Too many lightly armored and a sluggish Hind makes them all sitting ducks. With small and fast moving Ukranian troops loaded with anti tank and anti air shoulder fired missiles you can breach a big dent into the Russian 'defence'. ...but at the moment you think that you can kick in the door you will loose the war.
T90 is irrelevant. Russian production capabilities are too shit to field meaningful numbers or even replace losses in the slightest. Upgraded old junk is the near future of russia, well kinda like the t90m ironically, until they burnt through their stock piles of restoreable tanks.
Unless I heard him wrong...6:59...the AT-3 Sagger mounted above the gun, IS NOT loaded "from inside the vehicle". Reloading is done manually by the crew through a hatch.
@@ArmorCast I think you are missing my point. At least one of the crew must expose himself to reload it. Therefore, exposed (even if just from the waist up) to enemy fire and artillery shrapnel. In the heat of battle, with small arms fire and explosions, how "motivated" will that person be to do so? It is no different than any of the MG's (even if they are like the CROWs on the M-1) on the roof of many MBTs...they still require some member of the crew to "pop up" to reload. The way you have presented it, it gives the mistaken impression that the "crew member is under armor" while doing so.
One question that I have, and it may not really be relevant, but how much declination does the gun have? As a light tank, supporting a QRF, I would think that the ability to address targets on the ground at close range ( I'm thinking inside of 500 meters. Abundant declination would be very nice to have.
It's hilarious how the Leopard 2 video got so many less views yet it sucks ass more than the T-90. Wow, almost like people want to be fed "Russia bad" videos!
i feel like it should have the missile launches on the Bradley's and the ability to swap it out for other stuff, like a higher caliber turret or stinger manpad style light AA missiles or something, IDK though im not very informed
I was REME and when my apprenticeship started in 1962 I trained on the Centurion and the Saladin, then went on to the Chieftan and actually got my hands on some Conquerors during my time, of course I was a civilian again before the Challenger raised its gun so no experience there, first guns I trained on at AAS was the 25 pdr and 5.5 inch so I guess I am a real dinosaur. First posting was to Honest John's and 8 inch howitzers.
As far as airborne infantry support the Bradley weighs 28 tons and the Booker weighs 42 tons. The big joke of America's military/ industrial complex is they're more interested in selling the Booker at $14 million than the Bradleys $4 million. And airborne infantry suffers as a result because they dont have enough tanks because of the Weight and Cost.. Kaching! kaching!
It was not till the mid 90s that abrams was even comprable to British armour.. let alone setting the standard.. early models had 105mm rifled guns and a host of deficiencies
I remember back in 2003... I enlisted in the West Virginia National Guard, when I was 17 and only a JR in high school. I did this so I could complete Basic Combat Training between my senior and junior year of high school, then after I graduated the following year, return to AIT and then transfer to Active Army, gaining a nice little boost with time in grade/service, as well as make some cash and look like a straight bad ass for all the little dirty girls at school ( all of which worked goddamn wonders... made E5 SGT in May, when I was 20 years old and didn't turn 21 until October, as well as opened myself up to several sexual adventures, where as the girls involved wouldn't have even looked at me had I not taken this route). Anyways, I was NBC (or CBRN for all the youngsters), but for drill and such, seeing as how there was no CBRN units around, I was attached to an armored unit. They did have Abrams, but had to trade them in for Bradleys (which they were PISSED about) thanks to the "Modularity" change up that came around that time... anyways, in the latrine and locker room, there were SEVERAL posters laying out different Soviet era armored vehicles and I remember this one that's in the beginning of the video, being directly front and center as you opened the door, on the partition section that one had to round to actually enter the latrine. Most the other posters were individual vehicle layouts, pointing out weak points and specifics that one would be best knowing, if you were going into combat where these bastards may be lurking. Honestly, it was cool, classy, educational, and the knowledge that I learned, just standing there staring at these things while taking a piss have stayed fresh in my mind for 2 decades now.
Fun fact, the Mi-28 still has a passenger compartment in it, though it can only seat maybe 2 or 3 people at best. It is there mainly to allow for the helicopter to be able to pick up downed friendly helicopter pilots. Also we recently had footage from Russians using a door gunner on an Mi-35 Hind to shoot up a Ukrainian unmanned surface vehicle (kamikaze boat) on the Black Sea.
i live in midlands and ive been there when they open up the cocpits . and you can go in them . . the hind 24 .is so tight. and the vulcan is unberliveable. a wicked day out if you love military aircraft
The most beautiful motorcycles ever made was the great legacy of WW2. And don't forget the women of the Red Army. They were gorgeous. The end. I guess I'm an historian.
Pretty good video with only one mistake i can think of - Strela-1 and 10, while sharing the name with Strela-2 MANPADS, use much heavier and capable missiles.
According to the regulations, Western tanks do not go into a breakthrough, they are in ambush with armor-piercing ammunition. Accordingly, there is nothing to detonate there. On the Ukrainian front, Western tanks went into a breakthrough and showed their inefficiency both in combat and economically, the advertised ability to keep the crew turned out to be advertising nonsense.
18:28 "M3 Stuarts" pictured, M2A4 Light tank. Gotta admit, I think the Shilka/Strela combo is a lot more threatening to CAS than you state. Not a showstopper, but you are going to take casualties. Personally think the M10 Booker is an obvious "medium" tank. Heavy enough to deal with any light tracked vehicle, particularly of the auto-cannon equipped variety but will struggle to pen a heavy on open ground.
What I mean is that those threats are pretty trivial to deal with in an A-10, since the A-10 carries several weapons that can effectively engage them from outside their own firing range. That is no longer the case - the air defences escorting manoeuvre forces aren’t Strelas and Shilkas with a four kilometre range, they’re things like the Tor-M2 with a FOURTEEN kilometre range! All of a sudden the A-10 can’t engage the threats it’s expected to face, from a position of safety, as it could those older systems
Unfortunately these tanks are obsolete before they start giving a drone costing a grand could probably defeat it the army should have put our money in more apache helicopters big mistake 😂.
Drones were super effective against tanks in Nagorno-Karabakh, and they have been during Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, but only because they were a new and unprecedented threat and neither side in either of those conflicts has had access to proper modern short range air defences (SHORAD). We’re already seeing tanks coming as standard with radio jammer suites to fend off drones, most new tanks are coming with hard-kill active defence systems to prevent drones and other munitions from making contact, and as militaries start fielding modern SHORAD systems like Skyranger or CV90 Mk.IV, that drone threat will drop to almost nothing. Helicopters are arguably a lot more “obsolete” than tanks are! In truth neither are “obsolete” - both still fulfil unique roles that armies require, and the presence of new THREATS doesn’t change these assets’ ROLES. But helicopters are the ones that need the most rethinking
