Russia Lost Their BEST Tank - The Truth

Many of you are probably aware that Russia lost the T-90M tank, which is currently the most modern tank in their arsenal. This is kind of a big deal because, up until that point, Russia has only been using cheaper upgrades of old T-72 and T-80 tanks, while the T-90M is supposed to be a much more expensive and advanced vehicle.
There has been a lot of propaganda from Ukraine regarding the loss of this vehicle.
Patreon: / redeffect

[@hideshisface1886]

So, it would look like Ukrainians scored what would basically be a mission kill, and Russians finished the tank off to prevent it being captured, as they were in no position to salvage it.

[@benjaminpadilla1464]

Exactly

[@nedimharacic1809]

Ukrainins did not lie (technically) but they did overhype it

[@doublehelix7880]

@@nedimharacic1809 Well, according to Zelenski and the Western MSM, the remains of the Mariupol garrison - "Azov", Marines, Border guard etc are being "evacuated". Well, just avoiding to mention that they are being evacuated into POW camps in DPR and Russia. So nothing new.

[@loganl7547]

Yeah, I think a large part of russia holding the T90's back, in addition to the enormous cost and limited supply of the machine, is so fewer fall in Ukrainian hands, giving the Ukrainians less opportunities to A: equip themselves with more up to date armor, and B: study the T90 and probe it for additional potential weaknesses that may render the russian pride and joy even more vulnerable than it already is against small anti-armor teams.

[@lindsaycole8409]

War propaganda that isn't a lie (technically or otherwise) is the best propaganda. The result of the Ukrainian attack was either a recovered t-90m by Ukraine or Russian destruction of it. The destruction of it actually has less propaganda value than a disabled but mostly complete T-90m filmed in a random Ukrainian shed.

[@icewallow6472]

No weapon is invincible, so the fact that T-90 got destroyed is not surprising at all. Not even mentioning how Arabs in crocs were burning piles of Abrams tanks with the RPGs.

[@Pwnulolumad]

I'm pretty sure the total of disabled/ destroyed Abrams tanks is under a dozen for Iraq afghan wars

[@OliverFlinn]

Disabled* not outright destroyed

[@kuayinal-kadir6846]

@@OliverFlinn There’s actually videos online of Yemeni houthi rebels destroying a M1 Abrams tank.

[@OliverFlinn]

@@kuayinal-kadir6846 what video? Can you post a link?

[@k92578]

can i have some of the copium you’re huffing because holy shit that must be high grade

[@VoziVasVladan]

Unbiased analysis. Quality stuff. There is no war machine that can't be destroyed. Be it the Abrams, Leopard, or Challenger tank.

[@DWE696]

That's why i like to watch him to see unbiased truth or even news😉 ,even if some haters say he's 'biased' or that he's a 'vatnik' 🤣🤣🤣

[@callenclarke371]

The idea that any tank type could be fielded in real combat conditions and suffer 0 losses is absurd. Having said that, this is excellent content, particularly in locating the place and circumstances of this particular tanks demise.

[@Prophetofthe8thLegion]

Yeah, hell the battle or more accurately Massacre of 73 Easting the US lost a Abrams. Yes do to friendly fire but a loss is still a loss.

[@zuludeltanovember]

oh no, that would mean no propaganda news pro eukraine then

[@jondoh366]

@@zuludeltanovember Cope

[@cascadianrangers728]

Same thing happened to tons of Tigers, Tiger II and other WWII German heavy tanks, in some units the tankers destroyed more of their own tanks than the Russians did

[@matchesburn]

Well, when it came to the Panthers, a significant portion of the losses weren't even due to combat losses or scuttling. The Germans sent 204 Panthers to Kursk. Only a week into the battle, of those 204 Panthers, 81 were out of action. Not from damage from weapons, but just breaking down. And, as we saw in the initial stages of the invasion, the same happened here. Ukrainian farmers would just find a T-72 or another armored vehicle just... abandoned. Absolutely nothing wrong with it, other than it was out of fuel and/or stuck in the mud and there was no recovery vehicle. They didn't even attempt to sabotage or scuttle them.

[@rog69]

Ok lol relax with the “more than the russians did” u weren’t there and have zero proof

[@tylerjohn4607]

Also, IIRC, the first time the Tiger II saw combat, it was when it got ambushed and destroyed from the side by T-34/85 tanks

[@nikolatanev1140]

@@matchesburn cant be more correct. Did you know the King Tiger or Tiger II being a superior tank to any other in the war based on raw numbers simply having constant problems in muddy roads or roads with holes. Since it had some mjnor flaws like if a soviet tank with good armour penetration would shoot the KT between the body and turret the bullet would get stuck and it would render the KT useless. So many people hyping about russian losses but dont know that Russians are used to those kind of losses and can still win.

[@bigboss-ig3rg]

1 tiger Destroy 10 Sherman junk tanks they defeated by air

[@temistogen]

Omg,a tank is not invincible?Who would have known.

[@egg-...]

ik this is a joke but it still makes me made

[@rogue__agent5884]

Most people still don’t get that

[@ser43_OLDC]

@Commando Jessica 100 MT? it is supposed to windstand a 1000000MT bom

[@kimpark853]

i know right, it is like western media and people in general gets totally shocked that something made by humans can be destroyed by humans.

[@BRANFED]

i have trued and tried to tell others this.. but to no avail.. all russian tanks are junk and all western tanks are great and invisible in their mind

[@aranthos]

An unbiased battle analysis is rare. Thanks for making the video

[@mojojoji5493]

Putin’s still a monster tho

[@scottcampbell4678]

This video is anything but unbiased. It is by a Russian propaganda operation.

[@nickjayr0]

unbiased,lmao

[@starfighter1043]

Still glory to ukraine 🇺🇦 🙌

[@AliBaba-vw7mo]

@@nickjayr0 well yes. There’s no such thing as a totally unbiased person, but IMO it’s relatively unbiased.

[@RSID]

Makes sense. The convoy got ambushed, hunter killer team got on their flank. The spearhead T-90M got hit and inoperable. No time to pull it to safety under fire, scuttled to prevent it going into UA hands (They know how to operate T series tanks, just like how they captured some T-80BVM's, T-72B3's etc.) Disabled either by AT fire, crew told to abandon and the whole advance was aborted.

[@johndean4998]

If there were no human remains in the T90 then it is more likely that your thesis is correct: that the tank was damaged by Ukrainian fire, abandoned by the crew, and finished off by the Russians themselves.

[@hummerskickass]

A lack of human remains is not exactly a good indicator that it was uncrewed at the time of destruction. The tendency for Russian Tanks to violently explode from internal ammo detonation would usually completely destroy the crew inside, it would take some serious forensics to determine if there are human remains inside or not.

[@johndean4998]

@@hummerskickass You may be correct, which is why I qualified my assertion with "more likely". But would a Russian tank crew destroy another tank with their injured or dead comrades still inside?

[@gumelini1]

@@hummerskickass actually no,humans don't get exploded out of existence.There is always bones or charred tissue inside destroyed tanks if the crew was in there

[@user-ev4pb9xj7e]

Looks like the crew was vaporized there Johnny.

[@tonamg53]

@@gumelini1 have fun digging for bones fragments inside a burnt destroyed tank….

