Why Russians Fail at Protecting their Tanks

[@korana6308]

The reason why you've seen only footage of successful attacks of drones is precisely because unsuccessful ones wouldn't be shown for obvious reasons. I've heard from people at the front that they do actually work to a certain extent. It dodges like 20 - 30 drones, and eventually they manage to find a loophole frequency which is not covered by Volnorez, and it gets struck. So it does work, the problem is that it's not the ultimate solution. As jamming everything would require too much energy, and you have to chose specific frequencies on what to jam...

[@hubertino855]

My question is why develop protection systems from drones on individual vehicle basis when one can build for example dedicated IFV conversion with radar aimed machine guns for unit wide drone protection basically budget anti drone SPAA????

[@mrhonkhonk6116]

@@hubertino855 Money and cheaper

[@davoodoo8042]

@@hubertino855 because when that gets hit entire company is screwed.

[@abas656thegodemperor9]

​@@hubertino855bc that shits expensive

[@afinelad3673]

@hubertino855 For the reason mentioned in the video- Russia only seems to have worked on cheaper solutions the past 2 years. Probably the reasons others mentioned as well.

[@DemuDesu]

I appreciate how you don’t simp any side. Too many channels feel like military/intelligence psychological operations.

[@JeffBilkins]

It is because of the bots in the comments trying to silence people, often starts with loaded language and then starts sliding.

[@RustyBear]

It’s bc these channels only want the money. And if u do wrong information it will generate comments which will push there videos

[@ingloriuspumpkinpie9367]

He absolutely does simp for Russian tanks. He can make a whole video about how a western tank has 100:100mm area with weak armour and then ofhandedly mentions that most Russian tanks reverse slower than speed of walking as if it was a small weakness in a tank that is generally equivalent to western designs

[@VOME127]

@@ingloriuspumpkinpie9367 well he literally comments on how nato tanks are better protected in this video so stop with the confirmation bias

[@vitiate5093]

@@ingloriuspumpkinpie9367umm you’re wrong lol.

[@iMost067]

I can answer why boxes arent fixed at the bottom: If tank traversing rough terain or rubble that is high on the sides this way box simply lifts up and then falls back on it intended place by obsticle itself. If you fix that box then obstacle would just rip it out

[@singular9]

Its also because you don't want the explosives hard amounted to weak side armor. During explosion, you want the explosion throwing the ERA off the tank, and not make the hull take the force. Its called the law of newtons third law of physics.

[@h.a8681]

@@singular9 The side armour of most Russian tanks is around 80mm, that is enough to take the force of even the most strong ERA easily, that is not the reason

[@true_xander]

Another item showing us RedEffect falling to the pit of despising Russian's capability to adapt and fight. The guy just sits in his apartments in Jersey and lurking for bits and pieces to compose another controversial piece of pro-west propaganda.

[@TheCabbageMan]

​@@true_xander while i agree with the first part, i dont think he is nearly as bad as most channels, he is much more objective, but yes, he is still just an osint bro that unfortunately are present on both sides of the political coin (all sides).

[@evilshews]

​@true_xander i dont think pionting out russias inability to cope with unsutable tank designs, in light of the changing battlfield is pro west. i think its objective reality.and tbe truth is, western tank designs have there shortcommings as well, difference is, the west has the ablity to adapt. Russia might not have that ability due to economics, and restriction of nessesary technologies.

[@deniscicic8074]

Literally every single tank brand is obliterated in this latest modern war. So why everybody fail at protecting their tanks is the question ...

[@MrHeavy466]

The tanks aren't being used according to their doctrine either. We see tanks operating on their own all the time and when we do see armored formations, they never have a way to clear ways through minefields and they get bogged down and annihilated.

[@The_ZeroLine]

But they’re losing tanks at astronomical rates. The answer is very simple: they’re corrupt and incompetent + they don’t care about their men’s lives.

[@damnsonwheredyoufindthis.3830]

Tanks are outdated, unless you're fighting ragheads in the desert with outdated gear and basic training.

[@manilajohn0182]

Blitzkrieg style offensives by combined arms formations spearheaded by tanks are currently ineffective because of the constant tactical factor. Anti- tank systems have made tank spearhead prohibitively costly. Frankly, I'm looking for a CWIS- mounted vehicle to accompany tanks.

[@egodeath7097]

ukraine don´t have the means and ressources to protect their tanks properly with air force and such

[@delsymdrinker8064]

Reject modernity, return to bt5

[@singular9]

KV2

[@rebouteguilliman]

​@@singular9Nah t28

[@matthewjones39]

Can’t get destroyed by a drone when your tank moves faster than a drone

[@slowbro8912]

@@matthewjones39 copy, installing jet rocket engine to a panzer 3

[@The_Unknown_Smiley]

Reject modernity, return to Bob Semple tank🗿🗿

[@mrmakhno3030]

To be honest....If Israel, a very rich country that being famous about military technologies struggled to protect their tank against a rag tag militia, I don't feel surprised about Russian case. They have serious problem in protecting literally any of their vehicles in Ukraine , not only tank. I mean they lost everything from motorbike to a cruiser. And most of us, the Red's subcribers, already know about Russian tank problem long before the invasion.

[@raxit1337]

Are you talking about in Lebanon? I haven't seen any israeli tank losses in the gaza war since october 7th

[@mrmakhno3030]

​@@raxit1337oh, Red already made a video about it. Check it out. You don't see any video doesn't mean IDF didn't suffered any vehicle losses.

[@singular9]

Tanks are hard to protect in general. The goal is for the tank to protect its crew so they could get another tank later and go back to the fight. Airplanes can fight tanks just fine, drones are just smaller planes.

[@alienmorality]

They really haven't suffered many losses at all

[@mrmakhno3030]

@@alienmorality I don't know what "they" are you mentioning. But about IDF, they already have 500 vehicles disabled at different level (mostly might be recovered since they controlled Gaza now, but still a great losses against a militia with homemade tandem RPG as their best stuff). And if you are mentioning Russia...💀

[@christopherlarsen7788]

During WW2, the Soviets lost about 85,000 tanks in four years of fighting. The Germans lost about 65,000 tanks in six years of war. The UK lost 15,000 in six years of fighting. The US lost 10,000 tanks during four years of war - and 70 percent of those were lost in just 11 months of fighting in the European theater, alone! France lost 6,000 tanks. Japan lost 3,000 tanks. That comes to about 184,000 tank losses in six years of warfare...a loss rate of more than 2,500 tanks per month of fighting. And this was all before the use of UAV drones or advanced top-down attack ATGM. Maybe. Just maybe tanks are combat vehicles that bear the brunt of modern, mechanized warfare? Maybe tank losses are the norm in large scale combat operations, and exactly none of this is surprising. In fact, in this light losses of 100, 150, or 200 tanks per month is really a small concern. After all, the most reliable (e.g. least bias) reports claim Russia has lost 3,000 tanks in 30 months of continuous combat. Russia appears to be able to absorb those losses, especially given their current capacity to manufacture 25 new tanks per month, while refurbishing +100 old tanks, and repairing 25 damaged tanks each month.

[@tommytomas-fr3sh]

you are showing the reasoning that Ukrainian supporters don't like to see.

[@CasparPietersen]

You forget that a tank from WWII is vastly different than a modern tank. Tanks nowadays are so much more advanced and complicated and require so much more productivity/money to make. A WWII Sherman tank cost $50K in 1945, in todays money around $900k, if you compare that to a modern Abrahams tank they cost around $25 million to make. A modern tank cost around 25 times the amount of a WWII tank. If you scale that to the 3000 tanks the Russians have lost that would be the equivalent of 75000 tanks lost in WWII. Of course it might not scale as perfectly irl but my point still stands, tanks are more capable and also available in less numbers hence their value is much greater per tank. Not to forget that in WWII all those countries you mentioned were running a war economy, meaning they focused almost anything they had on production of tanks, planes, ships and ammo. You cant really compare the losses of WWII era metal turtles to the highly advanced systems we have today. Tanks arent the bullet sponges they were once.

[@stephanking3079]

When are you gonna release another video? It's been so long... 😢

[@davesherry5384]

In the defence losses are significantly reduced which is why the Germans had such high tank aces. casualties in the attack are always higher. What this channel does not do is compare losses on both sides. This channel is biased in favour of the Ukrainians so should not be trusted for any reliable information.

