Why are Russian tanks lighter and smaller than the western tanks
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 тра 2024
- In today’s episode, we would like to identify “Why are Russian tanks lighter and smaller than the western tanks?” The Soviet tank design concept had a preference for two tiers of tank, with one tank is less capable, but can be produced in greater numbers, and a more capable tank which was less numerous, but better-suited to tank combat. These pairings can be seen with the T-54/55 and the T-64, or with the T-72 and the T-80. In general, Western preferred to deploy a single main battle tank platform to establish a unified fleet of tanks. The Soviet designers exhibited a preference for making tanks relatively small, low-profile, and not too heavy. Meanwhile, Western vehicles became progressively larger and heavier through the second half of the 20th century, with notable exceptions to this trend being the Leopard 1 and AMX-3 tanks.
The results of this difference in concept are readily apparent when, for example, comparing the T-72 and the Leopard 2, or the M1 Abrams series of tanks. The T-72s are significantly smaller, shorter, and lighter than their Western counterparts. This has certain advantages, in so far as the T-72s are substantially less expensive to manufacture and to maintain, allowing the operator to field a larger fleet of T-72s than they could with Western tanks for the same budget. Interestingly, Western tank designs have been viewed more favourably in the public attention since around 1980, due in large part to the apparent accomplishments of its designs as evidenced by low losses in battles until around 2006. Nevertheless, Many Western tanks have been found to be vulnerable in recent conflicts such as Syria and Yemen, where rebel groups have found access to more advanced anti-tank guided missiles (ATGM).
All content on Military TV is presented for educational purposes.
Subscribe Now :
/ @military-tv
/ militarytv.channel
defense-tv.com/ - Наука та технологія
Main advantage of having smaller tanks is fact you can tow them with normal farmyard tractor.
edit* I actually refereed to fact Russians use tractors to drag their broken tanks for repair away , but ukrainian farmers do that too now, tho for different reasons.
Lord knows those tanks starting with designation letter "T" need one tractor on site for each tank.
😂😂
This comment for the win!
Keep a souvenir ofcourse!
The number after the T is a count of how many tractors you don't need to tow them away
Its so the ukrainian farmers can tow them with their tractors easier
The video you have seen- is not a tank but APC- and it was Ukrainian APC (they drew "Z" on it to pretend it's RUssian) . Those APCs have been retired in Russian army 10 year ago. But Ukraine still carry them.
It was fake
@@digimaks Stop watching russian propaganda buddy.
@@digimaks haha sure
@@Brotgeschmack thats ukranian propaganda, why do you think 99% of articles are of how great ukranians are, that a single pilot shoots down 7 russian fighters etc 😂 they are being absolutely steamrolled precisely and methodically by russia. Ukraine doesnt stand a chance.
Okay I feel two big things were left off the table that are rather crucial.
Russian tanks do not offer internal space. Ammo storage safety = none in Russian tanks... hence why you see the tops pop when they get hit.
You pay more for the bigger tank, you tend to get your crew back if the tank is knocked out.
agreed he left out the main reasons why western tanks tend to be heavier
He also makes it look like a 3 men crew is just better than a 4 men crew without looking at the disadvantages.
Someone didn't listen on the part where he said that resent battles have shown that all the tanks are completely vulnerable against atgms which means that no matter the tank, an anti tank infantry needs mostly the same effort for all of those tanks. The problem is that as soon as you know the sweets pot where you have to hit a tank, they all become just steel coffins with extra firepower. The biggest difference of those tanks are manufacturing costs and comfort. T90s are the least comfortable tanks. Leopards are probably the most comfortable. But there is a point that is not mentioned, but Russian tanks are built lightweight to actually maneuver through mud and snow terrain. Tbh the t72-t90 have their purpose mostly on Russian and post soviet grounds and they would be less effective in areas like Afghanistan and Irak against the Abrams and leopards due to different terrain and map conditions. But if you try to fight with Abrams in Russia you will most likely get stuck in the worst possible places.
@@Wienpirat
What is the advantage? You will lose more soldiers if the tank is hit?
You need 33.3% more soldiers? You have a lower level of sustained fire rate?
Each tank unit has a maintenance unit. Repairing tanks in the heat of battle is highly impractical.
If you mean replacing the wrong charge? The fastest way is to send this charge through the barrel.
With autoloader you can choose the charge you want without any problems.
What is the advantage of a human loader?
Don’t forget that no country that introduced autoloader has ever gone back to human loader ever. France, North Korea, Japan, China, Russia, Pakistan (in cooperation with China). No one has returned to the human loader.
And all these tanks are about 20 tons lighter. And they have a lower silhouette.
Considering how much modern tanks cost (millions of $ each excluding ammunition)
Its limit in battle (can only be efficient at a certain range, at a certain environement) (tend to have mechanical/system problems after a long use in hostile environement)
And how easy it is to defeat it with anti tanks weapons, mines, shells or missiles etc.
Why would you waste so much money over having it bigger 😂 for same budget its better to have 500 tanks thats 10 feet wide. Then 200 tanks thats 20 feet wide
During WW2 navy shifted from battleship to aircraft carrier as a main force (though nowadays it would be a missile/drone carrier). The same may happen to tanks: it is easier to destroy a tank with a smart missile that can be launched instantly in any direction than with a turret and “dumb” shell system.
Javelin moment
If you think about it, it does make perfect sense to replace current aircraft carriers with ones that do 100% drone warfare. You could design them to semi-fold up and could have 20x as many fit aboard the ship, have no risk to pilots, and could be far more lethal than piloted aircraft since there is no real risk of losses. Not to mention they would be harder to hit.
Theres a lot of navy cpts who cry over the loss of battleships. Old and slow is not always a bad thing. We still use artillery on land because its a cheap and effective way to rain down a lot of fire. Rockets and plane might be flashy and fast and able to drop a 1000kg bomb through the window of a house.
But its 1 bomb, its relatively speaking a small hit and its expensive af. Its done and over possibly in seconds. What they dont have is the "artillery" capacity, cheap sustained heavy fire, - a battleship have excactly that. And they dont have to support an amphibeous landing every time they fire. Sometimes you just want that warthog hanging over your head to support the troops for hours. A battle shup is the a-10 or artilley of the sea. A lot of options was lost with the end of the battleships
Aircraft carriers are probably obsolete anyways with modern hypersonic missile technology that can blow them out of the water. Gunna have to wait till WW3 to see.
@@CHAOS88100 Hypersonic missiles are not widespread yet, Russia has some, China is still trying to develop them, and the US is testing them in prototyping now. But yes your correct it would definitely require aircraft carriers to change to adapt. Maybe we'll finally get some sci-fi styled submersible carriers.
You forgot to mention that russian/soviet tanks were mainly designed for their homeland landscapes and climates. Heavy western tanks might have difficulties to get through russian marshlands or other impassable terrains during winter for example. Heavy tanks also require more fuel to cover the big distances in Russia.
Once Putin was asked why Russia is not building bigger highways in the european part of the country. His answer was a joke about so that western forces will have a hard time reaching our cities through russian land without highways.
Western militaries especially the US are dominated by air power. It doesn’t mater how few or poor quality Russian roads are. Air power wins all battles eventually.
@@matthewhuszarik4173 This is completely off-topic. Moreover Russia is also focussing on anti-aircraft missile systems, so yeah I am sorry to tell you that western expensive planes won't fly so freely over russian land :)
Anyways, obviously Russia wouldn't stand a chance in a war alone against US, let alone the whole west. But that was not what I was talking about.
@@grafunknown4572 Didn’t disagree with you, just added a comment that roads aren’t as valuable as Putin was alluding to.
@@grafunknown4572 We don’t know how effective Russian anti air assets are. They claim a lot but everywhere they have been used they haven’t been as effective. Now maybe Russia operates their equipment much better than others do, but it isn’t likely. Yes you have to take into account their anti air assets, but from all experience they aren’t insurmountable.
@@matthewhuszarik4173 Well, Putin made a joke. And jokes are usually not meant very seriously... Western military technologies also often have hidden flaws and prove to be rather uneffective, here in Germany for example we have one scandal of malfunctioning military armament after another. But anyways, maybe we will soon witness a direct clash between western and russian military technology. Even though I hope this day will never come.
Thanks for staying polite, people usually are very toxic when it comes to these things.
Could Russian preference for smaller lighter tanks be based on something as simple as the optimal size allowed on a train track since the Russian army seems to be so heavily reliant on trains to move their vehicles to a combat zone?
I don't think so.
The Leopard 2 fits rather neatly on a train.
Russian train track gauge is wider than western. Their flatbed rail cars can carry wider tank loads.
yeah, there's a lot to think about... also those tank could be a bunch of garbage , but you could just keep wracking your brain
Russian train tracks are wider as in European countries... and even the Leo 2 can drive on a German train car!
funny you mention trains. As i saw a story on an viral video that the poster tried to claim was tanks on a train headed to Ukraine. But in reality it was an old video of American tanks on a train headed through, i believe, California. So, my guess is regardless of size you'd be able to put a tank on a train.
