How Bradley IFVs prove more Useful in Ukraine than Tanks
2023 ж. 5 Қаз.
1 176 932 Рет қаралды
Why tanks need to lose weight, not so they can go faster, but to stay relevant, how the M1 Abrams gained its legendary status somewhat unfairly, and why IFVs are stealing the spotlight in the Ukraine war, to the extent that having Bradleys might be more effective than having F-16s is #NotWhatYouThink #NWYT #longs
Music:
TBD
Footage:
US Department of Defense
Note: "The appearance of U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) visual information does not imply or constitute DoD endorsement."
Do you think heavy main battle tanks are standing on their last leg?
I dont think so
i think mbt have more power
True
Today most capable tanks> Leopard and Abrahams? 🤣😂 Yeah Yeah Your jokes are quite funny
where besides the desert was there a tank M1 Abrams?
The problem Russian tanks are having in Ukraine have nothing to do with tanks being "obsolete"; folks have been saying that tanks are obsolete due to infantry-portable anti-tank weapons since the 80s. The problem is that Russian tanks operate without proper infantry support. Tanks are not do-everything weapons, they need to be supported by infantry to do their job correctly.
Exactly
People have been saying they're obsolete every time a few are lost in combat for the past 100 years. Tanks have always adapted, and will likely continue to adapt for generations to come; They're too useful to ever outright abandon.
Well russian tanks are obsolete, but that's just because they are russian and are just up to about 80's standard
Yes this we saw many times in WW2. Learning from the past is a rare
t-72 was already a dated design in the 70s and was only chosen because of soviet cost cutting. That you can't even be taller then 162cm as crew says alot about the design of t-72 that and the turret usually gets launched into orbit if someone sneezes in the vicinity.
Tanks and IFVs need each other to thrive on the battlefield! One cannot survive without the other!
Is that the world famous Jaden Yuki?
You could also say "light tank" instead of IFV, but for some reason people do not want to call a modern tank a tank, unless it is a MBT. Someone from WW2 would probably identify most IFVs as light tanks, most Russian tanks as medium tanks and the latest versions of the M1A2 as a heavy tank.
@@addygreen8919 That's why tactics have to evolve with time! Ukrainians are using every Drone, Missile and Armored Vehicle to their maximum potential and that is the key to Victory!
@@addygreen8919IFVs are designed to carry Infantry Light tanks are not.
@@addygreen8919 there are no light tanks anymore. The role of a light tank was based on the role of light cavalry, as a harrying force to strike at flanks. They carried lighter armor than normal tanks but were still intended for the same general role of all tanks. Since we're not using strategy from the Great War anymore they have no place on the battlefield anymore. An IFV is supposed to act as an embedded force multiplier, it enhances the capabilities of the accompanying infantry and allows for high mobility infantry warfare with a bigger punch than previously possible. (Before the Schützenpanzer Lang HS.30, that is. So since the 1960s... Turns out APCs were on the way out before they were ever even really in.)
Pretty much the entirety of NATO has switched to 120 mm shells on their main battle tanks, so saying that 105 shells are easier to get than 120 is most likely not true
Plenty of 10,5 cm tanks still in service too, meaning the stockpiles of 1,5 cm rounds are still there as well as the production tooling to make more.
105mm is slightly more established, having been developed and used earlier, but this isn't the specific factor as it is mainly being reintroduced for weight and cost saving while offering more varieties of rounds to support infantry rather than fight other armored vehicles
@@daspas2111 You'd think being around in NATO since 1979 would be established enough for 120mm guns, 105mm guns might have a stockpile that they want to use up, but saying that they offer more varieties of rounds when the 120mm AMP is gonna get introduced is also questionable
@enriqueouro9 I never said that 120 mm guns weren't established enough. Rather, i believe the reason they went with the 105 instead of a 120 using AMP is because it is simply cheaper, lighter, and more specialized. Given that the M10 booker is to be air deployable, the only other main gun light enough for the role (to my knowledge) would be the ARDEC XM360 120mm cannon, whose project has since been scrapped. Given this, it would make sense that they'd implement the older, cheaper, and lightweight 105 mm gun whose older ammo offers specifically chemical, canister, or air burst effect while being plentiful and cheap. That might not matter so much, and maybe something similar to the AMP will be developed for 105, but the choice of gun itself definitely makes sense.
@@daspas2111 Oh I'm sure they chose it for weight reasons, I wasw just questioning the other stuff. And anyway, the M10 booker is quite heavy for it's firepower and role, the russian air mobile light tank, the 2s25, has a 125mm gun at 18t. Even other full mbt's like most russian mbt's or the japanese type 10 are only slightly heavier than the booker.
As a former Bradley operator, Im really happy to see that the Bradley is finally starting to get the respect it deserves. I loved every minute i spent in the Bradley. It really is lethal, and mobile. With those TOW MISSLES we can kill any tank with extreme prejudice. The 25MM Auto-canon with the right rounds can freaking shred just about anything. ❤❤❤❤
The movie the Pentagon Wars really hurt its reputation. It's a funny movie. Not accurate at all, but funny.
Except that a Bradley's armor can be penetrated by a .50cal. When we served we werent fighting a peer adversary. Our Afghan and Iraq era tactics wouldn't work.
Bradleys were annihilated in huge numbers by Russians. Obsolete imo
Только теперь он бесполезен как дредноуты в своё время уничтожается из глубокого тыла х-х-.
@@dexlab7539Nonsense…. other comments here stand….
As a former Bradley scout I am also very happy to see the Bradley get its just doo. The Ukrainians seem to get it from what I see. 6 years as a crewman and taking the Brad into combat in desert storm. Understanding what the Bradley can and cannot do is very important the main battle tank will always be needed in armored warfare. The Bradley is one of the best freedom fighters I know. A proficient crew is the key. Always Ready god bless to Ukraine, Carty.
That you are speaking highly of the Bradley before the post-Desert Storm fixes boggles my mind. You guys were lucky the Iraqis were so bad.
i was also a cav scout during desert storm. i took to battle again in the 2nd iraq war. if the ukraines use the bradley as intended it is a excellent weapon system. the most annoying thing is the know it all armchair generals that post on these videos. like the dude that remaked on your post. hate to break to the hater but luck had nothing to do with it. haters are going to hate. he probably one of those people that think russia equipment is the best in the world and that the AK is actually acurate weapon. they learn all this playing call of duty and battlefield 4. which in their eyes makes them experts.
@@Dadecorban actually luck had nothing to do with it. we were just good and did the job well. regardless if they were bad the iraqi's outnumbered us. and even if the army is bad as u say is moot. don't start a fight if your army sucks. that in know way means the winning military got lucky. russian equipment sucks for one and 2 the tactics the russians use sucks. u can see that in ukraine. during desert storm the bradley killed more armored vehicles than the abrams too. regardless if its pre or post desert storm the bradley still proved its worth. i wonder, have u operated a bradley? i guess haters are going to hate. u from europe? europeans love to hate on america.
@@jasonmoyer4325Thank you for your service Brother. You’re right, haters are going to hate until they need us to free them from tyrants. God bless Ukraine, God bless the USA, and good bless you Sir.
