American tanks are Better than Russian...

[@PuffPuffPassTheJenkem]

I hope we’ll never figure which tanks are better in reality.

[@tanay2412]

Best comment here

[@ellysero6134]

Russian tanks were ASS

[@appleholo2336]

Russian tanks biggest problems have always been reliability more than anything else

[@a.t.l.r.8969]

@@ottovonbismarck7646 i wouldnt fancy nuclear war but thank you

[@ricardoricardoricardoricardo]

You dropped this 👑, king.

[@sorokabeloboka8818]

CynicalHistorian: "And T-55 can still be found in their reserves today, and it was made in 1958." Me: *Laughing in active duty B-52*

[@wonkagaming8750]

XD

[@stolek6908]

Also laughing in my m18 hellcat in 90s yugoslavia war !

[@obedambriz8370]

Don’t Russians still use the Tupolev TU-95?

[@sorokabeloboka8818]

@@obedambriz8370 They are indeed still and service and will remain. However they are not the "mainline" nuclear bomber. This role is replaced by Tu-160, and even they are being modernized, and when something boils, they are the first planes sent, not Tu-95. In case with US I don't remember B1 getting such attention, and B2, sacrificing a lot for stealth, is not even a suitable competitor to B-52, let alone B1 or Tu-160.

[@sorokabeloboka8818]

@Sepher Agon Such things heavily depend on opponent. I mean T-55 is a useless tin can against modern opponent, but at the same time some of them are doing pretty well against mish mash of an islamist forces in Syria right now. Same with B-52. It can still be used against "unconventional" enemies with success, but against an equal enemy - doubtful. They started getting downed back in Vietnam already, and look how technology has leapt. There is such thing as "Morally old", and no amout of "modernization" or "fixing" can change that for B-52 or Tu-95.

[@solid_fire9388]

those soldier on the tank at 10:06 are from Afghanistan, which they still use T-62s left from the 40th Army During the 80's soviet-Afgan war

[@Krzemieniewski1]

US style uniforms and old soviet tank= Afganistan army

[@ikill-98]

@@Krzemieniewski1 will yes both US and USSR attacked them and this is the result

[@jasongideon9919]

Soviets wins

[@Feiora]

@Steve Arthur they're talking about the soviet invasion of Afghanistan before the soviet union's collapse...

[@whomagoose6897]

I talked to some Iranians about Afghanistan culture and people. Iran borders Afghanistan so an Iranian point of view would be valid. They said the entire Middle East looks at Afghanistan as a bunch of ignorant hillbillies living in the same conditions as they did in the 14th century. It is currently the 21st century. Doesn't say much about Afghanistan.

[@yaotails6630]

The fact that he said the BMP-2 had a bigger gun than the BMP-1 just made me laugh way too much.

[@josephahner3031]

It's not bigger but it does have more firepower, which is what i think he meant.

[@SuperMisteriPlayer]

Well it is longer

[@yaotails6630]

@@SuperMisteriPlayer Well I know that, but it sounded like he said it in regards to caliber. The BMP-1's 2A48 is 73mm where as the BMP-2's 2A42 is 30mm. I just found it really amusing at the time.

[@josephahner3031]

@@yaotails6630 30mm

[@yaotails6630]

@@josephahner3031 My bad, Forgot the 2A42 Was 30mm and not 20mm.

[@edisoncambod8335]

Tha abrams is effective under american use. Give them to the arabs and it becomes just like any other " russian" tank. The only reason an abrams tank is effective is because it is supported with ifv, apache, drones and other assets.

[@ozzy7763]

Edison Cambod like any other tank

[@MyUnoriginalUsername]

Americans compare their own tankers with their best trained crews and frontline upgraded tanks against Polish exported T72's ( they were downgraded export versions of Russian T72 and when Poland sold them to Iraq ect they were downgraded even more ) so some people think a bunch of civilians in a downgraded tank will be the same as a T72 on steroids against a trained Russian crew

[@thenevadadesertrat2713]

In WWII the Germans never deployed tanks without support units. As long as they were able to. They had "Panzergrenadiers" units with machine guns in case of infantry attacks.

[@HyperNebula]

And their crew, that is one of their important key things

[@kurosumomo]

Well the Abrams has not engaged in any conflict where it had to fight a similar era opponent, all of the engagements were against T-55s, Type 69 and export variants of T-72s.

[@ibeastee2435]

“The efficiency of something doesn’t come from the thing itself but rather the skill, experience, and discipline of its user” -Franklin D. Roosevelt

[@mckitsune7600]

*laughs in winter war*

[@joeknow3712]

Lol no

[@mckitsune7600]

@@joeknow3712 the Russians had tanks and aircraft. one of history best snipers the white death scored 300 kills using an old mosen. the finish took out Russian tanks using a vodka bottle with a bit of fuel mixed in. so how am I wrong? the reason I said the comment was due to the fact the finish fought off the Russians with bare bones equipment.

[@joeknow3712]

@@mckitsune7600 My comment was directed at the quote above and despite how good of a resistance the Finnish put up at the beginning, they still lost the war in the end.

[@mckitsune7600]

@@joeknow3712 my bad. and yes while they lost the damage they inflected showed the world how unorganized the red army was.

[@dumaran8861]

"i just want to point out SOME mistakes" Proceeds to point out everything.

[@domino1323]

To be fair the video he was reviewing was very wrong in many ways

[@darionbalkaran790]

Lmao

[@deronchoo3401]

Ya the video redeffect review sounded to pro western.

[@Wallyworld30]

@@deronchoo3401 I watched the video he was reviewing. That dude never said American or NATO equipment was better than Soviet Gear. He did make mistakes but I never got the impression of pro western. Only actual mocking he did was of American Equipment.

[@baltulielkungsgunarsmiezis9714]

Cynical historian sucks so there really is not other way.

[@ChristianThePagan]

American tanks are better than Russian tanks … until you have a 50 metric ton rated bridge to cross and realise your M1A2 SEP weighs 67 metric tons. That’s just one example of how which tank is better depends on the terrain you are in and also on how you plan to use your tank.

[@onri_]

...until you don't have Air superiority because your fight a country with a legitimate army something the west seems to have forgotten.

[@quan-uo5ws]

Literally Ukraine right now, most ukrainian bridges cant support western tanks, while the ukrainian T-64s have no problem with this at all.

[@Apopolopis]

Not only is he wrong, he has comments disabled on his video.

[@zrbbg9639]

Not on all of them but this one, yes.

[@Apopolopis]

@@zrbbg9639 I checked two videos in a row and they both had them disabled so i guessed it was universal. I was wrong, and ill remove the last part.

[@zrbbg9639]

@@Apopolopis It's alright, I don't know much about this channel either. But disabling the comments in this exact video just shows he doesn't want to admit his mistakes. RedEffect probably saw this and tried to be nice.

[@MikeBrown-go1pc]

Lol that is the #1 sign that he is a complete asshat

[@zrbbg9639]

@ecocivilian How old are you? Why are you so toxic over stupid political topics?

[@F15ElectricEagle]

Any weapon that works and can still do the job it's meant to do is never truly obsolete.

[@startingbark0356]

If it can destroy other of its kind it still has an potential use

[@frenchsoldier8485]

@@startingbark0356 These are Soviet god damn tanks, and a tank has gotta kill infantry (reference to another video)

[@Yuri-hk9ft]

Obsolete doesn't mean useless it means that there are much better alternatives

[@fattyMcGee97]

The guns on the old tanks may be fine, but if the tank is slow and can't spot the enemy first then it is a rolling coffin.

[@patthonsirilim5739]

m2 50 cal browning was first used in 1933 and the design of the gun is still unchanged to this day

[@MatoVuc]

"they couldn't afford to manufacture a bunch of new armour" The T-55 and T-72 are 2 of the most produced tanks ever. That fact and the quoted statement do not mesh together...

