Thanks for watching, check out the accompanying article for this video here: armourersbench.com/2022/08/21/ukraines-homemade-tank-destroyer/ Check out the full playlist of videos on Ukraine here: ru-vid.com/group/PLt7Io-OQBYSpPwU2o06V67DBI_aKEfeNn
I'm pretty sure "Kraken" is a unit/ battalion name and have uploaded several videos of their combat including retaking of villages and towns. Very interesting video, thanks 👍
@@oz314 well said, it's a shame the rest of the comments on here are just the usual dribble. Funny how the west pours billions into this corrupt country, and all they can show is an homemade junk pile.
I really like how this combo looks. It is elegant, looks like a properly designed weapon system rather than just sticking a cannon on a top of the vehicle, it is tracked, the cannon despite being 100mm has already destroyed a lot of russian non tank armour (actually it shoots 100x910mm rounds, so its a much higher velocity than 100x695mm used by tanks like T-54), MT-12 can be fitted with night vision, there is a version with a radar for low visibility firing (smoke screens) and even a version capable of firing laser guided rockets. The issues are obvious - can it actually be fired with the crew on it (can it fire at moving targets), and how much ammunition it can take (reliance on support vehicles). Still, it just looks so good.
It also has a high elevation..meaning it can double as a fast light artillery piece like a German 105mm Wespe from WW2. The should convert all their 100mm AT guns to this combo.
The original MT-12 gun crew was always behind the shield. They probably use the lanyard to protect their hearing and prevent bodily damage from the concussion of the gun firing.
how much critical thinking is lacking in the West. the ukrozergs put an old anti-tank gun on the old MTLB (which the Ukrainian army also has in abundance), made a couple of pretentious videos and all the Western lemings got wet like girls. the ukrozergs are able to shoot a video, but more than 100,000 corpses have already been scattered across the fields, and you think why there is still no offensive on Kherson. Do you think the Russians are fools that they don't put heavy weapons on MTLB? the answer is very simple, the mtlb case is not designed for shock loads. That's how it's not even an armored personnel carrier, but an armored transport. On its basis, you can make either special machines with radar and surveillance systems or light air defense and ATGM missile launchers, but not for guns.
i have not heard until today that exist any "field anti tank gun" to be able to "shot on the move", simply because is MANUFACTURED to shot on stationary position. Except that, they added hydraulic support on the rear side of vehicle to support & stabilize the vehicle when firing. Clearly on the move such thing can not be done. Are you requiring from simple fighters on battlefield, to produce an "piece of art" weapon with complex electronic stabilization computers, including precision gearboxes with electromotors to do the function automatically, how just how it works in modern tanks?! Are you sure that you are not some kind of psychopath?!
@@thepreserver83 I wrote "fire at moving targets", I did not wrote "shoot on the move" anywhere. Perhaps anger made you misunderstood what was written. Please wipe the foam off your mouth and don't call others "psychopaths" cause it is really rude.
I love homebrews like this. All business, no talk. It really gets down to the essentials, without the bells and whistles, of what is really needed - i.e. not a camel but a horse.
Ukraine is ahead of the curve. I suspect they are preparing for the reduced availability of Western ATGMs. These things are good for targeting everything except tanks. Perhaps it will allow them to save the ATGMs for tanks and employ these for any number of other targets including fixed positions. Doctrinally, these are defensive weapons which allow tanks to be consolidated into offensive formations.
@Babd it's a remark on a common saying. "A camel is a horse designed by committee". Meaning that when a bunch of desk sitters design something it ends up being bloated with features at the detriment of its intended purpose. In the clip we see what soldiers created because that's what they specifically needed, in its simplest form. Hope this clears it up :)
Historically Camels can be more effective than horses as military mounts in certain circumstances. In the history of the Middle East and North Africa Camels were often used as anti horse cavalry because horses found the smell of camels rather unnerving and obviously the camel is better adapted for desert than a horse. I'd argue there are more bells and whistles with a horse than a camel.
The British 57mm Six Pounder Anti Tank gun was a heck of a weapon. A real one-shot tank killer in a small package. Quick to deploy, low to the ground weapons firing very high velocity solid rounds. I wonder if smaller bore high velocity guns would do the job today. Easier logistics with three or four-man gun crews.
