@@maryginger4877 it wasn't really debunked. the title is misleading. the fact is that the Bradley was able to fight off this tank in direct close range combat. by blinding and deafening it's occupants, destroying its external sensors and optics, setting off its ERA and seemingly jamming its turret control mechanisms along with steering. this lead the tank to crash into a tree and remain still further suggesting the extensive amount of damage it received. shortly after a drone was sent as well, but there is no indication that the tank wasn't already out of action. the crew were able to escape but the tank was not recoverable which makes the claim that it was destroyed by the Bradley technically valid/plausible. it was certainly not "debunked."
As a former Bradley Fighting Vehicle gunner, the last 'battlefield taxi' vehicle fielded by the US Army was the M113. The BFV is designed for battlefield survivability and to fight the quick moving armor fight against other IFV and even main battle tanks. That UKR crew did exactly what you are supposed to do when you run into a tank at close range. The driver starts maneuvering and the gunner blinds the tanks. Used to be the 'blind the tank' was done via smoke grenade launchers. But a 25mm HE to your vision blocks and optical targeting systems.
Is it wrong to assume that "something" fired from the BFV must have penetrated the hull/turret "somewhere" to cause that wild gyration of the turret? .... This wasn't an old puma armored car firing into the ass of a tiger. Lol! They took that T-90 from the front. .... Superior crewmen-ship on the part of the Ukrainians. Locking horns. Impressive.
@@USS-SNAKE-ISLAND unless getting Gaijened is a real world thing, I am pretty sure that HE cant actually pen the frontal armor of the original model of T-90, without ERA. Now, and this is giving the Ruskies the benefit of the doubt, the T-90M has more frontal armor (appearance wise) in the turret's design, at least look significantly more chunky. Now, going off of what we have seen so far, budget cuts are everywhere and some ERA blocks have a rubber filler rather then explosives and/or metal plates inside, which makes me think that the added armor to the turret might be hollow, which is a decent defense to HE and some older HEAT, as that would technically be spatial armor- which both HE and HEAT have historically had a lesser to no effect on spaced armor. Considering one brick of explosive armor seemed to have cooked off, this crew may have been lucky in that regard, but I cant imagine how disorientated that crew was after getting railed by HE rounds. As for the gyro, thats for the gun itself, not the turret since its not an oscillating turret. Now it is possible that the turret's motor could have been rattled up, or something along those lines.
@@Epsilon434 This isn't "World of Tanks". Information you're considering about frontal armor is actually regarding the hull glacis, not the turret. Sure, HEI-T generally won't do squat trying to cause penetration & spalling inside armored vehicles, but it can certainly damage systems to the point that they catch fire *inside* or are rendered unusable. Rounds hitting vision blocks, openings for the coax, hatches & what not certainly can cause severe damage. Why do you imagine Ukraine's drones have been so effective?
I'm old enough to remember when the anti-Reagan media called them a waste of money 💰. Too bad the old man isn't still with us so he can make them eat their words.
I was in the army, the tactic of lightening up an enemy tank with high explosives to blind him after you fire your 2 two was well known, I was not in the armor branch and this was before the first Gulf War... There is nothing new here, Stardard Operating Procedures, well done.
The Bradley does have it's fair share of shortcomings. However the Ukies are resourceful and intelligent so they seem to be learning to play to it's strength now.
@TalorcMacAllan-ig4rmThats why ukraine has a forced mobilization because they are running out of men? Does not sound resourceful. Have you seen the bradleys, Abrams and Leopards taken out by cheap amazon drones?
@TalorcMacAllan-ig4rmRussia is also adapting and becoming better. They made anti-drone armor and more. Yeah, world laughing at Russians equipment, while Russian AK-47 is the most produced gun in the history. Also they made T-72 that one of the most produced tanks in the history. Please, explain to me, how the hell Ukraine is winner??? Russia is coming farther and farther, while Ukraine is heroic retreating!
@@J0hN_TFyou got that right & then there's the fact it is coming out of a giant machine gun! IDK about you, but the amount of shear fire power a chain gun has in the same amount of time that you can get off ONE 125mm round is just terrifying!
This is not a complete video and the comment is not reliable! In the full video, two Bradleys take turns shooting at the T-90m, but cannot penetrate it! They blinded him! At the end of the full video, the T-90m stops on a tree and the crew leaves the car!
It's not the "Brad"; calling it that does a disservice to General Omar Bradley. It's not a battlefield taxi. That's a reference to armored personnel carriers like the M113 whereas the Bradley is part of a combined arms doctrine. It doesn't have anti-tank "rockets"; they're TOW-II missiles. The 25mm does not remain, "locked on target"; It's gyro-stabilized. The most common version sent to Ukraine is the M2A2 ODS SA, an early 1990's variant.
This is the kind of journalist that tells you the "Bug in the system" came from Shakespeare. He never really researched it or he would know the bug was a moth block a connection. But the other version was in my textbook because they never researched it, just lazy.
It’s always great to have a been there done that narrator to dive into details of the situation and provide a back drop to the evaluation of armor on armor combat.
It was because a soldier which is a War Thunder user , learned the weakness of T-90(The turret) , through leaking classified information from War Thunder or just wanted to aim on the turret if it's the weakness
In Iraq the Bradley was responsible for destroying more enemy tanks than the allied tanks did. As well as the two TOW in the launcher the Bradley has extra TOW missiles inside the vehicle and the launcher can be reloaded through a hatch behind the launcher.
Experience of soldiers is something i feel is always lost in raports in most articles , and glad that Expert/ex tanker mentions it , poorly trained troops have very low battlefield value.
I agree experience plays a major role but manufacturing military equipment plays a bigger role look how fast the United States of America produced weapons and military hardware especially ships look up how many ships they made in WW2 it’s amazing. Today they couldn’t produce nowhere near that amount. #Bringmanufacturingbackhome
@@daninquin2732 In warthunder often the commander is sitting behind the optics in the turret. So yes even in warthunder hitting the optics has an effect. For the tiger tank the optics aka the commanders hatch is always the best spot to hit. I also recall that your night vision in warthunder doesnt work anymore once your optics are hit.
I wish the Ukrainian people & Ukrainian support there on the ground fighting for their lives nothing but the best luck & hope the support never stops getting to you in the field in 🇺🇦
Stopping their supplies is the quickest way to end this war, Ukraine never had a chance against Russia and NATO started the war with a retarded president at the White House.
