Tap to unmute

How Russia’s strategy in Ukraine failed, not the tank | It's Complicated

Share
Embed
  • Published on Oct 4, 2022
  • Russian forces lost a vast numbers of tanks during the first few months of the war, prompting questions over whether they were becoming obsolete.
    Subscribe to Guardian News on RU-clip ► bit.ly/guardianwiressub
    But the tank has previously appeared to have been consigned to the ash heap of history only to rise again to reaffirm its relevance. Josh Toussaint-Strauss examines Russia's early deployment during the invasion and asks: if tanks aren't the problem, why did they fail in Ukraine?
    The Guardian publishes independent journalism, made possible by supporters. Contribute to The Guardian today ► bit.ly/3uhA7zg
    Sign up to the Guardian's free new daily newsletter, First Edition ► theguardian.com/first-edition
    Website ► www.theguardian.com
    Facebook ► theguardian
    Twitter ► guardian
    Instagram ► guardian
    The Guardian on RU-clip:
    The Guardian ► bit.ly/guardiannewssubs
    Guardian Australia ► bit.ly/guardianaussubs
    Guardian Football ► bit.ly/gdnfootballsubs
    Guardian Sport ► bit.ly/gdnsportsubs
    Guardian Live ► bit.ly/guardianlivesubs

Comments • 1 902

  • Sindri Jóelsson
    Sindri Jóelsson Month ago +2334

    This video fails to mention the huge difference in between the Ukrainian army in 2014 and 2022 in regards to training, discipline and doctrine. The Ukrainian army was in no state to properly resist Russias' encroachment in 2014 both due to lack of equipment but also due to lack of training/doctrine. The Ukrainian army in 2022 has a lot more focus on the NCO and using NATO inspired battle doctrine than 'traditional' Soviet doctrine. For example NATO philosophy on logistics supply is PULL-based (request what you think you need to achieve an objective using your) while Soviet is PUSH-based (receive whatever the command thinks you need to achieve your object via the prescribed tactics)

    • Taramafor Haikido
      Taramafor Haikido 5 days ago

      @KarlHeinzSpock At the same time, those that learn to adapt to the worst of situations will turn out stronger in the long run as well.
      Both tactics have their merits. A combination of both is ideal.

    • sharifah zaini
      sharifah zaini Month ago

      @Scott Gibson its not about something new. its about the hypocrisy of the west in regards of war. Who are they to tell us which is wrong and which is right ?

    • Sergiy Tokio
      Sergiy Tokio Month ago

      Russia's use of nuclear weapons would be "an act of enmity against humanity.

    • Zacharia Nwojo
      Zacharia Nwojo Month ago

      But, It’s potato
      HQ: thank me later

    • Scott Gibson
      Scott Gibson Month ago

      @sharifah zaini Other nations have been involved with war since the beginning of time. This is nothing new.

  • Ray N17
    Ray N17 Month ago +1503

    So what I understand from this is,tanks are extremely dangerous when used by a professional, disciplined, well trained army,which the majority of the Russians appear not to be

    • PETE ALLISON
      PETE ALLISON Month ago +1

      @spot on to store the ammunition on a carrousel under the crew in the compartment and next to the fuel tanks is definitely a design flaw or more accurate a serious fatal design error in a military vehicle.

    • DEATH TO THE URAINE NAZIS
      DEATH TO THE URAINE NAZIS Month ago

      2:47 watch General Konashenkov's channel and don't fool people with your cheap data

    • robrobusa
      robrobusa Month ago

      Also, the supply lines were not properly maintained in this failed russian blitzkrieg. Everything went to shambles. I fear, however, that the russian military might recover during the winter, deploying better trained troops and rallying their logistics battalions...

    • Motivation
      Motivation Month ago

      Yes, this applies to every tool, since tanks are tools. Every tool will do poorly or be damaged, if user use it the wrong way.

    • David Lloyd-Jones
      David Lloyd-Jones Month ago

      @SantomPh
      No they don't. Tanks are like pre-packed meals or skids of artillery shells: just one more throw-away supply item.

  • Alan Toon
    Alan Toon Month ago +2186

    The Russians are fighting the last war. The Ukrainians are fighting the next war.
    They have basically the same armored vehicles.
    The Ukrainians listened to their Western trainers and totally reformed their military from 2014.
    They adopted the Western style of war and added many of their own twists to it...

    • Gromm Ukraini
      Gromm Ukraini 28 days ago

      tanks are useless .. think how long it takes to make 100 tanks , and how long to manufacture 100 cruise missiles , 100 jav or etc . 5 UAV drones and arm it with 100 bombs.

    • Галина Потапова
      Галина Потапова Month ago

      Например,прикрываться мирным населением!Это-позор!

    • Sergiy Tokio
      Sergiy Tokio Month ago

      Russia's use of nuclear weapons would be "an act of enmity against humanity.

    • TheRedneckAtheist
      TheRedneckAtheist Month ago

      @Ayin "Russian meat grinder" is obviously a reference to how successful Russia is at directly targeting civilians.

    • Michael Morningstar
      Michael Morningstar Month ago

      @Patthon Sirilim The purpose of Battleships was always shore bombardment.

  • Joshua Baratheon
    Joshua Baratheon Month ago +725

    Russia vastly underestimated the Ukrainian resolve especially early on. Ukrainians were literally fighting off Russian tanks with Molotov cocktails. I also think Putin underestimated the international response to his invasion.

    • Luna 333
      Luna 333 12 days ago

      @Bee Bob Ya, I thought that was pretty epic

    • PETE ALLISON
      PETE ALLISON Month ago

      @joe moody and still Russia is losing. Russia simply cannot win.

    • PETE ALLISON
      PETE ALLISON Month ago

      @Mohanad and now the snake island is back with Ukraine.

    • PETE ALLISON
      PETE ALLISON Month ago

      Putin has overestimated himself and underestimate everything else: the standard Autocratic,dictatorship behaviour.

    • Галина Потапова
      Галина Потапова Month ago

      Россия не сша с их ковровыми бомбардировки!Россия щадила мирных и пыталась обойтись без лишних жертв!

  • Robert Sneddon
    Robert Sneddon Month ago +321

    Modern ground-based anti-tank weapons including man-portable missiles have greater attack range than their earlier counterparts. This means the infantry screen which is meant to keep enemies away from high-value tank targets has to sanitise a lot more ground around the tank columns than before. That means lots more infantry are needed to screen each group of tanks and the tanks are still vulnerable to a well-hidden ambush attack if the infantry don't do their job well enough.
    The infantry screens are usually deployed alongside the tanks in "battle taxis", Infantry Fighting Vehicles and these IFVs can also be a worthwhile target for such missile ambushes, of course. Eliminate enough IFVs and infantry in a armour column and the tanks become further exposed and take losses.

    • Michael Hennegan
      Michael Hennegan Month ago

      @Coda Alive so what’s the reason they aren’t using their planes? Manpads?

    • Michael Hennegan
      Michael Hennegan Month ago

      @Lingerie De Paris they don’t want to lose all their planes too.

    • Michael Hennegan
      Michael Hennegan Month ago

      @CorePathway they can’t!

    • Michael Hennegan
      Michael Hennegan Month ago

      Very well said.

