5:40 36 tonnes for the t55 and it is lighter than the 70 tonnes western tanks. Soviet ifv and apc are also lighter than western ones 6:45 the M1 Abrams tank is only capable of fuel for 400 km. whereas Soviet tanks like the T72 had a range of 550 km and the Soviets liked to carry fuel tanks for an extra 100 km 7:40 Soviet tanks were lighter and only needed 1/2 the fuel per kilometer of the m1 Abrams
if world war 3 broke out in 1980, what is the probability that the united states troops who had to sail 7 days to europe would survive against a fleet of soviet submarines in the atlantic. before the Soviet troops reach the Spanish border in 2 weeks
WTH are you on about 9:08 ? This is how war in Ukraine is kind of playing out, they are not sitting in trenches for months. At the points of the offensive they switch up to few kilometres here and there just to get pushed out next day.
Covert Cabal - "Roads are easy to repair" Please inform the UK local government(s) of this. For some reason they are incapable of repairing simple pot holes.
Depends on the repair. Just filling the holes with a mix of gravel, dirt and cement would be cheap and easy, but making it smooth with asphalt not so much.
Depend on how long the repair is going to hold. Gravels would hold perfectly before the next rainstorm by which time no one is going to care about this road anymore. An even easier thing to repair during battle is airport runways.
The US Navy conducted nuclear tests on ships just after WW2. They put animals on the ship. What they found was that a nuclear blast had to be a direct hit on a ship to sink it quickly but all of the animals received a lethal dose of gamma radiation and died within 4 days. Gamma rays go through steel. So, tanks would most likely survive but the crews would get sick and die.
This is why soviet doctrine had so many APCs. The plan was they would bring fresh crews from the rear to pull the bodies out of the tanks and continue the assault.
I've heard about a tank that was exposed to a nuclear test.It was cleaned up and put back into service. Apparently quite a few members of the crew later got cancer... ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-8BJc50DfnCk.html
@@megapet777 I'm pretty sure you could Google that, not being sarcastic, I'm replying before trying it myself lol, but this is a thing. Especially in the last couple decades with the proliferation of commercial satellites. Like, satellite map makers, for instance, require a lot of satellite imagery. Up to date and high resolution can get very expensive very quickly. Edit: "purchase satellite imagery" yields plenty of companies
Everyone counts out soviet rail, but their rail system was far more robust than people in the west give them credit for which may have worked in their favor. They had tens if thousands of personnel in the army rail troops tasked with repairing and extending rail lines. They had almost fully mechanized track laying capability as well as armored trains to drive them around. The soviets ran their rails at higher density as well with trains being able to see the train in front of them instead waiting for a clear line. They even kept a large supply of older steam engines in deep storage just in case oil and electrified lines were scarce.
Before the invasion of Ukraine, there was also a lot of content about how a potential war in Ukraine could develop. Hopefully things won't get worse than they are now.
Russia won't back off, it's existential for them. So they will definitely use nukes over Crimea. If NATO really responds conventionally, it will be a full nuclear exchange within a day, Russia is much weaker than NATO and hard reset is the only viable strategy for them. They won't even press the button, they will enable Perimeter system for automatic response.
That's not necessarily a bad thing. Nukes exist, so we should talk about them. It would be worse if they existed and we didn't talk about them. What people do in secret is often worse than what they do in public (as bad as that is).
Tank electronics from most nato nations are often nuclear hardened. As long as your far enough away from the blast to not be destroyed, they would be ok. The tankers though, that's a different question.
Most Electronics would get fried and NATO Electronics used to be alot more protected from Emps but not sure how well a Tank would do against all 3 phases of an EMP
@@jeffbenton6183 nnc? If you mean NBC, that won't do much against a nuclear blast unless you're a fair distance away. It will help with the fallout though 👍
@@meme4one Ugh! Stupid autocorrect! This is why I shouldn't ever comment on my phone! And yes, I did assume the tank would be a fair distance away, at least far enough for the EMP-hardened electronics to survive.
I watched your podcast episode discussing this, and the point of maintenance is extremely important and overlooked. I think a lot of the fighting following a massive nuclear exchange would be carried out in the years after using non-armoured vehicles and infantry
Much can and many bases have 4"+ aluminum EMP barriers to protect against the effects. Much equipment in electronics is self healing PN junctions and also rad hardened. Mechanical needs nothing and you would be surprised how little EMP effects small objects with short or no antennas if at all. I took EE and CS.