[@milkyyanks765]

​@@CasparPietersenwell even though modern tanks are more expensive to produce rapid modernization in manufacturing allows those tanks to be produced affordably. Still expensive but affordable.

[@Jinhadascam]

Just one moment: we only see successful destructions.

[@misterputin8898]

Damn, they are a lot of successful destruction then.

[@RasyidNazar]

@@misterputin8898and a turtle tank made a tour of krasnogorivka and still back in piece is absolutely unbelievable , ew system doing their job there

[@princeo15]

Just saw yesterday a T-90 taking 2 drone hits and rotating the turret to show everything is fine.

[@thanakornkhumon7365]

Drone warfare is still very new in the modern warfare even to this day. No question why most tanks still lose or destroyed by Drone despite have some counter messures. This isn't just the main problem for just one army but also all armed forces in the world.

[@DMEU77]

We have seen western Tanks being destroye by drones, so its not just RU problem. Taking into a account how much does western Tank costs comper to RU, we can say that RU poor tanks is better choice.

[@ducduynguyen9084]

Maybe in future we will have drone emp maybe

[@RogerKaptunik]

@@DMEU77 Until you have to sit in one of those spacecrafts

[@slimjimnyc270]

@DMEU77. Have to respectfully disagree that cheaper tanks are better. Although western tanks get destroyed too, the tank crew have a much better chance of survival (since better protection costs money). You can send this experienced tank crew back into another western tank rather quickly and get back to fighting. If you lose the old crew, you have to train a new one and hope they live long enough on a battlefield to become good at their job. This takes TIME and MONEY... Ukraine has a smaller population, so this is an important consideration. Also, if it was my son in those tanks, I would want them to have the best protection possible (given the tradeoff in optimal design of firepower, speed, and protection).

[@jcnamaasshi]

@@DMEU77 you probably should take account what that tank can do to others and cost of crews, cost of actually building new tanks too.

[@calypso2224]

To be fair with the point of expensive vs cheap anti drone systems. Nato isnt “officially” involved in combat hence they have the time and resources to make much more complex systems, while Russia and Ukraine are actively fighting in the attrition style where cost effectiveness and speed of production is valued.

[@patnor7354]

NATO budgets are just a way to funnel money to the bankers owning blackrock, lockheed etc. It's not about effective solutions, and NATO countries no longer even have factories to make anything in bulk.

[@kampfer91]

One get to test theirs system right on the active battlefield and one only do the guessing via footage . And complex system doesn't mean anything much nowadays cus chance are , expensive system fail to protect against what it was designed for and more painful to lose the vehicle .

[@andredulac4456]

well, if it doesn't work, cheap systems become more expensive in the long run than effective systems that can actually save the tank

[@NotASeriousMoose]

​@@andredulac4456but its even more expensive to not have anything while waiting for these expensive/complex systems to be fielded

[@jackforman561]

@@kampfer91 back in the classic Rasha Stronk loop. This comment is priceless!

[@mr.mortadha3545]

this is happening to all tanks in Ukraine not just russian .... overall very good informative video from you as usually

[@Taurevanime]

I think it is a bit unfair to draw a comparison to Russian tanks being fielded in an active war and NATO tank proposals being shown off at an arms show. If NATO countries were in the position that Russia is in, we would see them also focusing on getting expedient upgrades out to the soldiers as fast as possible. We kind of see that with how the Ukrainians are upgrading their NATO tanks. But we saw that the Russians have now approved Arena-M for production and use on tanks, hinting at that they are still doing things in the background that are higher tech solutions that may be more suitable for countering the FPV drone threat.

[@scatterlite2266]

As redeffect himself said, Russia showing off their best pieces of equipment is very far away of it becoming common on the battlefield.

[@kermittoad]

atleast they're showing off something or have "concepts of a plan" can't say the same for the other.

[@Taurevanime]

@@scatterlite2266 the same holds true for everyone else. Despite Trophy being a already fielded by the Israelis, it is going to take close to a decade before we first saw it displayed on Western tanks, and it being fielded. And that is a system they didn't even have to develop themselves.

[@scatterlite2266]

@@Taurevanime "everyone else" isnt in a war economy with a need for thousands of tanks. Like redeffect said, Russia needs APS NOW, the rest of the world can take their time to develop a mature an functional system. Smaller version are already being mounted like on Lynx produced by Rheinmetall.

[@DracoSen21]

@@scatterlite2266 they should convert one of their IFVs or APCs to hunt drones with proxy rounds or timed fuzes

[@mbtenjoyer9487]

This is like being surprised when people die in war , doesn’t matter what they do tanks would still be destroyed ( they could only reduce it )

[@allessiobuonfiglio6702]

I love this channel Doesn’t side Ukraine or Russia Just post and talks about thecnical facts about the 2 sides

[@miguelfonseca2341]

The funny part is that both sides still triggered thinking they're the exception.

[@nitholav5583]

You forgot that the same thing is happening to Ukrainian armor, and they copied all the Russian solutions so they must be doing something right.

[@jimmccoal2693]

Shhhh , demonitize.

[@ANZACJugger0]

@@jimmccoal2693 demon...it ize... is Ukraine using Demons to make up for their manpower?

[@schlangen7889]

at least someone said about it. Sometimes people forget that Ukraine also uses Soviet tanks

[@tardvandecluntproductions1278]

Both sides are experimenting and copying each others experiments in the hopes it's the right one. Not instantly proof that it's working.

[@PeterMuskrat6968]

Field upgrades are quick solutions to the immediate issue. They aren’t great but there isn’t time and resources to dump into a massive R&D development to find a better solution.

[@Bruuuuhh.]

WHY EVERYONE* FAIL AT PROTECTING THEIR TANKS

[@KurovasSenpai5]

Tank is just a support. Not a Hollywood plot armor.

[@GabrielVitor-kq6uj]

I dont think one way is more effective than other per say. The ideal tank should have both jammers and airburst remote guns. As they should have both IR smoke launchers and hard kill APS systems. Paired with good composite armor and modern reactive armor. That sounds like a well protected tank to me

[@AquaNomad34]

Yea agree and in fact I would go even one step further, to implement Laser weapons on tanks as well (the US ARMY is already using such Laser weapons butnno on tanks but on lightly armored Stryker APC

[@egoalter1276]

Both the british and US have deployed operational prototypes of laser anti drone systems

[@DanielNotWise]

​​@@AquaNomad34 lmao and u should to have second tank nearby to generate enough power capacity to ur battle lazer. Ussr already developed such weapon "1k11" The reasons why the cancelled it - well huge amount of problems actually

[@ASpyNamedJames]

No. The vast majority of Ukrainian drones are attrited due to EW. EW is the most effective and efficient defense by far.

[@furno_2761]

​@@ASpyNamedJamescurrently. keep in mind that ukraine probably still has a number of nonhardened drones. if you had a fpv drone capable of locking on target using ai or other methods, then jamming's effect would be greatly reduced

[@dimarusanov6107]

Many things in this video are debatable Western "gold solutions" which are not combat proven are not suitable for this war

[@StarsAtNight1]

If you look at how skilled some fpv pilots are.. Thats very different than static hanging drones.

[@davoodoo8042]

Well, we can try them when they are produced by 2080.

[@shuathe2nd]

he did make that point at the end though - russia doesn't have the time to develop some amazing new tech to defeat drones at this point. I think he could also have mentioned the suicidal russian tactics also being at fault for the high loss rate - they have launched the same attacks on Vheludar 100 times over with the same result - it's a mine/artillery/drone turkey shoot. What do they expect?

[@Brent4685]

Well, my son, in World War II, German tanks were also called "miracle weapons" by the Nazis. Remember tigers, panthers, royal tigers, etc. and that the USSR defeated them with less formidable equipment... a simple historical example

[@dimarusanov6107]

@@shuathe2nd The whole summer 2023 was full of the "susidal attacks" of Ukrainian forces That doesn't worry you?