[@TheSympathize]

If Russia were to deploy the t-14 Armata into a combat zone, they’d mostly likely lose those too; the nature of a conflict like this where both sides are using either modern or Cold War era equipment, is that the survivability of weapon platforms like tanks ultimately comes down to their strategic and tactical application on the battlefield. If you were to send Russia’s most advanced tank, the Armata, into an urban environment with poor recon and no other proper support elements backing it up, it is highly likely that it will be disabled and destroyed by militia units running around with things like a Carl Gustav. It’s very easy for military equipment nerds to argue over which weapon platform is superior based off of paper stats, but when a war actually happens, and these weapons are fielded on a battlefield, those paper stats are no longer as important as the actual practical use and application of said weapons.

[@aoki6332]

yeah these tank are powerful in paper yet haven seen real conflict like how the Tiger in paper is a very good tank in practice it was bad

[@TheSympathize]

@@aoki6332 I actually don’t agree with that statement. The tiger on paper in my opinion actually wasn’t particularly amazing when you consider that the design itself was still very much living in the early 1920s-30s of tank design: with its boxy proportions, and the reliance of raw armor thickness and powerful main cannon to fulfill its role as a breakthrough heavy tank. It was also overdesigned when you consider the severe shortage in raw materiel and special components the Tiger required to function properly, and the engine itself was not designed for a tank as heavy as the Tiger turned out to be. Comparatively, tanks like the Soviet T-34, IS-1 and IS-2 were an indication of where tank design was actually truly headed. However, in actual application on the battlefield, the Tiger made up for its exorbitant cost and troubled reputation as a maintenance whore with its overall solid service history; and when you consider how most of its opposition on the battlefield were other tanks that were extremely vulnerable to its gun, it was actually fielded rather properly. The tiger 2 is I think a better example of a tank that seemed to have good paper stats (until you look at its engine’s power to weight ratio), but then when you look at its actual service record, it’s cost seems to have outweighed it’s actual performance on the battlefield, as Germany would have been far better off devoting more resources into just producing more panthers or tigers than creating a super heavy tank that they barely had the resources to even properly provide adequate fuel for.

[@thehigherman9918]

I think we can all agree that both the russian T72, t80, 90 tanks and the Tiger series are kinda trash. One because their made for a period too long ago, the other because they overengineerd the shit out of it.

[@aoki6332]

@@TheSympathize though russian tank in ww2 had really poor armor though it was thick but was made whit a really trash method that will kill the people inside of the tank if it was hit and yeah i was talking about the Tiger 2 not 1

[@pabcu2507]

@@aoki6332 Russian armor in ww2 was decent, it just had very poor crew survivability

[@samryan180]

Great analysis. I enjoyed the walk through on the location to confirm the actual tank

[@looseyourzlf]

Wow nice analysis .. keep up the good work bro 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

[@fallen_saint6939]

Doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things. A destroyed tank is a destroyed tank. While the T-90M is Russia's most advanced operational tank, it still is a variant of the T-90, which itself is a upgraded T-72, with all the strengths and weaknesses of it. While technology and technology advantage is important in modern warfare, people severely overhype it, tricking themselves to believing in "super-weapons". A tool's effectiveness relies solely on the user. If the user uses the tool poorly, the tool will preform poorly. Now, obviously you don't want to fall behind in terms of technology, you need to "upgrade" your doctrines just as much as you would upgrade your equipment.

[@946towguy2]

The T-72 is an upgraded T-64.

[@aryonugroho4887]

@@946towguy2 no, T-72 and T-64 have a different lineage. Separate design bureaus, different manufacturer. T-64 was built by kharkiv morozov in Ukraine, T-72 built by uralvagonzavod in Nizhny Tagil, Russia

[@raketny_hvost]

exactly. should we talk that even abrams can be killed by carton and t-55 can be killed by t-34

[@946towguy2]

@@aryonugroho4887 Nevertheless, the T-72 is based directly off the T-64 but redesigned and built within Russia. Thia is not unlike how the AH64A was originally build by Hughes (USA) but is now made by Boeing in USA., BAE (UK and Subaru (Japan). The UK version uses Rolls Royce engines and BAE avionics and has differences in many components. The Japanese version has Japanese avionics (I believe from Mitsibishi) and all of the hardware is metric.

[@iam8401]

Agreed, people judge the tank by its current state but next one would be very different since next war would be with NATO forces. For Putin his life is going to be on the stake thus I doubt he will make the same mistakes he made in Ukraine. Next generation of tanks would be focused on javelin rockets detection and bairaktar drones clean up first. In that sense NATO made the same mistakes Hitler made after Stalin's war with Finland. Understimating the enemy. Next war is going to be war of AIs and robots. And NATO is weak here as most of its software devs are H1B immigrants and it is using outdated imperial system making things more complicated than they should be. Putin's only weak spot is that he has no popular support in Russia as his team was looting the country for 30 years in favour of NATO.

[@dusanbursac5012]

Tank is gone but crew is alive and that's the most important part of the tank. Especially if it was a modern one. Not just anyone drives those.

[@buttbiter3139]

Not just anyone drives those*

[@JKGaming1414]

@@Mal101M did you seriously think russians destroyed it to prevent capture, while their own crew were in it?:D

[@ArchOfficial]

What makes you think the crew survived?

[@truonggiabao2348]

@@ArchOfficial Because if it was the Russians who destroyed it, which is likely imo, they would have evacuate the crew first

[@dusanbursac5012]

@@buttbiter3139 thanks.

[@all3ykat79]

Your analysis is excellent. Both in identifying it and in explaining the likely scenario, and your reasons, for guessing it's likely reason for demise.

[@rebelbhagatsingh909]

When Ukrainian kill... Such type of analysis comes out

[@dragosdragomirescu7161]

Excellent? why doesn't he talk about the position of the turret when it was hit and that of the wreckage?

[@all3ykat79]

@@dragosdragomirescu7161 thats probably classed as superb

[@triparadox.c]

@@rebelbhagatsingh909 I prefer that way. When we live in western society, we're exposed to a lot of western propaganda, so anything favoring Ukraine must be taken with a grain of salt. The same thing is true if you live in Russia. You need to be skeptical of any happy news for Russia.

[@eingew]

Really good video: Just about what the title says, no bullshit, no derailing straight to the point. Rare to see that on yt these days. Thank you!

[@Cavethug]

The tank likely was disabled in some way, tracked, hit a mine, something that would have disabled it, preventing it from being able to move. So if the Ukrainians were attacking them, and the Russians were withdrawing, they wouldn't have time to call in a tank recovery vehicle, or to make field repairs. The result would be to destroy the tank, since otherwise it could be repaired and used against them. This is a common practice in war.

[@TankswillRule]

Arent mines technically banned by some laws? Surely people learnt after the minefield hell of bosnia.

[@gerrybreugem2496]

A dead tank is a dead tank, doesn't matter how you killed it. Ex Grunt.

[@ellisdiggle1523]

@@TankswillRule the Ottawa treaty of 1997 outlawed the use of Anti-Personnel mines, although Russia did not sign it and I doubt Ukraine cares about the treaty right now. But Anti-Tank Mines are still legal and widely used.

[@Laotzu.Goldbug]

@@TankswillRule only anti-personnel mines because of the difficulty in detection and removal after the conflict and the potential to harm civilians. Anti-tank mines are still fully legal, although they have been very rarely used outside of this conflict, and their original configuration (IEDs not withstanding) Since the correct circumstances have not really been there before.

