Russia's BMPT: A Tank for Urban Warfare - The Future of Tank Combat?

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

For an analysis with historical context on Germany's announcement of the 100 billion for the Bundeswehr and 2 % GDP for the defense budget annually. See this video from my second channel: kzbin.info/www/bejne/o3W4dp-AjpmrhLM

[@gustavmeyrink_2.0]

There is practically no difference for Germany between 100 billion and 2% of GDP.

[@williamyoung9401]

Lol, Russian Wikipedia. Yeah, that might not be a reliable source of information.

[@JewEngiMan]

namer means tiger

[@liammiddleton3064]

Any in Ukraine?

[@Korfax124]

Hey MHV, I've tried to look through your channel for the new Puma IFV and its development history from the Marder and changes of reality. Are you considering making such a video in the future?

[@EminencePhront]

I love hearing someone with an Austrian accent say the word "Terminator".

[@asorbli]

Oh wow, I thought you were german as an Austrian. So I now I know next to Ceave Gaming two english channels from an Austrian with over half a million followers. I am convinced though, as unlikely as it seems, that this has nothing to do with the algorithm as it makes total sense to me for me to stumble across these specific contents and sticking to them without even knowing the creators to be Austrian at first + German, Austrian and Swiss KZbin is borderless and I know by far more german speaking KZbinrs than english ones but only one of them is known to me as Austrian. This doesnt add up. I know how ridiculously unlikely and stupid it seems for this having nothing to do with the algorithm. It seems to me that people from Austria have a talent for succeding in terms of popularity :/

[@kirill6850]

Griaß di!

[@osrikking8785]

I love the Austrian accent. "Throw another Shrimp on the BAR-B!

[@EminencePhront]

@@osrikking8785 Not sure if joking...

[@osrikking8785]

@@EminencePhront 🤣

[@unknown0soldier]

Another reason to use a MBT chassis for such a vehicle, despite its disadvantages, might be the fact that T-72 is already being mass produced and it has been tested numerous times in different conflicts, so: a) it's cheap to make because of mass production b) it's quick to produce and maintain because of readily available tooling and infrastructure c) the design is tried and true, it has been extensively modified and improved during the past decades.

[@alexdunphy3716]

*already has been mass produced*

[@pokiparkassistent]

Also Russia could convert existing T72s when the T14 would hit mass production. But then again I think russia will be done before that happens

[@kuo8088]

Refitting can extend the service life of an otherwise outdated design, and act as either a stopgap or be more economical with what they already have.

[@hausaffe100]

@@alexdunphy3716 already mass destroyed, slava nlaw

[@hausaffe100]

@@kuo8088 not gonna be a lot left to extend service live on

[@guaposneeze]

I do think it will be interesting to see what a "tank" looks like in 20 years. Current MBT's are all designed around a WWII-Cold War kind of doctrine of big field battles of tank forces. A big low elevation gun and masses of frontal armor is important when fighting other tanks. But MBT's are clearly not perfect for the actual battles that they need to fight in real wars today. I dunno if BMPT's will be the main combat vehicle in 2040. But I know something like a BMPT will be a source of lessons that informs whatever we are driving around in the future.

[@WildBillCox13]

Colonel Nick says: "No Mechs and no hovertanks". I enjoy his work, but think he's exactly wrong in this specific case. When we have disagreed in past, he is usually the victor, but hope springs eternal.

[@bozo5632]

Small drones with big punch. Tanks mostly obsolete.

[@derekbowbrick6233]

Bolo's. lol

[@WildBillCox13]

@@derekbowbrick6233 Yep. Keith Laumer was decades ahead of his time.

[@redwillrise]

@@WildBillCox13 how do you want to build a hovertank? If you're referring to hovercraft-type propulsion, well that is fuel inefficient, loud, vulnerable, mechanically complex, and slow. Not exactly what people are looking for in AFVs. If you're thinking more like hoverboards, that kind of hovering is firmly in the realm of science fiction.

[@grizwoldphantasia5005]

I appreciate this analysis, since I am no land war expert or even amateur. A new perspective stirs my gray cells.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

thank you!

[@michaelguerin56]

Good video. Those grenade launchers instantly reminded me of multi-turreted tanks. No surprise to see them deleted on Terminator 2. I suspect that we may be heading back to the establishment of special armoured divisions, like the British one in Western Europe which controlled and lent out vehicles such as Churchill Crocodiles for specific short term operations.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Me too, I guess they are relic of the first iterations, but considering that they have limited stabilization and fire arcs, I guess it was not worth it.

[@WildBillCox13]

79th Armored under Percy Hobart, a man with controversial views both good and bad.

[@-few-fernando11]

I too was imidiatly reminded of mutly turreted inter war designs, and the Chieftain (Nicholas Moran) obviously.

[@manumano3887]

@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized what is your assessment of the performance of the russian army till now based on open source Intel ?? Also where do you think this war is headed.

[@specialingu]

What strikes me as odd, is there's no front "co driver" machine gun, like nearly all ww2 tanks had.

[@ivanstepanovic1327]

One more fact about BMPT: The reason it has 2 autocannons is because they didn't use feeding mechanism that select different ammo types before firing. Instead, they load certain ammo loadout in one and different in another cannon. So, when you need to switch ammo types, you change the gun that fires. Of course, both cannons can be fired at the same time should the situation and/or the gunner demand.

[@JNF590]

Thanks for the info

[@ericconnor8419]

I think the purpose is for propaganda at home, to export to rich Arabs and perhaps to frighten Ukrainians. I don't think they will be very good in actual combat against a proper military with air power the armour is poor and it will attract fire from everybody. I would not want to drive one into combat. We will see, I hope I'm not wrong.

[@nemisous83]

1. the BMPT isnt an urban warfare tank. the point of the tank was to augment tank battalions similar to IFV's to engage infantry and light skinned vehicles while the tanks could focus on killing other tanks. 2. the BMP-2's 30mm autocannon wasnt a result of the afghan war because it was accepted into service in 1980 with prototypes existing in 1978 and 1979 before the soviet afghan war. It was actually a response to poor performance in the 1973 yom kippor war.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

1. At one point probably, but that has clearly changed, the BMPT concept ran through many iterations. 2. Hmmm I heard something similar before and forgot it, this seems to be a recurring myth. I will keep that in mind.

[@JG-id5vi]

"Urban warfare tank"is an oxymoron.

[@MrDeicide1]

@@JG-id5vi Not if it's a mini remote controlled tank :D

[@nemisous83]

@@ruzziasht349 all this conflict is proving is how antiquated tanks are becoming and or that some form of APS has to be standard on the vehicle.

