In What Areas are Russian Tanks Better Than American Tanks
Вставка
- Опубліковано 17 тра 2024
- So, in this episode Military TV want to explain in what areas are Russian tanks better than American tanks. Both tanks are good at what they are designed for, but the design goals are different. In general, Russian tanks are designed for attack and American tanks are designed for defense. It doesn't mean that American tanks can’t attack nor Russian tanks defend; it just means that some design decisions were taken that prioritized one over the other. There are some considerations that make Russian tanks better than American tanks.
All content on Military TV is presented for educational purposes.
Subscribe Now :
/ @military-tv
/ militarytv.channel
defense-tv.com/
Russian tanks: High mobility; can be easily moved using only farming equipment.
ruSSian tanks burn well
Bob semple best tank it has 50000000mm of armor
@@sadakchapbilla2347 one simple tanks machine gun can shred through any armor
And a perfect way to boost ur income without paying more taxes lol
Russian tanks are very popular on Craigslist
Ultimately these 'hard' factors don't matter nearly as much as the soft factors. You can have the 'best' offensive tank, but if your logistics are badly set up and your army can't coordinate properly, those offensive tanks get stuck in a 40 mile traffic jam doing absolutely nothing.
...hypothetically speaking of course because how could such a powerful military suffer even the most basic of logistics.
@Flintify woosh
Irs no tanks in the traffic jam. Its all trucks
@@ShaneBoy Correct the fuel trucks are in the traffic jam while the out of fuel tanks are being towed away by Ukrainian farmers.
That’s war propaganda. There’s no traffic jam. They’ve just stopped to set up a staging ground for the assault that’s to come. No one just invades a large city by driving into it. You have to set up munitions depots, hospitals, etc.
For starters, there arent m1 turrets everywhere in the middle east.
Preach. I remember the tank grave yards of Kuwait and Iraq literally packed with destroyed Russian tanks.
Yeah and now in Ukraine russian tanks are suffering huge losses and getting destroyed left and right.
@Tatu Putaala thats gotta be terrifying to most anyone. Im suprised that traffic jam wasnt lit up non stop. Guess they wanted to be sporting and wait til theyre in the capital. Nothing says fun like urban combat.
@@UnKnOwN-wr1gu and stolen by random Ukrainians lol
Fighting against militia armed with RPGs and no drones also help
The US MBTs have half of their specs classified. But apparently when they tried to scuttle one in Iraq, they had to blow it up multiple times before it was completely destroyed.
Russian tanks are much easier to blow up. 😉
@@gregpearson417 That's because most Russian tanks don't have separate storage compartments for ammunition with blowout panels.
yep and in Iraq half of those US MBT stopped cause hot air and sand but some versions of Soviet tanks kept going..
@@zrikizrikic9126 that was due to the lack of a filtering system which the newer abrams varients have
@@zrikizrikic9126 Abrams were much newer, and more untested in the field. So they had room for upgrades. Soviet tanks were the “tried and true” so they either had been fully maximized to a countries ability or had little room to be upgraded. Now the Abrams is extremely classified but we know the abrams is a tough cookie to crack
"But it is condition and quality of these tanks that matter more than sheer numbers"... Tell that to German Wehrmacht.
The problem with the German WWII tanks was that they had a more complicated design, which resulted in malfunctions that were difficult to repair in combat conditions without access to logistics.
I thought Tigers and Panzers were deadly in WWII.
@@dreddofalexandria194 Yes, they were but tell me honestly what do you think is more deadlier, 1.000 Tigers or 50.000 T-34's?
Because you just don't know the background and war economic about Germany WW2. Just like you know you only have 1kg Steel , But you know your enemies have 10kg Steel. If you spending 1kg steel to build a normal tank same as enemy level. And using it for destroy enemies 1 to 1.5kg tank. You will never winning in this war. So Germany use 2 to 3 kg steel for build the superior tank for make a higher kill / death ratio. Some of Germany heavy panzer divison kill / death ratio is 16:1 . This is the concept about Germany changing the mind to build a heavy panzer from mid WW2
Its mostly a misconception that sheer numbers won over quality you can see that in the combat reports that most t34 were shot down by the 75mm anti tank gun and that the shell did not penatrate but shatterd the welding of the armor usualy killing or severly wounding the crew also even if you 200 shitty tanks compared to 100 good ones you also need twice the logistics the soviets themself realized in 1943 that half the t34's that were produced were produced by factory 183 and the quality was so bad that it was a waste of rescources a good example of quality over quantity is the m4 sherman fast developed easy to produce easy to repair and relatively reliable for the tanks in the era
Mobility. US tanks are extremely heavy, like 60-70 tons. Russian tanks weighed between 40-50 tons, so river bridges are easier to build for a Russian tank.
Who needs bridges when Russian tanks only needs snorkel and they can drive underwater while the Abrams turbine engine fails.
oh guys... we need no Abrahms Tanks ^^
in Europe we have 3500 Leopard 2 and 4000 Leopard1, both can drive untill 6 Meter under Water. ^^
Russian T90 Armate has weight of 46 Tons and drive 70 Kmh,
Leopard 1/2 58/64 Tons and drive 70 Kmh! ;-)
Also the Armata has a lower weight and lower Armor! ^^
its not a good combination xD lol
Armata Cannon has 125mm and Leopard 120mm - Armata has a little bit more penetration but a lower distance! Armata: 2000 Meter Leopard: 2500 - 4000 Meter.
and Russias "amazing" ^^ Reactive Armory.....
Reactiv Armory is a German Patend ;-) built for the Leopard in the 70's xD
what the Problem??? :D
@@Andy-S. don’t forget about technology and terrain
@@Andy-S. Armour on Armata is better than leopard, modern and thicc, stop playing war thunder m8, this is not good for you head
nato tanks are heavyer yes but in terms of speed they are not that much slower
One more thing Russian tanks are better at.....They're easy to tow with a tractor.
And burning russian tank is quite comforting in such a chilly day.
Very good point!
One more thing Ukraine thye aircraft forces r better at..... they almost do not pollute the environment because they are almost not used
@@sergeysherba They don't need to. Stingers and MANPADS be shooting down Russian jets like swatting flies.
@@maxmeh2342 in the conditions of modern wars, aviation plays a very significant role and the outcome of the war may depend on it. if one of the parties has suppressed aviation and a significant part of the air defense forces, (like its happend in Russia vs Ukraine conflict) then the outcome of the conflict is obvious. and no attempts to portray the losing side as good will help because there are too many facts about the terrible actions of the Ukrainian government against civilians for 8 years in the Donbass and Russophobic politics
Russian tanks blow up way better. When properly hit by e.g. a javelin the auto loader magazine blow up - killing the whole crew instantly. The hand loaded American tank sports a separated ammunition storage with a blow out…
Not really. American tanks essentially have 2 blow out points due to having "active" and "backup" ammo storage. We just haven't seen too many hit properly, especially by very potent AT weapons like javelins.
