Bradley is not considered a battlefield taxi. It's an infantry fighting vehicle. A M113 is a battlefield taxi. A Stryker is a battlefield taxi. A Bradley, with long range sensor and TOW missile launcher, is designed to fight the enemy.
The whole point of the Bradley was literally designed to transport squad of soldiers. But because of mission creep and add-on, they became more of a potent fighting vehicle. There's literally a movie covered on this subject.
@@RoyalDog214 It's a poor movie overall, but the part about mission creep is indeed factual. The Bradley became a jack-of-all-trades in the process, and the main reason it has been effective is because its crews (in the US at any rate) are highly trained to take advantage of its situational benefits rather than rely on any single one of its capabilities.
@@RoyalDog214 Please watch Spookston's video titled "The Problem With Pentagon Wars", while Bradley indeed is both a battlefield taxi and IFV citing the movie is just bad form.
@@babd3121 Bradley is an IFV. Explain to me why there are so many Recon variants of the Bradley if they were only a battle field taxi like the m113 or stryker?
I knew the newer generations weaned on almost realistic FPS video shooter games would be real killers on the battlefield. Their battlefield instincts are already developed before they graduate high school.
Please. Stop calling the Bradley a "battlefield taxi". It's an infantry fighting vehicle designed to deliver dismounted infantry to the forward edge of an engagement and REMAIN there, fighting alongside main battle tanks and attack helicopters in what is called combined arms mechanized warfare. Armored personnel carriers like the U.S. M113 and the British FV432 are battlefield taxis.
He does call it a IFV, also the Bradley carries six dismounts. Those troops do not permanently stay onboard. So calling it a taxi isn't that far off. Yes I know an APC is the real battle taxi, but both an APC and an IFV both taxi men about the battlefield it's just that a IFV hangs around to provide fire cover.
@@tryaluck A APC is something very different from a IFV. A APC has no business being anywhere near the front line and is generally no longer used by most modern armies.
I was a scout in a 113 in the 80's and I planned if we ran into a tank I would open up with the ma duce and go for the glass [while the driver worked on getting us out]. would it work, maybe, maybe not. Glad I never got to find out.
The real weakness of the T-90M that is discussed here is very easy to see: It got off three shots, and they were ALL misses. That comes down to the comment that the expert made: CREW. This tank was destroyed because the Russian Crew didn't know how to use their machine... and that was true before the HE explosive blinding attack began. That's where the survivability of these machines really matters... the crew survives with their experience and training intact.
My thought too. early T-90 using western system (french catherine FC) and later one russian system which better than catherine also unlike T-72 they have full stabilization. Properly trained crew should able to aim properly
You are not providing the full info. The crew survived and escaped, the tank was later towed and put back into battle. The following week that Bradley was destroyed.
@@ledzepandhabs Weird for you to lie about the facts. The T-90M was destroyed by drones after and is even captured on video being destroyed. Impossible to tell if that specific Bradley was taken out though the crew were interviewed at least a week after it happened so they either survived or their Brad wasn't destroyed.
@@FirstDagger i mean, wt doesnt simulate armour getting wittled down shot after shot, which i think is a factor in the bradley winning along with the crew getting stressed, the tank being hit causing a lot of noise inside etc
@@FirstDaggerYou’re pretty brainless for thinking war thunder is anything like real Life, The same game, has 3rd person views, Sights don’t matter, viewports aren’t a part of gameplay, you can fix broken barrels in a matter of seconds, you can get penetrated and your crew will stay Stone cold as they move their dead crewmates body so they can man the gun without a single emotion, your crew can fight in a vehicle with 2 people, So yes I think you’re a missing few brain cells for even thinking this
@@furinick Also from the video all the smoke and debris causing blindness to the tank. This is why old tank doctrine had tanks lined up side by side so you could have the other tank return fire when the first is blinded.
probably,its not about sensors, its about crew expirience. if usa would fight in that bloody war for 2 years straightI doubt they would have time to propperly train their crews
In an Armored Cavalry Scout Platoon there are 4 per platoon like in a regular mechanized infantry platoon. In the platoon of 4 vehicles they operate as pairs during a combat engagement like 2 riflemen in combat. One fires to cover his buddy to maneuver close or to break contact. The only difference is in a cavalry scout troop is they can dismount scouts for recon and infantry platoons will deliver infantry for combat on their objective while providing fire support. These Ukrainian crews were taught very well prior to deployment to combat. NATO tank crews practice the same tactics too. Both Bradley IFVs operate like the Wingman Concept like fighter pilots operate as to fly and protect each other. In the Field Manual 7-8 Mechanized Infantry manual which is close to NATO doctrine.
The gunner said that he learned where to hit the T-90 from playing video games. The kamikaze drone flyers say the same thing. So parents, your kids playing games may just be preparing them for the future. 😊
Speriamo perché abbiamo una gioventù pappamolle, senza palle, che almeno serva a qualcosa .AL CASO! ALTRIMENTI, CONTRO GLI INVASORI QUI DA SCATENATE ABBIAMO SOLO,FEMMINISTE E CENTRI SOCIALI , DI " FUMATI!"
Ironically, War Thunder is made by Russian developers. Sometimes I wonder if it's an intelligience tool considering how many players leak classified documents to use as ammo in forum debates and cases for rebalancing.
Specifically, Warthunder. And it makes sense, since despite the game's horrid grind and absurd 'balance' decisions, it does somewhat realistically model tank armoring, internals and mechanics. And the vulnerability of the various systems and surfaces of an enemy armored vehicle is *EXTREMELY* valuable intelligence when engaging it.
The myth that the T-34 was the greatest tank in history has been debunked. They were pathetic; Russia just had a lot of them. It's the same story with the T-72. The reason the Soviet Union was able to resist Germany in World War 2 wasn't their domestic arms production; it was Lend/Lease, mostly provided by the United States.
Wow! How do these "experts" always seems to understand nothing about the vehicles or history. Even the statement that the t-90m is basic compared to a challenger or the abrams is outrageous. Every modern tank suffers from the same problems as the t-90.
@@dodovolcano I did not say that, dont misquote me. The way he said things like, that especially russian Tanks are vulnerable to drones, or that the the T-34 is russian is simply questionable
The T80 that ran into the tree after being hammered by the Bradley; Almost looks like it was done deliberately to stop the turret rotation and thus being able to exit the tank...
@@shawn576 Desperate situations require out of the box solutions to literally get out of the box, the burning metal box in this case. This is exactly what evolution shaped humans to be able to do.
Much of Fleet Street has dropped the ball on reporting from Ukraine, and most of the US press seems to have abandoned the war all together. US public has the shortest attention span of any modern society.
As the Chieftain said, the tank is mobile, protected firepower. The protected leg of that triad has taken a hit from the ability of drones to strike at any point on the tank. In order to recover some of the tank’s resistance to damage, more armor, applied more widely, and/or active protection systems will have to be incorporated. This means more weight, something the logistics and transportation guys and the bean counters are loath to face.
Yes the blow off door needs to be protected while being still able to function. Also every vehicle on the battle field needs proper anti drone defence such as jamming or its own mini air defence system.
..that Colonel was talking out of his ass.. 1. Bradleys never deployed to Afghanistan. 2. Warrior IFV might have a higher caliber gun, but it is way inferior to the Bradley in terms of fire control, there's no stabilization on the Warrior, clip fed ammo magazine, ie 5 rounds at most at a time while the Bradley can keep shooting into the hundreds of rounds with it's belt feed, thermal sights even on the ODS variants of the Bradley, only the later limited upgrades of the Warrior BGTI. The A3 Bradley, which is the Regular Army standard, is even better with hunter-killer capability. And now the A4 is coming with an active protection system, 4th gen thermals and fire control, improved armor, and upgraded transmission. The British gave up on upgrading their Warrior IFV a decade ago. Warrior has no ATGM, all Bradley IFV/ CFV variants from early models to current has TOW, top attack from the 90's onwards.