[@johnfoulke9241]

Ivan: "Can we fix the transmission to reverse faster?" Vlad: "Nyet, we have plenty of this bricks"

[@youtubesuck_ZOV]

Ivan: "We are not western cowards from NATO"

[@jamesgoldring1052]

Driving backwards in a 40 tonne vehicles is really difficult Better off just turning around

[@ohnoes3084]

​@@jamesgoldring1052it's really not though, Abrams and Leopards can reverse at around 40 kmh and the leopard at 31 while both being significantly heavier, and the Chinese ZTZ-99 which is very similar in weight to the T series tanks has a 35 kmh reverse speed, Russia just doesn't know how to make good transmissions for some reason

[@jamesgoldring1052]

@@ohnoes3084 and yet they mass produce autoloaders? It isn't priority for them obviously My points still stand, it wouldn't be useful in ukraine, reversing into, well yet another wide open field. Lot's of room to just spin around And switching to reverse while being hunted is gunna get you killed I guess being faster at reversing could make it Harder to predict tank movement, when spotted by air

[@ohnoes3084]

@@jamesgoldring1052 Autoloaders aren't transmissions though? not sure what the point of bringing that up was. And reverse speeds are very useful, I have seen multiple videos of Russian and Ukrainian tanks being destroyed due to them being forced to turn around to retreat, subsequently exposing their vulnerable rear-armor and being killed, I have heard reports from Russian T80 crews of how they have won multiple firefights due to their ability to reverse where their enemies in T64's could not, reverse is very useful.

[@roadrunner681]

To be fair, the tsnks are swarmed by drones and one gets through. That tactic will always work. And red as a mechanic let me tell you changing the transmission ans adding more gears is far from simple. A complete new hull would likely to be required and everything else with it. The t72 hull is already tight

[@minnihd6470]

ikr, also the ERA is to protect against drones. retreat can be covered by smoke screen. It is really not that important in a real scenario. When retreating just smoke that shit up, turn around and activate ESS and drive

[@roadrunner681]

@minnihd6470 no kidding era isn't going to slow down a tow or worst case another tank sabot

[@marcusflutist1230]

The Poles managed to do it; Russian generals didn't care

[@marcusflutist1230]

​@@roadrunner681it will. Kontakt-5 did it back in the 80s

[@roadrunner681]

@marcusflutist1230 it's not the 80s, the tow or the rpg29 for example are so much deadlier its not funny

[@captainomerikonshorts5143]

Even modern Western tanks are also getting destroyed in Ukraine by small UAV and other mine attacks but since the Western allies have not send a huge substantial amount of Main Battle Tanks to Ukraine so the number of the losses are limited. For example Russia has sent almost 2000 plus tanks into Ukraine and so they got destroyed in huge number what is the best have not send more than 400 plus armoured vehicles like tanks and if these into Ukraine so their numbers are low but to be honest in the modern battlefield I don't think that any armored vehicle is safe

[@garrettstickel1189]

don't forget the 1000 or so old t72s ukraine had at the beginning/got from the old eastern block countries

[@f23-n4t]

And those tanks send are outdated and lack the newly added anti drone protection

[@TommyTipex]

@@f23-n4t our EW sucks right now, russia probably have the best EW on earth and it still isn't enough, so I'd say it'll be a good decade or so before anyone has a 90% protection rate against FPVs, and then it'll be fiber optic drones used and probably some sort of new weapon that changes the game.

[@AquaNomad34]

​@@TommyTipex yeah russian EW is so good that it's not even used on their tanks 🤡 Meanwhile America is already actively operating entire divisions with Laser-equipped vehicles that can shoot down drones with laser weapon

[@egoalter1276]

Losees are propprtionally lower, by about 15% of western tanks, and catastrophic losses (including crew losses) are 50% to 70% lower for western tanks. T series tanks quiet sumly dont have much thought given in their design to crew survivability post penetration.

[@gauravkanwasi7084]

Germany and France are developing a tank with a lock-and-track system to target drones, but wouldn't that be ineffective due to drones' high maneuverability and potential to be deployed in swarms, overwhelming the tank's ammunition supply?

[@over415]

you assumed they developed it for use and not just for sale to countries that will never get to use them anyways shit like that resulted in everyone finding out our main howitzers are literally not suited for combat and need repairs if they shoot more than 10 rounds per year

[@mexstalin7623]

Feels like over engineering wouldn't it be better to put a tent around the tank with chains instead of a turtle tank

[@singular9]

Even if you could jam a drone, the drone will still fly due to velocity and momentum. It would still hit the tank. Nothing new.

[@3217491]

not if it comes with the programmable ammunition. A few years ago Rheinmetall showcased their AA ammo which detonated at a programmable range, it recieved the range inside of the barrel and the firecontrol system calculated/estimated the distance. Could be developed for a smaller weaponsize.

[@MrNebelschatten]

Are you talking about Pzh2000? As far as I know it's track record so far is excellent considering it's purpose.

[@alexanderstenmark8838]

Damn it's been a hot second since I've been this early to a Red Effect video. Keep up the nice vids.

[@StarsAtNight1]

Active jammers need a large frequency range. Its a constant battle with changing frequencies. A lot lower than commercial systems use.

[@singular9]

Just because a drone is jammed doesn't mean it stops flying towards you.

[@StarsAtNight1]

If you can disrupt the video it's already enough. I have seen footage of them just broadcasting troll music video's on the same frequency. Good luck finding your target.

[@notsogood4321]

@@StarsAtNight1 possible on analog systems which are by far the cheapest way to stream video at low latency though if you are using a more expensive digital fpv system i think its not as easily jammed , though it does suffer in penetration so the drone operators probably closer to the battle than an analog system

[@StarsAtNight1]

@@notsogood4321 You're right. I haven't seen many dji system on their suicide drones. They use those drones to observe.

[@notsogood4321]

@@StarsAtNight1 I would imagine a RPG drone equipped with a walksnail VTX (less expensive than DJI) would probably become more cost effective as jamming gets better and too many analog drones miss their targets

[@agreeable4334]

Thanks for staying indifferent and not taking sides and just calling it like it is. Its one of the main reasons why this is my favorite tank talk channel no lies to make one side look better just the truth in a very chill understandable video.

[@generalgamer9390]

The easy way to beat remote turret is to have two drones one unarmed fast drone to bait the shots and another real drone to hit the target once it has run out of ammo .

[@gerfand]

The ERA on thr back is not because of turning around the Tank, the idea of poor reverse speed is flawed, and we saw much faster in reverse tanks like Leopard2 doing that. The ERA is to protect against FPV drones. To protect retreats you have smoke scredn, both engine created and grenade launched. The reverse speed argument is flawed because even 30km/h is not as good as 60 or 70km/h, but also, because when you need to move back you want to see where you going, need to evade ditches to not get stuck, mines by moving where you came from, etc The "Bradley vs T-90M" is actually a good example of what Im saying, the Tank hit a tree on the side of a house while reversing blind, also no cameras would not help a lot because of offroading dirt

[@p4nnus]

What piece of basic equipment, mounted on modern cars too, allows one to see behind themselves when reversing? Tanks absolutely need to be able to reverse properly. Not being able to, quickly enough, is a BIG flaw. Its pretty useless to try and argue otherwise..

[@mexstalin7623]

At this point, wouldn't it be a good idea to make a dome of chains or Kevlar that surrounds the tank like a tent and is retractable

[@nekko5778]

The drone protections installed are definitely effective, as shown in many videos and reported by soldiers. They wouldn’t be installing them if they weren’t working. While, like anything else, these methods are not 100% effective, they are certainly far better than nothing. As for the argument that NATO invests in more advanced technology, I don't think it holds up. Most NATO countries, except for the U.S., can’t afford this "fancy" equipment. They barely have any of their ultra-expensive modern weaponry, and even the U.S. doesn’t have a large number of SEP V3s, for example. We've also seen €10+ million worth of Western equipment provide no more combat value than much cheaper Russian or Soviet gear so far. These systems come with a high price tag, flashy marketing, screeching nafo bots, and a very low number of actually delivered units.

[@egoalter1276]

Most of NATO is not actively preparing for a shooting war. Costs are arbitrary, and irrelevant in wartime. Only production throughput matters. And NATO has the ability to scale production so far beyond russia it is not worth discussing. As for the effectiveness of the systems, they provede a margain of superiority that is expected. 10-20% higher direct combat value, but up to three times greater crew survivability.

