Did Ukraine Change your Mind about Russian Tanks? @TheChieftainsHatch

[@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized]

Click the link to start your 7-day free trial and get 25% off a premium membership: blinkist.com/militaryhistorynv

[@clintonreisig]

I believe that the primary cause of the demise of so many Russian tank units is because of tactics. My opinion is that tanks in Ukraine should use their gun range advantage to pound various targets, while maintaining infantry support.

[@christiandauz3742]

A T-62 is a great tank... for WW1!!!

[@scottbattaglia8595]

The u.s. government was paying tribal leaders large sums to distribute evenly, which they didn't the little they did was just our cash every month to the tribal leaders. Shocked you missed that aspect, but literally know a guy who's unit had to drop of the sack of cash every month, and he said for people living in mud huts. Not sure where that money was going but it was to support the tribe.........

[@TheRezro]

I think there is something I need clarify regard Chieftain opinion. Yes. He is absolutely correct that people should not joke from use of T-62 (especially modernized T-64 what is some aspects is better then T-72) and regard high-low quality strategy. But I feel he forget to clarify that Russians do not see own tanks as poor quality. They target this mid-tier category he considered as useless. Especially in zone of weapon sells. They selling point was good hard stats for low price. But in many cases other options were more affordable or good enough. Especially as T-72 line has critical flaw in auto-loader setup, what guarantee death of whole crew if penetrated. For that reason more competent military were phasing them out.

[@TheRezro]

@@clintonreisig Yes. Russians basically didn't use infantry screens (or it was not leaving BMP and moving directly behind tanks) and rush tanks directly behind enemy line, into ATGM traps. But many people forget that most tanks were destroyed by artillery, not the ATGM's. Even before Russia start using own artillery in Phase 2. Ukrainians who use they tanks more carefully, has far lesser looses then Russians do.

[@bryangrote8781]

This discussion makes tons of sense. “See first, shoot first, kill first” seems to apply regardless of the conflict or tech involved.

[@mrrodgers0]

The purest distillation of ranged combat since the invention of the atlatl and the sling.

[@jintsuubest9331]

@@mrrodgers0 I argue way before that, like way back when we monke throw rock big muscle hand.

[@gregp7379]

The vast majority of pilots shot down in ww2 never saw their attacker.

[@VhenRaTheRaptor]

@@gregp7379 And the vast majority of tank kills in WWII went to whoever shot first.

[@Dave5843-d9m]

During WW2, the British left most of their guns at Dunkirk. The result was a set of entirely new equipment. The 57mm Six Pounder Anti Tank Gun was a great example. It was a small field gun operated by three men that became the scourge of German armour. Their 88mm flak 88 was more powerful (devastating actually) but it needed a much bigger crew and was difficult to hide. The Six Pounder was used throughout the war entirely because it was easy to move and operate.

[@yermanoffthetelly]

I want that on a t-shirt. "If you don't have a thermal imager, you're not worth the effort" - Chieftain 2022

[@bazzakeegan2243]

Great idea....👍

[@Askorti]

Sounds like good dating advice. xD

[@livethefuture2492]

Thats kind of genuis honestly! 😅 Like saying- "if you can't see how 'Hot' I am...you're not worth the effort." It has kind of a double meaning to it.

[@piotrmalewski8178]

I wonder if one in 5 or one in 10 would make sense. "Shoot where I shoot".

[@mrdojob]

I have thermal imaging and it's very potent tech. Honestly being hunted in the woods at night by someone with thermal is my worst nightmare.

[@christineshotton824]

This war is like some dystopian sci-fi where the big, elaborate systems can no longer be maintained or resupplied and there's a crazy mix of anything that can put out some hurt; from drones operated by a single soldier to WWII surplus machine guns, to Cold War tanks, to 1950s artillery.

[@quan-uo5ws]

My man calles the post-USSR scifi-dystopia 😂

[@F_lippy]

@@quan-uo5wswell it ain’t like the British are ever going to be caught using MkIII SMLE’s or the US busting out M1 Garands in our next big conflicts

[@AtticusKarpenter]

​@@quan-uo5ws we live in wh40k, its okay (God-Emperor passed a law against Slaanesh recently)

[@pickler_pickler]

​@@AtticusKarpenterreading drivel like this makes me wish you were in this war so you could get this childish crap knocked out of your head

[@softie1512]

It is pretty wild when you look at the broader picture and realize there's barely trained barely armored men with mosin nagants fighting against remote controlled flying drones on one battlefield, and then put it in the broader context of the instigators, the force that started the attack is also throwing literal garbage at the problem. What moron came up with this war?

[@alexdunphy3716]

In regards to losses I think alot of people forget just how large this war is. Alot of equipment is going to be lost no matter what

[@rayquaza1245]

Large doesn't automatically equal lots of equipment losses though, in relative terms. Look at the Gulf War and how little losses the Coalition had.

[@chrisspencer6502]

@@rayquaza1245 yes but the coalition had the latest equipment with air superiority and a month long air campaign. And if you're talking about round two chieftain has talked about the ied threat

[@looinrims]

@@chrisspencer6502 the air dominance wasn’t the reason 73 Eastings was so crushing, Iraqis were crushed because they made lots of mistakes on the ground, air dominance doesn’t mean you can’t scrap good

[@rayquaza1245]

@@chrisspencer6502 Yea exactly... That shows you can have very low losses in a large conflict if you have superior tech, training, and planning.

[@stc3145]

@@chrisspencer6502 The answer is that the US military is far more capable than the Russian one

[@Thejudge4545]

In short, modern optics can make any old weapon system into a asset on the battlefield. As long you are able to spot the enemy before they spot you signficiantly improves your odds of staying alive.

[@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized]

I don't think that works with a spear ;)

[@SirCabooseCCCP]

@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized Im sure if you have a good arm you'll be fine xD

[@miriamweller812]

@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized Well, even in that time range was always the number one superior trait.

[@scottdean185]

​@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualizedI prefer an acog on mine love it.

[@101jir]

@@miriamweller812 Range is good, but always needs to be supplemented by other weapon systems for engagements with low LOS. Low LOS can never be avoided indefinitely. Right combo for the most situations you can reasonably expect to be in.

[@carlchong7592]

The High/Low principle is a funny one. Once I played a nighttime airsoft game. The teams were quite lopsided in that one team had several NVS equipped players, a couple even had real PVS-14 units. My team had a pile of newbs and one civillian Gen1 device. Fortunately we at least had reasonably well dialed in red dots so we could see where our guns were pointing in the dark. We took off a visible rifle laser and handed it to our one NVS guy and he designated anyone he saw with the laser pointer. Basically anyone creeping across the field we were covering became a pellet magnet. OPFOR didn't figure out what we were doing but we managed to win pretty solidly because we could get all of our barrels pointed at things to be shot.

[@jonathanjacob5453]

It seems like an advantage in targeting and tactics that you would have regardless of the “mix”.

[@ShuRugal]

@@jonathanjacob5453 what the "mix" gives you is the ability to get that firepower on target with a lower investment in expensive/scarce tech. Sure, they could have done the same thing if everyone had PVS-14s and one had a laser pointer to coordinate fire with. But that would have been tens of thousands of dollars worth of gear. Instead, they got the same result using probably $150 worth of NVS and $25 worth of weapon-mountable laser pointer.

[@CMDKeenCZ]

@@jonathanjacob5453 But the high-low mix is what enabled those tactics in the first place. If they brought flashlights for the entire team instead of the single NVS, they would have been easy pickings. Instead the mix allowed them to actually be competitive, and then the tactics made up the rest of the difference.

[@SoloRenegade]

US Army combat vet, in Iraq and Afghanistan the thermals were Incredible! the detail we could get was amazing, could even see what was inside people's pockets at close range. We also used drones to scout ahead over 10yrs ago to great effect.

[@IronWarhorsesFun]

Yes those drones are REAL FAMOUS for avoiding "collateral damage".

[@OryxAU]

@@IronWarhorsesFun It's not the tool, it's the way it's used. Not even the pilots either, they didn't get to choose to pull the trigger, even if they themselves weren't fully convinced it was the mission's target.

[@clintonreisig]

Drones are the scouts of today

[@karlheinzvonkroemann2217]

Yeah, we Amis always had the technological edge over any and all of the countries that we chose for "regime change". As a life long 50+ years wargammer, it makes for boring wargames but in actual battles there is no such thing as a desirable "fair fight". :) Yet again, as usual, we have a highly interesting show by both of these gentlemen. Don't miss a minute of it people.

[@jpjpjp6328]

@@karlheinzvonkroemann2217 As the old saying goes..."If you find yourself in a fair fight, you did something wrong."

[@peteranderson037]

One of the advantages of a thermal/FLIR sensor is that it is passive. Something like micro-millimeter wavelength radar is going to broadcast your position at a far greater range than what the sensor can see.

[@lagtastic7511]

Yeah, basically no different then turning on IR illumination at night. Everyone running passive night vision is going too see you and know where you are. You might see the guy right in front of you, but the whole forest of people now knows. Or a sub going active sonar, its only a last resort I need too see kind of system. I basically see modern combat how I viewed sub combat. You need to be as silent as possible or you are dead. You need to be able to camouflage against visible spectrum light detection, thermal detection, radar detection. Emitting any active detection system is just waiting to die as this all progresses more.

[@Eleolius]

While true, this is likely less of a worry on a ground unit than an aerial one. And tanks already have big IR signatures so... what it can see with IR, can see it the same way most of the time. IR does not provide range data for targeting, tanks usually use a laser ping... and many tanks have laser warning receivers that can point out the source of a laser-paint instantly. A radar ping from m.w.r. might be diffused enough only give a vague bearing. MWR also can see through IR/Visual countermeasures. Combined with the potential of sensor-fusion, or at least multisensor applications, it seems it might be useful. And if it has a few kilometers of range and gives accurate ranging data... it might allow tanks/ground vehicles to target drones and such more easily. At least detecting them to queue HMG/Mg fires on them.

[@wojciechprzewozniak597]

@@lagtastic7511 thats why active detection systems on drones are best solution

[@mostevil1082]

Because you have the system doesn't mean it transmitting, you aren't going to run it active often. It'd be handled more like active sonar in a Submarine.

