Like my shirts? Get your own at: www.bunkerbranding.com/pages/ryan-mcbeth For uncensored video, check out my substack at: ryanmcbeth.substack.com Watch all of my long form videos: ua-cam.com/play/PLt670_P7pOGmLWZG78JlM-rG2ZrpPziOy.html The original tweet is here: twitter.com/mtracey/status/1615799112708026368 Download the slideshow here: www.ryanmcbeth.com/single-post/slides-for-my-identifying-a-tank-video Use HATS to identify TANKS from NOT A TANK. : Hull Armament Turret Suspension. Each type of vehicle has different qualities that give it different capabilities. It is wise to take that into account when talking about armored vehicles. Twitter: @ryanmcbeth Join the conversation: discord.gg/pKuGDHZHrz Want to send me something? Ryan McBeth Productions LLC 8705 Colesville Rd. Suite 249 Silver Spring, MD 20910 USA Rights: By Vitaly V. Kuzmin - vitalykuzmin.net/?q=node/635, CC BY-SA 4.0, commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=49061389 References: ST 7-193, Tank Identification Handbook, 1982
So how long till everyone else figures out IFV versus Tank really isn't a winning proposition? Because journos and politicos think otherwise, and we both know they are wrong, and the result will be a destroyed battalion or two of armored infantry.
I can't believe you and Maj Moran haven't done a collaboration yet, he's a USAR Maj i don't think he's guard, anyway he does lots of videos about tanks and is popular and knows the material he talks about. He's here as "the chieftan"
Can you please, please (idk what it's called), "pin" this video on your channel homepage so i can link this more easily? I have a feeling I am going to send the link to a lot of people for a looOOOOooong time.
Thanks for the video. Really enjoyed it. One question: Why are the anti-tank missiles on IFVs not considered a preferred option against a tank? I thought they outranged a tank gun - and they can obviously destroy tanks as seen in the Ukraine war.
"It's difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it." this seems to apply to most social media outrage machines. Keep up the good work, Ryan.
It’s particular true in this case since Michael Tracey was initially trying to imply that the SPG and IFV designations exist purely as some sort of NATO gaslighting psy-ops as part of his half-brained argument against sending military aid to Ukraine, apparently not realizing that the Russians themselves use similar classification schemes internally (after all, BMP is literally just Russian for IFV).
I wasn't surprised that Michael never returned the communication; after all, he's the civilian pro. I was a Navy journalist for 25 of my 26-plus years in the Navy and Naval Reserve and had occasional dealings with "I know it all" civilian counterparts. Just trying to explain what made the Iowa-class battleships "battleships" and destroyers not just smaller "battleships" was frustrating, especially when they went "la-la-la-la-la" and closed their ears. I cringe today when I see social media types and so-called legitimate news people call destroyers and other surface warships "battleships" (little secret, don't tell anyone: there are no more battleships in commission in any navy today). Same problem you have with land vehicles as I had trying to explain about various kinds of warships, especially in the early 1990's when we were bringing home the beautiful Iowas for decommissioning and (thankfully) disposition as museum ships. At least we did this correctly: Not even the Brits kept a modern WWII battleship as a museum; a tragedy as far as I'm concerned. The stunning HMS Vanguard would have made a beautiful museum exhibit (it was actually the last battleship ever commissioned by any navy, just after WWII). I also served a year-and-a-half in Vietnam as a young sailor and became very familiar with tanks, artillery, APCs and other military vehicles. I still cringe when I hear "journalists" describe, on TV or in online videos, "tank convoys" passing by them, and I don't see a single actual tank in that line of vehicles. Sigh....
i gotta agree with you there. AFVID was my bread n Butter. its not so much of know exactly what vehicle that is but my frustrations would be eased if they just did a quick google search. beforehand and could speak somewhat intelligently about the TYPE of vehicles. my local news and media outlets and CNN a few times even. Spouting "LOCAL SHERIFFS DEPTARTMENT BUYS TANKS" and its a bunch of purpose built BEARCAT armored Trucks or some Surplus MRAPs even average person i've seen calling 4x4 and 6x6 stewart and stevenson trucks for tanks. like how its clearly a truck. i could somewhat understand confusion if they were uparmored and had a armored machine gun turret on it but what how is this something you can be confused by. a day that i'll never forget 3rd grade history class is when i knew i wanted to be a tanker or on some AFV with tracks. whenever we were going over some topic and subsequently showed an Image of a M4 sherman with a Dozer blade attached and asked what is this? clearly everyone shouted a bulldozer. and i'm the only one that knew it was a tank. and got called stupid for calling whats clearly a bulldozer a tank. thats what set me on my path all i wanted to do from that point forward do something on a tracked platform. 4 years in the marine corps MK154 MICLIC licenses and my IROC Cert. and i mostly specalized in AAVC7 A1 RAM/RS C2 upgrade or AAVP7's amazing platform
In fact, the “journalist” he was responding to was even worse about this than the usual low standards; the guy was basically trying to imply that designations like IFV and SPG were some sort of NATO psy-ops designed purely to gaslight the Western public, rather than common classifications used internally by militaries across the world, including the Russians themselves (making this especially funny since Michael Tracey’s whole current schtick on twitter is basically being a useful idiot for Putin).
Well Ryan is unfortunatly just wrong here. As the forgets that "Tank" is the over arching word similar to "Car". In his mind MBT = Tank. But that is not the case. There are loads of diffrent tanks other than M1 Abrahams that are a MBT. Tanks that are not MBT are: Sherman, Tiger, T34, and of course the first tank the Mark 1. And similar to Car there are diffrent kinds like Micro, Hatchback, Sedan, SUV, MPV, Convertible, Wagon, etc etc. Same with tanks, MBT is just the most known type in modern times.
@@littlesaints91 Hello, your list is of obsolescent tanks from the past that would not survive a “modern” battle field or modern MBT so……I say you’re wrong with this assessment of the presentation. I may have missed your point but I am fairly sure you didn’t listen to the entire video before you started typing. ✌️bro…not trying to start a fight, just don’t understand your comment. Please explain why you would take a WWII Tiger against an Abrams on a modern battlefield and the thought process that went into your choice. Or Not…
@@littlesaints91 I agree that the "car-analogy" wasn't that good, but I want to point out your fallacy of what a "MBT" is and what isn't. Could you elaborate why "Sherman, Tiger, T34," weren't MBTs? Were there other, larger/more heavily equipped "tanks" used by their respective Nations? I recon those examples of yours were very much the MBTs of their time. Also, I fail to notice that Ryan only declares "MBTs" to be "tanks". He rather describes what a "tank" is meant to do in a battle. In the end I rather trust the word of a former military instructor and anti-tank specialist than that of a random YT commenter.
The problem there is people have to actually what KNOWLEDGE and not just be able to complain against things they don't understand. I swear its a total disgrace at how many people wont ever admit to not knowing or close their mind as soon as they have a few facts..... uuugh!
I do think he could add a sentence or two with emphasis on the intended role of the vehicles. He kinda' does for IFVs and APCs but for a person not knowing this stuff it may be pretty blurry. E.g. he never mentions (unless I missed it) that artillery guns are designed to fire over an arc instead of directly at an enemy and how they cannot be used to breakthroughs like tanks. He says they should stick away from the frontline but doesn't explain *why* that is. You kinda' can infer that from the HATS description but only if you already know a basic or two about military action. Other than that great vid.
I would like to see how his argument holds up using a Camry, a Corvette and a Rolls Royce, the examples used already have a distinct name for a reason, there is a reason the army calls it not a tank, but it's not because it isn't a tank. It's like a silencer, the army calls it a suppressor, due to that people think they are superior in some way to anybody that calls it a silencer, calling it a suppressor to someone who knows it as a silencer doesn't make you smart because guess what the inventor called it? (hint, it isn't suppressor)
Ryan must have been an excellent instructor in the military. I’m a civilian no military experience and he explains it so well that I can get it! Bravo!
I like how Ryan McBeth breaks the media stereotype of the veteran. He's not some racist baby-killer who can't think for himself like they want others to think. He's a man of experience and humility; an educated educator, with a penchant for humor that helps students feel at ease and open to learning!
Tracey is insufferable. I just read through the litany of his tweets about this. It's been a while since I've seen anyone THAT salty over being corrected.
This reminds me of a reserve training session we had in the early Nineties or such. This time around, I was assigned to our tank battalion's recce platoon as "medical luggage". The guys were a fun bunch of grizzled veterans, and we were riding these vintage Jeep "mutts" fitted with a GPMG at the commander position. We were doing a far and wide reconnaissance training mission, throughout much of the Northern Negev and mostly away from the Ze'elim firing grounds where our tanks were, so one evening we bravely drove into Be'er Sheva City in order to get pizza! Then this sweet Chinese old lady comes up to us and thanks us for parking our "mighty tanks" in front of the joint! Three Willys Jeeps! The guys didn't bother to correct her, and I was just sitting topside on a pair of jerrycans eating pizza and grinning!
What is it with our stories that nationality doesn't matter? There is a common thread throughout whenever veterans get together. One night in the hospital canteen on our meal break I was doing security at, there was a table next to us with five blokes talking in three languages. I said to my partner (ex New Zealand Armoured) they were telling 'warries'. We joined in and had a Russian paratrooper, an Ecuadorean sailor, a Chilean MP and a Greek national serviceman! We nattered on until dawn!
As a journalist for 40 years I regret that I recognize Mr. Tracey’s type. He’s less journalist than opinion monger. We described such people as “the folks who come down from the mountains after the battle to slit the throats of the wounded.” Thanks for adding rational thought.
I really think you should add the "Main Battle" in front of your tank - because that's what they are. Historically light tanks are not made to go against MBTs or support direct combat, but to be mobile and pack enough punch to blow to dust everything within the strategic operation depth limit (50-150 km in the rear). That's what AMX-10RC is, and to better achieve it's target (mobility, reparability in the enemy rears) it has wheels instead of tracks and a lower caliber gun. However, it is a light tank for all intents and purposes, and is referred to as such by French military, although the lack of tracks make it not a tank in the NATO classification. Go figure.