[@edustef41]

I'm fascinated by these urban-fighting vehicles, would love to see more information about the BMPT, the BMP-3 (with the 100mm HE gun that the Object 782 had, originally planned to go into the BMPT) and the Israeli Nagmachon, a very "exotic" APC/IFV.

[@benjaminnickerson3961]

There's also the BMP-64.

[@nisher15]

Gonna have real time combat data very soon..

[@visionist7]

The Nagmachon is cool

[@alexdunphy3716]

There is an interesting BMPT-lite type vehicle being made for a north African country(Algeria I think) out of older Soviet tank hulls and bmp2 turrets.

[@jhtsurvival]

@@nisher15 it will go boom

[@alderontyran]

Something interesting to take from the current war going on is that "Sieges" in the traditional sense (blockading a city and starving it out), may make a resurgence as Urban/Infantry Combat continues to become more dangerous. It would make strategic sense that you would avoid fighting battles you don't have to and starve the enemy out if possible.

[@alexdunphy3716]

Plus masses of civilian casualties looks really bad and will demoralize your own army. Cities can't sustain themselves so whoever controls the fields wins

[@tefras14]

That is actually a very fair point. There will be strategies on how to sent a re-supply in the city as well using aircraft for example. Then the attacking force will have to employ a deterrent for that as well

[@jonathanpfeffer3716]

Sieges never went away, they have featured in plenty of wars (especially Russian ones) throughout all of recent history.

[@flavivsaetivs5738]

@@jonathanpfeffer3716 well "sieges" as in traditional sieges (an army blockading a city and only assaulting it when supplies are running low) are becoming rarer and rarer. The only proper siege during ww2 was leningrad, as moscow nor stalingrad were surrounded

[@chucknoris7648]

@@tefras14 I was thinking that they need to invest heavily in modern supply chains defense and offensive tactics to capitalize on the vulnerability of modern supply chains. You can see the Russians right now struggling with 40 Mille long supply chains.

[@Coddykin]

Worth noting that the Ataka can also use thermobaric warheads, so good against vehicles or buildings depending on what warhead they're using.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Good point.

[@GARDENER42]

Good for committing war crimes too...

[@jamesricker3997]

Which is why the Infantry will shoot it first

[@antred11]

I was wondering what the point would be in designing a tank specifically for urban combat and then adding useless complexity by sticking ATGMs on it, but this explains it.

[@usokitsuki]

@@antred11 ATGMs are there to still retain the ability to engage armored targets that your cannons are of no or little use on, so you arent 100% helpless if you turn the corner and find a fricking Ambrams at the end of the street. Not saying you will be surely able to destroy it, but at least it gives you options to shoot it with that arent moot. Being able to load different munitions type when you 100% know there aren't gonna be Abramses sitting around corners is just an added bonus.

[@puma51921]

Problem with all armor, once they enter a city and are separated from their Infantry, they are not long for this world.

[@marzapan9029]

Russians would never do that.....

[@codfusilli5879]

@@marzapan9029 They always do that in Ukraine! 🤣

[@codfusilli5879]

@@marzapan9029 They always do that in Ukraine! 🤣

[@jazz.560]

I really enjoy your videos on modern conflict and vehicles They are very informative and entertaining.

[@noneednoneed5752]

Currently being tested in the SeveroDonesks couldron, in a few weeks you could make a review of their combat effectivness.

[@manfredconnor3194]

Man your English has improved so much since I started watching your channel. I just wanted to give you some kudos for that. Du bist nicht weit weg in Österreich.

[@thedungeondelver]

As a kid of the Cold War (gen x) hearing "according to the product page" about a Russian AFV versus "according to our best intel estimates" or "according to Janes Defence Weekly"... kind of blows my mind, still.

[@TheBinaryHappiness]

Russian miltech is very secretive to this day. And for a good reason!

[@WendyDaCanuck]

@@TheBinaryHappiness yeah because they don’t want anyone to know what worthless pieces of crap they have. 😂

[@bobgreene2892]

We really appreciate your documentation on sources in a very dynamic and often confusing area. That renders your articles much more reliably in-context and even authoritative. Your pronunciation is improving-- and/or we have learned to interpret. Many thanks for the great (as in "substantial") effort in this report. We subscribed, of course.

[@tsclly2377]

45* elevation may not be enough, especially with drones

[@paulsteaven]

Many regular IFVs has 75° (and higher?) elevation for their 25mm/30mm/40mm autocannon that can be used against low flying targets (drones, helicopters) at the same time, also equipped with at least 2 ATGMs.

[@lwilton]

45 should be good in a 6 story or less city, or where you have a large square or park between you and really tall buildings. Driving down Wall St in NYC would not be a place where 45 degrees would be much use. While that exact scenario is unlikely, the Chinese are building lots of tall buildings, and urban planners everywhere are insisting on the need to cram more people into as small a land footprint as possible, so 20 to 50 story buildings will probably become common a couple of blocks in from the urban edge.

[@tsclly2377]

@@paulsteaven 'misprint'?

[@johnlansing2902]

With no apparent cooling system for the barrels I wonder what the maximum firing time is per engagement . Thank you for another great lesson .

[@visionist7]

By the time you've reloaded the guns the barrels will have probably cooled

[@essex3777]

or trained to withhold fire to only bursts.

[@everythingsalright1121]

They dont hold that much ammo. Its like around 400 rounds IIRC so with such a high RPM it cant sustain it for long

[@johnlansing2902]

@@everythingsalright1121 thank you.

[@uegvdczuVF]

@@johnlansing2902 Those are variable rate of fire guns. 200-600 rounds a minute combined. So these are more like a gun you will find on Bradly than the Shilka's anti air autocannons. Between the low rate of fire and the two separate barrels the air-cooling is fairly sufficient, especially in the Russian climate. So like others said you are more likely to run out of ammo (around 90 sec. of continues fire) than to overheat the barrels.

[@pavelslama5543]

15:53 In the case of BMPT, even low caliber AP shells are very likely to penetrate right through and transfer less kinetic energy into the target.

[@TheKenigham]

I’m thankful for your channel! It’s a formidable source of information!

[@kingpopaul]

you mean "tankful" I assume. Would be a shame to miss a good pun.

[@dytiscusmarginalis8443]

will there be a variant with copium cage addon?

[@sida9439]

Main weapon is mounted to far back to be effective in urban enviroment. You have to expose to much of the vehicle in order to fire "down the street". You would want to have the main weapon as far front as possible so you expose less of the vehicle. I know it looks ugly but its more effective.

[@ericconnor8419]

This was designed to look scary, not be effective.