@@Bullshlaha Good point.
western designs are even worse against top attack because - bigger turret no era , and javelin is so fcking big it destroys the tank even if it doesnt hit ammo
Larger Caliber Ammo
You can make a Michael Bay movie with Russian tanks
Well... This aged like milk. If a tank can be taken out by some civilian with a javelin or NLAW, not to mention the UAVs, I think the age of main battle tanks is over.
NO you will always need an MBT on the Battlefield. But a vehicle as a second battle tank could be possible in the near future. Something like the RUssian Terminator (BMPT i think...) A Armored Tank with Anti Tank Rockets and Machine Cannons to compensate the weakness of an MBT in Urban terrain and so on.
@@Macigus and put tank in school and nursing house like Ukraine
The age of winning wars with pure infantry/armour units is done. Any vehicle is basically a sitting duck nowadays, anything can be penetrated by simple to use launchers.
@@randy45 no , and never
Oh yeah right hhhh....been watching a lot of cnn and bbc latlely ha ha
Russian tanks are far more versatile and can be successfully maneuvered without fuel by one farmer.
Yup!! One Ukrainian farmer got two T-72's free of VAT..... Value added taxes.....
Brainwashed by propogan
they're WAY lighter. makes it easier for our farmers to tow them away with a tractor. otherwise they're trash.
Holy fucking shit you people
Most of those tanks are AFVs not MBTs
Those glorified tractors of Russia are only good for scrap metal, as the world has seen the last days. Russian army and material is a fucking joke.
@@apple222sickly afv's mostly get burnt to a crisp. tanks get abandoned and repurposed against the fascist horde.
@@512TheWolf512 not all AFVs get destroyed
It's possible the AFV was abandoned due to supply shortages which Is getting really common for Russian troop's
@@apple222sickly looking at the numbers, what i said is more common
Russian tanks are useful as Ukrainian farm equipment while US tanks have yet to be determined as such.
yes, the ukrainian farm equipment can easily tow the russian tanks. and other things. so their light weight is definitively an advantage
@@ursodermatt8809 They can easily convert it to a farm tractor later... just remove the turret and replace it with a regular farm tractor canopy, and your done!!
The last two weeks have shown that Russians tank armor isn't up to the job of standing up to modern missles.
Might be showing that tanks have reached the end of the road for first world nations
Accurate. Russian tanks are crap. And it really doesn't matter which model.
The gun sizes are different between the two countries' tanks, but they're effectively the same caliber of gun. The *effective* difference between a 120mm (US/NATO) and a 122mm or 125mm (Russian) bore is negligible. The Russians deliberately chose different bore sizes, so their ammo would be incompatible with NATO guns.
M1A2 has unique depleted uranium ammo that is much more penetrative than any other tank shell as well. It's called the M829A4
@@saltyfloridaman7163 DU doesn't naturally have more penetration than tungsten alloy ammo. What matters more is the that tungsten ammo performes slightly better at higher velocities which is one reason why its typically used in the higher velocity 120mm L/55 guns. What is the greatest determing factors to penetration of APFSDS ammunition is Penetrator design and rod length.
@@synapsisflame9721 giggity
@@synapsisflame9721 From my layman's understanding, the real purpose of depleted uranium is the use of a denser alloy in the shell to provide more kinetic force applied to the target at longer ranges. If two similar shaped projectiles are fired at similar powder loads at a target, the lighter will have a higher speed on exit from the barrel but will lose speed relatively quickly due to wind resistance and the denser object will keep more of it's momentum upon reaching the target. This does mean a shorter overall range than the lighter object due to higher exit velocity but more force impacts the target with the denser object. This assumes that there is significant space so that wind resistance has done it's work, otherwise they would perform about equally on paper. The reason it would affect the two differently comes down to mass, in a similar sense to dropping a sack of feathers vs. a bowling ball.
@@hi14993 I was comparing DU to Tungsten alloys commonly used in those ammo. Both have quite similar densities with DU at 19.05 g/cm3 and with common tungsten alloys at ~18 g/cm3 as the true alloy is unknown and varies between each ammo.
What I was talking about there was that depleted uranium and tungsten ammo operate most efficiently at different velocities, tungsten is between ~1700m/s - 1900m/s where as DU is at 1500m/s to 1700m/s
The last couple weeks just dispelled how good Russian tanks really are.
wHat Do YoU meAn, HaVE yOu EvER hEArd oF QualITY oVER QuanTitY
@@bluenose8651 St. Javelin
Haven't really seen them dispelling anything tbh.
russian tanks are much better when they put fuel in them and actually give their crews food and directions
They aren't better in any area except becoming scrap metal.
or farm equipment
They‘re undefeated in throwing turrets
Something important to remember is that the 20000 tanks owned by the Russians aren’t all T14s and T90s. In, they only make up a very small fraction of them. Most of Russia’s tanks are older T72s which would get slaughtered by the Abrams.
Jesus this reply section has become a war zone
Actualy mainly t90a tank but they are moving to t90m tanks
An t73b3 can Take an Abrams easily.
T-90 is just a pregnant T-72 anyways
And they all burn as soon as you spit on them
@@ravenmoon5111 Bullsh*t
If you imagine a perfect scenario (catching an unaware crew in the rear armor), sure a T72 "could take an Abrams easily". In the real world, the Russian tank crew is sick from eating expired rations, their tank has no fuel, half the systems on the tank are broken with no spares available, the two junior crewmembers on the tank are hazed and beaten by the senior crewmember, the crew talk on unencrypted radio channels that is intercepted by the enemy and they have no air cover so a Bayraktar blows up the rest of their tank platoon, and eventually the crew abandon their tank which is to be used as an impromptu war memorial by a Ukrainian farmer.
I can think of three off the top of my head, production cost, ease of use, and drift ability
I’d want to be in the US tank, main reason it would have gas lol
Just made me giggle in my seat man. Love the comment
At lease you wouldn’t go out robbing ukrainian stores for food
LOL
LMFAO this comment made my day
@@csgrip3327 Lol yeah for when you dont have any expired rations left
Nowadays when comparing military equipment you have to look at the bigger picture. Tanks are not deployed in isolation in the modern battlefield. They are accompanied by by infantry, ISR, and air support in a multi-domain environment. Therefore the different perspectives and doctrines under which they are developed and used vary due to the way a country is expecting its forces to fight.
Additionally, the quantity vs quality argument has changed significantly since the time of the large tank battles (i.e Kursk). Both Air and Land counter measures to tanks and other armored vehicles have caught up with modern armor as could be seen during the Gulf War, and more recently in the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict where tank attrition was incredibly high.
Sorry, but this is the YT comments section. Proper spelling, grammar, sentence structure, technical knowledge and, most of all, reasoning is not permitted.
@@frankmiller95 Bro, this video is literally about history and military/military equipment.
Do you seriously expect people to NOT be serious?
@@ember2933 he’s not being serious 😳
@@BadBoy-ts4fg Yeah, but I'm surprised he has the gall to do this in a place of formal discussion.
