American vs. Russian Tanks

Thanks to CuriosityStream for sponsoring this episode. Go to this link for a free 30-day trial: curiositystrea...
Both the US and the USSR had main-battle-tanks, but something was different for the Soviets. Russia had a much wider range of armored vehicles. Why did the Soviets have so much diversity, where we still don’t have that?
A YTer named RedEffect made a bad-faith criticism of this video, and here's how to understand what he did incorrectly: / on_redeffects_response...
because of the mass-flagging from his subscribers, all interactions have been disabled
errata
12:15 - the USSR reactivated T-34s for specific parades, but were mostly out of service and reserves by the 1980s
------------------------------------------------------------
Be sure to check out my documentary on the end of the Western genre: • When the Western Genre...
Or check out my episode on US veterans history: • The History of America...
There's also my review of Patton (1970): • Patton | Based on a Tr...
------------------------------------------------------------
references:
John Nicholas, Main Battle Tanks (Vero Beach, Flor.: Rourke Enterprises, 1989).
Steven J. Zaloga, Modern Soviet Armor: Combat Vehicles of the USSR and Warsaw Pact Today (Englewood Cliffs, N.Jer.: Prentice-Hall, 1979).
Steven J. Zaloga and James W. Loop, Modern American Armor: Combat Vehicles of the United States Army Today (London, UK: Arms and Armour Press, 1982).
“Soviet Tank Programs,” National Intelligence Council, NI IIM 84-10016/DS, 5 May 1984.
------------------------------------------------------------
SUBSCRIBE FOR MORE VIDEOS:
www.youtube.com...
Support the channel through PATREON:
/ cynicalhistorian
LET'S CONNECT:
Facebook: / cynicalcypher88
Twitter: / cynical_history
------------------------------------------------------------
Hashtags: #history #USA #tanks #USSR #Russia

[@CynicalHistorian]

Thanks to CuriosityStream for sponsoring this episode. Go to this link for a free 30-day trial: curiositystream.com/cynicalhistorian See replies to this comment for errata and additional info

[@CynicalHistorian]

*This is currently re-monetized by manual review,* we'll see if it sticks - since they so often fail to do so. Thanks for watching, and please consider buying some merch: teespring.com/stores/the-cynical-historian Or by donating to my Patreon: www.patreon.com/CynicalHistorian Be sure to check out my documentary on the end of the Western genre: kzbin.info/www/bejne/rmfddWSpn9N2oq8

[@CynicalHistorian]

*errata* 12:15 - the USSR reactivated T-34s for specific parades, but were mostly out of service and reserves by the 1980s ------------------------------------- A YTer named RedEffect has made a bad-faith criticism of this video, and here's how to understand what he did incorrectly: www.reddit.com/r/CynicalHistory/comments/ec5hjo/on_redeffects_response_video_and_badfaith/

[@williamt.sherman9841]

you weren't with the Chieftain were you? in 1-221 Cav?

[@CynicalHistorian]

@@williamt.sherman9841 i only found out about that guy's channel yesterday, so i don't know him. But i was in the 221st from 2006-11 Great username, BTW. Make the South howl

[@williamt.sherman9841]

@@CynicalHistorian were you in Lima Troop?

[@MrBigCookieCrumble]

_Idk why, but, something... somehow makes me think you _*_don't_*_ like the Bradley all that much..._

[@Ushio01]

@@dfmrcv862 It sucked so hard in Iraq and Afghanistan the US pulled it out and replace them with MRAP's.

[@bjmccann1]

@@Ushio01 Really? What sucked about it?

[@40ktheo]

@@bjmccann1 basically the Bradly is an armored fighting vehicle without any armor, and a troop carrier that can't carry many troops. It's the worst of both worlds really.

[@isaquesevero4369]

an IFV doesn´t need heavy armour to do it´s role , actually that would make it slower , the FV510 warrior , BMP-2, Type-89, none of them have heavy armour

[@RandomGuy17768]

@@artruisjoew5473 Being a retired Army tanker you are dead right in that assumption. Bradley over MRAP any day of the week. Side note* the Bradley does what its supposed to do and does it effectively as long as field commanders use it like its supposed to be used. Deploy to your capabilities & not fly by the seat of your pants tactics. I enjoyed working with our counterparts in Europe all the way thru the first gulf war in 91 to OIF1 in Iraq.

[@alexandrub8786]

Ok this [video] has "Potenial History" written every where on it

[@nitrogenice513]

Thank god I wasn't the only one noticing it.

[@kingofthings7929]

Yeah. The Dukes Of Hazzard Bit when the Lee came up was straight from Potential History, I swear.

[@griffyn1161]

Even somewhat sounds like him.

[@ArcturusOTE]

Well he did also mention PH on his "History Channel (not to be confused to the former History Channel) Recommendations" so I guess that rubbed off

[@paulmacfarlane207]

No contest.

[@frankbumstead9489]

So many questions to be raised about this. Kinda hard to go over everything but where are you getting these doctrines of Soviet breakthrough and American keeping a steady line to defend? A breakthrough is how you defeat an enemy when you take the offensive. You compromise the enemies flanks and they risk encirclement. Both the United States and the Soviets used this. It is what destroyed the 6th army at Stalingrad and what helped the Western allies break out from Normandy and create the Falaise Pocket. Even during WW1 every attack was an attempt at breaking through an enemy sector. The stalemate was not desired by any side. British cruiser tanks were designed specifically to exploit a breakthrough in the enemy lines. Also most history of the Eastern Front that the West has is tainted by the cold war as well as the fact that it mainly comes from German officers. Hitler lost the eastern front with bad decisions, the regular German army was not the SS and had no idea of their crimes, and they were always over run by human wave and tank attacks. The Soviets often had numerical advantages against the Nazis and always wanted this to be the case, but so does any army. Also most of these numerical advantages were a result of failures on the part of German military intelligence. The Eastern Front was massive and you had to disperse your troops over a huge area. The Soviets were very good at massing their forces in a location without the Germans knowing where that location was. So when the attack happened the Germans were hopelessly outnumbered. The Germans were not overrun by hordes of Russians just throwing everything at them. They were defeated by the Red Army both tactically and Strategically. Tanks were important but so was artillery and air power. Also the t34-85 being used in the 1950s is not that odd. Shermans were used in Korea especially when the Pershings ran into engine trouble because of the steep terrain. Whats the point? I also don't see this divergence. I do not think the T-55 is in their reserves and T62 and T-72 have been or are being heavily modified and upgraded. Showing garbage from the middle east is a little misleading. Another thing I do not understand is are you saying the T-62 and T-72 are for different specialties? Both have the same role as the main battle tank. One could argue that the BMP series should be enough and you shouldn't need the MT-LB but one is an infantry fighting vehicle to take a small group of infantry to the front with support similar to the Bradley. The MT-LB is for just holding infantry. The original Bradly was supposed to be more like the MT-LB until everything but the kitchen sink was thrown on it at very high cost. Soviet SPAAG was in response to ATGM being fired by a helicopter which could then hide behind a hill. The United States saw this as a major problem as well and tried to make our own. The M247 Sergeant York comes to mind and it only didn't enter service because it was never able to work. Finally updates in 1968 to T-34 were for the purpose of trying to sell them not to be used. As for Active Duty T-34 in 1985 it is because they are for the parade. Russia is actually buying back old exports because they need the parts for the parade vehicles. They are symbolic of their victory and an iconic tank. If they are in active service it would be the same as a marching band. Would you remove the band and their equipment from service every time they are not at an event? I do not see a divergence in regards to what it seems you are saying. If there are more than one main battletank and different models are being upgraded it might have a lot more to do with the economic ruin that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union. A military builds its force for what it has to face and what it might face in the future. Not some belief system that is largely a result of our poor understanding of the eastern front in the west. I would not argue that Russian SPAAG and systems like S-400 are a result of lessons learned in some past conflict many years ago. They are simply the only way possible for Russia to try and counter the massive amount of high performance 4th 4.5 and upcoming 5th generation of fighters. But countries use what they have at the time. Its why US Marines were using modernized M60 Pattons on their drive to Kuwait International Airport. There are also many examples that every major military has observed showing just throwing what you have in large numbers does not work. The 6 day war perhaps being one of the best examples. If this is viewed as a dissertation I am unconvinced by your conclusions.

