Why are Russian Tanks Failing in Ukraine?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 16 ก.ค. 2022
- Russian tanks have got quite a "reputation" for their performance in Ukraine. From the poor tactics to the inadequate protection, we have seen it all. Could it all have been prevented with the adoption of hard-kill Active Protection Systems?
Patreon: / redeffect
Still don't understand why so many people think tanks are invincible.
>Tank does tank thing
>No one cares
>Tank does not do tank thing
>Everyone losses their minds.
Its totally dependent on the crew. That pretty much applies to... I dunno, everything in fuking life lmao. There crew is incompentent and they have not been using any of there counter measures which is the craziest part. Nothing is never outdated in war, it can change but you just have to adapt.
The Russians honestly also thought this would be a quick takeover where they would just roll in thinking shit wouldnt happen to them but yeah... That arroganc eblew up in their faces.
Then you gotta think about the troops. A lotta them dont even wanna fight or be there at all lol. There has been mad defecting and betrayal among there ranks, even with some purposely abandoning shit so Ukrainians can get a hold of it lol. WHen you gotta bunch of young as kids fresh outta school suddenly being told they are gunna fight lol, Morale tends to plummet A LOT for them.
A lot of them were also lied to n told they'd just be doing training exercises so yeah, a good amount havent even finished training lol
Fax twin
I think a lot of people, especially casual/mainstream types, are used to the absurdly low losses of M1 Abrams or Challenger 2 tanks, etc. in battle, while also hearing stories of how the Abrams kicked the shit out of the enemy tank force at 73 Easting or how one Challenger 2 managed to get hit 70 times and still kept fighting. That tends to give the sense that tanks are meant to be invincible super weapons.
People who are actually familiar with tanks know that’s not true, and it’s other factors like superior training, proper combined arms, as well as fighting against weaker forces, that led to those numbers, but if you don’t know about those factors, it’s easy to think tanks are invincible and when the Russians start losing a bunch of them, start thinking tanks are now useless.
Huh? Tanks are kinda famous for being psychological weapons, people do not ignore tanks doing tank things. When thousands of dollars of weaponry are consistently and reliably taking out the biggest tank force in the world, questions have to be raised. Also Artillery isn't sexy, but it's won a hell of a lot more than tanks have.
Exactly...Imagines how many thanks were lost in WW2, the US sherman was called a death trap and a cigarette lighter but they continued to play a huge role through out the war.
Would it be a valid tactic (or is it already being used) to carry simple laser emitters that simulate an ATGM and just constantly lase enemy tanks forcing them to constantly pop their smoke? Or maybe desensitize the crew to the warning and then hit them with the real deal?
They did something similar.
They shot down a KA 52 with a Stuhna-P anti tank missile which is laser guided. What they did is they aimed next to it and in the last moment they guided the missile on the Helicopter which hadn't had enough time to react with the laser warning receivers.
The Ukrainian army does one better. They "aim off" over the tank (a tried and true tactic) with the laser and then fire the missile. After a couple of seconds, they then paint the tank. By the time the tank gets its warning, the missile has arrived. Protection systems are a half measure at best. The best answer is well-trained infantry screening the tank.
I actually saw somewhere that such a weapon was made against planes, that simulated launching a rocket (so it would seem like a Stinger being fired at the plane), causing the plane's warning systems to act and pilot taking evasive measures. It looked easily portable and was said that one such device had 50 "shots". It does seem it would be quite disruptive to a bombing run.
Against a tank I think it's a bit more hazardous, because you need line of sight to essentially feint an attack, putting yourself in danger for no real benefit. A plane will not seek out someone with a manpad, but will try to avoid them. A tank (or it's supporting infantry) are always on the lookout for anti-tank weapons.
I'm not sure of the exact science of how the laser detectors work? However, ATGM laser designators use coded pulses of light which are interpreted by the laser seeker on the projectile to guide it onto the target. So, I'm not sure if a regular laser pointer would have enough power to trigger one of these systems or if the circuitry on the detector can differentiate the differences in power and wavelength? Because to a certain extent, you would want to harden these detectors to reject optical issues caused by shadows or glare. Otherwise, these systems would be set off by things that aren't a threat.
@@rogerpennel1798 targeting lasers aren’t all that powerful. Simulating one with a handheld laser designed to fool the sensors should be easy. A agree with these who say that since the smoke is a limited defense, and can easily be used up, hitting the target with simulated targeting lasers could knock out that part of the defense. Once the anti IR smoke it gone, they ate less protected.
Whether lasers produced to do that are being made is something I don’t know, but they should be, and wouldn’t cost much. They could be produced in the tens of thousands and given to troops. Just causing that sort of targeting to be detected and defended against would give tank crews high levels of anxiety, which would accomplish a lot, even if anti tank missiles weren’t available all the time.
What the war in Ukraine has shown (again) is that artillery is the most important combat arm.
Even more important than tanks.
Artillery and drone combo is the future. Real game changer. Wouldn't surprise if a small drone will be a must in every small army unit
There's a reason why artillery is called the king of the battlefield.
For real high caliber high explosives can pretty much destroy a tank or immobilize It by hitting tracks and top armor
And the Russian military is poorly lead and equipped.
There is an interesting thing going on in the world. Nations who are choosing to not use any APS, are saying they will instead have "better tactics, training and mobility."
What they mean... I think.. For the most part is "We don't have the money."
Right now. If you want to have tanks, you need to have ALL of that, including APS. Talking tough, doesn't count as protection in a real situation.
And the most ironic thing is that russians don't even have better tactics, training or mobility.
And, a good APS will save you a shit ton of weight in armor
Russia doesn't care about it's soldiers though it seems. Israel for instance has been one Nation at the forefront of trying to ensure crew survivability as it is part of their doctrine to try to keep it's people alive due to being a small Nation surrounded by enemies that have far more people to call upon.
You see, having APS is something akin to ECS/TC/ABS in your car. Sure helps, but won't save you from rampant stupidity. People were able to execute competent combined arms long before APS existed.
@@u.m.9931 No, it will not. In fact, an APS adds to the weight of the vehicle.
Many people also forget that they often only see vehicles that get destroyed. Vehicles that survive attacks are less likely to be shown.
876 visually confirmed tank losses on russian side
@@Biervampir92 what has this to do with my comment?
I haven't seen any claims by even the Russians that their tanks are surviving hits by Javelins and NLAWs.
@@samuelweir5985 I mean there are literally videos where this happens (the vehicle was to close so the warhead did not activate)
However this has also nothing to do with my comment. What about cases where those systems miss? And those systems are also not the only systems in use.
Survivorshop bias you mean with the popular example of a military aircraft with points where it get shots and survive/down
Drozhd works by firing a 107(or so)mm canister of ball bearings into the oncomming projectile. You can imagine yourself what would happen to infantry if they are nearby and a 107mm shotgun shell goes off.
This is likely one of the reasons drozhd wasnt widely adopted. Modern active protection systems like trophy and arena fire a explosive upwards that will explode above the incoming projectile, sending the shrapnel downwards, hopefully destroying the projectile and sending the shrapnel into the ground.
Still dangerous but far safer than drozhd.
I think standing next to a tank that gets hit with an RPG isn't very pleasant either, so danger to infantry is probably not high on the priority list for active protection systems. Just don't keep your infantry huddled up next to your tanks.
That's OK because if you look at the videos of tank kills the Russians appear to be incapable of conducting effective combined arms attacks which is a consequence of a lack of infantry.
ERA is about as beneficial to infantry survival as Drozd is. And ERA is being used by more or less every country.
I shot a rabbit point blank as a kid with a 20g shotgun and needless to say we couldn't eat it.. with a Youth 20 Gauge single load bird shoot
Not like they even had infantry providing protection to their tanks in the first place during the opening phases of the conflict.
Yes, the collapse of USSR had a devastating effect on the economy and military industry.
However, Russia had 20 years to catch up with and develop further late Soviet R&D products.
Instead it's now tasting its own huge-scale corruption results..
Tbh, its not their tank are shit, they're not up to date like the US tanks or the ones NATO countries use, it's just the shitty tactics they use. In the envoirment they're in and the enemy they're facing, the tanks they're operating can be much more useful but the rtrdd tactics that Russian Army uses is just causing them all to get sent into the sky 50m high thx to that auto injection system xd
funny how he complains about russian tanks when they both uses the arsenal, he's incredibly biased and I don't know how he's considered a source since he's shitting a side and praising another
@@nickjayr0 "they both uses the arsenal" what do you mean by that? Im not native speaker so i dont know if "arsenal" is name of some active protection or you mean that they use similar stuff, which they are not.
@@policjantzyoutube4372 arsenal:their whole equipment, they both use use Soviet era weapons and tanks,and yes they use the same stuff,but they're beginning to become less and less as Ukraine is on life support from the USA and UK, without them,they would've lost a long time ago
@@nickjayr0
But the dude from video never mentioned ukraine at least from what i remember from this video. He already talked in other video that ukrainians have pretty shiet tanks
The vast majority of tanks in this war aren't being destroyed by ATGMs, rather by the drone + artillery combo.
