@@PeaShooter33Lol he doesnt. He posts videos about military things in Ukraine and more videos not exclusive to that topic. Oh and also why do dislike Ukraine winning?
*one pixel* RedEffect: Ah yes, this is T-72 made on six day of the third month in 1998. That day was very rainy. And we can see that the tank commander is named Igor, 35 yeas old born in ....
"The tank mechanic from 05.06.1998 7:30am to 01.08.2003, 9:07pm had a neighbour across the street at 66 Pravda street, Vladivostok whose mistress's dog was slightly ill on 22.08.2003. he didn't ate all his sausages, but buried some for later. I can tell by the dead pixel in frame 5224."
The hit at 0:07 looks like a sabot round passing straight through the lead vehicle or a deflection. If it had been HE it would have gone off either when it head the vehicle or when it struck the ground??
kinda the opposite...if the ruskis were running it at lower details, the bushes wouldnt render and the tank would be clearly visible against the low ploy surroundings
@@kalinmir I play on low settings on my laptop, I donno how that helps - low poly tank on a low poly field with low poly forest - it all looks the same
@@kalinmir😂 would be fun if game logic could be applied in real life. Just put the graphics settings on low, foliage on very low or if possible turned off.
If you attack you get droned if you retreat you get droned if you hide you get droned if you have counter measure you get droned at 60fps war has indeed change, the circle of dead is shorter now.
"Quoi qu'on fasse, on perd beaucoup de monde" ("Whatever you do, you lose a lot of men") - Charles Mangin, French General and hero of the Second Battle of the Marne as well as many others
@@grimmerjxcts2206To be fair, in some ways there's less casualty overall now, compared to the old massive clashes. One downside is death is now much more unpredictable and quick, one moment you're there and the next you're disappeared.
To be fair, the original role which tanks were developed for, and arguably still the most important role tanks play, is leading offensives and breakthroughs, not setting up ambushes. Tank destroyers and anti-tank guns were developed for this role of ambush, and after WW2 they were replaced by ATGMs in this role. Don't get me wrong, this was a good example of how a tank can be used to ambush a column, but to claim this is the proper use of a tank is a bit misleading.
@@MaxCroat Well, now the proper use of a tank has undergone a change, since any tank in an open area can be easily destroyed. In most cases, tanks are now used for firing from closed positions, i.e. used as a self-propelled gun. Moreover, he has a maximum of 3-5 minutes to get out of there after the shots, otherwise he is finished. In the event of an attack, the tank, in addition to the dynamic protection kit, is protected with all kinds of additional protection. A drone with anti-tank ammunition can circle the tank more than once to find a weak spot. Swarms of several drones are also used - the first one breaks through the defense, the rest hit the same spot. During an attack, if a tank brought the landing force to the enemy’s positions, it has already worked, and if it returns, that’s very cool. And of course, fire support for the landing forces, i.e. destruction of firing points and dugouts...
@@справ-щ8б Of course, warfare has changed dramatically in the 21st century, and this really happened in the blink of an eye. I don't think anybody really expected drones, particularly FPV kamikaze drones and other small and cheap drones to have such a huge impact on the battlefield, yet it happened very quickly. I guess doctrines just change much more slowly, so it is still unclear what exactly should be the main role of a tank on the modern battlefield. Perhaps we will see tanks implement more anti-drone protection in the future and keep their breakthrough role, perhaps their role will change more dramatically. But I was just referring to the historical role tanks play in response to OP's comment. If we are being completely honest, an ambush role is also less likely for tanks, simply because there are so many drones observing the battlefield that it is quite hard to hide a tank and prepare a proper ambush.
@@GuyHoldingABirdreversing keeps most armor towards enemy that is actively shooting at you, and allows you time to fire back, I would not do a U turn without cover or knowledge i cant be shot in the ass, but im no tanker so what do i even know
@@SnoW-pk9zo they might have had damaged optics after being shot, or fire mechanisms or wtv, lots of stuff happen when you're being shot and in a panic while shit is getting broken
there have been lots - and several televised already - you can see RedEffects back catalogue - one the other way round (a single t72 vs a ukrainian column)....
Wdym? Have you not heard of the 6 day war? Or you kipur war that had the biggest tank on tank battle in modern times and 2nd of all time after Kursk Was mostly 105 centurion and magach 3s against T55 and T62s
People who don’t acknowledge that -4 kph is a terrible thing are coping hard. To show who actually changed their minds of that type of reverse speed I present the Cromwell tank compared to the Centurion mk1. Show real change there.
Reverse speed is a good thing, that's a fact recognised by the most conservative Russian tank crew since the beginning of the war. T 80BVM suddenly become the best Russian tank on the field, not because of CITV or APS but because of "good" reversed speed (10 kph is bad but surely better than the absolutely horrible 4 kph on T 90M).
@@mrmakhno3030 it is a noticeable upgrade to 4km/h, for example reversing 100m distance to cover takes 1min 30seconds at 4km/h when at 10km/h its only 35 seconds.
it depends on the terrain, in Russia and Ukraine the t-72, t-90, t-64, ect they have that bad reverse gear because while it is MUCH slower than western tanks, it also produces an insane amount of torque from one reverse gear that is incredibly useful at getting tanks unstuck from thick mud and snow because sometimes mud/snow can get 3 feet thick there, this is why there's numerous videos of Leopards, Abrams, western IFVs/APCs getting bogged down in mud/snow while there's very little videos of the same thing happening to Russian vehicles because when you have one reverse gear and you go to reverse it puts all of the engines power in that one reverse gear which makes it incredibly good at preventing tanks from getting stuck but also gives the tank an incredibly slow reverse speed, another reason is that having one reverse gear also reduces the overall length of the transmission and therefore the tank, so people like to talk about how bad the reverse speed is on Russian tanks, but they fail to remember the fall/winter in Russia and Ukraine gets really rough, and there can be multiple feet of snow or mud that a tank can easily get bogged down in unless the tank is designed for that terrain, it's also part of the reason Russian tanks are almost half the weight of Western tanks, because that additional weight is really bad in Russian/Ukrainian terrain because of how bad the mud/snow gets.
@I’m hearing a lot of excuses for not a lot of sense. My example the Polish T-72 that has an actual reverse gear, it’s only a few tons heavier and has a decent reverse gear and Russia can’t figure that out?
@@sniper_gamer_55 that depends really. Because from what I've seen, most of them have been taking majority loadouts of heat and high explosive. There are hardly any tanks in Ukraine that are running apfsds
@@martinja9953 T-72B3 would be much superior to Leopard 2A4, it has better FCS, better firepower, same armor level and similar mobility. what guy said is not wrong, but the question is if its a T-72B3, if its a T-72B it may be different due to lacking the FCS.
I love that the War Thunder crowd knows more about tanks than the Russian troopers do. I just watched a video of a blown up T-90 that the Russians investigating it thought it was a Leopard 2.
@@AuntJoey WT should be an essential part of the training to become a tankist. Playing Counterstrike or CoD doesn't give you better aiming IRL but WT does.
@@nponyckHa9l Hello Ivan, did you watch the video? Your troops didn't realize their own tank was DEAD. What are you guys going to do about those 700,000 dead sons of Russia?
Whenever I look at combat footage of tanks I am always surprised that they almost never use smoke grenades when attacked. Not just now in Ukraine, but also in videos from Israel or the SCW.
I was never able to figure out why the T-72 series has such poor reverse speed. I mean sure that's the transmission system but why build it that way in the first place and keep building them that way?
They and their predecessor the T-64 were designed for a WW3. A full out war with large tank battles akin to Kursk where you either advanced or die. You opperate as a part of large unit and never expose your sides let alone rear because you have buddies to cover you. The same reason why they have an autoloader and why it's a genius design for that specific use case: it is removed from the turret where the majority of hits land, they are low to the ground(for the T-72 at least) which reduces the chance of them being struck, it reduces the crew which leads to less casualities in an all out war statistically. Alas, the wars of late 20th century and early 21st are complete opposite of what they were desgined for. It's all low intensity conflict where awareness and mobility play a much bigger role. Small raids and guard duty where you are left exposed to be hit in the sides by an ATGM or to drive over a mine.
Cold war doctrine. If you look up a soviet battalion attack the reverse speed for the tank is not really needed. Has not been upgraded since then. This is a very good example of a soviet battalion attack in a visual form th-cam.com/video/egGzABRTzqU/w-d-xo.html.
Soviet MBT were designed to rush through the European field, not to reverse. They think that the next conflict in Europe will be a nuclear war . That mean one way offensive and therefore there's no need for good reversed speed. But at the end these MBTs ended up here in a conventional war and their poor reversed speed make it very difficult for tank crew to handle the combat situation.