So your one of the former US M2 Bradley IFVs Scout well it prove more useful and effective and just imagine he knock down Russia best tank the T90M in Ukraine thats the 2nd time around and without using Anti tank Tow missile he just use his 50 Calibre machine gun . 1st during the Gulf war in 1991 the US M2 Bradley IFV have knock down Soviet and Cold war era T72 Tank by using Anti tank missile Tow
There could be a new niche - *the Drone Carrier.* Basically a IFV style vehicle except instead of carrying troops it carries drone pilots and facilities for rearming and recharging drones (usually via hot swappable batteries) that it launches and controls. It's main gun might even be switched out for something optimised for indirect fire, since it will always be accompanied by its own dedicated spotter drones that it can use for Forward Observation. And Infra-red spotter drones will make life difficult for enemy anti tank infantry. There is also a argument for its main gun being a AA gun for killing enemy drones, as it will be better at identifying which drones are friendly - since most of them will be its own, and it'll have better communication gear so it might be able to IFF others drones easier. For defense it will use its drones to eliminate threats that dont get shelled by the Drone Carrier, either by missile/bomb armed drones or kamikaze drones. It could also send anti-drone drones to deal with enemy drones, to protect friendly forces on the front lines from FO spotter drones calling in fire, and drones directly attacking. Anti-drone drones will need to be rearmed quickly, as they will be the close air superiority of ground forces in contested airspace. Already the new Panther Tank concept includes a configuration with a crewmember who can control a drone, and a onboard spotter drone to be launched. Although a dedicated Drone Carrier might work better on a IFV chassis due to the room for a number of Drones and pilots. Even using the same chassis has logistics and development advantages, and also prevents it from becoming a priority target if it looks like just another IFV. But no matter what the chassis, it will have the best situational awareness of any armoured vehicle on the battlefield.
Wow..vehicles launching drones. Some games have that, maybe it would be nice idea in real
Some good thoughts. If only our military institutions were better at harnessing public ingenuity, facilitating citizen engagement & innovative solutions in a crowd sourced manner...
@@regularshiftrs3676 Sounds like you hating bro, his analalysis is pretty good. Loitering ammunitions and indirekt fire rule the modern battlefield. I would go even further, strap oldschool Spike launchers on the sides of IFWs and give the guys in the back controllers. If you have the bandwith and dont get jammed, you can hit everything that doesnt has a next level active protection system.
@@westphalianstallion4293 Maybe I expressed myself wrong. It is a excelent idea. Just said some games have a similar vehicles like he described
@@regularshiftrs3676 Sorry, sounded a bit passiv aggressiv. There are decent games that are pretty good learning tools for tactics. What the mongols was its bow, the modern man has its controller and touchpad. Maybe mounted warfare will be controlling drones/ missilles and gun turrets. Gun turrets, WWII drone dogfights, even blimbs and balloons are legit concepts in my opinion and should be linked into. Its a bit throwback but wires cant be jammed or tapped.
The most important reason for tanks to lose weight is logistics
Anyone who knows anything about the m10 Booker knows this is the real reason why it was Built. It's also very likely that in the coming years the next variant of the Abrams will be significantly lighter. The M1e3 will in my opinion have a completely redesigned turret and electrical system to seamlessly integrate all of the targeting systems as well as the active protection systems the Abrams has collected over the years.
No
That and bridges.
You Israelis still live in 1945 tank battles ? I thought you were educated by Hisbollah about KORNET ?
@@erasmus_locke Do you also have plans for a smaller pocket battleship to counter any 1934 threat ?
Tanks aren't becoming obsolete. We just need better tanks. We must unleash the Bob Semple.
The Bob Semple might not actually be so bad considering infantry warfare has been given a much greater emphasis today.
@@robbieaulia6462 Why would you suggest that the Bob Semple was bad? Brother... It has six whole main guns. What other tank has six main guns!?
A war crime punishable by death
No armies in ww2 even manage to scratch it!
@@The13thRonin *side-eyes the M50 Ontos*
it's logical that when the "don't get penetrated" layer of the onion falls away, more focus would get put on "don't get hit"
But the Russians have always had that view, since the T34 in fact. That's why those small ultra low turrets (so only midgets can fit in them and there is no way to stop the midgets brewing up with the ammo if it does get hit) and the relatively low weight (hence high mobility). Whether that's a better approach than the US one of ensuring that it takes a helluva hit to get through the armour depends, I think, on circumstances.
M10 Booker was stated as a self assault gun instead of a light tank. Use as a infantry and other IFV support. But the Type 15 is declare as a light tank. The important is the use of combine tactics that has been around for decades and need constant improving in the tactics. And well trained crew is important.
The point of the booker is that currently the tanks have a big enough gun to suppress and destroy trenches and fortifications so the booker can do the direct fire support role and hold actual tanks in reserve for offensives and counter attacks. I think it is a sound idea as backed with ifvs the booker can bring alot to a battalion.
Light Tanks are umbrela term to describe Assault Guns, Tank Destroyers and up armed IFV's. Last real light tank was Sheridan, what was designed to be air mobile.
There were multiple tank battles or massive tank engagements where the M-1 played a major roll against Iraqi Armor. The US has has fought all it's wars with combined arms tactics since WW2. 73 Easting 1991 Medina Ridge 1991 Objective Norfolk 1991 Rumaila Oil fields 1991 Battle of Baghdad 2003
Amerika kalah sama vietnam 😅 badut badut
We pulled out of Vietnam after propping up a corrupt government Not because of battlefield losses
Your combined mumbo jumbo only works as long as the other side has not grokked how to hide in bushes with their Kornets. In the middle east, this is no longer the case. Armor are death traps until they have super duper active defense against ATGMs.
@@chrissmith7669corrupt government and because France did not want to let go of it at all.
@@eddapultstab2078 France not letting go was how we got there in the first place
If I'm not mistaken, Medina ridge was fought almost exclusively from beyond the range of the Iraqi tanks. This was made possible largely because of the superior targeting and fire control systems in conjunction with a superior gun on the Abrams. Air and artillery support was mostly used to keep the Iraqi tanks where they were instead of letting them close the distance after they started to realize they were too far away. Combined arms is powerful and it is extremely useful, but it also requires all arms to be up to scratch. If you can't put up the air, your armor and your infantry are going to suffer and that's what we're seeing in Ukraine. Even with a technological edge the ukrainians are having trouble capitalizing on those advantages whereas the Russians are having trouble effectively using their superior manpower and in both cases it seems to be largely because of a lack of effective air power.
"If I'm curt with you, it's because time is a factor."
"If I'm curt without you, it's because I'm Cobain"
@@justalilred *Kurt but yeah...
I think we are currently in the upturn of the gun/armor cycle, meaning on the gun side. I can’t help but be reminded by several other periods where heavier armor and size was dropped for speed and lightness because of powerful guns that neutralized any practical amount of armor. I’m willing to bet in the next few decades new tech will prolong the life of the mbt for a little longer at least.
It's possible we'll see new improvements in armor, but right now drones are becoming more and more lethal and that's a big problem for tanks. I don't think they'll be obsolete, but we're gonna stay on the gun side of the cycle for a while.
