Ukrainian Bradley Battles Russian T90M Tank near Avdiivka
Vložit
- čas přidán 5. 05. 2024
- Gambit is the new unmanned combat aircraft from General Atomics Aeronautical Systems.
With advanced autonomy and low-cost mass, Gambit lets the U.S. military move fast … and
move first. Learn more at www.uav.com
This footage you’re about to witness is absolutely insane and unlike anything I’ve ever seen before. On January 11, 2024 near the Ukrainian city of AHV-dee-iv-ka (Avdiivka), videos surfaced of a pair of M2 Bradley IFVs battling it out with Russia’s most advanced T90M main battle tank. What really happened in this viral battle and Why is this location strategically important for Ukraine to defend? A quick disclaimer, miraculously no one was killed in this footage still viewer discretion is advised.
Merch: taskandpurpose.myspreadshop.com/
Written by: Chris Cappy & Justin Taylor
Edited by: Michael Michaelides
It’s unclear if the Ukranian Bradleys were hunting the Russian tank or if they accidently ran into each other. But in The interview with the Ukrainian bradley commander Sehr-HEE (Serihey) he indicated 3 Bradleys made the conscious decision to seek out the Russian tank. However one of their vehicles “had issues”, and was not able to effectively engage the tank so it had to retreat. So they were down to 2 Brads. The close quarters engagement begins with the Russian 48 ton T90M inside of a small village, with the first smaller bradley initially engaging it perpendicularly, then both vehicles retreat away from each other. The T90 fires a cannon 125mm shot that misses hitting the ground just a few meters in front of itself. Aiming at a target close to you in a tank becomes more difficult because you have to traverse the turret faster and objects will move across your line of sight faster due to its close proximity.
/ cappyarmy
/ cappyarmy
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @taskandpurpose
Donald Hill Analysis and newsletter:
xxtomcooperxx.substack.com/p/...
Task & Purpose is a military news and culture oriented channel. We want to foster discussion about the defense industry.
Email capelluto@taskandpurpose.com for inquires.
#WAR #ARMY #TANK
Gambit is the new unmanned combat aircraft from General Atomics Aeronautical Systems.
With advanced autonomy and low-cost mass, Gambit lets the U.S. military move fast … and
move first. Learn more at www.uav.com
Donald Hill link is missing.
How does it feel to be sponsored by the military industrial complex? Pretty big difference compared to the mini-guns. You made it! Congrats.
I love listening to non-military people script marketing about military topics. It’s like “buzzword” bingo.
I knew guys in Desert Storm and it was the same way. They killed more tanks with the chainguns than the TOW.
He said not being able to move was the problem and set up time to shoot.
The chain guns had a tendency to cause the Iraqi tanks armor to spall inside sending fragments around the interior of the tank.
What exactly are they trying to sell the viewers of this channel, I wonder?
The gunner learned where best to hit the T-90M by playing video games.
WarThunder players: *cheering wildly
Gaijen is seething after seeing this XD
That's a myth
@@deletdis6173 he literally stated in a interview lmao cope harder
@@deletdis6173he said it in the interview??
Good thing all those classified documents are leaked so players know exactly where to hit lol
This feels like the armoured warfare equivalent of a knife fight in a phone booth.
That’s how it was described in Armor school
damned close... the T-90 was being hit by the sabot segments at that range. Scarier is the TPDS is rated 14mm at 2700 feet max.
There is a whole generation that doesn’t even know what a phone booth is! Hard to believe
Wouldn't the bradleys be... able to penetrate that T-90 hull if they had Depleted Uranium rounds?
Basically this except the Bradley has a box cutter and the T90 has a KA-BAR and wearing a stab-proof vest.
Ya know, I wasn’t really considering buying a highly-advanced, low visibility wingman drone powered by a revolutionary thermoelectric engine, but your sponsorship read really changed my mind.
Thank you for understanding what your audience wants at what i assume will be an affordable price for the retail consumer.
Can we take a moment to appreciate our man just got a sponsorship from a major arms producer? 😂
Yes. This is absolutely unheard of. Bravo!
"...he used his knowledge of War Thunder of where to strike the Russian tank."
Gentlemen. It is with great pleasure that I inform you that War Thunder is now a confirmed practical source of knowledge on the disabling and destruction of MBTs. Also, we live in some very strange times.
it doesn't mention War Thunder only video games. exact quote "but as I played video games, I remembered everything, both how to hit them and where" the idea it came from war thunder comes from the channel owner who is making assumptions
@Ghoulza the only video game that simulates damage like he describes is war thunder, world of tanks doesn't have these tanks in the game
by video games he probably meant a simulation. because even if it was somehow wt the t90m was added like a day or two before this happened. and I doubt he has a whole ass gaming pc in a war, with a stable internet connection
@@irirjhrhr4645T-90 has the exact same hull as T-72 and Relikt side skirts were added a millenia ago
It's weird how our government will give civilians in other countries weapons of so-called war but won't give it to us even though they say no one should have it but yet they have it protecting them all the time with automatic rifles and everything else... Strange logic we have to deal with these days 😤
>No, mom, I'm not _"playing video games,"_ I'm *TRAINING.*
>I'm not _"wasting time trolling in OL forums,"_ I'm *GATHERING INTELLIGENCE.*
-Every kid between 10 & 30, RN (probably) 🤭
Every PFC with their phone out.
im 33 and am now using this from now on when speaking to my lady about my silly games.
Way older than 30
So all those countless hours playing Rise of Nations developing tactics and how to properly counter them using sort of combined arms operations were not only not a waste of time, but indeed qualified me as a strategist? hahaha ok, I will try to impress my wife with that
tbh Gaijin makes their stuff as realistically as possible, barring confidential info@@richardmh1987
Bradley Gunner 1989-1991/1994-1998, Bradley Commander 1999-2001. Tow would have taken to long to setup and engage the tank. Besides to many impedments in the area of engagement. Next if there was a feeder malfunction the 25mm bushmaster would not have been able to fire unless it was cycling between the dif rounds. Its a simple task to push the the malf button and reset the feeder to cycle the diff rnds.The feeder is a dual system until it enters the reciever. Sounds like AP(70 rnds) where all fired and the gunner than switched to High explosive (230 rnds) or could have been the opposite (70HE/230AP). hope that helps.
I bet you're a bad mamajama
thank you for your service brother
Love how you go into detail with the tanks and just subbed ❤️
No discount code for those Gambit drones? I guess I'll wait for the black Friday sale.
It looked like they had at least 2 different drones but they didnt specify what model is best for home deefense... I guess ill have to wait for a 2 for 1 special.
@@AusKipper1 🤣
3 axis gimble rockets you say ? @@rexrock
Why do my replies keep getting deleted? I guess I just won't post anymore?
All I said was Walmart...
I was a TOW gunner back in the 1990s. Assuming TOW missiles haven't been greatly upgraded with new capabilities since then, the reason they wouldn't have been fired in this engagement is that it was too close, with too many impediments to line of sight, and too much motion.
TOWs have to be fired from a stable and stationary platform - at least the ones back in the '90s had to be. Gunner has to keep a reticle steady on the target from the time of acquisition, firing, and until impact. Any jostle or bump could make the missile go haywire, and these Bradleys would've been experiencing plenty of jostling and bumping as they dashed around that village.
If they'd had time to calmly set up from a stationary position with a clear line of sight, using a TOW to take out that tank would've been a no brainer. But the sudden contact engagement here didn't lend itself to firing off a TOW.
Did they have a TOW, I know Bradley's can be fitted with one but did this one?