[@dauzlee2827]

​@@egoalter1276 again "western crew safety" cope what's the point of crew safety if they later got shredded by artillery fire and FPV drones? You could argue it would be the same as Russian crews but that only prove western tanks are the same as Russian tanks. Oh and NATO countries are rich in names but actually can't produce anything by themselves, their manufacturing capabilities are long gone and many of the "rich countries" are actually indebted nation with that struggling to increase military budget. Only US and Poland that I see, have the money and resources to produce stuff, but even then US ammunition manufacturing are lacking due to long gone manufacturing and industrial capabilities. Not to mention US own shipbuilding capacity are very limited in a future war against china

[@vurelius]

Babe! New RedEffect video just dropped!

[@paleoph6168]

Babel

[@Maxi46er]

I know you’re Flag.

[@ercek15]

Ah yes my favorite Vatnik talking how Vatnik tanks are less protected than the NATO ones, a true Vatnik moment right here (its all ironic and Red is one of the most unbiased tank analysis I know)

[@pwrm8721]

Does having a more positive view of Russians than the average Westerner make one a vatnik or does that only apply to ones that have fallen into fanaticism?

[@Juel92]

@@pwrm8721 Dunno but ´probably depends on who you ask.

[@Beneficiis]

I mean... Red is biased. But not in favor of certain nation. He is biased towards certain solutions. Definitely not warranted to call him a Vatnik or Russian biased. He is ERA biased :) and trusts manufacturers claims too much sometimes. But what else he can do, he is not some top secret scientist with access to documents that are not public knowledge.

[@mrhonkhonk6116]

ok you got me on the begining

[@usun_politics1033]

Do you realize that vatnik is a warm rugged cheap jacket used in cold weather by workers and peasants? It is used as a slur by urban rich middle class+ against poor and working class.

[@ndarboypbg8257]

"Why Ukraine fail protect they Nato tank In Ukraine War" Is there a video that discusses this?

[@АлексейХомутников-ц5э]

its forbidden topic. Ukrainians just use it incorrectly. The right thing to do would be not to use them at all. It is then that they reveal all their power and all their potential. Like these super tanks with drone protection with radar and turret. They will fully reveal their power and superiority on the training ground or in Africa. But under no circumstances should they be brought into a real war. This would be a misuse.

[@ndarboypbg8257]

@@АлексейХомутников-ц5э Thanks for the information. I now know why the NATO equipment losses have never been discussed widely and in depth by this channel or by mainstream media such as BBC, FOX, CNN, and so on.

[@MELLIALKA]

На Российских танках не меняют коробку передач из за ограничения по размерам танка, (моторно-трансмиссионного) отдела.

[@vjeko3471]

Lately, I have noticed T90s are more resistant to FPV drone hits, like a lot more, where they receive like 7-8 direct drone hits with no big damage. But still T72 and T80 are still vulnerable to for drone hits even with all that protection.

[@cordellmohawk8408]

Still no tank out there to counter drones for any side

[@loundclear9279]

Merkava Tank with trophie system is the closes tank to stop drones

[@cordellmohawk8408]

@@loundclear9279 Na still gets taken out from the top like any other tank and that's not what Trophie was designed for drones

[@waludalu5102]

​@@loundclear9279trophy was designed againsy RPGs

[@loundclear9279]

@@waludalu5102 Not just rpgs but anti tank missles and so on. But Drones can be stop aswell only like kamakazi drones not the ones wich just hover over and drop munitions.

[@bentoo09]

​@@loundclear9279trophy cannot stop drones. It Works based on velocity of any flying thing that enters its work range. What do you think stops trophy from shooting birds and falling debree from nearby explosions? A rpg or atgm rocket is flying at 10x the speed of a drone, thats what makes them identifiable for trophy.

[@Serx1079]

One thing is to loose tank when you advance, other when you get back. Because in first situation you can drive it to repair. And we all see who advance now.

[@usun_politics1033]

And who exactly isn't? Tank is not invincible.

[@teentitanss1845]

Ruzzo Cope is hillarious

[@BoSinn555]

​@@teentitanss1845 kzbin.info/www/bejne/foqyqWSdnNFkkLMsi=-DsnzwhcL6I8nVdp

[@BoSinn555]

​@@teentitanss1845kzbin.info/www/bejne/bqK2iXSXhshqe6ssi=nH0JxkOItXRnn3YI

[@profinneupane6883]

@@teentitanss1845it’s actually the truth, it took 1 fpv drone to decimate Abram tank near Avdiivka

[@teentitanss1845]

@@profinneupane6883 russian copium. You legit can throw a nade outside a Russian tank and it gets obliterated

[@nickhanlon9331]

Same thing happened with torpedoes and big ships. This led to torpedo boats which were replaced by missiles. Subs are still around but they've only sunk 3 ships since 1945. Pakistanis sunk an Indian ship, British sunk an Argentine ship and the Norks sunk a Roc ship.

[@Nathan-Roman]

The bots are so mad most of their seethe doesnt even make sense anymore

[@srijanme]

yeah I am telling ya these nafo clown bots are on Fentanyl lmaoo

[@bobjones-bt9bh]

Ukranus has had the opportunity to field anti drone systems that are state of the art from the West, like Trophy. They failed. Every system in the western inventory has been tried out over there. Some of them work well for about a month or two, then the RF figures out how to nullify them. HIMARS was at one point a wonder weapon and now it is largely impotent, as is ATACMS. Excalibur shells were among the biggest fails, despite being heralded as amazing "game changers" these expensive, overengineered systems CANNOT be produced at rates sufficient to continually supply an army in a high grade war. EVERY SINGLE western country would be out of munitions and materiel within a week of this conflict, except the USA, which might last a month or so.

[@Никита-н8з2ъ]

right name of the video is “Why people fail at protecting their tanks”

[@Ghreeek]

are you a russian bot 😭

[@pickleman40]

I appreciate your coverage over almost anyone else on these subjects, others on the subject seem to do more posturing as experts while you do excellent research and do not allow bias to color your footage. Seriously thankful for these videos!

[@nonna6522]

A lot of people forget that the tank hulls can be recovered, scrapped, repurposed or rebuilt. Russia has the capability to do this and I wonder how many T-72/80/90 hulls have seen refurbishment

[@ВосславьСолнце-е5х]

Много

[@ricodredd7449]

If a hull only has a hole in it. Sure you can recover it. But if the tank cooked off, like most of the destroyed Russian tanks, the heat destroys the hardening of the steel and the composite armor parts too. It is way cheaper to build a totally new tank.

[@josephjroy6593]

Not many, if any.

[@theDarkside798]

@@ricodredd7449 fact. Minor damaged Tanks can be refurbished, but the Steel coming from These turret tossing machines is useless because the factor u mentioned.

[@vitiate5093]

@@ricodredd7449depends on how hot it gets. Temperatures have to get get to a certain point.

[@ZewaRolle1789]

There is a Video of the Russians testing a Tube launched suicide Drone, which does with AI automatically fly to the enemy drone and destroy it. How far this system rly is, who knows. But it's just a matter of time, until there will be multiple reliable countermeasures against FPV Drones and the following evolvement of drones to counter the countermeasures again.

[@nutsbutdum]

The reason the ERA boxes are not attached directly on a tank sides is the same reason cope cages are not glued on the turret, it’s to give room for the blast.

[@prfwrx2497]

Uh, what? Relikt side skirts, and even the Soviet era K-1 and K-5 side ERA has rigid mounts.

[@singular9]

Most people miss this simple point. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. This is the foundation of physics. If the ERA or cage is attached permanently, then the explosion need's to push against the tank. In reality, it just needs to have enough resistance to push the projectile or drone away from the tank, and then be disposed of, causing minimal damage to the hull. The hill after all, can be fixed.

[@booba8565]

@@singular9 ALL ERA and cages are rigid mounted, you need the explosion to go towards the projectile, if the box moves you increase the chance of misplacing the blast and fail to slow or divert the projectile

[@trickslies844]

Here's a wild concept. have dude with a gun travel next to the tank and shoot the drone... call it support dude or something. Maybe they can also keep a eye out for other stuff

[@grimmerjxcts2206]

What's the background song you always use in your videos??

[@arbelico2]

As far as Russian MBTs are concerned, it's surprising that they're not producing something similar to the "T-95 Black Eagle" with a magazine in the rear of the turret and the driver to one side to leave room for an armored compartment for additional ammunition and 3-layer reactive armor depending on the area to be protected. That they produced a heavy APC with reactive armor in the style of the NAMER or ACHAZARIT is something I don't understand in order to reduce casualties...