I think this is an important video for people to see. There's a misconception that Soviet armour is junk and NATO stuff is unstoppable. Both are tough and very dangerous on a battlefield, but neither are infallible either.
One allows there crew to fight again. the other is a tomb. All you need to do to see the superiority of western tanks. anyone who thinks tanks will never be knocked out are delusional. the true effectiveness of a tank is one that, gets knocked out, and allows its crew to fight another day. Russian tanks are not so good at this.
russian tanks that get knocked out also allow its crew to get out tho? it just depends by what they get hit and how, so stop talking out of your ass, no tank is surviving a penetrative hit going trough the center of the tank, including any russian or german tank
Those look like APFSDS rounds judging by the over penetration on that bmp from the first round fired. It went straight through it out the other side. The slight explosion on impact with the t72 on the second shot was most likely ERA exploding (and fuel catching from slight penetration)
@@axelkilander3079 i did take this into consideration as well, the camera angle makes it hard to tell imo. but it seemed to me like it went straight through. and yes they do seem slow, but heat rounds wont typically go straight through like that.
From what I've seen and heard of the Ukrainians' NATO logistics, a lot of the Leopards end up with a stock of nearly all or all APFSDS, due to the demand/consumption rate of that round compared to supply. They use up any HEAT-MP they get almost immediately and end up with huge stockpiles of APFSDS.
@@that207guy7 It could be the HEAT jet passing through the vehicle. We saw a video of a BTR being hit by HEAT that produced a similar effect a while ago.
"intense Tank Battle" looks more like an ambush of an unprepared assault group blindly going in with no reconnaissance or artillery support. Good reverse speed wouldn't have changed much in such conditions.
Both of them got taken out by loitering drones moments later. This feels more like a high risk high reward operation by the Russians. They did one just like this in Kupyansk where they broke through the defenses.
до бака же пробил раз топливо горело . следовательно попади он левее и экипаж понес бы потери ! И мне кажется это был кинетический снаряд. потому что на замедленной съёмке видно как позади танка в землю вошел снаряд. следоовательно пробитие было насквозь !
@@gerfand whatever is behind you is a separate issue. But being able to reverse at a reasonable speed while keep firing at whatever is firing at you is paramount. If you turn around and just shoot backwards, you get your ass fucked up - exhibit A: This video.
I appreciate that the comments here are not all “Russians stupid, lol” like on a lot of other channels. Not that I support them though, it just feels immature.
The people who say that are simply brainwashed idiots who have no idea about reality. Just average redditors. There are still some in this comments section sadly but it's not awful like LazerPIG or something where it's just an echo-chamber for those mongs.
Because this channel, as far as I can tell, isn't bias and he posted stuff from both sides. His audience are actually more aware than other channels which spread propaganda like crazy while ignoring NAFO's short comings.
For those asking why the guy decided to turn. Remeber, they were in a tank, probably never knew what was hitting them, maybe they thought it was ATGMs or drones, so turning just seemed like a good idea all things considered. If tank on tank combat was more common maybe they would have done something different, but again they probably thought they were being attacked by infantry not by a tank.
@@zepter00 running away is indeed a tactic. When you realize you're a target in an ambush (that's no easy thing to do) your best bet is not to wait untill you see the enemy. Your best bet is running away as fast as you can and running away but forward rather than backwards will probably lead you to another pre arranged ambush firing Position so that's not recomendable. And when it comes to the contexts of my comment most infantry AT units aren't fitted with 100 ATGMs but 1 or 2 kornets, fagot, or javelin depending on who exactly they were. However you can be almost certain that you won't be targeted 3 or 5 times with ATGMs from infantry so if you know one or two of your mechanized buddies got hit then by simple math you can assume they no longer have ATGMs they might have unguided AT rounds but again running away is a sound tactic when facing those. Now when it comes to warthunder, I just started playing warthunder 2 days ago so I guess you're accusation is technically correct.
and reverse over the bmp behind them - not much point. best bet was to accelerate towards them if they saw the leopard - which i doubt at first. and rely on the autoloader to fire faster
You can't "fix" something like this without making a brand new vehicle with high reverse speed in mind. Russia is stuck with this desing flaw for the forseeable future.
Irl you dont target and hit precise places parts of the tank as you do in-game, plus you can bet the rounds that T-72 is using is not even a 3BM42, they use way older rounds, as old as from the 70s.
They don't die in one hit if you use HEAT or don't know where ammunition stowage is located inside the tank. You can shoot blindly and get lucky, but that's not canon. I have shrugged off many hits in the T-series tanks, Leopards, even the good ol' MBT-70
well in war thunder your sight is from the tip of the barrel so its gonna be easier hitting weakpoints, and also in real life tank vs tank combat isnt that common so heat would probably be more used
not only is the reverse speed is an issue, but clearley training as well. The crew somehow thought it was a better idea to turn around and run away (without even popping smoke) then to just fight the leopard which they were already shooting at. The only other way I can rationalise that behavour is the tank only had HE and no heat or ap, and so they just paniced when faced with an unexpected threat.
If I was in a T-72 loaded with HE rounds, I would straight bail out the second a squirrel dropped an acorn on my roof, let alone another tank shot at me. The Russian Space Program is not as prestigious as it once was.
I think the reason the leopard doesn’t immediately double tap the t-72 is because of the ATGM’s that the other vehicle’s could’ve been carrying. I agree with the one guy who said he thought the t-72 had HE-Frag loaded because tank on tank engagements are rare.
Yeah i also thought it would be a 2A6, maybe strv122 which commonly uses camo netting. Surprised redeffect didn't give more attention to the leopard tank model.
No? The hull looks like the A4 model, and Ukrainians do put the ERA in a wedge shape manner on A4s, also the Gun shield extends past the frontal armor despite the canon being fairly leveled, hinting at a space between the canon and side, which is where the optics for the 2A4 would be. Also it was the 33rd mechanized brigade, which have 2A4s.
excellent presentation. Just a silly note, I dont think it was fair and square, in the sense of a bras de fer, the one side had uav telling them what is coming, the other side was going forward in blind. PS: the camouflage was really great !
I cant thank you enough for actually checking the videos authenticity. To many videos are clipped together and made to believe it's a huge same battle. While it's many different events. Just a seperate thought. GPS located videos are huge helps.
Hi RedEffect! I just wanted to start of saying I love your videos and think they give me some of the best knowledge about my favourite war machines. Anyway I’m hoping you or the community could help me distinguish the Leopard 2s B,C and D technologies as I’ve been struggling to find sources that will give a clear answer. Aside from that hope you’re doing well and can’t wait for the next video!
Both sides use them as an indirect fire support. Purely because of outdated Soviet tactics, and not because every vehicle within 2 miles of no-man's land is a target, obviously
Testament to the actual durability of T-72s and the fact that Ukrainians still have operational Leopard 2a4s. Not to forget that positioning and skill of tankers play a huge role.
What do it prove? The T-72 was penetrated, that resulted in a minor? fuel fire. The crew did not have the confidence in the actual durability of T-72, because they did try to retreat.
@@kirgan1000Red effect said fuel tank , but it could also be ERA or NERA (if they use this) wich is burning . Or some of the composite inside , like the rubber . Diesel doesn't burn that easy .
This could also bounced off the turret and I highly doubt you see something moving at over 1500m/s . More like a HEAT-FS or HE , they travel only at 1100m/s .
@@prizrak-br3332 Well the fuse is in front , if it hits the side of the turret and bounce off . The shell got destroyed and some parts keep traveling on into the ground maybe ?
@@LordOfChaos.x Did they have tracers anyways ? I know that HEAT rounds have that , DM12 for example . But the last shot had a different velocity, it was much faster . As Red said , this was an APFSDS probably . But we can only guess .
People with some knowledge of armoured warfare will wonder why the Ukrainian commander engaged the rear vehicles in the column first and not the lead tank which is more of a threat to the Leopard tank, perhaps the gun was loaded with HEAT not APDS so it engaged the lighter armoured vehicle in the rear. It's possible the commander did the same as the American soldier who picked off Germans attacking his position starting from the last one at the back so as not make the ones in the front aware and go into covering positions.
Perhaps they were hoping that the column would not retreat, or perhaps they spotted something on optics. Dead carcasses can also act as cover if in front.
