Ukraine's Nato tanks have one major problem which can leave them stuck like sitting ducks
Vložit
- čas přidán 20. 06. 2024
- NATO tanks were developed for defending West Germany in the 1980s and weren't expected to manoeuvre very much. This has led to tanks that are fantastically accurate, very survivable, but extremely heavy.
Most bridges in Eastern Europe will therefore not be able to support NATO's tanks, posing a serious problem for NATO forces.
Watch Jerome Starkey and Dr Jack Watling discuss the implications of NATO's heavy tanks in this week's World at War.
The Sun delivers breaking news, latest gossip and incredible exclusives around the world with hubs in London, New York, Scotland and Ireland.
Covering topics from news, money and sport along with our famous Fabulous Magazine, The Sun is the biggest news brand in the UK and one of the fastest growing news sites in the US.
Stay tuned for video clips across the biggest news stories and segments from The Sun’s expert journalists.
Become a Sun Subscriber and hit the bell to be the first to know.
Read The Sun: www.thesun.co.uk/?...
Like The Sun on Facebook: / thesun
Follow The Sun on X: / thesun
Follow The Sun on TikTok: / thesun
Subscribe to The Sun on Snapchat: / 1633225139
#thesun #russia #ukraine #nato #tanks
Not having air support is a MAJOR flaw in a tank design 😂
Or infantry support.
Western countries completely gave up on SHORAD short range air defenses and funded no replacements for 25 years. SHORAD Missiles have slightly longer range than shoulder fired MANPADS such as stinger, startstreak and RBS70 but less than the much larger and bulkier medium range missiles like CEPTOR, ISRIS/T and NASAAMS. As a result Russian Airforce was able to pick of tanks from just out of range of the only thing given to them Stinger and Starstreak. Missiles such as Crotal, Milan and Rapier were literally junked. What was absurd about this was the justification for scrapping them was that these missiles would soon be outranged. So rather than improve them they were scrapped. The medium range missiles such as NASAAMS and IRIS/T are too immobile and too difficult to hide.
-Microdrones were very predicted, but no Government put money into creations of defenses such as Skyranger 30, that was left to private contractors such as Rheinmetall who naturally didn't go into production without orders.
-New tanks will also have APS to knock the drones and missiles out within meters of them impacting.
@@bernhardzunk7402 what are you blabbering? atgms,mines,artillery and fpv drones got the tanks ukraine has alot of its own air defences like the strela 10, buk.tor,osa, crostale
the S-200's and 300s
I'm yet to see tanks being backed up by ifv and other support vehicles / infantry
@@goldenbypass6644 i think at this stage of the game the battlefield is a mine field, so any tank advances seen at the beginning of the war will not happen. Single column advances. It is a stalemate like ww1.
breaking news , tanks are heavy and can get stuck in mud.
I thought we would've known this when the Germans got stuck in Ukraine/Russia back in the 40's.
@@DanMorgan-bh5fvthe same reason why Russian tanks are only 40 tons. because the Soviet small bridge in vilage could not pass a 50 ton vehicle
Air superiority is what's needed first. Then talk tanks.
Maybe should talk the diplomacy ? Do you know this definicion ? 😊
absolutely!
This is not a video game. You don't just "unlocked air superiority". 🤣🤣🤣
Air superiority only exists against low level enemies. It doesn’t exist against peer enemy unless you can prove me with an example. The only way to stop this is to call for peace and both parties’ concerns addressed
This is probably least talked about issue in Ukraine-Russia war. In the air both sides are a stalemate essentially, therefore neither can establish air superiority. This war heavily dependent on artillery and ground troops for that very reason.
In the current war, MBT vs MBT tank duel is very rare, Ukrainians need more Bradley with good anti-drone protection.
They're getting CV90s, that can shoot down drones and helicopters with their air burst ammunition.
MBT is used to lead the attack as it has a higher chance of surviving ATGM and drone hits than a bradley
With the Bradley and the Abrams, it would seem that the Americans have simultaneously provided both the worst and the best tank out of the mix.
more than anything else Ukrainians needs some brain
@@BBtheKing86 , I said the worst and the best I should’ve said the best and the worst. That isn’t to dispute that the Leppard is a very good tank or not. I’m just saying that for the problem which is disgusted in this video the weight problem that NATO tanks are having obviously that would make the Abrams tank the worst out of that mix given just how heavy it is.
The Bradley on the other hand is doing very well. It’s the only tank out of that trio that’s actually been in combat with Russia’s best tanks.