[@kot32222]

As far as i know there was a thermal sight in USSR, but something in the 90s prevented tanks from getting those

[@riskicahyono687]

Yes Agava Thermal sight on T-80U/UK

[@marcusflutist1230]

>Something in the 90s Like the whole goddamn country collapsing, maybe?

[@kot32222]

@@marcusflutist1230 ye, something like that. not sure i'm not so good at maths

[@JTJSSG]

Redeffect went from just a channel where I put for background noise to being a channel where I wait for a new upload, it’s a good day today

[@AquaNomad34]

Lol what?

[@Grayfox988]

Side skirt armor has been a known problem for a long time, tankers in Syria complained, that while the Kontakt-1 array on the side skirts of their T-72's are effective, they kept losing entire skirt segments, because they become so heavy they can easily come off just from inertia.

[@mbak7801]

I believe autonomous drones are starting to appear. They are either flown to near where they are needed or have locations set before flight. These then search their location and use vision to spot the target vehicles and apply the most appropriate vector of attack. Marketing are going to call it AI but it is just good algorithms. With these there are no guiding radio signals so nothing to jam.

[@abhilashyadav2274]

*Russians have like Thousands of tanks . There were dozens if not hundreds of clips where UKRAINE drones just dropped grenades in the open hatches of abandoned RU tanks duringthe initial months of the conflict. They didn't care much atleast in the beginning. Then came cages and the final boss tank the Turtle Tanks. They are adapting*

[@DerDop]

still useless.

[@Giganibba511]

​@@DerDop behold the military sofa expert :

[@yarnickgoovaerts]

They absolutely did care. But they cared more about the lives of the crew than the survival of the tank

[@skibidicumsigma123]

@@DerDop Armchair military expert

[@Juel92]

Turtle tanks got outdated pretty quickly.

[@lordisback1947]

Same case for Ukraine too and much worse because russian drones are not only quadcopters but high speed lancets and Western tanks till now have performed very badly against drones. Showcasing the new era is quite different for so called modern weapons of any country. I think the video which showed coaxial gun taking down drone was when drone is stationary not moving condition so best what i seek is something like Rheinmatell skyranger type system which uses a proximity fused round which will split into multiple shrapnel increasing hit probability. The only challenge is that these bullets will be big and expensive and the system should so small to fit on Russian or Western tank

[@felipe-vibor]

It applies to both sides

[@preludeh22a57]

no, ruZZia is pathetic. NATO tanks are OP

[@Valentin_126]

@@preludeh22a57 Then how come wunderwaffe weapons like the Abrams got torn to shreads by drones in Avdiivka? NATO tanks are useless in Ukraine, mud swallows them so easily

[@ruskibot7745]

I feel like this is the case with all tanks though, I havent seen any tank deployed do remarkable with regards to drones.

[@AquaNomad34]

@@ruskibot7745 T90M with ECM Jammers could defeat many drone attacks But at some point it drove on mines (which happens to all tanks sooner or later in this war) and the crew jumper oud (abandoned the tank) so it was destroyed by drone after it was abandoned

[@utiz4321]

Last video I can watch. The problems described are the same problems the Ukrainian are faces and even the Israelis faced when Hamas had drone capabilities. The are the problems of tanks on a modern battlefield. The creator isn’t a thinker.

[@DUKE_of_RAMBLE]

The "peculiar shape" of that antenna is common for interior mounted cellular repeater antennas, which would be mounted on ceilings. They're omnidirectional but the issue with omni antennas is they have a pretty sizable dead zone DIRECTLY on top, in a cone shape region... Which leads me to wonder how effective these are when mounted facing directly upwards like they always have them mounted...... They serious do much better if they were angled, so that the dead zone was facing towards the horizon instead of the sky. Granted, you'd need more antennas to provide that umbrella of coverage, but given the cost of a jamming system compared to that of a tank or APC/fighting vehicle... money well spent. _(not that I expect Ruz to do this!)_

[@glowtail3744]

0:25 nah they straight entering goofy territory now

[@vonrichthofen7515]

This is a great example of the shield lagging far behind the swings of the sword. I’m willing to accept that tanks aren’t obsolete but I think a hard counter to drones is still far away and, until then, I don’t see tanks being able to act much like tanks.

[@i_am_blur]

I've never mentioned it, but you have a beautiful accent to my ear. For some reason, I REALLY enjoy hearing you speak.

[@antimatter4733]

Redeffect really tends to miss the mark on a lot of these videos, seems like every video he makes on Russian tanks is "why does Russia make these cheap and simple modifications instead of building a 50 million dollar super tank with this tech I saw in a demonstration video that can (apparently) do this amazing thing. The reality is that every army in the world is limited by industry/money. It that weren't the case every soldier would be mechanised in expensive heavy IFVs, using power armor with 50cal rated plates, thermals and high caliber rifles with full ap ammo. The reality is that no country that plans to actually win a war can afford the diminishing returns associated with these "super weapons". Yes, you can make a super tank that is 50% more effective than the average tank, but it'll cost you 4x as much and now you have 1/4 the tanks you could have had. You know who tried that? Germany during ww2, and as historians love pointing out, their wunderwaffen was a major factor that contributed to them losing the war, instead of creating tigers they could have simply upgraded the panzer 4s that were the backbone of their army. You can repeat history if you'd like, it would read something like "how Russias obsession with pushing resources into the T-14M contributed to the collapse of their army and eventual destruction by nato"

[@Theanimeisforme]

I do agree with how his assessments tend to lean on "unproven" experiments and their application, though the German tank analogy is off since panzer3/4 were already at their limit of potential and logistics/fuel problems would cap them off. A better analogy would be germans inability to contest air, leading artillery and bombing superiority for the allies, blunting any ground superiority. Russia is struggling in the combine arms even though it had the initiative, but it all remains contested so there will be heavy bleeding on ground. No matter the tank design.

[@whoami30204]

@@Theanimeisforme *Are* they struggling in 'combined arms'? A big recent complaint from Ukraine has been that they have a drastically shortened kill chain, effective, omnipresent artillery, and a tremendous utilisation of air power through glidebombs. Looks like there's a lot being combined.

[@Theanimeisforme]

@@whoami30204 no because the glide bombs are either being used as counter artillery or as artillery or for discounted terror campaign. With proper payloads from aircraft, we would see trench lines being decimated and villages levelled. In fact since we mainly only see glide bombs due to it being the safest option, we can say that currently russian does not have air superiority over Ukraine. Therefore russia cannot be doing combined arms, since the planes are doing artillery work and glide bombs are just their shells.

[@MrShpoulsen]

The solution for drones to engage tanks with capable jammers is to install AI software that can autonomously provide terminal guidance to a designated target regardless of connection to the operator. ATGMs have been capable of this for decades.

[@leper2698]

И как эта дорогая турель поможет западным танкам если дроны не будут зависать на месте а кучей полетят в танк ? такую хрень несешь, и сколько это все будет стоить по деньгам и как массово можно это все внедрить с технической точки зрения ?

[@Spectre4490]

А как Гепарды сбивают ракеты Калибр которая летит со скоростью 800 км/ч? ) Современные вычислительные мощности компьютеров позволяют расчитывать траекторию и задавать снарядам автоподрыв на определенном расстоянии

[@leper2698]

@@Spectre4490 так этих гепардов и тунгусок единицы, и они дорогие, к каждой колоне не поставишь. Да и задача у них другая, не с дронами за 500$ бороться

[@Spectre4490]

@@leper2698 суть в том что системы которые могут просчитывать траекторию полета в зависимости от движения уже были в 80х, сейчас с компьютерным зрением это еще в разы легче Система не будет дешевая, но то что она будет работать - это точно

[@leper2698]

@@Spectre4490 да с чего она будет работать ? Пусть поставят пару единиц, и украинцы на них пойдут в атаку, и посмотрим что будет. Да еще не забываем что есть арта и мины, и сколько будет стоить всю технику оснащать такими турелими, ведь не только в танки летят дроны

[@Spectre4490]

@@leper2698 ну когда зделают - тогда и поставят, пока такой системы нет, существуют системы по отдельности, снаряды с дистанцией подрыва, тепловизоры, дальномеры, что бы получить эту систему их надо объеденить и все

[@luakabsalam1816]

At least we know that the so called 'best tanks' in the world like Abrams, Leopards and Merkevas are as vulnerable as any Russian tanks.

