a documentary on the biden crime familys underhand deals with foreign powers and companys controlled by those foreign powers would be far more important than lies about Russia

And who has become the face of the American unprovoked aggression to Iraq?

Well it does have bumps on the hood

Haha that was a first for me too😂

All hail bump 💀

Who's doesn't like a good bump

The noise they make when hit by an NLAW quickly followed by a fry up.

And Challenger vs Kornet

That's what it's called int the US Army: a 'bimp.'

BMP-2 БМП-2 (Боевая Машина Пехоты) ( поколение 2)

I don't believe Ukrainians will have such recovery and repair capabilities. US could just win an encounter, control areas from air and safely recover the tank. In this war when you are hit, you leave burning tank in no mans land.

There's plastic? Thanks for your service and intereting information about a large hole made by a hit. Knowing the target has been hit not only save a 2nd round, it allows the tank to move to a different position and away from possible harm. By the way, how do tanks manage to refuel on the battlefield? Do tankers follow not too far behind?

Didn't you wish to have the German MTU in the back? 35 minutes to change the whole unit..😂😘🍻

@@onespeedlite The plastic was probably what was left of the crew's gear in the bustle rack.

Will it survive a 30mm hole from a Terminator? That scary machine knocks out T-72 head on with a simple 30mm.

Yeah. Too bad they can’t beat Russian T-series tanks in the turret tossing competition 😢

@@christopherchartier3017this is like WW2 with sophisticated German tanks up against more simpel Russian tanks, and who won that battle mate?

@@jasip1000 This isn’t anywhere near like that lol

@@christopherchartier3017 you can LOL all that you want, but yes its exactly like that.

@@jasip1000 Both sides (Ukraine with western vehicles, Russia with T90M’s and T80’s) are using peer to peer tanks. It’s not at all like “T34s vs a couple Tigers”

The Challenger got challenged. The Leopard got hunted The Abrams got destroyed. By shovels, like the other tanks.

​@@Intel-i7-9700kanother abrams destroyed by T72B3 with an ATGM

Russia lost far more T72s, T80s, and T90s tho

@@The3nlightened0ne Soviets are being deployed from the start of the war abrams arrived 1 year later and after almost a year they were deployed and their lifespan was 3 days

It seems as though you are foolishly under the impression that these tanks could NOT be destroyed.

Abram, the answer is casted in stone now.

Yes killing human beings nothing funny about that arm chair warrior.

​@@contingency9called it "game changer" and then proceeded to fail is way funnier.

@@contingency9Preach 👏

It's the 5th abrams MBT and the 2nd minesweeper right now.

Overstated junk

And lose...

​@@daniboi4067 Tbh NATO would sweep the floor with Russia in a purely conventional war, it wouldn't last long at all. Drip feeding Ukraine tanks will help, but really they should just put boots on the ground (along with their airforces) in a "special NATO peacekeeping military operation" and then see how long Russia lasts; i'd be impressed if a single Russian unit remained in Ukraine after a month.

@@daniboi4067 In your dreams, Russian bot.

@@RifleEyez Ok so Nato in a conventional war ( WHICH IT IS AT THIS POINT OF TIME ALREADY) will come and sweep entire Russia and Russians will do nothing i meant Nothing? Why is it so ? While together Nato can be powerful than Russia but when Russia and Nato fights there would noclear winner!! USA will taste Nuclear Weapons which they used on Japan . NATO is a Coward , Putin is not !! There lies the biggest difference .

@@daniboi4067 lol what?

I think there is composite armour on the ide of the turrets in Abrams?

The western tanks have way better rounds though. Makes no difference when the gun was made

War thunder is wrong, Mbts can take main caliber hits up to 20 degrees angle on the side

Abrams has uranium armor plate.

The leopard is well protected has long its facing fire on the front, its thin on the back and sides, but so is the abrams.. although the 120mm gun is from the 70s, it has changes over the years, so did the ammo available. Also, the abrams initially used the 105mm, later adopting the german gun. Chobam armor is the british developed composite armor, the leopard also has composite armor so really i dont get what the guy in the video meant. Facing the front of the abrams, challenger or leopard is pretty much a similar thing, has long it isnt an older version.

I was surprised he didn't mention the "pop top" effect of ammo storage as well.

No. The Challenger 2's ammo storage is the absolute worst and the Leopard 2, despite having blow-out panels in the turret bustle still stores 2/3rds of its ammo in the crew compartment next to the driver and it's not isolated in any way.