Most of the field kills are by ATGMs. The artillery kills are on those clustered together at field bases for resupply/field maintenance. The vast majority of the combat losses are from the ATGMs. The Ukrainians are very good at roadside ambushes and the Russians are still traumatized by all of the units lost to getting stuck in the winter mud so they're mostly keeping to the roads which makes them easy targets for ambushes. If you look at most of the photos of the combat lost vehicles, they're usually near a building using it as cover and the tank is knocked out but the building it was using for cover is relatively in good condition. You won't have this with artillery because the Russians know the general direction from which artillery can come from and the buildings would provide cover against incoming artillery. You'd have to knock the building down in order to get a hit on the tank with artillery in that case.
I think it has changed during the war. Early on, when the russians tried to quickly push forward, it was the ATGM's that caused a lot of casualties, artillery played a lesser part then. Later the fighting became more stagnant with artillery having much greater importance and ATGM's playing a much smaller part.
I have seen a lot of drone footage where Russian armored vehicles are under artillery fire and they rarely react properly. In one piece of footage Russian tanks are moving on a road behind a tree line at the edge of a field. When they come under fire they just stop instead of seeking cover in the trees. That tells me they think they can't be seen behind the trees without ever considering they are under aerial observation. They don't seek shelter in the trees because they think they will be seen from the ground if they move into the trees. Or they think they are under direct low-angle fire from artillery on the opposite side of the tree line when they are actually being hit by high-angle indirect fire. That's poor leadership, tactics, and training.
Early in the war UA claimed 60%+ ATGM kills, then later down to 40%, now that drones are being fired on along with jamming that may change again.
Artillery is destroying tanks at such a rapid rate because the Russian army got bogged down, mostly by ATGM's.
I think one the biggest problems for the Russian tank force and one that makes proper upgrades such as the adoption of APS difficult is the issue of hoarding. Simply put it Russia has too many tank models for the same role, it makes maintenance and upgrades very difficult, costly and time consuming.
This is a problem they inherited from the USSR and in many ways Russia has done a lot better in addressing the issue but they haven’t fix it yet.
If we look at NATO things are way more standardized, since the bulk of the force is made of Abrams and Leopards including the licensed copies of the latter.
There’s of course the Ariete, Challenger and Leclerc but their numbers are very small and limited only to their origin country.
By comparison Russia alone has three frontline MBT models, one of which the T-80 has little commonality with the other 2, that they keep upgrading individually when ideally they should had kept only one or two max, the T-80 and T-90 with the T-72 moved towards the reserves.
T-80 had the gas turbine that turned out to be a bad idea, which is why they went t-72 t-90 route. So effectively they did stick with one tank, t-90 is an updated t-72. Russia’s problem is they had no money for ages, so couldn’t just bin the t-72 and go full 90, also they have a doctrine of large scale tank attacks, so need numbers, hence them having thousands. Thousands of good ones cost money, so they have thousands of shit ones
@@cptrelentless80085 thousands of what they think are good enough tanks, instead of hundreds of very good ones.
@@cptrelentless80085 there was really nothing wrong with the gas turbine, it was scapegoated for the Battle of Grozny by the Defense Ministry but there's no indication whatsoever that there was anything actually wrong with it and T-72 variants did just as poorly as T-80 variants in that battle. The only issue with them is fuel consumption, which should not be a problem for a country that is in the top 5 in proven oil reserves.
@@cptrelentless80085 It’s complicated, the reason the 🇷🇺 military decided to favor the T-72 and T-90 over the 80 was in large part due to the Grozny debacle during the First Chechen War but been objective and analyzing that battle more closely it is abundantly clear it wasn’t the tanks or weapons that performed poorly but rather the military itself the one that did, from poor leadership and organization, troops that were very demoralized and lacked proper training to the very plan and the way that the campaign was conducted, just like what happened in Ukraine during the early phase of the war.
Ironically the war in Ukraine has finally redeemed the T-80 with both 🇺🇦 and 🇷🇺 tankers praising it specially the BVM model for been fast, nimble, reliable and aside from some criticism of the SOSNA-U sight well equipped in terms of sensors.
One common misconception about the 🇷🇺 military is the idea that they lack money which as it has been demonstrated by some like Richard Connelly and Michael Kofman is not the case.
The problem they historically have had is in industrial defense capacity, simply putted their factories struggle to build the armaments they need in large numbers due to technical limitations in manufacturing itself which is why the tech sanctions were very important, but money and R&D are not really the problem they have.
That been said 🇷🇺 has been in a long import substitution program in terms of western components since 2014 and had gradually shifted either to internal alternatives or East Asian ones so is a good question how much will the impact of western sanctions be in the 🇷🇺 defense industry going forward and wether they’ll be able to adapt eventually or not, if the case of 🇮🇷 and 🇰🇵 show something is that it will be unwise for the west to merely assume sanctions will be enough to cripple the 🇷🇺 defense industry.
Here’s a recent video of 🇺🇦 tankers using captured T-80BVMs and praising its performance.
th-cam.com/video/xFzXiAdfPvw/w-d-xo.html
@@josephahner3031 Ironically the war in Ukraine has finally redeemed the T-80 with both 🇺🇦 and 🇷🇺 tankers praising it, specially the BVM model, for been fast, nimble, reliable and aside from some criticism of the SOSNA-U sight well equipped in terms of sensors.
Another aspect that has received significant praise from both sides is the BVMs greater reverse speed compared to that of the T-64, 72 and 90 making the BVM more suitable for mobile operations both offensive and defensive ones.
Here’s a recent video of 🇺🇦 tankers using captured T-80BVMs and praising their performance.
th-cam.com/video/xFzXiAdfPvw/w-d-xo.html
Because its a war. Maybe
No shit, genius
Bc russian tanks suck
Obviously...
Ponce? Really?
😮😮 🤓🤓🤓
There isn't hundreds of Abrams with Trophy. For one Trophy is only installed as needed not all the time and second the US only bought a small batch.
They just awarded an open ended contract to buy more of them.
@@MC-pt8kv well it's an open end contract for a reason, it's at the leisure of the Army how many and when they order them. But like I said earlier Trophy is only equipped as needed not all the time.
The US Army included the Trophy as standard with the new M1A2C variant of which they have around 420 right now. Originally they were going to deploy the Trophy on Sep v2 tanks that were deployed to Europe but they changed their minds.
@@josephahner3031 I'd love to see your source for the US have 420 M1A2SEPV3's(M1A2C is no longer the designation) from what is published by the Army's fiscal year budgets only 304 have been ordered it's unknown how many have been delivered and given that the tank is rarely seen in active service and the first unit received them in 2020 it's likely only a few dozen have been delivered and spread across the army. Also Trophy doesn't come standard it's still applied as needed similar to TUSK And mineplow attachments. In fact if you look at most recent pictures of tank on maneuvers it's lacking the Tophy APS
@@nemisous83 My source is a former service buddy who works for General Dynamics. Though 420 may be the total outstanding orders rather than the number currently in service. The reason you don't see the trophy equipped Abrams on maneuver because the US Army has around 2300 Abrams in service between active duty and National Guard. If only 300 or so are currently in service that's barely a tenth of Active-duty Abrams. Most of the Sep v3s are in service with the 1st Armored Division with some being sent to 1st Cavalry Division. If it was First Cav, 1st ID, 3rd ID or a guard formation conducting the maneuvers you aren't seeing Sep v3s, you're likely seeing Sep v2s. As for whether or not the designation is Sep v3 or M1A2C I still see recent publications with M1A2C and others with Sep v3. Either one describes the same thing, and you clearly know what it means, so it really doesn't matter in the context of this discussion.
Why do you think the most casualties come from ATGM? Just becuase there are many videos about their use doesnt mean a shit. As far as i know most of casualties come from artillary around 50%, another 25 come from non-combat reasons (mostly in first month of the conflict) while ATGM counts only for 20%. Another 5% is from tanks and various other sources.
In a WarGonzo video, a russian SOF said that around 90% of casualties on both sides is coming from artillery shrapnel.
@@HOTSHTMAN53 maybe he meant personnel losses?
Because he is too western bias. Listening to him now is having to take a grain of salt.
The difference is unless Ukraine are using BONUS rounds or similar, arty kill on tank is a F kill or M kill. Mission kills, but not hull loss nor dead crew.
When we consider cases of hull loss and/or dead crew, ATGMs takes the cake.
i think hes talking about tank based casualties, i noticed in the whole vid he wasnt preficing statements with clarifiers so its easy to come up with another meaning even in context. For example he said at one point "the T90M is the first tank in active service with hard kill protection" or something like that, now obviously hes referring to the russian military alone but it wont stop an autist running along and yelling AKSHUALLY THE USA HAD ONE BEFORE BLAH BLAH.
lots of the russian tanks loses are from artillery, drones and antitank mines
@Orcs MustDie where the fuck did you get 1800 💀 are you a Ukrainian troll? the max is 850 half of them not even destroyed captured
@Orcs MustDie
Hahahahaha I hope I don't have to tell you that is incorrect. So obvious.
The best Russian tank is the T-14 Armata. They are the best in doing parades. If you need tanks in your parades you can count on the T-14.
you are sure, Russia T-14 Afraid let war in Ukraine Javelin missile or NLAW hit Russia T-14 destroyed then countries don't want buy Russia T-14 deadly..
You can't count even on that... (talking about the dead engine incident during their first parade)
@@MrNikkdo To be fair to the T-14 that was actually operator error caused by the driver putting on the parking brake without knowing.