Fun fact:
Since east block tanks are ligher, some bridges in Czechoslovakia were designed in a way that they could support around 40 tons (T72/T55) but not heavier western tanks that used to weight around 60 tons... former commanding general of the United States Army Europe Ben Hodges was complaining about this a few years back
i am surprised that the t14 is so large. though the rail tracks are wider in the russian/soviet rail network, the clearances through tunnels, near cliffs, etc is smaller too. and the weight. bridges, rail code etc is lighter, and you can say they made the bridges this way for the tanks, or the tanks this way for the bridges, either way. its just the way it is
Is anyone else watching this thinking "yeah but on Command & Conquer games the soviets had bigger tanks and the Allies/West had small ones" because that has been my only reference to tanks and warfare in the last few decades 😂
This is the overlord tank :D EXTRA LARGE :P
There's also a few other aspects of Soviet/Russian tanks that were overlooked in this presentation.
The T-54, T-55, and T-62 all have provisions to mount a dozer blade as standard equipment, while every subsequent Russian MBT from the T-64 onward has an integral collapsible entrenchment blade built directly into their lower glacis plate. That makes it pretty obvious that the rapid construction of defensive earthworks by the tanks meant to use them is considered very important by Russian policymakers. Combined with that is the fact that all of these tanks are very low in overall height, and gun elevation and depression have never been a priority in Russian MBT design. It's obvious why these are the case; the primary terrain Russian tanks are expected to fight defensively on has vast expanses of flat topography, with relatively few trees --- this is not consistent with the hilly and heavily-forested terrain of Central Europe, but it _is_ consistent with the European Plain, which covers virtually all of Russia west of the Urals.
This is far more important than you probably realize. Russia's only viable geographic barriers on their frontiers has historically the sheer scale of thir geographical area (hence, why Russia has always been expansionist in nature), but the advent of mechanized warfare has all but eliminated this "barrier". It makes sense that they would built tanks meant to fight primarily on the defense, and primarily on their terrain. This also explains why Russian tanks are consistently lighter than their direct counterparts in the West; using less materials means that for a fixed strategic reserve of metals, you can build more of them to cover a much larger frontier.
Soviet doctrine also states that while tanks are meant to fight other tanks on the defense, their primary mission on the offense is to fight infantry. That this is the case is evidenced by the standard main gun ammunition loadout for every Russian MBT from the T-55 onward. These tanks all carry 40 rounds (or approximately the same), consisting of 5 APFSDS rounds, 15 HEAT rounds, and 20 HE-FRAG rounds. HEAT is more effective for destroying light armor, which predominately accompanies and/or carries infantry, while the reason for the large load of HE-FRAG rounds is pretty obvious. It also says a lot about how important HE-FRAG ammunition is for Soviet armored strategy, considering that they never fielded a tank with a new gun unless there was an HE-FRAG round already in production for it (i.e, the 115mm gun on the T-62 and 125mm gun on the T-64).
Infantry are also considered in Russian military strategy to be a superior threat to armor, which is why tanks were intended to massed fire using HE-FRAG rounds to eliminate as many of them as possible from a standoff range. This is also why Russian tanks have less machine gun ammunition (which they have to get very close to the enemy to use) than their counterparts --- and why Russian infantry weapons and light armor have historically been given an excess of anti-tank firepower.
Contrast this with the M1A1 Abrams, which all the way up until the end of the 1990s carried only APFSDS and HEAT rounds for it's main gun (30 APFSDS and 10 HEAT is the standard loadout), and which carried a whopping 10,000 rounds of 7.62mm and 1100 rounds of 12.7mm ammunition for it's machine guns (Russian tanks typically carry around 3000 7.62mm and 400 12.7mm ammunition). The M1A1 is also colossal, extremely heavy had very high gun elevation and depression, and wasn't designed to use a dozer blade. In stark contrast to the USSR's high priority for HE-FRAG ammunition, the USMC didn't start using one in the M1A1 until the early 2010s, and even then it was just a licensed copy of the existing German DM13 round (not one the Marines had developed especially for them). The US Army's new AMP round for the M1A2C is also an HE-FRAG round, and it's been on the back burner for so long that it still isn't in service yet. In short, the M1 is basically the opposite of what a Russian tank is all about, and therefore is a poor frame of reference to compare to Russian tanks without additional context.
This took way way to to long to not say anything or like here
Very impressive observation , now best and most knowledgeable expert on Soviet and Yugoslav tanks in World is Serbian expert Vlada Ivanovic according to him Yugoslav M-84 tank is better from U S Abrams .
the M1 can use a dozer blade too. most, if not all, western tanks can, but just dont mount them all the time
Yes, well the video was meant to be a quick overview, not an essay. You could easily spend hours on this subject and still miss things. This is meant as a brief summary of the important points.
@@EthanThomson The M1 can't actually use a dozer blade at all, as proven by US Army documentation leaked to the press in the 1980s. The powertrain isn't strong enough. This is why the only time you see M1s fitted with them, they're either not using them at all, or just scraping loose spoil --- not cutting roads, digging entrenchments, or ramming-aside heavy obstacles.
On the other hand auto-loader in T family limits space in the turrets so the major number of ammunition is located in tank body - it makes tank extremely vulnerable and very limits chances for crew survival after being hit. That's why quite often you can notice t-72 flying turrets after being hit by some ATGMs.
Also an auto loader takes 5 seconds to load. A well trained loader can do it in 3 seconds.
What's the average probability of survival from a hit these days, anyway?
@@Codoxnz It comes down to who sees who first
@@check0mate That's not better.....
@@check0mate give me a M1-Aber any day!
this topic has been talked about my military experts in the US military for so long.After WWII Russians realised their biggest closest threat would come from the countries to its East and most of the land the russians would be fighting on are low,flat plains therefore the tanks were designed to be smaller and shorter (to present a small frontal area) for tank to tank warfare.And they made them to be lighter and faster to cross those plains quickly.A smaller,faster tank would be much harder to hit than a much bigger tank.
Well, with modern technology I doubt that a modest difference to the size or speed of the tank makes a lick of difference as to wether it gets hit or not.
If even the infantry anti-tank weapons are aimed by computers the guns on modernized tanks probably are as well.
One reason to not using an auto loader is that the extra loader crew is a pretty important. He can replace the gunner, commander or even the driver if any of then are down.
Further, the extra crew can help maintain the tank, keeping crew stress down.
Furthermore, you cannot load the gun if the power goes down if it has an auto loader and if the power is low it reduces fire rate whereas a human would be more consistant.
Also smaller tanks are not small due to the auto loader. The Leclerc, Type 10 and K2 have similar profiles to the Challenger 2, M1 Abrams and Leopard 2 even though the former has auto loaders and the latter does not.
The reason the T-64/72/90 are so small is due to a specific focus on reducing the overall profile of the tank at the sacrifice of crew comfortability and in some cases survivability.
D to the O to the C to the T to the R to the I to the N to the E
Nope. Its to make up for weak allies
@@shootermcgavin2819 as opposed to the strong allies in Afghanistan
@@Mal101M yep as in what the military wants
@@asiftalpur3758 the afghans are a part of a nato response force?? Just couldn't help yourself huh?
@@SJstackinbodys beat them first.
The Abrams Tank at 2:23 was disabled by RPG and AT rockets in Iraq and was abandoned by the crew. The vehicle was then destroyed by another Abrams to prevent the disabled tanks capture.
It was heavily damaged and classified disabled because while you could still be inside you couldn’t comfortably continue driving, you have to note that the tank wasn’t fully out since people will think that once you call it disabled
@@williamsherman1942 the crew survived and that is really the important part for crew morale
A tank can be disabled with a mere log or a spool of wire, it really doesn't take much.
@@outdoorsman7324 LMAO at least one Abrams caught on fire every time they went to a gunnery. I was in a tank battalion that was deactivated not too long ago. I would talk to the tank mechs and they said they were a nightmare to maintain.
@@imaXkillXya perhaps true but what has this to do with the above statements? ok...so your opinion, given to you by the "tank mechs" is that Abrams are crap to maintain.
I ive outside Ft. Benning, Ga. (formerly Home of the Infantry)...where I have heard they were wonderful tanks (by the "tank mechs"). Hmmmm....
The Russian leader is also smaller, weaker and less effective.
@Fieldwav what kind of shot is this? xD is your mom bigger and more effective in combat? is she a dad???
@Fieldwav first of all its clear, that it is not lol :D talking about lowiq. AND AGAIN TALKING ABOUT LOWIQ you just tried to shot his mom because he was ranting about a war criminal....what is wrong with you
Thanks for being concise and getting straight to the point.
it's understandable to have lighter tank in Russian land climate and environment. Also considering how large the country is large quantity of tanks make more sense. But in other countries where border line is shorter and land is harder western design of tanks make sense too.