[@fatmanbatman9374]

MatoVuc they made the t72 but not much else

[@quisqueyanguy120]

@@fatmanbatman9374 Yes they did, T-80 and T-90 are examples of that.

[@mavi1381]

@@quisqueyanguy120 T-90 is just modernised T-72 lmao

[@jakiwijaya7316]

@@mavi1381 still a new tank. But in nutshell, yes

[@fuckjewtube69]

"Couldn't afford" was not a thing during the Soviet Union. They had as much money as the US.

[@jacklin6573]

In the 1980s up until the 2010s, the USSR and Russia actually bought formerly exported T-34s back for show purposes, whether it be in monuments, museums, or parades.

[@RomanHistoryFan476AD]

A lot of this trashing Soviet weapons and vehicles come from people only seeing it being used by less effective users like Iraq, and such.

[@easthulk99]

@Mauri Mela No crap

[@RomanHistoryFan476AD]

@Mauri Mela Yeah well all armies have there idiots in them, the soviets included i mean who brings tanks to a mountain.

[@IvanIvanov-zv8tx]

Check the number produced and the number destroyed ...you might be badly surprised by how many US troop carriers were made and how many ...are not suit for service a long time ago ...

[@RomanHistoryFan476AD]

@@IvanIvanov-zv8tx Ah yes i remember the mess the Bradley construction was.

[@RomanHistoryFan476AD]

@Mauri Mela yeah winter war soviet leadership was a comedy show waiting to happen.

[@mywaifu3792]

US: Our tank is better than Russia. Somewhere in Russia: "An old men starting Soviet IS-3 heavy tank from his garage."

[@AlexDiaz-hl8qx]

We do that shit in Texas

[@csis8460]

@@AlexDiaz-hl8qx you don't have IS-3's

[@vulcan5567]

CSIS it’s Texas they have weapons from all over the world

[@gordonlawrence1448]

@@csis8460 Actually the bulk of IS-3s in personal collections are in Texas.

[@valhalanguardsman2588]

@@gordonlawrence1448 what! How?

[@culturedape6087]

Be more cautious facing Ivan in a T55 than Muhammad in a T80

[@Naif3mk]

Hahah me now=😐 american jokes funny no?

[@moffgideon2213]

Skull seems like 112 other people thought it was funny

[@Elthenar]

Truth.

[@Naif3mk]

your friendly neighbourhood Jew of course they thought it was funny because they’re from the usa what do you expect?

[@moffgideon2213]

Skull I thought it was funny, I’m not American.

[@corvus1768]

That guy really was like "damn, I have no idea what I'm talking about. I should make a video"

[@vindicare9636]

T55s completely phased out of reserves,if you look at syria,the syrian recieved T62Ms,T72Bs,T90s and T90As.They also recieved M30 howitzers.A good indicator about russian reserves.

[@aleksaradojicic8114]

There is diffrence betwean active reserve a.k.a US National Guard or Brit Territorial Army and reserve storages like US storages in deserts or Russian logistic bases. First are active units while second just keep equipment on number in one place. First one can be used after few weeks of intesive training, while second would need around year and more to bring equipment to usefull state and train soldiers to use it.

[@PeterMuskrat6968]

Well shit homie. It’s Jan. 2023 and I just saw T-55’s being loaded onto trains and sent west to Ukraine. That should tell you something about Russian reserves.

[@offset7711]

@@PeterMuskrat6968 Where did you see that? I thought the oldest tanks they sent to ukraine were T62's

[@PeterMuskrat6968]

@@offset7711 Was a vid that was taken near the town of Samar, located a bit aways from the border. No real confirmation, yet. No real confirmation on if it’s going to Ukraine or not either, so if I didn’t say it before… add might to whatever I said before.

[@offset7711]

@Christian Tonzillo Idiot Director ah okay. I only know of the t62 Tanks they sent to Ukraine. If that is true that they sent t55's than that would be embarrassing.

[@SkullKing11841]

Where does he get this idea that NATO wanted to push ahead steadily? The US blitzkrieged Iraq twice.

[@shayanperis7681]

Iraq was a very weak military and the those wars were very small scale compared to the WW3 scenarios most of these machines were designed where air superiority was not guaranteed and the enemy was probably very numerous. Try Blitzkrieg on Russian military and you'll see it wont work as well as it did in Iraq.

[@wojszach4443]

Maybe because cold war doctrine of NATO was all about stalling Russians as long as possible, to give chance for main USA forces to come to Europe

[@hp2084]

have you seen the movie Pentagon wars. Based on true story.

[@stardekk1461]

@@shayanperis7681 At the time of operation desert storm (first Iraq war) the Iraq army was the 5th strongest in the world.

[@Scriptedviolince]

@@shayanperis7681 it's easy to see I'm hindsight, but at the time Iraq had just won the Iran Iraq war, and scars from Vietnam were still healing. We were expecting chemical warfare, trench warfare, ATGM spam out the wazoo, and hard steady fighting against crack veteran mechanized infantry forces. We were expecting the ground war to take months, and were gearing up to soak up tens of thousands of casualties. That's why we had so much manpower and gear on the ground. It was only afterwards that we realized exactly how shit the Iraqis were (pretty shit).

[@jeanuardorbigoso699]

Red effect smells bias Red effect: im gonna end this whole mans career

[@pedromiranda5448]

What career? What career?

[@pietersteenkamp5241]

@@pedromiranda5448 Cynical historian. I watch all his stuff and he isn't going anywhere despite the mistakes we all make. :)

[@patrickaalfs9584]

You realize that the Abrams was introduced in 1980. Updated or not, our main battle tank would be too old to enlist in the military if it were a human being. I do smell bias, more Budweiser flavored bias than vodka flavored bias. Abrams is a joke and Bradley isn't even a tank

[@pietersteenkamp5241]

@@patrickaalfs9584 The Abrams is absolutely no joke at all and the question can only be if they could be maintained and supplied in large numbers near the Russian border. If the USA can do that they should do just fine and especially as active countermeasure comes into vogue.

[@pedromiranda5448]

@@pietersteenkamp5241 Dude, you obviously don't get the joke

[@abelesperanz4196]

"their industrial capability and general strategic doctrine into throwing everything at the wall and seeing what stuck" is what is happening right now with ukraine

[@resolute2307]

seems like it but nothing is sticking

[@709mash]

Yup, potential history seems to be correct here.

[@Icspiders247]

I remember there being a video where red claimed NLAW and Javelins wouldn't be effective lol

[@Slycarlo]

@@Icspiders247 yeah i think its about ERA video, i think he got humbled and proven wrong, just like what i always say russian tanks in paper are good but they're just to be honest trash when used in combat, theres a ukrainian t64bv or its a t72amv (i forgot it was 2 weeks Ago) vs a t72b3, the russian tank wasn't able to pen the turret of the ukrainian tank and the ukrainian tank was able to return fire and able to destroy the russian tank, the russian tank is it either got shot on its side or if its frontal armor ERA isnt effective as advertised or the explosive is missing and got pocketed to buy yatch.

[@mariuspretorius7913]

@@Icspiders247 Just remember to take msm propoganda with a grain of slat. They were averaging 3 to 8 shots at the start of the war per tank and its much more now. Theyve used 30k+ missiles and destroyed less than 3k vehicles.

[@exculpate6194]

theScotishKoala: let's talk about soviet tanks RedEffect: *IT'S TOO MUCH BIASED*

[@easthulk99]

Literallly.

[@shoppingcart9559]

Scottish Koala has the brains of an Ant.

[@Kuraimizu9152]

@@shoppingcart9559 or maybe he is a koala

[@shoppingcart9559]

Crosshair TV His brain being smooth and full of tumours would explain a lot.

