Gambit is the new unmanned combat aircraft from General Atomics Aeronautical Systems. With advanced autonomy and low-cost mass, Gambit lets the U.S. military move fast … and move first. Learn more at www.uav.com
I knew guys in Desert Storm and it was the same way. They killed more tanks with the chainguns than the TOW. He said not being able to move was the problem and set up time to shoot. The chain guns had a tendency to cause the Iraqi tanks armor to spall inside sending fragments around the interior of the tank.
I was a TOW gunner back in the 1990s. Assuming TOW missiles haven't been greatly upgraded with new capabilities since then, the reason they wouldn't have been fired in this engagement is that it was too close, with too many impediments to line of sight, and too much motion. TOWs have to be fired from a stable and stationary platform - at least the ones back in the '90s had to be. Gunner has to keep a reticle steady on the target from the time of acquisition, firing, and until impact. Any jostle or bump could make the missile go haywire, and these Bradleys would've been experiencing plenty of jostling and bumping as they dashed around that village. If they'd had time to calmly set up from a stationary position with a clear line of sight, using a TOW to take out that tank would've been a no brainer. But the sudden contact engagement here didn't lend itself to firing off a TOW.
Old 19D M2 driver/gunner here. Moving and shooting a TOW would be very difficult to hit with. You might be able to hit a slow moving vehicle at distance with one if you are not moving. Think at it like you shooting a moving boat from the shore verse shooting out of a moving boat. There were some trees, telephone poles and structures in the way that could have cut the TOW wires. The TOW box has to be raised and lock before it can fire. So you can tell when it when it is deployed about to fire. The turret will 360 faster than 6 seconds. There is a slew button that turbos the speed which you can move the turret. You can spin it very fast. Looks like the impacting rounds were HE instead of AP. We were taught to reverse load HE and AP rounds. It hold 300 total with something like 70AP and 230HE. But we would do it backwards to have 230AP and only 70HE. He might have forgot when selecting ammo that is backwards from what is marked. Their training is very short. Also the ammo boxes have to be loaded very specifically. If loaded wrong, it could lead to a jam. It feeds from 2 boxes so you could go to another box in an emergency. Lastly firing the gun is not to terrible loud inside as all crew members wear helmets with earphones built it. The muzzle blast is ear shattering outside. So my guess is impacting rounds would not have been too much worse than just shooting your own gun during normal firing.
Ukraine have the TOW's that uses radio frequencies (, of course the question is how many RF TOW's do they have compared to the wire launched TOW's, it might be that they have only a small amount of RF TOW's)
@@ascentoffroad my source is ryan mcbeth, from what I have gathered RF = Radio Frequency unless the RF is a different RF than radio frequency then the Ukrainians have wireless TOW's watch code is CRkI43OLTN8
The deceleration of the impacting round is much higher than the acceleration of the round in the barrel, so I imagine it would be louder inside the tank than firing the gun. Remember that when firing, a round accelerates through the entire length of the barrel, whereas when an incoming round hits the armour, it decelerates from full speed to zero in the length of the shell.
I became a TOW GUNNER back in October of 1977 after Infantry School at Benning. It wasn't even an MOS back then. Hell, the TOW SYSTEM still had a noun nomenclature of XM-151 E2. It was an ASI. 11B10-ASI-P4. It was fairly new. It became its own MOS IN '79'. 11 HOTEL 10. Russian armor wasn't even our main objective target. We hunted as a priority the Russian ZSU 23-4 QUAD heavy anti-aircraft gun system. We left the tanks to the 2/68th Armor and their "Big Boys", M60A1s MBTs in Baumholder W. Germany. We saw the first A10 THUNDERBOLTS fly over the MTA in 1978 in close air support.
It looked like they had at least 2 different drones but they didnt specify what model is best for home deefense... I guess ill have to wait for a 2 for 1 special.
Hi, actual US Army Gunner here. I was on a 1167 Humvee with a 240 Bravo and a TOW ATGM. The Tow was likely not used in this engagement because it requires you to sit still for at least 7-14 seconds depending on how good you are with it. You need to arm the missile, lock on with the tracking gates, then fire and that's if you just so happen to be using the TAS when you're engaging the enemy. Additionally the missile (depending on what generation it's from) is either wire guided or RF guided and therefore the attacking vehicle needs to sit completely still to allow the gunner to maintain a good lock on the target. This is because the TASs reticle needs to be fixed on the exact spot you need the missile to go. A single breath in the wrong direction could cause the turret to move and completely miss the tank, spelling certain death for the Brad. At 50 meters when you think time is short and that tank barrel could be pointed anywhere, the TOW might be a bad option and buttoning (or shooting out the optics on) the 90 might be the best option. Also it's entirely possible that the 25mm penned the T-90. I find it unlikely that the gunner of the tank decided that rotating the turret to the right for five whole seconds was a good idea. Most likely the tank was hit between the turret and the hull (which is something we are taught is a weak point, particularly on Russian tanks) and the turret hydraulics were damaged, causing it to rotate uncontrollably. In conclusion: The TOW is not good at close range high stakes engagements. It's an ambush weapon meant for long range "sniping." The 25mm can absolutely pen the T-90 depending on where you hit it. And furthermore it's also possible that the Driver lost his optic and the TC was telling him to get the hell out of there, explaining why he just floored it into a tree.
About Rus tank (is public domain strategy there how to behave in usa when in that kind of bad situation ? probably...) on top of my head and no knowledge of tactics: When under fire from several directions from several autocannons, the pounding (even sound may be an issue with limited healthcare probably available (in the future) for Rus crew..?). Simpler, seems like tactical situation dicey, you're obviously not taking care of possible enemy infantry with your tank and friendly infantry not nearby (Ukr Bradleys you think having infantry with mines/AT and no friendly infantry as support...), other AT support probably present usually (I think said even in this video, though unavailable but unknown to Russian tank), so retreat is smart. Analyzing too much in this video ? Well, clicks.
@@tondekoddar7837 About what the American doctrine would be in this situation if an American tank were in a similar situation (against two BMPs for example) the simple answer is that no such situation would ever exist. Americans do not deploy their tanks alone in a village somewhere in enemy territory just waiting to get ambushed by infantry from a building. That's a big no-no. The Russian Commander made a pretty big tactical mistake here and was likely overestimating the capabilities of his T-90M and her crew. American tanks tend to be deployed alongside Bradleys in hunter-killer squadrons. In this American scenario when the Bradleys and tanks encountered a village near a major objective (like the nearby city) and that village needed to be secured the Bradleys would push forward while being covered by the Abrams and deploy dismount teams that would move in and secure the village while the tanks and brads watched closely from a distance. If the dismounts were to get ambushed by an enemy building the dismounts would lay down while the tank and the brads obliterated the enemy armor or structure with their guns and TOWs. Then when the threat was neutralized the infantry would push forward and clear the village and secure it. THEN the tanks and brads would move in to provide 360 degree security for the village. Or they would simply bypass it depending on what the overall objective was for their mission set. But if they HAD to secure the village, that's how they would do it. It's a pretty unstoppable and methodical strategy and there's not really a good way to counter this. At least not with current technology. No Russian tactic as far as I am aware exists for this kind of fighting and from what I have seen the Russian tactics are INCREDIBLY dated. It's basically just dudes running around with guns being told where to go. There is very little discipline, doctrine or tactical forethought that seems to go into what they do. I suspect this is due to poor training.
If the Russians were highly trained, how come they are still fighting an undersized and poorly equipped army that is right on their border and are unable to decisively gain significant amounts of land? The Russian military is a joke. @andreyRUS17
Ya know, I wasn’t really considering buying a highly-advanced, low visibility wingman drone powered by a revolutionary thermoelectric engine, but your sponsorship read really changed my mind. Thank you for understanding what your audience wants at what i assume will be an affordable price for the retail consumer.
"...he used his knowledge of War Thunder of where to strike the Russian tank." Gentlemen. It is with great pleasure that I inform you that War Thunder is now a confirmed practical source of knowledge on the disabling and destruction of MBTs. Also, we live in some very strange times.
it doesn't mention War Thunder only video games. exact quote "but as I played video games, I remembered everything, both how to hit them and where" the idea it came from war thunder comes from the channel owner who is making assumptions
by video games he probably meant a simulation. because even if it was somehow wt the t90m was added like a day or two before this happened. and I doubt he has a whole ass gaming pc in a war, with a stable internet connection
It's weird how our government will give civilians in other countries weapons of so-called war but won't give it to us even though they say no one should have it but yet they have it protecting them all the time with automatic rifles and everything else... Strange logic we have to deal with these days 😤
Fun fact, later this tanker commander lost his Braddley. He gave another interview. Positive point is that they lived after the destruction of the Bradley, so it did the job to keep crew safe.
Are there any videos confirming this? If someone wrote something in a telegram, consider that they didn’t write anything. Even those who are supposedly “supports Ukraine” are in fact very willing to spread Russian fakes.
@@amrannoordin1644Yeah and the Soviet equivalent of the Bradley just gets utterly annihilated and are not repairable at all. Man power is not so easily replaced as sophisticated scrap metal. The m2 Bradley does everything it was designed to do: provide mobility and protection to its occupants. Meanwhile the Soviet tanks and APCs, can barely hold their own against a smaller attacking force. Throwing bodies at the problem is Russia's way of doing things. And it can and always will bite them in the ass a few years down the line, when they face a manpower shortage and numerous rebellions throughout their Confederacy. You're delusional if you think this is a positive spin. It's just reality: when you kill off your workforce to compensate for poor quality technology, training, logistics, and tactics, you face manpower shortages and lose capable men.
I liked just for the advert. You can imagine what audience this guy has if drone manufacturers come to post their advert here. Truly one of the most trustworthy source on the Internet.
If service personelle watch it could cause positive brand recognition leading to product adoption. The cost is relatively cheaper than a conventional national ad campaign and the audience would probably be more engaged. Even these comments are positive word of mouth.
Plus considering the advertisement costs for a channel hell a hundred channels like this wouldn't even be a molecule in a drop of the bucket of wealth they have.@@granatmof
trustworthy source of information which still fails to pronounce foreign words(and not at the level which English angry CoD-upbrought toxic players demand from everyone around). Fails to put (even extremely English) sounds in right order. Perhaps he has dyslexia.
Bradley Gunner 1989-1991/1994-1998, Bradley Commander 1999-2001. Tow would have taken to long to setup and engage the tank. Besides to many impedments in the area of engagement. Next if there was a feeder malfunction the 25mm bushmaster would not have been able to fire unless it was cycling between the dif rounds. Its a simple task to push the the malf button and reset the feeder to cycle the diff rnds.The feeder is a dual system until it enters the reciever. Sounds like AP(70 rnds) where all fired and the gunner than switched to High explosive (230 rnds) or could have been the opposite (70HE/230AP). hope that helps.
The guy in the Bradley got interviewed after that they had a low amount of shells and were just firing everything and anything they had at the tank with both luck and skill they came out of it thankfully
I was a tanker for 26 years. If your hydraulics go out, or any other issue, the tanks have manual components to traverse the turret and elevate/depress the gun. You can turn off power to the turret, but there may have been an issue that they couldn’t. You can’t use the manual controls if that turret is turning like that under power.
So you basically say they got hit in a very very unlucky position i doubt something like this will happen again, i wonder if something similar ever happend.
The T90 crew training might be less then adequate also. And even if they were trained to do those things they probably just panicked and forgot all about it.
@@haanjamiisoh, yes, mister Spiidi hænd here, who's trained to (there's no other adequate word to mane it) wank the hands to do fighting at 120 meters range. Ever heard about trigonometry?
The army has been using video games since the early 80's as training aids. They used the 1980 Atari video game Battlezone to develop an early simulator called The Bradley Trainer. I saw the story on 60 minutes as an 11 year and could not get to the arcade quickly enough to try it!
We use a table top simulator called the COFT. It comes in large boxes and sets up on a table. 3 boxes. One for each crew member. Has the same fire control box , gunner sights/yoke, and BCs sights and stick. Can run hundreds of scenarios. It's mandatory to train on prior to gunnery and qualification
@@JohnSmith-bh8um - Misconstruing my comment is what's weird. Congratulating a man for snagging a cooperate sponsorship and cheering for a corp is two different things Karen
@@verzinghettorix6360 - I'd love them to advertise on my content. They have the money, why not? Their money is as good as every other corporation that advertises on UA-cam
It's funny that you mentioned ArmA. I've been in a mil-sim unit now for about 12 years now. It's such a fun game. Buggy when modded but fun af. I always try to tell people that ArmA is real warfare, put into digital form. It'll teach you SO MUCH about warfare and tactics. I HIGHLY recommend it to anyone who wants to experience warfare as close to IRL as possible on a computer. I was apart of an ODA team for year and we got to use drones... ALOT. I already knew how devastating they were for observation and munition deployment because we use to do it, often.I use to be a drone operator in ArmA and the videos coming out from the war are JUST LIKE how I saw the world when I was operating in ArmA. lol
This feels like suppressing fire doctrine in small fireteams being upscaled to IFVs going up against MBTs. Sure, the shots don't necessarily kill, but it disorients the enemy and gives them about 200 reasons per minute not to make a lot of movement.
@@kruser8636 As were the Russians in 1989, so tread lightly. Oh, and by the way: Russian casualties were ~14.500 dead and ~54.000 wounded after only ten years, whereas NATOs casualties were "only" ~3.600 dead and ~23.500 wounded soldiers (and, if you want to count them as well, ~3.900 dead and ~15.000 contractors of all [sic] sorts) in *_twenty_* years. So yes, NATO lost as well - but that still doesn't give Russia *_any_* bragging rights, because *_they_* performed much worse in much less time.
