Why are Russian Tanks Failing in Ukraine? 

They did something similar. They shot down a KA 52 with a Stuhna-P anti tank missile which is laser guided. What they did is they aimed next to it and in the last moment they guided the missile on the Helicopter which hadn't had enough time to react with the laser warning receivers.

The Ukrainian army does one better. They "aim off" over the tank (a tried and true tactic) with the laser and then fire the missile. After a couple of seconds, they then paint the tank. By the time the tank gets its warning, the missile has arrived. Protection systems are a half measure at best. The best answer is well-trained infantry screening the tank.

I actually saw somewhere that such a weapon was made against planes, that simulated launching a rocket (so it would seem like a Stinger being fired at the plane), causing the plane's warning systems to act and pilot taking evasive measures. It looked easily portable and was said that one such device had 50 "shots". It does seem it would be quite disruptive to a bombing run. Against a tank I think it's a bit more hazardous, because you need line of sight to essentially feint an attack, putting yourself in danger for no real benefit. A plane will not seek out someone with a manpad, but will try to avoid them. A tank (or it's supporting infantry) are always on the lookout for anti-tank weapons.

I'm not sure of the exact science of how the laser detectors work? However, ATGM laser designators use coded pulses of light which are interpreted by the laser seeker on the projectile to guide it onto the target. So, I'm not sure if a regular laser pointer would have enough power to trigger one of these systems or if the circuitry on the detector can differentiate the differences in power and wavelength? Because to a certain extent, you would want to harden these detectors to reject optical issues caused by shadows or glare. Otherwise, these systems would be set off by things that aren't a threat.

@@rogerpennel1798 targeting lasers aren’t all that powerful. Simulating one with a handheld laser designed to fool the sensors should be easy. A agree with these who say that since the smoke is a limited defense, and can easily be used up, hitting the target with simulated targeting lasers could knock out that part of the defense. Once the anti IR smoke it gone, they ate less protected. Whether lasers produced to do that are being made is something I don’t know, but they should be, and wouldn’t cost much. They could be produced in the tens of thousands and given to troops. Just causing that sort of targeting to be detected and defended against would give tank crews high levels of anxiety, which would accomplish a lot, even if anti tank missiles weren’t available all the time.

You have to be kind of delusional to deny how poor ruSSian tanks did so far. More then 800 have been visually confirmed to be destroyed on Oryx, with the actual number being higher still. What else do you want to wait for ?

@@Vlad_-_-_ if Russian tanks so poor then why Russia keeps taking lands? What about Terminator? It's doing good and t-90m. Russia changed tactics and still doing great. Again why you listen to bs propaganda

@@Vlad_-_-_ compare to what? What reference do we have for this conflict? This is a NATO vs Russian conflict. We have no reference point. And Russia is grinding down the NATO proxy.

@@Slavkovic_Predrag I love how Russian bots all say the same thing about oryx without realizing that they have constantly removed duplicates

@@Slavkovic_Predrag Keep coping boys keep coping

Its totally dependent on the crew. That pretty much applies to... I dunno, everything in fuking life lmao. There crew is incompentent and they have not been using any of there counter measures which is the craziest part. Nothing is never outdated in war, it can change but you just have to adapt. The Russians honestly also thought this would be a quick takeover where they would just roll in thinking shit wouldnt happen to them but yeah... That arroganc eblew up in their faces. Then you gotta think about the troops. A lotta them dont even wanna fight or be there at all lol. There has been mad defecting and betrayal among there ranks, even with some purposely abandoning shit so Ukrainians can get a hold of it lol. WHen you gotta bunch of young as kids fresh outta school suddenly being told they are gunna fight lol, Morale tends to plummet A LOT for them. A lot of them were also lied to n told they'd just be doing training exercises so yeah, a good amount havent even finished training lol

Fax twin

I think a lot of people, especially casual/mainstream types, are used to the absurdly low losses of M1 Abrams or Challenger 2 tanks, etc. in battle, while also hearing stories of how the Abrams kicked the shit out of the enemy tank force at 73 Easting or how one Challenger 2 managed to get hit 70 times and still kept fighting. That tends to give the sense that tanks are meant to be invincible super weapons. People who are actually familiar with tanks know that’s not true, and it’s other factors like superior training, proper combined arms, as well as fighting against weaker forces, that led to those numbers, but if you don’t know about those factors, it’s easy to think tanks are invincible and when the Russians start losing a bunch of them, start thinking tanks are now useless.

Huh? Tanks are kinda famous for being psychological weapons, people do not ignore tanks doing tank things. When thousands of dollars of weaponry are consistently and reliably taking out the biggest tank force in the world, questions have to be raised. Also Artillery isn't sexy, but it's won a hell of a lot more than tanks have.

Exactly...Imagines how many thanks were lost in WW2, the US sherman was called a death trap and a cigarette lighter but they continued to play a huge role through out the war.

you are sure, Russia T-14 Afraid let war in Ukraine Javelin missile or NLAW hit Russia T-14 destroyed then countries don't want buy Russia T-14 deadly..

You can't count even on that... (talking about the dead engine incident during their first parade)

@@MrNikkdo To be fair to the T-14 that was actually operator error caused by the driver putting on the parking brake without knowing.

@@User-gx3sr dont tell him or you will break his propaganda bubble.

@@urdnotwrex6969 propaganda is on both sides. The difference is that Russia convinced everyone that they are superior to the Liberal West and yet failed miserably in Ukraine

T-80 had the gas turbine that turned out to be a bad idea, which is why they went t-72 t-90 route. So effectively they did stick with one tank, t-90 is an updated t-72. Russia’s problem is they had no money for ages, so couldn’t just bin the t-72 and go full 90, also they have a doctrine of large scale tank attacks, so need numbers, hence them having thousands. Thousands of good ones cost money, so they have thousands of shit ones

@@cptrelentless80085 thousands of what they think are good enough tanks, instead of hundreds of very good ones.

@@cptrelentless80085 there was really nothing wrong with the gas turbine, it was scapegoated for the Battle of Grozny by the Defense Ministry but there's no indication whatsoever that there was anything actually wrong with it and T-72 variants did just as poorly as T-80 variants in that battle. The only issue with them is fuel consumption, which should not be a problem for a country that is in the top 5 in proven oil reserves.