[@robert.m6755]

Well said!

[@benjohn6197]

Wow man, that's so long but it was well said.

[@zacharymohammadi]

Alternate title: “capitalist tractors vs glorious fridge”

[@su-hoonc3073]

but dont forget the legendary kiwi_tractor_tank_destroyer.

[@mortache]

@@su-hoonc3073 open bob

[@maxmuller8633]

@National Socialist Squad Are you dumb? Panzer=tank(In German)

[@timburm8847]

Better title high tech super advanced tank able to go 60 mph weighs 70 tons and has a smooth born gun able to fire on the move vs one Russian hunk of junk in tracks

[@timburm8847]

ItzMutem no we have it already it's the M1 abrams

[@MrNicoJac]

One thing you're missing: The US has to ship EVERYTHING across entire OCEANS. So you need to be VERY efficient in filling up your ships..... and so you need VERY similar measurements to plan layouts with, OR very little variation to keep things simple. And having little variation helps a TON with keeping your spare parts stocked behind the front lines. This is why the US didn't go into WW2 with a "let's get the best" but with a "let's get good enough, and outproduce them" mentality.

[@seanmac1793]

I would argue that the late model Sherman with it's wet stowage staibilizer HVVS and excellent gun options in the 75mm, 76mm, and 105mm was the best tank of the war it was also hands down the most fightable vehicle for that war

[@StoutProper]

That's because the US is all geared up to fighting offensive wars abroad whereas Russia has always been about digging a defensive war in home soil

[@JeanLucCaptain]

@@StoutProper well they're surrounded by potentially hostile nations and have massive land borders with unstable places that were kicked around in all the proxy wars. You need a lot a variety to deal with the MANY terrains in a place as huge as Russia.

[@JeanLucCaptain]

@@seanmac1793 t-34 was basically the same idea. Except Russia didn't have the benefit of being on the other side of the ocean and largely immune to bombers and invasion. A fact people over here take for granted.

[@StoutProper]

@@JeanLucCaptain they're surrounded by hostile American military bases,let's not get things twisted. No nation anywhere near Russia is going to even think about invading them without America ordering and leading it. Historically Russia has fought a large number of huge defensive wars mostly on home soil, and a lot of emperors have eventually come unstuck there, napoleon and Hitler to name but two. Russia has always lost a huge number of casualties both military and civilian, and all that weighs very heavily on their strategy. If America had a long history of being invaded and losing heavy casualties it might be more reluctant to invade and occupy so much at Israeli and Saudi behest.

[@Waaaghster]

The tidbit about not bothering to identify T-64s is interesting. My dad was in the german army (Tanks) in the 80s, and they had to learn the difference between T-72 and T-64 to identify which unit was opposing them. T-72 was probably NVA or a regular soviet army Formation, T-64s meant soviet army guards units. T-64 had better fire control systems than the T-72, and also had (at least in earlier iterations) better armor. Makes a difference if you are sitting in a leopard 1, and only have 80 mm of steel and a 105mm gun.

[@deffington6627]

I was about to point out the same thing. T-64 means much more trouble, not just by better machinery, but also with highly trained people inside.

[@taoiseachjager9643]

This feels like a Potential history shitpost.

[@USSAnimeNCC-]

Tank memes Tank memes

[@napoleonbonaparteempereurd4676]

Pls exsplain

[@kingofthings7929]

Napoleon Bonaparte l'Empreur de la Francois Potential History is a KZbinr who makes videos about tanks and talks about many of the same factors influencing tank development that Cipher discussed here. Plus, he Makes tank memes.

[@bonk5]

100%

[@plucas1]

I will now always associate a Bradley with cartoon sound effects.

[@diggs5142]

Suit yourself, I'm gonna keep thinking of it as a wannabe tank with erectile dysfunction.

[@turcanudan9386]

I don’t think you truly understand how much of a deal it was that a nation which only 100 years ago was a backwards country with less then 20% of its people being literate, and with practically 3 industrial cities to in around a century compete with the biggest economic and industrial giant the world has ever known

[@MrTangolizard]

Monolit pretty much all of Russia’s industrial advances were from the West we sent them machines and experts in ww2 so they could produce at the rate it did and it never really was a match for the west it just pretended it was even now many parts of Russia don’t have running water to see a country that has advanced look at China

[@MrTangolizard]

John Smith so u think the West didn’t supply russiain ww2 with factory machinery and raw materials ha ha ok mate

[@turcanudan9386]

MrTangolizard I didn’t say they didn’t it’s just that the vast majority of that was becouse if Stalin’s four year plans

[@MrTangolizard]

Monolit you said u talk absolute nonsense do u know what the meaning of absolute is ? Also your thinking I’m just talking about ww2 I’m not I’m talking about right up til 1945 before that from the 1920s the USA was building its production lines its hydro plants most of its heavy industry this is historical fact call it nonsense as much as u like but it’s not even in relation to ww2 30% of there aircraft were from the west 8% of there tanks most of there motor transport fuel and a large part of there food all from the West given at a time that mattered

[@v.sandrone4268]

Focusing on the "throwing everything against the wall" theme has meant you missed the irony of the two doctrines. USA: Centralised design and control of a single uniform product that all must use in all circumstances irrespective of their specialist needs. USSR: Many varied products addressing the individual needs of the people.

[@williamt.sherman9841]

except that is really not the case. its not like NATO had fewer specialized vehicles.

[@v.sandrone4268]

@@williamt.sherman9841 except my point and the video is about the USA not NATO (not shouting).

[@gunmnky]

What? The "needs of the people" have nothing to do with military procurement. Its the needs of the armies to fight in a theater of war. I don't think many governments have thrown the people bread and tanks.

