Russian tanks may be low profile but when their turret goes flying, no tank in existence can match its height & distance. Russian engineering at its finest.
Russian tanks have two big disadvantages: they only have a backward movement of 5 kilometers per hour(They don't stand a chance in case of an ambush), and the shells are located under the crew in the tank turret, which does not give the crew a chance to survive in case of a shell detonation.
@@PrismTheKiwii I’m unconvinced. Basically any penetration is a bad day. And I just don’t see the slow reverse as critical. I think Russian designs ARE less effective, just not that those are the two biggys.
Any tank is finished, and its crew, if it breaks through. no matter what, cumulative, sub-caliber scrap, land mine ... the crew dies, either from fragments of the armor itself, or from overpressure. and whether the ammunition explodes or not, who cares about that? the enemy will not get trophies;)
However, in the conditions of Europe, Russian constructions are better than huge western boxes visible from many kilometers! PS Pay attention to the new USA design, Abrams X ... did the designers notice something? ;)
The size of the tank makes no difference in todays world. The U.S. has 9300 M1 tanks of different variants. I seriously doubt the Russians have 20,000 tanks ever, but now likely less than 10,000. A tank is just a tool that is totally dependent on the skill of the crew and the tactics used. The Russians are doing so poorly in Ukraine that is laughable to compare to NATO type tanks and tactics.
@@Jungle_Studio USSR was more then 10 countries combined, Kazahstan alone is 2/3 of Russian size in population... 90% of Russian 20,000 tanks were build in Soviet time which is over 40 years ago and I am 100% sure the Russian generals aren't being honest about the real numbers of actual working combat vehicles, Otherwise no reason for a such a rich in resources country as Russia not to stomp Ukraine with over 15,000 tanks from all fronts and finish the war quickly.
They may have had 20k tanks but nobody said which variant. Apparently they are now pulling out T-54 / T-55 variants from storage, so arguably 20k could include IS-3 and T-34 tanks from WW2.
We've already seen American M1A1 Abrams tanks taking on Russian T-72 tanks in the 1990's Iraq war - on offense.. The American tanks obliterated the Russian/Iraqi tanks. The Abrams guns outranged the T-72's guns, and those few Abrams tanks that were hit by a T-72 shrugged it off. And the M1A2 variants are much better than the M1A1's.There's basically no comparison; American tanks are far superior to Russian tanks, and other modern Western tanks (Challenger, LeClerc, etc.) are also much better than Russian tanks. History and current events in Ukraine show that to be true beyond doubt. To put it succinctly, there is nothing in this video that is correct.
T72 in that conflict were export versions. Incomparable. But yes Abrams is much better tank and much more expensive too. It all comes down to infantry support and air superiority anyways.
@@jiripekny3905 🙄 If you say so. I've heard the "export version" excuse time and time again. It's nonsense. Events in Ukraine have proven beyond any doubt that even the Russian versions of the T-72 are junk. If Iraq had fielded the Russian versions, the outcome would have been the same. Russia's newer tanks aren't much better. But it's good that you at least acknowledge that the Abrams is much better.
@@linsen8890 If its such a junk why do ukraine use it with such success? Its not excuse. The turret was handcranked there was sight like in WW2 tanks, downgraded armor. Crews of those tanks were absolute idiots. T72 is very good tank for its cost and is an effective weapon in good hands. People like you look at gun penetration, combat history. But you dont see the real deal, its not as heavy as western tanks so it can traverse most bridges. It can be repaired in the field with simple tools. And offers very good protection against most weapons used even today. I know its easy to look up some videos where javelin hits t72 and turret goes into the air. But the same would happend to any western tanks. I think people underestimate soviet era tanks. Remember that soviets were leading in tank design until late 80s. Not only tanks design, but APFSDS was also created in USSR. The tank usefulness comes down to intel, support from air and from infantry. There is nothing like useless or bad MBT. Its their operators.
Shred is an overstatement. From the side their guns can pen tanks, but from the front you will need to target tracks, the gun, or optics. At best you will get a mobility or mission kill, but not destruction. Outside of that their missile launchers will work well, but not more so than the missile launchers ukraine already operates. Bradleys will do well and be a welcome addition, but won't do anything that much better than Ukraine currently does with their launchers and tanks.
@@worfkiller wow! first of all i am not a yank, second, without the USA's help we would all be speraking german..yes they fuck up from time to time but they are not the russians..
Even the most "modern"(had me laughing there) ruzzian tanks use 2nd gen western technology and electronics. Stuff that was retired from service in western Tanks in 2009 and is freely available even for civilians.Then comes stuff like cheap inprecise turret rotation and joystick input,followed by 2-3 times the reloading time than a skilled western crew,inferior ammo etc etc.... list the of things that make western tanks superior goes on and on and on.
That is not the peculiarity of the tanks of the Warsaw Pact, since that is what the Leopards did in Syria. This is not true for the crew either, since in most cases the explosion of the ammunition is not an immediate event.
Putin is offering a bonus for people who volunteer for tank crew, the catch is you have to be in a Russian tank for six whole months. No word yet if anyone has collected a bonus.
They are not really equivalent. Their design philosophies are very different, between western and eastern MBT's. Western designs have usually better electronics and optics but complicated to maintain, while eastern designs are more compact and easier to repair and maintain.
They’re over-emphasizing their mission differences. The real theoretical difference is doctrine, or HOW they go about their mission, not WHAT their missions actually are. And practically the difference is even less. They’re offensive weapons. Maybe that wouldn’t be so if we were still forted up in the Fulda Gap, but we aren’t. I’ll say one thing, Western designs are an order of magnitude more comfortable to ride in!
Yeah numbers is what nato shittheads lacking. so thats why they stick to proxy war idiology.. If you still remember the old saying two heads are better than one.. So ithink number games still exist on war. Remember theres no superior tanks ever built yet. So end your stupidity . Conscript still has gun .. Western tanks built for profit. While russian tanks built for real war and invasion. Did you get the defference? Dont compare western tanks with russian tanks western tanks never been proven in real war western tanks design only for tiktok and instagram.
Russian tanks compared to nato tanks have: worse stabilizers, worse suspension, worse thermals, worse gun handling, worse reverse, more difficult maintenance, worse crew safety, worse frontal armor, worse visibility, and more. Only things they are better at is being smaller, having better side armor, and better space and fuel efficiency.
They are lighter (quite handy) and there (were) a lot more of them, which i think is something NATO (not the US) is having to think about. Ukraine war is showing you need to have a lot of equipment to fight a war. Ukraine was actually uniquely well equipped to fight Russia, against any other individual NATO country (US apart) they would have won by now.
Ukraine has perfect terrain for tank vs tank warfare, but ultimately until we see 10 T-90 variants or T-14's vs 10 M1A2's go head to head, we'll never know, personally I wish both sides would just pick an open field line up a 10 v 10 tank battle, last standing tank wins.