@@cptrelentless80085 It’s complicated, the reason the 🇷🇺 military decided to favor the T-72 and T-90 over the 80 was in large part due to the Grozny debacle during the First Chechen War but been objective and analyzing that battle more closely it is abundantly clear it wasn’t the tanks or weapons that performed poorly but rather the military itself the one that did, from poor leadership and organization, troops that were very demoralized and lacked proper training to the very plan and the way that the campaign was conducted, just like what happened in Ukraine during the early phase of the war. Ironically the war in Ukraine has finally redeemed the T-80 with both 🇺🇦 and 🇷🇺 tankers praising it specially the BVM model for been fast, nimble, reliable and aside from some criticism of the SOSNA-U sight well equipped in terms of sensors. One common misconception about the 🇷🇺 military is the idea that they lack money which as it has been demonstrated by some like Richard Connelly and Michael Kofman is not the case. The problem they historically have had is in industrial defense capacity, simply putted their factories struggle to build the armaments they need in large numbers due to technical limitations in manufacturing itself which is why the tech sanctions were very important, but money and R&D are not really the problem they have. That been said 🇷🇺 has been in a long import substitution program in terms of western components since 2014 and had gradually shifted either to internal alternatives or East Asian ones so is a good question how much will the impact of western sanctions be in the 🇷🇺 defense industry going forward and wether they’ll be able to adapt eventually or not, if the case of 🇮🇷 and 🇰🇵 show something is that it will be unwise for the west to merely assume sanctions will be enough to cripple the 🇷🇺 defense industry. Here’s a recent video of 🇺🇦 tankers using captured T-80BVMs and praising its performance. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-xFzXiAdfPvw.html

@@josephahner3031 Ironically the war in Ukraine has finally redeemed the T-80 with both 🇺🇦 and 🇷🇺 tankers praising it, specially the BVM model, for been fast, nimble, reliable and aside from some criticism of the SOSNA-U sight well equipped in terms of sensors. Another aspect that has received significant praise from both sides is the BVMs greater reverse speed compared to that of the T-64, 72 and 90 making the BVM more suitable for mobile operations both offensive and defensive ones. Here’s a recent video of 🇺🇦 tankers using captured T-80BVMs and praising their performance. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-xFzXiAdfPvw.html

And the most ironic thing is that russians don't even have better tactics, training or mobility.

And, a good APS will save you a shit ton of weight in armor

Russia doesn't care about it's soldiers though it seems. Israel for instance has been one Nation at the forefront of trying to ensure crew survivability as it is part of their doctrine to try to keep it's people alive due to being a small Nation surrounded by enemies that have far more people to call upon.

You see, having APS is something akin to ECS/TC/ABS in your car. Sure helps, but won't save you from rampant stupidity. People were able to execute competent combined arms long before APS existed.

@@u.m.9931 No, it will not. In fact, an APS adds to the weight of the vehicle.

Tbh, its not their tank are shit, they're not up to date like the US tanks or the ones NATO countries use, it's just the shitty tactics they use. In the envoirment they're in and the enemy they're facing, the tanks they're operating can be much more useful but the rtrdd tactics that Russian Army uses is just causing them all to get sent into the sky 50m high thx to that auto injection system xd

funny how he complains about russian tanks when they both uses the arsenal, he's incredibly biased and I don't know how he's considered a source since he's shitting a side and praising another

@@nickjayr0 "they both uses the arsenal" what do you mean by that? Im not native speaker so i dont know if "arsenal" is name of some active protection or you mean that they use similar stuff, which they are not.

@@policjantzyoutube4372 arsenal:their whole equipment, they both use use Soviet era weapons and tanks,and yes they use the same stuff,but they're beginning to become less and less as Ukraine is on life support from the USA and UK, without them,they would've lost a long time ago

@@nickjayr0 But the dude from video never mentioned ukraine at least from what i remember from this video. He already talked in other video that ukrainians have pretty shiet tanks

No shit, genius

Bc russian tanks suck

Obviously...

Ponce? Really?

😮😮 🤓🤓🤓

876 visually confirmed tank losses on russian side

@@Biervampir92 what has this to do with my comment?

I haven't seen any claims by even the Russians that their tanks are surviving hits by Javelins and NLAWs.

@@samuelweir5985 I mean there are literally videos where this happens (the vehicle was to close so the warhead did not activate) However this has also nothing to do with my comment. What about cases where those systems miss? And those systems are also not the only systems in use.

Survivorshop bias you mean with the popular example of a military aircraft with points where it get shots and survive/down

it has many reasons to be started, though the initial strategy was not destined to end well with a quick attack when you're outnumbered.

What's the "original Abrams?" M1 with 105mm? M1A1 Desert Storm? M1A2? Many of these if not all Russian tanks for some reason are lacking thermals. Russian Army is not a night fighting Army so I think a post Desert Storm M1 tank would do much much better in surviving this style of war. Better protection and better optics for night fighting.

Bruhhhh America would do better as America uses soliders and Air Support and domination and the Navy too that’s the difference not to mention why the fuck would America try to fight most of Europe Russia being dumb and idiotic is its own fault tbh ngl I’d say about 30-40K dead Russian troops are in the ground or on it rn

Russia is 10,000XS more corrupt too then America and the Abraham’s would have less flying tanks or deaths due to safety and more experience fighting adaptations would be quick

The problem with Russian military hardware is that it was based on design considerations from World War II and built for a future war that never happened. The idea was that like the T-34 of WWII weapons should be cheap to build, easy to maintain, reliable, and expendable. The Russians were relying on the weight of numbers so they didn't pursue highly survivable vehicles in the assumption that they wouldn't last very long anyway. Their tanks were incremental upgrades and the same faults of poor crew safety, poor ammunition storage, and poor fuel storage are inherited traits common to the entire family tree that was never rectified with a clean sheet design. The post Cold War rationale was why invest in new weapons when you can upgrade older designs on the cheap to bolster the number of weapons available in case of a large-scale war? But having such a huge stockpile of weapons meant that new weapon R&D and procurement were delayed and only incremental upgrades of questionable value were completed. The problem is when the Soviet Union collapsed Russia inherited all of these cheap and expendable weapons that were never going to be used in the numbers originally intended. So when they were used in high-intensity conflicts without a massive superiority in numbers they couldn't achieve the results that were expected. When used in huge numbers the chance of survival was greater. When used in smaller numbers the chance of survival declines.

@Orcs MustDie where the fuck did you get 1800 💀 are you a Ukrainian troll? the max is 850 half of them not even destroyed captured

@Orcs MustDie Hahahahaha I hope I don't have to tell you that is incorrect. So obvious.

Anti-tank missles as well.

They just awarded an open ended contract to buy more of them.

@@MC-pt8kv well it's an open end contract for a reason, it's at the leisure of the Army how many and when they order them. But like I said earlier Trophy is only equipped as needed not all the time.

The US Army included the Trophy as standard with the new M1A2C variant of which they have around 420 right now. Originally they were going to deploy the Trophy on Sep v2 tanks that were deployed to Europe but they changed their minds.