[@enriquecadlum189]

I certainly perfer to keep an open mind in these sorts of situations merely due to the fact that most educational or informational material (at least in my country) are western/NATO/American-centric. They are willing to tell me of the "courageous" americans in the Pacific in WWII but not about how it took them 2 years to get in to the war at all while the Russians had to lift the war efforts on their backs and hold the Nazis off almost immediately after it started, and a bit after it ended in the Eastern front. We don't usually get this point of view with this level of clarity, so lets just be happy that there's someone who wants to shed some lights on misconceptions and show his side of the argument.

[@ArrabelIa]

The burnt down Russian tank in thumbnail is one of the Ukrainian T-64s lost in the Ukraine conflict.

[@angryhedgehog4266]

Bugatti04 FUCK No you fucking idiot!

[@LockheedC-130HerculesOfficial]

@@angryhedgehog4266 damn chill out yo

[@filipkohut3192]

@@LockheedC-130HerculesOfficial True.

[@sovetskayasoldier8127]

@Bugatti04 FUCK used by the ukrainians not the ruskies And that equals that it was destriyed probably because it was used by the Ukrainians

[@cblue3]

The majority of Russian tanks are outdated, cold war era tanks that would be destroyed by modern NATO MBTs before they even knew what happened. Sorry Russian fanboys. Even the T-90 lags behind in virtually every metric compared to its NATO counterparts. Maybe the T-14 could show some promise but its difficult to sort out the reality from the propaganda when it comes to getting information on that tank.

[@plantenthusiast3052]

RedEffect: "I don't see anything a certain tank could do that the russian tank couldn't be able to achieve" Me: Depress their gun.

[@dimitrijestevanovic4851]

russian tanks are shorter than any nato tank, they dont need such a depression as american tanks.They were purposely made like that

[@ThickestKYLE]

@@dimitrijestevanovic4851 try doing berm drills without good depression

[@virgilio6349]

@@dimitrijestevanovic4851 what is over hill shooting? Gun depression fucked the Iraquis pretty good when they had to go over the hill top to get shots, exposing their whole tank.

[@cyka7705]

@@dimitrijestevanovic4851 I don't think that's a good reason thought. Would be nice if Russian tanks have deppresion

[@90enemies]

@@frostruneIt's alright. This star spangling troglodyte doesn't have enough brain cell to count in the simple analogy of "This Vehicle can cross a bridge, but not all bridges can be crossed by this vehicle." He's right of course it's designed to go through mud but Physics still works the same even more so on a 70 tonnes tank against soft ground. Which is why those Star Spangled Retard has a lot of recovery vehicles.

[@savios2807]

Man, that reactive armor on the T-72 modern variants and T-80 and 90 Variants are is working like a charm in Ukraine! 🤣😂

[@Andrew_Sword]

what can they say they never imagined having to square up against the Ukrainian farmed forces tracker go brrrr

[@LyonPercival]

Even their cope cages didn't help them against Saint Javelin 😂😂😂

[@acedogboy8421]

@@LyonPercival there has been no evidence the cages havnt worked…. Most/ all tanks destroyed in the propaganda do not have the cage. The chieftain even ‘debunked’ this

[@bubby8825]

@@acedogboy8421 most destroyed Russian tanks tossed their turret some 20+ meters and landed on the would-be cage. Not hard to imagine how thin sheet metal welded in the field would simply disintegrate in the face of an NLaw or Javelin. Don't be a simp.

[@acedogboy8421]

@@bubby8825 there still would be evidence of the cages and yet there is none. Also you have completly missed the point of them if you think they are to stop top attack missiles. Also we are only seeing propaganda. Not misses or failures to destroy a tank. And before u say we have access to russian media ugh no we dont. Russians are banned from western media eg face book…. Not a simp just not a moron.

[@germanwarrabbit]

that guy is like one of my friends he has an extreme American bias

[@grammoore]

His view of military military equipment and tactics is based off military section of wiki. Hes the type of guy to say russia best cause vodka and russian bear mentality.

[@viktoriyaserebryakov2755]

I was about to hear him out but then he turned the comments and likes ratio off.

[@andrews3951]

lol have you looked at Red Effect's channel? Talk about bias

[@BL4ST_]

@@andrews3951 What? lol

[@cblue3]

@@BL4ST_ He has a big Russian bias.

[@mikugirlB3]

I like how he said that the Soviets had a MBT in 1945, the Soviets never had a MBT in 1945 and the T-54 was never even produced in 1945, it was only the T-44 Medium tank, the T-54 started production 1947 all the way to 1951 and later the T-55 replaced it.

[@xxfalconarasxx5659]

T-54 actually had a prototype completed in 1945, so technically he's not really wrong. However, the T-54 was not classified as an MBT. It was a medium tank.

[@adarret]

Maybe they have dyslexia and mixed up 45 & 54 or perhaps they hadn’t noticed that number behind the T roughly corresponds, being related to and a couple of years earlier than when a particular Russian tank entered service… 🤷🏻‍♂️

[@englishalan222]

They did have a heavy tank in 1945. The IS 2

[@mikugirlB3]

@@arandomdeadmau5fan861 Sorry man, can't read properly, sooooooo see ya

[@kiryu-chan1590]

​@@xxfalconarasxx5659 I never knew that. The more you know.

[@billhamburger7444]

Russia: we have many tanks Finland: Molotov time

[@SexierMink1699]

Molotovs killed absolutely zero tanks. It was used to fuck the crew by throwing it into air intake after it got disabled by either a satchel charge or a at mine

[@billhamburger7444]

Mareos42 well actually during the winter war they mainly had the t-26 at the time and it had a big open exhaust, open view ports which by the way they would put their pistol barrels into to shoot the driver and capture the tank the Finns captured a lot of Russian tanks it was a humiliating defeats and losses for the red army.

[@SexierMink1699]

@@billhamburger7444 Yes but we never used molotovs succesfully on moving targets. It was mainly for disabled tanks.

[@billhamburger7444]

Mareos42 oh I thought you meant Molotov’s we’re not able to knock out the tank the Russians were not tactical geniuses when it came to tanks the Finns made better use of them.

[@SexierMink1699]

@@billhamburger7444 Are you talking about foreign secretary molotov or molotovs cocktails?

[@sampsalol]

That statement at 2:10 about soviet/russians not using numbers to overcome the enemy did not age well when you look at Ukraine now.

[@start2957]

They started with less people but more firepower, if they really wanted to use "human waves" they would've had way more mobilisations

[@yiyangqin4527]

that thing is "yes soviet use number superiority sometimes but it does not mean their quality is inferior" in fact if direct compare russian and ukraine equipment now, Russian still vastly superior in quality. if you compare a T80 upgrade used by russian to some ukraine t64 or t72 the answer is pretty simple, Russian is superior. However, their serious lagging behind in informatization make their equipment vunlearbale to atgms or portable anti tank weapons in this guerrilla warfare alike place. It does not mean they were any bad or sth, the thing i saw for now, is they really need to keep up the digital and informatization progress, not really that much in their tanks

[@EmiliaZiętek-w2e]

Russians entered with less than 200 000 vs Armed forced of Ukraine at 250 000 + Border Guard + Territorial Guard + Volunteer units + Mobilised Active Reserve. Russians were outnumbered 2:1 in manpower but they fielded the most mechanized force in history, the ratio of armored vechicles and artillery was extremly high and because they had little regular infantry in their force composition they had to rely on tanks heavily even if the terrain was not favourable which led to significant eqiupement losses.