@@JulienGardner Well, if you know anything about the real history and capabilities of the T34, you would not make that statement. It's like saying that the Lada is "maybe the best" car in history from which are other cars are modeled after :D
A lot of Australians that served in Chosen Company that have just rotated out in March including engineering teams said of all the tanks the Challenger Tanks where more trouble than their worth because they where extremely high maintenance and unreliable. For this reason they did not see a lot of action. They said they where too heavy for the terrain, the track pads constantly needed replacing and overly complicated design of both the targeting system and use of 2 piece ammunition are problematic. The leopards where much better in comparison but still heavy and costly to keep running. In the end most Ukrainians gravitated back to the T84 and simply preferred the Soviet tanks not just because of familiarity and reliability, they said in real world battlefield all the tanks ended up had the same survive-ability, but the T84's where more manoeuvrable and suited to the battlefield conditions and they where way more serviceable in the field which is critical to entering conflict and safely getting out again.
I fully disagree that tank warfare hasn't changed. Kamikaze drones have made maneuver warfare nearly impossible. Tanks are purposely held back because all that's gonna happen is a $500 drone is gonna destroy a multi million dollar tank. The Russian side is far less conservative with its tanks for reasons that would require a whole essay to explain. But basically, it's not working very well. It's gotten slightly better since they've started welding sheet metal onto them. But when they hear about a western tank being in the area, there's no amount of sheet metal that'll save them, so they pull the tanks away. That combined with the kamikaze drone strategy is why there are no tank on tank battles happening in this war. Quite frankly, I think the age of the tank as we know it may be over. IFVs are the new tanks. Getting troops in quickly, providing covering fire against infantry and other armored vehicles like BMPs, and then loading up and getting the heck out. A tank can't transport troops like an IFV can. And a tank's anti-infantry and anti-armored vehicle capabilities are easily matched by drones, artillery, and IFVs. Big explosions, armor piercing, and machine gun fire. Even if an enemy tank shows up, what can a couple kamikaze drones not do that a multi million dollar tank can? Self-propelled artillery and shorad are basically the children that will inherit the remaining roles of the main battle tank.
Drones have been becoming less effective as time goes on. I suspect it's more likely that drone jamming technology will reach a point to where that stops being a viable option.
the tank expert just said .. " when it comes to tank warfare nothing has changed " well thats the biggest load of crap ive heard this decade considering 2 hits from 2 500 dollar drones and any tank be it m1a2 , leopard , t90m or challanger .... are all smoking ready to cook off their ammo ( era is useless ) ... the battlefield has a new king ... fpv drones .. anyone that denies that is talking rubbish
FPV drones aren't king, It's a new toy for ground forces. Combined Arms is king. Infantry, Armored, Air makes the magic. Ukraine doesn't have air superiority that's why problems like these arise. Drones shine but they don't shine the brightest. What will a drone operator do when logistics & support are destroyed, with infantry and armored spearhead rapidly approaching? Ukraine is fighting an attritional war much like WW1 meat grinders and this is why cheap FPV drones shine.
Hoping the right person will read this. In 1974 there was a special weapons maker in Albuquerque, NM who made a 20-barrelled .22LR Gatling Gun. It was designed to allow a rescue team to kick down a door, sweep the gun sideways in an arc across a room and put a bullet every inch across a large room where hostages were being held. Thus it was lightweight and had limited recoil. It had a ROF of 20,000 RPM if I recall correctly. This weapons would seem to be perfect for shooting down drones at short ranges as modern .22LR ammo has a muzzle velocity of 1,200fps or more, and .22 WM in excess of 2,200fps, so very accurate out to 125yrds and 500 vertical feet. An alternative round would be the .17 HMR with MVs in excess of 2,600fps. On a radar-controlled, articulated mount, such a weapon would offer excellent defensive fires against drones and ATGMs.
Let's be real not biased, the T-90M armor really handled the bradly continuous shots to not penetrate the tank for a while of time, but the T-90M gunner was blind to miss 2 close range shot, which really shows the lack of experience in Russian crews
An often overlooked technology was involved in Desert Storm. It's called "Fire Finder Radar." It's a radar dish that observes the battle field for munitions. Any time the enemy fires an artillery or tank round, the radar tracks it, calculates it's point of origin and sends that data to artillery and tank units. Often times the Iraqi tank would only get one shot before being taken out.
@@amazingman63wait till you find out that loads of anti-tank missiles work that way and they still can have 3-6km range. In fact the Bradley's TOW missiles also use wire to control flight. This tech is very old now, it literally started back in WW2, the germans used electrically wire guided torpedoes, and it snowballed from there to missiles. Im pretty sure after all this time they figured out a way to make the wire as thin as it can be and as cheaply made as possible.... But compared to the missile it self, the cost of the wire is basically negligible
@@FirstDagger They are APCs that are meant to stay in the fight and provide fire support to the infantry dismounts, which is a pretty important distinction compared to the regular APC which is not made to do that.
It’s interesting seeing an IFV beating an MBT…that all comes down to one thing though…Crew training and INFANTRY support. MBT’s aren’t supposed to work in a CLOSE IN ENVIRONMENT without any kind of support.. .and the crew should have known that. The crew of that MBT was obviously very poorly trained or idiotically deployed into that area by itself. Pretty dumb.
I am an old tanker from the 1970’s and remember the early development of the Bradley,and the development of the tactical implementation of the Bradley. Early deployment of TOW missle carriers (jeep, M113, or tripod) was to give a huge standoff range and overwatch for tanks or dismounted infantry. At 4000+ meters, this far exceeded the effective range of Soviet tanks. The early version of the infantry version had I believe either 6 or eight AR ports to allow assault on the objective using the main gun and coax for killing and suppression. The cavalry version had the ports plugged adding additional missile storage plus only 4 scouts. My son was a cav scout in Bradley’s a s a scout, gunner and vehicle commander for the first 10 years of his 20 from 2001 to 2021. His experience was as others stated that Bradley’s and tanks were used as combined arms using each strengths. In Ukraine there is an amazing cooperation between drone resources and Bradley’s, which our Army is quickly developing similar resources.
It is a mistake to say that Russia developed the T-34 tank. The T-34 tank was developed by the USSR. There were a lot of resources and talented people involved that are no longer part of the USSR. In fact, Ukraine was part of the USSR and did a lot of heavy industrial design in Armor, aircraft and ships.
Always bothers me when I hear that. Like, both Russia and Ukraine have inherited soviet equipment, and the biggest tank factory was located in Ukraine...
@@haaxeu6501 Russia built its empire starting with Moscow principality. USSR is just an another name. That's why it was still called Russia in 20th century. You think that you are more clever than americans and the british of 20th century hahah.
I saw a video somewhere on reddit that showed that many russian tanks had the reactive armor replaced with rubber blocks. the armor was probably sold on the black market somewhere
Future tank designs for any nation are going to have to include some kind of defense against drones. Drones for both sides, are currently the deadliest and most feared weapon.
I was with the 5th Army in Michigan back in the 70's after my combat tour in Vietnam (101st Airborne). It was built at the Warren Tank Arsenal, in Michigan. It was supposed to replace the US APC. Different countries came during the construction with suggestions, for upgrades, etc... The first idea was an 80 Mile per hour track vehicle to carry Infantry men to combat... then ideas like rocket launchers, different machine guns and armor were added to help sell the unit to foreign governments.
The ammo in the top and back of the turret just makes it easy pickings for a drone, yes it'll save the crew but will render the tank mute. They need to figure out how to protect the ammo from drones.