@@tijsp.8162 Kind of the opposite frankly. Tracks are basically required on Main Battle Tanks because they're far better at weight distribution. The Abrams, for example, weighs in excess of 55 tons. You have to strip most of the armor off in order to lower the weight enough to use tires
tru. A Bradley could could take out any WWII Tank. Butt it's not a "tank". Light tanks still exists...and have a purpose and mission. I dont wonder if we see a resurgence of light tanks given that drone technology can easily end all tanks and MBTs are quite expensive.
@@jeffmorris5802 Physics is the meanest mother on any battlefield. I supposed you could in theory put wheels on an Abrams, but the ground pressure would be so high it'd be unable to move on most any surface.
Plus I hesitate to call a HMMWV an "armored car" when the historical armored car would probably look more like the AMX-10 RC, and I would hesitate to call that a "tank destroyer" when it has barely any tank-fighting capacity designed in mind.
Probably the most precise and comprehensive, layman's explanation on armor, I've ever heard. Should be shared with everyone, who has an opinion on the subject. To make sure, we all know the basics, and can have and informed conversation. ~15 years of military service. A few of which, as an instructor. McBeth, I salute you!
Ryan you are an excellent teacher! I was in the First Calvary Division 50+ years ago. A Red Leg. My weapon was a M 16. The rifles have changed and also many of the vehicles. If you know what a Gamma Goat is that was my vehicle.
"You can't cheat chemistry!" Hadn't expected to hear that one from a tanker/anti-tanker. -- It is a lot of good solid-phase chemistry in armour 👍 ...and then come sensors(!), the power plant and explosives too...
Thanks for this video. Knowing the difference is important. A news story about “tanks” rolling into a city has a very different meaning when it’s actually APCs with troops.
Exactly. Pretty much. Exception for the earliest tank as we were still figuring these things out. But I want so say that even the original ones had more forward armor. So still works
The other key is flat teajectory weapon optimized for direct fire. No matter how much you armour it, an artilerry piece will never be a tank. But I feel like we shoud diferrentiate between tank in modern sense and historical examples, as as late as beginning of WWII vehicles armed with machine guns only like Mk1 Matilda or Panzer I, the secod also having rather abyssmal armor protection that was good really only against small arms fire were considered tanks.
Not sure how much I agree with that assesment as the Leopard 1 is still a tank even though it was very lightly armored and not meant to survive direct frontal impacts.
A battle tank is defined by duelling capability. Tank Destroyer is a weired category there, because it's more a role than a vehicle class. A Jagdtiger is still a full battletank - turretless, for sure, but who sais, a tank needs a turret ;) It's not a main battle Tank, since it can't fullfill all roles, but a battle tank. I think, the problem there is, the US doesn't really have battle tanks as tank destroyers in their history. There have been some concepts, but they didn't really go in productions. This leads to a bit narrow definition of tanks. The Stridsvagn 103, the former Swedish MBT, would blow most of em xD
Nice video for all those WoT professionals - AFV recognition was and still is a fundamental part of Land Forces. Many different factors by the naked eye vs bino's/optical sights and your ability to engage and survive or just pass on the info to your tango CS. Cheers
Ryan I f"cking love ya man, your content is amazing & much appreciated. One Grandfather fought in the Korean War, the other was in the Air Force & O.S.I. after. Ever since I was a kid watching documentaries about what they did& what some of the guys they both fought with did in "The War" prior to combat in Korea. Always wanted to follow in their footsteps but started having seizures pretty young. Having such direct resources to rely on when working with politicians, strategies they should take & with somewhat more clarity certain points can/can't be made. Let alone entertainment value but being able to communicate U.S. Armed Forces terminology/culture. Lotta current & former service member around me. Live with two & married into another military family. Creatures like yourself, idk if you get enough credit but this rambling man appreciates it a sh!ton
Ryan Mcbeth will always tell it to you like it is. Some folks would love to tell you all sorts of silly stories for the attention or just the Likes. Thank you for being a straight shooter with accurate info or an "I'll look it up for us" attitude!
You're a good teacher. This stuff is interesting, but I'm thankful that it's not something I have to know. This is because of all of you who volunteer to serve in the military and keep the rest of us safe. Thanks.
This is fantastic, when I was a kid in the Airforce Cadets here in Australia, we got taught something similar called WETFUS to determine aircraft type and purpose: Wings Engine(s) Tail Fuselage Undercarriage Special features I imagine the USAF and other countries Airforces have something similar.
Glad to see someone with expertise weighing in. All too often we see terminally offended, pretentious mouth-pieces who make claims to intellect and knowledge spouting off a loaf of nonsense, such as the original post you addressed at the beginning of the video. It'd sad to see that these people cannot accept input from someone with expertise in the area discussed but thank you for taking the time and trying to share with as many as possible.
Especially when those mouthpieces are trying to grind a political ax; Tracey was trying to imply that designations like IFV and SPG were some sort of evil Western gaslighting psyops designed to mislead the public into supporting military aid for Ukraine, when actually even the Russians themselves use similar designations internally; he was even trying to argue that the BMP counted as a tank as part of his argument that the Russians would totally consider the Bradley a tank, not realizing that BMP is literally just Russian for IFV.
How is the DoD not sponsoring Ryan's channel at this point??? He should be the DoD spoke person. I've learned so much from watching this channel. I've become less critical of our leadership and military from Ryan's lesson.
Good question. I'd say it's because, despite its name, PAO has a very limited public reach. They have good relationships with news agencies etc., but really have a difficult time reaching out to Joe Citizen on his daily youtube meanderings. That's a whole conversation in itself. Ryan's channel is probably a far better distribution method because it reaches a much broader (not to mention international) public audience, and reaches it directly.
In a way I'd argue they did and still do, through the long game. Through his first career they developed him into the man he is today and he's a true believer in the army's/military's existence and culture and now willingly donates his time with these grassroots efforts to explain and educate about the world he used to live in.
@@dereksherwood3794 it’s the same reason their ads aren’t the obvious Michael bay type stuff their target demographic would actually respond to. Corporations have the same problem, just recently multiple big billion dollar video game publishers have done things that have utterly disowned large diehard fan bases on a dime, killing off entire franchises, some quite old and established. Decision makers being too removed from the field, not understanding what many know to just be obvious seems a problem with hierarchal organizations. Like, don’t try to hire someone to create something from nothing, find someone already doing it on their own like Ryan here, and empower them to do more. But tbh, idk what the answer is to the issue, maybe better training/education for executive management types, military and civilian? How not to be a disconnected doofus.
For someone not a Treadhead, you did a damn decent job of breaking down the explanation. This is from someone who has studied Armored vehicles for some 40 years +. BTW this is armored vehicles from ALL countries.
Thank you Ryan, for yet another well executed presentation! For the military equipment nerds like me, there isn't a better Channel on UA-cam for these types of in depth breakdowns & analysis videos! It's also A fun way to learn for those that aren't educated on these types of systems/vehicles/equipment!
Military technology is some of the most interesting stuff mostly just because it has so much money being poured into these types of R&D insane what you can do with that
Excellent presentation Sargeant. Enough information to give the average person an idea of what the reason for the difference is between the vehicles. Just enough, but not too much. Excellence job!
Well done, you explained it far quicker than I did when I was an instructor, I went by what else is around and where to expect the different types. My joke was that if I'm running away from it, it's a tank, if I'm going towards it lining up a shot with my 80mm LAW it's something else, take a closer look ;-) and wait for the fireworks. It is and isn't a joke, I don't have a deathwish so MBT's give me the heebie jeebies, APC's etc I'm not worried about. I was LRP/Recon, light gear, on foot, MBT's are somebody elses problem, not mine, I mark, radio in, GTFO.
I've found that you can teach the difference between a tank, an APC and a mobile Howitzer to an 88 IQ 9th-grade educated recruit in about an hour, but for an Ivy League educated Journalist, it's just not possible for them to learn that.
The Tank Destroyer is still difficult - but mostly, because of US Doctrin. While the US mostly had Tank Destroyers, that were not Battle Tanks, for example the Jagdtiger was for sure a battle tank. Tank Destroyer is more like a role, a specialization of combat. In Germany at least, we define a battle tank (all of these are tanks, but not all are battle tanks) by a simple question: Does it have duelling capability. And there we are at the tank destroyers: Some do, some don't. They aren't Main Battle Tanks, though. Okay.... The Swedish Stridsvagn 103 makes even this line blur =D
@@bugfisch7012 If nothing else, you must love the 103 for the confusion it is still creating. It was designed in a time when no main battle tank could fire while moving, and it was designed for a slow fighting retreat, ensuring as much losses as possible to the USSR B-team (their best tanks of the period would be caught up in Central Europe). Sure it could counter attack as well, but it was never good at moving, stopping, aiming and firing rapidly.
@@57thorns I actually do love it ;) And yeah, it's main purpose is delaying - but this is a doctrin, a lot of European Armies are following. And one, that lead the Ukrains to their first Victory in Kiew. You're right though, that it lacked offense capabilities, but it still was a legit MBT - when you look at the earlier T-Tanks, you have the exact opposite, a tank, that pretty much lacks defense capabilities, because it basicly can not move backwards =D
This video was really informative! I'm a huge military nerd, so this information is really interesting. My great uncle served as an intelligence analyst at the pentagon so he got to hear about things and couldn't share with the family. He told us on his deathbed that he helped prepare the US for operations desert storm and desert blade by looking at satellite images of Kuwait and Iraq and would send them to his supervisor on what he found. If you want to see a really good milsim game, check out squad.
Thanks for the Tanks, I needed this video. When the military throws all their acronyms with so many types of a similar purpose and appearance for each type of armor hardware, it can be difficult. The turret to gun size ratios , and the purpose of each vehicle was very helpful. Thanks Ryan, glad you're one of the good guys!