The enemy doesnt know if you can penetrate their armor or not, they just know they are taking fire and have no idea where its coming from. It takes a very brave or very well trained crew to keep fighting under those circumstances.
Exactly...which is why losing _experienced tank crews_ at too rapid a rate can degrade a unit's combat effectiveness. The Russians are *addicted* to 'trading bodies for tactical gain' ..... see typical Russian combat losses (in a historical context) for further details.
>No, mom, I'm not _"playing video games,"_ I'm *TRAINING.* >I'm not _"wasting time trolling in OL forums,"_ I'm *GATHERING INTELLIGENCE.* -Every kid between 10 & 30, RN (probably) 🤭
So all those countless hours playing Rise of Nations developing tactics and how to properly counter them using sort of combined arms operations were not only not a waste of time, but indeed qualified me as a strategist? hahaha ok, I will try to impress my wife with that
I've watched the video of this engagement many times, and as a retired Abrams Master Gunner I've formed an opinion about the end of the T-90. I don't know anything about that tank, such as if their computer system will apply aim-off to lead moving targets., as the Abrams does Believing that it does, I theorize that the spinning turret was caused by the hits on the sights jamming the reticle to one side, and that the tank's computer is applying aim-off to lead what inputs tell it is a moving target.
Сегодня подбили первый абрамс на Украине, всу боялись и берегли абрамс , но вчера вывели два погонять , один из них сегодня подбили и он сгорел , второй убежал далеко в тыл. Вот такой вот первый выход этого танка на Украине
The Bradley crew knew any direct hit from the T90 and they were toast; the T90 crew was being rung like a bell, and surely knew that they were 1 TOW away from an especially bad day. On another note, the T90 crew is probably suffering from the world's worst case of tinnitus. LOL
That confusion aspect was something I never thought of in this engagement. The tankers in the t90 probably couldn't even think straight with those 25mm rounds slamming into the turret.
also, Russia has hardly any well trained crews left. In high stress situations, since you (and everyone else) is in fight or flight mode, you revert to your training. So, likely that the Russians just panicked, understandably. They've probably never been instructed on what to do when getting raked by three 25mm rounds per second. And when the turret went uncontrolable, they couldn't get out so the driver went into the tree because the barrel of the gun would hit the tree trunk and jam the rotation. It worked, then they could get out. Bailing was the right move since Ukrainian FPV drones were operating.
@@Clyde__Frogi bet he get feed by Western media for so long he actually believe RU army is undertrained lol. As if some undertrained crews can operate a T-90M in active frontline like that.
Retired Abrams Tank Commander here.....The slip ring on any tank is a weak point. You just need to be really good at your aim to actually hit that weak point. Also, Boresighting the Main gun needs to be on par. I know the M3 Bradley has a stabilized gun system so leading the target is not required. Another thing to note is if the T90M has their rounds around the turret area, they can aim the 25mm round at track level and shoot at their hull right in between the tracks so that It will penetrate the hull wall. All the heavy armor on the tanks are on the front slope or front glacis on the turret. That tank is only heavily armored frontally and by doctrine your tank will always face the enemy because you want all of your thickest armor to face the enemy. having two bradleys engage the T90M at track level, disabling it and using both 25MM bushmasters as jackhammers would've destroyed that T-72 IF and only IF the ammo is situated around the turret like the older tanks. People need to understand that the T-90M is still based on the T-72 Chassis and we all know that the T-72's hull is weak. Even .50 Cal API can penetrate it. The TOW-2B will not kill the tank unless both Bradleys fire at it and even then one bradley needs to destroy the ERA on the turret and the other needs to follow through. Thats like US on the Abrams engaging a T-72, 72B3, 80, 80U and 90M: Frontally you wanna aim at the slipring or just underneath the gun tube which is where the autoloader is located, From the side: Center mass. If you want to pop the turret off, Aim at the hull. me being someone with tank knowledge, If that tank had a GAS sight, I wouldve used it. I wouldve also found a spot to go hull down and set a hasty Defense and start defending against the two brads. Thank god for manual handles especially when it comes to degraded mode in the tank. one more thing: Taking out the optics does not cause the turret to spin like "a runaway spin". That spin was caused by the crew. the TOW missle wasnt used because its wire guided and you need a clear line of sight to the target, if the wire is cut, then the missile is a "dead missle". Also the standard TOW missle has an arming range of 65 Meters, however, the Ukrainian Brads are carrying TOW2B which has an arming distance of 200 Meters. a combination of LOS to target and Arming distance of the TOW2B is the most likely reason it wasnt used in the engagement. The Configuration at the 10:40 Mark is the Cavalry Fighting Vehicle Configuration which allows for more carrying of TOW missiles compared to the IFV configuration which carries an Infantry squad.
Question from someone with 0 undertaking of military vehicles: If the turret is computer stabilized, why is the TOW not?like the interference from things like water seems pretty bad
lets be honest here, those Bradley crews were incredibly lucky to get out of there with their lives. you dont normally take on a MBT with Bradleys, its a mismatch especially if they didnt have any TOWs, which it appears they probably didnt. disabling the t90 was their best hope. it worked, but if i was those crews, i wouldnt want to attempt that again.
Those Brads should have had dismounts and those dismounts should have had some proper AT weapons. I am thinking this is a fight that should never have happened in the first place.
@@MFitz12 I would guess it was a risk they were willing to take, in order to get rid of a loner t90. They might not have had other resources available on a short notice.
Interesting, the Bradley's tried it again a few days later and were knocked out. We know this because the commander was interviewed later and explained that he no longer commanded a Bradley as it didn't work out that well.
The thing that my wife and I really appreciate about your channel is that you always bring up the human factor, that is to say, what these people felt physically and mentally 👍🏼
@@hermes667 Unfortunately, the West never saw this war as anti-West. So they don't really care. The help they provide is tiny - especially in the latest months.
400-900mm armor thickness? Haha. I assure you it doesn’t have slabs of armor approaching a meter in thickness. This is some sort of equivalence, adjusted for sloped armor face and possibly for the effect of reactive armor as well.
@@toruvalejo6152 the actual weight isn't really what you should look at, the T90A was 46 tons (but I think the T90M is a few tons heavier). the main reason why you should not look at the total weight of the vehicle is because the bradley has a tall frame and the larger you have to make the side plates the weight adds up quickly and IFVs are extremely weight inefficient because they need to be able to carry troops and a heavy hydraulic door.
That what I wanted to know absolutely No support makes it a sitting duck, they were probably lost you know Russia has shit GPS when they even have them
Simplest reason may be the T-90 was just cut off from squadron mates for any number of reasons, some of which may be as innocent as getting stuck on some terrain or lack of fuel and the other tanks didn't want to stop.
During WW2, the British in North Africa found a way to use ordinary small arms to defeat huge German tanks. The idea was the vision in German tanks was very poor, being limited to a few narrow periscopes, etc. It was almost impossible for the German tanks to maneuver without having the crew poke their heads out. Keeping German tanks bathed with small arms fire therefore nearly blinded them, permitting the British to outflank the German tanks and hit them from the side and rear, where armor was thinnest.
LOL I couldn't believe that Gambit commercial myself. It's actually a great way to get your name out there to different countries that want to buy this shit lol. (You don't trust those assholes over there?) Their logo should be. "Don't get caught with your pants down! GAMBIT!"
Fam, we're watching robot recorded war footage while eating popcorn and going over play by play like it's an American football game... Why not embrace the cyberpunk dystopian vibes and do an ad read for Reaper drones 2.0?
@dpelpal the Russian Army which successful took and is still holding the 3rd of Ukraine that up until recently was Russian. Russians which anhialted both most recent counter offensives. Russians which created a tank that sparked all western nations to begin developing new models. Russians which wanted to join NATO, asked to join NATO, but were denied. Go watch the two hours of uncensored interview with independent media that Putin did. Wouldn't it be great if our western leaders were willing to be so open. I'm not laughing. I'm concerned for my future and the future of my loved ones. I am disgusted at the leaders of my nation and its allies for stopping peace negotiations to ensure more people die.
I really appreciate you bringing up the human element here. I think a lot of people are forgetting these, after all, are just people. Theyre going to get scared, confused and what have you. Theyre going to make mistakes, and while i enjoy watching these videos have started to feel a change in myself with how i view this type if stuff. We sit here and watch as people are losing their lives, usually in a horrible manner, while sitting behind a screen.
RIGHT, putting into perspective what is happening on the inside is very relevant. Sounds, panic, blind spots, are you outnumbered, etc. How confident is the T90 crew in using their tank once they come in contact with other armor? We have to assume that they knew they weren't up against German or UK MBT but were they in the area? Was this tank crew properly trained? How much ammo did they have left? Great breakdown Cappy
It's hard telling what kind of training the Russian tank troops are receiving also. Most of the experienced tankers have already been taken out earlier in the war.
@@t.r.4496 "Most of the experienced tankers have already been taken out earlier in the war". Does any country, except for maybe the US, have _experienced tankers_ in the first place? Conflicts involving heavy use of MBTs were uncommon during the last decades. Russians seem to have had war games, drills and whatnot but having spoken plenty with people who actually served in Ukrainian and Russian forces (conscripts who served before 2010s) and participated in such drills... Man, their stories paint a different picture. None of them had access to modern vehicles and the war games were never taken seriously. Things may have changed since, because both of these countries have attempted to modernized their militaries since 2014 but conscripts who served back then are the ones being drafted now from both sides.
@@OFfic3R1K I was talking about actual combat experience. I was talking about them just putting anyone they can find in the tank. Telling them here's the gas here's the firing button go.
@@AlbertoMartinez765 Depends on the time period of the war, but you're correct. Most armor on both sides (Minus running into M18's, T-34 85's on the German side or most armor from the German side, as both guns were highly effective against most Panzer armor, And the long 75's on StUGs, TDs and Panzer Or the 88 on Tigers, which could punch the majority of US and Soviet armor from the front.) were taken out as mobility kills or abandonment due to problems within the vehicle. Technically not mobility kills in the latter, but if your Sherman didn't have wet stowage and you get a penetrating hit didn't do a lot of harm to the crew... You wanted to GTFO.
Yeah, @@Meravokas. I was a tank crewman and all I could think during the video was, "Why aren't the Bradleys aiming at the tracks?" They're a much larger target than the optics and just as vulnerable. I kinda think the T-90 crew was not a very well trained crew. There is no way the T-90 should have missed that first shot.
Absolutely not an expert by any means here, so feel free to call me wrong. I’ve seen a lot of discourse around this engagement online, and one thing a lot of people pointed out rather cynically that the Bradley ostensibly failed to actually destroy the T-90M (which was eventually only destroyed later by a drone). Which is true, it was a spectacular light show but as mentioned the only damage was likely to the optics and external equipment. Meaning I have two key takeaways from this. The Bradleys and their crews did exactly what they were designed and trained to do in this situation, which is to button up the enemy’s optics with that 25mm and move quickly to not give them an easy target. While people were rather sensationalist about this on both sides, the fact is this: The Bradley did its job and successfully neutralized Russia’s premier MBT in a head-on engagement. The Bradley won this fight, plain and simple.
I agree. I've also seen posts that are comparing these two tanks, which aren't comparable. The Bradley is NOT a main battle tank. The Abrams is a main battle tank, but there isn't an Abrams engaged in this clip. Also, the Bradley and the Abrams are outdated, which in my mind just shows how poorly the Russian tank performs.
@@auglazeallday5335The Bradley isn't even a tank mate, it's an IFV. That being said, we know that the T90 is a shitbox tank anyway, given it has a top speed comparable to tanks 20 tonnes heavier from several decades ago, and is using an engine that is essentially a slightly modernised version of the engine from a Porche Tiger... An engine that was considered unreliable 80 years ago, and is still unreliable to this day (As demonstrated in footage you can find of a T90's engine breaking down on the parade square in Moscow.)
The bradley indeed did not destroy the T90M. A drone did. However, the Bradley did do extensive damage to the T90M's optics that it was basically blind.
@@auglazeallday5335 youre wrong as far as the Abrams and Bradleys being outdated. The russian tanks However are outdated. I can say this because I was on the Abrams. The Abrams uprades have yet to cease and will not cease upgrades for the Foreseeable future. lol Abrams and Bradley outdated...give me what youre smoking.....
What I am about to share happened over 30 years ago, so some minor details will be off. I was in the South African Defence Force (conscripted), and was trained in a vehicle identified to me as the "Zero Charlie Ratel" (The Ratel is an early IFV, I guess). I've looked for more info on the Zero Charlie Ratel, and apparently it doesn't exist. Except I trained in one. It was a dedicated electronic warfare vehicle that was essentially a big mobile versatile radio (actually a whole bunch of radios) with a two man crew. It could intercept or jam pretty much anything that was able to be intercepted or jammed at the time (1990s). It's been suggested to me that it was a prototype that never went into production as it was near the end of South Africa's apartheid era. In any case, while training we were called in to listen (audio only) to a live (we were told it was live) fight between a Ratel pack of 6 Ratels (IIRC 1 x Zero Charlie, 2 x Ratel 90s, 3 x Ratel 20s) and a group of 5 T-90s. The Soviet Union used to send new equipment to South Africa's neighbours to see how they fared in a real conflict, so we often saw new stuff. In any case, the Ratels were really fast, but the T-90s were highly advanced, and it was a standoff with no clear winner - the T-90s couldn't hity the Ratels, but the Ratels couldn't approach the tanks. Until the zero charlie ratel figured out how to jam comms on the tanks. Suddenly everything changed. Some officers in the room suggested that the tanks were sharing sensor data with each other to track the ratels, but as soon as the jamming started it was clear that the tanks no longer accurately knew where all the ratels were. All I remember from what followed is that the Ratels used the big guns to kill the tracks on the tanks, and while they were doing that the smaller ratels were baiting the tanks into firing at each other - they were using smoke grenades to obscure the battlefield in addition to the EW stuff. Three tanks were destroyed by other tanks firing at the Ratels, and the bigger ratels pounded the other two, crippling one and destroying the other. Even back then I was unsure if this was some sort of propaganda, or a real skirmish. The fact that the base OC (Officer Commanding), as well as my regimental OC, and 3 Electronic Workshop's OC were present in the room, along with us (junior ncos) and a number of other senior officers made me believe it was at least somewhat legit, but I still had some pretty strong reservations. After watching this, I'm more inclined to believe it was real, which is a little sad (for me) because, at the end, a few of the tank commanders were calling for help on unencrypted channels - all blocked - and one was crying. In hindsight, it may have been the first field trial of the Zero Charlie Ratel coming across an early T-90. I guess I'll never know.