    • ranndino
      ranndino Month ago

      Exactly! That's why I disagree with the conclusion. I guess the weapons manifacturers just don't want to lose a major cash cow.

  • Raven Blood
    Raven Blood Month ago +146

    Russian tactics didn’t really seem to change since 2014, it was the Ukrainians that changed. It’s far simpler to defeat an enemy that’s basically a glorified militia rather than a professional army. The Ukrainian army was in shambles in 2014, it was basically just Azov and other partisans. In 2022 they had a semi reformed army that was willing to face the losses they’d take facing the Russians and learn through their teething issues. That, coupled with Russian doctrine being particularly vulnerable to ambush tactics (with the exception of simply carpet bombing cities) meant that Ukraine was put in a unique advantage as the Russians pushed into Urban areas.

    • xia en Gao
      xia en Gao Month ago

      @mso1ps4 No, WWI. Putin's going to get deposed by his own army.

    • mso1ps4
      mso1ps4 Month ago

      since WWII*

    • xia en Gao
      xia en Gao Month ago

      Russian land warfare doctrine hasn't changed since WWI. We all saw how that worked out.

  • Rob Walsh
    Rob Walsh Month ago +201

    Russia lost countless tanks to Chechen guerillas in the city of Grozny, who were armed with the basic Soviet RPG. Switch the setting from small Chechnya to sprawling Ukraine and change the weapons from RPGs to NLAWs and Javelins, and you have a recipe for disaster.

    • parabot2
      parabot2 Month ago

      @xia en Gao Ukraine is like an under 15 football team who is playing a fifa world cup team . But the fifa team only brings 2 players , the under 15 team think they are hot stuff and winning bigly.

    • Stun Grenade
      Stun Grenade Month ago

      Yeah yeah yeah, we heard that kind of garbage 20 years prior to America being BTFO out of Afghanistan with their tails between their legs. $100 Billion provided by NATO countries and yet this evening Kyiv sits in complete darkness without running water.

    • xia en Gao
      xia en Gao Month ago

      @parabot2 It looks like the Russians are trying to give it back.

    • xia en Gao
      xia en Gao Month ago

      Now the Chechens just obliterated a Russian tank batallion. Friendly fire is a big problem in the Soviet Reunion.

    • parabot2
      parabot2 Month ago

      @Fiddlesticks WT On the Kupyansk Front Ukraine is slowly penetrating into Luhansk towards Svatove in massive pincer.

  • Jordan Course
    Jordan Course Month ago +186

    It looked like Russia's war doctrine hasn't changed much since the cold war. They vastly underestimated Ukraine and it is quite shocking to see they've lost that many tanks. I do believe due to poor training and also the outdated capabilities of the soviet era T64, T72, and T80 tanks. Yes, they're cheap to produce but the crew survivability is ridiculous. They're not completely useless but taking a tank into an urban environment is a nightmare and I feel bad for ukraine and russian tank crews suffering heavy losses.

    • Taramafor Haikido
      Taramafor Haikido 5 days ago

      @Real Napster Keep in mind there's a lot of Russians turning tail and legging it.
      If peoples hearts and minds aren't in it then of course that's going to happen. Have you seen how Russia trains its troops? No wonder they're doing poorly.

    • Sergiy Tokio
      Sergiy Tokio Month ago +1

      Russia's use of nuclear weapons would be "an act of enmity against humanity.

    • DEATH TO THE URAINE NAZIS
      DEATH TO THE URAINE NAZIS Month ago

      2:47 watch General Konashenkov's channel and don't fool people with your cheap data

    • Mike Fuchs
      Mike Fuchs Month ago

      @Real Napster and yet...Ukraine fights with increasing momentum while Russia retrogrades and waits for reinforcements? Your logic fails to pass the smell test. Regardless of real numbers, Ukraine is ramping while Russia fades.

    • Maka
      Maka Month ago +2

      @Real Napster How so? They were the ones defending. When Russia blindly rushed into these ambushes with next to no scouts or air superiority i dont think it was Ukraine with the heavy losses

  • Mahbu
    Mahbu Month ago +3

    The Chieftain (a tanker of renown among gamers and military enthusiasts) did an amazing video on this very subject. The tank is not obsolete for the simple reason that there is nothing that fulfills the same role BETTER than the tank. It is a fast, armored platform that provides direct fire and can support infantry or vice versa.
    Consider the Battleship and the Aircraft Carrier. If it was about cost effective and capable weapon systems, the torpedo boat would've made the battleship obsolete ages ago. Aircraft carriers weren't just effective against battleships, they fulfilled the same role and did it BETTER.

  • Waltham1892
    Waltham1892 Month ago +78

    It takes extensive training to learn how to operate tanks and infantry together as a well integrated team. After the fall of the Soviet Union the Russians went about 10 years without conducting comprehensive large scale trainings/exercises.
    This means an entire generation of NCO's and Officers have risen to positions of leadership that have never maneuvered forces in the field on a consistent basis or for prolonged periods of time.
    That lack of training shows in combat, which is what we are seeing.

    • Waltham1892
      Waltham1892 Month ago +7

      @NuclearFridge1 The Russian Army has an NCO Crops, but it doesn't operate the same as those found in NATO Armies, the US Army specifically.
      Russian NCO's tend to be more focused on troop discipline and organization and less on technical training and small unit tactics.
      Those tasks tend to be the province of junior Officers.
      A Russian Junior Officer would be amazed how much professional training an American Mid-Career NCO has and how much training he conducts.

    • joe moody
      joe moody Month ago

      They just didn't have the opportunities the US has with all there wars of aggression on innocent populations. They will never be as dangerous as those American or British imperialists funny how the west doesn't understand this fact.

    • NuclearFridge1
      NuclearFridge1 Month ago +8

      Another thing to keep in mind... The Russian army hasn't got an NCO corps.

  • LordOmnissiah
    LordOmnissiah Month ago +30

    I must note that Russia also failed because Russian active protection systems on their tanks are not only less widely deployed but have proven thus far to be far less effective at intercepting enemy attacks then their western equivalents like the Israeli Trophy system.

    • xia en Gao
      xia en Gao Month ago

      Egg cartons don't do much against HEAT rounds.

    • DEATH TO THE URAINE NAZIS
      DEATH TO THE URAINE NAZIS Month ago

      2:47 watch General Konashenkov's channel and don't fool people with your cheap data

    • Panocek
      Panocek Month ago +3

      Because no Russian tank with hardkill APS was deployed to Ukraine, only T-90 series featuring Shtora softkill designed to deal with already outdated ATGMs like TOW. Shtora still can act as early warning and automated smoke screen, surprisingly we have no footage of that ever (?) used. Heck, even manually launched smoke screens are rare sight

  • roadhouse699
    roadhouse699 Month ago +11

    In the army, I learned that there are 7 principles of mission command: Commander's intent, Shared understanding, Mutual trust, Disciplined initiative, Risk acceptance, Mission orders, and Competence.
    It seems like the Russians only have risk acceptance.