"Tanks are not deployed in isolation in the modern battlefield." Someone forgot to tell the Russians they're supposed to escort their tanks
Very good video.
All those “this one” vs “this one” videos misses the point.
I watch two of those yesterday.
Apache vs Hind and A10 vs SU25 - witch is better.
Both videos failed to ask: What are you going to use them for?
Hunting tanks or supporting an assult?
The context was left out, I agree. Tanks, just as the units you mentioned in your comment, don't operate in a vacuum; they are part of a larger operation.
Bigger ammo isn’t an issue for Russian tanks they have autoloaders to deal with the weight and they have 2 piece ammo meaning u can still carry more than enough ammo for the tank (most Russian tanks can carry 40 to 50 rounds
When Russia tank get shot in the mid side skirts they can cook the crew
@@jackthenoob2458 most russian tanks also get destroyed in urban combat where all tanks are dogshit doesnt really matter where ur ammo is stored
@@jackthenoob2458 Partially yes, when they stored extra ammo within turret. Now no more.
@@Lcr34 I said when the tank has Russia typical faction amor loader
Yea western tanks blow out the back that's why they store the ammo in blow out panel watch syria t 90s go up
In New Zealand we only have two tanks, one for the North island and one for the South Island.
When you have the Bob Semple, that's all that's required.
In desert storm our tanks were hitting the Iraqi tanks before the Iraqis even knew we were in the area. Plus you have to consider that American troops never go into combat alone. They have a complex network of aircraft, Satalite’s, scouts, UAV’s, etc backing them up and feeding them intel.
Yes, the Americans use their tanks as part of an integrated system. Their logistics are ridiculously well set up before the first bullet is fired.
@@josephastier7421 exactly
@@josephastier7421
It will be useless in Ukraine (if USA send their full army to fight Russia) as it is huge country.
That is why USA never invaded IRAN.!!!
It won’t work against a peer opponent like China or Russia. As they have their own air forces and counter tank systems.
You are confusing Russia with Iraq and T80 and T90 with Iraqi T72, which were not of the best Russian quality either. When I see this infatuation, it makes me sick. The Russian soldiers are super trained on their tanks
Abrams tanks were not conceived of as being DEFENSIVE tanks. Come on…
Defensive, defensive, hahahahahahahaha
Exactly. Defensive designed tank is the Merkava, and the Abrams is a far cry from that.
Of course they are, which explains their conservative choice of engine and lack of mobility, since they are almost exclusively used in fixed defensive positions, especially in Iraq. 😉 This video is full of crap. The T-72/T-90 actually does have some advantages, but the video says its armor is superior. Uh, not that, and obviously I was being sarcastic earlier, because the M1 has a gas turbine engine that gives it incredible torque and mobility.
I seem to recall American tanks destroying hundreds of Russian tanks while moving towards them at high speed and taking no casualties.
You are recalling M1 Abramses from the 80’s, 90’s destroying Soviet export models from the 50’s. T-54/55s and T-62s
@@velvetthunder96 Correct. They were also using the top of the newest technology - heat detecting sensors and heavy penetration rounds.
@@velvetthunder96 and Type 69-QM and T72s, right?
I would say training, or whatever differences exist in training, would be the key deciding factor in a head to head battle between these two tanks. One can compare and discuss the specifications of the actual tanks all day, but either tank poorly handled will lose on the battlefield.
The autoloader limits the maximum lenght of the shell, thus decreasing its powder load and velocity of the projectile. That’s why russian tanks’ guns have way worse ballistics
The autoloaders are why we're seeing so many turrets on the ground today in Ukraine
Not necessarily? The ammunition in T-series vehicles are two piece, so the propellant and the projectile are not stuck together like in a western vehicle like the Abrams or Challenger. On the T-72 and T-90 both are stored horizontally whereas on the T-64 and T-80 the propellant is stored vertically while the projectile is horizontal.
Really, a bigger limiter of ammunition is the turret size. Some of the larger APFSDS rods can't fit in the smaller turrets of the older models T-72s and T-90s.
That's not the case at all as both the type 10, leclerc and type 90 use 120mm NATO ammo and all three have autoloader. The difference is that Russians use two piece ammo instead of single pieces this is what limits the max projectile length and powder loads as the shoulders in the case of the NATO 120mm allow for a greater case volume. Russian ammo being limited by charge size has also tended to make their ammo lighter.
@@keithadams812 that's because they aren't protected by blow-out ammo racks. Carousel auto loaders such as the ones found on russian tanks from T-64 to the T-90 do not have never had them implemented. However NATO MBTs such as the Type 10, Leclerc and Type 90 feature blow-out ammo racks with their Cassette style ammo racks. In the end it comes down to the different doctrines as NATO tanks placed more emphasis on crew survivability than their russian counterparts who where focused on ease of production and massed armour assaults.
@@everythingsalright1121 Challengers with the L11 and L30 120mm cannons also use two piece ammunition
As we're seeing in Ukraine, you can easily pop a Russian tank with an NLAW or javelin.
American tanks would also get destroyed by NLAW and Javelin. Both of them are called Anti Tanks missile for a reason
@@supersaiyangod5974 Russia doesn't have either of those launchers.
@Nerf Oreos Yes, I know. That's why in today's modern war tanks are useless
@@supersaiyangod5974 Yup, America knows Tanks aren't useful for attack anymore because America made tanks obsolete in this regard. Instead America can actually impose uncontested air superiority, destroy all the enemy tanks from the air and THEN American armor can push forward to establish defensive positions.
@@BrandoDrum Oh yeah? Well Russian tanks can run out of fuel in 40 mile long traffic jams. Beat that!
I bet you’re thinking about remaking this videos now lol
The M1 Abrams took First Place at the Iraqi Tank Nationals two wars in a row.
you will become a champion if you are alone in the competition
Cause Americans never fought with a decent army. Well they did in Vietnam and sucked
@@player1GR that has more to do with geography then the actual army buddy
@@player1GR Yeah man because the NVA and Vietcong totally didnt suffer massive losses and totally didnt get completely fucked during stuff like the Teth or the Spring offensive
And Iraq tank was the outdated variant with poor crew
Russian tanks are better at BBQing your own tank crew
American tanks are meant for tank to tank battles while Russian tanks are multi-purpose. That's why Russian tanks are better for modern warfare. American tanks, for example, don't have a good high-explosive frag ammo for destroying groups of infantry. Not to mention that Russian tanks are much lighter, transportable and mobile.
The problem is russian tanks aren't better for modern warfare. America tanks are as you said for tank to tank warfare, against the russians and their larger number of tanks. In a modern conflict between these 2 nations tanks to tank warfare will happen.
@Han Solo except you can afford 2-3 T-90s for the cost of one M1
@Han Solo qhat is your font? BF4?
Tell that to Iraqi infantry always trying to destroy it, but get destroy trying to do it so I'll its multipurpose enough.