[@harrybalanovsky2169]

@@ericconnor8419 Considering russian exp. with AA tanks in Chechnia - it is effective. Besides it can look down, because gun is a little bit lifted.

[@djlapio93litlebro]

16:45 what if the geurilla fighters are well equipped, like with NLAW's and Javlin's?

[@robincray116]

NLAW and javelins operate under exact principle to RPG. The major difference is top attack features letting them hit thinner top armor and tandem charges to defeat ERA. The actual damage from the jet is more or less the same story. NLAW and Javelin is not some magical tank killing machines. It is an incremental improvement from older HEAT systems.

[@fiendishrabbit8259]

The T-14 vs T-15 is not really that strange. They're both based on the Armata platform where the first is the MBT version and the second is the IFV version. A fair bit of interchangability, although the innards are pretty different.

[@everythingsalright1121]

The chassis is still different enough that you cant just put a T14 turret on the T15 but thats a given.

[@andriidorohov2044]

The Armata tank does not exist and will not exist. This is a project where money is stolen. The idea was developed in the Ukrainian SSR. Hence, for many years the Russians have not been able to put this tank into production. The same T-34 tank, which the Russians attribute as their achievement, was developed in Kharkov in the Ukrainian SSR. For many years, nothing has been invented in the Russian Federation, and everything that was before was stolen from the peoples of the union. The same Korolev who developed the space rocket and sent Gagarin into space was not Russian. From here, draw conclusions about how a large and rich country in natural resources is now living in the poor.

[@arandomperson7713]

@@andriidorohov2044 T-14 has seen combat in Ukraine.

[@andriidorohov2044]

@@arandomperson7713 Don't make me laugh. He could not pass on the parade and stalled. The Armata project is a grand theft of money. The Russians could not even make old tanks without German and French equipment. After the sanctions, it becomes unrealistic. There are no technologies in the Russian Federation. All that is at war is the development of the USSR

[@lexburen5932]

@@andriidorohov2044 the moscow tank quards army is equipped with T14 tanks. To much propoganda for you.

[@AlaricAchos]

THANK YOU for listing sources, so few do.

[@anonviewerciv]

3:00 Unlikely origins. 7:27 Specifications. 13:31 Performance.

[@Ismail-oy9eo]

what is the difference between the role of ww2 tanks, and modern tanks? and are tanks getting less and less effective because of personal anti tank weapons? it looks like 1 man with a at launcher is a threat to any tank if he is within 500 meter of him.

[@nerd1000ify]

Cold war tanks would be expected to fight at longer ranges, often against enemy tanks or IFVs due to infantry on foot being too slow compared to mechanized units. Hence the emphasis on massive frontal armour (especially against HEAT warheads of missiles or infantry anti-tank weapons) and very long range accurate guns optimised to fire sabot rounds against enemy armour. Urban environments were always bad for tanks, even during WW2. Infantry AT weapons back then were often grenades, mines or heavy rifles, which would be totally ineffective in open areas but in close quarters could sometimes damage a tank.

[@PunishedRalph]

Tanks in WW2 much less vulnerable to infantry, aircraft, ATGMs etc. Sure, there were other tanks, anti-tank guns, rifles and some RPGs, but the proliferation of easy to use and relatively cheap armaments that can peel a tank over in short order is incomparable. You're better off not getting hit, than having to carry that much armour, and munitions do not need to be fired at high velocity to have sufficient impact anymore.

[@CrazyDutchguys]

During ww2 infantry carried AT weapons were absolute garbage. You would basically be safe from them past 100m. Even then, often they did not even have the penetration to go through the front of your more well armoured tanks. Nowadays, AT weapons can do some crazy things, besides their range (4km as mentioned by someone above), they've also got penetration values 8 times that of ww2, that and top attack missiles exist, almost nullifying armour in its entirety. WW2 tanks were breakthrough machines, being basically unkillable by infantry from any decent range, requiring AT gun ambushes or another tank destroy. Only up close

[@TorBjornDoom]

@@CrazyDutchguys This feels like the most appropriate observation. The intended purpose for tanks is never truly utilized (based on your descriptions), especially considering how most conflicts now operate as urban warfare. Why use something like an MBT that can be outdone with technology that is cheaper to make, easier to use and distribute? Tanks still have a role to fill, but it does not appear to be as important and necessary as it was in the wars of yesteryear. It would make sense to focus more on just air superiority and armored technology that is better engineered for urban combat - which would fall to IFVs and APCs. The fact that infantry have significantly more viable and disposable options to confront armored vehicles makes a compelling case for a concept that will inevitably become obsolete. I guess tanks could be seen as migrating to a niche role?

[@romaliop]

@@CrazyDutchguys I think the MBT will become something that armies need to have to not be in a disadvantage, but won't really get much utility out of when they do have them. What I mean is that if you can protect the MBTs well enough, they will wreak absolute havoc among the enemy's IFVs and APCs for a very low ammunition cost. And wherever you have them, the enemy has to dedicate a lot of very expensive equipment and weaponry to neutralize them before they can safely move forward, especially if they don't have MBTs of their own. Air-to-surface missiles, infantry carried AT missiles and the IFVs AT missiles are all relatively expensive and the numbers game can rather quickly go into the MBTs favor if you can't destroy it with a couple of shots and end up losing a few of your own fighting vehicles in the process as well.

[@dual5ivese7ens]

Please remove "Not for actual combat use for display only" tag before driving around the town.

[@NonApplicable1983]

Excellent timing for this video.

[@RyllenKriel]

"...lessens collateral damage. This is important to win hearts and minds." Wait, we are talking about Russian military doctrine right?

[@tickticktickBOOOOM]

Yeah, I thought Russian doctrine is along the lines of, "Why bother with hearts and minds when you can grab them by the balls?"

[@fortunemaster668]

We are talking about urban combat with civilians still inhabiting the houses, so, there will be damage. Plus, situation where you wouldn't care about decreasing collateral damage are fairly rare in general.

[@saviet4222]

The Russian army is currently heavily restrained on their comduct with minor civilian casualties. Their focus is actually that. Many soldiers are being told that they will be welcomed as liberator and many interacted with the local as such.

[@BeingFireRetardant]

Groznygrad and Pepperidge Farms remember...

[@meisterproper8304]

@@Entropic_Meat_Machine what's wrong with thermobaric ammunition? It's not like they are the only ones using it

[@basecoat1966]

"lack of preparation and poor communication" are still mainstays of a Russian offensive. 1:45

[@TheFranchiseCA]

"Unencrypted short-range radios were cheaper, so I bought those instead of the official order. Then I rewarded myself for finding a good way to save money. Was that wrong?"