[@swaghauler8334]

Except that the T55 and T62 were just "evolutionary" updates of the original T54. The T72 and T80 were "variants" of the T64 with the T72 being a diesel and the T80 being a gas turbine. The T90 was just an "improved" T72/T80 hybrid with mostly T72 DNA.

[@MrTangolizard]

eddie money it isn’t it’s a up graded t72 struggling to stay relevant

[@gustaveliasson5395]

T-54 and T-55 both had bore evacuators (though I've seen pictures of prototype/early production T-54s without evacuators) The way to tell the difference was by the ventilation fan cover on the forward right side of the T-54's turret roof. The T-55 was designed with NBC protection as a requirement, so the ventilator fan was removed. I also believe some of the T-54 prototypes had a turret where the back end curved inwards towards the race ring. That turret was ofc replaced replaced in production by the more well-known version with vertical sides to simplify the molding process.

[@Vanalovan]

I feel like this is every soldier’s “Why the hell does the Army do ‘X’, it makes no goddamn sense!” with academic language.

[@dsgb1981]

The tank crew is what makes a tank deadly. A skilled crew in a T-54/55 can knockout a untrained crew in the latest M1 tank

[@Wienerslinky]

Exactly. While all the fancy new tech helps, a 4 inch gun is still a 4 inch gun and will do alot of damage to whatever it hits

[@ionutbalta6607]

Saudi Arabia and Turkey are good examples.Though they used ATGMS to blow them up.

[@honda6353]

What model are you referring to? T-54/55 base model doesn't have ammunition that is capable of penetrating an m1, and what model of Abrams are you referring to? Spewing out general tank names doesn't mean jack.

[@ionutbalta6607]

@@honda6353 The side and rear can be penetrated at .Though if they do manage to shoot you there you are quite special

[@diggs5142]

This video isn't about which tanks are better, it's about the differences in design, your criticism simply does not apply.

[@johnkilmartin5101]

It's my understanding that part of the reason Soviet doctrine called for retention of older armoured vehicles was the structure of the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet reserve system. So the less reliable an ally a country was considered the less advanced vehicles they had access to. Similarly the more likely a unit was to see action the higher percentage of active troops it contained and thus more modern equipment as reservists used the same equipment they used when they were conscripted. Thus the Soviet and East Germans in East Germany would be the best equipped and Soviet forces in Central Asia had a high proportion of older equipment.

[@shoppingcart9559]

They also didn't use mostly older tanks, a lot of countries even in the pact had 64's/72's. Here's a quote from a CIA document written in the 80's for how they were equipped. "The majority of the Soviet armed forces are made up of the capable T-64 and T-72 tanks, however some pact countries do have older vehicles. The T-62 and T-55 are still present in Yugoslavia and Slovakia, however the T-80 is in the early stages of replacing these. The newest version of the T-72B is replacing the T-55 in east Germany and the T-64 has completely supplemented the forces in East Germany. The process however is slowed due to the sheer amount of tanks in the echelon, and may take until 1986 or even longer." They also call the T-64 a "revolutionary design able to kill any NATO tank at normal engagement distances", and say that the T-80 is basically indestructible with the quote "We have extremely limited numbers of weapons able to destroy these vehicles" You can read all this information here if you would like, but don't feel obligated to. Its also got data on the armour and gun penetration of the vehicles I mentioned so if you want accurate data on cold war tanks its killer. www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000261345.pdf

[@seanmac1793]

If memory serves the Poles were given crap because in a hypothetical ww3 the soviets thought it was just as likely to go east as west

[@ausaskar]

Warsaw Pact satellites having less modern weaponry was the result of tight defense budgets from their poor planned economies rather than Soviet strategic policy. The USSR did not subsidize their satellite's procurement so they had to use what they could build themselves and only incrementally buy gear on the foreign market.

[@seanmac1793]

@@ausaskar there were definitely politics involved in who got what. For example the Romanians had to develop a domestic equivalent of the dragonov because the Soviets wouldn't sell them the dragonov

[@ausaskar]

@@seanmac1793 I think license agreement disputes were more a case of the Soviets protecting their 3rd world arms deals from competition, rather than a fear of the Romanians using the god-like dragunov against them.

[@TheMEGANON]

“Enemie vehicles” like you’re fighting any at all.

[@uegvdczuVF]

Main enemy of US tanks - Toyota pick-up with a DShK machine gun...

[@epicsnowleapard]

@@uegvdczuVF Why did that make so much sense lmao

[@tallshort1849]

This video is so American I developed diabetes watching it. The battle of Kursk was a defensive battle where the Soviets ground down the 2 german spearheads using extensive defence works and then counter attacked with Armour when and if the Germans broke through.

[@MNRAZORBACK]

Wait, was someone drifting a tank on snow/ice?

[@bertsedgwick9828]

Yeah, the driver had just finished watching The Fast and the Furious Tokyo Drift and got carried away

[@MrBigCookieCrumble]

*_DEJA VU_*

[@girlbuu9403]

Many people have drifted tanks on snow and ice I'd imagine. When you are a Russian tank crew in rural Finland and you don't want to be burned alive in your tank by molotov cocktails, or when you are a German tank crew and OH JESUS OH CHRIST THEY KEEP COMING RUN RUN RUN

[@aritakalo8011]

Yes. Actually that is training footage from Norway. in a longer clip one can see first Norwegian Leopards and then US Abrams running that training course. It is part of arctic warfare training for tank crews.... since even a massive tank will go sliding of an icy road if one isn't careful. They aren't so much drifting for sake of drifting, rather as trying to manage a tank that goes into a slide on a tricky road part. Go little too fast on a heavily iced road say down hill like there and one better know how to keep the tank on the road. Since on the clip couple of the tanks do end up in the bank aka dropping of the cliff possibly, if it was a real mountain road. So redo and try again this time staying on the designated driving line.

[@kolikoasdpvp]

Yes t90ms is Tokyo drift

[@tonygreene81able]

Kursk really must have been the scariest most insane few days in the history of the world. The most heated large scale tank battle and don't forget the air battle over head. There are some battles in history that are too much to imagine and this was one of them. Respect to those who died and we're there.

[@uegvdczuVF]

Difference between late US and Soviet tanks? Easy. 20-25 tonnes. You see tovarish, in Amerika, even the tanks are fat!

[@Optimaloptimus]

Yet they’re still as fast or faster than the sub par crap the Russians have been building.

[@Optimaloptimus]

mr_ anheuser It’s the truth, also I dislike cheeseburgers and I don’t drink diet anything.

[@Optimaloptimus]

mr_ anheuser I don’t have diabetes, and truth is easy to recognize with the evidence. Also school shootings? Low blow dude.

[@Optimaloptimus]

mr_ anheuser Right, even though they couldn’t have done it without American supplies, munitions, vehicles etc. and we let them take Berlin then being the ungrateful shits they are decided to cut off East Berlin from the West and set up a fucking wall. And we also had to deliver supplies to the starving population when they chose not to help them. Ok, sure.

