Polish PT-91 'Twardy' Main Battle Tank - Overview 

Hey mat all these subscribers you have and still barely any views lmao, you’re channel is bland they don’t like you they like your information

Man I loved the video. Also Twardy means hard. Their is actually a polish ww2 submarine named Wolf as well one being named Thunder ( Piorun) and another being named (Błyskawica) so thunder bolt. Piorun actually participated in the hunt for Bismarck and went against orders and engaged The battleship until it ran out of ammunition.

@@jaxongillespie8081 He's doing this out of his free time. I like his content a lot. How about you go on and use your free time productively as well, like say, learn basic English grammar/spelling.

RedEffects has stated that the commander does NOT have an independent thermal sight, even though the gunner's thermal is a gen three. So, who's right?

Previous music to the intro please!

Malaysia has 48 PT-91Ms - brand new hulls with improvements especially in turret basket tolerances, ultramodern power-pack and and Savan 15 Fire Control System, digital communication, all eletric fast turret motors and stabilisation of new, high pressure Slovak gun, driving volant.... and so on, and so forth. Bascially, modern MBT roughly packaged into light and compact chassis derived from T-72. Polish PT-91s are on the other hand T-72M1s with ERA, 20 years older Drawa FCS, minor usability improvements, uprated engine and that's about all. Nothing in common.

Ok he mentioned it

@@piotrd.4850 91 units of Pt-91 are new Hulls this same like Malaysian rest are Rebuild T-72M1

If I am not mistaken the UFP of the Malaysian PT 91m Pendekar have been upgraded to the armour level of the T 72B where by the Turret stayed the same

@@piotrd.4850 PT91M is the Best T72/T90 Variant...with mekanism transmision automatic Renk/SESM ESM-350M Diarkibkan 2012-03-10 di Wayback Machine has reverse speed at par with german Tank 👈...CITV with Sagem Savan FCS Thermal Vision and 125mm Gun ZTS - Špeciál can fire long rod 2 piece APFSDS ,Giro laser SIGMA 30, EADS EPS72 turret stabilizer..

Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania don't have any MBT's and this is a serious performance gap and vulnerability for NATO. Also given that these nations have very little money it would be very beneficial if perhaps 100 of Poland's remaining PT-91 Twardy tanks could be offered to these countries at a fair price. Having a tank that can use the ammunition of your likely enemies is also a big advantage as Finland demonstrated during WW2. Apportioned in accordance with population that would provide perhaps 46 PT-91's to Lithuania, 33 to Latvia and 21 to Estonia. If nothing else the training and proficiency advantages associated with having tanks in your armed forces could be substantial. Alternatively Leopard 2's, Abrams or Polish/South Korean K2's could be provided to the Baltic States but cost would probably rule out those options unless a subsidy could be offered by the US or NATO?

I don't think they are a gift but are getting replaced by the US with Abrams in exchange. But still good to see them go to the Ukrainians whatever it takes.

@@andreasbimba6519 Honestly, it's not the best idea. I mean... Ukrainians need them more and use them to cripple Russian army even further. And in fact Baltic States don't need their own MBT's. If Russia is to attack, NATO will know months before and Baltic states have Poland as their closes neighbor. We will not leave them alone, if they are in danger. Our tanks are their tanks.

@Kamil Osowski Thanks Kamil and I agree Ukraine desperately needs more tanks and the older Soviet era tanks and their updated variants are the most suitable tanks for Ukraine. If Poland does eventually send all of their Soviet era tanks to Ukraine then that would mean that a low cost Western tank would become the best option for the Baltic states in my view. I do not doubt the resolve of the Polish nation to help defend the Baltic states in the event of a Russian invasion but close proximity to Russia’s main population centres and major military units means a large and normal military exercise could turn into a large surprise attack that would probably quickly overwhelm local and NATO forward deployed forces. The US Rand corporation has modelled this eventuality and concluded that such an invasion is likely to succeed and if faced with nuclear black mail that NATO may decide to accept a ceasefire and start negotiations. My conclusion is that all three Baltic states have no other viable option but to implement universal military conscription and build up large reserve based armed forces with a professional core force just as Finland has done and that includes armoured brigades with tanks.