@@mekolayn yes you're right, but you noticed the second shot aimed at another vehicle in the rear with HEAT. Usually if the first vehicle in the lead of the Russian column gets taken out and most of the time it's a tank that leads the attack, it will cause the other vehicles behind to start dispersing to escape. It indicates the total confidence of the Leopard tank crew to let the leading Russian tank carryon approaching closer
Эта тактика использовалась ещё СССР во второй мировой войне. Танковая засада сначала стреляла по замыкающему танку колонны, а затем по головному танку колонны. В итоге техника врага застревала и уничтожалась в огневом мешке
Reverse speed is so critical, moving behind cover, falling back while keeping best armor forward, as much as I love the look of T tanks I’d never want to fight in one with that reverse speed among other things of course
It breaks my heart to see people who, in different circumstances, could have been friends are ruthlessly, senselessly, and inhumanely killing each other on the battlefield.
Brother, yes, I completely agree. Everyone is so quick to dehumanise the Russians, but at the end of the day, they are just humans like you and me. Sadly, many of them have fallen into the trap of the Russian propaganda machine, which has clearly proven to be effective. It truly is heartbreaking to see this unfold.
I am really surprised with the lead T-72B eating up 2 DM33s frontally and only getting disabled when it got tracked and showed its side. The T-72B behind it also ate a DM33 and shrugged it off. Now if only they had a reverse speed. 7:47 Looks like the return barrage of the T-72s or even the BMPs did enough damage to it that made the Leopard 2A4 crew boogey out after the encounter when they know there MBT was Mission Kill.
T-80 and T-64 have a reverse speed but they were rather expensive, the T-72 was basically just a cheaper variant of the T-64, still good but had to cut corners. With Russia restarting T-80 production it's clear they also see the reverse speed as an issue.
I’m not an expert but I feel like picking up the thermal signature of a tank with engines running should be standard capability nowadays. The fact that this ambush worked surprises me.
Coming from the perspective of a former Abrams Gunner (4 years state side, no combat mind you), I would find it very unlikely that the Leopard was alone. Usually at the very least you would have your wingman have a slight overlap into your sector of fire in a defensive operation in which you needed to stretch your forces significantly. I would count out the possibility that they may have been down to their last serviceable tank as the camo netting showed that they had plenty of time spent on preparation. Fully netting up a tank is very time exhaustive which is why you usually see only the fronts or turrets netted. The first shot also seemed a bit odd to me in that it did look more like a Sabot sent into the rear vic in the convoy. 99% of the time you not only want to target the lead vic to stop the convoy and take advantage of the poor reverse speed of most eastern vics, but also the most dangerous threat which in this case would be another tank. My thought is that the TC may have designated the T-72 for the gunner to target and the gunner may have been confused under the pressure and targeted the APC. If the Ukrainians are using NATO style firing commands then it is very possible that that is what leads into the firing of a HEAT round into the T-72 initially, as either the Gunner would've called "identified PC" and either TC would have accepted and responded with a "Fire, Fire HEAT" command to switch rounds for reengagement. That or the loader would've heard PC and changed rounds on his own and called it out. I'm lead to this by the fact that all rounds seemed to be on target which would require the Gunner to press a button to tell the ballistic computer what round to calculate the firing solution for, which is called "indexing". I find that training, and/or human error are some of the least talked about possibilities when analyzing some of these engagements or after action footage. Overall excellent breakdown, I wish I had people like Red when I was teaching vehicle ID classes lmao.
@@definitelyfrank9341 they never did. Only their media did. But we can see here why Leopard tanks are certainly superior to the Russian tanks, so they provide Ukraine with a better chance than Russia.
@@MiG-31893 The western media is the west's propaganda outlet, so it is considered a part of the west. Putin also said specifically the T-90M was the best breakthrough tank in the world, not the T-72 and other inferior models. Superior in tank on tank combat to most Russian tanks, yes. But definitely not superior overall. The effect they have on the battlefield is a fraction of that of Russia's massive fleet. They do not have a 'better chance' than Russia.
@ “Western media” is a very vague term, as there are many many countries in the west, each have hundreds of news outlets. So depending on who you watch, you could get very different results. Russian news is all controlled by the state, so you won’t find any criticism there. Russian tanks are inferior in every aspect other than numbers, what’s your point?
@@MiG-31893 'Russian tanks' is a very vague term. By that are you referring to T-90Ms with third generation thermals and digital maps, or T-55s? You need to be a little bit more specific, because the T-90M is superior to the Leopard 2 in every aspect except reverse speed and perhaps armour. I cannot quite answer the "What's your point?" question because I cannot see my previous comment for some reason. If you would be so kind to copy and paste my comment, I would be much obliged to answer your question.
Conclusions from this video: -Tank on tank engagements do happen SOMETIMES, albeit, very rarely -The poor reverse speed of a tank can make the crew make bad decisions in life/death situations, like turning the back of the tank to the enemy guaranteeing a penetration regardless of shot -The frontal armor of Russian tanks is actually quite resistant in spite of NAFO propaganda -Thermal sights are a MUST on modern tanks. Their ability to detect and track enemy targets is MASSIVE, and these were older T-72s, they had a very hard time even spotting the Leopard -Unexpected tank ambushes can be very deadly, and 120/125 mm direct shots are no joke. -Don't go into battle unprepared. Expect everything, as unlikely as they can be.
And finally: Maybe actually try to take a look at place where you are going before you are gonna get near it with drone like an hour before. Its not like that leopard was there only when the column arrived.
well russian armour isn't as good as western armour, thats a fact, (russian tanks rely on speed(forward at least) rather than western tanks being heavy) please do not spite my beautiful NATO 😔😔
Most modern MBT's can resist most attacks from peer tanks from the front. That's not controversial. Without uranium armor penetrators, most NATO tanks will struggle to penetrate from the front anything more modern than a T-72B. It looks like both sides are shooting HEAT shells. HEAT shells are less than ideal for attacking modern MBTs. With uranium penetrators, this is a whole different fight. The NATO tanks are better less because of the guns or the armor or the top speeds, but mainly because of better thermal sights, better reverse speeds, better crew survivability, and better what the USA calls 'fightability' - how comfortably the crew integrates with the tank as part of a weapon system. Russian tanks are cramped and uncomfortable, have poor vision, have poor ability to elevate or depress the gun, have poor crew survivability when damaged, and can't extract themselves from trouble because they can't go in reverse.
@@BEANBOYOBEANITH uhm-- no. They follow a different philosophy. Russian tanks make use of E.R.A. (explosive reactive armor) which increases their overall protection by a lot while increasing the mass by little. If You compare just the base armor, then okay, but all modern Russian tanks are covered in E.R.A.
Interestingly, Oryx, War Spotting and Lostwarinua have all not added the mentioned tanks in this video on the loss records. Likely more aftermath or further footage is needed as its the ending is a little hazey.
Just gotta imagine how intense the situation was in the crew compartment. Wonder if we will ever get an actual in cabin recording in an intense battle like this one, where u can hear everything that the crew says
how so.... it seems that the leopard was camoflauged - it may not have been even seen for the first few shots. Its also stationary and knew the convoy (engine off and listening would be enough) was comming. The column was in follow mode - the bmp behind the t72 likely couldnt even see the oncoming. the Leopard just neeeds to fire straight with slight deviations (it would have ranged in on the road. It likely could not have missed with even the most basic training. Ultimately it was knocked out a few meters away - meaning that they sat in 1 place which means they likely didnt have a adequate withdrawal planned
@@Alexander_HodgeReally ? They target the last vehicle first wich is a IFV and not the tank in front , wich could clearly knock them out ? And then they fire a HEAT round ? This was very bad from the Leopard crew , wrong target and wrong ammunition.
The Russian tank lost because it's supporting a convoy. This is the tank equivalent of trying to fight another man while you're holding your infant. You're just at a huge disadvantage.
You dont know that because he kinda explained why you dont know that. And had it not been HEAT but APFSDS, it would have been a first hit knock-out - if it hits in the right spot. Thats the thing, you still have to hit good. And HEAT is not really sufficient head on any somewhat modern tank.
No Tank expert here, but i think there was only one hit on the lead vehicle before it turned. at 0:49 notice the x shaped pole on the left together with the black box shape and curve on the road and part of a pole or tree on the right directly at the edge of the frame. lead vehicle locks like about right in the middle of left pole and the turn of the road in the back. at 0:50 the lead vehicle gets hit and smoke appears, only minor smoke in the background from the apc. at 0:53 something starts to burn (bright yellow flame) and the lead vehicle then fires. between these two time indexes there seem to be some frames missing, notice with the smoke (the two "fingers" to the right) and the flame coming out of nowhere. at 0:56 the second one fires. at 1:01 something smokes on the left side, maybe artillery or smoke grenade, leopard hits the second vehicle, the first vehicle already stears to the right side (his left) and is still burning, notice the pole and box, pretty close now. new angle now at 1:14 the first tank is hit again while not burning, also smoke is gone and position to the box is far away together with the curve, poles not visible due to quality this leads me to belief this is just another angle of the first hit instead of a second hit. at 1:18 lead vehicle starts to burn. at 1:19 lead vehicle firing back, exactly like at the first hit, timing beween hit and shot is slightly longer but explainable by the missing frames and maybe a different frame rate due to different drones. 1:21 back to the old angle, lead vehicle still burns and turns to it's left. 1:24 vehicle struck from the side, notice black box on the left. so to me it appears the lead vehicle was only struck once to the front, it then fired either voluntary on a target, blindfired on something or the canon was hit and ignited by the hit which would be a mission kill.