But the main game is not even guns! Tanks are just too vulnerable to mines, missiles and drones to justify the enormous logistic load they impose except in unusual circumstances (and as the video points out both Iraq invasions had some of those unusual circumstances). And judged by logistic load the Abrams is the worst tank in the world - short range, huge fuel consumption, very complex. The US army can maybe afford that, but most armies (including Ukraine's) can't. It's not that tanks are obsolete but that they are now a niche support weapon rather than the core attack asset of an army that they were fifty years ago.
@@achillesa5894America has jammers so they couldn’t even use drones 😂
No, we are in the Electronic Age, where heavy, lumbering steel vehciles are taken out by small, intelligent, airborne, hard to deceive weapons. TOW, KORNET, JAVELIN, MILAN, CHINADRONE$1000_RPG, HAROP. Many people, including many Russians Generals, still live in 1945 and burn all their lumbering steel monsters in mindless assaults. We have plenty of those in Germany, who would concur ;-)
The biggest thing with large amounts if armor is the possibility for higher survivability imo, if done right you can sort of minimize the damage done internally to the tank, allowing for the crew having a higher chance if escaping and living to fight another day
now, imagine artielly. its strong with it is cannon right? but it has to stay behind lines because it is unprotected! what if we made a vehicle that could embrace the close combat and be more helpfull than a barrage 10kms away? that is a tank! and that is why idea of a tank will never end.
artielly
Sounds like you’re describing an assault gun. Examples from antiquity would include the Stug III, the Saint-Chammond tank, the Ho-Ro, and the Sherman Jumbo w/ 75mm gun. I imagine such a vehicle (if built) would be much different then these examples of the concept.
@@fbiagentmiyakohoshino8223 are you imagining it?
@@Servoxyl i believe youre referring to the sherman 105 as most shermans had either a 75 or a 76mm cannon pretty much standard.
@@Servoxyl the first real idea of a tank emerged like this. "Victory in this war will belong to the belligerent who is the first to put a cannon on a vehicle capable of moving on all kinds of terrain" - Colonel Jean Baptiste Eugène Estienne, 24 August 1914.
If you think about it. MBTs are basically mini battleships on land. While an IFVs are basically a mini aircraft carriers on land, with the mounted soldiers serve as the ship launched aircrafts.
the first tanks used in battle, were deployed by the brits in ww2. They operated not under the army thou, but under the command of the royal navy. Because they were considered "land-Ships".
@@J-IFWBR wrong
@@J-IFWBRsounds like BS
The best sentiment I heard describing the evolution of technology was that it was going towards complexity, ubiquity, and diversity. This means that the wars we fight will have to use platforms and weapons that meet these criteria, since the weapons themselves are an outgrowth of the ever-evolving nature of technology. In more specific terms, we can see this by the increasing kinds of vehicles, guns, ships, missiles, and aircraft. The number, types, and strategiotactical variations has grown alongside the tech explosion. A mid-tank or up-armed IFV is just another nuanced example of a piece of battlefield technology that meets its ecological niche. It fulfills a new role, has many capabilities, and will become a ubiquitous component of modern ground forces. It’s the principle of fighting the future war and not just the one we are currently engaged in. If enemies use these weapons and tactics now, they will also be thinking about how to create new weapons to defeat the current ones, and we have to figure out how to defeat what they have now and what they will make in the future.
"the new german puma IFV, which is an improvement on the marder" uhm, well, about that...👉👈 it's not what you think.
Body positivity people.
Horse drawn chariots are going to make a comeback... someday.
After a nuclear apocalypse, Mad Max & Genghis Khan will be...
The Bradley has proven itself to be a great IFV that protects its passengers 👍 from Sweden
Mate, your own CV-90 more than holds it own when compared to Bradley. It's a beast. ❤ from your trusted meatshield to the east :)
@@B1gLupu Hyvä Suomi 💙🤍
To be fair, West Germany actually developed an IFV and the concept before even the BMP-1 had been born. Plus, half-tracks (especially in German use) pioneered IFV concepts and tactical doctrine on WW2.
yes please enlighten us with what the german ifv "tactical doctrine" from ww2 was exactly? holy shit people on the internet are fucking insane
@derekakaderek Perhaps, you aren’t a fan of history, or you are simply confused - either way, I'm happy to elaborate and I shan’t take offence. Are you aware of the ‘first’ purpose built infantry fighting vehicle (IFV) that was created for the West German Army after it was decided that West Germany needed the means to contribute more to its own defence if the Soviets attacked. It was called the Schutzenpanzer SPz 12-3 (otherwise known as SPz Lang / Lang HS.30) and the intent was to produce a vehicle that wasn't confined to simply being a battle-taxi - that is to say, an armoured personnel carrier (APC) that delivers troops to the front and quickly tries to get out of harm’s way. The battle-taxi was an integral part of American doctrine at the time and the Soviets also saw merit in the idea, with both producing lightly armoured APCs like the M113 for the role. The newly formed Bundeswehr however, turned to the German experience of World War 2 (WW2) to inform their decisions when setting requirements for the procurement of new armoured fighting vehicles (AFVs). During that war, Germany made heavy use of half-tracks and often armed them with machine guns. German forces soon discovered they found more success if the half-track remained after infantry disembarked; providing them with covering fire and before long, it was not unusual for half-tracks to advance with the infantry. The Germans issued official guidance for frontline forces to standardise these practices and began training their new units on this doctrine, which stood in stark contrast to the American use of half-tracks. The Panzer grenadiers were particularly associated with this tactical doctrine during, and after, the war. In essence, the IFV had been born and it wasn’t long before the Germans began outfitting half-tracks with other weapons like anti-tank guns, creating platforms that bare a stunning resemblance in purpose to IFVs and their variants - these were particularly effective in ‘sniper’ or ambush roles, as well as anti-fortification work. Likewise, with the first fully-tracked purpose-built IFV, SPz 12-3, variants of the vehicle were fitted with anti-tank weapons and modern IFVs fitted with large calibre guns and anti-tank missiles are particularly effective in ‘sniper’, ambush and anti-fortification tasks. I hope this clarifies what I was referring to. I’m pretty sure the Chieftain and Military History Visualised or Military History Not Visualised have covered some of this on KZhead if you want to learn more from a free, accessible source.
I don’t recall them saying the BMP was the first. And people have been putting soldiers in vehicles with some armor since the Romans.
@@aymonfoxc1442 "german halftracks were used in combat and sometimes had weapons other than machineguns" truly pioneering tactical doctrine. when an american halftrak dropped troops it would quickly turn around and drive back to the USA of course.
@@derekakaderek I was already kind enough to explain my logic and the history of the matter. If you don't understand the difference between mechanised infantry and ordinary infantry, or specifically equipping a vehicle to deliberately fight alongside infantry, and advance with, infantry as opposed to practising the 'battle-taxi' doctrine of the 1950's US which only equipped vehicles for the intent of incidental self-defence, that's not my problem. Although, I am curious... do you know what doctrine means? Or the difference between a Sherman and a Hellcat? The second question is more of a hint.
Indonesia-Turkish design also similar to M10 Booker with 105mm gun and 30-35tonne in weight. Other than ease of transportation, it can also cross bridges that aren't suited for heavier MBTs.