The US Army has the National Training Center (NTC) where they do force-on-force combat training. The OPFOR uses some Soviet tanks or US tanks modified to look like Soviets. The American tank training system uses tank tables to train gunnery skills. In WW2 a German tank crew might kill 5 Soviet tanks before they were killed. Which the Germans attributed to their training. The Soviets had huge machine shop trucks that hosed the dead crews out, repaired the tanks, and put them back in the fight with untrained Soldiers. Which is what the Israelis did as well against Soviet tanks (in terms of rapidly salvaging tanks). In the Battle of the Bulge the German King Tigers were the superior tanks, but they ran out of gas, and crews walked home. Gen Gorman did a Fulda Gap analysis of a Soviet attack…. US tanks would get 2 shots off before they were killed (Soviet doctrine was a high speed massed attack). Which led to DARPA developing the Assault Breaker weapon system. In short, the ‘best’ tank doesn’t necessarily win. Afterall the Ukraine Army is killing multi-million dollar Soviet tanks with one drone dropped ‘grenade.’
The crew and strategies can make a huge difference a single tank if part of a strategic group of infantry and other vehicles can make a difference so I'd say that part is just as if not more important
20 000 Russian tanks where most of them are post world war 2. From what we have seen in Ukraine, Russian armed vehicles in general have not scared anyone at all. 3300 of the Russian tanks have been destroyed / lost in Ukraine so far. Then you can withdraw all the tanks that are unusable due to poor maintenance from decades in storage. The great red army are not so great anymore.
yes. because nato tanks was outdated when designed. because have no autoloader. what make them biger because need a space for a loader guy. and that make it less armored and more heavy.
@@makoado6010 Except the french Leclerc and Japan's Type 10 (I still think that the Leclerc is one of the best on the battlefield even considering his age.)
The video stated US Tanks don't prioritize armor more then the Russians... What in the world are they talking about... The US tanks use depleted uranium armor...
The Only advantage of soviet / Russian designs is cost per tank That’s it. Western tanks, especially the latest variants (and even more so when talking about non export models) are considerably better by every measure than even the latest of Russian tanks. And no, the design scope for the Abrams (or US armour doctrine in general) was not as a “defensive” tank. 🙄 Silly video
Because so far (almost) only Russian armor technology has been used in this conflict. Soon tank turrets from the Leopard, Abrams and Challanger will also "learn to fly". - Bets ?
@@michel8549 Nobody lost this absurd amount of tanks for over 70 years now in such a short time frame, Most countries would've fired it's generals and remove the president from office (Rightfully) for such massive failures. But for poor Ivan it's okay, He and his ancestors licked the Tsars ass in any occasion, Some stuff ain't changing.
Western tanks will eventually have to be all autoloaders as well. 1200MM is the maximum a manual loader can wield, anything larger has to be done by mechanical advantage. (Germany's new tank for example with it's 130MM)
Western tanks also have better fire control systems, so they can detect and hit their targets Better than Russian tanks. On battlefields, hundreds of Russian tanks have been destroyed, where as a few tens of Western tanks have been destroyed. So it is obvious, Western tanks are better.
Need to find something to shoot at and be accurate. The technology of battlefield communications on the US tanks and tank support team would easily win.
I don't think either tank was particularly designed for offense or defense. That's why they are main battle tanks. If the Abrams was supposed to have been designed for defense, then why does it use a high-torque gas turbine engine, and why was so much emphasis put on speed and maneuverability? They were both designed to do everything main battle tanks are supposed to do, and this includes armored assaults.
It is all in the training and moral of the crew, a determined and well trained crew with a good strategy and leadership will smash a crew that just wants to go home and has been thrown into the fray before they are ready.
It is a complex equation. German WW2 tanks were better than Soviet tanks. But Germany couldn’t provide fuel and logistics support over the huge Russian distances. German training was better. The Soviet WW2 investment strategy was to build thousands of mortars. Kill the Infantry and tanks are vulnerable.
Russian tanks can't fire and move, don't have thermal imaging, don't appear to have working reactive armor, don't have a targeting computer, and the autoloader tosses the turret into orbit, which is one reason why the West doesn't use them. It doesn't matter how well a crew is trained, tank for tank; western tanks have taken out Russian tanks 100 to one in every conflict where Western and Russian tanks have met.
@@StrawHat83 I’m not volunteering to stand in front of a T90. All tanks are vulnerable if improperly employed. The Soviet preference for auto loading means all the ammo is stored inside the turret so a turret hit is catastrophic. The lack of combined arms tactics and doctrine makes any tank vulnerable. And corruption is a challenge….. reactive armor plates with rubber inserts and no explosives suggests there are issues. Cheers.
There are mistakes here at 0:48 and 3:02 , the tanks are wrong. You first showed a Challenger 2 as an `American` tank (even though its British) then said how USA only have 5800 when its around 6600. Then the M60 Patton you showed -THATS AMERICAN. Not Russian/soviet. Moreover, Russia has 12,000 give or take. The 20,000 is still cited now by some sources, but thats like 2018 data. When the war started even, most outlets agreed/concurred - Russia has 12k tanks.
I don't understand the point of this video. Russian tanks are clearly less capable than Western tanks, and have been for decades. 1. Western tanks use gun depression when advancing by moving up to the top of slopes and firing down on any enemies in range without exposing their hulls. 2. Western tanks prioritise protection, which is why they are so much heavier than Russian tanks. Claiming that Russian tanks are better protected is utter bullshit. 3. Western tanks store ammunition behind armoured doors, Russian tanks in a carousel under the turret. NATO 120mm guns are at least as good as any Russian gun, but more importantly, Western tanks are equipped with much better sighting equipment. The claim that Russian tanks are "better at offensive" operations is simply ludicrous. BTW, that 4th crewmember is an invaluable part of the crew. Finally, you include the frigging Armata as though it's a real tank! It's laughable that you think Russian tanks are somehow better than more modern Western tanks despite all evidence to the contrary.
4:36 nope! Bigger guns doesnt mean better perforation. Its the length and mass of a projectile. The longer and denser the projectile is the better it performs
I'd say they're more reliable, considering the amount of spare parts that exist and more maneuverable, considering they're much smaller and lighter than Western tanks. They have problems with crew survivability, mostly because of the autoloading system, and are generally less technology advanced. Western tanks use better technology and are generally faster. But of course, being more advanced means they're more complicated and require higher mentenace. Both tanks are made for different doctrines, and both have their ups and downs.
This is not taking any of the newly learned lessons into account. The Russians use the same old and underpowered engine for every tank they have. They can't even reverse quickly. Then there is the battlefield overview, sights and usability. Russian lack the proper sights. And then there is the fact that Russian crews die because the turret just blows off.
From what I read the T-14 Armata uses a new engine. While the new engine on paper has more power it is based on a Russian engine optimized on fuel pumping which in turn was based on an old Nazi engine which had massive reliability issues. That and I think having tanks that are actually maintained, crews that are properly trained, and a general lack of corruption helps Western tanks out perform Russian ones. On paper the T-14 is a beast of a tank... again on paper and what they are advertising. However, from what I read the AbramX is more or less everything Russian propaganda says about the T-14, only actually delivering on it and then some. Think of a tank with a silent hybrid electric motor, 360 degree views around the tank, the ability to mask its heat so the thing is virtually invisible at night, and then replace the 50 cal anti-personal gun with a 30mm one because F-you. Yea, its pretty insane.