Думаю ваше танкостроение является этаким логичным развитием американского. Возможно из-за того, что вам поставили некоторое количество Т-80 и вы подсмотрели в нем некоторые идеи. Я считаю ваш танк лучшим из современных. Если вы из Кореи 🤔
@@circassiannobleman4066 can u translate that to english pls
@@user-sg9ql8nk1u use Google translate like me
@@circassiannobleman4066 tu tienes la razon
A big factor is that Russia can’t effort it.
When Iraq invaded Kuwait there was a lot of talk about how Iraq had these incredible Russian mig fighter planes and how unbeatable they were. I was working with a serving royal marine and I asked him if he was worried about the Russian armourment the Iraqis had, he laughed and asked me whether the Russians could build a decent car? Obviously I said no and he said "well there's your answer". He was right.
you are talking about equipment that was produced in the middle of the last century... And let's bring out modern American M1A2 SEPv3 and Russian - Armata T-14.. and compare them in a real battle on the battlefield..
@@user-tm8ij6xz7l your point being what exactly? America has lost every war its ever started so that's not really relevant is it? The fact remains that for years the west was told that the Russian mig was the most feared aircraft on the planet but the reality was it was rubbish.
It’s very childish position comparing weaponry in terms of who’s got the heavier stick. The key factor is human resource, soldiers - how well trained they are, how much motivated, what battle tactics are used and many other factors. Yes, sophisticated weaponry helps to lead but in my mind it’s not the key element
@@vitalijusturkus4578 well I disagree with you there. You can send in a million highly trained motivated troops but if their equipment is useless they will get slaughtered.
@@sambrooks7862 in Russia and in the USSR, there has always been a belief that NATO equipment, and in particular aviation, is significantly superior in all characteristics... so that.. in this we are similar....( may I ask - where are you from )
I think one point that needs to be made is the influence to the design of a tank. Tanks today aren't designed for invading another country (contrary to belief) but instead are more closely designed to defends one own nation from attack. Meaning the terrain, climate and topography of the producing country of said tank, greatly defines how the tank will look and function, since it will most likely have to use the homeland terrain for any sort of defense.
Russian Tanks have smaller profiles, lightweight and highspeed, as well as limited elevating guns, because the Russian landscape is for the most part vast open and flat areas, meaning a large heavy tank wouldn't do to well if spotted out in the open. So they need to be fast to get to cover quickly, small to avoid detection and light to traverse soft areas.
Where as most Western Designs are built to travers more hilly, forested areas, needing their guns to have more elevation angles, meaning a larger turret. Larger profile means more armor to protect it making them heavier. A good example of this is the Swedish Strv-103. At first glance, it doesnt look like a tank that would work in most places, thats because it doesnt, its purely designed to work in the home country of Sweden and allowing the natural terrain aid its effectiveness.
Now there are exceptions to this, such as AFVs being built solely for export or sale in another country, where design more favors their country than your own. Also sending tanks to another country for more offensive measures.
Also Tanks dont always work alone. There are multiple support and axillary vehicles that work alongside MBTs so they dont have to be as versatile. For the M1 Abrams, it closely works with the M3 Bradely to help with reconnaissance as well as help with anti-infantry and light vehicle threats. As well as faster more nimble vehicles like the M1128 Stryker than can be equipped for multiple roles and duties. So a single tank needing to have everything or be able to do everything isnt exactly needed when you got multiple options that can take its place if a MBT is considered overkill for a situation.
Overall, a tank is designed for the Battlefield its going to be fighting on. Most of the time that on your own homeland defending it from invaders. But rare occasions for protecting or attacking other nations if the need arises. So could we see changes to Western Tank design favoring the Russian model? Possibly, technology is allowing tanks to be more compact, less manned, and more efficient with less. But It still has to work, protect its crew, and accomplish the mission its given. So i guess time will tell what future designs will work or be more favored.
This is a very comprehensive and underrated comment, thank you
I don’t know, I’m recent events the Russian tank platforms “advantages” are showing major flaws, all the way up to the t-90s
What major flaws? Doesn't have swimming pool and burger kind inside it like Abrams does? LOL
@@digimaks What a comedic talent world losts, when you one day pass.
I would say the unexperienced and undertrained commanders are the biggest flaw
Lighter weight means tanks can be shipped faster. A single C17 can carry a single M1. An Antonov 124 can carry 2-3 T90s.
The antonov is double the size of a c17
@@justinlance4174 no
@@startingbark0356 yes look on google image antonov an120 vs c17.
@@justinlance4174 thats not the antonov he mentioned
@@startingbark0356 yes he stated antonov an120 in his comments right above this. Derpy derp. God Utube is rotting brains.
Our tanks are smaller because they have less comfort, a Russian soldier always lacks a little comfort. I served as a T-80 driver one of the reasons why I was sent to the tank my height was 1.70
Well that sucks
Это скорее следствие а не причина, не танк мельникий потому что он не комфортный, а он не комфортный потому что он маленький
@@Decicamo 👍
You make it sound like riding in a M1A1 is like riding in Rolls Royce. Not quite. I was a M1 crewman for 6 years and that turret is anything but comfortable. That tank is designed to kill. Nothing more .It even hates its on crew.
Did they call your tank Imp Rider? Or how about Bop a Hobbit? Lepra Chrome?
Moving from manual loader to auto load results in more time spent loading rounds. Additionally, the risks of mechanical failure increases so does the time required to perform maintenance.
On a typical tank crew an auto loader also had a longer load/reload time.
yeah yeah, yanks always try to find excuse why they have hard time building auto-loader, and even come up with nonsense as if manual loader is faster then auto loader! This is above and beyond. The Russian mechanical loader is simpler then a bicycle, and hardly experienced any mechanical failure like you claim, neither need any constant maintenance. Also keep in mind, they ARE able to load manually in case of failure of auto loader.
Another thing keep in mind- RUssian tanks use separated ammunition - the charge and shot . US tank ammo is unitary. There are plenty of arguments about it - both have advantages and disadvantages.
Both has it advantages and disadvantages.
With autoloader you need 1 human less to operat, means smaller tank= smaller target, smaller target=difficult to hit=higher chance the enemy miss his shoot.
With human loader bigger tank=bigger target, bigger target= easier to hit, higher chance the enemy hit.
The smaller tank doesnt need that fast of reload because he wont miss the bigger enemy, the bigger tank needs faster reload because the chance of a miss is higher.
That are 2 different philosphies.
The autoloader need more mechanics but you need less operators. With 10 tanks you need 10 human loaders less, but maybe 1 mechanic more. They need 9 soldiers less to operate 10 tanks.
@@digimaks we have the best technology in the world calm down buddy your civilization is built on our inventions.
@@Myemnhk *seeing one of the abrams destroyed in iraq*
Yes, very best technology
This talks about Abrams tank losses in yemen, syria, and iraq. They fail to mention those loses were of old tanks given away and stripped down to the most basic of systems. An American crewed abrams is much better than the tanks that were lost in yemen, syria, and iraq
Ok man take it easy
Dont forget the losses of russian tanks in the 6 days
Tanks are normally sold abroad without the reactive armour I think, as that is considered secret.
Bullshit, die Übermacht des Abrams im Irak...gegen T55/T62. Da kannst auch mit nem Leopard2 oder T90 gegen Pershings antreten. Die kacken da genauso ab. Lobhudelei des Amipanzermülls
@@toldavf1523 Russian tanks were literally being towed by Ukrainian farmer tractors
There are many many reasons for the size difference. Doctrinal differences first, these tanks are designed for different purposes in the cold war. Western tanks focused on heavy front turret armor and large ammunition capacity intended to engage from hull down positions against a larger attacking force. Russian tanks favored mobility, small size, and low cost to make them harder to hit and more numerous on the offensive. Other factors like gun depression, targeting optics and armor tech and type also greatly affected the size and shape of these vehicles. Lighter Russian tanks would be good at traversing more types of terrain hoping to bypass and outflank western adversaries when possible. Larger western vehicles often knew where they would be deployed and had prepared positions available, as well as known paths to get there even at their heavier weight. No modern tanks are completely immune to ATGM's or other anti-tank devices today any more than they were in WW2. The tactics involved in deploying and protecting them from these types of attacks has not changed a great deal since then either. The best tank can be easily destroyed if enemy troops are allowed to get close enough and particularly if they get on the flank or rear of a tank.
The T90 is not from the cold war. The T90 is from '93 and on paper the cold war was to '91. And modern tanks are very good protected against anti tank missles. They can jam signals, they can shoot stuff up so the missle will be disconnected to the target and you never can close enough because these tanks have 360 night and termal vision.. Try to come close to these tanks and ur done.. okay of course there is a chance, but it wont be as easy as second world war.. On youtube you see always hits with these weapons, but in reality when the tank or tanks shoot back than you dont have that much time..
These lighter Russian tanks are better armed than an Abram. An Abram has a 120mm smoothbore and the T90 125mm smoothbore and can shoot guided missles through the barrel. And the armor of these tanks are so tough.. even when they are 20tons lighter, they are just as strong also because of the model.
@EdgewiseSJ: In general Sowjet tanks were produced as consumables during a conflict. Their only purpose was attacking the enemy and overloading the defense by their sheer numbers. It was not necessary to carry a lot ammunition since few tanks would survive long enough while attacking to fire many rounds.