@@User-gx3sr dont tell him or you will break his propaganda bubble.
@@urdnotwrex6969 propaganda is on both sides. The difference is that Russia convinced everyone that they are superior to the Liberal West and yet failed miserably in Ukraine
Just to clarify Afghanit covers the full 360° degrees with the radar and UV detectors , incase the attack is detected from the rear the turret rotates .
Yea but Russia does not have the money to use it on its tanks. It’s just a demonstrator.
Not even the M1 series tank (which IIRC has the fastest turret rotation) can rotate fast enough to make a difference.
Modern ATGM's use a picture reference to guide the Missile so they must have a hard kill option otherwise nothing else would work.
The biggest factor by far for russian tank casualties was the stupid strategy of the first phase of the war and the low manpower especially in comparison to how much heavy equipment they brought which mean they already had more tanks than their infantry could support and the supplies where also drained, very few men pushed very far and didnt secure much of the road their supplies would need to drive on which the ukrainians managed to exploit with saboteurs and ambushes and most importantly artillery strikes, often even aginst unmanned targets. Most of russian casualties were in the first two months and a majority of their losses came from logistical problems which left their tanks and vehicles vulnerable which Ukraine also used to its advantage. Of course APS would have helped the russians but in a much smaller way IMO, if you use the weapons at your disposal in bad way, the tank or the crew aren't the problem and APS hard-kill would have had a hard to notice effect on how many tanks russia would have lost overall.
Majority of losses semm to be from artilery attacks not atgms. so APS would not be a huge game changer.
I didn't know that was possible. Do army's still use towed anti-tank guns or do they bombard the general area where tanks are?
Because I doubt you can pin point a moving tank and send a round on it.
pretty much this, tanks will become eventually obsolete, rockets and artillery win the wars.
@@Abdullah-mn6sw I mean you can send the coordinates of a road and strike the shit out of it
@@maplearrow1842 oh
@@wizardoflolz5626 But tanks are much more mobile.
I think tanks are to artillery what boots on ground is to jets. You may be vulnerable but you need those to hold captured ground.
Red effect could you please make a video on the polish the PT-91 Twardy tank and how it would stack up against Russian tanks as there are rumours of its transfer to Ukraine.
That shit is worse than a T-72B3 lmao feel bad for the Ukrainians inside
To my knowledge, the PT-91M is just an upgraded T-72M that uses old French optics, different engine and stabilizers but they wouldn't stack up against the best models of T-72 with Kontakt-5. They got upgraded armor but will die just like any T-72.
Poland has been trying to upgrade their tanks for over 10 years with some Obrum PL-01 tank tests. Poland finally ordered 300 Abrams M1A2 SEP V3.
Its inferior to most Russian tanks by a wide margin as it is just modernization of T-72A (well T-72M1 which is almost identical to T-72A) and not super deep one from the 1990s. I.e. its a 30 year old modernization. Few other things were added since but I am unsure whatever these things will be given to Ukraine (such as NATO radios).
PT-91 is basically made of paper compared to even T-72B Obr.1985. Worse gun, worse armor, similar engine, and marginally superior optics on the PT-91.
It's a T-72M modernization, mostly from the 90s with somewhat improved ERA (over Kontakt 1). Probably somewhere between T-72M and T-72B Obr. 1989 (with Kontakt 5). Maybe some better sights than T-72B Obr. 1989 though.
Overall though, not a particularly modern tank and probably markedly worse than Leopard 2A4 or comparable western tanks of the period. Should still kill Russian tanks deployed in Ukraine fine though, if it gets first shot at least.
"and now with most of their casualties being from atgms"
That's unlikely. Chances are there are more artillery kills.
Doubt. Ukraine doesn’t have the numbers of artillery to outperform ATGMs.
nope, Ukrainians don't use arty as much as russians do.
If we sent in the original Abrams it wouldn't fare much better if used the same way by crews that haven't had enough training. I wouldn't blame the Russian tanks but the doctrine, training, maintenance, corruption, and a war that shouldn't have been started that failed them.
it has many reasons to be started, though the initial strategy was not destined to end well with a quick attack when you're outnumbered.
What's the "original Abrams?" M1 with 105mm? M1A1 Desert Storm? M1A2? Many of these if not all Russian tanks for some reason are lacking thermals. Russian Army is not a night fighting Army so I think a post Desert Storm M1 tank would do much much better in surviving this style of war. Better protection and better optics for night fighting.
Bruhhhh America would do better as America uses soliders and Air Support and domination and the Navy too that’s the difference not to mention why the fuck would America try to fight most of Europe Russia being dumb and idiotic is its own fault tbh ngl I’d say about 30-40K dead Russian troops are in the ground or on it rn
Russia is 10,000XS more corrupt too then America and the Abraham’s would have less flying tanks or deaths due to safety and more experience fighting adaptations would be quick
The problem with Russian military hardware is that it was based on design considerations from World War II and built for a future war that never happened. The idea was that like the T-34 of WWII weapons should be cheap to build, easy to maintain, reliable, and expendable. The Russians were relying on the weight of numbers so they didn't pursue highly survivable vehicles in the assumption that they wouldn't last very long anyway. Their tanks were incremental upgrades and the same faults of poor crew safety, poor ammunition storage, and poor fuel storage are inherited traits common to the entire family tree that was never rectified with a clean sheet design.
The post Cold War rationale was why invest in new weapons when you can upgrade older designs on the cheap to bolster the number of weapons available in case of a large-scale war? But having such a huge stockpile of weapons meant that new weapon R&D and procurement were delayed and only incremental upgrades of questionable value were completed. The problem is when the Soviet Union collapsed Russia inherited all of these cheap and expendable weapons that were never going to be used in the numbers originally intended. So when they were used in high-intensity conflicts without a massive superiority in numbers they couldn't achieve the results that were expected. When used in huge numbers the chance of survival was greater. When used in smaller numbers the chance of survival declines.
I have some big questionmarks for APS systems.
- they are very VERY expensive
- almost every version will murder nearby infantry, so you cannot have allied infantry supporting you to prevent the shot in the first place
- it relies on relatively sensative equipment to stay functional. In Syria there were already teams with rocketlaunchers, machine guns and marksmen who would simultaneously use rockets to damage or kill the target and the machine guns/snipers to damage gunsights. It would be a small leap to use that against APS systems to blind them before/during a strike.
- some weapons that dont realistically kill the tank suddenly become useful. A 20mm autocanon on an infantry fighting vehicle wont be destroying their opponent but one lucky hit near the APS system is going to add a massive pricetag to the tank's next maintenance.
- the systems can recognize a lethal payload from a "non-lethal" one. The problem is that repeated hits from smaller payloads can most definitely destroy tanks. This was again used in Syria.
1. So is the tank. If a 500k APS saves a 6mill tank, then it’s more than worth it.
2. If a shape charge is hitting a tank, the infantry is in danger either way if they’re close to the tank. Not to mention ERA is used on almost all tank’s sides(TUSK kit) and combined arms is still very much alive.
3. Same could be said for a lot of other tank equipment sticking out of the tank. The commander thermal, remote weapon platform and more.
4. This has been the case since a long time ago. The test report of the main weapon of the BMP 2’ auto cannon vs the BMP 1’s low velocity cannon, showed the auto cannon to be capable of causing damage to periscopes, lights and even jamming the turret of the old target tank. But if you’re shooting a tank with a 20mm, you’re probably in a position to be shot back by the 120mm/125mm.
5. Yes but the effort is greatly increased and if they’re forced to do so, then the APS is already achieving a deterring effect.
@@GrassMudHorseLand1: the point is that its expensive but has many drawbacks despite that.
2: not all explosions are the same. A shaped charge hitting a tank or ERA has a much smaller danger zone than an APS firing a shrapnel charge one way and detonating the shaped charge mid-air splintering in all directions. That is why this is said about APS and not ERA.
3: the difference is the cost and vulnerability. The commander thermal can be damaged but much of the equipment is inside the tank. The fact that a part of the "armor" of the tank is now extremely vulnerable to guns that are much less potent otherwise is a big drawback.
4: the point is that at the end of the day fights happen and things get damaged. If you need to replace damaged APS systems constantly your tanks will require more maintenance hours and more supplies. Compared to a gunsight that is a massive difference in cost, specialized man hours and supply needed for something that is relatively common (there are far more armored fighting vehicles than MBT's).
Also tanks rarely drive alone and if you expect to come up against MBT's you'll almost always have anti-tanknweapons along, so if a 20mm canon can hit you and destroy your APS it is highly likely either a rocket the APS is supposed to stop or another tank is nearby ready to open fire on you.
5: the APS can absolutely be helpful, my points are about if its upsides negate all the downsides of the system.
@@TheDemigans 1. I understand but the same argument can be said for the MBTs themselves. People have been saying the same for tanks how X is the end of the tank for decades and that's the case. The same goes for APS, if it doesn't work then it wouldn't be on so many MBTs especially the likes of Israeli tanks where the threat you describe is very likely and constant.
2. You're right, they're not the same but both combat doctrine and system design would consider that. If average joes like us can think of the drawbacks, so can the brilliant minds that design far more complex systems. Again, using the Israelis as an example, it's clear the benefits are far greater than the drawback for actual combat usage.