U.S. Finally sent ERA panels specifically made to go on the top of that area to Ukraine. Almost like they were testing how well the Abrams would fare against drones when stock, then when they saw the weakness (which they probably already knew), they went, "Oh, let's try these and see if it helps any."
Tanks are not designed to operate in ones and twos. They are designed to operate as the shock force in combined armes. They need artillery preparing the battlefield. They need infantry keeping the opfor infantry away from the tanks. This fight is a symptom of how bad the Russian army really is.
You realize if the US army was thrown in the exact same situation as the Ru army is on these front they would follow the same strategy right?, all of what you said does not work if Ukraine has access to our satellites/HIMARS ready to respond for even the tiniest gathering of armor or troops by Russia, if Russia pushed out Tanks/troops like you said the majority would be damaged or destroyed like early in the war.
@@OrtonHeadXIVfinally somebody whit a brain, i don't get why non military people have the urge to spit out the most wrong "pulled out of my ass" statements, if you don't know what you're talking about just don't talk
The T-90M wasnt taken out (Just saying), The Bradley blinded the Comanders and Gunners sight which wasnt working well afterwards. The T-90M crew must have seen them coming but they didnt react fast enough to fire upon the Bradley, which is the crews fault. Also T-72A which is the first upgrade to the original T-72 had weaker hull frontall armor, later on T-72B got a huge upgrade on it, making it stronger and better to go agaisnt ennemys. In 1990 Russia made a new tank so cald T-90A which had thermal sight for the first time unlike T-72s. Later on They modified the T-90A in to T-90M which got Lots of ERA, Comander recieved Thermals, and Comunication system, with all the other things on the tank.
It is not an Abrams and Leo2 doesn't explode like t-72 since Leo has blowout panels. So no Internet is not nearly full of catastrophical Leo2 explosions
@@alexfedotov8588 NATO tank usually separate the ammo from the crew compartment with a thick door between them, while Russian tank put their ammo underneath the turret with a thin sheet of steel protecting it
@@BeamNG.enjoyer that because Leo have unprotected ammo storage in it's hull, what I surprised more is the fact there are no exploding Challenger even though it's ammo is stored in an armored bin inside the crew compartment
reminds me of the old Red Dwarf "Gunmen of the Apocalypse" line "I know this game, it's called cat and mouse.And there's only one way to win, don't be the mouse"
All tanks have two weaknesses, the track and engine exhaust. Target them, you immobilise tank. Without infantry support, or air cover, they crew are vulnerable
Leopard 2 A7 or A8 are the best and most modern tanks available in large numbers. Sadly countries sent really outdated versions there in the beginning. Still, even if destroyed, the crews usually get awway unhurt
@@hansulrichboning8551 Not at all true, no matter how many russian propaganda accounts claim it - german tanks are available in huge numbers because they are provided to several allies. But keep dreaming 🤣
I've been avoiding this video for weeks because I know the comment section was going to be stuffed with 'armor experts', who went through basic training at GameStop, that couldn't figure out how to start a tank if their life depended on it. Of course they'd have to puzzle their way past a hatch first, and quite frankly, I don't think most of them could do that either so...
25:05 we know that Ukraine has lost some Abrams, but as you said, early tanks can be replaced. But how many crew have been lost? That's what I want to know, and I am certain that I'm not alone.
Si sente che è inglese!! Dovrebbe parlare un po' più lentamente, è molto che non parlo più inglese,lo parlavo molto X lavoro , in india, Thailandia , Europa ora ho perso molto!
Related to this, Sherman tank veterans have said they would take out German Tiger tanks by hitting them with WP white phosphorus rounds first, to blind them, then out flank them to strike them at the weakest spot. The U.S. Armored units would also coordinate with the Air Force to drop napalsm on German armor, and out flank them. WP and napalsm, both, blind the tanks they hit.
The main problem I see, is that it's just so hard to see, or detect, a small drone with a shaped-charge munition that's about as big as a large pizza, with a 1 L soda bottle strapped to it! Especially when your tank was designed before IC-Chips! But, after ~2 years of this, it's a little surprising there hasn't been more progress on these lines, because if you did, it would not be a technological breakthrough to cobble together some sort of gimbaled, aimable system, that could project a snare-net in the general direction of the drone. Drones are actually quite vulnerable to obstructions, but in a lot of the videos I've seen, they're just coming in, 'free and clear', because the tank isn't really Under Fire and the tank is not really being supported by infantry, or other tanks, even if they are there. Sadly, the range of this type of equipment would be quite limited. In addition to projecting a net, to try to knock the Drone down, additionally, again, it would not be a technological breakthrough to rig up some sort of 'static' netting deployed by arms when a drone might be detected, with the objective of knocking down the drone at the last possible moment. Of course the secret of Comedy is timing: deploying such static netting too soon would simply result in the Drone operator just going around to the other side, so it's likely that full deployment would always be indicated. Although this sort of system could easily be reusable, if properly designed. ...Not that I'm trying to help the Russians because I think the Ukrainians could probably make this happen a lot faster than the Russians.
Anyone notice the candles on his mantle? HE even looks a little like Aleister. Many soldiers in the comments.... Whats up fellas. This vid got me amped... Maybe I missed my calling. - Civilian 💥💣
I'm British and I don't pronounce it like this presenter. And I've heard plenty of British people pronouncing it correctly, this presenter is clearly reading from a script and doesn't have a clue. But on a side note you are calling out British people for not pronouncing American words correctly. This is actually quite rare, I watch a lot of American reaction channels that watch a lot of British content, and Americans absolutely butchering British words is very common. Edinburgh as an example, it's not Edin- Borough, its Edin-bruh.
Very biased and manipulative comments. How come t-90, a modernisation of t-72 is, called "state of the art the mist modern"? While Bradley supposed to be just "30 years old taxi". One well performed battle action isn't enough to draw all those conclusions. Analogically. What would you say when state of art, the most advanced and super expensive Abrams tank is destroyed by infantryman with rpg-7?
Because Russia has been calling the T-90 "state of the art the most modern" and the Bradley "30 years old taxi" constantly. And if there is someone we can trust on the matter, it's probably the manufacturer of the T-90.
Use the tactic of WWII US Navy did in protecting its carriers from airborne threats. Battleships with massive amounts is AA to take out the Kates and Betty’s. A parallel would be dedicated anti drone escorts that are far along in development.
In another video, I saw the T-90 destroy an entire convoy. The convoy was composed of 3 tanks and 3 armored vehicle which were all wiped out by a single T-90 on kamikaze mode. Not downplaying the Bradley but as what I've seen in some drone footage, the MB of Russia is successful to me. It might have been the commander's lack of experience that resulted to why they got their ass whooped by 2 Bradley.
The Leopard tanks have the similar ammo storage in the turret but the also stack reloads unprotected inside the hull that is very dangerous. They can kill their own crew very easily.
15 rounds in the turret rear,up to 27 rounds in the stack inside.So in my opinion the ammo storage of the M1 Abrams is much better for traditional tank warfare.But most of the western tank losses were to drones,artillery and Mines.To concentrate almost all ammo in the turret rear(M1Abrams) makes it perhaps more vulnerable to those drone attacks,because the much smaller ammo bunker in Leopards turret rear makes it more difficult to hit for the russian drone operators. Just a hypothesis of mine.
@@hansulrichboning8551 Leopard 2 loses space for other stuff, that is why the rack is smaller. Yes, Abrams has the best solution regarding ammo storage of all current MBTs.
why is video in so bad quality when the original is better and it's about 8 minutes where you can see everything, but showing same video every time show us something new already.
Abhrams blow out panels were designed before drones were a thing. Looks like some design changes are needed to protect from drone strikes on the back of the turret. This is one instance where a cope cage might be effective
I'm not a military expert. But I'm sure tanks are far from the best war machine these days. They're too big, too slow, and they seem don't really offer too much protection for the crews inside.