Sowjet tanks were capable of high forward speeds but very slow backward speeds. Western tanks on the other hand were capabel of relativly high speed backwards speeds as well as high foward speeds.
@Suniorrita
They can spot everything in a radius of 5km, while other tanks only have 3km. But of course they can hit.. when you have good trained anti tank units... but i dont think Ukraine have good en enough anti tank units..
There are a lot of inaccuracies and errors. The T-54/55 is not a pair, the T-55 is just an upgrade of the T-54. The next tank was the T-62. And the T-64 was an innovative design in general, invented at the Kharkov plant. The T-72 was simply a simplified version of the T-64, since the T-64 used an overly complex and unreliable engine, and the chassis was at the limit of its capabilities. The T-72 was fitted with a more reliable engine, a reinforced chassis. Simplified the automatic loader. The T-72 was invented at the Ural plant. The plant in Kharkov, however, continued to improve the design of the T-64, And the plant in Leningrad, offered its solution in improving the design of the T-64, they strengthened the chassis and installed a gas turbine engine. So the T-80 turned out. And by 1980, a paradoxical situation had developed in the USSR, three types of tanks were produced, which, apart from the gun and the general scheme, had nothing in common with each other. After the collapse of the USSR, the Plant in Kharkov ended up in independent Ukraine, where it continued to improve the design of the T-64 by releasing the T-64BM Bulat and T-84 Oplot. And in Russia, the Ural Plant's T-72 tank was modernized, turning it into the T-72B and T-90A. And now the T-90M is being produced.
The question I have is: Which plant is turning out the T-14?
As far as I know, the T-14 still has drivetrain issues, mainly with it's transmission.
But with a lower CG, as well as a much shorter overall profile and silhouette, I'm thinking that at some point, the T-14 may start handling medium tank responsibilities in the Russian armored corps and cadres that employ armor.
👍
@@isaiahwelch8066 considering how many T-72s the Russians are still using I wouldn’t be surprised if the T-14 is never adopted in great numbers. So many Russian military projects are commissioned and then quietly abandoned due to costs
@@calvincalamari6614 That's not true. T-14 is not in service, because it is being tested, perfected, modified. Russians are not like America where congress keep increasing spending bill, and write out astronomical checks to military out of thin air. They are being smart. So far they have produced a batch of T-14 for some division to exercise in all possible conditions, and give feedback from tankers and command. This gives them ability to further change or improve upon. This would be idiotic to simply build thousands of them and scrap T-72M (which is pretty much overhauled so much that hardly resembles original T-72). What's the point to "adopt in great numbers" ? There is no viable strategic purpose. Their idea is to gradually replace T-72M's with T-14 Armata, once they start reaching their end of resource. This will not produce strain on overall military budget, and will make no hickup tank army re-armament. Don't forget, Armata T-14 is designed with future in mind- to be able to make them fully autonomous. This is not an easy and pretty risky technical endeavor, and must be approached with caution.
the comment was that the T54/55 was being paired with the T62, whilst the T72 was paired with the T64.
A variant of CV90120-T would be a lovely addition to most NATO-countries. Particularly if fitted with an active defense system like the Israeli Trophy system. Lightweight but wellprotected, relatively cheap yet powerful.
cheap is for poor countries
@@roverwaters3875 If it's half the price you can get twice as many.
@@roverwaters3875 Yes like Russia its all cheap shit over there which is why they can't even take Kiev after two weeks of fighting
@@DavidAJones11 and lose ten times as many
How did you get a 25% reduction in personnel from one less crew? There's probably 3 other people assigned just to maintaining that tank. That's closer to 1/6 reduction, than 1/4.
The lighter Russian tanks may have a strategic design as well. A lighter tank can cross more bridges. As a former military attache in a country at war, the Defense Attaches were responsible in part in identifying the load capacity of every bridge. For example, if abridge capacity is 30 tons, then a 60-70 ton tank isn't going to be able to cross it.
I have zero doubt that Russia knows the bridge capacity of every bridge in Europe and designed its tanks to cross as many as possible while western tanks would need stronger bridges to maneuver.
Also Russia can transport twice as many tanks by air than the US C-17.
However, the US is in the process of testing a lighter tank of about 30 tons to augment the main batte tank. This may be due to the same reasons the Russians when to a heavy/light tank mix.
30ton tank? No way.most ifv are heavier than that
Exactly! Most of the bridges in the Eastern Europe can hold vehicles up to 50 tons only. There been even situations than US and German tanks came to the Polish sea ports on ships for the military exercises and stood for days in the ports just because they could not to cross many Polish bridges. They been delivered to the military exercise place much later only by roads around on the heavy transportation trucks...
у России уже есть Спрут с 125 мм орудием и возможностью быть десантированным с парашютом
Not if there's no bridges to cross. NATO has always been in a defense posture when it comes to Russia. They'll just create their own bridge crossing if they were to go on the offensive.
Other issue such as logistic support and production
As a former 0352 (Anti-Tank Missileman) in the Marine Corps 1977-1983, the auto loader concept was the best news we ever received out of the USSR. Three live rounds just sitting there in the open section of the turret. Even a glancing blow from a weapons systems, and you have a Jack in the Box sort of tank!
Not trying to be a jerk, but is firing AT missiles actually a separate job description in the corps??
@@SGobuck a pretty important one judging by current events: MOS DESCRIPTION
The Antitank Missile Gunner is responsible for the tactical employment of the M220E4 TOW2 Weapon System, M98A1 Javelin Weapons System, Anti-Armor Operations, and Tactical Vehicle Operations. They provide medium and heavy anti-armor fire in support of the infantry battalion, LAR battalion, tank battalion, and the MAGTF. They are located in the anti-armor platoon within the weapons company of the infantry battalions and LAR battalions, the scout and antitank platoons of the tank battalions; and the scout and antitank platoon in H&S Co 4th Tank Battalion (MARFORRES). Noncommissioned Officers are assigned as Gunners and squad leaders.
Lol!
The turret is held on by gravity.
The turret is held on by gravity.
“Given the same budget…”
Yeah…but the budgets aren’t the same now are they, not even close.
The most important thing is the crew, the experience and the possibilities of the opponents. As example: you can have the best tank in the world but of you have an inexperienced crew on one side and some skilled guys with rpg-7 on the other hand, then i would rather not be in the tank. On the other hand when you have an older tank with experienced crew, which knows about the type of ammunition they are using, they know the terrain and they know where the enemy is on one side and inexperienced soldiers on the other side but with better equipment... well you can imagine the outcome. Technic is as good as the people which are using it.
A very good comment 👍
Russian tankers have a soldier maximum body height because the inside space is very limited. Also, comfort and protection from enemy fire was not a priority. The soviets seem to see their tank soldiers as expendable.
It's been like that since WW2. US Sherman's had the highest crew survivability of the war, while the Russian T-34's had nearly the lowest.
Russia has the same attitude towards all of their soldiers and citizens for that matter. They are all expendable.
@@weasle2904 Экипажи Т-34 за войну не редко меняли по 3-4 танка, выживаемость танкистов была отличной, но вы забываете, что СССР приходилось драться 1) С самыми совершенными танками Германии 2) Почти все танки Германии были на фронте с СССР. Этим объясняется высокая гибель танкистов, а не проблемой с конструкцией танка, хотя она и была до замены 76мм пушки на 85мм.
@@weasle2904 American military doctrine at the time was based on the premise that tanks do not fight tanks. For this, only artillery, infantry and specialised tank destroyers were supposed to be used. German and Soviet military doctrine required the creation of tanks for destroying fortifications (IS-2, KV-2) and specialised anti-tank tanks (T-34-85, Panther, Tiger).
Hate to break this to you but all soldiers and everyone are expendable
Western Tanks could carry more ammunitions because of their size and when they got hit, the turret would not fly into air because of ammunitions being stored in a blast protected compartment. Western tank crews have better survivability than Russian tank crews being put together in a single compartment with their autoloader full of ammo.
Thats why I like the Israeli Merkava.
Yeah Russian tanks are actual deathtraps lol. They are so friggin dangerous to the crew.
Obviously haven't seen the pics of turretless Turkish leopard 2s knocked out in syria
"and when they got hit, the turret would not fly into air because of ammunitions being stored in a blast protected compartment." - bullshit.
This was observed in Iraq only because US tanks were loaded with Armor Piercing ammunition since their main purpose was to fight Iraq tanks. But if you look up photos of blown up Abrams tanks in Syria - is because they had High Explosive rounds loaded in them - the "blast protected compartment"couldn't do shit to protect the entire tank form detonation of ammunition. There are crapload of photos you can find available publicly.
@@digimaks American tanks were loaded with more than just sabot rounds, they also had he and heat, tanks weren't the only armor they were up against and a sabot wouldn't be used against an apc. He was also needed to support the infantry against troops in buildings
Russian tank crew: "Hey, we wanted the sunroof option on this thing."
Ukrainian anti-tank crew: "One tank with sunroof, coming right up!"
