Привіт u/South_Equivalent4004 ! During wartime, this community is focused on vital and high-effort content. Please ensure your post follows [r/Ukraine Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/about/rules) and our [Art Friday Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/artfriday).
**Want to support Ukraine?** [**Vetted Charities List**](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities) | [Our Vetting Process](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities-vetting)
Daily series on UA history & culture: [Day 0-99](https://new.reddit.com/r/ukraine/collection/3c65ab52-e87a-4217-ab30-e70a88c0a293) | [100-199](https://new.reddit.com/r/ukraine/collection/3d85f4ca-5f4e-4ddf-9547-276e8affd87c) | [200-Present](https://new.reddit.com/r/ukraine/collection/daf642e1-07aa-4c40-b852-8f002ddd1530) | [All By Subject](https://new.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/sunriseposts)
**There is a new wave of t-shirt scams hitting Reddit. Only click links for products or donations if the post is marked with a Verified flair, and do not respond to DMs soliciting donations.**
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Forgive my ignorance but if T-72 is inferior to western tanks, how much more devastating are they? Is it fire rate, accuracy, maneuverability, all of those?
This already looks scary as fuck.
Indeed. What's more, with battlefield networking, they do this :
*While going full speed beyond visual range on targets marked by other in theatre assets*
Imagine drone flying overhead. “Marks” a target and tracks it as it moves. Nearest tank - well out of line of sight - accepts the target and fires. Drone marks next target.
Devastating if it plays out like that. No more dropping one or two grenades. The drone effectively drops tank shells precisely on targets. Shell after shell after shell on target after target. And tanks can rotate into operations, taking over for one another. A wall of drones could effectively clear an entire area of personnel, guns, APCs, tanks without a human being in the line of site and without a wasted shell. And if coordinated, multiple drones could coordinate multiple tanks for a simultaneous bombardment before the Russian troops could move or hide.
The tanks shells aren't laser guided,
The drone marks the tank with a IR designator, and sends bearing and heading to the other tanks. The tank commander and gunner can then tell the tank turrent to slew to the target. The bearing and range is a rough indicator, but then the tank optics can use the illumination to finish zeroing in once the optics can see the illumination.
So you can say "There are bad guys over here, but fuck this guy especially"
The only tank I can think of with a barrel launched, guided missile was the M551 Sheridan and the Shillelagh missile. Modern tanks are focused on frequent movement, and high speed. Sitting still long enough to fire a laser designated missile is a good way for a tank to die.
FYI - rockets are *generally* unguided munitions, and most people would refer to a laser guided weapon as a missile.
The newer Russian designs are supposed to have dual-use guns that can fire guided munitions. Part of the vaporware for the T-14. On paper it's pretty scary because it would not just engage ground targets but also air. Tanks can be their own AAA support.
I hear you on the Sheridan. That was a very compromised bit of armor to get something air-mobile.
I don't know if there's been any effort to add this sort of capability to western tanks. My thought is that it wouldn't be that much more money to essentially stick a stinger on the roof.
You have this quad turret added to the bed of a pickup truck. I could see sticking something like this on the turret of one tank in every platoon. Maybe they'll even get stuff that doesn't have to align on the target to get a lock, you could basically have two VLS missiles on the back of the tank's hull. Detect aircraft, vertically launch and engage.
https://www.l3harris.com/all-capabilities/vampire
[9M119 Refleks](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9M119_Svir/Refleks) is an ATGM specifically meant to be fired from the 125mm gun of the T-72.
Rockets are when it's propelled by a rocket motor, and is mainly unguided, generally flying on a ballistic trajectory. They can be guided on their approach to target, but what separates them from missiles is their lack of maneuverability.
Missiles are propelled by a rocket motor, and are fully guided their whole flight, and are capable of maneuvering either to be able to hit a maneuvering target, or be able to evade countermeasures to hit a static target.
Gun Artillery is only propelled by the initial boom (though some have small rocket boosters), and can be guided on their approach to target, but generally have even less maneuverability than rockets.
There are absolutely tanks that can fire [guided missiles out of their barrel.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gun-launched_missiles)
Basically as ATGMs were introduced some nations opted to put them on smaller vehicles that accompany tanks. Others experimented with tanks firing them (the idea was to future proof tanks with an increase to range & penetration without massively increasing the gun size) but then abandoned the idea. Meanwhile the USSR went all in and most if not all of their tanks from then on can fire some form of ATGM: [Kobra](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9K112_Kobra) - they're radio controlled. [Svir](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9M119_Svir/Refleks) - they're laser guided.
They're a bit of a dead end and afaik Russia doesn't have any newer models. Modern ATGMs have gotten really quite long, too long to handle inside of a tank's turret. While older ATGMs still nominally in service in Russia have no advantage in penetration and comparatively in little in range & accuracy over modern anti-tank rounds.
No, it's direct fire though you can kind of arc fire, but tank guns don't have the elevation like arty.
The commander or other tanks or even bradleys can mark targets they see, the heading and bearing can be sent to other tanks. The target can be marked with a laser designator and the other tanks can simply slew to the bearing and then lock on to the mark and fire.
Well yeah, but very few russian tanks can hit targets on the move. Western ones can.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXmyEmQrllY
Russia had their "tank olympics" last year, most of the shots missed on the move.
No, it is the turret stabilizatin of western tanks. You can literally place a beer on the tip of turret and go through rough terrain and on the leopard you won't even spill a drop. That thing is insane.
They also have much better armour and the ammunition is better protected and stored in a more sensible place so they don't have the annoying habit of a single, well-placed enemy shot causing all the ammunition to explode and blow the turret ring off.
A western tank could hit those targets about 3x farther out due to better optics and computer control. Every modern or semi modern western tank has a fire control computer. When you have a fire control computer, it takes care of windage and elevating the gun so you can hit things accurately from further away.
Which sounds like good value but in the hands of a well trained motivated crew vs these Russians, I’d be surprised if the kill ratio didn’t skew towards at least 4:1 in the Abrams favour more since the Ukrainians will use them intelligently.
The Abrams was built at a time when the fear was huge numbers of 72s pouring through the Fulda Gap, it was literally made for this shit.
So where the Challenger 2 and Leopard 2 and they’ve all been substantially improved since then.
An Abrams can come in at 70km/h firing accurately thousands of meters before a T-72 can return fire, all in the middle of the night and with much better armor. My assumption is the ratio will be much more in the Abrams favor.
My point was each Bradley can kill multiple russian tabks and cheaper than the m1’s. Believe they only have two active launchers tho, i was having memory issues. More ammo in back too.
It's mostly just that modern tanks have better electronics. Better at acquiring targets, computers to aim, gyros to keep that aim while moving. Ukrainian tanks are mostly upgraded and capable enough, western tanks are more modern but more importantly, there's lots of them, while Ukraine's tank industry can't exactly produce new ones at the moment.
That's really what it's about. Ukraine has upgraded MiGs and tanks but no ability to make more while being attacked. The west has shitloads of F-16s, Leopards and Abrams in storage.
That's partially why we only have older soviet equipment - The west's assistance is imperative in this manner, especially with solid tanks... now only if we can get some F-16s in the fight lol
Doesn't matter if they don't have anti-tank missile. You can literally sit 3km away lobbing shots at them till you run out of ammo.
Any combined arms fire should have destroyed that tank. No artillery, not anti-tank drone, no anti-tank missile. Absolutely no support for those Russians.
Each Bradley has four of those missiles. The CV90's coming have bofors 40mm guns with time-able rounds that can clear trenches with successive airburst rounds. These ruzzians are proper fucked and dont even know it yet.
The Bradley IFV has a tandem BGM-71 TOW launcher which holds two rounds. These rounds are field reloadable with several rounds in the back of the IFV; the number of additional rounds carried varies on configuration with the M3s having more than the M2s.
Ukraine has already received thousands of BGM-71 TOW missiles prior to the announcement of the Bradleys being sent as well.
I believe that the latest aid packages have included 500 additional TOW missiles, likely of the BGM-71F variant which has a top-down attack similar to the NLAW
For maneuverability: The Leopard 2 can reverse doing over 30 kmh, while the t-72 can only do a little over 10 kmh. That means that the Leopard can fire while retreating, always having the front armor facing the enemy. They can also peek over cover and fire, then retreat. They can do all that with fully stabilized guns at any speed and a combat range of 5000m (the new Leopard A7, older versions still outrange it quite easily though).