@@user-be1zj7qe6x nope. Compare to cheap drone for example. they're very slow. And a $1K drone can destroy a $1M tank. That's very terrible mathematically.
@@hawk55732 too heavy and too big for Ukraine's terrain I believe, just like challengers and leopards but even more so. They end up being easy targets and a propaganda win for the Russians.
What I never got was how they put vulnerable cameras all over the tanks. Tanks regularly take small arms fire and it seems like they would be replacing the cameras all the time.
Why are you shitting on the T90 by saying it's defeated by American tanks that are 30 years old? The T90 is also 30 years old (hint: the name 90 is 1990). You're trying to mislead the viewer into thinking it's a 30 year old American tank against a 5 year old Russian tank.
Do you know how old the Abrams actually is? It's my understanding that the ones sent to Ukraine were earlier variants no longer in front line US service and already over 30 years old.
@@tonyunderwood9678 Yeah the Abrams is real old. Wiki says 44 years old. It took the Soviets a decade to make something comparable, and that's assuming the T90 hasn't been stripped down by corrupt commanders. The T90 is probably an excellent tank when it's maintained, has a trained crew, and has adequate spare parts (I'm guessing none of those conditions are true in most cases)
Yes but.... From the thousands of tank skirmishes that must have happened, why is there only one that we see again and again ? Not sure much conclusion can be extracted from so few examples.
Everyone knows what the armor of a modern Abrams tank is: Depleted Uranium. It's not a secret anymore. It's the same material their tank shells are made of. Extremely dense.
the bushmaster cannon is psychological terror for a tank crew You're in a battle tank and you get shot at from the outside by the Bushmaster and boom boom boom and it doesn't stop. With every hit you think now it's all over
Bradley is not considered a battlefield taxi. It's an infantry fighting vehicle. A M113 is a battlefield taxi. A Stryker is a battlefield taxi. A Bradley, with long range sensor and TOW missile launcher, is designed to fight the enemy.
The whole point of the Bradley was literally designed to transport squad of soldiers. But because of mission creep and add-on, they became more of a potent fighting vehicle. There's literally a movie covered on this subject.
@@RoyalDog214 It's a poor movie overall, but the part about mission creep is indeed factual. The Bradley became a jack-of-all-trades in the process, and the main reason it has been effective is because its crews (in the US at any rate) are highly trained to take advantage of its situational benefits rather than rely on any single one of its capabilities.
The Bradley IS A BATTLEFIELD TAXI, its Purpose is to carry and dismount infantry in a combat zone.
Source? 11 M Infantry 1997-2002.
@@RoyalDog214 Please watch Spookston's video titled "The Problem With Pentagon Wars", while Bradley indeed is both a battlefield taxi and IFV citing the movie is just bad form.
@@babd3121 Bradley is an IFV. Explain to me why there are so many Recon variants of the Bradley if they were only a battle field taxi like the m113 or stryker?
I bet you that Bradley guner plays war thunder 😂😂
he does, he admitted so in an interview.
@@CryingPanSFX
Yep! The gunner said he learned from video games and was shooting with the intent to blind the T90!
I knew the newer generations weaned on almost realistic FPS video shooter games would be real killers on the battlefield. Their battlefield instincts are already developed before they graduate high school.
I was a gunner. And I do play it. 😅
Please. Stop calling the Bradley a "battlefield taxi". It's an infantry fighting vehicle designed to deliver dismounted infantry to the forward edge of an engagement and REMAIN there, fighting alongside main battle tanks and attack helicopters in what is called combined arms mechanized warfare. Armored personnel carriers like the U.S. M113 and the British FV432 are battlefield taxis.
He does call it a IFV, also the Bradley carries six dismounts. Those troops do not permanently stay onboard. So calling it a taxi isn't that far off. Yes I know an APC is the real battle taxi, but both an APC and an IFV both taxi men about the battlefield it's just that a IFV hangs around to provide fire cover.
Maybe it is just the UK but we call IFVs battlefield taxis ,as that is what it does ..It takes the infantry to the battlefield
@@tryaluck A APC is something very different from a IFV. A APC has no business being anywhere near the front line and is generally no longer used by most modern armies.
@@tryaluck The M3 carries only a couple scouts. It is used to fight.
Bradley kalah telak kalau berhadapan dengan T-90 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
I was a scout in a 113 in the 80's and I planned if we ran into a tank I would open up with the ma duce and go for the glass [while the driver worked on getting us out]. would it work, maybe, maybe not. Glad I never got to find out.
@@gwc656g truth
your opinion means nothing boot
The real weakness of the T-90M that is discussed here is very easy to see: It got off three shots, and they were ALL misses. That comes down to the comment that the expert made: CREW. This tank was destroyed because the Russian Crew didn't know how to use their machine... and that was true before the HE explosive blinding attack began. That's where the survivability of these machines really matters... the crew survives with their experience and training intact.
My thought too. early T-90 using western system (french catherine FC) and later one russian system which better than catherine also unlike T-72 they have full stabilization. Properly trained crew should able to aim properly
Thanks for being smart
You are not providing the full info. The crew survived and escaped, the tank was later towed and put back into battle. The following week that Bradley was destroyed.
@@ledzepandhabs Weird for you to lie about the facts. The T-90M was destroyed by drones after and is even captured on video being destroyed. Impossible to tell if that specific Bradley was taken out though the crew were interviewed at least a week after it happened so they either survived or their Brad wasn't destroyed.
@@smallfocusedmemes126 Russian bots get worst quality every day. They probably send them to meat assaults from time to time.
War Thunder that's how the Bradley beat the T-90
When the Russian bias is stacked so much that it is easier to fight them in real life.
@@FirstDagger i mean, wt doesnt simulate armour getting wittled down shot after shot, which i think is a factor in the bradley winning
along with the crew getting stressed, the tank being hit causing a lot of noise inside etc
@@FirstDaggerYou’re pretty brainless for thinking war thunder is anything like real Life,
The same game, has 3rd person views, Sights don’t matter, viewports aren’t a part of gameplay, you can fix broken barrels in a matter of seconds, you can get penetrated and your crew will stay Stone cold as they move their dead crewmates body so they can man the gun without a single emotion, your crew can fight in a vehicle with 2 people,
So yes I think you’re a missing few brain cells for even thinking this
@@furinick Also from the video all the smoke and debris causing blindness to the tank. This is why old tank doctrine had tanks lined up side by side so you could have the other tank return fire when the first is blinded.
BF Desert Combat. Ver 0.7 I have BF web server in the other room.
It was an odd stroke of luck that the AP jammed, because those HE really devastated all those sensors. Amazing tenacity, those guys.
The Ukrainians shredded that T-90. AP and HE. Russia's conventional arms no better that 3rd world countries.
@@TennesseeHomesteadUSA A lot of 3rd world countries get their weapons from Russia so that makes sense..
@@spodulathey are probably better at using it than russia
AP jammed and it's ATGM was having problems. The balls on the Bradley crew are huge.
@@zollyy last i heard the ukrainians werent even using TOWs on the bradleys as they prefer to keep them for their infantry to use
War thunder bouta be a qualification on military resumes
will Abrams also be blinded like that when under constant fire from HE rounds to all the delicate sensors?