The T-90 is a T-72 with reactive armor and aerial defense equipment attached to it. It has plates of reactive armor (basically semtex wraped in aluminum boxes, to deflect a projectile away from the vehicle) attached to the turret.
Extending this discussion, the T-72 is essentially an "upgrade" of the T-62, replacing the loader with an autoloader and upgrading the main armament from (I believe) a 115mm rifled gun to a 125mm smoothbore, as well as many other technological advancements (I think they got rid of the infrared spotlight coaxialed with the main gun, and added a gun stabilizer to permit the tank to fire on the run).
The autoloader has reduced crew from an average of 4-5 for main battle tanks to... 3. But this requires the commander to assume both the command and loading resposibilities, and according to NATO documents I have read (all public domain), this results in a slower and sometimes misloaded firing sequence.
Summary: the T-90 is an upgrade of 1960s technology. It is still very lethal. But it is outranged and has smaller ammo capacity than its NATO counterparts. And, unlike the M1 (which has an engine that can drink gas, Diesel or kerosene), the T-90 still belches out massive Diesel fumes, as seen in this video.
But the T-90s are less expensive to produce en masse, and that is a distinct advantage. Typical Soviet thinking - more is better than better.
To those in Ukraine, my prayers are with you - Godspeed.
T-62 has autoloader
In Russland sind große Strecken zurück zu legen, und durch Sumpf und Morast, da ist ein leichter und schneller panzer von Vorteil. Der einfache Transport per Schiff oder Flugzeug ist natürlich auch ein Grund. Was auch nicht zu vergessen ist, ist die kleinere Silhouette des Panzers. Man kann sich besser tarnen....
To, że ruskie tanki są trochę mniejsze i lżejsze to nie uchroni je przed elektroniką i nowoczesnymi pociskami przeciwpancernymi.
@@leoncjusz1866 wen siehst du eher im Gelände, einen PKW oder einen Bus
Not much of that matters today with drones and attack helicopters. Hard to hide anything if you move.
Alles richtig! Rußland alleine verfügt über 4 Klimazonen - von Minus 50 Grad bis Plus 50 Grad Celsius.
In allen diesen Klimabereichen muß der russische Panzer "fit" bleiben.
Seine Robustheit ist daher legendär geworden!
@@klausbecker8898 Niemcy przed 2 wojną światową bratli się z ruskimi efekt tego był że was pokonali . Teraz popełniacie ten sam błąd , przyjdą i znowu do was i spalą tak jak leci auta osobowe , balustrady , busy itp.Macie to od Ruskich pewne , dalej ich spierajcie rubcie znimi interesy ,to szybciej do was wkroczą i powtórzą co Niemcy spotkąło w czasie 2 wojny światowej.
There’s on simple answer because Russia learned from ww2 that smaller lighter tanks are faster and can put manuever larger heavier ones
@frank santiago therefore winning the war for the world
@frank santiago if you count the number of a lost crew members, its relatively small compared to infantry losses which were colossal on both sides. Us has built thousands of shermans too, they've just seen too little german tanks after eastern meat(and machine)grinder.
@frank santiago It's the number that counts especially when you have to deal with state of art German tanks in the battle. Russia lost 4 to 1 against German tanks. But it could produce a lot more while German couldn't.
It's the same doctrine it has on nukes. Russia has the largest nuclear arsenal in the world.
@@singularity-6339 it depends on what tank you are talking about and what period. T-34 was the best tank of WWII. Its armor was a revolution in that time. That is why Germans had to produce more heavy tanks as Tiger to be able to stop T-34. But Tiger was too expensive to produce in large quantities and could not stop massive attack of T-34. Also Soviets could not afford complex tanks. They always tried to produce as simple as possible.
@frank santiago the T-34 outnumbered the more advanced German tanks and also outmaneuvered them. The largest tank battles occured in the Eastern front. Strength in numbers.
a leopard 2 is so light it could count as a middle heaby tank, right?
space is limited inside because of the auto loader in earlier models it loaded the shoulder of the loader into the breech so another man had to be added to the already small confines
Years ago my father worked on the Army's program to develop a rail gun. That particular weapon still has issues, but high velocity rounds of one sort or another are potentially quite common, particularly with missile weapons. My father's conclusion from all the testing and development trends that he saw was to say "the moral is to never let you kids into a tank."
ofc no one would ever let their kid into the tank since they can mess the fuck up the tank and ripped a 2m USD shit
I would love to drive one but I would never like to go to war in one
Too bad we scrape it a few years ago. To go with Drones and more higher speed missiles . It's asham. Yet we have a record of not going with best weapons like the YF-23.
@@ericbeltran1158 yes
Which army. You don't specify maybe you can't find your country on the world map.
Since the T-34 in the Second World War, Soviet/Russian tanks have intentionally been smaller as such targets are simply harder to hit. This concept progressed through the T-44, T-54, T-55, and T-62. Moreso especially from the T-64 and T-72 onward, with he use of an autoloader further reducing the size of the turret. The trade-off has proven to be a less efficient tank, with crews often unable to match the rate of fire of Western tanks. In terms of shot-for shot Soviet/Russian tank guns are very powerful, being well able to go toe-to-toe with their Western counterparts of the time. But getting 2 to 4 rounds off per minute compared to 6 to 8 in Western MTB's has often been a deciding factor when the two philosophies have fought against each other, such as in the Middle East.
For any specific country wanting MBT's, it comes down to their budget for procuring them and their budget for maintaining them. Just as important is the likely opponents they might face. A less developed country might be better off with something Russian, or Chinese, built. A more developed country with the resources, might prefer advanced versions of the Abrams or Leopard II, among other Western tanks.
BTW, a better comparison along with the Leopard 1, would have been the AMX-30 MBT and not the AMX-13 light tank. ;-)
A very strong misconception about the reloading of the gun. Firstly, the loader is an extra person who needs to be trained and fed. It takes up space and volume in the tank, which must be protected by armor, that is, the mass increases or the protection weakens. The loader simply gets tired, may be injured. And the high rate of fire of Western tanks was achieved in greenhouse conditions. That is, standing, in fact not being in combat, etc. And the only thing that threatens the automatic loader is that it can break))) But like any technique, if properly operated, nothing terrible will happen.
Soviet/Russian guns were not toe-to-toe with their western cointerparts. They had far superior ammunition leading to supreme performance over the West during the cold war.
@@wojtekimbier very narrow view woj-equally important is the optics and targeting systems,even more the training and combined arms ability-german secret tank weapon in blitz was the 2 way radio-french tanks vastly out classed measly german pk 2,3 but look at the actual result-its not a one punch kill that wins
@@magcatYou can broaden the view and include more and more factors ad infinitum, eg. what about the country's economics? There is also space for considering smaller details. I mentioned just the gun performance.
@@wojtekimbier M1 Abrams and Bradleys absolutely wiped the floor with T72s and BMPs in early 90s in the Gulf War. Not even a competition.
An 18 yr old ammo loader in a M1 tank doesn't break down or jam, can be easily be replaced in the field, and is "cheap" to maintain. Very advantageous in the heat of battle.
Yeah yeah yeah. Just admit - you guys have hard time designing a reliable auto-loader that would be compact enough to fit!
@@digimaks Nah, we just care about lives of our crew, don't want them cooked alive
because it's more cost effective considering the new anti tank weapons that can be used by an infantry. so investing in a bigger just makes it a bigger target.
Point of smaller tank is: low silhouette, it was (with all mentioned in video) always pointed in first place for soviet made tanks, the goal indeed. They boasted with that. Secondly, there is "red line" for mass and dimensions: how much can average bridge sustain together with off-road characteristics, and how that tanks can be or can't be transported via trains. That red line is about 50-60t, that's already too much in many, many situation. Furthermore, off-road driving can be very, very difficult during about 6-8 months in Russia and surrounding countries. Tanks, and tank units, incapable to move fast, to move through certain roads, or to move at all in some cases, lose all their advantages (if they didn't succeed to destroy enemy before).
nah dude russians like smaller tank cause they have a crew of 3 with an autoloader, western tanks dont use autoloaders so they have a crew of 4 which requires a bigger turret with more space, bigger turret require more armor for equal protection hence they are heavier.
both your arguments are correct
@@meee2014 The Leclerc has an autoloader and while it is 5t lighter than an Abrams its still 10t heavier than a T90. Likewise the Leclerc sits right in the middle between the Abrams and the T90 concerning height, with the Abrams being 2,86 m, Leclerc 2,53m and T90 2,23m. So having an autoloader is probably part of the answer, but the not entire answer.
@@jaf8016 ... What it misses is that the Russian tanks being so squat, is that their gun elevation of -6 to +14 has proven problematic in a few wars. In the 1973 Golan Heights war, the Syrian’s Russian built tanks outnumbered the Israeli tanks 10 to 1 but the Israeli’s set up on the slopes and fired down on the Syrian tanks who could not raise their guns high enough to hit them. The Israeli tanks would then go down the reverse slope firing on the Syrian tanks as they came over the hill while the Syrians couldn’t depress their guns low enough to hit them! Thus allowing them to hold off the Syrian attack long enough for Israeli reserves to arrive and drive the Syrians back!