One thing that nobody is talking about. Even if the Bradley was unable to hit the T90’s optics directly, the fact that it’s creating all these sparks could potentially get in the way of the optics. The Bradley is firing so many rounds, there’s literally sparks everywhere. I don’t see how that couldn’t impede the T90’s vision.
Смешнее то, что Запад превозносит свои бмп, приводя в довод случай из видео, но забывают, что танк не смог выстрелить по противнику. Если вы знаете чем вооружены многочисленные российские БМП, то должны понимать насколько как смешно смотритесь.
@@HoBoeBpeM9lYour main battle tank uses an engine designed by Germany in the second world war, has a top speed comparable to tanks 20 tonnes heavier from the 60's, broke down on the parade square in Moscow, and has zero active defense systems against modern weaponry. You literally have to put chain link armour on a tank, because you can't figure out how to make something to take out an in-flight missile... Oh, and all your vehicles lose to a brick of plastic explosives strapped to a quad drone that was bought off of Ali-Express for €30.
I remember in the 80's a tabletop game called "Striker" (part of the Traveller system) where you design your own AFV's with cost factors for a parody of battles. My friend-built a standard large Main Battle tank. I opted to two medium wheeled AFV with 50mm auto cannons. The end result was he F-upped one of my vehicles and I stripped off every single external item his tank had. Including tracks and turret rotation. And with the last of my ammunition, I could flank it and finish it off. It looked a lot like what happened here.
Ukraine have just pulled out of Avdiivka so this was part of last stand by them. Great footage of the tanks in battle there has been so much coverage from drones nowhere is safe.
I'm still sticking to my theory that you mentioned earlier in the video. Sure the T-90 is a robust vehicle, but humans are squishy and consecutive concussive force mixed with the optics going out and the adrenaline of battle. I feel like that T-90 crew got a bit of a headache. I mean according to historian Sir Hilary Doyle, there was an account of a Panzer IV (it could have been a III or a Panther, I can't remember the exact details) crew being pelted by Soviet tanks for a good bit. The tank was all dented up, but otherwise fine. The crew apparently had died from excessive prolonged exposure to concussive force while they were buttoned down inside. So the 25mm Bushmaster might not be the largest gun out there, but it doesn't need to be to give someone a mean migraine.
I was a Bradley gunner, then commander during 2 trips to the big beach. It appears to me, that both Bradley’s were using HE rounds, based of splash on target. The tow missile would have been a better choice… but a T-90 is an incredibly unwise target for a one-on one matchup. This would require one or two brads staying highly mobile to draw fire, while a third sits a couple thousand meters away to take the shot. You can’t be close and highly mobile with the launcher in business mode.
They had issues with the guns atleast Bradley number 2 did so they could only fire HE. Given the immense usage of FPV Drones it is extreamly volitile to stay out in the open with an vehicle and not move at more or less max speed. The needs of the TOW system simply makes it hard to impossible to use it in an Urban area in the current type of fights. Bewst regards.
@@Stratos1988it's not just "safety off". The launcher must be raised and armed. It's really an ambush style weapon vs MBTs. You can use it in "stop & shoot " scenarios vs lighter vehicles, but not vs MBTs.
I imagine if they had all three Bradleys available they could have had the third take it out with TOW, but considering the engagement they did a good job with the cards dealt to them.
Avdiivka fell A few days later, the same Bradley was abandoned by the crew due to being hit. It was the operator himself who said this and showed his abandoned Bradley
@@juanpablochaconvargas6919 How much military equipment did Ukraine spend when it tried to capture the village of Rabotino, where there are only 6 small streets... We won’t talk about it. When was the last time Ukraine attacked and took a city... We won’t talk about it. You didn't understand what the comment was. I wrote that this Bradley was hit and abandoned the next day. As you said, the crew survived. The question arises why the author of this video did not say. Although this news appeared the next day from the day of this video (Bradley shoots at the T-90M). This shows a very high intensity of battles. And it shows that the technology is not vulnerable. And everything depends to some extent on luck. It’s simple, he broadcasts propaganda to the audience. Why did small bloggers, who are trying to advocate for objectivity, although they advocate for the Ukrainian side, mention this nuance, but a blogger with more than 1,000,000 subscribers did not? Although he presents himself as a super expert and analyst, he advocates objective information
General Dynamics? Cap, you're moving up in the world. Hard work, great analytical skills and probably the best military information channel on the web had to result in something. War Thunder to real life battle field? I'll be chuckling for the rest of the day. Many thanks.
@@nanzistnt2573what/who would you recommend to watch for unbiased information? I genuinely want to know as knowledge that isn’t tainted by politics is rarer than platinum these days.
@@nanzistnt2573 Was expecting some Vatnik posting clearly RU biased sources in an attempt at a flamewar but this stuff is actual gold my man, I appreciate it greatly.
As former armored vehicle officer, I wonder why the T90 was alone and unsupported. 1) You don't hold or capture an objective this size with one tank 2) You don't hold or capture an area with several buildings without infantry support. With what I know about the battle lines, it looks like Stepove is kind of a "no mans land" contested area, but its also near Avdiivka which is currently held by 2 brigades with 5 direct combat battalions each (although the 110th mechanized brigade would be considered significantly degraded). Its just a waste of an asset to be probing with a lone unsupported T90 or if it was a straggler, it didn't look like it had trouble moving or keeping up so its platoon or company messed up big time by leaving it behind to get destroyed.
It's really transparent out there. Grouping up means it starts raining. It's not too unusual to see a lone RU tank. What was unusual was one that far out, it and the support usually get whacked well before, sometimes they don't get to the starting line. What the Russians think is productive is different from what we see as productive, and it's possible sending only one tank is the safest option for whatever they were doing due to the chance of rain. A thousand KIA per km is definitely not productive from our view, but it appears for them an acceptable level of efficiency.
@oohhboy-funhouse Fair points but it does seem like such a waste from a training and materials perspective. Tanks are really very ineffective alone and even more so in a built-up area. Maybe they really do have many of these tanks and half-trained crew to rotate in. Mechanised scouts or scouts in BRDM/Tigr/Volk or similar platforms may have been more appropriate. But maybe the Ukrainians have achieved local dominance with the Bradleys which is why they're resorting probing with tanks.
They were trying to encircle the town so imagine they split their force quite wide and expected with all their armour they would be able to withdraw or get support if engaged.
Two issues with that engagement and the tow. You answered both. If the engagement was about 50m like you said, it's under minimum range for arming. Also the Brad moving around so much, it would have been not been able to have been used. Either way, an amazing encounter and we are lucky to have seen it on film.
As a former gunner on a Leopard 1; way back in 1982; Dutch forces in Germany, many thanks for this interesting rapport of a battle between a tank and 2 armoured personell carriers. A tank is mostly over rated when alone on the battelfield. It protects and supports infantery, and infantery is needed to protect the tank. As can be seen here, whitout infantery, the tank is vulnerable. Had there been Russian infantery, the Bradleys would have had a much more difficult job! The tank is at it's best on open ground, where it can use it's speed, manouvrebillity, and supperior firepower. (Not to mention in this case it's vulnerability to helicopters or airplanes) To immobilize it's optics was a very good decision. The sights inside a tank are very limited. Or the commander has to put his head out of the coppola, like the German tankcommanders did in WW2. But then they are vulnereble to snipers and schrapnell. I can imagine the tankcrew, thinking to have an easy prey on the Bradley's, they get very nerves, when they are blinded by a barrage of 25 mm shells. It's is not only about the equipment, it's also about training, determination of the crew, psychlogy, motivation for the fight, and how to handle fear as well. If one crewmember panics, the whole crew is not effecient anymore. It takes a good tankcommander to handle all this. And often he can't. Also the idea of burning alive is not motivating. Not to mention the appauling losses of Russian tanks in the last 2 years. All of that can play a part in the acting of the Russian tankcrew, because almost for sure they know... They survived, but now all of this, their fight, on the internet.....I wonder what the concequences for them will be...... knowing the harsh dicipline in the Russian Army...
@@putitang6295 I know of the stealing or obduction of children, and using chips from washing machines or photo equipment... but what has that to do with this?
No. As in case of car accidents the souls are shocked and do not recognize that they no longer live a physical life. They do not go to the Light. Often they remain in place and reply the moment of their death so they could finally wake up and realize their true condition.
@@ryandylan6946 be careful because the fact that someone lost his physical body does not mean that they are smarter or that they know the future. If you want to go deeper with the topic I recommend the book “Possessed by Ghosts: Exorcisms in the 21st Century”
@@ryandylan6946 be careful because the fact that someone lost the physical body does not mean that they automatically have power to predict the future. You will see after you die that’s for sure.
Thats cool mate. I still remember the number of my weapon during my military service aswell, 251317, so you are not alone remembering those kinda pointless numbers lol
@@Burningarrow7 Even still, the fact that a much smaller country has stagnated the Russian advance with in a 3 month window of the initial advance shows the lack of training the russian war machine had. Russians only tactic is horde rushes, so yea 13 vehicle kills to 1 loss is rather good considering russia is the zerg
I was on a bradley crew for nearly 12 years, ended up being a section sergeant over two brads. This is pretty accurate information, I was only able to find a few things from your assessment that were slightly off. Great video, well done!
Very close range engagement by tanks with their main armament can be quite problematic. We did close range 400m minus battle runs with Leopard and had to use to aim off. You weren’t taught to shoot 105mm at that range (except Splintex MA). The 90 does not appear to have stabilisation on, that’s perplexing. I agree with your theory about optics, that commander has the most. The close would also negate the use of ATGW (Tow and its gather distance). Cheers GC
I served on M3 CFVs back in the mid-1980s, so I don't recall what the minimum arming range of a TOW missile is, but it looks like these were mighty close to it.
This incident reminds me of the rampage I used to create in War Thunder with the Wirbelwind , that thing was a total beast against tanks so much so that Gaijin decided to nerf it
My dad was a tanker in Germany in the 80s. In his tenure they started training with the original m1. Anyways according to him, they were able to take out Russian armor with just 7.62. Overwhelming fire gets a few lucky rounds to ricochet through a viewport. In testing they even got a round to cook off in the turret. Basically his point was overwhelming fire and a skilled crew can be effective at reducing the fighting strength. He also told the anecdote of testing the first Gen DU rounds. For the older lighter tanks, the round would just go through and through and they were worried about overpentrarion without injuring the crew. The got some livestock, put it inside the target of two tanks next to each other. The DU overpenetrated and pierced both tanks, but all the live stock were sucked from one tank to the other. My dad is one to exaggerate, so I don't know how true it was. But it's an interesting story.
I want to be in the mind of the person that authorized that ad Buy. " how is this going to help us increase sales? How is this relevant? Why are we doing this?" Lolololololololol. This provides me hours of laughs just thinking about it
Putin: "T-90 is the best tank in the world. The West doesn't have a tank that even matches the T-90, let alone infantry fighting vehicles." Ukraine: "Hold my beer."
How can it possibly be good to be sponsored by the military industrial complex? That means we can’t trust anything he says, this for instance is one long commercial for their products
Kind of makes him a propaganda marketing tool for them...given they are the ones making all the money out of prolonging the war Should remain independent, to carry more authoritative weight
The only thing we can say it's certain is that the T-90's crew is, to this day, still hearing "THUNK THUNK THUNK THUNK THUNK" at about 400 times per minute. (I think, I'm not sure which type of 25mm are using so please correct me if I'm wrong)
@@nikolaideianov5092 don't know, the only vid I've seen is crew getting out of tank and running to cover. Bradleys seemed like they were booking it out of there, however there was an artillery strike, so it's really hard to tell... So much unnecessary death!
From what I heard from the official reports, The Bradleys didn't destroy the tank, didn't really penetrate the armor. But the tank was cooked off by a drone that dropped a bomb on the top of the turret.
It "killed" the tank in the sense that it blew out its eyes. Think of it this way: You can have the most elite spec ops guy in the entire world, who can take on Mike Tyson and Connor MacGregor at the same time and win, and if you poke his eyes out he ain't fighting anyone any time soon.
Можете перевести мой ответ гугл переводчиком. В России это видео хорошо известно. Сначала танк атаковал БПЛА, потом огонь Брэдли повредил механизм поворота башни, поэтому танк не мог вести ответный огонь. После боя танк еще раз был атакован БПЛА, но вышел к своим позициям, экипаж не получил ранений и танк отправили в ремонт.