[@Ocker3]

But that's assuming your opponent has that kind of sensor

[@AkeN996]

Feels like this war has the most losses I’ve ever read about since WW2 onwards. Thousands upon thousands of tanks lost. It’s insane to say the least

[@steveperreira5850]

But the old dog chieftain, He will advocate for big giant vulnerable tanks until the day he dies, regardless of the evidence against them.

[@Kazako83]

@@steveperreira5850Nothing performs a tanks job better than it. Protected mobile direct firepower. Something is not obsolete when it is vulnerable but when something performs it’s role better than it. Battleships were not made obsolete by torpedos which have existed since before WW1, but by the aircraft projecting firepower over a longer range than a battleship cannon. Tanks, APCs and IFVs are meant to be destroyed to an extent. Nothing is invulnerable.

[@alisaotheepic]

read about the iran iraq war

[@mekingtiger9095]

​@@Kazako83 Though at this point with the current development of firepower, tanks are just mobile guns instead of *protected* mobile guns. And yes, the Battleship's most immediate reason for getting phased out was because Carriers turned to be too good, but that's only half of the story. Ever noticed how we don't have armored Carriers at all? Or how *every single other class of ship* has almost entirely abandoned the idea of being armored and instead focuses more on being "Glass Cannons"?

[@Grendelmk1]

I've used hand-held FLIRs in industrial settings. They're colour, with the colour scale being temperature. They can be configured so they automatically set their low and high bounds based on what's in the field of view. So they'll automatically make big bright yellow-white things out of whatever's warmest, regardless of whether it's a person or an engine. No bloom, no blind spots, just an automatic "here's the hot thing" setting. You can also program the bounds manually if you want, which you'd want to do if there's a lot of stuff on fire. All this in a thing that fits in your hand and costs a couple hundred bucks. They even have a bit of zoom. I'd imagine modern vehicle mounted FLIRs are somewhat more capable.

[@dinkoz1]

Much more capable in last 10 years, I also used them for industrial applications to check electrical installations, condition of machine bearings, thermal insulation and thermal conductivity, etc., etc. When we acquired a high resolution IR camera (monochromatic display not in color) and in a specific IR "window" we even could also look for anti-tank mines buried in the 1990s in the early morning before dawn or immediately after sunset, because the gradient of cooling/heating of the ground above the mine was different from the environment

[@theleva7]

Non-military thermal imagers are heavily downgraded due to ITAR and possibly some other regulations' requirements, particularly when it comes to refresh rate (9 Hz max IIRC). On top of that there's defenitely gonna be some additional image processing specific to military application, there migh be difference in specific designs depending on the market (cooled vs uncooled, different cooling system design, different IR band sensitivity etc). If memory serves, at least some UA tanks got uncooled imagers, which decreases their sensitivity but speeds up the startup compared to some RU cooled sensors. Edit: found the source for tank imager difference: kzbin.info/www/bejne/j2HTg56krcujmqM in russian

[@angrydragonslayer]

@@theleva7 to my knowledge, the 9hz thing is actually due to cost as the fairly standard -20 to +400 9hz sensor costs $150 by itself while -20 to +550 9hz costs $350 and anything that touches the hz goes way up from there. I checked briefly and i can get a scanner at 25hz for $1300 or 40hz for $11500 (3600/16500 for -20/+550).

[@theleva7]

@@angrydragonslayer Thanks for clarification! I can't remember where I stumbled upon the bit about ITAR, but i did so a couple years ago, so the ITAR thing might've been the case a long time ago and had never been updated and I won't be going through the legislation unless threatened with significant bodily harm.

[@angrydragonslayer]

@@theleva7 flir did manage to get a US... Patent iirc that made it so nobody else could sell 720p/24 (or above) hz but that got overruled iirc I checked closer and i indeed only see 9hz from US manufacturers in a swedish shop so it might be correct that ITAR is limitting it. Bit hilarious given that the only visible correlation being that stuff above 9HZ is way more expensive in the US (the prices i mentioned before) while basically quartered in sweden

[@AndrewJonWright]

The RAF practised a high-low mix in the 90s with Tornado F3s and Hawks. The Hawks were small, subsonic, carried 2 Sidewinders and a 30mm only, with no radar. The Tornado provided detection, direction and coordination for the Hawks like an AWACS but would fight itself. Not used in combat, I believe, but reported as successful in training exercises against USN.

[@TheGoodluckjonny]

Reminds me of the flying wingman concept that’s all the rage in the proposed 6th gen fighters.

[@AndrewJonWright]

@@TheGoodluckjonny Yes - remains to be seen how robots perform in combat against human pilots. They can pull much more G of course...

[@Praetoras]

@@AndrewJonWright They might be able to sustain higher G's, but a lot of the time the limiting factor for G's is the equipment under the wings, or the aircraft itself, not the pilot. And besides, they will never be able to achieve more G's than a missile is capable of.

[@jackroutledge352]

Interesting. Of course counting the Tornado F3 as "high" is pretty debatable!

[@AndrewJonWright]

@@Praetoras Quite!

[@ostrowulf]

I was in TOW when we changed thermal imagers. Went from the pixle nightmare the Chieften talked about, where you had a rough time identifying to a beautiful clear image. Old method was about the same as what he said, newer one it was just zoom in zoom out with excellent resolution. I used to tell people it was like switching from the old Atari game system straight to an X-box 360 with no imbetween adjustment. So missle drills changed a bit when it came to observation, as we could out spot and get PID before anyone else.

[@ironknee6879]

Around what year was that? I was an 0352 in the USMC between 2000-2007, but we had no thermal upgrades during that timeframe.

[@ostrowulf]

@@ironknee6879 Around 2007. I am Canadian, and as I understiod it, the US developed the better sight, but did not have a platform to match what they expected/had planned for it. Rather than spending a boat load of money on developing a new platform, they let Canada buy it, as we were already building a platform like they had in mind. So figured it was a win win for both countries if we used it on our new system, and the US could see the pros and cons without tossing cash down the toilet if the idea was a failure. The vehicle had mixed results. My opinion is the design was a good idea executed poorly.

[@death_parade]

Something similar happening in Indian Army's Air Defence Corps, they are using the entire Integrated Air Defence System of India (Air Force's IACCS), to cue in MANPAD teams. The way they do it is the MANPAD crew gets an Augmented Reality headset and the info from any of the numerous radars networked to the IACCS cue the data to the AR headset so that incoming targets appear highlighted to the MANDPAD crew much like in a videogame. Now all the crew gotta do is point his MANPAD at that marker on his AR headset and fire. Would be a similar gamechanger.

[@michaelhorning6014]

On the Korean DMZ in 1989 we used the thermal sight from the Dragon to scan our guardpost sector. I watched one heat source for 10 minutes with growing apprehension until it finally turned sideways and I could tell it was a deer.

[@lissettelopez8331]

Ahhh, the Dragon. Many cold 2002-2003 FTX memorizes at that place. Also did training with the Skeleton Army, and managed to dine at the JSA base and see propaganda village a few times. The blue room was also an interesting visit. We even got verbally insulted by a NK guard. Fun times! ☺

[@cobrakilla8]

If you didn't kill little desert sandal wearing kids, you're not a true marine. Hoorah 💪

[@guydreamr]

I'm surprised the North Koreans didn't shoot it for dinner.

[@64wy4x8s]

Wait, you were not on a GOP, but a GP inside the DMZ? That must have been quite an experience.

[@michaelhorning6014]

@@64wy4x8s the American sector had two guardposts inside the DMZ (Collier and Ouellette) and guard towers along the southern boundary of the Z. My platoon had guard tower duty during my company's rotation.

[@Rrgr5]

Makes a lot of sense, reaction time is the key, the fastest to engage or evade will be the survivor, people tend to underestimate legacy tanks, but when the upgrades are done right they are quite capable.

[@parkerlong2658]

Yeah it's pretty comical to hear people talk shit on a t72 but even in the hands of someone like the Iraqis you don't want to be hit by that cannon. A fifty fifty chance to just die outright is scary no matter what. I will say it's very telling that Russia has definitely lagged behind but the Soviet themselves in the 80s where making some crazy plans for the future. In terms of tanks. Definitely a topic worth investigating. I think people forget how capable the Soviet union is when compared to it's single parts. Both Ukraine and Russia are miniscule compared to there Soviet era capabilities just within there sectors. I mean Ukraine used to be a vehicle production capital of the world. Kind of makes you think.

[@rogerpennel1798]

T55s, Type 59s, and T62s if equipped with thermal sights and ERA panels might be useful for infantry fire support, and if armed with auxiliary ATGMs they might be able to be used against tanks. The applique brow armor on T55 and T62 gives some protection against APFSDS but not much against ATGMs. However, their guns aren't competitive with T64 through T90 tanks with 125 mm guns. If your tanks have thermal sights but your enemy doesn't you can carry out night attacks against enemy tanks and pick them off without risking return fire. They would also be suitable for conversion to engineering vehicles, self-propelled artillery, recovery vehicles, and mine clearance.

[@andrewwoodhead3141]

I think that the world has known since 1991 that Soviet era tanks aren't much good. They were built for a mass , cascading , echeloned attack on a scale that is unimaginable today. The Russians themselves have tried to replace them with a new, high speck tank , the T14. Looks like they couldn't afford enough of them to make it worthwhile.

[@Rrgr5]

@@rogerpennel1798 If you take any tank for that era, even M-60, change the turret, the engine, transmission, insert composite materials in the hull (which is not that difficult), install ERA, upgrade the main gun, sights, install thermals, CCTV, and an maybe an active protection system, well, you got a really good tank and some countries actually do just that, the USSR itself did similar with the T-62, Turkey with M-60 and so on.

[@tanker335]

@@parkerlong2658 A 50% kill rate is nothing to brag about. In Desert Storm we were above 95 % at ranges we never even contemplated while training in Germany. Those shots from an Iraqi T-72 had a tendency to go anywhere except where they were aiming. Bore sighting and crew's maintaining their equipment is vital regardless of how old or modern it is.

[@noozilander]

It's always a pleasure listening to the Chieftain talking in a mature fashion about machinery like tanks in all their different shapes and forms. He never feels the need to attach any emotional favouritism to any particular piece of machinery, which is exactly the way I'm looking to learn about these vehicles.