Question: Am I seeing things? Or do those TOW missiles have some kind of string attached to them?
@@ross6024 toWire Guided, yes.
Likely they are using the same ones from back then now, with how the aid is being done, instead of more modern versions
@ross6024 they are guided by those wires that's why it has the max distance it does (among other factors)
Chris, I do not think you are an "average" infantryman, more so well above average. I enjoy listening and watching you posts. Keep up the good work. LTC Bob Swenson, Retired USA
The meat riding is crazy
Avdiivka fell
A few days later, the same Bradley was abandoned by the crew due to being hit. It was the operator himself who said this and showed his abandoned Bradley
Old 19D M2 driver/gunner here. Moving and shooting a TOW would be very difficult to hit with. You might be able to hit a slow moving vehicle at distance with one if you are not moving. Think at it like you shooting a moving boat from the shore verse shooting out of a moving boat. There were some trees, telephone poles and structures in the way that could have cut the TOW wires. The TOW box has to be raised and lock before it can fire. So you can tell when it when it is deployed about to fire. The turret will 360 faster than 6 seconds. There is a slew button that turbos the speed which you can move the turret. You can spin it very fast. Looks like the impacting rounds were HE instead of AP. We were taught to reverse load HE and AP rounds. It hold 300 total with something like 70AP and 230HE. But we would do it backwards to have 230AP and only 70HE. He might have forgot when selecting ammo that is backwards from what is marked. Their training is very short. Also the ammo boxes have to be loaded very specifically. If loaded wrong, it could lead to a jam. It feeds from 2 boxes so you could go to another box in an emergency. Lastly firing the gun is not to terrible loud inside as all crew members wear helmets with earphones built it. The muzzle blast is ear shattering outside. So my guess is impacting rounds would not have been too much worse than just shooting your own gun during normal firing.
Brad wont allow the tow to be fired or controlled if youre moving faster than 3 MPH.
Ukraine have the TOW's that uses radio frequencies (, of course the question is how many RF TOW's do they have compared to the wire launched TOW's, it might be that they have only a small amount of RF TOW's)
@@fnym9rdsavsffdik9a25 they do not have tow 2b Aeros. That weapon is not released for non nato members. They have wired tow 2b.
@@ascentoffroad
my source is ryan mcbeth, from what I have gathered RF = Radio Frequency unless the RF is a different RF than radio frequency then the Ukrainians have wireless TOW's
watch code is CRkI43OLTN8
The deceleration of the impacting round is much higher than the acceleration of the round in the barrel, so I imagine it would be louder inside the tank than firing the gun. Remember that when firing, a round accelerates through the entire length of the barrel, whereas when an incoming round hits the armour, it decelerates from full speed to zero in the length of the shell.
Hi, actual US Army Gunner here. I was on a 1167 Humvee with a 240 Bravo and a TOW ATGM. The Tow was likely not used in this engagement because it requires you to sit still for at least 7-14 seconds depending on how good you are with it. You need to arm the missile, lock on with the tracking gates, then fire and that's if you just so happen to be using the TAS when you're engaging the enemy. Additionally the missile (depending on what generation it's from) is either wire guided or RF guided and therefore the attacking vehicle needs to sit completely still to allow the gunner to maintain a good lock on the target. This is because the TASs reticle needs to be fixed on the exact spot you need the missile to go. A single breath in the wrong direction could cause the turret to move and completely miss the tank, spelling certain death for the Brad.
At 50 meters when you think time is short and that tank barrel could be pointed anywhere, the TOW might be a bad option and buttoning (or shooting out the optics on) the 90 might be the best option.
Also it's entirely possible that the 25mm penned the T-90. I find it unlikely that the gunner of the tank decided that rotating the turret to the right for five whole seconds was a good idea. Most likely the tank was hit between the turret and the hull (which is something we are taught is a weak point, particularly on Russian tanks) and the turret hydraulics were damaged, causing it to rotate uncontrollably.
In conclusion:
The TOW is not good at close range high stakes engagements. It's an ambush weapon meant for long range "sniping." The 25mm can absolutely pen the T-90 depending on where you hit it.
And furthermore it's also possible that the Driver lost his optic and the TC was telling him to get the hell out of there, explaining why he just floored it into a tree.
lest , you are playing WOT Blitz
About Rus tank (is public domain strategy there how to behave in usa when in that kind of bad situation ? probably...) on top of my head and no knowledge of tactics:
When under fire from several directions from several autocannons, the pounding (even sound may be an issue with limited healthcare probably available (in the future) for Rus crew..?).
Simpler, seems like tactical situation dicey, you're obviously not taking care of possible enemy infantry with your tank and friendly infantry not nearby (Ukr Bradleys you think having infantry with mines/AT and no friendly infantry as support...), other AT support probably present usually (I think said even in this video, though unavailable but unknown to Russian tank), so retreat is smart. Analyzing too much in this video ? Well, clicks.
@@tondekoddar7837 Huh?
@@tondekoddar7837 About what the American doctrine would be in this situation if an American tank were in a similar situation (against two BMPs for example) the simple answer is that no such situation would ever exist.
Americans do not deploy their tanks alone in a village somewhere in enemy territory just waiting to get ambushed by infantry from a building. That's a big no-no. The Russian Commander made a pretty big tactical mistake here and was likely overestimating the capabilities of his T-90M and her crew.
American tanks tend to be deployed alongside Bradleys in hunter-killer squadrons. In this American scenario when the Bradleys and tanks encountered a village near a major objective (like the nearby city) and that village needed to be secured the Bradleys would push forward while being covered by the Abrams and deploy dismount teams that would move in and secure the village while the tanks and brads watched closely from a distance. If the dismounts were to get ambushed by an enemy building the dismounts would lay down while the tank and the brads obliterated the enemy armor or structure with their guns and TOWs. Then when the threat was neutralized the infantry would push forward and clear the village and secure it. THEN the tanks and brads would move in to provide 360 degree security for the village. Or they would simply bypass it depending on what the overall objective was for their mission set. But if they HAD to secure the village, that's how they would do it.
It's a pretty unstoppable and methodical strategy and there's not really a good way to counter this. At least not with current technology. No Russian tactic as far as I am aware exists for this kind of fighting and from what I have seen the Russian tactics are INCREDIBLY dated. It's basically just dudes running around with guns being told where to go. There is very little discipline, doctrine or tactical forethought that seems to go into what they do. I suspect this is due to poor training.
@@claytonbuck5416 if the Russian army is poorly trained, then why is Ukraine losing with NATO support?
It's funny that you mentioned ArmA. I've been in a mil-sim unit now for about 12 years now. It's such a fun game. Buggy when modded but fun af. I always try to tell people that ArmA is real warfare, put into digital form. It'll teach you SO MUCH about warfare and tactics. I HIGHLY recommend it to anyone who wants to experience warfare as close to IRL as possible on a computer. I was apart of an ODA team for year and we got to use drones... ALOT. I already knew how devastating they were for observation and munition deployment because we use to do it, often.I use to be a drone operator in ArmA and the videos coming out from the war are JUST LIKE how I saw the world when I was operating in ArmA. lol
Greetings from a former ArmA developer!
I became a TOW GUNNER back in October of 1977 after Infantry School at Benning. It wasn't even an MOS back then. Hell, the TOW SYSTEM still had a noun nomenclature of XM-151 E2. It was an ASI. 11B10-ASI-P4. It was fairly new. It became its own MOS IN '79'. 11 HOTEL 10. Russian armor wasn't even our main objective target.