[@AdamSchadow]

The main problem many people dont realize about jammers is that there are already cheap drones that have image recognition AI that can simply take over when the signal gets lost and hit the tank regardless.

[@singular9]

You don't need AI. You just use physics, its called conservation of momentum. Even though the signal is lost, the drone is still going 60mph is a direction, and its not going to stop unless something stops it. Its a physics issue, not a technology issue. You can jam a smart bomb and it will miss its target, doesn't mean it doesn't still fall and hit someone.

[@jamegumb7298]

@alb9229 Signal being jamemd is in fact solved wiht AI chips. Very new but it is done. That way if signal to the operator is lost drone can keep going.

[@jamegumb7298]

@@singular9 Drone once signal is lost will either hover until battery runs out and land, or land itself. This is how they are programmed. For safety. Momentum will not prevent that.

[@AquaNomad34]

​@@singular9 comparing a bomb in free fall with a slow moving drone... LoL Drones actually do stop immediately when their Signal is jammed, they are not in free fall momentum like bombs dropped from aircraft Very bad comparison

[@ChasseurTueur]

how cheap? bellow $ 1 Million?

[@Kefuddle]

Jammers obviously only can work under some circumstances. Don’t forget the drone comms are more or less line of sight and unless the jammer is between the drop and the operator, jamming maybe unsuccessful regardless of anything else. If the drone comms were to be relayed off an aerial platform the jamming would be extremely difficult. If jamming were on an aerial platform then jamming would probably be very effective too.

[@the_babbleboom]

sorry those demonstrations on taking down drones with weapons actively doesn't look like it can actually do much. both the tank and the drones are completely still. and why is it a flock of drones and not a single one? i doubt it's more than a tech demo that is far from being functional in taking down any actual single and fast moving attacking fps drones at all.

[@TheSMR1969]

Mate he gave the T-14 a hard time saying it was unproven now he's saying these tanks would be effective

[@AquaNomad34]

So modern anti-aircaft guns with modern fire-control don't exist? So the Gepard Flak tank doesnt exist? And the ZSU-23 Shilka with radar guided fire-control didn't exist since the 60's? Just because you dont believe in it, doesn't mean it doesnt exist dude 🤣😅 You are just a very narrow minded and simple minded person 🤭

[@the_babbleboom]

@@AquaNomad34 i like how you say "oh does this thing that is an entire fucking system of its own not exist" as if you just slap that on a tank and call it a day. simple and narrow minded? you completely lost yours. just imagine being such a dumbarse you think a gepard sitting its ass down to hit anything is comparable to a tank on the move. and how much shit are gepards already missing. shut up with that clown shit lol.

[@TheSMR1969]

@AquaNomad34 I love how you think you cooked there. You use AA gun emplacements they use cheap drones to divert fire then launch a ARM at it. This is modern warfare. There's a counter for practically everything. I know you wouldn't understand that because the west hasn't fought even a half modern military since korea

[@AquaNomad34]

@@the_babbleboom Yes, you are very narrow minded indeed, your answer just proved that The point is that the 30mm autocannon (on the prototypes like EMBT and Abrams X) works the exact same way as the *Gepard* or *Shilka* anti-air system: By using a radar-guided fire control to accurately aiming and hit moving air targets. So yes, it can effectively hit moving drones while the tank is moving itself. It's called gyro-stabilized fire-contro (stabilization) . It's thw same way that modern warships use their gun turrets to accurately hit enemy ships from over 30 km away while the ships on both sides are moving in rough seas Or how the *Plahanx CIWS* on warships can accurately hit incoming missiles (which are much faster than slow drones) Just becasue you don't understand it, doesn't mean that it doesn't work It just means that you don't understand anything at all because you are a very simple minded and ignorant person

[@singular9]

At least from the statistics, although the tanks aren't well protected (against drones), they are quite well protected against traditional anti tank warfare like RPG's and other tanks. The armor, at least from what is known, is still in fact quite good against traditional projectile based systems. If you note, the drone cages are above the more sensitive tank sensors on the turret, and this is quite the tell. I don't think it matters what tank you chose, take the BEST western tanks, they aren't even remotely ready to fight modern combat. Most of the tanks "lost" are still recoverable and repairable for future use. Sure, the tank's rear is vulnerable, but that is any tank, and so stating "russian's fail" at protecting their tanks is a misnomer, since any tank would be this way. It seems like a large majority of tank crews are safe as well, and are simply given a new tank. If the russians were losing the tank crews in line with the quantity of tanks, then there wouldn't be anyone to drive them anymore at this point. The point about jammers is also, a bit naive. Sure, you could jam a drone's signals on approach, but that doesn't stop the drone from flying at its directed course and hitting the tank. I fly an FPV drone recreationally, and if I ever lost signal, the drone would simply continue in the last known direction full speed ahead. The thing is, something cheap and easy to make to fight drones is in fact the RIGHT idea. Why? because investing huge amounts of money into systems that won't change the outcome is a waste. Catching up with the west in what? Has the west fought drones in peer to peer warfare? No. They do not have the expertise. They can learn from the current conflict sure, but unless tested in the field, it won't matter. So to conclude the drone point, there is no clear fix yet, and probably wont be due to basic physics. What is true is that firstly, russian armor is still more than capable of modern combat in a disposable kind of way, protecting their crews. Secondly is although the drones damage the equipment on the tank, the tank inside functions just fine, and even if it is damaged, can be repaired. So far, the drones aren't strong enough to completely destroy a tank without use without drone swarming and many hits, you would still need ATGM's or traditional projectiles. Third, the Armata idea is in fact, exactly what russia needs, and although many people called it stupid, is actually the right approach since the crew would be safe, and the turret is supposed to be replaceable and easily removable, the hull can easily be fixed and a new engine mounted. Its a lot like smart phones. We can develop stronger and stronger glass, even use phone cases, but glass will still break, and making the device more repairable without having damage to internal components is the right way to go, lowering repair cost and time to get it back in your hands. Is this optimal? No. But I don't think any other tank or army would have a different outcome. Again, its not like western powers have anything that could stop a drone flying at you unless you shoot it down either. What is the expensive solution? Its quite obvious. Tanks would now need to mount radar systems that could track drones, and have smaller missiles that could intercept, and EVEN THEN, that wouldn't always work due to, yet again, physics of flight. Its always been this way. A tank can't fight a plane. Drones are just smaller planes. Nothing has changed, its not necessarily new.

[@crazyeyez1502]

One thing I've been curious about, is how effective would the jammer systems we (Americans) used in Iraq and Afghanistan be against drones.

[@StefanBlagojevic]

This means one thing, the Commander's RCWS must be given active radar, so it can detect incoming flying drones and attack before it gets a chance to slam into the tank. Jamming devices are good as secondary backup against drones, hopefully the Russkies will make them even more effective.

[@AquaNomad34]

The RCWS itself doesnt need its own radar, because it already uses the radar from the Troohy APS that is installes around the turret (in the EMBT and the Abrams X)

[@DanielNotWise]

Radar systems cannot even to detect a Lancet drone, and u r talking about smol FPV

[@gromdan1332]

Maybe what militaries need now, with regards to drone warfare is a dedicated antidrone vehicle, something like the Gepard or Tunguska, equipped with more modern radar and jamming equipments, and add lots of turtle armor too. This would then be a support unit embedded into mechanized formations whose dedicated role is anti drone support.

[@septimusseverus7237]

98% of ukrainians tanks are exactly similar to russians tanks, dating from the soviet union. The T64, T72, T80, T90 are evolutions of a same soviet era concept. So the title of your video is misleading.

[@arnoldvezbon6131]

They are not similar, they are Russian tanks.

[@septimusseverus7237]

@@arnoldvezbon6131 No. They are all soviet tanks, but not all of them are russian. For instance, the T64 was conceived in the Morosov ingeneering bureau in Karkhiv, Ukraine and the T64 is nowadays the main MBT of Ukraine but was also in service throughout the soviet army in other federated contries of the Soviet Union.