[@Angry-Lynx]

He's very much biased toward american tanks

[@machinech183]

@@Angry-LynxMight have something to do with them working as advertised instead of using cardboard and propaganda in place of add-on armor.

[@CallyMayz]

No piece of military equipment ever works perfectly as advertised in a field situation with real people operating it.

[@TormentedPenguin]

A T-62 is not a great tank for mobility warfare in modern day, but it's still a 115mm gun on tracks that is impervious to small and medium arms.

[@i.c.wiener2750]

It's better than having no tank at all, but not better than a lot of other tanks out there.

[@ryansauchuk7290]

So a kamikaze drone is considered heavy weaponry now?

[@TormentedPenguin]

@ryansauchuk7290 it's in the same classification as an ATGM / RPG variant.. depends on the warhead on the system.

[@ligmasurvivor5600]

@@i.c.wiener2750 what if you use it as a field gun and not a tank

[@thegenericguy8309]

Regarding the survivability of the T-72, which has been mocked often throughout the course of the war, Tankograd offers an interesting case study of counterexamples written pre-Ukraine; 'The T-72 has proven its worth in various conflicts when placed under competent command, but the lack of media coverage on the successes does not help its case. Even though many tanks have been destroyed, often irrecoverably, many more have survived such that the tank's ability to endure severe punishment simply cannot be considered low. To list one incident in Grozny, in the year 2000, a T-72B with the tail number 611 took 3 hits from Fagot anti-tank missiles and 6 hits from RPGs during 3 days of intense fighting and remained in battle with only minor damage. Most of the hits landed on the sides of the tank, with one rocket impacting the lower rear of the hull. Other cases involving older models such as the T-72A more often ended on a sadder note, but in general, it took several hits from anti-tank grenades and missiles to reduce the combat capacity of a T-72 and at least half a dozen hits on the weakened zones (sides, rear) are usually required for the ammunition to detonate or a fire to start in the tank. More examples come from a World of Weapons magazine article (March 2005 issue) on tank action in Grozny containing details on multiple T-72As lost in combat. The 131 Separate Motor Rifle Brigade (OMSBR) tasked with capturing the Grozny rail station sustained many casualties during combat, losing a total of 157 men, 22 tanks, 45 infantry fighting vehicles, 37 cars and all 6 of the Tunguska anti-aircraft systems operated by the air defence division attached to the brigade. While providing supporting fire, the tanks belonging to the brigade received multiple anti-tank grenades from every direction in return for each shot fired. One T-72A with the tail number 533 sustained four or five RPG grenade impacts on the engine compartment, and the tank caught fire. It eventually exploded, long after the crew escaped. Another T-72A, with the tail number 537, withstood six or seven hits from RPG grenades before suffering an ammunition explosion, killing its entire crew instantly. A third T-72A, with the tail number 531, sustained four hits from RPGs before its turret drive failed, and the tank was finally knocked out of action after an APFSDS round fired from 100 meters impacted the turret on the commander's side. A fire was started, but fortunately, the gunner (left hand side of the turret) was only heavily concussed because the bulky breech assembly of the cannon saved him from the spall and fragments entering the turret on the commander's side (right hand side of the turret). Both the gunner and driver were able to escape the tank before it eventually succumbed to the fire and exploded 20 minutes later. None of these tanks had reactive armour installed. In another example, a T-72B1 from the 276 Motor Rifle Brigade with the tail number 221 was penetrated twice in combat during the battle for the Grozny hospital in January 16, 1995. After repairs, it was damaged again on January 21, 1995 during combat near the building of the Council of Ministers where it was hit with five RPG grenades. Four of the hits were located on the sides of the hull, one of them on right side, on the fourth roadwheel, and the other three on the left side. The fifth hit was located on the turret, above the gun barrel. The autoloader was damaged by the turret strike, but the tank survived and was sent for an overhaul. More interesting examples can be found in the article "Танки Т-72 В Войнах И Локальных Конфликта" (T-72 Tank in Wars and Local Conflicts) by V. Moiseev and V. Murakhovsky and published in the "Arsenal of the Fatherland" magazine, issue 4, 2013. One of them is taken from an after-action report on the death of a tank commander in a T-72 after an attack by RPG-type weapons. The tank was a T-72B1 built in December 1985 in Uralvagonzavod. After being pulled into a repair facility, the tank was inspected and eight damage points were observed. Five of the hits were recorded on the hull, and of these, three were from RPG grenades impacting the sides of the tank in the areas protected by reactive armour, one was from an RPG grenade impacting the rubber side skirt of the tank in an area unprotected by reactive armour, and one was from a fragmentation grenade (possibly a VOG-17M) impacting the rear of the engine compartment. The remaining three hits were recorded on the turret, one on the front, one on the side, and one on the rear. It was noted that the tank was in a marching status prior to the attack, having the cannon locked in the travel position and the 12.7mm machine gun locked facing backwards. Also, the commander's hatch was ajar or opened completely, so that the death of the commander was most likely caused by the combined explosion of an anti-tank grenade and the reactive armour occurring outside the tank, given that the armour was not perforated. Overall, the tank remained combat capable despite receiving damage in the autoloader and in the stabilizer system, as the driver and the gunner were still alive at the end of the ordeal and the gun could still be fired using the manual controls. In general, photos of destroyed T-72 tanks cannot be said to be proof of the low survivability of the tank, but are instead often indicators of the sheer ferocity of the fight that led to its destruction.'

[@ChucksSEADnDEAD]

The humble RPG does not make me think of the T-72 as any tougher after reading that.

[@cv990a4]

Fagot dates to 1970. RPGs even older. Obviously the T-72 can deal with those. Turns out that Ukraine is equipped with ATGMs that are a bit more advanced.

[@thegenericguy8309]

@@cv990a4 The point I'm making is regarding survivability, not penetrability. The misconception is regarding the post-penetration survivability of the T-72, which is much higher than many give it credit for

[@removedot]

@@thegenericguy8309 probably quite different when you compare it to a missile that can strike from above or actual tank round

[@juliuszkocinski7478]

@Rico Thampaty About that Grozny example. In urban combat tank is a high-priority, visible and not relatively agile target. Streets of a city is armoured vehicle's biggest nightmare, I don't know if I wouldn't prefer being infantryman in that case

[@Thaidory]

I’ve been on a receiving end of a T-72 B3 HE shell. I would not be in a hurry to write those things off.

[@cullis8327]

It has the HE content of 6' WW2 howitzer shells...

[@karlheinzvonkroemann2217]

Colonel Moran knows his business well, that's for sure. He's always worth a listen whenever he''s on KZbin. Especially with our Bernhard. Bernhard is also a very good commentator on modern warfare, which I consider to be world wars one and two especially. Anything including WW1 and WW2 is right their up his ally and militarily speaking I always seem to learn something from these two gentleman. Whether the Colonel is on with Bernhard or anybody else his contributions are always worh a listen. Vielen dank! Sie sind immer am besten :)

[@frankgulla2335]

Chieftain always brings a simple explanation to the game. Thanks to Bernard for bringing it together.

[@dantreadwell7421]

And not in front of a flack tower. . .

[@bazzakeegan2243]

@@dantreadwell7421 Flak.

[@dantreadwell7421]

@@bazzakeegan2243 D'OH! I choose to blame auto correct

[@wendigodrude5575]

A good high-low people might be underestimating is a t-55 with the indirect fire instructions paired with thermal drones to find targets and correct fire from a distance keeping them away from anti tank assets for the most part. No longer an old tank, rather an old but accurate mobile artillery and it's already been paid for

[@ryansauchuk7290]

You ain't getting 20km off a t55.

[@ligmasurvivor5600]

@@ryansauchuk7290 the t55 is less expensive than an artillery piece and can likely withstand rounds up to 30mm APDS so it can go closer to the frontline hence it probably won't need that kind of range

[@egoalter1276]

It can elevate to 34 degrees, and fire rounds at 1.15km/s. Maybe not 20km, but definitely more than 10. Plus it can fire guided missiles at 8km boresight.

[@jgray7505]

In 2005 when I was an Abrams crew member in 1st armored division. The javelin had better night site than an m1 a1. And I watched tank commanders work a tank crew of 4 like "one"and run that tank like Rambo with a knife killing a whole platoon of tanks single handedly. It's not the equipment it's the crew that makes the tank. Modern tech only makes good crew better. Tech doesn't make good soldiers. good soldiers makes tech work.

[@jgray7505]

The 2010 crow weapons platform sites blew both thermal sites for 2005 javelin and m1a1 out of the water. I bet you can't hide from a modern fully upgraded Abrams in 2022.

[@jacksmith-vs4ct]

@@jgray7505 seeing as how russian thermals now are about as good as those 2005 Abrams assuming they didn't strip them out and sell them they are just kinda screwed on the modern battlefield.

[@brianmead7556]

Operator skills matter it’s why the Russians absolute dominate in tank on tank engagements.

[@toddfromwork8931]

In an attrition war like the current situation in Ukraine, good soldiers are hard to keep

[@adamklosterman8960]

A squirrel in the woods can't hide from the citv on a sep Abrams.

[@gamecubekingdevon3]

this is why i m very curious about how stuff like PT91 twardy will perform, given that most sources states that PT91 twardy got thermals (so, basically T72M1 with thermals and a erawa era kit) as i personally have the impression that they may perform far better than most basic/non upgraded T72s, due to thermal making them not totally blind.

[@danielkuleshov5876]

pretty bad coz it just tuned up stock t 72 , both ukraine and russia have better parts only difference is how they using them (ww-- 1 trench defence with 3 tanks per 15 km vs ww2 tank swarm)

[@MM-ne6pk]

@@danielkuleshov5876 bigest issue with pt91 is its cannon, cause pt91 is upgraded t72m witch was export version of first t72 when russia was already building upgraded versions of t72 with better cannon, ammo as well is just old soviet stuff

[@m1sz3lpl24]

Polish T-72Ms from reserved send to Ukraine are apparently liked by their crews, even though they are just barebones T-72s in good shape with thermals.

[@lucidnonsense942]

@@MM-ne6pk the cannon has no problem, one shot, knocking out all but the very latest Russian tanks, which are rare as hen's teeth. So, it's fine for the use case.