I've started watching a guinea-pigs video during this runned in the background and the camera work and change when he talking about diffrent tanks make so much sense ... it was pure comical perfection.
1:10 “So if you could show your enemy you had the ability to continue fighting, even after a nuclear war, it could convince them further to never attack in the first place.” Nagasaki.jpeg 🥴
Not sure the statement about infantry being more mobile than a war ship is true. The world has more water than land and its easier to transport one already mobile item than ALL of the equipment needed to support an infantry.
When I was in the Army (US) several decades ago, we were told that use of chemical or nuclear weapons would not stop the fighting. It would only slow the tempo of the fight. ANd in the case of nuclear, it would disperse the fighting.
@@AldoSchmedack But is that really a realistic assesment?Its one thing to be told something but its quite another for that to be the case. In a nuke war society is likely to breakdown quickly behind the front lines. Even one nuke hit on a major european city is enough to overwhelm every emergency service there is on the continent. Multiple nuke hits and its everyone for themselves. Its not about whether the guys in uniforn keep the fight going its about whether civilian society breaks down. Especially once emergency services are wiped out. When that happens the military will end up as tiny islands in a sea of anarchy and lawlessness. Once surviving cops flee their posts(its not like they're getting paid anymore) militias of all stripes would form and take over. In that environment troops at the front would be the last remnant of the old world. These prenuke war assumptions are based on very optimistic assumptions about the system. In a nuke war money loses value. People think with their stomachs.
@@florinivan6907The destruction of just *one* city is going to require *all* the emergency services in the *entire* EU to leave their operating bases? I find that hard to believe, do you have a source for that?
5:40 36 tonnes for the t55 and it is lighter than the 70 tonnes western tanks. Soviet ifv and apc are also lighter than western ones 6:45 the M1 Abrams tank is only capable of fuel for 400 km. whereas Soviet tanks like the T72 had a range of 550 km and the Soviets liked to carry fuel tanks for an extra 100 km 7:40 Soviet tanks were lighter and only needed 1/2 the fuel per kilometer of the m1 Abrams
@@user-bw6jg4ej2m I think during a nuclear war the infantry will be very scarce and everyone will be using tactical nuke ammunition. no matter what tank if hit it will definitely explode
if world war 3 broke out in 1980, what is the probability that the united states troops who had to sail 7 days to europe would survive against a fleet of soviet submarines in the atlantic. before the Soviet troops reach the Spanish border in 2 weeks
I’m curious. Whenever I’ve seen videos of infantry, the suits they use only last a few hours. How long does a tank last before it’s protection wares away or is it just limited to refitting filters etc? Thanks in advance.
From my own understanding, you need to invest wisely, if you need the good things of life. so far i've made over $470k in raw profits from just q4 of the market from my diversified portfolio strategy and i believe anyone can do it you have the right strategy. mutual funds takes a while but investing wisely is the key for short term. Most of us pay more attention to the easy position in the market to the cost of proper diversification.
@Márcia I have known Dr. Lauren Florence for a while now. My brother and I invested in he's platform too.. the very first time we tried. We invested $4000 and after a week we received $14500. That really helped us alot to pay our bills.
Hi, I have a question regarding military aid to Ukraine. After all the news about modern western MBTs being given to Ukraine, why weren't older western tank types like the M60 given? Considering that there are still a lot of countries like Spain or Turkey that use them, that they were still successfully used by the US in operation Desert Storm and that the Ukrainians are getting T-55s from Slovenia one might think that older equipment could have been delivered to Ukraine much sooner.
I think a lot of them would, if it would make sense. Germany sending Marder is pretty much exactly this, considering that the Marder is really not that grand of an IFV by today's standards. Also consider the amount of BMP-1 that got sent. With tanks, it might be that politicians have actually understood that better hardware might make a real difference and the political cost of sending M60 and Leopard 1 (or AMX 30) is the same as sending the modern stuff. So they might want to do some good and are sending the better types. Though there might be other reasons too.
I'd imagine a lot of those older tanks in western countries are in stockpile and not ready to use soon at all whilst newer modern MBT's are regularly maintained and ready to go
Old tanks are different from old IFVs, where old IFVs can at least be a taxi and transport troops, whereas old tanks are just mobile guns with low reliability (as with all tanks) and low survivability. And currently it is no longer the first stage of war where Ukranians need every possible gun to counter Russian tank assaults.