[@thefistofshadow7392]

"T72 is still in duty, is so bad its from the 80`s !!" **M1 Abrams trying to hide itself**

[@cristobalalvarez5491]

TheFistOfShadow you wished

[@mrspeigle1]

In both cases, are we talkin about the original or are we talking about the updated modernized version. Current versions of the Abrams the only have the hull shape in common with their first generation predecessors.

[@otter2206]

mrspeigle1 oh yeah and the 58 mm or rha on the upper plate they kept that too hahahahahah

[@uio890138]

The T-72 is based on a design from 1950. Do you read or study military facts or just log on occasionally and have diarrhea of the mouth?

[@otter2206]

@@uio890138 another american come to defend there shit tank hahahaha

[@chidon7465]

Also he fails to note America still uses the Abrahms which was made in the 70's regardless of uprades its old. Yes I'm an American saying that.

[@ikill-98]

Also inspired from MBT 70 and it's gun a modified version of German L 44 or L 55 wait your American and your name chi don lol

[@bryanmartinez6600]

@@ikill-98 the newest version uses Israel APS I think called dthe Windbreaker also used on the Merkava 4

[@MunSka]

Chi Don I would imagine if the US wants to create a successor to the Abrams it would just be a tank version of the F-35 Spectacularly Disastrous

[@Sinberg]

It is old as a base design, but it doesn't mean it's any bad. In fact it's really nice for what the US needs.

[@Feiora]

@@Sinberg Its the modularity of the Abrams that has given it such a long life span compared to its predecessors... American Military LOVES modularity in all forms...

[@Tsirkon]

It's really not about "How powerful the tank is" It's really just about "How good they're using it and how good , and easy to produce it and also how easy to Operate the tank"

[@lolofblitz6468]

T 34

[@tomi9562]

@@lolofblitz6468 ah yes quantity over quality

@@lolofblitz6468 ....Which got massacred time and again, with German tankers noting "How odd. We manage to put three rounds on target before the crew even realises which direction we are". And about which the manual for Armee Gruppe Mitte wrote "Slow and unmoveable. Effect mostly psychological. Combat effectiveness: Very low.", before the manual goes on to describe various ways you can disable a T34, even with a bottle, or a rifle.

[@thepreacher7399]

@ Also happened with the Iranian conflict, US Abrams obliterated the opositions tanks even though they outnumbered them 10 to 1.

[@ddandymann]

@ That explain why the Germans won the w... Wait a minute.

[@azura2790]

Good video. Something that people often overlook is that a tank doesn't have to be the best, or even modern, to be deadly. If you don't have basic AT weapons at your disposal, it won't matter if it's an Abrams or a Sherman coming at you, your service rifle isn't going to cut it. Obviously anti-tank tactics are more complex than simply the weapons systems designed to destroy them, but you won't stop at T-72B with an AKM or M-16.

[@RG-3PO]

I always figured the Russian's "superior numbers" was meant more as "locally superior numbers". I have a older US Army battalion tactics field manual (I forget the exact one, it is packed in storage) and the manual talks about Russians using locally superior forces to cause a breakthrough. The US tactic was to create a front line that would blunt the attack, and then use a mobile reserve to counter attack once the focal point was found. A lot of these tactical ideas are only relevant when there is a frontline against two major powers.

[@dusty7993]

If by Russia's "superior numbers" you mean during WW2, then it also means a literal overall superiority in numbers in total too. The Soviets, which includes more than just Russia but also Mongolia and Siberia ect., deployed more frontline troops and had a larger army overall than the Axis forces. So it means both locally and overall, although the tactic of using locally superior numbers to cause a breakthrough was pretty common and was used even back in WW1 by German stormtroopers so it wasn't unique to Russia.

[@JayZx777]

People loves to discredit the Russian technological achievements, this is quite common. Poland is still using upgraded T72Ms (being upgraded or phased out) and PT91 Twardy as a highly modified versions of that tank. T55s that were manufactured in Poland in the 1970s are still being used in some countries, including Syria. Soviet tanks (pre T80) are still quite common the the Eastern and Central Europe. Great video, Cheers!

[@vinncentuntiedt5851]

Though Poland upgraded to leopard 2

[@JoJo-vm8vk]

What western army gives a shit about T-55 ? Let’s be serious. If your are PMC with limited weaponry, yep, maybe a T-55 can ruin your day. But a regular army with MBT, artillery or anti tank missiles would wipe out any T-55 before it even knows what happened.

[@JayZx777]

@@vinncentuntiedt5851 Poland gotten Leopard 2A4s that will be upgraded to 2PL standard and bunch of 2A5s, but the PT91s and few T72s are still in use.

[@vinncentuntiedt5851]

@@JayZx777 it just shows that Poland thinks , that T 72s are severly outdatedt.

[@JayZx777]

@@vinncentuntiedt5851 There was another significant plan for modernizing T72 and PT92, but that appears to be scrapped. Instead the Leopard 2a4 s are being highly upgraded to a Polish standard 2PL. Poland will most likely be buying more Leopards tanks or it will either try to develop an MBT by itself or with cooperation of another country.

[@kentran8177]

8:05 Awaken, my medium tanks!

[@mEDIUMGap]

Japanese made light tank - Type 10

[@jezzat3778]

this video aged well, the very first counter point of all bmp 1s being upgraded to bmp 2 has been shown to be extremely wrong, even with the lil caveat at the end

[@PeterMuskrat6968]

Man, it’s going to be great when Ukraine starts getting those Leopard 2’s and Abrams tanks so we can finally put this nonsense to bed. NATO tanks are far superior to Russian ones. In every regard except for Weight and Height. FCS? Better. Ammunition? Better. Thermals? Better. It’s only going to get worse for Russia since the sanctions are sapping up their ability to design and build their “super tanks”

[@obioraobi]

Strategy, Tactics and training effect the outcome of a battle more than the quality of weaponry, . If you have the highest quality weopens with poor tactics you will still lose to a lower quality weopens with tactics suited the strength and limitations of the weopen

[@arandomt-9056]

Sounds like nam to me

[@Nikocum]

Saudis poor performance in Yemen is the proof of that...

[@johnnyho3702]

Solipsil thats it just what he said. The us army was fueled with tonns of modern helis, tanks, weapons, jets and tech but still lost by the vietnamesed that used better tactics Even with poor weapons

[@stardekk1461]

@@johnnyho3702 I think vietnamese weren't had better weapons. In my opinion the type-56 (Chinese version of the AKM) was better than the m16 at least at short range were most engagements were.

[@stardekk1461]

@@johnnyho3702 I think the vietnamese HAD better weapons*

[@EcchiRevenge]

People kept trying to talk shit about T-90 not realizing T-90 is actually the cheaper, weaker version of what Russia originally was going to go with: Object.187(better slope on hull, welded turret - later adopted by T-90A, longer gun - later came in the form of 2A82 with better backward compatibility on ammunition). And that's not just on paper, multiple prototypes were built and tested, iirc one of them even had a turbine engine. The Russian "supertank" T-14 traces its lineage back to mid/late Soviet era.

[@boiboiboi1419]

EcchiRevenge only a dumb guy , talk shit and underestimate t90

[@EcchiRevenge]

@@dewlittle1211 Not at all. You just failed to read.

[@Slenderman12342]

I'm more of a fan of western tanks but Soviet/Russian tanks are still incredible pieces of engineering

[@bololollek9245]

especially for the time they came out

[@metalmadsen]

And are what are you going to use them for? Offensive actions or are you planning of fighting on the defends?

[@yousifm.f.m.s4572]

Of course they are , just think think about autoloading systems in their tanks . They using it since 60s

[@nikolakaravida9670]

@@yousifm.f.m.s4572 Autoloading is inferior to human loaders, it was made to reduce the overall profile of the tank

[@TheFastcraig74]

But crewed by conscripts

[@91plm]

what people forget is what really matters overall: numbers and logistics. i bet we could even switch the tanks between blocks. they are all good enough actually. But what matters most is who has the best capacity to sustain the troops in the field (food, amm, clothes, reinforcements, spare parts but also good combined warfare) and give them good info.