[@jyralnadreth4442]

@@m1sz3lpl24 The Thermals were the big plus with Ukraine getting PT91s, as well as they would integrate very easily into the Ukrainian supply chain since they are a T72 variant 🙃

[@mrgunn2726]

If you are only holding a rifle, a tank is tank, is a tank, is a tank. However, while tanks are fearsome beasts, the real battlefield advancement is drones and development of the associated doctrine. Militaries who develop good drones and good doctrine will dominate the battlefield going forward.

[@warmstrong5612]

A tale as old as time, the one who see's the enemy first shoots first. The one who shoots first has the advantage.

[@Rokaize]

More analysis from chieftain on tank usage in Ukraine would be great.

[@Glove513]

I concur. If I remember correctly, there have been some Russian assaults that employed a mix of tanks and MICVs according to doctrine that still were not able to prevail against the Ukrainians. Perhaps the Russians had forgotten artillery preparation before the assault and /or ground attack aircraft employment. I’m guessing that the core issue with the Russian Army is training and doctrine, which doesn’t seem to have changed much since the 1940s. Example, still not much of an NCO corps of professionals, and still no “mission command” which the Germans have practiced, I think, at least as far back as WW1. It seems “This is how we have always done things” is going to eliminate both the Russian and Ukrainian civilizations as going concerns.

[@Rokaize]

@@Glove513 Well this modern Russian army isn’t even close in comparison to the Soviet Army. Not in training or cohesion. Even the way they do conscription is completely different. Compare some of their offensives in Ukraine to Operation Bagration or other red army offensives from ww2. Where most armies have improved since ww2 or the Cold War, the Russians have gotten worse it seems. Let’s not forget that Ukraine takes a ton of losses, if not more than Russia. And makes plenty of mistakes. They also seem to lose pretty much every tank vs tank engagement I’ve seen video of. The Russians aren’t completely incompetent. If they were then this war wouldn’t need to be taken seriously. Underestimating your enemy can be a disaster which we just saw when Russia underestimated Ukraine.

[@Glove513]

@@Rokaize From what little I have heard and seen, I would agree that the Ukrainian Army is at least as screwed up as the Russian Army. They are making tons of mistakes and they seem to have no impulse to change the way they do things. We are almost a year since the invasion and there is still no infantry school and still no NCO academy. They have been fighting since 2014. I bet in one years time that Poland will be able to win a conventional war against Russia, Belarus and Ukraine combined, simply because they are willing to except and implement western doctrine and organizational structures.

[@Rokaize]

@@Glove513 Well yeah true. The Soviet way of fighting pretty much requires huge numbers of men, vehicles and equipment. And for huge and rapid advances using their waved approach. Neither Ukraine or Russia has the technical know how or even the numbers to do this. The red army could do it, but that’s back when they had a huge and powerful army with a lot of veteran commanders from ww2. This current Russian army can’t even get its men to stop stealing and defrauding the government. And they constantly lie to themselves and each other about what their capabilities are. They have no where near the numbers of infantry or munitions. I do support Ukraine in this but the casualties they’ve taken in these offensives are just horrific. One reason they want tanks is to help with those offensives. Using hunvees and m113s as your armored spearhead doesn’t actually work. Which is what they’ve been doing. ATGMs are mostly a defensive weapon. So the Ukrainians aren’t exactly doing well when the Russians are defending with tanks. You need tanks especially on the offense. This war only makes that more obvious

[@Glove513]

@@Rokaize To your second point I have often wondered if the Russians and North Koreans have confused their annual military parades for real combat capability. I am thinking that China may be in the same boat but some of their equipment and structures look very western, which indicates a willingness to learn and adapt, and therefore prevail.

[@shade9272]

If I was asked that question, the answer would be no. Russian tanks are good enough when used properly. It's just ironic that Russians can't use their own gear properly. The effectiveness of Russian tanks are rather understated by the west, while the effectiveness of American gear is grossly overstated.

[@rayt8606]

After reading James Hollands brothers in arms the parallels are there to see. So many tanks lost, the fear of not being able to stop handheld single shot weapons etc. We've just made it more efficient and are seeing it on phonescreens

[@Writeous0ne]

the main issue is because Ukraine have so much anti air, Russia can't support armored with air force, which means armored and infantry have to support each other without air support. in Serbia NATO tried to destroy Serbias anti air defense, they had about 26 systems only and NATO air force couldnt suppress their air defense, they managed to destroy 3 in about 75 days. this stopped NATO invading with ground units, if NATO destroyed Serbias air defense like they expected to they would have invaded with ground troops but because they couldnt support their armored with strikers they just kept bombing Serbia from high altitudes. i use that example because it shows how difficult it is to suppress air defense which means you cannot use air force to support ground forces which in turn makes your ground forces much harder to advance with.

[@Gearparadummies]

@@Writeous0ne The UN resolution that enabled NATO to bomb Serbia strictly banned a ground invasion beyond a UN peacekeeping mission in Kosovo. One of the reasons was not to further enrage Russia as it strongly opposed NATO's intervention in the region. Even air operations were very limited and their flight paths were set by the UN security council. That information was relayed to the Serbs by the Russians, so they could use their ADA to maximum effect. How do you think old SA-6 could engage and shoot down an F-117? They knew it was coming, they knew where from and they used every radar in a 500-mile radius to score a 6 seconds long lock-on on an aircraft that has the same aerobatic capability of a garbage truck. Wild Weasel missions could have knocked out most of Serbia's air defenses in two days. They were just barred from doing it. Even today's vaunted S-300/400 struggle to keep up with IDF's 4th generation fighters bombing targets in and around Damascus day in and day out.

[@Writeous0ne]

@@Gearparadummies i guess you're american. People always find a way to make excuses that present a better narrative 😂. Its extremely difficult to use air force when the opponent has anti air systems, its common knowledge. Thats why basically all succesful use of air force in modern warfare is against nations who dont have any. I guarantee you no air force today would attempt air superiority against a country who has air defense, at best they will fire cruise missiles from high altitude. Its just too risky and if you lose a a lot of jets in a small amount of time it just makes you look incompetent.

[@Gearparadummies]

@@Writeous0ne Just stated the facts, buddy. As I always say, in war casualties are expected. If a force can make 3000 sorties a day for 50 days with 200 aircraft and suffers like 6 planes shot down, that force owns the skies.

[@Writeous0ne]

@@Gearparadummies it's not facts, you just twist the information into a more favorable narrative. We learned a lot in the Serbia campaign, SEAD is extremely difficult. I am also a westerner but i consider myself more objective and realist. NATO had so many advantages against Serbia it was expected they would execute SEAD within days and have free range of the skies, bomb some targets and end the conflict. This was not the case, the air force had to resort to using high altitudes and long range missiles. Hundreds maybe 1,000+ civlians were killed in less than 3 months and US jets and a stealth jet were destroyed. Serbia wasn't a success of SEAD, it was a learning experience.

[@richardbrown6871]

I really like these videos with experts. Informative, entertaining, and a good length of time to get what needs to be said. Hell, I can go for longer videos but I'm content.

[@erasmus_locke]

This thinking applies to so many other areas. Remember why the ACOG sight was adopted? The US wanted a more accurate rifle but realized that a good sight makes any gun better.

[@calvinbarrett948]

They spend 300 mil to figure out that scopes make rifles more accurate 🤯

[@voidokami1427]

I don't think people realize that what's happening to Soviet/russian tanks can happen to any other tank

[@totallynottoaster1114]

The turret going into suborbital space flight is a uniquely Russian/Soviet tank design thing.

[@-foxwint-3140]

Yeah...no,not really Sometimes? Yeah of course As commom as soviet designs? Nah

[@davidshapiro292]

@@totallynottoaster1114 Nope, type in "destroyed leopard" into your google and see what pictures you get.

[@leeneon854]

Auto loader, soviet tanks a western tank has Amoured bulk head, for the charges, manual loaded, it's the difference, western tanks Built on crew safety.

[@BOX3DOUT]

@@totallynottoaster1114 where as the western tanks completely fragment. your point? have you seen anyone killed from a flying turret. if not. your point is void.

[@MC-pt8kv]

I remember using thermals to count the points on a buck at 11 kilometers in light foliage around 2007-2008. I imagine they've only gotten better since then.

[@BeeTriggerBee]

Yeah nah, A large part of retrofitted tanks from Russia has consumer grade shit in them since they can't get their hands on anything else. Same shit when the Russians are using GPS instead of their own shittier version of it, This is also consumer grade and thus isnt accurate at all.

[@jpjpjp6328]

Former M60a3 tanker. Even back as far as the mid 80s the TTS was so good that we could see deer clearly running through the woods at a distance and up to say, 200 meters, details were good enough to decently lip read by. The gunnery controls we had back then are still miles past what typical Russian tanks are using now.

[@neglectfulsausage7689]

i made my own thermal that works just as well as current military. Took years to work out the bugs in the programming.

[@iatsd]

Absolute bullshit. Military thermals wouldn't be able to do that even today. Less than zero chance with commercial thermals. You're not picking up shite at 11 kilometres.

[@sam8404]

@@BeeTriggerBee right but what Ukraine is using is a hell of a lot better than what Russia is using.

[@tarjeijensen9369]

This was rather good and definitely informative. I have a rather expensive thermal imager. This gave me new perspectives on its use.

[@slateslavens]

When the key to battle is being the one to shoot first, the unit that _can't see_ will always lose.

[@ShummaAwilum]

In the land of No-Scopes, the 2x man is king.

[@The_Modeling_Underdog]

Great video. Loved the Perun/Peron disclaimer, too. Entirely accurate.

[@guillermospangenberg]

I really don't like Perón, but actually he was not a dictator but he was democratically elected president of Argentina three times

[@lpcanilla92]

@@guillermospangenberg Being democratically elected doesn't exempt you from being a potential dictator. Having elections doesn't make a country a full democracy, or prevent a president from acting dictatorially. Dictators are often pretty popular in their countries (Nasser, Ataturk, Solano López).

[@Blunderbussy]

@@lpcanilla92 But Peron was not a dictator and only dictatorships followed him for a while. Peronism was also forbidden. wtf?