That is going to be a fucking logistical nightmare

they are, however I wish their democracy would be in better shape. I'm extremely concerned about what's going on there.

@@unlink1649 yeah, we need a change, next ellection perhaps, this anti EU PISs(sicX) is a nightmare, they do not think, pure fckin oligarchy stealing from the ppl but now they need a massive police cordons for every meeting, eggs and stones are flying, next will be molotovs cocktails, we will take care of them

@@unlink1649 It is both not as bad or good as it seams...

@@unlink1649 you're right they need to get rid of pro German politics and poland wii become much stronger!!!

They have good reason to hate Russia and not trust them

My understanding is that on road vs of road speeds are a holdover from older tanks where difference in terrain would be a larger change largely due to The designs and technology of the time.

@@thecanuckredcoat4142 actually I think someone has taken the driving techniques of the usual slow down on terrain as a safety procedure during training and interpreted it as a vehicle liability. But I have been on the older tanks and PC's as well. Even the older Artillery pieces before they were decommissioned. I've been on the M48A5, M60, M60A3, 113's, Artillery Ammo Carriers, 8" Howitzer, M109 Howitzer, and a verity of other track vehicles that are no longer in the Army inventory. None of them were slowed down going across good open terrain. Now I can only speak for American track and wheeled vehicles. I've witnessed the Leopard 2's going across open terrain at listed speeds as well when my tank platooned trained with a German Tank Company and then shot a tank gunnery with them. The only slow down I have ever experienced is a significant incline. But other than that terrain does not slow a tank or other track vehicles down. Only terrain that is cluttered with debris will make you drive slower but it will not slow you down. If you do drive over that type of terrain you risk damaging the track, road wheels and suspension. When you have that kind of tonnage and horse power there is not much that is going to slow you down. My tanks have hit trees before and we did not even feel it. But thanks for your input, it was a logical suggestion.

@@JohnMiller-wf6cm This is as old as tank development goes. Back in the early days, tanks had much less powerful engines and the difference in driving off-road was significant. Even today there is a huge difference, because your fuel consumption increases dramatically, when your tank goes off-road. You may not feel it as a driver, because your engine is just so powerful, but there is significant more torque (and therefore power) needed, when you move something so heavy off-road. I'm an engineer in engine development and was also involved in the design of tank engines here in Germany. Physics still matter. You should have noticed the difference in fuel consumption, when driving on road or off-road, when you're such a tank veteran... Did you? But yes, modern tanks can go off-road much faster, than WW2-era tanks were able to do.

His comment regarding speed was regarding going too fast for the turret stabilization system to work 100%. On the Abrams it isn't a problem, better design.

@@dnocturn84 Since fuel consumption is something that is kept track of during many years of training on these tanks, I assure you that the fuel consumption was not a huge factor. In fact it lasted just as long across country as it did on roads. Neither did you gain any mileage on a road or loose mileage off road. It is part of our logistics and we kept track of fuel all the time just as we kept track of ammo and other things. Can you tell me the depth of the depression the tracks would leave in the ground? I can. Let me give you an example of no loss of speed. Once while on maneuvers at the National Training Center in California, which is a desert, my tank had dropped the left side of the mine plow. We dug a trench for more than a mile before we even noticed it. The only reason we notice it was when we turned enough to drive into the wind and the dirt it was kicking up started to hit me and the loader in the face. The driver said that dirt was starting to block his vision blocks and he was having a hard time seeing. That trench was at least 2' deep. Not once did it slow our speed. I know this because the other tanks in front of us never gained any distance on us. Now I am sure it used more fuel with that kind of added resistance to forward movement. I asked my driver if he had noticed any reduction in speed or even a jolt when it dropped, He did not notice and said he was making normal adjustments to maintain proper distance. I'm sure if it would have made a huge impact he would have noticed having to throttle up to keep up the distance. Now I can not vouch for WWII vehicles only the ones I have mentioned. As for how deep the impression is, it is about 2" deep. And that's from a 70 ton tank. What people fail to realize is that a track provides an optical surface for the road wheels to travel across. The track is laid down and then picked up and moved across the top above the road wheels to be laid down again, Therefore there is no ground resistance that tires experience because the track just lays on top of the ground and does not move. Even in mud, sand, snow, gravel, water and other such conditions, the track moves the loose, wet or other conditions out of the way until it is on solid surface. None of these conditions slow the tank down and they do not affect a track like they do tires. The only noticeable affect is if you need to stop quickly. The you will slide in these conditions or if you have to make a sharp turn, again sliding, making the turn more wider than normal dry packed ground. Now with this knowledge I can only assume that WWII tanks would not suffer any differences either. And before you try to counter with tires and tracks suffer from the same ground resistance, I'm going to say no they do not. Here is why. What happens to a car when you drive it through a muddy field? It slows down and most likely will become stuck. Right? Why? on most cars two of the wheels drive wheels and the other two just roll. The muddy ground impedes the wheels as they try to move through it and the drive wheels will eventually start spinning and digging a hole causing the car to become stuck. Right? Now take that same car and place boards along the path the car will travel and the car will have no problem traveling across the muddy field. Right? The tracks act just like the boards. Right?

