US instructors taught Ukrainians tactics which worked for the US army when it fought 3 or 4 level inferior armies without air force and proper missile capabilities. Somehow it didn't work against Russia. Who would have thought that, right?
In the beginning there were so much mercenaries... now most of them who survived this safari are stopped: "adventure" was not so funny this time because the farmers turn out to have artillery, glide bombs, heavy flame throwing systems and medium range missiles...
@@choro3d191 in manner of Black Adder, it is one thing to fight against people armed with shovels and totally different to fight insane amount of artillery, drones and gliding bombs which actually made and are still making significant difference on the battlefield, unlike many "sophisticated game changers".
LOL! Funny thing is several people learned that long ago.....Napoleon, The british, Sardnians, Turks and French (so that's twice for them), the Germans too. Is no one listening?
Western countries completely gave up on SHORAD short range air defenses and funded no replacements for 25 years. SHORAD Missiles have slightly longer range than shoulder fired MANPADS such as stinger, startstreak and RBS70 but less than the much larger and bulkier medium range missiles like CEPTOR, ISRIS/T and NASAAMS. As a result Russian Airforce was able to pick of tanks from just out of range of the only thing given to them Stinger and Starstreak. Missiles such as Crotal, Milan and Rapier were literally junked. What was absurd about this was the justification for scrapping them was that these missiles would soon be outranged. So rather than improve them they were scrapped. The medium range missiles such as NASAAMS and IRIS/T are too immobile and too difficult to hide. -Microdrones were very predicted, but no Government put money into creations of defenses such as Skyranger 30, that was left to private contractors such as Rheinmetall who naturally didn't go into production without orders. -New tanks will also have APS to knock the drones and missiles out within meters of them impacting.
@@bernhardzunk7402 what are you blabbering? atgms,mines,artillery and fpv drones got the tanks ukraine has alot of its own air defences like the strela 10, buk.tor,osa, crostale the S-200's and 300s
@@goldenbypass6644 i think at this stage of the game the battlefield is a mine field, so any tank advances seen at the beginning of the war will not happen. Single column advances. It is a stalemate like ww1.
What is the Spanish government and military discriminated against all English people and speaking English and started killing all English people within Spain and taking their homes away from them , do you think any UK US governments would say and do nothing.🤔
@@mafiooato7233 not sure if you think we mean shovels literally destroying tanks and ammo depots and such,but anyway during the battle for Bakhmut that started in August 2022 and lasted roughly 10 months,western media,especially in the US and in White House was saying sanctions were doing so much damage to the Russian economy that they were out of ammo and having to fight close combat with shovels,and were also saying the Russians were having to use computer components out of washing machines for their technology😂😂😂 Turned out to be a lie by people like John Kirby and other White House spokespersons,so we refer to all Russian weapons as shovels as a mockery to the White House lies and misinformation.😂😂😂
True ideal for this terrain . However he could have said that the French doctrine for tanks mobility was more appropriate at 55 T . Food for thoughts for the next mbt
@@JULIENSELLIER Difference is in the form of the turret , numbers of crew member and automatic loader. Fact is that they adopted (during several decades) those innovations EXACTLY for keeping their tank's own weight and overall the lower possible so not to get stuck in mud/snow or unable to pass a bridge in the countryside but above all because keeping the space to be protected the smallest possible means that adding further armour if needed would not lead to a massive increase of weight.
@desertfox8902. The problem with NATO is that they want the world to know everything of theirs is the best but I think the war in Ukraine has exposed this assertion tremendous. They might discuss amongst themselves the flaws they have but not the public. For example the patriots , and other systems they have on the battlefield has not been as good as we were made to understand.
@@JULIENSELLIER A lot of the USSR tank designs were made by Ukrainians for warfare in Eastern European conditions. NATO planning grossly overestimated how offensively the WP would have fought. They knew they would get wasted going one on one. And they knew that they could hope to win by sheer numbers, but there was little hope to keep any conquered territory occupied and still resist the NATO counter-offensive. The difference between USSR and Putin's Russia is that the Soviet bigshots understood the ways in which their military was inferior to their adversary's, and built their grand strategy around avoiding the sort of clash NATO was planning for. There is not a single Soviet MBT that cannot also be employed like an SPG with less range, but better mobility, higher precision, and better armor. They made that a basic design requirement of the T-54, and kept it even to the Armata (which is basically Failputin's attempt to copy the 60-ton NATO heavy MBT). The WW2 Soviet designations for self-propelled artillery and tank destroyer were the same (SU). Unlike NATO which specialized their armor for single-roles, Soviet MBT were a combination of the WW2 SU and T (normal tanks like T-34). This was almost entirely overlooked by Western analysts until the Ukraine war, and it is the reason why we see so few tank-on-tank battles here, and a of of these tanks which are weirdly parked on ramps or inclines under cover. Ukraine tried following NATO doctrine a few times (most memorably in Zaporizhia in Summer 2023) and got their asses soundly beaten, but in general they mix-and-match bits and pieces of the Cold War Soviet doctrine, the North Vietnamese approach to beat the US, and the Finnish defence against the Red Army, as it seems fit. Bit of early Israeli elements too I'd guess. It makes total sense, because these were all proven concepts how to beat a much stronger power, or at least the best estimate how the gear Ukraine has should be used in such a situation. Their astuteness and readiness to think out of the box alone would probably suffice for me to root for them. They fight smart, and they are not above fighting dirty. They usually rather curb their losses even if it means forfeiting a chance to advance. I like that. A military leadership that habitually squanders its forces is only fit to be shot by their own troops, and to hell with a court martial.
No we have the weird privilege of seeing first hand the same thing people saw in 1939. When for example French tanks who were superior to German tanks did not have radio equipment and got dominated because they used literal flags like a actual cavalry regiment. I honestly think the new generation of tanks will essentially be individual armored capsules with as few possible crewmen and reinforced top armor against drones.
Blaming the T72 design while the UK sends tanks with rifled guns is funny. The T90 is what you should compare the Leopard 2, Chally 2 and Abrams with. The T90M is objectively better than the majority of the older Leo 2 (a4 version, chally 2 and abrams (stripped old version). The T72s Russia uses should be compared to the older soviet tanks Ukraine uses and the leopard 1 sent. The T72B3 clearly has an advantage. Next gen western tanks will be 50-55 tons, with an autoloader, a smoothbore gun, a remote controlled machinegun, and drone jammers, just like the T90M.
Separating armour into self-loading mobile artillery and lighter vehicles with a range of firepower and anti air capability (ex. Serbian PASARS) is key. Speed and flexibility of mobile artillery is what will give advantage in modern warfare at the moment.
The problem is the war itself. I am sure those in the UK visiting foodbanks would rather have peace, flowing Russian gas and lower heating bills. Perhaps should have encouraged the Ukrainians to adhere to Minsk 1&2 they signed up to instead of pursuing a war they could not win. Each time you go back to the table Russia's position is stronger and their willingness to give consessions diminishes. At what point are they going to realise this is an exercise in diminishing returns and futility?
It appears the MIC and those benefiting from their shares and positions in those defence companies are the ones making the decisions .. peace could be a way of yet 😮
@@MCMXLVIas opposed to yourself, who swallowed every piece of propaganda shovelled out by the ministry of offence. How many more Ukrainian conscripts you willing to sacrifice in this proxy war ? How much extra have you spent on electricity since this war started ? Are you capable of independent thought ? At what stage will the penny drop that you’ve been conned ?
Which is funny considering the US took most german whermacht abd SS officers, as well as military strategists, theorists, and many scientists and equipment designers too 🤡🤡🤡
It's cool that NATO has been able to learn about the weakness of its weapons at the cost of half a million Ukrainian lives. Wouldn't it be better hadn't they sent Borris Johnson to derail the Istanbul negotiation between Ukraine and Russia in March 2022? Ukraine could have retained Donbass and had saved its children who died on the battlefield?
This is Ukraine mud which is even worse. Greatest most fertile soil in the world for crops. Horrible for tanks after a rain of any amount more than .25 inches.
@@oumeshreega1361 ; I guess you live under a rock!, if you haven't been keeping up with current events!, the T series of Russian (T-72 through T-90) tank's are not the best tanks in the world!, if the numbers are correct!. Oh;. BTW Russia is not the 2nd best military power in the world anymore!. Ukraine took that spot!.
One thing I taught the ukrainiens were winning everything that this dude just said is pointing to the opposite what about when the media are saying Ukraine is winning and gonna get back their territory
The weight of the tank is only a problem if the tank's treads can't spread the weight Examples M1A2 Abrams tank at 69.54 tons has a ground pressure of (15 psi) Source LM Land Systems. 250lb man 15.62psi Adult horse (550 kg, 1250 lb): 170 kPa (25 psi) Passenger car: 205 kPa (30 psi) Wheeled ATV: 13.8 kPa (2 psi) Adult elephant: 240 kPa (35 psi) Mountain bicycle: 245 kPa (40 psi) Road racing bicycle: 620 kPa (90 psi) Woman in Stiletto heel: 3,250 kPa (471 psi) This is because the tracks are spreading out the weight of the tank which allows the tank to move over mud, dirt, sand that will stop a soldier on horseback.
The Germans did not have "great tanks" during most of their offensive operations early in the war. When the war started they had only Panzer 3 and 4 which were primitive, 1930s era designs, far less advanced that the T34 units they faced. it was their Blitzkrieg tactic that made them unstoppable early on, not the quality of their tanks
@@Femfit123 I guess you are talking about Panzer I and II and probably Panzer 38(t). Panzer III and IV were not primitive. And by the way T-34 had some advanced features but also very serious limitations.
The Germans had a problem of supply. They had tanks that require extreme logistical support and could not afford it. Nato is the same way, but can afford it. Ukraine cannot afford it nato logistics.
Air superiority only exists against low level enemies. It doesn’t exist against peer enemy unless you can prove me with an example. The only way to stop this is to call for peace and both parties’ concerns addressed
This is probably least talked about issue in Ukraine-Russia war. In the air both sides are a stalemate essentially, therefore neither can establish air superiority. This war heavily dependent on artillery and ground troops for that very reason.