[@aaronseet2738]

I wonder if a tank with _double turrets_ albeit lower calibre weaponry would be better suited for urban warfare. Able to cover more angles (front and back) simultaneously with wider situation awareness.

[@dennisyoung4631]

Thanks for the comment. This sounds usable in a fictional context, e.g. when going into built up areas, several vehicles, each with *three* two-gun turrets, enter in column and have two guns in one direction and the third in the other. Note also the turrets are staggered, hence most of the guns can fire ahead and *blanket* an area with medium caliber shells, 20 - 35 mm.

[@aaronseet2738]

@@dennisyoung4631 Russia did designed multi-turret tanks before but they weren't successful. But who knows with better tech these days.

[@dennisyoung4631]

@@aaronseet2738 I think the "t-35" might have been one of them. (Checked.) Note that the three-turreted vehicles mentioned earlier have surprisingly destructive shells for a given caliber, e.g. a "27mm" is as bad as something a good deal larger here for both blast and splinters, if somewhat less capable in terms of *penetration.*

[@aaronseet2738]

@@dennisyoung4631 A 27mm back then and a 27 mm today can mean very different things. The A-10 has "only 30mm". Today's tanks are throwing out thin darts.

[@hothoploink1509]

Hey falls du drei kleine Tipps bezüglich Aussprache möchtest: - Discrepancy sprichst du seit längerem falsch aus, du legst die Betonung auf "pancy", sie muss auf aber dem "cre" liegen - Emphasis oder emphasize wird das "ph" wie "f" ausgesprochen - Mountainous wird ausgesprochen wie Mountain und dann us (wir) hinterher Habs gerade beides getestet, google translate sagt es korrekt falls du es hören möchtest. Informativ gesehen ist das Video aber super :)

[@theacme3]

bitte noch TeKnikal nicht teCHnical ;)

[@Cubeforc3]

Just to add if it helps. VEE-hicles, not veHEEcles.

[@abyssstrider2547]

Ja, sein Englisch ist bisschen schlecht. Aber bist du sicher das er ist Deutsch? Weil er klingt mehr Ost Europeanisch zu mir.

[@hothoploink1509]

@@abyssstrider2547 Er ist Österreicher, hat mehrere deutsche Videos gemacht.

[@abyssstrider2547]

@@hothoploink1509 Ich verstehe, tut mir leid dafür. Aber es ist bisschen seltsam, ich wie jemand der ist aus Bosnien zu sprechen besser Englisch. Doch mein Deutsch ist total schlecht.

[@apo617]

Probably helps if you have gas for it and your crew doesn’t abandon the vehicle.

[@wulferikgebhardt5312]

Newest attempt to curb desertion: Crew hatches padlocked shut from outside during combat. /s

[@joelogjam9163]

How much would we get weighing this stuff in as scrap?

[@BD90..]

Given enough troops with anti tank weapons and an ambush these won't fair too well anyway if it is taken by surprise from multiple directions and angles. It can still only fire in one direction at time.

[@meisterproper8304]

That's rather obvious, nothing can defend itself from multiple sides simultaneously

[@polygonalfortress]

Interwar tank designer: obviously we should put more turrets on tanks

[@terryharris1291]

I wonder how they will look with dozen or so petrol bombs on them.

[@juanzulu1318]

How was the doctrine for the German Gepard Flak Panzer of the decades? Did it include fighting ground targets?

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

No idea.

[@antonleimbach648]

Urban environments are playing a larger part of warfare fighting due to population growth and the idea of “suburbs” which were not common during WWII.

[@deaddoll1361]

Suburban sprawl still isn't common in many countries.

[@ED-es2qv]

Is that symbol a guy with a crowbar standing over two bodies? Labeled “suppressing anti defeating infantry” at 10:20? Did you make that up?

[@dabaschti7660]

The fight against ifvs like the Bradley or marder can also work the other way around...because the turret of the terminator is so small its more likely it would hit the turret of a Bradley and eliminate it first

[@willthorson4543]

That's not how it works. Lol

[@Chironex_Fleckeri]

You're spitballing. Not terrible logic, but I would say that claim is dubious at best. Real combat situations are complex and there are many things more important than being slightly narrower of a target. If the Bradley finds this vehicle first, it wins the majority of hypothetical 1-on-1 engagements, and vice-versa. I'd say modern IFV are so precise with their armaments now that relative size of the vehicle superstructure is somewhat less of a factor.

[@dabaschti7660]

@@Chironex_Fleckeri jeah of course who ever shoots first wins is the rule most of the time but in the video he claimed that the russian terminator can be knocked out by other ifvs if they shoot the turret...yes its possible but i would consider a terminator much more effective in combat against other ifvs then a bmp2 or bmp3 because of its better hull protection...my point is that a Bradley's or marder allways would need to hit a turret on the terminator and in return the terminator would only need to hit center mass and even the turret of a Bradley is a bigger target...so in an even engagement the terminator would win against most ifv if its target and aiming devices are on the same lvl Btw excuse my terrible english im just on the way home from a 24h shift and its not my mother language

[@jonathanpfeffer3716]

@@dabaschti7660 it just seems like the worst of both worlds. You have the chassis of a tank, so are heavy and slow, don’t have good enough armor as a tank or the firepower of a tank. ATGMs are already the primary means of dealing with vehicles since they have much longer range than guns, so the Terminator possibly being able to survive some shots seems like an unimportant factor.

[@michaelhowell2326]

The Terminatior reminds me so much of the Skink. I love AA guns that went from vertical guns to horizontal.

[@predattak]

Oh here we go again on Russian Tech. The lazerpig loop is NOT a meme. It's real and proven time and time again.

[@alexdunphy3716]

So the difference in the terminator 1 and 2 hulls is that 1 is a MODIFIED t-90 chassis, which they had to do major changes to to get the additional crew and grenade launchers in there. You can tell by pictures that the hull roof is taller than a normal t-90 or t-72. The terminator 2 uses an unmodified hull, just with new turret installed.

[@alexdunphy3716]

Also the turrets aren't unmanned, the crew is just below the turret right, sitting in the turret basket

[@WildBillCox13]

I admit I like the additional crew survival implicit in such a vehicle. Your tophamper gets shot up? You back around the corner and go have a sandwich, while maintenance fits a new turret to your tank armored steed. From my perspective, a dozen Grizzly Skinks (quad 2cm Polsten Cannon) with ERA add-ons (and thermal imagers) should do the Urban cleanup job. Back them up with a trio of AVREs. That's orders of magnitude cheaper and already proven in combat. DARPA lately developed a rifle caliber, LASER homing bullet/projectile capable of being rapid fired from a conventional (.30cal) M60 MG. Put an Illuminator on the end of every soldier's AR and the MG carrier can sit back a mile or so, fire a thousand round burst, and the troops illuminating the target can watch the fun as every round strikes the bulls-eye. Adapt the mechanism to 30mm and it might win wars. "Now we gettin warm . . ." -L Armstrong

[@romaliop]

The idea of troops pointing lasers at enemies instead of just shooting them by themselves seems pretty ridiculous to me. At the very least you should give them an illuminator they can use from behind cover.