@@lip124 old t64 nevera the protection of t-90, can you show proof like pictures of irakis t90
"But it is the condition and quality...that matters"
- German Generals. 1941
and they fucking lost
german generals right before beign flooded by fuckin steel tsunami from west and east :\
@@saaf2056 well let’s be real, germany got jumped by multiple countries at once
@@aimxdy8680 naw you got it wrong bud. Hitler was winning until he played the role of Leroy Jenkins in the east. In Germany vs GB one on one Germany could have won by cutting off Mediterranean. Brit empire would be severed and Germany would get mid-east oil. Didn't happen cause Hitler was too blinded by racism induced arrogance.
@@aimxdy8680 so? Still lost either way
You pretty much missed the mark on this video. No Russian tank is better than the Abrams. Sure it might have a bigger gun or lower profile but there is so much more to a tank than that. The armor on a Abrams is better, it can shoot on the move better and the gun can out range Russian tanks. If you are dead before you can fire it doesn't make a difference if you have a bigger gun.
Umm Anyone been watching the news Lately ???
What exactly are The Russians accomplishing with their tanks???
besides getting blown up and breaking down?
@@AdamaxEP not much. They did manage to implode the russian economy though
Well captured almost a half of the biggest European country's territory and almost surrounded Kyiv?
They are doing better than Americans in their single war against a descent army - Vietnam.
Muzzle velocity, and therefore penetration power (armor piercing shells) and range are a ratio of bore diameter and barrel length. Therefore, a smaller bore with a longer barrel can have a very similar penetration or range to a wider barrel but relatively shorter barrel. There comes a practical limit to how long you can make a barrel.
Barrel length helps, but the major restriction on muzzle velocity is chamber pressure. For several decades Western tanks enjoyed a superiority in manufacturing quality which allowed them to have guns with higher chamber pressures, which is much of why smaller caliber Western tank guns typically had equal or better penetration than larger caliber Soviet guns. More recently, the latest Russian guns seem to have largely closed this gap.
That's why the German Panther tank with a smaller diameter but higher velocity round than the Tiger, it's bigger brother was equally lethal.
@@WalkaCrookedLine we also have the exclusive and unique ammo called the M829A4, which penetrates better than any other tank round in service
Fairy tales..
Russia: How many tanks do we need ?
Putin: Yes.
Well the new Russian tanks have more quality then the US like T90m and T14
Now all they need to do is figure out how to keep fuel in em hahah
@@MovieFan13 just stack a couple hundred barrels on it.
The Russian claims of armor being able to stop missiles has been completely debunked in Ukraine. They lost a T-72B to a RPG-7 😭
They've lost T-90s to a drunk Ukrainian farmer using a Javelin, so yes, debunked. Russians overhype and under deliver as usual.
Their KA-52 alligator got shot down by a .50 cal quad barrel AA gun too, even though it was supposed to be immune to 20mm and below
Any tank can be lose from an RPG-7 /
And T-72B it is tank from 80s.
@@saltyfloridaman7163 don’t forget their aircraft which have been seen littered with tons of small holes
@@user-gg2dc2vo7z try shooting a RPG-7 at a M1A2 and see how that goes, if a 120mm round from another abram can’t go through a RPG aint
This video got a lot of “facts” wrong.
Shows latest American tanks on other hand he shows old soviet tanks this not fair dude
I caught the bias as well. However, in fairness, the Armata will not enter production until later this year.
@@victoreous626 t-90ms, t-90m , t-90A still exists and they’re all better than the Abrahams even a t-80bvm is very good
@@infinitetk4165 lol no they aren't.
@@victoreous626 I doubt russia will ever produce it in high numbers anyways.
Their just imagines, nothing changed the information.
i use to be a loader for the m1 and can load a round every 3-4 second almost 3 times faster then auto loaders meaning more targets destroyed! or double tap them before they can get another shot at you
That's one advantage of a human loader.
The advantage of an autoloader is consistency.
Human loaders are, well, humans, and humans get tired after doing something over and over, thus exhaustion sets in, reducing their reloading speed.
Meanwhile an autoloader is consistent with its reload speed because it's a machine, machines don't experience exhaustion.
So it will always reload at the same speed.
Also, autoloaders also don't become useless when a crew member dies.
When a human loader dies, another has to take their place, reducing their reload speed further and not even including the morale drain of seeing your friend get turned to spall-filled Swiss Cheese.
But when a crew member of an autoloading tank dies, the reload speed is unhindered.
TLDR; A human loader is better at reloading until either the battle goes for too long and get tired or a crew member dies, then the autoloader is better.
@@ember2933 chances are if the loader is dead in a t72/t80/t90 so is the rest of the crew.
@@busterbear13 I haven't looked into modern Russian tanks all that well, but what I'm guessing is that the crew is mostly in the turret?
If so, then my explanation about the crew is invalid, but the other point still stands.
@@ember2933 during the first iraq war no m1 tanks were destroyed by russian made iraqi tanks...once a stuck m1 was sitting target in the mud and a squad of iraqi tanks came in and one m1 took out 4 iraqi tanks...armor of the m1 played a part in it but the faster loading time of the m1 also proved to be a deciding factor in the skirmish also
@@ember2933 A human loader in a typical war is way easier to replace in field than an autoloader. If the autoloader needs maintenence it is out of action. Whilst almost every human can replace a loader after a little training. Of course not one of the bests, but loading slow is still better than loading insanly slow. Also heaving that extra person on board gives you a lot of extras - like better maintenance possibilities in field.
I was prepared for this to be a 13 second video.
5 second intro, 3 seconds “it’s not”, 5 second outro.
We don t need tanks and war, we need love and prosperity
Evidently Russian tanks have battleship loading elevators in them
Ukrainians has shown that one guy with 2 Javelins = 3 tanks. 2 first get destroyed while the crew of the 3rd one abandon the last tank
I just commented that this video doesn't hold up since ukraine.
yeah i think the age of tanks is over every idiot with javalin or nlaw can take them out there sitting ducks
В то время когда ваши м1 лопаются от стареньких рпг
Ha theres a video with 3 tanks destroyed and 20 ran away..
@@ricomotions5416 I don't for a second but going forward they are much more niche aspect of the army compared to days of old. Man portable missiles are incredibly short ranged so in open terrain the tank has its uses and there are still terrain so difficult for tracked wheels or people outside of cities so the tanks would be needed to cross those areas. The bigger vehicle launched missiles while longer ranged have the issues of being more easily detectable to tank crews and able to be evaded or use chaff/smoke/whatever deterrents they need.
Urban warfare and close ranged warfare have always been the bane of the tank. Its why the americans never use them in cities and I'm shocked the Russians unlearned this basic tennet since ww2.
Javelin missile to Russian tanks…please hold my beer.
Both Gulf War proves that quality vastly out dual quantity.
so russian tanks are good on offensive..... doesnt look like it in UKR
They're best used for farming lately
The turret launch system works really well on the Orc tanks.
I think you mislead everyone. M1 Abrams newest variants do have reactive armor. The M1 Abrams is maybe better than Russian tanks. Also the speed of the Abrams is unmatched by Russian tanks.