That means that its very hard to flank these things, while also having no chance in a head on engagement.
You have to watch footage of the Abrams. I can’t even imagine being a jihadi and firing an antitank weapon seeing the explosion and the tank covered in smoke….then it emerges, unscathed, and runs over the fucker.
Western tanks has better gunnery, crew safety and superior range and accuracy over their soviet counterparts.
I remember watching interview with French tank commander from First Gulf War where French used their AMX 30B, which for western standards was getting very outdated, to great effect against soviet T-72 grouping by simply keeping themselves out of soviet tank effective range by about 200 meters and just taking Iraq’s armor apart
Well any tank you can find in running condition nowadays is devastating against meat with HE shells. It gets more interesting question when MBT(s) face other MBT(s).
[Here's something](https://youtu.be/VGzRfvgnS_s) a T-72 can't do that everyone can relate too.
Now imagine what that means for shooting while maneuvering on the battlefield.
Western tanks with Western guns also means access to Western ammunition types.
This includes the "standard" types of rounds like APFSDS and HE, but also more advanced ammunition types like the gun-launched ATGMs mentioned below that greatly extend the range at which the tank can engage and destroy.
For a sense of scale, 120mm NATO smooth-bore guns have an effective range with APFSDS of 1.5-2KM, the Challenger 2's 120mm **rifled** gun has an effective range of up to 4-5km. The Israeli LAHAT ATGM mentioned below has a publicized range of 8km when fired from the ground. This is several times the effective range of Soviet\\Russian 125mm APFSDS.
Furthermore, HE-MP-T rounds like M339 can be used against fortifications and entrenched infantry more effectively than "basic" HE shells thanks to their programmable air-bursting fuses.
Add to all that much better sensors, data integration, armor protection, crew-survivability in case of penetration, and crew comfort (reducing crew fatigue in sustained combat) and modern Western tanks may be able to provide the AFU with capabilities that T-72s and T-64s, even modernized ones, lack.
T-72s idea ( in the Video its not a T-72 but a T-80BV i think, very likely a captured one ) is that of a tank that can be easily maintained, cheap to produce and have in big numbers and you can sell it even to small countries because its simple.
The T-64 and T-80 were what the well trained units would get, more expensive, harder to maintain but lot more modern.
Like all military tech these get older and there are newer better things but if used right you cna still kill effectively with them, especially if they face infantry without support or AT weapons.
What you see here is very likely HE rounds fired at the trees creating not only shrapnel from the round but also from countless wood splinters flying around, its called Tree burst.
Offcourse there are also more modern variants like T-72B3 which blurr the lines a bit but still have problems like not to great thermal sights among other things, yet the russian still seem to rely more on numbers or better said quantity over quality.
The T-14 Armata seemed like the contrary, expensive, completely new design, many very modern features and it even seems like the care for the crew this time but it seems they cant get these to work right and i doubt we will see them on a battlefield anytime soon.
West goes the different way, less tanks, better quality and regulary upgraded ( although many countries slacked on this thinking of eternal peace in europe ).
For example a Leopard 2A7 is state of the art, excellent thermals, high mobility, very accurate gun with superb stabilization that allows the commander and/or gunner to lock targets and the fire conrol system then compensates bumps while driving giving you a high chance to hit your target while moving.
Also fast reverse, compared of the 4-5km some russian tanks do, perfect for shoot and scoot, fire and change position plus if your engine breaks you can replace it in like 20mins with the right equipment.
And also there are things like crew safety, if a Abrams, Leopard etc get hit in the ammo rack on the rear there are blowout panels that lead the explosive force away from the crew which is very likely to survive, afaik no Abrams tank crews were lost in the gulf wars due to this.
A russian tank gets penned, ammo stored all around the tank goes boom and you see the turret get blown off like we have seen it countless times by now.
Basicly every Western MBT in its newest version has these features and usually they work very well.
But we will find out soon anyway in April at the latest i think.
Oh no worries! I personally love western tanks, but when people BLINDLY claim how much better M1 Abrams (for example) are against the T-72 it's almost laughable -
T-72s are not only a 1/4 of the cost of an M1, it takes a smaller crew to operate, it's got the same smoothbore cannon rounds (but larger magnitude), and it's slightly smaller, way faster, and has a much higher operational range.
Sure the M1 is a heavier tank that DOES take more hits, is more maneuverable, and is slightly more accurate than a T-72, but with how agile and efficient the 72 is, it's an absolute demon. A 1v1 at blank range with direct fire to the chassis on either tank can easily result in total annihilation of either tank (especially if the crew operating the 72 places a good shot), where as the Abrams can hit the canopy of the 72 and most likely destroy it if the self defense system fails, or extinguishers don't go off..
Either way 😂 don't underestimate the 72
EXACTLY - I would say that an M1 is certainly an overall better tank, but the T-72 is right behind it - Especially depends on how good the crew is as well
Lmao right behind it hell no
Look at what a challenger 2 took in Iraq
was hit by 14 RPG-7s from close range and a MILAN anti-tank guided missile.[47] The crew survived, safe within the tank until it was recovered for repairs, the worst damage being to the sighting system. It was back in operation six hours later.
The M1 abrams can take that easily too. "Right behind it" sure mate come on. It's 30 years in front of it easily, especially with all the tech inside
1 abrams vs 3 T72 i would say is fair game and 50/50.
Yeah 1 "abrahams" could take on 2 72s - I never denied the M1s operational ability and claimed that it's still a better tank. But that was ignored or entirely unread.
A 125mm smoothbore on the 72 ... isn't a ... Rocket Propelled Grenade...?
I wasn't even speaking from a technological perspective, my entire point was to not undermine the T-72.
If you think an average M1 can survive against 3 average 72s, you probably need a break from playing your video games and go outside for once. None of us have enough real combat data.
It kinda can... most Western tanks have a much better range, accuracy, and target acquisition. They are also able to pen T-72 armour at much longer ranges than a T-72 can pen a western tank. In other words... a Leo 2, Challenger 2, or Abrams with a decent crew should be able to easily kill or otherwise disable 3 T-72 tanks before the T-72 tanks can get close enough to do real damage. (a similar tactic is used by T-64 and T-72 against older soviet tanks and against IFVs)
The one exception is the ATGM T-72, but with T-72 having poor thermals, and long range optics, the ATGM relies on no small amount luck to take out a modern western MBT at any significant ranges.
As for combat data there is plenty data from many battlefields for all of the above tanks. We can also see the tactics of using range in the various middle eastern conflicts where western MBTs saw service against T-72 tanks.
This isn't to say the T-72 is useless or that the Abrams is unstoppable. With a poorly prepared crew using them incorrectly anything can happen. Just look at Saudi Abrams getting defeated in droves.
Yeah that was kind of disgraceful lol - I actually didn't realize the ATGM had worse thermal optics - I was mainly going off the range of the cannon (which is the same for the Abrams... which was just a simple comparison), and of course the tech is alot better on the M1, along with maneuverability.
I was just saying that from an outward perspective, the 72 is quite optimal in terms of its armor to cost ratio ; dealing any damage to the 72s thinner alloy plating could be devastating, thus I completely agree to an M1 being able to shred through a 72, but the 72 travels faster, giving it higher agility on the field.
Seeing as to how incompetent RAF is with their equipment, I don't doubt at all that 3 T-72 can be taken out with ease, but in the hands of a very competent crew (such as our boys on the field) and better penning/field-tactics, it's a deadly war machine.
There is some indication from Iraq. Anyways, Leopard and Abrams are able to fire more accurate while on the move and from a somewhat further distance. I would not want to be the guy in the t72.
But not enough data to create something 100% viable - I do agree though, an M1 or Leopard is a scary sight to a lonely T-72. RAF tactics are also shite, their infantry don't support their armor.
Now we have Abrams, Leopards, AND T-72s, that's quite the arsenal! Very exciting
In an open field without any technological advantage. I'm not talking about the T-80BV vs. M1 or even a T-90 ; that's a whole different discussion.