[@csanadbarczy9153]

Those Javelin missles don't care what the tank is called, they just open the top with ease.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Pretty much stated in the video, but than again you would have to watch it first.

[@csanadbarczy9153]

@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized I know, great video!

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

@@csanadbarczy9153 thanks!

[@herosstratos]

Urban warfare is characterized by complexity, confusion and surprising changes in the situation. It is therefore of crucial importance that a corresponding weapon system has a suitable thermal imaging device with a large field of view. In addition, therefore, a command system is necessary with efficient means of easy communication with various other forces such as dismounted forces, engineers, mortars, artillery and combat helicopters. By the way: against opponents in modern reinforced concrete buildings, the 30 mm gun is insufficient in its effectiveness.

[@soronkanos3640]

thank you. i didn't know about the siege of Marawi, just looked it up nice to learn new things, and that last quote will be always be relevant. remember history, do not repeat mistakes made by others.

[@V0MAG]

this vehicle is more or less the same form factor as a MBT (length/width/height), that's why I don't see this vehicle concept to be working that great. The complexity of such a vehicle is in discorrelation to a Panzerfaust 3 or an NLAW in so many regards. The only thing this concept does is sustained fire power, but Infantriy AT weapons are so much cheaper, they can be used after some hours or even minutes by everyone (Panzerfaust 3 is considered "soldier-proof" meaning dumb-proof), and their form factor to effectiveness is much better. Such weapons also boost morale of soldiers and at least give them the chance, hope and some reliability to have something to fight with against armored targets. Personally I don't see any vehicle concept to be suitable for Urban Warfare. My opinion is that only well trained and reasonably well equipped Infantry is suitable for Urban Warfare, this includes mainly small spotting devices and midrange accurate weapons.

[@raphaelambrosiuscosteau6685]

Battles in syria showcased that even in such situations they needed tanks to provide fire support for attacking infantry, where tanks comes out only to make 2or 3 shots with HE and instantly retreat, cause even infantry needed time to get to position for anti tank weapons to aim properly. Now imagine that instead of tank there is bmpt. Its got immense firepower against infantry, makes literally hell on earth for specific buildings, got 360 protection against RPGs, and in addition got thermals and fast turret traverse speed to quickly spot and destroy any infantry with anti tank weapons.

[@VT-mw2zb]

You can make the same argument in 1944 with regards to a Panzerfaust and a T-34.

[@matteoaievola8643]

For Tanks it will be very important to have some kind of infantry fighting vehicle, especially from an ambush on the sides or from behind with AT weapons. Most important thing to know is that RPGs don't one shot tanks like in Hollywood and Video games

[@jintsuubest9331]

What's bad about something having a mbt form factor? It is comparatively smaller than most ifv, because not needing to carry the extra meatbags, while also retain, if not exceeding in firepower. I would argue 40mm is much better in this case. The complexity of such vehicle is... What? I don't get your point. Pzf3 and nlaw will do damage to [insert vehicle] provided hitting the right spot. That doesn't make [insert vehicle] obselete. That's not how arms and armor works. No one is disputing the effectiveness man portable at weapon but at the same time no one is in the process of removing their armor and switch to go kart. What you need to defeat a well equipted infantry is a couple Toyota hilux and some 50 cal. Or some bobby traps. Or some snipers. Or some suicide drones. Or the list goes on and I think you get the point. Training can only get you so far. Many of those setup will not do shit against say bmpt. Urban warfare is hard because you can't really anticipate what's around the next corner, especially when the enemy has a large presence in that area. Your best bet is a combination of infantry, light armor, and heavy armor, all working together, and hope nothing goes wrong. Not rely solely on some joe on the foot that can get dink by so so so many different things.

[@UnreasonableOpinions]

It's just too big. While it reduces many of the less-useful features of a classic MBT in urban terrain, the size and weight of it mean it still has most of the same vulnerabilities, like road traps, pits, obstacles and the like. Getting an urban armoured vehicle light enough to climb over rubble and small enough to force themselves into buildings without collapsing them on top of it seem like they should be the priorities.

[@PeterMuskrat6968]

My single biggest gripe with these tanks are the actual design. Putting both of the barrels separately on independent mounts and then not actually making sure the mounts are stable when firing basically just leads to the barrels just shaking violently back and forth whenever you try to shoot with them. All of the footage I’ve seen of these things whether that be training or actual battlefield use in Ukraine have the wacky barrel movement issue. Sure you could come up with a better mounting system or just reinforce the damn connecting points so they don’t shake like Michael J Fox.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

> just reinforce the damn connecting points so they don’t shake like Michael J Fox. lol

[@stalkingtiger777]

The U.S. Army put out a video a few years back that all future major conflicts will be centered around large super cities surrounded by sprawling slums. I guess everyone is coming to the same conclusion. (May not be entirely what they said, but the best I can remember).

[@Nordkampf]

I don’t think any army is capable of making a guess like that. I wouldn’t believe it either, look at Los Angeles as an example, slums are located everywhere throughout the city, same with New York, London and Paris. With more compact weapons that are able to take out helicopters and tanks with only a few minutes of preparation I think it is necessary to have vehicle primarily focused anti infantry roles. The Russian development of this vehicle is undoubtedly going to change the way wars are fought. With the US’s recent experience in Afghanistan all throughout the 2000’s to the late 2010s they should have completely updated the Bradley apc. USA army leader is lacking and incompetent and it shows. Very little infantry support vehicles have been developed on since 70’s-80’s. A-10 and Bradley have been relied on for too long and it will cost many lives when the time comes for a war to be fought

[@romaliop]

I find it funny that anyone would come into the conclusion that in any more or less symmetric war you wouldn't first need to get your troops, vehicles and all that crap safely to the outskirts of the city before you can even start worrying about urban warfare. You could maybe argue that there will never be a symmetric war again, but then again the First World War was supposed to be the war to end all wars.

[@solhamer3502]

How will it fare against molotov cocktails?

[@oninja1919]

Current events have made me very skeptical of Russia's ability to develop and field modern military equipment. I legitimately thought of Russia as a near peer to the USA but after this Ukraine business I'm thinking they might have been a paper tiger this whole time. I appreciate this video even if some of the capabilities might not end up being quite as good as Russia will have you believe.