  • Maxwell's Demon
    Maxwell's Demon Month ago +94

    It seems like nothing has been declared "dead" more often than the tank, and nothing has come back from the dead more often as soon as the next major ground war begins. I can't think of a better way of putting it than how The Cheiftain (military RU-clipr and former Abrams commander) did: The aircraft carrier didn't make the battleship "obsolete" because carrier aircraft could sink a battleship. What made the battleship obsolete was that the carrier and its air group could do the battleship's job better. An infantryman with an ATGM may be able to destroy a tank, but can't take its place on battlefield. The mere existence of a countermeasure doesn't make a weapon obsolete. Surface ships are not obsolete because of anti-ship missiles anymore than they were when the torpedo was invented. Anti-ship missiles are themselves not obsolete because warships have decoys, jammers and point defence systems. SAMs don't make aircraft obsolete. You could go on.

    • The Ina Circle Of The Ancient Puns
      The Ina Circle Of The Ancient Puns Month ago

      That's the best way of putting it for probably sure.

    • Randy Marsh
      Randy Marsh Month ago

      Tanks and Snipers have faced the same issue of being labelled as unnecessary until it becomes overwhelmingly apart they are

    • Thomas P
      Thomas P Month ago +5

      @Maniae Official Because the telephone and the internet do it's job better.

    • Maniae Official
      Maniae Official Month ago +1

      The telegraph is dead.

  • Саша Болотный

    Highly informative analysis and the one that actually does provide an insight on why things actually did unfold that way. It’s even more amusing after watching that video to think and realised how lies, treasonous mindset of the command and, indeed, the corruption actually caused the corrosion of the Russian military from the inside. So it’s even more humiliating to watch the war at this point with an increasing understanding of the idea that Putin’s managed to lose largely to himself.

    • Taramafor Haikido
      Taramafor Haikido 5 days ago

      @LogicSword3675 There's Russians fighting each other because they're devided. Legit.
      Frankly, it's Putin that betrayed his own troops IMO.

    • Галина Потапова
      Галина Потапова Month ago

      Вы принимаете желаемое за действительное,мой друг.Sorry....

    • DEATH TO THE URAINE NAZIS
      DEATH TO THE URAINE NAZIS Month ago +1

      2:47 watch General Konashenkov's channel and don't fool people with your cheap data

    • Naman Sharma
      Naman Sharma Month ago +1

      Wasn't expecting treason from you, Sasha

    • LogicSword3675
      LogicSword3675 Month ago +1

      Not treasonous enough.

  • Justa Name
    Justa Name Month ago +35

    The main difference: Russia was facing actual resistance this time

    • Zemplin Castellan
      Zemplin Castellan Month ago

      Yeah, it's not quite like bombing lightly armed Syrians or Chechens back to the Stone Age, or shooing off the smaller Georgian army, then going home. Instead of bullying smaller nations and defenceless people, they've attacked a large country determined and prepared to defend itself.

  • Patraic
    Patraic Month ago +111

    Tanks, properly handled, and deployed with a good combined arms doctrine, and proper supply, can be devastating. Russia has not done any of this.

    • Demopans
      Demopans Month ago

      @Mike Fuchs
      So name me another platform with near instant response to fire, packs quite a punch, can move on any terrain, and can take a few hits when on the offensive

    • DEATH TO THE URAINE NAZIS
      DEATH TO THE URAINE NAZIS Month ago

      2:47 watch General Konashenkov's channel and don't fool people with your cheap data

    • xia en Gao
      xia en Gao Month ago

      @Kirill D You misspelled "Putin", or maybe "Russian army".

    • xia en Gao
      xia en Gao Month ago

      @William Young Or body armor. Maybe the Russians can get summer uniforms before winter. They already know how to forage.

    • Bell Drop
      Bell Drop Month ago +1

      @MisterGoodFellow Forget being in a training exercise, the guy most likely don't even leave his basement. Armchair experts be like that.

  • Denis Morgan
    Denis Morgan Month ago +76

    A few other valid points was missing these Ukrainians effective uavs and Ukrainian innovations converting commercial drones as grenade droppers and Ukraine made anti tank weapons and tank's self propelled killer's. Uavs and drones became a barrier between the plane's and ground troops they were supposed to protect.

    • Стеван Стаменић
      Стеван Стаменић Month ago

      @Toad I don't know, I've heard of limited usage, not really sure, but the Ukrainians are really using it to devastating effect and on a massive scale.

    • Toad
      Toad Month ago

      @Стеван Стаменић Really? I have only ever seen it used by the Ukrainians, going back a few years... Did it get pioneered in Syria?

    • Denis Morgan
      Denis Morgan Month ago +2

      @M V at the time Russia had more of a population to do it with and get away with, plus Ukraine have not finished with destroying the Russian military yet. When finished with Russia will not have enough population to be considered as a nation.

    • M V
      M V Month ago

      Denis Morgan irrelevant. Russians did the same thing they did in 1995 in Chechnya and took similar heavy losses.

    • Стеван Стаменић
      Стеван Стаменић Month ago +7

      I've heard that the grenade-dropping drone is a middle-eastern invention, but still a valid point

  • Pronto
    Pronto Month ago +3

    Failing to provide sufficient support for tanks is a tactical failure, not a strategic failure. I have been shocked at the number of videos I have seen of tanks and afvs out in the open (where they belong) but apparently operating without support. Either that or bunched up in urban settings. This suggests that the tankers have a false sense of security while the infantry have an overdeveloped sense of survival.

  • CardBoardBoxProcessor Creations

    Funny cause we just saw Ukrain use tanks with great success in the southwest front to rapidly take over the areas north of Kherson haha. All with the same tanks Russia used, some literally the same ones. It's all about strategy.

    • Marvin66
      Marvin66 Month ago

      The Ukrainians are using tanks when they already control the battlefield and the Russians are in retreat. The Russians lack infantry numbers and real motivation

    • Eric Ericson
      Eric Ericson Month ago +8

      By the way, Ukraine is very happy that Russia donated the tanks

  • Renoir
    Renoir Month ago +105

    I heard a Russian soldier being genuinely shocked that Ukrainian tanks were driving across the fields rather than down the roads. Says a lot about Russian training.

    • Demopans
      Demopans Month ago

      And General Kleptonov is laughing to the bank

    • xia en Gao
      xia en Gao Month ago

      @Zemplin Castellan The Russians don't even have summer uniforms and here comes General Winter!

    • Renoir
      Renoir Month ago

      @Lone Wolf Media It was from an intercepted phone call. I’d post the link but I’ve no idea where it is.

    • Lone Wolf Media
      Lone Wolf Media Month ago

      Yeah... you heard huh facepalm

    • Corey Ham
      Corey Ham Month ago

      @xia en Gao Yes, it certainly seems so. But they seem to love firing long range rockets at civilian targets. A cowardly way to way a war.

  • Jay Mac
    Jay Mac Month ago +106

    Russia is now the biggest donator of tanks and other vehicles now to Ukraine. Very nice of them 👌

  • T.
    T. Month ago +55

    "Putin went to the oracle and asked if he should go to war and the priestess replied that, should Putin attack the Ukrainians, a mighty empire would fall. Gleefully, Putin launched his attack."

  • Bristol Adley
    Bristol Adley Month ago +5

    There is something to be said for smaller, faster/more maneuverable tanks - a main battle behemoth is not always the best tool for the situation at hand.

  • Jan Andersen
    Jan Andersen Month ago +9

    Not mentioned but also a factor is the loss of the tank crews, and likely the most aggressive ones. The tankers that a cautious and hang back, may survive more often but also more likely to run.