Me again McBetty. SFC DeVos here, a fellow 11H TOW Master Gunner, I served from 1983-2009. Our unit deployed to asskrack (Iraq) in May 2003 and there was 16 NCO’s in the Bn were Gulf War Grunts so the skills the Vietnam Veterans taught us hadn’t quite reached the average Joe in the squad which amazed me. At our “2 minute drill” at Hohenfels I ran the AT4 range and taught the men and especially the junior NCO’s how to do a volley fire engagement when needed and we poked a lot of holes in some innocent M-561 Gama Goats (of which none of these kids would know what the hell I’m talking about…lucky them). So after things settled down in Iraq we transitioned into an occupation force and repairing the infrastructure as soon as we could. So within 60 days of having manned checkpoints and tracked armored vehicles, we started getting RPG attacks periodically. And for an Infantry and Armor Task Force, the last thing you want on a checkpoint is either an M113 or an M109SP gun. After two M109’s were hit and a couple Soldiers were killed I got upset at our Command for sticking Artillerymen on checkpoint duty and not having a “screening line” to keep civilians away from the vehicle, they were just asking to be shot! My 1SG agreed and spoke with higher that it was negligent to use 109’s for this task especially when their leadership doesn’t have the training or experience in dealing with front line situations. They had our Grunts guarding the destroyed nuclear reactor near Al Rashid (which is where we were posted at a few weeks in after arriving at Cross Sabers in May 19 2003. Then when they were hit again because by now the enemy knew they were a soft target, the command in their wisdom pulled them off and put in a Brad with a full crew and squad to manage the site and things calmed down. I went to the Artillery company in our task force and did all I could to relive their stress, I got them a few A/C units and a generator to run them, that unit of good men were shaken up and all the Senior NCO’s were pissed off. As most Grunts damn well know, our Artillerymen save our asses almost hourly when we’re in tough situations and to waste them like that was criminal. You can read more about Task Force 2-6, 2nd Bde, 1st Armor Division in the book; Assassins Gate. Yes, Charlie Company 2-6 INF ran Assassins Gate at one of the Green Zone entrances when it was hit with the VBIED. CPT Prior was my CO, I was the S-3 NCOIC at the time, it was a job I’m glad I was there for but I’ll never do it again, way too much stress for one man. Thanks McBeth B Co 1-86th INF, E Co. 1-7 INF, 3rd ID D co. 2/502, 101st ABN B, HHC 2-6 INF, 1st AD
I really loved this video! I'm kind of a military hardware nerd, but i've always had problem when mates start to ask me about stuff on how to explain the difference. This video was spot on and really perfect for people who don't see/know the difference. Brilliant video and love the fact that you included the slideshow in the info. Thanks alot and keep up the good work!
Greetings from Los Angeles, California, Ryan!! I started watching your videos back in April of last year 2022, when you started making videos on the war in Ukraine. Love your video presentations and sense of humor!!
I feel like this is good training for MPs and SECFOR. I often see them at the main gate on post checking I.D.s and squinting at every vehicle, trying to determine if it’s a POV or a tank: (“not a tank! Oh thank God!) “ Have a good day, sir and or ma’am. Drive safely”
Thanks for the explanation. In German, it's even more complicated or less so. It depends on your viewing angle. A Panzer (tank) would usually refer to a (Haupt-)Kampfpanzer (MBT) but all other armored vehicles can use the term as well. To differentiate them, you need to use their respective pre- or suffixes. So there are Schützenpanzer (IFVs), Transportpanzer (APCs), Panzerwagen (armored cars), Panzerhaubitzen (SPGs) and last but not least FlaK-Panzer (SPAAGs).
You know what's funny is that every once in a while you meet a guy in the US Army who appreciates the Wehrmacht and the Panzer Corps a little too much. There's always two of them and they always end up in the same platoon and they have endless arguments that the Tiger III PanzerVoogenVeegan was better than the Panther II PanzerFleegenFlagen because of the two extra bolts on the VeebenSlitzen. Those people remind me of little kids who are obsessed with dinosaurs and know all of their scientific names.
Nothing new for me but wanted to see how well you explained it, and you did well. With the current conflict going on see frequently see people calling BMP's as tanks which annoys me as they are not, they are IFV's. There has been alot of units being miss-identified.
Good teachers are great, and being one incredibly rewarding. One thing I have heard and fully believe in is that you only really know something once you can explain and teach it to someone else (especially areas of nuance). (Edit: Good teachers are also people who value and are good at learning, which the person from the beginning showed they are not.)
Went to military school in the late 50"s were a Korean Style Anti-Tank Battalion; luckily I was an Armorer Nco and got to play with lots of guns. Really like your anti tank prospective.
Ryan, you're awesome; thanks for sharing your talents, your passion, and teaching us all out here in the wider world; the forces should hire you back and get you on payroll again for all you're doing.
Great video, earned another subscriber! 8:37 Haven't seen anyone mention this, but Muzzle Brake was misspelled as Break by mistake I think. Tiny error but, seems worth mentioning. I will likely never, as a stay at home programmer, need to identify an armored vehicle from visual cues. And yet, strangely, knowing a bit about it is very satisfying!
Great video. Thanks. I was an M1A1 Abrams crewman in the Army, and I'm constantly having to tell family and friends who point and say "Ooh! A tank!" that whatever is it, it's not a tank. I got so good at tank recognition when I was in, that when I got my sergeant's stripes, I was appointed my company's vehicle recognition NCO.
It’s funny how the name “tank” was used by the British to trick everyone to think it wasn’t an armored vehicle, while the German called them “panzerkampfwagen” i.e. armored battle wagon/vehicle. We in Sweden calls them “pansarstridsvagn” or “stridsvagn” or “pensar” for short. It translate to the German name and that’s no coincidence I guess as a German company did work together with a Swedish company to build tanks in Sweden before WWII as Germany wasn’t allowed to do that after WWI. Sweden built a turret less MBT in the 60’s during the Cold War and it could in a pinch by operated by one man. It went obsolete when the stabilized guns where introduced thou.
Armor Id was the toughest part of my basic assaultman training. They give you grainy photos of a basic outline and expect you to identify it. It's really tempting to look at friendly vehicles and consider everything else an enemy vehicle. The war in Ukraine makes identification so much more difficult. Similar and same models fighting on either side. I'm surprised we don't hear much about friendly fire. Same goes for air support.
Excellent video and taught a lot in a short amount of time. One thing I would’ve liked to see are some examples for each type of vehicle from various countries. For instance, I did not know if a Russian BTR would be an APC or IFV until I looked it up and saw some pictures.
Technically they are APC's some more modern versions like the BTR-82AM and BTR-4 for Russian and Ukrainian respectfully are still APC's but have weapons that would have them fall into the IFV category as they have a 30mm autocannon and may also come equipped with dual Kornet missiles attached to the remote turret in the case of the BTR-82AM. Then you have things like the BTR-D that is completely different besides sharing a simlair name i.e tracked and is air dropable typically used by the VDV they are very small and have a strange way in carring troops in that they have to climb up and out of the back.
@@p_serdiuk The BTR-80 and up are for sure IFVs, that's when the 30 mm autocannon plus the stay in and fight capacity of an IFV were introduced if I'm right But yeah, BTR roughly translates to APC if taken literally
Fantastic explanatory intro of a moderately technical subject. I agree that your intense but conversational approach to group instruction is way better than the old formal stick-to-the-script stick-up-the-ass Benning Infantry School methods. Big BUT: you gotta know your subject matter cold.
Thank you for taking the time to explain this as could identify an MBT an IFV and self propelled arty's, but was less clear on the tank destroyers and other wheeled glass cannons.
I know military does this so they understand what they are talking about, but speaking english as 2nd language, it also got me confused in the beginning. I think it stems from the fact that tank was a WWI codename to confuse the Germans, and now similar things are named very differently. In German, we have the word Panzer (translated tank, or literally armour). So there is Kampfpanzer (literaly battle armour, means main battle tank), Flugabwehrpanzer (air defense tank), Schützenpanzer (rilfeman armour, means IFV), and so on and so forth. I think the German naming system makes so much more sense, and would lead to more clarity. Of course, if people pay 0 attention to all this, they still get confused.
I think it’s one of those things where everyone translates “panzer” as “tank” even though you guys actually use it more to mean “armored vehicle”. It would be convenient if “tank” had become that kind of shorthand, but the American and Soviet militaries both ended up only classifying MBTs as tanks, and much of the world followed the same lines.
Thanks Ryan, this is a very helpful video. I sent it to my wife and she loved it, although she knows virtually nothing about armoured vehicles or tanks. Keep up the great work!
There is also the definition from the 1991 disarmament treaty between NATO and the Warshaw pact. That is one of the most important documents for Europe in modern times. It describes how each side are only allowed a certain number of equipment in each group. This treaty describes a tank as: A vehicle of at least 16.5 tonns, with a 360 degrees rotating turret with a main gun of at least 75mm, tracked or on wheels. Vehicles fitting this description is a main battle tank. This allows for smaller vehicles defined as tanks, but the reason is that the countries involved should not make all kinds of slightly smaller vehicles than a "traditional tracked tank" to secretly build up fighting capabilities.
I fucking love the S-tank.............which gets a lot of crap. That thing just seems fucking amazing TO ME. I honestly hate that a experienced crew never got to show what it could do. (because I will never know either) Man it looks cool though. (Edit: I'm not saying it's great by any stretch, for what it was designed to do I think it could have always been useful. They designed it to basically terraform it's own defense positions. I don't know of another tank designed with that purpose.) Let alone the various other neat little oddities it had. It's a weird one........I think the thought process behind it shouldn't be forgotten, because I think it will be used again some day. A tank that can stroll in and basically create it's own camo. (type of thing) Sitting and waiting, shit hits the fan you get out........in reverse. Something about that is hilarious and amazing and has a ton of potential.) (I think) Up until Ukraine I never thought it was all that special.......but in landscape that isn't desert, I can see all sorts of possible uses.