Because Ukraine can't support 2 or 3 times the number of tanks, they only have so many trained crew. It's better to give them the best quality then instead of quantity.
I wonder if the U.S. use of depleted uranium armor on the abrams buys any advantage durring a nuclear event. Just thinking lead is futher up the periodic table.
Such armour would be about 2.5 times as heavy as steel, so it would have to be thinner. The biggest threats to Tanks (most kills) are HEAT and Tungsten sabots, so Tank protection is optimised to counter these.
Any material can provide full protection from radiation, but density how thick it would need to be. You could use newspaper as radiation shielding, but it's not very dense so it would need to be over a meter thick to be effective. Depleted uranium even denser than lead or steel; therefore one of the best materials to block radiation as well as armor against lead bullets or steel shrapnel.
Problem is that uranium is much heavier than steel - so you only have thin sheets of it. The armor works by having strong and soft zones as well as air gaps and NERA these changes in speed as well as shifting of plates and buckling of NERA disrupt the rod, making it break apart & change direction. Its not optimized against radiation and heavy armor is only on the front - sides and rear are weak and thin. So you get cooked from say behind.
What kind of question is that? Three ways like everyone else, dead, horribly burned and dying or on their way to starving to death during the nuclear winter.
Also another factor to slow them down is having to scout for radiation from the nuclear fallout. Last thing you want is to set up camp and learn come morning that half your men are now sick from radiation poisoning.
"You can't park a plane or a ship anywhere." Sweden: Hold my beer. Both air and naval forces was organized around dispersed operation, to reduce the usability tactical nukes. Who winns the trade if a nuke takes out a torpedo boat, or two planes?
I guess the question would be 'How do we keep it at a limited nuclear war?' Do you expect the opposing side to just roll over and surrender after a division is wiped out by a nuke? Or would each side fire more of they ready armed nukes in retaliation to 'keep the upper hand' until we have a doomsday scenario. There is no such thing as a limited nuclear war and if such a thing even exists, it exists in the fantasies of a flailing nuclear power watching their power crumble relative to their peers as they try to convince everyone else its better if the world is destroyed than if they lose in the "mineshaft gap". Notice that the Soviets did NOT attempt any such limited nuclear rubbish as their empire was collapsing.
If there was a nuclear surprise attack it would a boomer of the coast and will be devastating but there would a retaliation which will be equally devastating.
The fact is, we don't know what will happen in a nuclear war. We don't know what our opponents will do, so can't know what we'll have to do. It is the best practice to prepare as much as possible for survival scenarios. Therefore, TANKS! Don't forget the tittie bars on the way to the fight.
“Russia preformed not as expected in Ukraine “ And Russia mustn’t do as West thinks it’s must. “ We expected to you take Kiev with 30k troops in two days!!!!”
with no fuel, no ammo reload, no parts, wreckage blocking most rail/roads, emp probabbly knock out its electronics, if not all the industry that would support it..
By December they lost 1400 tanks or so per western sources. They had 2700 at start of the war. They had a lot in storage but at most 6000 of these could be brought back - rest is junk. They also make now at least 300 tanks per year. Thus they have still 7500 tanks left.
Was hoping to hear how maintenance would be carried out in a radioactive theater. How could troops exist permanently inside their NBC suits? Would the inside of the tanks become contaminated? If not, why? If they're exiting, they're opening the hatch and exposing the inside to a radioactive wasteland. Where do they relieve their bodily functions when inside a tank? Are the tanks packed with MREs? This video seems to forget that tanks require living people to operate them.
Yes, troops can live and operate in a radio active environment almost indefinitely as long as fresh water, food and CBRN equipment is replenished. It would be horrible but training in the cold War focused on that. 2002 onwards the focus became CIED, but CBRN is likely being heavily trained again now.
Nuclear weapon is the only economical weapon to destroy railway systems, road networks and airfields. Those systems are very easy to repair and the amount of conventional weapons to sustain the damage is simply not worth it. So in a conventional war you should expect those system to be at least partially functional, whereas in a nuclear war they are probably not. A single nuke can send an entire area of infrastructure beyond repair.