@@magnacarta9364 what are your sources on this? Unless you share I'm willing to believe you just made it up, since the video is less than a week long.
Chris, I do not think you are an "average" infantryman, more so well above average. I enjoy listening and watching you posts. Keep up the good work. LTC Bob Swenson, Retired USA
Would you please make a series of videos of how this Ukraine - Russian war has changed the war doctrine? Use of drones, unmanned vehicles, etc. Thanks!! P.s. Amazing video as usual!!!
I have an immense amount of respect for how far out you released this from Ryan McBeths video. I don't know if it was intentional, but it resulted in the number of shared viewers being consistent. Keep up the great work!
Hey Cappy, thanx for the rundown. I watched this engagement when it came out and I was impressed with the Strikers commanders aggressiveness. He knew that if he's gonna survive that fight he's gonna have to pour on everything he gots and do it now. I also think that it's great that he learned the sighting points from a video game and remembered. I admire that because I hate video games with a passion. My kids had them and I'd watch sometimes, but never engage. Just something to do with my kids and they can teach the old man when I'd ask a question. I'm glad the commander put his game knowledge to good use Unironic HUHA
в современном бою кто первый увидел тот и победил , есть видео где Т-80 увидел и поразил первым выстрелом Bradley ракетой Invar c дистанции 4,8км . Возможно его корректировал беспилотник . У России могучий военно промышленный комплекс эффективное оружие и непреклонная воля к победе . Российская армия сейчас объективно сильнее чем в 2022 году, а Украинская слабее и приемущество будет только увеличиваться . Мы понимаем что вам нравится смотреть как русские и украинцы убивают друг друга но я верю в карму и каждый получит по делам своим . А Россия как обычно победит и будет решать как с вами быть дальше .
That's quite a professionnal analyzis. Major point for including the human factor. Avdiivka is a fortress, it is probably the longest siege of the 21st century. Combats started in 2014, the city was captured by pro russian forces before being taken back by ukrainian forces during summer that same year. The fighting continued up until 2017, to a lower scale, and never really stopped up until the russian invasion when the proper siege started again, especially since last year. The mayor of the city reported during the last 24 hours or so, that the russian forces are closing in on the last major road access.
The first fact. If you don't know the facts, don't say anything. There have been no major fights there since 2015. And it was in 2015 that fortifications began to be built there. In early 2023, Russian troops launched an attack on the Soledar-Bakhmut line and then Avdiivka. Soledar fell first, then Bakhmut fell, and Avdiivka was next. But the summer Ukrainian offensive operation began. Which ended in nothing. And only then did the real battle for Avdiivka begin in October 2023. 5 months and the fortified Avdiivka fell. There have been no assaults since 2014. Only 5 months of fighting. The second fact. You correctly said that "pro-Russian forces" fought there in 2014. That is, not the Russian regular army. In other words, the rebellious citizens of Ukraine. This means that there was a civil war, not a war between Russia and Ukraine. And these pro-Russian forces did not have the equipment to capture Avdiivka. That is, again, the fact that Avdiivka was not stormed at all until 2017, as you wrote. I repeat once again, the "fortress" of Avdiivka was taken in 5 months by the forces of 40 thousand Russian troops.
The best reasoning why they didn't use the TOWs I'd heard was the following: 1. TOW needs the vehicle to be stopped to use. 2. Minimum Arming distance. 3. Debris/trees and other obstacles that would interfere with the control of the TOW. Thankfully, you mentioned all of which in the video. From a few Brad guys I've read feedback from, they mention that the tactic of just hammering the shit out of it with HE to operationally kill the vehicle (optics, etc) was a great decision. "Buttoning up" I believe I saw it called.
They couldve hammered the Hull with AP and set off the rounds in the turret. The hull is the weakest of the tank. All the heavy armor is towards the front of the tank. always has been that way.
All TOW missile have an arming distance of 65 Meters WITH THE EXCEPTION to the TOW2B which has an arming distance of 200 Meters. When firing the TOW/TOW2B, they need to have a clear line of sight to the target when engaging due to the fact that the missiles are wire guided If that wire is cut mid flight, then the round is a dead round and will drop. You are also correct in the fact that the bradley must be stationary in order to fire its missile. now for the Bradley guys, I agree but you can also say that they shouldve aimed for the hull of the T90M which is the weakest along with the engine compartment. The T90M is STILL based on the T-72 Hull Chassis and as such, still has a weak point in the hull where their ammo is stored. Its not like our tanks (Abrams) where we have a ready/Semi-ready/hull ammo compartment.
I remember our warfighting lab using "Doom" to teach Marines fireteam tactics using a "Marine Doom" modified program. Four Marines on computers playing through scenarios as a team. Hell, Marines in Iraq were playing team first person shooter games when they were in the FOB on R&R breaks. Doesn't make your average gamer a warrior, but it does make warriors better at their job.
I wonder if WarThunder includes "get all your shit from the USA" or if that's just a unique thing that's happening in Ukraine. This is the Ukrainian army without mass USA funding 🧍🧍🧍🧍🧍🧍🧍🧍🧍
The short answer is no, the Bradley's didn't penetrate the T90, the explosions were most likely the active armor being set off. After a brief but significant emotional event both the Bradley's left and the T90 left intact. Later that T90 was destroyed by artillery and the Bradley's were destroyed somewhere else according to later interviews with the crews.
Gambit is the new unmanned combat aircraft from General Atomics Aeronautical Systems.
With advanced autonomy and low-cost mass, Gambit lets the U.S. military move fast … and
move first. Learn more at www.uav.com
Donald Hill link is missing.
How does it feel to be sponsored by the military industrial complex? Pretty big difference compared to the mini-guns. You made it! Congrats.
I love listening to non-military people script marketing about military topics. It’s like “buzzword” bingo.
I knew guys in Desert Storm and it was the same way. They killed more tanks with the chainguns than the TOW.
He said not being able to move was the problem and set up time to shoot.
The chain guns had a tendency to cause the Iraqi tanks armor to spall inside sending fragments around the interior of the tank.
What exactly are they trying to sell the viewers of this channel, I wonder?
I was a TOW gunner back in the 1990s. Assuming TOW missiles haven't been greatly upgraded with new capabilities since then, the reason they wouldn't have been fired in this engagement is that it was too close, with too many impediments to line of sight, and too much motion.
TOWs have to be fired from a stable and stationary platform - at least the ones back in the '90s had to be. Gunner has to keep a reticle steady on the target from the time of acquisition, firing, and until impact. Any jostle or bump could make the missile go haywire, and these Bradleys would've been experiencing plenty of jostling and bumping as they dashed around that village.
If they'd had time to calmly set up from a stationary position with a clear line of sight, using a TOW to take out that tank would've been a no brainer. But the sudden contact engagement here didn't lend itself to firing off a TOW.
Did they have a TOW, I know Bradley's can be fitted with one but did this one?
Question: Am I seeing things? Or do those TOW missiles have some kind of string attached to them?
@@ross6024 toWire Guided, yes.
Likely they are using the same ones from back then now, with how the aid is being done, instead of more modern versions
@ross6024 they are guided by those wires that's why it has the max distance it does (among other factors)
This feels like the armoured warfare equivalent of a knife fight in a phone booth.
That’s how it was described in Armor school
damned close... the T-90 was being hit by the sabot segments at that range. Scarier is the TPDS is rated 14mm at 2700 feet max.
There is a whole generation that doesn’t even know what a phone booth is! Hard to believe
Wouldn't the bradleys be... able to penetrate that T-90 hull if they had Depleted Uranium rounds?
Basically this except the Bradley has a box cutter and the T90 has a KA-BAR and wearing a stab-proof vest.
Old 19D M2 driver/gunner here. Moving and shooting a TOW would be very difficult to hit with. You might be able to hit a slow moving vehicle at distance with one if you are not moving. Think at it like you shooting a moving boat from the shore verse shooting out of a moving boat. There were some trees, telephone poles and structures in the way that could have cut the TOW wires. The TOW box has to be raised and lock before it can fire. So you can tell when it when it is deployed about to fire. The turret will 360 faster than 6 seconds. There is a slew button that turbos the speed which you can move the turret. You can spin it very fast. Looks like the impacting rounds were HE instead of AP. We were taught to reverse load HE and AP rounds. It hold 300 total with something like 70AP and 230HE. But we would do it backwards to have 230AP and only 70HE. He might have forgot when selecting ammo that is backwards from what is marked. Their training is very short. Also the ammo boxes have to be loaded very specifically. If loaded wrong, it could lead to a jam. It feeds from 2 boxes so you could go to another box in an emergency. Lastly firing the gun is not to terrible loud inside as all crew members wear helmets with earphones built it. The muzzle blast is ear shattering outside. So my guess is impacting rounds would not have been too much worse than just shooting your own gun during normal firing.
Brad wont allow the tow to be fired or controlled if youre moving faster than 3 MPH.
Ukraine have the TOW's that uses radio frequencies (, of course the question is how many RF TOW's do they have compared to the wire launched TOW's, it might be that they have only a small amount of RF TOW's)
@@fnym9rdsavsffdik9a25 they do not have tow 2b Aeros. That weapon is not released for non nato members. They have wired tow 2b.
@@ascentoffroad
my source is ryan mcbeth, from what I have gathered RF = Radio Frequency unless the RF is a different RF than radio frequency then the Ukrainians have wireless TOW's
watch code is CRkI43OLTN8
The deceleration of the impacting round is much higher than the acceleration of the round in the barrel, so I imagine it would be louder inside the tank than firing the gun. Remember that when firing, a round accelerates through the entire length of the barrel, whereas when an incoming round hits the armour, it decelerates from full speed to zero in the length of the shell.
I became a TOW GUNNER back in October of 1977 after Infantry School at Benning. It wasn't even an MOS back then. Hell, the TOW SYSTEM still had a noun nomenclature of XM-151 E2. It was an ASI. 11B10-ASI-P4. It was fairly new. It became its own MOS IN '79'. 11 HOTEL 10. Russian armor wasn't even our main objective target.
We hunted as a priority the Russian ZSU 23-4 QUAD heavy anti-aircraft gun system. We left the tanks to the 2/68th Armor and their "Big Boys", M60A1s MBTs in Baumholder W. Germany. We saw the first A10 THUNDERBOLTS fly over the MTA in 1978 in close air support.
The gunner learned where best to hit the T-90M by playing video games.
WarThunder players: *cheering wildly
Gaijen is seething after seeing this XD
That's a myth
@@deletdis6173 he literally stated in a interview lmao cope harder
@@deletdis6173he said it in the interview??
Good thing all those classified documents are leaked so players know exactly where to hit lol
No discount code for those Gambit drones? I guess I'll wait for the black Friday sale.
It looked like they had at least 2 different drones but they didnt specify what model is best for home deefense... I guess ill have to wait for a 2 for 1 special.
@@AusKipper1 🤣
3 axis gimble rockets you say ? @@rexrock
Why do my replies keep getting deleted? I guess I just won't post anymore?
All I said was Walmart...
Hi, actual US Army Gunner here. I was on a 1167 Humvee with a 240 Bravo and a TOW ATGM. The Tow was likely not used in this engagement because it requires you to sit still for at least 7-14 seconds depending on how good you are with it. You need to arm the missile, lock on with the tracking gates, then fire and that's if you just so happen to be using the TAS when you're engaging the enemy. Additionally the missile (depending on what generation it's from) is either wire guided or RF guided and therefore the attacking vehicle needs to sit completely still to allow the gunner to maintain a good lock on the target. This is because the TASs reticle needs to be fixed on the exact spot you need the missile to go. A single breath in the wrong direction could cause the turret to move and completely miss the tank, spelling certain death for the Brad.
At 50 meters when you think time is short and that tank barrel could be pointed anywhere, the TOW might be a bad option and buttoning (or shooting out the optics on) the 90 might be the best option.
Also it's entirely possible that the 25mm penned the T-90. I find it unlikely that the gunner of the tank decided that rotating the turret to the right for five whole seconds was a good idea. Most likely the tank was hit between the turret and the hull (which is something we are taught is a weak point, particularly on Russian tanks) and the turret hydraulics were damaged, causing it to rotate uncontrollably.
In conclusion:
The TOW is not good at close range high stakes engagements. It's an ambush weapon meant for long range "sniping." The 25mm can absolutely pen the T-90 depending on where you hit it.
And furthermore it's also possible that the Driver lost his optic and the TC was telling him to get the hell out of there, explaining why he just floored it into a tree.
lest , you are playing WOT Blitz
About Rus tank (is public domain strategy there how to behave in usa when in that kind of bad situation ? probably...) on top of my head and no knowledge of tactics:
When under fire from several directions from several autocannons, the pounding (even sound may be an issue with limited healthcare probably available (in the future) for Rus crew..?).
Simpler, seems like tactical situation dicey, you're obviously not taking care of possible enemy infantry with your tank and friendly infantry not nearby (Ukr Bradleys you think having infantry with mines/AT and no friendly infantry as support...), other AT support probably present usually (I think said even in this video, though unavailable but unknown to Russian tank), so retreat is smart. Analyzing too much in this video ? Well, clicks.
@@tondekoddar7837 Huh?
@@tondekoddar7837 About what the American doctrine would be in this situation if an American tank were in a similar situation (against two BMPs for example) the simple answer is that no such situation would ever exist.
Americans do not deploy their tanks alone in a village somewhere in enemy territory just waiting to get ambushed by infantry from a building. That's a big no-no. The Russian Commander made a pretty big tactical mistake here and was likely overestimating the capabilities of his T-90M and her crew.