This was a problem the Germans faced in WW2 they had great tanks but they got stuck all the time do to weigh
Nope
The weight of the tank is only a problem if the tank's treads can't spread the weight
Examples
M1A2 Abrams tank at 69.54 tons has a ground pressure of (15 psi) Source LM Land Systems.
250lb man 15.62psi
Adult horse (550 kg, 1250 lb): 170 kPa (25 psi)
Passenger car: 205 kPa (30 psi)
Wheeled ATV: 13.8 kPa (2 psi)
Adult elephant: 240 kPa (35 psi)
Mountain bicycle: 245 kPa (40 psi)
Road racing bicycle: 620 kPa (90 psi)
Woman in Stiletto heel: 3,250 kPa (471 psi)
This is because the tracks are spreading out the weight of the tank which allows the tank to move over mud, dirt, sand that will stop a soldier on horseback.
The Germans did not have "great tanks" during most of their offensive operations early in the war. When the war started they had only Panzer 3 and 4 which were primitive, 1930s era designs, far less advanced that the T34 units they faced. it was their Blitzkrieg tactic that made them unstoppable early on, not the quality of their tanks
@@Anne_Patel I guess you are talking about Panzer I and II and probably Panzer 38(t). Panzer III and IV were not primitive.
And by the way T-34 had some advanced features but also very serious limitations.
The Germans had a problem of supply. They had tanks that require extreme logistical support and could not afford it. Nato is the same way, but can afford it. Ukraine cannot afford it nato logistics.
This is Rubbish. I wasa commander in the Dutch Cavalry and we trained alongside our allies to attack-consolodidate-attack-consolidate. Through rouch terrain, crossing rivers (under the water). So no sitting ducks but constantly on the move.
Old leopards weren't as heavy as new ones, let alone challenger and abrams
You are a Dutch man. You aren't anywhere even remotely a major fighting force in the circa 1985 scenario.
i had a feeling that these guys dont understand what theyre saying from the start where they say "nato tanks arent made for maneuver" when the bundeswehr was primarily trained to fight delaying actions. Thanks for confirming that feeling.
I agree. I was 19 Echo and we trained along side you guys from time to time. As you can see from some of the comments disagreeing with you, there are youtube experts here that never set foot in a tank let alone trained in Europe with other European forces. They dont know squat. In any case, good comment, you're spot on correct.
@homeofcreation @klauskeller6380 Your training experience is irrelevant in the context of real war. Good luck applying your "skills" against stronger enemy, attacking enemy positions covered with hundred of thousands of mines, ATGMs, artillery, with thousands of drones in the air watching your every move in HD.
I'll tell you the problem. No air support. The whole NATO armour doctrine is based on having air superiority.
What can you do when you have open fields with miles of visibility and Russians can just hit the tanks with helicopters and drones.
MBT as a concept is pretty much done. There will be some heavily armoured vehicles but having dozens of tanks rolling freely on open fields is a thing of the past.
So true. The 'west' has been so slow and unaware of the reality of the war Ukraine has been obliged to fight. WHERE are the planes?
You can't free rolling when everything is mined
Air Defense says that's never going to happen.
At 06:13 "We have very large fleets of these tanks" Where are these large fleets...🤔
UK current 213, planned 148 Challanger 3.
Spain 237 Leopard 2.
Germany 295 Leopard 2.
France 220 Leclerc.
Italy 200 Ariete.
There are no large numbers of main battle tanks in (Western) European NATO countries only the US, Poland, Greece and Turkey have large numbers of tanks! The rest is marginal...
Why does the island nation of the United Kingdom need thousands of tanks for right now? We have the RAF and RN that protect the shores of our island, having an enormous fleet of tanks would just be a massive money pit. And having seen the way that drones have changed the field of battle so drastically I think we shouldn't invest in tanks and keep investing on smaller unit based tactics of tank hunting for infantry with the assistance of drones.
We are part of the most powerful military alliance on the planet and the nations you mentioned need their tanks because they have larger land mass and more land based defensive problems compared to the UK.
@@TheStacato You can't counterattack in Romania and Poland with ships and small units you need firepower to take back lost territory.
@@preude1 what part of "we are part of most powerful military alliance on the planet" didn't you understand?
32 nations different armed forces working together to cover all bases of the battlefield, TOGETHER.
@@TheStacato The only part of most powerfull allince is the US not UK or any other western European country.
@@preude1 Lol
In the British army we build over bridges or stand alone Bailey bridges that can take a MBT, and the mud problem is just as bad for light tanks, Scorpion and Spartan vehicles used to shed their tracks with boring regularity.