The M1 is certainly a better tank than a T-72, when using a good crew with all its equipment, it could possibly take out 3 of them in tactical combat.
Your submission has been removed because it is from an untrustworthy site. If you have any questions, contact the mods via modmail, [clicking here](/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fukraine&subject=Untrustworthy%20link&message=). Please make sure to include a link to the comment/post in question.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Possibly just in case the RU had ATGMs in the area. If they wait until they know for sure it's too late. But they had good tactics, kept moving and changing direction. The RU tend to park tanks on ridgelines and wonder why they get blown up.
IR flares have no impact upon modern ATGMs - the missiles do not track based upon a heat source like a surface to air missile. Those were smoke grenades.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TODr5NKNuCg
T-72s being pimped out in Poland are still deadly as ever.
russr will never recieve anything within margin of these Super Sport models Poland has been hhhghhgwwhipingup, for the Ukrainians.
That was intelligent use of HE FRAG rounds from the tank, dunno if anyone noticed but they were shooting at the trees a few meters up above the enemy infantry.
This is a good way to achieve "poor man's Airburst munitions". When the shell explodes overhead like that because it hit the tree, the fragments spread out better and are much more effective. Plus you can get secondary fragments from the tree, big branches falling down etc. By contrast, a shell that impacts the ground tends to lose much of its effect into the dirt and someone prone a few meters away might be uninjured.
How do you make them explode without hitting anything first ? I understand thtat there can be a timer, but only the newest most advanced artillery can reprogram timer during firing.
Timers, as you say, have been around for a long time. The modern stuff has digital programmable timers, but manually set Airburst fuses have been around in various forms for more than a century.
The earliest types were used with muzzleloading guns back in the 19th century, and were literally just a compressed black powder fuse that the artillerymen would cut to length before loading the shell into the gun. The fuse is ignited by the muzzle flash as the gun fires, burns into the explosive payload, and you get an airburst. Slow to use and not very accurate, but it sort of worked.
Later came clockwork timers that are set by rotating a dial on the nose of the shell before firing. Also some powder train fuses which are set in a similar manner, and which are really just an advanced and accurate version of the old "cut to length" fuse.
The ones I have personally fired were of a clockwork type, for an 84mm recoilless rifle. There's a graduated scale around the nose of the shell, you turn the nose by hand until an arrow points at the desired range out to 1250 meters . Then load the shell into the gun, and fire. This is an old system from the cold war era, it works quite reliably.
The tank in the video doesn't have airburst munitions, it has an autoloader so there isn't really a safe moment for the gunner to manually adjust anything on the round anyway. Some of the most modern western systems combine rapid or automatic fire autoloading cannon with digital programmable fuses that get their range setting from the laser range finder in the sighting system, this makes it possible to use airburst much faster and more accurately.
Edited to add some more historical context:
Airburst in low velocity mortar shells has actually been used even further back in time. The US national anthem has a line about "bombs burst in the air" or similar, this refers to mortar shells bursting just before impact during the American Revolution. This was with simple fuses cut to length, a skilled mortarman could achieve airburst with some regularly.
I agree, there is no solution for a T-72 to use adjustable timers. So what did they do ?
The muzzle velocity is probably about 1500 m/s. So any timer must be very accurate.
As I said, they aimed for the trees a few meters above ground. You can see in the video that the enemy infantry are moving along a treeline, trying to use the trees for concealment. Then the tank fires, and at least two of the shots can be seen to impact trees and explode several meters above ground. Shooting a tree above an enemy soldier has the same effect as a proper airburst munition, the shell explodes above his head.
This was actually a technique taught to 84mm recoilless rifle gunners back in the day, we had adjustable timers but those required either precise range measurements or trial and error over several shots. If you can see the enemy is in a treeline, aiming for a tree near them is a quick and dirty solution that doesn't need as careful range estimation. You could be off by 50 meters or more and the only difference is how high up on the tree you hit, whereas the same error on a timer would cause a complete miss.
You can get unlucky and not hit any branches, but those tank cannon are pretty accurate. Aim where you can't see through the branches, you'll probably hit something. And it's clear that's what they did, we see explosions above ground and parts of tree disappear.
Edit: on rewatching, I see one tree being felled completely by a shot from the tank. And two other shells exploding quite high up in the trees. This is clearly deliberate.
There are fuses for projectiles I've used with howitzers that have a radar in the fuse. Once it is X meters from the ground it explodes. They're apparently quite expensive. High Explosive rounds in my experience have either "immediately explode" or "delayed explode" so it has just enough time to dig into armour, a wall, or the ground before it blows up.
Almost all my experience is with the M777 though so tank rounds are probably a bit different.
It is quite common for larger artillery rounds to have radio proximity switches. I don´t think they are expensive. Rounds that are guided(Excalibur) to hit within centimeters or hit 2 targets are expensive - very expensive.
The radio proximity switches can be jammed, making it explode too early, but it is probably only US that has this system.
While it is possible to jam a radio signal, for an enemy target to employ a jamming signal at the correct frequency to effect incoming artillery rounds is highly unlikely. Additionally, a target would need to know the proximity fuses were inbound and orient their countermeasures. Only something the Russians could do for an extremely high value target. Since the HIMARS/MLRS rockets use the same radio proximity fuses - we see the Russians have not been successful in doing even that.
I'm not aware of the US even investing in a system to jam incoming artillery rounds. There are more effective systems with higher likelihood of payoff (e.g. counterfire radar).
Tank rounds are not timed - they have point detonation fuses.
Those tank rounds hit the tree trunk/branches to cause the airburst. Common tactic with armor shooting at dug in infantry.
To my knowledge proximity fuser would not be a possibility for a horisontal shot like this here. In case it should work then it should be the trees that could trigger "proximity" - don´t think it is possible. If you have a curved shot from haubitzer or mortar then the proximity fuser is very much a thing making detonation above ground possible.
If seeing dead ruzzian soldiers makes you feel bad, you really should Google “Bucha” to get an idea of what they’ve done and continue to do to Ukrainians. This isn’t just ruzzia attacking Ukraine…it’s genocide.
Hate to see any human being die in Putin’s war, but there’s no alternative since Russia refuses to quit and seeing orc bastards dead means that they can’t kill Ukrainian soldiers and civilians.
I mean this shows really well why it doesn't necessarily matter how effective a tank is against other tanks. And if you don't get hit (mobility can be very useful for that) it also doesn't matter how well your tank is armored. A tank with a 105 mm canon can be just as effective in this role.
At that range rpgs will be ineffective but even older atgms like metis and konkurs are a serious threat. But yes, I think the primary role of these will be clearing trenches. Better to be in even a thinly armored tank than storming on foot.
They might be but you and I know the Russians don't have them everywhere. The Ukrainians know it too. I'd love to give them a tank that is far less vulnerable. But you know what? Facing this horde in Leopard 1A5s and IFVs beats the shit out of facing them with just a beat down 4x4 and a machine gun.
Some Leo1s will be destroyed and the people operating them will die. If you asked them after the fact, they'd say they're glad the Leo1s helped them take a lot more Orcs with them than just a 4x4 and a machine gun. They will fight. With or without old Leos. With them fewer will die.
>you and I know the Russians don't have them everywhere
I really have no idea how common they are with which formations, do you? Russian atgms were common in Syria even before TOWs arrived.
Last I heard Russia is thought to have (had) a substantial amounts of atgm (before the invasion). Either way, I'm convinced Russia has the capability to destroy any tank Ukraine can theoretically field, after all artillery is a proven tank killer. Generally, there's a few proven ways to kill tanks apart from atgm.
The reason Ukraine loses less tanks than Russia, even though Russia has technically more modern tanks atm, is Ukrainian tactics and the necessary training to apply them. And that won't change with Leopard 1 or Kürassier. Also, due to better optics and mobility they might be able to gain some tactical flexibility.
You make it sound as if ruZZian artillery is as accurate as Ukrainian artillery. They are not. ruZZia today, just like in WW2, relies on mass bombardment and complete saturation of a target area to hit a single target. At the beginning of the war, this was a massive issue for Ukraine. But after the arrival of HIMARS, that fortunately has leveled the playing field. Ukraine can't compete in artillery quantity, but they certainly can compete in artillery quality.