@@davidvines6498 Generál US Army Mark Milley verejne vyhlásil ,, Vojnu na ukrajine vyhrá NATO do troch dní ". Tak čakáme na ten zázrak po úteku z Afganistanu pred pastiermi kôz s AK47. 🤣🤣🤣
@@DaveP-uv1ml2/3 of all Bradleys send have been knocked out, and they are classed as the most successful equipment sent. This just shows how war has changed and no side is prepared for a major peer to peer war.
In the British army we build over bridges or stand alone Bailey bridges that can take a MBT, and the mud problem is just as bad for light tanks, Scorpion and Spartan vehicles used to shed their tracks with boring regularity.
So NATO tanks were developed for fighting in Western Germany??? Because they work surprisingly well in the Middle East... American ones even mostly come in desert camo and I don't know about any deserts in Germany.
And US tankers needed pantyhose urgently, as improvised additional sand/dust filters. It is not about desert, it is about terrain characteristics. Frozen ground is nice for tanks, but very low temperatures are not so easy for diesel engines.
They work well on nice firm ground with a massive logistics tail to keep them supplied and running and air superiority and against an enemy wihout drones or modern anti tank missiles.
@BojanPeric-kq9et , Ukrainian soil is mostly clay and black soil. Winters in Ukrain are not harsh . The soil I winter freezing dip down for about 10-15 centimeters. Can you imagine a 60-ton tank on thin ice ? I was in Soviet army in the 80th. Believe me, for most Russians winter with -20°C it's absolutely normal. Summer time about +20 , and people going on the beach with temperature of the water +18. But Ukraine is much more warmer.
Hi, it's Jerome here. In that instance the driver said he went slowly because he had journalists (my and my two colleagues) sitting on the turret and he didn't want to throw us off. You are absoultely right, because when the second tank arrived to tow, it charged through the same ground and came out the other side. You can see the original film we did with the Challenger 2 crews here: th-cam.com/video/eRQdVw5ViIY/w-d-xo.html
Hi, it's Jerome here. Britain's decision to send Challenger 2s was a game-changer, because it made it paved the way for the USA and Germany to follow suit. Admittely, the tanks have not had the impact on the battlefield that Ukraine and its backers had hoped.
Ukraine shafted itself not NATO. Biggest mistake was the maidan protest and insurrection which foreign western forces got involved with. At that point it became a turf war between 2 groups of mafia oligarchs.
i saw a very sad video!! 1 Captive Russian POW was forced to lie down on his belly then a Ukranian soldier Used a showel to stab him in the spine they laughed and mocked him while he was dying in agony!!
You make conclusion based on a video where damaged t90m cannot fire back at bradley. These IFV’s are extremely good vehicles, but as we have seen dozens of them being destroyed. No need to mention that facing a non-damaged tank will lead to bradley turning into a blood box in a single shot.
I'll tell you the problem. No air support. The whole NATO armour doctrine is based on having air superiority. What can you do when you have open fields with miles of visibility and Russians can just hit the tanks with helicopters and drones. MBT as a concept is pretty much done. There will be some heavily armoured vehicles but having dozens of tanks rolling freely on open fields is a thing of the past.
from the beginning the Nato kept thinking that these modern tanks will be a game change, that proved that was wrong and they should know how heavy these tanks are for Ukraine land, and without control of the skies they are just like ducks
A very sobering report. Thank you. It seems that MBT designers are still going down the wrong road and ignoring the weather in Europe and the strength of bridges. A $300 drone can blow off a track and that is the end of the tank as more drones can chip away at it while immobilised.
Drones are very easily defeated. I saw a new French system blowing a swarm of drones out the air that was attacking the vehicle with ease. Even the Russians are having success with jammers. I think drones are just a temporary blip in warfare
A $20,000 jammer will stop dozens of $300 drones per minute for as long as the tank can provide power to the jammer. What the videos don't tell you is that the Ukrainians lose more drones than they have had successful drones. That most drone crews spend most of their time building new drones to replace the ones they lost that day. And that they've had drone crews killed while operating the drone or retrieving the drone because the other side triangulated the controller or the drone's radio signal and decided to send a dozen mortar rounds at the x mark
@@pogo1140 The reason Russia is building cages round their equipment is due to the success of drones. Agreed that Ukraine admit to a hit success rate of less than 50% for drones. But what is the success rate of a 155mm shell at $1000 a pop? 1 in 3? 1 in 10? Jamming and counter-jamming is an ongoing warfare. Hard to state who is winning that battle now.
@@pogo1140 if the jammer operators are lucky and know the operating frequencies for enemy drones and the jammer covers that frequency range and the enemy drone operators do not change the frequencies, then yes. But chances of all this happening consistently are slim indeed
@@goldenhawk352Quite well stuck in mud during a spring? Literally overheavy outdated monsters with FRONTAL sprockets. Which add(if included all the needed measures like height increase) changes around 13% of weight!
There is a catch: wider tracks limit turn radius. WW2 era tanks were much slower than modern tanks, especially if we compare real life speeds, not last gear maximums.
@@BojanPeric-kq9et True, still turning slowly is much better than getting stuck. You can build your tactics around that condition, but you can't build many tactics on being a sitting duck.
@@rosevfx turning slower means lower speed to. Except for CR2 which is already slow and underpowered, can you imagine Americans really limiting speed of Abrams to mere 45-50 km/h? This war showed that there will be many things which will have to be changed and that can't be solved with few small fixes here and there, especially during war time. While it sounds easy "develop new tracks", what if distances from wheels to hull is too small? Asymmetrical tracks? Longer shafts? Development, testing, retesting, retraining... Meanwhile, US needed almost a year to send 31 old Abrams. Add to that US MIC history of projects like FCS which is rarely mentioned huge corruption scandal.
NATO doctrine would surely insist upon complete air superiority: otherwise, double the track width (preferably with lighter materials) and increase engine output to compensate. Or use several thousand Bradley type units.
Unfortunately, Ukrainians can't even maintain/repair most of these overly complex tanks themselves. Speaking as someone who lives in Ukraine, though not a soldier, there is great disatisfaction at these western MBTs. The Challenger is the worst, due to being the heaviest/least able to navigate the real-world eastern european battlefield. The Leopard 2s perform ok, but it's a disappointment when the western media kept hyping them as "game changers" for a year. The Bradleys on the other hand are excellent. Really impressive capabilities and viable for multiple types of use (e.g. ferrying infantry to the line of contact and also for destroying enemy vehicles).
@@WangMingGe All valid points I think - except i also believe the Ukrainians (and I'm on their side) are still mired in Soviet thinking - I work in IT and have worked with these guys - who think everyone should be given the same flat like their mother's were....why would anyone want more - etc etc...
@@stonward You are correct for part of the country. It's really very divided, not like most people in the west believe as a simplification (of course, nobody would assume Texas is the same as New York). IT and any STEM thing tends to be occupied by mostly Soviet-minded people...admittedly the Russians were good at industry and technology. My family comes from Ternopil, in the region of Galicia. Again contrary to media perceptions, the most Russian areas are the most developed and 'modern', secular etc. (although, because religion except Islam tends to be perceived negatively in the west, the media plays up the role of the Russian church, which is big, but, those places have by far the most atheists/secular folk - Ternopil, on census statistics, is 0% atheist/irreligious, for comparison; mostly Catholic). Galicia/western Ukraine has tossed away the Soviet attitudes, generally speaking, a long time ago. Even in the 2000s, there was nothing left, no statues, no street names. But, a large part of that is, psychologically, we never integrated into the USSR, since we had historically never been part of Russia. Our experience in the USSR began in September 1939, ended in 1941, then restarted 1944-1991. We always fought against everything Russian and since the maximum period of Russian rule in all our history was 47 years, not even the lifetime of one man, it was easy to escape mentally. But, I live in Vinnytsia. And here, although the distance is small, psychologically, most people are VERY Soviet. In fact, if you only speak Ukrainian, not Russian, or you have western-Ukrainian facial features (we really do look quite different, much as Dutch and Italians look different), people will call you a "Polyak" - and they mean this very negatively. They have that proletarian international thinking from Soviet movies. A third of this city is hoping the Russians will come and make things 'normal' again, even 2 years into the war, so, I totally believe you. And, the areas which have the thinking you describe, they are the economic and government heartland, although of course not the core of Ukrainian nationalism.
9:16 Bullocks :)) T-72Б3, T-80, and T-90 have an on par protection as other, western tanks. The difference is - western tanks utilized tons of extra "plated composite armor", whereas Russian tanks use combination of plated composite armor and active/dynamic protection systems, thus making things lighter. Telling the audience that for the amount of weight there is in Russian tanks you could add a far better protection is total bullocks. Yes, they could improve plated composite protection a la western designers, but it would simply result in Russian tanks weighing same ridiculous amount of tons as western tanks. Remember you said about an ideal weight of the tank, 55-58 tons? Well, try playing within that number and you'll arrive at...a Russian tank :))))))))))
Just because a bridge is rated for a certain tonnage doesn't mean it can't handle more weight for a limited time. A bridges' weight capacity is normally underrated for safety margin's as well. I cite the Remagen bridge in Germany during WW2, which stood for several day's after sustaining heavy battle damage. I'm skeptical of this guys credential's.
Basically every "defence expert" that comes on a news outlet to talk about this stuff knows less than the average military enthusiast online, don't listen to a word of what these people say, you can go to basically any forum and make a better assumption for things with 15 minutes worth of forum reading
The problem was The West trained Ukraine in the aspects of combined arms and then sent them into battle with no air cover/air superiority...Ukraine's tanks were sitting ducks for anti tank helis and strike aircraft...The US was at fault for this since they have never gone into a battle like this without control of the skies...Ukraine's summer offensive was bound to fail due to this...
Then think why so called military experts told they are pretty sure in getting back Crimea...Game changers and wunderwaffens, then western super weapons ended in Moscow...