The experts tell me that it is because you are not using them properly.
100% = no single or dual country bridges in England can take loads above 45 tons
@@Hereford1642 'the experts' on CZcams? 😂
@@mikeycraig8970 No no. The proper ones on the telly.
@@Hereford1642 Oh right, TV experts as opposed to Internet ones?
Hmm… sounds like the exact problem Germany had in WWII with their Tiger tanks…
And over engineered, low to no production capacity, etc...
Just because a bridge is rated for a certain tonnage doesn't mean it can't handle more weight for a limited time. A bridges' weight capacity is normally underrated for safety margin's as well. I cite the Remagen bridge in Germany during WW2, which stood for several day's after sustaining heavy battle damage. I'm skeptical of this guys credential's.
It is all excuses to explain the failure.
Basically every "defence expert" that comes on a news outlet to talk about this stuff knows less than the average military enthusiast online, don't listen to a word of what these people say, you can go to basically any forum and make a better assumption for things with 15 minutes worth of forum reading
not so simple imagine the weight of a line of traffic concentrated in two car lengths...the old elephant's foot vs lady in stiletto heels 'paradox'
Yeah totally test ur luck using a suspended 70 tons over water, what can go wrong
Thinking any bridge will be left standing two days into a conflict is kinda stupid.
This is why unmanned vehicles are the future, you can make these 100 times cheaper with same capabilities and probably make them 10 times lighter since they wouldn't require this armor, active system and the space for the crew.
Won't be the same...
Not sure. For tanks yes but you aleays are going to need some one there
@@ralphpierre9122 yeah so called experts if you told them 3 years ago that fpv would be the most used weapon in the battlefield in ukraine today would laugh at you.
@@notapplicable4567 something called ai is actually much better than people at doing things such as engaging and recognizing targets, and it doesn't even need to communicate unlike fpv which are proned to jamming until they use AI autonomous capability which will come soon
I'm quite sure it will. Unmanned smaller tanks with the same fire power working together supported by AI. Infantry can give general commands to the AI to figure out the best way to attack.
A Bradley is 25 tonnes.
The bradly isnt a tank its a Apc.
@@ThePhantom712 still, it seems that Bradleys are the best thing the Ukraine got. And its weapon(s) is powerful enough to destroy ork-tanks
@@ThePhantom712 IFV to be exact. And it's doing great against Russian T-90M tanks, which they claim are modern western tanks killers. LMAO
@@user-wf2yq7mb6y T-90M would struggle against M1A2 SEPv2 and SEPv3
You make conclusion based on a video where damaged t90m cannot fire back at bradley.
These IFV’s are extremely good vehicles, but as we have seen dozens of them being destroyed. No need to mention that facing a non-damaged tank will lead to bradley turning into a blood box in a single shot.
looks more like poor judgment to drive any tank into ground that soft.
Raspútica is not a joke.
Is this why the Poles bought those South korean tanks?
A very sobering report. Thank you. It seems that MBT designers are still going down the wrong road and ignoring the weather in Europe and the strength of bridges. A $300 drone can blow off a track and that is the end of the tank as more drones can chip away at it while immobilised.
Drones are very easily defeated. I saw a new French system blowing a swarm of drones out the air that was attacking the vehicle with ease. Even the Russians are having success with jammers. I think drones are just a temporary blip in warfare
A $20,000 jammer will stop dozens of $300 drones per minute for as long as the tank can provide power to the jammer.
What the videos don't tell you is that the Ukrainians lose more drones than they have had successful drones.
That most drone crews spend most of their time building new drones to replace the ones they lost that day.
And that they've had drone crews killed while operating the drone or retrieving the drone because the other side triangulated the controller or the drone's radio signal and decided to send a dozen mortar rounds at the x mark
@@pogo1140 The reason Russia is building cages round their equipment is due to the success of drones. Agreed that Ukraine admit to a hit success rate of less than 50% for drones. But what is the success rate of a 155mm shell at $1000 a pop? 1 in 3? 1 in 10? Jamming and counter-jamming is an ongoing warfare. Hard to state who is winning that battle now.
@@pogo1140 if the jammer operators are lucky and know the operating frequencies for enemy drones and the jammer covers that frequency range and the enemy drone operators do not change the frequencies, then yes. But chances of all this happening consistently are slim indeed
@@romailto9299 The jammer operator does not need to know it, the drone and the operator will broadcast that information
The UK used to have a very effective light tank called the Scorpion during the Cold War. Whatever happened to that? Why is there no modern successor?