There's a couple of things wrong with this video. I watched this last night and come back to it this morning, so this is from memory. - The title of the video. While Bradleys typically go into battle with a group (squad) of infantry inside of them and they do typically drop them off when entering the battle, they don't f off afterwards, so they're not a taxi. A Bradley is an IFV (infantry fighting vehicle) which means it stays and provides fire support for the infantry squad it has dropped off. When you say battlefield taxi you're thinking of an APC which basically is the predecessor of an IFV and does the same as described above except it f's off after dropping off its infantry squad thus making it behave like a taxi. - The way the host pronounces Abrams - The way the host pronounces TOW (he spells it out it's pronounced as a word, just like the verb. Has the host seriously never heard somone pronounce these words before?) - The suggestion that the T-34 is the "world's greatest tank" (WW2 examples certainly aren't, watch Lazerpig's video on it). - The suggestion that Soviet tank design/production fell off after the T-34, while the Soviet's were the first to make a tank with composite armor (T-64's turret) which kickstarted the concept of MBTs. - Seriously the Soviet's had loads of firsts including IFV's with the BMP. - The suggestion that Russian tank troops wouldn't know how to shoot the main gun. As mentioned at the start this is not an exhaustive list, this is from memory from watching this video yesterday. I've been kinda ragging on the guest speaker so I'll point out one thing I think he's spot on about and deserve's some props for: Coordination in battle is hard, so the Bradley's succesfully pulling it off is a significant feat and one of Russia's serious deficits.
On paper, it be deadly for a Bradley to stick around with enemy tanks in the area. A 120 mm gun would vaporize it. There is another version of the Bradley and I forgot what it is for. The T34 was the best all around medium tank for the condition. with slopped armor and easy to maintain unlike the German tanks. I am not surprised the Russians skimmed on training their crew. This war is a great opportunity to use up all the old TOWs before the end of their shelf life. We need something fire and forget which TOW is not. Russian engineers have different design philosophy than western designers, they have less money to work with and they do not take creature comfort as seriously. But when there is a need for it or if they feel like it, their engineering are world class. They are also behind in electronics and automation.
@@tonylam9548 T34 and T-34 are two different tanks and not it wasn't the best, not even close. Wanna talk about ease of maintenance? Take a look at Shermans. They were literally the atlantic ocean away from their factories, so they had to be easily serviceable. The Soviet union was a force to be reckoned with, Russia is not.
@@saybrowt Distance from manufacturing factories been no longer a factor for decades. Big jets and machines are almost always in service half a world away. But with trained technicians and spare parts, it matter little. But if you studied an old WW2 German tracked system , you discovered it will be more difficult to repair and service, no matter where in the world compare with the T34 and Sherman. The Germans had the lesson forced down their throats and you noticed when they design tracks again, such as the leopards, they use a different system.
In reality, the Bradley is waaaaaay more than a battle taxi. What surprised me is that they took down the T-90 without even using their TOW missiles. They must have been very well trained.
Apparently the psychological effect of getting hit is a factor. You might not get penetrated, but the fear of it is paralysing... and to the win of the Ukrainians.
You have to be sitting still when you fire a TOW. Also, its like a sniper where you are monitoring a kill zone hopefully near maximum range and when you do fire the gunner must keep the cross hairs on the target until impact, which depending on the range can take up to 22-25 seconds. It's not meant to shoot on the move.
@@mrgrinch837how did you calculate such long flight time? At 3750 meters it should be under 15 seconds. Old TC from the ITV, are the newer missiles slower? Felt like forever and a day, but that was because you shouldn't move with the turret up in an ITV. SHOULDNT VS CAN'T. Using the manual crank to lower turret was always a joy... I never fired a TOW from a Bradley, the only advantage of the ITV was reload time, but it is unrealistic to think any veh would get off more than 2 TOW Missiles. Great for long long standoff. Hulldown only. But the backblast was just a big invitation for incoming projectiles. The crews here were wise to run and gun and target the optics, if they can't see they can't hit. The T-90 popped smoke wisely, knowing most teams are leap frogging. Even nicer they had drones to finish off the T-90. So they didn't have to expose an IFV to use a TOW.
I expect that they didn’t have TOWs. Maybe they had fired them already. Maybe a logistical failure blocked them. Maybe the US Congress hadn’t yet voted to send enough ammo.
There are about 3,000 Bradleys still in long term storage. Meanwhile, it's replacement has been approved and pre-production prototypes go into testing next year.
@0:30 - Answer is simple, as this was covered 1 year ago or something, that the Bradley gunner with anti-infantry shells that are HE (High explosive), that are not sufficient enough against the tank, damaged some component on that T-90, it blinded it and then did something to the turret ring that it malfunctioned, since in the video it was seen that the tank's gun turret was rotating, normally it shouldn't rotate randomly like that, a person wouldn't do it.
This video shows the thing that is often forgotten when talking about wapons: The quality of the communikations, cameras, fire control, handling etc. Of cause the specs of the T90M are superior. But for your big canon to count, you have to be able to hit your target. And this requires percision systems. So you need modern cameras, computers, control motors to move your gun etc. The systems all have to work hand in hand, and make it as easy as possible to score a hit. And when you see videos from inside russion tanks, you can see how basic they are.
They're not strictly speaking wrong to say that. ERA can alter the trajectory of kinetic penetrators, blunt the tip, and/or break the penetrator along its length. Analogue testing conducted shows the effectiveness of ERA against kinetic penetrators.
@@stephenfowler4115 That's not correct. It's been a nonsense claim since the 80s. Go to page 25 of the PDF. Even physically that makes no sense because when the sandwiched explosives detonates the plates will bend, the actual line of sight thickness the penetrator needs to go through is increased. csbaonline.org/uploads/documents/CSBA_TheRoadAhead_FullSize.pdf
The T-34 was a successful tank of WW2, but by its end, the British Centurion was entering service, and was the best tank of the post -War era. It was used by the IDF to destroy a huge invasion by Syria in the 1973 Arab-Israeli war
After the Battle of Kursk, the T-34 already showed its deficiencies because it wasn't effective against German heavy armor, especially at long range. The Soviets went to design the T-44 as a result, which later turned into the T-54/T-55 which was much more revolutionary. However, the biggest leap forward was the T-64. The western obsession with the T-34 is nonsensical.