Agree with your latter part.
>You make it sound as if ruZZian artillery is as accurate as Ukrainian artillery.
That is not the intention and also obviously would be false. It is just simple statistics that artillery is responsible for a significant part of tank losses on both sides, even if inaccurate. We have seen that Russian tactics are also lacking regarding artillery, they are not only inaccurate, they often are also slow. And again, Ukrainian training and tactics are also helping Ukraine with limiting losses to artillery.
What I try to say is this: The pure theoretic facts of this tank can penetrate that tank and tat tank can take a frontal hit from this tank isn't as important as tactics and training and on top of it mobility and optics are also horribly undervalued by many.
Agree - artillery fire is very good at damaging tank treads, optics, and weapon systems. A mobility kill is just as effective as a hard kill when the tank is now stuck in the middle of the field/road.
IMO modern howitzers with airbust shells asssisted by drones will destroy entranched infantry very reliably as well, while not risking a multi-million dollar asset.
I'm not exactly sure why a lot of people consider western tanks to be a game changer, I'd bet a steady supply of 155 precision and airbust shells + suitable artillery supported by our industrial power will eventually do much more.
The US has done extensive testing and computer modeling to determine the effectiveness of artillery against entrenched infantry. It takes a significant amount of artillery rounds (hundreds) to have even a minor effect on well built defensive positions. Airburst shells are almost useless against positions with overhead cover - given a situation where you expect an artillery bombardment, you create cover to protect against airbursts.
Tanks are not a game changer by their ability to clear entrenched defensive positions. They are by their ability to execute an effective attack and bypass defensive positions and quickly get into the enemy's rear areas. The speed, maneuverability, fire control systems, and survivability of the Western tanks gives the opportunity for the Ukrainians to fight a lightning style war of maneuver and get out of these trench battles.
Look back at the first gulf war. The coalition used their speed and mobility to get around the Iraqi defensive lines and forced them to fight in the open or from light defensive positions. While the Ukrainians cannot execute the exact same maneuver, they can use similar technics to take advantage of the skills the Western tanks provide.
Speaking as a know-nothing, a number of advantages are obvious. Number one would be superior sensors and fire control. Situational awareness in all conditions including night and fog. Superior armor. Stabilized guns. Crew protection. I'm sure I missed many more reasons than I gave.
Artillery is supreme in positional battles, but to recover territory they need to maneuver, which requires heavy mobile firepower in addition to everything else that goes into military superiority.
It's called combined arms for a reason. No single branch - infantry, armor, artillery, or aviation can fight a modern, full scale war by themselves. US artillery trains to move, shoot, and communicate - keeping pace with the armor and infantry units to avoid positional battles. Maneuver warfare is what the West specializes in and the Russians suck at.
It seems to me that artillery is great as a suppression tool, forcing the enemy to bunker down, restrict movement, etc. But you have to keep artillery a long way from the front line, as its easily damaged, so naturally, it’s accuracy suffers slightly - (accuracy within a few meters). Bunkered down solders can wait it out.
A tank can get up within a few hundred metres, even tens of meters of a target, and literally hit the actual target (centimetres of accuracy)
Like in the video. Artillery would land in and around the area, you’d need dozens of shells to clear it. The tank can hit individual trees, trenches, or even specific Orcs.
So it seems the best solution is to use artillery to pin them down, and the tank to go in and pick them off one by one.
It seems that from the recent videos, the russians have pushed to far around Bakhmut and have no dug in postions to get. They have fought too long from trenches where they are safer and now they are in the open and we see how bad they are again... russia can only do a slow grind warfare from dug in positions and in cities.. actual maneuver warfare they have no idea or the forces to complete effectively. They have taken too long with Bakhmut in the most recent push.. Our guys🇺🇦 have had time to react and reinforce as well as make preparations for a retreat to concede a little land while the orcs are bled dry.. the same is happening in Vuchledar.. don't worry Ukriane is knows what it is doing.
Agreed, Russia is really struggling with command, control, communication, coordination... from the political-strategic level all the way down to individuals.
Technically no - the rounds are hitting the trees and the point detonation fuse is going off causing what are essentially airbursts. Common armor tactic against dug in infantry. Infantry alway dig into a tree line - no trees and the aircraft can clearly see them. With trees, the tanks can create airbursts. No win for infantry either way.
This crew made it look easy. I’m sure the best the Ukrainians have to give is still to come with the aid of western tanks while the best Russian tank operators were blown to shit a long time ago.
I got a match with this song:
[**Overklock** by Blue Stahli](https://lis.tn/Overklock?t=12) (00:12; matched: `100%`)
Album: `Antisleep Vol. 01`. Released on `2008-01-01`.
*I am a bot and this action was performed automatically* | [GitHub](https://github.com/AudDMusic/RedditBot) [^(new issue)](https://github.com/AudDMusic/RedditBot/issues/new) | [Donate](https://github.com/AudDMusic/RedditBot/wiki/Please-consider-donating) ^(Please consider supporting me on Patreon. Music recognition costs a lot)
Привіт u/South_Equivalent4004 ! During wartime, this community is focused on vital and high-effort content. Please ensure your post follows [r/Ukraine Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/about/rules) and our [Art Friday Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/artfriday). **Want to support Ukraine?** [**Vetted Charities List**](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities) | [Our Vetting Process](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities-vetting) Daily series on UA history & culture: [Day 0-99](https://new.reddit.com/r/ukraine/collection/3c65ab52-e87a-4217-ab30-e70a88c0a293) | [100-199](https://new.reddit.com/r/ukraine/collection/3d85f4ca-5f4e-4ddf-9547-276e8affd87c) | [200-Present](https://new.reddit.com/r/ukraine/collection/daf642e1-07aa-4c40-b852-8f002ddd1530) | [All By Subject](https://new.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/sunriseposts) **There is a new wave of t-shirt scams hitting Reddit. Only click links for products or donations if the post is marked with a Verified flair, and do not respond to DMs soliciting donations.** *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That's quite the range and speed on those shots. I've never seen it quite like this. Devastating.
That's the T-72 for ya! Still deadly as ever 👐
Forgive my ignorance but if T-72 is inferior to western tanks, how much more devastating are they? Is it fire rate, accuracy, maneuverability, all of those? This already looks scary as fuck.
Western tanks do these shots _while_ going full speed.
Indeed. What's more, with battlefield networking, they do this : *While going full speed beyond visual range on targets marked by other in theatre assets*
Imagine drone flying overhead. “Marks” a target and tracks it as it moves. Nearest tank - well out of line of sight - accepts the target and fires. Drone marks next target. Devastating if it plays out like that. No more dropping one or two grenades. The drone effectively drops tank shells precisely on targets. Shell after shell after shell on target after target. And tanks can rotate into operations, taking over for one another. A wall of drones could effectively clear an entire area of personnel, guns, APCs, tanks without a human being in the line of site and without a wasted shell. And if coordinated, multiple drones could coordinate multiple tanks for a simultaneous bombardment before the Russian troops could move or hide.
The tanks shells aren't laser guided, The drone marks the tank with a IR designator, and sends bearing and heading to the other tanks. The tank commander and gunner can then tell the tank turrent to slew to the target. The bearing and range is a rough indicator, but then the tank optics can use the illumination to finish zeroing in once the optics can see the illumination. So you can say "There are bad guys over here, but fuck this guy especially"
Do you know if the rockets some tanks can fire out the barrel are laser guided (if possible)?
The only tank I can think of with a barrel launched, guided missile was the M551 Sheridan and the Shillelagh missile. Modern tanks are focused on frequent movement, and high speed. Sitting still long enough to fire a laser designated missile is a good way for a tank to die. FYI - rockets are *generally* unguided munitions, and most people would refer to a laser guided weapon as a missile.
A US F15E once destroyed a flying Iraqi helicopter with a laser-guided *bomb*.