We call our camo "camo with small tactical dick's"

soon to be replaced by a Finnish one. tests are in progress for uniforms

Yes, Twardy doesn't suck in Wargame.

@@kon1402 yessire, baby!

For the capability yeah, not TOO pricey, but it's expensive still

Serio

And this is why I love Poland. Us in the Balkans are crazy - the bad kind, but You gys are a different breed of crazy - the good kind.

Yeah, K3 "Wilk" name is popping around :)

@@miramari732 still better than “goryl” (gorilla) which supposed to be twardy’s advanced version with new turret.

@@radosaworman7628 XD

@@radosaworman7628 You dare speak against Harambe's personal tank?

Give it to Ukraine

@@jn1205 why?

@@alikhidzam3749 you don't know, where you live?

@@jn1205 we won't give it to Ukraine, we need to defend our country too.

@@alikhidzam3749 Poland buys tanks, rockets and planes from the US and Korea, and got Leopard tanks from Germany for free

Wybucha jak każdy ruski

@@kw24video30 Nie do końca mnie zrozumiałeś.

@@leszekkrzyzowski8393 No wiem wiem tez mam nadzieje ze będzie sprawiał problemy ruskim

@@kw24video30 jak każdy niemiecki leo

@@kw24video30 Niekoniecznie wlasnie tak !!!!

Well not really they are building towards the strongest land force in Europe and that's great but they will be relying heavily on other NATO members for Air and Naval support, BUT personally i think thats the way Poland should go , Have a strong enough ground force to hold Russia at bay for a while until the rest of the EU can get their shit together and come help , smart choice i think .

@@furiousscotsman2916 Navy is polish Achilles tendon. With so many purchases no one can fix everything at once. Poland would love to buy more oh F35 however at this moment the lineup for them so very long. Still we'll have more potent army than many richer Western counterparts. NATO was designed to help its members in case of war and Poland is no exception in that.

Poland will buy most of their modern weapon systems from South Korea, which is the opposite of self sufficiency. They plan to manufacture themselves in license but this will take a long time.

@@charonboat6394 F35 is a very troubled project, good for Poland if they won't get new ones soon. Just look at the extremely small number the US Air Force has combat ready.

@@anthonyinzerillo2804 well initially some will be from Korean factories but most of equipment would be produced domestically. Polish industry is not able to build fully polish tank.

Now I understand why maintaining the Malaysian Pendekars is a pain in the ass. Has nothing in common with others.