Obviously, the only way to improve the current fleet is to develop an add-on / replace system that will broaden the tracks.
German Tiger tanks of WW2 had transport tracks, and wider "combat" tracks. Weight was 55-60 tons. They did quite well in Russia.
Grousers. Available in WW II, but they could add a ton to a medium tank's weight.
@@goldenhawk352Quite well stuck in mud during a spring? Literally overheavy outdated monsters with FRONTAL sprockets. Which add(if included all the needed measures like height increase) changes around 13% of weight!
Without knowing your terrain before you drive a tank into soft soil in the spring is a mistake anyway. Any commander would have someone run ahead and check with a rod how soft the soil is before crossing certain areas. It's like driving a tank in the dessert with quick sand everywhere! There are other ways of crossing soft surfaces. Anyway, this video is a year old and I haven't seen a video of another western tank getting stuck. These were Ukrainians driving the tank in Ukraine for the first time. They will have learned from their mistake and as spring has already passed it looks like they haven't made the same mistake again.
Very well said !!!
They show the same footage of that challenger tank getting stuck again and again.
It's still stuck to this day
Nothing wrong with the tank crew issue the British army has said if there was British soliders in the chally they know where to drive and not get stuck
Yup, they're used to the lighter russian tanks but it is a bit of a disadvantage if you can't drive over a bridge.
@@mambastu Yeah but Western tanks weren't bogged down at the crumbling bridges, they got stuck in mud. And highly trained Western crews would know not to go into a certain mud pits..
Except Ukraine is one big mud pit
just to be clear, Ukrainian tanks drivers are highly competent well trained. The issue here is the tank.
@@markbrisec3972 You don't always get a choice of where to go and the enemy gets a say as well,
The survibility of the crew are not a decline in returns.
Bradley? Yes. Marder or CV90? nope.
Great video, thank you
With bridges, only weight reduction helps. But to prevent sinking into wet ground you must reduce the ground pressure, so either weight reduction or wider tracks would do the trick.
Yet, the smaller and lighter soviet designed tanks have been getting wrecked in huge numbers. Sonething like 3000 between both sides
NATO doctrine would surely insist upon complete air superiority: otherwise, double the track width (preferably with lighter materials) and increase engine output to compensate. Or use several thousand Bradley type units.
Unfortunately, Ukrainians can't even maintain/repair most of these overly complex tanks themselves. Speaking as someone who lives in Ukraine, though not a soldier, there is great disatisfaction at these western MBTs. The Challenger is the worst, due to being the heaviest/least able to navigate the real-world eastern european battlefield. The Leopard 2s perform ok, but it's a disappointment when the western media kept hyping them as "game changers" for a year. The Bradleys on the other hand are excellent. Really impressive capabilities and viable for multiple types of use (e.g. ferrying infantry to the line of contact and also for destroying enemy vehicles).
@@WangMingGe All valid points I think - except i also believe the Ukrainians (and I'm on their side) are still mired in Soviet thinking - I work in IT and have worked with these guys - who think everyone should be given the same flat like their mother's were....why would anyone want more - etc etc...
@@stonward You are correct for part of the country. It's really very divided, not like most people in the west believe as a simplification (of course, nobody would assume Texas is the same as New York). IT and any STEM thing tends to be occupied by mostly Soviet-minded people...admittedly the Russians were good at industry and technology. My family comes from Ternopil, in the region of Galicia. Again contrary to media perceptions, the most Russian areas are the most developed and 'modern', secular etc. (although, because religion except Islam tends to be perceived negatively in the west, the media plays up the role of the Russian church, which is big, but, those places have by far the most atheists/secular folk - Ternopil, on census statistics, is 0% atheist/irreligious, for comparison; mostly Catholic). Galicia/western Ukraine has tossed away the Soviet attitudes, generally speaking, a long time ago. Even in the 2000s, there was nothing left, no statues, no street names. But, a large part of that is, psychologically, we never integrated into the USSR, since we had historically never been part of Russia. Our experience in the USSR began in September 1939, ended in 1941, then restarted 1944-1991. We always fought against everything Russian and since the maximum period of Russian rule in all our history was 47 years, not even the lifetime of one man, it was easy to escape mentally. But, I live in Vinnytsia. And here, although the distance is small, psychologically, most people are VERY Soviet. In fact, if you only speak Ukrainian, not Russian, or you have western-Ukrainian facial features (we really do look quite different, much as Dutch and Italians look different), people will call you a "Polyak" - and they mean this very negatively. They have that proletarian international thinking from Soviet movies. A third of this city is hoping the Russians will come and make things 'normal' again, even 2 years into the war, so, I totally believe you. And, the areas which have the thinking you describe, they are the economic and government heartland, although of course not the core of Ukrainian nationalism.