[@ShuRugal]

A good example of how the US military does "one brings sensors, the rest bring firepower" is a typical flight of AH-64s. Very often, only one helicopter in the flight will be equipped with the Fire-Control Radar. But all of them have datalinks which can feed targeting data from that radar into their Hellfires. One radar, 4 apaches, 64 hellfires. Another example would be pairing a Kiowa Warrior with an Apache using laser hellfires. The Kiowa keeps his mast-mounted targeting pod unmasked and on target, lasing targets, while the apache fires from entirely behind cover.

[@davidbeattie4294]

As always, if you can see a target before it sees you; you have a chance of getting off the first shot. The money needs to go to producing the smallest, most cost effective sensor tools possible. Retrofitting a modern sensor suite transforms an older platform. Ask the pilot of a Block 70 F-16 equipped with state of the art AESA radar how he feels about his chances in an airframe that started service over 40 years ago.

[@sw96]

I'm reminded of the old Operation Think Tank QnA that Wargaming did years ago (hosted by The Chieftain no less). One thing that was brought up was that post WW2 the allies spent a lot of time researching all the factors involved in tank vs tank to try and find out what was the most important factor in determining the winner, with the aim of using that to direct their future tank designs and doctrines. After going through every AAR they could get their hands on it became apparent that the single biggest factor in determining the winner was literally who sees who first. If you see first, you generally shoot first and you're often in a better state of mind than your opponent that's just had a "significant emotional event" as the Chieftain is fond of saying.

[@death_parade]

So you're telling me that the Indian Air Force is absolutely correct to bet on the homegrown Tejas Mk1A being its low-end in the fighter matrix with a homegrown AESA radar and AESA based jammers. Even if the enemy fields 5th gen J-20. Makes sense. As long as the high-end gets in place in time.

[@berryreading4809]

"Do you know Perun? No? Well you should because he's pretty awesome" - direct quote from The Chieftan! (as I heard it) 😆👍

[@jdelark6428]

Very happy to hear of this too at 4:21. Master of PowerPoints, defence procurement and dry Aussie wit :)

[@MatzeMB85]

That's some high and totally deserved recognition of the guy I watch every monday.

[@powkung45]

Perun falls for an immense amount of BS, because like many people, he tends to operate within the NATO bubble of worldview, and any information that is ambiguous is automatically biased towards whatever they want to believe... I just watched lecture by Ben Hodges, and whatever sprinkling of facts on the ground, every single one was twisted to be something entirely different to what a neutral observer would have concluded

[@robzilla730]

Sure changed my mind about German tanks...

[@deaks25]

If my basic understanding is correct, the "High-Low" mix is essentially Soviet Cold war doctrine; a stonking mass of 'low' tanks that will just swarm an Western tank formation, with the "High" there to be the equal-or-better opposition. And the Russian's do still kind of have that in the modernised T72s that they seem to have an almost endless supply of, with fewer, far more lethal T90's to make sure if a target MUST die, it will die. For me the problem is not the equipment, it's the tactics. In the west, combined arms has been practiced to death, but that's because efficient, fully integrated combined arms operations is hard, and Russia is kind of proving that. It seems they thought all they had to do was form their Battalion Tactical Groups, put on some scripted demos, write some suggestions and hey-presto, combined arms, who's for some vodka. The truth is far different, and Russian commanders have even failed basic logistical planning, never mind complex inter-service cooperation. In fact a few times I've wondered if a Soviet-era force would actually fair better in terms of basic military planning and implementation Also, love Perun getting a shout, his analysis is every bit as good as MHV's, who is my yardstick for these kind of things.

[@termitreter6545]

I dont think thats really true, soviet tank developments following the introduction of the T72 never seemed close to western MBTs. The T90 isnt really some super powerful tank, and its just a reasonably updated T72. So its more like a mid low or low low mix.

[@pantherace1000]

The late Cold War Soviet Army had T-64s, T-72s, and T-80s in their Tank Regiments, while older T-62s were the organic tank component to their Mechanized Regiments (Mechanized in this case refers to both BMP and BTR mounted Infantry), and even older T-55s equipped the Marine Regiments.

[@ihcfn]

The problem Russia had, is that they thought all they had to do was send their tanks in and Ukraine would roll over. They were over confident and very wrong!

[@joeblack5393]

The only issue i have with Perun is that he is biased as fuck. I have a strong suspicion that he is actually ethnically from one of the anti Russian east European countries. Probably Poland, Slovakia or Czechia or maybe even Ukraine. Perun btw is a Slavic god.

[@PaulVerhoeven2]

"modernised T72s ...with fewer, far more lethal T90" T90s are certainly not "far more lethal" than T-72B3M (this is a "modernized T-72"), in fact they are not more lethal at all. If anything, they are somewhat LESS lethal. T-90 is the new marketing name for T-72B2, which is (well, supposed to be) a predecessor of T-73B3, which is a predecessor of T-72B3M. You are probably thinking about T-90M. Which is a little better tank than T-72B3M, but not more lethal either. Same caliber, slightly upgraded cannon. Similar if not the same sensor set.

[@tim1398]

A modern military IR imager can give you an amazing picture, much like a night-vision camera, using local area contrast enhancements, or tweaked to show hot spots. You can read a book with one with the right fw and settings. They give the drivers "visual equivalent" tweaked units to allow nighttime/fog/etc driving. The fancier ones will even fuse lowlight, LWIR and SWIR together into one image (or mm RADAR?). Leaps and bounds ahead of what the M1A1 had.

[@christophersmith8316]

Also when speaking of Tank on Tank, not every shot is on the frontal armor. Plenty of German tanks were taken out by flank and rear shots.

[@NetTopsey]

I read a thread by Mick Ryan earlier today about artillery and precision munitions that got me thinking in the same way as the Chieftain - a high/low mix. Precision munitions used to allow shaping the battlefield before the offensive and again in the first "few" hours of an offensive to allow break in/breakthrough/breakout, but most of the rest of the time just using dumb munitions with better spotting

[@jintsuubest9331]

It really depends on what you want to shoot at. And if you are supporting a breakthrough, precision munition might be a better idea since you don't want to accidentally light up your own troops.

[@nationalsocialism3504]

Welcome to Russia military doctrine... Ukrainians can only hold cities since the Russians are unwilling to level them, Ukrainians can't hold any open terrain as drones do an immeasurable better job than hot air balloons did as spotters.

[@whocaresdude2001]

This has been a very interesting series of discussions on real battlefield tech, tactical and strategic realities and how the on ground units effect combat. This in particular was enlightening on what the real best tech is, sensors.

[@ЂорђеКозић]

You can have the biggest gun in the room but, if you can't see me, I can stab you with a letter opener.

[@dirtbag_jim]

This was awesome. Always loved all your content, but your interview's are the best. Such a great interviewer. You're able to use your knowledge and understanding to ask both insightful questions + actually respond to them in a way that furthers the interview. More importantly though you actually let the guest speak and share their knowledge and expertise without stepping on their toes, or one-upping them, and letting them take the spotlight. WAY too many youtubers that do interviews end up forcing their way into getting all the attention in their vids (talking over the guests, interrupting, etc), which defeats the purpose of wanting to hear from the guest. Hope you do more of these :)

[@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized]

Thank you! Although I must add, that sometimes I also heavily interrupt my guest as well.

[@earlwyss520]

As a young USAF Security Policeman, I was using Thorn EMI Hand Held Thermal Imagers at Clark AB Phillipines, 1988-90. The things were approximately the size of a combat boot box, and heavy, but they worked.

[@Plastikdoom]

I will say this, I worked on skids in the USMC, 05-10…even the old flir balls I first worked on, are far better than what you described Chieftain. We could tell if it was a person, and of they were holding a rifle, or rpg, things like that…at many km, once you got used to the system and picture. And once we got the newest versions of 08-10…when I was getting out, right before that….they are mind blowing, I’ll say that much. We were the first unit to test the britestar II’s, while deployed, in combat. newest flir ball in that time…they are insane, and huge step above the old ones. Great zoom and focus, lol. Among general improvements.

[@Hemimike426]

Situational awareness is such a defining factor. People talk mobility, guns and projectiles a lot but if you cannot see what's out there they're no good. Even older projectiles can cause systems to fail, turrets to jam, destroy tracks or damage an engine or sprocket. Even a slow tank can sneak up on you if you don't see it. Side note, Active Protection systems really need to catch up to counter drones and top attack munitions, a TC having to go duck hunting while in combat sounds like a recipe for disaster.

[@silverjohn6037]

Even if it's a "low" tank, if it's the only tank in the area it's "high" enough.

[@TrevorCrook-c1s]

A clip online shows a t72 killing a Abrams with one shot . Ukrainian tank crews say the Abrams is junk

[@rogerc6533]

Ive always had respect for Russian tanks but thought western tanks were better one for one. This war changed that. For all the costliness and limited production numbers of heavy, imposing western mbts, their vulnerabilities are the exact same as T series tanks, having very exploitable roof and rear armor. On top of this due to their complexity and weight, they have operational and logistical weaknesses and are also far larger targets which do not apply to T series tanks. Ultimately they are more vulnerable than even T series tanks. This is terrible when the west is barely producing any of these tanks and each tank costs at least twice that of one Russian tank. There has also been absolutely zero combat successes caught on film for any western MBT in this war. What tank shoots first is absolutely pointless now that atgms, drones and artillery can destroy a tank long before it has even reached the front. The ideal tank in the oppressive neo trench fighting of modern warfare should be agile and lightweight in the 30-40 tonne range, be produceable in the hundreds each month, have better all round protection and implement soft kill systems against drones. Russian tanks fit all these criteria. Modern fighting has devolved into ww1 stormtrooper assaults but mechanized and combined artillery and drone warfare is as deadly to everything as machine guns were to human wave attacks in ww1. Current western tanks cannot even fight this kind of war if we tried modifying them because they are already overweight 70 tonne beasts that cannot be adapted to the modern battlefield. T series tanks may be venerable but our western tanks core design philosophy is obsolete. Western IFVs are performing much better in this conflict because they are more mobile and available in far greater numbers.

[@eTraxx]

No. Not at all. I spent 12 years on the Abrams series of tanks and as a tanker I can tell you that we were very well aware of the capabilities of Russian tanks and that success in a meeting engagement for the most part would be due to the crew and what was being shot .. not the tank.