This is in addition to the fact that the quality of Russian steels is really pitiless.
Plus in the category it has the special sauce(tm) armor with goodies like DU. ERA, DU, and blowout panels all make it one of the most survivable tanks for crews
Glad someone pointed this out.
depends on what tank are you talking especifically.There are a lot of russian tanks: The T-90, T14, T-72 ( The older and most used for now) and etc.
Loader vs auto loader... Man can win first 3 to 5 granades... After that his speed is lower and lower.
Test but if autolader broken or damage ? Tank is out from Battlefield
@@teddstriker6171 not really. You can load cannon manually but you can imagine how slower it would be
@@teddstriker6171 if autoloader is broken or damaged you can still manually turn the autoloader as quickly as most other tank crews can load a shell, or you can manually grab the shell itself and load it yourself. you really know jack shit about this, dont you?
Doesn’t matter if your tank loses it’s turret after one hit! Anyone who was in the armor “battle” of Desert Storm as I was would know this! As we made a sweep through the Russian tanks used by Iraq in the very short ground war, you would be hard pressed to find a Russian tank that still had a turret on it! I can only think of what the Russians thought after that war and it must have been something along these words…. “Oh shit! We are F@cked!”
Russian tanks are cheaper to produce and field. They're also smaller and lighter. They also invested earlier in auto loading, which cuts down on crew mandates. Otherwise, the Abrams is better in just about every single other way that matters. Better sights, better Armor, better data integration, better gun depression, better forward and reverse mobility, better crew comfort, and better ammo storage.
The main issue for the Abrams is that it is extremely heavy, and only getting heavier with APS systems coming in the next few years
Price doesn't matter when the US budget is almost as big as Russias whole gdp
@@rizno9085 no. Price doesn’t matter when you actually care for these units and prevent their deaths as much as possible
No! truly the most important factor is survivability of the crew! As already proven in desert storm Abrams = hundreds of Russian tanks killed Russia one Abrams disabled and ultimately destroyed by U.S. troops.
abrams does not have better armor, if any apfsds shell hit the front plate of the abrams (not the turret) the shell will especially slice through the upper front plate which is only about 50mm on the newest model.
@@deathmetalfan
*straight on when the entire tank is visible
The upper front hull plate on an Abrams is a very tiny target (relatively) that only presents itself in optimal conditions on flat terrain. The bigger targets Below and above the upper front hull plate are immune to 3bm42 (the most common 125mm ammo available to any T90 crew) at all ranges. Compare that to the T90 which can be penetrated from the front by all but the oldest 120mm sabot rounds circulating around nato
Well this aged like milk. There is a surplus of T-80/T-90 turrets laying around Ukraine now.
It's the best Ukraine can afford.
What about ukrainian t72 turrets, hm?
The Russian tanks come with a hand heater on the trunk so your hands don’t freeze when you have to push it...
This is a very underrated comment 🤣🤣
I think an interesting thing to note is that the U.S knows that the ruskies are going to come at them with nothing but numbers, so it needs take a defensive stand when needed.
@@Dylan_Rivas Yes the russians can come with all the numbers they want, and however many tanks actually get to the battlefield after most of them run out of gas, or get towed away by farmers, or lose their crew at a convenience store, or get destroyed by peasants with RPGs while they're waiting for gas in a 40 mile long convoy stopped dead for five days... won't leave many to actually fight.
Russians are the masters of ruse and are unconventional when it comes to fighting which is why they have such a tank. The US is more conventional and stand off type with a one punch knock out to your face if you get too close. While Russians will try to crotch kick you after throwing sand in your eyes. So a fast, light, hard hitter is better than a heavy weight champion in that sense. I think they learned earlier in Afghanistan what the US has learnt now. I bet the next US tank will have less armor but a powerful gun as well. You can see how later Russian tanks moved away from the heavy armor doctrine after T-62.
There's a reason why 125 for one is deemed sufficient and 120 for the other is. During world war 2 it was clear that pushing complex vehicles to their limits by dancing around, confusing and rendering them inoperable does the job.
One abrams is a standing fortress that kills what it shoots at but take 2-3 shots of 125 I am pretty sure something will be rendered inoperable on the tank.. and a battle is never fair. A sitting or wandering T- 90 will die to abrams, a sneaky T- 90 will kill abrams. They don't play card games when designing tanks like we are.
a solid argument, insigthfull.
ääähhhmmmm..... Nope ^^
120mm Projectiles has more Range like the heavier 125mm Projectiles and both side took the same Projectiles! ;-)
the different is a Range from 500 - 1500 Meter !
500m by Armorpenetration Projectile and 1500m for infantrie!
Also: Abrams,Leopard, etc. can Hit the Armata befor the Armata has reached his Firingrange! xD ;-)
You can also add the Tank doctrine of each country. US can field 4 Abrams while Russia can field 5 T-90s with the same number of crew giving them superior numbers when fighting thanks to the autoloader.
The footage of Russian tank columns lumbering into ambushes across Ukraine kind of negates the “fast and nimble T-90” argument.
Now Russian tankers are having to risk their lives in a tanks designed to ignore lower production cost at the risk of crew survivability and, frankly, it show.
The endless footage of destroyed Russian armor only proves that tanks are only as good as the infantry protecting them.
@@aaronluisdelacruz4212 a larger tank platoon size isn't an advantage, it makes you easier to shoot
It's still quantity over quality that wins a tank battle and was proven in the battle of Kursk. German tanks were of better quality than the Russian tanks but where overwhelmed and utterly destroyed.
I'd still go for the Russian tanks for their mobility and fire power.
German tanks near Kursk were not completely destroyed. They suffered huge losses and retreated. The tank battle on the Kursk Bulge showed that our tanks are completely incapable of resisting the Germans. This was terrible news for our command. It became obvious that for the further offensive we would need more powerful machines.
@@delandel5496 "suffered huge losses" means a lot of panzers we're destroyed 🙄 no matter how many Russian tanks the Germans destroyed they still keep coming for the red army have tens of thousands of tanks. powerful machines like the tiger & panther tanks didn't do anything at all to stop the Russian offensive too
@@james_the_darklord Мы уничтожили земляк :)
@@delandel5496 I'm not Russian comrade
@@james_the_darklord You write so that it seemed to me that you are also from Russia :)
What you write is not true, but it fits well with the propaganda and myths circulating on the Internet about the war on the eastern front.
It's not your fault, but the truth is different. As a Russian, I am pleased that you praise our tanks of the time of the Second World War so much.
They were undoubtedly very good.
However, in 1943, the gap in the quality of technology between us and Germany was simply overwhelming. The worst for the whole war.
What do you even know about the Kursk battle? Is it true that this battle is not widely publicized in the West?
This video shows the danger of judging by spec sheets. M1s have excellent battlefield records while the russians, well, LOL just look at all the burned out tanks littering Ukraine.
The ru tanks are garbage, regardless of the spec sheets.