[@HibikiKano]

Probably the development on paper is better than the final result. Also corruption thankfully cripple russian modernisation.

[@MajorJimPlays]

The whole Russian system is flawed. Its about to come crashing down. They are a literal house of cards.

[@HibikiKano]

@@MajorJimPlays I really hope so.

[@SirAntoniousBlock]

@@MajorJimPlays Indeed, the corruption and inefficiency of supply logistics and the mutual fear and distrust between units leading to an overall lack of co-ordination during operations, also over 50% of the personnel are young conscripts of doubtful quality.

[@Asporez]

Another flaw of an MBT for urban combat is that if you clear areas with that platform, there isn't much left to reinforce by your troops and you are forced to keep relying on MBTs or fall back to terrain you can reinforce with infantry anyway, making progress difficult no matter the outcome of battles.

[@jamesricker3997]

It is an overly specialized anti-infantry vehicle. It looks good on paper but in reality it is a bad idea it will be the first vehicle to attract an anti-tank missile

[@BeingFireRetardant]

Amen. From this video I learned to hit the ZSU23-4 first, followed by the BMPTs. Five gallon buckets full of flammable goop dropped from rooftops should effectively blind sensor suites and lower crew morale. Then a couple thermite grenades to get the party started. Total cost to the defenders, even with a few casualties, does not equal one unit of these.

[@ldl1477]

@@BeingFireRetardant "Five gallon buckets full of flammable goop" -- So, the Molotov of the 21st century ... Yeah; ok you've sold me on it!

[@BeingFireRetardant]

@@ldl1477 I was trying to be brief, in order to be funny. How do I explain? I work in the industrial floor coatings sector, and there are many, many opaque bases to choose from, emulsifiers, epoxy hardeners, etc. that are viscous enough to "flow" but are sticky like a honey or paint, and with sufficient addition of a component of something like methyl ethyl keytone, become remarkably more flammable than they already are, depending on concoction. All easily accessible ingredients. All used in sprayers. Now do you see? Easy to apply. Hard to remove. Highly, um, illuminating... Just wait for the rumble of ten or so 50 ton vehicles coming down the block. Apply accordingly. Everyone who downplays the effectiveness of Molotov Cocktails on today's modern battlefield discusses the auto enacted fire extinguishers, etc. What everyone seems to forget, however, is that you are not fighting a physical battle with a highly sophisticated well armed and armored machine itself... You are simply fighting a psychological battle against three or four conscripts, of dubious motivation and intestinal fortitude. Men with dry mouths and nervous eyes. Make them sit, panicked and buttoned up in Indian Country, under small arms fire, feeling more and more terrified by the minute as they watch their buddy's burn alive and scream helplessly into the radio... Let me put it this way, unless exceptionally well led, out of a column of ten tanks, you only have to cook the first three crew. They will give you the other seven free of charge.

[@romaliop]

Not necessarily. If there's three of them side by side, it might even be the third one to attract the missile. Or maybe none of them would attract a missile, if the guy carrying doesn't feel confident that his ass won't be smoked by the other two the moment he fires that missile.

[@Mohamed-hv2zo]

Love your videos man, I’d love a video about the rashidun conquests.

[@WeekEndContractor]

How tough is it against javelin missiles?

[@Tyrs_Finox]

Lol, at 10:20 you have a pic of an old man with a cane for "suppressing & defeating infantry" :D What type of infantry do the Russian's plan to be fighting? Really good overview, it would be nice to see more on contemporary topics like this in the future, maybe more Open Source Intelligence analysis?

[@genes.3285]

I think infantry embedded in the city would have a considerable advantage over such a vehicle. It's obviously expensive to build, and has a crew of five. The Russians may be better off thinking along the lines of small robotics.

[@batuarganda728]

Vehicle support would probably still be important even im urban combat. Although probably just as fire support platforms thats not easily supressable. I dont know thats just me though. Sending vehicles in front would be a death trap

[@V_for_Vovin]

You still need to drive armoured columns through cities to get from point A to B. They require capable escorts.

[@znail4675]

Infantry have been able to kill tanks and IFV's since WW2, it have not ended the use of either. Both will stay in use until there is a better replacement and there are none yet.

[@АндрейРоманов-д1р]

Small Robotics - Ural-9

[@mikes.4136]

I think that the BMPT-15 Terminator 3 will be an improvement over the BMPT-72.

[@PeterMuskrat6968]

So… just like the T-14 it shares a chassis with it won’t actually be mass produced. It’s been a literal decade since the program was officially announced… a decade and a half since the “Armata” vehicle family was actually thought up as a project.

[@BeefaloBart]

Nice content. But did the fire suppression systems upgraded on the T-72 and was the same flawed system put into the T-80 and 90 and variations of them? The fire suppression system was not separate from the engine compartment and the crew compartment so a fire set with a simple Molotov could set fire to the engine compartment and the fire suppression system would discharge in both the crew and engine compartments using Halon. Halon will displace oxygen and suffocate the crew if they do not escape the vehicle. So a cheap molotov could remove said vehicles from combat.

[@qetiogusliriope7436]

Great! Can't wait to see them in action on the news!

[@slartybartfarst55]

The very important point at the moment is where are the weak spots. I believe many people in a certain Country would be eager to know this.

[@chubbymoth5810]

Probably the underside.

[@cestfixement]

I'm yet to see any bmp-t's fielded in any footage or pics, plenty of bmd, and bmp models and t72 variants... the cheaper and older vehicles, no t14's yet either

[@thelistener0]

@@cestfixement it would be weird seeing t14 since this year is the first year that they will actually have some (100 pcs) in actual units. But with the sanctions we shall see if they even manage that

[@CplTurdBird]

the top and bottom.

[@piotrgrzelak2613]

@@thelistener0 main export is energy, and every sanction here is only going to starve Europe. (that's why there were none) the rest is silence as they say

[@nigelbagguley7606]

Has the old design flaw from the BTR60 been addressed, whereby the fuel tanks were built into the rear doors.I can't remember if this was also a feature on the original BMP.

[@marcusborderlands6177]

It wasn't a flaw... Those were extra fuel tanks that could be used to store fuel if needed for long trips. Often they were filled with sand in combat.

[@shnek5143]

How is that a flaw? Aren't these vehicles diesels?

[@thebigone6969]

You’re the king of tanks Bernhard!!! You’re the greatest tank expert in world history!!!!!

[@jmus6494]

Can it run without fuel

[@wiggoER]

Cool new tank is the crew gonna bail when it runs out of fuel with this one too?