We've certainly been getting some interesting vehicle footage as of late. Leopard 2A4's proving 30 years later they still have teeth. Crew of that disabled Leopard 2 also seemed to have made it out alright, so there is that as a silver lining. We'll see if they can get it recovered and repaired.
Red effect again recognized vehicles by 11 pixels
exactly, I always get blown away by that :D
3 Pixels more and he could have told us the variant
@@TeleportingBread161 3 pixels more and he could tell when the last oil change was done
You can tell by the way it is.
You see a russian tank, its 70% likely to be a t72.
The Leopard gunner was targeting the lower front plate but didn’t have DM23 unlocked yet.
Bro clearly had stock Heat shells only
@@tomblord12u can clearly see that he was using sabots, look at his first shot to bmp 2 again
bro got gaijined
@@tomblord12 nah he def had darts cause some overpenned clearly
damn stock grinds...
Babe wake up red remembered he got a channel
😂😂
lmfao
Well if you only post ukraine wins theres not a lot of content lately.. 😅
@@PeaShooter33 Except a little thing called Kursk. Ruskies cant even kick out a small intruded from their front yard. LMAO
@@PeaShooter33Lol he doesnt. He posts videos about military things in Ukraine and more videos not exclusive to that topic. Oh and also why do dislike Ukraine winning?
*one pixel*
RedEffect: Ah yes, this is T-72 made on six day of the third month in 1998. That day was very rainy. And we can see that the tank commander is named Igor, 35 yeas old born in ....
😂
That’s why I love Red Effect 😅
"The tank mechanic from 05.06.1998 7:30am to 01.08.2003, 9:07pm had a neighbour across the street at 66 Pravda street, Vladivostok whose mistress's dog was slightly ill on 22.08.2003. he didn't ate all his sausages, but buried some for later. I can tell by the dead pixel in frame 5224."
his blue eyes are a clearly give away thar it was igor
@@Nikowalker007dude speaks out of his ass don’t get bonered up about it
Taking into account how rare tank on tank engagements are, I wouldn't be surprised if the T-72 had HE-Frag loaded.
Seeing as it a lead tank in a coulum, it likely Heat is more useful as it as most use it as standard ammo for tanks but who knows
it had an armor piercing round loaded in, problem is basically everything coming out of the russofag shithole is basically disfunctional.
The hit at 0:07 looks like a sabot round passing straight through the lead vehicle or a deflection.
If it had been HE it would have gone off either when it head the vehicle or when it struck the ground??
Maybe he had a frag loaded , but it can damage an enemy tank to , for sure not penetrating a leo2a4 and kill its crew but cause it damage for sure
Skill issue
0:27 damn pay to win bushes
kinda the opposite...if the ruskis were running it at lower details, the bushes wouldnt render and the tank would be clearly visible against the low ploy surroundings
They bought the top tier premium pack Fr
Nah bro he sold his event planes and tanks and used $gaij
@@kalinmir I play on low settings on my laptop, I donno how that helps - low poly tank on a low poly field with low poly forest - it all looks the same
@@kalinmir😂 would be fun if game logic could be applied in real life. Just put the graphics settings on low, foliage on very low or if possible turned off.
If you attack you get droned
if you retreat you get droned
if you hide you get droned
if you have counter measure you get droned at 60fps
war has indeed change, the circle of dead is shorter now.
"Quoi qu'on fasse, on perd beaucoup de monde" ("Whatever you do, you lose a lot of men") - Charles Mangin, French General and hero of the Second Battle of the Marne as well as many others
You don't wanna know how long a soldier life is in a modern battle
"The only winning move is not to play."
Those, who fight, sometimes die in battle. That's how life works - Evgeny Prigozhin
@@grimmerjxcts2206To be fair, in some ways there's less casualty overall now, compared to the old massive clashes.
One downside is death is now much more unpredictable and quick, one moment you're there and the next you're disappeared.
Ah, Tank duel! Something we have been missing since the 2023 Summer Offensive.
its because this video is from oct 2024 this dude is only recycling old video
Any source for this? @@philippegauthier4525
is the video from 2023? The most recent search results are from about a month ago. When I looked this up. @@philippegauthier4525
No its not
@@philippegauthier4525
@@philippegauthier4525provide some actual proof than just stating an opinion.
Bro aimed at the driver sight, truly a skilled wt player
Edit: what have i done...
i think it was mostly lower front plate
@goodie_donuts yeah, it works too
I think that first BMP had its turret simply removed. I mean literally, knocked off clean.
Its a T-72. The leo2 can go thru its upper plate up to 1500 meters.
@@goodie_donuts there is a slow mo HD Version there it looks more like upper plate
One off the best things about this video, is that it shows a tank being used PROPERLY as an ambush-predator.
You can also hunt leopards...
To be fair, the original role which tanks were developed for, and arguably still the most important role tanks play, is leading offensives and breakthroughs, not setting up ambushes. Tank destroyers and anti-tank guns were developed for this role of ambush, and after WW2 they were replaced by ATGMs in this role. Don't get me wrong, this was a good example of how a tank can be used to ambush a column, but to claim this is the proper use of a tank is a bit misleading.
@@MaxCroat Well, now the proper use of a tank has undergone a change, since any tank in an open area can be easily destroyed. In most cases, tanks are now used for firing from closed positions, i.e. used as a self-propelled gun. Moreover, he has a maximum of 3-5 minutes to get out of there after the shots, otherwise he is finished. In the event of an attack, the tank, in addition to the dynamic protection kit, is protected with all kinds of additional protection. A drone with anti-tank ammunition can circle the tank more than once to find a weak spot. Swarms of several drones are also used - the first one breaks through the defense, the rest hit the same spot.
During an attack, if a tank brought the landing force to the enemy’s positions, it has already worked, and if it returns, that’s very cool. And of course, fire support for the landing forces, i.e. destruction of firing points and dugouts...
@@справ-щ8б Of course, warfare has changed dramatically in the 21st century, and this really happened in the blink of an eye. I don't think anybody really expected drones, particularly FPV kamikaze drones and other small and cheap drones to have such a huge impact on the battlefield, yet it happened very quickly. I guess doctrines just change much more slowly, so it is still unclear what exactly should be the main role of a tank on the modern battlefield. Perhaps we will see tanks implement more anti-drone protection in the future and keep their breakthrough role, perhaps their role will change more dramatically. But I was just referring to the historical role tanks play in response to OP's comment. If we are being completely honest, an ambush role is also less likely for tanks, simply because there are so many drones observing the battlefield that it is quite hard to hide a tank and prepare a proper ambush.
@@MaxCroat ок
The battle of D Point is really interesting to watch and learn from
NO CAS NOOB!
The snail Is watching
Someone with your avatar should be on the frontline!
remember when cold war era tank designs were dominated by theoretical tank battles at ~2km ranges?
THEIR IS A HOLE IN YOUR WING!!!!
Stock grind moment
"HIT"
Both stock. t72 no smoke, no repair kit.
They're all having the worst stock grind experience of their life, but the leopard decides to use p2w bushes.
@@RedVRCC Nah not premium bushes, it's the pack premium Leo 2A4 lol
@RYNOCIRATOR_V5 you got a good point lol, it's even got the camo net!
turning your ass to a long projectile going 1.5km per second doesnt seem like a good idea.
Either that or reverse at the speed slower than a bicycle on 1st gear
@@GuyHoldingABirdreversing keeps most armor towards enemy that is actively shooting at you, and allows you time to fire back, I would not do a U turn without cover or knowledge i cant be shot in the ass, but im no tanker so what do i even know
it's possible they lost a track or the driver was injured.
@@SnoW-pk9zo they might have had damaged optics after being shot, or fire mechanisms or wtv, lots of stuff happen when you're being shot and in a panic while shit is getting broken
@@SnoW-pk9zo by the time you have backed out they will get a drone on your ass. it has to be faster in reverse, no other solution
Ah yes finally, an equal tank to tank battle, it took us nearly 70 years
there have been lots - and several televised already - you can see RedEffects back catalogue - one the other way round (a single t72 vs a ukrainian column)....