In the first Chechen war, the Russians finally got a chance to use their T-80 tanks in Grozny but using conscripted soldiers unfamiliar with the tank or tactics ... they drove straight into Grozny without sending out scouts ahead of them. While Chechen rebels, vets from the Afghanistan war set up RPG ambushes in upper stories and basements hitting them behind the 3rd road wheel and setting off the rounds in the unarmored bustle while again, the tanks couldn’t raise or lower their guns to fire back. The Russians lost 200 armored vehicles and 1000 soldiers in the attacks.
@@JimCOsd55 The point about elevation and depression is a good one, and in certain situations plays a major role. But in the most common scenario is almost beside the point. No tank can elevate it's gun to the point required in the Grozny case, so that particular story is not a good example.
Grozny shows that tanks in urban combat suck, unless you know what you're doing. Used as the tanks were in that case, any tank type would get clobbered.
Russia and west have completely different objectives, I know in WWII and after, Russia has actually calculated how long their tanks last in battle, hint, usually not very long, so their tanks are build to last just long enough to hit the average, it's why you see them breaking down so much, they are simply not designed to last, but are part of war of attrition. Western tanks are designed to last and come back home.
My thoughts exactly, look at the 60km collum of tanks in Ukraine all are out of gas, oil or down right broken or stuck. The whole collum is at a massive standstill for days on end.
@@reverendbonez4505 i actualy think thats a logistical problem more then tank design problem.But its only my thoughts.
@@lyonekhhgty3305 If you think about it most of those tanks are 30 years old. Some are newer but a massive majority are outdated massively.
Because the west care about the menn inside, putin just sends more kids/men. It does not matter to him. He thinks he got alot of brainwased russian he can send, and send and send. Sick
@@reverendbonez4505 You seriously think Russians that sent probes to another planets and make precise intercontinental ballistic missiles wrongly calculated how much gas their truck would need to get to Kiev after years of planning?
Russians don't want to invade Kiev, as fighting would take weeks and cause many casualties on both sides. After the change of government, Kiev has to be given back to Ukranians anyways. Purpose of the convoy is to surround and scare, possibly causing current Ukrainian government to resign with less bloodshed.
Don't just believe everything you hear in the news. Use your head, read both sides of the story, interpolate the truth.
Other missed reason: because they were designed for manual transmission, the driver should use at least 3 hands to drive them, one to shift and two to control the twin joystick
Not to mention the 3 pedals layout meaning if they forgot to shift to neutral before stopping or stuck, the engine would stall, even minor indelicate differential turn would still stall the engine
I Think that also very significant things is terrain and fuel consumption, because fuel logistics can be temporarily cut by air/drone support or recon/saboteur groups.
More maneuverability, smaller turret target, BETTER FUEL ECONOMY...........when an Abrams or Leopard turns its turret 90* degrees either way....thats a serious target and their fuel consumption is so high, they dont get very far without combat support/refueling when Russian tanks on average get twice the fuel economy.......
leopard 2 has 1200 liter fueld tank and a range of 400 km while T-72 has 1200 liter fuel tank and has range of 460 km. Leo 2 has a bigger engine and has more hp/ton (23 vs 18 for the T-72). Yes M1 fuelconsumption is higher but it has a range of 426 km.... Al of these tanks has aproximetly the same range so they will be needed to be refuelled aproximetly at the same time.
@@berlin128g tanks such as leopard and Abrams are bigger and heavier than tanks such as an T-72, maybe the M60 and even leopard 1, the fuel required for them to travel off road depending of which weather, terrain and location have great effect in the outcome.
Leo 2 is 20 ton heavier has 2x the horspower compared to the T-72 and still has aproximetly the same range with the same fuel capacity, that means leos engine is much more eficient.
It's about combined arms doctrine and tactics.
@@deadblank8391 if they all had the same engine this would be true, but you don’t take into account the much higher power of the western engines meaning it’s easier for the engine to move the tank, it all comes down to power to weight
One thing that wasn't mentioned in the video is that the Soviets ditched heavy tanks and went for smaller low profile tanks instead because a smaller / lower profile makes a vehicle less likely to get spotted or hit in combat and thus more survivable. It was literally statistics and math that shaped their designs.
Heavy tanks doesn't have to do much with MBT platform as a whole.
To be frank every nation ditched the Heavy Medium and Light tank idea for a more well rounded tank classified as an MBT.
However everyone has their own split ideas on what MBT they would design the russians were thinking about smaller and highly protected and economically affordable tanks, the idea of a heavy tank never came to mind, just like how medium tanks and light tanks became so longer something most nations would use.
It's less of an soviet idea more of a World adaptation idea. And no NATO tanks aren't considered Heavy tanks, as they are still highly mobile.
Being lighter doesn't help with survivability, it actually hurts it. But since most of their land is muddy, snowy, and just marsh for lack of a better word, lighter tanks do better on their specific turf. Otherwise the M1 has a much better record as Tom Clancy's non-fiction book tells its and Russia even had to rename the T72 to T90 since it did so bad and they need to keep selling them.
"Well, in his 1994 non-fiction book, Armored Cav, Tom Clancy recounted a tale of how an M1A1 Abrams got stuck in the mud during the ground war of Desert Storm. It was then set upon by three tanks, Iraqi T-72s specifically. A round fired from roughly a thousand yards away bounced off, and the Abrams responded by blowing the T-72 that fired it to bits. A second round fired from 700 yards, bounced off, and the offending T-72 was blasted. The third T-72, at a range of roughly 400 yards, fired a round, which left a groove in the armor of the Abrams. It, too, was destroyed by a shot fired through a sand berm. These were, supposedly, Russia’s state-of-the-art tanks.
Then, when help arrived, and the tank couldn’t be freed from the mud, a platoon of Abrams tanks tried to destroy it. After several rounds, they detonated the onboard ammo, but the blow-out panels functioned as designed. Then, when the tank was retrieved from the mud, they discovered that it was still functional. The only issue? A sight was out of alignment."
You wish.. Lighter means shit. It just turns out the tank is lighter. Simply because they use an Auto Loader\Low profile Turret. As you can see a tank 5 miles away with just a drone..And being lower hurts you. It gives you less gun depression. So now you have to expose more of your tank to shoot down...
And getting hit is not an issue. As you get hit with any modern day ATGM or Guided Artillery round. That weighs 40 lbs. It's going to kill your ass. Not even going to mention Air to ground aircraft attack systems. You think a tank can take a hit from a 500lb JADAM? Ask the Iraqi tankers how that worked out for them...In the first Gulf War...
@@WizzRacing hense why multiple countries including UK and USA sent atgm systems, lower profile means nothing if the missile explodes above the tank and launches projectiles downwards onto the tanks thin top armor.
@@WizzRacing Good point actually. I remembered somewhere that IFVs got more vehicle kills than MBTs during the 1st gulf war.
The T-72 gives off a calming shade of orange as it burns. Nice to meditate on.
Literally you could answer in 1 sentence:
They're worse.
This was a very superficial analysis.
Russian tanks mount an auto loader whereas western tanks like the Abrams mount a human loader. That autoloader comes with trade-offs, but it does reduce the size of the turret.
Western tanks have a different ammo arrangement, based on accessibility and survivability. The Abrams turret is so big and long because the ammo is there, easily accessible to the loader and cocooned behind blow off panels to protect the crew.
Russian tanks store their ammo in the hull, below the turret ring, which reduces the size of the turret but makes for very impressive explosions and fireballs when the hull is penetrated.
In a communist command economy, it is impossible to budget because there are no internal prices. One way the USSR came up with to control costs was to limit the weight of certain pieces of equipment. So Soviet-era tanks were designated a certain weight and the designers had to work within those constraints. If you want to mount a decent gun, have decent armor, and have a decent top speed, then it helps to make the vehicle as small as possible.
Also, traditionally, Soviet tankers were drawn from the shortest service members, because tank crewmen of average or above-average height wouldn't fit comfortably.
Western MBTs are big and expensive to purchase, maintain, and operate, but their dominance on the battlefield is undeniable.
"Traditionally, Soviet tankers were drawn from the shortest service members..." This is claimed in many places, but it is a myth. Soviet tanks do not have meaningfully smaller crew height limitations than the Western tanks.
Very good point about pricing in planned economies
Misguided, Western tanks are designed to ensure the crew survives as a paramount feature, Eastern tanks are not nor does the Easter leadership view the crews lives as important at all sadly.
They are smaller because Russian tank drivers are more expendable than American tank drivers.