@@mimimimeow The main problem was that producer was poorly managed. It is a state owned company and had to face huge military spendings cuts. Liquidation of engine factory was considered a corruption scandal - The factory was located in the center of Warsaw on a very expensive site. But after many years there is still nothing else there, so the most likely explanation is the activity of Russian agents. Actually a lot of strange and bad decisions in Polish weapon procurment can be explained only in this way. The classic example: Poland had 100k of light RPG-76 AT grenade launchers, and it was withdrawn from use under the pretext of not having a self-destructor, but almost no weapon of this class has it. And it was mostly destroyed! I hope Malysia will upgrade them with French powerpacks. Or better, sell them for good money to the US for Ukraine :) And buy VT-4 - seems to be a descent replacement.

ERAWA-3 exist under name Pangolin.

@@peceed Not really, Pangolin is a separate project, not designed by Adam Wiśniewski, the designer of ERAWA-1 and 2. It has the same size (minus thickness of course) and mounting system, but that's just because it worked very well in the ERAWA series.

He's gonna weep when he sees his hussars in M1A2 Abrams

I still think Polish name for Bayraktars should be Sobieski :P

@@juliuszkocinski7478 we should call it the clown tank

@@juliuszkocinski7478 Is that the Turkish drone?

@@ravenouself4181 yes

The t72 frame as a whole is really good looking. Low profile, small turret, massive gun. Combination of those makes it look really slick.

It looks like a weathered warrior with the low hanging armored skirt and all the smoke grenades, ERA and other additional equipment on top and sides of it.

Tarded tank

Yes it will

Especially when no additional training is involved. Actually Twardy is already in Ukraine.

Yup more tanks that will be obliberated by Kornet and RPGs...

@@anthonyinzerillo2804 That depends on the tactics used by UA. Russians have to use museum pieces T62 and T55 due to T72 and T80 being blown up in large numbers, your point?

@@anthonyinzerillo2804 Its natural that tanks get destroyed in war. Dosnt meter if UA or RU. And thise tanks are good to replenish looses. and buy the way RU replenishes with old soviet equipment while UAs eyipment is getting better over time.

Sounds like a logistical nightmare to me but hey, their call

@@1IbramGaunt first old sovied models will be removed,then german leos,and in the end we wiil use only two types abrams and k2pl ,k2pl will be produced in Poland (more armor and other improvements)

Government is not plsning on getting 180 K2s. It's getting them this year. So the whole thing ii already decided.

​@@charonboat6394Unforeseen things can happen and they don't get these K2 tanks. Until they have all the tanks they ordered in Poland, it is still a plan to acquire these tanks. Australia had decided and signed a project agreement to acquire 12 subs from Naval Group of France. These plans fell through. If you ain't got it in your hand, it's a plan.

@@kamilsulikowski8279 the old Soviet-style T-72's and PT-91's are going yes, but the German Leopard 2's are staying, at least the more recent ones and at least until enough of both kinds of Abrams and the K2 Black Panthers show up; that's still three completely different kinds of tank, each of which are also in different variants themselves, and that's not even counting the idea to also make a made-in-Poland version of the K2

hard

Polocks build a good tank

Still not over you guys ordering the entire HiMARS production run x2

Polocks are smart for building their own weapons

I think eastern Europe is very nice.

But T-72B without K-5 can handle DM33... And with K-5 it can handle M829A1. With Relikt it can handle M829A2 and DM53.

Of course there is information how much we have sent. ~250 PT-91

@@dominik2095 We didn't send that much. Officials say that some number of PT-91s was send to Ukraine but not all of them as we cannot afford to loose so many tanks at once. We will send more PT-91s when we get M1 Abrams as a replacement. In the end there are probably between 31 and 93 PT-91s in Ukraine.

@@dominik2095 mamy 233 szt. jak mogliśmy wysłać 250?

@@dominik2095 250 PT-91 send to Ukraine is myth

@@MaMa-de2ge he propobly talks about 250 T-72 we had and gave away without having a replacement in poland with trained crews. Awesome plan.

The disadvantages, inherited from soviet export T-72 model include: weak base armor, poor stabilization, ammo that is stuck in the early 80s.

Nonetheless, it is good enough for Ukraine. Any tank is better than having no tank at all. And polish PT-91 is just good enough for that.