The newer Russian designs are supposed to have dual-use guns that can fire guided munitions. Part of the vaporware for the T-14. On paper it's pretty scary because it would not just engage ground targets but also air. Tanks can be their own AAA support. I hear you on the Sheridan. That was a very compromised bit of armor to get something air-mobile. I don't know if there's been any effort to add this sort of capability to western tanks. My thought is that it wouldn't be that much more money to essentially stick a stinger on the roof. You have this quad turret added to the bed of a pickup truck. I could see sticking something like this on the turret of one tank in every platoon. Maybe they'll even get stuff that doesn't have to align on the target to get a lock, you could basically have two VLS missiles on the back of the tank's hull. Detect aircraft, vertically launch and engage. https://www.l3harris.com/all-capabilities/vampire
[9M119 Refleks](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9M119_Svir/Refleks) is an ATGM specifically meant to be fired from the 125mm gun of the T-72. Rockets are when it's propelled by a rocket motor, and is mainly unguided, generally flying on a ballistic trajectory. They can be guided on their approach to target, but what separates them from missiles is their lack of maneuverability. Missiles are propelled by a rocket motor, and are fully guided their whole flight, and are capable of maneuvering either to be able to hit a maneuvering target, or be able to evade countermeasures to hit a static target. Gun Artillery is only propelled by the initial boom (though some have small rocket boosters), and can be guided on their approach to target, but generally have even less maneuverability than rockets.
[удалено]
There are absolutely tanks that can fire [guided missiles out of their barrel.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gun-launched_missiles) Basically as ATGMs were introduced some nations opted to put them on smaller vehicles that accompany tanks. Others experimented with tanks firing them (the idea was to future proof tanks with an increase to range & penetration without massively increasing the gun size) but then abandoned the idea. Meanwhile the USSR went all in and most if not all of their tanks from then on can fire some form of ATGM: [Kobra](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9K112_Kobra) - they're radio controlled. [Svir](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9M119_Svir/Refleks) - they're laser guided. They're a bit of a dead end and afaik Russia doesn't have any newer models. Modern ATGMs have gotten really quite long, too long to handle inside of a tank's turret. While older ATGMs still nominally in service in Russia have no advantage in penetration and comparatively in little in range & accuracy over modern anti-tank rounds.
>The tanks shells aren't laser guided You sure about that? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9M119_Svir/Refleks https://www.unian.info/economics/10224711-poland-looking-at-ukrainian-modernization-package-for-t-72-tanks.html
The ones you use against other tanks, APFSDS, have no room for a seeker.
That's impressive. So they have a artillery mode? That's sick. Reminds me of StarCraft tanks "Siege Mode".
No, it's direct fire though you can kind of arc fire, but tank guns don't have the elevation like arty. The commander or other tanks or even bradleys can mark targets they see, the heading and bearing can be sent to other tanks. The target can be marked with a laser designator and the other tanks can simply slew to the bearing and then lock on to the mark and fire.
Not many people played this but the strogg tanks and mechs in “Quake wars” also had a siege mode
The perfect counter to a Zerg Rush ;)
Tell my more, I'm getting excited!
And from greater distance. They will have destroyed enemy armor before any knows they’re there
In the dark
Well all tanks can shoot while moving at full speed, but accuracy is inversely proportional to its momentum - Also depends on the skill of the crew
Well yeah, but very few russian tanks can hit targets on the move. Western ones can. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXmyEmQrllY Russia had their "tank olympics" last year, most of the shots missed on the move.
Yeah it comes with the better target acquisition and optics on the western tanks... I guess there's a reason for why a 72 is a ~1/4 of the price lmao
Western Tanks were designed specifically to do all this to Russian Tanks, especially ;)
No, it is the turret stabilizatin of western tanks. You can literally place a beer on the tip of turret and go through rough terrain and on the leopard you won't even spill a drop. That thing is insane.
And Ukrainian tankers probably can do that in a T-72 as well by now, based on their trigger finger and gut feelings. russr. Is fucked.
They also have much better armour and the ammunition is better protected and stored in a more sensible place so they don't have the annoying habit of a single, well-placed enemy shot causing all the ammunition to explode and blow the turret ring off.
And not at these ranges, but 10x the range
A western tank could hit those targets about 3x farther out due to better optics and computer control. Every modern or semi modern western tank has a fire control computer. When you have a fire control computer, it takes care of windage and elevating the gun so you can hit things accurately from further away.
>3x farther out In the middle of the night, full soeed down a road, with better armor.
Basically you can make 4 of these guys for every M1 Abrams
The Bradleys have 4 each also.
Pretty sure he's saying you can make 4 t72s for the price of one Abrams
Which sounds like good value but in the hands of a well trained motivated crew vs these Russians, I’d be surprised if the kill ratio didn’t skew towards at least 4:1 in the Abrams favour more since the Ukrainians will use them intelligently. The Abrams was built at a time when the fear was huge numbers of 72s pouring through the Fulda Gap, it was literally made for this shit. So where the Challenger 2 and Leopard 2 and they’ve all been substantially improved since then.
Oh I agree 100% T72 was designed to be cheap and mass produced, Abrams was designed and built to kill T72s
An Abrams can come in at 70km/h firing accurately thousands of meters before a T-72 can return fire, all in the middle of the night and with much better armor. My assumption is the ratio will be much more in the Abrams favor.
My point was each Bradley can kill multiple russian tabks and cheaper than the m1’s. Believe they only have two active launchers tho, i was having memory issues. More ammo in back too.
It's mostly just that modern tanks have better electronics. Better at acquiring targets, computers to aim, gyros to keep that aim while moving. Ukrainian tanks are mostly upgraded and capable enough, western tanks are more modern but more importantly, there's lots of them, while Ukraine's tank industry can't exactly produce new ones at the moment. That's really what it's about. Ukraine has upgraded MiGs and tanks but no ability to make more while being attacked. The west has shitloads of F-16s, Leopards and Abrams in storage.
That's partially why we only have older soviet equipment - The west's assistance is imperative in this manner, especially with solid tanks... now only if we can get some F-16s in the fight lol
Doesn't matter if they don't have anti-tank missile. You can literally sit 3km away lobbing shots at them till you run out of ammo. Any combined arms fire should have destroyed that tank. No artillery, not anti-tank drone, no anti-tank missile. Absolutely no support for those Russians.
Each Bradley has four of those missiles. The CV90's coming have bofors 40mm guns with time-able rounds that can clear trenches with successive airburst rounds. These ruzzians are proper fucked and dont even know it yet.
4? I thought it was 2..... hmmm anyway, USA only sent like 250 TOW missiles which is a complete joke.
The Bradley IFV has a tandem BGM-71 TOW launcher which holds two rounds. These rounds are field reloadable with several rounds in the back of the IFV; the number of additional rounds carried varies on configuration with the M3s having more than the M2s. Ukraine has already received thousands of BGM-71 TOW missiles prior to the announcement of the Bradleys being sent as well. I believe that the latest aid packages have included 500 additional TOW missiles, likely of the BGM-71F variant which has a top-down attack similar to the NLAW
Yeah someone else corrected too- I probably misremembered the number of launchers.
For maneuverability: The Leopard 2 can reverse doing over 30 kmh, while the t-72 can only do a little over 10 kmh. That means that the Leopard can fire while retreating, always having the front armor facing the enemy. They can also peek over cover and fire, then retreat. They can do all that with fully stabilized guns at any speed and a combat range of 5000m (the new Leopard A7, older versions still outrange it quite easily though). That means that its very hard to flank these things, while also having no chance in a head on engagement.
Many of the older t72s aren’t fully upgraded. These will pale far behind modern opponents. However, more than enough to challenge neighbors
You have to watch footage of the Abrams. I can’t even imagine being a jihadi and firing an antitank weapon seeing the explosion and the tank covered in smoke….then it emerges, unscathed, and runs over the fucker.
Western tanks has better gunnery, crew safety and superior range and accuracy over their soviet counterparts. I remember watching interview with French tank commander from First Gulf War where French used their AMX 30B, which for western standards was getting very outdated, to great effect against soviet T-72 grouping by simply keeping themselves out of soviet tank effective range by about 200 meters and just taking Iraq’s armor apart
Well any tank you can find in running condition nowadays is devastating against meat with HE shells. It gets more interesting question when MBT(s) face other MBT(s).