You missed a couple of aspects:
1 the triangle of armour- mobility- firepower
2 the loader is a technical risk and exposes the ammo to fire in case of an incident
3 four soldiers are needed for maintenance and do things swifter (changing polsters, canister refuelling…)
4 Russian systems fire guided missiles from their barrels
5 Russian barrels only last 1/3 due to production cost decisions
6 Russian vehicles are attack systems wit dowsed oriented gear sets and front armour, western systems are optmised for delay and attack moving at the same speed backward and forward, having overall more capable armour
The reason why the united states doesn't use a autoloader is because the rounds are locked behind thick doors, so in the event of the ammunition exploding, the crew is protected. Meanwhile the Russian tanks lack this. And therefore if the ammunition get's hit. It'll wipe the crew. On top of this the extra member to the tank crew allows one more able bodied person to assist in anything, such as cleaning or fixing an issue with the tank.
exactly what happened in Ukraine!
I was having just this argument, well similar, with someone about changing tank profiles. Basically was about Challenger 1 being a lower profile (and therefore a narrower target) than Challenger 3. In that respect alone the Challenger is superior. The argumentee disagreed and said profile doesn't matter anymore.
Clearly to Russians it does still matter, and it should matter to every nation who use tanks. Lower profile means smaller target, if the tank is really that tall and developers don't see it as a problem then they may as well add flashing lights on top too. 1) it'll make a little bit taller and 2) it'll have the effect of lighting the way for any short sighted Russian anti tank gunners.
I have the same opinion as you but, two but :
- Bigger turret generally means higher rate of fire and higher accuracy (and big turret, doesnt mean fully manned turret)
- Armament of today are way more accurate than they used to be;
Which leads us to : the important is to detect the ennemy faster, and to shot first
And tanks are not spotted due to their mass or size nowadays. Plus it is generally admitted than during a confrontation between Russia (not China) and the West, skies would be Blue.
The new Russian T-14 is similar in profile to the Western tanks. It's a large, tall, and heavy tank. Modern tanks need to be large to be able to carry everything they need, and to support the armor profile they need to survive on the modern battle field. Even the average infantryman is a threat to a tank, due to the anti-tank capabilities available. Also, the older Russian tanks were cramped and lacked any internal safety mechanisms to extinguish fires. An Abrams has a halon extinguisher system, that can allow the crew to survive a direct hit to the tank. The size of the Abrams allows it to have the many safety systems and protection a modern tank must have. This is why the latest Russian tank is following the design philosophy of the west.
@@My-Name-Isnt-Important
This, regarding the T14 Armata, can't be concretely said. At a mere 20 produced, with a top projected production of only 100, its more that the Russians are toying with the idea as opposed to fully implementing it as doctrine. Why should they when their mаssive fleets of older tanks can effectively hold or push a line anywhere they are amassed?
The use of T14s will likely be similar to using 5th-gen stealth fighters mixed into 4th-gen fleets as precision hitters, target designators, and command and control assets. Also, the use of a compartmentalized, auto-loading turret means the T14 can _afford_ to be taller without sacrificing crew safety or survivability.
Additionally, seeing roof-mounted, slat armor applied to Russian tanks in Syria illustrate their real world fears moving forward.
Considering Russian advances in the T14, but most importantly in IR-reduction paint, such issues may be viewed as 'less of a concern,' but not "without merit." NV and thermals have been standard to US vehicles and doctrine for a while now, to devastating effect against Soviet armor. The T14s taller, but completely compartmentalized, turret with its upgraded sensor suite, which will leverage that increased height, suggests the Russians considered it an acceptable risk.
@@Korruptor When an handheld anti-tank missile is coming down from above, low profile doesn't matter !
The same thing can be said for American tanks in World War 2. The Sherman tank wasn't capable against the German Tiger tank. But it was easy to mass produced unlike the Pershing tank which came in late in the war although a prototype has already been built.
One problem not mentioned with the Russian design is that it's lower profile also means it can't depress it's gun as low as say a Centurion tank. This shortcoming became apparent during the 1973 Yom Kippur war where Israeli Centurions faced off against Arab T-54 tanks. The Centurion tank had a higher profile but it's gun could depress much lower than the T-54 gun. As a result when firing from hull down positions, the Centurion would expose less of itself than the T-54 would, thus making for a smaller target.
Smaller tank crews also makes the tanks more vulnerable in regards you have less redundant personal you can move around or help to fix something if the tank is damaged. Also more complex mechanical setup like a outloader means that if this is damaged the tank won't be able to fight anymore, while a dead tank loader crew man can be replaced.
This isn’t a game, if you get hit once your tank is essentially fucked
@@OCS-vr7my Depends where and what hits.
@@jakethesnake2x literally anywhere, the shock of being hit will confuse and Daze the crew and they collect themselves. Some might be injured, most will be deaf temporarily. They might be alive, but by the time the next shot comes, theyre dead, you can’t confuse or daze an auto loader
@@OCS-vr7my That is not true at all, you need to penetrate the armor before you cause damage to the men inside, and high explosive in the size of field artillery or tank rounds won't do any significant damage. You need to hit top down with something really big like 500lb bomb to crack that nut.
"For more details, it's only available at this channel." Does anyone think this channel provides sufficient details for you to understand why western and eastern tanks have so many differences?
Of course not. The creator has no idea about geography. I think they don't even know where Russia is, or the Federal USA in the world for that matter.
this channel is garbage with false information and a clear bias.
it is a russia-owned channel so you know where the bias comes from
Well, he said that some are bigger and some are smaller. Now we all understand 😆
I think after Ukraine tanks are going to undergo an extreme ground-up redesign. They are extremely vulnerable to infantry based munitions lately.
Or they will be scrapped overall, like Battleships probably
A few will be left as ground support/direct artillery support.
Question: How come Russian reactive protective counter measures are ful of sand?
Korean K-1 tank is considered as Western tank because it is designed by same company as US M-1 Abrams tank, General Dynamics It is strongly influenced by US military technology and doctrine. But it has noticeably low profile, smaller and lighter and cheaper. . So is called as "Baby Abrams".
It's successor K-2 tank has similar design concept as K-1, low profile and lighter, has autoloader with 3 crews and tilting suspension for hull down. It is partly influenced by technology from Soviet-era T-80U tank. So Korean tanks are sometimes referred as "Soviet tank in Western disguise" or "Russian tank made by Western technology".
But K-2 still is quite a bit bigger and heavier than Russian T-72/80/90 (and even the T-14), Chinese Type 96 and 99, and Type 90 and 10. K-2 is more comparable to French Leclerc tank, similar size, similar weight, similar autoloader....
I think the title of "Soviet tank in Western disguise" or "Russian tank made by Western technology" goes to the Japanese tanks. They were the second country to adopt autoloader after USSR, even before China.
Вы буквально озвучили мою догадку. Думаю К2 Black Panther лучший танк на данный момент и надеюсь они выиграют Норвежский контракт у немцев. Леопард 2А7 хорош, но он уже слишком устарел.
@@miraphycs7377 не согласен. Японский Type 10 как раз похож на Leclerc, а К2 не похож по большому счету ни на кого. Просто в нем всё самое лучшее. И тяжелее он из-за большого корпуса с более мощным двигателем. И он может больше чем западные и советские/российские танки при условии, что у него хорошие снаряды и система управления огнем. Так же у корейца и японца гидропневматическая подвеска позволяет быстрее передвигаться по пересеченной местности и точнее стрелять на ходу.
It only makes sense, everything is a little smaller in korea, the cars, the streets, the houses, the people, the battlefield terrain, all more compact.
The Javalin weapon system is almost a perfect counter for smaller infantry squads to take out smaller lighter armored russian tanks.
True. They even installed some systems on them to counter the javelin problem but look how much that has helped. At the least 100 russian tanks have been destroyed by ukrainians, perhaps even as much as 200 in just 1 week of war. But also with large number of tanks comes a fuel problem. I don't know for certain but i think 2-3 T-72 tanks use more fuel than say 1 modern leopard tank.
@@henkkamatikaine2808 diesel tanks are relatively efficient for a tank. The US tanks use a gas turbine and while it saves some engine weight and makes it quieter than average it consumes much more fuel while at low power than a diesel
@@BrokeWrench The engine of the Abrahams tank was chosen specifically because it could fill all kinda energy, if the tank is out of oil there’s always a way to keep it running. I hope you understand that part, it’s a very important aspect of American tank warfare.
@@williamsherman1942 abrams tank, not abraham. it was named after creighton williams abrams jr., not abraham of the bible. come on people.
Well, too bad you cant use your precious JavElin, when you pummeled by airfoce or artillery. And it seems your are saying biased shit that other besider russian tanks not vulnerable to JavElin or its counterparts.
Some big gaps in understanding the role of the crew, Russian tanks with a crew of three have a massive workload, remember that only a small amount of time is actually battle, as can be seen in the Ukraine, crews wear out and limits sustained combat, especially with the increased complexity. The western tank design of 4 crew is suited for longer operations, even at night in combat 4 crew get significant more rest and resource to maintain the vehicle
0:48 I don't think its less of a preference and more of a "oh shit these things are fucking expensive lmao" when they started mass producing the T-64. Not to mention they take longer to produce. The came up with the much simplified T-72 rather hastily to bolster the numbers of new tanks.
Abrahms, Leopard, LeClerc, Merkava, Armata, Challanger. They are all excellent platforms. Comes down to who does the best training and support.