We hunted as a priority the Russian ZSU 23-4 QUAD heavy anti-aircraft gun system. We left the tanks to the 2/68th Armor and their "Big Boys", M60A1s MBTs in Baumholder W. Germany. We saw the first A10 THUNDERBOLTS fly over the MTA in 1978 in close air support.
Fun fact, later this tanker commander lost his Braddley. He gave another interview. Positive point is that they lived after the destruction of the Bradley, so it did the job to keep crew safe.
Mind dropping a link to it?
Now that's a positive spin if that is true. When a Bradley is lost?
yes, it was on telegram i saw
Are there any videos confirming this? If someone wrote something in a telegram, consider that they didn’t write anything. Even those who are supposedly “supports Ukraine” are in fact very willing to spread Russian fakes.
@@amrannoordin1644Yeah and the Soviet equivalent of the Bradley just gets utterly annihilated and are not repairable at all. Man power is not so easily replaced as sophisticated scrap metal.
The m2 Bradley does everything it was designed to do: provide mobility and protection to its occupants. Meanwhile the Soviet tanks and APCs, can barely hold their own against a smaller attacking force.
Throwing bodies at the problem is Russia's way of doing things. And it can and always will bite them in the ass a few years down the line, when they face a manpower shortage and numerous rebellions throughout their Confederacy.
You're delusional if you think this is a positive spin. It's just reality: when you kill off your workforce to compensate for poor quality technology, training, logistics, and tactics, you face manpower shortages and lose capable men.
I liked just for the advert. You can imagine what audience this guy has if drone manufacturers come to post their advert here. Truly one of the most trustworthy source on the Internet.
The lad's gaining infuence and the advertisers are getting crafty
If service personelle watch it could cause positive brand recognition leading to product adoption. The cost is relatively cheaper than a conventional national ad campaign and the audience would probably be more engaged.
Even these comments are positive word of mouth.
Plus considering the advertisement costs for a channel hell a hundred channels like this wouldn't even be a molecule in a drop of the bucket of wealth they have.@@granatmof
trustworthy source of information which still fails to pronounce foreign words(and not at the level which English angry CoD-upbrought toxic players demand from everyone around). Fails to put (even extremely English) sounds in right order. Perhaps he has dyslexia.
The MIC is just buying favorable news coverage.
From what I heard from the official reports, The Bradleys didn't destroy the tank, didn't really penetrate the armor. But the tank was cooked off by a drone that dropped a bomb on the top of the turret.
It "killed" the tank in the sense that it blew out its eyes. Think of it this way: You can have the most elite spec ops guy in the entire world, who can take on Mike Tyson and Connor MacGregor at the same time and win, and if you poke his eyes out he ain't fighting anyone any time soon.
Можете перевести мой ответ гугл переводчиком. В России это видео хорошо известно. Сначала танк атаковал БПЛА, потом огонь Брэдли повредил механизм поворота башни, поэтому танк не мог вести ответный огонь. После боя танк еще раз был атакован БПЛА, но вышел к своим позициям, экипаж не получил ранений и танк отправили в ремонт.
In full footage, tank succeeded to return back. That gunner from the bradley got his BMP destroyed couple of days after the clash from the tank.
@@Vovan3737 Also a week later the Bradley was taken out by a T90
@@magnacarta9364 what are your sources on this? Unless you share I'm willing to believe you just made it up, since the video is less than a week long.
I've watched the video of this engagement many times, and as a retired Abrams Master Gunner I've formed an opinion about the end of the T-90. I don't know anything about that tank, such as if their computer system will apply aim-off to lead moving targets., as the Abrams does Believing that it does, I theorize that the spinning turret was caused by the hits on the sights jamming the reticle to one side, and that the tank's computer is applying aim-off to lead what inputs tell it is a moving target.
Сегодня подбили первый абрамс на Украине, всу боялись и берегли абрамс , но вчера вывели два погонять , один из них сегодня подбили и он сгорел , второй убежал далеко в тыл. Вот такой вот первый выход этого танка на Украине
Cappy even got a referenced on Infographics and now the sponspor is some mil-tech company? So proud.
Which one?
Because it's psyop propaganda
@@patrickglaser1560not a Russian bot - you just accuse people of being psyops without a shred of evidence.
two glowie sponsored operations laundering money together....nahhhh
@@patrickglaser1560 The only person affected by psyops is you.
I was a tanker for 26 years. If your hydraulics go out, or any other issue, the tanks have manual components to traverse the turret and elevate/depress the gun. You can turn off power to the turret, but there may have been an issue that they couldn’t. You can’t use the manual controls if that turret is turning like that under power.
I agree with the video host when he said that the engagement distances were probably too close to engage manually.
What kinda tank were you in? Ferrari or shitbox?
So you basically say they got hit in a very very unlucky position i doubt something like this will happen again, i wonder if something similar ever happend.
The T90 crew training might be less then adequate also. And even if they were trained to do those things they probably just panicked and forgot all about it.
@@haanjamiisoh, yes, mister Spiidi hænd here, who's trained to (there's no other adequate word to mane it) wank the hands to do fighting at 120 meters range.
Ever heard about trigonometry?
In meeting engagements between tanks, the 1st to hit the enemy usually wins. Bradley AFVs are fast and have excellent fire control. This makes them difficult to hit when the operator is well trained.
Another possibility besides taking out optics is to to shoot where the turret meets the hull. Even if using HEAT at the Bradley's high rate of fire, HEAT would eventually get through protection and then possibly deform the joint enough to prevent the turret from working.
Another possibility is that the shock of continuous hits knocked out something inside the tank. Another possibility is all those HEAT rounds choked the Tank's engine.
The Bradley's don't use HEAT, they use APFSDS and HEIT. HEAT, is a shaped explosive charge with a copper cone, designed to vaporise the copper and basically inject it into the tank on impact. HEIT, is High Explosive Incendiary Tracer ammunition, designed to just explode and possibly create fires on impact, whilst showing you your shell dispersion on both visual and thermal optics, in case of computer stabilisation failure.
Simply No. Those rounds was just a mere tickle for the T-90 Armor. Bradley just fired while retreating when the t-90 was trying to aim the shot; the T-90 has never been in danger that day.
7 days ago "why is this strategicaly imporatant for ukraine"
new york times today after loosing avdiivka: "Why this city was worthless and russian victory is meanigless."
General Ducking Dynamics as a video sponsor? Awesome. This channel has officially made it.
I find "average infantryman" is not correct. The Pentagon network probably slows down when T&P notifications hit.
"A ticking time-clock" is my new favorite Cappy-ism.
“Nuke-you-leer” is mine
I know you can have a clock that doesn’t tick, but is there such a thing as a non-time clock? Really makes you think maaan 😂
@@jonesy279 I guess an odometer could be considered a type of space-clock
The meat riding is crazy
Fascinating video! Thanks Chris 😊 Interesting that despite the fact that this is such a major war with casualties in the hundreds of thousands, and tanks losses in the thousands, there are barely any armor on armor direct engagements (unlike in WW2 for ex. in the Battle of Kursk). Times have definitely changed!
No one was killed in the video, but 2 of the 3 the t-90 crew members where killed in combat after leaving the tank and the 3rd was captured.
The army has been using video games since the early 80's as training aids. They used the 1980 Atari video game Battlezone to develop an early simulator called The Bradley Trainer. I saw the story on 60 minutes as an 11 year and could not get to the arcade quickly enough to try it!
We use a table top simulator called the COFT. It comes in large boxes and sets up on a table. 3 boxes. One for each crew member. Has the same fire control box , gunner sights/yoke, and BCs sights and stick. Can run hundreds of scenarios.