That is not exactly correct. It was not designed for defense more any other tank and it was counterattack which was its primary purpose. If you look at the field manual for it and the Centurion that was in service at the same time it was identical. The only difference in the manual is practical differences like how you designate and fire on a target, the autoloader, not the hull-fixed guns are the main difference. If you look at Swedish armor units there were not a lot of them and they were intended to use their mobility for counterattacks. There was 7 armored brigade and 1a armored battalion when strv 103 (S-Tank) was introduced and all armored bridged are in the southern 1/4 where what was expected was Warsawa pack amphibious landing. The primary intention of the armored units was to counterattack and hopefully eliminate them. A turretless designs hand the advantage of a smaller tank that could use extremely inclined armor efficiency. You can have a fixed autoloader to the fixed guns that could have a longer barrel and very good penetration and accuracy. The main drawback of not having a current is that you can fire on the move, with the technology of the late 1950s when it was developed it was in practice something that was not that efficient, the expected that is would not improve a lot over time. That assumption was a mistake and with added electronic systems you get the ability to fire with high accuracy on the move in the 1970s which make the turretless design obsolete. The amount scheme with thin by very inclined armor was a good idea against the projectiles that existed when it was designed. But it is quite bad against long dart penetrators that later emerge. There is US test against the M60A1E3, tanks in the 1970s where both had advantages and disadvantages strv 103 was more accurate than M60A1E3 but fired on average 0.5s slower. The British tested it back then too against the Chieftain tanka and the repost stated "It has not been possible to prove any disadvantage in the "S" inability to fire on the move." A test in the 1980s again the M1 and Challenger 1 would have been quite different. You look at the tanks and see the dozer blade that could be used to dig a fighting position and assume that digging a defective position was a hit priority so designed for defense. The problem is it the upgrade to strv 103C that started in 1986 that added it to all tanks. Originally they had one tank per platoon with blades. So Strv103 is designed to do everything other MBTs. The lack of a turret but hydraulic control made it a design that worked fine for a short period of time but the development of gun stabilization and the ammunition we have today made the design a dead end. Do not use it for a modern vehicle.
I immensely enjoyed the video, Ryan. I think you are a teacher at heart. But honestly, you emailing the guy who made that tweet, was just casting pearls before swine, man.
My favourite thing about Michael Tracy's definition of a tank is that it also defines an interwar arctic modified aircraft as a tank. A M3 Halftrack, and a Viking transport vehicle are also tanks according to Tracy. Oh, because a train runs on tracks, if the engineer has a pistol, that too, is a tank, apparently.
There's nothing I treasure more than a person with a lot of complicated life experience who can break things down so a Normie can comprehend. Fucken love you, m8. Keep truckin'
Could you compare the Bradley and Stryker IFVs? With both going to Ukraine, I’d like to understand the differences and different strategies for using them. Thanks!
My understanding is that Bradley's are better on the front than Strykers but aren't quite as good for urban environments. Brad's have more survivability but are alot noisier. Beyond that I don't know
The Stryker is generally considered an APC because it doesn't have a particularly impressive armament, generally sporting an M2 Browning machine gun in 12.7mm. With typical rounds, it pierces about 15mm of steel at 500-1000m. 12.7mm rounds are rarely explosive, so they deal damage by either punching holes, either setting stuff on fire with a few grams of incendiary filler, or cause spalling after penetrating an obstacle such as a brick wall. It's basically fine for engaging infantry, lightly armored APCs, a fair amount of ground targets such as brick or concrete or sandbag walls, and defend against airborne threats such as helicopters that come too close. It's more dubious when it comes to penetrating breastworks to engage infantry sitting in trenches, as that may mean piercing meters of dirt potentially. The Bradley on the other hand has a 25mm autocannon, whose armor-piercing rounds will penetrate multiples of that (60-100mm of steel probably), and the high explosive rounds has a lethal radius against infantry of about 3m IIRC. These rounds can deal with pretty much anything encountered in an urban environment , as you need more than 50cm of reinforced concrete to be protected against them, and will shred enemy BMPs, most buildings and choppers that come too close. Its TOW anti-tank missiles have a very good chance of penetrating any tank on the planet, though they may be evaded as they take 20 seconds to reach their maximum range. The armor is different ; the Stryker is protected against 14.5mm all around, while the Bradley in the A2 and later variants is protected against 30mm rounds and some RPGs. 14.5mm is the heaviest caliber for Soviet heavy machine guns, such as the KPVT found on the BTR-70 APC, while 30mm is the caliber of the autocannon on the BMP-2 IFV. Depending on the exact Stryker variant, it may be better protected against mines, as it may have a V-hull and has a larger ground clearance. For the strategic mobility, i.e. deploying from the U.S. to Ukraine, the Stryker is superior, as it's lighter and consumes less fuel than the Bradley, so you need less C-17's to deploy a brigade of Strykers for example. For the tactical mobility, i.e. on the battlefield, the Stryker's only advantage is that it moves faster on roads ; the Bradley is better offroad or in muddy conditions. Moving offroad gives a better chance of avoiding mines for example. Though I doubt it will happen, if the Ukrainians were to receive the M109A7 self-propelled howitzer, an advantage of the Bradley is both share common chassis components such as the engine, transmission and tracks, making maintenance and repairs easier. It will most likely be some M109A6s.
Stryker strikes me (see what i did there) more as an APC than an IFV, as even if it may have a CROWS on top, it still is very much limited in terms of the firepower it can bring, it reminds me more so of the stories of the M113 APC being used as an IFV in vietnam.
The context is the Abrams and Bradley are cold war designs designed to directly fight against a Soviet offensive at the Fulda gap. The Stryker is a post cold war 1999 design that is lighter, faster, quieter, and more maneuverable for more insurgency and urban type situations. Stryker is more of a wheeled APC compared to the tracked IFV the Bradley is.
.... this video taught me what suspension means in a vehicle context. Basically, it's the wheels/tracks/whatever and everything that connects those interfaces with thr ground to the rest of the vehicle. So obviously, the hull, engine, etc. are separate.
0:34 Michael Tracey: "roving journalist, friend to all dogs". That makes me respect you even more!!!! 0:59 He's a journalist. Being a friend to all dogs is his purpose in life, not being dedicated to knowledge.
When I was in the CAF, I had a very simplistic analysis: there's a group of things called "tanks", then there's a much larger group of things called "weapons designed to kill tanks". That was good enough for me.
I responded to Tracy's comment, which is really stupid, on Twitter and he responded back, saying "I still think it's a tank". I gave him roughly the same list of tank attributes. I explained that the Bradley's 25mm gun doesn't compare to 105-125mm tank cannons. Some people just can't deal with military topics.
Very good presentation! This old Marine learned a few basics about the modern stuff! ... Subscribed! In my time (late 1960's to early 1970's) we still had a lot of equipent that was designed & used for WW-II and Korea.
Thank you for instructing us and make me feel a bit like the new rookie soldier on his first day. It is a pleasure to watch your videos unrelated to the topic just keep the passion for what you teach!
Like my shirts? Get your own at:
www.bunkerbranding.com/pages/ryan-mcbeth
For uncensored video, check out my substack at:
ryanmcbeth.substack.com
Watch all of my long form videos:
ua-cam.com/play/PLt670_P7pOGmLWZG78JlM-rG2ZrpPziOy.html
The original tweet is here:
twitter.com/mtracey/status/1615799112708026368
Download the slideshow here:
www.ryanmcbeth.com/single-post/slides-for-my-identifying-a-tank-video
Use HATS to identify TANKS from NOT A TANK. :
Hull
Armament
Turret
Suspension.
Each type of vehicle has different qualities that give it different capabilities. It is wise to take that into account when talking about armored vehicles.
Twitter:
@ryanmcbeth
Join the conversation:
discord.gg/pKuGDHZHrz
Want to send me something?
Ryan McBeth Productions LLC
8705 Colesville Rd.
Suite 249
Silver Spring, MD 20910
USA
Rights:
By Vitaly V. Kuzmin - vitalykuzmin.net/?q=node/635, CC BY-SA 4.0, commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=49061389
References:
ST 7-193, Tank Identification Handbook, 1982
So how long till everyone else figures out IFV versus Tank really isn't a winning proposition? Because journos and politicos think otherwise, and we both know they are wrong, and the result will be a destroyed battalion or two of armored infantry.
I can't believe you and Maj Moran haven't done a collaboration yet, he's a USAR Maj i don't think he's guard, anyway he does lots of videos about tanks and is popular and knows the material he talks about. He's here as "the chieftan"
I would be interested to see a video about the tactics of Cav scouts
Can you please, please (idk what it's called), "pin" this video on your channel homepage so i can link this more easily? I have a feeling I am going to send the link to a lot of people for a looOOOOooong time.
Thanks for the video. Really enjoyed it.
One question: Why are the anti-tank missiles on IFVs not considered a preferred option against a tank? I thought they outranged a tank gun - and they can obviously destroy tanks as seen in the Ukraine war.
"It's difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it." this seems to apply to most social media outrage machines. Keep up the good work, Ryan.
It’s particular true in this case since Michael Tracey was initially trying to imply that the SPG and IFV designations exist purely as some sort of NATO gaslighting psy-ops as part of his half-brained argument against sending military aid to Ukraine, apparently not realizing that the Russians themselves use similar classification schemes internally (after all, BMP is literally just Russian for IFV).
So true!
Social media is pure propaganda... or at least 95% propaganda.