  • Tom F
    Tom F Month ago +47

    They would have felt safe, at first. Inside a tank or transporter, until they started getting annihilated. Then I'm sure word spread round the Russian forces that their safe place is actually a mobile coffin. It explains why so many were abandoned. Once one tank goes next to you, many will jump out and take their chances with small arms fire.

    • xia en Gao
      xia en Gao Month ago

      That's a rational decision. When you're inside the target, get out and run!

    • VynalDerp
      VynalDerp Month ago +5

      A BMP is literally a fuel can. It's armor can be penetrated by anything bigger than a 50 caliber machinegun and there are two large unprotected fuel tanks on the left and right of the crew compartment in the back. Pretty much any penetrating hit and the inside turns into an oven... and the ammo rack will detonate as a result.

  • Steve Oatway
    Steve Oatway Month ago +10

    The situation in Ukraine is eerily similar to what happened in WWII with the French and Germans in May-June 1940. The French had more Tanks, larger Tanks and they were better machines than the then small German Tanks but the tactics by the Germans were far better coordinated so the French Tanks were destroyed one by one. The Germans had trained for years specifically using Tanks as a part of their offensive Blitzkrieg strategy which had Army and Air Force units working together while the French Army was very poorly coordinated and had trained very little because their leaders thought their big defensive line called the Maginot Line would stop any German attacks. The other similar aspects are that the Germans in 1940 had trained as small units with lower Officers being able to make battlefield decisions while the French had to wait for orders. Also on May 10th, 1940 when the Battle of France began German morale was very high while the French were confused and poorly led until it was too late.

    • TalesOfWar
      TalesOfWar Month ago +3

      Fun fact. The French never assumed the Maginot line would ever stop an attack. Just slow it down or force it from another direction. And it did exactly that. The problem as you say is the tactics used but the Germans which wasn't expected and the ineptness of French commanders to move forces fast enough.

  • robinwitch666
    robinwitch666 Month ago +20

    Tanks bring gun power up fast to be applied to where it is needed but modern artillery can do that from twenty kilometers away now. Infantry and self-propelled artillery can do the job that the tank used to do without as much risk to the gun platform, which can stay miles away from the action now and still hit with pinpoint accuracy.

    • Benjamin LaRose
      Benjamin LaRose Month ago

      There is also another factor to consider. Who can get rounds down range faster? An artillery battery needs to confirm a target is where it is before engaging because you don’t want to pull a Russia and bomb an apartment complex full of civilians. A tank can see for itself where an enemy position is and start engaging it faster, giving immediate fire support to the infantry.

    • Toad
      Toad Month ago

      Artillery doesn't have anywhere near as much mobility as tanks though, tanks and mechanized infantry can quickly outrun artillery, then have the infantry dismount to attack positions

  • Ira Blake
    Ira Blake Month ago +8

    Two big mistakes the Russians made in this war, thank goodness, was their complete underestimation of the Ukrainian fighting spirit/skill and the unending military support of the West. They foolishly did not place either in their war plan thinking, to their clear detriment. These two factors have cost Russia dearly, including their status in the world along with an untold number of soldier deaths. Many of their soldiers, based on their disgusting behavior, clearly got what they well deserved. Slava Ukraine 🇺🇦

    • Krivda a
      Krivda a Month ago +1

      How you can believe in this? Russia's attack was HEAVILY undermanned. It's currently 1:3 (ukraine has 3 soldiers per one russian). In Kherson counteroffensive it was reported to be up to 50:1 (in attack spearhead). Town of Balaklyea was defended by two companies (~100 men per each) none of each was in fact even military! (they were police SWAT/National guard spec ops team analogues). Russia tried to force the war of artillery in summer (russia still has more than 1:10 arty superiority). but after Ukraine 3 waves of conscript mobilization - the infantry lack became over-than-crit. You see what you've never expected to see: small (actually - tiny) 150-200к russian army is being beat by vast Ukrainian 600k army.
      it might have worked in Iraq, where US tech superiority was absolute, but there the tech level is +-on par.

  • Bristol Adley
    Bristol Adley Month ago

    There is something to be said for smaller, faster/more maneuverable tanks - a main battle behemoth is not always the best tool for the situation at hand.

  • Brian Johns
    Brian Johns Month ago +78

    A note on the numbers... Ukraine actually claims 2350 Russian tanks lost, Oryxspionkop already have 1300 Russian tank losses geolocated with images. Given Oryx is well behind on the reports, but nevertheless keeps on catching up with the Ukrainian claims, I'd say Ukraine's claimed tank kills are pretty close to the truth.

    • xia en Gao
      xia en Gao Month ago +2

      @Amistrophy Many of the Russian tanks are still working, but now thay're in Ukraine's arsenal.

    • Amistrophy
      Amistrophy Month ago +1

      @Sveta lol gov numbers? These are independently confirmed numbers with open source evidence and geotagging

    • Sveta
      Sveta Month ago +2

      @truth-uncensored2 Exactly, it's ridiculous that some people take government numbers as genuine, they've also used arma 3 footage as real combat...

    • Sveta
      Sveta Month ago +1

      I'm still shocked how many people believe Russia lost 2000 or 3000 tanks, do you guys even realize how big that number is?? Estimate around 1000+ seem realistic.

    • Brian Johns
      Brian Johns Month ago +3

      @truth-uncensored2 BS

  • ruben ramos
    ruben ramos Month ago +2

    We have seen two different stile of war.
    Ukraine has developed a new one using new technologies and using the intelligence to transform civil drones into war drones to destroy the armored vehicles and tanks. They are using drones that cost two or three thousand dollars to destroy a tank of 1.5 Millon dollar.
    And they also showned to the world how bravery could be the troops and the population who is fighting for your land and for your families. If you add the occidental support you have the reason of Russian's troops results.

  • Lola Stop thinking Come over.🥑

    So what I understand from this is,tanks are extremely dangerous when used by a professional, disciplined, well trained army,which the majority of the Russians appear not to be

  • Paul Flak
    Paul Flak Month ago +2

    Too bad you missed the main difference between Nato designed tanks and that of Russian. The use of a auto loader and the ammunition which is stored under and around the turret ring, unlike western tanks that keep it in the rear turret and have blast door to send the blast up ward not taking the turret with it. With the exception of older Nato designs such as the leopard 1, M-60 and Amx 30.

  • The Trax
    The Trax Month ago +1

    What we are witnessing here in actuality is the edge of western weaponry and superior tech to Russian systems, that are still largely reliant on Soviet era systems. I’m amazed that Russia didn’t have counter measures to these anti tank missiles and systems

  • nijuo joing
    nijuo joing Month ago +1

    Wow dude this is great, and also makes me miss Verdansk! My teammates and I saw that helicopter get hit by the load out drop at your 4:05 mark, we won that round too!

  • Mohamed Abduweli
    Mohamed Abduweli Month ago +2

    Anti tank weapons have surpassed the tanks technically. This applies to every tank model in the world.
    The most important thing in war is time. You give the enemy time to regroup you face bigger resistance. This time Ukraine is being supported by the whole western countries so it's not a surprise they are pushing Russia.

    • Zehan Azani
      Zehan Azani Month ago

      Yes indeed with your argument. Time is the main factor that depends on how the war ended. If you control the time you can win the war.