It's mandatory to train on prior to gunnery and qualification
i grew up playing AA2, which was a (at the time) realistic video game meant to be a recruiting tool. Big green loves video games
Wasn’t there a military shooter made for the army or something?
@@tbomb69yeah America's army
@@TheLastCustomer thanks man
That confusion aspect was something I never thought of in this engagement. The tankers in the t90 probably couldn't even think straight with those 25mm rounds slamming into the turret.
also, Russia has hardly any well trained crews left. In high stress situations, since you (and everyone else) is in fight or flight mode, you revert to your training. So, likely that the Russians just panicked, understandably. They've probably never been instructed on what to do when getting raked by three 25mm rounds per second. And when the turret went uncontrolable, they couldn't get out so the driver went into the tree because the barrel of the gun would hit the tree trunk and jam the rotation. It worked, then they could get out. Bailing was the right move since Ukrainian FPV drones were operating.
If they could think straight they wouldn't be there.
@@S0ulinth3machin3What evidence do you have for Rus having 'hardly any trained crews left'? I'd like to see the figures myself
@@Clyde__Frogi bet he get feed by Western media for so long he actually believe RU army is undertrained lol. As if some undertrained crews can operate a T-90M in active frontline like that.
@@Clyde__FrogRussia has hardly any tanks left. In last years parade they only had one tank, and the world commenced laughing at russia (again)😂😂😂
Video posted 6 days ago. Update: Avdiivka was encircled, the wounded were left behind and the city is now under complete Russian control...
at the 10:40 Mark, that configuration is the Cavalry Fighting Vehicle configuration. this configuration sacrifices dismounts for more TOW missile carrying capacity as the Infantry Fighting Vehicle configuration carries more troops and less missiles.
This feels like suppressing fire doctrine in small fireteams being upscaled to IFVs going up against MBTs. Sure, the shots don't necessarily kill, but it disorients the enemy and gives them about 200 reasons per minute not to make a lot of movement.
It will also strip off periscopes, sensors, etc. Which is what happened here.
"200 reasons per minute" kekw
I'm gonna have to remember that one
All I knows the russian army is a joke😂
@@dpelpal Ну не такая смешная как НАТО, которое пинками вышвырнули из Афганистана.
@@kruser8636 As were the Russians in 1989, so tread lightly.
Oh, and by the way: Russian casualties were ~14.500 dead and ~54.000 wounded after only ten years, whereas NATOs casualties were "only" ~3.600 dead and ~23.500 wounded soldiers (and, if you want to count them as well, ~3.900 dead and ~15.000 contractors of all [sic] sorts) in *_twenty_* years.
So yes, NATO lost as well - but that still doesn't give Russia *_any_* bragging rights, because *_they_* performed much worse in much less time.
that Ukrainian Bradley Commander really has skills. I wonder what is his account call sign and rank in War Thunder
Unbelievably, he only volunteered to be a Bradley Commander so he could get some IRL practice and rank-up in War Thunder!
@@shonunezekielprobably quicker, easier, and less stressful than grinding it in War Thunder tbf.
He is long time gone, maybe 1 day after this happened.
@@Jan.jan2024 why seem salty about a trivial question to spark a casual conversation?
@@Jan.jan2024Veri gud England you hav
I never knew these could switch ammo types with the push of a button! I knew they could fire both but I always thought it would have to be loaded separately.
That’s crazy to switch between fire types with just a push of a button!
Great video .. with no propaganda and honest truth with lots of facts and detailed information 🙌
Wow those Gambit drones look awesome! Definitely will be purchasing for home defense
New EDC confirmed.
My man got sponsored by the Military Industrial Complex 😂
Yeah, officer material badly written all over Cappy's average grunt image, lol
The advertised UCAV platform does look interesting, though.
LOL I couldn't believe that Gambit commercial myself. It's actually a great way to get your name out there to different countries that want to buy this shit lol. (You don't trust those assholes over there?) Their logo should be. "Don't get caught with your pants down! GAMBIT!"
Fam, we're watching robot recorded war footage while eating popcorn and going over play by play like it's an American football game... Why not embrace the cyberpunk dystopian vibes and do an ad read for Reaper drones 2.0?
First quality analysis. Your many caveats were all valid and needed. It is even possible that this was a case of the legendary magic BB.
What I am about to share happened over 30 years ago, so some minor details will be off. I was in the South African Defence Force (conscripted), and was trained in a vehicle identified to me as the "Zero Charlie Ratel" (The Ratel is an early IFV, I guess). I've looked for more info on the Zero Charlie Ratel, and apparently it doesn't exist. Except I trained in one. It was a dedicated electronic warfare vehicle that was essentially a big mobile versatile radio (actually a whole bunch of radios) with a two man crew. It could intercept or jam pretty much anything that was able to be intercepted or jammed at the time (1990s). It's been suggested to me that it was a prototype that never went into production as it was near the end of South Africa's apartheid era.
In any case, while training we were called in to listen (audio only) to a live (we were told it was live) fight between a Ratel pack of 6 Ratels (IIRC 1 x Zero Charlie, 2 x Ratel 90s, 3 x Ratel 20s) and a group of 5 T-90s. The Soviet Union used to send new equipment to South Africa's neighbours to see how they fared in a real conflict, so we often saw new stuff.
In any case, the Ratels were really fast, but the T-90s were highly advanced, and it was a standoff with no clear winner - the T-90s couldn't hity the Ratels, but the Ratels couldn't approach the tanks. Until the zero charlie ratel figured out how to jam comms on the tanks. Suddenly everything changed. Some officers in the room suggested that the tanks were sharing sensor data with each other to track the ratels, but as soon as the jamming started it was clear that the tanks no longer accurately knew where all the ratels were. All I remember from what followed is that the Ratels used the big guns to kill the tracks on the tanks, and while they were doing that the smaller ratels were baiting the tanks into firing at each other - they were using smoke grenades to obscure the battlefield in addition to the EW stuff. Three tanks were destroyed by other tanks firing at the Ratels, and the bigger ratels pounded the other two, crippling one and destroying the other.
Even back then I was unsure if this was some sort of propaganda, or a real skirmish. The fact that the base OC (Officer Commanding), as well as my regimental OC, and 3 Electronic Workshop's OC were present in the room, along with us (junior ncos) and a number of other senior officers made me believe it was at least somewhat legit, but I still had some pretty strong reservations. After watching this, I'm more inclined to believe it was real, which is a little sad (for me) because, at the end, a few of the tank commanders were calling for help on unencrypted channels - all blocked - and one was crying. In hindsight, it may have been the first field trial of the Zero Charlie Ratel coming across an early T-90. I guess I'll never know.
Thanks for sharing, taking the time. Comments like yours are the reason i read them.
As a former Armor officer and combat veteran of Desert Storm and OIF III, that was the best analysis I've seen of this engagement.
this young guy is amazing! Good analysis and footage.
The enemy doesnt know if you can penetrate their armor or not, they just know they are taking fire and have no idea where its coming from. It takes a very brave or very well trained crew to keep fighting under those circumstances.
Exactly...which is why losing _experienced tank crews_ at too rapid a rate can degrade a unit's combat effectiveness.
The Russians are *addicted* to 'trading bodies for tactical gain' ..... see typical Russian combat losses (in a historical context) for further details.
of course it is, it’s not war thunder 😂 also doesn’t mean the tank is bad any tank in that situation will lose…
it's more about "how to survive this" than bravery
THANK YOU.. there are SOOO many "experts" that are so pro Ukrainian you cannot question anything..