No doubt.
probably,its not about sensors, its about crew expirience. if usa would fight in that bloody war for 2 years straightI doubt they would have time to propperly train their crews
In an Armored Cavalry Scout Platoon there are 4 per platoon like in a regular mechanized infantry platoon. In the platoon of 4 vehicles they operate as pairs during a combat engagement like 2 riflemen in combat. One fires to cover his buddy to maneuver close or to break contact. The only difference is in a cavalry scout troop is they can dismount scouts for recon and infantry platoons will deliver infantry for combat on their objective while providing fire support. These Ukrainian crews were taught very well prior to deployment to combat. NATO tank crews practice the same tactics too. Both Bradley IFVs operate like the Wingman Concept like fighter pilots operate as to fly and protect each other. In the Field Manual 7-8 Mechanized Infantry manual which is close to NATO doctrine.
The gunner said that he learned where to hit the T-90 from playing video games. The kamikaze drone flyers say the same thing.
So parents, your kids playing games may just be preparing them for the future. 😊
Speriamo perché abbiamo una gioventù pappamolle, senza palle, che almeno serva a qualcosa .AL CASO! ALTRIMENTI, CONTRO GLI INVASORI QUI DA SCATENATE ABBIAMO SOLO,FEMMINISTE E CENTRI SOCIALI , DI " FUMATI!"
Ironically, War Thunder is made by Russian developers. Sometimes I wonder if it's an intelligience tool considering how many players leak classified documents to use as ammo in forum debates and cases for rebalancing.
Specifically, Warthunder. And it makes sense, since despite the game's horrid grind and absurd 'balance' decisions, it does somewhat realistically model tank armoring, internals and mechanics. And the vulnerability of the various systems and surfaces of an enemy armored vehicle is *EXTREMELY* valuable intelligence when engaging it.
War thunder moments
I'm a tank commander I have thousand hour war experience, in WAR THUNDER
A label saying T34 while pointing at several T-34, then a few KV-1 tanks.
The myth that the T-34 was the greatest tank in history has been debunked. They were pathetic; Russia just had a lot of them. It's the same story with the T-72. The reason the Soviet Union was able to resist Germany in World War 2 wasn't their domestic arms production; it was Lend/Lease, mostly provided by the United States.
Wow! How do these "experts" always seems to understand nothing about the vehicles or history. Even the statement that the t-90m is basic compared to a challenger or the abrams is outrageous. Every modern tank suffers from the same problems as the t-90.
This expert isnt really knowledgeable, he has dangerous half-knowledge(its a german idom, idk how to translate it)
@@dodovolcano I did not say that, dont misquote me. The way he said things like, that especially russian Tanks are vulnerable to drones, or that the the T-34 is russian is simply questionable
@@WaltherFrosch6. "the T-34 is russian is simply questionable"
Uh-huh... And exactly what nation designed the T-34 according to your delusions?
@@DIREWOLFx75 The Soviet Union or SSR Ukraine
Dude couldnt say Abrams right lol.
7:42 it wasn’t the Iraqi “national guard” but the Republican Guard. They were decimated.
The T80 that ran into the tree after being hammered by the Bradley;
Almost looks like it was done deliberately to stop the turret rotation and thus being able to exit the tank...
That's actually kinda brilliant if you think about it. Modern problems require modern solutions.
T 90 M not a T 80
@@shawn576 Desperate situations require out of the box solutions to literally get out of the box, the burning metal box in this case. This is exactly what evolution shaped humans to be able to do.
I am amazed at the amount of mistakes in this report or whatever you want to call it. Also, this is over 6 month old footage
Have you been in action in a tank
@@themcgeachys Suppose he hasn't. How does that invalidate his claim of mistakes in the biased video?
Legacy media. If you want expertise don't go to the media.
How many mistakes?
Much of Fleet Street has dropped the ball on reporting from Ukraine, and most of the US press seems to have abandoned the war all together. US public has the shortest attention span of any modern society.
As the Chieftain said, the tank is mobile, protected firepower. The protected leg of that triad has taken a hit from the ability of drones to strike at any point on the tank. In order to recover some of the tank’s resistance to damage, more armor, applied more widely, and/or active protection systems will have to be incorporated. This means more weight, something the logistics and transportation guys and the bean counters are loath to face.
Yes the blow off door needs to be protected while being still able to function. Also every vehicle on the battle field needs proper anti drone defence such as jamming or its own mini air defence system.
The "expert" is saying that the T34 was the greatest tank in history and inspired all other tanks?
Are you sure he is an expert :D?
..that Colonel was talking out of his ass..
1. Bradleys never deployed to Afghanistan.
2. Warrior IFV might have a higher caliber gun, but it is way inferior to the Bradley in terms of fire control, there's no stabilization on the Warrior, clip fed ammo magazine, ie 5 rounds at most at a time while the Bradley can keep shooting into the hundreds of rounds with it's belt feed, thermal sights even on the ODS variants of the Bradley, only the later limited upgrades of the Warrior BGTI. The A3 Bradley, which is the Regular Army standard, is even better with hunter-killer capability. And now the A4 is coming with an active protection system, 4th gen thermals and fire control, improved armor, and upgraded transmission. The British gave up on upgrading their Warrior IFV a decade ago. Warrior has no ATGM, all Bradley IFV/ CFV variants from early models to current has TOW, top attack from the 90's onwards.
@@roninsct7017 no stabilization is criminal! 😮
He said "maybe the best", not "the best".
E8 shermans decimated t34 85 in the korean war.
@@JulienGardner Well, if you know anything about the real history and capabilities of the T34, you would not make that statement.
It's like saying that the Lada is "maybe the best" car in history from which are other cars are modeled after :D
The Bradley is so popular in the Ukraine they have named a place called 'Bradley Square' after it.
They had one damage a t90 lol won’t be surprised if they make a whole movie about it
That Bradley was smoked like a day later
11:24 The expert mentions T-34, shows KV-1 😅😅
A lot of Australians that served in Chosen Company that have just rotated out in March including engineering teams said of all the tanks the Challenger Tanks where more trouble than their worth because they where extremely high maintenance and unreliable. For this reason they did not see a lot of action. They said they where too heavy for the terrain, the track pads constantly needed replacing and overly complicated design of both the targeting system and use of 2 piece ammunition are problematic. The leopards where much better in comparison but still heavy and costly to keep running. In the end most Ukrainians gravitated back to the T84 and simply preferred the Soviet tanks not just because of familiarity and reliability, they said in real world battlefield all the tanks ended up had the same survive-ability, but the T84's where more manoeuvrable and suited to the battlefield conditions and they where way more serviceable in the field which is critical to entering conflict and safely getting out again.
Ukraine only ever had like 4 t84s I think you mean t64s
The reason they are "tethered" and moving in one line is anti-tank minefields. You would expect a tank expert to know this.
I fully disagree that tank warfare hasn't changed. Kamikaze drones have made maneuver warfare nearly impossible. Tanks are purposely held back because all that's gonna happen is a $500 drone is gonna destroy a multi million dollar tank.
The Russian side is far less conservative with its tanks for reasons that would require a whole essay to explain. But basically, it's not working very well. It's gotten slightly better since they've started welding sheet metal onto them. But when they hear about a western tank being in the area, there's no amount of sheet metal that'll save them, so they pull the tanks away.
That combined with the kamikaze drone strategy is why there are no tank on tank battles happening in this war. Quite frankly, I think the age of the tank as we know it may be over.
IFVs are the new tanks. Getting troops in quickly, providing covering fire against infantry and other armored vehicles like BMPs, and then loading up and getting the heck out. A tank can't transport troops like an IFV can. And a tank's anti-infantry and anti-armored vehicle capabilities are easily matched by drones, artillery, and IFVs. Big explosions, armor piercing, and machine gun fire. Even if an enemy tank shows up, what can a couple kamikaze drones not do that a multi million dollar tank can?
Self-propelled artillery and shorad are basically the children that will inherit the remaining roles of the main battle tank.
Drones have been becoming less effective as time goes on. I suspect it's more likely that drone jamming technology will reach a point to where that stops being a viable option.
ALL tanks, from every country require support from troops and air.