The video did not answer the question sell.
The reason why Russian tanks are smaller and lighter is because in Russia when it rains or snows and the snow melts it gets mud everywhere.
Lighter tanks are better suited to deal with Russia's mud, geography and climate.
BRO PLAYED WORLD OF TANK ALL HIS LIFE WAITING FOR THIS MOMENT
the reason that they are lighter is so that farmers can steal them easier.
what is the effective range of their fire power? i was once told that the a1 tank can easily stay out of range of its russian counter part.
As far as I know, the M1A1 Abrams can hit a target at just over 2 miles, while a T-80 or T-90 has to be about 1.5 or 1.75 miles out to effectively engage.
The story I have been told is that during Gulf War I, the Republican Guard units that were attacking Coalition tanks were engaging at maximum distance, and their rounds were falling 10-15 feet short, whereas the Abrams had no difficulty in destroying Russian-made armor at range.
@@isaiahwelch8066 yes, i read the report at the time. also, i want to apologize for being a bit of a jerk.
@@wdaub : Nothing to apologize for. I didn't read that in your comment, as it seemed genuine to me.
Great video! I thought Tank Design was moving to a modular type system. Where you would have a basic tank model that would have add on features to suit the tactical situation. Looking forward to more videos.
That's always seemed a great way to sell military hardware - however, in the field you often lose that flexibility 100%. The reason is simply because forward units don't have the ability to carry all the modular kits. Since you often lose something trying to be modular, this can mean a lesser-performing platform than might have been possible.
I found the title misguiding. The two tank share similar dimension. M1 is 9.7mx3.66mx2.44m in dimension whereas the t80 is 9.9mx3.4mx2.202m in size. Is the difference in armour design that resulted in the that the russian mbt is smaller
They more than likely move faster. Which I guess is better if you have greater maneuverability.
Russian tanks weigh little because they were designed to pass through swampy terrain where the ground is extremely soft. Let's just say that Abrams and the Leopard are 89% likely to get bogged down on Russian territory, but the Russian Series T has a huge chance to pass. Most bridges for the T series are not a problem, but for 70 tons it is a disaster. Not every bridge will hold such a mass in a column of tanks. A small tank - there is nothing easier than to hide it for an ambush.
Kidding? Even light sedan vehicle can get stuck in the mud. Any tank can get stuck in the mud there.
@@easygamingwwiigamingchanne729 Please tell this to Marshal Rokosovsky, who transported tank armies through the marshes. After that, Army Group North was almost completely destroyed. That's the whole point, a Western person thinks quite differently than an eastern person. Where there is a problem for you, then for us it's just a New Year's joke.
@@_XPEHOPE3_ Oh, please. Western persons provided USSR with lend-lease massive help. And nowadays they have no Rokosovsky. And his army went just above the Pripyat Marshes, not deep through the marshes. Wanna see how russian tanks got stuck in the mud just few days ago?
@@_XPEHOPE3_ And one more thing: "He was half-Polish, his father being from a long line of Polish nobility who produced many cavalry officers." There you go. Even he was Polish.
@@easygamingwwiigamingchanne729 And he received his military education in Poland. And in Polish he led the armies))) Russian Russian is a Russian language. My friend, stop joking, if he spoke Russian, was educated in Soviet Russia, commanded in Russian and lived in Russia as a whole, then he is 98% Russian. He carried out Stalin's orders well, that's why he rose to marshal.
M1 abrams uses a turbine engine out of a helicopter and is still faster than the lighter russian tanks.
Autoloaders are deathtraps, thats why Abrams don't have them. Nobody wants to sit on 3 unprotected rounds
1:32 it's not amx-3 tank but amx-13, 13 is the original weight of the prototype
This video misses some key advantages to the lighter weight/lower profile of soviet tank design. The smaller the tank, the harder it is to hit it and the easier to conceal it.
The lighter it is, the easier it is to transport it and even air drop it, if needed.
I've read there was a weight limit to the tanks, based on the cargo capacity of soviet airplanes. Engineers were prohibited to exceed it in order for the tanks to be airdrop capable.
"Not what you think" M1 abrams continue to use a human loader. Human loader is essential since it can replace a human driver or a gunner if needed and also help the maintenance around the tank but another interesting reason has to do with safety. the most common auto loaders store their ammunitions in the turret basket but if the armor around the hull or the turret is penetrated by enemy fire there's a possibility of a fatal explosiom but m1 abrams stores their main gun ammunitions in a compartment that is seperated from the crew by a power operated armor door and that door is only open for a couple of seconds each time the human loader grabs another round. the ammunitions compartment has a blowout panel on it's roof so if the comparment is hit and the ammo explodes the panels will vent out the explosion while protecting the crew inside the tank.
Well modern russian tanks have armour araund ammo too and ammo storage on abrams doesnt realy mather if its hited from the front or the back
True but if tank gets the direct hit, especially in the side or rear crew is highly likely done. It is proven by many tests. Even if your ammo will not detonate everyone will be dead because of the high velosity small particles and preassure inside the tank. Or at least disabled. So the main goal is not get hit. Like Floid Mayweather. It is like in heavy weight boxing your chances to survive a good precise punch into a chin is not high.
I know a lot of the docterine with western tanks was based on a defensive imperitive, moving back but always shooting from some sort of hull or turret down position. The human loader can go pretty fast in bursts and get a rest when displacing to the next defensive position. You need at least a 3 to one ratio on the offense so the Soviets had to make more tanks, you make them smaller because it is easier, and you do not worry about quality so much because the 3 to 1 ratio means you are going to lose plenty of them. Good enough for the man at arms in the line, versus armor of proof for the tourney.
okok ... but what about the technology and fire power ???
Lower profile = higher survivability
Takę a look at newest russian tank t-14. Huge as barn.
And pricey like an Abrams. That's why Russia isn't actually building any.
@@fredweller1086 I heard they have many mechanical problems that they still have not solved.
so price is not the main problem why they are not manufacturing them.
not an endless metal chain if you can count how many links it has, you should better say a 'Looped seemingly endless chain'
So they can turn around faster and escape?
M60T Sabra upgrade kinda broke the western mould via being far smaller than modern NATO MBT's and as a result has actually killed more than it's been killed in Syria.
Which sadly wasn't the case for the Leopard II which was smeared in the same situations.
They both died a lot due to Turkish command incompetence, but goes to show small as you can afford means a lot. Smaller the target, harder it is to hit.
Those were earlier leopard 2 version without the extra armor
@@LordOfChaos.x I don't think it would matter since the main problem is the incompetence of Turkish armored doctrine.
Even if it's a 2A7 if you park your tank in the middle of an urban environment without infantry support and without moving for ages. You're just begging to be killed.
I will be waiting For Russian Tanks with my Gen 4 Tow missiles.
I don't think the smaller the tank such as the Russian tank is going to make much of a difference as being a Target to hit considering one tank can hit a 3-ft square area 5,000 yards for instance is going to make any difference due to if you can hit something that small that far away your small tank is still way bigger than the Target that it is able to hit so it wouldn't make no difference it's the size of the tank
@@90enemies Same can be seen with the Saudis and their use of the Abrams vs the US.
3:15 "As the Russian tanks is more smaller ..."
Is English your second language?
Let me know if I am wrong, but wouldn't a smaller, lighter tank be much more nimble in heavy snow,
than a larger, heavier tank?
Not automatically. Both the 46 ton Panther, 56 ton Tiger 1 and even the 69 ton Tiger II were much better in deep snow and generally off-road than the 30-32 ton M4 Sherman or 25 ton Panzer IV. Mainly thanks to their advanced suspension, large road-wheels and very wide tracks. The 28-30 ton T-34 also had wide tracks and was better than the M4 and Panzer IV.
@@TTTT-oc4eb Thank you 👍
It's that Russian low profile that works
The one thing I think we’ve all learned in the last two weeks, is that regardless of your armor, if your supply chain suffers your gear is useless.
amazing how the US. can conduct a war 6000 miles overseas better than Russia can conduct a war in it’s neighboring country.
Gundam is the future....
Tanks, Jets and Ships will be obsolete in the near future space battle
Do they manufacture a “ plug in” hybrid version?😳👍
Also two of the major differences are, unlike Russian tanks Western tanks have fuel and they are not towed by farmers with tractors🤔🚜
does it really matter when 1 man with a good anti tank weapon kills any tank on the battle field
A fatal flaw due to size is the lighter armour from the top & their distribution of combustible shells there a well aim or self seeking missile , Javelin for instance can seek this vulnerability & inflict a fatal hit which cooks off the projectiles & blows the turret off the body nevermind the shrapnel killing the crew
Any tank can be destroyed from the top.
If they could make a tank with an auto loader that does not require a full crew and instead has room for 3 passenger and only needs at max 2 people to control all functions that would be best. Or even a 1 seater with an auto load mechanism that allows constant fire and ease of use.
Can a an M1 Abrams take a hit from a javelin anti tank weapon ? Or is it only that the folks they fight with them don't have anti tank weapons?