One important piece of analysis that would be undeniable... The pucker factor for all crew members on both sides was undoubtedly 💯% ✌️
Real life version of Fury
The Bradley crew knew any direct hit from the T90 and they were toast; the T90 crew was being rung like a bell, and surely knew that they were 1 TOW away from an especially bad day.
On another note, the T90 crew is probably suffering from the world's worst case of tinnitus. LOL
@RadioactiveSherbet no, they dont. he didnt show the end of that clip. T90 blew up, those dudes are unalive
@@PoroPog it did not blow up. Looked like either reactive armor popping or the ammo reserves were hit. Either way, they were likely fine
imagine the Ukrainians had one western MBT in this engagement. an Abrams, a Leo2 or even a Challenger. that would have been quite something to witness
lets be honest here, those Bradley crews were incredibly lucky to get out of there with their lives. you dont normally take on a MBT with Bradleys, its a mismatch especially if they didnt have any TOWs, which it appears they probably didnt. disabling the t90 was their best hope. it worked, but if i was those crews, i wouldnt want to attempt that again.
Those Brads should have had dismounts and those dismounts should have had some proper AT weapons. I am thinking this is a fight that should never have happened in the first place.
@@MFitz12 I would guess it was a risk they were willing to take, in order to get rid of a loner t90. They might not have had other resources available on a short notice.
@@mr.meatsoup5639 - Probably, but 2 IFV's with no infantry and no AT weapons sounds like seriously bad planning.
@@MFitz12
It’s Ukraine, you can’t hide with all the drones, infantry following along in the open is providing an easy target for mortars and fpvs
Interesting, the Bradley's tried it again a few days later and were knocked out. We know this because the commander was interviewed later and explained that he no longer commanded a Bradley as it didn't work out that well.
Strange how this guy only reports the success of Ukrainians in all engagements! He gives such details on each battle, and what the soldiers said, or what they are thinking during a fight. I prefer to see reports from an unbiased source. Evidently Task & Purposes gets info from one source, so how can you rely on its accuracy or honesty!
That's because no one cares about the bigger terrorist force's wins.
But also if something like this had happened and russia won we'd prolly still hear about it.
I have to point out that the picture of optics that was shown was from a T-80B not a T-90M, it is also a little confusing when just saying T-90 because there are two different versions as in the A and the M
3:30 Ukraine is knocking out 13 russian vehicles for every one they lose yet they're still having to retreat😂😂 Don't you just love American propaganda
Big question is why the heck was that T-90 driving around on its own?
The Russians are poorly trained. That's what I'm guessing.
It's the Russians
That what I wanted to know absolutely No support makes it a sitting duck, they were probably lost you know Russia has shit GPS when they even have them
Simplest reason may be the T-90 was just cut off from squadron mates for any number of reasons, some of which may be as innocent as getting stuck on some terrain or lack of fuel and the other tanks didn't want to stop.
Because the russian military is incompetent. That has been the answer to that question everytime someone has asked it during the past two years...
Good to see the techniques pioneered as far back as WW2 are still going strong. Armoured reconnaissance in many countries were taught that if they ran into armour, to hammer it quickly with their 20mm gun and reverse/bail out of there as fast as possible. Doesn't matter how strong your tank is when you're taking loud, aggressive fire that's breaking your supplementary systems, vision blocks, hearing, and maybe even tracks.
Can tank crews even train for getting hit with rounds like that?
Sure, a bunch of IRC’s swinging sledge hammers at the outside of the tank while they try to figure out what is going on 🤣
@@ZombieLincoln666 whats russian comedic movie T-34 ... really good russian warmovie focused on tank battle :D
they get hit with tinnitus ;DD the cgi special effects were cool af.
This T90 has been hit several times by AT before Bradleys arrived… watch the whole video 🙂 MBT is mbt Ifv is ifv, you have no chance against a T90 if you are a singe IFV gunner.
Can someone plz confirm that 400-900mm is accurate for armor thickness? 900mm is 35.4 inches... so 3ft thick of armor? That doesn't sound correct at all.... Even 400mm at what 15.5 inches... No way that is accurate is it?
The TOW....
Is a
Tube launched
Optical tracked
Wire guided
missile system.
The gunner has to keep his crosshairs on target until impact.
No chance in close combat...
Damn, those Gambit unmaned aircraft totally reminds me of that one episode of Stargate where there was a race war on another planet, they had these simulators where you could control squadrons of fighters, except more advanced than joysticks etc. That episode was probably like 2001 but they had a pretty good guess.
The thing that my wife and I really appreciate about your channel is that you always bring up the human factor, that is to say, what these people felt physically and mentally 👍🏼
the human factor is almost always the primary determinator. War is fought by humans, not spreadsheets or computers.
@@S0ulinth3machin3this. It is always the soft factors
The Ukrainian soldiers are brave. But the supporting countries should do anything to keep their spirits up. Less support could cause moral problems.
@@hermes667 Unfortunately, the West never saw this war as anti-West. So they don't really care. The help they provide is tiny - especially in the latest months.
Fair fucks to the Bradley, pretty badass vehicle. This is like a Bantamweight going up against a Heavyweight and holding his own.
That's a pretty solid analogy.
Bantam would be gun-toyota I think. Bradley mass is 30 tons - T-90 is 46 tons. But still pretty badass, no question about it!
The Brad got more tank kills in thr Gulf War than the Abrams
@@NapoleonicWargaming Yeah, their TOWs were smacking up tanks at a terrifying rate.
@@toruvalejo6152 the actual weight isn't really what you should look at, the T90A was 46 tons (but I think the T90M is a few tons heavier).
the main reason why you should not look at the total weight of the vehicle is because the bradley has a tall frame and the larger you have to make the side plates the weight adds up quickly and IFVs are extremely weight inefficient because they need to be able to carry troops and a heavy hydraulic door.
Cappy, on something unrelated... Theres a movie reaction to Fury, done by a guy and his father, who was a tank driver for the people's liberation army. He fought in the 1979 war against Vietnam.
His father drops some profound insights. I highly recommend watching it
Just because the 25mm gun can't outright kill the tank, doesn't mean it's not a mission kill. The tank survives to go back for major depot level repairs.
Unless the drone gets it first.
"The Brads" just got promoted to "The Chads".
GD, beat me to it
Chadley
Too "loud" for a vehicle that couldn’t penetrate T90 side
Both of them were destroyed later.
@@chad_8313 No, they weren't. But the russian army was destroyed in Kyiv😅😅😅😅😅😅😅
What a fantastic sponsorship to have in the channel. Really happy to see your effort being recognized like this. Keep on with the stellar work.
Or work for the CIA
@@Bikeadelic I think most people are too busy laughing at the russian army😂😂😂
@@dpelpalJeepers! That's a bold comment given what's happening on the front lines right now.
@dpelpal the Russian Army which successful took and is still holding the 3rd of Ukraine that up until recently was Russian. Russians which anhialted both most recent counter offensives. Russians which created a tank that sparked all western nations to begin developing new models. Russians which wanted to join NATO, asked to join NATO, but were denied. Go watch the two hours of uncensored interview with independent media that Putin did. Wouldn't it be great if our western leaders were willing to be so open.
I'm not laughing. I'm concerned for my future and the future of my loved ones. I am disgusted at the leaders of my nation and its allies for stopping peace negotiations to ensure more people die.
@@Bikeadelic Nobody is going to read your propaganda Ivan.
Video game simulators are actually amazing. No, they'll never replace real war-time experience - but they aren't useless by any means. This is why flight simulators are immensely popular and even a requirement for people becoming pilots.
