Click the link to start your 7-day free trial and get 25% off a premium membership: blinkist.com/militaryhistorynv

This discussion makes tons of sense. “See first, shoot first, kill first” seems to apply regardless of the conflict or tech involved.

I want that on a t-shirt. "If you don't have a thermal imager, you're not worth the effort" - Chieftain 2022

This war is like some dystopian sci-fi where the big, elaborate systems can no longer be maintained or resupplied and there's a crazy mix of anything that can put out some hurt; from drones operated by a single soldier to WWII surplus machine guns, to Cold War tanks, to 1950s artillery.

In short, modern optics can make any old weapon system into a asset on the battlefield. As long you are able to spot the enemy before they spot you signficiantly improves your odds of staying alive.

In regards to losses I think alot of people forget just how large this war is. Alot of equipment is going to be lost no matter what

US Army combat vet, in Iraq and Afghanistan the thermals were Incredible! the detail we could get was amazing, could even see what was inside people's pockets at close range. We also used drones to scout ahead over 10yrs ago to great effect.

I was in TOW when we changed thermal imagers. Went from the pixle nightmare the Chieften talked about, where you had a rough time identifying to a beautiful clear image. Old method was about the same as what he said, newer one it was just zoom in zoom out with excellent resolution. I used to tell people it was like switching from the old Atari game system straight to an X-box 360 with no imbetween adjustment. So missle drills changed a bit when it came to observation, as we could out spot and get PID before anyone else.

It's always a pleasure listening to the Chieftain talking in a mature fashion about machinery like tanks in all their different shapes and forms. He never feels the need to attach any emotional favouritism to any particular piece of machinery, which is exactly the way I'm looking to learn about these vehicles.

One of the advantages of a thermal/FLIR sensor is that it is passive. Something like micro-millimeter wavelength radar is going to broadcast your position at a far greater range than what the sensor can see.

On the Korean DMZ in 1989 we used the thermal sight from the Dragon to scan our guardpost sector. I watched one heat source for 10 minutes with growing apprehension until it finally turned sideways and I could tell it was a deer.

A good high-low people might be underestimating is a t-55 with the indirect fire instructions paired with thermal drones to find targets and correct fire from a distance keeping them away from anti tank assets for the most part. No longer an old tank, rather an old but accurate mobile artillery and it's already been paid for

This was rather good and definitely informative. I have a rather expensive thermal imager. This gave me new perspectives on its use.

I've used hand-held FLIRs in industrial settings. They're colour, with the colour scale being temperature. They can be configured so they automatically set their low and high bounds based on what's in the field of view. So they'll automatically make big bright yellow-white things out of whatever's warmest, regardless of whether it's a person or an engine. No bloom, no blind spots, just an automatic "here's the hot thing" setting. You can also program the bounds manually if you want, which you'd want to do if there's a lot of stuff on fire. All this in a thing that fits in your hand and costs a couple hundred bucks. They even have a bit of zoom. I'd imagine modern vehicle mounted FLIRs are somewhat more capable.

The RAF practised a high-low mix in the 90s with Tornado F3s and Hawks. The Hawks were small, subsonic, carried 2 Sidewinders and a 30mm only, with no radar. The Tornado provided detection, direction and coordination for the Hawks like an AWACS but would fight itself. Not used in combat, I believe, but reported as successful in training exercises against USN.

A modern military IR imager can give you an amazing picture, much like a night-vision camera, using local area contrast enhancements, or tweaked to show hot spots. You can read a book with one with the right fw and settings. They give the drivers "visual equivalent" tweaked units to allow nighttime/fog/etc driving. The fancier ones will even fuse lowlight, LWIR and SWIR together into one image (or mm RADAR?). Leaps and bounds ahead of what the M1A1 had.

In come the Leopard tanks and lo and behold, they burn just like the Russian tanks! In fact I’ve heard Ukranians complain about how heavy western tanks are and they prefer the more agile soviet tanks.

Makes a lot of sense, reaction time is the key, the fastest to engage or evade will be the survivor, people tend to underestimate legacy tanks, but when the upgrades are done right they are quite capable.