When you said there's russian tanks with active protection systems. You're right and wrong. Right on having a soft kill system "shtora" wrong on the part of it effecting sabot round. Shtroa 1 was design to effect older atgm. Btw russian tanks don't have better protection. That's 2 things you were wrong. Please correct this video.
@@Grandslam245 The T-72 and T-90 have Ribbed composite armor which is incredibly effective against armor piercing and heat rounds, but has gaps making it useless against apds rounds.
Also the use explosive reactive armor is a cheap way to add protection without increasing armor thickness. Western armor is significantly thicker than Russian armor And more advanced.
@@dominicbryndza5353 i think you missed the part where western armour is pretty much just explosive reactive. Its also not more advanced, its literally just thick steel.
There are multiple hard kill systems for Russia and I don't think Shtora is considered anything serious by this time as it creates just as much problems as it solves
Good video, but what does the Ukraine war mean for modern tanks on the battlefield? The Russian tanks are clearly no match for western anti tank rockets and drones... they apparently run out of tanks and now they are using very old models out of storage. That brings us to another topic; modern weapons become so expensive, that they cannot be made in sufficient numbers fast enough... what is your opinion?
It is a large multi-variable equation. Russia lost 26.6 million people in WW2, but they still defeated Germany. All tanks are designed with uneven armor distribution ….. thick at front and thin at rear, top, and sides. So anti-tank weapons are designed to attack those weaker areas. Or blow the tank treads and the tank becomes a pillbox. Then you get into logistics. No fuel or spare parts (like Germany in WW2) and your tank is sitting in the repair shop. Or tanks attacking without Infantry and artillery support become dead tanks. Etc.
Your entire summary there is just backwards. They didn't use their good stuff and run out. They're using their old stuff and a bunch of draftees. War economy, they just keep building more and more weapons. When the real war kicks off they'll start to use actual russian troops (not one trained Russian soldier has been in ukraine) and then everyone's fucked.
@@Grandslam245 If you are just simply educated, that explains a lot. Most people get a medium or higher education. What was your statement again? The Russians first sent in their old materiel and their most inferior 150.000 soldiers, then AFTER A YEAR OF FIGHTING in stead of ONE WEEK the Russians found out that they are ready to use their "modern tanks" and their "superior" troops? That is the dumbest and most wasteful way of waging war that I have ever heard of. Maybe they should have started with housewives with kitchen knives first?
lost me once u stated armor Russians see as more important, ya that's not even remotely true today. historically yes, but today nope. and gloss over all the soft stats. the armor gun and mobility triangle is very basic look. so many more data points.
Why do people keep saying tanks are a thing of the past it's not remotely true tanks bring to bear incredible overwhelming firepower plus protection and that isn't going to change anytime soon only when the tank can no longer fullfil it's role and no more upgrades to armor and the rest of it's systems can be made will it be
So I'm guessing this is the first time you have seen a tank. Russian armor better than the Abrams? Seriously? 120 vs. 125? Let's talk velocity. And auto loaders? Russia has yet to get them to function and when they jam there is no way to clear them.
I think the hypothesis is flawed in this video, but he was onto the true answer using the correct points. Western tanks are designed for western battle doctrines while eastern tanks are likewise designed for their own. All doctrines make assumptions drawn from their battle experiences that shape their designs. Western doctrine is for mobile 'manouver' warfare. Their experiences from WWII said that tank battles are generally decided by who detects and fires first. They also assume that armor is not reliable and the best defence is to avoid a hit. This hypothesis is supported by the general fact that tanks cannot be strongly armored everywhere and will be vunlerable from side, rear, and top. Thus their tanks emphasis the ability to shoot-and-scoot, fire on the move, and use cover better. This is why they put so much emphasis into optics and fire control and ensure tanks have good depresion so they can dig in and use terrain better on defense. The western way of war assumes a chaotic and fluid battlefield and these tanks are designed to make the best out of a breach being able to press an attack, cause chaos and panic, and collapse the enemy lines before they can react. Eastern doctrine used by Russia is based on the asumption that quantity and volume of fire is more important for battlefield success. Thus they design Russian tanks to be deadly enough and easy to manufacture and use for large conscript armies. The autoloader helps manpower, and a smaller tank uses less material and takes up less space. Their tanks are quite good at what they do even if they are significantly outmatched on capeabilities from some western tanks. However they can be replaced much quicker and will war down enemy numbers. Individually they are still very tough and quite capable of defeating even the best armor. So on a battlefield they will send at least 2-3 tanks to your one and that means one will likely get a side or rear shot. The tank they loose can be replaced more easily than the western one. The easter way of war uses masses of troops to create slower static warfare that grinds down the enemy. These different experiences can characteristcly be seen from WWII. Russia's defensive battles then offensive ones attacking germany were mostly grinding battles of attrition and their troops did grind down supeiror troops and equipment (sometimes. The T-34 was better than lots of german tanks by that point). The western allies and german experiences showed the value of mobile war. France was defeated by mobile war despite France having a superior paper army Germany's breach of the lines reshaped the lines rapidly placing every french unit of of position causing a total collapse. After D-Day the ally armies frequently probed and attacked weak points while reinforcing their own using rapid manouver.
kind of true, they still use the Stalin mentality, were quantity make a quality, back in WW2 that may have been true, but now day it just means you get your tank crews killed in job lots, and it was the USSR's tank doctoren also. but Ukraine has proven this is stupid. lots and lots of CHEAP tanks is still a cheap tank.
The battlefield is a huge multi-variable equation that includes doctrine, tactics, training, logistics, etc. We tend to focus on the tank but it is only one variable. You can wear out MG with young men’s chests…. If you have enough young men. The Soviets are now sending Soldiers into battle with sharpened shovels. Tanks are just one tool. No tank is invulnerable. They can be destroyed with mines, artillery, missiles, etc.
@@michaelolexa4147 The Soviets lost 26.6 million in WW2, but they defeated Germany. Or you could argue Germany defeated itself. The tank is only one weapon ….. tactics, doctrine, training, logistics, et al contribute.
@c wolf88 that is true they paid a horrible cost, but Stalin and his generals need some of the blame, most of the tactics used were straight out of world War 1. They tosser out deep battle, and just throw troops at the Germans. Lot of wasted live. Sadly it's the same tactics they are using today, and what worked 75 years ago is not working now
@@michaelolexa4147 First, the Soviets defeated Germany. It was a huge learning curve because there really isn’t a school to train people to fight a war. Hitler’s generals lied to him at times……hard to say who was right. Hitler only wanted to get to the oil fields. Stalin refused to believe his generals at first. He studied Hitler’s writings and couldn’t believe Hitler would open a second front. The German Army did not have the logistics system nor production base to support their Army across the vast Soviet spaces. Their tanks had no spare parts and their Soldiers were starving. Much of their transport was by horses but they had to eat the horses to stay alive. I don’t know who is winning in Ukraine. But the Soviets simply do not care if they lose 200,000 Soldiers. Putin is a multi-billionaire. Anyone who disagrees with him disappears. So I hope Ukraine wins. But dictators surrounded by sycophants rarely change their minds.