Calamitist calling out the industrial military complex lmao!
it was more of an ambuch
@@oldisgoldmentality4667 that technically a standard tank battle , dual ends ussaly by who shoot first
Wdym? Have you not heard of the 6 day war? Or you kipur war that had the biggest tank on tank battle in modern times and 2nd of all time after Kursk
Was mostly 105 centurion and magach 3s against T55 and T62s
Dude, I love to watch this because you're never biased. Thank you, x4
That Leopard 2 at 8:00 looks really cool, putting ERA and stuff on it in a pretty sophisticated manner.
leo2a4u
>gets obliterated by a cheap drone anyways
@@KolyaUrtz I doubt that they use ERA blocks to stop top-down attacks
@@KolyaUrtz Are your tanks impervious to drones or what?
@@ashtray2232 turtle ones are...as proven by countless videos. It takes like 5+ hits to stop it.
People who don’t acknowledge that -4 kph is a terrible thing are coping hard.
To show who actually changed their minds of that type of reverse speed I present the Cromwell tank compared to the Centurion mk1.
Show real change there.
Reverse speed is a good thing, that's a fact recognised by the most conservative Russian tank crew since the beginning of the war. T 80BVM suddenly become the best Russian tank on the field, not because of CITV or APS but because of "good" reversed speed (10 kph is bad but surely better than the absolutely horrible 4 kph on T 90M).
@@mrmakhno3030 it is a noticeable upgrade to 4km/h, for example reversing 100m distance to cover takes 1min 30seconds at 4km/h when at 10km/h its only 35 seconds.
it depends on the terrain, in Russia and Ukraine the t-72, t-90, t-64, ect they have that bad reverse gear because while it is MUCH slower than western tanks, it also produces an insane amount of torque from one reverse gear that is incredibly useful at getting tanks unstuck from thick mud and snow because sometimes mud/snow can get 3 feet thick there, this is why there's numerous videos of Leopards, Abrams, western IFVs/APCs getting bogged down in mud/snow while there's very little videos of the same thing happening to Russian vehicles because when you have one reverse gear and you go to reverse it puts all of the engines power in that one reverse gear which makes it incredibly good at preventing tanks from getting stuck but also gives the tank an incredibly slow reverse speed, another reason is that having one reverse gear also reduces the overall length of the transmission and therefore the tank, so people like to talk about how bad the reverse speed is on Russian tanks, but they fail to remember the fall/winter in Russia and Ukraine gets really rough, and there can be multiple feet of snow or mud that a tank can easily get bogged down in unless the tank is designed for that terrain, it's also part of the reason Russian tanks are almost half the weight of Western tanks, because that additional weight is really bad in Russian/Ukrainian terrain because of how bad the mud/snow gets.
@@loganknezovich8394 I'm not sure I can follow. How would adding a second gear change this, if you keep the first reverse at the very same ratio?
@I’m hearing a lot of excuses for not a lot of sense. My example the Polish T-72 that has an actual reverse gear, it’s only a few tons heavier and has a decent reverse gear and Russia can’t figure that out?
Getting out and running away is better than turning your rear to a leopard 2A4
If he stood there and hit the leo2A4 he will kill it so easily because t-72b3 is superior in every way except for mobility.
@@sniper_gamer_55 leo2A4 worse than T-72? lol sure buddy
@@sniper_gamer_55 that depends really. Because from what I've seen, most of them have been taking majority loadouts of heat and high explosive. There are hardly any tanks in Ukraine that are running apfsds
@@Whaley96it is in other side they have so much apfsds ammo when they are out of heat
@@martinja9953 T-72B3 would be much superior to Leopard 2A4, it has better FCS, better firepower, same armor level and similar mobility. what guy said is not wrong, but the question is if its a T-72B3, if its a T-72B it may be different due to lacking the FCS.
I just watch all these combat videos so I can get better at warthunder.
Relatable 😂😂
Us
Proves warthunder is accurate with that bmp bouncing that leopard shot. Now I won't complain.
War Thunder some how manages to be the most realistic and most bullshit at the same time (looking at you volumetric shells)
Did the hit not just go straight through the BMP?
@@ThorSuzuki1overpen
он пробил бмп насквозь
not bouncing, overpenetration, you can see the shell pass right through.
So as warthunder has proven, no armour is best armour
Massive respect Redeffect for being Neutral all the time
Leopard 2 stock grind.
I love that the War Thunder crowd knows more about tanks than the Russian troopers do. I just watched a video of a blown up T-90 that the Russians investigating it thought it was a Leopard 2.
@@AuntJoey WT should be an essential part of the training to become a tankist. Playing Counterstrike or CoD doesn't give you better aiming IRL but WT does.
@@AuntJoey звучит как бред. Уверен, ты просто несешь чушь
@@nponyckHa9l Hello Ivan, did you watch the video? Your troops didn't realize their own tank was DEAD. What are you guys going to do about those 700,000 dead sons of Russia?
@NoOnesHome2025 700000? Don't be silly, Russia has clearly lost 100m troops, 30000 tanks, 1000 planes and 3 deaths stars and they're still winning
Finally the confirmation from RedEffect about confirmed tank-on-tank battle, thank you ❤
He covered tank on tank battles before this one.
best analysis of this footage I've seen
Whenever I look at combat footage of tanks I am always surprised that they almost never use smoke grenades when attacked. Not just now in Ukraine, but also in videos from Israel or the SCW.
It's not war thunder. It doesn't form a big cloud that covers your entire tank
'Couse they gonna go blind themselfs too! And would get way harder with orientation
Maybe they hope they can hit back instead of running away
What is SCW?
@@norwegian_noisemaker6737 My guess is the Syrian Civil War, mainly because I don't think he is talking about armoured fighting in 1936-1939 Spain.
"See Leopard 2 is clearly too OP, now move it to 13.0 BR. Let's also add it to every tech tree for BaLaNcE."
- Gaejin, 2024
still no DM33 by then
I was never able to figure out why the T-72 series has such poor reverse speed. I mean sure that's the transmission system but why build it that way in the first place and keep building them that way?
They and their predecessor the T-64 were designed for a WW3. A full out war with large tank battles akin to Kursk where you either advanced or die. You opperate as a part of large unit and never expose your sides let alone rear because you have buddies to cover you.
The same reason why they have an autoloader and why it's a genius design for that specific use case: it is removed from the turret where the majority of hits land, they are low to the ground(for the T-72 at least) which reduces the chance of them being struck, it reduces the crew which leads to less casualities in an all out war statistically.
Alas, the wars of late 20th century and early 21st are complete opposite of what they were desgined for. It's all low intensity conflict where awareness and mobility play a much bigger role. Small raids and guard duty where you are left exposed to be hit in the sides by an ATGM or to drive over a mine.
Cold war doctrine. If you look up a soviet battalion attack the reverse speed for the tank is not really needed. Has not been upgraded since then. This is a very good example of a soviet battalion attack in a visual form th-cam.com/video/egGzABRTzqU/w-d-xo.html.
I think probably institution politics and greed.
It's cheap
Soviet MBT were designed to rush through the European field, not to reverse. They think that the next conflict in Europe will be a nuclear war . That mean one way offensive and therefore there's no need for good reversed speed. But at the end these MBTs ended up here in a conventional war and their poor reversed speed make it very difficult for tank crew to handle the combat situation.
I think this is an important video for people to see. There's a misconception that Soviet armour is junk and NATO stuff is unstoppable. Both are tough and very dangerous on a battlefield, but neither are infallible either.
yeah, people are ussualy just dumb and influenced by propaganda
One allows there crew to fight again. the other is a tomb. All you need to do to see the superiority of western tanks. anyone who thinks tanks will never be knocked out are delusional. the true effectiveness of a tank is one that, gets knocked out, and allows its crew to fight another day. Russian tanks are not so good at this.
no, the column was destroyed by one leopard. leopard win!
russian tanks that get knocked out also allow its crew to get out tho? it just depends by what they get hit and how, so stop talking out of your ass, no tank is surviving a penetrative hit going trough the center of the tank, including any russian or german tank
@@GodDemonPazuzuYaldabaothYahweh Он не уничтожил колонну. Он 5 раз выстрелил в Т-72. Он уничтожил БМП а 2 танка отступили оьратно
Redeffect never fails to amaze me on how he can identify a tank by a single pixel
Those look like APFSDS rounds judging by the over penetration on that bmp from the first round fired. It went straight through it out the other side. The slight explosion on impact with the t72 on the second shot was most likely ERA exploding (and fuel catching from slight penetration)
I agree, it seemed like APDSFS to me from the hits on the lighter vehicles.