@@JAnx01 The blow out panels in most western tanks have been exagerated greatly anyway. Once a round really penetrates the crew compartment, it's usually over. All you can do, is abandon the tank. If there is a situation where the enemy really manages to penetrate the armour and forcing the survivors to bail, they are very likely finished anyway. Either due to artillery, repeated enemy fire or enemy infantry. Tanks like the Leopard 2 or the Abrams are very sophisticated. But they are still "tanks". And once hey are hit, the stuff inside are soft, fleshy little humans. And those don't take tank shells very well. Regardless if it's a shrapnell, overpressure, a fire or well amunition blowing up.

@@CrniWuk while there is a chance that this can happen, weve seen both from testing and in combat that the blowout panels can do there job, and often the internal detonation of the ammo can kinda act as ERA(this is actually how the principle of ERA was discovered). its the reason you don't see Abrams getting decapitated like a T-72 would, tho theoretically something like a challenger 2 could suffer the same fate cus it has hull ammo storage, and infact one was nocked out by friendly fire due to ammo going off. Leopards can also suffer a similar catastrophic effect if their Ammo in the hull gets detonated. No tank is invincible for sure, but the have separate compartments for ammo can make a big diffence in how much tank and crew is left if the ammo gets hit.

Thermals are affected by smoke, it's not a miracle technology

Given how narrow the occupied territory is, supply lines should be easy to maintain.

I'm just glad that most people in the US and Ukraine don't share you "It's too hard lets not do it" attitude. But you know who does think logistics are too hard to develop an expertise in? Russia.

@@MinusEighty Supply lines are a major problem for Ukraine. That is why Russia has had ongoing missile attacks since 10th October (around 1200 cruise missiles so far). Knocking out 70% of the electrical grid is NOT about making Ukrainian moms kry about heating up milk for their children but indeed to cripple Ukrainian logistics. Most of their training network uses (used) electrical locomotive, that are now dormant. Believe me, it's no fun carting around 55 ton tanks on crumbling roads.

I agree about the logistics but getting the tanks are also a major problem. Very few of the pledged tanks are ready for delivery now and it will take the best part of a year to deliver all those tanks. Other than that, the Western manufacture and supply lines are not ready to deliver more tanks in a reasonable time frame. In the meantime, large numbers of new and refurbished Russian tanks are brought in by train all the time.

This is the most important part of the puzzle. Logistics are the ruin of an army.

It's not really unfair when you are not comparing who is supporting who but rather the fighting machines themselves.

Iraq had the 4th largest army in the world at the time we invaded... They weren't small potatoes. USA's degree of success in the conventional phase of that war was greater than expected.

Thanks capitan, would be interesting to see how NATO will perform without Ukraine)

youtube.com/@wallstreettower

​@@user-rm8fm3ip5h Moscow would be captured in a month and Putin would be hung for war crimes in the next month.

They just lost one 😂😂

😂destroyed by a mine 2km from the front

​@@carkawalakhatulistiwa. Nope, Artillery Fire

@@MoschusMoschiferus Kornet. There is a video of it actually got hit. The verified destroyed Challengers are at least 2 right now

yes theyve lost 2 now they werent training deficiencies either just good aiming by the artillery of the ru. theyd all be lost by now if they dared to field them as front line units too.

Oh no we need CAS to protect our billions of dollars squadrons from CAS.

Its Russia, друг. Not Iraq. You will be sprayed.

Seeing as you have operated an Abrams I have one question. Is it true that the Abrams takes only 3 seconds to reload? Because if so then that’s beyond impressive

thats the issue, you need top tier mechanics and a LOT of fuel to keep that beast running. Leo on the other hand with conventional diesel engine is much easier on both mechanics and supply lines

@@Frostbite_001 there's lots of videos of exercises from inside abrams - here's a good one with a good loader, 3ish seconds to reload ukposts.info/have/v-deo/qH-ldphqhWhkz4k.html

@@Asghaad True about the Leo. But even the Leo requires a well working infrastructure in the back to operate efficiently. What ever if that can achieved in Ukraine? I have my doubts about it. Neither the Leo, Abrams or Challanger ever saw a real, true, conventional warefare. Like where two nations fought each other in a total-war-type of scenario. Who knows how those tanks will do in such a situation.

@@Frostbite_001 Abrams are manually loaded, so it all depends on the skill and training of the crew.

The tactics used on the battle field greatly influence the out come of tanks in battle. The best tank used incorrectly on the battlefield will result in a smoking wreck.

