Whatismoo's Unclassified Soviet Army Field Guide, Part 1: Tanks

[@newoldstock_]

That M60A1 ERA looks absolutely ridiculous. This is some real interesting and engaging stuff, dude. The incredible amount of work you put into these shines through, as does your intense passion for military history. Thanks for letting me contribute a little!

[@Whatismoo]

it is! CM-11 (a Taiwanese M60/M48 hybrid) and the later Magach series are even sillier looking, but only by a little bit :D

[@Mechanized85]

My feel is, sorry, you better get something to cover and aid your protection, rather than just only steel plate, that one didn't save, even yes extra protection won't do at always, but better than you had no chances.

[@touko_nanami]

This is amazing, way better than dumb 5 minute animations that just read the info box off of Wikipedia. Great work!

[@cosmoline_aesthetic]

That intro is a masterpiece! Love your aesthetics

[@Whatismoo]

I wouldn't have been able to do it without my friend over at Anachronimation! He did most of the heavy lifting on the motion graphics!

[@tylerrose4416]

This is an incredible video, it’s a shame this hasn’t gotten super popular.

[@mr.andrew9171]

I was never aware of the sans suffixe variations, how interesting. Excellent research.

[@Gunboatdiplomat]

Excellent stuff- looking forward to the rest of the guide!

[@abzalamangos2049]

I watched this video like 100 times. I fall asleep to it

[@jasonli378]

Love the intro. Looking forward to the other parts.

[@mensch1066]

Very nice work! This is a well done and much needed reference on this topic. One thing about Soviet tanks that really confuses me is their designations. For instance, if a T-54 was produced well before 1954, didn't weigh 54 tons and didn't fire a 54 mm gun I'm puzzled as to where the "54" comes from. The tank designations don't seem to have any consistent relationship with their "Object" designation either.

[@Whatismoo]

Well, from what I understand, and I will admit this isn't something I've got a solid source for, it comes out of the evolution of T-34 -> T-44 -> T-54. That said, they're semi-arbitrary designations, like how the F-18 refers to both the Hornet and the Super Hornet, or how the Tu-22 is both the Tu-22 BLINDER and Tu-22M BACKFIRE series, or how the B-29D got renamed the B-50 to sell it to congress. The Soviet procurement process was just as politicized and flawed as the American one, arguably more so because they had a formalized governmental body, the Commision of the Presidium of the Council of Ministers of the USSR on military-industrial issues (VPK pri SM SSSR / ВПК при СМ СССР). This meant that at one point in the 70's the USSR was procuring 12 types of ICBM, because Brezhnev and the VPK wanted to placate everyone and didn't cancel programs. They also did things like procure 4-8 nuclear basic loads of strategic missiles for the submarine arm to keep the factory running. I would imagine the wastage of this would be clear, given the dubious utility of stockpiled arms in the event of a general nuclear exchange. But it kept the factory workers employed, which was in and of itself a positive good in a socialist economy, and who doesn't want to exceed production quotas! The object designations aren't universally helpful, because, for example, the three T-54 variants all share the same object designation.

[@mensch1066]

@@Whatismoo Ok, that makes a lot of sense. It sounds like something I've heard (but can't confirm) as to why so many US Navy planes were designated "F4" in such a comparatively short amount of time (something to do with essentially tricking Congress into providing funding).

[@Whatismoo]

@@mensch1066 That was part of the 1962 implementation of the tri-service designation scheme for aircraft. This is why you had the C-130 and C-141, but then the C-5 was newer than those. Hence, the YF-110A got renamed the F-4C, and the F4H-1 became the F-4B.

[@overtoast1105]

@@Whatismoo gonna go ahead and mention that the Soviets ordering missiles solely to keep the factory running is not actually all that wasteful compare to other things you've pointed out. Having a factory with workers that have experience in building those missiles isn't something you can buy, and closing down the production line and inevitably having to re-figure out how to do what that factory was doing when something actually had to be made would probably take more money than just keeping the factory running

[@drexia8973]

This is amazing.

[@ErisAlter]

Wow, I learned a lot of things in this video! Great work!

[@K_Kara]

Just found your channel after reading your dissertation on Matsimus' Cold War Tactics video. Great stuff.

[@Whatismoo]

Thanks! I hope you found it informative!

[@jp38able]

Great Video and great series. Identifying russian armor is a daunting task and it took me a long time to figure it out myself. Your video could have saved me a lot of work :).

[@LoooSeR78V]

14:00.. I see you embrace my bashing of Kharkovites. Excellent, heh.

[@itsuk1_1]

amazing content thank you Whatismoo

[@samgeorge4798]

I can't wait to see you grow

[@L5Resident]

Outstanding Work! The intro is amazing!

[@orange_phoenix4774]

really great and worth the wait.

[@catonpeters780]

Great work! Have you thought about getting in contact with creators like TiK or Military History Visualized to get your channel more recognized?