I was very lucky to be an engineer who helped develop subsystems for the original Challenger 2. Not sure if that variant is what was sent to Ukraine. CII proven in Iraq as well. Great kit! Thanks for serving!
Just a point of correction - the Bradly IFV does not have Anti-Tank Rockets - rockets are unguided. They TOW Millies (pronounced toe) are wire guided missiles.
Great videos! Long live Ukraine. Shame on Congressional Republicans for holding up military aid! As a veteran I can say that Ukraine is saving the lives of tens of thousands of US and Western military personnel!
@@alchah_247 It may be so, but did you, as a russian, have any right to point your finger on somebody other than yourself? Have you ever challenged what you hear in your medias, or are you sure your elites wont lie to you (😂)?
Shame on the delusional leftist democrats whose policies have pushed inflation through the roof and made everyday items so expensive that middle class people are struggling like hell. I feel for the people of Ukraine, but this is not our fight. Let Europe deal with its own problems for once.
I wonder if the drone was sending overhead footage to the Bradley which meant it could see the T90 but the T90 couldn't see the Bradley so it could manoeuvre into position.
@@BluegillGregthe Bradley had the T90 Insight the whole time, there was no need to get information from drone Cruise they could see what was going on right in front of them. Now the Drone Cruise did come in and take. Now the Drone did come in and take at the very end. But they weren't really a part of the Bradley fight
Probably true, but I imagine it would be calling down corrections rather than aim points. You'd need some very accurate and tough sensors and electronics and some excellent software to be able to call down shot angles and ranges. Still much better than most alternatives.
Very interesting episode. Thanks so much for passing on your studies. It would be an interesting subject to see some highlights of the training of a tank commander and some of the tactics used by combined forces working together. It also would be fascinating to get a big overview of drones worldwide. It looks very much like they will be playing a major part in warfare from now on. The very small and quiet drones are emerging, and it would be wonderful to see some data on them, especially how to locate and destroy them, or at least explore the ways to jam the signals that control them.
@MinhBui-vr2oz well I see where the joke is going it still don't make sense cuz they have lost over 3k tanks 😂 so soon they will be hooking 125mm guns to trucks 😂
I always had the opinion that a tank that keeps the crew alive is superiour because the crew gets kind of a chance to lear a thing or two - seems like russia never heard of that...
The missiles were a guard against surprises and give the APC a chance to survive if it ran into tanks, APCs have no business fighting tanks. If you ran into tanks, and you already used up the missiles, you better hope the infantry with you have some LAWs, or you can call up your Hellfire/TOW/Javelin dealer fast while you escape at top speed. Shooting out the sensors will work, (for any tanks) but it takes time and allow the tank to take a couple of shots at you.
No. That was the BT-2. The BT-2 was an American design and sold to the Soviets. The T-34 was thought up by the Russians themselves. Do a little research before posting.
No. That was the BT-2. The BT-2 was an American design and sold to the Soviets. The T-34 was thought up by the Russians themselves. Do a little research before posting.
Tanks have done well in deserts recently. In Europe they have to use main roads for 6 months of the year to avoid getting bogged down. With rain comes rivers and bridges. The bridges are often unable to take the weight of a MBT. An Infantry Fighting Vehicle seems to be a better bet in a European winter.
They jammed and he had to switch the HE rounds that won't go through the armor. He focused his attack on the external stuff that was outside the hull and blinded the Russians. One of the rounds started a fire in something.
DU will go through parts of some Russian armor. The turret armor of the T-90M, if made to spec (refer to the corruption mentioned in the vid), can fend off the DU rounds. However, since Russia is actually using them, the T-64 and T-55 would be sliced up by it.
@@hankhaney3785 LOL, if whoever owns or manages the steel and tank production facilties is pocketing $ and cheaping out on the production quality, corruption absolutely affects the QUALITY of the armor. My original comment said nothing about "thickness". Go back to playing world of tanks, or whatever, where what the spec sheet says is exactly what you get. The real world, especially with the endemic corruption of the Russian system, is different.
@@Texas240 LOL.....those tanks are made from "stamped steel" for the most part. So your theory is "incorrect"....but they do engage in corruption to pocket more cash, just like our democrats do, right Joe Biden ! lol
I think that reactive armor does not help against a machine cannon. It only helps against single shots, but when the reactive plates have been detonated the bare steel remains like in old tanks.
@@Տիգրան-ժ1է I know, but it is a fact that it does not help much. WW1 was terminated by Allied tanks, mainly from Great Britain. WW2 was dominated by tank armies initially from Germany, and later from the Allied. But in the Ukraine war, they only caused soft knees and showed how high their turrets can fly. For me, passive armament helps against light weapons, but against heavy weapons, tanks would need active defense like warplanes. Then they could become more agile. If you tear a fighter jet into a >5g curve at the right moment, you may follow how the missiles are missing you.
There were no sovereign Ukraine neither sovereign Russia at that moment. There was USSR that included 15 soviet republics (like Ukrainian SSR, RFSSR, Kazakh SSR etc.)
@@чиабатта-р9с yes yes, but the point still stands. The T-34, and earlier tanks like the BT series, were designed and built in Kharkiv, in the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, by a company that still exists today as a Ukrainian state company.
@@чиабатта-р9с Finally someone who doesn't only recognize Russia as the former Soviet Union. Kids today always fail to acknowledge that the USSR was composed of multiple republics, not just Russia, the name Soviet "Union" wouldn't gonna make sense if its just a single republic.
It’s about crew training that’s how a tank survives integrating with other forms of weapons, armor, artillery aircraft, and infantry. It’s about training not about the tank surviving on its own. That’s how tanks survive every tank vulnerable.
The DPRK and Russia border each other. North Korean forces will cross that border and take a train through Russia to the deployment area. So, nope, there won't be any interception en route -- not unless the US is inclined to target rail inside Russia; the chance of that is extremely close to zero.
Almost impossible unfortunately, but I really doubt NK will send much in terms of troops. The main issue should we the entire west stopping all tech flowing to this new alliance of China, Iran, Russia, NK, etc. We need to stop helping them in any and all ways.
Weird how a tank commander haven't heard of anti-tank minefields and mine-plows and the reason why they all follow each other? You go in the tracks of the vehicle in front of you until it goes boom, then you go until you go boom and so on and so forth until all the ruskie armor is gone.