[@aoki6332]

@@TankswillRule Only anti personnel and plastic mine are banned

[@valyriemiserus2064]

Probably the origin of the misunderstanding (may be just mistaken or may be on purpose doesn't matter) is probably that the at team knocked/immobilized the tank and reported it as a kill. either when they got to the wreckage thought it had a secondary explosion of some sort which destroyed the vehicle. Or they ran away after their shot not knowing what the exact extend of the damage was and with returning to the site found an exploded top right where they shot it and thought they did all of that. Anyway you look at it though the ambush combined with the lack of time/tactics/arv/whatever was the reason the Russians lost their tank

[@Maverick-gg2do]

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. It's the general case with kill claims in all war. People aren't always lying. More often than not, they just misinterpreted what they saw.

[@shahan484]

this is the explanation im goin with

[@levi_exiled8579]

Just wait a little, they will lose more and more. I love these tanks but I don't love Russians. Sadly I want to see them destroyed from now on.

[@jimc1654]

If it is not moving then it is die. So yea, they did kill it.

[@korzer]

Origin of the misunderstanding is propaganda from Ukraine just like the Ghost of Kiev, Snake island heroes etc more and more BS

[@anonanon7349]

2:21 you should notice the path the rocket took from just inside tree line on right side. the arrow you point with in in wrong spot even a moving tank will kick up dust but the clear path the rocket was fired was inside tree line on right barely behind it

[@MedYassineBoudhina]

please upload more often I'm always waiting for a new video

[@ike212111]

The tank was destroyed in the moment that became unusable. They only exploded the tank to avoid the capture of technology.

[@TA.LONGBOW.ALASKA]

At the rate the UKE forces are running over Russian forces it will just be a matter of time before they get a few from captured stocks..

[@BD90..]

This makes sense too

[@ramonmarmolejo1792]

Don't think anyone would want their technology lmao they study them to spot weakness not to steal technology anyways 😴

[@maxinemoo6972]

Good call

[@nigelroche7888]

Then that was a waste of a shell, because you can ask - What technology is new in it?

[@Pilvenuga]

Thank you for this, when i trained with the CG (M2), it was drilled into us that a mobility kill is still a kill. Its good to see that reality in action.

[@claytonwhitman2611]

Absolutely! Simply because a mobility kill turns a mobile tank into an immobile pill box, which can be killed by air or other AT weapons at your time of choosing, it can be bypassed and flanked, basically an immobile position is almost completely worthless.

[@tiagodagostini]

@@claytonwhitman2611 No it is not that simple. A mobility kill is a Tactical kill, but not an operation kill since the tank can be recovered. A True kill is decisive no matter if you lose the battle or win it. Fort he troop int he field , yes it is a kill, but for the general behidn the front.. it is not a kill.

[@tiagodagostini]

@@authorize_nft4411 So nowadays Troll is someone that counters a bad statement with factual argument? Interesting how the values have changed.

[@hi_-bz7wf]

@@tiagodagostini If a tank that has been immobilised and cannot be recovered or scuttled it is worse for the general than if was completely destroyed. Giving the enemy tanks is not considered ideal.

[@tiagodagostini]

@@hi_-bz7wf It can be if you lose that battle. If you win it then it is a small incovennience. That is why a mobility kill is a POSSIBLE loss, dependent on the battle result. For that reason the other russian tank blew it up. If they were sure to win that battle that probably would not happen.

[@mosseon3456]

that armor on the side is NERA, it's basically a modern composite armor put on standoff bolts so it angles from shots. the layers of steel and rubber and the spacing from the bolts give it the ability to deal with some heat munitions.

[@foodtestingstrips]

Hello from Canada! I love the way you do your analysis.

[@Vidic236]

I mean tanks aren’t supposed to be invincible in combat, casualties will eventually occur

[@rogue__agent5884]

Most people still don’t get that

[@TA.LONGBOW.ALASKA]

But they are supposed to be used correctly...and they are not so Russia is getting its azz handed to them left and right.. This is what you get when you fuel an army on lies and vodka..

[@maevethefox5912]

@@rogue__agent5884 The Iraq invasions still inform way too many people's opinions of tank warfare. Charging across the desert, sweeping old Soviet equipment before them, suffering almost no losses. The vast majority of Abrams or Challenger tanks lost in combat (which still isn't many) were lost to friendly fire. The average Westerner doesn't have knowledge that extends further than that.

[@ser43_OLDC]

@@cmdrmonkey actually the guf war isn't a good example of tank survivability, what they faced were tanks firing ammunition that wasn't able to pen a friendly tank, and tanks that were obsolete for that time

[@maevethefox5912]

@@ser43_OLDC That's what is being said, I think. It's a terrible example of actual tank warfare, but it's the example of tanks in combat that most average Westerners know, and so they think it's typical.

[@lucalivio]

the released video is indeed potato quality, but 2 fun thing to notice: 1) it's quite clear that the tank cooked-off 2) even though point n.1, no flames blasting from the turret hatches, no smoke coming out of the main gun Of course, just 2 small details but I tend to side with you on this, the tank was already abandoned, most probably with the breach and hatches open.

[@404Dannyboy]

I've never understood why that matters. An abandoned then killed tank isn't less killed than a non abandoned killed tank. Something still had to go really wrong with the tank or Russian operations to lose it, just as would be the case if it wasn't abandoned.

[@zolikoff]

@@404Dannyboy Yeah it is lost anyway sure, but from a military analysis perspective of course it matters how exactly it was lost. If it's your side you want to know how to better prevent more losses in future, and if it's enemy then you want to know how you can effectively fight and destroy others.

[@lucalivio]

@@404Dannyboy No, indeed, it doesn't really matter, just free speculations here, but all in all the video itself is just an analysis of the event. But it make sense that they destroyed it, the tank was already hit, which means they were operating in an hot zone, so they simply decided to destroy the tank not to give to the Ukrainians. What amazes me is how the Russian armored doctrine is ok with using tanks completely unsupported. In every piece of video I can find the scene is always the same: tank roams around completely alone on a field or a side road, tanks got hit, sometimes turret decides to join the airforce, salva ukraini. And that's it, in my opinion the sad reality is that Russians are using their tanks like they were jeeps, and losing them... well, like they were jeeps... Just last day I saw a video of a T-72 getting hit by a mine, didn't get destroyed, didn't lost a track, and the driver, obviously thought it was an excellent to keep driving and spinning the tank around like there's no tomorrow, eventually hitting a second mine. I'm convinced at this point the Russian tankers have probably a manual that doesn't really use the term "mine FIELDS" but rather "mine singularities" :D

[@eliasziad7864]

@@404Dannyboy Maybe they were demobilized and didnt want the tank to be captured.

[@user-fu2sg4vt3d]

@@zolikoff I think the next logical step ruzzian should do from such analysis is to chain up tankers to the tank, then all tank`s will be destroyed before being left, hahaha

[@boyvol6428]

Detailed, balanced deconstruction. Good job!

[@chetmcmasterson]

Great analysis, esp in laying groundwork to verify location match. Though I'd argue that claiming a kill for a tank that your side shot and disabled isn't invalid just because the enemy shot it again afterwards.

[@devia1988]

Inspector RedEffect, the inspector we need but don't deserve

[@_blitzterceptor_8648]

Yep, someone that you can count on for real information rather than propaganda from both sides

[@knightowl3577]

@@_blitzterceptor_8648 This guy is a Serbian, most of them love Russia. How sure are you that he is completely unbiased? If he is legit, perhaps it would be better not to mention the war at all.