Ukraine has shown the shift to Drone warfare. Look at the devastation caused by cheap (sometimes domestic) Drones to Russian equipment. Now imagine what state-of-the-art Military Drones will be able to do. I can see 100 Tanks being met by an intelligent swarm of 100 "Intelligent" Drones, all carrying anti-tank munitions. It's fairly easy for a Drone to identify a Tank in a number of ways (easier than facial recognition). They are metal, they are hot, they are noisy and they are big. After what we've seen in Ukraine I expect every Military to be developing and stockpiling Drones. I'd rather be on a bicycle than in a Tank on a modern battlefield.
Russia "may" have had 20k tanks...if you include the junk sitting outside rusting in fields before they sent it to Ukraine for target practice. Most sources today have Russian total combat effective tank force at under 500 units...and it's likely lower than that.
Always the same big mistakes. Counting all reserve, mothballed and non functional tanks from one example (russia >12k tanks) and comparing it to only the active duty most modern tanks of someone else. Even putting it in a list.
US tanks are better in all respects. War in Iraq has shown this perfectly. ruzzian tank building has not changed since that time, so the outcome will be the same.
Seems the latest anti-tank missiles are too powerful for any tank? Tanks are good when a country has already surrendered and you drive through the defeated towns and villages with military parades to show that you are the victor. In other words, to avoid snipers. Otherwise, in an active war, even the most modern tanks go up in a fireball.
Not really. Tanks have needed infantry support from the beginning. The first tank's armor couldn't stop a machine gun. Germans captured them using gernades. WWII has the bazooka, panzerfaust, and anti tank rifle. Also by then aircraft were powerful enough to kill tanks. And artillery has always been the big tank killer. What you see in Ukraine is misleading. The biggest killer of tanks has been artillery. The Russians have poor training and are not supporting their tanks with infantry. The Ukrainians are destroying Russian tanks - at least 1800 according to Oryx. Yet they ask the West for tanks. Why? Because it is needed to go on the offensive and to defend. The people with first hand knowledge want more tanks, that tells you enough.
Does this guy have any idea what he’s talking about ? I’m 2 minutes in and he’s already put a challenger under the us tanks, and apparently gun elevation is the same as gun depression. Idk this just feels like a cash grab with what’s happening in Ukraine
And apparently the 125 is stronger than the 120 because +5 and Russian tanks prioritizes protection more than western. What in the actual fuck did you smoke bro
No. They most certainly are not. They're probably easier to recycle though. 👍
Is it a bird, is it a plane, nooo, it's a turret 😂😂😂😂
I was scrolling through the comments to find one about the flying turrets xD
Hahahaha flying turrets
Another great leap forward for Russian engineering. I wonder if they got the T-14 Abrams Killer turret capable of orbiting the Earth?
Russian tanks may be low profile but when their turret goes flying, no tank in existence can match its height & distance. Russian engineering at its finest.
Russian tanks have two big disadvantages: they only have a backward movement of 5 kilometers per hour(They don't stand a chance in case of an ambush), and the shells are located under the crew in the tank turret, which does not give the crew a chance to survive in case of a shell detonation.
Is that significant though?
@@PrismTheKiwii I’m unconvinced. Basically any penetration is a bad day. And I just don’t see the slow reverse as critical. I think Russian designs ARE less effective, just not that those are the two biggys.
They have more than 2 when compared to Western tanks.
Any tank is finished, and its crew, if it breaks through. no matter what, cumulative, sub-caliber scrap, land mine ... the crew dies, either from fragments of the armor itself, or from overpressure. and whether the ammunition explodes or not, who cares about that? the enemy will not get trophies;)
@@Пень1Бук1 Yes, in World of Tanks.
They are better because of their flying turret.🤣
Abrams also,, fly,, turret ... every tank is a walking bomb, the question is who hits whom first ... 😂😂😂
However, in the conditions of Europe, Russian constructions are better than huge western boxes visible from many kilometers! PS Pay attention to the new USA design, Abrams X ... did the designers notice something? ;)
It's a double threat. The gun and the flying debris
@@mariuszrl1143 No, because Abrams doesn’t store it’s ammunition under it’s turrets like the Russian tanks.
@@mariuszrl1143 HMMM, that is funny, can you prove that statement??? no, western tanks have a thing called blow out panel's.. but you are funny
The size of the tank makes no difference in todays world. The U.S. has 9300 M1 tanks of different variants. I seriously doubt the Russians have 20,000 tanks ever, but now likely less than 10,000. A tank is just a tool that is totally dependent on the skill of the crew and the tactics used. The Russians are doing so poorly in Ukraine that is laughable to compare to NATO type tanks and tactics.
During the USSR they fielded alot more than 20,000 tanks in there prime.
@@Jungle_Studio USSR was more then 10 countries combined, Kazahstan alone is 2/3 of Russian size in population... 90% of Russian 20,000 tanks were build in Soviet time which is over 40 years ago and I am 100% sure the Russian generals aren't being honest about the real numbers of actual working combat vehicles, Otherwise no reason for a such a rich in resources country as Russia not to stomp Ukraine with over 15,000 tanks from all fronts and finish the war quickly.
@@Jungle_Studio never believe a Russian. If a Russians lips are moving they are lying.
They may have had 20k tanks but nobody said which variant. Apparently they are now pulling out T-54 / T-55 variants from storage, so arguably 20k could include IS-3 and T-34 tanks from WW2.
@@Ilendir Or what the condition of the tanks is in.
We've already seen American M1A1 Abrams tanks taking on Russian T-72 tanks in the 1990's Iraq war - on offense.. The American tanks obliterated the Russian/Iraqi tanks. The Abrams guns outranged the T-72's guns, and those few Abrams tanks that were hit by a T-72 shrugged it off. And the M1A2 variants are much better than the M1A1's.There's basically no comparison; American tanks are far superior to Russian tanks, and other modern Western tanks (Challenger, LeClerc, etc.) are also much better than Russian tanks. History and current events in Ukraine show that to be true beyond doubt. To put it succinctly, there is nothing in this video that is correct.
T72 in that conflict were export versions. Incomparable. But yes Abrams is much better tank and much more expensive too. It all comes down to infantry support and air superiority anyways.
@@jiripekny3905 🙄 If you say so. I've heard the "export version" excuse time and time again. It's nonsense. Events in Ukraine have proven beyond any doubt that even the Russian versions of the T-72 are junk. If Iraq had fielded the Russian versions, the outcome would have been the same. Russia's newer tanks aren't much better. But it's good that you at least acknowledge that the Abrams is much better.