[@Optimaloptimus]

mr_ anheuser Oh and to top it all off, they stole 3 B-29s from us and made Soviet Carbon copies in the form of the Tu-4. Go figure asshole.

[@matthewwaddington2777]

0:43 'Target acquisition will be easier for our forces', yes, presuming the Soviets didn't use airborne infantry to recon N.A.T.O defensive positions. And call in a large-scale artillery bombardment, airstrikes, and attacks with helicopter gunships. It's called A 'combined arms' force for a reason N.A.T.O!

[@toshb4265]

6:18. “M3 reeee” had me laughing so hard. Love it.

[@tcofield1967]

Didn't care for the Bradley Huh? Most of our scouts hated them too. Damned thing was taller than a Sherman Tank yet was supposed to be scouting for the enemy. And you are right, the Soviets didn't throw away anything. I had an old German K98k that the Soviets captured in 1945, stripped down, lacquered and stored until the early 2000s before they finally were put on the market. They kept them 'just in case'. I mean they didn't even make the 8mm Mauser ammo for it but they had them in storage. They also had hundreds of thousands of old bolt action Mosins as well. I guess they figured we would run out of ammo before they ran out of stuff for us to shoot at.

[@brianmead7556]

MILLIONS of Mosins. The Mosin is the most made gun family after the AK. There are about 34 MILLION Mosins out there. About 20 million 91/30's.

[@priest0701]

Thomas Cofield I had a number of problems with the M3 as well. But it is a great AFV, and an ok scout. The Brad, when it came out, was an extremely advanced track, better optics than the M1, greater stand off range than the M1, and was able to keep up with the M1. In my troop we found that 2 M3’s and a M1 working as a hunter killer were extremely effective when fixing an enemy in place.

[@priest0701]

@eddie money I know, they work great on paper, i know that they have long range, and i know we would take losses; however, until recently we would have complete air dominance, most of there armor and pooled troops would of been taken out, as would the command and control. Russian, while good on the defense, has been less than steler on the offence. If it could of been done without real loss of life, it would of been interesting to see who tactics and doctrine would of been superior.

[@mrick1974]

@@brianmead7556 isn't there more Mauser action rifles than aks and mosins? Like 100+ millions ?

[@brianmead7556]

@@mrick1974 I actually don't know, but I'm doubtful. Simply put, while you can get numbers for the 98 and exports/licensees, you would have to look up production figures for later style bolt action rifles, which are often not publicly available. Civilians also tend to buy far fewer guns than militaries.

[@Cybrludite]

The difference between the T-54 & T-55 is that the 54 did not have NBC filters. The bore evacuator wasn't a sure thing, since the barrels are interchangeable between the two. The 54 has a mushroom cap shaped vent cover on the front of the turret roof, and the NBC system of the 55 got rid of that.

[@alexhousakos]

When all Soviet Parades look the same, I couldn't distinguish between the 1975 and 1985 one! ps: ENERGIAAAAA!

[@command_unit7792]

Eh because it was ment to mimik the military parade of 1945

[@OttoGraff-fu8pj]

And the only was you can see a difference between those and the 2015 one is better camera quality and more royal eagles

[@doombringer3498]

@@OttoGraff-fu8pjyep, every year the same but slightly better made and slicker executed, with all tradition respect and little bunch of a new stuff. With pride of soviet red stars and glory of Imperial Eagles on flags and banners. Nice .

[@werrkowalski2985]

Only if you look at the tanks...

[@seant7562]

That BTR-80 at 3:45 was a BTR-80A, with the 30mm BPPU Auto-cannon turret (you can tell easily by the length of the barrel easily)- and she's a nasty bugger. Completely different game vs. a standard 14.5 KPVT. I get the generalization (I mean if you really wanna get neck-deep in the BTR designations there are easily 15 - 20 different vehicles alone in the Russian Military) but this is the internet and you must always comment if something is slightly wrong in a video. (Also slight flex because you were talking about the extensive Cav Scout vehicle identification, and I'm a cheeky CIVPOP who just plays ARMA 3 ;) )

[@nihaxwehraweeb5550]

"You see Ivan if you dont throw away past tanks the enemy wont be prepared to deal with them"

[@trinova9581]

Small tidbit about the Pershing. While it started as a medium tank project, and was classified to be a heavy tank, and then reclassified as a medium tank, for the duration of its term in service it functionally served as a heavy tank working alongside the Sherman. That is to say, if you look at M26 Pershing deployments in both WW2 and Korea, it was used in the role of a heavy tank in both cases. Despite being reclassified back to being a medium tank post-WW2. It’s not until the M47 and M48 that we get a proper MBT.

[@jshicke]

I recall that the Soviets had Class A, Class B, and even Class C units. Class A was the first line troops. They had the best equipment, and were manned to high levels. Class B was using slightly older equipment with slightly older reservists. Class C was the oldest stuff in the inventory. Yes, they had T-55's still in service. Most of the troops were older reservists. Essentially, the reservists in the B and C units continued to use the equipment that they had when they were in active service. The plan, was the A units would advance, and engage most of the NATO front line units. With superior numbers, they would reduce NATO equipment. Class B's would roll up and engage the slightly older NATO equipment being rushed up to replace all the new stuff the A units had wrecked, like the M60. Class C's would then follow on to take on anything still left. At this point, the Soviets hoped that the war would be already won, or at least the NATO units equipment be so few and old, that the C class units still had a chance. A T-55 is an old tank, but against a squad of infantry using an M4 carbine and grenades, it was still a formidable weapon.

[@TocTeplv]

Have you read that in soviet ORBAT or in Clancy's porncomics?

[@johnyricco1220]

Soviet doctrine was to go on the offensive because their air force was significantly weaker. If they sat on the defensive for a week their superior armor and artillery numbers would be eroded and no longer capable of winning. So they had to push forward as soon as possible. Whereas Nato doctrine was to hold the line and let their air power wear the Soviets down and then advance when they have the advantage. It didn’t matter how the war starts, who starts it. As far as diversity, that’s not really true if you compare Warsaw pact with Nato. Warsaw Pact mostly used Soviet designs. Nato had many different MBTs, IFVs and recon vehicles. The British Chieftain tank for example was a MBT in name only but actually had worst mobility than T-10 heavy tank and filled the heavy tank niche. Nato also used older equipment. US stilled used M60 at the end of the Cold War. West Germany still had M48s, Canada had nothing better the the Leopard I. The Soviet scout would not have had a simpler job.

[@michaelstodovski2219]

That's because... Although geographically smaller than the Soviets.... The west was in every other way "bigger" than the Soviet Union. NATO as a whole had TWICE as much population as the Warsaw Pact. Their Industrial size far ecliped the Soviet Industry. The US economy was unscathed in ww2 where as the Soviet one was absolutely decimated. And in the end.... I bellive NATO/western countries post ww2 amounted to 55% of the *Global GDP.* The decimated Warsaw Pact on the other hand was miniscule and the Soviet Power negligible... A power that was only comparable to the British Empire. *And that was one out of MANY of America's Gigantic Allies.* So yeah... The military disadvantages of the Soviets all makes sense in that case.... They had big economic growth and industrialization in the 30s, 50s and 60s but it was absolutely not enough to catch up with the old Empires of the Western Capitalist world.