3. This depends on how you view the system. At the end of the day, the APS is an add-on rather than "hard armour" and depending on the system being used, it can be sheathed in a protective shell before the onboard radar activates the system (eg, the APS on the T-84 Oplot). We have to be careful not to focus on a narrow view of warfare and consider a tank to be completely naked complete a portion of its defensive system is down, since you can make a similar argument about how a tank is vulnerable to other tanks if its commander thermal is destroyed and it can't identify an enemy tank quick enough.
4. That's a fair point, but as I raised earlier, APS can be protected and the system is tiny. If we're fighting at extremely close distances then there are too many factors to consider for a purely theoretical debate online XD
5. That's fair and I understand your standpoint. However, given the historical development of modern warfare over the last 50 years, it's fair to say the better-equipped/high-tech weapon platform is better the majority of the time. After all, even countries like China are realising this and modernising their army towards this paradigm where budget allows(eg, slowly giving all infantry proper plate carriers, etc). Of course, who knows in the future how it'll play out. Maybe we'll go back to attrition-based warfare where number is king, but I hope I don't find out.
1: not the same. MBT's have a role that isnt going to vanish soon. However APS has some serious flaws that people seem to gloss over. The things about APS were also said of the anti-ballistic missile defenses, which arent the perfect shield people made it out to be.
2: many things are considered, but rarely is a weapon system perfectly designed. For example one of the reasons the USA still uses the Abrahams is that every new tank they designed was pulled in every direction until it was too expensive and unable to do anything well. The same has happened with most aircraft and other designs.
If you look at APS, its mainly used as propaganda and marketing. Israel will report APS successes in detail but failures are more on the lines of "the tank/crew survived" because they cant sell a system that might not perform, and their opponents are a resistance with only a few modern anti-tank weapons.
I'm not saying the APS cant perform its duty, however there are reasons why information we get about it has to be taken with more than one grain of salt.
3: I view the system as a component we dont know much about, but has clear disadvantages that few seem to even want to consider. It remains vulnerable outside the main armor (even when sheathed) and when friendly infantry is nearby the system has to be either shut down or infantry sacrificed in the event of an attack.
Your comment about not seeing just the naked tank is exactly why I have such big questionmarks with the system. Outside of asymetric warfare combat doctrines already exist that could defeat APS without changing said doctrines, meaning that when deployed these supposedly almost flawless systems could suddenly be not efficient enough to buy, maintain and use.
4: We dont know how effective the system would be in a battle against a trained army and we dont know if it'll be cost-effective. One 500.000 system saving a 6+million tank sounds like an easy deal, but the maintenance, repairs and supplies required to keep them running could very well be more detrimental in the long run.
More technology isnt automatically a win. People tend to forget the Heavy Tanks in WWII which were usually more modern than their "ordinary" counterparts but were such a drain on resources and technology that the war effort suffered. or how WWI&II showed that warfare is now a war of supply. It doesnt matter if your T14 Armata is fully functional and build in numbers if you cannot supply, maintain and repair them due to the bridges being destroyed. That is one of the reasons I have big questionmarks on APS system, its a costly high-tech system with tons of downsides that is being marketed as a golden bullet by its creators. Even if the system turns out to be perfect, there is no reliable proof yet that it is or how it will function in more than asymetric warfare.
@@TheDemigans 1. Oh yes, the system is definitely not perfect but nothing rarely ever is. The fact is, the system just needs to be good enough for the job for various factors like cost-efficiency, ease of use, increasing the tank's survivability to X percent more, etc. I mean look at the Russians, had they installed the shitty Drozhd system and saved 30% of the tanks that were destroyed, the system would have been worth it.
2. I agree, but at the same time the complexity of an APS is more simple than a full MBT and in turn easier to test and design (at a high-level). I won't say the system is perfect but even filtering what info we have at a basic level shows APS increases the survivability of the installed vehicle.
3. Because I think you're overestimating how easily it is to take out such a system. At this point, we simply have too little data to show how effective units can snipe out specific systems on a tank. Doubly so when the system is tiny in comparison to the tank itself in the first place. Again, nothing is flawless but I feel you're thinking on the other side of the spectrum too much.
4. I mean the tank itself is expensive to maintain but I get your point. Warfare in the last 40 years or so has moved on quite a bit from the paradigms set down in the World Wars, but like I mentioned in my previous point, is there a chance we'd revert back to the attrition-based consumption wars? Possible but no one can say for sure. A lot of MBTs are by design are highly advanced systems(or contain advanced systems) that require specialised maintenance. The Abram isn't the Sherman where you can weld a steel plate for "patching" holes anymore and so on. At this point, we can fairly confidently say the more rugged tanks are not fairing well against the enhanced man-portable anti-tank tech of the last decades.
the Russians think that there is no system that will provide protection to a small number of tanks when, on the other hand, you have such a large number of ATGMs, helicopter tank killers, planes, artillery and drones... today tanks are used only as support, not as they once were- for breakthrough
Couldn't disagree more with you with all due respect. Since Military History Visualized made and great video regarding this topic, I'm not gonna waste time writing about it, I'm just gonna post the link. Yes the video is 30 min. long. And I understand our attention spam is fucked up by social media. But if you want to dig deeper and understand in depth the concept behind tanks I highly suggest watching the vid.
th-cam.com/video/QPth_xqBXGY/w-d-xo.html
The Russians still use them in that role though. That's why their tank attrition rate is so high. They're still stuck in the Soviet doctrine of using tanks as the tip of the spear followed by infantry and support vehicles. This is why so many tanks are lost. They have very little combined arms compared to the U.S. centered Western doctrines where infantry tend to lead with their armored IFV that brought them in with tanks following in support. The infantry sweep through and clean up the flanks and root out the AT troops and the tanks can engage any fortified location that the IFVs smaller autocannons can't engage economically. It's the outdated doctrine that's kicking their asses right now. The Soviets believe that quantity was a quality all its own and it was the most important quality in their warfare. They banked on overwhelming The West in pure numbers so they used massive numbers of cheap tanks as the tip of the spear with infantry as cleanup. The modern Russian military still operates this way because adopting new doctrine would generally mean adopting new tanks and other equipment to match the modern doctrine.
@@Talishar They are not using Soviet tactics. They use artillery superiority tactics. Which is better than the west. The war is huge and because of that they have great losses.
@@Talishar Tanks are not support vehicles, and I'm struggling to understand why people consider it that way. IFV/APC could maybe be considered a support vehicle. A tank is a direct fire spear heading vehicle, the infantry has the supporting role, not vice-versa( if Russian are loosing tanks it's because of their doctrines, it's not that they have bad tanks) The French at the start of WW2 were using tanks in a support roll and it costed them dearly, Germans with inferior tanks but superior tactics came on top. As you mentioned infantry is supposed to clear out possible ambushes, AT troops and position, to allow a tank breakthrough( that's why the German panzer divisions had panzergrenadiers who were supposed to work in coordination with tanks). If a breakthrough occurs, who is supposed to spear head and exploits the hole in the front?! A helicopter, IFV or a JEEP with a MG? Obviously you want a tank in that role. In the battle of Kursk German lost 500 tanks and Soviets 1,500. Yet no one was thinking since the loss rate was so high, that somehow tanks are not good enough for breakthrough anymore. Not the Soviets, not the Allies nor the Germans thought so. Germans even tried it again in the battle of the Bulge, and were stopped by the armored divisions of Patton. You don't have to go far back, to find a good example of tanks being used properly for it's breakthrough capabilities. Operation "Iraqi freedom'' was spearheaded by mostly American tank/motorized divisions. And obviously, you can't rely only on tanks cuz they are not wunderwaffe, it's all about synchronizing the air power, indirect power( artillery), infantry and direct power( tanks). Don't mix bad military doctrine with the capabilities of a tank. Funny how history repeats it's self. Cuz that's exactly how the French lost the the first stages of WW2. They downplayed the importance of an armored spearhead. All I'm saying is that Russians don't know how to utilize the breakthrough capabilities of a tank. They didn't establish air supremacy, and they are sending their tanks without infantry support.
@@ares8866 They have massive losses because the russian military is a joke. They STILL don't have air superiority and are fighting like its WW1. They have been able to advance only due to weight of shelling and superior ammo/gun situation compared to the ukrainians but that has now been cut off via GMLRS. It took 4 launchers to completely wreck their entire logistics network.
If the ukrainians are given HIMARS of M270s in any real numbers (20-30+) the russians are in big trouble. They simply cannot handle an enemy with any kind of real modern deep strike capability. God help them if the ukrainians get ATACMS or F16s in any real numbers (training program is slated to start for those) as that unlocks HARMs, AMRAAMs, JASSMs and JDAMs.
Artillery superiority isn't really much of a tactic. Any officer worth their uniform can be expected to perform at least decently when they massively outgun the enemy (re: Desert Storm) and the russians were still just barely advancing even with this. We will see how they do once they cannot afford to simply expend 10x the number of shells and howitzer barrels as the enemy.
0:20 one thing needs to be said, they could have prevented this by not attacking Ukraine in the first place...
Also, when it comes to Drozd... what if it is the same as with T-72BU and T-90 or with Object 195 and T-14, thus what if Afghanit is just an improvement on Drozd... They both look like they have launch tubes of similar length and probably work in the same fashion...