The NVA of less than 300,000 troops launched an offensive in conventional warfare with no air support against south vietnam who over a million troops and having the 4th largest airforce and stll the NVA won. It just shows soviet tactics are way better
Who cares, Ukraine has proven western equipment it way too much for Russian Soviet era equipment going on 3 years and all we hear is excuses from Russia
@@DarianEX To understand how many losses of NATO equipment there are in Ukraine. In the small village of Sokol alone in the Avdeevsky direction, UAVs detected 3 burnt-out Bradley infantry fighting vehicles remaining on the roads of the village.
This is Rubbish. I wasa commander in the Dutch Cavalry and we trained alongside our allies to attack-consolodidate-attack-consolidate. Through rouch terrain, crossing rivers (under the water). So no sitting ducks but constantly on the move.
i had a feeling that these guys dont understand what theyre saying from the start where they say "nato tanks arent made for maneuver" when the bundeswehr was primarily trained to fight delaying actions. Thanks for confirming that feeling.
I agree. I was 19 Echo and we trained along side you guys from time to time. As you can see from some of the comments disagreeing with you, there are youtube experts here that never set foot in a tank let alone trained in Europe with other European forces. They dont know squat. In any case, good comment, you're spot on correct.
@homeofcreation @klauskeller6380 Your training experience is irrelevant in the context of real war. Good luck applying your "skills" against stronger enemy, attacking enemy positions covered with hundred of thousands of mines, ATGMs, artillery, with thousands of drones in the air watching your every move in HD.
This ist not true. When a truck legaly can wheigh about 38 tons, the bridges must be capable of carrying this several times. It always could be that there are two Trucks on the Bridge or one truck an several cars. So I guess you don't know for US freeways.
could you please tell your men to get rid of these rubber blocks clearly seen on the tracks here 1:30 before they engage in actual combat... these protecting blocks are for moving by the pawed roads only 🤫
@@pogo1140 Yes but you can mine everything between your defensive lines and the enemy and you can also mine the paths/roads after you've passed through if you had to. In the south it was ridiculous. The Ukrainian counter offensive there was doomed from the start. In fact a Ukrainian general admitted not long after the offensive started that they knew their NATO tanks would be destroyed if they went anywhere near the front so they kept them far in the rear.
@@simmorg290 Yes, the volume of mines in the south was insane. 3-5 times what the Soviet/Russian manuals said to use per sq/km and over 5 times more area. That does mean that where did the mines come from? like all munitions, you only have so many even if you have millions of them, and you need trucks to move them from warehouses to the units and time for the units to place them.
@@TenylegMinekez-uc7co yes i remember seeing American tanks roll over the border from Belarus into Ukraine..... oh no wait, that was Russian tanks... Countries want to join NATO WILLINGLY!!!! Because exactly what Russian does, it just invades and trues to annex it, Putin wants his Soviet Union back...
@@Swatmat the putsch regime installed by the US in Kiev after the violent insurrection maidan 2014 started the war. The Eastern regions wanted to remain pro-Russian, so the regime attacked them for it. See: War in Donbas, the ATO.
I’ve heard many comments from ex-tankers that one of the issues, concerning getting stuck, is basically practise. Practise in knowing the limitations of the tank and being able to read the terrain in front of you. The example the Sun Defence Editor shows when he was in Ukraine many tankers said that they would have seen the muddy area from afar and avoided it. This tanker thought like a T-type Russian tank driver and simply went ahead and promptly got stuck. In this case it is a driver error not a tank error.
The ukraine soil has legendary reputation regarding its difficulty for vehicles, they call that mud season the Rasputitsa, which translates to “season of bad roads” 😆
Hi, it's Jerome here. You make a really good point. There were some ground signs (like reeds) where the Challenger 2 got stuck when we were with them. Also, the driver said he went slowly because we were on the turret and he didn't want to throw us off.
Seems that western IFV like CV90, Marder and especially Bradley are more valuable for Ukraine than the few western MBTs they got. The high ground-pressure of western MBT is a problem in the mud-period. The germans faced the same problem in WW2 and (partly) solved it after bad experiences by fitting wider tracks on their Panzer III,IV and StugIII(Ostkette,eastern track). Perhaps the old Leopard 1 fits better for the conditions in Ukraine, but it lacks protection and has less fire power.
@@TopTechTrendsX There is no tracked vehicle light enough to not get stuck in a mudhole. Most of the vehicles people think are just stuck are damaged by mines, artillery, or drones.
Without knowing your terrain before you drive a tank into soft soil in the spring is a mistake anyway. Any commander would have someone run ahead and check with a rod how soft the soil is before crossing certain areas. It's like driving a tank in the dessert with quick sand everywhere! There are other ways of crossing soft surfaces. Anyway, this video is a year old and I haven't seen a video of another western tank getting stuck. These were Ukrainians driving the tank in Ukraine for the first time. They will have learned from their mistake and as spring has already passed it looks like they haven't made the same mistake again.
Major problem with Challenger 2's is that, they're STUPIDLY heavy. I'm honestly surprise they built a tank the surpasses the weight of the German WW2 King Tiger tank. What do you do with them? Why, let's take 'em to area's where it's muddy out. Totally nothings wrong is going to happen! It also make 'em more useless when going through certain bridges too.
Would it be possible to retrofit a Leopard, Abrams, and/or Challenger tank with wider tracks? And would it reduce the risk of getting stuck in soft and muddy terrain?
@@jevgenijs39 no we dont need to. Leopard 2 has, even in its heavierst versions, a better specific ground pressure than a T-90. Why? Longer track lenght on the ground, wider tracks etc. in fact, a Leopard 2A7V, even though around 13t heavier than a T-90M, has a better cross country performence than the T-90M, even in heavy terrain like deep mud.
Yes, the Challenger 2 is such a good tank, but for avoidance. The famous "game changer"?! It changed the game in Ukraine so much that the Ukrainians decided for their own safety not to use it on the battlefield at all. And they have been doing it successfully for more than a year.
Nothing wrong with the tank crew issue the British army has said if there was British soliders in the chally they know where to drive and not get stuck
@@mambastu Yeah but Western tanks weren't bogged down at the crumbling bridges, they got stuck in mud. And highly trained Western crews would know not to go into a certain mud pits..
Otto Carius wrote a book about this, heavy tanks getting stuck in the mud. The book is called Tigers in the Mud, detailing his experience as a WWII tank commander
Tanks have been in development for 100yrs? Armour, gun, mobility? What more is left to modify? Make it fly? They're a slow dinosaur weapon.But everybodys got them, so they have to use them. Like the airframe design of modern fighters, they're only as good as whats pushing it at the back - and that turbine concept hasnt changed after 80 yrs?
With bridges, only weight reduction helps. But to prevent sinking into wet ground you must reduce the ground pressure, so either weight reduction or wider tracks would do the trick.
So basically... autoloaders are a must. The French LeClerc and South Korean K2 Black Panther have one and they're about 10 tons lighter compared to the Leopards/Challengers/Abrams One less crew member means less space needed which leads to a smaller tank and thus lower weight. That in turn can lead to a smaller engine which also means less weight. Then we're left with the commander, gunner and driver. I'd say the future tank goes autopilot for the driving (should be a lot simpler for tanks than for cars, don't need to stick to all the traffic rules in combat), AI takes over 90% of the gunner does and all we need is a single person in the tank. (s)He can do the driving when not engaging in combat and when engaged in combat is basically mostly there for confirming a prompt that goes "Ready to shoot this highlighted target in this pre-selected specific weakpoint with this type of ammo". I could imagine a very small tank, something like the German Wiesel when it comes to size but with a much much bigger gun. Perhaps have the commander of it in a (mostly) Horizontal position for a very low (hard to hit) profile. All the weight reductions might enable much higher speeds as well, current tanks afaik have a speed limiter to prevent them for shaking themselves apart at higher speeds. PS: No, I'm not blind to how much better no crew at all would be. But for something that takes lives you want a human involved in taking certain decisions and doing that remotely would leave you very vulnerable to jamming (like drones are atm). If the whole thing can be electrically powered that could lead to a stupidly silent tank as well. But that would need the very latest solid state battery tech as you don't want lithium ion batteries in a tank. The technology for all of this exists but it would be very cutting edge and partially unproven tech and it would rely on sourcing from a very small select number of companies which is bad for scaling up production. On the flip side, any nation would be terrified to go up against air droppable near silent tanks with immense firepower. Not to mention reducing the personnel to a single person saves a lot of training costs/man power needs. (Costs will probably just offset the more expensive tech needed, but might be a benefit in the long run)
But you do know that Autoloader have a way higher critical kill ratio. We've seen hundred of videos/pictures of russian tank turrets thrown into air after a fatal ammunition explosion. What we don't have is evidence of critical kills for western tanks. As far as we know there was NO completely killed tank crew in a western tank. Also, the loss rate of Russian Tanks is way higher than the one for the western tanks. I would argue otherwise, the reloader has proven that he isn't obsolete by any meaning.
@@papaaaaaaa2625this is true for Russian Carousel Autoloaders, which are far bigger and easier to hit than bustle autoloaders that have ammo blowout doors like that seen on the Abrams. They are also faster than their carousel counterparts in most cases. The Japanese Type 90 and the French LeClerc have this protected bustle autoloader, though they have not seen proper combat, more likely than not they would have better crew survivability than the Russian Space Program.
I enjoyed this sensible talk. That's why tanks need a platoon of infantry who would secure the perimeter of ~2km and an anti-helicopter/drone dome of ~ a 6km radius. Otherwise, $10M in assets and 4 trained tankers are wasted even on the defensive.
The massive use of FPV "kamikaze" drones changed a lot. No amount of old school armor will save you from an anti armor charge delivered to the right spot. If the first one fails the second or the third one will succeed. If it won't destroy the tank, it will surely disable it and it is just a sitting duck. And those drones are 1000 or less bucks a piece, a tank is north of $5 millions...
I think FPV drones superiority is temporary. Jammers and « hard kill » systems are on the way. It simply takes time to find the proper balance between cost and future effectiveness, design them from scratch and supply them. Then, it will be as every arm race : more sophisticated drones, to overcome defenses, more sophisticated defenses to improve protection, and… more expensive systems at every step.