American tanks tend to be deployed alongside Bradleys in hunter-killer squadrons. In this American scenario when the Bradleys and tanks encountered a village near a major objective (like the nearby city) and that village needed to be secured the Bradleys would push forward while being covered by the Abrams and deploy dismount teams that would move in and secure the village while the tanks and brads watched closely from a distance. If the dismounts were to get ambushed by an enemy building the dismounts would lay down while the tank and the brads obliterated the enemy armor or structure with their guns and TOWs. Then when the threat was neutralized the infantry would push forward and clear the village and secure it. THEN the tanks and brads would move in to provide 360 degree security for the village. Or they would simply bypass it depending on what the overall objective was for their mission set. But if they HAD to secure the village, that's how they would do it.
It's a pretty unstoppable and methodical strategy and there's not really a good way to counter this. At least not with current technology. No Russian tactic as far as I am aware exists for this kind of fighting and from what I have seen the Russian tactics are INCREDIBLY dated. It's basically just dudes running around with guns being told where to go. There is very little discipline, doctrine or tactical forethought that seems to go into what they do. I suspect this is due to poor training.
If the Russians were highly trained, how come they are still fighting an undersized and poorly equipped army that is right on their border and are unable to decisively gain significant amounts of land? The Russian military is a joke. @andreyRUS17
Ya know, I wasn’t really considering buying a highly-advanced, low visibility wingman drone powered by a revolutionary thermoelectric engine, but your sponsorship read really changed my mind.
Thank you for understanding what your audience wants at what i assume will be an affordable price for the retail consumer.
I was waiting for him to say the code for 10% off of your first order! 😂
well i'm not buying one until we get unboxing vid
Is there a quantity discount, too?
You guys don't use Revanced to skip all sponsorships and ads? 😂
@@Wrigggydude I would totally watch military unboxing videos lmfao
"...he used his knowledge of War Thunder of where to strike the Russian tank."
Gentlemen. It is with great pleasure that I inform you that War Thunder is now a confirmed practical source of knowledge on the disabling and destruction of MBTs. Also, we live in some very strange times.
it doesn't mention War Thunder only video games. exact quote "but as I played video games, I remembered everything, both how to hit them and where" the idea it came from war thunder comes from the channel owner who is making assumptions
@Ghoulza the only video game that simulates damage like he describes is war thunder, world of tanks doesn't have these tanks in the game
by video games he probably meant a simulation. because even if it was somehow wt the t90m was added like a day or two before this happened. and I doubt he has a whole ass gaming pc in a war, with a stable internet connection
@@irirjhrhr4645T-90 has the exact same hull as T-72 and Relikt side skirts were added a millenia ago
It's weird how our government will give civilians in other countries weapons of so-called war but won't give it to us even though they say no one should have it but yet they have it protecting them all the time with automatic rifles and everything else... Strange logic we have to deal with these days 😤
Fun fact, later this tanker commander lost his Braddley. He gave another interview. Positive point is that they lived after the destruction of the Bradley, so it did the job to keep crew safe.
Mind dropping a link to it?
Now that's a positive spin if that is true. When a Bradley is lost?
yes, it was on telegram i saw
Are there any videos confirming this? If someone wrote something in a telegram, consider that they didn’t write anything. Even those who are supposedly “supports Ukraine” are in fact very willing to spread Russian fakes.
@@amrannoordin1644Yeah and the Soviet equivalent of the Bradley just gets utterly annihilated and are not repairable at all. Man power is not so easily replaced as sophisticated scrap metal.
The m2 Bradley does everything it was designed to do: provide mobility and protection to its occupants. Meanwhile the Soviet tanks and APCs, can barely hold their own against a smaller attacking force.
Throwing bodies at the problem is Russia's way of doing things. And it can and always will bite them in the ass a few years down the line, when they face a manpower shortage and numerous rebellions throughout their Confederacy.
You're delusional if you think this is a positive spin. It's just reality: when you kill off your workforce to compensate for poor quality technology, training, logistics, and tactics, you face manpower shortages and lose capable men.
I liked just for the advert. You can imagine what audience this guy has if drone manufacturers come to post their advert here. Truly one of the most trustworthy source on the Internet.
The lad's gaining infuence and the advertisers are getting crafty
If service personelle watch it could cause positive brand recognition leading to product adoption. The cost is relatively cheaper than a conventional national ad campaign and the audience would probably be more engaged.
Even these comments are positive word of mouth.
Plus considering the advertisement costs for a channel hell a hundred channels like this wouldn't even be a molecule in a drop of the bucket of wealth they have.@@granatmof
trustworthy source of information which still fails to pronounce foreign words(and not at the level which English angry CoD-upbrought toxic players demand from everyone around). Fails to put (even extremely English) sounds in right order. Perhaps he has dyslexia.
The MIC is just buying favorable news coverage.
Bradley Gunner 1989-1991/1994-1998, Bradley Commander 1999-2001. Tow would have taken to long to setup and engage the tank. Besides to many impedments in the area of engagement. Next if there was a feeder malfunction the 25mm bushmaster would not have been able to fire unless it was cycling between the dif rounds. Its a simple task to push the the malf button and reset the feeder to cycle the diff rnds.The feeder is a dual system until it enters the reciever. Sounds like AP(70 rnds) where all fired and the gunner than switched to High explosive (230 rnds) or could have been the opposite (70HE/230AP). hope that helps.
I bet you're a bad mamajama
thank you for your service brother
The guy in the Bradley got interviewed after that they had a low amount of shells and were just firing everything and anything they had at the tank with both luck and skill they came out of it thankfully
@@RXIVVIX I.e., "the fog of war." Had to be scary af facing that beast.
Thanks for the explanation.
I was a tanker for 26 years. If your hydraulics go out, or any other issue, the tanks have manual components to traverse the turret and elevate/depress the gun. You can turn off power to the turret, but there may have been an issue that they couldn’t. You can’t use the manual controls if that turret is turning like that under power.
I agree with the video host when he said that the engagement distances were probably too close to engage manually.
What kinda tank were you in? Ferrari or shitbox?
So you basically say they got hit in a very very unlucky position i doubt something like this will happen again, i wonder if something similar ever happend.
The T90 crew training might be less then adequate also. And even if they were trained to do those things they probably just panicked and forgot all about it.
@@haanjamiisoh, yes, mister Spiidi hænd here, who's trained to (there's no other adequate word to mane it) wank the hands to do fighting at 120 meters range.
Ever heard about trigonometry?
Cappy even got a referenced on Infographics and now the sponspor is some mil-tech company? So proud.
Which one?
@@patrickglaser1560not a Russian bot - you just accuse people of being psyops without a shred of evidence.
@@patrickglaser1560 The only person affected by psyops is you.
@@janpiorko3809there are multiple exposes on infographics and how it's just propaganda. Same with kurzgesagt
@@patrickglaser1560maybe you are the algorithm manipulator?
The army has been using video games since the early 80's as training aids. They used the 1980 Atari video game Battlezone to develop an early simulator called The Bradley Trainer. I saw the story on 60 minutes as an 11 year and could not get to the arcade quickly enough to try it!
We use a table top simulator called the COFT. It comes in large boxes and sets up on a table. 3 boxes. One for each crew member. Has the same fire control box , gunner sights/yoke, and BCs sights and stick. Can run hundreds of scenarios.
It's mandatory to train on prior to gunnery and qualification
i grew up playing AA2, which was a (at the time) realistic video game meant to be a recruiting tool. Big green loves video games
Wasn’t there a military shooter made for the army or something?
@@tbomb69yeah America's army
@@TheLastCustomer thanks man
Can we take a moment to appreciate our man just got a sponsorship from a major arms producer? 😂
Yes. This is absolutely unheard of. Bravo!
@@justadbeercheering for the the corporations who own your government and therefore your country. Thats weird ..
@@JohnSmith-bh8um - Misconstruing my comment is what's weird. Congratulating a man for snagging a cooperate sponsorship and cheering for a corp is two different things Karen
@@justadbeershould tell you something when our corporate arms dealers want to advertise on your content
@@verzinghettorix6360 - I'd love them to advertise on my content. They have the money, why not? Their money is as good as every other corporation that advertises on UA-cam
Wow those Gambit drones look awesome! Definitely will be purchasing for home defense
"A ticking time-clock" is my new favorite Cappy-ism.
“Nuke-you-leer” is mine
I know you can have a clock that doesn’t tick, but is there such a thing as a non-time clock? Really makes you think maaan 😂
@@jonesy279 I guess an odometer could be considered a type of space-clock
@@Nahbruh180😂
@@jonesy279The omnitrix
General Ducking Dynamics as a video sponsor? Awesome. This channel has officially made it.
I find "average infantryman" is not correct. The Pentagon network probably slows down when T&P notifications hit.
It's funny that you mentioned ArmA. I've been in a mil-sim unit now for about 12 years now. It's such a fun game. Buggy when modded but fun af. I always try to tell people that ArmA is real warfare, put into digital form. It'll teach you SO MUCH about warfare and tactics. I HIGHLY recommend it to anyone who wants to experience warfare as close to IRL as possible on a computer. I was apart of an ODA team for year and we got to use drones... ALOT. I already knew how devastating they were for observation and munition deployment because we use to do it, often.I use to be a drone operator in ArmA and the videos coming out from the war are JUST LIKE how I saw the world when I was operating in ArmA. lol
Greetings from a former ArmA developer!
This feels like suppressing fire doctrine in small fireteams being upscaled to IFVs going up against MBTs. Sure, the shots don't necessarily kill, but it disorients the enemy and gives them about 200 reasons per minute not to make a lot of movement.
It will also strip off periscopes, sensors, etc. Which is what happened here.
"200 reasons per minute" kekw
I'm gonna have to remember that one
All I knows the russian army is a joke😂
@@dpelpal Ну не такая смешная как НАТО, которое пинками вышвырнули из Афганистана.
@@kruser8636 As were the Russians in 1989, so tread lightly.
Oh, and by the way: Russian casualties were ~14.500 dead and ~54.000 wounded after only ten years, whereas NATOs casualties were "only" ~3.600 dead and ~23.500 wounded soldiers (and, if you want to count them as well, ~3.900 dead and ~15.000 contractors of all [sic] sorts) in *_twenty_* years.
So yes, NATO lost as well - but that still doesn't give Russia *_any_* bragging rights, because *_they_* performed much worse in much less time.
The enemy doesnt know if you can penetrate their armor or not, they just know they are taking fire and have no idea where its coming from. It takes a very brave or very well trained crew to keep fighting under those circumstances.
Exactly...which is why losing _experienced tank crews_ at too rapid a rate can degrade a unit's combat effectiveness.
The Russians are *addicted* to 'trading bodies for tactical gain' ..... see typical Russian combat losses (in a historical context) for further details.
of course it is, it’s not war thunder 😂 also doesn’t mean the tank is bad any tank in that situation will lose…
it's more about "how to survive this" than bravery
>No, mom, I'm not _"playing video games,"_ I'm *TRAINING.*
>I'm not _"wasting time trolling in OL forums,"_ I'm *GATHERING INTELLIGENCE.*
-Every kid between 10 & 30, RN (probably) 🤭
Every PFC with their phone out.
im 33 and am now using this from now on when speaking to my lady about my silly games.
Way older than 30
So all those countless hours playing Rise of Nations developing tactics and how to properly counter them using sort of combined arms operations were not only not a waste of time, but indeed qualified me as a strategist? hahaha ok, I will try to impress my wife with that
tbh Gaijin makes their stuff as realistically as possible, barring confidential info@@richardmh1987
I've watched the video of this engagement many times, and as a retired Abrams Master Gunner I've formed an opinion about the end of the T-90. I don't know anything about that tank, such as if their computer system will apply aim-off to lead moving targets., as the Abrams does Believing that it does, I theorize that the spinning turret was caused by the hits on the sights jamming the reticle to one side, and that the tank's computer is applying aim-off to lead what inputs tell it is a moving target.
Сегодня подбили первый абрамс на Украине, всу боялись и берегли абрамс , но вчера вывели два погонять , один из них сегодня подбили и он сгорел , второй убежал далеко в тыл. Вот такой вот первый выход этого танка на Украине
One important piece of analysis that would be undeniable... The pucker factor for all crew members on both sides was undoubtedly 💯% ✌️
Real life version of Fury
The Bradley crew knew any direct hit from the T90 and they were toast; the T90 crew was being rung like a bell, and surely knew that they were 1 TOW away from an especially bad day.
On another note, the T90 crew is probably suffering from the world's worst case of tinnitus. LOL
@RadioactiveSherbet no, they dont. he didnt show the end of that clip. T90 blew up, those dudes are unalive
@@PoroPog it did not blow up. Looked like either reactive armor popping or the ammo reserves were hit. Either way, they were likely fine
imagine the Ukrainians had one western MBT in this engagement. an Abrams, a Leo2 or even a Challenger. that would have been quite something to witness
That confusion aspect was something I never thought of in this engagement. The tankers in the t90 probably couldn't even think straight with those 25mm rounds slamming into the turret.
also, Russia has hardly any well trained crews left. In high stress situations, since you (and everyone else) is in fight or flight mode, you revert to your training. So, likely that the Russians just panicked, understandably. They've probably never been instructed on what to do when getting raked by three 25mm rounds per second. And when the turret went uncontrolable, they couldn't get out so the driver went into the tree because the barrel of the gun would hit the tree trunk and jam the rotation. It worked, then they could get out. Bailing was the right move since Ukrainian FPV drones were operating.
If they could think straight they wouldn't be there.