[@igorvuk4454]

@menckencynic soviets had some tricky tech, but that tech was few and far between. most of WP armor units even in 80's were just t55s and only top notch DDR units had T72, that were outmatched by leo2/upgraded leo1 fielded by the WG. Also, only top of the line soviet units had things like t80 and t64. Most of the soviet armies even in the 80's fielded a mix of t72 and t55. Soviets with WP armies would be suffer terrible defeat as their doctrine of massed assault would be grinded to a halt. Every inch of west germany was pre-calculated for arty. there were special choke points on all the approaches that were pre determined for arty saturation. and in final, last ditch atomic mines were deployed in west germany. France had operational plan of nuking every inch of german soil that had soviet armies on it, should france come under a treath of invasion. Also, soviets didn't have CC decapitation plans as NATO had. NATO's air-land battle doctrine would have decimated WP/Soviet CC and you would have seen iraq war 1 scenario, but with more casualties. Armies without logistics, command and coms fall appart. There was a soviet general that said that soviet and WP armies had no counter to NATO's ALB doctrine and they would have lost a convetional war. His predictions were demonstrated in first gulf war. Iraq's army was trained by soviets and used gear that regular soviet/WP armies used. While soviets had su27, mig29, t80, and other nasty stuff, most of their armies were equiped on par with iraqi army. Let alone WP arimes that would probably be uninterested in fighting a war against nato as they saw soviets as their oppressors.

[@vaclavjebavy5118]

I don't know, because a fortified immobile force is not really that vulnerable, especially with the air weapon systems of most of the cold war.

[@peterdurum434]

@eddie money , it's true, but remember it is NATO vs Warsaw Pact. There were plenty of economically strong countries in western camp. Meanwhile the only real economic power in eastern block was Soviet Union.

[@peterdurum434]

@eddie money , I wouldn't say there could've been clear winner. But yes, even if whole NATO block has twice as much population at least and stronger economy overall... it on the contrary shows what kind of achievement has been done by Soviets. And also they the same 5-6% of GDP for military needs, like US. In 80-ies at least.

[@colindunnigan8621]

They transferred you from an AFV to an APC?! The cads! The swine! The louts! Also was the 1985 footage of the T-34/85s from a V-E Day parade? I think the still keep some on hand for such ceremonial purposes.

[@Zretgul_timerunner]

T34/85s are still in service kitd not in russia nessesarly but outside certainly

[@imrekalman9044]

T-34-85's are the first vehicles on the Red Square parade every year, even now. Indeed ceremonial. www.alamy.com/moscow-russia-09th-may-2019-moscow-russia-may-9-2019-a-t-34-85-tank-rolls-down-moscows-red-square-during-the-dress-rehearsal-of-a-victory-day-military-parade-marking-the-74th-anniversary-of-the-victory-over-nazi-germany-in-the-1941-1945-great-patriotic-war-the-eastern-front-of-world-war-ii-sergei-bobylevtass-credit-itar-tass-news-agencyalamy-live-news-image245786501.html

[@chipthedipyaknow]

Talking about old equipment I was born in 1955 and the B52 was already operational and it is still flying today and are planning to keep it for another 30 years.

[@MostlyPennyCat]

I've got Curiosity Stream. What it needs is thus: 1) License every documentary ever made by the BBC. 2) Have the option to switch from American narrator to British narrator. That would be brilliant.

[@cte4dota]

Soviet tanks vs Modern NATO tanks ? Interesting....

[@JohnSmith-ft4gc]

Look into the "Deep Battle" doctrine. Breaking through wasn't something they learned during WW2, it was central to Deep Battle which was worked out in the 1920s. Both of the theorists that developed it were killed during the Purge of the Armed Forces starting in 1936. Being so well stocked with BTRs & other APCs is part of the Breakthrough emphasis. Whereas the German "War Of Movement" was about breakthrough to encircle & destroy, the Soviets were about mass overrun after straining the enemy across as broad a front as possible. With such a strategy, so long as you have capable stuff to engage prior to the enemy breaking - everything else you throw through the breaches will just about never be obsolete so long as it's mobile.

[@pedrorusso985]

Well said I was scouting the comments looking for someone speaking of deep battle/strike. Makes me happy to see some people didn't become stupidly narrow minded about military tactics and their advantages. Also Russia is changing it's doctrine because it can't stand mass production of mbts anymore.

[@JohnSmith-ft4gc]

@@pedrorusso985 Thankyou. I just thought : Wouldn't the "Main Battle Tank" not actually be a thing in Deep Battle anyway? However I suspect an operational counter to the MBTs in breaking supply, as per Deep Battle, along with out producing more units than the MBTs can deal with would be the main counter, rather than seeking to directly match the MBTs themselves. As I understand it, it isn't technically feasible to produce a mobile ordinance sponge like the T-34 was to the PanzerIII, as weapons development outpaces armor. Up armoring is also incompatible with the mobility of Deep Battle. Generally the approach these days is emphasis upon concealment & a first and only killing strike. In the mix somewhere needs to be some weapon systems & platforms that can potentially destroy the MBTs. Perhaps something along the lines of the US Tank Destroyer concept of fast anti-armor, able to both redeploy & out manuever the MBTs. As The Chieftan has pointed out, anti-armor helicopters perform that role. I suspect the classification of high end tanks in the Soviet/CIS inventory to date might be a case of a superficial classification intended for those with a civilian & recreational interest in militaria, as typified by the Jane's line of products. Whilst Jane's is highly regarded, it emphasises individual weapon's platforms & support vehicles. It's been many years since I looked at them, and that was well before I developed an interest in Military Science. I'm not sure how to separate some of these overlapping points. I'm not an Academic. Sorry if you found it a torturous read.

[@boggisthecat]

@12:00 The countries that became the Warsaw Pact in fact rebuilt faster and recovered better from the war than Western Europe. Command economies work very well for large scale efforts of that nature, provided the goals are clear. It was only in the late 1960s to 1970s that economic stagnation became a serious issue, and the USSR essentially got saddled with maintaining the economies of most of their satellite nations (Czechoslovakia was a notable exception, with a more robust economy than the USSR).

[@Brewney]

USSR had 22 million of square kilometers of land to defend with very varying terrain and climate. That could explain the diversity. They've been preparing to fight a fight on their own lands, while US needed a universal thing that works more or less everywhere. And numbers man, numbers... Mentioning T-62 (22000 built) which was the base for T-72 (25000+ built), and then for T-90 (4000 built) without mentioning another design branch - T-64 (13000 built - in production till 1987), which was the base for T-80 (5500 built) These numbers (70 000 tanks built over ~2 decades from mid 60-ties to late 80-ties) do not look like as they can't afford to scrap them. It's opposite - they continue the production of old designs inline with new designs till late 80-ties for unknown (well...) purpose. Production is not maintenance. And the last, Russians did not learn that lesson during WWII. When Hither invaded USSR, Soviets met him with 35000 tanks.