There are many mistakes in this video, but instead of going through all of them I would say that to make them lighter one must not sacrifice protection as it would only result in making the tank even more vulnerable to the threats that they face today. An example is AMX-10RC that because of its paper-thin armor they can't be used properly. Same for the M10 and the Chinese tank - would they be able to resist even 30mm cannons with such a thin armor? Hell, because of M10 having so weak armor it was decided to not call it a tank at all. What needs to be done with tanks though is not just trying to increase armor for the sake of increase, or decrease for the sake of decrease, but decide what sorts of threats they would face - artillery, FPV drones, mines, ATGMs, low-caliber cannons - and find how much protection is needed to protect from exact threats that they would face. For example lets imagine that after the research it would be decided that 50mm of armor around and 25mm on the roof would be enough to face drones, cannons, artillery, and to protect against ATGMs ERA would be put as 50mm is certainly enough for the vehicle to survive ERA explosion. Then, why try to make 4 man crew that would require extra space and thus extra weight, if it could be 3 man with an autoloader? Or even go for an unmanned turret. This would certainly make it lighter while not be vulnerable to threats that aren't tanks. But also, remember that having a big cannon requires to have a tank that is heavy enough in order for its own recoil to not destroy itself, as possibly 30 ton mark for M10 might be a requirement so that its 105mm cannon could be used effectively without issues. Either way, the point is that this issue is not as easy as just putting less armor.
the M10 booker wasn't designed to be a tank it was designed to be an infantry support vehicle/ assault vehicle which is what it is its basically an upgraded Stryker. and why did you say that people are adding Armour to tanks for no reason it's called future proofing eventually people are going to be able to go penetrate it if you don't upgrade and America choses to not go with an autoloader because it overcomplicates things and add a lot of weight to the vehicle along with the fact that an extra crew member make Maintenace easier.
1) 105mm ammo is more common than 120mm. Nope I don't think so but am willing to be corrected. 2) Lighter tanks have an important logistical advantage over heavier ones. But their higher speeds on the battlefield don't make them less of a target than slower and more heavily armoured tanks.
Remember that decision in war is brought about by offensive action. In modern warfare that means occupying the enemy’s vital ground with troops. The best way to do this with minimum (own)casualties is by utilising combined arms forces using tanks, mechanised infantry and self-propelled artillery,supported by other arms (engineers, aviation, drones, logistics etc). In this context, the tank is definitely not obsolete.
Well, in this context pistols are not obsolete either. They aren't going to win you the war, will they?
Part of the issue is that after WW2 a narrative developed that the Sherman was lacking compared to German heavy tanks and the MIC used it to push American MBTs to become heavy tanks. But heavy tanks just aren't as flexible as a medium tank and the Bradley's had to fill that role. The larger problem is a matter of screening vs reconnaissance. Traditionally this was done by cavalry, but there isn't really a drone vs tdrone equivalent of light cavalry screening the force from enemy recon. This will be partly remedied by the Bradley replacement which will have a gun optimized for destroying drones in a cost effective manner, but I feel that ultimately it will require a countermeasure based on swarming drones to really solve the issue.
The narration is crafted to tank-perfection
Another good video. Thank you.
Oh damb, this could be some useful information for the "My 500 pound life" i wonder what exact diet these tanks are using.
5:05 It would have been so much cooler if that Bradley was named “CHADS” instead of (what I saw when I zoomed in) “CHAOS.”
With this perspective i think in a fast, lighter/medium tank with 27/30 tons, 105mm gun and infantry transport. This tank, TAM, was developed and produced until 600 units. Is based in Thyssen Marder chassis and Argentinian Army specifications in the 80s decade and is actually his principal combat vehicle.
The parallel of tanks and warship are becoming stronger, battleships got to expensive and focused on one role and their battles get avoided, and now instead of carriers is drones that are forcing the change Now is needed a platform that destroys any attack coming from above like building/drones/missiles, and maybe that can operate their own drones for a bird view like videogames, so that command vehicle give instructions to tanks or ifv to move Imagine a baby version of a sidewinder that can rekt drones, maybe instead of explosives a kinetic trident could work
Finally a smart kid.
i love the part when he this is not what you thinked and thinked all over the place
What? That sentence is impossible to parse.
The Booker is not a tank and not an Abrams replacement. The current Abrams will not be replaced but upgraded.
i think it must be a standard for tanks to carry an onboard system against any threats aiming at it such as enemy drones. It can be a laser gun or electronic jamming system or maybe a 30 mm anti drone gun like gepard carries. Laser gun is favourable since it is more compact and can be effective against enemy mortar or artillery shells if advanced enough. Without these defence systems tanks today are easy pray for anti tank systems.
Each vehicle was designed with a different role and doctrine in mind for how it operates, in order to maximize its strengths and mitigate its weaknesses. Tanks in Ukraine have (as others have stated) not been supported by infantry and are often susceptible to AT weaponry because they do not have the infantry to screen and engage threats ahead of their armored unit. On top of that, technology for tanks will just continue to evolve to attempt to counter AT weaponry, such as how many nations are currently undergoing upgrades for Active Protection Systems to eliminate threats to the tank before they hit it. This isn't even taking into account the Armored Onion graph on engagement, wherein it eventually trickles down to "*IF* I get hit, can I survive it?" Essentially one conflict is not enough to determine tank obsolescence, especially when one side is tactically inept and the other side is utilizing vehicles that they are not wholly familliar with, which means that the vehicles are not used according to the providing military's doctrines.
it is not that heavy MBTs need to size down, it is that they need to be more maneuverable, or they should get better anti-drone and anti- projectile defense systems (kinda like TROPHY but also something that would work against drones), but i do believe a happy medium between MBT and IFV would be optimal for most cases (like what the US is doing with the XM30 program and M10 Booker for example), but every type of vehicle have areas where they excel in
They do. Battleships were not killed by aviation, but by osbscene operating costs. 70t MBT uses too much fuel and parts., demends too much support.
@@piotrd.4850Another big problem are bridges, 70t is much more than a commercial truck and since tanks are pretty small compared to a truck the load is on a small portion of the bridge.
@@piotrd.4850 i bet youre also gonna say that the the T 72, T80, and T 90 models of russian tanks are better because they weigh a lot less too? Russia has always used the methodology of quantity over quality in everything they do. they havent really produced a quality vehicle since the T 90 and even thats sub par at best. russian tanks are eaten alive by western tanks since most of that weight goes into armor and crew protection where as the russians just kind of hope they dont die while theyre incredibly uncomfortable and cant perform nearly as well as their counterparts due to it.
@@jbennett4196 Russian tanks are indeed eaten alive by western tanks in a one-on-one engagement at range. Just like a Sherman would have been by a King Tiger. But like the Sherman Russian tanks are designed so there is almost never a one-on-one battle. That's because they are cheap, Private Conscriptovich can fix them, don't use much gas, don't get stuck in deep snow and mud and (most important of all) don't break bridges. All of which means you can get a lot of them to the front to outnumber those western tanks. Which approach is more effective depends heavily on circumstances.