@@S0ulinth3machin3What evidence do you have for Rus having 'hardly any trained crews left'? I'd like to see the figures myself
@@Clyde__Frogi bet he get feed by Western media for so long he actually believe RU army is undertrained lol. As if some undertrained crews can operate a T-90M in active frontline like that.
@@Clyde__FrogRussia has hardly any tanks left. In last years parade they only had one tank, and the world commenced laughing at russia (again)😂😂😂
As a former Armor officer and combat veteran of Desert Storm and OIF III, that was the best analysis I've seen of this engagement.
this young guy is amazing! Good analysis and footage.
Retired Abrams Tank Commander here.....The slip ring on any tank is a weak point. You just need to be really good at your aim to actually hit that weak point. Also, Boresighting the Main gun needs to be on par. I know the M3 Bradley has a stabilized gun system so leading the target is not required. Another thing to note is if the T90M has their rounds around the turret area, they can aim the 25mm round at track level and shoot at their hull right in between the tracks so that It will penetrate the hull wall. All the heavy armor on the tanks are on the front slope or front glacis on the turret. That tank is only heavily armored frontally and by doctrine your tank will always face the enemy because you want all of your thickest armor to face the enemy. having two bradleys engage the T90M at track level, disabling it and using both 25MM bushmasters as jackhammers would've destroyed that T-72 IF and only IF the ammo is situated around the turret like the older tanks. People need to understand that the T-90M is still based on the T-72 Chassis and we all know that the T-72's hull is weak. Even .50 Cal API can penetrate it. The TOW-2B will not kill the tank unless both Bradleys fire at it and even then one bradley needs to destroy the ERA on the turret and the other needs to follow through. Thats like US on the Abrams engaging a T-72, 72B3, 80, 80U and 90M: Frontally you wanna aim at the slipring or just underneath the gun tube which is where the autoloader is located, From the side: Center mass. If you want to pop the turret off, Aim at the hull. me being someone with tank knowledge, If that tank had a GAS sight, I wouldve used it. I wouldve also found a spot to go hull down and set a hasty Defense and start defending against the two brads. Thank god for manual handles especially when it comes to degraded mode in the tank. one more thing: Taking out the optics does not cause the turret to spin like "a runaway spin". That spin was caused by the crew. the TOW missle wasnt used because its wire guided and you need a clear line of sight to the target, if the wire is cut, then the missile is a "dead missle". Also the standard TOW missle has an arming range of 65 Meters, however, the Ukrainian Brads are carrying TOW2B which has an arming distance of 200 Meters. a combination of LOS to target and Arming distance of the TOW2B is the most likely reason it wasnt used in the engagement. The Configuration at the 10:40 Mark is the Cavalry Fighting Vehicle Configuration which allows for more carrying of TOW missiles compared to the IFV configuration which carries an Infantry squad.
Wait, 50cal api can pen t-72? 😮
Question from someone with 0 undertaking of military vehicles:
If the turret is computer stabilized, why is the TOW not?like the interference from things like water seems pretty bad
lets be honest here, those Bradley crews were incredibly lucky to get out of there with their lives. you dont normally take on a MBT with Bradleys, its a mismatch especially if they didnt have any TOWs, which it appears they probably didnt. disabling the t90 was their best hope. it worked, but if i was those crews, i wouldnt want to attempt that again.
Those Brads should have had dismounts and those dismounts should have had some proper AT weapons. I am thinking this is a fight that should never have happened in the first place.
@@MFitz12 I would guess it was a risk they were willing to take, in order to get rid of a loner t90. They might not have had other resources available on a short notice.
@@mr.meatsoup5639 - Probably, but 2 IFV's with no infantry and no AT weapons sounds like seriously bad planning.
@@MFitz12
It’s Ukraine, you can’t hide with all the drones, infantry following along in the open is providing an easy target for mortars and fpvs
Interesting, the Bradley's tried it again a few days later and were knocked out. We know this because the commander was interviewed later and explained that he no longer commanded a Bradley as it didn't work out that well.
The thing that my wife and I really appreciate about your channel is that you always bring up the human factor, that is to say, what these people felt physically and mentally 👍🏼
the human factor is almost always the primary determinator. War is fought by humans, not spreadsheets or computers.
@@S0ulinth3machin3this. It is always the soft factors
The Ukrainian soldiers are brave. But the supporting countries should do anything to keep their spirits up. Less support could cause moral problems.
@@hermes667 Unfortunately, the West never saw this war as anti-West. So they don't really care. The help they provide is tiny - especially in the latest months.
that Ukrainian Bradley Commander really has skills. I wonder what is his account call sign and rank in War Thunder
Unbelievably, he only volunteered to be a Bradley Commander so he could get some IRL practice and rank-up in War Thunder!
@@shonunezekielprobably quicker, easier, and less stressful than grinding it in War Thunder tbf.
He is long time gone, maybe 1 day after this happened.
@@Jan.jan2024 why seem salty about a trivial question to spark a casual conversation?
@@Jan.jan2024Veri gud England you hav
400-900mm armor thickness? Haha. I assure you it doesn’t have slabs of armor approaching a meter in thickness. This is some sort of equivalence, adjusted for sloped armor face and possibly for the effect of reactive armor as well.
Fair fucks to the Bradley, pretty badass vehicle. This is like a Bantamweight going up against a Heavyweight and holding his own.
That's a pretty solid analogy.
Bantam would be gun-toyota I think. Bradley mass is 30 tons - T-90 is 46 tons. But still pretty badass, no question about it!
The Brad got more tank kills in thr Gulf War than the Abrams
@@NapoleonicWargaming Yeah, their TOWs were smacking up tanks at a terrifying rate.
@@toruvalejo6152 the actual weight isn't really what you should look at, the T90A was 46 tons (but I think the T90M is a few tons heavier).
the main reason why you should not look at the total weight of the vehicle is because the bradley has a tall frame and the larger you have to make the side plates the weight adds up quickly and IFVs are extremely weight inefficient because they need to be able to carry troops and a heavy hydraulic door.
Big question is why the heck was that T-90 driving around on its own?
The Russians are poorly trained. That's what I'm guessing.
It's the Russians
That what I wanted to know absolutely No support makes it a sitting duck, they were probably lost you know Russia has shit GPS when they even have them
Simplest reason may be the T-90 was just cut off from squadron mates for any number of reasons, some of which may be as innocent as getting stuck on some terrain or lack of fuel and the other tanks didn't want to stop.
Because the russian military is incompetent. That has been the answer to that question everytime someone has asked it during the past two years...
Arming distance of the TOW is 65m. TOW 2 engagement range is 3,750m. Cold War 11H.
11M here. The M2A2ODS has to be either still or less than 5mph to raise the TOW box. Sitting still in a Brad against a T90 is a really bad idea
Yep, its a shoot n scoot@@sgtmajorbuzz
tow 2b min arming distance is 200m
@@ascentoffroad much later version of what I fired, ITOW.
@@sandynewman5533 We have TOW2B Aero nowadays. No more wires to deal with and 4500m range.
During WW2, the British in North Africa found a way to use ordinary small arms to defeat huge German tanks. The idea was the vision in German tanks was very poor, being limited to a few narrow periscopes, etc. It was almost impossible for the German tanks to maneuver without having the crew poke their heads out. Keeping German tanks bathed with small arms fire therefore nearly blinded them, permitting the British to outflank the German tanks and hit them from the side and rear, where armor was thinnest.
My man got sponsored by the Military Industrial Complex 😂
Yeah, officer material badly written all over Cappy's average grunt image, lol
The advertised UCAV platform does look interesting, though.
LOL I couldn't believe that Gambit commercial myself. It's actually a great way to get your name out there to different countries that want to buy this shit lol. (You don't trust those assholes over there?) Their logo should be. "Don't get caught with your pants down! GAMBIT!"
Fam, we're watching robot recorded war footage while eating popcorn and going over play by play like it's an American football game... Why not embrace the cyberpunk dystopian vibes and do an ad read for Reaper drones 2.0?
@@jonp8015it is depressing when you put it that way
What a fantastic sponsorship to have in the channel. Really happy to see your effort being recognized like this. Keep on with the stellar work.
Or work for the CIA
@@Bikeadelic I think most people are too busy laughing at the russian army😂😂😂
@@dpelpalJeepers! That's a bold comment given what's happening on the front lines right now.
@dpelpal the Russian Army which successful took and is still holding the 3rd of Ukraine that up until recently was Russian. Russians which anhialted both most recent counter offensives. Russians which created a tank that sparked all western nations to begin developing new models. Russians which wanted to join NATO, asked to join NATO, but were denied. Go watch the two hours of uncensored interview with independent media that Putin did. Wouldn't it be great if our western leaders were willing to be so open.
I'm not laughing. I'm concerned for my future and the future of my loved ones. I am disgusted at the leaders of my nation and its allies for stopping peace negotiations to ensure more people die.
@@Bikeadelic Nobody is going to read your propaganda Ivan.
imagine if those were US crew they will be experiencing titinus for life and the VA will still say it's not service related
Absolutely...they would be like...?? hmmm..NAH
If it was American the T-90 would be dead.
Vet support will get even worse, again, if Trump is elected. He did nothing but take away from vets.
"Do you have any notarized documentation that you were exposed to depleted uranium during your time in service?"
THANK YOU.. there are SOOO many "experts" that are so pro Ukrainian you cannot question anything..
The spinning turret isn’t a malfunction, it’s the beyblade feature. The designer was a huge weeb
haha
Lmao
I really appreciate you bringing up the human element here. I think a lot of people are forgetting these, after all, are just people. Theyre going to get scared, confused and what have you. Theyre going to make mistakes, and while i enjoy watching these videos have started to feel a change in myself with how i view this type if stuff. We sit here and watch as people are losing their lives, usually in a horrible manner, while sitting behind a screen.
RIGHT, putting into perspective what is happening on the inside is very relevant. Sounds, panic, blind spots, are you outnumbered, etc. How confident is the T90 crew in using their tank once they come in contact with other armor? We have to assume that they knew they weren't up against German or UK MBT but were they in the area? Was this tank crew properly trained? How much ammo did they have left? Great breakdown Cappy
It's hard telling what kind of training the Russian tank troops are receiving also. Most of the experienced tankers have already been taken out earlier in the war.
@@t.r.4496 "Most of the experienced tankers have already been taken out earlier in the war". Does any country, except for maybe the US, have _experienced tankers_ in the first place? Conflicts involving heavy use of MBTs were uncommon during the last decades. Russians seem to have had war games, drills and whatnot but having spoken plenty with people who actually served in Ukrainian and Russian forces (conscripts who served before 2010s) and participated in such drills... Man, their stories paint a different picture. None of them had access to modern vehicles and the war games were never taken seriously. Things may have changed since, because both of these countries have attempted to modernized their militaries since 2014 but conscripts who served back then are the ones being drafted now from both sides.
The tank driving into a tree in panic says alot of how the people inside were feeling.
@@OFfic3R1K I was talking about actual combat experience. I was talking about them just putting anyone they can find in the tank. Telling them here's the gas here's the firing button go.
Thank you for keeping Ukraine on top of the news list! It is very important these days to not forget that the war didn't go anywhere
"Worst merry-go-round ever."
Quotable quote, thanks Cappy
Who says you have to penetrate a tank's armor to put it out of action anyway.
Yep I mean a lot of tanks during WW1 and 2 just had the tracks taken out.
@@AlbertoMartinez765 Depends on the time period of the war, but you're correct. Most armor on both sides (Minus running into M18's, T-34 85's on the German side or most armor from the German side, as both guns were highly effective against most Panzer armor, And the long 75's on StUGs, TDs and Panzer Or the 88 on Tigers, which could punch the majority of US and Soviet armor from the front.) were taken out as mobility kills or abandonment due to problems within the vehicle. Technically not mobility kills in the latter, but if your Sherman didn't have wet stowage and you get a penetrating hit didn't do a lot of harm to the crew... You wanted to GTFO.
No one says that, quit battling your own voices in your head
@JanJan-rv1eg nobody but you said it was destroyed lol
Yeah, @@Meravokas. I was a tank crewman and all I could think during the video was, "Why aren't the Bradleys aiming at the tracks?" They're a much larger target than the optics and just as vulnerable.
I kinda think the T-90 crew was not a very well trained crew. There is no way the T-90 should have missed that first shot.
Absolutely not an expert by any means here, so feel free to call me wrong.
I’ve seen a lot of discourse around this engagement online, and one thing a lot of people pointed out rather cynically that the Bradley ostensibly failed to actually destroy the T-90M (which was eventually only destroyed later by a drone). Which is true, it was a spectacular light show but as mentioned the only damage was likely to the optics and external equipment.
Meaning I have two key takeaways from this. The Bradleys and their crews did exactly what they were designed and trained to do in this situation, which is to button up the enemy’s optics with that 25mm and move quickly to not give them an easy target.
While people were rather sensationalist about this on both sides, the fact is this: The Bradley did its job and successfully neutralized Russia’s premier MBT in a head-on engagement. The Bradley won this fight, plain and simple.
I agree. I've also seen posts that are comparing these two tanks, which aren't comparable.
The Bradley is NOT a main battle tank. The Abrams is a main battle tank, but there isn't an Abrams engaged in this clip. Also, the Bradley and the Abrams are outdated, which in my mind just shows how poorly the Russian tank performs.
@@auglazeallday5335The Bradley isn't even a tank mate, it's an IFV.
That being said, we know that the T90 is a shitbox tank anyway, given it has a top speed comparable to tanks 20 tonnes heavier from several decades ago, and is using an engine that is essentially a slightly modernised version of the engine from a Porche Tiger... An engine that was considered unreliable 80 years ago, and is still unreliable to this day (As demonstrated in footage you can find of a T90's engine breaking down on the parade square in Moscow.)