[@michaelhowell2326]

Also, I think you did this video quite professionally. You didn't bash CH, and just pointed out some mistakes. Good for you, man.

[@kristijan99]

Correct some mistakes the whole video from that guy is a mistake 😂😂 love you redeffect

[@pietersteenkamp5241]

Cynical is great but i am not sure he is any kind of military history specialist going by the content i have watched.

[@jacquesstrapp3219]

Neither is redeffect. He is hopelessly biased and as far as I can tell has no military experience. It is difficult to find unbiased videos on military equipment. You definitely won't find it here. Having operated Soviet equipment, I can tell you that most of what you hear from this guy is propaganda. Take everything he says from that perspective.

[@pietersteenkamp5241]

@@jacquesstrapp3219 Unfortunately the bias against Soviet equipment is promulgated from on high and astoundingly widely believed so it's not merely a question a bias exist but that this one is so skewed that it may convince some bigots/imperialist in the west that the nazi's just made a few small mistakes and this time the Russians are just going to fold and be easily defeated. As for your claims about soviet equipment against unfortunately many people who claim to have operated it tell lies that can be dispelled with actual photographic evidence and even lesser means. It's like we are expected to believed the dumbest things on the order of WOMD in Iraq and babies being thrown out of incubators.

[@jacquesstrapp3219]

ZonTheDon I'm probably the only person on this page that has actually operated Soviet tanks but you evidently think that you know more. What's YOUR experience? Watching KZbin?

[@jacquesstrapp3219]

Pieter Steenkamp If you think I'm lying, climb into a T 72 and slew the turret. If you're in the wrong place, it will be the last thing you do. Soviet tanks were not designed with crew comfort or safety in mind. You might think this unimportant but crew comfort directly relates to efficiency.

[@hmshood9212]

Leopard I and AMX-30 in 1967: “I’m in danger!”

[@bryanmartinez6600]

Leopard 1 focused on fast mobility but had paper thin armor that wouldn't stop rounds above 20mm rounds on the hull. Turret was stronger but Soviet tanks could easily pen them.

[@randybobandyscheeseburgerp4387]

HERPY DERPEDY I just auto-aim even with my tier 8s. No need to aim for weak spots!

[@hekkoki]

@@bryanmartinez6600 Bullshit, front of the hull was pretty thick. Not as thick as M60 or t54/55, but still thick for machineguns/autocannons.

[@bryanmartinez6600]

@@hekkoki yeah that's why I said 20mm rounds but a Gatling gun will chew throw it's armor

[@hmshood9212]

troll oracle If that target survives using its composite, yikes for the Leo.

[@johnlewis9907]

The problem with your rebuttal, everything the Russians have performed well below there hype and specs. In Ukraine a T90M was hit by three M72’s at about 200 meters and two of the shots penetrated and knocked it out and this was a straight on shots. Several T72 BV3 where also taken out by recoiless rifles.

[@Andrew_Sword]

to give the guy the benefit of the doubt this was made two years ago

[@timeframe4985]

I don't think they have deployed the T-90M's yet though there are pictures and reports of T-90's and T-90A's losses.

[@Tounguepunchfartbox]

There’s a video of a t-80 getting penetrated by a 30mm auto cannon. Second shot went straight through.

[@kazuhiramiller7491]

Theres no such tank as T-72BV3, theres T-72B3's which did actually perform better than the Ukrainian T-64BVs that got annihilated en masse but the western media does whatever it can to censor Ukrainian casualties. While Russia did suffer heavy losses it never expected, the point of this video is to disprove another westerner talking bs he doesnt know about.

[@Tounguepunchfartbox]

@@kazuhiramiller7491 bruh go look at oryx. The Russians are losing 4x the equipment that Ukrainians are. Russia is now changing the goalposts, scaling back the entire invasion. Would be surprised if they take a total loss at this rate.

[@kden9772]

I left a comment on his video that pretty much said the exact same things. It really doesn’t make any sense that the USSR would use T34s in the 60s if they actually wanted to win a war against nato.

[@benedeknagy8497]

@eddie money Add some cage/ERA, and those 85mm HE shells are just as deadly in infantry support role as they were 70 years ago!

[@ribbitgoesthedoglastnamehe4681]

Yes. Having less tanks transforms the remaining tanks into a Super Robot armed with exploding arms and fists, powered by the power of friendship. Meanwhile, in the real world, the more targets that you offer, the better the chances for your best units to do their job uninterrupted. Also if can make a big boom at infantry, and be impervious to most of their infantry weapons, its still a big problem to the enemy.

[@pietersteenkamp5241]

@The Doge-Emperor of Dogekind No one likes to hear about their mistakes. :(

[@bestamerica]

hi K... ' ussr russia was never win war anti NATO-OTAN in eastern europe... thank to american president ronald reagan did the great job... tear this wall down in germany

[@alphawolfgang173]

i would use any tank in an all out war. a t34 is still dangerous as hell against softer targets. t34 in a support role is still a cannon and machineguns. id take a t34 over nothing any day.

[@apertureemployee215]

7:12 Something that western tanks can do that a russian never could? How about lowering the barrel of their gun?

[@dimasakbar7668]

@@kraspootis9051 you're willing to forgo the benefit of in higher ground?

[@castor3020]

Or reversing at any other speed than crawl

[@frederikbertel6621]

The t 80`s had more thai 30 kph in reverse, and since the battlefields russisk tanks would fight om would be the great east european plain, High Ground would not be neccesarry

[@castor3020]

@@frederikbertel6621 citation please, I've understood that T80's reverse speed is doubled compared to T-72 but that is still around 10kph which is laughable compared to any other modern tank. Not to mention that most T80's have been left to storage and mostly unupgraded (some have been but the platform has been left to age because focus is on T90 and T14) due to lack of funds and issues uncovered in the chechen war. regarding your plains comment now you have a tank that can work in the open plains just like any tank in the world can but is sub-optimal at any other terrain, hardly what you want since the most important theatre for soviets and Russians was/is Central and Eastern Europe which is highly urbanized, has loads of woods, swamps and rolling hills.

[@damianbisha6712]

@@castor3020 Well im a tanker in Polish army in T80, it can do about 30km/h in reverse, so like 25mph? Also for more depression on a gun you just throw a log that you are always carrying behind your tank and reverse on it, or so my DS told me on my second day when I asked and walked away laughing

[@AshlandMan]

9:48 They're Afghan. He is an combat veteran of the war in Afghanistan, and was a tanker before being reassigned as a cavalry scout.

[@marcohorodnichev9489]

The only thing that came to my mind when you said "what can western tanks do that soviet tanks can't" what I instantly thought was "reverse". Lol

[@Stepan_M]

*Thicc NATO tonk *exist* Russian HE : "imma end this tank's whole -carreer- crew"

[@OliverFlinn]

in war thunder maybe, in reality, not exactly

[@Stepan_M]

Oh right i forgot that part, but who knows

[@OliverFlinn]

@@Stepan_M yeah, nobody is going to use HE in tank vs tank fight... sabot or heat all the way, HE are for soft targets (APCs, IFVs, or pillboxes)

[@Stepan_M]

Nobody wants to be sophiticated, sure

[@OliverFlinn]

@@Stepan_M buddy, thats just how it is.

[@thesaul9484]

2:35 I would also mention the fact that T-62 was the first tank to use Depleted Uranium shells or atleast use them in real combat.

[@allezoo8181]

Ey whats up xd

[@scotthulsey8763]

T 62s were massacred by Israeli m-60s and Centurian tanks in the six day war .