I wasn't surprised that Michael never returned the communication; after all, he's the civilian pro. I was a Navy journalist for 25 of my 26-plus years in the Navy and Naval Reserve and had occasional dealings with "I know it all" civilian counterparts. Just trying to explain what made the Iowa-class battleships "battleships" and destroyers not just smaller "battleships" was frustrating, especially when they went "la-la-la-la-la" and closed their ears. I cringe today when I see social media types and so-called legitimate news people call destroyers and other surface warships "battleships" (little secret, don't tell anyone: there are no more battleships in commission in any navy today). Same problem you have with land vehicles as I had trying to explain about various kinds of warships, especially in the early 1990's when we were bringing home the beautiful Iowas for decommissioning and (thankfully) disposition as museum ships. At least we did this correctly: Not even the Brits kept a modern WWII battleship as a museum; a tragedy as far as I'm concerned. The stunning HMS Vanguard would have made a beautiful museum exhibit (it was actually the last battleship ever commissioned by any navy, just after WWII). I also served a year-and-a-half in Vietnam as a young sailor and became very familiar with tanks, artillery, APCs and other military vehicles. I still cringe when I hear "journalists" describe, on TV or in online videos, "tank convoys" passing by them, and I don't see a single actual tank in that line of vehicles. Sigh....
i gotta agree with you there. AFVID was my bread n Butter. its not so much of know exactly what vehicle that is but my frustrations would be eased if they just did a quick google search. beforehand and could speak somewhat intelligently about the TYPE of vehicles.
my local news and media outlets and CNN a few times even. Spouting "LOCAL SHERIFFS DEPTARTMENT BUYS TANKS" and its a bunch of purpose built BEARCAT armored Trucks
or some Surplus MRAPs even average person i've seen calling 4x4 and 6x6 stewart and stevenson trucks for tanks. like how its clearly a truck. i could somewhat understand confusion if they were uparmored and had a armored machine gun turret on it but what how is this something you can be confused by.
a day that i'll never forget 3rd grade history class is when i knew i wanted to be a tanker or on some AFV with tracks. whenever we were going over some topic and subsequently showed an Image of a M4 sherman with a Dozer blade attached and asked what is this? clearly everyone shouted a bulldozer. and i'm the only one that knew it was a tank. and got called stupid for calling whats clearly a bulldozer a tank. thats what set me on my path all i wanted to do from that point forward do something on a tracked platform. 4 years in the marine corps MK154 MICLIC licenses and my IROC Cert. and i mostly specalized in AAVC7 A1 RAM/RS C2 upgrade or AAVP7's amazing platform
People actually argued the matter? Jesus Christ.
Maybe it's precisely because there are no battleships anymore that people get confused
Will have to look up museum battleships to take the kids to. Really sorry Enterprise never made museum ship status.
Micheal Tracey is a complete fucking re(dacted). How anybody can take anything he says seriously is beyond me.
In fact, the “journalist” he was responding to was even worse about this than the usual low standards; the guy was basically trying to imply that designations like IFV and SPG were some sort of NATO psy-ops designed purely to gaslight the Western public, rather than common classifications used internally by militaries across the world, including the Russians themselves (making this especially funny since Michael Tracey’s whole current schtick on twitter is basically being a useful idiot for Putin).
I love how people will be incredibly ignorant and Ryan kills them with intelligence and kindness
Well Ryan is unfortunatly just wrong here. As the forgets that "Tank" is the over arching word similar to "Car". In his mind MBT = Tank. But that is not the case. There are loads of diffrent tanks other than M1 Abrahams that are a MBT. Tanks that are not MBT are: Sherman, Tiger, T34, and of course the first tank the Mark 1. And similar to Car there are diffrent kinds like Micro, Hatchback, Sedan, SUV, MPV, Convertible, Wagon, etc etc. Same with tanks, MBT is just the most known type in modern times.
@@littlesaints91 🤔 The what forgets?
@@littlesaints91 Thanks for the engagement, though, Michael.
@@littlesaints91 Hello, your list is of obsolescent tanks from the past that would not survive a “modern” battle field or modern MBT so……I say you’re wrong with this assessment of the presentation. I may have missed your point but I am fairly sure you didn’t listen to the entire video before you started typing. ✌️bro…not trying to start a fight, just don’t understand your comment. Please explain why you would take a WWII Tiger against an Abrams on a modern battlefield and the thought process that went into your choice. Or Not…
@@littlesaints91 I agree that the "car-analogy" wasn't that good, but I want to point out your fallacy of what a "MBT" is and what isn't.
Could you elaborate why "Sherman, Tiger, T34," weren't MBTs? Were there other, larger/more heavily equipped "tanks" used by their respective Nations?
I recon those examples of yours were very much the MBTs of their time.
Also, I fail to notice that Ryan only declares "MBTs" to be "tanks". He rather describes what a "tank" is meant to do in a battle.
In the end I rather trust the word of a former military instructor and anti-tank specialist than that of a random YT commenter.
Michael Tracey and commitment to knowledge do not mix.
Thanks Ryan, this should be distributed to journalists and politicians. Thank you for all you do.
I was just about to write that myself. I would spend less time yelling "idiot!" when a face with a mic gets it wrong.
The problem there is people have to actually what KNOWLEDGE and not just be able to complain against things they don't understand. I swear its a total disgrace at how many people wont ever admit to not knowing or close their mind as soon as they have a few facts..... uuugh!
Seriously, I mean that would be tough information to acquire in a punch
I do think he could add a sentence or two with emphasis on the intended role of the vehicles. He kinda' does for IFVs and APCs but for a person not knowing this stuff it may be pretty blurry. E.g. he never mentions (unless I missed it) that artillery guns are designed to fire over an arc instead of directly at an enemy and how they cannot be used to breakthroughs like tanks. He says they should stick away from the frontline but doesn't explain *why* that is.
You kinda' can infer that from the HATS description but only if you already know a basic or two about military action.
Other than that great vid.
I would like to see how his argument holds up using a Camry, a Corvette and a Rolls Royce, the examples used already have a distinct name for a reason, there is a reason the army calls it not a tank, but it's not because it isn't a tank.
It's like a silencer, the army calls it a suppressor, due to that people think they are superior in some way to anybody that calls it a silencer, calling it a suppressor to someone who knows it as a silencer doesn't make you smart because guess what the inventor called it? (hint, it isn't suppressor)
I'm a retired old soldier so you're not telling me much that I don't already know, but I enjoy watching your videos anyway.
Do you remember the playing card style training aids of armored vehicle silhouettes? In a CSC or E Company everybody had a deck.
Ryan must have been an excellent instructor in the military. I’m a civilian no military experience and he explains it so well that I can get it! Bravo!
I like how Ryan McBeth breaks the media stereotype of the veteran. He's not some racist baby-killer who can't think for himself like they want others to think. He's a man of experience and humility; an educated educator, with a penchant for humor that helps students feel at ease and open to learning!
@@martin4374 yeah mate..i wonder if Ryan found any of those WMD`s in Irak
@@HellStr82 totally irrelevant if he did or not
No, not Bravo. Hotel. It's an important distinction.
@@HellStr82 WMDs can mean chemical weapons too, and the Iraqi's most certainly had chemical weapons, just ask the Kurds.
Tracey is insufferable. I just read through the litany of his tweets about this. It's been a while since I've seen anyone THAT salty over being corrected.
the amount of patience expended on Michael Tracey is admirable and also a damn shame...
That “Retired Platoon Sergeant” Halloween costume slide 😂 Informative and entertaining as always, Ryan!
That was a hoot. It should be a recruiting poster.
This reminds me of a reserve training session we had in the early Nineties or such. This time around, I was assigned to our tank battalion's recce platoon as "medical luggage". The guys were a fun bunch of grizzled veterans, and we were riding these vintage Jeep "mutts" fitted with a GPMG at the commander position. We were doing a far and wide reconnaissance training mission, throughout much of the Northern Negev and mostly away from the Ze'elim firing grounds where our tanks were, so one evening we bravely drove into Be'er Sheva City in order to get pizza! Then this sweet Chinese old lady comes up to us and thanks us for parking our "mighty tanks" in front of the joint! Three Willys Jeeps! The guys didn't bother to correct her, and I was just sitting topside on a pair of jerrycans eating pizza and grinning!
What is it with our stories that nationality doesn't matter? There is a common thread throughout whenever veterans get together. One night in the hospital canteen on our meal break I was doing security at, there was a table next to us with five blokes talking in three languages. I said to my partner (ex New Zealand Armoured) they were telling 'warries'. We joined in and had a Russian paratrooper, an Ecuadorean sailor, a Chilean MP and a Greek national serviceman! We nattered on until dawn!
I’m smiling at the idea of a Chinese lady serving Italian food to a bunch of Israeli servicemen.
Now THAT is a cool memory. Thanks.
As a journalist for 40 years I regret that I recognize Mr. Tracey’s type. He’s less journalist than opinion monger. We described such people as “the folks who come down from the mountains after the battle to slit the throats of the wounded.”
Thanks for adding rational thought.
I really think you should add the "Main Battle" in front of your tank - because that's what they are. Historically light tanks are not made to go against MBTs or support direct combat, but to be mobile and pack enough punch to blow to dust everything within the strategic operation depth limit (50-150 km in the rear). That's what AMX-10RC is, and to better achieve it's target (mobility, reparability in the enemy rears) it has wheels instead of tracks and a lower caliber gun. However, it is a light tank for all intents and purposes, and is referred to as such by French military, although the lack of tracks make it not a tank in the NATO classification. Go figure.
A tank needing tracks to be a tank just seems like gatekeeping at this point hahaha
@@tijsp.8162 Kind of the opposite frankly. Tracks are basically required on Main Battle Tanks because they're far better at weight distribution. The Abrams, for example, weighs in excess of 55 tons. You have to strip most of the armor off in order to lower the weight enough to use tires
tru. A Bradley could could take out any WWII Tank. Butt it's not a "tank". Light tanks still exists...and have a purpose and mission. I dont wonder if we see a resurgence of light tanks given that drone technology can easily end all tanks and MBTs are quite expensive.
@@jeffmorris5802 Physics is the meanest mother on any battlefield. I supposed you could in theory put wheels on an Abrams, but the ground pressure would be so high it'd be unable to move on most any surface.
Plus I hesitate to call a HMMWV an "armored car" when the historical armored car would probably look more like the AMX-10 RC, and I would hesitate to call that a "tank destroyer" when it has barely any tank-fighting capacity designed in mind.
Probably the most precise and comprehensive, layman's explanation on armor, I've ever heard.
Should be shared with everyone, who has an opinion on the subject.
To make sure, we all know the basics, and can have and informed conversation.
~15 years of military service.
A few of which, as an instructor.
McBeth, I salute you!
Just when I thought I knew a lot about tanks, there's some guy in his bathrobe giving me a lecture I never knew I needed.
Keep up the amazing work! 💪
Ryan you are an excellent teacher! I was in the First Calvary Division 50+ years ago. A Red Leg. My weapon was a M 16. The rifles have changed and also many of the vehicles. If you know what a Gamma Goat is that was my vehicle.