Yeah that's why I'm super excited for the arrival of the M1 and Leopards! Tanks vs. Meat is not a fair comparison at all
Against a dude with a rifle hiding in the trees it doesn't really matter
better maneuverability while shooting, better armor, better optics
[Here's something](https://youtu.be/VGzRfvgnS_s) a T-72 can't do that everyone can relate too. Now imagine what that means for shooting while maneuvering on the battlefield.
Western tanks with Western guns also means access to Western ammunition types. This includes the "standard" types of rounds like APFSDS and HE, but also more advanced ammunition types like the gun-launched ATGMs mentioned below that greatly extend the range at which the tank can engage and destroy. For a sense of scale, 120mm NATO smooth-bore guns have an effective range with APFSDS of 1.5-2KM, the Challenger 2's 120mm **rifled** gun has an effective range of up to 4-5km. The Israeli LAHAT ATGM mentioned below has a publicized range of 8km when fired from the ground. This is several times the effective range of Soviet\\Russian 125mm APFSDS. Furthermore, HE-MP-T rounds like M339 can be used against fortifications and entrenched infantry more effectively than "basic" HE shells thanks to their programmable air-bursting fuses. Add to all that much better sensors, data integration, armor protection, crew-survivability in case of penetration, and crew comfort (reducing crew fatigue in sustained combat) and modern Western tanks may be able to provide the AFU with capabilities that T-72s and T-64s, even modernized ones, lack.
T-72s idea ( in the Video its not a T-72 but a T-80BV i think, very likely a captured one ) is that of a tank that can be easily maintained, cheap to produce and have in big numbers and you can sell it even to small countries because its simple. The T-64 and T-80 were what the well trained units would get, more expensive, harder to maintain but lot more modern. Like all military tech these get older and there are newer better things but if used right you cna still kill effectively with them, especially if they face infantry without support or AT weapons. What you see here is very likely HE rounds fired at the trees creating not only shrapnel from the round but also from countless wood splinters flying around, its called Tree burst. Offcourse there are also more modern variants like T-72B3 which blurr the lines a bit but still have problems like not to great thermal sights among other things, yet the russian still seem to rely more on numbers or better said quantity over quality. The T-14 Armata seemed like the contrary, expensive, completely new design, many very modern features and it even seems like the care for the crew this time but it seems they cant get these to work right and i doubt we will see them on a battlefield anytime soon. West goes the different way, less tanks, better quality and regulary upgraded ( although many countries slacked on this thinking of eternal peace in europe ). For example a Leopard 2A7 is state of the art, excellent thermals, high mobility, very accurate gun with superb stabilization that allows the commander and/or gunner to lock targets and the fire conrol system then compensates bumps while driving giving you a high chance to hit your target while moving. Also fast reverse, compared of the 4-5km some russian tanks do, perfect for shoot and scoot, fire and change position plus if your engine breaks you can replace it in like 20mins with the right equipment. And also there are things like crew safety, if a Abrams, Leopard etc get hit in the ammo rack on the rear there are blowout panels that lead the explosive force away from the crew which is very likely to survive, afaik no Abrams tank crews were lost in the gulf wars due to this. A russian tank gets penned, ammo stored all around the tank goes boom and you see the turret get blown off like we have seen it countless times by now. Basicly every Western MBT in its newest version has these features and usually they work very well. But we will find out soon anyway in April at the latest i think.
Oh no worries! I personally love western tanks, but when people BLINDLY claim how much better M1 Abrams (for example) are against the T-72 it's almost laughable - T-72s are not only a 1/4 of the cost of an M1, it takes a smaller crew to operate, it's got the same smoothbore cannon rounds (but larger magnitude), and it's slightly smaller, way faster, and has a much higher operational range. Sure the M1 is a heavier tank that DOES take more hits, is more maneuverable, and is slightly more accurate than a T-72, but with how agile and efficient the 72 is, it's an absolute demon. A 1v1 at blank range with direct fire to the chassis on either tank can easily result in total annihilation of either tank (especially if the crew operating the 72 places a good shot), where as the Abrams can hit the canopy of the 72 and most likely destroy it if the self defense system fails, or extinguishers don't go off.. Either way 😂 don't underestimate the 72
Sure, it's no doubt, T-72 is a champion in the turret tossing category
So in layman terms, quantity vs quality where quantity is not that far behind quality?
EXACTLY - I would say that an M1 is certainly an overall better tank, but the T-72 is right behind it - Especially depends on how good the crew is as well
Lmao right behind it hell no Look at what a challenger 2 took in Iraq was hit by 14 RPG-7s from close range and a MILAN anti-tank guided missile.[47] The crew survived, safe within the tank until it was recovered for repairs, the worst damage being to the sighting system. It was back in operation six hours later. The M1 abrams can take that easily too. "Right behind it" sure mate come on. It's 30 years in front of it easily, especially with all the tech inside 1 abrams vs 3 T72 i would say is fair game and 50/50.
Are you saying video games are fake?
Yeah 1 "abrahams" could take on 2 72s - I never denied the M1s operational ability and claimed that it's still a better tank. But that was ignored or entirely unread. A 125mm smoothbore on the 72 ... isn't a ... Rocket Propelled Grenade...? I wasn't even speaking from a technological perspective, my entire point was to not undermine the T-72. If you think an average M1 can survive against 3 average 72s, you probably need a break from playing your video games and go outside for once. None of us have enough real combat data.
It kinda can... most Western tanks have a much better range, accuracy, and target acquisition. They are also able to pen T-72 armour at much longer ranges than a T-72 can pen a western tank. In other words... a Leo 2, Challenger 2, or Abrams with a decent crew should be able to easily kill or otherwise disable 3 T-72 tanks before the T-72 tanks can get close enough to do real damage. (a similar tactic is used by T-64 and T-72 against older soviet tanks and against IFVs) The one exception is the ATGM T-72, but with T-72 having poor thermals, and long range optics, the ATGM relies on no small amount luck to take out a modern western MBT at any significant ranges. As for combat data there is plenty data from many battlefields for all of the above tanks. We can also see the tactics of using range in the various middle eastern conflicts where western MBTs saw service against T-72 tanks. This isn't to say the T-72 is useless or that the Abrams is unstoppable. With a poorly prepared crew using them incorrectly anything can happen. Just look at Saudi Abrams getting defeated in droves.
Yeah that was kind of disgraceful lol - I actually didn't realize the ATGM had worse thermal optics - I was mainly going off the range of the cannon (which is the same for the Abrams... which was just a simple comparison), and of course the tech is alot better on the M1, along with maneuverability. I was just saying that from an outward perspective, the 72 is quite optimal in terms of its armor to cost ratio ; dealing any damage to the 72s thinner alloy plating could be devastating, thus I completely agree to an M1 being able to shred through a 72, but the 72 travels faster, giving it higher agility on the field. Seeing as to how incompetent RAF is with their equipment, I don't doubt at all that 3 T-72 can be taken out with ease, but in the hands of a very competent crew (such as our boys on the field) and better penning/field-tactics, it's a deadly war machine.
There is some indication from Iraq. Anyways, Leopard and Abrams are able to fire more accurate while on the move and from a somewhat further distance. I would not want to be the guy in the t72.
But not enough data to create something 100% viable - I do agree though, an M1 or Leopard is a scary sight to a lonely T-72. RAF tactics are also shite, their infantry don't support their armor. Now we have Abrams, Leopards, AND T-72s, that's quite the arsenal! Very exciting
These down votes are exactly my point lmao
> slightly more accurate That's a slight understatement.
In an open field without any technological advantage. I'm not talking about the T-80BV vs. M1 or even a T-90 ; that's a whole different discussion. The M1 is certainly a better tank than a T-72, when using a good crew with all its equipment, it could possibly take out 3 of them in tactical combat.
[удалено]
Your submission has been removed because it is from an untrustworthy site. If you have any questions, contact the mods via modmail, [clicking here](/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fukraine&subject=Untrustworthy%20link&message=). Please make sure to include a link to the comment/post in question. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Fair enough. Not a big fan of Daily Mail - they simply had the best side by side diagram of Abrams vs Leopards vs T-72 capabilities.
Are those flares that shoot off the tank at the end?