The bradley indeed did not destroy the T90M. A drone did. However, the Bradley did do extensive damage to the T90M's optics that it was basically blind.
@@auglazeallday5335 youre wrong as far as the Abrams and Bradleys being outdated. The russian tanks However are outdated. I can say this because I was on the Abrams. The Abrams uprades have yet to cease and will not cease upgrades for the Foreseeable future. lol Abrams and Bradley outdated...give me what youre smoking.....
Эпогей российского танкостроения это т90 прорыв и т14, а не т90м
As Wellington said the battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton. Now they're won at Playstation
yeah, he was never gonna say it was when blucher turned up 😄
The battle of Waterloo was won by rain, a hill and a bunch of Prussians..
@@elhermes77lots of inflection points were it was lost.
E.g. not enough I fantry
What I am about to share happened over 30 years ago, so some minor details will be off. I was in the South African Defence Force (conscripted), and was trained in a vehicle identified to me as the "Zero Charlie Ratel" (The Ratel is an early IFV, I guess). I've looked for more info on the Zero Charlie Ratel, and apparently it doesn't exist. Except I trained in one. It was a dedicated electronic warfare vehicle that was essentially a big mobile versatile radio (actually a whole bunch of radios) with a two man crew. It could intercept or jam pretty much anything that was able to be intercepted or jammed at the time (1990s). It's been suggested to me that it was a prototype that never went into production as it was near the end of South Africa's apartheid era.
In any case, while training we were called in to listen (audio only) to a live (we were told it was live) fight between a Ratel pack of 6 Ratels (IIRC 1 x Zero Charlie, 2 x Ratel 90s, 3 x Ratel 20s) and a group of 5 T-90s. The Soviet Union used to send new equipment to South Africa's neighbours to see how they fared in a real conflict, so we often saw new stuff.
In any case, the Ratels were really fast, but the T-90s were highly advanced, and it was a standoff with no clear winner - the T-90s couldn't hity the Ratels, but the Ratels couldn't approach the tanks. Until the zero charlie ratel figured out how to jam comms on the tanks. Suddenly everything changed. Some officers in the room suggested that the tanks were sharing sensor data with each other to track the ratels, but as soon as the jamming started it was clear that the tanks no longer accurately knew where all the ratels were. All I remember from what followed is that the Ratels used the big guns to kill the tracks on the tanks, and while they were doing that the smaller ratels were baiting the tanks into firing at each other - they were using smoke grenades to obscure the battlefield in addition to the EW stuff. Three tanks were destroyed by other tanks firing at the Ratels, and the bigger ratels pounded the other two, crippling one and destroying the other.
Even back then I was unsure if this was some sort of propaganda, or a real skirmish. The fact that the base OC (Officer Commanding), as well as my regimental OC, and 3 Electronic Workshop's OC were present in the room, along with us (junior ncos) and a number of other senior officers made me believe it was at least somewhat legit, but I still had some pretty strong reservations. After watching this, I'm more inclined to believe it was real, which is a little sad (for me) because, at the end, a few of the tank commanders were calling for help on unencrypted channels - all blocked - and one was crying. In hindsight, it may have been the first field trial of the Zero Charlie Ratel coming across an early T-90. I guess I'll never know.
Thanks for sharing, taking the time. Comments like yours are the reason i read them.
One thing that nobody is talking about. Even if the Bradley was unable to hit the T90’s optics directly, the fact that it’s creating all these sparks could potentially get in the way of the optics. The Bradley is firing so many rounds, there’s literally sparks everywhere. I don’t see how that couldn’t impede the T90’s vision.
Spalling could probably take out the sights as well.
Смешнее то, что Запад превозносит свои бмп, приводя в довод случай из видео, но забывают, что танк не смог выстрелить по противнику. Если вы знаете чем вооружены многочисленные российские БМП, то должны понимать насколько как смешно смотритесь.
3:30 Ukraine is knocking out 13 russian vehicles for every one they lose yet they're still having to retreat😂😂 Don't you just love American propaganda
@@HoBoeBpeM9l We send Ukraine our old weapons. Imagine a modern American tank fighting the t90 now.
@@HoBoeBpeM9lYour main battle tank uses an engine designed by Germany in the second world war, has a top speed comparable to tanks 20 tonnes heavier from the 60's, broke down on the parade square in Moscow, and has zero active defense systems against modern weaponry. You literally have to put chain link armour on a tank, because you can't figure out how to make something to take out an in-flight missile... Oh, and all your vehicles lose to a brick of plastic explosives strapped to a quad drone that was bought off of Ali-Express for €30.
"The Brads" just got promoted to "The Chads".
GD, beat me to it
Chadley
Too "loud" for a vehicle that couldn’t penetrate T90 side
@@chad_8313 No, they weren't. But the russian army was destroyed in Kyiv😅😅😅😅😅😅😅
New livery achieved - Adidas three stripe camo now available
I remember in the 80's a tabletop game called "Striker" (part of the Traveller system) where you design your own AFV's with cost factors for a parody of battles. My friend-built a standard large Main Battle tank. I opted to two medium wheeled AFV with 50mm auto cannons. The end result was he F-upped one of my vehicles and I stripped off every single external item his tank had. Including tracks and turret rotation. And with the last of my ammunition, I could flank it and finish it off. It looked a lot like what happened here.
The tank here was stopped by FPV drones, not by Bradley gunners
@@Franfran2424as you can see in the video, the tank was stopped by the 25mm‘s damage resulting it to drive into a tree, drone came after
@@siilentio you can see in the video iinexplicable explosions corresponding to FPV drones. also theres FPV drone footage of this incident.
Ukraine have just pulled out of Avdiivka so this was part of last stand by them. Great footage of the tanks in battle there has been so much coverage from drones nowhere is safe.
I'm still sticking to my theory that you mentioned earlier in the video. Sure the T-90 is a robust vehicle, but humans are squishy and consecutive concussive force mixed with the optics going out and the adrenaline of battle. I feel like that T-90 crew got a bit of a headache. I mean according to historian Sir Hilary Doyle, there was an account of a Panzer IV (it could have been a III or a Panther, I can't remember the exact details) crew being pelted by Soviet tanks for a good bit. The tank was all dented up, but otherwise fine. The crew apparently had died from excessive prolonged exposure to concussive force while they were buttoned down inside. So the 25mm Bushmaster might not be the largest gun out there, but it doesn't need to be to give someone a mean migraine.
And you see ton of clips where Russian tanks are hit, not disabled and the crew flee.
In the crew interview they said the tank was going after their infantry
They had no choice but to engage
It's what heros do
I was a Bradley gunner, then commander during 2 trips to the big beach. It appears to me, that both Bradley’s were using HE rounds, based of splash on target. The tow missile would have been a better choice… but a T-90 is an incredibly unwise target for a one-on one matchup. This would require one or two brads staying highly mobile to draw fire, while a third sits a couple thousand meters away to take the shot. You can’t be close and highly mobile with the launcher in business mode.
They had issues with the guns atleast Bradley number 2 did so they could only fire HE.
Given the immense usage of FPV Drones it is extreamly volitile to stay out in the open with an vehicle and not move at more or less max speed.
The needs of the TOW system simply makes it hard to impossible to use it in an Urban area in the current type of fights.
Bewst regards.
"launcher in business mode" lol, this very unique way of saying safety's off xD
were you with the infantry or the cav?
@@Stratos1988it's not just "safety off". The launcher must be raised and armed. It's really an ambush style weapon vs MBTs. You can use it in "stop & shoot " scenarios vs lighter vehicles, but not vs MBTs.
I imagine if they had all three Bradleys available they could have had the third take it out with TOW, but considering the engagement they did a good job with the cards dealt to them.
Avdiivka fell
A few days later, the same Bradley was abandoned by the crew due to being hit. It was the operator himself who said this and showed his abandoned Bradley
And russia Lost almost 400 vehicles to take avdivka...and also the vehicles Bradley is not importand itself, the crew surviving is the Main thing
@@juanpablochaconvargas6919 How much military equipment did Ukraine spend when it tried to capture the village of Rabotino, where there are only 6 small streets... We won’t talk about it. When was the last time Ukraine attacked and took a city... We won’t talk about it.
You didn't understand what the comment was. I wrote that this Bradley was hit and abandoned the next day. As you said, the crew survived. The question arises why the author of this video did not say. Although this news appeared the next day from the day of this video (Bradley shoots at the T-90M). This shows a very high intensity of battles. And it shows that the technology is not vulnerable. And everything depends to some extent on luck.
It’s simple, he broadcasts propaganda to the audience. Why did small bloggers, who are trying to advocate for objectivity, although they advocate for the Ukrainian side, mention this nuance, but a blogger with more than 1,000,000 subscribers did not? Although he presents himself as a super expert and analyst, he advocates objective information
General Dynamics? Cap, you're moving up in the world. Hard work, great analytical skills and probably the best military information channel on the web had to result in something. War Thunder to real life battle field? I'll be chuckling for the rest of the day. Many thanks.
Still probably a pretty big step up
@@nanzistnt2573what/who would you recommend to watch for unbiased information? I genuinely want to know as knowledge that isn’t tainted by politics is rarer than platinum these days.
@@nanzistnt2573 Was expecting some Vatnik posting clearly RU biased sources in an attempt at a flamewar but this stuff is actual gold my man, I appreciate it greatly.
As former armored vehicle officer, I wonder why the T90 was alone and unsupported. 1) You don't hold or capture an objective this size with one tank 2) You don't hold or capture an area with several buildings without infantry support. With what I know about the battle lines, it looks like Stepove is kind of a "no mans land" contested area, but its also near Avdiivka which is currently held by 2 brigades with 5 direct combat battalions each (although the 110th mechanized brigade would be considered significantly degraded). Its just a waste of an asset to be probing with a lone unsupported T90 or if it was a straggler, it didn't look like it had trouble moving or keeping up so its platoon or company messed up big time by leaving it behind to get destroyed.
It's really transparent out there. Grouping up means it starts raining. It's not too unusual to see a lone RU tank. What was unusual was one that far out, it and the support usually get whacked well before, sometimes they don't get to the starting line. What the Russians think is productive is different from what we see as productive, and it's possible sending only one tank is the safest option for whatever they were doing due to the chance of rain. A thousand KIA per km is definitely not productive from our view, but it appears for them an acceptable level of efficiency.
@oohhboy-funhouse Fair points but it does seem like such a waste from a training and materials perspective. Tanks are really very ineffective alone and even more so in a built-up area. Maybe they really do have many of these tanks and half-trained crew to rotate in. Mechanised scouts or scouts in BRDM/Tigr/Volk or similar platforms may have been more appropriate. But maybe the Ukrainians have achieved local dominance with the Bradleys which is why they're resorting probing with tanks.
They were trying to encircle the town so imagine they split their force quite wide and expected with all their armour they would be able to withdraw or get support if engaged.
Recon
russians rly dont knw where to go what to do, communication issues always
Two issues with that engagement and the tow. You answered both. If the engagement was about 50m like you said, it's under minimum range for arming. Also the Brad moving around so much, it would have been not been able to have been used. Either way, an amazing encounter and we are lucky to have seen it on film.
I know of two cases in which T-90s were destroyed by Javelins.
As a former gunner on a Leopard 1; way back in 1982; Dutch forces in Germany, many thanks for this interesting rapport of a battle between a tank and 2 armoured personell carriers.
A tank is mostly over rated when alone on the battelfield. It protects and supports infantery, and infantery is needed to protect the tank. As can be seen here, whitout infantery, the tank is vulnerable.
Had there been Russian infantery, the Bradleys would have had a much more difficult job!
The tank is at it's best on open ground, where it can use it's speed, manouvrebillity, and supperior firepower. (Not to mention in this case it's vulnerability to helicopters or airplanes) To immobilize it's optics was a very good decision. The sights inside a tank are very limited. Or the commander has to put his head out of the coppola, like the German tankcommanders did in WW2. But then they are vulnereble to snipers and schrapnell.
I can imagine the tankcrew, thinking to have an easy prey on the Bradley's, they get very nerves, when they are blinded by a barrage of 25 mm shells. It's is not only about the equipment, it's also about training, determination of the crew, psychlogy, motivation for the fight, and how to handle fear as well. If one crewmember panics, the whole crew is not effecient anymore. It takes a good tankcommander to handle all this. And often he can't. Also the idea of burning alive is not motivating. Not to mention the appauling losses of Russian tanks in the last 2 years.
All of that can play a part in the acting of the Russian tankcrew, because almost for sure they know... They survived, but now all of this, their fight, on the internet.....I wonder what the concequences for them will be...... knowing the harsh dicipline in the Russian Army...
Об "ужасающих" потерях танков, вам рассказывает ваша пропаганда?)) А про чипы из стиральных машин и воровстве детей слышали? 😀
@@putitang6295 Translation in Englisch please...
@@madelief47you can use google translate
@@putitang6295 I know of the stealing or obduction of children, and using chips from washing machines or photo equipment... but what has that to do with this?
Just terrible this war is still going on. I hope all the souls lost rest in peace.
No. As in case of car accidents the souls are shocked and do not recognize that they no longer live a physical life. They do not go to the Light. Often they remain in place and reply the moment of their death so they could finally wake up and realize their true condition.
@@ryandylan6946 be careful because the fact that someone lost his physical body does not mean that they are smarter or that they know the future. If you want to go deeper with the topic I recommend the book “Possessed by Ghosts: Exorcisms in the 21st Century”
@@ryandylan6946 be careful because the fact that someone lost the physical body does not mean that they automatically have power to predict the future. You will see after you die that’s for sure.