It could have been a bounce on the bmp or would have looked similar to over penetration. The shots looked very slow for apfsds
@@axelkilander3079 i did take this into consideration as well, the camera angle makes it hard to tell imo. but it seemed to me like it went straight through. and yes they do seem slow, but heat rounds wont typically go straight through like that.
From what I've seen and heard of the Ukrainians' NATO logistics, a lot of the Leopards end up with a stock of nearly all or all APFSDS, due to the demand/consumption rate of that round compared to supply. They use up any HEAT-MP they get almost immediately and end up with huge stockpiles of APFSDS.
@@that207guy7 It could be the HEAT jet passing through the vehicle. We saw a video of a BTR being hit by HEAT that produced a similar effect a while ago.
i saw the clip a few days earlier and just knew i would get an amazing analysis of the battle from you !
Can you put the link with the full video ?
"intense Tank Battle" looks more like an ambush of an unprepared assault group blindly going in with no reconnaissance or artillery support. Good reverse speed wouldn't have changed much in such conditions.
Both of them got taken out by loitering drones moments later. This feels more like a high risk high reward operation by the Russians. They did one just like this in Kupyansk where they broke through the defenses.
Russians literally captured all that you see in the video...
@@KolyaUrtz Source: Your ass
@@KolyaUrtz You are the one who thinks Pyrrhic victories are a good thing
@@thomaslunde5014 how is it a pyrrhic victory? It's permanently liberated land.
So, after all this time, the war thunder penetration simulations are correct. The leopard 2a4 heat shell cannot penetrate T-72 armour.
до бака же пробил раз топливо горело . следовательно попади он левее и экипаж понес бы потери ! И мне кажется это был кинетический снаряд. потому что на замедленной съёмке видно как позади танка в землю вошел снаряд. следоовательно пробитие было насквозь !
U can pen its upper plate
@@LordOfChaos.xnope, not the heat shell.
@@ricardoricardoricardoricardo any kind of armour that isnt just homogenous steel is very effective at stopping heat
redeffect is wrong here , they shot sabot rounds at the russian column.
I thought you aint gonna post this week lmaoo
Glad to be wrong. Always a good day when red uploads
No bullshit Talking straight to the facts knowing what what is by seeing just 11 pixels i love you red effect
Komrade... the reverse speed is not a problem because it is used only in storage... On the battlefield we only go forward :D
Can the 34km/h help evading the tank fire while also evading the BMP behind it?
Untill you meet a forced stop
i guess a u-turn is still going forwards, just the opposite direction
@@gerfand whatever is behind you is a separate issue. But being able to reverse at a reasonable speed while keep firing at whatever is firing at you is paramount. If you turn around and just shoot backwards, you get your ass fucked up - exhibit A: This video.
@@Ganiscol we don't know why he turned around
yup that's how to play leopard long-range holdown and camou
I appreciate that the comments here are not all “Russians stupid, lol” like on a lot of other channels. Not that I support them though, it just feels immature.
The people who say that are simply brainwashed idiots who have no idea about reality. Just average redditors. There are still some in this comments section sadly but it's not awful like LazerPIG or something where it's just an echo-chamber for those mongs.
Because this channel, as far as I can tell, isn't bias and he posted stuff from both sides. His audience are actually more aware than other channels which spread propaganda like crazy while ignoring NAFO's short comings.
At this point it's just sad seeing people getting blown up because they have no choice but to fight with worse equipment
@@tukino9124There's not a massive inequality of equipment in this war though, the only inequal parts are air and manpower.
@@windwindy5356 nope, that's not it. This channel is biased, just the other way...
bro is the Rainbolt of tanks and battlefields
For those asking why the guy decided to turn.
Remeber, they were in a tank, probably never knew what was hitting them, maybe they thought it was ATGMs or drones, so turning just seemed like a good idea all things considered.
If tank on tank combat was more common maybe they would have done something different, but again they probably thought they were being attacked by infantry not by a tank.
bullshit. Since when exposing your weak side is a part of any tank training? There is no souch thing in the training.
@@zepter00 Re read the comment lol
@@syep12 whole his comment is a bullshit of war thunder player who doesnt know reality of fightning in ukraine.
@@zepter00 running away is indeed a tactic.
When you realize you're a target in an ambush (that's no easy thing to do) your best bet is not to wait untill you see the enemy.
Your best bet is running away as fast as you can and running away but forward rather than backwards will probably lead you to another pre arranged ambush firing Position so that's not recomendable.
And when it comes to the contexts of my comment most infantry AT units aren't fitted with 100 ATGMs but 1 or 2 kornets, fagot, or javelin depending on who exactly they were.
However you can be almost certain that you won't be targeted 3 or 5 times with ATGMs from infantry so if you know one or two of your mechanized buddies got hit then by simple math you can assume they no longer have ATGMs they might have unguided AT rounds but again running away is a sound tactic when facing those.
Now when it comes to warthunder, I just started playing warthunder 2 days ago so I guess you're accusation is technically correct.
How would the reverse speed help in a column. It is either forward, stop or turn.
Fair point. Reversing would have been really difficult at any speed
You acting like there's no way for anyone to communicate lol
Red finally remembered his account's password
moral of the story Russian needs to fix the reverse speed
and reverse over the bmp behind them - not much point. best bet was to accelerate towards them if they saw the leopard - which i doubt at first. and rely on the autoloader to fire faster
@ how do cars solve that problem?
You can't "fix" something like this without making a brand new vehicle with high reverse speed in mind. Russia is stuck with this desing flaw for the forseeable future.
@@amshaegar7170 Russia already has a vehicle with good reverse speed, it's called the T80, and they haven't made any of them since 2001
Сперва им нужно исправить мозги !
Amazing video again Red Effect!
Finally, Br accurate battles
If war thunder tough me anything is that the first tank that spots the other tank is the one that usually gets the kill
You mean to tell me War Thunder is unrealistic with how everyone (except 2A7) die in one hit?
looks like everyone uses stock shells IRL
Irl you dont target and hit precise places parts of the tank as you do in-game, plus you can bet the rounds that T-72 is using is not even a 3BM42, they use way older rounds, as old as from the 70s.
Try to kill a leopard with HEAT in WT
They don't die in one hit if you use HEAT or don't know where ammunition stowage is located inside the tank. You can shoot blindly and get lucky, but that's not canon. I have shrugged off many hits in the T-series tanks, Leopards, even the good ol' MBT-70
well in war thunder your sight is from the tip of the barrel so its gonna be easier hitting weakpoints, and also in real life tank vs tank combat isnt that common so heat would probably be more used
I've been waiting for Red Effect's analysis for this one. 👍
Ambush really is bloody
not only is the reverse speed is an issue, but clearley training as well. The crew somehow thought it was a better idea to turn around and run away (without even popping smoke) then to just fight the leopard which they were already shooting at. The only other way I can rationalise that behavour is the tank only had HE and no heat or ap, and so they just paniced when faced with an unexpected threat.
Popping smoke likely wouldn't have helped kiddo.
Those T-72s had turtle armor on them that would have blocked their smoke launchers.
If I was in a T-72 loaded with HE rounds, I would straight bail out the second a squirrel dropped an acorn on my roof, let alone another tank shot at me. The Russian Space Program is not as prestigious as it once was.
@@tackytrooperyou'd be finished off by a drone
Smoke wouldnt have helped cause it would have blinded them aswell
Man this new WT update lookin crazy
I am here for all the WT referances.
I think the reason the leopard doesn’t immediately double tap the t-72 is because of the ATGM’s that the other vehicle’s could’ve been carrying. I agree with the one guy who said he thought the t-72 had HE-Frag loaded because tank on tank engagements are rare.
Redeffect is the rainbolt of military clips
Due to the shape of the tower 6:48, it looks more like a 2a6 leopard, with its pointed front
Yeah i also thought it would be a 2A6, maybe strv122 which commonly uses camo netting. Surprised redeffect didn't give more attention to the leopard tank model.
No? The hull looks like the A4 model, and Ukrainians do put the ERA in a wedge shape manner on A4s, also the Gun shield extends past the frontal armor despite the canon being fairly leveled, hinting at a space between the canon and side, which is where the optics for the 2A4 would be.
Also it was the 33rd mechanized brigade, which have 2A4s.
The commander's periscope is in front of the hatch, so it is an Leopard 2A4
@@Dont14-r4k So they T-80`ed Leopard 2?
@@alexturnbackthearmy1907 in some yeah. There are photos of A4s having a wall of Pure ERA on the front with some sprinkled on the side of the turrets.
excellent presentation.