[@ianfarquharson3772]

Could infantry not use a shoulder fired rocket to take out the tracks from the rear? They look exposed with a big surface to aim at.

[@scottkrater2131]

My analysis, no matter how good the equipment, it needs well trained soldiers to operate effectively which it seems Russia lacks.

[@Br1cht]

Never wondered about why all the "Ukrainian victories" happen closer and closer to Kiev? Nearly all Western media is as accurate as the "Ghost of Kiev", Samuyil Hyde, i.e, totally false. They are now closing on Odessa and the advance is higher than the War of -67(Israel vs Arabs) and Desert Storm. Keep in mind that it took the German Wehrmacht five(5) months to take Ukraine in -41. The Lamestream media lies, quelle surprise.

[@clivedoe9674]

@@Br1cht Russia is getting slapped around. Ever wonder why you see all those videos of burnt vehicles and corpses?

[@bulcsutoth1134]

@@clivedoe9674 its war, casualties are inevitable. I did not see the claimed 5000 russian dead, just ocassional ambushes on supply convoys and a handful of abandoned tanks(which is a standard procedure if they brake down, the follow up troops will collect them anyways. You can not stop the advance because one tank breaks down). Dont have any illusions, there are way more ukrainian casualties than russian ones. The entire ukrainian southern front collapsed, Mariupol encircled, and the entire eastern front with ukraines best units is about to be encircled too. And the "winning" ukrainian army is ordering woman and elderly to throw molotov cocktails, and giving out rifles to anyone with a heartbeat. It will be over soon, and when the fog of war clears it will be funny for the people like u

[@thedausthed]

@@bulcsutoth1134 What is in fact funny is the fact that Russia economy is completely fucked, no happiness for the Russian fascists!

[@legallyfree2955]

@@thedausthed If western governments don't stop consistently spending more than they take in via tax revenue at some point our economies will be just as bad. Currently in my country they spend about 30% more than they earn and have been doing that since well before the pandemic (since 2008 ish). They have been dealing with this issue by continually lowering interest rates and increasing reserve bank balance sheets. Eventually something will break.

[@technophant]

High voltage cables around the sides could be added to prevent people from climbing on

[@l...]

Thank you for 60FPS May you use KZbin chapters please So we can share each chapter Like this in video description Chapter1 must start at 0:00 10 seconds at least each one Origin 0:44 Russian experience 1994-95 1:35 T-72 VS ZSU-23-4 3:05 Further development 4:25 Warning ⚠️ 5:08 Terminator l&ll 10:28 Short description 12:43 Analysts 13:03 Operational history 17:04 The future urban combat? 18:25

[@l...]

Like this source kzbin.info/www/bejne/mGKpoJKDlNmdbNk

[@scottostrowski5406]

How is it going to deal with mines or other weaponry on the ground? I’ve heard that stacked mines and IEDs can still damage tanks?

[@kyle857]

Nice IFV you've got there. Would be a shame to use it in a city filled with Javalins...

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

It is not an IFV at least not from the chassis side, but that makes little difference for Javelins from what I know.

[@Jason-35D]

Javelins or EFPs. I think EFPs are a huge problem for almost all armor.

[@King.Leonidas]

@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized if it's based on the new russian tank javalins according to theory should not be effective.

[@MeAbroad2004]

@@King.Leonidas I dare say we will know soon enough either way

[@piotrgrzelak2613]

Maybe wait until the war concludes and the propaganda gets verified or not. Then we'll see how well did javelin really do.

[@andremesot5144]

Great video ! Thanks. So terminator 1 = chassis T90 only & Terminator 2 = chassis T72 only, correct ?

[@wulferikgebhardt5312]

Considering the circumstances, perhaps a video on urban combat/guerilla tactics would be appropriate.

[@maxjohnson1758]

Dual cannons like that exert opposing force when firing and cause the shots to be inaccurate. There is slow motion video of it firing its cannons and you can see how the barrels are moving around all over the place.

[@tophat2115]

I think that vehicle will get eaten in an urban warfare scenario where anti-tank teams on roof tops could pop up, send a fire and forget missile and disappear in the ensuing chaos.

[@RonJohn63]

The solution to that is "surround the city, and then start shelling; use tall buildings (like hospitals and apartments) as aiming points".

[@Wayzor_]

@@RonJohn63 Yet. Russia is still getting their butts kicked by NLAWs... and Farmers.

[@RonJohn63]

@@Wayzor_ Russian troops are capturing more territory every week. (If that wasn't the case, then _lots_ of Russian gun artillery wouldn't have been able to make it to within range of Kiev after two weeks.

[@csanadbarczy9153]

It's happening now in Ukraine. These armored vehicles turned into scrap metal so easy! Armor is almost obsolete.

[@tophat2115]

@@csanadbarczy9153 without air superiority it most certainly is, I have a friend who was telling me about wargaming at the senior staff level and they came to that conclusion too

[@marcuspratt5867]

Great video! Could you maybe do a video on whether tanks are becoming obsolete on the modern battlefield or how you see their role changing?

[@sharwama992]

They aren’t because not everybody can afford anti tank weapons

[@SNOUPS4]

The BMP in BMPT is for "Боевая машина пехоты"

[@vladanlausevic1733]

Informative update 👍

[@ronaldo0grande]

I cant imagine how many fucking hours you put in your videos. Great images amd research. Thanks for them

[@wacojones8062]

From what I have read in various sources the 2 cannons will have different ammo one AP or API the other HEI. The missiles may take quit a while to reload from a truck or pallets. Ammo loading for the cannons may take around 45 minutes cleaning out links assembling belts then moving them into the storage boxes and running the belts up to the guns. It does not look anywhere near as simple as loading ammo in a Bradly where during any break ammo can be rapidly replenished.

[@Вадимра-э2ч]

For smart guys like you, they came up with manual automatic loaders. The ammunition for the guns is 1200 rounds. And the ATTACK-T ATGMs are installed manually in 20 seconds. Missiles cannot detonate because they are contact and radio-controlled

[@billmiller4972]

Reminds me to a modernized Kugelblitz ...

[@alexeysaphonov232]

“Wars may be fought with weapons, but they are won by men. It is the spirit of men who follow and of the man who leads that gains the victory.” George Patton

[@colinsdad1]

Could you do a video on the Panzerfaust 3 that Germany is supplying to the Ukrainians? It's popped up in a bunch of videos, so, I'm curious to hear how it works.

[@marzapan9029]

It goes into the side of a Russian tank. The tanks turret then ejects. End.

[@universalflamethrower6342]

There are video's of People using anti tank weapons against the Russians and they don't work. Many vids of destroyed tanks are ukrainian vehikels instead of Russian. After the war the fog will clear...