It's one thing to fight against Ukraine, which has a lot of Soviet weapons, it's another thing to drive monkeys through the desert.
@@slash3429 USA and Israel weren’t exactly driving monkeys in the gulf and Arab Israeli wars where Russian tanks have taken a beating
Most Abrams participated in the battles against the Mujahideen on Soviet T-55s and old ATGMs. The army of Ukraine is still a little better armed. In addition, one cannot compare how the Americans destroyed everything and everyone in their path, including civilians, when Russia makes every effort so that civilians do not suffer. And then this civilian turns out to be non-civilian and pulls out a javelin. You yourself understand that it will not work to compare here, completely different conditions.
Apparently whole russian army is a piece of garbage. What an embarassment for a country that only had military power to boast about
@@shalapay5712 nice russian bot russian troops killed 20 x the civillians in afghanitan whilst spending half the time there, also aleppo, why would the US clear house to house if it was leveling cities to the ground you kno LIKE RUSSIA
Abrams would have a field day with the russians. Never forget that to be able to be successful you need good comunication and logistics. Americans just value that so much more.
0:08 There is actually no reason to think we are in "an era of guerilla war". The last two (US) wars were low intensity guerilla wars, but there is no reason to expect the next one to be (also both of those last two started out as high intensity conventional wars, albeit against more poorly armed opponents). The next war could be a gigantic armored clash in Ukraine, or an air/naval war over Taiwan (I can't see the future, so both of those wars may be averted, but those are where the tensions are right now).
1:03 Odd choice to show a Russian T-55 alongside an American Abrams. The M-48 is about the same generation as the T-55, so it would make more sense to show it instead of an Abrams if you want to show a T-55. Or if you want to show modern tanks then it would make more sense to swap the T-55 out for a modern T-90M. In any case, if you are going to implicitly compare two tanks by showing them alongside each other, it's only fair to make sure they are of roughly the same generation.
Anyway, while it is commonly repeated, and I used to believe it myself, it is not true that western tanks are designed for defense. All tanks are general purpose weapons that, while valuable in the defense, are most useful in the attack. That is as true of western tanks as it is of Russian tanks. It is true that NATO was postured for defense while the Soviets were postured for attack, but the evidence for that isn't in the design of their tanks. You can tell at a glance that NATO was postured for defense because they had significantly fewer tanks than the Soviets, but significantly more ATGMs (Tanks are at their most valuable in the attack, and ATGMs are at their most valuable in the defense).
1:51 That is completely untrue. Hull-down is important in the attack as well, just as taking cover is important for attacking infantry. The standard tactic for movement under fire (for all arms) is bounding. Basically one section moves forward to the next piece of cover while the other section provides covering fire, and then they trade roles. One section of tanks will take up a hull down position to provide covering fire while the other section moves forward to the next hill, where they will take up hull down positions. Having good gun depression allows you to make better use of the terrain both in the attack and defense, and suited the greater initiative expected of western tankers. Soviet tankers were not expected to make such complex use of the terrain, preferring simpler tactics which made it easier for commanders to manage large formations.
2:01 It used to be the case that a smaller tank was a smaller target. Back when the T-64 first entered service in 1965 having a smaller tank really did significantly reduce the chances that the enemy would be able to see and hit it. That is no longer the case with modern thermal optics and fire-control, at least not to the extent that it used to be.
2:37 It was definitely the case that the Soviets were way ahead in armor for about 15 years, between when the T-64 came out in 1965, and when the Leo2 and Abrams came out ~1980. Since about 1980 the best Soviet/Russian tanks have had about the same level of armor protection as the best western tanks. Western tanks generally have better base armor, but the Russians keep up with better ERA. It is clear that both consider protection to be a very high priority.
3:00 The Russians are not the only ones to use autoloaders. They were the first. But both South Korea and France use autoloaders in their MBTs today.
3:58 Rate of fire isn't a huge issue for the Russians when it comes to bigger, heavier ammunition. Like you said, they have autoloaders. Autoloaders can lift heavier ammunition than a human loader could, and aren't slowed down as much by having to lift heavier ammunition. American designers have mostly resisted autoloaders so far (there are disadvantages to using autoloaders), but the potential need for bigger guns in the next generation of tanks could force them to include an autoloader in whatever tank ends up replacing the Abrams.
Another advantage of not using autoloader that is you dont have to make any changes to fit new, longer apfsds in ammo storage. Russians had to upgrade their cannons and autoloaders to fit new, longer projectiles. Unfortunately for 120mm cannons it seems like its about to reach the limit
Croatia (my country), Serbia, Bosnia also use autoloaders. M-84 was a Yugoslavian MBT developed on a T-74 basis. Both we and Serbia still produce and upgrade them.
I bet that 32 n still on going likes to this comment, doesn't really read the entire words..
The first point didn’t age well
@@kurvitaschthedictator I'd say the first point aged incredibly well! There has in fact been a gigantic armored clash in Ukraine. Here's hoping the other part doesn't materialize.
One sense in which that first point may yet age poorly is if the Russians are eventually able to defeat the conventional Ukrainian army, but remain embroiled in a guerilla war in Ukraine for years to come. Something which I now think is fairly likely (assuming the Russians can manage to get their act together).
Well the Ukraine war proves that your video is inaccurate BS. Russians tanks are not what you say they are quality wise and have been easily taken out by the Ukrainians.
Ukraine is winning in the internet.
I think that any American tank can be easily pierced by NLAW or Russian Kornet
If you look at the great tank commanders, ie,patton , tanks open ground great, forest, mountains valleys ,cities or towns, a great target for man held weapons
The majority of the tanks they are using now are the olders, like T80 and T-72
Lol all Russian tanks are getting clapped in Russia rn
Russian tanks have been over hyped for years look what's happening to Russian tanks in Ukraine now they are being decimated by US Javelin missiles as well as British Anti Tank missiles now Sweden has sent 5000 of their version
Watch less cnn news🤦♂️🤣
Javelin cant do a shit🤣
@@filipq4 Look at Russian Fangirl crying 😭 like Biatch that you are!. What's wrong Comrade Nikita go have another Vodka 🍷🥃. Big bad Russian military killing women and kids. Real tough girls getting there asses handed to them Ukraine army and people.
@@filipq4 Glory to Ukraine🇺🇦 Glory to Hero!
@@filipq4 Putin was right about Nazi being in Ukraine! there called Russian Army with Z painted on sides of all Russian vehicles and soldiers, acting like Nazi. Russian soldiers surrendering in droves, bombing Hospitals, Schools, Apartment buildings those are acts of cowards. Glory to Ukraine 🇺🇦
@@TheDavcrz5 stop watching your CNN news man.just google about stepan bendera,he is ukraine national hero,google:AZOV BATALION and many many more.