"You can't cheat chemistry!"
Hadn't expected to hear that one from a tanker/anti-tanker. -- It is a lot of good solid-phase chemistry in armour 👍
...and then come sensors(!), the power plant and explosives too...
Thanks for this video. Knowing the difference is important. A news story about “tanks” rolling into a city has a very different meaning when it’s actually APCs with troops.
I love that the most useful takeaway here is that mini-vans are the most useful vehicles.
I love these informative videos broken down in simple terms without information overload!
The heavily armored part up front is key. All other types of non-tanks are relatively lightly armored, even if they have a heavy gun.
Exactly. Pretty much. Exception for the earliest tank as we were still figuring these things out. But I want so say that even the original ones had more forward armor. So still works
The other key is flat teajectory weapon optimized for direct fire. No matter how much you armour it, an artilerry piece will never be a tank. But I feel like we shoud diferrentiate between tank in modern sense and historical examples, as as late as beginning of WWII vehicles armed with machine guns only like Mk1 Matilda or Panzer I, the secod also having rather abyssmal armor protection that was good really only against small arms fire were considered tanks.
@@mancubwwa Given that every tank built prior to 1935 could be destroyed by a heavy rifle the differences were a bit questionable at that stage.
Not sure how much I agree with that assesment as the Leopard 1 is still a tank even though it was very lightly armored and not meant to survive direct frontal impacts.
A battle tank is defined by duelling capability. Tank Destroyer is a weired category there, because it's more a role than a vehicle class. A Jagdtiger is still a full battletank - turretless, for sure, but who sais, a tank needs a turret ;) It's not a main battle Tank, since it can't fullfill all roles, but a battle tank.
I think, the problem there is, the US doesn't really have battle tanks as tank destroyers in their history. There have been some concepts, but they didn't really go in productions. This leads to a bit narrow definition of tanks.
The Stridsvagn 103, the former Swedish MBT, would blow most of em xD
I saw that article and knew you’d make (or already had) an in-depth about the different combat vehicles. Keep up the great work!
Great video. My grandfather was in the 10th armoured division and it would drive him crazy when reporters would call armoured cars tanks.
Nice video for all those WoT professionals - AFV recognition was and still is a fundamental part of Land Forces. Many different factors by the naked eye vs bino's/optical sights and your ability to engage and survive or just pass on the info to your tango CS. Cheers
Even WoT players know the difference between a tank and a self-propelled gun.
@@classifiedad1 one is acceptable and the other is sky cancer
@@lukeb1663 One is a threat if you see it, the other is an xp piñata with no situational awareness.
Describing M Tracey as a journalist is an absolute affront to the profession.
Ryan I f"cking love ya man, your content is amazing & much appreciated.
One Grandfather fought in the Korean War, the other was in the Air Force & O.S.I. after. Ever since I was a kid watching documentaries about what they did& what some of the guys they both fought with did in "The War" prior to combat in Korea. Always wanted to follow in their footsteps but started having seizures pretty young.
Having such direct resources to rely on when working with politicians, strategies they should take & with somewhat more clarity certain points can/can't be made.
Let alone entertainment value but being able to communicate U.S. Armed Forces terminology/culture. Lotta current & former service member around me. Live with two & married into another military family.
Creatures like yourself, idk if you get enough credit but this rambling man appreciates it a sh!ton
Ryan Mcbeth will always tell it to you like it is. Some folks would love to tell you all sorts of silly stories for the attention or just the Likes. Thank you for being a straight shooter with accurate info or an "I'll look it up for us" attitude!
Awesome job ,Ryan! Your one heck of an instructor! Thanks for your hard work and your service to our nation!
You're a good teacher. This stuff is interesting, but I'm thankful that it's not something I have to know. This is because of all of you who volunteer to serve in the military and keep the rest of us safe. Thanks.
This is fantastic, when I was a kid in the Airforce Cadets here in Australia, we got taught something similar called WETFUS to determine aircraft type and purpose:
Wings
Engine(s)
Tail
Fuselage
Undercarriage
Special features
I imagine the USAF and other countries Airforces have something similar.
Thank you for setting us straight. Long ago I quit relying on media, regular or social.
Glad to see someone with expertise weighing in. All too often we see terminally offended, pretentious mouth-pieces who make claims to intellect and knowledge spouting off a loaf of nonsense, such as the original post you addressed at the beginning of the video. It'd sad to see that these people cannot accept input from someone with expertise in the area discussed but thank you for taking the time and trying to share with as many as possible.
Especially when those mouthpieces are trying to grind a political ax; Tracey was trying to imply that designations like IFV and SPG were some sort of evil Western gaslighting psyops designed to mislead the public into supporting military aid for Ukraine, when actually even the Russians themselves use similar designations internally; he was even trying to argue that the BMP counted as a tank as part of his argument that the Russians would totally consider the Bradley a tank, not realizing that BMP is literally just Russian for IFV.
It's always awesome to see Ryan crush ignorant people with intelligence and facts. But do so while smiling and with a friendly voice. Bravo sir
How is the DoD not sponsoring Ryan's channel at this point??? He should be the DoD spoke person. I've learned so much from watching this channel. I've become less critical of our leadership and military from Ryan's lesson.
I have always had a love for the United States military but I have pure hatred for the government
Good question. I'd say it's because, despite its name, PAO has a very limited public reach. They have good relationships with news agencies etc., but really have a difficult time reaching out to Joe Citizen on his daily youtube meanderings. That's a whole conversation in itself. Ryan's channel is probably a far better distribution method because it reaches a much broader (not to mention international) public audience, and reaches it directly.
In a way I'd argue they did and still do, through the long game. Through his first career they developed him into the man he is today and he's a true believer in the army's/military's existence and culture and now willingly donates his time with these grassroots efforts to explain and educate about the world he used to live in.
@@dereksherwood3794 it’s the same reason their ads aren’t the obvious Michael bay type stuff their target demographic would actually respond to. Corporations have the same problem, just recently multiple big billion dollar video game publishers have done things that have utterly disowned large diehard fan bases on a dime, killing off entire franchises, some quite old and established.
Decision makers being too removed from the field, not understanding what many know to just be obvious seems a problem with hierarchal organizations. Like, don’t try to hire someone to create something from nothing, find someone already doing it on their own like Ryan here, and empower them to do more. But tbh, idk what the answer is to the issue, maybe better training/education for executive management types, military and civilian? How not to be a disconnected doofus.
If they are getting it for free, why should they want to pay?
For someone not a Treadhead, you did a damn decent job of breaking down the explanation. This is from someone who has studied Armored vehicles for some 40 years +. BTW this is armored vehicles from ALL countries.
Thank you Ryan, for yet another well executed presentation! For the military equipment nerds like me, there isn't a better Channel on UA-cam for these types of in depth breakdowns & analysis videos! It's also A fun way to learn for those that aren't educated on these types of systems/vehicles/equipment!
Military technology is some of the most interesting stuff mostly just because it has so much money being poured into these types of R&D insane what you can do with that
Excellent presentation Sargeant. Enough information to give the average person an idea of what the reason for the difference is between the vehicles. Just enough, but not too much. Excellence job!
Well done, you explained it far quicker than I did when I was an instructor, I went by what else is around and where to expect the different types. My joke was that if I'm running away from it, it's a tank, if I'm going towards it lining up a shot with my 80mm LAW it's something else, take a closer look ;-) and wait for the fireworks. It is and isn't a joke, I don't have a deathwish so MBT's give me the heebie jeebies, APC's etc I'm not worried about. I was LRP/Recon, light gear, on foot, MBT's are somebody elses problem, not mine, I mark, radio in, GTFO.
I hate war and weapons. I love knowing things. I really enjoy the way you teach, and I appreciate being better informed about things I dislike.
It's extremely generous of you to call Micheal Tracy a journalist.
I've found that you can teach the difference between a tank, an APC and a mobile Howitzer to an 88 IQ 9th-grade educated recruit in about an hour, but for an Ivy League educated Journalist, it's just not possible for them to learn that.
You can't be corrected when you already know you're "right"!
The Tank Destroyer is still difficult - but mostly, because of US Doctrin. While the US mostly had Tank Destroyers, that were not Battle Tanks, for example the Jagdtiger was for sure a battle tank. Tank Destroyer is more like a role, a specialization of combat.
In Germany at least, we define a battle tank (all of these are tanks, but not all are battle tanks) by a simple question:
Does it have duelling capability.
And there we are at the tank destroyers: Some do, some don't. They aren't Main Battle Tanks, though. Okay.... The Swedish Stridsvagn 103 makes even this line blur =D
Trackey has always been a hack.
@@bugfisch7012 If nothing else, you must love the 103 for the confusion it is still creating. It was designed in a time when no main battle tank could fire while moving, and it was designed for a slow fighting retreat, ensuring as much losses as possible to the USSR B-team (their best tanks of the period would be caught up in Central Europe). Sure it could counter attack as well, but it was never good at moving, stopping, aiming and firing rapidly.
@@57thorns I actually do love it ;)
And yeah, it's main purpose is delaying - but this is a doctrin, a lot of European Armies are following. And one, that lead the Ukrains to their first Victory in Kiew.
You're right though, that it lacked offense capabilities, but it still was a legit MBT - when you look at the earlier T-Tanks, you have the exact opposite, a tank, that pretty much lacks defense capabilities, because it basicly can not move backwards =D
I responded to Tracy‘s Twitter and asked, „If you don’t care about something enough to learn about it, why are you reporting on it?“
This video was really informative! I'm a huge military nerd, so this information is really interesting. My great uncle served as an intelligence analyst at the pentagon so he got to hear about things and couldn't share with the family. He told us on his deathbed that he helped prepare the US for operations desert storm and desert blade by looking at satellite images of Kuwait and Iraq and would send them to his supervisor on what he found. If you want to see a really good milsim game, check out squad.
I also wanted to join the navy, but due to my epilepsy, I do not qualify for the medical standards of the US military
What grinds my gears is that journalists who write for newspapers insist on calling every military vehicle with a turret a 'tank'.