[@pablosarmiento3767]

falopu FTW actually yes because they lack elevation and depresion... so your mighty argument is wrong

[@christiandauz3742]

Allies wished they had T-62 tanks during WW1 The Germans wouldn't have time to dig trenches

[@mr.mercuryidk3757]

I don’t think so

[@randomperson5775]

RedEffect:American tanks are better than russian tanks Me:tank is tank

[@randomizer3777]

XD

[@giantskeleton2418]

Just like the roads. Road is road, road go same way.

[@vozhdenko932]

Нет. Tank is not tank. You are saying that the glorious Russian T14 Armata is the same as a shitty abrams.

[@randomperson5775]

how bout the bob semple get the meme pls

[@imlivingunderyourbed7845]

@@randomperson5775 The Bob Semple is not a tank, it is a God

[@korbell1089]

"That Soviets used numbers to overcome the enemy which isn't really true." Battle of Kursk: Russian casualties 800,000 German casualties 200,000

[@JAnx01]

Well, tank on tank battles against German late war panzers were tough 😛 But the post war Soviet doctrines were anything but designed around "human waves".

[@marttoom5903]

@@JAnx01 you right soviet doctrine included shitty tank waves... it was improvement from WWII time human waves, I must admit that, but not very smart doctrine. Putin is now attempting to win Ukraine war botched victory march with old soviet shitty tanks in wave doctrine, but he doesn't have mass army like soviets did. That is the reason, why Putin is in big trouble. P.S. I'm old, served in soviet mechanized infantry as conscripted auxiliary mechanic. I Know that from first hand.

[@afonsoabreu5144]

Or tanks German casualties: 1200 Russian casualties: 6,064 Or planes, German casualties: 629 Russian casualties: 2,220 It's a hell of a KD XD

[@georgethompson1460]

@@afonsoabreu5144 Not to mention a good chunk of Russian tanks were imported from allies, or that the trucks that supported them were all imported.

[@marysartr]

Those aren't the right numbers lmao. Germany had 380-430k casualties. USSR had 250k killed.

[@SAUBER_KH7]

That title though lol. But alas good job correcting the mistakes in a clear and easy to understand manner. You have my thanks.

[@zyrolupercal2111]

Dare I even say : you have my tanks.

[@SAUBER_KH7]

@@zyrolupercal2111 lol

[@generalkenobi5173]

@@zyrolupercal2111 oh u cringy boy

[@zyrolupercal2111]

GENERAL KENOBI Yeh I love me some good ceinte.

[@DB.KOOPER]

I'm an American who was always fairly anti-Russian/Com-Bloc (a child of the late 70's/early-80s there was a LOT of Cold War propaganda running around) but it learning about military and weapons history I've come to really love Russian weapons/armaments and tactics. Really interesting to see how we did so many things so differently but with the same goals. Russian/Com-Bloc/Eastern Eurp arms/Military forces deserve respect and appreciation.

[@tomwhitworth1560]

Nope. They are the forces of authoritarianism and oppression as far as I am concerned.

[@bobsjepanzerkampfwagen4150]

Thankfully my parents never tought me to be anti-anyone only those who wish harm on us and who want to abuse us

[@tomwhitworth1560]

@@bobsjepanzerkampfwagen4150 Like Russia

[@johnsnow9887]

@@tomwhitworth1560 Russia is not bothered with concerned bothered idiots

[@tomwhitworth1560]

@@johnsnow9887 Unless they are Eastern european

[@madness173]

Tbh its just a case of who sees who first and tanks without thermals have a massive disadvantage.

[@sloptek1807]

It wasn't such a big problem, back in the 1970s, beginning of the 1980s

[@CsendPenge]

"For decades after they became obsolete" "The USSR never ever used any armored vehicle decades after they became obsolete" And what is with T-72A in Ukraine? They shouldn't be there? :D

[@Orcawhale1]

That's Russia, not the USSR.

[@ezorod8060]

They have armor? 😓

[@NickJaime]

@@ezorod8060 yes they do

[@mbtenjoyer9487]

That’s Russia not USSR

[@treyriver5676]

@@Orcawhale1 Russia did not build new T72a it inherited them form USSR.

[@robyngiesbrecht5206]

Sovient union: constantly iterates and designs new tanks to insure their armoured units have access to the most advanced tanks in the world, the result of which meant they have alot of different tanks and variations some western sympathizer: this tank is based on an older tank design and that means it IS an older tank

[@m1garand903]

Robyn Giesbrecht commie

[@chaosXP3RT]

What's your opinion of Western tanks?

[@vytorbrb3568]

8:29 the north koreans must had laugh after seen that ridiculous painting

[@turbodel1788]

Dude he just is hungry for some AP shells

[@newspaperbin6763]

Yea. We gotta make em laugh and then blow them up.

[@76456]

@@dauzlee2827 It was to affect chinese, in 1950 china was in the year of the Tiger, they wanted to scare them whit their gods.

[@PsychNurseHaldol]

I was focusing on something else and I heard the music at 8:05 and i thought the Adeptus Custodes showed up.

[@radwellii3646]

Y e S Also Baneblade is best tank

[@BleedingSnow]

Not alone brother

[@sk1r4]

True

[@benashurov7434]

A man of culture i see

[@af9433]

omg ikrrr

[@Subutai2024]

In general, currently, I do believe that the American tanks are better than the Russian tanks. Why? First, the quality of the equipment. Secondly, the quality of the maintenance, and thirdly, the training quality of the armed forces in general.

[@OlegVulkanov]

@P T also 50% money

[@AnhNguyen-eu4st]

VietNam still use T 54 till today . Still pretty good , we also have M41 Walker Bulldog captured from US. US and Russia tank are both good but i would choose Russian tank for its price

[@chrisbusenkell]

He might've been referring to the T-55s that are still in service in other countries. It was a successful tank, the Soviets sold a lot of tanks all over the world and a lot of them are still in service. Could they compete with a top of the line tank? No, but it's impressive that they're still around and still working.

[@comradeweismann6947]

Blyat no one messes with Soviet Bias

[@MrMattumbo]

Блят!

[@roadrunner6224]

except everyone with proper thermal sights who proceeds to knockout all of the russian tanks at night

[@comradeweismann6947]

@@roadrunner6224 not anymore these days 🇷🇺

[@stardekk1461]

@@comradeweismann6947 and you didn't even show a Soviet flag lol

[@comradeweismann6947]

@star dekk sadly, my phone keypad does not give me one. Blame the capitalist phone companies

[@baltulielkungsgunarsmiezis9714]

Dont take him too seriously he fails at every topic he covers, I have no respect at the cynical historian.

[@felixalgebra4888]

was waiting for someone to point this out cynical historian is an absolute joke of a history channel

[@myopicthunder]

hes just showing off the US education system

[@louiscypher4186]

@@myopicthunder it's not even the US education system though, any american should know that US tanks post WW2 were the opposite of generalised. The American's rapidly ditched their light and medium tank designs for a consolidated main battle tank design and this was in direct response to the lesson learned from Korea and Vietnam. So much so that by the 1970's the US had ditched all replacements for light and medium tank designs in favour of the Abrams. This was a point of contention for decades about whether or not such a heavy specialised main battle tank was the correct way to move forward, He's also wrong about the doctrines the Abrams from the outset to be able to breakthrough enemy tank divisions, which is why it's weight was controversial and why Chobham armor was adapted.

[@Flyingcircustailwheel]

I'm not huge into armor but, his aviation stuff is wayyy off the mark.

[@Andrew_Sword]

seems hes been vindicated in recent weeks lol

[@radenprasetyo8234]

11:33 T-34M mod 2019 with remotely operated flag

[@alexandervandenberghe2550]

Bruh XD

[@mihover6665]

Im waiting for tank expert Commenting

[@warmbreeze7996]

self proclamed tank expert

[@mihover6665]

@@warmbreeze7996 yep

[@mihover6665]

It just sometime funny hearing them fighting lol

[@armyguy3285]

I also love the people who never serve talking about specifications...