Suffice to say, anything that inst mobile have a tendency to attract artillery fire very quickly and since artillery seems to be on the order of the day in Ukraine this tank-destroyer seems like a logical conclusion.
There is a possibility that the reason it was mounted on the tracked vehicle is the infamous mud and weather of Eastern Europe. Bad enough that it's bogged down any and all armys who have come through there. As for the gun, it's probably being used as a mechanized field gun for both artillery and anti-tank/personnel duties. I wouldn't be surprised if the reason that they mounted that one had more to do with an excess stockpile of ammo, and parts on hand than anything else.
It is suppose to be an anti-tank gun, not a howitzer, or a infantry support weapon. It isn't a very good anti-tank gun if the crew has to fire it from outside of the vehicle.
@@Ace1000ks19751982 A fair number of WW2 anti-tank guns were like this. Its not a new design. The idea was less frontline, and more ranged, almost to the point were it could be considered indirect, or a self-propelled gun, yet not.
All tank destroyers are born of the combination of spare big guns, older vehicles, the urgency of conflict and the lack of capacity to produce the proper number of modern tanks.
I think this combination is a pretty competent adaptation which makes the use of the gun more effective. I like the way the gun has auto-ejection of the spent shell. This speeds the rounds per minute rate considerably.🤔
Looking at the firing I don't think it can be used in anti tank role. The recoil seems to be too great for the gun layer. It may be more likely a bunker buster or as an ordinary self propelled artillery gun. Love the recoil though it reminds me of the 17 pounder on the 25 pounder gun carriage!thanks for posting.
I can see this being used against all but an MBT, unless some of those reserve T-62s Russia is using are rolling around. They clearly can use it in a direct and an indirect fire mode as well. A good weapon to do ambush attacks against BMPs and BTRs.
I agree. Also, its no self-loader. It seems they must load every shot one by one... A tank would fire upon them with its machine gun, if nothing else... Even shooting from a couple kilometers away machine gun bullets would rain on them still causing wounds... So its essentially a self going cannon, a basic version of these they get from west. Im sure it works well enough.
As far as field custom solutions go, this is outstanding. Some serious design and fabrication with went into this. The quality of the build work is far beyond the usually slapped together with a welding torch and a dream type creations you see in many armed forces.
Is it though? I question it's accuracy. Also MTLB has little to none armor, so the way it is fitted... I doubt it can survive more than a 100 shots without falling apart.
I want people to know this can knock out the t-62m and t-64b that the separatist use from all angles, and the t-72 and t-80 of all variants form the side. Not to mention the btr and bmp would be very soft.
@@terrynewsome6698 It might not be as effective on the sides of tanks with Kontakt-5, as the projectile would shatter when it strikes the ERA. It might still pen, but it would be far less effective.
@@voidtempering8700 true, but it is still something to support the Ukrainian infantry in a ambush. And there is a limit to how many atgm equipped tank destroyers can supply to each platoon.
Ukraine really gets creative with their equipment :)
2 года назад
Edit: As I see now, some others pointed this out already. So let me just say, nice Video. Interesting vehicle. I hope they put it to good use and it serves them well. 01:35 those are not not soviet Soldiers with the MT-12, but east German Army (NVA) soldiers. The footage is from an east german propaganda movie named "panzerjäger Klietz" a 3 parter as far as I remember. It follows one MT-12 crew throughout their service in the NVA. You can also see it from the east german helmets and hear it form the beautiful sounds of comabt german beeing spoken :) I know all this because I used the footag (available hear on youtube) for my own video about soviet anti tank guns of the cold war a while back (in german). I like this vehicle because since that video I am indeed quite interested in soviet PaKs. Hopefully it survives the war and we can see it in person one day.
It has to answer some need. I love the ingenuity of soldiers. Give them a real lemon and they can make something no one expects. Soldiers have no respect for anyone's ego. So what if a vehicle follows them or a trailer is towed with more ammunition. At some point, a truck has to resupply them with fuel and ammunition.