  • Touch. Me. I Will Turn You

    This video fails to mention the huge difference in between the Ukrainian army in 2014 and 2022 in regards to training, discipline and doctrine. The Ukrainian army was in no state to properly resist Russias' encroachment in 2014 both due to lack of equipment but also due to lack of training/doctrine. The Ukrainian army in 2022 has a lot more focus on the NCO and using NATO inspired battle doctrine than 'traditional' Soviet doctrine. For example NATO philosophy on logistics supply is PULL-based (request what you think you need to achieve an objective using your) while Soviet is PUSH-based (receive whatever the command thinks you need to achieve your object via the prescribed tactics)

  • Lillianna Ramiro
    Lillianna Ramiro Month ago +5

    Wow dude this is great, and also makes me miss Verdansk! My teammates and I saw that helicopter get hit by the load out drop at your 4:05 mark, we won that round too!

  • Andreas
    Andreas Month ago +3

    Russia was the only country relying on such a high count of tanks. They aren't going to rebuild that tank force to the same extent, even if they could. So in a sense, the Russian tank force is indeed largely obsolete.

  • Angus Smith
    Angus Smith Month ago +36

    It’s not complicated it’s called training mechanical upkeep and tactical knowledge from leadership. Alas we now know Russia started with not an ounce of any one of these

    • Kirill D
      Kirill D Month ago

      So you trained Ukraine for 8 years and there is their army? Next year total capitulation and no Ukraine? Or NATO goes nuclear and we destroy all this planet?

  • Bristol Adley
    Bristol Adley Month ago

    Highly informative analysis and the one that actually does provide an insight on why things actually did unfold that way. It’s even more amusing after watching that video to think and realised how lies, treasonous mindset of the command and, indeed, the corruption actually caused the corrosion of the Russian military from the inside. So it’s even more humiliating to watch the war at this point with an increasing understanding of the idea that Putin’s managed to lose largely to himself.

  • Bristol Adley
    Bristol Adley Month ago

    Highly informative analysis and the one that actually does provide an insight on why things actually did unfold that way. It’s even more amusing after watching that video to think and realised how lies, treasonous mindset of the command and, indeed, the corruption actually caused the corrosion of the Russian military from the inside. So it’s even more humiliating to watch the war at this point with an increasing understanding of the idea that Putin’s managed to lose largely to himself.

  • Travis
    Travis Month ago

    I actually tend to disagree with this analysis. I think it’s clear that even if they were more infantry, how many tanks the military loses largely depends on the combination of training, discipline, and how many antitank weapons the other military possesses.

  • T[A]P Me!! To Have [S]EX With Me

    Modern ground-based anti-tank weapons including man-portable missiles have greater attack range than their earlier counterparts. This means the infantry screen which is meant to keep enemies away from high-value tank targets has to sanitise a lot more ground around the tank columns than before. That means lots more infantry are needed to screen each group of tanks and the tanks are still vulnerable to a well-hidden ambush attack if the infantry don't do their job well enough.
    The infantry screens are usually deployed alongside the tanks in "battle taxis", Infantry Fighting Vehicles and these IFVs can also be a worthwhile target for such missile ambushes, of course. Eliminate enough IFVs and infantry in a armour column and the tanks become further exposed and take losses.

  • Germain prime
    Germain prime Month ago +65

    The question you havent asked is Why does Russia not have enough infantry and what does this mean for the Russian state? Could this be even before the war started Russia did not have enough men of fighting age.

    • TheLucky994
      TheLucky994 Month ago +1

      They also did a reform to proffesional army, so reduced numbers alot. In Ussr they had milions.

    • Harrison Fross
      Harrison Fross Month ago +3

      @Titanium Rain The thing is, Russia can't really fix this without stopping the war. The Russian training system is basically an abreviated boot camped followed by handing a trooper off to their units where they'll be trained the rest of the way.
      The units in combat now don't have the time to be training fresh recruits, and their attached depot battalions that would normally handle training, were already cannibalized to keep up the pressure earlier in the war.

    • Trevor Roberts
      Trevor Roberts Month ago +1

      It was the Soviet model mostly empty barracks with just a few personally awaiting the conscripts.
      There is an entire 'programme' on Ukraine matters about the failings pf the Russian army.

    • N P
      N P Month ago +4

      @Titanium Rain The Russian military build-up on the Ukrainian border was so well known ahead of time that people were discussing the effect of a possible invasion on the price of Bitcoin.

    • RobBCactive
      RobBCactive Month ago

      @Jim Miller It's appalling how dictators can co-opt countries to suit their perverse objectives

  • Eugene Kaptur
    Eugene Kaptur Month ago +14

    Tanks can be formidable weapons, but without supporting infantry they are just nice TARGETS for anti tank weapons and drones! During my 30 years of active duty, whenever we employed tanks, they were always supported by infantry!

    • Kirill D
      Kirill D Month ago

      @Scott Gurke Still Russia wins all wars, western Europe and USA not.

    • Scott Gurke
      Scott Gurke Month ago

      @Kirill D Yes I know the structure of the Russian Military. The truth is that they effectively reduced the amount of infantry in every squad, battalion, company to a point that was unsustainable prior to the war. Look into it, the research shows that Russia was trying to focus on professional contract soldiers and did not have enough to properly support their equipment. Thus, they have resorted to more conscription (partial mobilization) in an attempt to field more infantry support for their vehicles after the Ukrainian operation was failing. The same thing happened in Grozny, Russia did not have enough infantry support for their vehicles. The reality is that the disaffected Russian population, which is already not that big relative to Western European countries, is not enough to support their vast equipment reserves. They went for a hybrid model of volunteer-conscript army and it backfired, their vehicles are useless without proper infantry support. How else does a military power like Russia end up on the retreat without enough men to cover the front against a relatively small power like Ukraine?

    • Kirill D
      Kirill D Month ago

      Do you know the structure of russian armed forces? It is filled with vehicles and supporting infantry, unlike US airborne without heavy weapons, all russian units has armor and enough weapons. Ukraine already lost army size of at least Poland+UK. Completely.

  • Chris Viking
    Chris Viking Month ago +1

    What this war has shown is that the main battle tank is no longer the mainstay of warfare that it used to be. Tanks are not obsolete, because of the need for big guns at the frontline and engines to clear obstacles, but I do believe that drones and other modern weapons have lessened the role and power of the MBT. As drones become more sophisticated and evolve into autonomous battle-droids I think the role of the tank will be further reduced. Tanks are big and hence easily detected and hit.

  • Moonless
    Moonless Month ago +1

    The older I get, the more I realize that a friendly smile can be the most effective and most dangerous enemy. Russia could have used economics and deals to bring Ukraine to its side but instead chose force.

  • Harupert Beagleton
    Harupert Beagleton Month ago +2

    4:26 such an obvious statement. Some people think if the tanks weren’t driven so poorly and given more protection, fewer would have been lost.

  • eyow foou
    eyow foou Month ago

    Wow dude this is great, and also makes me miss Verdansk! My teammates and I saw that helicopter get hit by the load out drop at your 4:05 mark, we won that round too!

  • Joe Healy
    Joe Healy Month ago +18

    No other battlefield weapon can bring direct fire support of a heavy machine gun and a 120 mm gun firing a high velocity heavy weight projectile. While the Armour protection may not stand up to new anti tank missiles, they will stand up to nearly anything short of that or another tank. If your infantry you would much rather the tank on your side than the other. What one must never think they are unstoppable armored beasts. They are a weapon system like any other with benefits, costs and weaknesses.