And support from other armor or artillery.
It all boils down to tactics.
The bushmaster fires a mix of HE & AP rounds. It’s not just the HE going Splat! There are as many AP rounds tearing into those tanks.
Yes but as said in the vid their AP feed jammed.
@@gregs7562interesting i had always thought they were mixed in the belt not separate. That’s cool
A dual feed system. Many moving parts to pinch the devil out of your fingers if you are not careful.
Drones are messing everybody up?
re 26:20. The guy talks about Abrams tanks but shows a film of the interior of a Russian tank with Russian soldiers.
That solder is Polish. He has a Polish flag on his uniform. It also looks like the second one is German, and they are inside of Leoppard.
angle , autocannon , sights and effective draw , simple really
the tank expert just said .. " when it comes to tank warfare nothing has changed " well thats the biggest load of crap ive heard this decade considering 2 hits from 2 500 dollar drones and any tank be it m1a2 , leopard , t90m or challanger .... are all smoking ready to cook off their ammo ( era is useless ) ... the battlefield has a new king ... fpv drones .. anyone that denies that is talking rubbish
Truth, truth fren.
❤
Drones introduce dishonesty into tank battles
@@VechnyiStrannik45 you are saying bombers back than where honest or any other air-support? War is never honest.
FPV drones aren't king, It's a new toy for ground forces. Combined Arms is king. Infantry, Armored, Air makes the magic. Ukraine doesn't have air superiority that's why problems like these arise. Drones shine but they don't shine the brightest. What will a drone operator do when logistics & support are destroyed, with infantry and armored spearhead rapidly approaching? Ukraine is fighting an attritional war much like WW1 meat grinders and this is why cheap FPV drones shine.
Hoping the right person will read this.
In 1974 there was a special weapons maker in Albuquerque, NM who made a 20-barrelled .22LR Gatling Gun. It was designed to allow a rescue team to kick down a door, sweep the gun sideways in an arc across a room and put a bullet every inch across a large room where hostages were being held. Thus it was lightweight and had limited recoil. It had a ROF of 20,000 RPM if I recall correctly. This weapons would seem to be perfect for shooting down drones at short ranges as modern .22LR ammo has a muzzle velocity of 1,200fps or more, and .22 WM in excess of 2,200fps, so very accurate out to 125yrds and 500 vertical feet. An alternative round would be the .17 HMR with MVs in excess of 2,600fps.
On a radar-controlled, articulated mount, such a weapon would offer excellent defensive fires against drones and ATGMs.
I remember 60 Minutes poo pooing the Bradley. Calling it "a target with men in it."
And they would be correct.
Military experts at 60 minutes...
They are correct, the tank here was blinded not destroyed, a bradley will melt if it was hit but a tank gun.
The same 60 minutes that put incendiary devices in Chevy trucks? Oh look, they catch on fire !
Let's be real not biased, the T-90M armor really handled the bradly continuous shots to not penetrate the tank for a while of time, but the T-90M gunner was blind to miss 2 close range shot, which really shows the lack of experience in Russian crews
They should change the Bradleys name to the Honey Badger.
It is named for General Omar Bradley.
@@davidlium9338 For real the OG Honey Badger, dude was the soldiers soldier.
why?
@@nav14ok62 Why do I have to explain that?
@@davidlium9338 I know, so?
26:08 They're literally slower my guy💀 And don't compare modern western mbt's with a stock t-72
You're not taking into account reverse speed my guy
@@luksocat Very useful in modern combat, real life isn't war thunder
@@BeamNG.enjoyer true seems more like Night of the Living Dead with all the meat assaults
An often overlooked technology was involved in Desert Storm. It's called "Fire Finder Radar." It's a radar dish that observes the battle field for munitions. Any time the enemy fires an artillery or tank round, the radar tracks it, calculates it's point of origin and sends that data to artillery and tank units. Often times the Iraqi tank would only get one shot before being taken out.
For 4 months now, the Russians have been flying FPV drones attached to fibre-optic wire. RF can't jam fibre-optic wire.
So they tethered drones to a finite amount of expensive wire? Isnt that the worst thing to do with an fpv drone?
@amazingman63 They say they can travel about 10 blocks. I think of it kind of like a TOW missile but guided with FPV.
@@amazingman63wait till you find out that loads of anti-tank missiles work that way and they still can have 3-6km range. In fact the Bradley's TOW missiles also use wire to control flight. This tech is very old now, it literally started back in WW2, the germans used electrically wire guided torpedoes, and it snowballed from there to missiles. Im pretty sure after all this time they figured out a way to make the wire as thin as it can be and as cheaply made as possible.... But compared to the missile it self, the cost of the wire is basically negligible
Ifv are not taxi.
They are fighting vehicles...
The mtlb or the m113 are taxi.
There more like a hybrid of both. They aren't a dedicated fighting vehical because they carry infantry.
@@MichaelKemner-wj9nc but they can defeat t-90 and support infantry.
Ukraine soldiers love them!
The point of IFVs is literally to be a taxi that fight ...
IFVs are APCs with heavy weapons.
@@user-zh3wy3tl7f drone do that not bradly
@@FirstDagger They are APCs that are meant to stay in the fight and provide fire support to the infantry dismounts, which is a pretty important distinction compared to the regular APC which is not made to do that.
It’s interesting seeing an IFV beating an MBT…that all comes down to one thing though…Crew training and INFANTRY support. MBT’s aren’t supposed to work in a CLOSE IN ENVIRONMENT without any kind of support.. .and the crew should have known that. The crew of that MBT was obviously very poorly trained or idiotically deployed into that area by itself. Pretty dumb.
A lot happens in combat. Any occasion. It is stupid to draw conclusions based on one episode.
I am an old tanker from the 1970’s and remember the early development of the Bradley,and the development of the tactical implementation of the Bradley. Early deployment of TOW missle carriers (jeep, M113, or tripod) was to give a huge standoff range and overwatch for tanks or dismounted infantry. At 4000+ meters, this far exceeded the effective range of Soviet tanks. The early version of the infantry version had I believe either 6 or eight AR ports to allow assault on the objective using the main gun and coax for killing and suppression. The cavalry version had the ports plugged adding additional missile storage plus only 4 scouts. My son was a cav scout in Bradley’s a s a scout, gunner and vehicle commander for the first 10 years of his 20 from 2001 to 2021. His experience was as others stated that Bradley’s and tanks were used as combined arms using each strengths. In Ukraine there is an amazing cooperation between drone resources and Bradley’s, which our Army is quickly developing similar resources.
It is a mistake to say that Russia developed the T-34 tank. The T-34 tank was developed by the USSR. There were a lot of resources and talented people involved that are no longer part of the USSR. In fact, Ukraine was part of the USSR and did a lot of heavy industrial design in Armor, aircraft and ships.
Always bothers me when I hear that. Like, both Russia and Ukraine have inherited soviet equipment, and the biggest tank factory was located in Ukraine...
@@haaxeu6501not too mention the t-64s made in Ukraine which is better then the t-72
@@twirlyturd4364 Yes and t-64s were more expensive to produce.
@@twirlyturd4364 At the time the T-64 was not better than T-72. But I'm not sure if Ukrainian T-64s were upgraded.
@@haaxeu6501 Russia built its empire starting with Moscow principality. USSR is just an another name. That's why it was still called Russia in 20th century. You think that you are more clever than americans and the british of 20th century hahah.
I saw a video somewhere on reddit that showed that many russian tanks had the reactive armor replaced with rubber blocks. the armor was probably sold on the black market somewhere
Very impressive 3D models/diagram and the input of other tank commanders!! Badass video‼️
Future tank designs for any nation are going to have to include some kind of defense against drones.
Drones for both sides, are currently the deadliest and most feared weapon.