[@BBBJOT]

TiK is below this to be honest. Way overrated youtube "historian"

[@Primeval_Atom102]

Excellent stuff

[@Yarxov]

Checked desc before watching-> saw Sturgeons house citations in the description-> subbed.

[@jonathanrogers4200]

Really great stuff. Subscribed just in case I need to go back and use this for reference in the future. Why the did the Soviets keep multiple design bureaus around? Was it to spur competition, fill different roles? How much was it possibly Soviet cronyism and favoritism within the military and government?

[@Whatismoo]

"Why the did the Soviets keep multiple design bureaus around?" Norman Polmar discusses this, the Soviet submarine design bureaus felt that 'here we had competition, under Rickover you had Stalinism' (not an exact quote, it's from 2004's Cold War Submarines). Their approach, having design bureaus submit designs or prototypes for competition, then selecting the winner for production by a separate concern, was designed to avoid wastage and ensure the ideal system was chosen. It didn't always work out that way, in practice. I wouldn't call the political maneuvering within the Soviet military-industrial complex Cronyism, per-se, but there were instances, cited in the 1994 report Soviet Strategic Intentions, 1965-85 by Hines, Mishulovich, and Shelle, where production of systems was continued so that the factory workers kept in work. This is because the workers continuing to work was seen as a positive end in and of itself. Favoritism might be more appropriate, though. That said, I'm not an expert on the Soviet Economy, so you should probably look into what they think as well! :P

[@decimated550]

​@@WhatismooI have a very pressing question. The Americans saw the BMP in the late '60s but couldn't get their own infantry fighting vehicle until the early '80s. Why couldn't we have done what the Dutch did and made the m113 more formidable with a 20 mm Cannon with an enclosed turret to protect the gunners from airbursts? Why did we have only a dragon infantry anti-tank missile for squad use, and the Soviets had so much better anti-tank infantry missiles? On those two topics, why do you think the American economy which could put a man on the moon in 1969? Why could they not get a more powerful APC and more reliable anti-tank missile or even an RPG? As I understand their RPGs could kill our tanks from the front and our laws could only smudge the paint from the front... Is there something Superior in the Soviet military industrial complex ? Were they less hampered by cost overruns and so forth?

[@Leader1623]

Awesome video - instant subscriber

[@mza131313]

excellent work

[@evanbrown793]

One would think that USA 1994 Test of USSR/Russian armor against NATO anti tank weapons, would be declassified and available via FIOA request.

[@Whatismoo]

nope!

[@sheeplord4976]

Russian armor hasn't really changed much since 1994. They still use much of the same stuff, and the US still uses some of the same stuff itself. Weapons development kinda just hit a wall for a bit.

[@jnlk2505]

thanks u for info comrade and nice video

[@anno-fw7xn]

Gerat video! Any udpate on the 1990s ussr tank or waht nato and usse tought they look like?

[@Whatismoo]

Not any time soon, I've been very busy doing my PhD and this is a hobby project in my spare time. The Ukraine War guide and Soviet Army Guide Part 4 Rocket Troops and Artillery will come first, at minimum

[@boldgambit7896]

Very well done

[@filipmisko9363]

For t80u and t80ud in soviet era only 30 t80u mod 84 with kontakt 1 where made in 1984-85 then was abandon for t80ud 715 producent in 1985-1991 (kontakt 5 form 1987). T80u mod 91 produktion start after fall of USSR with 500 product in 1991-1997 (it get kontakt 5 new simpler AA hmg mount and gtd-1250)

[@jaspermennink7409]

have you seen what the kharkov plant has been putting out since 2014 cuz they made some weird Frankenstein t64s and t72s

[@Hyper_1989]

Hey not sure if you'll see this or anything, but would you happen to know if the Object 195 uses the same roadwheels as the T-72/ T-90? I've seen some information that claims it does since it uses a modified Object 187 hull but its a little difficult to tell in photos.

[@Ebonyqwe]

Threat armour estimation is only qualitative when your tank commanders come back from the front and says OMFG we were decimated. Or more happily OMFG this is going to be a cakewalk 😂

[@KoishiVibin]

it is like armor vests! if all review are positive, perhaps all person who bought have come out well, or all the people who lived from inconsistent armor are only ones posting!

[@figmo4227]

Where have you been all my life ❤️

[@browning2471]

ah someone from the ghpc discord

[@toddthompson2782]

awesome video, i was curious, where did you find the line drawing diagrams of the armor upgrades? The ones where you have highlighted the era blocks and such. I am a scale modeler and that would be a great resource to have.

[@Whatismoo]

Lots of digging through reference info and scale model forums, actually!

[@toddthompson2782]

@@Whatismoo Thanks for answering. I found some helpful stuff at blueprints.com. but unless the kits come with the ERA and Kontakt or such there are not alot of aftermarket options. so im playing around with styrene.

[@Whatismoo]

@@toddthompson2782 I wish I could help but I'm very much a novice at scale models! Best of luck though!

[@toddthompson2782]

@@Whatismoo No problem, once again i really enjoyed your video.

[@whatthehell1338]

Are you going to make a video on soviet small arms as well?