[@BtappinHD]

Exactly, you don't need thermal imagers, just a solid crew

[@joenuts5167]

@@BtappinHD a solid crew without thermals can’t see past 1 km. A shit crew with thermals can see you from 8km

[@BtappinHD]

@@joenuts5167 It was sarcasm against this guy's comment

[@ГлебШилов-я5к]

@@BtappinHD Hello from Russia. We have thermal imagers on our tanks. You in the West are such morons to believe we don't have such an old technology.

[@BtappinHD]

@@ГлебШилов-я5к Dear Russia, my comment was sarcasm friend. The author of the comment said success was due to the crew, not the tank. So I sarcastically said, let's take away the thermal imagers and your crew will win, in an indirect way. I hope you understand.

[@gunarsmiezis9321]

Somehow I did not realize until this point that the Chieften is an officer.

[@MrDubyadee1]

I like how the Chieftain boils things down to simple trade offs. He knows enough that sometimes there are a number of qualifiers to be considered, but he doesn’t overly think it.

[@remcodenouden5019]

8:44 is probably one of the scariest lines for a light infantryman. We rely mainly on camouflage to survive heavy armour. Now there you are, in your properly dug fighting hole, complete with a roof for artillery splinters, camouflaged and all, and that tank 2000 meters out can just lob an HE shell pretty much on your forehead because there's pretty much no way to camouflage your heat signature. Scary stuff.

[@0utcastAussie]

But before the tank can do that a £1k drone has just dropped a H.E shell on your turret hatch.. or even rammed your fuel tank. Big Badda Boom and the Tankie didn't even have the pleasure of seeing it coming before he got his personal invite to the BBQ ! I guess he got to bring a couple of "Friends" though (crew)

[@903lew]

Pine needles, blankets, sleeping bags, decoy positions with tea lights, modern thermal netting. It takes more work but it works.

[@coryhoggatt7691]

@@0utcastAussienonsense. A £1k drone can’t carry enough payload to scratch the paint.

[@coryhoggatt7691]

Just because they can see you doesn’t mean they can hit you. Tanks guns still have a CEP to contend with.

[@0utcastAussie]

@@coryhoggatt7691 I was astounded too but there are plenty of videos of them carrying RPG's

[@leonidjoseph5483]

Changed my mind about the leopards and challengers of the wild.

[@sparkycjb]

The way Chieftain described using a TI for acquisition reminded me of something an old instructor told me about using TI's, "If it's gotta go, it's gotta glow."

[@brianreddeman951]

...and this is why Chieftan is a Lt. Col; He knows stuff :)

[@StrangelyBrownNo1]

I dunno mate, just being an officer doesn’t mean you know anything. I bet Chieftain can attest to that! Though he certainly does know his shit!

[@exploatores]

as he don´t do poiitics. it´s kind of supricing that their is anything after Lt.

[@poopscoopproductions3177]

@@StrangelyBrownNo1 it is difficult to make LTC on active duty without having most of your shit together (although it does happen). However, junior officers have a much higher concentration of dumbassery. Source: I was a dumbass junior officer.

[@Vote4Drizzt]

It feels like part of what the Chieftain is getting at is that marginal advantages in firepower and armor are, in and of themselves, only decisive in edge cases or incredibly "fair" fights. It seems like a military that's looking at trying to reach for marginally better tanks is probably better advised to get some representation of the cutting edge tools into your force so that you don't get completely trounced on some aspect of the battlefield where you fail to have a presence. But otherwise they might better rely on non-technological advantages(e.g. volume, replaceability, uptime, logistical availability) to try and win the day rather than sinking your resources into the middle ground of marginal improvements that remain behind the bleeding edge.

[@Wuelfheze]

I always love watching these videos, it's a HUGE breath of fresh air. Listening to you two talk on topics like these. Instead of hearing the one sided blabbering, whining, and complaining on say War Thunder videos or a lot of other places as far as I know.

[@JohnRodriguesPhotographer]

My opinions on the original t72 were formed back in the '80s. I have not seen anything to date to change that opinion on the original t72. I agree 100% with the chieftain regarding technology. Depending on what you like versus what the other guy has could be a complete game changer. I would also add the quality of the vehicle, it's armaments and it's technology can be a game changer on its own. In the world of IT that I lived in for a long time, we had a saying, garbage in garbage out. With sensors regardless of whether they're radar or night imaging, thermal the quality of the optics and the hardware inside along with the imaging software will decide what you see. You could have the best software in the world driving that imaging system and lo and behold your optics are crap. Garbage in garbage out.

[@orlock20]

The T-72 entered production in 1971. The T-80 (upgraded T-64) was the tank being made in the 1980s. The Soviet Union was never interested in thermal optics and even today, the Russians seem to operate their vehicles mostly in the daytime.

[@ClockworksOfGL]

The T72 is designed for a front-first shooting war in a field. Hence the thick front armor and low profile. The thing is, it’s not really a terrible platform if it was upgraded properly. Russian soldiers could start by not storing ammo all over the cabin, where it’s going to explode when the tank is hit.

[@voidtempering8700]

@@orlock20 They operate them in the day, but the most common tank in Russian service (T-72b3 2000s variants) all have thermal imagers for the gunner, but no commanders panoramic.

[@jintsuubest9331]

@@orlock20 Soviet want thermal, but you cannot exactly make a mechanical thermal sight it is purely digital. Digital means you need good semiconductor. And guess what Soviet does not have access to? Good semiconductor technology. This extend to the present day. Where their most advance semiconductor based weapon system are rely on foreign supply. As far as not using tank at night, Soviet field integrated passive day night sight combo earlier than NATO. But Soviet did not keep up when NATO adopt thermal.

[@ГригорийПротченко-н9р]

@@orlock20 T-80 was much different from T-64. It was actually a problem for us, because these three tanks don't have interchangable parts. About thermal optics you are wrong. There were experiments with Agava. We are producing thermal matrix and most of modern tanks are equipped with it.

[@johnpollard744]

The Western tanks got wrecked just like the Russian tanks. I think it changed the view of tanks in general in the modern battlefield.

[@georgesears2916]

Well according to Forbes over 5 months of combat Ukraine lost 11 Leopard 2s, however over just 3 days in October Russia lost 165 tanks averaging 3 lost per day since the start of the conflict. It's also important to note that a T72, T80 and T90 is guaranteed to kill its crew when it's autoloader inevitably explodes when destroyed. Western tanks have blowout panels to prevent this issue. Western tanks aren't invincible but they are better.

[@johnpollard744]

@@georgesears2916 Nice propaganda. The vast majority of Ukraine tank loses are T-64, T-72. Ukraine has lost 100s of tanks.

[@georgesears2916]

@@johnpollard744 And? Weren't you talking about Western tanks?

[@johnpollard744]

@@georgesears2916 How many western tanks were in Ukrainian front positions during that time? A small fraction of the overall Ukrainian tanks. They burned just like the Russian made Ukrainian tanks.

[@georgesears2916]

@@johnpollard744 Well according to Forbes over the past year Russia has lost on average 50 tanks a month, just over 600 in a year. Ukraine has lost 440, but of those 440 many can be recovered and put back into service. What are your numbers and where are they from?

[@jeroylenkins1745]

9:30 the high/low tech mix is sounding a lot like 3 Shermans with a 75mm and one with a 17 pounder working together.

[@gerfand]

So Basically what Chieftain said is you want the Thermal equiped tanks, don't bother with a T-80U because wihle its base armour and ERA is good, it is inferior to a T-62 with Thermals, because it lacks that, in this sense however a T-62 is more advanced than the T-80U for combat, just less survivable to anything that is not an old Sabot, or most RPG rounds and simiar to front. the latter being more common (tank on tank being rare), but not likely to be seen in combat

[@xsu-is7vq]

You can't kill anything that you can't see. So the ability to see the enemy first is always No.1 priority.

[@СашаКумылганов]

t80U actualy is equiped with termals

[@gerfand]

@@СашаКумылганов not all, only a few, this is why they created the T-80UK, the first Thermals Russians made were expensive (for the USSR).

[@gerfand]

@@xsu-is7vq I agree, but that is the thing, Thermals is an advantage, not a "requirement", to see the enemy, the thing is that as the infantry (and tanks) cammuflage it becomes more of an requirement, but hey its possible that the advantage will be lost just by using more and more modern coats that makes thermal signature be lessened.

[@gerfand]

@@lagtastic7511 well simply not everybody has them, my Nation uses Leopard 1A5, which while they have Thermals, they are Gen 1, which is what he described there. Most Soviet tanks, I mean "some 90% of them" were made with out thermals, and I mean the ones made when US already adopted them. Russia created the T-72B3 for that, its basically a cheap "slap more ERA" but mostly important and a Thermal for the Gunner, any other nation doing a upgrade for their T-72 would also add something else, as long as they have the money, hell Belarus apparently added a more modern than Konkat-5 ERA, but they don't have T-90 to upgrade to T-90M, for example... but back to the point Russia economy is not strong enough to have all its Active T-72B3s to get Thermals. One thing I will say tho, I don't get the point he makes, unless if he is talking "Save the T-80U and T-72Bs for upgrades, send the older base variants of those", its like I said, however the T-80U with a upgrade becomes a much better tank thank a T-64 with Thermals

[@BlackBanditXX]

I think it was the Chieftain who said in a video a while back, something to the effect of, "The vehicle that gets the first hit on target has the initiative." Thermals change the whole game.

[@jb-xc4oh]

Quantity has a quality all of its own, ask the Germans about that little detail.

[@BlackBanditXX]

@@jb-xc4oh Certainly, yet Russia doesn't have the numerical advantage on Ukraine that the Soviets had on the Germans...nor can they replenish their losses.

[@frankmueller2781]

There's not a lot of tank v. tank combat going on in Ukraine. The imager allows seeing infantry who are the biggest threat.

[@Floofrer]

He's avoiding on having a topic on NATO tanks in Ukraine.

[@TheGreatAmphibian]

David Drake, the famous SF author who served in the Blackhorse in Vietnam, really understood this issue. His tanks, when he was writing in the 70s, had AI filtered data fusion from visual, IR and radar, plus APS. The system would highlight threats visually for the commander. And a central battery computer and radar could take control of the armament of a group of tanks for coordinated AA fire.

[@ScottKenny1978]

With a "machine gun" equivalent that could snipe artillery shells out of flight, and a main gun capable of sniping a satellite out of orbit.