[@arnoldvezbon6131]

@@septimusseverus7237 Kharkov was Russia for a long time before the soviet union. You are another historically illiterate clown. You do know there was no such thing as Ukraine as a nation state before 1991 right?

[@arnoldvezbon6131]

@@septimusseverus7237 Apparently the YT censor wont let me correct your historical illiteracy. SAD.

[@septimusseverus7237]

@@arnoldvezbon6131 Gibberish for no arguments.

[@Raddenstein23]

I remember playing army battle simulator when i was a kid, im just spamming Drones vs Mbts there and i knew this would happened in the future

[@IgorGreenBird]

Russians: Fail at protecting their tanks Ukrainians: Lost almost all tanks - the problem solved itself. West: Made a machine gun that can shoot down a stationary drone. Definitely not money laundering!

[@ohnoes3084]

Ukraine still has plenty of tanks idk what ur talking about, we can see them being used regularly on the Frontline as rapid response units to plug gaps, also it's an airburst cannon you don't really have yo be all that accurate to kill a drone with it, all it'll take is one piece of shrapnel, and western target tracking hasn't exactly been lacking either

[@Real_Claudy_Focan]

Superb KNDS demo on static drones on a shooting range. Now, give the controls to 1 single FPV with an experienced pilot crashing 5 to 10 of them per week (if not per day) That will be another game ! Good luck hitting that FPV !

[@FontaineLovers]

there's no doubt about russian tank quality, they perform as good as western tanks if not sometimes better. the main difference being is crew survivability, western tanks are made with the crews survivability in mind while russians want the strongest, fastest, most compact tank without thinking about the crew survivability in case of ammunition cook-off.

[@olisk-jy9rz]

That's a common misconception. The carousel autoloader was developed mainly to increase crew survivability: you store your ammo deep in the belly of the tank, low to the ground. It's literally the safest spot. If something penetrates the tank with enough residual energy to ignite the ammo down there, the crew is already toast anyway. The issue is, in most conflicts until recently the crews have been keeping extra ammo stored all around the tank, in the open not down in the carousel. That was the main cause of tank explosions. They've cracked down hard on that habit now and the survivability has improved. And now for a counter example: the challenger tank, gem of the nafo tanks, so safe, so centered about survivability..... has ammo storage all around the cabin of the tank, by design. They only have little water containers to try to make it harder to ignite, but it doesn't work. As shown from the one that got sent to ukraine. It popped its turret..... and people in full cope mode were claiming the crew did that with an alcohol bottle LMAO

[@jll5446]

@@olisk-jy9rz i mean couldnt there be many hits that dont kill or even seriously injure the crew but detonate the autoloader? granted yeah it was initally designed with crew survivability by allowing a lighter vehicle (therefore more armor) and a smaller vehicle, and i think it was before the time of blowout panels on tanks

[@MatoVuc]

On the one hand, you have a point about the more expensive solution with the thermal optics on all western combat vehicles, but on the other hand, all those external optics did for them in the current conflict is make them burn more expensively...

[@kgb_1520]

Great vid as always 👍

[@kontrollierteschaos4068]

Drone warfare is pretty new. The effectiveness of tanks has droped by a lot as a result. Effective counter strategies are not existing yet but they will develop from this conflict.

[@AquaNomad34]

There already are existing counter to drones, in fact the USA is already using it on actice Service: its called Lazer

[@waitnottoday]

Reminds me of ironclads. They too when came out had such an effective armor that their own guns couldn't do anything resulting in two ironclads firing at each other for hours straight.

[@Виктор-ф7ъ5г]

Мне просто жаль этого двоечника который не учил в школе физику и выступает экспертом. Мне так и хочется подойти к нему и поинтересоваться -А сложно жить без мозгов?.

[@dwarow2508]

Literally every single issue here applies to AFU vehicles as well

[@zollyy]

"quite a lot of tanks" is an understatement. Can you imagine if the US lost as many tanks in Iraq as the Russians have in Ukraine? Why are the Russians not using combined arms considering they have enough KA-52s, SU-25s and other similar aircraft? It makes no sense and no one seems to be talking about it.

[@saint_alucardwarthunder759]

Iraq is far from being Ukraine

[@playersczart9484]

Ukraine lost more Abramses then US in Iraq rn. The problem is that this war is the most difficult and bloody one compared to the same Iraq, because Iraq didnt have FPV-drones, mass ATGM use, a ton of AA and other stuff

[@garrettstickel1189]

Iraqi people didn't have fpv drones. also didn't have much of anything besides ak 47s and IEDs... yet they still ruined us plans in the region... Iraq is now more aligned with Iran than with the us.

[@ыцццФццц]

You compare steam rolling of outdated 20th century army to the fight of equal technological advancements.

[@over415]

USA lost over 5000 helicopters in vietnam against rice farmers with AKs if you live in a country that says russia lost a huge amount of tanks then you live in a country that literally says they can not afford an army

[@VadimKaz2001]

Those metal ERA boxes used to be rigidly mounted on clamps attached to the fender. However, it was for some reason determined to be a bad way to mount them, so they relatively recently switched to the way Red described them mounted in the video - on chains, swinging freely. It was hailed as a massive improvement on Russian telegram. I don’t really understand why or what was wrong with rigid mounting, but it certainly means that the looseness of the current mounts is intentional.

[@the7observer]

it doesnt matter how much stuff they slap onto their tanks, the way they are using them when we see the tanks being destroyed is the problem: improper air cover, lack of infantry cover, lack of combined arms, improper strategy (literally bunching up a bunch of tanks in a lemming train), improper intelligence (AKA dont send tanks where the enemy has a lot of supply of drones)

[@OrangeCub14]

sounds like Nato tactics.. losing a bunch on trains is a western trademark

[@johnwalsh4857]

not to mention a corrupt military and civlian leadership, outdated poor inflexible soviet style combat doctrine, poor command and control leadersip , poor coordination, poorly motivated and trained troops. The onlyi thing going for the Russians is numbers of soldiers and equipment.

[@dimarusanov6107]

You are like NATO general who thinks, that a minefield can be only 200m breit cause so mentioned in the instructions

[@kalebthehistorian5928]

If you look at the Ukrainian counter offensive in 2023, you would know why that's a bad idea. Any time anyone tries to assemble the forces for such an attack, they are detected by satellite, and hit with missiles. As for Air cover, there's too much AD for it to be all that effective, although since the Russians destroyed most of Ukraine's by now, they're the ones who can use it with impunity, at least, for the most part. As for your accusations, they mostly fall flat by this point, as the Russians tend to deploy only small numbers of vechicles at once.

[@JaMeXDDD]

Love to see armchair generals trying to explain how tanks should be used in a type of war they have NO experience with.

[@zeffy._440]

Regarding the jammers it is also worth noting that electro optical drones are used (mainly by Russian forces but Ukrainians too) which are immune to jamming given that they have a direct wired connection. The bagged ERA still does seem to be in use one of the clips in the video shows the commander sitting on top directing the driver with the side missing the ERA and some side skirts suggesting it did work as intended the clip is around 3:31. Regarding the western tanks the real question is if they can produce a large enough number of them and also if they would really work on the field in real combat conditions against small targets flying low or potentially being deployed nearby rather than slowly floating 100's of meters in the air or being stationary in the air as seen in the tech test demo. Western tanks were always flounted as being superior to Russian tanks yet when they faced off against eachother in 2023 it turned out that they were not very good compared to Russian tanks If anything Russia is able to test things in larger quantities in real world conditions unlike NATO who at best has second hand reports. Russia always has focused on low tech cheap solutions rather than expensive solutions with more moving parts

[@SRFriso94]

To quote Perun: "Russia has a large, modern army. But the modern part isn't large, and the large part isn't modern."

[@lahvancz]

Same can be said about most armies including the West...

[@routdog72]

@@lahvancz Let me know when you see a western army fielding Mosins

[@flexprime2010]

@@routdog72 that was the militias in the beginning, i am not sure it is still hapening. Moreover there is something poetic about killing those you see as nazis with the weapon your grandpa used to kill actual nazis

[@konrd]

@@routdog72 Let me know when a western country army will be able to fight for several years alone against dozens of countries.