@@WangMingGe I wish we could meet and talk this through over some nice drinks.... Thankyou for the considered remarks.
"insist" - LOL, with Air Defense its just not going to happen.
A track widening kit would work to stop the tanks from getting stuck
Exactly!
No it won't. Too heavy still
@@TopTechTrendsX There is no tracked vehicle light enough to not get stuck in a mudhole. Most of the vehicles people think are just stuck are damaged by mines, artillery, or drones.
Someone doesn't know the tradeoffs of widening tracks and that the hull imposes a hard limit on track width.
Modern tanks have less ground pressure per sq. ft. than a car does. The problem is trying to drive in a swamp.
great report
Imagine a time, far in the future, when we don't mass murder each other over political disputes !
Yep, a world without USA politics...
@@TenylegMinekez-uc7co a world without putins russia
@@Swatmat even this conflict is the result of US politics, don't fool yourself... can't be so propagandized/ brainwashed.
@@TenylegMinekez-uc7co yes i remember seeing American tanks roll over the border from Belarus into Ukraine..... oh no wait, that was Russian tanks...
Countries want to join NATO WILLINGLY!!!! Because exactly what Russian does, it just invades and trues to annex it, Putin wants his Soviet Union back...
@@Swatmat the putsch regime installed by the US in Kiev after the violent insurrection maidan 2014 started the war. The Eastern regions wanted to remain pro-Russian, so the regime attacked them for it. See: War in Donbas, the ATO.
The fact that it's a Challenger and not an Abrams is hilarious😂
So far they have successfully managed to abandon all of them..
I dont think they understand how important that is
The crews get them stuck on purpose so they have an excuse to abandon them
@@Withnail1969 lmao big tough guy behind a keyboard. You should go join the international legion. I bet they would LOVE your expert advice.
@@Asymmetrical-Saggin That's what I heard. No need to take it out on me.
@@Withnail1969 Someone reads russian propaganda.
Tanks have been in development for 100yrs? Armour, gun, mobility? What more is left to modify? Make it fly? They're a slow dinosaur weapon.But everybodys got them, so they have to use them. Like the airframe design of modern fighters, they're only as good as whats pushing it at the back - and that turbine concept hasnt changed after 80 yrs?
😂 Soviet tank
t72 42 ton.
t90 48 ton.
Bmp1&2 13 ton
Bmp3 18 ton
Most modern battle tanks can cross rivers by crawling across the bottom of a small river.
I thought they would get stuck in the silt/mud
The U.S. have gave around 100 bradleys so far and they have around 1000 more in storage
It means they won’t be able to use them as an offensive weapon. It doesn’t have to stay stationary, but it needs to stay in areas where it won’t sink.
If you can walk or stand on it with your combat load, so can an M1A2
drones with high explosives are not atgms by any means and they are just as effective if not more effective because they can loiter
My d.i.y job would be welding sheet of even this metal to save weight and weld them around turret on sloping angle to least try deflect direct hits off the target .. it work on most occasions I believe or least help in major way .
That's why Ukranians were asking for the first M1 Abrams tank, not the newer versions.
One thing I taught the ukrainiens were winning everything that this dude just said is pointing to the opposite what about when the media are saying Ukraine is winning and gonna get back their territory
Or maybe it could be the kms and kms of minefields 🙄
Yeah I agree. All this talk about tanks and mobile warfare is ridiculous.
@@simmorg290 You can't mine everything, you have to be able to have a path for your own tanks and vehicles
@@pogo1140 Yes but you can mine everything between your defensive lines and the enemy and you can also mine the paths/roads after you've passed through if you had to.
In the south it was ridiculous. The Ukrainian counter offensive there was doomed from the start. In fact a Ukrainian general admitted not long after the offensive started that they knew their NATO tanks would be destroyed if they went anywhere near the front so they kept them far in the rear.
@@simmorg290 Yes, the volume of mines in the south was insane. 3-5 times what the Soviet/Russian manuals said to use per sq/km and over 5 times more area.
That does mean that where did the mines come from? like all munitions, you only have so many even if you have millions of them, and you need trucks to move them from warehouses to the units and time for the units to place them.