[@IronWarhorsesFun]

GOD THAT OPENING IS SO COOL. Love that fun retro party music with badass AFV action. Also i say a helarious parody on World of Tansk about how similar soviet tanks tended to look expecially from the front called world of tanks: detective crime stories: kzbin.info/www/bejne/hHebgmCDatdjmbc

[@williamboyle17]

why do the soviet tanks have french in them ??

[@Whatismoo]

Not official designations, since Soviet designations are pretty vague (T-72B with Kontakt-1 and Kontakt-5 don't have a difference in designation, for example)

[@ivanmonahhov2314]

Sadly there are quite a few mistakes. Forgets T-62MD , T-62MV , does not distinguish between T-64A 1969 and 1974 , the T-62B ( this was a prototype that competed against T-64 ) and it ancestor of T-72 , forgets T-64B1 , T-80UK obr 1991

[@Whatismoo]

I appreciate the feedback! It's not meant to be an exhaustive guide, but to cover the more common variants which saw widespread service. That said, here's some reasonings why not to include the tanks you listed: As far as I can find, the T-64A variants you mentioned only differ by the commanders MG mounting? The T-62MD was left out because of a lack of sources or photos. The T-62MV makes an appearance at the end. at 38:00 or so. The T-62B was a prototype which while interesting, is not relevant. The "T-62D" appears only to exist in wikipedia, a quick look at BTVT, who is generally reliable, indicates that the hard kill APS for T-62 passed state tests in 1989, but was cancelled due to the breakup of the USSR. T-64B1 is almost indistinguishable from the T-64B, and only differs in whether or not it can fire the AT-8 SONGSTER (Kobra) ATGM. The T-64B1 (Obj. 437) literally has sheet metal welded onto the turret to mimic the silhouette of the T-64B (Obj. 447). The T-80UK wasn't included due to rarity. Only just over a thousand T-80U/UD were made, and I can't find solid production numbers for the UK. However, the information I have says that the ratio of T-80B/BV to T-80B Command variants was 5135:256, or just over 21:1. Optimistically (meaning if T-80UK was produced in the same ratio to T-80U as the command T-80B/BVs were to the T-80B/BV, that would give a production run of 50 T-80UK. That's not really significant. You'll also note I didn't mention any other command variants.

[@ivanmonahhov2314]

@@Whatismoo The main difference between T-64A 1969 and T-64A 1974 is the gun , 1969 uses the 2A26 gun without termal sleeve and had awful accuracy , 1974 uses 2a46 with thermal sleeve. T-72 Ural used 2A26M. T-64B1 was made due to problems producing guidance systems. T-80UK obr 1991 significance is in that it was the only soviet MBT using a thermal sight aka Agava. T-62D I find mentions that they were deployed to Afganistan as a separate tank battalion with 103rd Airborne. There are lots of photos claiming to be be T-62D but cant make out the launchers on any of them.

[@Whatismoo]

@@ivanmonahhov2314 ​ Thanks again for taking the time to reply! While the 2A26 vs 2A46 distinction is a thing, I'm of the opinion that it was not a meaningful addition to the video. You'll note that I don't address gun performance and accuracy especially much in the video. As I said in the introduction, "It is not meant to be a gripping edge-of-your-seat guide to the minutae of every nut and bolt of the Soviet system, but more of a quick and dirty practical introduction to a somewhat poorly understood topic." I'm aware of the reasons behind the T-64B1, again I don't think the difference is meaningful in the context of the video. T-80UK obr 1991 is not a relevant to the context of the video. As I state, there will be a forthcoming appendix covering the prospective "Future Soviet Tank" developments through the turn of the millenium. There's pictures of T-62s with Metal-Polymer Armor being used by 103rd VDV in afghanistan (see links below). There's allusions to the T-62D in afghanistan, but the sources appear to be describing a precursor to the T-62M as the T-62D, which is the exact kind of confusion I'm trying to avoid. As I say around 11:30, armor upgrades generally matter more than what exact model of tank it is. That said, Vitaly Kuzmin does have pictures of a T-62 with mounting points for an Active Protection System, and Loooser posted a picture of a T-62 with one fitted that isn't Drozd, but is similar. Tarasenko describes this as the T2A2 APS here. andrei-bt.livejournal.com/659472.html but it, as I said above, did not enter service. otvaga2004.ru/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/otvaga2004_afgh_2_008.jpg

[@MeanHereAT]

Bruh did you say Pz. MK.6 ☠

[@Whatismoo]

yeah the Panzer Mark Six "General Tiger"

[@MeanHereAT]

Can you elaborate?

[@Whatismoo]

@@MeanHereAT just a joke about the Brits calling them "Mark 4/5/6" and calling the US tanks general Sherman or whatever

[@MeanHereAT]

Wow I did not know that, thanks👍

[@tovarishchmartins4999]

I place this comment on the altar of the youtube algorithm

[@KoishiVibin]

what is moo baby don't hurt me . . . . . im sorry