[@redenginner]

Just a reminder to the turreted Bradley fans out there. They are finally replacing the remaining M-133s....with a Bradley in the original 1960s configuration, in the role it originally designed for.

[@seanmac1793]

Your point being, the army procurement is always a fustercluck

[@shoppingcart9559]

A few minor corrections: T-64 was not really “too expensive" for the Soviets so much as it was too time consuming, it took almost 30% more man hours to make a T-64B than a 72 Ural (T-72 Ural being the first model of T-72.) The Soviets still made 12’300 T-64’s anyway and based a lot of the T-80 on it, which was excellent for the time it was made. Kursk was not the biggest tank battle of WW2, it was the slaughter at Dubno-Brody in 1941. Watch TIK History for more information on that since there is so ridiculously much of it I cant go over all of it in one comment. The T-54/55 bore evacuator distinction is incorrect, the D-10T gun on the 54 comes with it as does the modified D-10 on the 55. You’ll see 54’s with/without and 55’s with/without. The real ways to tell are the shape of the cupola externally, and internally the presence of NBC lining on the interior of the tank. You can see that by either slicing open the steel with a torch and seeing some pinkish coloured "stuff" between the plates, or if your lucky some countries label it as having such, like I know the Czechs did as do the Egyptians with their Ramses tanks. Just wanted to inform everybody.

[@tinydestroyer4672]

Also that T-34-85s were not in active service in 1985... They were only for show 12:20

[@imrekalman9044]

T-54 had a vent on the front-right on top of the turret, the T-55 did not, due to the NBC protection.

[@leakymonkey]

lol 8:49.... "their version of the Battle of the Bulge... but bigger and more important" ;)

[@theinquisition7]

Soviets has it wrong in theory even though they had it correct in practice... Tank > Infantry > Artillery > Tank in a circle. The main purpose of a tank is not to battle other tanks, but to breakthrough lines and disrupt supply lines and to cause discourse whilst the infantry follow up and wrap things up. At the greatest tank battle in Prokhorovka, Stalin was furious at the fact that the Soviets decided to engage a large German tank force with their own tanks, as many tanks were wasted.

[@soonerproud]

I thought this was Potential History at first. Great video Cypher, it was very well done and informative.

[@shimarinlogistics6616]

The primary difference between a T-54 and a T-55 is not the bore excavator near the end of the muzzle. There are variants of the T-55 tanks, namely the T-54A, that are equipped with the 100mm gun that has the bore excavator. The main difference is the presence of an NBC protection system on the T-55, or the lack of it on the T-54. On the T-54, because of the lack of an NBC protection system, the turret ventilator dome (mounted to the right hand side of the gun mantlet) is present. This feature was removed on the T-55 when the NBC system was added.

[@UliMuliko]

It is always dangerous when you dont recognize your own vechiles.

[@adavis5926]

Keeping that obsolete armor allows the Russians to continue making decent WW II movies :)

[@josedelamatapaniagua4113]

Los especialistas en peliculas sois vosotros,nosotros combatimos de verdad y no en las peliculas,hay tienes la historia,compara.

[@StevenOfWheel]

The USSR did not “turn into a republic” after its collapse, simply because it already was a union of republics! Democracy is not synonymous with republic, and vice-versa.

[@vdagr8795]

Think again

Currently Russia is far from a democracy, more of a dictatorship with fixed elections.

[@wolfz9146]

A curiosity of mine is that about 15 years ago I was in group that got tour of Jacques Littlefield’s tank collection in the Bay Area. The tout guide told us that when they received their first tanks from the Ex-Soviet Union they found a ballistic coating on the inside that allegedly increased the effectiveness of the tanks armor. According to the guide this was something that was previously unknown in the west until that time. Was this ever mentioned in your classes and if so how effective was it thought to be.

[@CynicalHistorian]

never heard of that. I remember going to the collection as a little kid, but I think it's moved away now

[@wolfz9146]

I’ve looked for references to the ballistic coating but never found one. Is it possible they were prototypes and sold as discards. After Jacques Littlefield’s death his wife wasn’t interested in maintaining the collection. I think it was sold to an East coast concern and they sold some of the individual pieces to pay for shipping expenses. Too bad it was an impressive collection the day I was there it was raining off and on so we weren’t allowed in the bone yard (we all wanted to see the tiger 1 that was on the rebuild list) because of insurance concerns, IE someone slipping in the mud.

[@heavystalin2419]

This guy deserved to be put into the Bradley

[@Wolf19848]

Speaking of the Bradley..... Are you gonna review "the Pentagon Wars" in the future?

[@seanmac1793]

That would be a fun one

[@andrewlechner6343]

I would love another breakdown about how shit it was.

[@smeghead765]

Great take. I was a Redleg that spent most of my time in the Cav. Tanks are sweet.

[@CynicalHistorian]

Arty in the cav, does that mean you were a mortarman? Mortars got away not doing squat during drill, and i was kinda jealous

[@smeghead765]

Whoa, whoa there buddy. I said Redleg. Not those poser wannabes and their glorified grenade launchers. Them's fighting words. I was proper arty. On 109s in 3d ACR, 777s in 2d SCR, and 119s in 2-2 FA. But I really fell in love with Cav culture. Got my stetson, spurs, saber and all that jazz. Even used to have a framed copy of Fiddler's Green. Not sure where it went though.

[@CynicalHistorian]

@@smeghead765 lol, rescinded then. Didn't know there were cav units with full-on arty. I got my spurs too, both gold and silver

[@czarpeppers6250]

You bring up a point that I think would be interesting to expand on. You should do a video on the effects WW2 had on the USSR and Soviet society, because I know there are many politically motivated people out there who will scream about "communism is the entire reason the USSR was the way it was and never caught up to the west!". But you're right, the Soviet Union never had a Marshall plan and was by far the most devastated country that came out of WW2. The population loss, material loss etc had to have some long lasting effects, and it would be interesting to dive into that rabbit hole and get a more nuanced perspective beyond "BACKWARDS COMMIES RUINED EVERYTHING!!!". Not that political dogma didn't have a role to play, but I suspect it isn't the whole story. I do believe you would be the perfect person to make such a video.

[@BigM1020]

The M in the american tanks stands for 'murica

[@TSLAYER34]

It’s so weird Every historical KZbinr There videos getting demonetize like is the people working in KZbin are don’t like history or something. Can someone explain

[@uyuman1]

Seems like youtube wants to promote mainly mainstream content that gets a lot of watch time and avoids controversy, so AIs seems to over correct.

[@manofcultura]

History makes people interested in nuances of today’s events. Leftists hate that, neocons hate that, basically everyone who isn’t populist or libertarian hates YOU learning about why their policies are bad vis-a-vis through learning history on your own.