Well, Ukropistan made the war inevitable with their aggressive anti-Russian rhetoric and politicis (such as banning the Russian langauge, withholding pensions from ethnic Russian etc.) and their 8-year-long terror bombardment of civilians in Donetsk and Lugansk republics - where more than 13,000 civilians were killed between 2014 and 2022.
Russia was completely justified in launch its Special Military Operation to topple to nazi-regime in Ukropistan and re-incorpate ethnically and historically Russians lands.
Are you daft? It’s an obvious improvement.
It’s like questioning weather an F-4 is an improvement over a Sabre.
My language might be wrong. But, what I mean is that the technology comes from the previous experiments. Like the Armata is based on the Soviet super tank of the 80s.
Odessa 2014 what you would do then?
The 'salt' here, is real. Good video, red..
The best way to save your tanks is to not attack another country, that's the obvious answer
Or attack a country like Iraq or Syria who doesn't have as powerful friend as NATO.
@@aniksamiurrahman6365 or maybe just don’t attack another country lmfao
@@finny4896 Sure. Don't attack another country that's allied to US. If it's not allied to US, then, their sovereignty doesn't matter. Bomb their cities, harass their expats in your country, rape their women, steal their natural resources. After all, human rights, freedom, sovereignty, these big words only matter after a nation is sells their soul to Uncle Sam.
Loved the videos keep bumping them out
I saw a blip somewhere that the reactive armor plates did not have explosives between the plates - just cardboard.
They are losing a lot of tanks to artillery or mine fields or because they simply break down. The Skif/Javelin ATGMs are often seen being used against IFVs/APCs/older MBTs. Generally speaking APS wont make up for the various shortcomings of the Russian mechanized forces.
Hello, I'm from Russia and I want to reveal to you a secret that your journalists will never tell you, the Russian special services agreed to buy two American installations on the Black Market of Ukraine that cost $ 7 million And they bought on the site for $ 130,000, so where do you think they might end up !?
No, artillery doesn't have the accuracy and the time to respond to reliably hit moving targets. Mine fields at best would just immobilize a tank, would not outright destroy it or its crew. AT missiles are the biggest threat to tanks, and those threats are not exclusive to merely Russian tanks.
@@thuggeegaming659 Before you doubt that remind yourself of how WW2 battleships were able to fight each other precisely with corrected artillery fire over easily 10+ km. Modern artillery is even more accurate and can strike the same spot with incredible reliability if it set up in a correct manner.
@@weatherman5124 No, artillery is basically useless against tanks on the move, the only time they can hit anything is if they are conveniently grouped together and are off.
@@thuggeegaming659 Or if they're using PGM's guided by drone mounted laser designators.
the shtora dazzlers does not work on even slightly modern atgms
I had no idea that they had working hard kill tech so long ago! Surprising they did not iterate on that design
short answer,
-lack of Infantry
-bad coordination and trainning
execution of combined arms is one of the most difficult task in the army and rquires lots of trainning and planning.
well, russian army was known since ww2 not to be able to such things, so they go back to simpler tactics.
Flatten everything with Arty -> creep forward -> repeat
Well, that is an obvious answer for fighting in a flat terrain with a tremendous artillery superiority - a scenario that USSR was preparing for if NATO attacked its western territory. From the very first day of war/specoperation I thought that Kiev front was a mistake and all forces had to be concentrated in the Donbass to be effective. However, government here in Russia, besides its incompetence, is so far from reality that it does not even have a right intel
Ukraine's terrain is flat and is perfect for artillery bombardment. So exactly what's wrong with said tactics?
@@f-man3274 "Here" in Russia? You aren't even Russian or located in Russia lol
@@pilotman9819 its actually the opposite.
Artillery is preferred for Difficult Terrain and "Armored-Thrust"/mobile Elements on wide open flat Terrain. Good luck fighting a well organized Army that is travelling 150-300Km a Day with your Artillery(~30Km Range), u will be constantly on the retreat.
@@Max_Da_G ля, да кому ты это пишешь)
One thing is clear, Rusia does have a limited military budget, since the 2008 war they have increased it form 2% to 4.5%.
With this limited budget and the apparent lack of any serious war. The Russian DoD has put that money into developing new weapons, not into buying them. For example the Su-57, a variety of HyperSonic missiles, T-14, Universal Combat Platform, AIP systems, radar tech.
The Russians tried to avoid war by investing in their nuclear arsenal first. Topol-M missiles, Borei class SSBN. Etc..
For the rest of the conventional forces they decided to simply upgrade what they already have.
I think after this war ends (if it ends), Russia will increase their defence spending at about 6-7%. To meet the requirements of the material loses they have suffered. They surely learnt their lesson at a high cost.
The point isn't to quicken this war by sending and devloping more arms for it, it's to solidify the defense of the country for everything past this war. Ukraine is destined to lose, whether entirely or strategically. Even when they have a little less than twice the troops, they have lost lots of ground and hordes of munitions and troops.
Even if this war were to go badly, there is more ready to be sent. There is no reason to invest in that if you can have a failsafe for later conflicts.
@@TheArcticFoxxo that is in the event of Ukraine willing, or of no stalemate. Also, I'm really really not that the situation post-Ukraine will be that good for Russia. Outside of the eratic usa position, you guys woke up and scared the shit out of eastern Europe. And these countries are going to harass the US to act against Russia and won't stop to bite Russia until you guys are not a fearsome power anymore. They control half of the EU. And their economies are allowing them to buy and/or develop massive numbers of decent/great weapons. The sanctions won't stop, and once western Europe will have gotten rid of russian oil for the duration of the war, I seriously doubt Ukraine, Poland or Finland wull allow the reopening of pipelines.
@@marcbuisson2463 Then again the entirety of the EU was keeping the situation quiet because of this exact situation. If the news of Ukraine being unable to join NATO and the EU due to corruption were to go global, some backlash would come. That's exactly what happened with Minsk II.
@@TheArcticFoxxo Can you remind us what happened the last time you guys went to war against a somewhat sizable country and with a bigger military force behind you? And what happened after that? Yes Russia is behaving exactly like Soviet expect with less manpower, firepower and your "enemy" has more support, more manpower and more weapon systems then Afghanistan had. Oh and Soviet actually had the balls to declare wars unlike Peter the pathetic. It's only 30 years ago since the last time you collapsed and you are confident because of what?
@@TheArcticFoxxo Russian cope lord lmaooo
But even if tanks are well protected from modern ATGMs, other vehicles necessary to support the tanks, especially IFV/APCs and supply trucks, are still vulnerable. And if the support elements are neutralized the tanks become sitting ducks. Gas tanks don't fill themselves with happy thoughts and prayers.
Thus, effective use of combined arms tactics, and especially recon and infantry, are as always, necessary for the successful employment of tanks. Amongst other things. Tanks are complicated.
Trophy-L and Iron Fist are both able to be deployed on vehicles as light as HMMVWs so that can help the logistics boys and APC/IFVs. Air Defense and rear security elements are the ones that have to defend the logistics guys. Eugen Systems WARNO just added territorial command divisions to their game to account for this need. I look forward to seeing how that plays out in team games.
random question but what song do you use in your vid's background , i really like it
They dont have explosive reactive armour instead they have rubber strips inside the box
Personally i have done some research about these systems after the ukraine war started. My opinion is that Russia has not manage to make a good Hard kill system because it has not the computers and sensors to make a truly accurate and effective system. The biggest proof of that is the size of the explosion that comes from arena-m's cassetes. Exactly because they cannot calculate the incoming missle accurate and on time they use such a high explosive rounds to cover a large area in order to destroy the missle.
They did make a decent one in the 1980s called Drozd. The problem is they were mainly deployed on T-55s in Afghanistan and they didn't continue production of the munitions and parts after the end of the cold war. Arena never made it into serial production. Just because the system works on brute force instead of precision targeting doesn't mean it doesn't work. Drozd and Arena have major drawbacks but the main problem with them is that Russia isn't using them or just doesn't have them or have them deployed.
What you said is a consequence. The root cause of the inability to create anything is total irresponsibility, illiteracy and, of course, corruption. Both in specialist positions and in managerial positions. Corruption in all its manifestations, and not just in the form of bribes. In particular, illiteracy is mainly due to the fact that the positions are appointed, not those who are suitable for the level of qualifications, but for personal sympathies (relatives, acquaintances, etc.). I work in one of the federal civil services of Russia, in the regional directorate. Many of my colleagues, moreover of Russian nationality, including some representatives of the leadership (!), simply do not know how to write correctly in Russian.
Simulations are simulations and reality is reality.
Most simulations also happen under optimal circumstances.
Of course there's also tactical mistakes etc., but I think it's a big factor.
You said a lot without saying anything at all.
Simulations done correctly can mimic reality. But only for the specific purposes of that simulation.
@@colincampbell767 Oh no. Never. I do simulations professionally (not tanks, I simulate proteins). Simulations only capture a sliver of reality. Without real world's feedback, it spirals into air castle pretty quickly.
@@aniksamiurrahman6365 I've participated in simulations in the Army. They are very tightly focused and there is a very specific list of things that the simulation is going to train. And everybody knows that this isn't real world but a means of training specific things.