Its not a Taxi, and the Russian tank was being tracked by drones, and had no support. I am sure they were focused on the drones, and by the time they saw the Bradley they were shooting blind. T-90's are great tanks if they have the trained crew, proper protective armor and support they need. If you would have put an M1 or a Centurion in the same situation of taking fire from both drones, and a couple of IFV's with an inexperienced tank crew, you would probably end up with a blown tank. I have seen videos of successful Russian tank operations where they used t-72s behind a t-62 turtle tank, the difference is that they were supported by infantry, artillery, and helicopters. It was not the tank this time it was the tactics.
Crimea is Ukraine 🇺🇦 Luhansk is Ukraine 🇺🇦 Donetsk is Ukraine 🇺🇦 Zaporizhia is Ukraine 🇺🇦 Kherson is Ukraine 🇺🇦 The 1991 borders MUST be returned. International law is not negotiable. Russian propagandists are perfectly aware of the targets in Crimea.
What did you think about the episode? Leave your comments below!
This got debunked a very long time ago...
@@maryginger4877 Explain is it not real???
@@damonstewart70 Tell me, if the Russians claimed to have knocked out an Abrams or Challenger with a BMP - would you also believe that ?
@@maryginger4877 depends on the shells they used and the location of impact. Tanks have very vulnerable points. The main ones being the top & rear
@@maryginger4877 it wasn't really debunked. the title is misleading. the fact is that the Bradley was able to fight off this tank in direct close range combat. by blinding and deafening it's occupants, destroying its external sensors and optics, setting off its ERA and seemingly jamming its turret control mechanisms along with steering. this lead the tank to crash into a tree and remain still further suggesting the extensive amount of damage it received. shortly after a drone was sent as well, but there is no indication that the tank wasn't already out of action. the crew were able to escape but the tank was not recoverable which makes the claim that it was destroyed by the Bradley technically valid/plausible. it was certainly not "debunked."
This best assessment of a fighting armored vehicle comes from surviving, veteran crew members
In that much. Bradleys have earned their battle stars.
The Bradley is not a battlefield taxi. It's an infantry fighting vehicle, meaning it's designed to stay on the front and support the troops.
Yeah the M113 is a battlefield taxi
Yeah and over 300 have been sent not 190. Sounds like this reporter is young and getting his info from Facebook mums.
If it's a taxi then surely it would be drove by an Indian
Not everyone has seen the movie obviously. Frasier and Men in Tights guy explained it all.
Don't Translate...
මගේ නම කියවන්න එපා
As a former Bradley Fighting Vehicle gunner, the last 'battlefield taxi' vehicle fielded by the US Army was the M113. The BFV is designed for battlefield survivability and to fight the quick moving armor fight against other IFV and even main battle tanks.
That UKR crew did exactly what you are supposed to do when you run into a tank at close range.
The driver starts maneuvering and the gunner blinds the tanks.
Used to be the 'blind the tank' was done via smoke grenade launchers. But a 25mm HE to your vision blocks and optical targeting systems.
Is it wrong to assume that "something" fired from the BFV must have penetrated the hull/turret "somewhere" to cause that wild gyration of the turret? .... This wasn't an old puma armored car firing into the ass of a tiger. Lol! They took that T-90 from the front. .... Superior crewmen-ship on the part of the Ukrainians. Locking horns. Impressive.
@@USS-SNAKE-ISLAND unless getting Gaijened is a real world thing, I am pretty sure that HE cant actually pen the frontal armor of the original model of T-90, without ERA.
Now, and this is giving the Ruskies the benefit of the doubt, the T-90M has more frontal armor (appearance wise) in the turret's design, at least look significantly more chunky. Now, going off of what we have seen so far, budget cuts are everywhere and some ERA blocks have a rubber filler rather then explosives and/or metal plates inside, which makes me think that the added armor to the turret might be hollow, which is a decent defense to HE and some older HEAT, as that would technically be spatial armor- which both HE and HEAT have historically had a lesser to no effect on spaced armor.
Considering one brick of explosive armor seemed to have cooked off, this crew may have been lucky in that regard, but I cant imagine how disorientated that crew was after getting railed by HE rounds.
As for the gyro, thats for the gun itself, not the turret since its not an oscillating turret. Now it is possible that the turret's motor could have been rattled up, or something along those lines.
I would have guessed that the surfaces on the sensors would be fairly quickly damaged between direct hits and shrapnel.
Wasn't the M113 the aluminum box where the chances of survival on the roof behind sandbags were better than in the vehicle?
@@Epsilon434 This isn't "World of Tanks". Information you're considering about frontal armor is actually regarding the hull glacis, not the turret.
Sure, HEI-T generally won't do squat trying to cause penetration & spalling inside armored vehicles, but it can certainly damage systems to the point that they catch fire *inside* or are rendered unusable. Rounds hitting vision blocks, openings for the coax, hatches & what not certainly can cause severe damage. Why do you imagine Ukraine's drones have been so effective?
It seems the Bradley was better than some critics led us to believe.
It seems Russian army and Russian weapon are much worse than some “experts” led us to believe
It all depends, there are Bradley units being shot up every day as well, you may just not get to see it
@@jamesgornall5731 shall we see Putins propaganda garbage like RT ?
I'm old enough to remember when the anti-Reagan media called them a waste of money 💰. Too bad the old man isn't still with us so he can make them eat their words.
It still sucks, it hammered a T90M blind as a bat.
I was in the army, the tactic of lightening up an enemy tank with high explosives to blind him after you fire your 2 two was well known, I was not in the armor branch and this was before the first Gulf War... There is nothing new here, Stardard Operating Procedures, well done.
Wow, those soldiers in the Bradley sure have balls!
i will never have a sack as large as those guys thats for sure
I mean in that situation u have no other choice. If u try and run they could have a chance of killing u or ur other men so u fight
The crew did exactly what they were Trained to do.
Not for long, unfortunately
@@riheg How so the crew is still alive even tho the incident happened a while back
The Bradley does have it's fair share of shortcomings. However the Ukies are resourceful and intelligent so they seem to be learning to play to it's strength now.
@TalorcMacAllan-ig4rmThats why ukraine has a forced mobilization because they are running out of men? Does not sound resourceful.
Have you seen the bradleys, Abrams and Leopards taken out by cheap amazon drones?
@TalorcMacAllan-ig4rmRussia is also adapting and becoming better. They made anti-drone armor and more. Yeah, world laughing at Russians equipment, while Russian AK-47 is the most produced gun in the history. Also they made T-72 that one of the most produced tanks in the history. Please, explain to me, how the hell Ukraine is winner??? Russia is coming farther and farther, while Ukraine is heroic retreating!