[@_blitzterceptor_8648]

@@knightowl3577 alright, I won't waste any more time to convince him then

[@michaelbruce6190]

Best information on this engagement so far, everything fits perfectly and it’s not propaganda.

[@greenbeepm]

@@knightowl3577 You can be unbiased by trying your best at trying to tell the facts without trying to subtly or non subtly pushing any agenda. Its good to be skeptical but is there ANYTHING you found in this video that you found biased or is it just the fact that he is Serbian and happened to mention the war? Is that your argument here?

[@radosaworman7628]

disabled and not recovered is destroyed. Polish sources (defence 24- OG fotography/video source, Ratka /"Broń pancerna świata" channell -provider of the analisys) claim that propably CG disabled it, propably shooting somewhere in the drivetrain (hard to tell where exactly as whole back is anihilated) and then it was evacuated and finally destroyed by Other T-90M while retreating.

[@AgentSmith-ci8pv]

they didn't destroyed nothing propaganda could been out of fuel

[@kaj160]

@@AgentSmith-ci8pv I see a destroyed tank right there.

[@signs80]

@@AgentSmith-ci8pv why would the other tanks be able to have enough fuel to leave but not that one

[@GrundleLongDong]

@@AgentSmith-ci8pv observe the 4 other tanks able to spare some, Also observe one of russias most expensive tanks Yeah no chance you scuttle your most expensive tank on the field merely because it’s out of fuel

[@TAKIZAWAYAMASHITA]

@@signs80 because russian logistics is ass, its quite common to see vehicles without fuel or stuck somewhere because the right tires/tracks were not put into the kit for the enviroment it would be in. Second they probably had no choice but to destroy it because they would be extremly vulnerable attempting to refuel it especially when they already have been ambushed by infantry crews and possible armor elements they know the uklrainian infantry is very versitile they carry many western modern atgms including the feared nlaw and javelins which make short work of any vehicle with their ridiculously long range, near stealth launch and fire and forget all the user has to do is point at a target for a few seconds and shoot then run away. The missile does all the guidance etc, near stealth because both systems use a soft launch which fires the missile out with a jet of compressed air atlest 6 to 20m away from the shooter before the missile rocket motor ignites. This allows a user to fire from inside confined spaces like homes or vehicles without risk of injury from back blast. which also ensures the shooters position isnt given away

[@nik_evdokimov]

Good analysis, thanks for your work and research

[@mand5422]

Fantastic video!! Very well researched and unbiased.

[@martinlarner9210]

Reminds me of the US M1 Abrams tank in Baghdad 2003 which was damaged and then taken out in an air strike by the Americans themselves to stop it falling into enemy hands.

[@leathan7]

UNITED STATES OF AMERICANS* As an argentine this gives me an anxiety attack.

[@leathan7]

@Rondole Dingle Yessir.

[@joostdriesens3984]

@@leathan7 Maybe the commander of the air strike was originally from Argentina.. 😉

[@leathan7]

​@@joostdriesens3984 Haha :'D The last time I traveled (Argentina->Qatar->China) with my Mexican friend we had a hard time explaining I was American but south American from Argentina, and he was American but north American from Mexico. Just watching their assumptions of us change in real time said it all :'D

[@HereticalKitsune]

Sounds plausible. Didn't expect a scuttling... Still, the most modern one die just as easily as the older ones.

[@ANIMshit]

Yes, but in modern tanks crew survives 👌

[@pogo1140]

@@ANIMshit Not if the ammo in the carousel is hit. If those are hit, the crew dies.

[@emortalelitegaming2667]

@@ANIMshit or and shrapnel is inside that hits the crew or they burn or fly with the turret

[@milybanily]

@@ANIMshit That's the idea.

[@slavicemperor8279]

@@pogo1140 It is a bit harder to penetrate T90M carousel though due to an additional protection.

[@_datapoint]

Excellent analysis as usual. Thanks!

[@kilx81]

You didn't analyse frame by frame of the few last frames before impact. Also yes the Carl Gustav has backblast. A tank has a front blast... But blast is short and will be just another dust/smoke cloud. That said impact explotion looks a bit too large to be a Carl Gustav. But I've only shot 50mm dummy targets with it. Not a tank.

[@Xenitity]

Scuttling happens a lot in combat. It is most likely a sign of a good tank, for them to scuttle it instead of just straight up abandoning it, which its technologies will fall into enemy hands. You wouldnt want a weapon that was just developed with what little technology you have to just fall in enemy hands so fast right off the bat yeah?

[@bensharp575]

Yep. Been there. Seen it done. In Desert Storm, a great many Iraqi tanks were hit by long range gunnery from M1A1s as well as Apache helicopters. And Iraqis were questioned who said they were under orders to scuttle their tracks if disabled. With the old T72s, it isn't hard.

[@NeuroScientician]

That's too much thinking for russians. Good chance that it was hit by the other tank by accident.

[@discover854]

Is it because these Russians soldier have experienced in combat? I have noticed that there were a lot of incidents of Ukrainian troops capturing fully intact tanks and APC left by the crew after they retreated either ran out of gas or disabled since many were not up to maintenance standard.

[@Xenitity]

@@discover854 Weapons that are outdated or easily oneshotted are mostly left behind for they no longer serve a purpose and wouldnt make a bjg impact even if fell into enemy hands

[@martyndyson9501]

This tank will most likely have been scuttled so it could not be used as propaganda by the Ukrainians to embarrass the Russian government, destroying it because of its advanced tech will have been a secondary thought. Ukraine is not building their own tanks so that information wont have been top of their desire list, maybe the Americans would have asked to have a good look at it after the war, but as far as this tank being destroyed because its a good tank id say that wasnt what either side was thinking first.

[@chaosXP3RT]

The first US losses of Abrams tanks in Iraq were actually disabled and then scuttled by their own crew when they couldn't be recovered. It's not uncommon. But it is the sign of a good tank. Tanks should be durable enough to be repaired, and if not, at least protect their crew. The Russian T-90 is their best tank and it shows

[@cascadianrangers728]

Same thing happened to tons of Tigers, Tiger II and other WWII German heavy tanks, in many units the tankers destroyed more of their own tanks than the Russians did

[@MikeDarr61]

This should have been done to our equipment left behind when we bugged out of Afghanistan.

[@Tanker000]

Correction: The losses of the Abrams in Iraq were Iraqi M1A1 Abrams that does not have depleted uranium armor

[@Tanker000]

@@MikeDarr61 Cus of clown Joe biden the guy that you literally voted for. Now we have a sleepy Joe in the white House

[@milybanily]

@@cascadianrangers728 42%

[@dnate697]

Two different T-90s. 1. The gun tube is over the Back of the Hull or backward facing. The other one is facing over the right-rear of the back deck fender. One turret is blown much more off the hull!

[@berserkasaurusrex4233]

Weird that the turret completely changed orientation between being hit and how the wreckage looks days later. The turret doesn't even move when the tank is hit, so it isn't the impact that changes the orientation.

[@sarkybugger5009]

Nice to hear a human being narrating one of these videos, and bringing some reason and logic to the proceedings. Subscribed.