@@colincampbell767 I do Milsims privately and I've taken notes from the shortcomings of the ones I participated in while I was still in the Army. The Army is limited by outdated software and hardware in their sim ops. Still, even the best simulation will not truly reflect reality for a long time to come if ever.
Thank you for the video
Rolling coffins those things. I learnt something here, thanks.
Like all high tech systems, APS requires maintenance and training in order to be used most effectively. Neither of which the Russians seem particularly good at doing
This is what happens when you don't have an nco core
Ahh yes couch experts with their hot takes on what others are good at doing
Based on what evidence?
There is video of Russian tanks with active protection being hit by Ukrainian anti-armor weapons. The anti-armor weapon is stopped by the tank's defenses and the crew bails out. They bail out because the crew cannot count on the tank's defenses to stop a second hit. That does usually mean the crew survives. If the Russians are able to retain control of the battle area they can recover the tank.
Can I get a link to that vintage video at the end?
Just love how people who have never received training nor been in a battle have so much knowledge from the comfort of their homes.
Eh. There’s many coaches who don’t play & win championships. As long as you know, informations everywhere.
You don't need combat experience to know that APS's are vital to protecting tanks. Dullard.
What makes you any better wise ass ?
@@thuggeegaming659 Another gamer. Right. Are you aware of economics and budgets? Maybe on your games, you can spend a few bucks to make your tank the most protected, trained crew, top notch ammo, but the world outside your screen doesn't work like that. Child.
@@spaceshuttledoorgunner125 Ooo we have an armchair warrior here! Tell me, what wars did you fight in? 🤣
The effectiveness of tanks depends more on the battalion and number of soldiers which accompany them (especially in towns). This is a reason why the Russian tanks are blown up often. No infantry to protect them. Maybe an item to consider in your next vlog?
.
abrams and leopards received APS's recently and they are not combat tested! The Trophy APS can be deceived like any other APS! Also i dont think that the APS is that crucial because these tanks are equipped with ERA! I think the real issue is the tactics or someone just fabricates some information!
Trophy is combat tested since 2010 a video of multiple interceptions on the battlefield: th-cam.com/video/KiaQAdGXtOQ/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=DirectorHaOV
Cope russ bot.
tandem warhead of an ATGM cuts through that ERA like a knife through butter.
@@maybeasinner8007 There is a solution for that too! Its called Relikt!
Where did you find he backround footage of Drozd?
Can you do the new General Dynamics Land System Abrams? Like do an analysis about what the pic looks to be promising or not? That’d be nice, thanks!
Remember - more than 50% of russian tanks destroyed by artillery fire like more than 50% or ukranian tanks destroyed by artillery. So artillery is quite dangerous to tanks, more than ATGMs.
There is no technical fix for the levels of corruption and incompetence in the Russian military. Even if they had the A-14 in mass numbers. The conscripts wouldn't be able to use them, they would not been maintained, and the gas would have been still sold away.
You are talking about a taxtical fix for a strategic planning problem. You cannot win without working non-corrupted logistics and training.
That tank in the video at 9 seconds in looks like a burned down house that had a tanks chassis as a foundation.
4:45 doesn't T-72B3 Obr. 2016 have an independent commander thermal sight too? At least several places on the internet indicates it does.
Yes, but most T-72B3 has none
Nope. T72B3 doesn't have CITV. The commander can use the Sosna optic from the gunner instead but that's nothing compared to an own sight.
Only "available" russian MBTs with a CITV are the T90M and the T14
Well Gaijin have a lot of vehicles to add to War Thunder
Poor performance? But it's all going to plan!!! ????
4:25 that issue could be solved by reconnaissance drones that should be homing the area before that tanks get into into the site
Corruption is the root cause - not the past.
The Chinese tactic on tanks are long range engagements only and to knock out other tanks so their infantry can advance where the enemy cannot have an advantage at all. The Chinese knew from experiences in the gulf war that tanks are REALLY effective in knocking out armor and defensive position but absolutely trash when used as a patrol unit trying to find targets. Even APCs and IFVs dedicated to fighting infantry struggle with this because the infantry can spot any vehicle miles away and destroy it with handheld and guided weapons.
The Russians needed to use their tanks in the same way and rely mostly on infantry because a squad of soldiers has a better chance against an Ukrainian squad than a tank does.
They do not have the manpower.
Unless the tank is designed to be a tank hunter, it's nowhere near as useful armor hunter than a chopper or a plane. Abrams and Leo-2 are specifically designed as tank fighters. T-64/72/80/90 are mobile artillery piece designed to support infantry in an assault, kill enemy fortifications, breach defenses.
With what infantry? They don't have enough and their best men died on day 1.
You just don't have idea what you talking about.
Tanks has much better optics than a infantry, plus it's really wrong the idea that atgm is 1 shot 1 kill even the high end one like javelin or spike are far from it.
Its hard to use infantry if you don't have infantry.,
The money was spent on super yachts and that was a wonderful thing for Ukraine.
Not really, because of the problems of Russian army, they are going for more hardcore approach which is hurting Ukraine's buildings and economy more. If Russia did conquer Ukraine in a week or so Ukraine would be in a better state right now. Especially not suffering minus 35 percent GDP loss
@@b-17gflyingfortress6 No country is just going to let itself get conquered, fool.
Good subject matter, well done.
Yeah but also doctrine. There are so many videos of tanks moving unprotected by infantry. Feels like Russian commanders have been playing warthunder instead of wargame.
Most of the tank kills i hve seen are from mines and artillery and drones in early phase of war. Manportable at rockets are overrated IMO. In the sense that they ofcourse do work, but they don't threaten the idea of an MBT. Atleast not yet
Most of the pictures of knocked out tanks would be from ATGMs. Most of the pictures usually show the tank next to a building using it as cover but the building isn't blown to hell as it would be if artillery had done it. Because the vehicle is off-road, it's probably not a mine that was planted in some random person's garden. Looking at the photos, most of the tank wrecks are in a city environment, next to a building but the building is mostly intact at the tank's level. This rules out artillery and mines. There have been cases of artillery doing work on some makeshift resupply bases or slow convoys though which account for the tank wrecks along the sides of the road. I'd say the mines were probably the wrecks we see in the middle of the road used to stop a convoy and used as a cue by the artillery crew to start shelling that point. The tanks then got off the road into cover at the side of the road and the drone walked rounds in on those tanks that went hull-down in a ditch. We also have a lot of drone footage showing Ukrainian troops ambushing convoys using ATGMs or RPGs on the lead and last vehicle to stop a convoy and then artillery cleans up the center.
@@Talishar don't know about you, but most of the destroyed tanks i have seen are on side of some road. Even the ambush videos are mostly on roads.
Also a destroyed tank can also mean that the tank broke, ran over a mine, ran out of fuel etc and the crew destroyed it because they couldn't recover it. These are 30-40 year old machines. Upto 60% of hardware is not useable in many militaries depending on the country for this very reason.
yes IN YOUR OPINION which is irrelevant
@@ulikemyname6744 just like yours
@@lumberjackagies5158 true
Russian tanks are not performing poorly in Ukraine. What we are seeing is a failure to utilized combined arms in such a way that infantry, Armor, Engineers, aviation and artillery mitigate each other's weaknesses while capitalizing on their strengths.
I'm not even going to touch on the logistical issues, which have been better covered by others.
The TRUE Russian failure in Ukraine is the failure of logistics, training, leadership and doctrine.
👍
What about their performance during the second stage of the war?
@@Chiboza well, they're doing MUCH better, that march-april period. At least, we can see, that Russian MoD isn't as dumb as the world thought. They're changing their tactical performance to best, but problem with the lack of additional equipment still flying in the air. I dunno, in Russia, they have numerous companies that produce thermals, handles and other stuff. And couple days ago Russian MoD said that they're gonna solve the UCAV problem. Yes, they can easily fight with it having such great AA systems like Pantzir, Tor, S-400 but their UCAV production is shit.
@@Chiboza the second stage, if that's what we are calling it, is Russia attempting to drown Ukrainian forces in artillery while escalating attacks on civilian centers.
That's a problematic approach, as they are quickly burning through their reserves of artillery ammunition while Ukraine transitions to Western artillery and drawing on Western ammo stockpiles.
I've heard many say the Russians know they are running out of time and are attempting to create a favorable position on the ground before they have to go over to the defensive for lack of supplies.
@@Jinhadascam the Russian MOD may not be as dumb as people thought, but they are infinitely more corrupt than people thought.
And, where is Russia getting all this money for a spending spree when it's rolling T-62M's out of deep storage?
How is Russia going to make good it's losses in men, munitions, vehicles, fuel, all while defending a frontier with NATO that is now 2000km longer?
Correction.
There's not "probably hundreds of US tanks with trophy systems being installed"
All have been installed.
the US Army has already announced, all active duty combat ready Abrams tanks are now completely outfitted with trophy hard defense systems"
Are you summarizing for. USR how to improve in the future ?
Well we see problems, but still they are winning
The US was winning in vietnam for years until reality set in and people realized that they didn't want to send their sons to needlessly die in a foreign land (even worse in this case because Ukraine and Russia are brother countries) for years on end.