@@chefchaudard3580 You are right. I believe that apart from jammers there will be most likely some form of automatic active protection against drones developed, using either small machine guns or maybe at certain point more sophisticated means like small directed EMPs. But for now drones got a pretty significant head start on the battlefield.
@@lastelinl8724 basically, lidars like we have on our cars and a basic grapeshot gun on tank would suffice to destroy an incoming drone. The thing is that the software needs to be designed and gun and ammunitions too. Nothing terribly complex, but it takes time. The gun could be replaced with some laser. But I may miss something.
When they say game changers they don’t mean instantly . They all add upon each others capabilities. So when the next offensive comes next year they will have tanks backed by HIMARS with f16 air support conducting SEAD missions to knock out enemy air defence. It’s the west that never gave what they promised in any significant numbers . Did you watch this video or come to be a bot 🤖 don’t tell me I think I know .
@@ZiGGi03 you know for 2.5 years Ukraine recieves game changer weapons. And last summer they had the opportunity to show what they are capable. Well Russia captured the same territory whitin a few weeks what Ukraine did in 3 months. The problem with your thinking line is that you think all of these weapons are acts like in a CoD game or back in Iraq 10+ years before. If you can't handle the weapon the weapons is as useless as the person operates. Sped up trainings wont achieve anything only more deaths in the front. So that's the problem with every "game changers" and every western weapon systems. Probably if US or NATO troops would use those equipment they have more succes rate but I guess you don't want to happen that.
@@attilakiss5400 you are crazy Ukraine during their offensive attacked a defensive position who had a year to prepare with mines and air support . Ukraine only got one battalion that was under strength they can only fight with the weapons they have . If we the west have what we promised they would have had a greater effect . In the 7 month Johnson blocked aid Ukraine used drones Drones have had a bigger impact than all these weapons . I. Not saying any weapon is a game changer . The media put that out there for clicks and people like you bite . If you keep up with this conflict and listen to the generals who get interviewed they say what I said . It’s not one thing that will change it’s all these systems used as part of a combined arms attack . HIMARS changed the game for Russia as they had to move back their ammo dumps and disperse them . Atgm and javelin plus drones helped stop the large column of tanks that headed for Kiev . What do you think would have happened without these weapons ? They can only fight with what they have . If the west push the agenda of game changers because it’s not Ukraine saying this and the west doesn’t send the amounts they promised due to whatever reason that’s not on Ukraine you know . That’s a totally different story.
Apparently the Ukrainian crews aren’t competent to operate them according to the conditions. You don’t drive a tank in a swamp and expect it won’t get stuck.
US instructors taught Ukrainians tactics which worked for the US army when it fought 3 or 4 level inferior armies without air force and proper missile capabilities.
Somehow it didn't work against Russia. Who would have thought that, right?
In the beginning there were so much mercenaries... now most of them who survived this safari are stopped:
"adventure" was not so funny this time because the farmers turn out to have artillery, glide bombs, heavy flame throwing systems and medium range missiles...
@@choro3d191 in manner of Black Adder, it is one thing to fight against people armed with shovels and totally different to fight insane amount of artillery, drones and gliding bombs which actually made and are still making significant difference on the battlefield, unlike many "sophisticated game changers".
I heard that we (Brits) have been training Ukrainians with totally inappropriate anti insurgency training because it's all we know nowadays.
@@Withnail1969 now Ukrainians themselves can teach any Europeans...
@@choro3d191 Well yes. they are much better soldiers than we are.
breaking news , tanks are heavy and can get stuck in mud.
I thought we would've known this when the Germans got stuck in Ukraine/Russia back in the 40's.
@@DanMorgan-bh5fvthe same reason why Russian tanks are only 40 tons. because the Soviet small bridge in vilage could not pass a 50 ton vehicle
They forget to mention russian tanks are only 25000 kg when the detachable turret comes of
@@Verschie 🤣
Forgot about that!😅@@Verschie
He said the tanks were designed to operate in Germany. Russians put the war in the wrong place!! These Russians are sooo mean !!
😅
😅😅😅😅
LOL! Funny thing is several people learned that long ago.....Napoleon, The british, Sardnians, Turks and French (so that's twice for them), the Germans too. Is no one listening?
😂😂😂😂😂
😅😅😅
Not having air support is a MAJOR flaw in a tank design 😂
Or infantry support.
Western countries completely gave up on SHORAD short range air defenses and funded no replacements for 25 years. SHORAD Missiles have slightly longer range than shoulder fired MANPADS such as stinger, startstreak and RBS70 but less than the much larger and bulkier medium range missiles like CEPTOR, ISRIS/T and NASAAMS. As a result Russian Airforce was able to pick of tanks from just out of range of the only thing given to them Stinger and Starstreak. Missiles such as Crotal, Milan and Rapier were literally junked. What was absurd about this was the justification for scrapping them was that these missiles would soon be outranged. So rather than improve them they were scrapped. The medium range missiles such as NASAAMS and IRIS/T are too immobile and too difficult to hide.
-Microdrones were very predicted, but no Government put money into creations of defenses such as Skyranger 30, that was left to private contractors such as Rheinmetall who naturally didn't go into production without orders.
-New tanks will also have APS to knock the drones and missiles out within meters of them impacting.
@@bernhardzunk7402 what are you blabbering? atgms,mines,artillery and fpv drones got the tanks ukraine has alot of its own air defences like the strela 10, buk.tor,osa, crostale
the S-200's and 300s
I'm yet to see tanks being backed up by ifv and other support vehicles / infantry
@@goldenbypass6644 i think at this stage of the game the battlefield is a mine field, so any tank advances seen at the beginning of the war will not happen. Single column advances. It is a stalemate like ww1.
So those T-72 that everyone laughed at for being out of date, are perfect tanks for fighting on this terrain.
Of course
What is the Spanish government and military discriminated against all English people and speaking English and started killing all English people within Spain and taking their homes away from them , do you think any UK US governments would say and do nothing.🤔
And russian anti tank weapons are perfect for destroying NATO tanks, it is like the Russians designed them for that terrain and those targets
The problem is that they greatly underestimated the destructive power of the Russian shovel and washing machine 😂😂😂
They apparently have a lot more and better shovels than anybody thought.
@@EMan-cu5zo absolutely 😊😊
Buddy, you nailed it.
Can someone please explain to me, how Russia shovel is able to defeat out tanks and weapons?
@@mafiooato7233 not sure if you think we mean shovels literally destroying tanks and ammo depots and such,but anyway during the battle for Bakhmut that started in August 2022 and lasted roughly 10 months,western media,especially in the US and in White House was saying sanctions were doing so much damage to the Russian economy that they were out of ammo and having to fight close combat with shovels,and were also saying the Russians were having to use computer components out of washing machines for their technology😂😂😂
Turned out to be a lie by people like John Kirby and other White House spokespersons,so we refer to all Russian weapons as shovels as a mockery to the White House lies and misinformation.😂😂😂
He does not want to say that the weight of Russian tanks is ideal
True ideal for this terrain . However he could have said that the French doctrine for tanks mobility was more appropriate at 55 T . Food for thoughts for the next mbt
@@JULIENSELLIER Difference is in the form of the turret , numbers of crew member and automatic loader.
Fact is that they adopted (during several decades) those innovations EXACTLY for keeping their tank's own weight and overall the lower possible so not to get stuck in mud/snow or unable to pass a bridge in the countryside but above all because keeping the space to be protected the smallest possible means that adding further armour if needed would not lead to a massive increase of weight.
@desertfox8902. The problem with NATO is that they want the world to know everything of theirs is the best but I think the war in Ukraine has exposed this assertion tremendous. They might discuss amongst themselves the flaws they have but not the public. For example the patriots , and other systems they have on the battlefield has not been as good as we were made to understand.
Exactly.. he just beating around the bush
@@JULIENSELLIER A lot of the USSR tank designs were made by Ukrainians for warfare in Eastern European conditions. NATO planning grossly overestimated how offensively the WP would have fought. They knew they would get wasted going one on one. And they knew that they could hope to win by sheer numbers, but there was little hope to keep any conquered territory occupied and still resist the NATO counter-offensive.
The difference between USSR and Putin's Russia is that the Soviet bigshots understood the ways in which their military was inferior to their adversary's, and built their grand strategy around avoiding the sort of clash NATO was planning for.
There is not a single Soviet MBT that cannot also be employed like an SPG with less range, but better mobility, higher precision, and better armor. They made that a basic design requirement of the T-54, and kept it even to the Armata (which is basically Failputin's attempt to copy the 60-ton NATO heavy MBT).
The WW2 Soviet designations for self-propelled artillery and tank destroyer were the same (SU). Unlike NATO which specialized their armor for single-roles, Soviet MBT were a combination of the WW2 SU and T (normal tanks like T-34). This was almost entirely overlooked by Western analysts until the Ukraine war, and it is the reason why we see so few tank-on-tank battles here, and a of of these tanks which are weirdly parked on ramps or inclines under cover.
Ukraine tried following NATO doctrine a few times (most memorably in Zaporizhia in Summer 2023) and got their asses soundly beaten, but in general they mix-and-match bits and pieces of the Cold War Soviet doctrine, the North Vietnamese approach to beat the US, and the Finnish defence against the Red Army, as it seems fit. Bit of early Israeli elements too I'd guess. It makes total sense, because these were all proven concepts how to beat a much stronger power, or at least the best estimate how the gear Ukraine has should be used in such a situation.
Their astuteness and readiness to think out of the box alone would probably suffice for me to root for them. They fight smart, and they are not above fighting dirty. They usually rather curb their losses even if it means forfeiting a chance to advance. I like that.
A military leadership that habitually squanders its forces is only fit to be shot by their own troops, and to hell with a court martial.
Stop that stupid war!
When Russia said your tanks will get stuck you guys said nice joke
Funny, isn't it 😂. Challenger couldn't stand a chalenge 😂😂😂
You can't hide from shovels
Shovel meme never gets old
@@Illopportunity248 never gets rusty and dull!
