia's military equipment?
Yes.
Ukrainian soldiers love to Strategically Transfer Equipment to Alternate Locations.
If this war has done one thing, it is that the Russian Army, which many in the west thought was a formidable foe, is a mismanaged poorly trained force. I learned years ago that the lower ranks were not taught self-sufficiency in battle while western armies train their soldiers to take the action needed rather than having to rely on a command that may not arrive. Map reading, a simple task isn't taught to Russian soldiers as far as I understand. I appreciate the analysis of the attrition rate, now explain why Russia as a country is so darn paranoid.
Search Perun. He has several videos explaining them.
This was mentioned a while back, in videos talking about how so many Russia Generals and other high ranks were being taken out by snipers. Russia apparently doesn't have much in the way of non-commissioned-officer ranks. In Western armies, the Generals pass orders down through the ranks until some 1st Lieutenant tells a Sergeant to "take that hill". Russia is too paranoid to allow small effective fighting units to be commanded by conscript NCOs, and they don't trust the reports coming from the front lines, so the Generals have to go see it for themselves. As soon as they get out into the open wearing their fancy uniforms, BOOM, another one bites the dust.
I think you haven't taken into account Russia's stocks of T34s, T40s and Garford-Putilov armoured cars.
Yep!!
How many Russians want to drive those tanks? Life expectancy ten minutes.
I really hope Ukraine will be supported until 2026 and beyond
I don't know that Russia will be able to sustain the war until 2026.
@@bobhamulak3646 I´d say don´t hold your breath on that one mate.
They may not run out of tanks, but they are going to run out of tank crews.
Since Russia is weak, why don't Western armies intervene in the war and liberate Ukraine?
China and Russia technically have a defensive pact due to north Korea. NK has a pact with both countries so if Russia or China is attacked NK will join the fight which will in turn pull the one not attacked in.
Hit the Tracks - Stop that Tank - Sitting Tank Is a Sitting Duck - Stop That Tank! is a 1942 instructional film created by Walt Disney Productions for the Canadian military during World War 2
Russia has one tank retriever for every hundred Ukrainian tractors.
Dont worry, the t-14 the world greatest tank, is just being held back because, erm.............
It's still parked outside the Kremlin waiting for the tow truck!
A lack of tow tractor's
Because.... reasons.
The definition of insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result. Russia keeps building these tanks that are complete garbage and having them blown up by a drone that costs a small fraction of the cost of the tank. 🤦🏼♂️🙄🤪
How many modern tanks has Ukraine got in 2024 so far? Hope they will get more before year end.
they have gotten about a thousand abandonned russian tanks...on top of NATO tanks.....
In 2024 or as of 2024?
Currently known amount is around 1000 tanks for the whole course of war. Quarter is donated by Poland. Most are T-72, so if the question about modern ones, then around 200. There is no good list for 2024 alone though. So I assume there is more but we just don't know yet
Russia forgets the "bottom of the barrel" effect. Their estimates are based on restoring 100.0% of stored tanks/afv/artillery. This is simply not possible. A certain % of stored equipment will be too damaged to ever be restored. And naturally you always restore the vehicles in the best condition first. That means over time, the equipment in storage that remains becomes increasingly more difficult to repair and put back into service, until you get to the bottom 10-15% that simply cannot be repaired.
Great stuff as usual but you have to get more video footage. We've seen the same troops jumping off the same tank too many times. Keep up the good work though. Peace.
I remember hearing in another vid that the use of the older tanks was supposed to be a placeholder until the manufacturer could ramp up production on the newest models.
If Russia will just attentively watch this...
I don't think they are _unaware_ of their problems. However, _correctly identifying_ a problem and _being able to solve_ it are two completely different things.
@@ThiesiAlso, if you try to talk about it in Russia, you fall out of a window
Presumably replacing trained tank crews is an even bigger problem. Assuming a similar attrition rate in lost crewman.
So who has won the tournament of turret toss?
Turret loss is from Cold War design. Russia wanted cheap tanks with auto loader for Warsaw Pact. They are outdated due to 21st century tactics.
Back in '23 on the Suchomimus channel a guy estimated a then record t80 turret toss at 108 meters based on his estimation of arc, hang time, mass/acceleration etc, all scientifically explained...
The latest news is that the Vienna Boys Choir beat back a russian assualt inflicting heavy losses on the invading russians. A captured russian soldier was quoted as saying "Those boys are so much tougher, better trained, and better equipped than we are". "Their choir director is so much better leader than ours is".
Actual production is approximately 500 tanks per year of factory produced minimal standard (@30%) t72 type variants. The rest bring rebuilds with very few being upgradable.
As for their tank crews, the Russians sent their best trainers to Ukraine at the start of the war where they were slaughtered outright.