The spades weren't "added" - that started as an MT-LB "Blade" , the version with the rear mounted dozer blade, They just repurposed the mechanism to be 2 rear facing spades for recoil rather than 1 front facing dozer blade/plow
MT-12 has a lot more then that. the problem is Ukrainian logistics have been devastated so good luck getting those huge shells around to where they are needed.
A simple design, quick assembly, major mobility, and very good fire power. This is a classic good example of infield system adaptation. I tip my hat to them. You don't always need the best and latest tech to fight a battle.
The advantage of this is definitely the ability to shoot and scoot. I'm not sure that this would be notably faster to set up for a shot, but it's definitely faster to leave after a shot.
Even though all of these recent wars have brought suffering, they have also given us ways to keep the offending party at bay in creative ways! Seeing a towed AT gun mounted directly to a prime mover like this is one of those rare genius ideas that comes out of a war. When this is all over, I think we're going to see that improvisation was way more a factor in victory than most think!
Even if it is not suitable for destroying tanks or other vehicles, it is still a good option to increase the number of self-propelled artillery for working at short distances. For paratroopers and assault groups - a great option. From 6 to 14 shots per minute at a distance of 8 kilometers... If you have at least 2-3 such machines - the enemy infantry is fucked
4:26 Those are not soviet gun crews, they are east German, trivially spotted by their uniform pattern, the helmet shape and the fact that they are speaking German.
@@TheArmourersBench Sure, but the way you write it, it means "soviet (gun crews)", not "(soviet gun) crews". Also, the majority of English speaking watchers will not understand "NVA" to mean "Nationale Volksarmee", but rather "North Vietnamese Army". Well, you can't change it now anyway. In any case, thanks for responding.
Most of these Ad Hoc implements are done on volunteer units. They seem to have the kind of creative and innovative thinking (or rather are somehow deprived of ordinary weapons) but I also think that Ukraine is easing the weight on local innovations. They may have found out that free initiative may open new ways. In this case is nothing really new, but you change 2 rolling units into 1 which in Ukraine´s landscape is always gonna be a logistical advantage, besides elevation this sort of mounting also spares men, effectively doubling your manpower potential. If you add a guided round, you may even engage helicopters. Is quite an improvement
God bless Ukraine for perseverance, indomitable spirit, sacrifice, and ingenuity. Kinda reminds me of the Germans turning the 88 AA gun into a tank killer. Seen some interesting weapons in Ukraine: like old German MG 42s, scars, m14s, etc. The list goes on. They are taking outdated systems and making them viable on the modern battlefield, while utilizing them in sync with new western arms. The commercial drone as a FO and weapon system has been ingenious. Glory to Ukraine from a Slav.
That reminds me the conversion the Greek army did on its Bmp1 vehicles by removing the turret and replacing it with twin Zu 23-2 AA cannons that has on ample supply, both given from the former East German army stocks.
Think of it as a inexpensive solution in place of a MGS platform like the M1128 Stryker. I'd love to see what this does in a side or rear impact on an MBT.
seen alot of talk about fixed guns being obsolete in modern war as well as many of the older "battle taxi" lightly armed troop transports so this seems like a good way to get more use out of both halves of the build.
This is literally the first truly 21st Century war. You have makers taking two almost obsolete weapons and making something completely new that confuses the enemy's tactics. That applies to other improvised systems we've already scene.
It is a rather impressive conversion and given the complexity of the modifications, I'd be inclined to image the Ukrainians have produced a convenient conversion kit (if there are more than one of these mobile gun carriages in service).
I love the weapons ingenuity shown during war...but it's a shame it has to be developed. That MT-LB is novel. It's usually the ZU-2 or the Strela-10 models seen. Will you be doing more videos on improvised war weapons? E.G. Hell Canon etc?
Nice engineering, this will be amazing for shoot and scoot fight , but I think size is much bigger maybe it could an easy to target by enemy only for its size.
Given that it's only 100mm, I would not be surprised to find that they are significantly overcharging the weapon. So firing the thing via a long string is probably prudent.
"Only 100 mm" still offers quite a punch ;). And you don't have to overcharge it. Newer tanks might be frontally immune (yet still can get damaged - optics, tracks, equipment etc.). Newer generations from the side however, or as russians get more and more obsolete tanks from their inventory (there are T-64 mentioned to be deployed)? Not to mention any lighter AFV. Might be a nasty "only 100 mm" surprise :D
The WW2 German Flak 88 was smaller but still considered one of the best guns ever made. A relatively small projectile with big propellant charge got the job done. Ditto the British Six Pounder.