[@pietersteenkamp5241]

@@armyguy3285 And i find it even funnier when people who served in some bush somewhere then think they don't actually have to learn the numbers and read the history....

[@peteriliev]

1:42 MT-LB is Multi-Purpose Towing Vehicle Light Armored. Its main purpose is to tow artillery guns and their crews, although in some formations it’s also used to transport motorized infantry, but it's definitely not designed for “combat fight”!

[@BiSFeralDruid]

"Russians never use obsolete equipment" Aged like milk on a hot day.

[@PeterMuskrat6968]

I love going back and seeing the absolute hubris from the Russians and Eastern Bloc tank enthusiasts.

[@offset7711]

yeah that part about the T62 also didnt age too well lol

[@PeterMuskrat6968]

@@offset7711 We are probably a few weeks away from spotting the first T-55 in Ukraine, as a train was spotted moving towards Ukraine carrying T-55’s and old GAZ-66 Trucks

[@WiscoMTB37]

@@PeterMuskrat6968 ya remember when he said all bmp 1s were upgraded to bmp 2 and there are maybe a few bmp1 left. Meanwhile 250 have been either destroyed or captured.

[@PeterMuskrat6968]

@@WiscoMTB37 Lmao, just goes to show… NEVER under any circumstances believe any numbers that come out of Russia. They are pathological liars, and are incapable of telling the truth. Pre war I’d put the number of Russian tanks at 4000-6000 total. Those include operational tanks and tanks that could be repaired and sent to the battlefield. Which would leave several thousand rusted hulks that are either complete scrap or a source of spare parts. Since a lot of the numbers of Russian Tanks in storage comes from the 90’s and has been repeated for 2 decades, meanwhile rusting, looting and sales (legally and illegally) of those tanks have been happening.

[@hermanshelton3660]

Thank you for the corrections. I wonder what his answer would be for our continued use of the different variants of the Abrams?

[@zaborg1127]

@6:50 for example firing missiles from those tanks also sounds pretty versatile to me

[@anglerfishtanking]

Russian ATGM tech was far ahead of ours until the TOW systems. The Shillelagh missile was shit and that was our attempt at tank fired missiles.

[@priest0701]

@eddie money ... lol what?

[@priest0701]

@eddie money state your sources

[@agham101]

Just the few seconds of the clip at the start of the video made me cringe. BURRDUMM 2

[@lukabogdanovic4658]

@EliteJag lmao

[@Rodfriend]

Most tank doctrine between 40 though 70 had to do with logistical concerns. The m4 was a popular tank cause it was easily shipped and produced. Just like the t34 was popular cause of the ease of production.

[@unknowntyrant3371]

8:06 It that a jojo reference

[@mayuri4184]

I was anticipating such a comment.

[@jakenator7427]

UnknownTyrant wrrrrryyyyy

[@valhalanguardsman2588]

T-54: awaken my masters!

[@frankwhite3406]

The T62-A firing it's main gun towards the end of this video is crewed by Afghans standing on the engine deck. They paint their Tanks in an unusual shade of green. There was a documentary on them on RT.

[@stephenallen4635]

And the t55s are back in service

[@alexanderK2700]

As frontline artillery quick move since they have very versatile munitions where nato tanks don't have

[@stephenallen4635]

@@alexanderK2700 lick soviet ass a bit more why dont you

[@stephenallen4635]

@@alexanderK2700 🤡🤡🤡

[@alexanderK2700]

@@stephenallen4635 bro's greatest enemy were goat breeders with sandals 😂

[@SouthJerseyFirearms]

Javelins are popping all types of Russian tanks left and right in Ukraine. The tanks can’t stand up to infantry I doubt they stand any type of chance against NATO armor.

[@molstad182]

the only tanks with a real chance nowadays are the T-90MS and the T-14 Armata, but they can't produce any Armatas since 1 russian ruble is equivalent to a Minecraft emerald edit: typo on T-14 Armata

[@petrkdn8224]

Javelin will pop any tank, including NATO tanks...

[@wrpg9955]

@@petrkdn8224 not true modern tanks have APS which makes missile nearly ussles

[@petrkdn8224]

@@wrpg9955 well modern Russian tanks also have APS, they just weren't equipped with it in the war

[@jonathanpfeffer3716]

@@wrpg9955 doesn’t the Russia APS system on those tanks not have 360 degree coverage? That would make it unable to be used against the Javelin that comes up and down onto its target, but it could be used against basically any other missile

[@masterdanielm5821]

T 34: are challenging me? T 34: im the most fastest mass produced tank in the history

[@mig15bis44]

M4 Sherman: Hold my beer

[@GSR_handler]

T-34 and T34 is the different guy. You have to write it correctly.

[@ushikiii]

@@GSR_handler when some one says T 34, they mean the T-34. Nobody is going to think about a big, and ineffective prototype, other than people who play tier 8ś in bloody world of tanks.

[@GSR_handler]

@@ushikiii I'm play World Of Tank.

[@ushikiii]

@@GSR_handler net, I used to. Quit playing September 2019, not that long ago.

[@shanehoward4197]

I was assigned to LRSC/311th MI with the 101st. I attended RSLC as such and had to learn as much as possible about Soviet era armored fighting vehicles. Russian motorized,mechanized and MBTs are amazing pieces of equipment. I've never understood people who dismiss Russian armor as inferior to our forces armor. It comes down to training in most cases. Force multipliers that come from advanced equipment have evened out somewhat with upgrades that modernize current Russian armor.

[@stephenallen4635]

Well I think its quite clear now that there were plenty of bmp1s left

[@OwenBeyer-nr3dv]

I notice that people keep arguing which tank is better. The tanks are built to fight in different terrain and have different doctrine. People need to stop arguing.

[@majesticrattoon4429]

2:05 "Now this statement is only based on myth that stuck from world war 2" That aged like a fine wine.

[@RidinDirtyRollinBurnouts]

On the note of tanks being the most effective tank-killer, MHV checked the numbers and found that AT guns were counted for far more kills than tank-on-tank kills, so it sort of flies in the face of more tanks = victory

[@bellator11]

Couple of big advantages of western tanks such as esp. the Leopard 2: 1. Far better fire control & sighting system 2. Much better overall mobility (can actually reverse at speed) Yes Russian tanks featured protection on par in some areas, but the Leopard 2 has been ahead in firepower & mobility since the beginning, which is what will win most tank on tank engagements in modern times.

[@darkrolf7185]

you really didnt listen?

[@gareththompson2708]

My overall impression is that while the Soviets fell behind a bit in the 80's (and the Russians straight up stagnated in the 90's following the collapse of the Soviet Union) for most of the Cold War the quality of their equipment was on par with (or even superior to) their NATO counterparts (they were definitely ahead in the 70's). I think between pulling a bit ahead in the 80's, then way ahead in the 90's, and then it taking a decade or so for the Russians to catch back up in the 2000's we kind of spent 30 years getting used to the idea that NATO equipment was better than Russian equipment. When in reality there really isn't any reason to think that is necessarily true as a general rule.

[@Andrew_Sword]

bing bong

[@jimjamauto]

The Soviets were only ever ahead in armored fighting vehicles and very briefly with infantry weapons. They were very behind the curve with aircraft.

[@tavish4699]

@@jimjamauto very behind ? Id sit myself in a mig everyday if i could avoid a us jet

[@comareborn8734]

@@jimjamauto No?