@@josephahner3031 I'd love to see your source for the US have 420 M1A2SEPV3's(M1A2C is no longer the designation) from what is published by the Army's fiscal year budgets only 304 have been ordered it's unknown how many have been delivered and given that the tank is rarely seen in active service and the first unit received them in 2020 it's likely only a few dozen have been delivered and spread across the army. Also Trophy doesn't come standard it's still applied as needed similar to TUSK And mineplow attachments. In fact if you look at most recent pictures of tank on maneuvers it's lacking the Tophy APS

@@nemisous83 My source is a former service buddy who works for General Dynamics. Though 420 may be the total outstanding orders rather than the number currently in service. The reason you don't see the trophy equipped Abrams on maneuver because the US Army has around 2300 Abrams in service between active duty and National Guard. If only 300 or so are currently in service that's barely a tenth of Active-duty Abrams. Most of the Sep v3s are in service with the 1st Armored Division with some being sent to 1st Cavalry Division. If it was First Cav, 1st ID, 3rd ID or a guard formation conducting the maneuvers you aren't seeing Sep v3s, you're likely seeing Sep v2s. As for whether or not the designation is Sep v3 or M1A2C I still see recent publications with M1A2C and others with Sep v3. Either one describes the same thing, and you clearly know what it means, so it really doesn't matter in the context of this discussion.

I think standing next to a tank that gets hit with an RPG isn't very pleasant either, so danger to infantry is probably not high on the priority list for active protection systems. Just don't keep your infantry huddled up next to your tanks.

That's OK because if you look at the videos of tank kills the Russians appear to be incapable of conducting effective combined arms attacks which is a consequence of a lack of infantry.

ERA is about as beneficial to infantry survival as Drozd is. And ERA is being used by more or less every country.

I shot a rabbit point blank as a kid with a 20g shotgun and needless to say we couldn't eat it.. with a Youth 20 Gauge single load bird shoot

Not like they even had infantry providing protection to their tanks in the first place during the opening phases of the conflict.

Most of the field kills are by ATGMs. The artillery kills are on those clustered together at field bases for resupply/field maintenance. The vast majority of the combat losses are from the ATGMs. The Ukrainians are very good at roadside ambushes and the Russians are still traumatized by all of the units lost to getting stuck in the winter mud so they're mostly keeping to the roads which makes them easy targets for ambushes. If you look at most of the photos of the combat lost vehicles, they're usually near a building using it as cover and the tank is knocked out but the building it was using for cover is relatively in good condition. You won't have this with artillery because the Russians know the general direction from which artillery can come from and the buildings would provide cover against incoming artillery. You'd have to knock the building down in order to get a hit on the tank with artillery in that case.

I think it has changed during the war. Early on, when the russians tried to quickly push forward, it was the ATGM's that caused a lot of casualties, artillery played a lesser part then. Later the fighting became more stagnant with artillery having much greater importance and ATGM's playing a much smaller part.

I have seen a lot of drone footage where Russian armored vehicles are under artillery fire and they rarely react properly. In one piece of footage Russian tanks are moving on a road behind a tree line at the edge of a field. When they come under fire they just stop instead of seeking cover in the trees. That tells me they think they can't be seen behind the trees without ever considering they are under aerial observation. They don't seek shelter in the trees because they think they will be seen from the ground if they move into the trees. Or they think they are under direct low-angle fire from artillery on the opposite side of the tree line when they are actually being hit by high-angle indirect fire. That's poor leadership, tactics, and training.

Early in the war UA claimed 60%+ ATGM kills, then later down to 40%, now that drones are being fired on along with jamming that may change again.

Artillery is destroying tanks at such a rapid rate because the Russian army got bogged down, mostly by ATGM's.

Artillery and drone combo is the future. Real game changer. Wouldn't surprise if a small drone will be a must in every small army unit

There's a reason why artillery is called the king of the battlefield.

For real high caliber high explosives can pretty much destroy a tank or immobilize It by hitting tracks and top armor

And the Russian military is poorly lead and equipped.

In a WarGonzo video, a russian SOF said that around 90% of casualties on both sides is coming from artillery shrapnel.

@@HOTSHTMAN53 maybe he meant personnel losses?

Because he is too western bias. Listening to him now is having to take a grain of salt.

The difference is unless Ukraine are using BONUS rounds or similar, arty kill on tank is a F kill or M kill. Mission kills, but not hull loss nor dead crew. When we consider cases of hull loss and/or dead crew, ATGMs takes the cake.

i think hes talking about tank based casualties, i noticed in the whole vid he wasnt preficing statements with clarifiers so its easy to come up with another meaning even in context. For example he said at one point "the T90M is the first tank in active service with hard kill protection" or something like that, now obviously hes referring to the russian military alone but it wont stop an autist running along and yelling AKSHUALLY THE USA HAD ONE BEFORE BLAH BLAH.

The US was winning in vietnam for years until reality set in and people realized that they didn't want to send their sons to needlessly die in a foreign land (even worse in this case because Ukraine and Russia are brother countries) for years on end.

I didn't know that was possible. Do army's still use towed anti-tank guns or do they bombard the general area where tanks are? Because I doubt you can pin point a moving tank and send a round on it.

pretty much this, tanks will become eventually obsolete, rockets and artillery win the wars.

@@Abdullah-mn6sw I mean you can send the coordinates of a road and strike the shit out of it

@@maplearrow1842 oh

@@wizardoflolz5626 But tanks are much more mobile. I think tanks are to artillery what boots on ground is to jets. You may be vulnerable but you need those to hold captured ground.

👍

What about their performance during the second stage of the war?

@@Chiboza well, they're doing MUCH better, that march-april period. At least, we can see, that Russian MoD isn't as dumb as the world thought. They're changing their tactical performance to best, but problem with the lack of additional equipment still flying in the air. I dunno, in Russia, they have numerous companies that produce thermals, handles and other stuff. And couple days ago Russian MoD said that they're gonna solve the UCAV problem. Yes, they can easily fight with it having such great AA systems like Pantzir, Tor, S-400 but their UCAV production is shit.

@@Chiboza the second stage, if that's what we are calling it, is Russia attempting to drown Ukrainian forces in artillery while escalating attacks on civilian centers. That's a problematic approach, as they are quickly burning through their reserves of artillery ammunition while Ukraine transitions to Western artillery and drawing on Western ammo stockpiles. I've heard many say the Russians know they are running out of time and are attempting to create a favorable position on the ground before they have to go over to the defensive for lack of supplies.