[@matthewnunya8483]

Historical info. Military equipment or tactics. Weapons reviews. All of its getting demonitized. Hopefully something will come along and replace youtube before long

[@jasip1000]

Disgusting American political correctness, KZbin and Facebook 🤮🤢🥴

[@manofcultura]

Jasip nothing American about political correctness. The term itself is invented by Bolsheviks and communists from the 19th century. PC is now a tool of globalists. Nothing is further from being American!

[@vonedelweiss7649]

I think this may be just how you were taught but the simplest difference between a T-54 and T-55 was the NBC protection system and not the bore evacuator. As you also have on image "some militaries modified T-54s with bore evacuators", this would lead to improper identification. But honestly the two tanks are so hard to tell apart the only visual difference is on the turret roof on the loader's side. Because the T-55 has a NBC system, the dome shaped ventilation housing on the turret roof had to be removed. This is one of the primary external differences and is a definite identifier between the two vehicles. The T-54 lacks a NBC protection system while the T-55 has the NBC protection. Although in saying this, it probably doesn't matter all that much if you misidentify a T-54 for a T-55 or T-55 for a T-54 since both vehicles externally are nearly identical, especially at the distances you were probably expected to observe the enemy while on reconnaissance. Just finding a dome on the loader's side of the turret is already difficult enough in images and it's practically invisible at long range so identifying a vehicle by bore evacuator was probably the easiest thing to do. also, at 6:43 I'm not sure if you intended that but it's a pretty good example of another misidentification, a very easy misidentification to make actually. What is actually pictured there are M41 Walker Bulldogs, not M47 Pattons. The only easy distinguishing feature is the number of road wheels, 5 for the Bulldog and 6 of the Patton. Additionally the turret is different where the M41 has a mantlet, the M47 has a really small one. But this feature is sometimes hidden with some canvas.

[@lovepeace9727]

The thing is, soviet T-54 is the most produced tank in the world. They were able to build hell huge amount of new tanks and etc. T-34 wasn't in active service in 1985.

[@TrollinginKhaos]

7:13 M60 wasn't considered a Patton, it was America's first MBT.

[@WalvisYT]

Although I can't remember where I read it, I read somewhere the m26 was classified as a 'heavy-tank' during ww2 to boost the moral of the troops on the front. By design, however, it was a medium tank.

[@bassplayer8815]

(I may be wrong) Correction*: Assault guns like the StuG and Stufs were made to destroy fortified positions but they were reused to also destroy tanks Everything else is good chief

[@wetlettuce4768]

Yep the early StuGs had the 75mm with the tiny barrel on them not really ideal for fighting tanks, it was the later ones that got the L43 and L48 guns that were without doubt intended to fight tanks. Then you have the StuHs which are just StuGs but on roids with large howitzers perfect for supporting infantry by knocking out fortifications.

[@Cheapstall]

Brings me back to Wargame: Red Dragon.

[@juzminbarredo1798]

Well the t-90 tanks were very accurate when shooting even moving

[@namelessperson5218]

So u could play in the Soviet/Russian armoured vehicles. While we we're only allowed to see them on a power point and then on the test.

[@ClarinetgirlMelissa]

Doctor Who Riding into a castle (in the Middle Ages) on a tank playing rock music was awesome :)

[@coyotehater]

Great to see someone else caught that scene of the Doctor from The Magician’s Apprentice!

[@dicecorporation]

Yet the yanks still use their ancient cancer inducing Abrams lol

[@czarpeppers6250]

I love you and all, but saying that the T-34 was still in active service in the 1980's because they were used in a victory parade is like saying Spitfires are still active in Canada today because they were used in a Remembrance Day ceremony I saw.

[@CynicalHistorian]

you've got me there. found the thing while editing, hence it only being a footnote. But the error is noted in the pinned comment

[@Deadassbruhfrfr]

@@CynicalHistorian the T34s were used in the 50s in eastern europe but so were Sherman tanks in Korea!

[@Suomismg]

Ah, a new history thingy. As someone who has commanded MT-LBV, i like the detail in this vid.

[@hotdogstockimage]

Wasnt the MT-LBV Like the M113? But different?

[@Suomismg]

@@hotdogstockimage Wider tracks for increased mobility on difficult terrain, steel instead of aluminum, gearbox without sync so changing gear is ritual to itself. Other than that, pretty much same purpose.

[@hotdogstockimage]

@@Suomismg I see, thanks for the info

[@adsrbad9733]

The footage for the heavy tank production is the M3 Lee which is a medium

[@victormihaylov3905]

"russkaja" Ah, I see you are a man of culture.

[@o0BUD720o]

The Beast of War (or The Beast as it was known here in Canada) is so awesome and rarely mentioned, glad you showed some footage!

[@МихаилРозов-ю9п]

5:05 In fact, the Soviet Union had a related strategy for engineering military hardware. In particular to complement the cheap mass produced Main Battle Tank It was supposed to produce a smaller amount of Extreme Parameters Tank. For that time it was something strongly resembling a modern T14. topwar.ru/uploads/posts/2011-12/thumbs/1324925058_06.jpg Although now Armata is considered to be the MBT. Therefore it is logical to assume that now somewhere in secret cities of Russia, like Arzamas-16, EPT is prodused with energy shield and Particle Projector Cannons (Bogomolov Linear accelerator on the reverse wave) installed on it.

[@mirdordinii5783]

The big thing on Tank Destroyers was a doctrinal differciation. For the US the TDs were, in theory, purely defensive and were specialized to the role of staying behind lines and waiting to rush out and meet massed armored assult. So they had big guns and often lighter armor. Some of the earliest TD were M3 halftracks and trucks mounted with 37mm cannons. But of course many generals figured out that they made excellent self propled artillry and could keep up with the other faster units.

[@AcceptYourDeath]

I think the primary lesson and experience for Russia during WW2 was fighting tooth and nail, having frontlines going straight through their citys! With that in mind there is no such thing as "obsolete" weapons. A working and moving T34 is more than being out of tanks.

[@gidi3250]

And then you get South Africa the country that bought a few of the UK first mbt and just modified them over the years but still use them in 2019 and when asked why there still using a tank from 1945 there response was "No neighboring countries have any vehicle that can challenge or surpass it" so till then they want to keep using them

[@gidi3250]

@eddie money it's not an neighboring country tho that whould be namibia, Botswana, Zambawe, Mozambique , Lesotho and Swaziland and if an tank from Kenya where to come to South Africa for a fight it will have to travel roughly 4831,1 km (30019.06 miles) and by that point it will be targeted by artillery or the air force

[@ecchioni]

T-54 was classified as a medium tank, the first MBT was T-62.

[@VoltageLP]

MTLB is not for water, it's for towing artillery MTLB literally means "многоцелевой транспортёр-тягач лёгкий бронированный" = multi-role towing transporter lightly armored

[@MostlyPennyCat]

I think you have those tank names the wrong way around. French: recon, cav, infantry British: recon, cruiser, infantry America: light, medium, heavy It was the British that got there first with the Meteor engine (cast iron version of the spitfire's Merlin), the 17pdr, hortzmanm suspension and possibly automatic transmission? (??)