The FABs from Russia are pretty feared from what i was seen in videos
I was with the 5th Army in Michigan back in the 70's after my combat tour in Vietnam (101st Airborne). It was built at the Warren Tank Arsenal, in Michigan. It was supposed to replace the US APC. Different countries came during the construction with suggestions, for upgrades, etc... The first idea was an 80 Mile per hour track vehicle to carry Infantry men to combat... then ideas like rocket launchers, different machine guns and armor were added to help sell the unit to foreign governments.
This English " expert" is not biased at all 🙄
He is totally screwed up... He is not an expert, he is a moron.
@@fredkite9330 Sure he is America Last Boot Licker.
@@fredkite9330 So what tastes better: Ukrainian or Israeli boots?
WOT heavy trying to fight a light while it out drives the heavy's turret. 😂
give me the cold sweats
Finally, someone remarks on the loss of Russian tank crew experience. The same goes for other categories of experience and training.
The ammo in the top and back of the turret just makes it easy pickings for a drone, yes it'll save the crew but will render the tank mute. They need to figure out how to protect the ammo from drones.
U.S. Finally sent ERA panels specifically made to go on the top of that area to Ukraine. Almost like they were testing how well the Abrams would fare against drones when stock, then when they saw the weakness (which they probably already knew), they went, "Oh, let's try these and see if it helps any."
@@ripvanwinkle9648is the best way to test one’s equipment without putting your own people in harm’s way.
@@ripvanwinkle9648 I don't think that would help lol
When Brad met Vlad!
Tanks are not designed to operate in ones and twos. They are designed to operate as the shock force in combined armes. They need artillery preparing the battlefield. They need infantry keeping the opfor infantry away from the tanks. This fight is a symptom of how bad the Russian army really is.
Russian Army is very bad according to DailyMail experts. That's why they are winning the war in Ukraine.
I agree a bunch of guys driving around in a tank are just a liability without support and strategy
I'm still amazed that Russian tanks are still using a ww2 design for their engines, with the exception of the t90
You realize if the US army was thrown in the exact same situation as the Ru army is on these front they would follow the same strategy right?, all of what you said does not work if Ukraine has access to our satellites/HIMARS ready to respond for even the tiniest gathering of armor or troops by Russia, if Russia pushed out Tanks/troops like you said the majority would be damaged or destroyed like early in the war.
@@OrtonHeadXIVfinally somebody whit a brain, i don't get why non military people have the urge to spit out the most wrong "pulled out of my ass" statements, if you don't know what you're talking about just don't talk
So you're telling me that the Abrams, "the best tank in the world", is just as vulnerable to $500 drones? That's funny.
The T-90M wasnt taken out (Just saying), The Bradley blinded the Comanders and Gunners sight which wasnt working well afterwards. The T-90M crew must have seen them coming but they didnt react fast enough to fire upon the Bradley, which is the crews fault. Also T-72A which is the first upgrade to the original T-72 had weaker hull frontall armor, later on T-72B got a huge upgrade on it, making it stronger and better to go agaisnt ennemys. In 1990 Russia made a new tank so cald T-90A which had thermal sight for the first time unlike T-72s. Later on They modified the T-90A in to T-90M which got Lots of ERA, Comander recieved Thermals, and Comunication system, with all the other things on the tank.
Get out of here with your logic and facts.
@@albundy7699 Make me, someones may be Jealous that i knwo much.
The Internet is full of videos of Leopard 2 exploding like a T 72. Why did they decide to analyze only one video of Abrams?
It is not an Abrams and Leo2 doesn't explode like t-72 since Leo has blowout panels.
So no Internet is not nearly full of catastrophical Leo2 explosions
@@LQulikovski Really?
@@alexfedotov8588 NATO tank usually separate the ammo from the crew compartment with a thick door between them, while Russian tank put their ammo underneath the turret with a thin sheet of steel protecting it
@@mr.jancok4413 Yet still leopards explode🤷♂️
@@BeamNG.enjoyer that because Leo have unprotected ammo storage in it's hull, what I surprised more is the fact there are no exploding Challenger even though it's ammo is stored in an armored bin inside the crew compartment
reminds me of the old Red Dwarf "Gunmen of the Apocalypse" line "I know this game, it's called cat and mouse.And there's only one way to win, don't be the mouse"
Small inaccuracy here; the Challenger actually doesn't have any blowout panels.
All tanks have two weaknesses, the track and engine exhaust. Target them, you immobilise tank. Without infantry support, or air cover, they crew are vulnerable
the tank didn't know what hit it then rolls away like a mal functioning Darlek.
Hilarious
Leopard 2 A7 or A8 are the best and most modern tanks available in large numbers. Sadly countries sent really outdated versions there in the beginning. Still, even if destroyed, the crews usually get awway unhurt
The painful truth is, that this versions are only available in very small numbers.😂
@@hansulrichboning8551 Not at all true, no matter how many russian propaganda accounts claim it - german tanks are available in huge numbers because they are provided to several allies. But keep dreaming 🤣
I've been avoiding this video for weeks because I know the comment section was going to be stuffed with 'armor experts', who went through basic training at GameStop, that couldn't figure out how to start a tank if their life depended on it. Of course they'd have to puzzle their way past a hatch first, and quite frankly, I don't think most of them could do that either so...
25:05 we know that Ukraine has lost some Abrams, but as you said, early tanks can be replaced. But how many crew have been lost? That's what I want to know, and I am certain that I'm not alone.
This expert should be sent to command the Ukrainian division. And then we will see the results right?
Love Hamish de Bretton-Gordon talking smack about Russian military rubbish in his Kentish accent.
Si sente che è inglese!! Dovrebbe parlare un po' più lentamente, è molto che non parlo più inglese,lo parlavo molto X lavoro , in india, Thailandia , Europa ora ho perso molto!
Related to this, Sherman tank veterans have said they would take out German Tiger tanks by hitting them with WP white phosphorus rounds first, to blind them, then out flank them to strike them at the weakest spot. The U.S. Armored units would also coordinate with the Air Force to drop napalsm on German armor, and out flank them. WP and napalsm, both, blind the tanks they hit.
The main problem I see, is that it's just so hard to see, or detect, a small drone with a shaped-charge munition that's about as big as a large pizza, with a 1 L soda bottle strapped to it! Especially when your tank was designed before IC-Chips!
But, after ~2 years of this, it's a little surprising there hasn't been more progress on these lines, because if you did, it would not be a technological breakthrough to cobble together some sort of gimbaled, aimable system, that could project a snare-net in the general direction of the drone. Drones are actually quite vulnerable to obstructions, but in a lot of the videos I've seen, they're just coming in, 'free and clear', because the tank isn't really Under Fire and the tank is not really being supported by infantry, or other tanks, even if they are there. Sadly, the range of this type of equipment would be quite limited. In addition to projecting a net, to try to knock the Drone down, additionally, again, it would not be a technological breakthrough to rig up some sort of 'static' netting deployed by arms when a drone might be detected, with the objective of knocking down the drone at the last possible moment.
Of course the secret of Comedy is timing: deploying such static netting too soon would simply result in the Drone operator just going around to the other side, so it's likely that full deployment would always be indicated.
Although this sort of system could easily be reusable, if properly designed.
...Not that I'm trying to help the Russians because I think the Ukrainians could probably make this happen a lot faster than the Russians.
Anyone notice the candles on his mantle? HE even looks a little like Aleister. Many soldiers in the comments.... Whats up fellas. This vid got me amped... Maybe I missed my calling.
- Civilian 💥💣
I'm not exactly sure what you're going on about, but I kind of like it.
❤😂
It wasn’t the National Guard. It was the Republican guard.
The Abrams tanks given to Ukraine are not the modern version, they are essentially the same tanks of Desert Storm of 187 Easting fame...