Each video is better then the last.
Wonderful Job Ryan!!!
Solid teaching techniques with great teaching demeanor, just what public education needs...
Thanks for the Tanks, I needed this video. When the military throws all their acronyms with so many types of a similar purpose and appearance for each type of armor hardware, it can be difficult. The turret to gun size ratios , and the purpose of each vehicle was very helpful. Thanks Ryan, glad you're one of the good guys!
Me again McBetty. SFC DeVos here, a fellow 11H TOW Master Gunner, I served from 1983-2009. Our unit deployed to asskrack (Iraq) in May 2003 and there was 16 NCO’s in the Bn were Gulf War Grunts so the skills the Vietnam Veterans taught us hadn’t quite reached the average Joe in the squad which amazed me. At our “2 minute drill” at Hohenfels I ran the AT4 range and taught the men and especially the junior NCO’s how to do a volley fire engagement when needed and we poked a lot of holes in some innocent M-561 Gama Goats (of which none of these kids would know what the hell I’m talking about…lucky them). So after things settled down in Iraq we transitioned into an occupation force and repairing the infrastructure as soon as we could.
So within 60 days of having manned checkpoints and tracked armored vehicles, we started getting RPG attacks periodically. And for an Infantry and Armor Task Force, the last thing you want on a checkpoint is either an M113 or an M109SP gun. After two M109’s were hit and a couple Soldiers were killed I got upset at our Command for sticking Artillerymen on checkpoint duty and not having a “screening line” to keep civilians away from the vehicle, they were just asking to be shot! My 1SG agreed and spoke with higher that it was negligent to use 109’s for this task especially when their leadership doesn’t have the training or experience in dealing with front line situations. They had our Grunts guarding the destroyed nuclear reactor near Al Rashid (which is where we were posted at a few weeks in after arriving at Cross Sabers in May 19 2003. Then when they were hit again because by now the enemy knew they were a soft target, the command in their wisdom pulled them off and put in a Brad with a full crew and squad to manage the site and things calmed down. I went to the Artillery company in our task force and did all I could to relive their stress, I got them a few A/C units and a generator to run them, that unit of good men were shaken up and all the Senior NCO’s were pissed off. As most Grunts damn well know, our Artillerymen save our asses almost hourly when we’re in tough situations and to waste them like that was criminal. You can read more about Task Force 2-6, 2nd Bde, 1st Armor Division in the book; Assassins Gate. Yes, Charlie Company 2-6 INF ran Assassins Gate at one of the Green Zone entrances when it was hit with the VBIED. CPT Prior was my CO, I was the S-3 NCOIC at the time, it was a job I’m glad I was there for but I’ll never do it again, way too much stress for one man.
Thanks McBeth
B Co 1-86th INF,
E Co. 1-7 INF, 3rd ID
D co. 2/502, 101st ABN
B, HHC 2-6 INF, 1st AD
I really loved this video! I'm kind of a military hardware nerd, but i've always had problem when mates start to ask me about stuff on how to explain the difference. This video was spot on and really perfect for people who don't see/know the difference. Brilliant video and love the fact that you included the slideshow in the info.
Thanks alot and keep up the good work!
Greetings from Los Angeles, California, Ryan!! I started watching your videos back in April of last year 2022, when you started making videos on the war in Ukraine. Love your video presentations and sense of humor!!
Thank you for this Ryan! You're an excellent instructor. You're soldiers were lucky to be in your class.
Great lesson! I can’t decide which is making me more jealous, t- shirt, your bike, or your watch.
Well, you can but the t-shirt.
@@RyanMcBethProgramming efforting the T- shirt.( I am the “ recovering from a stroke” guy. I gotta convince my wife!
thank you Ryan for being that guy that teaches us stuff
You rock Ryan! Simple explanations with just enough sarcasm to make me smile. I like your style.
I feel like this is good training for MPs and SECFOR. I often see them at the main gate on post checking I.D.s and squinting at every vehicle, trying to determine if it’s a POV or a tank: (“not a tank! Oh thank God!) “ Have a good day, sir and or ma’am. Drive safely”
😂
Thanks for the explanation.
In German, it's even more complicated or less so. It depends on your viewing angle.
A Panzer (tank) would usually refer to a (Haupt-)Kampfpanzer (MBT)
but all other armored vehicles can use the term as well.
To differentiate them, you need to use their respective pre- or suffixes.
So there are Schützenpanzer (IFVs), Transportpanzer (APCs), Panzerwagen (armored cars), Panzerhaubitzen (SPGs) and last but not least FlaK-Panzer (SPAAGs).
You know what's funny is that every once in a while you meet a guy in the US Army who appreciates the Wehrmacht and the Panzer Corps a little too much. There's always two of them and they always end up in the same platoon and they have endless arguments that the Tiger III PanzerVoogenVeegan was better than the Panther II PanzerFleegenFlagen because of the two extra bolts on the VeebenSlitzen.
Those people remind me of little kids who are obsessed with dinosaurs and know all of their scientific names.
@@RyanMcBethProgramming Sounds like my 13-year-old self 😂
@@RyanMcBethProgramming What are you talking about? This guy just pointed out that others disagree with your terminology
Nothing new for me but wanted to see how well you explained it, and you did well. With the current conflict going on see frequently see people calling BMP's as tanks which annoys me as they are not, they are IFV's. There has been alot of units being miss-identified.
Good teachers are great, and being one incredibly rewarding. One thing I have heard and fully believe in is that you only really know something once you can explain and teach it to someone else (especially areas of nuance).
(Edit: Good teachers are also people who value and are good at learning, which the person from the beginning showed they are not.)
Thanks for the course
Went to military school in the late 50"s were a Korean Style Anti-Tank Battalion; luckily I was an Armorer Nco and got to play with lots of guns. Really like your anti tank prospective.
Thanks for the info! Had to watch it a couple of times. Very informative.
You forgot that some people just don't care and want to make things up.
Ryan, you're awesome; thanks for sharing your talents, your passion, and teaching us all out here in the wider world; the forces should hire you back and get you on payroll again for all you're doing.
Great video, earned another subscriber!
8:37 Haven't seen anyone mention this, but Muzzle Brake was misspelled as Break by mistake I think. Tiny error but, seems worth mentioning.
I will likely never, as a stay at home programmer, need to identify an armored vehicle from visual cues. And yet, strangely, knowing a bit about it is very satisfying!
Great video. Thanks. I was an M1A1 Abrams crewman in the Army, and I'm constantly having to tell family and friends who point and say "Ooh! A tank!" that whatever is it, it's not a tank. I got so good at tank recognition when I was in, that when I got my sergeant's stripes, I was appointed my company's vehicle recognition NCO.
Great video Ryan--definitely took me back to my AFV recognition days, just without the yelling and swearing :)
It’s funny how the name “tank” was used by the British to trick everyone to think it wasn’t an armored vehicle, while the German called them “panzerkampfwagen” i.e. armored battle wagon/vehicle. We in Sweden calls them “pansarstridsvagn” or “stridsvagn” or “pensar” for short. It translate to the German name and that’s no coincidence I guess as a German company did work together with a Swedish company to build tanks in Sweden before WWII as Germany wasn’t allowed to do that after WWI. Sweden built a turret less MBT in the 60’s during the Cold War and it could in a pinch by operated by one man. It went obsolete when the stabilized guns where introduced thou.
Armor Id was the toughest part of my basic assaultman training. They give you grainy photos of a basic outline and expect you to identify it. It's really tempting to look at friendly vehicles and consider everything else an enemy vehicle. The war in Ukraine makes identification so much more difficult. Similar and same models fighting on either side. I'm surprised we don't hear much about friendly fire. Same goes for air support.
Sunk up to its drive axles in mud, it must be Russian. I don't think there have been many engagements where both sides are mobile at the same time.
Thats why the Russians paints letters in the vehicles and Ukrainians paints crosses in their vehicles alongside wearing bright colored armband
As a current MN guard member these videos are great. Thanks for the lesson for something outside my MOS.
Excellent video and taught a lot in a short amount of time. One thing I would’ve liked to see are some examples for each type of vehicle from various countries. For instance, I did not know if a Russian BTR would be an APC or IFV until I looked it up and saw some pictures.
Technically they are APC's some more modern versions like the BTR-82AM and BTR-4 for Russian and Ukrainian respectfully are still APC's but have weapons that would have them fall into the IFV category as they have a 30mm autocannon and may also come equipped with dual Kornet missiles attached to the remote turret in the case of the BTR-82AM. Then you have things like the BTR-D that is completely different besides sharing a simlair name i.e tracked and is air dropable typically used by the VDV they are very small and have a strange way in carring troops in that they have to climb up and out of the back.
BTR is almost always an APC
BMP is always an IFV
BMD is an air-droppable IFV
@@p_serdiuk The BTR-80 and up are for sure IFVs, that's when the 30 mm autocannon plus the stay in and fight capacity of an IFV were introduced if I'm right
But yeah, BTR roughly translates to APC if taken literally
You're a great teacher because you explain the information well, and provide appropriate anecdotes from your personal experience.
Fantastic explanatory intro of a moderately technical subject. I agree that your intense but conversational approach to group instruction is way better than the old formal stick-to-the-script stick-up-the-ass Benning Infantry School methods. Big BUT: you gotta know your subject matter cold.
Thank you for taking the time to explain this as could identify an MBT an IFV and self propelled arty's, but was less clear on the tank destroyers and other wheeled glass cannons.
I know military does this so they understand what they are talking about, but speaking english as 2nd language, it also got me confused in the beginning.
I think it stems from the fact that tank was a WWI codename to confuse the Germans, and now similar things are named very differently.
In German, we have the word Panzer (translated tank, or literally armour).
So there is Kampfpanzer (literaly battle armour, means main battle tank), Flugabwehrpanzer (air defense tank), Schützenpanzer (rilfeman armour, means IFV), and so on and so forth.
I think the German naming system makes so much more sense, and would lead to more clarity.
Of course, if people pay 0 attention to all this, they still get confused.