Could watch thus all day
Would it be possible to retrofit a Leopard, Abrams, and/or Challenger tank with wider tracks? And would it reduce the risk of getting stuck in soft and muddy terrain?
Even if they will do it it will not be like tomorrow, will need to redesign them, takes time
@@jevgenijs39 no we dont need to.
Leopard 2 has, even in its heavierst versions, a better specific ground pressure than a T-90. Why? Longer track lenght on the ground, wider tracks etc. in fact, a Leopard 2A7V, even though around 13t heavier than a T-90M, has a better cross country performence than the T-90M, even in heavy terrain like deep mud.
possible but the weight is only one of many problem of western tanks in ukraine
Fancy getting an interesting and good presentation from the sun,
Leopard 2's, Abrahms and Challengers are not the only combat vehicles at their disposal they have French, Italian and Swedish medium, light tanks all under 60 tonnes in weight.
The weight isn’t extra armor it’s sensors and active protection and EW equipment so kinda doubt diminishing returns above 50 tons
Now they are now say the truth but they were blaming Ukraine failure of contter attacks
Considering they only used NATO trained and equipped troops - laughable
Minute 4:10 -
This is the whole issue, which an 'expert' should understand.
You can relatively easily replace and repair tanks. A 60-70 Ton tank might be incapacitated just as a 45-50 ton tank (as he said) - but the crew will survive, which is the whole point of western tanks.
In nature, there are examples of cooperation such as the honey cuckoo and the honey badger.
so I can see what they're saying about western tanks being too heavy for the ground in Ukraine, but we mustn't forget that at the start of the war, or at least in the first year, that Russians in their T72s and stuff were also getting stuck in the mud, and they're designed to handle the terrain better. my point is is that any vehicle can get stuck if driven badly or sent through the wrong area, its why the roads became so vital in Ukraine
its just like different tanks are designed for different scenarios and battlefields 🤯
Is tank on tank fighting unlikely now? If that is the case are vehicles with a few weapons for tanks and more weapons for other roles more desirable now?
Thanks for the video it was great
Or maybe its because they run those rubber tracks instead of the off road ones
I believe you're thinking about this the wrong way, instead of trying to redesign a main battle tank send in a Bradley instead, everything has a specific role.
Logistic always seems to be an overlooked part of the puzzle of warfare, it’s sad to see that it’s the most hollowed out part of the British Army.
i've heard abrahms have no tow trucks _ what about the challenger and other heavyweight tanks sent to ukraine ? i am curious about that part of logistics
Is not the key aspect of all moving vehicles the weight distribution per unit area of interface with the ground. I wonder (bridge weight limits aside) whether the width of the tracks on these vehicles could be increased to bring them down to the kg/m2 of vehicles within the sweet spot? I appreciate this would involve a redesign of the track system axles bearings etc so not trivial!
I wrote many comments here on youtube that M-55S tanks that Ukraine got from Slovenia are actually among the best tanks Ukraine got from NATO because they are so light in comparison to other much more modern NATO tanks that were sent to Ukraine.
I know for US freeways, the max is 40 ton. so those would have to be hauled by rail
In Canada, they (in Canada's case, Leopards) are indeed hauled by rail.
This ist not true.
When a truck legaly can wheigh about 38 tons, the bridges must be capable of carrying this several times. It always could be that there are two Trucks on the Bridge or one truck an several cars.
So I guess you don't know for US freeways.
I’ve heard many comments from ex-tankers that one of the issues, concerning getting stuck, is basically practise. Practise in knowing the limitations of the tank and being able to read the terrain in front of you. The example the Sun Defence Editor shows when he was in Ukraine many tankers said that they would have seen the muddy area from afar and avoided it. This tanker thought like a T-type Russian tank driver and simply went ahead and promptly got stuck. In this case it is a driver error not a tank error.
nah ukrainian soil is loamy not clayey that is why you cannot identify muddy areas
The ukraine soil has legendary reputation regarding its difficulty for vehicles, they call that mud season the Rasputitsa, which translates to “season of bad roads” 😆
In a few months it will be froze again bringing a whole herd of new problems
Просто надо было самим приезжать и управлять
i thought driving soviet tanks feels like driving a lada and riding nato tanks feels like ferrari 😅😂🤣
One answer is to make unmanned tanks that are smaller, lighter, put reasonably protected.
Another possible fix is that railroad ties can obviously carry a lot of weight in that they can carry train cars carrying tanks so one can lay ties down to make tank roads.