Russia needs more t-14’s and t-90s tanks. They still use older t-72’s sadly
T 14 mass production start only end of this year
The Russians have a lot of T-90A and T-90M tanks and other new modernizations of this tank, T-14 will soon enter serial production this or next year ... But the T-72 tank, the backbone of the Russian army as far as tanks are concerned and will be more many years . And there is nothing "sad" because the Russians do not use, the T-72 from 1972, when it was produced, but there were over 10 modernizations of this tank through almost 50 years of using this tank. Just as the Americans no longer use the 1979 Abrams tank. series, with a 105mm cannon ... Also the difference in the beginning of production of these two tanks T-72 began production in 1973 while the M1 Abrams began production in 1979 only 6 years later .But it is mostly presented in the west as T-72 "prehistoric tank", and Abrams as "the last word in technology" ?! Although the initial series of the M1 tank is far worse in virtually all the most important characteristics than the T-72A version of the tank that came out at the same time in 1979/80. Although the T-72 tank is a bit older ?! And it is obligatory to sort out by comparing the original, initial variants of the T-72 tank, and M1A1 or M1A2 ?! Which is not for comparison. New modernized variants of the T-72 tank are never considered, such as the B3 versions from 1989, the 2011 versions from 2014 or the 2016 B3M versions of the T-72 tank ... Take for example the T-72B1MS Version which is made for export mainly, which by its characteristics, exceeds, say, the capabilities of the A 4 Leopard tank! The A4 Leopard tank is one of the most widely used tanks when it comes to Western Europe, and it is a fairly good and modern and very capable tank. Which, the T-72B1MS surpasses in almost every aspect, opto-electronic above all, from the possibility of automatic tracking of multiple targets, the possibility of reconnaissance at 10km, to the possibility of action at 6km ... It also fires laser-guided missiles from the cannon, all the way to the possibility of observing the battlefield, without turning on the main engine, since the tank itself has an additional engine unit, also when we take into account the size of Abrams or Leopard A4 tanks in this case, it is another great advantage for T-72B1MS tank ... Just as an example, it should also be said that the T-72B3M version is better than the T-27B1MS version, which is better than the Leopard A tank! Both versions took over most of the opto-electronics and capabilities of the T-90M / MS tank version. So the T-72 tank is still very capable in every sense, only you don't deal with it, it's easier for you to lie to yourself, and to present the Abrams tank as "the best in the world and the latest technology" While only 5-6 years old you present the T-72 as a "prehistorically obsolete tank" ?! What nonsense! Of course, Abrams is a great tank, but only a little bit of reality, which you don't have. Without even knowing the basic data. Also T-72 in terms of several versions of the engine that are installed from 780hp, 840hp all the way up to 1130hp. All versions of the engine proved to be reliable in all operating modes, and the transmission itself, manual or automatic transmissions, proved to be excellent. Until the suspension and suspension of the T-72 tank, which is extremely robust and easy to maintain, and not prone to failures, with obstacles, in terms of height, the height of the obstacle, depth, snow, mud ... Where the T-72 passes, Abrams and Leopard can only dream of. Also T-72 tank can cross a water barrier 5 m deep. Also maintenance, even the latest versions of this tank is very cheap. Not to mention the cost of training tank crews, and the maintenance of the tank itself. To reflect one Abams tank, and to train the crew, 20 T-72 tanks can be maintained with 20 crews for this tank even in the latest versions of the T-72B3M tank.
Yeah well Russian economy isn't what it used to be
@@SRB.4S Poor fellow.
You wrote such a huge article :)
In general, our T-90 and T-72 are one and the same tank. Although I believe that you know that.
@@delandel5496 my comments are mostly long and meaningful, you poor man :) Otherwise, of course, the T-72 and T-90 have great similarities, due to the success of the T-72 tank. The T-90 is the successor to the T-72 tank. What were some problems with the T-72 tank with the T-90 were mostly solved.
2:15 this shot was taken in IRAQ/Salahddin Provence /Ageliyah village ... Cus i am from this area (town)
Nice
This video didn't age well. Russia can't afford half of their tanks especially the newer T-14.
Recent events show that the weaknesses of these tanks far outweigh the strengths.
1) T-14 Armata is largely a departure in traditional Russian tank design. It is said to have gun depression comparable or slightly less than western tanks.
2) Autoloader is now not a "Russian only" thing. French Leclerc has it, too. Not sure about new Leopard 2A7...
3) Again on autoloaders... In case of a prolonged battle, human loader will be under more strain and will experience fatigue. So, in that case it is better. However, in case of a malfunction, you have a problem with autoloader; it is possible to load it manually, but it will take way longer. Plus, in case of a field repair, an extra crew member is useful as well as in cases a crew member is injured.
Kein A7 hat einen Autolader 😆
On the M1, the loader also operates an M240 .30 caliber machine gun on the top of the turret.
I think quantity is still better than quality, weve seen that even in the old times.
In wars numbers always matter, so yeah.
they are not bad quality.
The wermacht:.....
Yeah and Russia tanks are much more relatable.
where have you seen that germans lost not becouse they had less tanks but becouse of bad strategies go watch stalingrad series by “TIK”
The russian auto loader is basically it’s biggest down side, it makes a giant weak spot on the side. One heat-fs and you see a Russian turret flying like a frisbee
Agree!!
Along with chunks of the crew. In an M1, the crew is fully protected from ammo hooking off when the rear of the turret is penetrated.
You said Russia has 20,000 tanks I think you meant to say "they had"
m1 designed to be defensive, but no aps💀
that’s just the base M1 you’re talking about, when it comes to the newer M1A2 SEP variants, they actually do utilize APS systems, same can be said for the M1A1 Abrams variants of it….
In light of the recent conflicts in Ukraine and Yemen. Russian tanks are better at blowing up than American tanks.
They've always been better at blowing up, especially with their flying turrets. Iraq was an absolute bloodbath regarding tank warfare. Ukraine is worse for infantrymen and many tanks and other vehicles were abandoned due to poor logistics, but Russian armor died fast and hard and in great numbers in Iraq, both from aircraft and the M1 on the ground.
I think they would love to be able go back in time and do this one again..
At least one advantage I see.
Less people die at once.
If I had a $1 for every knocked out Russian tank from Kuwait, Southern Iraq, Baghdad and Afghanistan I’d have enough for a sweet tropical vacation.
Don't forget to add another $1 for your Mimosa or frozen Daquiri.
I listened some russian arms engineer while ago...He simply explained "russian philosophy" behind buildng arms..."50% cost for 80-90% quality". Literaly stated that american and western 10-20% more quality costs 50% more.
Ironic given the t 34 was on paper as expensive as every other tank at the time, but also worse than them. But the plants cut corners so much that it got the crew killed 80% of the time and meant the tank couldn't even get above 2nd gear.
They were designing something that's 100% the cost for 80% the quality. Then building it so badly it ended up being 60% the cost for 30% the quality.
Just a correction on the math, "50% cost for 80-90% quality" is actually twice(2x) the cost for 20% more quality, not 50%(1/2). Because 50% of 100 million is 50 million, meaning that you get two tanks instead of 1.
How's that 80% quality holding up in Ukraine?