[@vajaga4624]

Oh, if you are interested in tanks. This is the channel :)

[@michaelhowell2326]

Great breakdown. I'm with you, I think the Ukrainians get credit for the kill but the Russians finished it off to prevent capture. Kinda like the Bismarck.

[@weld546]

? The Bismarck wasn't scuttled to prevent capture

[@niallking2762]

@@cmdrmonkey Half right. Her rudder was jammed by a torpedo, which meant she could not escape the oncoming British fleet. The fleet in question, made up of Rodney, King George V and several cruisers and destroyers then proceeded to pummel the living daylights out of the Bismarck, to the point where she did not have a single gun turret capable of returning fire. She was even torpedoed by the Rodney, as well as by a number of British destroyers after being rendered silent. However, you are correct that scuttling charges were placed and detonated, though these would've only compounded any flooding and structural damage and were not solely responsible for her sinking.

[@JKGaming1414]

@@weld546 the Bismarck basically couldn't sink, no matter how many times britain shot it, even with large caliber guns at relatively close range. Pretty hard to believe, but it's a pretty established story now.

[@lordulberthellblaze6509]

In the battle of Midway. Of Japans 4 carriers lost. Only Kaga was directly sunk by the dive bombers. The rest were damaged beyond repair and scuttled (torpedoed) by their fleet to prevent capture.

[@pogo1140]

@@JKGaming1414 Put enough torpedoes into the Bismarck and it will sink.

[@cheesevampire110123]

Im not versed in any sort of military analysis, but if it is the same tank why does the video show the barrel of the tank pointing to the left 1:06 (as it was destroyed) when the pictures show the barrel facing forwards(after being destroyed) 1:46 ???????

[@calvacoca]

Well. As advanced as it could be, a tank is always a tank, and just a tank. A tank can no longer change the course of a war or a battle just because it has better armor or more advanced electronics. Anti-tank weapons have become so powerful that any tank is no longer the master of the battlefield.

[@Bestmilfgaming]

The problem with the russian strategy is that they excpected AT assault not a "vietnam" type war or partisant war...that's the problem, and now they're paying for it...also underestimation of Ukraine

[@zolikoff]

They expected to just roll into Kiev as a military parade. Of course conpared to that expectation the military parade did reasonably well before being forced back, despite zero training and combat readyness. Ukraine has the fighting spirit Russia didnt expect, but their military capability is still inadequate.

[@NexusAlex696]

@@zolikoff "despite zero training and combat readyness" ? Mate look at the events after 2014 all the way throw 2022 (lot were in ATO ) , other thing was pmc's that were gaining knowledge and expirience outside of country (either in direct combat or under instructors ) . All of this is just a small piece of a big pie

[@tsakitx8190]

Also western Anti tank weapons that where made to destroy Russian tanks, and a lot off them

[@zolikoff]

@@NexusAlex696 Didn't say Russia has no trained personnel. The military "parade" convoy to Kiev however was mainly crewed by brand new conscripts with no experience. It was not expected to actually have to face serious combat.

[@oak9065]

They estimated Ukraine fine, what they didn’t estimate/expect was the upwards of 4 billion in military aid and equipment given to them by their allies

[@MichaelGreen-dm2ov]

Nice video sir. This is all I heard was that the T-90M was taken out by a tank hunting team. This shows that the Russians know not to let the tank fall into enemy hands.

[@obsidianjane4413]

Except they did. Even as a wreck, they abandoned the field and let the Ukrainians claim a victory

[@yarnickgoovaerts]

@@obsidianjane4413 what victory? A burned down and unusable tank is hardly a victory

[@czechpatriot2230]

@@yarnickgoovaerts It's a big propaganda victory. People will believe everything Ukraine say.

[@francoiscamy5066]

A destroyed asset is a victory.

[@MrVolodus]

@@yarnickgoovaerts 40 000€ in scrap metal :D

[@DocFripouille]

Seems so obvious to me but.. how do you explain cannon location? From some footage, like the tank being destroyed, cannon is directly 90 degrees of left side, right the middle pointing toward North while in some footage and pictures we clearly see the cannon not at all there but totally in front of the tank. Now, for the sake of easier passage I could imagine the possibility of the cannon being pushed around but I have some doubts about that. To me it seems like there's a problem there with the cannon not matching some footages.

[@eliminster06]

his analysis of the carl gustav is slightly off. It is correct for a standard he, hedp, or similar rounds in that the back blast forms most of the dust cloud but a heat 751 or atfs round has a rocket motor to shorten flight time, having fired a few of these they have as much dust in front of the firing position as behind in a loose dirt area. They also make a shrieking noise as they are flying to target that can be distinct from a normal carl gustav round.

[@mindtrickskiller2766]

The US has done this to the M1s. Crews scuttle their M1 to prevent the Iraqis from capturing it. Does it count as an M1 destroyed by enemy fire? By this logic yes.

[@MrFelblood]

Well, if you put your M1 in a position where disabling it means you destroy it for them, then an enemy with enough firepower to disable it can destroy it. That's a risk you have to calculate for.

[@xKongou]

Its 1 less Tank you can use. So the Enemy wont have to fight against it.

[@Cryshalo]

In the end it doesn't really matter at all, does it? At Midway the Japanese carriers got their coup de grace from their own escorting destroyers, but that doesn't somehow invalidate being sunk, or that we credit the carrier strike groups with their destruction.

[@sarahnade8663]

It does matter cause of what the T-90M is actually designed for. The tank is far more a propaganda piece than an actual upgrade for the T-90. A lot of Russian equipment is like this where its designed more for looking good at the crowed at a military expo rather than being a practical weapon of war. So the fact Russia is using these propaganda pieces in the war itself is a sign of how desperate they are now. These things are very expensive and Russia cannot afford to replace them. Also looks really bad when the thing they've been parading around to show how stronk they are gets blown up by people they've spent the last decade trying to convince to Russians are neo-nazis.

[@carval51]

@@sarahnade8663 lol I feel there is no winning for people like you. russia use older tank, you cry waagh russia economy cannot sustain advance tank or they did not care about their soldier. russia use more advance tank you call it desperate.

[@sarahnade8663]

@@carval51 I'm just describing the reality of Russia's situation. They are a country that just doesn't have the economy for a first rate army and cannot afford to actually field the T-90M in the numbers needed to be relevant. So if they can't afford to field it in decent numbers, its little more than a propaganda piece.

[@Lucillestfu]

@@carval51 there’s no winning with people like you who brutally simply extremely complicated topics the Russian armed forces will never fill the shell of the Soviet union used to be old or new Russian tanks are plagued by underfunding poor crew survivability and awful supporting logistics.