@@Jinhadascam the Russian MOD may not be as dumb as people thought, but they are infinitely more corrupt than people thought. And, where is Russia getting all this money for a spending spree when it's rolling T-62M's out of deep storage? How is Russia going to make good it's losses in men, munitions, vehicles, fuel, all while defending a frontier with NATO that is now 2000km longer?

1. So is the tank. If a 500k APS saves a 6mill tank, then it’s more than worth it. 2. If a shape charge is hitting a tank, the infantry is in danger either way if they’re close to the tank. Not to mention ERA is used on almost all tank’s sides(TUSK kit) and combined arms is still very much alive. 3. Same could be said for a lot of other tank equipment sticking out of the tank. The commander thermal, remote weapon platform and more. 4. This has been the case since a long time ago. The test report of the main weapon of the BMP 2’ auto cannon vs the BMP 1’s low velocity cannon, showed the auto cannon to be capable of causing damage to periscopes, lights and even jamming the turret of the old target tank. But if you’re shooting a tank with a 20mm, you’re probably in a position to be shot back by the 120mm/125mm. 5. Yes but the effort is greatly increased and if they’re forced to do so, then the APS is already achieving a deterring effect.

@@GrassMudHorseLand1: the point is that its expensive but has many drawbacks despite that. 2: not all explosions are the same. A shaped charge hitting a tank or ERA has a much smaller danger zone than an APS firing a shrapnel charge one way and detonating the shaped charge mid-air splintering in all directions. That is why this is said about APS and not ERA. 3: the difference is the cost and vulnerability. The commander thermal can be damaged but much of the equipment is inside the tank. The fact that a part of the "armor" of the tank is now extremely vulnerable to guns that are much less potent otherwise is a big drawback. 4: the point is that at the end of the day fights happen and things get damaged. If you need to replace damaged APS systems constantly your tanks will require more maintenance hours and more supplies. Compared to a gunsight that is a massive difference in cost, specialized man hours and supply needed for something that is relatively common (there are far more armored fighting vehicles than MBT's). Also tanks rarely drive alone and if you expect to come up against MBT's you'll almost always have anti-tanknweapons along, so if a 20mm canon can hit you and destroy your APS it is highly likely either a rocket the APS is supposed to stop or another tank is nearby ready to open fire on you. 5: the APS can absolutely be helpful, my points are about if its upsides negate all the downsides of the system.

@@TheDemigans 1. I understand but the same argument can be said for the MBTs themselves. People have been saying the same for tanks how X is the end of the tank for decades and that's the case. The same goes for APS, if it doesn't work then it wouldn't be on so many MBTs especially the likes of Israeli tanks where the threat you describe is very likely and constant. 2. You're right, they're not the same but both combat doctrine and system design would consider that. If average joes like us can think of the drawbacks, so can the brilliant minds that design far more complex systems. Again, using the Israelis as an example, it's clear the benefits are far greater than the drawback for actual combat usage. 3. This depends on how you view the system. At the end of the day, the APS is an add-on rather than "hard armour" and depending on the system being used, it can be sheathed in a protective shell before the onboard radar activates the system (eg, the APS on the T-84 Oplot). We have to be careful not to focus on a narrow view of warfare and consider a tank to be completely naked complete a portion of its defensive system is down, since you can make a similar argument about how a tank is vulnerable to other tanks if its commander thermal is destroyed and it can't identify an enemy tank quick enough. 4. That's a fair point, but as I raised earlier, APS can be protected and the system is tiny. If we're fighting at extremely close distances then there are too many factors to consider for a purely theoretical debate online XD 5. That's fair and I understand your standpoint. However, given the historical development of modern warfare over the last 50 years, it's fair to say the better-equipped/high-tech weapon platform is better the majority of the time. After all, even countries like China are realising this and modernising their army towards this paradigm where budget allows(eg, slowly giving all infantry proper plate carriers, etc). Of course, who knows in the future how it'll play out. Maybe we'll go back to attrition-based warfare where number is king, but I hope I don't find out.

1: not the same. MBT's have a role that isnt going to vanish soon. However APS has some serious flaws that people seem to gloss over. The things about APS were also said of the anti-ballistic missile defenses, which arent the perfect shield people made it out to be. 2: many things are considered, but rarely is a weapon system perfectly designed. For example one of the reasons the USA still uses the Abrahams is that every new tank they designed was pulled in every direction until it was too expensive and unable to do anything well. The same has happened with most aircraft and other designs. If you look at APS, its mainly used as propaganda and marketing. Israel will report APS successes in detail but failures are more on the lines of "the tank/crew survived" because they cant sell a system that might not perform, and their opponents are a resistance with only a few modern anti-tank weapons. I'm not saying the APS cant perform its duty, however there are reasons why information we get about it has to be taken with more than one grain of salt. 3: I view the system as a component we dont know much about, but has clear disadvantages that few seem to even want to consider. It remains vulnerable outside the main armor (even when sheathed) and when friendly infantry is nearby the system has to be either shut down or infantry sacrificed in the event of an attack. Your comment about not seeing just the naked tank is exactly why I have such big questionmarks with the system. Outside of asymetric warfare combat doctrines already exist that could defeat APS without changing said doctrines, meaning that when deployed these supposedly almost flawless systems could suddenly be not efficient enough to buy, maintain and use. 4: We dont know how effective the system would be in a battle against a trained army and we dont know if it'll be cost-effective. One 500.000 system saving a 6+million tank sounds like an easy deal, but the maintenance, repairs and supplies required to keep them running could very well be more detrimental in the long run. More technology isnt automatically a win. People tend to forget the Heavy Tanks in WWII which were usually more modern than their "ordinary" counterparts but were such a drain on resources and technology that the war effort suffered. or how WWI&II showed that warfare is now a war of supply. It doesnt matter if your T14 Armata is fully functional and build in numbers if you cannot supply, maintain and repair them due to the bridges being destroyed. That is one of the reasons I have big questionmarks on APS system, its a costly high-tech system with tons of downsides that is being marketed as a golden bullet by its creators. Even if the system turns out to be perfect, there is no reliable proof yet that it is or how it will function in more than asymetric warfare.