[@white-dragon4424]

The Bradley's an IFV (Infantry Fighting Vehicle), which differentiates itself from an APC by allowing the infantry riding inside to fight without disembarking. To allow this the Bradley has gun ports built into the hull for specially modified assault rifles. As for the film Patton, the Allies used Chaffee tanks, whilst ironically Patton tanks were used for the Panzers.

[@Deadassbruhfrfr]

Yeah you cant really bash the Russians for using T-62s and t-72s for decades afterwards. And even T-34s into the 50s. Shermans are used into the 50s in the Korean war. The IS series of heavy tanks were used int the 50s as well. Which was the equivalent of the US using Pershing tanks after ww2 in the korean conflict as well. The M60 Patton was used by the marines until the 90s. Just like the Soviets used the T64 probably until the time as well. And saying an early T72 to a modern T72U/T90 is the equivalent of saying Abrams from the early 80s to M1A3 abrams.

[@oditeomnes]

The funniest thing I always hear from so called patriots are those mythical "best things". Americans go on and on about fighters and carriers while Russians go on about 400+km range AA missiles and hypersonic torpedoes. Both sides pretend to be the only ones with those things because of superior technology, yet it is obvious that both sides made tools to adhere to their specific doctrines. Also I believe Pershing was a "heavy tank" during the war for propaganda reasons only.

[@codycoffman2932]

I just found your channel, i gotta say... i had to like and subscribe immediately! I love military history, equipment, and all things that fall in that category! Where other channels can be educating, but boring. Your channel was definitely entertaining! Keep up the good work! Cant wait to see more of your videos!

[@notlistening6499]

Some obsolete models are still produced by Russia today, mostly for fear that shutting down the factories that produce them will negatively affect the workers in them. Which, to be honest, may not save on resources, but I think is a better option overall compared with simply scrapping them. Mostly the Soviets were trying what the Nazis tried in WWII. That is, provide funding for military experiments, and pumping out some really weird stuff, with the hope of getting something awesome, like a death ray or something.

[@Gerbs1913]

The Soviet and now Russian plan is to build and build armor. Even old vehicles are still worth more than ground troops, unless those ground troops have anti tank weapons.

[@generalg12]

Another thing to bare in mid is the fact that the older stuff was battle tested so they new it worked.

[@LastNickLeft]

Curiosity Stream should host you on their site.

[@leonb881]

Not good in manufacturing really? Until they got T72 they had like 50000 Of T54/55/62 what did they had to do with them, scrap them all.. or upgrade them and put them against weaker Western tanks?

[@nofrackingzone2.057]

This is why the US developed the A10. The purpose was to kill masses of Soviet tanks. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II.

[@shanerooney7288]

The M3 Bradley _is_ a tank. It is a light tank. It isn't really comparable to a MBT, but light tanks and heavy tanks never were comparable. If you want more convincing that modern IFVs are essentually tanks, then make a close comparison between the British Ajax scout vehicle and the British Matilda Mk.2 They have similar guns, are of similar size, and similar weights. The difference is that the Ajax holds 8 troops.

[@USSAnimeNCC-]

I see tank I click The trigger "boom" 💥 That another tank killed their no match for my big warship guns

[@shimarinlogistics6616]

No no no...the BIGGEST difference between a T-54 and T-55 is the ventilator dome on top of the turret. T-55 doesn’t have it because of its NBC protection system.

[@serpico1616]

"The Beast of War" is one of my favourite movies. Also, nice video!

[@FedotDaNeTod]

stupid movie. But nice camera angles.

[@zilfondel]

The reason they kept the old stuff was during WW3, they could lose all their newer MBTs and still have 100,000 older tanks left to stay in the fight. Our strategy was to delay until we could use our tactical nukes.

[@doombringer3498]

Thx 2 good tankman for this overview, he got point right. But there is 1 more related fact that Russians have 'tiers' in their ranks. There are 's' tier Elite: renown advanced, deadly as hell and very few. SSO, GRU, ALPHA and bunch of operational units and shock troops. They test in battle new stuff like t-14&15, making bombing runs on su-57 in syria and sporting epic stands for the news. There is 'a' class of professional, rigorously trained, disciplined and brutal special and general purpose units. They are plenty for two mid-scale wars on two distant theaters. This part is about 15 to 30% depending on kinds of forces. It consists of professional contract-based soldiers, equipped up-to date. B tier incluse conscripts, guards and police forces. It have all what is needed from battle-proven and well maintained arsenal, from rocket and heavy artillery to main and medium tanks, and trained to use it properly. And after all there are some reserves, ranging from antiquities of old empire's arsenals to weird test objects from secret USSR's proving grounds. Even if all will be llost, Russia will stay capable to fight one postapocalyptic full scale world war with it's 3rd reserve's stockpiles.

[@davidmouser596]

The latest Russian Tank costs less than half the cost of an Abram, its not as good but the Russians can afford to lose a few. In WW2 the Nazis found that out the hard way. Stalin was a creep but he did have a saying: Numbers have a quality all their own.

[@MostlyPennyCat]

Reason 1 is, they keep everything. Just in case.

[@mathewritchie]

You forgot turet design,the Soviets wanted a realy low profile for attack NATO wanted something that could hide on a back slope to pick of Rusian tanks flooding through the Fulda Gap.

[@MS-gr2nv]

30mm on BMP 2 is smaller that 76mm on BMP-1.... Or do you go by barrel length LOL?!

[@goblin11c95]

Bruh I was in a matv that got hit by an antiaircraft gun and we was fine. We just turned and lit those fuckers up

[@060POTEHb]

Actualy, as far as i know, about diversity in ussr/russian armor, is mainly from competion between different tank factories and КБ. Mainly there was some politics involved (there was alot of "infigthing" between people). There was a main story about t-64 and t-72. You can google it to cheak it out. But alot of similar things happend. Plus, again structure of industry, that was such, that you can have 2 factories making same armor plates, but they was from different КБ or, even better, different ministery (one was from ministry of defence and another was from ministy of heave duty machines), so, there was a anecdotal evedence, that on one factory there was lack of production and in other surplus, but it required orders from top of goverment to redistribute production. So same story with tanks and other stuff. Plus Kursk wasn't biggest tank battle. It was battle at "Броды" in 41. it's common mistake even from russian history lovers, so just a correction.

[@eskimo05w]

@ 1:44 According to _the Chieftain,_ and some other sources, the difference between the T-54 and T-55 is the presence (on the T-54) of a mushroom shaped air vent cover located just in forward of the loader's hatch atop the right-hand side and middle of the turret roof. This makes the your first tank a T-55. Your second tank @ 1:48 shows the cover, so it's a T-54.

[@aidenpoeller1984]

The t-54 was actually a development of the is-3 and was first built in 1946 so it’s even older than you said😅

[@Loup-mx7yt]

6:45 pretty sure those are m41