Not nowadays, The majority of tank are destroyed by infantry anti tank weapons and anti-tank gun since ww2,

Well, I think it depends entirely on the battlefield and what weapon is available. For example, the Egyptians used sagger missiles against the Israelis in the Sinai 1967. That worked to a degree. We used aircraft and artillery to destroy most the tanks in Desert Storm. However, in this war so far, the Russians are only using tanks to destroy other tanks. They are not effectively using artillery, anti-tank or aircraft to destroy Ukrainian tanks. Why? Well, and here is the core problem for the Russians. Their intelligence gathering of enemy locations is terrible.

Ukraine frontline has seen a lot of tank x tank combat...

Yeah but Russia isn't known for its anti armor weapons. They have the kornet, which is similar to the TOW. That means it shares similar disadvantages, like not being usable in crowded environments or over water. The guy who fires it also has to stay in the open

True, unless you count the much worse export variant given to Saudi Arabia, who used them in Yemen without any proper support.

How many of Saudi Arabia's Abrams tanks were destroyed in Yemen?

Only 3 ? 😂😂😂

@@Swiftiee13 In Iraq? Yes.

@@Scar626 Not sure about the numbers, but probably a lot more than they should have lost. Considering that it's a way worse export version of the tank, and the Saudis just suck at knowing how to use them.

The 1200 number seems a bit high. "In July, Warsaw concluded a $5.8 billion agreement with Seoul to buy 189 K2 tanks and 212 K9 self-propelled howitzers, in what is the Asian country's largest-ever arms deal. Dec 6, 2022" "Poland approves $1.4 billion deal to buy 116 Abrams tanks from US. Jan 4, 2023"

That's because the Abrams was spending more time at the fuel depot than on the battlefield.

They had like 200, and they are early production Leopard 2A4's without serious armor. Turkey had the same tanks, and they had their turrets blown off in Syria. Something like 450-500mm of armor frontally and few if none of the ammo is protected so in some ways they are worse than upgraded T-80's (apart from better reverse speed + better sights). Bradleys used TOW missiles (now obsolete for the most part) and autocannon rounds fed by Depleted Uranium ammo, on which the Bradley and the Abrahms are both dependent .... not a good idea to send tanks firing DU ammo against Russia; they might escalate. And as for the Abrahms, not sure if the US can actually send the latest versions, like the M1A2, which use DU armor (due to being DU). If it's M1 or M1A1, those are not that great vs russian tanks, apart from the optics and reverse speed.

Yeah, the Bradleys were basically being used like tank destroyers from WW2, use their speed and smaller size to flank and strike with ATGMs, can do the same with any IFV that carries ATGMs, some fast APCs like the Striker and Ukraine's own BTR4 are even better as fast, sneaky tank killers.

That's true . We in the civiliced West must keep the delieveries to Ukraine...

me

I revisited

Me 😂

I bet Challenger 2 and M1 Abrams can see way farther than the T-62s even if they would be equipped with more modern 1PN96MT-02 sights

can't imagine that becuase this fascist cockroaches would be dead long time before he would be able to even see what shot him ;p

Imagine being a Ukrainian conscript in a M-55, seeing a T-90M in the distance...

@@eliasziad7864 so do ruZZian fascists have second one? :D with stolen ukrainian toilet glued on the top? :p but seriously...

Imagine being an abrams tank crew member in Ukraine confident on the tank armor and meeting a kornet atgm before you even realise what's going on..

US would risk that such advanced armor gets into Russian hands? Judging from Saudis, Ukraine will get M1A1, maybe with some more modern extras, but nothing even close to M1A2 SEPv3.

@@BojanPeric-kq9et yes, M1A1 doesn't use Chobham. I was educating about the differences. What made you think I was implying we should send our most advanced tanks.

@@BojanPeric-kq9et honestly it doesn’t matter because they wouldn’t be able to produce it. This is a problem the Chinese are running into with there stealth jet program they’re able to steal documents data, etc. but they aren’t able to produce the advance components because their manufacturing ability is poor so there’s still buying jet engines from Russia and native production ones are horrible

@@kylesutton5675 FYI: Soviet Union fielded first tank with composite armor. US lagged behind that almost 2 decades. So comparing that to China... Which, by the way, narrows gap very, very fast.

Those M1A2 Sepv3s will NOT be the Abrams sent over to Ukraine. Indeed, ALL the older models with DU plates will be striped and "monekey armor" added. And Ukrainian bridges can't handle the weight of M1s. With the Russian T 14s, At systems and loitering munitions we're about to witness a bloodbath.