@@TheDemigans 1. Oh yes, the system is definitely not perfect but nothing rarely ever is. The fact is, the system just needs to be good enough for the job for various factors like cost-efficiency, ease of use, increasing the tank's survivability to X percent more, etc. I mean look at the Russians, had they installed the shitty Drozhd system and saved 30% of the tanks that were destroyed, the system would have been worth it. 2. I agree, but at the same time the complexity of an APS is more simple than a full MBT and in turn easier to test and design (at a high-level). I won't say the system is perfect but even filtering what info we have at a basic level shows APS increases the survivability of the installed vehicle. 3. Because I think you're overestimating how easily it is to take out such a system. At this point, we simply have too little data to show how effective units can snipe out specific systems on a tank. Doubly so when the system is tiny in comparison to the tank itself in the first place. Again, nothing is flawless but I feel you're thinking on the other side of the spectrum too much. 4. I mean the tank itself is expensive to maintain but I get your point. Warfare in the last 40 years or so has moved on quite a bit from the paradigms set down in the World Wars, but like I mentioned in my previous point, is there a chance we'd revert back to the attrition-based consumption wars? Possible but no one can say for sure. A lot of MBTs are by design are highly advanced systems(or contain advanced systems) that require specialised maintenance. The Abram isn't the Sherman where you can weld a steel plate for "patching" holes anymore and so on. At this point, we can fairly confidently say the more rugged tanks are not fairing well against the enhanced man-portable anti-tank tech of the last decades.

Trophy is combat tested since 2010 a video of multiple interceptions on the battlefield: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-KiaQAdGXtOQ.html&ab_channel=DirectorHaOV Cope russ bot.

tandem warhead of an ATGM cuts through that ERA like a knife through butter.

@@maybeasinner8007 There is a solution for that too! Its called Relikt!

Or attack a country like Iraq or Syria who doesn't have as powerful friend as NATO.

@@aniksamiurrahman6365 or maybe just don’t attack another country lmfao

@@finny4896 Sure. Don't attack another country that's allied to US. If it's not allied to US, then, their sovereignty doesn't matter. Bomb their cities, harass their expats in your country, rape their women, steal their natural resources. After all, human rights, freedom, sovereignty, these big words only matter after a nation is sells their soul to Uncle Sam.

That shit is worse than a T-72B3 lmao feel bad for the Ukrainians inside

To my knowledge, the PT-91M is just an upgraded T-72M that uses old French optics, different engine and stabilizers but they wouldn't stack up against the best models of T-72 with Kontakt-5. They got upgraded armor but will die just like any T-72. Poland has been trying to upgrade their tanks for over 10 years with some Obrum PL-01 tank tests. Poland finally ordered 300 Abrams M1A2 SEP V3.

Its inferior to most Russian tanks by a wide margin as it is just modernization of T-72A (well T-72M1 which is almost identical to T-72A) and not super deep one from the 1990s. I.e. its a 30 year old modernization. Few other things were added since but I am unsure whatever these things will be given to Ukraine (such as NATO radios).

PT-91 is basically made of paper compared to even T-72B Obr.1985. Worse gun, worse armor, similar engine, and marginally superior optics on the PT-91.

It's a T-72M modernization, mostly from the 90s with somewhat improved ERA (over Kontakt 1). Probably somewhere between T-72M and T-72B Obr. 1989 (with Kontakt 5). Maybe some better sights than T-72B Obr. 1989 though. Overall though, not a particularly modern tank and probably markedly worse than Leopard 2A4 or comparable western tanks of the period. Should still kill Russian tanks deployed in Ukraine fine though, if it gets first shot at least.

Facts. Listening now is you need to take a grain of salt.

Not forgetting it’s from other post or comments from dumbasses who are probably using the dead tanks as a meme for whatever reason.

@@davestevenson9080 the german media is saying almost every day how the russians are losing the war and at the same time they are reporting how ukrain lost another theretory

That's the thing, people thing that tanks are still like in ww2 were only other tanks and artillery could destroy them, but nowadays infantry with a rocket launcher can kill or combat kill a tank if it doenst have HK APS

@@davestevenson9080 What are you on? Russia has not taken a third of Ukraine’s land please go learn your fractions again before saying something silly like this.

Both sides use artillery extensively, with Ukraine using a mix of high-tech Western systems and old Soviet legacy models, to Russia using upgraded and baseline Soviet-style systems.

@@dasbubba841 Not forgetting the improved artilery systems and new tactics in targeting.

Doubt. Ukraine doesn’t have the numbers of artillery to outperform ATGMs.

nope, Ukrainians don't use arty as much as russians do.

Well, Ukropistan made the war inevitable with their aggressive anti-Russian rhetoric and politicis (such as banning the Russian langauge, withholding pensions from ethnic Russian etc.) and their 8-year-long terror bombardment of civilians in Donetsk and Lugansk republics - where more than 13,000 civilians were killed between 2014 and 2022. Russia was completely justified in launch its Special Military Operation to topple to nazi-regime in Ukropistan and re-incorpate ethnically and historically Russians lands.

Are you daft? It’s an obvious improvement. It’s like questioning weather an F-4 is an improvement over a Sabre. My language might be wrong. But, what I mean is that the technology comes from the previous experiments. Like the Armata is based on the Soviet super tank of the 80s.

Odessa 2014 what you would do then?

Tried and true since Christ was a Corporal.

Russian corruption is why there is a war in the first place, so I don't imagine a lot of people will be thankful.

@@Tamburello_1994 hahaha, hell yes

Well, that is an obvious answer for fighting in a flat terrain with a tremendous artillery superiority - a scenario that USSR was preparing for if NATO attacked its western territory. From the very first day of war/specoperation I thought that Kiev front was a mistake and all forces had to be concentrated in the Donbass to be effective. However, government here in Russia, besides its incompetence, is so far from reality that it does not even have a right intel

Ukraine's terrain is flat and is perfect for artillery bombardment. So exactly what's wrong with said tactics?

@@f-man3274 "Here" in Russia? You aren't even Russian or located in Russia lol

@@pilotmanpaul its actually the opposite. Artillery is preferred for Difficult Terrain and "Armored-Thrust"/mobile Elements on wide open flat Terrain. Good luck fighting a well organized Army that is travelling 150-300Km a Day with your Artillery(~30Km Range), u will be constantly on the retreat.

​@@Max_Da_G ля, да кому ты это пишешь)

The point isn't to quicken this war by sending and devloping more arms for it, it's to solidify the defense of the country for everything past this war. Ukraine is destined to lose, whether entirely or strategically. Even when they have a little less than twice the troops, they have lost lots of ground and hordes of munitions and troops. Even if this war were to go badly, there is more ready to be sent. There is no reason to invest in that if you can have a failsafe for later conflicts.

@@TheArcticFoxxo that is in the event of Ukraine willing, or of no stalemate. Also, I'm really really not that the situation post-Ukraine will be that good for Russia. Outside of the eratic usa position, you guys woke up and scared the shit out of eastern Europe. And these countries are going to harass the US to act against Russia and won't stop to bite Russia until you guys are not a fearsome power anymore. They control half of the EU. And their economies are allowing them to buy and/or develop massive numbers of decent/great weapons. The sanctions won't stop, and once western Europe will have gotten rid of russian oil for the duration of the war, I seriously doubt Ukraine, Poland or Finland wull allow the reopening of pipelines.