@@linsen8890 If its such a junk why do ukraine use it with such success? Its not excuse. The turret was handcranked there was sight like in WW2 tanks, downgraded armor. Crews of those tanks were absolute idiots. T72 is very good tank for its cost and is an effective weapon in good hands. People like you look at gun penetration, combat history. But you dont see the real deal, its not as heavy as western tanks so it can traverse most bridges. It can be repaired in the field with simple tools. And offers very good protection against most weapons used even today. I know its easy to look up some videos where javelin hits t72 and turret goes into the air. But the same would happend to any western tanks. I think people underestimate soviet era tanks. Remember that soviets were leading in tank design until late 80s. Not only tanks design, but APFSDS was also created in USSR.
The tank usefulness comes down to intel, support from air and from infantry. There is nothing like useless or bad MBT. Its their operators.
but the Russians aren't deploying T-72's anymore. They're being replaced with... 🤣T-60's and T-55's 😂😂after that T-34's 🤣🤣🤣🤣
He lost me at "gun depression" and every picture except one showing gun elevation as an illustration.
"russians prioritize armour... Americans do not prioritize protection as much as the russians" lol im already done of the video
Russians did not in fact prioritise armour they went the reactive armour rout.
@@pjdelta4056 that a real reach, the Abrams has far superior standard armor along with every prominent western tank.
The armor of the M1 Abrams is far superior in every respect to the armor on *any* Russian tank. This video is a bad joke.
The M2A2 Bradley is going to shred Russian tanks when they "enter chat" in Ukraine.
Shred is an overstatement.
From the side their guns can pen tanks, but from the front you will need to target tracks, the gun, or optics. At best you will get a mobility or mission kill, but not destruction.
Outside of that their missile launchers will work well, but not more so than the missile launchers ukraine already operates.
Bradleys will do well and be a welcome addition, but won't do anything that much better than Ukraine currently does with their launchers and tanks.
@@combatmikearms Orcs and their trash tanks will be SHREDDED.
@@combatmikearms battle of eastings in iraq ring any bells? bradly's took on t-72's and T-80 and blew them away with ease
@@grahamkeithtodd tipical USA talk, big mouth and in pratice, they fail.
@@worfkiller wow! first of all i am not a yank, second, without the USA's help we would all be speraking german..yes they fuck up from time to time but they are not the russians..
Even the most "modern"(had me laughing there) ruzzian tanks use 2nd gen western technology and electronics. Stuff that was retired from service in western Tanks in 2009 and is freely available even for civilians.Then comes stuff like cheap inprecise turret rotation and joystick input,followed by 2-3 times the reloading time than a skilled western crew,inferior ammo etc etc.... list the of things that make western tanks superior goes on and on and on.
The moment is read “ruzzian” I knew you aren’t credible
The Gulf War would like to have a word.
Warsaw pact tank have an unusual feature..
a flying turret. and a tendency to make their crews cosmonauts.
Not to mention start an amazing bonfire.
@@stuartdollar9912 Send Ukrainians marshmallows and chocolate bars.
That is not the peculiarity of the tanks of the Warsaw Pact, since that is what the Leopards did in Syria.
This is not true for the crew either, since in most cases the explosion of the ammunition is not an immediate event.
@@gaborjuracsik4847 this is why story ammo in the hull like leopards did is a bad idea. It is avoided by keeping those ammo racks empty.
@@mr6johnclark I have to disappoint you, but there is no perfect solution, and there is no invulnerable tank.
Putin is offering a bonus for people who volunteer for tank crew, the catch is you have to be in a Russian tank for six whole months. No word yet if anyone has collected a bonus.
They enter them in the Olympics in the javelin completion and shot put cause they can throw parts great distances
Russian tanks are like Russian conscripts. It’s a numbers game and not about quality.
Yet u have never seen them u just hear reports
They are not really equivalent. Their design philosophies are very different, between western and eastern MBT's. Western designs have usually better electronics and optics but complicated to maintain, while eastern designs are more compact and easier to repair and maintain.
@@globalcitizen8321 Western militaries are groups of hunting teams, Eastern militaries are massive firepower
They’re over-emphasizing their mission differences. The real theoretical difference is doctrine, or HOW they go about their mission, not WHAT their missions actually are. And practically the difference is even less. They’re offensive weapons. Maybe that wouldn’t be so if we were still forted up in the Fulda Gap, but we aren’t.
I’ll say one thing, Western designs are an order of magnitude more comfortable to ride in!
Yeah numbers is what nato shittheads lacking. so thats why they stick to proxy war idiology.. If you still remember the old saying two heads are better than one.. So ithink number games still exist on war. Remember theres no superior tanks ever built yet. So end your stupidity . Conscript still has gun .. Western tanks built for profit. While russian tanks built for real war and invasion. Did you get the defference? Dont compare western tanks with russian tanks western tanks never been proven in real war western tanks design only for tiktok and instagram.
Russian tanks compared to nato tanks have: worse stabilizers, worse suspension, worse thermals, worse gun handling, worse reverse, more difficult maintenance, worse crew safety, worse frontal armor, worse visibility, and more.
Only things they are better at is being smaller, having better side armor, and better space and fuel efficiency.
They are lighter (quite handy) and there (were) a lot more of them, which i think is something NATO (not the US) is having to think about. Ukraine war is showing you need to have a lot of equipment to fight a war. Ukraine was actually uniquely well equipped to fight Russia, against any other individual NATO country (US apart) they would have won by now.
@@HdyDdy-qs8kq Do you not understand the concept of NATO? Russia cannot fight any individual NATO member, that's the whole point.
1/2 of Russia's tanks are in disrepair, the other half have auto loaders that experience total destruction when hit.
0:46 that's not an American tank
Ukraine has perfect terrain for tank vs tank warfare, but ultimately until we see 10 T-90 variants or T-14's vs 10 M1A2's go head to head, we'll never know, personally I wish both sides would just pick an open field line up a 10 v 10 tank battle, last standing tank wins.
The US Army has the National Training Center (NTC) where they do force-on-force combat training. The OPFOR uses some Soviet tanks or US tanks modified to look like Soviets.
The American tank training system uses tank tables to train gunnery skills.
In WW2 a German tank crew might kill 5 Soviet tanks before they were killed. Which the Germans attributed to their training.
The Soviets had huge machine shop trucks that hosed the dead crews out, repaired the tanks, and put them back in the fight with untrained Soldiers.
Which is what the Israelis did as well against Soviet tanks (in terms of rapidly salvaging tanks).
In the Battle of the Bulge the German King Tigers were the superior tanks, but they ran out of gas, and crews walked home.
Gen Gorman did a Fulda Gap analysis of a Soviet attack…. US tanks would get 2 shots off before they were killed (Soviet doctrine was a high speed massed attack). Which led to DARPA developing the Assault Breaker weapon system.
In short, the ‘best’ tank doesn’t necessarily win. Afterall the Ukraine Army is killing multi-million dollar Soviet tanks with one drone dropped ‘grenade.’
Just listen to YT...you can always search Abrams vs T?? Leopard Vs ..... Challanger Vs ...
The crew and strategies can make a huge difference a single tank if part of a strategic group of infantry and other vehicles can make a difference so I'd say that part is just as if not more important
It happened already 73 Easting during the gulf war
@@Bahala_Nah Yep, even in a sandstorm the Bradley's and Abrams obliterated Iraqi T-72's that were dug into defensive positions.