Bump 2 lol

Bump is the battlefield nickname.

Yeah , I think he knows that. The Short Magazine Lee Enfield rifle (SMLE) becomes the" Smelly" for example.

They may hold them back if they can, rather than commit them early. I think they would rather integrate them into new Armored brigades with with the new tanks where they would really make an impact. Of course facts on the ground may dictate otherwise.

I agree, they actually scored more enemy tank kills in Iraq than Abrams did, which is wild

Not the guns, but the missiles for sure. The TOW is an insanely good missile.

@@darkodonnie2729 seriously? Soviet RPG can destroy Abrams tank ?

@@darkodonnie2729 interesting. I felt like Abrams had too much armor for a soviet RPG... possibly the shot got into the weakest place

Can't wait for footage of Challengers getting blown up like any other armoured vehicle in this war. They are not going to make a difference.

that would be sexy to watch

Sure,if it survives a single hit from a t-72 or from an actual rpg.

Russia uses a much more advanced version then what the media is portraying and is certainly a match against an Abrams, challenger 2 or leopard. It will come down to who’s the better tanker. T-72B3 model 2016 or T-72B3M Upgrade for T-72B3, with Relikt explosive reactive armour on the sides, side skirts with soft-container reactive armour and slat screens, 2A46M-5 gun with new ammunition, 9K119M Refleks-M guided missile system, V-92S2F 1,130 hp (840 kW) engine, automatic transmission, digital display and rear-view video.[43][44][45] Often incorrectly referred to as "T-72B4"

Acting like it won’t get cooked by AT missiles from Russia.

They made that Chobham armour better and figured out that sloping doesnt make any difference if hitted by tank rounds. That arrow head sloping in later models of 2a4 is just an extra layer without any other reason but to make a penetrator tumble before it hits the main plates. Its just few steel plates with air in between them added on the older turret.

Yup. They’ll get overrun once enough Leo2 are delivered 😂.

@@vanrex7682 that implies these old tanks don't break down before they reach the battlefield 🤣

Exactly. And even the combat capable ones don't seem to be all that capable.

I wonder how much of that stat are T34's in museums

5000 out of total 12000 are capable. Do you really thin 14 Leopards can change here something?

nah but it helps… a lot

Well Ukrainians already proved that with Javelin and MANPADS But on offensive however it still your spearhead to soften the hard targets for breakthrough

Russian kornet will do the job.

@@thewho5786 Russian junks litter Ukraine.

Imagine Leopards supported by Ukrainian soldiers with Javelins and Nlaws.

Yesterday i saw a video from Russian drone operator, filming a clip that one Russian tanks took down 8 Ukraine's amour vehicles, 2 tanks included

Doesn't the Challenger 2 use different ammo to the Abrams and Leopard 2?

@@roberthoward9500 Yes, the Challenger 2 has a rifled barrel.

Each tank also needs 500 gallons of fuel….every 24 hrs. For the Abrams

And that’s all great on weapons, if you know how to conduct tank warfare or mechanized warfare

Until a Lancet suicide drone hits them. Aviators call tanks "easy bake ovens"

You will always need a vehicle with a big gun on your side if you the enemy doesn't have air supremacy.

Gorillas do Not go to war! They are peacefull herbivores. What you mean is guerrilla. That's Spanish meaning 'small war'. And btw guerilla war is a pleasmus like Sahara desert or tsunami Wave.

Coming wars will be using drones in their thousands. Tanks won't stand a chance in open territory.

there were no direct tank battles at all - 90 percent of Ukrainian tanks were destroyed by Russian helicopters... I have no idea what Ukrainians destroyed Russian tanks with / Ukraine does not have attack helicopters/..

Armed helicopter can be a game changer

Hence the usage of modern western MBT's with armour designed to withstand said ATGM's

@@rustytanks9425 modern ATGMs have advanced faster than most tank armour - you can see videos of Abrams in Iraq taken out by such systems. Current gen Western tanks are focussing on Active protective systems to intercept missiles as a more effective countermeasure.

Wrong, artilery is the main killer in the Russo-Ukrainean conflict.

@@rustytanks9425 Ask how Leopards performed in Turkeys hands or how Abrams did in Yemen. Anything can be destroyed if the crew isnt experienced. Ukraine does not have time to train them to NATO standards because unlike NATO that has crews with years experience UAF will have only a couple of months. That is just the bare basics. Without training in combined arms with a large units as support it will be like a turkey shoot.

@@nizammiah6511 Too bad Russia doesn't have the actual modern ones.