[@Kareszkoma]

​@@sarahnade8663 The T-90M was supposedly bigger than the T-90. It was supposed to be both a modern tank and a western-style tank. This is very important. Western Tanks are more individuals and skirmishers, traits of survivability and durability mixed in. While the T-90 is smaller, less impactful, moves in formations and in hordes. You wouldn't expect a T-90 to do, or end a mission alone. But, this is what the T-90M is for. Leaving the cold war and soviet principles. I'm unsure what I exactly wanted to say at the start. This tank has a very thin armor. First, I thought the turret looked different too, but it seems that's the same. Why isn't this tank buffed thou? Why is it so big, without extra armor or anything? Because as you said, propaganda. "We can do what the westerners do." But they really can't. The tank would collapse. The thing is, Russia cannot do complex bearings. They are buying those. From my country and we stopped selling them. The tires? The same. Russia, in the USSR times, was very far from best. Compared to Eastern Europe, a very run down place. But they could do very many basic things. If they needed, they would replace complex, with modular or basic things to make them work. Russia can't do it. Current Russia lacks the production. The reason is big cities. Putan is absolutely hated in most big cities. But big cities have the population, work ethic, and density to actually run those productions. A worker from the countryside will not work like one in the big cities. They have very different ethics. Even if the public education is the same, the work ethic, how they work is not the same. This is the same in Europe and the USA. Someone who comes from the countryside, you can see, like they were dropped into a different world. Not shameful, it's just how it is. Without these people, Russia has no production. And of course they don't. People want better and to come out of the dark ages. Putan and the state cannot offer anything but public decay. This wanting for a betterness is the strongest in the cities. Because they have the bigger shops, communal areas, talking, more services, more life comforts, and more tools. The most working culture and highest efficiency to match it. This does not exist in Russia. So Putan failed as a leader, a governor, and failed the Russian people.

[@ClaymorePT]

The tank tower position is different in both images. In one, it is rotated to the side. In the other, it is alligned with the bottom part of the tank. It cannot be the same tank.

[@bruney74]

Not to doubt, but if we track the blast it seems to head into the tree line on the left of the screen. You may be right, it is just as I see it.

[@SovietRussianBear]

And the moral is: no matter how advanced the tank is, it is not invincible.

[@gotrefer6183]

Especially when you invade someone...

[@DS.J]

Thing is while this tank is 'advanced' compared to other Russian tanks, it is not really advanced compared to Western tanks from even 30 years ago. It still suffers from the same fundamental design flaws and lack of strong armor, poor quality optics and thermal sights. Crew survivability while a little bit better than T72-B3 it still sucks very bad compared to any post 1970s Western tank design. So while it is 'advanced' in the Russian context it is by no means advanced in general if the equation includes Western tanks.

[@SovietRussianBear]

@@DS.J Like we haven't seen western tank designs go up in smoke in Syria, Yemen and Iraq!

[@webcrawler9782]

everyone who played computergames knows that. Guess Russian Generals haven't...

[@nielsen9691]

Slava Ukraine!!

[@tonnywildweasel8138]

Farmer in the neighbourhood : "shut down the tractor son.. they destroyed it.."

[@InsomniaCured]

i quicky scanned through the comments, but in the "kill" shot from the tank behind, the turret is in the -90 degree section of the tank. and in the "destroyed" tank state at 180 degree state more of less.. i havent heard you say anything about this. can you please elaborate?

[@IblameBlame]

The M1 tank exploding at 5:35 seems to already have incurred some damage on the side. Maybe it was also scuttled.

[@vizender]

From what I can see, before the t90M gets destroyed, there’s a clear black spot on the right side of the tanks that should not be the shadow of the tank itself. It could really be some damages on the track wheels, that caused the tank to be incapacitated. And maybe the shot actually went through to the crew compartment, maybe killing/injuring them or maybe not, but at least damaging some internals, and the armor on the side was compromised, hence they could not recovering it, so they destroyed it

[@Armoredcompany]

I couldn't help myself. When you asked "so how did it get destroyed?" my brain IMMEDIATLY snapped to "simple, it wasn't wearing it's cope-cage"

[@johnswoboda2986]

Great analysis. Subscribed.

[@charlesrichardson8635]

Thanks for keeping us straight. I like reading your balanced videos.

[@Briguy1027]

I agree with you in the sense that the T90 is just sitting there and not moving.

[@tankman64]

Any tank can be destroyed.

[@rogue__agent5884]

Most people still don’t get that...

[@rogue__agent5884]

@@UrbanskiWasAlreadyTaken yes

[@trueemperor1164]

@@UrbanskiWasAlreadyTaken Cough A-10 pilot who mixed British light tanks with Kaz trucks but yeah everyone mixed equipment not even web warriors but also army (lack communication,bad visibility...). I don't doubt that also sometimes Ukrainians and Russians have blue to blue accidents.

[@tankman64]

@baileyboy73 baileyboy73 yeah, ok.

[@eternalemperorvalkorion750]

@baileyboy73 baileyboy73 because it never goes to battle

[@bencheevers6693]

What do you mean it's the same tank? I mean it could be but the turret has rotated a complete 90 degrees after it was already destroyed, how did they do that and why?

[@screwyu1329]

I noticed that the main armament on the dead tank and the one shown getting hit are pointing in different directions. The dead tank is pointing to the rear and the one that got hit is pointing to the side.🤔

[@nerome619]

Given the tracks of the tank prior to getting back onto the road it looks like it may have had some issues and perhaps just broke down - very expensive thing not to recover.

[@MrFelblood]

Actually, if you can disable a bunch of expensive hardware, and force the enemy to waste their time fully destroying it for you, that seems like a double win.

[@hm-mt3wj]

So technically, the Taliban defeated the Abrams?

[@samholdsworth420]

@@hm-mt3wj Afghanistan is no place for an Abrams 😂

[@goldenhate6649]

@@hm-mt3wj I mean, not that hard. The abrams isn’t designed to protect itself, just the crew. But good luck moving a scuttled abrams as it weighs 70 tons

[@basedlibertarianz910]

wEll AKTUALLY...

[@achair7265]

@@samholdsworth420 I saw a video where a Abrams just ate a IED as if it was nothing. One in the crew popped his head out like "What was that?". Depleted uranium armour is something.

[@eicher1232]

Very good work! Thank you very much.

[@lutramage6252]

Very impressive and persuasive analysis, both of the likely action and of the political consequences. First class.

[@yuanxinwang8219]

my personal theory is that something on the tank broke (t-90) as we don't see any obvious blast marks present, so it most likely is an engine or transmission failure, but on the drone footage I was able to spot a shadow on the right side of the tank, maybe it's spare tracks or something

[@dmitrit.4862]

Maybe the Ukrainians damaged the tank rather slightly, but still enough that it could no longer manoeuvre on its own. Unfortunately, from this perspective it is not possible to see whether the track was intact. I can imagine that the tank hit a mine.

[@yuanxinwang8219]

@@dmitrit.4862 how tho, because if the tank hit a mine or got shot then the surrounding ground would have blast marks, it wouldn't be just bare

[@dmitrit.4862]

@@yuanxinwang8219 What if the mine exploded beneath the tank? That would be enough to damage the tracks but that does not mean that the entire tank is blown up (due to mine protection which is pretty normal nowadays).

[@yuanxinwang8219]

@@dmitrit.4862 mmm true...