    • Adam Zey
      Adam Zey Month ago

      @Clorox Bleach Many of Russia's tank losses in the war have been to Ukrainian artillery. Well targeted indirect fire can be just as deadly to a tank as direct fire.

    • Clorox Bleach
      Clorox Bleach Month ago +1

      @andyf10 A PzH2000 does not provide direct fire support (it's artillery) and can be easily destroyed by autocannon fire since it has relatively thin armour.
      Infact if we want to make a PzH2000 suitable for frontline combat we logically would increase its armour and we would end up with... a tank. So tanks are not obsolete

    • andyf10
      andyf10 Month ago

      A Panzerhaubitze 2000 bring a 155mm gun to the battlefield....

  • Thomas Marshall
    Thomas Marshall Month ago +8

    It is way more complex than you describe. Tanks are essential in the battlefield and do well is used properly. Russia’s strategy is not in question. Their downfall is the result of logistical failures, ammunition losses to Ukrainian bombings, poorly trained and motivated soldiers, etc.

  • Kitty Mervine
    Kitty Mervine Month ago +1

    also there is that huge flaw, the automatic loader. Keeping all the ammo in a vulnerable position. As one US general said when asked if the US uses such a loader, he replied, "We use a 19 year old who was a football player or other athlete in high school">

    • Lex Prontera
      Lex Prontera Month ago

      Having 4 crew members instead of 3 has a lot of advantages people don't immediately think of: it splits the WORKLOAD much better in and out of combat: in maintenance, repair, first aid, cross-training to switch roles in case you lose a crew member, etc. I heard to a tank commander explain it once: if it's your job to take care of a complex vehicle and later trust it with your life, you'll be thankful for an extra pair of hands.

  • christopher herrera
    christopher herrera Month ago +16

    The whole world though that the Russian military was a well trained military. But this war has shown otherwise; the Russian military is not a well trained army or is it a modern army.

    • Neville C525
      Neville C525 Month ago

      By and large, Russians don't take kindly to training.

  • 5ezOqeku655RitusohI
    5ezOqeku655RitusohI Month ago +2

    I don't know, the Javelin has a range of 2,500m. With that range it is seems kind of irrelevant how much infantry support a tank has. Air support may be more crucial, but that runs into a similar problem with the Stinger at an even greater range of 4,800m.

    • Mike Fuchs
      Mike Fuchs Month ago

      Correct. The math required to protect tanks versus the small benefits a tank brings to battle is no longer tenable. Tanks are currently useless versus other systems that control larger areas at lower support burdens.
      Sadly, there is too much military cultural inertia and we'll keep investing billions trying to keep these dinosaurs relevant. Just like the US generals who clung to horse cavalry until 1943.

  • serdy ximi
    serdy ximi Month ago +1

    Wow dude this is great, and also makes me miss Verdansk! My teammates and I saw that helicopter get hit by the load out drop at your 4:05 mark, we won that round too!

    • Brian Xavier
      Brian Xavier Month ago

      what do you mean, you actually fought in this war?

  • clavo
    clavo Month ago +70

    Funny how having your tank's turret blown away, can take the fight, right out of you!

    • Nature and Physics
      Nature and Physics Month ago

      @Master General You won't like life under Putin

    • clavo
      clavo Month ago

      @래모루래모로 An exaggeration is hyperbole' Like: "Trump is a very honest man." that would qualify as hyperbole. it would also qualify as Bullsh*t! But "hyperbole" is the more civil way to say that.

    • 래모루래모로
      래모루래모로 Month ago

      @clavo what is hyperbole if you don't mind me asking?

    • clavo
      clavo Month ago +5

      @modibot101 Hyperbole' got lost on you?

    • Trevor Roberts
      Trevor Roberts Month ago +5

      It can take your body right out as well.

  • Daniel Olsen
    Daniel Olsen Month ago +8

    The Ukrainians have received tanks from other countries, and the Ukrainian soldiers said it was like comparing Lada to a Porsche when it comes to Russian made or the one's they have received.

    • sir humpy
      sir humpy 14 days ago +1

      ok, I've seen that interview were the ukrainian made that particular comparison and it was about him using the Polish Krab self-propelled howitzer as opposed to the Soviet Msta he initially trained on. It was MOST DEFINITELY not about tanks. What Arthur wrote is correct.

    • Arthur Levadovsky
      Arthur Levadovsky Month ago

      They received only derivatives of Soviet T-72 tanks from the countries of the former Eastern bloc.

  • Bristol Adley
    Bristol Adley Month ago

    Modern ground-based anti-tank weapons including man-portable missiles have greater attack range than their earlier counterparts. This means the infantry screen which is meant to keep enemies away from high-value tank targets has to sanitise a lot more ground around the tank columns than before. That means lots more infantry are needed to screen each group of tanks and the tanks are still vulnerable to a well-hidden ambush attack if the infantry don't do their job well enough.
    The infantry screens are usually deployed alongside the tanks in "battle taxis", Infantry Fighting Vehicles and these IFVs can also be a worthwhile target for such missile ambushes, of course. Eliminate enough IFVs and infantry in a armour column and the tanks become further exposed and take losses.

  • savesch
    savesch Month ago +13

    The same happened in the medieval ages with body armours. Speed and agility is the new skill war machines needs rather than armours

    • Apples and Grapes for dinner
      Apples and Grapes for dinner Month ago +3

      Well that itself is subjective. You still need armor, you just need the technology to make the armor lighter, but still effective. Without armor, while you might run faster, you're whole body would still be vulnerable to fatal wounds, even if you're a skilled fighter. A concussion with a helmet is better than a split head.

    • David Jones
      David Jones Month ago

      @modibot101 If you were correct we would already be at war.

    • modibot101
      modibot101 Month ago

      Thank you for reiterating that Humans cannot change. ✌ Not enough of us wanted PEACE.

  • server1ok
    server1ok Month ago

    Tanks can be used for transport and artillery. Most tanks can shell the enemy from much farther than antitank handheld devices, for example 5 km vs. the Javelin ca. 2 km or the N law 400 meters. What failed in Ukraine was the planning and the upkeep. Russia thought the War would be over in 2 weeks. The initial machinery that went for an "all or nothing" charge to Kiev got destroyed and then came the vendettas.

  • Will you punch me YESYESYES

    As someone from a country that unfortunately had a war in recent history, from talking to people generally they say tanks are more or less worthless.
    Thay aint really a threat as soon as you have anti tank missle, its too easy for infantry to sneak in and eliminate it.
    What wins wars nowadays is air superiority. If one side has it, its really hard for that side to lose. Then probably long range missile systems and well trained,motivated infantry.

    • Demopans
      Demopans Month ago

      Serbians perfected the targeting, and the downing of stealth aircraft, with baits, and hidden SAM launchers. Stealth aircraft tend to loose some stealth when dropping bombs

    • VynalDerp
      VynalDerp Month ago +2

      Western tanks have been crawling back with Active Protection Systems that can disable missile and rocket AT shots fired at the tank... without it, tanks are just sitting ducks though. AT tech has surpassed most the world's tank tech, since most nations still use outdated designs from the 70s, 80s, and 90s

  • Otto Matic
    Otto Matic Month ago +2

    The weapons system costs definitely did not give consideration to the cost of a javelin at around $180K per system and $80K per missile. The price of freedom is high, but worth it.