@@jameswu7850 How is any of THE CONTENT OF THE VIDEO any different than the logistics of tanks in a conventional war? Nuclear = more bang for weight of explosive + personnel-damaging radiation. Nuclear weapons aren't cheap, so nuclear is NOT "the only economical weapon to destroy railway systems, road networks and airfields".
@@pro-libertatibus Well the structure of this video confuses me too. It is more like "how the USSR historically prepared the tanks for nuke wars" instead of "how the Russian Federation IS preparing". The video was trying to say that USSR was spreading out their tank reserves and moving supply centers closer to the front. The answer to your question is that the ordinance to sustain damage on road networks and railway systems is simply beyond imagination. You all see how WWII/Korea/Vietnam/Iraq where allied aircrafts were absolutely destroying vehicles/trains/bridges, but you will never see them actually target the road/railway itself. It is just so uneconomical. Yeah you blowed a hole in the railway, then it get welded in-field by a small crew with a few trucks the same day. A nuke, not so much, and they stored thousands of nukes.
The railways destroyed and unoperable? The funny thing about railway is that it can be easily, quickly and cheaply rebuild. In WW2 when the resistance destroyed a railway, Germans needed cca 24 hours to repair the rail in open terrain and several weeks in the case of the railbridge across the river. In WW1 when the bolsheviks destroyed the railway tunnels at shore of the lake, the Czechoslovak legionaries needed one week under constant fight to build new railway around the lake and then continued in they way.
@@florinivan6907 Thats quite simple - you need the job (repairs or new railway) to be done, so you force people to do so a you don't inform them taht this is dangerous. Look at the Siberia - most of the railways and water channels there were biuld through the marshes and other extremely unhealty enviroment by forced laborers. And look at the Cernobyl in last year - for four decades everybody tries to avoid the "forbidden zone" and suddently the Russian soldiers are digging trenches and camping there without any radiation protection. And I don't believe this was their "sheer devotion to duty", they simply weren't informed.
@@florinivan6907 It is not that you are hiding the nuclear strike, you are just not revealing the real danger of the radiation. There are several films on RU-vid made during the military nuclear trainings in 1950's and 1960's where American, Soviet or Chinese soldiers are walking, driving and riding into areas of nuclear blast; sometimes with no more protection that the duct-tape around their shoes. There is popular belief among some military commanders that the massive bombing will cause widespread panic and total collapse of the infrastructure. It depend on the strenght of regime and nation. During WW2, during Vietnam war, and now in Ukraine there war certain areas completely destroyed, leveled and uninhabitable for a time, and yet the panic and collapse were only local and temporal.
Same rules of Battle apply with a nuclear weapon(s) as is true with any other kinetic weapons system namely the inherent battle between *"space"* (how much of a "this" is there) versus time ("The this applied".) So depending upon the deployment of *ANY* tracked vehicle let alone an *"armored gun carriage with Infantry suppression system upon rotating mass of metal suspended sprung moving movable apparatus"* how quickly can I get to the specified item prior to deployment and detonation and upon that be made have happen *"then what?"* presuming some order upon the latter namely *"capture"* , *"kill"* , *"attain"* , *"remove"* , *"disarm"* etc
Even if some tank units survived after a nuclear exchange, what is left to fight for? With the leadership probably dead or hiding in a bunker with no means of communication, the population, industrial centres, cities and large parts of the military dead or destroyed? Why take the risk, drive long distances through partly radiated lands and search for an enemy that is probably dead anyways?
After a nuklear strike the war would just start really. You would need thousands of successful nuklear strikes on enemy targets to completely decimate them.
@@florinivan6907 that's like relying on a "psychological stop" in a self defensive shooting. Sometimes people lose the will to fight at the sight of blood. Be afraid of the adversary who you pump a few nukes into and then they pull together, awaken and fill with a terrible resolve.
@@florinivan6907 for small countries like Italy probably. But for Russia it would take much more, plus dictators don't care for civilian casualties they would probably keep fighting until the end. And if they also have nukes even worse.
3:25 Why would you want to nuke front-line units? You will then have to advance through contaminated areas. Better attack the rear! And the front-line units wouldn't be able to fight for long without logistical support anyway 😎
Love your channel and videos, such detailed informations, yet very easy to understand and entertaining on top. Makes me understand Warfare way better, even though i always have been a military nerd. Thanks for your work!
thought the video was gunna get into some details about various tanks NBC systems or other survivability issues or warfare techniques. the title doesnt really seem to fit the video. i still enjoyed it but was hoping for something else from the title.