Tanks aren’t outdated, they’re overrated
No we have the weird privilege of seeing first hand the same thing people saw in 1939.
When for example French tanks who were superior to German tanks did not have radio equipment and got dominated because they used literal flags like a actual cavalry regiment.
I honestly think the new generation of tanks will essentially be individual armored capsules with as few possible crewmen and reinforced top armor against drones.
@@VojislavMoranic The new generation of western tanks will be what makes more money to the MIC, like this generation
Blaming the T72 design while the UK sends tanks with rifled guns is funny.
The T90 is what you should compare the Leopard 2, Chally 2 and Abrams with. The T90M is objectively better than the majority of the older Leo 2 (a4 version, chally 2 and abrams (stripped old version).
The T72s Russia uses should be compared to the older soviet tanks Ukraine uses and the leopard 1 sent. The T72B3 clearly has an advantage.
Next gen western tanks will be 50-55 tons, with an autoloader, a smoothbore gun, a remote controlled machinegun, and drone jammers, just like the T90M.
The next generation of Western tanks will not be tailored to perform in a war that will probably be over in the next 12 months.
Separating armour into self-loading mobile artillery and lighter vehicles with a range of firepower and anti air capability (ex. Serbian PASARS) is key. Speed and flexibility of mobile artillery is what will give advantage in modern warfare at the moment.
Russia has already had a few dog fights against western tanks and taken them out. You can see it and it's incredible.
leopard 1 is not a tank
@@Awaken2067833758 it is a tank, it's even a main battle tank, I was the main tank Germany had before leopard 2
The problem is the war itself. I am sure those in the UK visiting foodbanks would rather have peace, flowing Russian gas and lower heating bills. Perhaps should have encouraged the Ukrainians to adhere to Minsk 1&2 they signed up to instead of pursuing a war they could not win. Each time you go back to the table Russia's position is stronger and their willingness to give consessions diminishes. At what point are they going to realise this is an exercise in diminishing returns and futility?
You think the President of the USA cares about Brits and food banks?
No, wait! Another game changer is on the way.
@@telliamsheldonpwr1255 ; another Putin troll
It appears the MIC and those benefiting from their shares and positions in those defence companies are the ones making the decisions .. peace could be a way of yet 😮
@@MCMXLVIas opposed to yourself, who swallowed every piece of propaganda shovelled out by the ministry of offence. How many more Ukrainian conscripts you willing to sacrifice in this proxy war ? How much extra have you spent on electricity since this war started ? Are you capable of independent thought ? At what stage will the penny drop that you’ve been conned ?
Sitting in London and talking inclusively: "WE" 😮
😅😅😅My pronunciation is WE/THEY.
This is a sign of honesty.
So the T72 and T80 are turning out be better suited than Abrams Challenger and Leopard
Yes of course
They seem to be a lot more reliable than our huge dinosaurs.
@@paulthomas-hh2kv ; more Putin trolls
@@MCMXLVII’m trolling, trolling, trolling on my shovel ♠️ 😂
@MCMXLVI nope, you just can't handle the fact that nato tanks aren't performing as well as soviot style tanks in this war
has no one read books on the german armour experience in ww2
Like being stuck in mud
Most americans struggle with reading, and their comprehension is even worse.
Which is funny considering the US took most german whermacht abd SS officers, as well as military strategists, theorists, and many scientists and equipment designers too 🤡🤡🤡
The Germans themselves didn't learn much about their own History...
They forgot that out of ego that Hitler's fantastic and powerful Tiger tanks were basically sitting ducks in the Eastern fronts against the Russians.
It's cool that NATO has been able to learn about the weakness of its weapons at the cost of half a million Ukrainian lives. Wouldn't it be better hadn't they sent Borris Johnson to derail the Istanbul negotiation between Ukraine and Russia in March 2022? Ukraine could have retained Donbass and had saved its children who died on the battlefield?
NATO doesn't learn....it perseveres with magical thinking !
Abraham tank,chalenger,leapord made a huge publicity but they all vanished under Russian firepower.
Even Napoleon got stuck in the Russian mud, and in WWII the Germans too, so little was learned from history
This is Ukraine mud which is even worse. Greatest most fertile soil in the world for crops. Horrible for tanks after a rain of any amount more than .25 inches.
@@JGldmn333
Prečo USA financovali 5 000 000 000 $ ukrajinský fašistický ozbrojený prevrat Majdan v roku 2013 ?
So they can survive against most weapons , except small drones ?!? Sounds like a good tank 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Ukraine's Nato tanks have one major problem: they were fighting against Russia, the 2nd most powerful country in the World!!!
They noticed that the war in Ukraine is not the same as "desert storm"!!!It took them over two years to wake up from their lethargy!
2nd? Interesting but I don't see Russia as more powerful than China. Who do you have as 1st? I'm assuming US?
@@oumeshreega1361 ; I guess you live under a rock!, if you haven't been keeping up with current events!, the T series of Russian (T-72 through T-90) tank's are not the best tanks in the world!, if the numbers are correct!. Oh;. BTW Russia is not the 2nd best military power in the world anymore!. Ukraine took that spot!.
@@crazygone5107Russia has more fire power than the Chinese
@@MCMXLVI🤦🤦🤡you
One thing I taught the ukrainiens were winning everything that this dude just said is pointing to the opposite what about when the media are saying Ukraine is winning and gonna get back their territory
Western news media is corporate propaganda, and they want a war with Russia.
The Sun. For the non thinking humans!
This was a problem the Germans faced in WW2 they had great tanks but they got stuck all the time do to weigh
Nope
The weight of the tank is only a problem if the tank's treads can't spread the weight
Examples
M1A2 Abrams tank at 69.54 tons has a ground pressure of (15 psi) Source LM Land Systems.
250lb man 15.62psi
Adult horse (550 kg, 1250 lb): 170 kPa (25 psi)
Passenger car: 205 kPa (30 psi)
Wheeled ATV: 13.8 kPa (2 psi)
Adult elephant: 240 kPa (35 psi)
Mountain bicycle: 245 kPa (40 psi)
Road racing bicycle: 620 kPa (90 psi)
Woman in Stiletto heel: 3,250 kPa (471 psi)
This is because the tracks are spreading out the weight of the tank which allows the tank to move over mud, dirt, sand that will stop a soldier on horseback.
The Germans did not have "great tanks" during most of their offensive operations early in the war. When the war started they had only Panzer 3 and 4 which were primitive, 1930s era designs, far less advanced that the T34 units they faced. it was their Blitzkrieg tactic that made them unstoppable early on, not the quality of their tanks
@@Femfit123 I guess you are talking about Panzer I and II and probably Panzer 38(t). Panzer III and IV were not primitive.
And by the way T-34 had some advanced features but also very serious limitations.
The Germans had a problem of supply. They had tanks that require extreme logistical support and could not afford it. Nato is the same way, but can afford it. Ukraine cannot afford it nato logistics.
Air superiority is what's needed first. Then talk tanks.
Maybe should talk the diplomacy ? Do you know this definicion ? 😊
absolutely!
This is not a video game. You don't just "unlocked air superiority". 🤣🤣🤣
Air superiority only exists against low level enemies. It doesn’t exist against peer enemy unless you can prove me with an example. The only way to stop this is to call for peace and both parties’ concerns addressed
This is probably least talked about issue in Ukraine-Russia war. In the air both sides are a stalemate essentially, therefore neither can establish air superiority. This war heavily dependent on artillery and ground troops for that very reason.
The USSR never posed any threat to Germany.
I got stuck in the mud once in my VW.
@@piotr.leniec-lincow5209 ; so did I!. My 63 Bug got stuck one day and we just lifted out of the trench that the wheels had dug and off we went!.
In short: don't fight Russia.
Yep, those 3 day Special Military Operations Russia carries out are some long days
@@davidvines6498
Generál US Army Mark Milley verejne vyhlásil ,, Vojnu na ukrajine vyhrá NATO do troch dní ".
Tak čakáme na ten zázrak po úteku z Afganistanu pred pastiermi kôz s AK47.
🤣🤣🤣
The Ukrainians were absolutely saying "we want Leopard" . I guess not anymore.
After the way the Leopards failed on the battlefield, Zelenaky won't be able to sell the remaining ones on the black market
Most of these tanks are on display in Moscow 👎
In the current war, MBT vs MBT tank duel is very rare, Ukrainians need more Bradley with good anti-drone protection.
They're getting CV90s, that can shoot down drones and helicopters with their air burst ammunition.
MBT is used to lead the attack as it has a higher chance of surviving ATGM and drone hits than a bradley
more than anything else Ukrainians needs some brain
@@DaveP-uv1ml2/3 of all Bradleys send have been knocked out, and they are classed as the most successful equipment sent. This just shows how war has changed and no side is prepared for a major peer to peer war.
Ukraine could also really use the booker, which is much better suited for the terrain
In the British army we build over bridges or stand alone Bailey bridges that can take a MBT, and the mud problem is just as bad for light tanks, Scorpion and Spartan vehicles used to shed their tracks with boring regularity.
The experts tell me that it is because you are not using them properly.
100% = no single or dual country bridges in England can take loads above 45 tons
@@Hereford1642 'the experts' on TH-cam? 😂
@@mikeycraig8970 No no. The proper ones on the telly.
@@Hereford1642 Oh right, TV experts as opposed to Internet ones?
So NATO tanks were developed for fighting in Western Germany??? Because they work surprisingly well in the Middle East... American ones even mostly come in desert camo and I don't know about any deserts in Germany.
And US tankers needed pantyhose urgently, as improvised additional sand/dust filters.
It is not about desert, it is about terrain characteristics. Frozen ground is nice for tanks, but very low temperatures are not so easy for diesel engines.
They work well on nice firm ground with a massive logistics tail to keep them supplied and running and air superiority and against an enemy wihout drones or modern anti tank missiles.