Not sure if you follow the news. The Ukrainian negotiators were just playing for time and had no intention for a deal or peace. Also. one of the negotiator was assassinated by the their own Ukrainian intelligence.

Wooo you are part of this BS lie too.

That is literally how this conflict is being portrayed in the media, because MPAI (most people are idiots)

Keep regurgitating western propaganda

Lol. So true.

This is incorrect. Both the T-72 and Abrams are classified as main battle tanks (MBTs). How heavy countries decide to make a main battle tanks is dependent on many factors, but the T-72 and T-90 (T-90 is basically an overhauled and upgraded T-72) are certainly not medium tanks. The T-72 weighs more than the German Leopard 1 MBT for instance.

@@alexfrey4828 Main battle tanks means that they fit into the war doctrine the country developed and accepted. T-72 are much older than any of the western tanks. Also. I said nothing about its modifications. Heavy tank doesn't only imply that it is just heavy. It is a bit old formulation, but T-72 is as old.

@Agent because T90 is a suit up T62. Also Russia don’t have a lot left

@Agent might be due to the low qty of T-90. Just a guess.

@Agent My main point is that all these comparisons are incorrect. T-72 is a medium weight, cold war era tank. While abrams, leopard, challenger are modern tanks, that are both mobile and heavily armored.

That's how it always is really.

Convenient for anyone investing in defense...or nations moving tax dollars into said defense companies.

"You will not find it difficult to prove that battles, campaigns, and even wars have been won or lost primarily because of logistics.” - General Dwight D. Eisenhower

Yeah like NLAW vs many russia tank

The media likes to gloss over the negatives, not to mention the Ruskis have T-80's and T90's which will put up more of a fight, especially the T90. Ultimately having extra armour will give Ukraine more of a fighting chance.

Clearly hasn’t worked out so far lol

Yeah, their "custom make" is probably the reason why they will not arrive for another year or so. Otherwise the US could have sent some of the thousands in storage, but a need to remove classified parts would significantly increase preparation times.

Which IFVs outclass the Bradley?

@@segalliongaming8925 I’d guess they’re referring to CV90.

90 Strykers.

By this time next week it'll probably be over 250.

@@segalliongaming8925 Nothing that we've seen so far that Russia has. There is a reason why only 3 were destroyed in The War of Iraq which Russia is using the same equipment the Iraqis used in that war. They aren't indestructible though and Russia does have more capability to destroy them since they have cruise missiles, so Ukraine will still need to learn how to use them just as well as our military does. I'm sure that another NATO country has something just as good or better though. CV90s are good and the new German IFV Lynx looks awesome. Wish they'd send the Lynx to see what it could do.

Obv, there have been examples, for instance the iraq war. Not a single challenger 2 tank has been destroyed by a hostile.

Lots of tanks are used in ukraine with no armour

@@EnglishScripter iraq had non upgraded t72 and older versions. They had no proper aiming of visual systems. Plus iraq forces were barely trained and were facing huge air force and huge amount of artillery. So it's not a surprise and has nothing to do with tanks themselves. Ukraine will face same issues iraq had

@@yellowtunes2756 They arnt though.. they have destroyed 1600+ tanks. They will be trained for the new ones.

@@EnglishScripter Ukrainians trained for years on their tanks. And it takes years to adapt to new tanks too. Ukraine also doesn't have ability to repair them in Ukraine, so they have to be send 500km away from the frontline to Poland. It's like buying Tesla in a country with no place to charge them

If for some reason one gets destroyed it looks bad and won’t sell well. if they want to do that route later. And if it’s captured the enemy of Russia which is Ukraine will send these to NATO for testing to get a advantage on how to destroy them easier, their capabilities and effectiveness of their armor and technology inside. You don’t use your best weapon’s right out the gate. Especially when Russia believes a war with nato will come eventually so why use em. My thought process on the subject

My favorite quote about this topic is “Russia has a large and modern army. But the large part isn’t modern and the modern part isn’t large.”

T-14 is parade showpiece of battle unproven concept ... and full of import tech that they kinda lost access to ... they cant even produce T-90 right now let alone something that barely passed prototyping stage

S400 has footage in ukraine already.

The Russians have learnt not to put all their eggs in one basket, knowing they are fighting NATO in a NATO proxy war that might last few years ! Their Kenzhal missile was used only 2 times in Ukraine. 😉😉😉

You're comparing apples and oranges here. In the Gulf War you had tanks operating as part of a combined arms team. The other example are how not to use tanks.

@@colincampbell767 I guess time will tell between u too, but he’s not wrong points are valid.