Excellent point at the end about drones conducting a lot of knockout strikes against armor. We have also seen this in the Israel-Hamas conflict where Hamas has used drones to knock out and severely damage Israeli armor. This makes sense as the top armor of a tank is usually some of its weakest armor. Also, Hamas has claimed (and I can't verify this) that drone strikes are one of the best ways to avoid Israel's Trophy APS. I can't verify that this is true, but it could be because the lower velocity of a drone doesn't trigger the APS system. In either case, the usage of drones to destroy tanks is a huge change in warfare. It provides a very low cost method to knock out very expensive main battle tanks, once that gives the anti-tank crew complete protection from the tank (drone can be deployed from miles away). It's a method that requires tank designers to create a counter.
There are two options that I see. You could add either a gun system or jamming equipment (more likely the latter) to defend the tank from drone attack. However, this is very expensive and would add more weight to the tank. This is an especially big concern for the US as the Abrams is already one big lady. The other option (and one that I have supported since before Ukraine) is to integrate Electronic Warfare assets at a much lower level in the US military (company-level in my opinion). This would give individual tank troops EW specialists and equipment that could be used to give them a EW bubble under which armor could fight.
Arming distance of the TOW is 65m. TOW 2 engagement range is 3,750m. Cold War 11H.
11M here. The M2A2ODS has to be either still or less than 5mph to raise the TOW box. Sitting still in a Brad against a T90 is a really bad idea
Yep, its a shoot n scoot@@sgtmajorbuzz
tow 2b min arming distance is 200m
@@ascentoffroad much later version of what I fired, ITOW.
@@sandynewman5533 We have TOW2B Aero nowadays. No more wires to deal with and 4500m range.
imagine if those were US crew they will be experiencing titinus for life and the VA will still say it's not service related
Absolutely...they would be like...?? hmmm..NAH
If it was American the T-90 would be dead.
Vet support will get even worse, again, if Trump is elected. He did nothing but take away from vets.
"Do you have any notarized documentation that you were exposed to depleted uranium during your time in service?"
Unfortunetly, this Bradlry was destroyed 3 days latter. The same operator Sergei had another video talking about loosing the Bradley "saying sometimes character is not enough"
But, he and the other crew member DID survive their vehicle's destruction. They lived to fight another day, in another Bradley. Vehicles like the BTR or BMP often can't say the same.
@@hewhoplugwalks Экипаж танка тоже жив и здоров.)))
@@Vovan3737 Yes, and that is because the T-90M is actually a pretty good tank. I won't deny that, unlike many others.
@@hewhoplugwalks
@@hewhoplugwalks Т-90 сохранил свою броню от Т-72, а это самый много воюющий танк в мире.
Nicely done Cappy, you’re at the top of your game with analysis like this.
The meat riding is crazy Mr glizzy warrior
Thank you for keeping Ukraine on top of the news list! It is very important these days to not forget that the war didn't go anywhere
I really appreciate you bringing up the human element here. I think a lot of people are forgetting these, after all, are just people. Theyre going to get scared, confused and what have you. Theyre going to make mistakes, and while i enjoy watching these videos have started to feel a change in myself with how i view this type if stuff. We sit here and watch as people are losing their lives, usually in a horrible manner, while sitting behind a screen.
RIGHT, putting into perspective what is happening on the inside is very relevant. Sounds, panic, blind spots, are you outnumbered, etc. How confident is the T90 crew in using their tank once they come in contact with other armor? We have to assume that they knew they weren't up against German or UK MBT but were they in the area? Was this tank crew properly trained? How much ammo did they have left? Great breakdown Cappy
It's hard telling what kind of training the Russian tank troops are receiving also. Most of the experienced tankers have already been taken out earlier in the war.
@@t.r.4496 "Most of the experienced tankers have already been taken out earlier in the war". Does any country, except for maybe the US, have _experienced tankers_ in the first place? Conflicts involving heavy use of MBTs were uncommon during the last decades. Russians seem to have had war games, drills and whatnot but having spoken plenty with people who actually served in Ukrainian and Russian forces (conscripts who served before 2010s) and participated in such drills... Man, their stories paint a different picture. None of them had access to modern vehicles and the war games were never taken seriously. Things may have changed since, because both of these countries have attempted to modernized their militaries since 2014 but conscripts who served back then are the ones being drafted now from both sides.
The tank driving into a tree in panic says alot of how the people inside were feeling.
@@OFfic3R1K I was talking about actual combat experience. I was talking about them just putting anyone they can find in the tank. Telling them here's the gas here's the firing button go.
That was actually a sick ass sponsorship. Do you have videos already made about the Gambit series of UAV’s? Looks interesting.
why tf is it a sponsor tho? do they expect me to buy one?
This is the first time I've ever watched a sponsored ad in a CZcams video.
Definitely my first time seeing an ad for combat drones in a CZcams video 😂
The spinning turret isn’t a malfunction, it’s the beyblade feature. The designer was a huge weeb
haha
Lmao
Who says you have to penetrate a tank's armor to put it out of action anyway.
Yep I mean a lot of tanks during WW1 and 2 just had the tracks taken out.
@@AlbertoMartinez765 Depends on the time period of the war, but you're correct. Most armor on both sides (Minus running into M18's, T-34 85's on the German side or most armor from the German side, as both guns were highly effective against most Panzer armor, And the long 75's on StUGs, TDs and Panzer Or the 88 on Tigers, which could punch the majority of US and Soviet armor from the front.) were taken out as mobility kills or abandonment due to problems within the vehicle. Technically not mobility kills in the latter, but if your Sherman didn't have wet stowage and you get a penetrating hit didn't do a lot of harm to the crew... You wanted to GTFO.
No one says that, quit battling your own voices in your head
@JanJan-rv1eg nobody but you said it was destroyed lol
Yeah, @@Meravokas. I was a tank crewman and all I could think during the video was, "Why aren't the Bradleys aiming at the tracks?" They're a much larger target than the optics and just as vulnerable.
I kinda think the T-90 crew was not a very well trained crew. There is no way the T-90 should have missed that first shot.
It was "Too close for rockets, switching to guns"! LT Pete "Maverick" Mitchell circa 1986.
TOW Missile has a min arming distance of 65 Meters...You mentioned 50 yds was the initial engagement. If they were inside of that, there is the answer to the question why they didn't use the TOW!
Very interesting video. Even your Gambit advertisement was worth watching.
As Wellington said the battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton. Now they're won at Playstation
yeah, he was never gonna say it was when blucher turned up 😄
The battle of Waterloo was won by rain, a hill and a bunch of Prussians..
@@elhermes77lots of inflection points were it was lost.
E.g. not enough I fantry
Two issues with that engagement and the tow. You answered both. If the engagement was about 50m like you said, it's under minimum range for arming. Also the Brad moving around so much, it would have been not been able to have been used. Either way, an amazing encounter and we are lucky to have seen it on film.
I know of two cases in which T-90s were destroyed by Javelins.
Speaking about the doctrine, this would never happen if tanks were deployed with support lol. It makes absolutely zero sense for a T-90 to be cruising about alone in the first place.
Exactly, it makes no sense whatsoever.
My thoughts, are it's a deep fake video or a captured t90 they where remote controlling. Zero sense either way.
@Armchair.extraordinaire-bo5mv Well we disagree about that then because Russian armor is absolutely going unsupported more than it should be.
My first mos was a Bradley mechanic and they were amazing.
One thing that nobody is talking about. Even if the Bradley was unable to hit the T90’s optics directly, the fact that it’s creating all these sparks could potentially get in the way of the optics. The Bradley is firing so many rounds, there’s literally sparks everywhere. I don’t see how that couldn’t impede the T90’s vision.