@@kenoliver8913 and that makes the soldiers using them more confident. i dont know about you, but i didnt really see any infantry supporting them when they were rolling around in cities. they tend to be alone and unsupported. with that, their armor is mostly ineffective, their T 90 specifically is made in low numbers because the engines are like the abrams turbine (it uses a lot of fuel) and has a high cost of maintenance. Russia has sacrificed quality so much that the quantity is meaningless because they are bad. a non-versatile hunk of junk that is less mobile, less lethal, and less protected. which, are the three major things that tanks need to worry about when being designed.
Many of the big tank battles, especially the biggest one was fought without air cover due to weather and poor visibility…… sure, if not for that aircraft would have been extremely effective but it shows armor can function very well under terrible conditions
GPS was a secret weapon in the 1990s. It is in people's phones today. At 31 Eastings, the Iraqis correctly anchored one of their flanks in the desert, reasoning it would be impossible for an invader to navigate in it, and planned to fight a defensive battle according to established Warsaw Pact tank doctrine. The issue was less that the Abrams were better, than that the Abrams were there.
How dare you body shaming the tanks!
This aged well
It's crazy how the Bradly was used in the movie _The Pentagon Wars_ to exemplify US military industrial complex "waste," and now it's one of the most important assets in the war against Russia -- the successor to the Soviet Union.
Its worth mentioning that GD already has an anti drone directed energy weapon. I doubt it would be rocket science to mount to directly or attach to a tank column. While by design it was ment to be used against cheap drones, I do ponder what it could do against something like javelin. (Same thing applies in the air with bvr missiles, but I digress.)
Бесполезен как дредноуты в своё время уничтожается из глубокого тыла х-х-.
Просто не о том думаете о тех кто глубоко заблуждается в своих мыслях и действиях вместо того что бы открывать для человечества путь к звёздами и всеобщему бдагоденствию.
funny how this thing destroyed a t90m alone
Two bradley and one fpv drone didnt even destroy the tank all crew survived
@@mortalz9940 But the Turret spun out of control then crashed into a tree tank was immobilized. 2 of the Crew was later killed and 1 captured. Fact is the tank inoperable before the crew even got out.
@@Neojhun wrong crew was never killed or captured you just lying now
8:56 This is a really awesome shot! I wish there were more of these in better quality where you can see how the projectile travels. In best case you would also have training range signs that show how far the sign is so you can see how fast the projectile is.
If we look at it from the grand view, tanks are like lightly armored fighting machines, battleships are like turreted tanks, and ground fire is like casemate tank destroyers (or heavy assault guns, or whatever the heck the sweeds call their S tanks)
Yeah, battleships were outdated by 1941. Tanks are outdated since MILAN.
Basically you have multiple variants of a well protected IFV: One is a standard troop carrier, another is a troop carrier with a 40 mm cannon, another is a 120 mm mortar carrier, another is a command and control , another is a defensive AA unit with a poop ton of ammo, and finally a drone carrier. All basically using the same basic chassis. The drones scout ahead and get targets for the 120mm mortar, and they themselves can go after targets.
7:05 acronym is wrong. It is Wire-Guided. 11:24 The 105mm is not more common among NATO forces today and I doubt that shell variety is much of a consideration seeing as the US has had to develop a downscaled version of the AMP round for use with the M10
The modern TOW 2 is wireless so they changed the acronym to wireless it also flies over a target and shoots a heat charge downwards into the top of the target, very fancy The 105mm has more shell types as it was used for artillery before the 155mm got a monopoly in NATO however these shells aren’t much use for tanks, the more likely reason is that the US has a bunch of them from the early Abrams and from the Patton tanks as well as large stocks of ammunition for such a gun
Considering that Ukraine has liked the cv-90 Swedish ifv seemingly more than the Bradley since they’ve gotten a deal to jointly produce 1000 vehicles, I think you should’ve mentioned it at least.
Бесполезен как дредноуты в своё время уничтожается из глубокого тыла х-х-.
@@JIUNnF Hey how's the deployment of those T-14 super tanks going? oh wait, you only made like 5 and those are way too precious cows to risk in combat. Instead tanks from the post war 1940s are on the frontlines. Russia's strong, that's why a single T-34 paraded down red square instead of the army of tanks. In comparison the CV 90 entered service in..... 1993, with the C version which 51 were sent of being developed in 2005.
@@Anonymous-zu7dh ты наверно очень сильно не принял моего коментария видимо в этой части ты предположил что я насмехаюсь изобразив на самом деле силует белой смерти любых боевых расчётов- | Х-Х- Вобще ты реално не о том думаеш.
@@Anonymous-zu7dh эй хэй и прочие вариации используются для привлечение внимание свинней в свинарнике.
Swedish equipment is basically untested in sustained combat... Nah I'll take a Bradly and come home safe any day 😆
This is reinforcing the use of combined weapons where the heavy tank still has a role in the combination. A tactical advantage of the medium tanks/heavy IFV is that, with the weight of the common large loaded lorry, they can access assorted bridges and over passes etc. at will that heavy tanks can only do so after engineer survey, stopping other traffic, engineer reinforcing or special bridge laying. This last was the key weakness of the old Tortoise tank which was had good mobility over the ground but was limited in finding bridges it could cross at the time so strategically it was limited as it had to use round about longer and slower routes. I think it is inevitable that the lighter tank will be a fusion of the medium tank and the IFV. Either in a common vehicle or on a common base to ease costs, maintenance and logistics. Equally it is inevitable that this medium tank/IFV will cycle through the square of protection, speed, armament and sensory kit probably settling on a less than 105mm automatic gun. Perhaps 57mm with switch between HE and AP on demand.
Great content; thanks!
I believe power of gun is the reason to exist for tanks in order to shoulder all the obstacles that arise in front of the troops on the battlefield, so better combined sensors (similar to AEGIS improvement in naval warfare) to find it out along ambushes is the primary key and something similar to Rafael Trophy could be a viable ECM/VLS missile layer against tank treats allowing a slightly lighter armour too. Another step towards the idea of tank as a modern Destroyer ship. Funny though: if there is no fear of power projection there is no power concentration and finally no targets for airpower aside bridges, factories, etcetera, all just strategic in the end
Вы реално не о том думаете и глубоко заблуждаетесь в своих мыслях и соответственно в действиях. Вместо того что бы открывать для человечества путь к звёздами и всеобщему бдагоденствию.
Airpower and electronics eliminated the battleship and it now eliminates the tank. The age of armour is gone. Welcome to the age of electronics.
this video aged very well
poor T90 lmao
this thing needs it's own movie. Bradley M2, left behind...
Two things that are really important about the Bradley are missed. One is that even on the early models, the optics are insanely good especially compared to what the USSR was slapping together on the BMP series of IFV's. Im sure that the new models are insanely good for scouting especially at night, and with colder weather coming the thermals will really give another big advantage. Second thing missed is that with Bradley's and BMP's they can travel more places than an MBT, so they are less likely to encounter mines and tank hunting teams. Ukrainian terrain where the combat is occuring is composed of a lot of swampy land and farm fields so much tank travel is limited to roads and the areas between fields.
This video has aged well.
There is some reason (that I don't understand) that past 70 tons the bridge rating needed for something with the dimensions of an M1 goes asymptotic. So a 70 ton Abrams needs a class 70 bridge, but a 85 ton Abrams needs a class 120 bridge. And a loaded M1A2 SEPv3 with Trophy and a mine roller needs a class 134 bridge.