Dobro zemljace,isti problem kao u Bosni. Posade obucene na T54,postavljene na M84(nebo i zemlja razlika,sve do problema ciscenja cijevi). Ako vidimo da tamo ratuju uglavmom stanovnici Donbasa I Luganska,ima smisla da I'm salju T62 jer su sluzili u armiji na tim starim tenkovima. Pogledaj samo izvjestaje o dobrovoljcima 50+ godina. Veoma je malo prave Ruske vojske sada tamo.
Can u do a video on the destroyed T-80Um2 black eagle ?
1:49"...'back in the good old days of the Soviet Union' ..
they should send a renault ft to ukraine
For all viewers, take this video with a grain of salt.
Edit:
Whatever your tanks are, you are pretty fucked up if your enemy using artillery intensively.
Both sides use artillery extensively, with Ukraine using a mix of high-tech Western systems and old Soviet legacy models, to Russia using upgraded and baseline Soviet-style systems.
@@dasbubba841 Not forgetting the improved artilery systems and new tactics in targeting.
No infantry support by screening forward of armor leaves them open.
Seems like setting up a bunch of lasers would retain laser detection on vehicles useless. Basically laser jamming.
The Russians haven't just become dumb or incompetent. They can certainly develop quality weaponry and sophisticated technology. It's just that modern Russia is a shadow of the USSR 30 years ago, it can't actually put these technologies into service. Their magical Armata tanks, Su-57 fighters, hypersonic missiles, underwater drones are great and all, except they can only build a handful of them and they can only really be used in parades. 2000 Armata tanks reduced to a 200 tank order, of which they could only make 20 even seven years later. So they need to push 50 year old T72 with terrible maintenance and hope people are afraid of their dozens of thousands of reserves, even though those have fallen into disrepair and been stripped for parts for decades thanks to the highly corrupt state of affairs. Worse, they rely heavily on foreign imports of technology, machinery, resources and expertise, so their civilian economy is much more fragile. Which is, you know, what really matters and what people really fight for.
True to the last word
The Russians have a large modern military, but the modern part isn't large and the large part isn't modern.
А у вас что много современных танков ? Или 50 леопардов максимум современных, или ты думаешь ваши танки не будут гореть от птур корнет ? Который лучше джевелинов, вы даже неделе не продержится в войне такой интенсивности, и Турция показала как будут гореть леопарды от старых рпг
Yes they did. Stop supporting putin
Russia is run by the Russian mob. Putins just a puppet.
Handful of useful info, although I'm disappointed by lack of "Doctrine and Tactics"
if you deploy infantry beside your armour and the active protection system is used what happens to the infantry in the area of such a tank ?
Then just don't put them so close? Russia would likely value their tanks surviving over their men anyways imo
You can support tanks with infantry at a safe distance.
@@The_Lunch_Man what is that distance ( fragmentation not just detonation point ) I know for a basic hand grenade its 40m and these things have a much larger warhead so I am assuming more then 40m ?
@@woltews 50 Meters was what we used. And to the side of the tank - never forwards of the tank unless that is a planned action that has been briefed beforehand. Except for the one very nervous infantryman who was behind and to the right of the tank (so he could grab the telephone handset on the back of the tank and talk to the crew directly). As a TC I was just as nervous as he was because I knew just how hard it is to keep track of dismounted people around your tank.
@@colincampbell767 did the tank have hard kill APS or ERA or was this just to keep the tank from running you over or getting hit buy a ricochet ?
New outro? I like it
4:25 - perfect to not spot ATGM teams
I also think artilery is playing a role to counter tanks, some videos you can notice explosions and shrapenel happening right on top of some russian tanks. The shape of the explosion is perfectly circular just like and artilery airbust detonation. Russian tanks show some poor decision of just standing there moving a few meters back and forth
That movement is a tactic to throw off the aim of ATGM gunners. In the US Army we called it the "Sagger dance". Avoiding indirect fire is different. You either move forward or backward as the tactical situation permits until you clear the target area. The Russians inside the tanks probably misidentified what was shooting at them or they were maneuvering to avoid ATGM fire and then got hit by artillery.
So did they decide to pump out older cheap tanks over the last 8 years, even when oil prices were high, due to corruption? And why so much propaganda from them that their tanks had active protection systems when they didn’t? Genuinely trying to understand their decision process, or if it was a minister/general that took kickbacks instead of implementing APS on older tanks?
It's called bluster. The Soviets and Chinese have been doing it for decades now. The U.S. tries, but because they get drawn into conflicts so many times, they have to prove it. The Russians have gotten so used to blustering and not having to prove it, they forget that when it comes time to actually use it, the truth comes out. The older APS that were stopped being made decades ago would have expired by now and most would have been hang-fires or duds. They rattle the saber because traditionally, no one's called them out on it and forced them to prove it. They aren't going to tell the world "We're weak and broke with most of our equipment out of date due to decades long financial corruption within the military. Please don't attack us."
Sanctions imposed in 2014 probably played a big part in why newer tech got delayed or outright impossible to produce. Russia has the capability to produce some nice toys, but the can't do it without importing a lot of components from the west.
Why would you assume they make the best, most rational choice? They're human just like the rest of us. And humans have morons
Poor training and maintenance are really the key issues. Bells and whistles don’t really matter when your tankers don’t know what they’re doing and often have drivetrain or firing system failures.
Weren't most of their tank loses were from anti tank mines and artillery?
The question is how well those original active systems worked back when the Soviets came out with them .it’s hard to believe that technology like that from the 1980s was good enough. Considering the state of the Soviet computer industry, it’s impossible to believe that they could have had a system capable of making the decisions required of such a system as to know what it was seeing, much less having the response time to kill an incoming projectile.
So it’s likely they discontinued this when the USSR fell because it didn’t really work, and the time and money needed to make it work wasn’t available. So now, they’re trying again. But there are still a lot of questions. We only have their word that it does work. And the Javelin only used infrared from the side to initially find the target. Once the middle is fired, it no longer uses the targeting info from the launcher, and uses its own. Once it’s well above the target, will these systems be able to kill them? I don’t believe so. Everything we’ve seen so from from the Russians show projectiles being killed that approach the side, and close up. Can they target a Javelin coming from high above? If so, can these missiles turn abruptly upwards to intercept it? Doubtful.
For the Soviets, it was often a question of economics. They found it hard to justify protection systems that sometimes increased the cost of the tank by 1/3. So they had these expensive active protection systems to protect older T-55 and T-62 tanks that cost nearly as much as the tank was worth on the surplus market. So the Soviets just opted for a newer generation of tanks with composite armor and ERA. However, that new generation of tanks T-64, T-72, and T-80 had performance on paper that wasn't matched by real-world results.
As far as i know, Drozd was only effective against slower moving threats, i.e. the ATGMs of the time that were waddling around at about the 200 m/s, so there was quite a bit of time and a relatively narrow speed bracket. I suspect it wasn't so much identifying incoming threats as it would fire at anything that matched pre-set sizes and speeds. Doesn't seem like a terribly future proof system really.
As for the the Javelins and Russian hard kill APS, none of them seems to be suited to counter top attack missiles.
Drozd and Afghanit are horizontally launched, and Arena, while it is launched at an upwards angle seems to be ahve it's "kill zone" aimed towards the ground, and as such could be flown over. The APS that would work against Javelin is IR smoke.
Soviet APS must have worked, because Ukrainians inherited Soviet design, perfected it and sold it as Zaslon APS since early 2000s.
@@phunkracy Idk, looks like a total redesign, or maybe even a completely original design.
Related to the old soviet Drozd system (first such system in the world), I don't think it had any computers, I assume it had a completely analog control system, as many military systems of the time (even in the west). According to wikipedia, it was used in Afghanistan. Althoug it was pretty good against RPGs, but had a limited 60° protection arc an was so powerful that it could cause friendly casualties....
Wonder if China will make APS domestically or ask for Russian help
Look how great "mini-China" Taiwan is doing, how smart they are. Known for their product quality. I think China one day is gona reach Taiwans level and take over alot of the world. And then its better to be on their side.
Tho I'm Shure they have the technical capabilities to do it on their own. Russia has been doing it for along time. Though I'm sure they would have thinking of this a decade ago. At this point I'm Shure China has their own indigenous system in development.
The Chinese system GL-5, they're installed on ZTZ-99 (Type 99) tanks.
balancing act - should I buy best most expensive tank or buy another holiday yacht?
It's also their logistics and Intel, tactical support.
Too many of these tank battalions are being sent into death traps without the proper support.
I'm no expert but I would guess that dozens of modern nations pumping anti tank missiles into a country that is attacked by tanks from 50 years ago would lead to a bad performance of those tanks no matter what.
not necessarily, those anti tank weapons are developed to counter UpToDate armament. The out of date stuff is more susceptible.
Most of those AT weapons are 30 years old as well
They're aren't sending their newest and best equipment. They're sending the stuff that's been sitting in an ammo bunker somewhere for decades and instead of sending it back in for depot repairs/maintenance, they're sending it to Ukraine for them to use up and save them time/money on said maintenance.
@@Talishar Guess T90M are now dogshit old tanks.