Why is it that British people just can't seem to correctly pronounce Abrams?
No way british people don't pronounce names and words like the americans do?? color me shocked
@@Itisowlcat There's no room for flavor here, it's a guy's name. But I hope King Karles is doing well.
I'm British and I don't pronounce it like this presenter. And I've heard plenty of British people pronouncing it correctly, this presenter is clearly reading from a script and doesn't have a clue.
But on a side note you are calling out British people for not pronouncing American words correctly. This is actually quite rare, I watch a lot of American reaction channels that watch a lot of British content, and Americans absolutely butchering British words is very common. Edinburgh as an example, it's not Edin- Borough, its Edin-bruh.
Very biased and manipulative comments.
How come t-90, a modernisation of t-72 is, called "state of the art the mist modern"?
While Bradley supposed to be just "30 years old taxi".
One well performed battle action isn't enough to draw all those conclusions.
Analogically. What would you say when state of art, the most advanced and super expensive Abrams tank is destroyed by infantryman with rpg-7?
Tanks obsolete! Order 10 billion RPG-7's or whine to the devs about a much needed nerf!
Because Russia has been calling the T-90 "state of the art the most modern" and the Bradley "30 years old taxi" constantly. And if there is someone we can trust on the matter, it's probably the manufacturer of the T-90.
22:04 A "K-Kill" is a "kinetic kill," not a "catastrophic kill."
Katastrophic kill 😂
This expert is just some idiot
Use the tactic of WWII US Navy did in protecting its carriers from airborne threats. Battleships with massive amounts is AA to take out the Kates and Betty’s. A parallel would be dedicated anti drone escorts that are far along in development.
In another video, I saw the T-90 destroy an entire convoy. The convoy was composed of 3 tanks and 3 armored vehicle which were all wiped out by a single T-90 on kamikaze mode. Not downplaying the Bradley but as what I've seen in some drone footage, the MB of Russia is successful to me. It might have been the commander's lack of experience that resulted to why they got their ass whooped by 2 Bradley.
A link to this video?
The Leopard tanks have the similar ammo storage in the turret but the also stack reloads unprotected inside the hull that is very dangerous. They can kill their own crew very easily.
Leopard 2 hull ammo racks aren't supposed to be filled in combat for that exact reason.
@@FirstDagger If there is no ammunition, what will he shoot with?
15 rounds in the turret rear,up to 27 rounds in the stack inside.So in my opinion the ammo storage of the M1 Abrams is much better for traditional tank warfare.But most of the western tank losses were to drones,artillery and Mines.To concentrate almost all ammo in the turret rear(M1Abrams) makes it perhaps more vulnerable to those drone attacks,because the much smaller ammo bunker in Leopards turret rear makes it more difficult to hit for the russian drone operators. Just a hypothesis of mine.
@@IvanMartynenko-ir8xh Leopard 2 has a bustle rack that is supposed to be used during combat.
@@hansulrichboning8551 Leopard 2 loses space for other stuff, that is why the rack is smaller. Yes, Abrams has the best solution regarding ammo storage of all current MBTs.
So the mighty challenger 2 gets blown up by drones too??? 😂😂😂
What the hell was that tank doing out there by itself?
why is video in so bad quality when the original is better and it's about 8 minutes where you can see everything, but showing same video every time show us something new already.
legend says the bradley crew members could not disembark for 24 hours after the encounter. Due to the size of their balls
One of the absolutely best videos about the war in Ukraine,Chris. "Working together" is the key as Commander Hamish de Bretton-Gordon teaches us.
This is a terrible video. He called the bradley a battle taxi, for one.
This is the most brain-dead video on the subject. Made for even more brain-dead viewers.
Abhrams blow out panels were designed before drones were a thing. Looks like some design changes are needed to protect from drone strikes on the back of the turret. This is one instance where a cope cage might be effective
I'm not a military expert.
But I'm sure tanks are far from the best war machine these days.
They're too big, too slow, and they seem don't really offer too much protection for the crews inside.
Tanks aren’t slow these days and def offer alot more protection lmao what do you think this is ? 1917?
@@user-be1zj7qe6x nope. Compare to cheap drone for example. they're very slow.
And a $1K drone can destroy a $1M tank.
That's very terrible mathematically.
So a team of two bradleys and a recon drone took out a lone mbt. Who has thought that THAT was possible ?😂
Thinking about the Quwait reaction, it is dispicable the we do not have 500 or 1000 Abrams in Ukraine.
Kuwait got an alliance and oil, Ukraine got neither.
The Ukrainians have withdrawn Abrams from the front because it's not fit for purpose
@@hernerweisenberg7052 Ukraine has a defence agreement with the US and UK, its called the Budapest memorandum. They also have oil.
@@longshanks7157 How is it not fit for combat?
@@hawk55732 too heavy and too big for Ukraine's terrain I believe, just like challengers and leopards but even more so. They end up being easy targets and a propaganda win for the Russians.
Maybe t90 is not so efficient after all...
1: Blind it
2: Take out the explosive reactive armor
3: Bring on the drone
4: Game over.
the bradley is an ifv designed to transport and provide direct fire support.
I mean, if the range was any longer, the bradley's can do almost nothing about the T90M.
Yeah. Because ATGMs don't exist.
Of course the Brit is going to say that his kit is better.
What I never got was how they put vulnerable cameras all over the tanks. Tanks regularly take small arms fire and it seems like they would be replacing the cameras all the time.
The Abrams design reflect western value placed on human life and the investment in training tank crews.
The Bradley Shot that T-90M back into a T-72 😜
Why are you shitting on the T90 by saying it's defeated by American tanks that are 30 years old? The T90 is also 30 years old (hint: the name 90 is 1990). You're trying to mislead the viewer into thinking it's a 30 year old American tank against a 5 year old Russian tank.
Do you know how old the Abrams actually is? It's my understanding that the ones sent to Ukraine were earlier variants no longer in front line US service and already over 30 years old.
@@tonyunderwood9678 Yeah the Abrams is real old. Wiki says 44 years old. It took the Soviets a decade to make something comparable, and that's assuming the T90 hasn't been stripped down by corrupt commanders. The T90 is probably an excellent tank when it's maintained, has a trained crew, and has adequate spare parts (I'm guessing none of those conditions are true in most cases)
Yes but.... From the thousands of tank skirmishes that must have happened, why is there only one that we see again and again ? Not sure much conclusion can be extracted from so few examples.
Funnily enough, the strategy he used is called "buttoning", and is common amongst tank crews.
Turret gets more flight time then Russian air force.
Havent heard this one before nice one
you get more flight time than both of them combined, you being an air-head and all )
so are ukrainian tanks that use an older version of t72 which is the t64 that is more prone to ammorack:)
@@lasagnana5739 Seriously? I always see this comment he just copied it lol.
Same joke a people still liking it gotta be bots 🤖
Everyone knows what the armor of a modern Abrams tank is: Depleted Uranium. It's not a secret anymore. It's the same material their tank shells are made of. Extremely dense.
You forgot the most important tank. The leo1 and leo2 (in all variants). However, you indirectly mentioning them around 30:00
the bushmaster cannon is psychological terror for a tank crew You're in a battle tank and you get shot at from the outside by the Bushmaster and boom boom boom and it doesn't stop. With every hit you think now it's all over
and why losing ground if you are wining???
why are you still losing 3 years later for a three day invasion?
@@czwij why are you bragging about the fact that every village between bakhmut and kiev is now getting reduced to rubble?
Shooting second in a gun fight is a loosing strategy. Same with armor.
russian tank forgot the spacebar
-war thunder player
Tanks are so vulnerable these days with use of those modern anti tank shoulder fired missiles or even improvised kamikaze drones