@BojanPeric-kq9et , Ukrainian soil is mostly clay and black soil. Winters in Ukrain are not harsh . The soil I winter freezing dip down for about 10-15 centimeters. Can you imagine a 60-ton tank on thin ice ? I was in Soviet army in the 80th. Believe me, for most Russians winter with -20°C it's absolutely normal. Summer time about +20 , and people going on the beach with temperature of the water +18. But Ukraine is much more warmer.
Did they not realise that before entering the war?@@sergei1396
they work well fighting people in sandals and riding 125cc motorcycles in almost any territory!
Oh... so, if they had twice as many tanks the mines wouldn't have worked against them... ROFL...
Russia could not afford to have double the amount of cheap fpv drones 🤣
NATO tanks are all too heavy and too FU$KING expensive! But that's the whole point of this exercise!
😂 Soviet tank
t72 42 ton.
t90 48 ton.
Bmp1&2 13 ton
Bmp3 18 ton
looks more like poor judgment to drive any tank into ground that soft.
Raspútica is not a joke.
Hi, it's Jerome here. In that instance the driver said he went slowly because he had journalists (my and my two colleagues) sitting on the turret and he didn't want to throw us off. You are absoultely right, because when the second tank arrived to tow, it charged through the same ground and came out the other side. You can see the original film we did with the Challenger 2 crews here: th-cam.com/video/eRQdVw5ViIY/w-d-xo.html
All other approaches are covered. 45 ton broad track is maximum tank
They made the war in the wrong country? 🤣
The fact that it's a Challenger and not an Abrams is hilarious😂
You told us it's game changers
Yes it is, in New Papua Guinea.
No the Turtle-tanks are 😂😂😂😂😂
Provide your source for that statement please.
@@daydays12 here we don't need to go far
Hi, it's Jerome here. Britain's decision to send Challenger 2s was a game-changer, because it made it paved the way for the USA and Germany to follow suit. Admittely, the tanks have not had the impact on the battlefield that Ukraine and its backers had hoped.
With or without tanks Ukraine was shafted by Nato.
Ukraine shafted itself not NATO. Biggest mistake was the maidan protest and insurrection which foreign western forces got involved with. At that point it became a turf war between 2 groups of mafia oligarchs.
Koniec nacistickeho Kijevskeho režimu sa blíži napriek podpore kolektívneho fašistického západu známeho z Mníchova 1938 a vojnových zločincov z USA.
i saw a very sad video!! 1 Captive Russian POW was forced to lie down on his belly then a Ukranian soldier Used a showel to stab him in the spine they laughed and mocked him while he was dying in agony!!
Ukraine requesting from “NATO allies”, so when did they join NATO?
in 2014 after the cue when it became Nulandistan
A Bradley is 25 tonnes.
The bradly isnt a tank its a Apc.
@@ThePhantom712 still, it seems that Bradleys are the best thing the Ukraine got. And its weapon(s) is powerful enough to destroy ork-tanks
@@ThePhantom712 IFV to be exact. And it's doing great against Russian T-90M tanks, which they claim are modern western tanks killers. LMAO
@@Edelweiss-f8c T-90M would struggle against M1A2 SEPv2 and SEPv3
You make conclusion based on a video where damaged t90m cannot fire back at bradley.
These IFV’s are extremely good vehicles, but as we have seen dozens of them being destroyed. No need to mention that facing a non-damaged tank will lead to bradley turning into a blood box in a single shot.
The one major problem is their weapons are crap.
I'll tell you the problem. No air support. The whole NATO armour doctrine is based on having air superiority.
What can you do when you have open fields with miles of visibility and Russians can just hit the tanks with helicopters and drones.
MBT as a concept is pretty much done. There will be some heavily armoured vehicles but having dozens of tanks rolling freely on open fields is a thing of the past.
So true. The 'west' has been so slow and unaware of the reality of the war Ukraine has been obliged to fight. WHERE are the planes?
You can't free rolling when everything is mined
Air Defense says that's never going to happen.
Its really hard to get air superiority if your fighting a real military and not goat herders and farmers.
Excuses don’t win wars.
Hmm… sounds like the exact problem Germany had in WWII with their Tiger tanks…
And over engineered, low to no production capacity, etc...
Not quite, heavy tanks had wider tracks to compensate that.
Thank you for your efforts, information.
from the beginning the Nato kept thinking that these modern tanks will be a game change, that proved that was wrong and they should know how heavy these tanks are for Ukraine land, and without control of the skies they are just like ducks
So far they have successfully managed to abandon all of them..
I dont think they understand how important that is
The crews get them stuck on purpose so they have an excuse to abandon them
@@Withnail1969 lmao big tough guy behind a keyboard. You should go join the international legion. I bet they would LOVE your expert advice.
@@Asymmetrical-Saggin That's what I heard. No need to take it out on me.
@@Withnail1969 Someone reads russian propaganda.
A very sobering report. Thank you. It seems that MBT designers are still going down the wrong road and ignoring the weather in Europe and the strength of bridges. A $300 drone can blow off a track and that is the end of the tank as more drones can chip away at it while immobilised.
Drones are very easily defeated. I saw a new French system blowing a swarm of drones out the air that was attacking the vehicle with ease. Even the Russians are having success with jammers. I think drones are just a temporary blip in warfare
A $20,000 jammer will stop dozens of $300 drones per minute for as long as the tank can provide power to the jammer.
What the videos don't tell you is that the Ukrainians lose more drones than they have had successful drones.
That most drone crews spend most of their time building new drones to replace the ones they lost that day.
And that they've had drone crews killed while operating the drone or retrieving the drone because the other side triangulated the controller or the drone's radio signal and decided to send a dozen mortar rounds at the x mark
@@pogo1140 The reason Russia is building cages round their equipment is due to the success of drones. Agreed that Ukraine admit to a hit success rate of less than 50% for drones. But what is the success rate of a 155mm shell at $1000 a pop? 1 in 3? 1 in 10? Jamming and counter-jamming is an ongoing warfare. Hard to state who is winning that battle now.
@@pogo1140 if the jammer operators are lucky and know the operating frequencies for enemy drones and the jammer covers that frequency range and the enemy drone operators do not change the frequencies, then yes. But chances of all this happening consistently are slim indeed
@@romailto9299 The jammer operator does not need to know it, the drone and the operator will broadcast that information
Also no use keeping sending equipment when Ukraine is currently running out of Soldiers.
All NATO needs to do is copy the Russian ideas, like the Panther copied the T34's armor design.
The mud-sinking-tanks were predicted by MacGregor and Ritter, but they were Putin-Poodles. Hahahahaha
Obviously, the only way to improve the current fleet is to develop an add-on / replace system that will broaden the tracks.
Grousers. Available in WW II, but they could add a ton to a medium tank's weight.
@@goldenhawk352Quite well stuck in mud during a spring? Literally overheavy outdated monsters with FRONTAL sprockets. Which add(if included all the needed measures like height increase) changes around 13% of weight!
There is a catch: wider tracks limit turn radius. WW2 era tanks were much slower than modern tanks, especially if we compare real life speeds, not last gear maximums.
@@BojanPeric-kq9et True, still turning slowly is much better than getting stuck. You can build your tactics around that condition, but you can't build many tactics on being a sitting duck.
@@rosevfx turning slower means lower speed to. Except for CR2 which is already slow and underpowered, can you imagine Americans really limiting speed of Abrams to mere 45-50 km/h?
This war showed that there will be many things which will have to be changed and that can't be solved with few small fixes here and there, especially during war time. While it sounds easy "develop new tracks", what if distances from wheels to hull is too small? Asymmetrical tracks? Longer shafts? Development, testing, retesting, retraining... Meanwhile, US needed almost a year to send 31 old Abrams. Add to that US MIC history of projects like FCS which is rarely mentioned huge corruption scandal.
This is all a cope. Tanks are being lost and this “expert” is calling them too heavy.
Maybe that’s why they’re being lost?? 😂
NATO doctrine would surely insist upon complete air superiority: otherwise, double the track width (preferably with lighter materials) and increase engine output to compensate. Or use several thousand Bradley type units.
Unfortunately, Ukrainians can't even maintain/repair most of these overly complex tanks themselves. Speaking as someone who lives in Ukraine, though not a soldier, there is great disatisfaction at these western MBTs. The Challenger is the worst, due to being the heaviest/least able to navigate the real-world eastern european battlefield. The Leopard 2s perform ok, but it's a disappointment when the western media kept hyping them as "game changers" for a year. The Bradleys on the other hand are excellent. Really impressive capabilities and viable for multiple types of use (e.g. ferrying infantry to the line of contact and also for destroying enemy vehicles).
@@WangMingGe All valid points I think - except i also believe the Ukrainians (and I'm on their side) are still mired in Soviet thinking - I work in IT and have worked with these guys - who think everyone should be given the same flat like their mother's were....why would anyone want more - etc etc...
@@stonward You are correct for part of the country. It's really very divided, not like most people in the west believe as a simplification (of course, nobody would assume Texas is the same as New York). IT and any STEM thing tends to be occupied by mostly Soviet-minded people...admittedly the Russians were good at industry and technology. My family comes from Ternopil, in the region of Galicia. Again contrary to media perceptions, the most Russian areas are the most developed and 'modern', secular etc. (although, because religion except Islam tends to be perceived negatively in the west, the media plays up the role of the Russian church, which is big, but, those places have by far the most atheists/secular folk - Ternopil, on census statistics, is 0% atheist/irreligious, for comparison; mostly Catholic). Galicia/western Ukraine has tossed away the Soviet attitudes, generally speaking, a long time ago. Even in the 2000s, there was nothing left, no statues, no street names. But, a large part of that is, psychologically, we never integrated into the USSR, since we had historically never been part of Russia. Our experience in the USSR began in September 1939, ended in 1941, then restarted 1944-1991. We always fought against everything Russian and since the maximum period of Russian rule in all our history was 47 years, not even the lifetime of one man, it was easy to escape mentally. But, I live in Vinnytsia. And here, although the distance is small, psychologically, most people are VERY Soviet. In fact, if you only speak Ukrainian, not Russian, or you have western-Ukrainian facial features (we really do look quite different, much as Dutch and Italians look different), people will call you a "Polyak" - and they mean this very negatively. They have that proletarian international thinking from Soviet movies. A third of this city is hoping the Russians will come and make things 'normal' again, even 2 years into the war, so, I totally believe you. And, the areas which have the thinking you describe, they are the economic and government heartland, although of course not the core of Ukrainian nationalism.