@@colincampbell767 " In the Gulf War you had tanks operating as part of a combined arms team" - Yeah, I know. That is why I said doctrine, air superiority, etc, but thanks for repeating what I said, I guess. And doctrine does play a huge roll. Just look at how differently the Soviets used their tanks to Germany. And yeah, I know in modern war things have changed so much to the point where videos like this are made -> ukposts.info/have/v-deo/kYd_gZp5oWdhk4k.html , ie tanks being hull down providing fire support to infantry and obviously trying to avoid moving tanks in urban areas. In fact, it proves my point more that modern warfare and anti-tank capabilities keeps shifting the landscape a bit on how tanks are used, but due to their ability to block small arms fire (you know? 90% of the weaponry on the battlefield and that made WW1 such a deadlock) and the fact that it's faster moving than infantry makes tanks essential in that role. It just needs to be updated to stop more and more lethal anti-tank weapons, like the active protective trophy system for example (something they didn't even mention, ie what Abrams are being sent? The SepV4?). All that being said for you to say: "The other example are how not to use tanks" . . . What?!! You had my interest until you said that last sentence and then you convinced me you either didn't understand the illustrations or (most likely) have no idea what you're talking about. And to embarrass yourself even further here is a documentary drawing comparisons on "shock and awe" vs "blitzkrieg" (even deep battle was of similar concept) -> ukposts.info/have/v-deo/bGBjnaidbql1t5c.html I suggest you do your research next time or change your phraseology to something more modest like; "those aren't the only ways to use tanks" I mean what can I expect with a 3-line comment, really? "Ugh I don't like what you said, so I'm just going to repeat something he said, followed up by what amounts to a 'no' and leave."

Likewise the Russians are not well trained, equipped or motivated.

Your very survival makes you react quicker and with a little more motivation and urgency, the Russians haven't realised they have been defeated yet but once they do they will collapse!?!

@@thomasherrin6798 да, да конечно рухнем, вы только этого и ждёте, интересно как если у нас танков больше чем у НАТО?

@@thomasherrin6798 yes, but do not underestimate Russian army, remember Ukraine is fighting conventional warfare, not guerrilla warfare. therefore if we study Russian history, Russian are very capable of handling prolong conventional warfares, individual soldiers motivation is irrelevant, Russian always needed only political elite's motivation only. But every conflict is unique, will see what will happen.

@@_kruler_9449 yes, the T34 are cominf back from Laos 😅

Los leopard 2 turcos ya eran bulleados por tropas mal armadas y con entrenamiento nulo ahora imaginate eso pero con un ejercito profecional con recursos de sobra entrenadas y bien armadas

T-90 yes, but not armata, hopefully soon we get to see it used.

30 years, the Russian Federation used the new technologies of the West for its militarization. Bureaucratic delay will lead to the fact that in six months “ tigers ” and “leopards” will end up in a Russian “zoo”. The command of Ukraine exaggerates the losses of the occupying Russian troops in order to mislead Western partners, creating the illusion of controlling the situation. This is an illusion of peace for the west, with which the west is satisfied. Without satellite correction, pinpoint strikes on locations of deployment of Russian troops, right now, there will be no victory for the Western countries.

The T-90s aren't performing at the level the advertising claimed.

@@colincampbell767 Not enough deployed to have a conclusion

@@ligametis Only 7 of the 2,300 promised T-14s exist today, and 1 broke down during a parade. The T90s are few. Ukraine may never get that chance.

I was going to say the samething. They compare the t72 that the dpr and lpr forces are using but not the t80's and t90ms that are used in Wagner and Russian armed forces.

@@ligametis the majority of tanks the Wagner and Russians use are t90s and t80s. 300 brand new t90s were just delivered to Wagner forces in southern ukraine a couple weeks ago aswell as a few hundred t90ms to belarus for whatever reason.

Drones and satellites will be used to locate the position of likely threats, and they will probably be dealt with should it be necessary....

I’ve been in a T72 you don’t really have to be small maybe 5’11 max

Obv not

Underrated comment.

Factor in Artillery and Russia having larger air dominance than ukraine flying constant sorties, its unlikely these vehicles will be used for a offensive.

iraq had no air cover and we could bomb them at will not true with russia; not going to be the same and that should be obvious

@@YourSocialistAutomaton thank you for the common sense

@@futuretimetraveller8677 what? A person who isnt anti russian and listens to Denys davydov, artus rehi, combat veteran and reporting from ukraine 24/7? Wow.