Russia has a similar setup for numerous normally stationary or towed weapons there is also a similar MT-LB + Grad MLRS system. the recoil looks like it shakes the vehicle quite badly and unless the driver can somehow be inside that thing when its bucking like a bronco (i doubt it) this is stationary while firing and the crew also has to stand quite a ways away due to the massive muzzle blast. This also makes it very detectable by drones, and the fact it cannot movie while firing means this is very vulnerable to loitering munitions. on top of that this would make QUITE A BANG when it gets hit if any of those huge shells are even close meaning if attacked crew survival its at best dubious.
I've always known that at some point in any future war with tank country like ruzzia, tank destroyers are about to return, despite their agreed class obsoleteness.
The gun is a modernized version of the bC-3 100mm antitank gun the Soviets used in WWII. With a barrel that long, you could just about literally "reach out and touch someone". Notice the "Silver bullets" sabotted penetrators?
Nice. Very tidy. I don't really see a lot of downside of an *adequate* anti tank gun when compared to an ATGW as long as you give the gun a night sight and ballistic computer. Yes it's bigger, but the rounds are also cheaper and far less vulnerable to countermeasures and while the crew of a missile are still guiding the missile on it's maybe 30 second journey the crew of a gun armed TD can be on it's way avoiding any return fire. Also you can at least conceptually fire a much wider range of natures from a gun.
I may be mistaken and of course can't find the source, but I believe a version of the mt-lb was supposed to have the capability to do something similar. It was an open top version that didn't just tow a gun but that the gun could be embarked pointing forward using ramps. The pictures were of using them for amphibious crossings and supposedly the gun could be fired in transit. It was a smaller gun, maybe an 85mm. If someone corrects me and finds what I'm thinking of , no problem.
Is this really usefull against (moving) tanks/IFVs? Especially if the gun is fired from outside of the vehicle. How are they aiming at a potental moving target?
We don't know a lot about how they're hoping to employ it and I wonder if the filming was from a test. In action they might he manning the gun (I would imagine so).
@@TheArmourersBench This will likely be used against MG nests. I recall Soviet doctrine regarding PT 76, which were conceptually precursor to this contraption. Truth be told, It's only effective against tanks if people inside are carrying ATGMs. But against static targets it’s good.
Russian tanks are not racing around the countryside too much these days anyway. They can be used from an ambush, or when a drone has spotted one they can sneak closer to fire on it. Not perfect, but better then a towed one
Looks like they are using it in the indirect fire mode. Typical for a TD when no tanks are around to shoot at. Surprised it was developed by the infantry though.
Well, if they go through all the trouble of putting the gun on the roof, they could have added a more effective muzzle brake... There are engineer design books on muzzle brakes. Greetings, Jeff
I doubt it is an anti-tank gun but rather it is more likely to be used as a field artillery piece or an anti-materiel / fortification motorised gun carriage. It could well be deployed against enemy armour that has gathered at identified positions such as taxiing areas or where enemy armour has been dug in (sometimes quite literally). I guess it could also be used in a direct fire ambush role in cases of desperation (i.e. from a disguised position).
Anti-Tank guns are obsolete, that is why no major military power uses them today. Anti-tank guns don't fire control systems, like main battle tanks, AIFVs, and APCs. In the modern battlefield, having sensors, like thermal optics, night vision will enable you to spot the target first. If you can spot the target before the enemy can then you are a live, and he is dead.
I hope the Ukranians use the Gephard anti-aircraft units against infantry positions like the krauts did with their anti-aircraft machine guns in WW2 for big effect.
Bascially Ukranians need a platform that support the doctrine of WW2 US Tank Destoryer Corp... Leo 1's would be pretty good for that role if Germany ever gets off it's arse to approve the export.
..... not sure how effective it can be in offensive warfare.. but in a defensive battle... maybe even a well placed ambush, it may work..... The main limitation i see is that it has to lower those braces/legs behind it to fire and its armament is too exposed..