[@jimjamauto]

@@tavish4699 might wanna check out those victory ratios in US vs Soviet aircraft

[@216Suzan]

“No t-55’s in Russian stockpiles” T-55’s appearing in Ukraine 3 years later

[@yaya_is_real]

It's used as mobile artillery

[@ohnoes3084]

@@yaya_is_real it's still being used

[@celebrim1]

Video aged like old milk with cat piss in it. Yes, Russia had the best tanks in the world from about 1954 to 1972. After that point, they've been losing ground.

[@Alecxace]

Russian tanks are absolute fucking garbage. Maybe this is skewed because of the poor tactics, no use pf secured comms and just a general logistical shit show of epic proportions.

[@FriZal]

@@Alecxace The tanks are not absolutely garbage. However, compared to America, then yes. However poor logistics and communications also causes russia to have more unnecessary tanks lost in Ukraine. Also remember that they are using lots of old soviet era tanks in the war to prevent loses of their modern tanks that could be used in other important operations. Their new modern tanks are just..decent.

[@Alecxace]

@@FriZal Russia has no real modern tanks in large numbers. The T90 and it’s variants are just fancy T72s! The T80s are ok but again in such small numbers it doesn’t matter. They are all Soviet era tanks, but the Abrams has been in service for 40+ years so age matters little. The “modern” T14 armatas are just like the SU-57, in such small numbers and half are prototypes that they might as well not even exist. Russia cannot afford to build new gear like it did as the Soviet Union. It really must suck for 18-24 year olds to get into a Russian tank only to cook to death from a javelin blowing it up. But I genuinely thought they’d do better than the Iraqi tanks, since their t72s were export models. Now I wonder if Chinese tanks are as bad too.

[@FriZal]

@@Alecxace Yep ur right. Russia is stuck with lots of old soviet era tanks and only a few modern tanks that are even directly comparable with the Abrams. To be fair, the money they spend on military is a lot less than US. Also accounting the maintenance for the huge quantities of nukes and corruptions in the country, i doubt a lot of money ACTUALLY went into development of new modern tanks and planes. They also don’t have as large industry and economy as the US too.

[@Orcawhale1]

You mean the video which you didn't watch and clearly didn't understood? The tanks arn't the problem, it's still the lack of air cover and PGM, that's leaving the tanks exposed. What's more, you obviously don't know your tank history, because it's actully 1954 to 1990. The T-80B and T-80U were miles ahead of the Western design, which is the whole reason why we invented Javelins, ect.

[@demos5302]

That thumbnail couldnt be more accurate.

[@notbappo2435]

For anyone wondering, the bmp at 1:36 is a BMP-2M. It has Atgms its 30 and a grenade launcher. I think it was made in 2016

[@armata_555]

Welcome back after some time! Good video btw.

[@FrodoSantana]

Wow this aged poorly, “T-55 were phased out, even in reserve.” Russia then proceeds to pull them out of reserve to fight in Ukraine in 2023.

[@АртемСитников-с2ш]

How artillery

[@MrChickennugget360]

@@АртемСитников-с2ш the point is they are still in reserve.

[@BlackWolf9988]

Yeah they are being used as indirect fire on long range.

[@ohnoes3084]

@Velikan5.45x39mm the source is multiple videos and images of them being on the frontline of Ukraine, this is easily searchable, the Russians don't deny it either, they aren't being used as MBT's but rather as Artillery but they are still being used

[@ohnoes3084]

@Velikan5.45x39mm lol ok then, it's not like we have videos of T55's rolling along in convoys or artillery battalions using them due to lack of actual dedicated SPG's, they are being used, theres so much photo evidence of it I have no idea how you could possibly not recognize it, we have videos of them packed on trains and transport trucks and photos from the Regiments which use them showing them firing them as SPG's, unless you're suggesting the Russians are lying about their own equipment by faking their own use of T55's to make themselves look worse then I have no idea what your huffing

[@manuelarrieta6614]

USA tanks are bets than russian tanks Huties: *hold my goat*

[@juliosunga3530]

and its Houthies.

[@manuelarrieta6614]

@@bonda_racing3579 Huy me hubieras respondido en español mejor xd

[@jefferys.prockl8693]

Sure would be nice if you guys could actually spell right

[@okinawatim3421]

Those were just down graded Saudi tanks. If the US showed up with their own tanks we all know it’s going to be a different story.

[@swiftnicknevison4848]

Love it. T-34 still in active service during parades is like saying the royal navys ships are outdated because HMS Victory is still a commissioned warship.

[@derptank3308]

Just a little note here, the dude was in the US Military

[@tinydestroyer4672]

More bias

[@billhanna2148]

In what capacity ? Regardless that speaks volumes to his lack of credibility 😎

[@JohnLee-dn9ge]

So he has some credibility if talking about stuff he would have had direct contact and experience with. I doubt he was in contact with a lot of Soviet/Russian armor.

[@marinerecon9]

Most likely a pog.😁

[@MikeBrown-go1pc]

How do you know?

[@sverdzo8134]

RedEffect: T-55 is not in active servise or reserve. Russia now: Ivan where the f*ck is that brake these tanks are terrible.

[@BillyBurnsfield]

dpr / lpr are using those tanks as they are more familiar with them. i havent seen a single russian regular use them

[@sverdzo8134]

@@BillyBurnsfield They are not on front but there are video that T-55 are on their way to front or to repair docks.

[@yaya_is_real]

They're used as artillery

[@JACKAL747]

​@@BillyBurnsfielddpr and lpr are gone! Wagner is gone! All that's left are russian orcs left.

[@BillyBurnsfield]

no they arent, wagner is literally in africa right now and dpr and lpr have their own units in the russian military@@JACKAL747

[@rash.h7822]

Man! What stupidity from that cynical guy too much bias...... thanks redeffect you made my day 😂

[@petesy03]

It’s not the machine who will win in battle it’s the men who drive and command them and whoever is more cunning

[@treyriver5676]

Yup. Those western tanks were crushed in the Golan heights. Oh wait.. Never mind

[@cwjian90]

Kursk was not even the largest tank battle of the war (Brody 1941 was). My understanding is that the Russian Armed Forces in the Caucusus still had the T-62 on hand at least up till 2008 since they were used in South Ossetia

[@TheTeKuZa]

Yes, but the Soviets fought 18 Panzer divisions a day on average, while western front fought 4 to 6 Panzer divisions, meaning the bulk of nazi Germans were in eastern front than any fronts. And still, the Soviets entered Berlin first. Battle of Kursk is not about the biggest tank battle but more on the biggest total war battles that enough to exhaust the Germans in state of collapse

[@elusive6119]

The T-62 58 armies in 2008 simply turned out to be the closest and were used in the Southern Military District as a reinforcement for motorized infantry. They were used there because to them there were additional protection kits designed for Afghanistan and they were more resistant against RPGs. Now T-62M remained only in reserve for units of territorial defense and militia. Part was repaired and transferred to Syria to make up for losses.

[@cwjian90]

@@TheTeKuZa Brody was on the Eastern Front as well. It is not as well known because it was a defeat for the Soviets and was underplayed during the cold war. However, in terms of numbers of vehicles, 750 Axis and 3,500 Soviet tanks were involved, making it the single largest tank engagement, surpassing Prokhorovka. The Kursk campaign as a whole involved more tanks, but it was a 2 month campaign, as opposed to a week-long running battle as at Dubno/Brody, so it is not really comparable.

[@PeterMuskrat6968]

@@TheTeKuZa Ahh yes, it’s not like the western Allies let the soviet get Berlin😂

[@doodskie999]

8:04 WTF I was just listening to the video while I was reading a t34 article Pillar Men theme plays* Awaken my masters! WAMMUUUU

[@onez9511]

Lol

[@EiTobi-wg6mc]

my head hurts thanks Red for pointing out the problems with cynical´s video