You forgot that the Russians have one of the best mechanized brigade for restoring railroads, as can be seen in Ukraine. however the question would be if they would be movable trough a land of nuclear fallout, probably not. More shocking would be that the infrastructure of most western Europe would not survive as it involves electric railways, incapable of quick repair.
Hmm the electrical overhead wire or 3rd rail is not that hard to repair... They can be fixed in a few days at most, and there's no way you can nuke every segment of track. It just require power infrastructure to run. Which tbh isn't that problematic either. We can see in Ukraine that power gets brought back in matter of days at worst. Same with WW2. Power plants and factories get brought back up basically the next day. Strategic bombing is not a economical means of warfare and why most strategic bomber forces got abandoned except for like 3 military powers. Enemies don't give up, and things recover super quick requiring 24/7 attacks on a massive scale just to degrade a percentage of your opponent's industry and logistics capability. And to do this, countries need to expend a lot of resource on sustaining very expensive strategic bomber and missile force... that cannot be used other than total war. And if you do use it outside of total war, it does the job worse than smaller tactical platforms. Nukes deterrent factor is in its devastation in a short period of time and thus put the cost of war so high its not worthwhile. Its not that it is irrecoverable because humanity and civilization will survive. Vital services would be brought back online relatively quick even if not at full capacity. Modern nation states are very resilient.
@@nifnavje NATO is highly capable of sea and air transport which can help bring US troops across the Atlantic to Western Europe's aid. However, it is seriously lagging and vulnerable in terms of resilience when it comes to rail transport on Western European territory to actually bring heavy units to any frontline in the East.
@@neurofiedyamato8763 Ukraine shows that power grid is a big issue - they cannot bring it back - they turn on a lot of old and new generators and power grid is offline for months. Same during WWII - as Germany is a clear indication the only way to bring factories back was to either go underground or spread them a lot. Strategic bombing brought both Japan and Germany on their knees. By end of the war for Germany they had like nothing... Same for Japan - they could not really produce much. Germany had fuel producing factories - but so what - if they *had* them - allies quickly removed them. Case in point of today's Ukraine - they use exclusively western systems now as they have issues even with basic support - not to mention zero production - no factories and no electricity - so cannot even spread things. Only electric power they can rely on is nuclear as Russia cannot bomb these.
This is why i generally feel undetered by putting nuclear handwaving, not to say he wouldn't do it, but simply we don't use those nuclear doctines anymore like you outlined in another video
Depends, are these tanks equipped with nord vpn? Seriously though I think it’s plain if they’re near enough a large a blast it’ll kill the crew even if the tank isn’t actually blown apart. The explosion being nuclear doesn’t change the fact that the armor can stand up to x amount of pressure it’s just a question of how big and how close to the blast
In one Russian book on ATGMs I've read that Soviets viewed complex tank electronics like night vision and thermal cameras as disadvantage because on a radioactive battlefield there will be no ATGM teams and all mentioned before complex electronics will not survive nuclear explosion so they concluded that only thing that would matter is your gun and your armour. But they changed their mind after war in Afghanistan.
Why would they change their view on war in europe because of war in afganistan? Europe is from 1/2 just a big plain while afganistan is just mountain next to another mountain.
5000 Km lifespan for the engine is more than enough. From Moscow to Lisbon are 3800 Km in straight line. Of course the tank doesn't go straight it maneuvers. But still has 1200 Km resource without changing the engine. With 5000 Km resource you can occupy the entire Europe with the starting point in Moscow. In you start from Czechoslovakia or RDG, even 2500 Km engine lifespan is enough
It really isn't. Any combat is going to require a lot of maneuver and not all roads are going to be usable by a tank, with many probably being sabotaged / destroyed. War isn't a road trip.
As already said, those engines are not going to be new as it would have been used for training and parades. Routes aren't going to be direct and roads aren't all paved. Also 5000 km lifespan is just that. Basically how long before it needs to be completely replaced. you still need regular maintenance which is a lot more frequent. If you don't keep them lubricated and replace the worn out driving bands etc. the engine won't last 5000 km.
dumb idea to assume at all there would be still anything to fight for or against or with after the nukes were sent out globally to every participant countries.