@@glebb..3416 Have you seen the shed tank getting obliterated by ukie drones of same size?
@@Vlad_Rudalev also the Ak-47 without upgrades and modifications is a piece of inaccurate dogshit.
Yeah like when they need half a million men to replace some thousand men@@glebb..3416
Don't let the 25mm bushmaster fool you..that thing delivers
In the right hands yes !!!
Tandem atgms: hey there era ;)
25mm doesn't sound like a big round until you see one, that thing is shooting bullets the size of hand grenades
@@J0hN_TFyou got that right & then there's the fact it is coming out of a giant machine gun! IDK about you, but the amount of shear fire power a chain gun has in the same amount of time that you can get off ONE 125mm round is just terrifying!
This is not a complete video and the comment is not reliable! In the full video, two Bradleys take turns shooting at the T-90m, but cannot penetrate it! They blinded him! At the end of the full video, the T-90m stops on a tree and the crew leaves the car!
It's thrilling that you invite an expert that has actually been in the military and fought in wars.
Who probably gets this information about Ukraine from the same place you get it, you tube.
"expert" stumbles to say basic knowledge
Bradley's are very noisy inside. Worse than the M-113.
It's not the "Brad"; calling it that does a disservice to General Omar Bradley. It's not a battlefield taxi. That's a reference to armored personnel carriers like the M113 whereas the Bradley is part of a combined arms doctrine. It doesn't have anti-tank "rockets"; they're TOW-II missiles. The 25mm does not remain, "locked on target"; It's gyro-stabilized. The most common version sent to Ukraine is the M2A2 ODS SA, an early 1990's variant.
This is the kind of journalist that tells you the "Bug in the system" came from Shakespeare. He never really researched it or he would know the bug was a moth block a connection. But the other version was in my textbook because they never researched it, just lazy.
Cool video though
Thank you. Yeah, everything about this video is pretty fast and loose. It's a fighting vehicle.
Gun FCS can track a target.
Dude. Soldiers who use them call them brads constantly. It’s a nickname, I’m sure the general would get over it
It’s always great to have a been there done that narrator to dive into details of the situation and provide a back drop to the evaluation of armor on armor combat.
It was because a soldier which is a War Thunder user , learned the weakness of T-90(The turret) , through leaking classified information from War Thunder or just wanted to aim on the turret if it's the weakness
In Iraq the Bradley was responsible for destroying more enemy tanks than the allied tanks did. As well as the two TOW in the launcher the Bradley has extra TOW missiles inside the vehicle and the launcher can be reloaded through a hatch behind the launcher.
Experience of soldiers is something i feel is always lost in raports in most articles , and glad that Expert/ex tanker mentions it , poorly trained troops have very low battlefield value.
I agree experience plays a major role but manufacturing military equipment plays a bigger role look how fast the United States of America produced weapons and military hardware especially ships look up how many ships they made in WW2 it’s amazing. Today they couldn’t produce nowhere near that amount. #Bringmanufacturingbackhome
The Bradley commander intuition of shootign the tank visions was a cognitive skill he learned from Warthudner.
I thought it's World of Tanks .
@@MinhBui-vr2oz nope world of tanks uses a healthbar war thunder uses detailed models of its vehicles
And they say gaming has no transferable skills!
There is not mechanic in game that blinds a player if the optics are hit, it changes nothing the gunner was simply smart or trained to do that or both
@@daninquin2732 In warthunder often the commander is sitting behind the optics in the turret. So yes even in warthunder hitting the optics has an effect. For the tiger tank the optics aka the commanders hatch is always the best spot to hit. I also recall that your night vision in warthunder doesnt work anymore once your optics are hit.
I wish the Ukrainian people & Ukrainian support there on the ground fighting for their lives nothing but the best luck & hope the support never stops getting to you in the field in 🇺🇦
Stopping their supplies is the quickest way to end this war, Ukraine never had a chance against Russia and NATO started the war with a retarded president at the White House.
I wonder if the russians even knew that there were two separate bradley's
The average Russian soldier can’t even count.😂
Seems to be MVP of ground armor at the moment. Havent seen much CV90, wonder how does that thing compare
I've read Sweden didn't want footage of them posted, but who knows.
There's a couple of things wrong with this video. I watched this last night and come back to it this morning, so this is from memory.
- The title of the video. While Bradleys typically go into battle with a group (squad) of infantry inside of them and they do typically drop them off when entering the battle, they don't f off afterwards, so they're not a taxi. A Bradley is an IFV (infantry fighting vehicle) which means it stays and provides fire support for the infantry squad it has dropped off. When you say battlefield taxi you're thinking of an APC which basically is the predecessor of an IFV and does the same as described above except it f's off after dropping off its infantry squad thus making it behave like a taxi.
- The way the host pronounces Abrams
- The way the host pronounces TOW (he spells it out it's pronounced as a word, just like the verb. Has the host seriously never heard somone pronounce these words before?)
- The suggestion that the T-34 is the "world's greatest tank" (WW2 examples certainly aren't, watch Lazerpig's video on it).
- The suggestion that Soviet tank design/production fell off after the T-34, while the Soviet's were the first to make a tank with composite armor (T-64's turret) which kickstarted the concept of MBTs.
- Seriously the Soviet's had loads of firsts including IFV's with the BMP.
- The suggestion that Russian tank troops wouldn't know how to shoot the main gun.
As mentioned at the start this is not an exhaustive list, this is from memory from watching this video yesterday.
I've been kinda ragging on the guest speaker so I'll point out one thing I think he's spot on about and deserve's some props for: Coordination in battle is hard, so the Bradley's succesfully pulling it off is a significant feat and one of Russia's serious deficits.
On paper, it be deadly for a Bradley to stick around with enemy tanks in the area. A 120 mm gun would vaporize it. There is another version of the Bradley and I forgot what it is for. The T34 was the best all around medium tank for the condition. with slopped armor and easy to maintain unlike the German tanks. I am not surprised the Russians skimmed on training their crew. This war is a great opportunity to use up all the old TOWs before the end of their shelf life. We need something fire and forget which TOW is not. Russian engineers have different design philosophy than western designers, they have less money to work with and they do not take creature comfort as seriously. But when there is a need for it or if they feel like it, their engineering are world class. They are also behind in electronics and automation.