Spalling could probably take out the sights as well.
Смешнее то, что Запад превозносит свои бмп, приводя в довод случай из видео, но забывают, что танк не смог выстрелить по противнику. Если вы знаете чем вооружены многочисленные российские БМП, то должны понимать насколько как смешно смотритесь.
3:30 Ukraine is knocking out 13 russian vehicles for every one they lose yet they're still having to retreat😂😂 Don't you just love American propaganda
@@HoBoeBpeM9l We send Ukraine our old weapons. Imagine a modern American tank fighting the t90 now.
@@HoBoeBpeM9lYour main battle tank uses an engine designed by Germany in the second world war, has a top speed comparable to tanks 20 tonnes heavier from the 60's, broke down on the parade square in Moscow, and has zero active defense systems against modern weaponry. You literally have to put chain link armour on a tank, because you can't figure out how to make something to take out an in-flight missile... Oh, and all your vehicles lose to a brick of plastic explosives strapped to a quad drone that was bought off of Ali-Express for €30.
The T90M crew forgot to bring a large repair kit.
In 1980 I went through Ft Benning as an 11H. TOW gunner. The minimum range is 60 meters. The next year I went to annual training in a Target Acquisition Battery, and spotted two TOWs set up in ambush at a bridge, which I am sure was well within that minimum range, so the info did not always get passed on.
As for the Russians, the Cold War Soviet Army was notorious for well trained inspection units, in which one tank was used to demonstrate one task, another for a second task, etc, with no one tank crew trained to do all the tasks. Russia may well have inherited this, "It's all to pass inspection" training style.
You need the whole video. The one that shows the tank still moving after the engagement and the crew getting out safely
He DID show the T90 crew escaping!
🤦🏼♂️
General Dynamics? Cap, you're moving up in the world. Hard work, great analytical skills and probably the best military information channel on the web had to result in something. War Thunder to real life battle field? I'll be chuckling for the rest of the day. Many thanks.
General _Atomics._
There's three branches of the General Electric: GE, GD, and GA.
Still probably a pretty big step up
@@nanzistnt2573what/who would you recommend to watch for unbiased information? I genuinely want to know as knowledge that isn’t tainted by politics is rarer than platinum these days.
@@nanzistnt2573 Was expecting some Vatnik posting clearly RU biased sources in an attempt at a flamewar but this stuff is actual gold my man, I appreciate it greatly.
I'm still sticking to my theory that you mentioned earlier in the video. Sure the T-90 is a robust vehicle, but humans are squishy and consecutive concussive force mixed with the optics going out and the adrenaline of battle. I feel like that T-90 crew got a bit of a headache. I mean according to historian Sir Hilary Doyle, there was an account of a Panzer IV (it could have been a III or a Panther, I can't remember the exact details) crew being pelted by Soviet tanks for a good bit. The tank was all dented up, but otherwise fine. The crew apparently had died from excessive prolonged exposure to concussive force while they were buttoned down inside. So the 25mm Bushmaster might not be the largest gun out there, but it doesn't need to be to give someone a mean migraine.
And you see ton of clips where Russian tanks are hit, not disabled and the crew flee.
That's... A cool sponsor but like..
What am I being sold? Because I can tell you I certainly can't afford a fleet of military UAVs lol.
As a former gunner on a Leopard 1; way back in 1982; Dutch forces in Germany, many thanks for this interesting rapport of a battle between a tank and 2 armoured personell carriers.
A tank is mostly over rated when alone on the battelfield. It protects and supports infantery, and infantery is needed to protect the tank. As can be seen here, whitout infantery, the tank is vulnerable.
Had there been Russian infantery, the Bradleys would have had a much more difficult job!
The tank is at it's best on open ground, where it can use it's speed, manouvrebillity, and supperior firepower. (Not to mention in this case it's vulnerability to helicopters or airplanes) To immobilize it's optics was a very good decision. The sights inside a tank are very limited. Or the commander has to put his head out of the coppola, like the German tankcommanders did in WW2. But then they are vulnereble to snipers and schrapnell.
I can imagine the tankcrew, thinking to have an easy prey on the Bradley's, they get very nerves, when they are blinded by a barrage of 25 mm shells. It's is not only about the equipment, it's also about training, determination of the crew, psychlogy, motivation for the fight, and how to handle fear as well. If one crewmember panics, the whole crew is not effecient anymore. It takes a good tankcommander to handle all this. And often he can't. Also the idea of burning alive is not motivating. Not to mention the appauling losses of Russian tanks in the last 2 years.
All of that can play a part in the acting of the Russian tankcrew, because almost for sure they know... They survived, but now all of this, their fight, on the internet.....I wonder what the concequences for them will be...... knowing the harsh dicipline in the Russian Army...
Об "ужасающих" потерях танков, вам рассказывает ваша пропаганда?)) А про чипы из стиральных машин и воровстве детей слышали? 😀
@@putitang6295 Translation in Englisch please...
@@madelief47you can use google translate
@@putitang6295 I know of the stealing or obduction of children, and using chips from washing machines or photo equipment... but what has that to do with this?
In the crew interview they said the tank was going after their infantry
They had no choice but to engage
It's what heros do
Absolutely not an expert by any means here, so feel free to call me wrong.
I’ve seen a lot of discourse around this engagement online, and one thing a lot of people pointed out rather cynically that the Bradley ostensibly failed to actually destroy the T-90M (which was eventually only destroyed later by a drone). Which is true, it was a spectacular light show but as mentioned the only damage was likely to the optics and external equipment.
Meaning I have two key takeaways from this. The Bradleys and their crews did exactly what they were designed and trained to do in this situation, which is to button up the enemy’s optics with that 25mm and move quickly to not give them an easy target.
While people were rather sensationalist about this on both sides, the fact is this: The Bradley did its job and successfully neutralized Russia’s premier MBT in a head-on engagement. The Bradley won this fight, plain and simple.
I agree. I've also seen posts that are comparing these two tanks, which aren't comparable.
The Bradley is NOT a main battle tank. The Abrams is a main battle tank, but there isn't an Abrams engaged in this clip. Also, the Bradley and the Abrams are outdated, which in my mind just shows how poorly the Russian tank performs.
@@auglazeallday5335The Bradley isn't even a tank mate, it's an IFV.
That being said, we know that the T90 is a shitbox tank anyway, given it has a top speed comparable to tanks 20 tonnes heavier from several decades ago, and is using an engine that is essentially a slightly modernised version of the engine from a Porche Tiger... An engine that was considered unreliable 80 years ago, and is still unreliable to this day (As demonstrated in footage you can find of a T90's engine breaking down on the parade square in Moscow.)
The bradley indeed did not destroy the T90M. A drone did. However, the Bradley did do extensive damage to the T90M's optics that it was basically blind.
@@auglazeallday5335 youre wrong as far as the Abrams and Bradleys being outdated. The russian tanks However are outdated. I can say this because I was on the Abrams. The Abrams uprades have yet to cease and will not cease upgrades for the Foreseeable future. lol Abrams and Bradley outdated...give me what youre smoking.....
@@CCM1199 Please tell us how many T90s you have shot down in the course of your service? Or share with us how many T90s you at least saw in your M1's view system to make such confident statements?
Serial production of the T90 began in 1992, and the last rather seriously modified T90Ms were handed over to the Russian Army in 2020 and continue to be delivered to the present day. The Abrams, on the other hand, has been in serial production since 1980, and the last modification that started arriving in the regular army in 2020 is the M1A2 SEPv3. Ukraine received 31 Abrams of M1A1 modification, the oldest as you probably know, which after delivery stood for repair. All this information can be found on wikipedia.