20 000 Russian tanks where most of them are post world war 2. From what we have seen in Ukraine, Russian armed vehicles in general have not scared anyone at all. 3300 of the Russian tanks have been destroyed / lost in Ukraine so far. Then you can withdraw all the tanks that are unusable due to poor maintenance from decades in storage. The great red army are not so great anymore.
The Short answer is "No".
Wrong RU tanks are better! #1 in turret tossing US tanks #3
yes. because nato tanks was outdated when designed. because have no autoloader. what make them biger because need a space for a loader guy. and that make it less armored and more heavy.
@@makoado6010 Except the french Leclerc and Japan's Type 10 (I still think that the Leclerc is one of the best on the battlefield even considering his age.)
@@dakally3165 japan is not part of nato... and leclerc... have u owned a frech car?
so what u want to say?
@@makoado6010 BAHAHAHA, yep lets sit the crew on a pie shaped BOMB (called auto loader carousal) some loader work then there are the Russian ones.
The video stated US Tanks don't prioritize armor more then the Russians... What in the world are they talking about... The US tanks use depleted uranium armor...
A lot better nothing burns as bright and send turrets flying as high as Russian tanks. Excellent tanks, perfect infernal contraption.
The Only advantage of soviet / Russian designs is cost per tank
That’s it.
Western tanks, especially the latest variants (and even more so when talking about non export models) are considerably better by every measure than even the latest of Russian tanks.
And no, the design scope for the Abrams (or US armour doctrine in general) was not as a “defensive” tank. 🙄
Silly video
Russian turrets fly much higher than American ones.
We count the high records of Russian tanks with flying turrets oh dang it gotta love those videos
Because so far (almost) only Russian armor technology has been used in this conflict. Soon tank turrets from the Leopard, Abrams and Challanger will also "learn to fly". - Bets ?
@@michel8549 Nobody lost this absurd amount of tanks for over 70 years now in such a short time frame, Most countries would've fired it's generals and remove the president from office (Rightfully) for such massive failures.
But for poor Ivan it's okay, He and his ancestors licked the Tsars ass in any occasion, Some stuff ain't changing.
@@michel8549finally someone said it
What was it in Irak , the Abrahams had a 100 - zero kill rate against the T 72
Western tanks will eventually have to be all autoloaders as well. 1200MM is the maximum a manual loader can wield, anything larger has to be done by mechanical advantage. (Germany's new tank for example with it's 130MM)
>1200MM
prototypes have an autoloader at the bustle (behind) the turret) and not in the hull.
Western tanks also have better fire control systems, so they can detect and hit their targets Better than Russian tanks. On battlefields, hundreds of Russian tanks have been destroyed, where as a few tens of Western tanks have been destroyed. So it is obvious, Western tanks are better.
Developing indirect fire doctrine makes low cost, autoloaders, and low silhouette significantly more valuable.
Need to find something to shoot at and be accurate. The technology of battlefield communications on the US tanks and tank support team would easily win.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Thanks for the laugh. Didn't even have to watch. Just read the title.
I don't think either tank was particularly designed for offense or defense. That's why they are main battle tanks. If the Abrams was supposed to have been designed for defense, then why does it use a high-torque gas turbine engine, and why was so much emphasis put on speed and maneuverability? They were both designed to do everything main battle tanks are supposed to do, and this includes armored assaults.
It is all in the training and moral of the crew, a determined and well trained crew with a good strategy and leadership will smash a crew that just wants to go home and has been thrown into the fray before they are ready.
It is a complex equation. German WW2 tanks were better than Soviet tanks. But Germany couldn’t provide fuel and logistics support over the huge Russian distances. German training was better. The Soviet WW2 investment strategy was to build thousands of mortars. Kill the Infantry and tanks are vulnerable.
Russian tanks can't fire and move, don't have thermal imaging, don't appear to have working reactive armor, don't have a targeting computer, and the autoloader tosses the turret into orbit, which is one reason why the West doesn't use them. It doesn't matter how well a crew is trained, tank for tank; western tanks have taken out Russian tanks 100 to one in every conflict where Western and Russian tanks have met.
@@StrawHat83 I’m not volunteering to stand in front of a T90. All tanks are vulnerable if improperly employed. The Soviet preference for auto loading means all the ammo is stored inside the turret so a turret hit is catastrophic. The lack of combined arms tactics and doctrine makes any tank vulnerable. And corruption is a challenge….. reactive armor plates with rubber inserts and no explosives suggests there are issues. Cheers.
There are mistakes here at 0:48 and 3:02 , the tanks are wrong.
You first showed a Challenger 2 as an `American` tank (even though its British) then said how USA only have 5800 when its around 6600. Then the M60 Patton you showed -THATS AMERICAN. Not Russian/soviet. Moreover, Russia has 12,000 give or take. The 20,000 is still cited now by some sources, but thats like 2018 data.
When the war started even, most outlets agreed/concurred - Russia has 12k tanks.
I don't understand the point of this video. Russian tanks are clearly less capable than Western tanks, and have been for decades.
1. Western tanks use gun depression when advancing by moving up to the top of slopes and firing down on any enemies in range without exposing their hulls.
2. Western tanks prioritise protection, which is why they are so much heavier than Russian tanks. Claiming that Russian tanks are better protected is utter bullshit.
3. Western tanks store ammunition behind armoured doors, Russian tanks in a carousel under the turret. NATO 120mm guns are at least as good as any Russian gun, but more importantly, Western tanks are equipped with much better sighting equipment. The claim that Russian tanks are "better at offensive" operations is simply ludicrous.
BTW, that 4th crewmember is an invaluable part of the crew.
Finally, you include the frigging Armata as though it's a real tank! It's laughable that you think Russian tanks are somehow better than more modern Western tanks despite all evidence to the contrary.
Russia used to have 20.000
and about 3,000 of them where unuseable (lack of spares, )
Russian tanks are much better than western tanks,
at popping their tops, lol.
Gajiin needs to update their Russian tankd
yes but what about their planes?
yeah... should give russian tanks a free respawn.
4:36 nope! Bigger guns doesnt mean better perforation. Its the length and mass of a projectile. The longer and denser the projectile is the better it performs
Was this content generated by an AI?
theres some ukrainians that disprove half of this video in this very moment
Russian tanks are better for Russia and Western tanks are better for the West.
I'd say they're more reliable, considering the amount of spare parts that exist and more maneuverable, considering they're much smaller and lighter than Western tanks. They have problems with crew survivability, mostly because of the autoloading system, and are generally less technology advanced.
Western tanks use better technology and are generally faster. But of course, being more advanced means they're more complicated and require higher mentenace.
Both tanks are made for different doctrines, and both have their ups and downs.
This is not taking any of the newly learned lessons into account. The Russians use the same old and underpowered engine for every tank they have. They can't even reverse quickly.
Then there is the battlefield overview, sights and usability. Russian lack the proper sights. And then there is the fact that Russian crews die because the turret just blows off.