@@tonylam9548 T34 and T-34 are two different tanks and not it wasn't the best, not even close. Wanna talk about ease of maintenance? Take a look at Shermans. They were literally the atlantic ocean away from their factories, so they had to be easily serviceable. The Soviet union was a force to be reckoned with, Russia is not.
Spot on...
@@saybrowt Distance from manufacturing factories been no longer a factor for decades. Big jets and machines are almost always in service half a world away. But with trained technicians and spare parts, it matter little. But if you studied an old WW2 German tracked system , you discovered it will be more difficult to repair and service, no matter where in the world compare with the T34 and Sherman. The Germans had the lesson forced down their throats and you noticed when they design tracks again, such as the leopards, they use a different system.
Russia must be using lada to build the t90m tanks.
Lada still exists? LOL
@@daclachoang368 lada ru
Зато Абрамсы уже всё не делают )
@@daclachoang368 It was originally a Fiat (Italian car) but not "strong" enough for wet cold weather and bad roads.
With imported Lucas electrics.
In reality, the Bradley is waaaaaay more than a battle taxi. What surprised me is that they took down the T-90 without even using their TOW missiles. They must have been very well trained.
Apparently the psychological effect of getting hit is a factor. You might not get penetrated, but the fear of it is paralysing... and to the win of the Ukrainians.
You have to be sitting still when you fire a TOW. Also, its like a sniper where you are monitoring a kill zone hopefully near maximum range and when you do fire the gunner must keep the cross hairs on the target until impact, which depending on the range can take up to 22-25 seconds. It's not meant to shoot on the move.
@@mrgrinch837 Thanks. That's very interesting and useful information. 👍
@@mrgrinch837how did you calculate such long flight time? At 3750 meters it should be under 15 seconds. Old TC from the ITV, are the newer missiles slower?
Felt like forever and a day, but that was because you shouldn't move with the turret up in an ITV. SHOULDNT VS CAN'T. Using the manual crank to lower turret was always a joy... I never fired a TOW from a Bradley, the only advantage of the ITV was reload time, but it is unrealistic to think any veh would get off more than 2 TOW Missiles. Great for long long standoff. Hulldown only. But the backblast was just a big invitation for incoming projectiles.
The crews here were wise to run and gun and target the optics, if they can't see they can't hit.
The T-90 popped smoke wisely, knowing most teams are leap frogging. Even nicer they had drones to finish off the T-90. So they didn't have to expose an IFV to use a TOW.
I expect that they didn’t have TOWs. Maybe they had fired them already. Maybe a logistical failure blocked them. Maybe the US Congress hadn’t yet voted to send enough ammo.
Enjoyed the format and the info. I appreciate It, Cheers. Slava Ukraine and NATO
There are about 3,000 Bradleys still in long term storage. Meanwhile, it's replacement has been approved and pre-production prototypes go into testing next year.
@0:30 - Answer is simple, as this was covered 1 year ago or something, that the Bradley gunner with anti-infantry shells that are HE (High explosive), that are not sufficient enough against the tank, damaged some component on that T-90, it blinded it and then did something to the turret ring that it malfunctioned, since in the video it was seen that the tank's gun turret was rotating, normally it shouldn't rotate randomly like that, a person wouldn't do it.
Mines are the big issue. That’s one of the reasons they are following in a column.
You spin me right 'round baby right 'round.
This video shows the thing that is often forgotten when talking about wapons:
The quality of the communikations, cameras, fire control, handling etc.
Of cause the specs of the T90M are superior. But for your big canon to count, you have to be able to hit your target. And this requires percision systems. So you need modern cameras, computers, control motors to move your gun etc.
The systems all have to work hand in hand, and make it as easy as possible to score a hit.
And when you see videos from inside russion tanks, you can see how basic they are.
The Bradley crews used the best weapon they had, their brains.
This battlefield scene gives me strong Warthunder/WoT vibes xD
Excellent news and a great video on the importance of using the right tools to win 😊
ITS THE TRAINING, VERY IMPORTANT *
those 17 Bradleys lost to friendly fire is ridiculous
No the active armor is not designed to deflect shells. Its designed to interuppt the jet from shaped charge projectiles.
They're not strictly speaking wrong to say that. ERA can alter the trajectory of kinetic penetrators, blunt the tip, and/or break the penetrator along its length. Analogue testing conducted shows the effectiveness of ERA against kinetic penetrators.
They're also designed to deflect APFSDS darts
@@pax6833 explosive armor is not effective against solid shot. Tungsten and DU darts penetrate it easily.
@@stephenfowler4115 That's not correct. It's been a nonsense claim since the 80s. Go to page 25 of the PDF. Even physically that makes no sense because when the sandwiched explosives detonates the plates will bend, the actual line of sight thickness the penetrator needs to go through is increased.
csbaonline.org/uploads/documents/CSBA_TheRoadAhead_FullSize.pdf
@@stephenfowler4115 kaktus or noz?
Just like the so called best air defence in the world the s-300 and s-400s. All hype!!!
U mean patriot right?
@@zxuan1972 Keep reaching
like abrams and chalenger😂
@@koki273 How many Abrams and Challengers have been destroyed in Combat compared to T-Tanks? get a grip on reality Koki fella.
@@bremnersghost948thousands of Russian tanks have been destroyed.
The T-34 was a successful tank of WW2, but by its end, the British Centurion was entering service, and was the best tank of the post -War era. It was used by the IDF to destroy a huge invasion by Syria in the 1973 Arab-Israeli war
After the Battle of Kursk, the T-34 already showed its deficiencies because it wasn't effective against German heavy armor, especially at long range. The Soviets went to design the T-44 as a result, which later turned into the T-54/T-55 which was much more revolutionary. However, the biggest leap forward was the T-64. The western obsession with the T-34 is nonsensical.
Bradleys having a Party taxi ;-)
Uber-machina
I was very lucky to be an engineer who helped develop subsystems for the original Challenger 2. Not sure if that variant is what was sent to Ukraine. CII proven in Iraq as well. Great kit! Thanks for serving!
11:30
"The T34 was the hight of Russian tank design"
What a ridiculous statement, also the T34 was a prewar design used against the Japanese.
Excellent presentation, thanks
Just a point of correction - the Bradly IFV does not have Anti-Tank Rockets - rockets are unguided.
They TOW Millies (pronounced toe) are wire guided missiles.
excellent commentary.
Slava ukrainy 🇺🇦
Excelente matéria!