@@marcbuisson2463 Then again the entirety of the EU was keeping the situation quiet because of this exact situation. If the news of Ukraine being unable to join NATO and the EU due to corruption were to go global, some backlash would come. That's exactly what happened with Minsk II.

@@TheArcticFoxxo Can you remind us what happened the last time you guys went to war against a somewhat sizable country and with a bigger military force behind you? And what happened after that? Yes Russia is behaving exactly like Soviet expect with less manpower, firepower and your "enemy" has more support, more manpower and more weapon systems then Afghanistan had. Oh and Soviet actually had the balls to declare wars unlike Peter the pathetic. It's only 30 years ago since the last time you collapsed and you are confident because of what?

@@TheArcticFoxxo Russian cope lord lmaooo

Couldn't disagree more with you with all due respect. Since Military History Visualized made and great video regarding this topic, I'm not gonna waste time writing about it, I'm just gonna post the link. Yes the video is 30 min. long. And I understand our attention spam is fucked up by social media. But if you want to dig deeper and understand in depth the concept behind tanks I highly suggest watching the vid. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-QPth_xqBXGY.html

The Russians still use them in that role though. That's why their tank attrition rate is so high. They're still stuck in the Soviet doctrine of using tanks as the tip of the spear followed by infantry and support vehicles. This is why so many tanks are lost. They have very little combined arms compared to the U.S. centered Western doctrines where infantry tend to lead with their armored IFV that brought them in with tanks following in support. The infantry sweep through and clean up the flanks and root out the AT troops and the tanks can engage any fortified location that the IFVs smaller autocannons can't engage economically. It's the outdated doctrine that's kicking their asses right now. The Soviets believe that quantity was a quality all its own and it was the most important quality in their warfare. They banked on overwhelming The West in pure numbers so they used massive numbers of cheap tanks as the tip of the spear with infantry as cleanup. The modern Russian military still operates this way because adopting new doctrine would generally mean adopting new tanks and other equipment to match the modern doctrine.

@@Talishar They are not using Soviet tactics. They use artillery superiority tactics. Which is better than the west. The war is huge and because of that they have great losses.

​@@Talishar Tanks are not support vehicles, and I'm struggling to understand why people consider it that way. IFV/APC could maybe be considered a support vehicle. A tank is a direct fire spear heading vehicle, the infantry has the supporting role, not vice-versa( if Russian are loosing tanks it's because of their doctrines, it's not that they have bad tanks) The French at the start of WW2 were using tanks in a support roll and it costed them dearly, Germans with inferior tanks but superior tactics came on top. As you mentioned infantry is supposed to clear out possible ambushes, AT troops and position, to allow a tank breakthrough( that's why the German panzer divisions had panzergrenadiers who were supposed to work in coordination with tanks). If a breakthrough occurs, who is supposed to spear head and exploits the hole in the front?! A helicopter, IFV or a JEEP with a MG? Obviously you want a tank in that role. In the battle of Kursk German lost 500 tanks and Soviets 1,500. Yet no one was thinking since the loss rate was so high, that somehow tanks are not good enough for breakthrough anymore. Not the Soviets, not the Allies nor the Germans thought so. Germans even tried it again in the battle of the Bulge, and were stopped by the armored divisions of Patton. You don't have to go far back, to find a good example of tanks being used properly for it's breakthrough capabilities. Operation "Iraqi freedom'' was spearheaded by mostly American tank/motorized divisions. And obviously, you can't rely only on tanks cuz they are not wunderwaffe, it's all about synchronizing the air power, indirect power( artillery), infantry and direct power( tanks). Don't mix bad military doctrine with the capabilities of a tank. Funny how history repeats it's self. Cuz that's exactly how the French lost the the first stages of WW2. They downplayed the importance of an armored spearhead. All I'm saying is that Russians don't know how to utilize the breakthrough capabilities of a tank. They didn't establish air supremacy, and they are sending their tanks without infantry support.

@@ares8866 They have massive losses because the russian military is a joke. They STILL don't have air superiority and are fighting like its WW1. They have been able to advance only due to weight of shelling and superior ammo/gun situation compared to the ukrainians but that has now been cut off via GMLRS. It took 4 launchers to completely wreck their entire logistics network. If the ukrainians are given HIMARS of M270s in any real numbers (20-30+) the russians are in big trouble. They simply cannot handle an enemy with any kind of real modern deep strike capability. God help them if the ukrainians get ATACMS or F16s in any real numbers (training program is slated to start for those) as that unlocks HARMs, AMRAAMs, JASSMs and JDAMs. Artillery superiority isn't really much of a tactic. Any officer worth their uniform can be expected to perform at least decently when they massively outgun the enemy (re: Desert Storm) and the russians were still just barely advancing even with this. We will see how they do once they cannot afford to simply expend 10x the number of shells and howitzer barrels as the enemy.

They conquered them 3 months ago.

good point. Have you noticed that nearly EVERYONE on the net is a expert about this conflict?

😂 yes, only 20%.. Nobody knows how to die for their country like a Russian. What's taking sooooo long?

@@kieferkarpfen6897In the past two weeks Ukraine has lost two major population centers and the entire Luhansk Oblast which Zelensky vowed to defend. Lets be a bit real, Russia isnt exactly stalled. Its just moving cautiously.

@@twocentcoop9683 Do you mean those small cities? Do they even have 100.000 inhabitants?

True to the last word

The Russians have a large modern military, but the modern part isn't large and the large part isn't modern.

А у вас что много современных танков ? Или 50 леопардов максимум современных, или ты думаешь ваши танки не будут гореть от птур корнет ? Который лучше джевелинов, вы даже неделе не продержится в войне такой интенсивности, и Турция показала как будут гореть леопарды от старых рпг

Yes they did. Stop supporting putin

Russia is run by the Russian mob. Putins just a puppet.

They did make a decent one in the 1980s called Drozd. The problem is they were mainly deployed on T-55s in Afghanistan and they didn't continue production of the munitions and parts after the end of the cold war. Arena never made it into serial production. Just because the system works on brute force instead of precision targeting doesn't mean it doesn't work. Drozd and Arena have major drawbacks but the main problem with them is that Russia isn't using them or just doesn't have them or have them deployed.