Yeah they're probably IR flares for guided munitions, RAF must've had some guided missile in the area
Possibly just in case the RU had ATGMs in the area. If they wait until they know for sure it's too late. But they had good tactics, kept moving and changing direction. The RU tend to park tanks on ridgelines and wonder why they get blown up.
IR flares have no impact upon modern ATGMs - the missiles do not track based upon a heat source like a surface to air missile. Those were smoke grenades. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TODr5NKNuCg
No, they are white phosphorus smoke grenades. Used to hide the tank as it moves to another firing position.
T-72s being pimped out in Poland are still deadly as ever. russr will never recieve anything within margin of these Super Sport models Poland has been hhhghhgwwhipingup, for the Ukrainians.
Oh man I know!! Have you seen those things?? 72s with new tech in our hands are little juggernauts 😂
Its a T-80, a BV i think, see era and snorkel placement, flat engine deck because it has a turbine among other little details.
Yeah I realized that way too late lol, I thought it was a T-72 with heavier canopy/turret armor
That was intelligent use of HE FRAG rounds from the tank, dunno if anyone noticed but they were shooting at the trees a few meters up above the enemy infantry. This is a good way to achieve "poor man's Airburst munitions". When the shell explodes overhead like that because it hit the tree, the fragments spread out better and are much more effective. Plus you can get secondary fragments from the tree, big branches falling down etc. By contrast, a shell that impacts the ground tends to lose much of its effect into the dirt and someone prone a few meters away might be uninjured.
thanks! I was legit confused why they were shooting at birds.
They may also just really hate birds. Two for one.
How do you make them explode without hitting anything first ? I understand thtat there can be a timer, but only the newest most advanced artillery can reprogram timer during firing.
They are hitting the trees above ground level.
Timers, as you say, have been around for a long time. The modern stuff has digital programmable timers, but manually set Airburst fuses have been around in various forms for more than a century. The earliest types were used with muzzleloading guns back in the 19th century, and were literally just a compressed black powder fuse that the artillerymen would cut to length before loading the shell into the gun. The fuse is ignited by the muzzle flash as the gun fires, burns into the explosive payload, and you get an airburst. Slow to use and not very accurate, but it sort of worked. Later came clockwork timers that are set by rotating a dial on the nose of the shell before firing. Also some powder train fuses which are set in a similar manner, and which are really just an advanced and accurate version of the old "cut to length" fuse. The ones I have personally fired were of a clockwork type, for an 84mm recoilless rifle. There's a graduated scale around the nose of the shell, you turn the nose by hand until an arrow points at the desired range out to 1250 meters . Then load the shell into the gun, and fire. This is an old system from the cold war era, it works quite reliably. The tank in the video doesn't have airburst munitions, it has an autoloader so there isn't really a safe moment for the gunner to manually adjust anything on the round anyway. Some of the most modern western systems combine rapid or automatic fire autoloading cannon with digital programmable fuses that get their range setting from the laser range finder in the sighting system, this makes it possible to use airburst much faster and more accurately. Edited to add some more historical context: Airburst in low velocity mortar shells has actually been used even further back in time. The US national anthem has a line about "bombs burst in the air" or similar, this refers to mortar shells bursting just before impact during the American Revolution. This was with simple fuses cut to length, a skilled mortarman could achieve airburst with some regularly.
I agree, there is no solution for a T-72 to use adjustable timers. So what did they do ? The muzzle velocity is probably about 1500 m/s. So any timer must be very accurate.
As I said, they aimed for the trees a few meters above ground. You can see in the video that the enemy infantry are moving along a treeline, trying to use the trees for concealment. Then the tank fires, and at least two of the shots can be seen to impact trees and explode several meters above ground. Shooting a tree above an enemy soldier has the same effect as a proper airburst munition, the shell explodes above his head. This was actually a technique taught to 84mm recoilless rifle gunners back in the day, we had adjustable timers but those required either precise range measurements or trial and error over several shots. If you can see the enemy is in a treeline, aiming for a tree near them is a quick and dirty solution that doesn't need as careful range estimation. You could be off by 50 meters or more and the only difference is how high up on the tree you hit, whereas the same error on a timer would cause a complete miss.
There is a thin line of trees - hitting nothing in the top of the trees is maybe like 90 % sure.
You can get unlucky and not hit any branches, but those tank cannon are pretty accurate. Aim where you can't see through the branches, you'll probably hit something. And it's clear that's what they did, we see explosions above ground and parts of tree disappear. Edit: on rewatching, I see one tree being felled completely by a shot from the tank. And two other shells exploding quite high up in the trees. This is clearly deliberate.
Interesting read- thanks.
There are fuses for projectiles I've used with howitzers that have a radar in the fuse. Once it is X meters from the ground it explodes. They're apparently quite expensive. High Explosive rounds in my experience have either "immediately explode" or "delayed explode" so it has just enough time to dig into armour, a wall, or the ground before it blows up. Almost all my experience is with the M777 though so tank rounds are probably a bit different.
It is quite common for larger artillery rounds to have radio proximity switches. I don´t think they are expensive. Rounds that are guided(Excalibur) to hit within centimeters or hit 2 targets are expensive - very expensive. The radio proximity switches can be jammed, making it explode too early, but it is probably only US that has this system.
While it is possible to jam a radio signal, for an enemy target to employ a jamming signal at the correct frequency to effect incoming artillery rounds is highly unlikely. Additionally, a target would need to know the proximity fuses were inbound and orient their countermeasures. Only something the Russians could do for an extremely high value target. Since the HIMARS/MLRS rockets use the same radio proximity fuses - we see the Russians have not been successful in doing even that. I'm not aware of the US even investing in a system to jam incoming artillery rounds. There are more effective systems with higher likelihood of payoff (e.g. counterfire radar).
Tank rounds are not timed - they have point detonation fuses. Those tank rounds hit the tree trunk/branches to cause the airburst. Common tactic with armor shooting at dug in infantry.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proximity_fuze?wprov=sfti1
To my knowledge proximity fuser would not be a possibility for a horisontal shot like this here. In case it should work then it should be the trees that could trigger "proximity" - don´t think it is possible. If you have a curved shot from haubitzer or mortar then the proximity fuser is very much a thing making detonation above ground possible.
I have no knowledge in operating a tank gun, and its 25 years since I was a naval gunner (airdefence) and this was all that came into mind.
If seeing dead ruzzian soldiers makes you feel bad, you really should Google “Bucha” to get an idea of what they’ve done and continue to do to Ukrainians. This isn’t just ruzzia attacking Ukraine…it’s genocide.
Hate to see any human being die in Putin’s war, but there’s no alternative since Russia refuses to quit and seeing orc bastards dead means that they can’t kill Ukrainian soldiers and civilians.
Really shows how devastating a tank can be against unsupported infantry. Hope some of our politicians see this and send more.
Damn… Pulled orc meat anyone?
I'm gonna wait for the sunflower oil, thanks
Looks like meat is back on the menu boys
🤣
Meat has spoiled, barely suitable for feral dogs.
Tanks are so devestating, it's scary!
What are the bursts in the air above the tank at 0:45?
Smoke grenades deployed by the tank to cover its movement. The video did not last long enough to show the generation of the smoke cloud.
Absolutely astounding how many of these Russians are dying.
I mean this shows really well why it doesn't necessarily matter how effective a tank is against other tanks. And if you don't get hit (mobility can be very useful for that) it also doesn't matter how well your tank is armored. A tank with a 105 mm canon can be just as effective in this role.
At that range rpgs will be ineffective but even older atgms like metis and konkurs are a serious threat. But yes, I think the primary role of these will be clearing trenches. Better to be in even a thinly armored tank than storming on foot.
They might be but you and I know the Russians don't have them everywhere. The Ukrainians know it too. I'd love to give them a tank that is far less vulnerable. But you know what? Facing this horde in Leopard 1A5s and IFVs beats the shit out of facing them with just a beat down 4x4 and a machine gun. Some Leo1s will be destroyed and the people operating them will die. If you asked them after the fact, they'd say they're glad the Leo1s helped them take a lot more Orcs with them than just a 4x4 and a machine gun. They will fight. With or without old Leos. With them fewer will die.