Great videos! Long live Ukraine. Shame on Congressional Republicans for holding up military aid! As a veteran I can say that Ukraine is saving the lives of tens of thousands of US and Western military personnel!
Старая добрая американская традиция - прикрываться за спинами чужих стран,а потом кинуть всех.Браво🗽
@@alchah_247 It may be so, but did you, as a russian, have any right to point your finger on somebody other than yourself?
Have you ever challenged what you hear in your medias, or are you sure your elites wont lie to you (😂)?
@@alchah_247 You mean like Russia did to hundreds of wars?
Absolutely delusional
Shame on the delusional leftist democrats whose policies have pushed inflation through the roof and made everyday items so expensive that middle class people are struggling like hell. I feel for the people of Ukraine, but this is not our fight. Let Europe deal with its own problems for once.
Excellent analysis
I wonder if the drone was sending overhead footage to the Bradley which meant it could see the T90 but the T90 couldn't see the Bradley so it could manoeuvre into position.
yes, Ukrainian situational awareness and communication between different units much better.
And radio communication from the drone team?
@@BluegillGregthe Bradley had the T90 Insight the whole time, there was no need to get information from drone Cruise they could see what was going on right in front of them. Now the Drone Cruise did come in and take. Now the Drone did come in and take at the very end. But they weren't really a part of the Bradley fight
I suspect that the drone was passing situational awareness to the Bradleys. I wish I had that kind of SA when I was a Forward Observer. Game Changing.
Probably true, but I imagine it would be calling down corrections rather than aim points. You'd need some very accurate and tough sensors and electronics and some excellent software to be able to call down shot angles and ranges. Still much better than most alternatives.
It's not the equipment, it's how well the soldier is trained
Excellent report. The best one on the war, as far as tanks are concerned. Ukraine is going to win this war.
And Preston North is going to win the European Cup.
Very interesting episode. Thanks so much for passing on your studies. It would be an interesting subject to see some highlights of the training of a tank commander and some of the tactics used by combined forces working together.
It also would be fascinating to get a big overview of drones worldwide. It looks very much like they will be playing a major part in warfare from now on. The very small and quiet drones are emerging, and it would be wonderful to see some data on them, especially how to locate and destroy them, or at least explore the ways to jam the signals that control them.
Russia's best tank taken out by a taxi. That just about sums up the orcs equipment. All hype and no substance.
Tanks are obsolete Bradley's or APCS are more valuable than medium and heavy tanks
@@shinji1264 Tell it to hundreds of thoudands of dead yellow & blue soldiers.
@@e-rgames7009 Believe what you want
@@shinji1264 losses come from both side. Undeniable truth
Most smart ukrop
Fascinating!
It seems like Putin's biggest screw up, is caring far less about the crews, than the equipment.
Because he has 20 million men and only has 10 thousand tanks .😂
@MinhBui-vr2oz well I see where the joke is going it still don't make sense cuz they have lost over 3k tanks 😂 so soon they will be hooking 125mm guns to trucks 😂
Frankly, that's been Russian strategy since at least as far back as WWI.
@@MinhBui-vr2oz Well, it has shown that it was just on paper, not in reality 😉
@@45atanner Откуда 3 тысячи танков, не более 400 и то не невозвратных потерь. отремонтируют поменяют башню и назад
So very interesting and comprehensive video…😊😊
its always all about the soldier...we dont need to fear the Iwan
nice, informative clip btw
Y'all calling us Ivans, just like the nazi in WW2...
@@Vlad_Rudalev Everyone called you Ivans back then. But that is obsolete and too nice to be fair, you are just orcs
@@Vlad_RudalevNo matter the name, an orc is an orc. Get out of Ukraine. 🇺🇦 🇺🇦 🇺🇦
@@Vlad_Rudalevno we're just referring to you by a common Russian name. It's really just on you if you get offended by that😂😂
Very informative thank you
I always had the opinion that a tank that keeps the crew alive is superiour because the crew gets kind of a chance to lear a thing or two - seems like russia never heard of that...
Экипаж покинул танк
smart use of the rubble. Concrete is probably fairly consistent hard cover
That little box on the side of a Bradley, holds tank killing toe missiles. Bradleys were made to hold their own against tanks
The missiles were a guard against surprises and give the APC a chance to survive if it ran into tanks, APCs have no business fighting tanks. If you ran into tanks, and you already used up the missiles, you better hope the infantry with you have some LAWs, or you can call up your Hellfire/TOW/Javelin dealer fast while you escape at top speed. Shooting out the sensors will work, (for any tanks) but it takes time and allow the tank to take a couple of shots at you.
I JOINED TO BE ON THAT IN 1981, NEVER GOT ON IT * A FRIEND GOT ON IT, NOT ME *
SLAVA UKRAINE
ВСРАЛОПРОСРАИНЕБУГАГА
💪🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦💪👏👏👏
Commander Hamish de Bretton-Gordon here shares his precious experiences. "Ukrainean skills are shockingly well." Thanks.
❤❤❤❤❤❤❤
Have to remind people that the T34 was an American design from the Christie model 😅 so they didn't even think of that themselves 😂
No. That was the BT-2. The BT-2 was an American design and sold to the Soviets. The T-34 was thought up by the Russians themselves. Do a little research before posting.
No. That was the BT-2. The BT-2 was an American design and sold to the Soviets. The T-34 was thought up by the Russians themselves. Do a little research before posting.
To be fair, the Bradley didn't destroy it. It disabled it. Very well I might add, gunner hit a lot of vital components 😂
Disabled (unable to complete it's mission) = WIN. The drone was just to keep the tank from being recovered and used again. Removed from inventory.
Great video
awesome
Nicely-made video - Slava Ukraini!
Сало уронили?
great video!
Glad you enjoyed it!
A Hodge Podge of vehicles will make logistics a nitemare.
Advidka right.... Ok guess who won that battler.
Great comments!
Tanks have done well in deserts recently. In Europe they have to use main roads for 6 months of the year to avoid getting bogged down. With rain comes rivers and bridges. The bridges are often unable to take the weight of a MBT. An Infantry Fighting Vehicle seems to be a better bet in a European winter.
Fascinating stuff 😮😮
T34 was designed and originally built designed in Ukraine
Yes but also, chief designer born in Yaroslavl.
It was designed by a Russian.
@@glebb..3416but originally built and designed on Ukraine
@@International_Corn Designed by a Russian engineer. Build in many countries including ukraine.