Be interesting to see how many American bridges are ready for tank battles?
10:13 that "auto loadings device" helps make it's tankers be astronauts lol. The tanks also have shitty ammo stowage
It would be interesting to see how these tanks would perform if they were equipped with an active protection system like Trophy.
Only a tiny bit better now that the Russkies are masters of laying gigantic minefields. But yeah, active protection is the only way forward for steel coffins.
indeed.
@@JimCarnerThe United States M1A2s has armor called Tusk, that armor package is good in urban Environments’ it protects top attacks and side attacks. If the Ukraines had the Trophy, and tusk system….drone attacks would be hard, the turret has depleted uranium panels’ making the turret hard to damage….unfortunately all that has been removed, due to it being top secret. Hopefully Ukraine comes up with a suitable protection package for the M1A2 Abrams. I understand the USA removing that stuff, if it gets captured, Russia could reverse engineer they’re tanks…making them deadly.
Thank you for explaining TOW abbreviation!
He still managed to make a mistake. Its Tube Launched, optically tracked, wire guided missile. He had it as wireless in the video. 🤷🏼
Another example of hybrid between IFV and a tanks can be Merkava Mk1 tank, that can be used to carry up to 10 troops or Russian BMPT Terminator. I wonder if it near future we again get distinction between light and heavy tanks, like during WWII.
Tanks are coffins like battleships are in the face of airpower. Obsolete. Just let go.
@@frankgerlach4467Can you name any piece of military vehicle that isn’t “a coffin” if hit by the right kind of weapon..?
@@markhepworth Have a look at the KraftKarre. Same firepower as a Leo2, but now coffin sideboards. Just 700kg of weight, minimal fuel consumption. The KraKa does not give the faux impression of "protection". In 1945 tanks could provide protection, as the Panzerfaust had a range of 100m and bad sighting. Now MILAN can take out a tank at 2000m from a nicely concealed position. That is why I call them coffins.
For now, the Tank is most vulnerable. A lot of that has to do less with the Tank itself, than the speed of development with other technologies. This means that eventually the Tank will catch back up. Also, once Integrated Defense and Jammer Systems are introduced, and they are coming, Missile and Drone effectiveness will be lost. Though, as you pointed out, these two systems are best on Defense which is why they are most effective against Tanks in the first place. But the Tank is most effective on the Offense as well, so you would think that would essentially leave a Tank out of a job. But a Tank is also very effective on Defense as well and again, once the IDJS is installed, will make Tanks far more effective on both Defense and Offense. The Defensive value of a Tank is that it can fire continuously up to 40 plus Main Gun rounds and a couple thousand Machine Gun rounds before resupply. By contrast, a Missile Vehicle might only be able to get off up to 4 rounds before needing to pull back to resupply. A Drone currently is either a One Shot Weapon or a Two Shot Weapon and will need to fly back for resupply. Remote Operated Ground Vehicles are becoming a thing as well. The US Army already has a 20-ton prototype that is actually an Optionally Manned Ground System. It is small, lightweight, and carries a 20mm and up to two Missiles. If the US Army is smart about the design, they would seek to leverage it as a 20mm SPAAG and a 4-cell to 8-cell Mobile SAM, predominately for Anti-Drone Warfare, but still effective against Helicopters and development of future systems would enable an increase to Anti-Missile Warfare as well. On top of that, they can be issued to the Infantry as Breaching Vehicles by which US Troops can advanced like in the video game Frontline: Fuels of War. Cheap, but replaceable becomes an issue. Even the material rich USA had to change some weapons tech during the Second World War due to surprising costs in using cheap materials. Especially when one realizes that the USA has to travel across two oceans to meet its predominate adversaries of Russia and China and their satellites of Iran and Hamas/Hezbollah add additional seas to cross as well as a whole other ocean in Iran's case. Another thing to note, is that Tank Development has already suffered due to theory of Light and Fast. With Missiles and Drones, you cannot go faster with a Land Vehicle. It is physically impossible. The speed of a bullet is also such, that being out of the way is all but impossible. The reality is that the armor is going to be there as it has to be there. Even if it can't stop the bullet or the Missile, it can provide better protection that ensures less damage to the Human Soldier, thus increasing life expectancy. The very notion of Light and Fast has already died a horrible death. As did the soldiers inside said vehicles. In a place called Afghanistan. The concept of the Light and Fast theory dates back to the Toyota War. Although actual Light and Fast forces go back to the BCE. But they all had one glaring issue and that is the ability to be able to take on a strong force that is either entrenched, Cavalry has a nasty habit of being butchered by Archers or Artillery in a prepared position or in a Fortified Structure such as a fort, or attacking a field force that is prepared for them in advanced such as the Greek Phalanx or even a modern Anti-Vehicle Rocket or Missile. The Infantry Square used during the Napoleonic Wars was a particularly useful Anti-Cavalry defense for a field army. Actually, used for centuries, its use by the British at the Battle of Waterloo secured Napoleon's final defeat as his Cavalry could not break the Infantry Squares. Even when the Pike was still a common weapon prior any Cavalry attempting to break an Infantry Square faced annihilation. In response, only the Infantry and Artillery could break up Infantry Squares. Highly mobile Cavalry charges gave way in the face of Infantry armed with both Artillery and Machine Guns not during the First World War, but rather during the middle 19th Century conflicts in which Cavalry were simply unable to break a defended position with head on attacks. General Buford of the United States Army even noted that it was rare for Native Americans to assault fortified positions or try to fight strictly from horseback as is so popular in the old Western movies. In fact, the opening battle of the Apache Wars was a battle in which the Apache had been in an entrenched position. Though, for whatever reason, both sides were terrible shots. Few were killed by Rifle fire, but when the US soldiers deployed Artillery, an Apache veteran of the battle reported as many as 50 or 60 had been killed or wounded in just a few shots. And this was in spite of the fact that the Apaches were among those noted for decades as riding Horses into battle like the Plains Tribes. Despite everything, the Tank will resume its role in the Military. The Tank isn't obsolete now, the declaration the Tank is obsolete goes back to 1920 by a British officer who called it a freak of occurrence and then later still by Air Proponents and then again by Nuclear Proponents and once more, for good measure, by Artillery and Missile Proponents at different times. Even the infamous Fighter Mafia declared the Tank obsolete as late as the 1980s and 1990s. Only in Afghanistan they were proven wrong. At a cost in lives and material. Ask Canada how liquidating their entire Tank stock worked out if you doubt me. As for the blurring line between Tanks and IFVs, you only see the blur if you are sleep deprived working on this video. There is a very definite difference. A Tank doesn't carry Infantry into combat. An IFV does. As for the M10 Booker, the US Army is avoiding using the word Tank when it comes to it. Instead, it's a Mobile Protected Firepower Vehicle or something else along those lines. Most people simply call it a Light Tank. Frankly, I'd call it an Infantry Tank as its job is to support the Infantry with Tank-like firepower. I don't know why nobody just uses the term. There might be some concern about British Infantry Tanks from the Second World War, plus the Cavalry units are expected to use it and they really get grumpy when they have to use 'Infantry' equipment. But the US Army has been looking into the issue of weight and size. They've finally shelved the M1A3 program until the M1E3 program finally gets done. About time they got that program off the ground. Though, I'd wager if there is a M1A3 at this point, it will be a technology insertion vehicle to make way for the Abrams Replacement Tank Program Vehicle. If I had to guess, the Army will reduce its weight to 55-tons, equip either the new 130mm or adopt Japan's own 120mm, go with a Remote Turret, add Vehicle-launched Drones, include an Intergrated Anti-Missile/Drone Jammer and Defense System, use a Hybrid Gas Turbine Engine, and maintain a four-man crew of a Tank Commander, Weapons Operator, Gunner, and Communications/Drone Specialist.