@@WangMingGe I wish we could meet and talk this through over some nice drinks.... Thankyou for the considered remarks.
"insist" - LOL, with Air Defense its just not going to happen.
9:16 Bullocks :)) T-72Б3, T-80, and T-90 have an on par protection as other, western tanks.
The difference is - western tanks utilized tons of extra "plated composite armor", whereas Russian tanks use combination of plated composite armor and active/dynamic protection systems, thus making things lighter.
Telling the audience that for the amount of weight there is in Russian tanks you could add a far better protection is total bullocks.
Yes, they could improve plated composite protection a la western designers, but it would simply result in Russian tanks weighing same ridiculous amount of tons as western tanks. Remember you said about an ideal weight of the tank, 55-58 tons? Well, try playing within that number and you'll arrive at...a Russian tank :))))))))))
They show the same footage of that challenger tank getting stuck again and again.
It's still stuck to this day
Maybe the same tank actually got stuck multiple times!
Just because a bridge is rated for a certain tonnage doesn't mean it can't handle more weight for a limited time. A bridges' weight capacity is normally underrated for safety margin's as well. I cite the Remagen bridge in Germany during WW2, which stood for several day's after sustaining heavy battle damage. I'm skeptical of this guys credential's.
It is all excuses to explain the failure.
Basically every "defence expert" that comes on a news outlet to talk about this stuff knows less than the average military enthusiast online, don't listen to a word of what these people say, you can go to basically any forum and make a better assumption for things with 15 minutes worth of forum reading
Yeah totally test ur luck using a suspended 70 tons over water, what can go wrong
Thinking any bridge will be left standing two days into a conflict is kinda stupid.
You might get away with 1 tank, but not 60.
It means they won’t be able to use them as an offensive weapon. It doesn’t have to stay stationary, but it needs to stay in areas where it won’t sink.
If you can walk or stand on it with your combat load, so can an M1A2
The problem was The West trained Ukraine in the aspects of combined arms and then sent them into battle with no air cover/air superiority...Ukraine's tanks were sitting ducks for anti tank helis and strike aircraft...The US was at fault for this since they have never gone into a battle like this without control of the skies...Ukraine's summer offensive was bound to fail due to this...
Then think why so called military experts told they are pretty sure in getting back Crimea...Game changers and wunderwaffens, then western super weapons ended in Moscow...
The NVA of less than 300,000 troops launched an offensive in conventional warfare with no air support against south vietnam who over a million troops and having the 4th largest airforce and stll the NVA won. It just shows soviet tactics are way better
@@JL-tm3rc To be honest that was more complicated.
@@JL-tm3rc Bit of difference between jungle fighting and fighting on open plains with armor against miles of trenches and without air superiority...
@@JL-tm3rc pahahahahaha, typical Pro Russian Bot? Clearly have no idea on what you are talking about.
NATO will soon find out that the ideal tank weight, for the terrain in Ukraine, is zero tons.
That's why they required Bradley's not Abrams.
Who cares, Ukraine has proven western equipment it way too much for Russian Soviet era equipment going on 3 years and all we hear is excuses from Russia
What excuses.?
Those Excuses are all on show as a Western Junk Yard (Moscow)..😉🇷🇺👍
Name one front where the Ukrainians are doing well.
@@richardsanders4624 Woopie they have 2-3 tanks of ours while they’ve lost hundreds? 😂
@@DarianEX To understand how many losses of NATO equipment there are in Ukraine. In the small village of Sokol alone in the Avdeevsky direction, UAVs detected 3 burnt-out Bradley infantry fighting vehicles remaining on the roads of the village.
Sitting duck as well canonfodder? 🤣 😂
This is Rubbish. I wasa commander in the Dutch Cavalry and we trained alongside our allies to attack-consolodidate-attack-consolidate. Through rouch terrain, crossing rivers (under the water). So no sitting ducks but constantly on the move.
Old leopards weren't as heavy as new ones, let alone challenger and abrams
You are a Dutch man. You aren't anywhere even remotely a major fighting force in the circa 1985 scenario.
i had a feeling that these guys dont understand what theyre saying from the start where they say "nato tanks arent made for maneuver" when the bundeswehr was primarily trained to fight delaying actions. Thanks for confirming that feeling.
I agree. I was 19 Echo and we trained along side you guys from time to time. As you can see from some of the comments disagreeing with you, there are youtube experts here that never set foot in a tank let alone trained in Europe with other European forces. They dont know squat. In any case, good comment, you're spot on correct.
@homeofcreation @klauskeller6380 Your training experience is irrelevant in the context of real war. Good luck applying your "skills" against stronger enemy, attacking enemy positions covered with hundred of thousands of mines, ATGMs, artillery, with thousands of drones in the air watching your every move in HD.
Excuses Excuses and more Excuses, what's new?
I know for US freeways, the max is 40 ton. so those would have to be hauled by rail
In Canada, they (in Canada's case, Leopards) are indeed hauled by rail.
This ist not true.
When a truck legaly can wheigh about 38 tons, the bridges must be capable of carrying this several times. It always could be that there are two Trucks on the Bridge or one truck an several cars.
So I guess you don't know for US freeways.
could you please tell your men to get rid of these rubber blocks clearly seen on the tracks here 1:30 before they engage in actual combat... these protecting blocks are for moving by the pawed roads only 🤫
Or maybe it could be the kms and kms of minefields 🙄
Yeah I agree. All this talk about tanks and mobile warfare is ridiculous.
@@simmorg290 You can't mine everything, you have to be able to have a path for your own tanks and vehicles
@@pogo1140 Yes but you can mine everything between your defensive lines and the enemy and you can also mine the paths/roads after you've passed through if you had to.
In the south it was ridiculous. The Ukrainian counter offensive there was doomed from the start. In fact a Ukrainian general admitted not long after the offensive started that they knew their NATO tanks would be destroyed if they went anywhere near the front so they kept them far in the rear.
@@simmorg290 Yes, the volume of mines in the south was insane. 3-5 times what the Soviet/Russian manuals said to use per sq/km and over 5 times more area.
That does mean that where did the mines come from? like all munitions, you only have so many even if you have millions of them, and you need trucks to move them from warehouses to the units and time for the units to place them.
Imagine a time, far in the future, when we don't mass murder each other over political disputes !
Yep, a world without USA politics...
@@TenylegMinekez-uc7co a world without putins russia
@@Swatmat even this conflict is the result of US politics, don't fool yourself... can't be so propagandized/ brainwashed.
@@TenylegMinekez-uc7co yes i remember seeing American tanks roll over the border from Belarus into Ukraine..... oh no wait, that was Russian tanks...
Countries want to join NATO WILLINGLY!!!! Because exactly what Russian does, it just invades and trues to annex it, Putin wants his Soviet Union back...
@@Swatmat the putsch regime installed by the US in Kiev after the violent insurrection maidan 2014 started the war. The Eastern regions wanted to remain pro-Russian, so the regime attacked them for it. See: War in Donbas, the ATO.
I’ve heard many comments from ex-tankers that one of the issues, concerning getting stuck, is basically practise. Practise in knowing the limitations of the tank and being able to read the terrain in front of you. The example the Sun Defence Editor shows when he was in Ukraine many tankers said that they would have seen the muddy area from afar and avoided it. This tanker thought like a T-type Russian tank driver and simply went ahead and promptly got stuck. In this case it is a driver error not a tank error.
nah ukrainian soil is loamy not clayey that is why you cannot identify muddy areas
The ukraine soil has legendary reputation regarding its difficulty for vehicles, they call that mud season the Rasputitsa, which translates to “season of bad roads” 😆
In a few months it will be froze again bringing a whole herd of new problems
Просто надо было самим приезжать и управлять
Hi, it's Jerome here. You make a really good point. There were some ground signs (like reeds) where the Challenger 2 got stuck when we were with them. Also, the driver said he went slowly because we were on the turret and he didn't want to throw us off.
Pushing with tanks without having air superiority is like pushing with Tin Cans with bright red markers on them.
Seems that western IFV like CV90, Marder and especially Bradley are more valuable for Ukraine than the few western MBTs they got. The high ground-pressure of western MBT is a problem in the mud-period. The germans faced the same problem in WW2 and (partly) solved it after bad experiences by fitting wider tracks on their Panzer III,IV and StugIII(Ostkette,eastern track). Perhaps the old Leopard 1 fits better for the conditions in Ukraine, but it lacks protection and has less fire power.
IFV aren't meant to use against T72 through.
@@Soras_ Now we know why Ukraine wanted the Leopard 1 A5. It has less protection and firepower but is even 6 tons lighter than the T90m.
There is no too much difference in ground pressure between Soviet and NATO tanks in Ukraine.
@@youmed1567 They didn't want Leo 1s. That is what they got
No air power, no offensive no matter what vehicles they have.
A track widening kit would work to stop the tanks from getting stuck
Exactly!
No it won't. Too heavy still
@@TopTechTrendsX There is no tracked vehicle light enough to not get stuck in a mudhole. Most of the vehicles people think are just stuck are damaged by mines, artillery, or drones.
Someone doesn't know the tradeoffs of widening tracks and that the hull imposes a hard limit on track width.
Modern tanks have less ground pressure per sq. ft. than a car does. The problem is trying to drive in a swamp.
Most modern battle tanks can cross rivers by crawling across the bottom of a small river.
I thought they would get stuck in the silt/mud
@@DanMorgan-bh5fv Soviet equipment (not just tanks) is famous for that ability. Much faster than building bridge.