Just a silly note, I dont think it was fair and square, in the sense of a bras de fer, the one side had uav telling them what is coming, the other side was going forward in blind.
PS: the camouflage was really great !
And then everyone get droned equally, thus preserving balance.
I believe the ammunition used was Sabot, it is clearly visible that the first shot transfixed the transport vehicle in 0:30
Could have bounced. The bmps have very angled upper front plates and if the leap it’s was unlucky even heat could’ve bounced
I cant thank you enough for actually checking the videos authenticity. To many videos are clipped together and made to believe it's a huge same battle. While it's many different events. Just a seperate thought. GPS located videos are huge helps.
Never thought we'd ever be able to get tank combat footage like that
2:31 that Leo 2 was likely still stock and did not yet unlock DM23
Stationary Leo-2 versus moving T-72s with turtle armor slowing them down and restricting their visibility? Bad day on the job for the invaders.
Redeffect when are you going to update your video on the challenger 2 to correct the mistakes you made?
Hi RedEffect! I just wanted to start of saying I love your videos and think they give me some of the best knowledge about my favourite war machines. Anyway I’m hoping you or the community could help me distinguish the Leopard 2s B,C and D technologies as I’ve been struggling to find sources that will give a clear answer. Aside from that hope you’re doing well and can’t wait for the next video!
Finally some vehicle on vehicle combat footage without any drone interruption
Thousands of tanks in the field on both sides and we get a 1v1 engagement every couple of months. Amazing.
Both sides use them as an indirect fire support. Purely because of outdated Soviet tactics, and not because every vehicle within 2 miles of no-man's land is a target, obviously
It's a low intensity war. Slow attrition stretched across a huge frontline.
not every engagement is filmed, this isnt a reality show its war
@@marcusflutist1230 Plus a blitz would end up running into a minefeild
@@quan-uo5ws of course, but you would expect 50v50 type action, that would get some attention
You can decide the outcome of the battle by the maps, the zone where the battle took place is now under Russian control, even on Pro-Ukraine channels.
Testament to the actual durability of T-72s and the fact that Ukrainians still have operational Leopard 2a4s.
Not to forget that positioning and skill of tankers play a huge role.
What do it prove? The T-72 was penetrated, that resulted in a minor? fuel fire. The crew did not have the confidence in the actual durability of T-72, because they did try to retreat.
@@kirgan1000Are you stupid bro? Nobody in any tank will just keep charging head onto direct line of fire no matter what vehicle they're in lol.
@@kirgan1000Red effect said fuel tank , but it could also be ERA or NERA (if they use this) wich is burning . Or some of the composite inside , like the rubber .
Diesel doesn't burn that easy .
@@5co756 either way a single round did penetrate the front armor to some degree something no western tank has issues with... which says a lot already.
Nicely done ... to try and offer both perspectives in a mostly impartial way!
Your analytic scepticism is refreshing for a follower of journalist ethics.
Awesome, unbiased, analytical content, this is what we need more of.
0:31 the first round on the rear vehicles is probably also APFSDS, you can clearly see it going straight through the vehicle and leaving out the back.
This could also bounced off the turret and I highly doubt you see something moving at over 1500m/s . More like a HEAT-FS or HE , they travel only at 1100m/s .
@@5co756 Why does it keep smoking then?
Edit: It also doesn't go up afterwards but seems to hit the ground behind the vehicle.
@@prizrak-br3332 Well the fuse is in front , if it hits the side of the turret and bounce off . The shell got destroyed and some parts keep traveling on into the ground maybe ?
@@5co756 you can see apfsds shells flying if they have tracers and its not going the speed of light to not see them.
@@LordOfChaos.x Did they have tracers anyways ? I know that HEAT rounds have that , DM12 for example . But the last shot had a different velocity, it was much faster . As Red said , this was an APFSDS probably . But we can only guess .
It's always a good feeling when you're in a convoy and you see the lead tank up ahead trying to turn around and run away.
excellent analysis and explanations
People with some knowledge of armoured warfare will wonder why the Ukrainian commander engaged the rear vehicles in the column first and not the lead tank which is more of a threat to the Leopard tank, perhaps the gun was loaded with HEAT not APDS so it engaged the lighter armoured vehicle in the rear. It's possible the commander did the same as the American soldier who picked off Germans attacking his position starting from the last one at the back so as not make the ones in the front aware and go into covering positions.
You fire at the back vehicle so that the ones in front of it will not be able to retreat by just reversing - it would overall slow down enemy retreat
Perhaps they were hoping that the column would not retreat, or perhaps they spotted something on optics. Dead carcasses can also act as cover if in front.
Is standard OP for convoy attacks and ambushes ,blocks the road in both directions creating a kill pocket.
@@mekolayn yes you're right, but you noticed the second shot aimed at another vehicle in the rear with HEAT. Usually if the first vehicle in the lead of the Russian column gets taken out and most of the time it's a tank that leads the attack, it will cause the other vehicles behind to start dispersing to escape. It indicates the total confidence of the Leopard tank crew to let the leading Russian tank carryon approaching closer
Эта тактика использовалась ещё СССР во второй мировой войне. Танковая засада сначала стреляла по замыкающему танку колонны, а затем по головному танку колонны. В итоге техника врага застревала и уничтожалась в огневом мешке
this guys identifying skills are insane
imagine the sounds blazing thru the forest
here all day for your videos
Reverse speed is so critical, moving behind cover, falling back while keeping best armor forward, as much as I love the look of T tanks I’d never want to fight in one with that reverse speed among other things of course
It breaks my heart to see people who, in different circumstances, could have been friends are ruthlessly, senselessly, and inhumanely killing each other on the battlefield.
The older you get, the "shittier" the life gets 🤷
Brother, yes, I completely agree. Everyone is so quick to dehumanise the Russians, but at the end of the day, they are just humans like you and me. Sadly, many of them have fallen into the trap of the Russian propaganda machine, which has clearly proven to be effective. It truly is heartbreaking to see this unfold.
@@Schizo00 No
There is no friendship with Russian cartel
Friends dont come over the border to kill you.
I am really surprised with the lead T-72B eating up 2 DM33s frontally and only getting disabled when it got tracked and showed its side. The T-72B behind it also ate a DM33 and shrugged it off.
Now if only they had a reverse speed.
7:47 Looks like the return barrage of the T-72s or even the BMPs did enough damage to it that made the Leopard 2A4 crew boogey out after the encounter when they know there MBT was Mission Kill.
It was heat, and it got absorbed by the fuel tank
As Red said, the first 2 shells were probably HEAT.
T-80 and T-64 have a reverse speed but they were rather expensive, the T-72 was basically just a cheaper variant of the T-64, still good but had to cut corners. With Russia restarting T-80 production it's clear they also see the reverse speed as an issue.
everything to meet your worldview. cope
@@tofita7amed168 Seeing how the shell overpenned the BMP, pretty sure its APFSDS.
You sure that's an 2A4? Looks like it has wedge turret add-on armor.
The commander's periscope is in front of the hatch and not behind it, so this is a Leopard 2A4.
I’m not an expert but I feel like picking up the thermal signature of a tank with engines running should be standard capability nowadays. The fact that this ambush worked surprises me.
Coming from the perspective of a former Abrams Gunner (4 years state side, no combat mind you), I would find it very unlikely that the Leopard was alone. Usually at the very least you would have your wingman have a slight overlap into your sector of fire in a defensive operation in which you needed to stretch your forces significantly. I would count out the possibility that they may have been down to their last serviceable tank as the camo netting showed that they had plenty of time spent on preparation. Fully netting up a tank is very time exhaustive which is why you usually see only the fronts or turrets netted. The first shot also seemed a bit odd to me in that it did look more like a Sabot sent into the rear vic in the convoy. 99% of the time you not only want to target the lead vic to stop the convoy and take advantage of the poor reverse speed of most eastern vics, but also the most dangerous threat which in this case would be another tank. My thought is that the TC may have designated the T-72 for the gunner to target and the gunner may have been confused under the pressure and targeted the APC. If the Ukrainians are using NATO style firing commands then it is very possible that that is what leads into the firing of a HEAT round into the T-72 initially, as either the Gunner would've called "identified PC" and either TC would have accepted and responded with a "Fire, Fire HEAT" command to switch rounds for reengagement. That or the loader would've heard PC and changed rounds on his own and called it out. I'm lead to this by the fact that all rounds seemed to be on target which would require the Gunner to press a button to tell the ballistic computer what round to calculate the firing solution for, which is called "indexing". I find that training, and/or human error are some of the least talked about possibilities when analyzing some of these engagements or after action footage. Overall excellent breakdown, I wish I had people like Red when I was teaching vehicle ID classes lmao.