  • Lola Stop thinking Come over.🥑

    So what I understand from this is,tanks are extremely dangerous when used by a professional, disciplined, well trained army,which the majority of the Russians appear not to be

  • Gilbert Franklin
    Gilbert Franklin Month ago +2

    I have a feeling that Russia's invasion tactics were drawn up by a politician rather than an experienced army general. Putin probably remembered seeing old films of Hitler's "Blitzkrieg" from WW-II and thought it would be a walk in the park. If the Ukrainians had been horrified and walked out with their hands up, he would have looked like a genius. It would have been quite interesting to have been a fly on the wall when Putin got the first reports back about the success of his invasion. 😮

  • Bristol Adley
    Bristol Adley Month ago

    This video fails to mention the huge difference in between the Ukrainian army in 2014 and 2022 in regards to training, discipline and doctrine. The Ukrainian army was in no state to properly resist Russias' encroachment in 2014 both due to lack of equipment but also due to lack of training/doctrine. The Ukrainian army in 2022 has a lot more focus on the NCO and using NATO inspired battle doctrine than 'traditional' Soviet doctrine. For example NATO philosophy on logistics supply is PULL-based (request what you think you need to achieve an objective using your) while Soviet is PUSH-based (receive whatever the command thinks you need to achieve your object via the prescribed tactics)

  • Oh Lordy
    Oh Lordy Month ago +4

    Bollocks.
    Well trained infantry can protect a tank from man-portable, anti tank weapons fired from ranges of 100, 200 or 300m. They can't protect tanks from man-portable anti tank weapons fired from ranges of 1, 2 or 3 km.
    The latest generation of infantry anti armour weapons, such as the NLAW, are routinely fired from those sorts of ranges. They are also fire and forget weapons, so infantry can immediately duck for cover after firing, and can be set to specifically target the weakest armour on a tank, such as the top of the turret or engine bay.
    Rifle armed infantry have precisely no chance of protecting tanks against that sort of threat.
    The result: any tank not armoured specifically to defeat these sorts of weapons, are completely and irretrievably obsolete. And that includes every Russian tank used in Ukraine.

  • Mikey Gilmour
    Mikey Gilmour Month ago +4

    I concur. It's an easy conclusion to jump to, on the surface level, that tanks are "now obsolete" based on the footage we've seen. However, I'd argue that it was all swings and roundabouts, or what goes around comes around. Tanks aren't obsolete per se but the tactics used back in February and March were (or perhaps are).
    Ukraine is the MBTs' Somme (for Russia at the very least). They need to adapt now. Thing is, traditionally Russia has always been slow to adapt. At WWI's start, they were regarded as a power but a very backwards power and a rather weak one too. Culturally that legacy lives on.

  • H T
    H T Month ago +3

    When you are ignorant of the enemy but know yourself, your chances of winning or losing are equal. If ignorant both of your enemy and of yourself, you are sure to be defeated in every battle

  • alexander kolodziej
    alexander kolodziej Month ago +1

    Russian tanks have not aged well. My dad told me stories of how they got their first T-72 as a "new tech" when he was drafted in Poland around 1970s. So yes 50 years old..

  • World at War TV
    World at War TV Month ago +4

    🚀 The Russian military complex has failed at every single level in their invasion. 💯
    💛💙 Slava Ukraine!

  • Buddy
    Buddy Month ago

    The US has also removed recent tank MOS’.
    The Russians have used little infantry near tanks in their invasion, it made no sense.
    Overall though I’d say armored vehicles will remain to protect ground troops, but won’t be a staple anymore.

  • Tinkle Me 4 [S]E.X
    Tinkle Me 4 [S]E.X Month ago +1

    It seems like nothing has been declared "dead" more often than the tank, and nothing has come back from the dead more often as soon as the next major ground war begins. I can't think of a better way of putting it than how The Cheiftain (military RU-clipr and former Abrams commander) did: The aircraft carrier didn't make the battleship "obsolete" because carrier aircraft could sink a battleship. What made the battleship obsolete was that the carrier and its air group could do the battleship's job better. An infantryman with an ATGM may be able to destroy a tank, but can't take its place on battlefield. The mere existence of a countermeasure doesn't make a weapon obsolete. Surface ships are not obsolete because of anti-ship missiles anymore than they were when the torpedo was invented. Anti-ship missiles are themselves not obsolete because warships have decoys, jammers and point defence systems. SAMs don't make aircraft obsolete. You could go on.

  • bigredinfinity
    bigredinfinity Month ago +2

    imagine how demoralizing being in a Russian tank knowing a javelin missile can sneak up at any moment

    • Texas Wunderkind
      Texas Wunderkind Month ago +1

      Some former bank clerk hiding in the bushes can send you to kingdom come with minimal training.

  • TheOnlyNTRO
    TheOnlyNTRO Month ago

    Completely missed the point of survivability in regard to the autoloader system that Russian tanks have. Unbelievable

  • Bristol Adley
    Bristol Adley Month ago

    A few other valid points was missing these Ukrainians effective uavs and Ukrainian innovations converting commercial drones as grenade droppers and Ukraine made anti tank weapons and tank's self propelled killer's. Uavs and drones became a barrier between the plane's and ground troops they were supposed to protect.

  • Chris Ewins
    Chris Ewins Month ago +1

    You also fail to mention the design flaws of the Russian tanks vs Western tanks which are the reason turrets are popping off.

  • Vberl
    Vberl Month ago +172

    The NLAW is a Swedish and British weapon…

    • Steve Hunter
      Steve Hunter Month ago

      @Erik k You obviously don't know the Guardian. I'm surprised they even admit it might be British.

    • The Infamous Mr Fox
      The Infamous Mr Fox Month ago

      @Maniae Official Funny because literally nothing anyone has posted has in any way disproved Saab, Bae and all the other sources that say it was jointly developed.
      I see you couldn't contribute anything, you wanted to be offensive but weren't bright enough to manage.
      Funny, in a pathetic kind of way.

    • The Infamous Mr Fox
      The Infamous Mr Fox Month ago

      @Merv Not salty at all, just using correct language.
      Ignorance is ignorance.

    • Maniae Official
      Maniae Official Month ago

      @The Infamous Mr Fox Take your L and leave

    • Mike Fuchs
      Mike Fuchs Month ago

      @The Infamous Mr Fox Wiki sources aren't required to be vetted. They're merely required to be cited.
      For example, there is a costing error on the page for the TOW 2B that cites an incorrectly interpreted contract doc. This is typical, and why wiki should NEVER be seen as authoritative on any subject.

  • nick281972
    nick281972 13 days ago

    What the war in Ukraine has taught us is that Tanks ARE obsolete, modern warfare nowadays is all about light, agile highly accurate artillery systems, drones for attack and forward observation and battle field reconnaissance, snipers, and well trained well equipped infantry with access to up-to-date battle field information via connectivity. The era of rolling big columns of Tanks across enemy lines is officially over as demonstrated by this conflict.

  • onei jike
    onei jike Month ago

    I heard a Russian soldier being genuinely shocked that Ukrainian tanks were driving across the fields rather than down the roads. Says a lot about Russian training.