I think it’s one of those things where everyone translates “panzer” as “tank” even though you guys actually use it more to mean “armored vehicle”. It would be convenient if “tank” had become that kind of shorthand, but the American and Soviet militaries both ended up only classifying MBTs as tanks, and much of the world followed the same lines.
You are a hell of a instructor. Congratulations.
OR7 PT ART Army
I hope your channel keeps growing and I hope your branding allows you to keep making this content so long as you enjoy it :)
Thanks Ryan, this is a very helpful video. I sent it to my wife and she loved it, although she knows virtually nothing about armoured vehicles or tanks. Keep up the great work!
Thank you for this. It drives me insane when every news outlet calls anything with tracks a tank.
There is also the definition from the 1991 disarmament treaty between NATO and the Warshaw pact. That is one of the most important documents for Europe in modern times.
It describes how each side are only allowed a certain number of equipment in each group. This treaty describes a tank as:
A vehicle of at least 16.5 tonns, with a 360 degrees rotating turret with a main gun of at least 75mm, tracked or on wheels.
Vehicles fitting this description is a main battle tank. This allows for smaller vehicles defined as tanks, but the reason is that the countries involved should not make all kinds of slightly smaller vehicles than a "traditional tracked tank" to secretly build up fighting capabilities.
I fucking love the S-tank.............which gets a lot of crap. That thing just seems fucking amazing TO ME. I honestly hate that a experienced crew never got to show what it could do. (because I will never know either) Man it looks cool though. (Edit: I'm not saying it's great by any stretch, for what it was designed to do I think it could have always been useful. They designed it to basically terraform it's own defense positions. I don't know of another tank designed with that purpose.) Let alone the various other neat little oddities it had. It's a weird one........I think the thought process behind it shouldn't be forgotten, because I think it will be used again some day. A tank that can stroll in and basically create it's own camo. (type of thing) Sitting and waiting, shit hits the fan you get out........in reverse. Something about that is hilarious and amazing and has a ton of potential.) (I think)
Up until Ukraine I never thought it was all that special.......but in landscape that isn't desert, I can see all sorts of possible uses.
The only way the S-tank concept could make a comeback would be as an amphibious ground combat drone.
Or mine clearing drone.
@@SonsOfLorgar see the RipSaw , one of its many variants was designed for that
That is not exactly correct. It was not designed for defense more any other tank and it was counterattack which was its primary purpose. If you look at the field manual for it and the Centurion that was in service at the same time it was identical. The only difference in the manual is practical differences like how you designate and fire on a target, the autoloader, not the hull-fixed guns are the main difference.
If you look at Swedish armor units there were not a lot of them and they were intended to use their mobility for counterattacks. There was 7 armored brigade and 1a armored battalion when strv 103 (S-Tank) was introduced and all armored bridged are in the southern 1/4 where what was expected was Warsawa pack amphibious landing. The primary intention of the armored units was to counterattack and hopefully eliminate them.
A turretless designs hand the advantage of a smaller tank that could use extremely inclined armor efficiency. You can have a fixed autoloader to the fixed guns that could have a longer barrel and very good penetration and accuracy.
The main drawback of not having a current is that you can fire on the move, with the technology of the late 1950s when it was developed it was in practice something that was not that efficient, the expected that is would not improve a lot over time. That assumption was a mistake and with added electronic systems you get the ability to fire with high accuracy on the move in the 1970s which make the turretless design obsolete.
The amount scheme with thin by very inclined armor was a good idea against the projectiles that existed when it was designed. But it is quite bad against long dart penetrators that later emerge.
There is US test against the M60A1E3, tanks in the 1970s where both had advantages and disadvantages strv 103 was more accurate than M60A1E3 but fired on average 0.5s slower. The British tested it back then too against the Chieftain tanka and the repost stated "It has not been possible to prove any disadvantage in the "S" inability to fire on the move." A test in the 1980s again the M1 and Challenger 1 would have been quite different.
You look at the tanks and see the dozer blade that could be used to dig a fighting position and assume that digging a defective position was a hit priority so designed for defense. The problem is it the upgrade to strv 103C that started in 1986 that added it to all tanks. Originally they had one tank per platoon with blades.
So Strv103 is designed to do everything other MBTs. The lack of a turret but hydraulic control made it a design that worked fine for a short period of time but the development of gun stabilization and the ammunition we have today made the design a dead end. Do not use it for a modern vehicle.
I immensely enjoyed the video, Ryan. I think you are a teacher at heart. But honestly, you emailing the guy who made that tweet, was just casting pearls before swine, man.
My favourite thing about Michael Tracy's definition of a tank is that it also defines an interwar arctic modified aircraft as a tank. A M3 Halftrack, and a Viking transport vehicle are also tanks according to Tracy. Oh, because a train runs on tracks, if the engineer has a pistol, that too, is a tank, apparently.
There's nothing I treasure more than a person with a lot of complicated life experience who can break things down so a Normie can comprehend. Fucken love you, m8. Keep truckin'
Could you compare the Bradley and Stryker IFVs? With both going to Ukraine, I’d like to understand the differences and different strategies for using them. Thanks!
Honestly agreed
My understanding is that Bradley's are better on the front than Strykers but aren't quite as good for urban environments. Brad's have more survivability but are alot noisier. Beyond that I don't know
The Stryker is generally considered an APC because it doesn't have a particularly impressive armament, generally sporting an M2 Browning machine gun in 12.7mm. With typical rounds, it pierces about 15mm of steel at 500-1000m. 12.7mm rounds are rarely explosive, so they deal damage by either punching holes, either setting stuff on fire with a few grams of incendiary filler, or cause spalling after penetrating an obstacle such as a brick wall. It's basically fine for engaging infantry, lightly armored APCs, a fair amount of ground targets such as brick or concrete or sandbag walls, and defend against airborne threats such as helicopters that come too close. It's more dubious when it comes to penetrating breastworks to engage infantry sitting in trenches, as that may mean piercing meters of dirt potentially.
The Bradley on the other hand has a 25mm autocannon, whose armor-piercing rounds will penetrate multiples of that (60-100mm of steel probably), and the high explosive rounds has a lethal radius against infantry of about 3m IIRC. These rounds can deal with pretty much anything encountered in an urban environment , as you need more than 50cm of reinforced concrete to be protected against them, and will shred enemy BMPs, most buildings and choppers that come too close. Its TOW anti-tank missiles have a very good chance of penetrating any tank on the planet, though they may be evaded as they take 20 seconds to reach their maximum range.
The armor is different ; the Stryker is protected against 14.5mm all around, while the Bradley in the A2 and later variants is protected against 30mm rounds and some RPGs. 14.5mm is the heaviest caliber for Soviet heavy machine guns, such as the KPVT found on the BTR-70 APC, while 30mm is the caliber of the autocannon on the BMP-2 IFV. Depending on the exact Stryker variant, it may be better protected against mines, as it may have a V-hull and has a larger ground clearance.
For the strategic mobility, i.e. deploying from the U.S. to Ukraine, the Stryker is superior, as it's lighter and consumes less fuel than the Bradley, so you need less C-17's to deploy a brigade of Strykers for example. For the tactical mobility, i.e. on the battlefield, the Stryker's only advantage is that it moves faster on roads ; the Bradley is better offroad or in muddy conditions. Moving offroad gives a better chance of avoiding mines for example.
Though I doubt it will happen, if the Ukrainians were to receive the M109A7 self-propelled howitzer, an advantage of the Bradley is both share common chassis components such as the engine, transmission and tracks, making maintenance and repairs easier. It will most likely be some M109A6s.
Stryker strikes me (see what i did there) more as an APC than an IFV, as even if it may have a CROWS on top, it still is very much limited in terms of the firepower it can bring, it reminds me more so of the stories of the M113 APC being used as an IFV in vietnam.
The context is the Abrams and Bradley are cold war designs designed to directly fight against a Soviet offensive at the Fulda gap. The Stryker is a post cold war 1999 design that is lighter, faster, quieter, and more maneuverable for more insurgency and urban type situations. Stryker is more of a wheeled APC compared to the tracked IFV the Bradley is.
.... this video taught me what suspension means in a vehicle context.
Basically, it's the wheels/tracks/whatever and everything that connects those interfaces with thr ground to the rest of the vehicle.
So obviously, the hull, engine, etc. are separate.
5:24 I immediately got "the missile knows where it is" vibes.
Love the content man. Hello from the old country, 🇮🇪
0:34 Michael Tracey: "roving journalist, friend to all dogs". That makes me respect you even more!!!!
0:59 He's a journalist. Being a friend to all dogs is his purpose in life, not being dedicated to knowledge.
When I was in the CAF, I had a very simplistic analysis: there's a group of things called "tanks", then there's a much larger group of things called "weapons designed to kill tanks". That was good enough for me.
I responded to Tracy's comment, which is really stupid, on Twitter and he responded back, saying "I still think it's a tank". I gave him roughly the same list of tank attributes. I explained that the Bradley's 25mm gun doesn't compare to 105-125mm tank cannons. Some people just can't deal with military topics.
Servicing these targets has got to be the best euphemism I've heard in a long time.
Tank:
Can take hits.
Can hold aggro.
Can be healed.
Can deal damage non-stop to re-apply aggro.
Very good presentation! This old Marine learned a few basics about the modern stuff! ... Subscribed!
In my time (late 1960's to early 1970's) we still had a lot of equipent that was designed & used for WW-II and Korea.
"A block of instruction." That takes me back. Thanks for the vid.
Yes, to know why things are the way they are gives the profound ability to do the things that need to be done , and act the way needs to be acted.
Thank you for instructing us and make me feel a bit like the new rookie soldier on his first day. It is a pleasure to watch your videos unrelated to the topic just keep the passion for what you teach!
Great class. Think I would have enjoyed classes by you when I was in the Army.
He’s really good at explaining stuff and has a really cool vibe to him
Hey man, as a life long civilian I appreciate your videos and your instruction learning about stuff that is well outside my wheelhouse. Thank you.
What a stud this guy is. Thank you for your informative videos Mr. Mcbeth.
Using this video to teach my ArmA 3 players how to identify armored vehicles, thanks for doing this Ryan!