From what I read the T-14 Armata uses a new engine. While the new engine on paper has more power it is based on a Russian engine optimized on fuel pumping which in turn was based on an old Nazi engine which had massive reliability issues.
That and I think having tanks that are actually maintained, crews that are properly trained, and a general lack of corruption helps Western tanks out perform Russian ones. On paper the T-14 is a beast of a tank... again on paper and what they are advertising. However, from what I read the AbramX is more or less everything Russian propaganda says about the T-14, only actually delivering on it and then some. Think of a tank with a silent hybrid electric motor, 360 degree views around the tank, the ability to mask its heat so the thing is virtually invisible at night, and then replace the 50 cal anti-personal gun with a 30mm one because F-you. Yea, its pretty insane.
@@kurtfrederiksen5538 very true. But also, the T-14 is nowhere to be seen on the battlefield lol.
When you said there's russian tanks with active protection systems. You're right and wrong. Right on having a soft kill system "shtora" wrong on the part of it effecting sabot round. Shtroa 1 was design to effect older atgm. Btw russian tanks don't have better protection. That's 2 things you were wrong. Please correct this video.
Nothing's wrong. He's admitted russian superiority, he doesn't need to correct anything.
@@Grandslam245 The T-72 and T-90 have Ribbed composite armor which is incredibly effective against armor piercing and heat rounds, but has gaps making it useless against apds rounds.
Also the use explosive reactive armor is a cheap way to add protection without increasing armor thickness. Western armor is significantly thicker than Russian armor And more advanced.
@@dominicbryndza5353 i think you missed the part where western armour is pretty much just explosive reactive. Its also not more advanced, its literally just thick steel.
There are multiple hard kill systems for Russia and I don't think Shtora is considered anything serious by this time as it creates just as much problems as it solves
The way in how its use by doctrine and High Command does make the difference. Americans got the edge now.
Good video, but what does the Ukraine war mean for modern tanks on the battlefield? The Russian tanks are clearly no match for western anti tank rockets and drones... they apparently run out of tanks and now they are using very old models out of storage. That brings us to another topic; modern weapons become so expensive, that they cannot be made in sufficient numbers fast enough... what is your opinion?
It is a large multi-variable equation. Russia lost 26.6 million people in WW2, but they still defeated Germany.
All tanks are designed with uneven armor distribution ….. thick at front and thin at rear, top, and sides. So anti-tank weapons are designed to attack those weaker areas. Or blow the tank treads and the tank becomes a pillbox.
Then you get into logistics. No fuel or spare parts (like Germany in WW2) and your tank is sitting in the repair shop.
Or tanks attacking without Infantry and artillery support become dead tanks.
Etc.
Your entire summary there is just backwards. They didn't use their good stuff and run out.
They're using their old stuff and a bunch of draftees. War economy, they just keep building more and more weapons. When the real war kicks off they'll start to use actual russian troops (not one trained Russian soldier has been in ukraine) and then everyone's fucked.
@@Grandslam245 Dear Bullshit Productions, are you a Russian troll?
@@retepeyahaled2961 no, I'm simply educated.
@@Grandslam245 If you are just simply educated, that explains a lot. Most people get a medium or higher education. What was your statement again? The Russians first sent in their old materiel and their most inferior 150.000 soldiers, then AFTER A YEAR OF FIGHTING in stead of ONE WEEK the Russians found out that they are ready to use their "modern tanks" and their "superior" troops? That is the dumbest and most wasteful way of waging war that I have ever heard of. Maybe they should have started with housewives with kitchen knives first?
No chance Russia had 10000 functional tanks before the war, now it's far less.
lost me once u stated armor Russians see as more important, ya that's not even remotely true today. historically yes, but today nope. and gloss over all the soft stats. the armor gun and mobility triangle is very basic look. so many more data points.
Why do people keep saying tanks are a thing of the past it's not remotely true tanks bring to bear incredible overwhelming firepower plus protection and that isn't going to change anytime soon only when the tank can no longer fullfil it's role and no more upgrades to armor and the rest of it's systems can be made will it be
Ai Robotic tanks are the future.
With multi redundant systems, it can look like Swiss cheese and still complete it's mission.
Iraq demonstrated how poorly Russian tanks fare against USA tanks.
Russia may only have 5000 tanks in good condition (refurbishable). This include old model from T55-64.
Don't forget the T-34. They've pulled some of those out of museums.
@@dnedlewthis same stupid lie has been said so many times, there hasn’t been any T-34s used for Ukraine.
So I'm guessing this is the first time you have seen a tank. Russian armor better than the Abrams? Seriously? 120 vs. 125? Let's talk velocity. And auto loaders? Russia has yet to get them to function and when they jam there is no way to clear them.
American tanks are designed for defence, that’s the bs
NATO tanks were designed to defend against the hoards of armour that would be coming across from the other side of the Iron Curtain.
And let's not forget Russian abilities in logistics and maintenance and their training levels (😂😂😂)
This is not even a question
I think the hypothesis is flawed in this video, but he was onto the true answer using the correct points. Western tanks are designed for western battle doctrines while eastern tanks are likewise designed for their own. All doctrines make assumptions drawn from their battle experiences that shape their designs. Western doctrine is for mobile 'manouver' warfare. Their experiences from WWII said that tank battles are generally decided by who detects and fires first. They also assume that armor is not reliable and the best defence is to avoid a hit. This hypothesis is supported by the general fact that tanks cannot be strongly armored everywhere and will be vunlerable from side, rear, and top. Thus their tanks emphasis the ability to shoot-and-scoot, fire on the move, and use cover better. This is why they put so much emphasis into optics and fire control and ensure tanks have good depresion so they can dig in and use terrain better on defense. The western way of war assumes a chaotic and fluid battlefield and these tanks are designed to make the best out of a breach being able to press an attack, cause chaos and panic, and collapse the enemy lines before they can react.
Eastern doctrine used by Russia is based on the asumption that quantity and volume of fire is more important for battlefield success. Thus they design Russian tanks to be deadly enough and easy to manufacture and use for large conscript armies. The autoloader helps manpower, and a smaller tank uses less material and takes up less space. Their tanks are quite good at what they do even if they are significantly outmatched on capeabilities from some western tanks. However they can be replaced much quicker and will war down enemy numbers. Individually they are still very tough and quite capable of defeating even the best armor. So on a battlefield they will send at least 2-3 tanks to your one and that means one will likely get a side or rear shot. The tank they loose can be replaced more easily than the western one. The easter way of war uses masses of troops to create slower static warfare that grinds down the enemy.
These different experiences can characteristcly be seen from WWII. Russia's defensive battles then offensive ones attacking germany were mostly grinding battles of attrition and their troops did grind down supeiror troops and equipment (sometimes. The T-34 was better than lots of german tanks by that point).