HAHA the coping here is enjoyable. Thanks 😀
Send in the Daleks ffs
Without knowing your terrain before you drive a tank into soft soil in the spring is a mistake anyway. Any commander would have someone run ahead and check with a rod how soft the soil is before crossing certain areas. It's like driving a tank in the dessert with quick sand everywhere! There are other ways of crossing soft surfaces. Anyway, this video is a year old and I haven't seen a video of another western tank getting stuck. These were Ukrainians driving the tank in Ukraine for the first time. They will have learned from their mistake and as spring has already passed it looks like they haven't made the same mistake again.
There's a reason russian tanks carry logs. To get out of mud when they're stuck
Major problem with Challenger 2's is that, they're STUPIDLY heavy. I'm honestly surprise they built a tank the surpasses the weight of the German WW2 King Tiger tank. What do you do with them? Why, let's take 'em to area's where it's muddy out. Totally nothings wrong is going to happen!
It also make 'em more useless when going through certain bridges too.
And if you look at the tracks of a King Tiger they are wider!
Ju don'd oonderztand. Wi phait in Fulda. Wi lif in 1985!
i thought driving soviet tanks feels like driving a lada and riding nato tanks feels like ferrari 😅😂🤣
Finally a good video from the sun
That’s what I was thinking too
We're waiting for retractions on the shortage of ammunition, shortage of missiles, shortage of shovels, shortage of morale, shortage of tanks...
Would it be possible to retrofit a Leopard, Abrams, and/or Challenger tank with wider tracks? And would it reduce the risk of getting stuck in soft and muddy terrain?
Even if they will do it it will not be like tomorrow, will need to redesign them, takes time
@@jevgenijs39 no we dont need to.
Leopard 2 has, even in its heavierst versions, a better specific ground pressure than a T-90. Why? Longer track lenght on the ground, wider tracks etc. in fact, a Leopard 2A7V, even though around 13t heavier than a T-90M, has a better cross country performence than the T-90M, even in heavy terrain like deep mud.
possible but the weight is only one of many problem of western tanks in ukraine
Tanks are now as obsolete as the cavalry. Carriers are sitting ducks.
Yes, the Challenger 2 is such a good tank, but for avoidance. The famous "game changer"?! It changed the game in Ukraine so much that the Ukrainians decided for their own safety not to use it on the battlefield at all. And they have been doing it successfully for more than a year.
Nothing wrong with the tank crew issue the British army has said if there was British soliders in the chally they know where to drive and not get stuck
Yup, they're used to the lighter russian tanks but it is a bit of a disadvantage if you can't drive over a bridge.
@@mambastu Yeah but Western tanks weren't bogged down at the crumbling bridges, they got stuck in mud. And highly trained Western crews would know not to go into a certain mud pits..
Except Ukraine is one big mud pit
just to be clear, Ukrainian tanks drivers are highly competent well trained. The issue here is the tank.
@@markbrisec3972 You don't always get a choice of where to go and the enemy gets a say as well,
Otto Carius wrote a book about this, heavy tanks getting stuck in the mud. The book is called Tigers in the Mud, detailing his experience as a WWII tank commander
Tanks have been in development for 100yrs? Armour, gun, mobility? What more is left to modify? Make it fly? They're a slow dinosaur weapon.But everybodys got them, so they have to use them. Like the airframe design of modern fighters, they're only as good as whats pushing it at the back - and that turbine concept hasnt changed after 80 yrs?
With bridges, only weight reduction helps. But to prevent sinking into wet ground you must reduce the ground pressure, so either weight reduction or wider tracks would do the trick.
Or both weight reduction and wider tracks.
So basically... autoloaders are a must. The French LeClerc and South Korean K2 Black Panther have one and they're about 10 tons lighter compared to the Leopards/Challengers/Abrams
One less crew member means less space needed which leads to a smaller tank and thus lower weight. That in turn can lead to a smaller engine which also means less weight.
Then we're left with the commander, gunner and driver. I'd say the future tank goes autopilot for the driving (should be a lot simpler for tanks than for cars, don't need to stick to all the traffic rules in combat), AI takes over 90% of the gunner does and all we need is a single person in the tank. (s)He can do the driving when not engaging in combat and when engaged in combat is basically mostly there for confirming a prompt that goes "Ready to shoot this highlighted target in this pre-selected specific weakpoint with this type of ammo".
I could imagine a very small tank, something like the German Wiesel when it comes to size but with a much much bigger gun. Perhaps have the commander of it in a (mostly) Horizontal position for a very low (hard to hit) profile. All the weight reductions might enable much higher speeds as well, current tanks afaik have a speed limiter to prevent them for shaking themselves apart at higher speeds.
PS: No, I'm not blind to how much better no crew at all would be. But for something that takes lives you want a human involved in taking certain decisions and doing that remotely would leave you very vulnerable to jamming (like drones are atm).
If the whole thing can be electrically powered that could lead to a stupidly silent tank as well. But that would need the very latest solid state battery tech as you don't want lithium ion batteries in a tank. The technology for all of this exists but it would be very cutting edge and partially unproven tech and it would rely on sourcing from a very small select number of companies which is bad for scaling up production.
On the flip side, any nation would be terrified to go up against air droppable near silent tanks with immense firepower. Not to mention reducing the personnel to a single person saves a lot of training costs/man power needs. (Costs will probably just offset the more expensive tech needed, but might be a benefit in the long run)
The gun loader on a Challenger tank is also the vice-commander. This means that more targets can be selected and destroyed in less time.
But you do know that Autoloader have a way higher critical kill ratio.
We've seen hundred of videos/pictures of russian tank turrets thrown into air after a fatal ammunition explosion.
What we don't have is evidence of critical kills for western tanks. As far as we know there was NO completely killed tank crew in a western tank.
Also, the loss rate of Russian Tanks is way higher than the one for the western tanks.
I would argue otherwise, the reloader has proven that he isn't obsolete by any meaning.
@@papaaaaaaa2625this is true for Russian Carousel Autoloaders, which are far bigger and easier to hit than bustle autoloaders that have ammo blowout doors like that seen on the Abrams.
They are also faster than their carousel counterparts in most cases.
The Japanese Type 90 and the French LeClerc have this protected bustle autoloader, though they have not seen proper combat, more likely than not they would have better crew survivability than the Russian Space Program.
Autoloader will save around 10% weight but will reduce active crew by 25% - is that a good trade?
Excellent reporting! Way better than anything in the Telegraph. Keep it up!
drones with high explosives are not atgms by any means and they are just as effective if not more effective because they can loiter
I enjoyed this sensible talk. That's why tanks need a platoon of infantry who would secure the perimeter of ~2km and an anti-helicopter/drone dome of ~ a 6km radius. Otherwise, $10M in assets and 4 trained tankers are wasted even on the defensive.
Why the blur? 😂
Masking Naz! emblems?
The massive use of FPV "kamikaze" drones changed a lot. No amount of old school armor will save you from an anti armor charge delivered to the right spot. If the first one fails the second or the third one will succeed. If it won't destroy the tank, it will surely disable it and it is just a sitting duck.
And those drones are 1000 or less bucks a piece, a tank is north of $5 millions...
I think FPV drones superiority is temporary.
Jammers and « hard kill » systems are on the way. It simply takes time to find the proper balance between cost and future effectiveness, design them from scratch and supply them.
Then, it will be as every arm race : more sophisticated drones, to overcome defenses, more sophisticated defenses to improve protection, and… more expensive systems at every step.
@@chefchaudard3580 You are right. I believe that apart from jammers there will be most likely some form of automatic active protection against drones developed, using either small machine guns or maybe at certain point more sophisticated means like small directed EMPs. But for now drones got a pretty significant head start on the battlefield.
@@lastelinl8724 basically, lidars like we have on our cars and a basic grapeshot gun on tank would suffice to destroy an incoming drone.
The thing is that the software needs to be designed and gun and ammunitions too. Nothing terribly complex, but it takes time. The gun could be replaced with some laser.
But I may miss something.
Oh no the game changer weapons are not game changers at all.
When they say game changers they don’t mean instantly . They all add upon each others capabilities. So when the next offensive comes next year they will have tanks backed by HIMARS with f16 air support conducting SEAD missions to knock out enemy air defence. It’s the west that never gave what they promised in any significant numbers . Did you watch this video or come to be a bot 🤖 don’t tell me I think I know .
@@ZiGGi03 you know for 2.5 years Ukraine recieves game changer weapons. And last summer they had the opportunity to show what they are capable. Well Russia captured the same territory whitin a few weeks what Ukraine did in 3 months. The problem with your thinking line is that you think all of these weapons are acts like in a CoD game or back in Iraq 10+ years before. If you can't handle the weapon the weapons is as useless as the person operates. Sped up trainings wont achieve anything only more deaths in the front. So that's the problem with every "game changers" and every western weapon systems. Probably if US or NATO troops would use those equipment they have more succes rate but I guess you don't want to happen that.
@@attilakiss5400 you are crazy Ukraine during their offensive attacked a defensive position who had a year to prepare with mines and air support . Ukraine only got one battalion that was under strength they can only fight with the weapons they have . If we the west have what we promised they would have had a greater effect . In the 7 month Johnson blocked aid Ukraine used drones Drones have had a bigger impact than all these weapons . I. Not saying any weapon is a game changer . The media put that out there for clicks and people like you bite . If you keep up with this conflict and listen to the generals who get interviewed they say what I said . It’s not one thing that will change it’s all these systems used as part of a combined arms attack . HIMARS changed the game for Russia as they had to move back their ammo dumps and disperse them . Atgm and javelin plus drones helped stop the large column of tanks that headed for Kiev . What do you think would have happened without these weapons ? They can only fight with what they have . If the west push the agenda of game changers because it’s not Ukraine saying this and the west doesn’t send the amounts they promised due to whatever reason that’s not on Ukraine you know . That’s a totally different story.
The Germans commented that the Donbas was horrible tank territory back in WW2.
Apparently the Ukrainian crews aren’t competent to operate them according to the conditions. You don’t drive a tank in a swamp and expect it won’t get stuck.
Now they are now say the truth but they were blaming Ukraine failure of contter attacks
Considering they only used NATO trained and equipped troops - laughable