Ukraine was a part of the Soviet Union lmao , designed by a Russian and produced in all Soviet states, stop claiming credit.
Slava Ukraine, from a South African supporter 🇺🇦🇿🇦
Min: 5:38 was the video game War Thunder? xD
Ya failed to mention the Bradley's depleted Urainium rounds, that can penetrate Russian armor.
They jammed and he had to switch the HE rounds that won't go through the armor. He focused his attack on the external stuff that was outside the hull and blinded the Russians. One of the rounds started a fire in something.
DU will go through parts of some Russian armor. The turret armor of the T-90M, if made to spec (refer to the corruption mentioned in the vid), can fend off the DU rounds. However, since Russia is actually using them, the T-64 and T-55 would be sliced up by it.
@@Texas240 LOL...the Russians corruption has nothing to do with their tank armor thickness.
@@hankhaney3785 LOL, if whoever owns or manages the steel and tank production facilties is pocketing $ and cheaping out on the production quality, corruption absolutely affects the QUALITY of the armor. My original comment said nothing about "thickness".
Go back to playing world of tanks, or whatever, where what the spec sheet says is exactly what you get. The real world, especially with the endemic corruption of the Russian system, is different.
@@Texas240 LOL.....those tanks are made from "stamped steel" for the most part. So your theory is "incorrect"....but they do engage in corruption to pocket more cash, just like our democrats do, right Joe Biden ! lol
I think that reactive armor does not help against a machine cannon. It only helps against single shots, but when the reactive plates have been detonated the bare steel remains like in old tanks.
Firstly, the Russian tanks themselves have a plate of rolled homogeneous steel that is not thin, and secondly there is composite armor.
@@Տիգրան-ժ1է I know, but it is a fact that it does not help much. WW1 was terminated by Allied tanks, mainly from Great Britain. WW2 was dominated by tank armies initially from Germany, and later from the Allied. But in the Ukraine war, they only caused soft knees and showed how high their turrets can fly. For me, passive armament helps against light weapons, but against heavy weapons, tanks would need active defense like warplanes. Then they could become more agile. If you tear a fighter jet into a >5g curve at the right moment, you may follow how the missiles are missing you.
😅i still find it silly that during Desert Storm they lost most vehicles due to friendly fire.
What happened? The Ukrainian crew operating the Bradley played video games and so knew just where to hit the T-90.
Great report. Outstanding expert guest.
T-80
The t-34 was created by Ukraine not russia
There were no sovereign Ukraine neither sovereign Russia at that moment.
There was USSR that included 15 soviet republics (like Ukrainian SSR, RFSSR, Kazakh SSR etc.)
@@чиабатта-р9с yes yes, but the point still stands. The T-34, and earlier tanks like the BT series, were designed and built in Kharkiv, in the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, by a company that still exists today as a Ukrainian state company.
The tank was designed by a Russian engineer... The tank was produced in multiple countries. Why are you guys rewritting history lmao.
@@чиабатта-р9с Finally someone who doesn't only recognize Russia as the former Soviet Union. Kids today always fail to acknowledge that the USSR was composed of multiple republics, not just Russia, the name Soviet "Union" wouldn't gonna make sense if its just a single republic.
@glebb..3416 haha... the irony of an Orc lover complaining about rewriting history!😂😂😂
It’s about crew training that’s how a tank survives integrating with other forms of weapons, armor, artillery aircraft, and infantry. It’s about training not about the tank surviving on its own. That’s how tanks survive every tank vulnerable.
I wonder why there is so few videos of the CV90? i have only seen one, so that seems to have been a bust.
75% casualty rate...
@@mikusoxlongius Source?
Awesome video ❤😂❤
If you shoot the optics on an Abrams or challenger or leopard or whatever its going to do the same thing!
The game he probably played is "Gunner, Heat, PC"
Can the US and Nato intercept the North Koreans deployment while in route to Russia? Can they establish a blockage to stop the deployment?
The DPRK and Russia border each other. North Korean forces will cross that border and take a train through Russia to the deployment area. So, nope, there won't be any interception en route -- not unless the US is inclined to target rail inside Russia; the chance of that is extremely close to zero.
Almost impossible unfortunately, but I really doubt NK will send much in terms of troops. The main issue should we the entire west stopping all tech flowing to this new alliance of China, Iran, Russia, NK, etc. We need to stop helping them in any and all ways.
@TalorcMacAllan-ig4rm Why would they, the reports of DPRK troops being sent to Ukraine is false.
At some point crew quality must be spoken on.
I got more info from the Ukrainian tanker than the “expert.” He added zero to the convo.
Weird how a tank commander haven't heard of anti-tank minefields and mine-plows and the reason why they all follow each other? You go in the tracks of the vehicle in front of you until it goes boom, then you go until you go boom and so on and so forth until all the ruskie armor is gone.
Agreed. His "expertise" is questionable at best.
Japan ran into the same problem in a war of attrition; planes could be built quickly, but pilots could not be trained fast enough.
Its not a Taxi, and the Russian tank was being tracked by drones, and had no support. I am sure they were focused on the drones, and by the time they saw the Bradley they were shooting blind. T-90's are great tanks if they have the trained crew, proper protective armor and support they need. If you would have put an M1 or a Centurion in the same situation of taking fire from both drones, and a couple of IFV's with an inexperienced tank crew, you would probably end up with a blown tank. I have seen videos of successful Russian tank operations where they used t-72s behind a t-62 turtle tank, the difference is that they were supported by infantry, artillery, and helicopters. It was not the tank this time it was the tactics.
5:41 it’s hardly a cleaver trick. Pretty obvious I would say. It was my very thought when you were describing it.
Summing up Ukraine's strategy in two words, Clever Girl.
Crimea is Ukraine 🇺🇦
Luhansk is Ukraine 🇺🇦
Donetsk is Ukraine 🇺🇦
Zaporizhia is Ukraine 🇺🇦
Kherson is Ukraine 🇺🇦
The 1991 borders MUST be returned.
International law is not negotiable.
Russian propagandists are perfectly aware of the targets in Crimea.
Not anymore naziwannabe
🇺🇦⚘️🇺🇦⚘️🇺🇦⚘️🇺🇦⚘️🇺🇦⚘️
5:37 Certified War Thunder player. Years of grinding paid off.
fr. He must have thousands of hours in if he was able to get to modern tanks' tier.