@@phunkracy thats right....this tank is fast thats very suitable with the ukraine tactical hit and run

@@phunkracy It will get torn apart by Kornet missiles. Tanks are basically useless against the Russians. Iron coffins for hundreds of Ukranian soldiers...

@@anthonyinzerillo2804 Tanks aren't magical indestructible machines. They get destroyed all the time. If Ukraine wants to commit to an offensive they will need tanks, period. Regardless if those can be destroyed by Kornet or not - there is no substitute.

Yup, it's pure garbage

@@anthonyinzerillo2804 Oh, russian troll here. Как дела товаріш?

@@charonboat6394 I'm Italian you clown. Russian troll because I tell the simple truth about a tank?! How stupid is that? You say yourself that it is not the Polish Army pride. Btw. T-72 is also garbage.

@@charonboat6394 no he's kind of right it's overloaded T-72M1 and is not very reliable especially compared to the leopard 2s they have

@@charonboat6394 it's just too old and since frequency of break downs are high and it takes a while to fix them they are kinda garbage

It includes a ballistic computer, PCD day and night PCN-A (night vision) or ELOP TES (thermal vision) sight, as well as a TPD-K1M laser rangefinder and a meteorological data sensor. The commander observes the area around the tank with the POD-72 passive day / night observation device :)

except a lot more dangerous, at least in a submarine not everything inside is trying to kill you, plus you have more room to move and toilets in a submarine.

Yes

Even low quality tank is still better than none. Ukrainians are not complaining why are you?

@@charonboat6394 He is just posing a question, not complaining

@@Waithuhh He is questioning usefulness of tanks sent to Ukraine. Still Ukrainians are thankfull for receiving them.

@@charonboat6394 Not really. He is asking if it would suffer from the same issues that the auto loaded russian tanks suffer from when penned. I think its a valid question and he is right, they would suffer from that issue, but all tanks currently used in Ukraine on both sides would suffer from that issue. Im glad the Ukrainians are getting the PT, but tbh they should be getting leop 2s

Poland is acquiring only about 360 pieces with everything that is needed to fix and operate them which include simulators.

Problem with the Abrams seem to be that: - US isn't willing (as is their prerogative) to do any larger technology transfer for servicing/maintaining the M1. While valid for the US, it would make the cost of servicing them in the future much higher for Poland, without really "upgrading" the industrial basis behind them. - Korea seems to be much more cooperative in that regard, so over the whole lifespan of a platform being in service (I'd assume - circa 30-40 years, or so?) - that will mean some of the spending will be recycled, as it might be Polish companies producing and conducting those modernizations & servicing in the future. - Korea seems to be much more open on accommodating our industry & University/R&D teams for future next-gen developments, which would also bring some benefits. Not sure what the deal regarding the "used" Abrams was, but it seems either US didn't want to make more vehicles available for the deal, or the Polish decided that the cost would make it not logical for the long run.

PT-91 are planned to be decomisioned in next 10-15 years. Everyone knows those tanks are not good enough, but for now number of tanks seems to be more important than how well tank operates. Plus Poles plan to make their "own" tanks again. Firstly by manufacturing K2PL (Korean K2 modernised to European needs) and later to do K3 with South Korea

We plan to develop K2PL together with koreans and aim to have 1000 of them by the 2030. K2PL will be fully produced in Poland. Together with 360 abrams Poland will have the biggest tank army in Europe. Hope this actually happens. Polish officials confiemed this and that the deal with koreans is signed. So maybe.

@@Empty_Kestrel Technically, Russia is also in Europe - and by sheer quantity, it is going to have more. I believe Greece also has something like 1350-1400 tanks, though a lot of them are obsolete now (Leo1 and M48, or so). I agree however, that it seems we'll have the largest fleet of "modern" tanks within the EU and the European part of NATO. 🙂

P

It's such an overblown problem that no one cares. In most cases, the spare ammunition exploded. The solution is to limit ammo count to carouselle only. Every modern tank except Abrams has at lest part of the ammo inside fuselage. In typical case crew can escape or is already dead. For example most Javelin hits are in the engine compartment, resulting fire will blow the ammo but crew has a time to escape.

Yes but less so.