@@alvarolopezgomez6543 They lost only one t90m which was unable to move due to damaged tracks. And that is it.
i dont think its fair to say theyre failing, but yeah, both sides are taking heavy tank casualties, and would be taking a lot less with that aps
Ukraine is barley losing tanks actually because they dint have many and there better trained then Russians
@elite wavez lol
Oh no, they're failing. ...and badly. Imagine ANY NATO country going through this?... yeah, not a thing. You just cannot believe the Russian claims on the effectiveness of their systems. They got away with their lies for 20 years as to the quality of their equipment (I 100% believed them... not anymore) and this conflict has blown the roof off their lies (pardon the pun). Slighly better than Syria or other middling developing nations Army is what I think of them now. NEVER equal to the US after the fall of the USSR, never even close. My bet is even China would crush them in a conventional war. ONLY Nukes allow them to be listed second after America... Without them they are behind China. A pathetic showing to be sure.
876 visually confirmed russian tanks lost vs 205 ukrainian
Yeah, Ukraine lost now around 1200 tanks and Russia around 600. This is why there is talk of Poland sending them all remaining T-72s. I guess the war will continue for a bit longer.
They just need to loose all their tanks
Ooo im an army expert without even touching the battlefield
i dont think they are failing, it is war and this is what happens in a war, back in ww2 you wouldt say oh the tanks so and so is failing, it is just how the war is plus so many modern weapons that are designed to kill tank are being used so its no wonder they being destroyed, place any other natons tank in this position it would be the same outcome, remember how isis blew up leo 2s? or abrams got blew up and in those wars the terrorists didnt even had those modern anti tank weapons ukraine is getting
Facts. Listening now is you need to take a grain of salt.
Not forgetting it’s from other post or comments from dumbasses who are probably using the dead tanks as a meme for whatever reason.
@@davestevenson9080 the german media is saying almost every day how the russians are losing the war and at the same time they are reporting how ukrain lost another theretory
That's the thing, people thing that tanks are still like in ww2 were only other tanks and artillery could destroy them, but nowadays infantry with a rocket launcher can kill or combat kill a tank if it doenst have HK APS
@@davestevenson9080 What are you on? Russia has not taken a third of Ukraine’s land please go learn your fractions again before saying something silly like this.
Old tanks, untrained crew with obsolete tactics meets modern day weapons and tactics = many dead orcs
At this point T14 is like myth, it has everything on paper.
Racism Is fine when the subject Is someone you don't like huh...
@@untraceablefgc-9mkii251
I like Russian people, don't like current Russian government.
I share like 80% of common traits of ordinary Russian people, after all im South Slavs
"many dead orcs" now count ukr losses...kek XD
@@nutpero6201
Between pillaging, raping, looting and civilian casualties, destruction of infrastructure, economy, and whole fucking town and villages losses are unimaginable.
And that is why they are called Orcs.
I hope you never end in a war i was in one and it is not pretty, its not a game.
The best protection of all is to avoid war.
Nah. The best protection is to attack a poor nation like Nicaragua or Iraq and tell the world that you're attacking to establish democracy.
Lives cheap, protection expensive.
Wow!!! Do you really believe that a new system, no matter how good, can solve the many deeper, more significant problems with the endemic corruption, poor structure, lack of training, inadequate funding, etc. of the Russian military? Man, that is OPTIMISTIC and somehow very touchingly naïve.
That's funny because they are clearly winning this war with only 20% of their active service army deployed.
"Won't solve all the problems, but would give more ground for error" I think was the man's quote.
Whether or not can be debated, but I don't think what's being proffered here was what RE was getting at.
@@Tamburello_1994
The whole video is about Russian armor "failing" in the Ukraine war so I did make the assumption that RedEffect thinks that better tank defensive equipment would "solve" that or at least make a significant and durable improvement in its performance. I do think that the problems of Russian armor in Ukraine have much deeper causes and that while a better defensive system MIGHT improve the survivability of Russian armor at least initially, such improvements would probably only last for a short time before the Ukrainians modified their methods of attack.
@@asdf3568 cope. russia is now controlling less ukrainian territory than it was by mid March. 20% of it's forces? Cool story bro, that's why they are desperately trying to recruit and mobilize more people
@@wbwarren57 Fair play sir, thanks for your response.
But there are also footages of Russian tanks’ reactive armor being able to repel Ukrainian RPG fire. APS isn’t completely decisive in the Russians’ failure.
Is can repelled RPG but it can’t protect itself from Javelin.
The RPG is the least of a Russian tankers worries.
@@B1GK1NG You only see videos of succesfull attacks being shared. But there are hundreds of failed attacks due to misfires, duds or missiles hitting nothing or some unimportant part of vehicle or vehicle ERA consuming the attack. Find out how many Javelins were supplied but how few actually scored succesful hits against any tank.. . many times you can see it destroying just some BTR or truck.
@@xmeda you do know you’re not talking to a civie. I can tell your the javelins are highly effective. Russian army = crap
@@B1GK1NG Javelin is a useless POS according to Ukrainians. Majority have no idea how to use the damn thing. It takes 30 seconds to lock onto the target. Also the lock-on procedure cannot be repeated indefinitely: there is only enough coolant in the launcher for 2 attempts at most.
The ONLY thing Javelin has going for it is top-attack mode. And often it can only be fired in direct attack mode as opposed to top attack. And in THAT mode it's worthless against T-72B3: its penetration rating is too low to penetrate it from the front.
Ukrainians don't like Javelins at all. NLAW is ok. And even then they can't use them all that effectively.
i thought the anti tank crews were trained not to lase the tank but lase something close to the tank until the missile gets close enough that the laser detection cant act fast enough?
The warning won't do them any good. The time between the lase and the gun ready to fire is nearly instantaneous. All the gunner has to do is look at the displayed range and if it makes sense - pull the trigger. The longest part of the process is the gunner announcing, "On The WAY!" after he says "Lasing!"
Dont see the point of turning your active protection effector to the front and/ or sideways.
A tank should be build to survive other tanks and these usually attack the front and side.
So it sould not have problems there with a simple atgm. Also from the side.
The big problem is the roof and thats the weakpoint these systems should protect.
Idk why most tankmakers ignore that. Maybe because its technically more demanding.
"Idk why most tankmakers ignore that." They don't. They would love to have every part of the tank armored as well as the frontal 120-degree arc. Tanks are a balance between mobility, protection and firepower. In order to increase one - you are going to have to decrease one (or both) of the other.
No tank since WW2 has had sufficient side armor to stop enemy tanks or ATGMs from penetrating them from the side. Not beyond shallow glancing impacts. Side armor even on even the heaviest modern tanks is generally less than 100mm RHA equivalent.
ATGMs can have tandem HEAT warheads with easily 1000 mm of penetration behind ERA, and while *some* attack from above, most attacks come from the front, sides, especially those of the turret. Even from the front, ATGMs can *usually* kill any tank.
Defeating the most common threats is always first priority. Edge cases like top-attack are nice to tackle, but the *focus* for Active Protection System developers has been and should continue to be countering low-flying threats. In the past that has meant ATGMs, though some more recent systems have even shown effectiveness against the kinetic dart (APFSDS) rounds that modern tanks usually fire at other tanks.
@@JosephHarner The most effective antitank weapons are the top attack ones. That's why defeating top attack is just as important as defeating side attack. And the Trophy system that's been adopted by the US Army was chosen because it could stop our own weapons as well as threat weapons. As well as the fact that it has defeated a wide range of antitank weapons to include the Kornet missile in actual combat with zero hits on the tanks,
And no APS is fast enough to defeat a sabot round - they cannot even defeat a HEAT round fired from a tank main gun.
@@JosephHarner That may be true but still: why are they pointing the effectors to the front?
This does not look very trustworthy.
@@colincampbell767 Of course they ignore it. I have seen so many aps for the side and front and so far none for the roof although Im not so much into these things.
For me it seems like they are just going the easy way due to a lack of funds.
The money WAS there.
Until it was skimmed off for yachts and homes.
There's a difference between your private money and the money of the state. I wouldn't spent a single cent of my own (after tax in Germany lol) for producing military stuff or anything else. 😂
The U.S.S.R was really a country miles ahead the Russian federation for it's time
Why did she go bankrupt then?
@@ares8866 One last gesture before she died 🤡
One thing is theory and other is practice in which such tank would survive months in suburban battlefield.. regarding topic.
1. No protection system help against rockets from helicopters and shells from other tanks and howitzers. And then there is million land mines.
2. What crew training will help here? It mostly help good luck.
So in the end we come to the fact that tank is used as mobile gun for infantry support. And for this you need numbers
What crew training will help? Proper training will help - a lot. Proper tactics would have helped - a lot. Fighting as a combined arms team (which is also Russian doctrine) would have helped a lot. Having your tanks fight as sections instead of individuals would also have helped a lot.
Even something as simple as providing smoke grenades for the smoke grenade launchers (and training the crew as to how to use them) would have cut losses by at least half. Another thing that would have prevented a lot of losses would have been for the tank commanders to have their heads out of the hatch so they could see what was going on around them. (One of the reasons US CVC (Combat Vehicle Crewman) helmets are bulletproof.)
And there's nothing better than for the TC to dismount the tank with a pair of binoculars and do a deliberate search of the area before getting on the tank and taking it there. When you're on the tank everything's dynamic and you are juggling tasks - but you can take all the time you want scanning with the binos.
The matter of fact of the lack of tank power doesn't comply in Ukraine, since the Ukrainians use the T-64 which also has no thermal n'or night vision. Against the javelins their counter is to use old tanks and mass production.
You seem to forget that tanks also need a trained crew, which you cant replace easily