May want to amend that to 80% still running after going 50% of the way to the battlefield.
@@edwardgiovannelli5191 More than 1/3 of the biggest country in Europe with 44 milions of people taken in less than a 2 weeks. 10000+ dead ukranian soldiers, 850+ tanks and apc destroyed, 400 speacial unit wehicles destroyed, ukranian airforce, navy and airdefence obliterated, 1350 military objects destroyed,... Thats how it is holding up.
@@ACACARRR Yeah, people keep forgetting that. Russia obviously has had some losses, but a war is a two-sided story. And you can be sure the Ukranians are losing many more people and much more vehicles than the Russians. Our propaganda machines just doesn't report on that.
Honestly, this is the best, and most unbiased, video I've seen comparing them. Good job 👍
I have seen a gunnery once when I was out in the field. 4 or 5 Abrams rolling up a hill blowing stuff up is a beautiful sight.
Don't need an auto loader when you have an actual logistics network 🙄
So a few things to note here. We don’t have 5,800. We have 10,000 abrams. It’s just that many of them are in the boneyard but could easily be put back into service. The other thing to realize is that NATO has more tanks than Russia in total and they are of far better quality. The T-72 which comprises the bulk of the Russian tank inventory was absolutely eviscerated during the first Iraq war. It was shown to be easy to destroy by other tanks, warthogs and even the Bradley fighting vehicle showed it was able to easily take these inferior tanks out. The other reality is that America has a full budget and repair and maintenance program for its tanks while the Russians mostly mothball their tanks and this is why many of them are barely functional. The Russians were doomed with this reality with the over production of their weapons during the Cold War. It was an impossible task to keep up with the cost of maintaining these systems. Only their nuclear subs and nuclear weapons have been properly maintained. The rest of their weapons systems have been largely dependent on using them as little as possible to extend their service life. The main issue with this being that Russia has a terrible climate for this practice. That’s why our planes and other military assets are parked in the Arizona desert to allow them the ideal conditions for extending their service life. Russia has the worst possible climate for this practice and as a result many of their tanks, planes, anti aircraft and warships have become barely functional. They are definitely still a super power. They definitely have a massive arsenal of weapons. But they simply don’t have the economy to maintain it and they don’t have the industrial or technological capacity to keep up with America. Even China which is the closest rival now to America has no competition when it comes to its airplanes and tanks. They are obviously inferior and it will likely take 20 years to catch up. Russia is able to match America in warplanes. But it will never have the economic capacity to keep up. By 2050 it’s likely that the entire GDP of Russia will be less than the military budget for the United States. That’s an impossible task to believe that Russia will ever be able to keep up with that level of military spending. Even China which will have a larger economy will find itself unable to spend that much money on its military as its people simply don’t have enough expendable income to pay for the level of taxation necessary for a military that could rival the American military. They will definitely be a regional power. But they will likely never be able to catch up with jet engine, stealth and aircraft carriers. They’re going to definitely try and they’re going to most definitely get close. But they are a full 50 years behind technologically and the gap is too wide for them to catch up in the time table that would be relevant for them.
Their planes are not much to talk about. Even the vaunted Su-57 is mostly exaggeration. The electronics are a joke. To make the pilots feel better I think. Add to that their training is terrible. The "Ghost of Kiev" is a perfect example of what a trained pilot can do. Head to head even, they are no match for a trained pilot.
tanks are pointless now , just running coffins for soldiers inside , drones are the future
@@oussama123654789 They certainly are ripping up Ukraine at the moment, but that can change quickly if Ukraine gets more airpower. They are easy targets for todays drones and manpads.
What an absolute load of rubbish
@@davidbowerman6433 If the Ghost of Kiev is a good example. Then that's not the win you think it is, considering that was a lie.
Disadvantage of reducing the crew size is that if one of them dies (say the driver), then there’s no one to replace them.
It really depends on your crew. Is it even still worth fighting when your tanks gets penetrated ? or is it better just to abandon it and save yourself ?
Most tank engagements end in 1 shot anyway so it doesn't really matter it would be over before you even know it.
Yep, with the way tank armor works, and anti-tank weapons that need to penetrate it work, if a penetration is achieved the pressure from it alone can kill you even shrapnel or explosion do not. That's why many of the newer models have different compartments/segments for the loader and driver. And if your tank gets penetrated and you are alive, you were in the lucky compartment. At this point abandoning is your best bet.
yeah but a smaller crew can raid the stop-and-shop that much faster than a 4 man crew. (while their tank gets towed away by a farmer)
I think we are learning now that the best tank is a U.S. javelin missile ;) so much so that I wonder if advances in tech are bringing warfare past tanks and towards more advanced tech in drone form... maybe all tanks are obsolete.
May I ask why is there a NATO TR 85 M 1 in the thumbnail representing Russia?
Because this guys has no clue about tanks, it's just a clickbait BS.
All these clowns arguing US tanks vs Russian. Just watch the next tank biathlon.. that will answer your concerns.
American "defensive" tanks being active in many foreign countries that didn't invite their presence...
Fuel economy. And also fuel economy. How do those compare? Let's say, hypothetically, you're in a 40-mile convoy and your tanks run out of propulsion. Not much use then
Yep, as we have seen in Ukraine
Even though Russian tanks have better fuel economy than western tanks, it doesn't help much when the Russian military has terrible logistics which means tanks can't operate properly so tank crews just abandon their tanks
@@gaijinbot8135 Yes but that 125mm cannon bore... uhm, I mean, they're better armored so ahhh, uhmmm, yeah but look at that autoloader!!!
Gas? hell, you can't have everything pal!
Cant use auto loader if theres no one firing and driving the tanks 😅🤣
for the cost of a mini-fridge Russia could have saved 300 tanks by now
RUSSIAN TANK DONT HAVE FUEL TO RUN THEM..... HAHA
americans designing a tank : this tank is capable of defending and this tank is so good it is relevant even after decades
russian designing a tank : *sips vodka* ay ivan, bigger boolets equal bigger damage blin
Da Comerade! Bigger boolets make bigger boom-ski, unless we don't put fuel in tank-ski
At minute 0.50 there is a picture of a Romanian TR85M1 tank with an Abrams.
Tb2: i like old russian tanks
someone once said:
- "Battles are won by tanks and infantry, but wars are won by logistics."
general omar bradley us army
There was no real study on the different tanks. Many of the statements were incomplete or just wrong
Battle of 73 easting blows up any argument of which tank force is superior.
Great analysis. Thank you!
analysis of the spec sheets. Real world isn't so kind to the russians
Every tank has its pro and cons and no one tank it perfect they are built for individual environments and the needs individual countries.
And the MBTs (Main Battle Tanks) are an attempt for a tank not to excel in one lone category but to have a balance between, armour, firepower, mobility, concealment and such
Hence why we dont see many mega siper tanks with tons of armour and a big cannon
The turrets of the Russian tanks are more aerodynamic. When the tank is hit they fly just like a frisbee.