Yes, these could be targeted but if one blows up some railroad ties just replace them with more.
And yes, that can require a lot of railroad ties but so do rail lines.
that would be to high tech for ukriane. We send them our old stuff. Then we can buy new stuff. but if you get them new stuff the russians will get some of the new tech.
1:00 thats not correct they are designed to attack an move agressivly(thats why they developed superiour stabilization systems). A Standing Tank is soon a dead tank and thats one of the problems in ukranine that they use them basily as field artillery. Also they are designed for a very large Tank battle in the north german plain following supporting ifvs/mechanized infantry and air support
So, would the old Strikers be useful now?
So how heavy is the Bradley then?
They have one major problem, they are normally outnumbered like 3 to 1
Then hide them in plane sites, right 🤔🤔
I don't understand the strategy of him saying tanks in the cold war were not designed to move much if the soviets had ever attacked. If our tanks couldn't move much, they would have become sitting targets for the Russians.
So basically...we made them give up arms.
And got what every country wants to replace?
Excuses don’t win wars.
You told us it's game changers
Yes it is, in New Papua Guinea.
No the Turtle-tanks are 😂😂😂😂😂
Provide your source for that statement please.
@@daydays12 here we don't need to go far
There no Nato tank in Ukraine, only tank similar with those used by nato .
Nato is not a party to this conflict.
@@TheBg1957 However, some NATO countries are contributing to Ukraine. And let's be real. This is a war between NATO and Russia, Iran, China, and North Korea in its early stages. It's the beginning of WWIII in my opinion.
@@TheBg1957 if NATO was part of this war the was would have been over at least a year ago.
Russia's war on Ukraine is a fair war because Ukraine is a big country and all the West helped them with weapons and money, unlike America's wars, they make wars on small and poor countries like Somalia, Iraq and Afghanistan.
@user-ev3cl2ss8e I don't know what attacking your peaceful neighbour has to do with "fairness"...
WWII trick: have a comrade jump up on your back. If the ground deforms a tank can not drive there. In case Challenger two guys probably have to jump up on the back of another.
Who cares, Ukraine has proven western equipment it way too much for Russian Soviet era equipment going on 3 years and all we hear is excuses from Russia
What excuses.?
Those Excuses are all on show as a Western Junk Yard (Moscow)..😉🇷🇺👍
Name one front where the Ukrainians are doing well.
@@richardsanders4624 Woopie they have 2-3 tanks of ours while they’ve lost hundreds? 😂
@@DarianEX To understand how many losses of NATO equipment there are in Ukraine. In the small village of Sokol alone in the Avdeevsky direction, UAVs detected 3 burnt-out Bradley infantry fighting vehicles remaining on the roads of the village.
So why don't they just make the tracks wider? this would even out the weight more and give better traction!
Because then you have to redesign , track, running gear and all the supply chains that go with them, then you have to consider the ability to move them by rail and truck, as they are now they hang over the edge of a rail flat and Tank transporter flatbed,
Going full RC will cause extreme focus on jamming RC-signals rather than destroying hardware, so not so clear whether there will be only unmanned vehicles. If your entire fleet is unmanned and all of a sudden the enemy has the capability to totally block off your signal, you have a serious problem.
You can also block the signal of maned tanks. also autonomous vehicles dont have to be RC they could have AI and fight independt from each other in a highly jammed electrimagnetic enviorement
Good thing that drones don't weigh much!!
I think IFVs like the Bradley are arguably more effective in these conflicts than an MBT. They're lighter, they can engage infantry more effectively, they can also disable or destroy other MBTs (as we've seen), and even take a hit and survive.
The main threat to modern tanks is loitering munitions with double warheads that can strike from above and the rear. That means they need active protection systems to defend from those threats. The armor of heavy tanks is already minimal in the top and rear areas. Reducing the armor will make the tank weaker. The answer is unmaned turrets and active protection. The unmanned turrets will separate the ammunition from the crew, reduce weight, bt will not contribute to survivability if there is no active protection against loitering air threats.
How much weight is dedicated to to keeping the crew safe. Future tanks will be crewless, and weight problem solved?
Considering the advances in drone tech, and the ability of a skilled operator to easily and accurately hit any vehicle, I believe tanks are FAST becoming obsolete. These makeshift kamikaze drones, working with recon drones, seem to be decimating Russian tank assaults, and thus holding back major Russian advances. (Assuming what I’m seeing on CZcams is true.)