The Russian tank crews are so poorly trained that not only do they fail to close the hatches of the tank when they flee but they even fail to bring their personal weapon along. What good is a soldier without his rifle? Incredible.
Considering that Russia losing 3 tanks in a day is a very low number and they often lose more than 40 a day saying that if they continue to lose 60 a month seems awfully optimistic for Russia
I'd say that on average Russia is losing about 20 tanks a day
Though numbers have been lower lately, as Russia is using fewer tanks in their assaults
They are using fewer, because they are running out of them. 😁
@@amberandrews6842 It is hard to say how many that they actually have left
But considering that Russia covers 11 time zones they have to spread their resources over a large area
The other problem is that Russia counts T34's in their official count of armored units to inflate their numbers
Spread resources dont make me laugh some dont have toilets ! @HuskyOwner-bl1jf
Sorry not having a go at you !
@@amberandrews6842 Don't forget trained crews.
Yes Russia is running out of tanks but Ukraine has never had the same numbers and NATO is not supplying the numbers it needs so the war is heading to a stalemate.
The Afghans kicked the Russians out of their country 🤷 wasn't that a sign of Russia's military being a bit crap?
Not necessarily. It just proves that their objectives were unattainable, particularly given the cost.
The British have a good record when it comes to war and battles but the Afghans have defeated us 4 times in the past 200 years...
Well the Afghans very much had 'the home advantage' and the landscape there made tanks etcetera very inefficiënt. The Russians ought to have prioritized helicopters there.
The Afghans kicked out every invader in history, including the russians
Watch this space, we'll soon be seeing T34s on the battlefield at this rate.
Ein Panzer ist nur so viel wert wie seine Crew. Es ist recht unwahrscheinlich,
dass die Mehrheit der Besatzung russischer Panzer eine solide Ausbildung
genossen hat.
Lack of training and poor tactics
One problem is that "modern" Russian tanks often aren't as good as the T80s and T72s. Many of the new designs have serious flaws. The Soviets were less creative, but flawed creativity is not really a good thing
It's not only tanks that Russia is wasting. They are facing manpower shortages, as well as other equipment shortages. And even when they get the required recruits, they are given minimal training before being sent to the front lines in Ukraine. The new recruits are not valued or taken care of, and suffer low morale.
Putin has wasted much of Russia's resources, and has almost reached an unsustainable level.
The question is not about sustainability. The question is whether or not Russia can outlast Ukraine. Many Ukrainian people of fighting age have fled the country or dodge the draft. Ukrainian fighters also lack proper artillery support (including shells, missiles, rockets, and drones). Ukrainian tanks are not very effective, since Ukraine lack's air superiority and large numbers of tanks. Ukraine also lacks the proper training resources. Replacement troops can't get the job well. So, the experienced and healthy Ukrainian fighters keep doing the fighting and are exhausted. So, the country that supposedly has the will to fight seems to lack it in practice. Few are willing to fight and the country is not dedicating the resources to training. However, if they did, they would simply be sending more people to die. So, we see a war of attrition.
That Russian Tank Company just lost their supplier for track drives and bearings. Burning as we watch.
The only tanks with walnut trim and chassis. And second hand lauda dashboards.
Not a single war Russia fought they did not suffer massive casualties,
They turned tail in Afghanistan after only 17,000 dead.
Hmmmmm....where are the "invincible" Armata tanks?
Remaining invincible in storage.
In Putins … ooohw sorry in his head
Hanging out with the Terminators
Very good question.
they probably belong to the second best equipped army in Ukraine - the Ukraine Farmer's Co-Op. Those guys were stealing everything with wheels or tracks in the early days of the war.
Great video as always, however, the audio volume was compromised during production.
Way tooo low. Couldn't hear it on my phone at full volume
Those of us that follow Perun and Caspian report already had a pretty clear picture of the state of Ruzzia's vehicle fleet.
There are aprox 3000 tank casualties in the Russian side.... every tank has 3 crew members.... that's.... 90000 people dead...
They all could have been home with their families if not for Putin
Russia is in big trouble and has been for many decades, even back well into the Soviet Union days. I don't care how good your tanks are, if you have piss poor training and tactics you simply are a scrap metal provider. Russia uses long seen as useless military operations, examples are; there is poor at best combined arms operations at the best, troops are taught to follow orders and never but never act on your own. Troops are still used as cannon fodder, often they have standards of send enough troops in and simply the enemy cannot hope to keep up. Russia is not going to make a MAJOR tactical turn around overnight, as it will take a TOTAL top down to the new recruit will take at a minimum of several years to achieve.
Come on warrior tell us how to fight in the 21st century. Only against the same army, not against natives with AKs, as you usually do.