The western allies and german experiences showed the value of mobile war. France was defeated by mobile war despite France having a superior paper army Germany's breach of the lines reshaped the lines rapidly placing every french unit of of position causing a total collapse. After D-Day the ally armies frequently probed and attacked weak points while reinforcing their own using rapid manouver.
kind of true, they still use the Stalin mentality, were quantity make a quality, back in WW2 that may have been true, but now day it just means you get your tank crews killed in job lots, and it was the USSR's tank doctoren also. but Ukraine has proven this is stupid. lots and lots of CHEAP tanks is still a cheap tank.
The battlefield is a huge multi-variable equation that includes doctrine, tactics, training, logistics, etc. We tend to focus on the tank but it is only one variable. You can wear out MG with young men’s chests…. If you have enough young men. The Soviets are now sending Soldiers into battle with sharpened shovels.
Tanks are just one tool. No tank is invulnerable. They can be destroyed with mines, artillery, missiles, etc.
@@michaelolexa4147 The Soviets lost 26.6 million in WW2, but they defeated Germany. Or you could argue Germany defeated itself.
The tank is only one weapon ….. tactics, doctrine, training, logistics, et al contribute.
@c wolf88 that is true they paid a horrible cost, but Stalin and his generals need some of the blame, most of the tactics used were straight out of world War 1. They tosser out deep battle, and just throw troops at the Germans. Lot of wasted live.
Sadly it's the same tactics they are using today, and what worked 75 years ago is not working now
@@michaelolexa4147 First, the Soviets defeated Germany. It was a huge learning curve because there really isn’t a school to train people to fight a war. Hitler’s generals lied to him at times……hard to say who was right. Hitler only wanted to get to the oil fields.
Stalin refused to believe his generals at first. He studied Hitler’s writings and couldn’t believe Hitler would open a second front.
The German Army did not have the logistics system nor production base to support their Army across the vast Soviet spaces. Their tanks had no spare parts and their Soldiers were starving. Much of their transport was by horses but they had to eat the horses to stay alive.
I don’t know who is winning in Ukraine. But the Soviets simply do not care if they lose 200,000 Soldiers. Putin is a multi-billionaire. Anyone who disagrees with him disappears.
So I hope Ukraine wins. But dictators surrounded by sycophants rarely change their minds.
First, that was a Challenger 2 in your head to head. Second, I'll give you the Gulf War. Russian tanks blew up frequently then too.
I had to look very far to find someone noticing that it was a chally
this dude has absoutely no clue, how tf does he have so many subs??
No, Soviet era tanks made many flash claims. Even the latest T14 Armata is clearly not anywhere near as good as any modern NATO MBTs.
A tool no matter how capable is useless in uneducated hands.
Ukraine has shown the shift to Drone warfare. Look at the devastation caused by cheap (sometimes domestic) Drones to Russian equipment.
Now imagine what state-of-the-art Military Drones will be able to do. I can see 100 Tanks being met by an intelligent swarm of 100 "Intelligent" Drones, all carrying anti-tank munitions.
It's fairly easy for a Drone to identify a Tank in a number of ways (easier than facial recognition). They are metal, they are hot, they are noisy and they are big.
After what we've seen in Ukraine I expect every Military to be developing and stockpiling Drones.
I'd rather be on a bicycle than in a Tank on a modern battlefield.
Homeboy said Russians prioritize armor over American counterparts lolol okkk
What vulnerbality the M1A1 ? They steam rolled the enemy
Russia "may" have had 20k tanks...if you include the junk sitting outside rusting in fields before they sent it to Ukraine for target practice. Most sources today have Russian total combat effective tank force at under 500 units...and it's likely lower than that.
At turret tossing maybe.
Russian best milltry weapons
This question is asked after all the turret tossing we’ve seen from Russian tanks in Ukraine? Really? 🙄
Although Russian tanks notoriously known for its flying turrets.
Their Tanks is the most Battle proven in history of armored warefare.
20.000 tanks yeah maybe on paper...
Given that they're currently pulling T-54s out of storage, it's doubtful they have a tenth of that figure.
Are Russian cars better than Western cars?
Are there any Russian car manufacturing plants , in any country in the west .?
Always the same big mistakes.
Counting all reserve, mothballed and non functional tanks from one example (russia >12k tanks) and comparing it to only the active duty most modern tanks of someone else.
Even putting it in a list.
They are better at throwing their turrets high into the air.
The two Gulf wars had proved that western tanks are better !
US tanks are better in all respects. War in Iraq has shown this perfectly. ruzzian tank building has not changed since that time, so the outcome will be the same.
Russian Tanks win the turret toss every time
Seems the latest anti-tank missiles are too powerful for any tank? Tanks are good when a country has already surrendered and you drive through the defeated towns and villages with military parades to show that you are the victor. In other words, to avoid snipers. Otherwise, in an active war, even the most modern tanks go up in a fireball.
Not really. Tanks have needed infantry support from the beginning. The first tank's armor couldn't stop a machine gun. Germans captured them using gernades.
WWII has the bazooka, panzerfaust, and anti tank rifle. Also by then aircraft were powerful enough to kill tanks.
And artillery has always been the big tank killer.
What you see in Ukraine is misleading. The biggest killer of tanks has been artillery. The Russians have poor training and are not supporting their tanks with infantry.
The Ukrainians are destroying Russian tanks - at least 1800 according to Oryx. Yet they ask the West for tanks. Why? Because it is needed to go on the offensive and to defend. The people with first hand knowledge want more tanks, that tells you enough.
@@recoil53 the Ukrainians need more tanks because their existing stocks have all been destroyed. Same for artillery, Air force, ammunition.
Not even close, Russian tanks are built bad. The hype of their tanks is just that, all show no go.
LOL... rhetorical question - nothing Russian is of any quality.
I guess according to this video France left nato if the Leclerc doesn't count.
Nothing about Israely Mekava mk 4 ?!?
not in a million years lmfao
Is military tv written by non Americans? Their script is a bit wonky
has a slide with US tank numbers.............. uses a picture of a british tank lol
Does this guy have any idea what he’s talking about ? I’m 2 minutes in and he’s already put a challenger under the us tanks, and apparently gun elevation is the same as gun depression. Idk this just feels like a cash grab with what’s happening in Ukraine
And apparently the 125 is stronger than the 120 because +5 and Russian tanks prioritizes protection more than western. What in the actual fuck did you smoke bro
After Ukraine is finished with them they aren’t going to have any tanks left.
Hmm, the russian tanks defenses are laughable, just look at the Kyiev assault
Better at what? Launching their turrets into lower Earth orbit?
Automatsko punjenje imaju Leclerc,K2 Black panter and typ10😒
I thought "Queen of Battle" are 11Bs
Russian tanks have a clear height advantage.
Short answer is no. The long answer is noooooooooo
tool. do some real assessments. T-90 PISA wont even show up in battle... why?
What about accuracy?
"Quantity has a quality all it's own."
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Are Russian tanks better than western tanks? No...
🤡🤡🤡🤡
Les Tanks Russe meilleurs.....🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Russian tanks put on a great fire works show when they blow their turret 100 feet in the air LOL
Russia sold people a lie. Sadly, a lot of you fell for it. You really believed Russia had 20K tanks? 😂😂