[@wiryantirta]

Speaking of urban warfare dakka-tank, ever thought what would happen if you put the GAU-8 on something like an Abrams-class chassis?

[@Win32error854]

The problem is that any IFV will be vulnerable in urban combat from portable ATGMs. While the BMPT is certainly going to be more useful than an MBT, it's still going to be a mostly stationary target that will be vulnerable no matter what you do. Whether or not armor is useful in urban scenarios will probably continue to depend mostly on how well armed and supplied your opponents are.

[@apocraphontripp4728]

How well do they work with an anti javalin improvised cage on top?

[@thehorsecockexpress1068]

It's Russian, it wont work and is all propaganda like the rest of its military. Javelin will clap this

[@sturmx96]

The cage was supposed to be against the commercial drones, which are used to drop mortar shells.

[@tonyl7286]

Weirdly enough, I think China's Type 15 is a good example of what future tanks will be like. Light, fast, versatile, easy to produce and with decent firepower (apparently it's capable of defeating tanks like the T-80 frontally - not bad for a 105mm). The armor might be terrible but if it's enough to shrug off an RPG it's good enough. It's hard to justify extremely heavy armor when tanks like Leopard 2s and T-90s are being opened up like tin cans by handheld weapons, but the advantages of being easy to deploy, crew and produce are clear as paper. All they have to do now is give it countermeasures against both projectiles and electronic warfare (jammers?), and turn the chassis into a universal combat platform - SPG version, "Terminator" version, heavy APC version, tank destroyer, etc.

[@TheArchaos]

While I generally agree with the notions, you seem to have forgotten one crucial aspect which armor provides, protection for the crew and since the crew do not take kindly being put into a tin can and scythed down like wheat, you won't see troops jumping into these flimsily armored pseudo-tanks. The human instinct of self preservation is a key factor in any war, if the crew do not feel confident in their equipment even the mightiest army can topple over.

[@romaliop]

@@TheArchaos Generally, if you're well protected against anything that doesn't stand out in a battlefield more than you do and have enough mobility to avoid engaging such targets in most cases, then it's more than enough for the crew. There's also safety in numbers. If you're in one of a dozen IFVs and run into a MBT, even if you're vulnerable and can't really engage, chances are that you're still in one of the vehicles that manage to escape the situation. And if every vehicle also has a few AT missiles, you might even be able to destroy the enemy even though you might also lose a couple vehicles.

[@TheArchaos]

@@romaliop You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, war is not a video game, engagements in combat are not a nice and tidy chessboard. I'm not going to argue with you about potential cherry picked lackluster situations, its complete nonsense and have no basis in reality.

[@romaliop]

​@@TheArchaos You have zero understanding of warfare if you think it's some sort of personal choice of the crews to go into these vehicles in the first place. What matters is if they feel more protected inside or outside the vehicle in any given situation and how much discipline they have to keep fighting in them even when it would be better for their own personal safety to bail out of them.

[@TheArchaos]

@@romaliop No, it really is a personal choice, soldiers are not robots, thats what you are assuming, soldiers can and will refuse orders if they think their lives are being wasted, its happened in every conflict known to man. Soldiers are not robots, stop playing so many video games :)

[@swedhgemoni8092]

Not in serial production yet, is it?

[@Creppystories123]

Yeah

[@ChristianThePagan]

´”Complete Russian armoured units were ambushed and destroyed ….” I could swear I heard of that happening … a lot … somewhere … in E-Europe … just the other day ??

[@jconrad8585]

Yeah sure, Russia is losing and ukraine is winning. Slava ukraini!!!!!!!!!!! Lmao

[@neues3691]

Wirklich guter und interessanter Überblick

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

danke!

[@Alex-hp8ew]

Its kind of annoying seeing people try to act smart in the comments by referencing the situation in ukraine. Regardless this another good video.

[@piotrgrzelak2613]

Propaganda machine needs its fighters everywhere

[@wilhelmu]

@@piotrgrzelak2613 Say anything good about russian tanks, you're gonna get called kreml troll

[@vaclav_fejt]

No wonder, it *is* highly topical nowadays. Despite the fact Berhnard has probably researched, shot, and edited it for longer time than just past two weeks.

[@piotrgrzelak2613]

@@wilhelmu Get ready for more of it, because western media changed covid programming to anti-Russia programming. The same zombies that have a blue-yellow flag in their profile picture now, are going to forget about it in a few months and be really outspoken about something completely different.

[@piotrgrzelak2613]

@@ruzziasht349 so far we saw several tanks battles in Ukraine and zero (0) javelin launches

[@pilongaracing8902]

Every tank gangsta until NLAW and Javelin shows up.

[@EpicThe112]

There are more coming in including Panzerfaust 3 supplied Germany and Netherlands to Ukraine. If BMPT Terminator has Arena active protection system equipment you need to trick the APS first that's where Panzerfaust 3 comes in then finish the BMPT-72 with United Kingdom Sweden NLAW US Supplied Javelin. Unless it has Shotra APS for NLAW & Javelin which would make it harder to destroy. T-15 has both activated

[@iamscoutstfu]

Hull mounted weapons? Why?

[@wrayday7149]

No matter how expensive or fancy the tank.... you drive over an IED or in Russia’s case only put $5 worth of gas in the tank it isn’t going far.

[@danielolguin6495]

Love your videos, great content

[@WhisperingDeath]

That's a lot of fancy talk for something that's going to be towed away by a Ukrainian farmer in a tractor.

[@XVENDETTA100]

Okay ......i know maybe my question sounds stupid.....but if rpg hit right into ataka /spiral launcher attachment that already loaded....the chance to be more f**cked up is higher than a chance of tank ammo explosion that stored inside if getting hit.... right ?

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

not entirely sure, I know that propellant from regular tank ammo burns up fast and leads to explosions, but in that case we talk about usually at least 10 rounds rather closes together and within the turret or hull, which is almost fully enclosed. I am not sure how the missile propellant works AND it is basically stored outside and there is only one more missile next to it, very different scenario.

[@XVENDETTA100]

@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized i only imagine that ataka is loaded outside and suddenly shooted by sniper.... Or any short range SAM that loaded into ground vehicle platform (automatically or manually operated by man) Is there any case that could be a reference ? I am difficult to find one ...maybe because shooting moving attached sam launcher is practically impossible ?

[@cordellej]

still a sitting duck in an urban environment . when u can only shoot up 45 degrees all i gotta do is go higher up or find a building closer to u . plus a cheap rpg7 grenade hitting dead center from ontop will take out both 30mm cannons and your machine gun. armoured vehicles are always coffins in an urban environment