[@BoraHorzaGobuchul]

So, basically, an f-35 on tracks. Which we will eventually see, since SA is king.

[@TheGreatAmphibian]

@@BoraHorzaGobuchul I don’t think that there was any attempt to make 100 ton tanks stealthy… And an f35 is a very poor air to air combatant. So probably more like a Typhoon with irst, etc.

[@BoraHorzaGobuchul]

@@TheGreatAmphibian F-35 is an excellent AA combatant, unless you think ACM is still king, RT-paid fighter mafia dude is sincere and competent, and did not in fact read the infamous "f-35 vs f-16 mock combat" report past the title. And I'm not speaking of stealth when applying the analogy to the tank. More about networking, state of the art sensors, "transparent hull", powerful fcs/comms suite.

[@TheGreatAmphibian]

@@BoraHorzaGobuchul You are using argument by assertion. Which means that you are an idiot. Again, the problem with the f35 isn’t dogfighting but poor BVR capability - because BVR still relies on energy state maintenance, which was a major reason for the f22 having lots of thrust - a lousy sortie rate, and stealth that isn’t really that stealthy.

[@TheBongReyes]

Chieftain always puts into perspective reality over perception. The calls that the tank and attack helicopters are platforms of the past are from speakers whose opinions are from perception. People like Chieftain speak from perspective. People said Ukraine War made attack helicopters obsolete. But when Ukraine drove Leopard 2s & Bradley’s early into their counteroffensive. Russian attack helicopters mauled those armored units.

[@thearisen7301]

Now I want to ask Chieftain about the viability of revisiting the idea of stealth tanks. Like the stealth leopard, hiding it's thermal signature and reducing dust, etc.

[@tihomirrasperic]

it's a matter of technological progress and price in the last 30 years, infantry weapons have advanced much more than tanks if I'm not mistaken, the tank company is 4 tanks? one tank company costs from $4-10 million on the other hand, you take a Toyota pick up that costs $25K and mount a launcher with anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles on it and if it only carries 4 anti-tank 9M14 Malyutkas and two FIM-92 Stingers it can easily compete with tanks and helicopters for close support of troops at a much lower price, greater mobility and lower operating costs

[@laisphinto6372]

not worth the effort its still a freaking tank and stealthy and 30 ton thick boy dont mix

[@powkung45]

The T-90M does have thermal blocking coatings, as well as thermal/optical camo netting on top of that, with various other anti-RPG tricks like those hanging chains also used on Merkava

[@ryanj610]

Drone swarms and AI will make so much obsolete in 20, 30 years, that I don't think we should invest in 50 year platforms anymore. A tank only works when you have combined arms superiority. Artillery decimates them... no matter how stealth, a drone will spot them. Infrared camouflage is a good idea against smart munitions, but will only be a stopgap.

[@powkung45]

@@ryanj610 It's still easier to have a tank than a towed artillery piece... the 2s3m 2s19 etc and many of the smaller BMP/BMD based mortar launchers are all very versatile for dislodging infantry

[@MrAwsomenoob]

I never held soviet tanks in much high regard in the modern era, but i am of the opinion that a tank is still a tank no matter how bad they may be. Plus, it's hypocritical to harp on how bad soviet style tanks are when ukraine uses the same type of tanks as the Russians.

[@laisphinto6372]

they use the same gear and one is attacking the Defensive has always an advantage if they are prepeared and fortified.

[@johnnyparallax7321]

The tank is a mobile gun in the first place. Most of the time they fire at infrastructure and infantry. If the enemy has only rifles and two javelins for the whole company in a trench, it doesn't matter which tank if you fire from 3+ kilometers.

[@mylesharvey6488]

No Ukrainian tanks are completely different. Metallurgy and QC is quite different between Kleptocratic and Westernization. Please understand this.

[@joemamaobama6863]

@@mylesharvey6488 they’re literally soviet inherited tanks

[@mylesharvey6488]

@@joemamaobama6863 Soviet Era metallurgy is far superior to modern Kleptocratic metallurgy.

[@Pystdammit]

When a 2 man team with a tube on a tripod can kill tanks from 8-9kms away/ FPV drone/ guided artillery round, the day of the tank being king of the battlefield only happens if it has a good measure of support for the tank now, and thats even for the modern upgraded tank. Tank on tank battles will become a special event in the future.

[@kilianortmann9979]

The issue is, we are bloody old, and the mid 80s were almost 40 years ago; the Subaru XT was a really modern car.

[@Mike5Brown]

Yeah almost but not 40 years ago

[@manugamer9984]

The mistake most people do is to consider one tank against another... this is not how war works, you don't consider one soldier against another. It's how you manage a considerable number of them. A trained Zulu warrior will beat me in a Leopard 2, cause I'm not able to exploit its potential as well as he can exploit his

[@libertycosworth8675]

Another good video! Good questions with Nick providing reasonably informed answers. Also, as we have seen, even when the russians have been using T80s and T90s, their tactics limit their utility on this battlefield. All the Ukrainian forces need is to spot them with a UAS (with thermal imaging), and then the 152 and 155 arty can efficiently negate them.

[@quinlanels9886]

Ukrainian artillery is not as sufficient as expected. Low numbers mean low fire missions which limit the effect on Russian infantry, vehicles e.t.c which means Russian counter battery fire will ultimately annihilate Ukrainian artillery

[@edubogota1]

@@quinlanels9886 its low un number because it it is way more precise than the russians. A M777 howitzer with excalibur shells its a force to be reckoned with.

[@ГригорийПротченко-н9р]

@@edubogota1 no, it's not "way more precise". M777 that came to Ukraine were not equipped with M1156 and were wearing out really fast.

[@nagantm441]

@@edubogota1 no its not. Ukraine still uses mostly Soviet legacy artillery.

[@edubogota1]

@@ГригорийПротченко-н9р at least they are more durable than russian artillery, the M777 is made of titanium.

[@ret7army]

Back in the '80s when first introducing the thermal imager the US army took an M60 tank, in the winter out somewhere. Let it sit in the open for 24 hours, then buried it under snow for another 24 hours. After that they took another M60 tank equipped with a thermal imager and spotted the one in the snow without a problem. The technology has come a long way since then so yeah

[@BeKindToBirds]

Because metal changes temperature differently than snow any thermal imager will be able to perform the exact same trick. The difference is back in the day it would be a pixel wash out blur and now it will look like a clear high res image. Seeing the tank, no matter how long it's buried, is the magic of thermal physics. Even if it was exactly the same temperature as the snow below the margin of error of the imager waiting would reveal the tank as the snow changed temperature through the day more slowly than the metal of the tank did.

[@uniball5667]

Isn't survivability what matters most? Sure you can have a high-low sort of formation, but if every tank that gets destroyed on one side has a 50% KIA rate vs the other side with 75% KIA rate, than the 50% side will have more crews coming back to fight vs the 75% who will need more replacements. You can't win a war without experience and knowledge passing on to future combatants. The reason I bring this up is because as far as I can see, the main issue with Russian tanks is really bad survivability. Like, maybe the tank itself survives a hit and is scraped later, but the entire crew dies in the process.

[@pilotmanpaul]

There is also a factor that with Thermals, it will help a lot in spotting. As even T-72s outrange the Javelins IF it can spot the Javelin beforehand. With Thermals, it should do a lot of help in terms of spotting people like that and those waiting in the bushes with AT4s or Handhelds.

[@Crosshair84]

According to foreign volunteers who have left Ukraine, the Russians would bait Javelin teams with a Hunter-Killer capable tank facing the wrong way, as if the gunner and crew were monitoring a different area. Meanwhile, the commanders IR sight was pointed at where they suspected there of being Ukrainian troops. Once the Ukrainian Javelin team had sufficiently exposed themselves to get close enough, the tank crew would slew the turret and fire in a matter of seconds and obliterate the Javelin team. The tanks may have also had drone support in scouting. Javelins are also apparently far less effective than what the sales brochure claims. While it CAN one-shot a tank, apparently a lot of the time it does not. There is video of a BMP-1 taking a direct hit with a Javelin and, while clearly damaged, remaining combat capable and continuing to return fire. So one side is firing a weapon that MIGHT kill the tank while the tank will for sure be able to kill them.

[@DerDudelino]

Lucky for us and Ukraine that the Russians didn't modernized their tank fleet before the war. Like you said - if they would've outfitted their T72s with thermals, this could've been a very different war given that they are able to deploy huge amounts of them and Ukraine is a very infantry heavy army with small mobile units that mostly drives in lightly armored SUVs. They don't operate a lot of tanks and if they do; they don't bring them in in large battle groups.

[@voidtempering8700]

​@@DerDudelino You do realize that the most common T-72 the Russians had in service has thermals, right?

[@dickusmaxximun8126]

​@@Crosshair84 Nice fantasy you have going on there, then there is reality and hundreds of Russian tanks being blown out by Javelin, AT4 and even cheap chinese drones.

[@Denkmaldrubernacht]

​@@Crosshair84interesting, I just saw the BMP take the hit. It was nasty but kept going which is impressive, definitely some dead men inside though

[@mondaytuesday8852]

В этой войне танки не призваны воевать с танками Да и вообще не для этого они создавались Это по сути должна быть движущаяся крепость, прикрывающая пехоту Сравнивать танки сейчас так же бессмысленно Эта война показала, что побеждают не технологии, не количество, не качество войск Самое главное в современной армии это логистика, информация и связь Если артиллерию называют богами войны, то эти три столпа - материя, энергия и гравитация, что не подконтрольны богам

[@LunaticTheCat]

One of the biggest problems with Soviet/Russian MBTs is the fact that crew survivability is pitiful compared to Western MBTs. Typically, when a Soviet/Russian tank is destroyed, the crew is killed, while when a Western MBT is destroyed, the crew survives. This is a devastating flaw, as most of the time, losing an experienced tank crew is a significantly bigger loss than losing the tank itself.

[@dominuslogik484]

yeah it takes weeks to build a tank during peace time when you are going slow with it meanwhile it takes months of training to produce an inexperienced green tanker and years to get an expert out of it.