[@3sides2everystory]

Finally, A video based on facts and not propaganda. Keep it coming

[@fafski1199]

Hmmm, I've just re-watched it. I'd advise you watching it again. But instead, focus on the small dark green round "bush?", located at very the top end of the smaller skewed rectangular "grassy" patch, within the scorched area (top- middle of the screen), at 1:07. (Just below where you pointed it out in 2:20) You'll see an accelerated cone exhaust and two directional shockwave blasts come from it, just a couple of frames before the T-90M explodes. Both are roughly centred on that area, with one cone being directed straight towards the explosion on the rear left corner of the T-90, (the other occurs in the opposite direction). This is reminiscent of some form of ordinance, being fired from that position. Also look at the plume of smoke in the sky produced by the fired ordinance, as it zooms out. In perspective, that's also located directly above that grassy area and isn't anywhere close to that rear tank. Also, unlike what you said, an anti-tank weapon being fired actually produces quite a lot of both back and forward blast. It is after all, a missile that's being fired. An ATM being fired very close to the ground, that's mostly in this case made up of ash and dirt, is going to throw up a lot of that, in it's wake. The blast and smoke produced in that position, also occurred just before the tank explosion (by a couple of frames), so it couldn't have been caused by a shockwave from the tank explosion. However, it couldn't have also come from the rear tank firing it's turret, as it is out of the direct line of fire between it and the T-90M. If you would have again used your triangulation "lines", you'd have instantly seen that it's line of fire to the T-90M, is way over to the right of that area and is instead, almost straight down the dirt road (which BTW, likewise would have thrown up a trail of dust down that) Also, if the other tank did fire, then the smoke plume produced from it's turret, would be located above and slightly in-front the tank (around a tanks length or two in front of it, at most). Instead, it's located ~70-80 feet away and is way over to the right. Which like I said, just happens to be right where that grassy rectangular patch & bush located. Also, a tank firing it's main cannon from off of a dirt track, would have stirred up hell of a lot of that dirt. This would be from both the recoil and shockwave produced from firing a turret. So much so, that I doubt you'd barely be able too even see that tank, until a few seconds later, because of all the dirt, that it would have thrown up. Again, just a couple of seconds later, there is nothing to be seen close by, except for some smoke rising from a fire burning close to right, on the roadside. I'm pretty sure (100%) the T-90M was hit from behind by some anti-tank weapon, hidden very close to that green grassy patch, possibly from that "bush?" or maybe from somewhere you had the arrow, at 2:20. The fact, that it was also being filmed by a Ukrainian drone at the time, kind of also backs up what was initially stated by them and it was indeed an ambush.

[@3613jeremy]

It surprises me how a big slow expensive tank is considered so important now days seeing so many hand held weapons can take them out

[@honeybadger6313]

I agree with your analysis. Like you say it doesn’t matter. Ukrainian forces did the initial damage.

[@dotabuff5288]

AND? WOULD IT HELP NEO-NAZI UKRAINIAN REGIME TO WIN WAR? ABSOLUTELY NOT, WE ALL SEE WHERE FRONT IS MOVING - TO KIEV, FORMER RUSSIAN TOWN WHICH BY MISTAKE WAS GIVEN TO IDIOTS

[@charliegareginyan9584]

You are very likely correct. If you look at the turret machinegun mount the gun is removed so it is likely that the removed the machinegun before destroying the tank. Also I recall a similar incident in the Gulf War, a disabled tank (either a challenger or abrams) got disabled and couldn't be evacuated, so they used their other tanks to destroy it.

[@boxerbhai2905]

They recently captured another undemage t90M.

[@ryanflood635]

I think you are wrong on this. At 3:04 you can see the firing position off to the left. The earlier clip of it being hit, you can see that the ground that was disturbed by the rocket points at that direction… on top of that. The claimed tank you would assume doesn’t need to get so close. And although the turret isn’t facing them. They surely would have seen they were behind the hull and fired at the first opportunity, not drive down the road and park behind them to fire.

[@xAlexTobiasxB]

Your conclusion at the end is correct. It doesn't even matter who is directly responsible for destroying the tank, a loss is a loss regardless. And we will likely see more T-90M's being lost in the next days and weeks, since it is just as vulnerable from the sides and top as any other MBT. All tanks nowadays are completely vulnerable to top-attack missiles anyway, unless they have some dedicated hard-kill APS that can stop top-attack missiles, which Russian tanks don't have yet (except for the T-14 Armata which is not even in fully operational seervice yet, or only very rarely limited)

[@MrFelblood]

Yeah, and it's not like The Black Sea fleet has been a winning advertisement for Russian missile interdiction systems lately.

[@hm-mt3wj]

Does that mean that Abrams tanks were lost in combat?

[@xAlexTobiasxB]

@@hm-mt3wj Yes of course

[@jr-wn9yf]

@@xAlexTobiasxB Um the US army has not lost “a lot” of abrams. not sure where you heard that.

[@xAlexTobiasxB]

@@jr-wn9yf literally any public news article and source confirms that the US has in fact lost Abrams tnaks in combat. You are deluding yourself if you deny the facts

[@user-mf4kz7br6t]

awesome analysis!))) it would be nice if the author also explained how the turret of the damaged tank turned 90 degrees counterclockwise ?! Well, the wind didn't turn it, did it?

[@DuwMinh]

was wondering the same thing. Only thing i could think off would be how russian tanks generally have their ammunition stored in teh carousel, by the gun-mantle, and "maybe"(?) the rear hit causing some of the remaining the ammunition to ignite and blow up, lifting the turret and spinning it. Mind you that this si jsut a VERY wild guess, as thats the only thing i could think off.

[@hacksawhackmann]

On the right side of the tank bottom of the screen there is smoke coming from the bushes. Is that one of the vehicles In the picture?

[@true_xander]

Finally, a western analytic with no bias to one side or another. One of the few, a real Journalist with a big J. With all the respect from Russia.

[@BSMerlin064]

If they had to destroy the vehicle to stop it falling into enemy hands, that just leads to the question of why they couldn't recover it? Surely recovery would be priority, especially if they had accompanying infantry- which those tanks SHOULD have in support.

[@Maverick-gg2do]

I mean, they probably left in a hurry to avoid additional casualties. They were already ambushed and the enemy knows exactly where they are. If they just stick around there, they might get hit by artillery fired on their position. Or any number of other weapon systems.

[@crocidile90]

This is where the BTG fails as it is more equipment than personnel. If a BTG digs in, you would have to have 5x to get them out (but this is an offense not a defense). Also the lack of logistics prevents most recoveries from happening. I know the US scuttles Abrams for the fact we have a stupid about of more hulls to use (and the builders still stay hired) and it is just easier if in enemy territory. If they were close to a FOB, them you would have a point.

[@hideshisface1886]

This is the thing - this would indicate that Russians, for some reason were not in a position to recover it. Typically, when you are the attacking side, you tend to be a position to recover your destroyed stuff, because you are the one moving the frontline (basically, destroyed stuff ends up in territory more or less under your control), UNLESS you get beaten so badly that enemy counterattacks and you have to bail as quickly as possible OR if you are ambushed from such a direction that recovery would not be feasible. In any case, this also gives certain credibility to Ukrainian claims that they are actually pushing Russians back, at least in some capacity. Russians seem to be very light in infantry support during this whole shtick - even from the very first days - you could see that convoy trucks had absolute bare minimum of crew - just the driver and no navigators/assistant drivers. BMDs were also frequently shown driving with incomplete crews and no embarked infantry (though, I can't in good conscience blame anyone for not wanting to embark into this clown car of an AFV). It appears that Russians were convinced they would be able to punch through with heavy duty stuff and artillery alone, with very minimal infantry support.

[@trololoev]

it is secret tank and this secrets cost hundreds times more that tank itself.

[@rogue__agent5884]

I’m guessing because the situation they were in They had to retreat and couldn’t recover the tank So they had to destroy it

[@vaunfestus9768]

I was an Abrams crewman, I've seen destroyed M1s in Iraq, Syria (ISIS)captures and M1s (Saudi) damaged or destroyed by Yemeni rebels. Not sure why a few T90s destroyed is that big of a deal. Shit happens.