However, I think soon it will be possible to compare these two vehicles in action because 26.02.2024 Russian troops were spotted one Ukrainian Abrams near the contact line and I'm sure the first open combat in this theater of war will not have to wait long.
If they’re still using the old system the commander could have hit the slew-to-sight view on his periscope handles which can make the turret keep spinning if you don’t manually hold the periscope on target (since the turret will keep chasing the periscope’s angle as they both spin around).
Idk if there is any minimum arming range but even if not TOWs are not good to use at close range. When you fire them they aren't usually oriented directly at the target it takes a small fraction of a second for the guidance system to start working after launch.
Putin: "T-90 is the best tank in the world. The West doesn't have a tank that even matches the T-90, let alone infantry fighting vehicles."
Ukraine: "Hold my beer."
Maybe you’re right, but you never mentioned IFV’s! :3
@@SonOfAB_tch2ndClass Which part, "...let alone infantry fighting vehicles.", you misunderstood?
@@SonOfAB_tch2ndClass bruh
2 fpv drones desabled the tank. watch the 2 vids, dont listen to this fool.
@@VES. it whas the bradly that desabled the tank the drones finished it off
If I had to guess why they didn't fire the TOW, its probably because the Bradley needs to be relatively stationary to do that and I think they were either not sitting still or weren't planning to sit still long enough for it to be viable. Its also the kind of coordination that comes from having a crew commander in the vehicle, and as you mentioned they didn't.
At the range they were at and considering how open the terrain was, the Bradleys couldn't afford to sit still long enough to launch TOWs. But I am curious why the second Bradley didn't fire a TOW when it was still on the T-90's flank. As far as I could tell, the T-90 was still busy with the first Bradley at the time so that second Bradly could have, in theory, had time fire off a TOW.
@@Riceball01given the age of TOW system and the fact that these munitions have been in storage for a while probably means there was some kind of error they encountered previously that made them not trust the TOW in this engagement. Could be user error, data corruption from long periods without power. Any number of things but the clear thing is that they didn’t trust the TOW to work before they went into the engagement.
Garuntee that Ukraine forces are going to be taking a closer look into their TOW systems to ensure that option to their troops
I'd also imagine that the drone team that finished off the tank were in coordination with the Brads, and the Bradleys were meant to keep the T90 busy/distracted as the drone zipped in for the coup de grace.
Just to add a few things that seemed to have been left out here. The first bradley appears to have come up directly behind the T-90 initially - Not it's side as was shown by the graphic. Also directly before the first bradley engaged the T-90 appears to have been hit by some unknown ordinance, possibly from a overhead drone. Not clear if this did any damage or not but if you find a longer form version of the footage, you can see the explosion on the tank before the frist bradley pulls up behind it and starts firing.
That and from what I recall the tank was taken back by the Russians who only found external damage and a internal damaged rotary part that made the turret turn like that.
This is a propaganda channel sir, we have no use for facts.
US M1 Armor has three versions of optics. The manual version is only 2" in width next to the Main gun. It is a physical optic and is almost impossible to take out.
you mean the GPS/TIS and GAS sights...I dont think the T90M has GAS Sights either. But Yes the GAS cannot be taken out unless youre a hawkeye
@@CCM1199 Yes, but most people do not know the terms, so GPS/TIS = Physical optic.
I remember in the 80's a tabletop game called "Striker" (part of the Traveller system) where you design your own AFV's with cost factors for a parody of battles. My friend-built a standard large Main Battle tank. I opted to two medium wheeled AFV with 50mm auto cannons. The end result was he F-upped one of my vehicles and I stripped off every single external item his tank had. Including tracks and turret rotation. And with the last of my ammunition, I could flank it and finish it off. It looked a lot like what happened here.
The tank here was stopped by FPV drones, not by Bradley gunners
@@Franfran2424as you can see in the video, the tank was stopped by the 25mm‘s damage resulting it to drive into a tree, drone came after
@@siilentio you can see in the video iinexplicable explosions corresponding to FPV drones. also theres FPV drone footage of this incident.
As former armored vehicle officer, I wonder why the T90 was alone and unsupported. 1) You don't hold or capture an objective this size with one tank 2) You don't hold or capture an area with several buildings without infantry support. With what I know about the battle lines, it looks like Stepove is kind of a "no mans land" contested area, but its also near Avdiivka which is currently held by 2 brigades with 5 direct combat battalions each (although the 110th mechanized brigade would be considered significantly degraded). Its just a waste of an asset to be probing with a lone unsupported T90 or if it was a straggler, it didn't look like it had trouble moving or keeping up so its platoon or company messed up big time by leaving it behind to get destroyed.
It's really transparent out there. Grouping up means it starts raining. It's not too unusual to see a lone RU tank. What was unusual was one that far out, it and the support usually get whacked well before, sometimes they don't get to the starting line. What the Russians think is productive is different from what we see as productive, and it's possible sending only one tank is the safest option for whatever they were doing due to the chance of rain. A thousand KIA per km is definitely not productive from our view, but it appears for them an acceptable level of efficiency.
@oohhboy-funhouse Fair points but it does seem like such a waste from a training and materials perspective. Tanks are really very ineffective alone and even more so in a built-up area. Maybe they really do have many of these tanks and half-trained crew to rotate in. Mechanised scouts or scouts in BRDM/Tigr/Volk or similar platforms may have been more appropriate. But maybe the Ukrainians have achieved local dominance with the Bradleys which is why they're resorting probing with tanks.
They were trying to encircle the town so imagine they split their force quite wide and expected with all their armour they would be able to withdraw or get support if engaged.
Recon
russians rly dont knw where to go what to do, communication issues always
Did he really get a CZcams sponsorship from a military company?
TOW missiles (TWO, TOW2, TOW2A) have a minimum range of 65 metres to prevent launch crew injury for portable units and to enable the guidance system to initialise, and the 'top-down' TOW2B variant has a 200 metre minimum range to enable the correct flight profile, so for such close range combat they would have been useless anyway. Even if they WERE stationary they wouldn't have been able to get a detonation. As for video games being so realistic they can be used for real world training, just ask Jann Mardenborough and the Gran Turismo game that he played and learned so well he went on to place third at the 24 hrs of Le Mans using what he'd learned playing that game.
Just terrible this war is still going on. I hope all the souls lost rest in peace.
No. As in case of car accidents the souls are shocked and do not recognize that they no longer live a physical life. They do not go to the Light. Often they remain in place and reply the moment of their death so they could finally wake up and realize their true condition.
@@ryandylan6946 be careful because the fact that someone lost his physical body does not mean that they are smarter or that they know the future. If you want to go deeper with the topic I recommend the book “Possessed by Ghosts: Exorcisms in the 21st Century”
@@ryandylan6946 be careful because the fact that someone lost the physical body does not mean that they automatically have power to predict the future. You will see after you die that’s for sure.
@@wastaggio, source?
@@chrepuhon You need to read about Possessed by Ghosts and exorcisms in the twenty first century
From what I've read the T90 has an infrared activated traverse system that will automatically turn the gun towards an infrared source. The spinning turret leads me to think that system got its bell rung.
That's part of the Shtora aps, which is on older versions of the t90. T90M got rid of them because they are mostly obsolete now.
But the warning system remains. If you look closely At the T-90M, you can see small cameras on the tower @@alexdunphy3716
Ukraine have just pulled out of Avdiivka so this was part of last stand by them. Great footage of the tanks in battle there has been so much coverage from drones nowhere is safe.
Outstanding analysis. Thanks.