  • Rofl890
    Rofl890 Month ago +14

    I think the tank's next major evolution involves protecting the top just as much as the sides

    • TalesOfWar
      TalesOfWar Month ago +3

      Some newer tanks already do this, the Israeli Merkava being one. There just haven't been many actually designed and fielded over the last 30 years or so. Most we see in service right now are actually fairly old and still designed primarily around the Fulda Gap scenario.

  • TROLL
    TROLL  Month ago +1

    I agree with this, because even the M1 Abrams can be killed if it attacks alone without infantry support

  • Lola Stop thinking Come over.🥑

    Funny how having your tank's turret blown away, can take the fight, right out of you!

  • willgart
    willgart Month ago

    another reason for the initial failure for the tanks:
    the ukrainians blew up a dam and flooded a whole region.
    forcing the tanks to stay on the roads
    the tanks were not able to move outside the roads and in Ukraine there is not so much roads.
    and so we saw these lines of tanks aligned...

  • Brown Brown
    Brown Brown Month ago

    It’s not complicated. The side that has the more advanced industries that can make micro missile systems and dominate real time me Satalite combat ground mapping and data interfacing can absolutely decimate the other sides tanks and vehicles.

  • Lach D
    Lach D Month ago +4

    We've known since the Battle of Hamel in 1918 that Tanks need air support and air superiority to be effective. The fact the Russians never achieved air superiority doomed them from the start.

    • Mike Fuchs
      Mike Fuchs Month ago

      Russians have overwhelming air superiority, and have had since day one. Ukraine flies virtually nothing today, and why would they? They can't survive air-to-air because they lack the numbers to survive attrition. They don't need air-to-ground beyond their obviously superb use of drones combined with ground forces.
      That said, you are correct that Russia has not shown the slightest intelligence at exploiting their air to ground capabilities. Every day Russian air hides from the fight is a great day for Ukraine, and Ukraine has done an outstanding job of exploiting that!

    • Wawa Weewa
      Wawa Weewa Month ago

      They can still do well but they don't use dens wide front offenses, what is a infantry man in a tree line with a javelin or nlaw if the tree line gets shelled by mortars, arty and tanks and auto canons and smallarms.. all at the same time

  • Cee-Jay
    Cee-Jay Month ago +3

    To analyze this more fully, you need to zoom out a bit and think about the tactical need being fulfilled. The need is for a powerful and versatile gun (direct and indirect fire for anti-personnel, fortifications, vehicles, tanks) with high mobility and the survivability to be on the front lines.
    So what can do this? Well tanks, helicopters to some extent, and certain wheeled vehicle platforms. So yes, tanks are very vulnerable to small anti-tanks units and yet they are often still they best thing available to perform this critical role. As pointed out in the video, proper deployment of supporting troops is critical to the tanks survivability. You must have troops that can quickly neutralize anti-tank forces or you will be a sitting duck. Not only have the Russians failed in this regard, they have struggled with maintenance and ammunition supply, significantly limiting the benefits of their own tanks.

    • smacksman1
      smacksman1 Month ago +1

      Supporting infantry for 5 km on each flank? That is a huge number of troops for each tank squadron. And the range of ATM will no doubt increase.

  • Sweeping Time
    Sweeping Time Month ago

    Yes, tanks are doomed, going to the way of battleships for pretty much the same reason: It's a big target for someone with relatively small weaponry: whether it's a pilot with a bomb in WW2, or now an infantryman with a portable missile launcher.

  • Mark Cooper
    Mark Cooper Month ago +2

    Russian tanks have several problems. They lack reactive armour. Within the tank ammunition is inadequately protected. They are inadequately supplied with fuel and maintenance. They are inadequately co-ordinated with each other and the infantry.

    • Marvin66
      Marvin66 Month ago

      Russia never spent enough money on this war. This was years of preparation needed and huge expense.

  • NotALot1135
    NotALot1135 Month ago +1

    No. The auto loader systems used in T-72, T-80 and T-90 tanks do not provide enough protection to the separate propellant charges used by the main gun.

  • VICTORIA KYIV, UA
    VICTORIA KYIV, UA Month ago

    Being ukrainian, i just would like to add: in 2014 we were really shocked by brutal military action of russia in the Crimea and East. We couldnt believe it. Moreover it was a time when the guy who tried to become a dictator was sent by us to the moon 😂and we didst go through new election yet. So noone had power of president that moment. And imagine yourself being a speaker of parliament who waits for new election and u get news that your country is invaded by neighbor. Of course we were lost like kids and made a lot of mistakes. Also factor was that, i m sorry say it aloud , France and Germany advised that moment “dont escalate, dont shot military russians who came to Crimea, please dont reapond with military action”. I dont blame, they wanted to avoid war, but it was wrong action in 2014. Now we learned. Now we just ask for support not for advise. And we have president who won elections with 73%, we trust him

  • Pulen Toman
    Pulen Toman Month ago +3

    Exactly, but the era of russian tanks, as export weapon, is over

  • Meerkat ADV
    Meerkat ADV Month ago

    The successes of Ukraine are a combination of massive support by the rest of the world, and a complete lack of skills, training, and experience in the majority of the Russian forces. Not to mention the logistics failures, lack of morale, and general lack of support for the Russian forces. We are witnessing the destruction of the Russian military, and I can't feel bad about it at this point.

  • Saint
    Saint Month ago +6

    BTGs are very new concept for Russia. In cold war they operated only by armored Divisions and Regiments.

  • Bristol Adley
    Bristol Adley Month ago

    Russia vastly underestimated the Ukrainian resolve especially early on. Ukrainians were literally fighting off Russian tanks with Molotov cocktails. I also think Putin underestimated the international response to his invasion.

  • mountain dweller
    mountain dweller Month ago +2

    One can be certain that NATO, in the now unlikely event of Russia attacking its foreword positions will employ their tanks to the max, basically the likes of the Abrams or challenger MBT can sit right back in defensive positions and employ their state of the art all weather day/night vision and very accurate long gun to turkey shoot the advancing Russian armour at long range, in the meanwhile the above covered just about everything that is wrong with Russian mechanised units, but for me its the glaring absence of the basics and their lack of urban warfare training and fighting in built up areas having spent most of their time practicing standard battle formations out on large open training areas , big in numbers to impress who is ever watching, , another glaring issue , the ground in Ukraine , failing to take tactical appreciations of the terrain and weather conditions which forced them to stay on roads and as we witnessed open to exploitation by the UA tank stalkers etc , this winter will be a lot harder and a longer winter combat deployment for armour and other tired vehicles lacking basic maintenance. made worse by the arrival at some point of press ganged tankers/ infantry, who as we speak are being set up to fail !

  • Per Sallnäs
    Per Sallnäs Month ago

    The NLAW was commissioned by the UK and Sweden, was developed in Sweden and is mainly prodused in the UK.

  • H M
    H M Month ago +8

    Confirmed tank loses for Ruzzia is now around 1300. Actual number would be a lot higher due to unverified kills.

    • Timur
      Timur Month ago

      who said 1300 is verified number?)

  • Banter Maestro2
    Banter Maestro2 Month ago +2

    It still has its turret. That in itself is amazing.

  • TK Yap
    TK Yap Month ago +2

    Effective with other supports. A tank on its own is a sitting target.