[@chemiszt]

Basically cuz “ruski bad”, “NATO is a defesive alliance” and “ukraina is a totally peaceful country”. Khokhols gotta get some info-peremohas to keep the hype up, and sometimes they do actually get ‘em 🤷🏼‍♂️

[@rogue__agent5884]

Ye it’s most people that don’t get it And think tank are indestructible And those that get destroyed are “bad”

[@pz_faust6866]

@@rogue__agent5884yeah ite the contrast. The more tank got destroyed means it is tested, more experience they could get to improve it. Also the fact that any tanks made for specific purpose and not go invincible jack of all trades.

[@ntks6720]

@@chemiszt Finland and Sweden are going to join nato now ,any special military operations ?

[@ntks6720]

cause they have only few of it

[@jjstealth7]

Explains pretty much why T62 being taken out of cold storage into the battlefield. The quantity matters when Javelins and AT4 are flying around.

[@remoquillojosemiguel1105]

That would only result in manpower losses which is even more detrimental than material losses as you will loose trained crew which are in finite supply

[@jjstealth7]

@@remoquillojosemiguel1105 Russian government sees their soldiers are expendable. Russian soldiers are looting and stealing everything in claimed areas. Grain, Steel, electrical and every food product, even PlayStations to try to make up for the financial loss...

[@remoquillojosemiguel1105]

@@jjstealth7 its so damn wasteful of them. All for what.

[@checkeredflagfilms]

No mention of the drone footage...who shot it and likely they (pilot) could shed defining light on who, what and where.

[@aksmex2576]

If you look at how many older tanks Russians lost vs new and how many they have active, you can clearly see the new tanks are not being killed off as easily. We have seen that some tanks have tank atleast 6 hits before being destroyed.

[@classicgalactica5879]

But they are still being destroyed.

[@aksmex2576]

@@classicgalactica5879 What's your point? Do you know what a war is? Did you expect zero losses? Where does your stupidity end. Ukraine has a good army with a lot of AT weapons, in any war you take losses. Maybe with Russians a little more.

[@CountingStars333]

@@classicgalactica5879 they aren't titans.

[@trey6563]

@@classicgalactica5879 nothing is invincible

[@krogunlimitedfahrenkrog6110]

Of course the are being destroyed, we are giving them the best anti-tank weapons by the truckload. We are lucky that in the last 2 decades of occupation in the middle east, China and Russia weren't supplying many thousands of the best/newest weapons, or we would have felt far heavier losses as well. The right answer is we don't go to war, because all war is hell.

[@angryzombie8088]

I agree, after years of playing War Thunder, the explosion looks more like it got hit by a another tank rather by ATGM.

[@bubblenugget1335]

war thunder lol

[@kennethcurtis1856]

This isn't a game. Go to your mommy's basement and play etch e sketch.

[@bubblenugget1335]

@@kennethcurtis1856 what bro? no arguments just being offensive

[@dazknight9326]

Besides the 90s, 62s, it was also T54 55s, BRDMS I call them bedrooms, along with other transport types, yes. Archangel Michael

[@nathanz7205]

Thank you for clearing things up! keep these amazing videos up! we need the facts with evidence.

[@grimmerjxcts2206]

At the End of The day Tanks are not invincible

[@PropperNaughtyGeezer]

The T-90's turret doesn't seem to fly as far as the T-72 and T-80's.

[@Andy-P]

That why it is their best tank.

[@slavicemperor8279]

Due to an armored carousel

[@trololoev]

noone can beat leo2 turret flying in Syria.

[@waskus]

@@trololoev well you can find a russian tank in Ukraine, where you see the turret fly like 150 meters Up in the air. Beat that😂

[@mrmacias4217]

That shit was not funny

[@killerabdenour1409]

The possibility that when the tank was hit, it broke down and the crew couldn't repair it, they sabotaged it and blew it up with a friendly tank or an airstrike.

[@alexgrynevich3980]

great insight, keep it up

[@hyhhy]

I think that it does somewhat matter in the grand scheme of things how the tank was destroyed. Because this kind of thing is a great example how a tank can be found on the battlefield completely destroyed, yet its crew can still be completely alive and healthy.

[@liamholcroft7212]

Could you elaborate because I'm struggling to understand your point. I think it doesn't matter how because a destroyed tank is a destroyed tank, whether you did it or not the tank is out of combat. Are you suggesting that unless you destroy the tank, killing or capturing it's crew, the tank's crew are still a threat to you?

[@fgp0032]

@@liamholcroft7212 I'm guessing he means no human lives are lost, therefore the crew can be used once again, no need to train another one, and this one also gains more experience. But I don't know how disposable human lives are in the Russian army...

[@ChasseurTueur]

@@fgp0032 i think Russia cares about human lives, when they invaded Ukraine to defend/liberate Russian speaking Ukrainians

[@lolguytiger45]

@@ChasseurTueur Obviously they care and they have lost no where near the 28,000 being alleged by the Ukrainians. The guy you are responding to must believe the ridiculous propaganda about Russian losses. They have lost maybe 2,300 at most.

[@MrFelblood]

@@ChasseurTueur *Some* Russians care about *certain* human lives. Just because the weather sucks and they are accustomed to their leaders treating them like cattle doesn't actually mean Russia is immune to war fatigue. It's complicated. The idea that all human beings are part of one brotherhood, like we have over here, just hasn't caught on yet. It seems kind of alien or barbaric to treat fellow human beings so callously, but this attitude of "my Country/Nationality/Ethnicity/Tribe/Clan/House/Self first" wasn't uncommon anywhere, so very long ago. They could still come around.

[@Itagain2day]

Let me point out that this is a different tank. Where as the one hit in the video, the turret is 90 degrees to the right while it got hit. Contrary to the damaged tank, it is pointing directly to the front of the tank.

[@Adlore]

the bits of the tank have been moved to take up less space. You can also see paths where other vehicles have driven around that destroyed tank. all it would take is another tank driving on its side to push the turret from sideways to the rear

[@blister762]

The gun is actually pointed over the rear of the tank. And its obvious they pushed the turret around to clear the road of the main gun. That wouldn't take much force at all.

[@joostdriesens3984]

Sometimes I wonder where people get their reasoning skills.. . the video creator gives about 10 believable reasons why it is the same tank and you conclude it is not, solely on the position of the barrel, which could be moved by different methods for a number of reasons.. 🤔

[@jamesavery3559]

thank you very much but something is not quite right, when the tank is hit the gun is at 90 deg's to the right and in the after pic it is over the rear of the tank.

[@fimbles1015]

The turrett on the tank was facing right when it was destroyed 02:20. The wrecked tanks turrett faces forward 00:54. So close to lift off :P

[@axentic]

Great video! Very detailed and unbiased with all the necessary fact-checks and analysis! Keep up the good work! And looking forward to more videos like this on the military hardware used in this horrible war.

[@dogethe1st725]

well at least the turret didn't go flying

[@MaestroAbar]

Your analysis is most likely correct, and you can also see how the front left side of the T90M is clearly damaged from some sort of impact separate from the impact from the rear, which most likely incapacitated the vehicle. Ukrainian forces may have perceived that their initial attack caused enough damage to the T90M and destroyed it, and claimed it as such. We'll never know.

[@infocrypt]

Exceptional review and analysis.