Modern SPGs are (usually) lighter AFVs with bigger guns that have evolved to a point where they can kill tanks far outside their effective firing range with precision indirect fire. Even back in WWII, however, the role of heavy tanks was limited by basic physics. Modern tanks have much better drivetrains than WWiI tigers but they’re still a pain to build & move & they get stuck in a lot more places than a 30-40 ton AFV.
7:11 It's wire-guided, not "wire-less guided". It's got a spool of wire on each missile that unspools as it goes down range, and that's how the gunner communicates with it to keep it on target.
In a battle without air support, tanks need to get bigger and heavier, not smaller. The only defense against modern man-portable antitank weapons is to field enough armor to shrug them off, otherwise you're just letting enemy infantry kill 10 of your guys with one weapon. Ideally, however, you will have air support, at which point the lighter vehicles make sense.
Excellent and clear analysis.Thanks.
most of the cost of lost tanks is because that tanks are used wrong in case of strategy. you cant send them out alone without the support of infantery and other viechels. If you support them correctly they are deadly, if you dont support them they are easy prey.
You also live in 1945. What use are your infantery , when the enemy shots a Kornet at your vehicle from bushes 200m away ? Or when they have a $1000 Chinadrone+RP2 controlled from behind a tree line ?
pretty much like cav. there was a moment in history where you could throw cav at all your problems, and it would deal with it. Similarly MBTs could be thrown at any thing for a while. Now they are getting more countered, and need to be applied in gaps of the enemy again to be of effect. But if you were to get mbts throu the enemies lines in significant numbers they still would shread. Problem in Ukraine is, there are no gaps to throw them throu ig.
@@frankgerlach4467 It's called combined arms. How do you think forces in WWII dealt with 88s that could shoot from 2km away? You recon the areas enemy ATGMs are most likely to be, or where your tanks are going to be most vulnerable. You hit those areas with artillery and air strikes. Infantry goes through the places tanks can't easily reach to root out the missile teams. When a missile is launch you hit the place the launcher came from and use smoke rounds to blind them. Infantry locates and eliminates or degrades the enemy's reconnaissance capabilities so they can't see the battlefield as well. Anything the Infantry can't take they call support assets like tanks, artillery or air support. The goal isn't to take zero casualties; it's to keep your fighting force effective. It's OK to lose a few tanks to ATGMs if you can find, fix and eliminate them which is the job of the Infantry. The USMC literally states the job of the Infantry is to "locate and destroy the enemy by fire and maneuver or repel their assault by fire and close combat" and they are the premiere infantry force on the planet. To put it another way, infantry are the most vulnerable thing on the battlefield but literally no one is talking about them being obsolete. Machine guns and artillery can kill them in greater numbers than ATGMs can kill tanks but we don't even hesitate to use them on the battlefield.
For Russians that is not really the case since their main battle tanks are already as light as 25 tons lighter than their western counterparts
But to meaningfully upgrade them one would need to increase their weight by 15 tons
Crew protection is less important
And you know why? Because Soviet union couldn't make 1000hp class tank engine, much less 1500hp.
@piotrd.4850 mainly they don't have a heavy tank in need of such high power and the main reason for lighter main battle tanks is the road and bridge networks not lack of technological prowess
@unnamedprotagonist1 heavy tanks are proved to be catastrophic option among warefare history
if we want to talk about light and small armored vehicles, we should talk about the Swedish cv-90 120, and the Russian 2s25m sprut-sd. the cv 90 has a very small size but packed with features, and the 2s25 has incredibly light armor similar to the bmp, but allows it to have amphibious capabilities. not to mention these two vehicles make no compromise in firepower, with both the cv 90 and 2s25m using the same standard caliber as their modern main battle tanks, 120mm and 125 respectively. not only does this allow for more firepower, but it also simplifies logistics by allowing them to share the rounds used by their heavier comrades.
In the case of the Russian Sprut, if it faces off against NATO forces it would still die like their aluminum skinned cousins in the BMP series. No amount of firepower and lightweight construction will save you from NATO air power.
Ahh, an amphibious coffin !
@@PeterMuskrat6968 вашу авиацию будут сбивать массово, это вам не бомжей хамас и талибов гонять без нормальной пво
Yes bro, but I should prefer the Strid 103 (without turret and a very low outline) with the 25mm gun of the bradley (or twin)?
I think the most important equipment has been modern civilian construction equipment (like excavators), which I have heard both sides have pressed into service to dig massive systems of trenches and obstacles 20 x faster than humans built them in WW I or WW II. They work on 2nd, 3rd, 4th lines of defense far from the actual front with no worries of air attack due to modern air defense. This, plus drones detecting offensive maneuvers easily, is driving the stalemate nature of the conflict. Defense has really gained some major unexpected advantages lately (not unlike the defensive advantage evident from the American Civil War to WW I).
A lot of talk about Bradley in this video… but is it 260 though?
As you mentioned, tanks are more valuable targets. They draw a lot of the fire that would otherwise hit the IFVs. Without tanks the IFVs would be a priority target, so combined operations are essential to the mission.
There exist much better vehicles and I leave it as an exercise for you to find them here.
Nah that’s not why
In Iraq, American forces also had GPS, integrated communications, and night vision.
Tank you good sir
Another fascinating video from you!
Hear me out: what if instead of making the tank smaller, harder to hit, and generally more survivable while being just as deadly, We instead make it larger, with giant robot legs, arms, and a head unit, and put giant guns, plasma swords, bazookas, and rocket engines?
Sounds Good to me, Let's fucking go with battle mechs!
*steps on an anti-tank mine*
Call it "Yamato" !
I'm sad that you didn't speak about the nex French vehicle, like the Jaguar, which is in this doctrine !! Contiue video, they are greate !
Man how the Bradley has been so improved from it's first design over 30 years ago. From an ugly ducking that no soldier wanted to ride on to the go to armored vehicle of the war. It is great to see they got it right finally~~~!!! Shalom
If you do not care about survivability of the crew. Abrams are spotted very similar to Bradleys. Which would you want to be in? I also disagree on what targets enemy prioritizes. You are deep in psychology of different cultures and military doctrine. First time I have disagreed with you. I would target soldier busses or APC's.
Let me guess! Logistics! Wow it’s exactly what I think!
Amateurs study tactics, professional study logistics.
The ASCOD platform is the way to go, with already a large variety of available weapon systems and configurations: 30 mm cannon, 40 mm CTAS, 105 or 120 mm turret.