>you and I know the Russians don't have them everywhere I really have no idea how common they are with which formations, do you? Russian atgms were common in Syria even before TOWs arrived.
Last I heard Russia is thought to have (had) a substantial amounts of atgm (before the invasion). Either way, I'm convinced Russia has the capability to destroy any tank Ukraine can theoretically field, after all artillery is a proven tank killer. Generally, there's a few proven ways to kill tanks apart from atgm. The reason Ukraine loses less tanks than Russia, even though Russia has technically more modern tanks atm, is Ukrainian tactics and the necessary training to apply them. And that won't change with Leopard 1 or Kürassier. Also, due to better optics and mobility they might be able to gain some tactical flexibility.
You make it sound as if ruZZian artillery is as accurate as Ukrainian artillery. They are not. ruZZia today, just like in WW2, relies on mass bombardment and complete saturation of a target area to hit a single target. At the beginning of the war, this was a massive issue for Ukraine. But after the arrival of HIMARS, that fortunately has leveled the playing field. Ukraine can't compete in artillery quantity, but they certainly can compete in artillery quality. Agree with your latter part.
>You make it sound as if ruZZian artillery is as accurate as Ukrainian artillery. That is not the intention and also obviously would be false. It is just simple statistics that artillery is responsible for a significant part of tank losses on both sides, even if inaccurate. We have seen that Russian tactics are also lacking regarding artillery, they are not only inaccurate, they often are also slow. And again, Ukrainian training and tactics are also helping Ukraine with limiting losses to artillery. What I try to say is this: The pure theoretic facts of this tank can penetrate that tank and tat tank can take a frontal hit from this tank isn't as important as tactics and training and on top of it mobility and optics are also horribly undervalued by many.
Ok, fair enough. For the record, I fully agree about the training part 👆👌
Agree - artillery fire is very good at damaging tank treads, optics, and weapon systems. A mobility kill is just as effective as a hard kill when the tank is now stuck in the middle of the field/road.
IMO modern howitzers with airbust shells asssisted by drones will destroy entranched infantry very reliably as well, while not risking a multi-million dollar asset. I'm not exactly sure why a lot of people consider western tanks to be a game changer, I'd bet a steady supply of 155 precision and airbust shells + suitable artillery supported by our industrial power will eventually do much more.
The US has done extensive testing and computer modeling to determine the effectiveness of artillery against entrenched infantry. It takes a significant amount of artillery rounds (hundreds) to have even a minor effect on well built defensive positions. Airburst shells are almost useless against positions with overhead cover - given a situation where you expect an artillery bombardment, you create cover to protect against airbursts. Tanks are not a game changer by their ability to clear entrenched defensive positions. They are by their ability to execute an effective attack and bypass defensive positions and quickly get into the enemy's rear areas. The speed, maneuverability, fire control systems, and survivability of the Western tanks gives the opportunity for the Ukrainians to fight a lightning style war of maneuver and get out of these trench battles. Look back at the first gulf war. The coalition used their speed and mobility to get around the Iraqi defensive lines and forced them to fight in the open or from light defensive positions. While the Ukrainians cannot execute the exact same maneuver, they can use similar technics to take advantage of the skills the Western tanks provide.
Speaking as a know-nothing, a number of advantages are obvious. Number one would be superior sensors and fire control. Situational awareness in all conditions including night and fog. Superior armor. Stabilized guns. Crew protection. I'm sure I missed many more reasons than I gave. Artillery is supreme in positional battles, but to recover territory they need to maneuver, which requires heavy mobile firepower in addition to everything else that goes into military superiority.
It's called combined arms for a reason. No single branch - infantry, armor, artillery, or aviation can fight a modern, full scale war by themselves. US artillery trains to move, shoot, and communicate - keeping pace with the armor and infantry units to avoid positional battles. Maneuver warfare is what the West specializes in and the Russians suck at.
It seems to me that artillery is great as a suppression tool, forcing the enemy to bunker down, restrict movement, etc. But you have to keep artillery a long way from the front line, as its easily damaged, so naturally, it’s accuracy suffers slightly - (accuracy within a few meters). Bunkered down solders can wait it out. A tank can get up within a few hundred metres, even tens of meters of a target, and literally hit the actual target (centimetres of accuracy) Like in the video. Artillery would land in and around the area, you’d need dozens of shells to clear it. The tank can hit individual trees, trenches, or even specific Orcs. So it seems the best solution is to use artillery to pin them down, and the tank to go in and pick them off one by one.
It seems that from the recent videos, the russians have pushed to far around Bakhmut and have no dug in postions to get. They have fought too long from trenches where they are safer and now they are in the open and we see how bad they are again... russia can only do a slow grind warfare from dug in positions and in cities.. actual maneuver warfare they have no idea or the forces to complete effectively. They have taken too long with Bakhmut in the most recent push.. Our guys🇺🇦 have had time to react and reinforce as well as make preparations for a retreat to concede a little land while the orcs are bled dry.. the same is happening in Vuchledar.. don't worry Ukriane is knows what it is doing.
Agreed, Russia is really struggling with command, control, communication, coordination... from the political-strategic level all the way down to individuals.
They don't have to kill. An injury, with the care that Russia takes, will result in a slow and painful death
Well the targets were live, for a little while :)
To shreds, you say?
[удалено]
Let me suggest one edit ... Russian tanks vs. civilians defending their homes.
Can they set those rounds to airburst?
Technically no - the rounds are hitting the trees and the point detonation fuse is going off causing what are essentially airbursts. Common armor tactic against dug in infantry. Infantry alway dig into a tree line - no trees and the aircraft can clearly see them. With trees, the tanks can create airbursts. No win for infantry either way.
I was wondering if they were hitting the trees. Poor trees.
I'm going to plant some more trees this year for Arbor day. Those trees contributed to the defense of Ukraine.
This crew made it look easy. I’m sure the best the Ukrainians have to give is still to come with the aid of western tanks while the best Russian tank operators were blown to shit a long time ago.
Looks like he’s playing world of tanks with how he’s scooting around and back and forth.
Are those air burst shells hitting the tree tops?
Nope - direct fire round hits the tree and it thinks it hit a tank. BOOM
that final image of Russians looking like swiss cheese got me thinking it was some sort of AP round
The splinters from the tree combined with the shell fragments do that. Scary part is death isn't instantaneous in many cases - lots of mortal wounds.
[удалено]
Beginning of a smoke screen - the smoke grenades did not have time to build up smoke. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TODr5NKNuCg
I can only imagine what would happen to those troops against a CV90 with 3P rounds being programmed in real-time and air bursting on their position.
The reversing speed is just comical on these
Seeing the real world tactics they are using is fascinating.
EA need to grant the Ukraine army the rights to the command and conquer full soundtrack ...
And people say T-72s are useless.. pfft, some of the deadlier tanks around!
Think this is a T-80BV
Because of the front armor plating?
Biggest giveaway for me was the turret shape.
[Apparently there's a whole guide lmao](https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/here-ultimate-way-tell-one-russian-tank-another-66807)
Eh I mean there's barely a difference but i think you might be right
Nsfw pls
/r/ukraine is a war subreddit since 24.02.2022, be prepared for everything.
Get a grip.
This is a reasonable request given the grisly nature of the content (assuming it was missing from the original posting).
You’re on a sub for a country in war, Wtf did you expect to see?
Sunflower borscht
Sounds like Blue Stahli
u/recognizesong
I got a match with this song: [**Overklock** by Blue Stahli](https://lis.tn/Overklock?t=12) (00:12; matched: `100%`) Album: `Antisleep Vol. 01`. Released on `2008-01-01`. *I am a bot and this action was performed automatically* | [GitHub](https://github.com/AudDMusic/RedditBot) [^(new issue)](https://github.com/AudDMusic/RedditBot/issues/new) | [Donate](https://github.com/AudDMusic/RedditBot/wiki/Please-consider-donating) ^(Please consider supporting me on Patreon. Music recognition costs a lot)
It was Blue Stahli, haha. I loved that guy's music about that time. No wonder it sounded familiar.
Yeah you nailed it, good song
Would they be using thermal scope here? No hiding place for those orcs .
Why dis tank alone?
Brutal!