What you said is a consequence. The root cause of the inability to create anything is total irresponsibility, illiteracy and, of course, corruption. Both in specialist positions and in managerial positions. Corruption in all its manifestations, and not just in the form of bribes. In particular, illiteracy is mainly due to the fact that the positions are appointed, not those who are suitable for the level of qualifications, but for personal sympathies (relatives, acquaintances, etc.). I work in one of the federal civil services of Russia, in the regional directorate. Many of my colleagues, moreover of Russian nationality, including some representatives of the leadership (!), simply do not know how to write correctly in Russian.

You said a lot without saying anything at all.

Simulations done correctly can mimic reality. But only for the specific purposes of that simulation.

@@colincampbell767 Oh no. Never. I do simulations professionally (not tanks, I simulate proteins). Simulations only capture a sliver of reality. Without real world's feedback, it spirals into air castle pretty quickly.

@@aniksamiurrahman6365 I've participated in simulations in the Army. They are very tightly focused and there is a very specific list of things that the simulation is going to train. And everybody knows that this isn't real world but a means of training specific things.

@@colincampbell767 I do Milsims privately and I've taken notes from the shortcomings of the ones I participated in while I was still in the Army. The Army is limited by outdated software and hardware in their sim ops. Still, even the best simulation will not truly reflect reality for a long time to come if ever.

Trophy-L and Iron Fist are both able to be deployed on vehicles as light as HMMVWs so that can help the logistics boys and APC/IFVs. Air Defense and rear security elements are the ones that have to defend the logistics guys. Eugen Systems WARNO just added territorial command divisions to their game to account for this need. I look forward to seeing how that plays out in team games.

Hello, I'm from Russia and I want to reveal to you a secret that your journalists will never tell you, the Russian special services agreed to buy two American installations on the Black Market of Ukraine that cost $ 7 million And they bought on the site for $ 130,000, so where do you think they might end up !?

No, artillery doesn't have the accuracy and the time to respond to reliably hit moving targets. Mine fields at best would just immobilize a tank, would not outright destroy it or its crew. AT missiles are the biggest threat to tanks, and those threats are not exclusive to merely Russian tanks.

@@thuggeegaming659 Before you doubt that remind yourself of how WW2 battleships were able to fight each other precisely with corrected artillery fire over easily 10+ km. Modern artillery is even more accurate and can strike the same spot with incredible reliability if it set up in a correct manner.

@@KSCBob No, artillery is basically useless against tanks on the move, the only time they can hit anything is if they are conveniently grouped together and are off.

@@thuggeegaming659 Or if they're using PGM's guided by drone mounted laser designators.

Eh. There’s many coaches who don’t play & win championships. As long as you know, informations everywhere.

You don't need combat experience to know that APS's are vital to protecting tanks. Dullard.

What makes you any better wise ass ?

@@thuggeegaming659 Another gamer. Right. Are you aware of economics and budgets? Maybe on your games, you can spend a few bucks to make your tank the most protected, trained crew, top notch ammo, but the world outside your screen doesn't work like that. Child.

@@spaceshuttledoorgunner125 Ooo we have an armchair warrior here! Tell me, what wars did you fight in? 🤣

Not really, because of the problems of Russian army, they are going for more hardcore approach which is hurting Ukraine's buildings and economy more. If Russia did conquer Ukraine in a week or so Ukraine would be in a better state right now. Especially not suffering minus 35 percent GDP loss

@@b-17gflyingfortress6 No country is just going to let itself get conquered, fool.

Hard to say but the turkish leopards are low tier garbage compared to "real" leopards so them being destroyed is no suprise and not realy an indicator for the non export variants of western tanks. But most western tanks dont have APS so they would probably get destroyed by modern atgms like NLAW Javelin and probably stuff like Konkurs aswell. But keep in mind that exept for russia and the west almost no country has these modern atgms

It's not just "poor tactics" that's hurt the Russians. I would argue the level of corruption the they're are known for plays a part, and the use of conscripts is not ideal, and something you don't see -- at least here in the states. So yeah, things might be different with a well trained and MOTIVATED force.

@@Flugfrosch25 Those Leopards were former German army tanks that were modernized for Turkey. You are completely off your rocker to say they are export garbage

@@Flugfrosch25 Er Hezbollah stopped Israeli Merkavas with Russian export ATGMs....

@@Tamburello_1994 hmm how about the 200+ polish T72 that was given to Ukraine? Seen no news or any positive effect from them? I guess Ukrainian forces are conscripts and not motivated enough?

India is NOT neutral, they've sided with Russia long ago. They love the cheap oil.

India is not neutral. The Hindustan Times put out nothing but pro-Russian propaganda. Indians love Russia and will never say anything bad about it or criticize Russia.

@@xion1305 but they never supported the invasion, look at the indian foreign ministers speech. He says india will remain neutral because india is also a quad ally of USA

Nothing is 100% proofs As battle progresses your enemy learns ways to inflict damage to even hardened arsenal. Thats why short battles is favourable

@Sash's Content (Autism) In fairness that could also be the fault of their method of use all those numbers mean is a large number of tanks have been knocked out not why they were knocked out.

@Sash's Content (Autism) You're going by the Oryx counter? There's been plenty of people poking holes in his record keeping. Pictures of intact tanks sitting around, pictures of tanks from other wars, Ukrainian losses counted as Russian. We're never going to know until this war is over.

There's plenty of footage of the Javelin being used to crush tanks, this is an old and tired talking point that was never true. Russian vehicles are being splashed by all sorts of rocket systems including an AT-4 is one documented case.

The most up to date figure I could find was 200 per day not 1000, I doubt Russia's intended plan was to lose more troops than Afghanistan and Chenya put together so at this stage even if they win i'm not sure they're successful.

@@PineapplePinesol link a single video

They do not have the manpower.

Unless the tank is designed to be a tank hunter, it's nowhere near as useful armor hunter than a chopper or a plane. Abrams and Leo-2 are specifically designed as tank fighters. T-64/72/80/90 are mobile artillery piece designed to support infantry in an assault, kill enemy fortifications, breach defenses.

With what infantry? They don't have enough and their best men died on day 1.

You just don't have idea what you talking about. Tanks has much better optics than a infantry, plus it's really wrong the idea that atgm is 1 shot 1 kill even the high end one like javelin or spike are far from it.

Its hard to use infantry if you don't have infantry.,

This is what happens when you don't have an nco core

Ahh yes couch experts with their hot takes on what others are good at doing

Based on what evidence?

Why did she go bankrupt then?

@@ares8866 One last gesture before she died 🤡

Shows how little you know about the war. Lysychansk wasn't take with tanks. The Russians have an overwhelming artillery advantage and used it to great effect to pulverize Ukrainian positions. Of course now with HIMARS that has changed with Russian artillery activity dropping of significantly.

agree, when your plowing full steam ahead, behind enemy lines exposing your supply lines. Then of course well hidden and equipped enemies will be waiting. Alot of the first phase videos show Russian convoys coming straight into prepared ambushes.