@@wastaggio, source?
@@chrepuhon You need to read about Possessed by Ghosts and exorcisms in the twenty first century
Crazy to see 207059 at 17:30. That's an Aussie tank that I've maintained over the years
you are one of those rare breed individuals bro.
Thats cool mate. I still remember the number of my weapon during my military service aswell, 251317, so you are not alone remembering those kinda pointless numbers lol
3:30 Ukraine is knocking out 13 russian vehicles for every one they lose yet they're still having to retreat😂😂 Don't you just love American propaganda
@@Burningarrow7 You can find more accurate independent loss figures out there that don't rely on either government or ally's statistics.
@@Burningarrow7 Even still, the fact that a much smaller country has stagnated the Russian advance with in a 3 month window of the initial advance shows the lack of training the russian war machine had. Russians only tactic is horde rushes, so yea 13 vehicle kills to 1 loss is rather good considering russia is the zerg
The T90M crew forgot to bring a large repair kit.
World Of Tanks?
I was on a bradley crew for nearly 12 years, ended up being a section sergeant over two brads. This is pretty accurate information, I was only able to find a few things from your assessment that were slightly off. Great video, well done!
"..forcing the crew to emergency manual control of the turret." Imagine trying to hand crank that bad boy!
An internet warrior somewhere in this video's comments already said "zoze ruz$kijes just forgot they could". See, they actually "kuld".
Very close range engagement by tanks with their main armament can be quite problematic. We did close range 400m minus battle runs with Leopard and had to use to aim off. You weren’t taught to shoot 105mm at that range (except Splintex MA). The 90 does not appear to have stabilisation on, that’s perplexing. I agree with your theory about optics, that commander has the most. The close would also negate the use of ATGW (Tow and its gather distance). Cheers GC
Maybe the stabilization has a minimal effective distance somewhere out past 50m.
Thank you, America for your help to Ukrainians!
I served on M3 CFVs back in the mid-1980s, so I don't recall what the minimum arming range of a TOW missile is, but it looks like these were mighty close to it.
SCOUTS OUT
This incident reminds me of the rampage I used to create in War Thunder with the Wirbelwind , that thing was a total beast against tanks so much so that Gaijin decided to nerf it
My dad was a tanker in Germany in the 80s. In his tenure they started training with the original m1. Anyways according to him, they were able to take out Russian armor with just 7.62. Overwhelming fire gets a few lucky rounds to ricochet through a viewport. In testing they even got a round to cook off in the turret.
Basically his point was overwhelming fire and a skilled crew can be effective at reducing the fighting strength.
He also told the anecdote of testing the first Gen DU rounds. For the older lighter tanks, the round would just go through and through and they were worried about overpentrarion without injuring the crew. The got some livestock, put it inside the target of two tanks next to each other. The DU overpenetrated and pierced both tanks, but all the live stock were sucked from one tank to the other. My dad is one to exaggerate, so I don't know how true it was. But it's an interesting story.
What tank? "Russian armour" counts anything from a T-34 to a T-14. If it was germany in the 80s it may very well have been a genuine T-34
There was no tank clashes in that time, so it is pure fantasy.
@@Pillow_Cat training?
@@Pillow_Cat the US has done lots of tests on Russian equipment captured from their proxies throughout the coldwar
@AboveAverageMan97 I hope you know Russian and China did the same!
That was actually a sick ass sponsorship. Do you have videos already made about the Gambit series of UAV’s? Looks interesting.
why tf is it a sponsor tho? do they expect me to buy one?
Cappy getting ad buys from General Atomics now!?
Man, the future is weird.
I want to be in the mind of the person that authorized that ad Buy.
" how is this going to help us increase sales? How is this relevant? Why are we doing this?"
Lolololololololol.
This provides me hours of laughs just thinking about it
@@Tential1This is a propaganda channel. I dont mean this as a pejoritive
Wait, General Atomics was the sponsor for the video?
Who are they advertising to? War Thunder and ArmA 3 players?
they buy ads just to flex. "check this shit out, peasants!"
Putin: "T-90 is the best tank in the world. The West doesn't have a tank that even matches the T-90, let alone infantry fighting vehicles."
Ukraine: "Hold my beer."
Maybe you’re right, but you never mentioned IFV’s! :3
@@SonOfAB_tch2ndClass Which part, "...let alone infantry fighting vehicles.", you misunderstood?
@@SonOfAB_tch2ndClass bruh
2 fpv drones desabled the tank. watch the 2 vids, dont listen to this fool.
@@VES. it whas the bradly that desabled the tank the drones finished it off
Что тут обсуждать? Бредли приехали добивать подбитый дронами и ПТУР танк. Нет тут героизма!
Did this man really get a General Dynamics sponsorship? Good on ya brother 💰
damn. i learn something everyday @@davidgoodnow269
How can it possibly be good to be sponsored by the military industrial complex? That means we can’t trust anything he says, this for instance is one long commercial for their products
@@davidgoodnow269 General Atomics is privately owned by the Blue family. GE and GD are completely seperate and unrelated companies.
Kind of makes him a propaganda marketing tool for them...given they are the ones making all the money out of prolonging the war
Should remain independent, to carry more authoritative weight
General Atomics is owned by the Blue family and is a private corporation. GD is a completely separate and independent co.
The only thing we can say it's certain is that the T-90's crew is, to this day, still hearing "THUNK THUNK THUNK THUNK THUNK" at about 400 times per minute. (I think, I'm not sure which type of 25mm are using so please correct me if I'm wrong)
Hey, at least they can hear it, and not 6 ft. under
@@zadovrus1624didnt they get droned later?
@@nikolaideianov5092 They left the vehicle when it hit the tree. The drone hit after everyone left the tank.
@@nikolaideianov5092 Yes, they were eliminated later by drones.
@@nikolaideianov5092 don't know, the only vid I've seen is crew getting out of tank and running to cover. Bradleys seemed like they were booking it out of there, however there was an artillery strike, so it's really hard to tell... So much unnecessary death!
From what I heard from the official reports, The Bradleys didn't destroy the tank, didn't really penetrate the armor. But the tank was cooked off by a drone that dropped a bomb on the top of the turret.
It "killed" the tank in the sense that it blew out its eyes. Think of it this way: You can have the most elite spec ops guy in the entire world, who can take on Mike Tyson and Connor MacGregor at the same time and win, and if you poke his eyes out he ain't fighting anyone any time soon.
Можете перевести мой ответ гугл переводчиком. В России это видео хорошо известно. Сначала танк атаковал БПЛА, потом огонь Брэдли повредил механизм поворота башни, поэтому танк не мог вести ответный огонь. После боя танк еще раз был атакован БПЛА, но вышел к своим позициям, экипаж не получил ранений и танк отправили в ремонт.
In full footage, tank succeeded to return back. That gunner from the bradley got his BMP destroyed couple of days after the clash from the tank.
@@Bergelmir_Þrúðgelmirson Also a week later the Bradley was taken out by a T90
@@magnacarta9364 what are your sources on this? Unless you share I'm willing to believe you just made it up, since the video is less than a week long.
Chris, I do not think you are an "average" infantryman, more so well above average. I enjoy listening and watching you posts. Keep up the good work. LTC Bob Swenson, Retired USA
Would you please make a series of videos of how this Ukraine - Russian war has changed the war doctrine?
Use of drones, unmanned vehicles, etc.
Thanks!!
P.s. Amazing video as usual!!!
I think the spinning was the startup sequence for the secret russian tank helicopter mode.
Helicopter helicopter😂
i mean they already have a way to take off, figures they’d develop something to stay in the air
I have an immense amount of respect for how far out you released this from Ryan McBeths video. I don't know if it was intentional, but it resulted in the number of shared viewers being consistent. Keep up the great work!
As a tank commander on a submarine i know absolutely nothing about tank's..
Your sponsor ad came just in time. I was just thinking of upgrading my combat aircraft fleet!
Hey Cappy, thanx for the rundown. I watched this engagement when it came out and I was impressed with the Strikers commanders aggressiveness. He knew that if he's gonna survive that fight he's gonna have to pour on everything he gots and do it now.
I also think that it's great that he learned the sighting points from a video game and remembered. I admire that because I hate video games with a passion. My kids had them and I'd watch sometimes, but never engage. Just something to do with my kids and they can teach the old man when I'd ask a question. I'm glad the commander put his game knowledge to good use
Unironic HUHA
в современном бою кто первый увидел тот и победил , есть видео где Т-80 увидел и поразил первым выстрелом Bradley ракетой Invar c дистанции 4,8км . Возможно его корректировал беспилотник . У России могучий военно промышленный комплекс эффективное оружие и непреклонная воля к победе . Российская армия сейчас объективно сильнее чем в 2022 году, а Украинская слабее и приемущество будет только увеличиваться . Мы понимаем что вам нравится смотреть как русские и украинцы убивают друг друга но я верю в карму и каждый получит по делам своим . А Россия как обычно победит и будет решать как с вами быть дальше .
Аминь!!!🙏🙏🙏
That's quite a professionnal analyzis. Major point for including the human factor.
Avdiivka is a fortress, it is probably the longest siege of the 21st century. Combats started in 2014, the city was captured by pro russian forces before being taken back by ukrainian forces during summer that same year. The fighting continued up until 2017, to a lower scale, and never really stopped up until the russian invasion when the proper siege started again, especially since last year.
The mayor of the city reported during the last 24 hours or so, that the russian forces are closing in on the last major road access.
The first fact. If you don't know the facts, don't say anything. There have been no major fights there since 2015. And it was in 2015 that fortifications began to be built there. In early 2023, Russian troops launched an attack on the Soledar-Bakhmut line and then Avdiivka. Soledar fell first, then Bakhmut fell, and Avdiivka was next. But the summer Ukrainian offensive operation began. Which ended in nothing. And only then did the real battle for Avdiivka begin in October 2023. 5 months and the fortified Avdiivka fell. There have been no assaults since 2014. Only 5 months of fighting.
The second fact. You correctly said that "pro-Russian forces" fought there in 2014. That is, not the Russian regular army. In other words, the rebellious citizens of Ukraine. This means that there was a civil war, not a war between Russia and Ukraine. And these pro-Russian forces did not have the equipment to capture Avdiivka. That is, again, the fact that Avdiivka was not stormed at all until 2017, as you wrote. I repeat once again, the "fortress" of Avdiivka was taken in 5 months by the forces of 40 thousand Russian troops.
Dunno how the algorithms got me here - but damn that was detailed and informative......great stuff.....suscribed.
The best reasoning why they didn't use the TOWs I'd heard was the following:
1. TOW needs the vehicle to be stopped to use.
2. Minimum Arming distance.
3. Debris/trees and other obstacles that would interfere with the control of the TOW.
Thankfully, you mentioned all of which in the video.
From a few Brad guys I've read feedback from, they mention that the tactic of just hammering the shit out of it with HE to operationally kill the vehicle (optics, etc) was a great decision. "Buttoning up" I believe I saw it called.
I thought the TOW arming distance was 40m and in this source it was said it was 50
@@GlopPlopJop takes more than 40M to arm.
They couldve hammered the Hull with AP and set off the rounds in the turret. The hull is the weakest of the tank. All the heavy armor is towards the front of the tank. always has been that way.
All TOW missile have an arming distance of 65 Meters WITH THE EXCEPTION to the TOW2B which has an arming distance of 200 Meters. When firing the TOW/TOW2B, they need to have a clear line of sight to the target when engaging due to the fact that the missiles are wire guided If that wire is cut mid flight, then the round is a dead round and will drop. You are also correct in the fact that the bradley must be stationary in order to fire its missile. now for the Bradley guys, I agree but you can also say that they shouldve aimed for the hull of the T90M which is the weakest along with the engine compartment. The T90M is STILL based on the T-72 Hull Chassis and as such, still has a weak point in the hull where their ammo is stored. Its not like our tanks (Abrams) where we have a ready/Semi-ready/hull ammo compartment.
@@GlopPlopJop its 65 Meters for all TOW missiles with the exception to the TOW2B which has a minimum arming distance of 200M
IT's like the Winter War all over again
I remember our warfighting lab using "Doom" to teach Marines fireteam tactics using a "Marine Doom" modified program. Four Marines on computers playing through scenarios as a team. Hell, Marines in Iraq were playing team first person shooter games when they were in the FOB on R&R breaks. Doesn't make your average gamer a warrior, but it does make warriors better at their job.
Based Bradley commander for the War Thunder knowledge amidst probably one of the most stressful situations of his life.
But playing War Thunder actually discourages you from trying to hit optics, since all it will do in game is absorb your shell.
I wonder if WarThunder includes "get all your shit from the USA" or if that's just a unique thing that's happening in Ukraine. This is the Ukrainian army without mass USA funding 🧍🧍🧍🧍🧍🧍🧍🧍🧍
@@TheLouHam is there no mechanic to shoot certain parts of the vehicles to achieve an effect? I thought there was.
The moment this event happened I knew you’d make a video on it. Not disappointed
I love this man, he doesn't bias anything
Abrams has emergency optics, no worries. And it's separate and well protected
We should ALL be fighting our corrupt Govts instead of each other.
The short answer is no, the Bradley's didn't penetrate the T90, the explosions were most likely the active armor being set off. After a brief but significant emotional event both the Bradley's left and the T90 left intact. Later that T90 was destroyed by artillery and the Bradley's were destroyed somewhere else according to later interviews with the crews.
Avdiivka has fallen
One of the best videos you’ve done lately. 👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽 Bravo Cappy 🫡