Tank you very much! 😁
They could literally fire and hit the ruski tanks long before they were even able to target the Abrams. 😅
New T 80 and Armata will wipe out any Abram tank if needed. Russia is huge superpower and will always be !!! USA only has the most expensive military, while Russia the strongest and the most experience army on this planet .
@@mirekslechta7161Get back to me when you fix the handbrake vatnik
@@montyfatcat8871 Get back to me, when you realize the truth(which is as follows) : What is happening in Ukraine is on scope and scale which NAT0 was not even able to imagine and has no answer to it. NAT0 has almost no ammo left, no artillerry , no tanks, no missilles to stand up Russia. Imagine, U. K. , or some people in U.K. want to fight Russia directly while only having 40(!) Chalanger tanks in working order :) Ridicul*us NAT0 is a paper tiger. NAT0 spent 2O years learning how to fight Afghan wedding parties and Iraqi villagers, because that is pretty much what NAT0 was doing. NAT0 forgot how to do a large scale ground combat. NAT0 even has no means to do large scale combat. China is there for Russia, Russia is there for China.... Who is there for USA? United Kingdom with their 40(!) Chalenger tanks in working order ??? Or Germany? Germany is not only 100% out of ammo, but on the top of that Germany was even bombed by USA!!!!(Nord Stream) Ridicul*us NAT0, unfortunately still able to make mess around the globe !!! Nowadays we can see the "quality" of USA´s weapons in counterofensive in Ukraine. The only things which are remarkable about those guns are the PRICE and the SPEED in which these are being wiped out... USA only has the most expensive military in the world, while Russia has the strongest army in the world and the most experienced army in the world..
@@mirekslechta7161 LOL I think you need to read up on your history a little more we are always at war with more than one country and it has been that way for a long time. Also what makes you think we're going to throw our best technology into a battlefield like Ukraine no we won't be doing that
@@mirekslechta7161 I think you need drug and alcohol treatment
From what I’ve been seeing in the Ukraine the battlefield is scattered with many destroyed Bradley’s….. nice cope though.
Not from what I’ve seen.
@@baneofbanes Open your eyes then.
@@mynameisnobody211 they are. And they see the same image form the start of the offensive copied over and over.
What’s the point in lying? No one that has done an iota of investigation into this conflict is going to believe you. The only ones that believe you are morons who can’t research. Here’s a factoid for you: Russia can manufacture 1.5 million 155 artillery shells per month. The whole west can only make about 80000. Hey, ukrainian fan boy, your team has lost. Bahahaha
Goodnight, Vatnik.
Two points many people tend to forget in this discussion: 1. The barrel launched atgms of the T72/80s are more feared than their main cannons, you argue could that these are their main weapons in a head on conflict with western tanks. 2. The 60-70s ton MBT´s of the late cold war were over designed to fight in the northern german planes or the fulda gap. They would roll from their barracks straight to the battlefield. There is a reason why Bremerhaven was still territory of the americans, they had to create a solid infrastructure for landing their reserves. For vehicles over 50 tons you need very flat terrain, without many big river crossings and solid bridge/highway/railroad infrastructure.
I don't understand why the barrel launched ATGM's are more feared than their kinetic rounds the NATO country composite Armours for example (American tanks have about 600mm more chemical protection then kinetic) and the Russian ERA (for instance RELICT has 300mm more chemical then kinetic) withstand chemical weapons way more than the kinetic weapons.
@@jtl05 I like your technical aspect of it, but from a tactical stand point the range overmatch of the ATGMs is super dangerous. Especially because the NATO tanks shoot more accurate and faster in cannon range. Under 2km the NATO Tank propably outperforme the Russian one, but from 2-4km a T80 can still engange with Cobra and Sniper ATGM. They may get shruged of by the armour, but there is always the change of damaging vital components.
@@westphalianstallion4293 fair point didn't really think about the range advantage
@@jtl05 I should have made my point clearer as well. "touching" your enemy without him "touching " you is always an advantage. Given, there arent that many situations with straight fields of fire of more than 3km. Which are needed for wire guided stuff. At least in europe to my knowledge. Russian technology is always a big if, because of western fear mongering to get more funding, and russian propaganda. Many people who worked with T80/72 said, that the cannons/optics werent that great so, the atgms were there most accurate system as well.
I have heard others pronounce it the same way, but I am pretty sure it is "spalling", not "Spalding", 5:47 which I think is the difference between red-hot metal fragments inside your tank and tennis balls bouncing off the armour. I could be wrong, but worth looking into....
Yes worst ifv ever, it's 25mm autocannons can even shred advanced armour of t-90m 💀
Cool. When are you going to post all the videos of toasted Bradley's and their older counter part? Telegram doesn't lie.
So.. autonomous self charging tank mounted drones will join the field.. tomorrow?
If my memory serves me well, TOW is a Tube Launched Optically tracked Wire-guided anti-tank missile…
Indeed. I could not believe it myself, that there could be a spool of wire so long. But then I found video where you can see it unspooling.
Well if 'm going to be captured during a cold winter, a vehicle that goes up in flames versus just disabled keeps me warmer while 'm waiting to be taken away.
Sadly we won’t have powered armor with jump jets or giant mech walkers any time soon to make tanks and ifvs obsolete :/
I think Preston Stewart said this but he said that if tanks are obsolete now because of all the ways to easily kill it, then infantry units must have also been obsolete for a very long time
They *would* be if infantry were as rare and expensive as tanks.
11:05 it isn't going to replace the Abrams and has more of a support fire roll and can kind fill the spot of a tank until the Abrams gets there. Also the Booker isn't really tank but is very close to a light tank, i forget what the Army classifies it as
I think they called it the "Mobile Protected Firepower". The Army is hellbent on making sure it isn't called a tank for fear of commanders misusing it as a MBT.
I have yet to see massed tank advance in this war as of yet. This should be easy to do on the steppe. Instead you see small columns of slow moving armor or just plain stationary. It is clear that the tank is not obsolete, the war in its entirety is being grossly Mishandled, largely due to lack of air power.
In a sense when the Italians developed the B1 Centauro in the '80s they were ahead of time. Light, fast and armed with a 105mm cannon
You have a tank to provide opressive direct firepower (you don't want to get hit by 120-mm whatever it is) and takes all attention to itself, AFV to provide supprot to tanks (anti-infantry, anti-light-vehicle or even anti-tank), and you have infantry to cover them from places where tanks are unable to defend themselves(any type of building, roofs, hills, trenches, etc.). This is a working system, and untill there will be something else that will fulfill these certain roles, or untill we will make new ones, it will stay like it.
.... Abrahms tanks have a 105mm gun... And our Paladin artillery is 155mm....
@@Adammrtl27 Abrams had 120 since like... When was M1A1 introduced? 1980? And yes I know that Paladin have 155, but it is A GODDAMN SPG! You don`t use it as a HEAVY ARMORED VEHICLE!
Yeah, except that this did not work in the middle east. Tanks are coffins, face it.
That’s very good, calling a tank a land-going battle ship. All of the heavily armored sea-going battleships are gone now, replaced with completely unarmored frigates.
9:32 where did you get the video? it shows the austrian Jagdpanzer Kürassier