[@FineWine-v4.0]

​@@routdog72let me if Western countries win against a proper military

[@andredulac4456]

I heard some drones are programmed to lock on the target, so even if they get jammed, they continue to fly to their latest objective without new orders, so if such drones can pass the jammers, we wouldn't have images anyway since it can't send back its footage

[@artiomvv569]

The problem with Russians is that they're always going for the cheapest option. They had better options when it came to military equipment, but they always chose the cheapest option. The object 187 looked like a T90A on steroids, but no, they chose the T90.

[@kamilhorvat8290]

Going for a cheapest option doesn't seem like a bad choice for Russians so far, since everyone has to match the quality of their military HW with capabilities of their economy.

[@iliaalekov2949]

old habits die hard... they need cheap coz they are stupid. why are they stupid? coz they get them selves in stupid situations. example- plan for short war, get ur self a long one. thus = unprepapred. everything done on the move talanted ppl eather run or die in a trench somewhere they will keep being stupid.

[@artiomvv569]

@@kamilhorvat8290 Russia doesn't have the military production capability it had during the 70s and 80s. They can't build like they use to. They have lost around 4000 tanks in 2 and a half years of war and from what I've heard they can only built 20 or so T90Ms a month or 240-250 a year which is abysmal. The T90M for example is not as good as they may say, considering one was literally taken out by a Bradley ifv. The Russians don't even think about replacing the reverse gear and only recently they've thought about putting APS on their tanks. They always choose the cheapest upgrade. There's a version of the T 72 called T72B2 and it was way better than the T72B3 although more expensive. And of course, Russians went with the T72B3 because it was less expensive than (and also less better performing)

[@Fespel]

@@artiomvv569 total liar, it just blow up dynamic shield of T90M :)

[@ыцццФццц]

​@@artiomvv569any minute russia will run out of tanks. Any minute.

[@gOtze1337]

the Kinetic Option is always the Best, a destroyed Drone cant harm your Tank anymore.

[@rebelliousfew]

You’re generally pretty unbiased about both sides, but this seemed to have been a slam on the Russians, when ALL other nations are dealing with this sorta issue. Take the Israeli Merekava for example. If such an advanced and modern tank as that has been disabled/destroyed by a rag tag militia with drones, why is it any surprise that the Russians are facing a similar issue? I think you could’ve been more objective and unbiased in this. You’re rather intelligent in the aspect of technical detail into tanks, but when it comes to applying your knowledge to real-world combat and strategies, you’re not very knowledgeable in this aspect. Lots of what you said were either logical fallacies, or just being entirely incorrect. If you wanna discuss these sorta topics, I am free to help make corrections for you, or better explain stuff in detail so you don’t mislead your viewers. There’s lots of research that you failed to do. Edit: Spelling

[@AquaNomad34]

Merkava was only destroyed during the initial opening phase of the HAMAS attack, at this time the israel army was not on high alert because there was a big demonstration against the israeli goverbment and many IDF soldiers quit their service to supoort the protest against the israel government Unfortunately, the HAMAS used this situiton as advantage to attack Israel on thst day, which was the biggest mistake the HAMAS could ever do. After this attack, the israel army prepared for war instantly and since then no merkava was desrosed by drones again Thia is because Iarael military has very good anti-drone jamming device, that's why you don't see any HAMAS drones destroying israel tanks (at least not in gaza operations)

[@rebelliousfew]

@@AquaNomad34I wouldn’t say that HAMAS couldn’t destroy anymore Merkava tanks, and they likely could have and it isn’t reported. HAMAS doesn’t exactly have the social media platform to release such footage, if they decide to record it anyways, so I wouldn’t draw the line and say they can’t. The point is though, ALL tanks are vulnerable to drones, doesn’t matter what tank it is, and I used the Merkava as one of many examples.

[@lodickasvlajeckou]

With the part about Soviet thermals, the reason was because they were mainly lagging behind in electronics as a whole due to some bad political decisions, but another reason is they they had money, but in the late 80s and 90s Russia was completly out of funds and were happy that people had something to eat, so thermals werent their main focus, and of course unlike the USSR in its peak that had a lot of money and could addopt a alot of new systems at the same time, Russia is just many times poorer

[@3xcolorsFox]

I get the sense it's that Russia doesn't have the cash or doesn't want to spend the cash needed to better outfit their tanks, not they don't know how to make the technologies.

[@MeeesterBond17]

Those dachas aren't cheap, gotta make cutbacks in other areas.

[@aaroncruz9181]

Third option : they don't have to.

[@ohnoes3084]

​@@aaroncruz9181considering how many tank losses they've taken so far along with the men who die in them, something tells me they'd much rather use better equipment if it was at all a choice

[@perfectcell1157]

​​@@ohnoes3084my thought too apparently their tanks and crews aren't going to run out any time soon because if not for the number of tanks they have they wouldn't be so "irresponsible" using them

[@cosmincasuta486]

@@ohnoes3084 You understand a sh1t, you know a sh1t!!! Let them be! Russians know better than anyone on this planet what an war of attrition is! Their machines are cheap, easy to learn, easy to repair, easy to builtt in huge numbers! Sherman was a brilliant tank in WWII because of this. The west, and here I mean America, forgot to built machines to win wars. They built TV shows, imagine and propaganda! An attrition war can be win with a lot of lost materials, lifes and machines!!! Whitch means that Quantity is a better quality than Quality itself!

[@md8590]

They need slightly larger radar equipped fpv hunter fighter drones that weigh around 100kg and cost no more than 100k each, with long endurance and equipped with a .22 machine gun or something. An anti-drone drone

[@Reader3282]

Абрамсы лучше защищены?

[@bgdcsm]

Niet😂

[@Battler-1]

зайди в вар тандер и посмотри габарит брони

[@ashtray2232]

The video is not about Abrams, check out his other videos if you wanna learn about Abrams. Why always gotta cope and dodge the issue whenever constructive criticism is present?

[@Bonpoc4er]

если бы лучше, их бы тысячу отдали чубам, от чего бы те на радостях въехали в кремль, увы им дали жменьку танков, что бы они просто продолжали воевать и не более, не удивлюсь если им списанные отдали, самых первых выпусков

[@Reader3282]

@@Battler-1 ты серьезно?

[@zmanhuber6924]

Disagree on the thermal bit and related commentary. Russia was the first to develop active protection system - not like they can't innovate. The reason they didn't go for thermal is because they basically wanted all their stuff as analog as possible so when the EMP's started popping...their stuff still mostly worked

[@sploster938]

when did red effects comments get flooded with russian bots

[@AquaNomad34]

Asked the bot

[@sploster938]

@@AquaNomad34 i just noticed his comments are filled with pro russian stuff like i enjoy his videos but his comments are insufferable

[@AquaNomad34]

@@sploster938 oh my god pro-russian comments 😱 The horror! The horroooor 😱😱😱 That's almost as annoying as... pro-american comments or pro-british or pro Weatern in general 😱😱😱 Delusional patriotic comments are always cringe, doesn't matter from from which side And to be fair, in this video redeffect is critizisig russian tanks for a problem, that most western tanks would suffer too... It's not like we haven't seen Challenger, Abrams and Leopards getting destroyed by drones too 🤡

[@Mirage-pz]

What do the vatnik bots said?

[@DuyLe-yc7zd]

And every videos he made about western tanks got flooded with NATO bots. Propaganda on every sides makes people very stupid ig

[@ivankrylov6270]

Jammers only work somewhat bc you can't jam all frequencies constantly. And the dji jammers dont work at all anymore bc the drones are now flying in military frequencies instead of civilian

[@mikedittsche]

It did not take russia "decades to catch up" with western thermal sensors, they simply never did catch up. What they did was buying French thermals.

[@aaroncruz9181]

Europe is still buying Russian Oil.

[@thejackal5099]

They are making their own thermals now though.

[@AquaNomad34]

​​​​​@@thejackal5099 Which are based on reverse engineered french thermals, 40 years after the NATO already had it 😂 So yes, it took them decades to catch up, literally 😂🤣

[@youtubesuck_ZOV]

How many years will it take frogs there to build as many tanks per month as Russia? A billion, and then die of LGBT? Funny French people who gave up like cowards in WW2

[@mikedittsche]

@@thejackal5099 which are heavily dependent on French parts.

[@reginald2004]

All this being said it's still relatively easy to disable any tank. In Russia's case a disabled tank will soon become scrap metal, for obvious reasons.