[@hc8714]

lol 7 months later, we changed our mind about all western tanks as well

[@death31313]

I think what could be really interesting would be bringing back compact light tanks but with ATGMs and high tech optics. Something small, light weight and fast with a low silhouette outfitted with TOW missiles thermal optics and maybe covered in thermal masking camo netting would be terrifying on the modern battlefield.

[@nagmashot]

get a Wiesel 🤣🤣🤣

[@death31313]

@@nagmashot the Wiesel isn't far off. It would be better though if the TOW launcher was closer to the hull. That would give it a lower silhouette.

[@subjectc7505]

No, any tank can be destroyed, not just Russian ones. Especially since they're capable of damaging Leopards. This conflict haven't changed my mind on anything. Expect how effective artillery and drones are.

[@ThrawnFett123]

The just casual "inshallah" chieftain threw in on getting in a modern tank after a decade was hilarious to me as a GWOT era Vet and long term middle east contractor

[@CircassianRider]

Did the Ukranian "counter offensive " change your mind about Western tanks and IFV's ??

[@oz314]

He will probably double down like the Nato shill he is.

[@ivanvoloder8114]

A question that no one wants to answer. It clearly showes that NATO hardware would suffer the same fate in Iraq if they didn't have air supremacy.

[@viktoriyaserebryakov2755]

@@ivanvoloder8114 Perhaps not to the same extent. Different terrain.

[@ivanvoloder8114]

@@viktoriyaserebryakov2755 Yes it does. NATO would get their asses kicked by Iraq if they didnt have air dominance.

[@viktoriyaserebryakov2755]

@@ivanvoloder8114 Literally different geography. Literally not the same. I did not say they wouldn't, so you haven't managed to refute anything I've said.

[@scottsauritch3216]

Tanks in my opinion will always be vital on the battlefield. However anything sold within the last like 5 years or anything sold after 2022 if it doesn't have active protection systems, then it's not worthless but it's guaranteed to die... Supposedly the iron fist decoupled software is been returned to be able to shoot down overhead slow-moving uavs...

[@ulfosterberg1979]

These tanks where made to attack "en masse" with apc , helicopters, planes and artillery. They where rather unstoppable that way. Then the reverse speed didnt matter either. That was what the crews was trained to do. This war is someting diferent.

[@cv990a4]

Well, at least they were *supposed* to be unstoppable that way. That was the theory. No one ever actually got to try that out for real, thankfully.

[@orlock20]

This war is what happens when you don't read the instructions. The whole mass raid was something the West cooked up apparently.

[@ulfosterberg1979]

Add a couple of tactical nukes for spice...

[@noticing33]

Yeh we havnt seen russia employ that classic Soviet mass wide front assault

[@bigd8122]

@@noticing33 They don't have the troops.

[@Relyt345]

Thermal imagers and sighting in general is extremely valuable. Kinda makes Javelins not so outlandishly priced considering how prized just the sight for it is alone as you see guys using it by itself for sighting targets etc.

[@nationalsocialism3504]

Javelins are trash regardless that they are expensive trash. Which to be fair isn't the Javelin fault it sucks so badly... it's "blaming a fish for being unable to climb a tree" kind of situation. An RPG-7 is way better at doing the job it's supposed to be doing which Javelins failed spectacularly at... a tank being destroyed. The Ukrainians burned through a 1/3 of the Judeo-American Empire stockpile of Javelins for little effect... Russian tanks were regularly returning having survived 4-6 strikes while amount of Javelins which got a tank kill were few and far between. ATGM are a failure from the concept phase... Infantry shouldn't be (and proven in practice can't) the ones destroying Armor. Artillery is for destroying Armor... Infantry with a RPG or equivalent can easily get a Movement Kill on a tank though & pin it place for Artillery to destroy it.

[@nationalsocialism3504]

@I Dissent yes... that's the common reference for weapons/ammunition in storage ready for use. The Judeo-American Empire has what it considered a decent amount in regards to attacking underarmed goat herders in sandals as it's been doing for decades for its masters in Israel. Which in an actual peer conflict has proven just how inadequate the stockpiles of all weapons & ammunition are. Like how Russia is using more Artillery shells in a day than the Judeo-American Empire makes in a month for a limited regional conflict on their border.

[@fdsfggr]

@@nationalsocialism3504 surce???

[@nationalsocialism3504]

@@fdsfggr source for what? Basic combat operations for over a century is that Artillery is for killing Armor not Infantry... still true to this day. It's why Javelins & NLAWs were always abandoned when they still had them... it's way too heavy to truly be "man portable" like RPGs (which is still a two man carry load as other Heavy weapons like Machine Guns... one man carries the weapon & the other carries ammo.) RPGs are great at getting Mobility Kills on Armor by attacking the tracks then Artillery can kill it easily once its pinned in place... while still being able to deal with APVs, ITTs, Technicals, or against fortified Infantry positions (actually why the NLAW is better than Javelins since its direct fire trajectory can be used in supporting an attack against fortified Infantry.) During the taking of Mariupol... videos of Russian tanks returning after suffering 5-7 hits from Javelins/NLAW were a daily occurrence on telegram channels. These were modernized T-72s not even the new T-90s or barely into production phase T-14s. Unless it hits perfectly on a target area about the size of a serving platter... it does basically fuck all since reactive armor invalidates it as the warhead is too small (hence why 152mm or 203mm Artillery Shells are needed since they have the necessary punch to overwhelm reactive armor then punch through the armor plate.)

[@nationalsocialism3504]

@@fdsfggr as far as logistical supply issues & ammunition stockpile depletion rates then the "source" is RUSI (the two century old Royal military think tank that fucking Wellington himself started after defeating Napoleon at Waterloo to advise the English royal crown.) They put out a very detailed White Paper on the subject back in April which explicitly outlined how NATO was utterly incapable of waging Industrial Warfare since none of them were Industrial Societies anymore. RUSI recently put out a new White Paper in November updating just how catastrophically its gone over the previous 6 months... Ukraine has been reduced to a house of cards & once the Russian mobilized troops are finished training and brought to the frontline in March/April the whole thing is going to collapse as soon as Russian starts pushing forward. Russia is perfectly happy to bleed Ukraine white in places like Bakhmut and Adeveeka so no Ukrainian reserve troops can be stood up into Corps in the rear. Russia can drop high explosives on fortified positions all day every day making 100m advances... it costs Russia nothing but "dumb" ammunition to do & is comparatively super cheap to use 40 year old artillery shells that the Soviets paid for long ago.

[@mcmarkmarkson7115]

Drones > tanks anyway, doesn't matter what country they come from.

[@seanmoran2743]

Be interesting to hear a discussion between The Chieftain and Col Douglas Macgregor

[@standingindiestudio5643]

The problem is that this is theory, the real-life battles are much less forgiving and far more changing in nature to calculate the usefulness of the said tank(or any machine for that matter), in my opinion.

[@clinthowe7629]

it finally dawned on me, after the Iraq war. we don’t go to war to win, we go to war to make money off more war. so win or lose we make money. that’s messed up.

[@Aeros802]

I saw a number of videos on telegram of these RPGs (Javelins or NLAWS cant remember) being fired from a close distance on these modern Russian tanks. In the few times I witnessed these videos, the Russian tank chugs along like nothing hit it.

[@AHDBification]

I saw one of those. They're from the early days of the war when Ukraine was handing out missiles to anyone with a pulse, ie. untrained, but very motivated, soldiers who forgot about "minimum arming distance."

[@oldmangimp2468]

Bernard and Nicholas... ...the absolute best "old married couple" on the internet.

[@shawn576]

The comments on these videos are always fascinating. Great community.

[@abrahamhamdi2725]

Nope... the thing about Russian tanks being notoriously junk is an old adage, nothing change there. But seeing burning Leopards, Bradleys, and first Challenger defeated in actual battlefield against a real army that shoots back and bombs back, does change my mind about Western equipments - they're turned out not as great as advertised, against rice farmers or goat herders in flipflop maybe, but not against a real army. It also open my eyes, why spend on million dollar thing that can be disabled/destroyed by hundred dollar toys - basically toys FFS!!! So spending on Russian junks make more sense from economical perspective - with enough AA, aerial and artillery support (and well-trained crews of course) they will work as effectively as more fancy Western tanks.

[@MicMc539]

We're not fighting farmers and goat herders this time.

[@arnoldvezbon6131]

@@MicMc539Also both the rice farmers and got herders won...

[@darenzy]

@@arnoldvezbon6131 lol, exactly

[@interpl6089]

It definitely changed my mind about Western tanks, especially the Challenger 2. It showed up on the front, got ATGM'd by Kornet, both times throwing the turret (catastrophic ammo explosion) and killing the crew and was never seen again...

[@WarThunderista]

Hahahaha true

[@Angry-Lynx]

Where TF u get that info. Nothing throwed turret and there was very little info what really happened, how and why

[@interpl6089]

@@Angry-Lynx i literally have photos and videos...tf u mean no evidence?

[@gonotgone1]

@@interpl6089 I remember seeing one burnt out back on 5th Sept but that one certainly hadn’t had its turret thrown, can you please provide a link to the one you saw I’m curious to see

[@interpl6089]

@@gonotgone1 the turret on the challenger 2 was only thrown from the mounting...because of being too heavy....resting dislodged on the chassis as seen here: preview.redd.it/challenger-ii-destroyed-in-ukraine-showing-that-the-turret-v0-0h65jwkmc05c1.jpg?width=445&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5b7f0626981e5a360dc3a7d663bfa3a7df360a9b i have my pictures and videos from Russian Telegram channels and thus i cannot find the original links...this is as close as i can get...

[@marlo8850]

The T-72 has terrible reverse speed, its gun can’t depress much. That’s automatically a bad MBT

[@tomcolvin8199]

No leopard or challenger losses? Not to mention Abrams not on front line.

[@AtholAnderson]

Leos and Challys have been knocked out, but unlike the Russian designs the crews survived and in many cases the tanks have been retrieved and repaired.

[@tomcolvin8199]

@@AtholAnderson Totally agree, the point is no tank is immune to destruction.

[@Hlvuuu]

​@@AtholAnderson xddd you are still finding the way to cope bruh

[@jon2922]

​@@Hlvuuusilly westoids! Crew survivability is for the weak! Our manly tankers get vaporised in an ammunition cookoff like real men!

[@BojanPeric-kq9et]

@@jon2922 blown up turret and vaporized crews are very different.