If that were true why have Russian loses kept mounting? You know Russian state propaganda doesn't actually equal reality right? Russian soldiers are poorly trained and poorly equipped. They are 6 months into an invasion that would have taken a proper military 6 weeks. Their only play is to artillery cities into rubble for weeks than claim the leftovers.

@@amazinkay4512 as someone who grew up in a communist country, I can actually detect propaganda, you in the West are very very naive when it comes to your own press. Hint: you should read both. When one is forbidden you build your own radio antennas to listen to radio free Europe or configure a VPN to read RT news. Ironically it is the West now that is in full propaganda mode shutting down anything from the other side. Ironically or sadly. This is not a proper war Russia did not mobilize it is just using its existing volunteer army, just like the US did not mobilize for either Iraq or Afghanistan. Oh by the way, those are small dusty forgotten little places with almost zero military forces, right? A proper military surely has no problem securing them easily for good, right?

not necessarily, those anti tank weapons are developed to counter UpToDate armament. The out of date stuff is more susceptible.

Most of those AT weapons are 30 years old as well

They're aren't sending their newest and best equipment. They're sending the stuff that's been sitting in an ammo bunker somewhere for decades and instead of sending it back in for depot repairs/maintenance, they're sending it to Ukraine for them to use up and save them time/money on said maintenance.

@@Talishar Guess T90M are now dogshit old tanks.

@@alvarolopezgomez6543 They lost only one t90m which was unable to move due to damaged tracks. And that is it.

I have never seen any Russian tank sagger dance or deploy smoke screen or have infantry support. So yes your comment is not true.

It'd still be called failing. No one here is being biased, just that Russian ground forces lag behind NATO ones and even when they don't they are unable to be survive anti-tank measures adopted by Ukraine.

They're just shilling like mainstream media for views. All the people gobbling up the propaganda are in for really cold shower after this'll be over. Just like failing USA and EU which destroyed their economy by printing absurd amount of money and by shutting down for two years because of a flu. Now are running the story that Russia is responsible for all this. And people eat that shit up and don't question anything. As with all the armchair general RU-vidrs media outlets they feed you propaganda they want you to see.

@@Abdullah-mn6sw if it's lagging then why Russia is winning then? Russia only put 200k men with only 100k offensive. Ukraine has been training In NATO standards and now this proves Russia can beat NATO. This is why NATO is desperate.

@@Abdullah-mn6sw the problem you guys equate Afghanistan army which is goat herders over NATO standard. NATO has not fought real enemy as Russia nor china standards. Keep that in mind. NATO had the strongest and biggest army as Ukraine. Russia destroyed it completely.

Do you post the same comment on every single video? Also, 1500-2000 tanks is Ukraine's data. Their data is also that they are winning despite Russia controlling more than 20% of the country.

For now it's 870 and well whole Soviet union was driving Ladas and Moskvichs their Army had most advanced stuff T64 was unmatched at the time it came out same stands for T80 so its not really comparable.

@Cheetah beater Not really the point. Ukraine's losses are involuntary, couldn't say the same for Russia.

@@spidavletaptap6308 Ukraine is winning, unless you can explain to me how this deadlock of a trench warfare is the path for Russian victory in the end? also half of that 20% you brag about was already controlled by Russia, and its mostly open plains.

@Cheetah beater The world will help Ukraine rebuild. No nation is going to help Russia rebuild.

Exactly. Because of the war which is going on right now, it’s not going to enter active service because the Russians just wasted their budget for nothing. A worthless war just cost them. Even a huge number of tanks they had just made things difficult. Even expensive projects that the Russians invested.

Ok clown

Yes. T14 and new gen jets were such a drain on the Russian military. They should have focused on modernizing t90s and later variants of t72. Well at least they have no choice now.

The first batch of serials is projected to enter service this year, so we'll see about that

Why not just scrapped all the T-72 tanks and leave the T-90 as their main modern battle tank? That can make things a bit more better.

It does tell a fair bit about the superiority of NATO equipment if the Kiev advance could be halted by just shoulder mounted weapons

>T-34's was one of the best tank in the ww2 Lazerpig moment.

@@anguswaterhouse9255 "The Kiev advance" ... hahaha :D Ah, I guess this myth will survive a little longer...

@@anguswaterhouse9255 The Kiev advanced wasn't stopped by "just" at weapons. There are tonnes of videos showing artillery being used directly or indirectly to that end.

T-34 was trash but swarms of trash are still dangerous. Stalin famous words: ‘quantity has a quality of it’s own’ did the job…

Most of the pictures of knocked out tanks would be from ATGMs. Most of the pictures usually show the tank next to a building using it as cover but the building isn't blown to hell as it would be if artillery had done it. Because the vehicle is off-road, it's probably not a mine that was planted in some random person's garden. Looking at the photos, most of the tank wrecks are in a city environment, next to a building but the building is mostly intact at the tank's level. This rules out artillery and mines. There have been cases of artillery doing work on some makeshift resupply bases or slow convoys though which account for the tank wrecks along the sides of the road. I'd say the mines were probably the wrecks we see in the middle of the road used to stop a convoy and used as a cue by the artillery crew to start shelling that point. The tanks then got off the road into cover at the side of the road and the drone walked rounds in on those tanks that went hull-down in a ditch. We also have a lot of drone footage showing Ukrainian troops ambushing convoys using ATGMs or RPGs on the lead and last vehicle to stop a convoy and then artillery cleans up the center.

@@Talishar don't know about you, but most of the destroyed tanks i have seen are on side of some road. Even the ambush videos are mostly on roads. Also a destroyed tank can also mean that the tank broke, ran over a mine, ran out of fuel etc and the crew destroyed it because they couldn't recover it. These are 30-40 year old machines. Upto 60% of hardware is not useable in many militaries depending on the country for this very reason.

yes IN YOUR OPINION which is irrelevant

@@ulikemyname6744 just like yours

@@lumberjackagies5158 true

Racism Is fine when the subject Is someone you don't like huh...

@@untraceablefgc-9mkii251 I like Russian people, don't like current Russian government. I share like 80% of common traits of ordinary Russian people, after all im South Slavs

"many dead orcs" now count ukr losses...kek XD

@@nutpero6201 Between pillaging, raping, looting and civilian casualties, destruction of infrastructure, economy, and whole fucking town and villages losses are unimaginable. And that is why they are called Orcs. I hope you never end in a war i was in one and it is not pretty, its not a game.