This has always been true for tanks, they all have to balance mobility and defense. Since these tanks were designed for a different war of course they will not be optimized for Ukraine, but that does not mean they can't be useful. The mud in Ukraine is only a problem in the spring, the rest of the year the tanks will get around just fine.
great video
Finally a good video from the sun
That’s what I was thinking too
Seems that western IFV like CV90, Marder and especially Bradley are more valuable for Ukraine than the few western MBTs they got. The high ground-pressure of western MBT is a problem in the mud-period. The germans faced the same problem in WW2 and (partly) solved it after bad experiences by fitting wider tracks on their Panzer III,IV and StugIII(Ostkette,eastern track). Perhaps the old Leopard 1 fits better for the conditions in Ukraine, but it lacks protection and has less fire power.
IFV aren't meant to use against T72 through.
@@Soras_ Now we know why Ukraine wanted the Leopard 1 A5. It has less protection and firepower but is even 6 tons lighter than the T90m.
There is no too much difference in ground pressure between Soviet and NATO tanks in Ukraine.
@@youmed1567 They didn't want Leo 1s. That is what they got
No air power, no offensive no matter what vehicles they have.
Its the tactics ppl, MBT should move with support from IFVs and light inf to reconnoitre their paths.
IFVs can move off paths.
Obviously it's still a numbers game..
I totally agree
Both sides know this ,the problem is the Modern battlefield is hyper intel with drones and radars both side have a real problem with massing troops as artillery sees that coming a mile away. This is way we see lone T-90’s as well both sides have this problem creating full combat groups even when they have material and man power.
And air support
We just need to develope something to plug the gaps.
They should just give the tanks air support/anti-drone weapons. That way they aren’t so vulnerable to air strikes or drones. Maybe even accompany them with infantry
The problem was The West trained Ukraine in the aspects of combined arms and then sent them into battle with no air cover/air superiority...Ukraine's tanks were sitting ducks for anti tank helis and strike aircraft...The US was at fault for this since they have never gone into a battle like this without control of the skies...Ukraine's summer offensive was bound to fail due to this...
Then think why so called military experts told they are pretty sure in getting back Crimea...Game changers and wunderwaffens, then western super weapons ended in Moscow...
The NVA of less than 300,000 troops launched an offensive in conventional warfare with no air support against south vietnam who over a million troops and having the 4th largest airforce and stll the NVA won. It just shows soviet tactics are way better
@@JL-tm3rc To be honest that was more complicated.
@@JL-tm3rc Bit of difference between jungle fighting and fighting on open plains with armor against miles of trenches and without air superiority...
@@JL-tm3rc pahahahahaha, typical Pro Russian Bot? Clearly have no idea on what you are talking about.
Hi Jerome , Another Amazing SITREP .. I'd Love if You Put
*World At War* In The Title as That way No One will ever Miss an Episode of this Amazing Series
Didn't we do this a few months ago?
"We saw this when we spend time with a Challenger Platoon on a traninig site..."
(3:19) The Ukrainians drive into the only muddy hole in the middle of many square kilometres of dry ground, which is barely bigger than the tank, as proof that the tank is constantly getting stuck.
If the tank tracks were longer and wider, this would reduce the pressure on the ground so that these tanks would not be so likely to sink on boggy soil.
Yes but they are fighting in winter, anything gets bogged then and there
Its mid summer
Great channel
Finally an expert who talks some sense in terms of tank warfare. Especially the part about us western nations letting Ukraine down last summer.
However, the 70t NATO behemoths have one big upside. Usually the crew walks away after the tank is hit and knocked out, where as in the case of the old soviet tanks, the crew combusts instatly together with the ammo. So if some 55t tank offers a protection level, that keeps the crew alive, in all for it. If this can not be achived, i say stick to heavy tanks.
Not entirely sure you guys are qualified to give this talk.
The mobility of a vehicle over soft ground is determined by ground pressure exerted by the vehicle. An AFV with high GP will rapidly bog where as low GP keeps moving. Wider or longer tracks will reduce the GP. Heavy AFVs are harder to recover because you need something big enough to do the recovery.
yes he told some bs. but Ground pressure is only one factor. Sooner or later some vehicle will get stuck and then its way easyier to salvage a 40t tank then a 70t tank also the salvage equipment for lighter vehicles is more manuverable/mobil. Also UKraine infrastructure is not made to handle heavy tanks(middle european roads/bridges are designed to carry those loads to be able to move heavy equipment fast(if the cold war would have ever gotten hot)
Why I wonder, did nobody see this one ?
Don't they have decent maps for cross-country movements?