Love how i just watched a video from suchomimus of some russians misidentifieing a t90 right before realizing you posted
that video from perepoloh that said 'its a leopard' with a bricks in ERA. ahahahahhahaha
Putin said Russia had the best tanks 😂😂😂😂
The west said the Leopard 2 would be game-changers too.
@@definitelyfrank9341 they never did. Only their media did. But we can see here why Leopard tanks are certainly superior to the Russian tanks, so they provide Ukraine with a better chance than Russia.
@@MiG-31893 The western media is the west's propaganda outlet, so it is considered a part of the west.
Putin also said specifically the T-90M was the best breakthrough tank in the world, not the T-72 and other inferior models.
Superior in tank on tank combat to most Russian tanks, yes. But definitely not superior overall. The effect they have on the battlefield is a fraction of that of Russia's massive fleet. They do not have a 'better chance' than Russia.
@ “Western media” is a very vague term, as there are many many countries in the west, each have hundreds of news outlets. So depending on who you watch, you could get very different results.
Russian news is all controlled by the state, so you won’t find any criticism there.
Russian tanks are inferior in every aspect other than numbers, what’s your point?
@@MiG-31893 'Russian tanks' is a very vague term. By that are you referring to T-90Ms with third generation thermals and digital maps, or T-55s? You need to be a little bit more specific, because the T-90M is superior to the Leopard 2 in every aspect except reverse speed and perhaps armour.
I cannot quite answer the "What's your point?" question because I cannot see my previous comment for some reason. If you would be so kind to copy and paste my comment, I would be much obliged to answer your question.
8:07 "leopard 2a4u doesnt exist, it cant hurt you"
Leopard 2a4u:
It exists broh it exists
Leopard 2 be like:
"Nothing here but us trees!"
"Mean, green, and unseen!"
Mirage tank moment
Can you please for further videos return the red arrow and lines as I struggle to see with only 2 pixels🤣
Bloody awesome video nonetheless 🤙
Conclusions from this video:
-Tank on tank engagements do happen SOMETIMES, albeit, very rarely
-The poor reverse speed of a tank can make the crew make bad decisions in life/death situations, like turning the back of the tank to the enemy guaranteeing a penetration regardless of shot
-The frontal armor of Russian tanks is actually quite resistant in spite of NAFO propaganda
-Thermal sights are a MUST on modern tanks. Their ability to detect and track enemy targets is MASSIVE, and these were older T-72s, they had a very hard time even spotting the Leopard
-Unexpected tank ambushes can be very deadly, and 120/125 mm direct shots are no joke.
-Don't go into battle unprepared. Expect everything, as unlikely as they can be.
And finally: Maybe actually try to take a look at place where you are going before you are gonna get near it with drone like an hour before. Its not like that leopard was there only when the column arrived.
@alexturnbackthearmy1907 the drone probably miss the tanl because how well camouflage its. This major failure is caused by many small error
well russian armour isn't as good as western armour, thats a fact, (russian tanks rely on speed(forward at least) rather than western tanks being heavy) please do not spite my beautiful NATO 😔😔
Most modern MBT's can resist most attacks from peer tanks from the front. That's not controversial. Without uranium armor penetrators, most NATO tanks will struggle to penetrate from the front anything more modern than a T-72B. It looks like both sides are shooting HEAT shells. HEAT shells are less than ideal for attacking modern MBTs.
With uranium penetrators, this is a whole different fight.
The NATO tanks are better less because of the guns or the armor or the top speeds, but mainly because of better thermal sights, better reverse speeds, better crew survivability, and better what the USA calls 'fightability' - how comfortably the crew integrates with the tank as part of a weapon system. Russian tanks are cramped and uncomfortable, have poor vision, have poor ability to elevate or depress the gun, have poor crew survivability when damaged, and can't extract themselves from trouble because they can't go in reverse.
@@BEANBOYOBEANITH uhm-- no. They follow a different philosophy. Russian tanks make use of E.R.A. (explosive reactive armor) which increases their overall protection by a lot while increasing the mass by little.
If You compare just the base armor, then okay, but all modern Russian tanks are covered in E.R.A.
Interestingly, Oryx, War Spotting and Lostwarinua have all not added the mentioned tanks in this video on the loss records. Likely more aftermath or further footage is needed as its the ending is a little hazey.
Also as mentioned here the quality is... subpar. So they might still try to indentify and/or check if it wasn't already added
@@juliuszkocinski7478they’ll probably just slap these vehicles in the “unidentified” section for now
Your average 10.7 match
Love these videos
Just gotta imagine how intense the situation was in the crew compartment. Wonder if we will ever get an actual in cabin recording in an intense battle like this one, where u can hear everything that the crew says
Basically the Leopard had a 100% hit rate
The leopard 2s FCS is insane considering its an 80s-90s version is even more impressive. The UA crew seems to be very talented aswell.
how so.... it seems that the leopard was camoflauged - it may not have been even seen for the first few shots. Its also stationary and knew the convoy (engine off and listening would be enough) was comming. The column was in follow mode - the bmp behind the t72 likely couldnt even see the oncoming. the Leopard just neeeds to fire straight with slight deviations (it would have ranged in on the road. It likely could not have missed with even the most basic training. Ultimately it was knocked out a few meters away - meaning that they sat in 1 place which means they likely didnt have a adequate withdrawal planned
@@Alexander_Hodge Probably used by NATO mercenaries and not ukies
@ I thought my original comment was self explanatory…. But I guess it takes and entire paragraph for you to get it
@@Alexander_HodgeReally ? They target the last vehicle first wich is a IFV and not the tank in front , wich could clearly knock them out ? And then they fire a HEAT round ? This was very bad from the Leopard crew , wrong target and wrong ammunition.
Whats interesting is the T-72 survives a first hit advantaged Leopard 2A4, That means the T-72 indeed had enough armor in direct tank vs tank combat
The Russian tank lost because it's supporting a convoy. This is the tank equivalent of trying to fight another man while you're holding your infant. You're just at a huge disadvantage.
That was expected tho
You dont know that because he kinda explained why you dont know that. And had it not been HEAT but APFSDS, it would have been a first hit knock-out - if it hits in the right spot. Thats the thing, you still have to hit good. And HEAT is not really sufficient head on any somewhat modern tank.
@@Deno2100 The Russian tank lost because the crews are trained like shit.
@@Deno2100😂😂😂 what a ridiculous comment. How would his strategy of hitting the attacker back change if there was no convoy?
The leo 2a4 is definitely a war thunder player. they are constantly aiming for the biggest weak-spot in russian tanks. the LFP.
Interesting to see some actual tank-on-tank action
So an old outdated Leopard 2a4 takes on and destroys a column, including a t-72. Impressive
Position is always better than armour
2
I didnt see destroyed tanks.
It destroys a t-72 and damaged several tanks and armored vehicles it also forced the column to retreat.
been waiting for this exact video
No Tank expert here, but i think there was only one hit on the lead vehicle before it turned.
at 0:49 notice the x shaped pole on the left together with the black box shape and curve on the road and part of a pole or tree on the right directly at the edge of the frame. lead vehicle locks like about right in the middle of left pole and the turn of the road in the back.
at 0:50 the lead vehicle gets hit and smoke appears, only minor smoke in the background from the apc.
at 0:53 something starts to burn (bright yellow flame) and the lead vehicle then fires.
between these two time indexes there seem to be some frames missing, notice with the smoke (the two "fingers" to the right) and the flame coming out of nowhere.
at 0:56 the second one fires.
at 1:01 something smokes on the left side, maybe artillery or smoke grenade, leopard hits the second vehicle, the first vehicle already stears to the right side (his left) and is still burning, notice the pole and box, pretty close now.
new angle now at 1:14 the first tank is hit again while not burning, also smoke is gone and position to the box is far away together with the curve, poles not visible due to quality this leads me to belief this is just another angle of the first hit instead of a second hit.
at 1:18 lead vehicle starts to burn.
at 1:19 lead vehicle firing back, exactly like at the first hit, timing beween hit and shot is slightly longer but explainable by the missing frames and maybe a different frame rate due to different drones.
1:21 back to the old angle, lead vehicle still burns and turns to it's left.
1:24 vehicle struck from the side, notice black box on the left.
so to me it appears the lead vehicle was only struck once to the front, it then fired either voluntary on a target, blindfired on something or the canon was hit and ignited by the hit which would be a mission kill.
We've certainly been getting some interesting vehicle footage as of late. Leopard 2A4's proving 30 years later they still have teeth. Crew of that disabled Leopard 2 also seemed to have made it out alright, so there is that as a silver lining. We'll see if they can get it recovered and repaired.