Regarding the survivability of the T-72, which has been mocked often throughout the course of the war, Tankograd offers an interesting case study of counterexamples written pre-Ukraine; 'The T-72 has proven its worth in various conflicts when placed under competent command, but the lack of media coverage on the successes does not help its case. Even though many tanks have been destroyed, often irrecoverably, many more have survived such that the tank's ability to endure severe punishment simply cannot be considered low. To list one incident in Grozny, in the year 2000, a T-72B with the tail number 611 took 3 hits from Fagot anti-tank missiles and 6 hits from RPGs during 3 days of intense fighting and remained in battle with only minor damage. Most of the hits landed on the sides of the tank, with one rocket impacting the lower rear of the hull. Other cases involving older models such as the T-72A more often ended on a sadder note, but in general, it took several hits from anti-tank grenades and missiles to reduce the combat capacity of a T-72 and at least half a dozen hits on the weakened zones (sides, rear) are usually required for the ammunition to detonate or a fire to start in the tank. More examples come from a World of Weapons magazine article (March 2005 issue) on tank action in Grozny containing details on multiple T-72As lost in combat. The 131 Separate Motor Rifle Brigade (OMSBR) tasked with capturing the Grozny rail station sustained many casualties during combat, losing a total of 157 men, 22 tanks, 45 infantry fighting vehicles, 37 cars and all 6 of the Tunguska anti-aircraft systems operated by the air defence division attached to the brigade. While providing supporting fire, the tanks belonging to the brigade received multiple anti-tank grenades from every direction in return for each shot fired. One T-72A with the tail number 533 sustained four or five RPG grenade impacts on the engine compartment, and the tank caught fire. It eventually exploded, long after the crew escaped. Another T-72A, with the tail number 537, withstood six or seven hits from RPG grenades before suffering an ammunition explosion, killing its entire crew instantly. A third T-72A, with the tail number 531, sustained four hits from RPGs before its turret drive failed, and the tank was finally knocked out of action after an APFSDS round fired from 100 meters impacted the turret on the commander's side. A fire was started, but fortunately, the gunner (left hand side of the turret) was only heavily concussed because the bulky breech assembly of the cannon saved him from the spall and fragments entering the turret on the commander's side (right hand side of the turret). Both the gunner and driver were able to escape the tank before it eventually succumbed to the fire and exploded 20 minutes later. None of these tanks had reactive armour installed. In another example, a T-72B1 from the 276 Motor Rifle Brigade with the tail number 221 was penetrated twice in combat during the battle for the Grozny hospital in January 16, 1995. After repairs, it was damaged again on January 21, 1995 during combat near the building of the Council of Ministers where it was hit with five RPG grenades. Four of the hits were located on the sides of the hull, one of them on right side, on the fourth roadwheel, and the other three on the left side. The fifth hit was located on the turret, above the gun barrel. The autoloader was damaged by the turret strike, but the tank survived and was sent for an overhaul. More interesting examples can be found in the article "Танки Т-72 В Войнах И Локальных Конфликта" (T-72 Tank in Wars and Local Conflicts) by V. Moiseev and V. Murakhovsky and published in the "Arsenal of the Fatherland" magazine, issue 4, 2013. One of them is taken from an after-action report on the death of a tank commander in a T-72 after an attack by RPG-type weapons. The tank was a T-72B1 built in December 1985 in Uralvagonzavod. After being pulled into a repair facility, the tank was inspected and eight damage points were observed. Five of the hits were recorded on the hull, and of these, three were from RPG grenades impacting the sides of the tank in the areas protected by reactive armour, one was from an RPG grenade impacting the rubber side skirt of the tank in an area unprotected by reactive armour, and one was from a fragmentation grenade (possibly a VOG-17M) impacting the rear of the engine compartment. The remaining three hits were recorded on the turret, one on the front, one on the side, and one on the rear. It was noted that the tank was in a marching status prior to the attack, having the cannon locked in the travel position and the 12.7mm machine gun locked facing backwards. Also, the commander's hatch was ajar or opened completely, so that the death of the commander was most likely caused by the combined explosion of an anti-tank grenade and the reactive armour occurring outside the tank, given that the armour was not perforated. Overall, the tank remained combat capable despite receiving damage in the autoloader and in the stabilizer system, as the driver and the gunner were still alive at the end of the ordeal and the gun could still be fired using the manual controls. In general, photos of destroyed T-72 tanks cannot be said to be proof of the low survivability of the tank, but are instead often indicators of the sheer ferocity of the fight that led to its destruction.'

I’ve been on a receiving end of a T-72 B3 HE shell. I would not be in a hurry to write those things off.

This was awesome. Always loved all your content, but your interview's are the best. Such a great interviewer. You're able to use your knowledge and understanding to ask both insightful questions + actually respond to them in a way that furthers the interview. More importantly though you actually let the guest speak and share their knowledge and expertise without stepping on their toes, or one-upping them, and letting them take the spotlight. WAY too many youtubers that do interviews end up forcing their way into getting all the attention in their vids (talking over the guests, interrupting, etc), which defeats the purpose of wanting to hear from the guest. Hope you do more of these :)

"Do you know Perun? No? Well you should because he's pretty awesome" - direct quote from The Chieftan! (as I heard it) 😆👍

I don't think people realize that what's happening to Soviet/russian tanks can happen to any other tank

The way Chieftain described using a TI for acquisition reminded me of something an old instructor told me about using TI's, "If it's gotta go, it's gotta glow."

I always enjoy your conversations with The Chieftain. Worth watching.

Colonel Moran knows his business well, that's for sure. He's always worth a listen whenever he''s on UKposts. Especially with our Bernhard. Bernhard is also a very good commentator on modern warfare, which I consider to be world wars one and two especially. Anything including WW1 and WW2 is right their up his ally and militarily speaking I always seem to learn something from these two gentleman. Whether the Colonel is on with Bernhard or anybody else his contributions are always worh a listen. Vielen dank! Sie sind immer am besten :)

After reading James Hollands brothers in arms the parallels are there to see. So many tanks lost, the fear of not being able to stop handheld single shot weapons etc. We've just made it more efficient and are seeing it on phonescreens

Sure changed my mind about German tanks...

Changed my mind about the leopards and challengers of the wild.

Chieftain always brings a simple explanation to the game. Thanks to Bernard for bringing it together.

I really like these videos with experts. Informative, entertaining, and a good length of time to get what needs to be said. Hell, I can go for longer videos but I'm content.

I'm so glad I'm subscribed to you, The Chieftain and Perun!

It has certainly changed my perception of the Leopard 2AV series. It turned out to be a bit of a damp squib, rather than an authentic game changer.

I never held soviet tanks in much high regard in the modern era, but i am of the opinion that a tank is still a tank no matter how bad they may be. Plus, it's hypocritical to harp on how bad soviet style tanks are when ukraine uses the same type of tanks as the Russians.

In 2005 when I was an Abrams crew member in 1st armored division. The javelin had better night site than an m1 a1. And I watched tank commanders work a tank crew of 4 like "one"and run that tank like Rambo with a knife killing a whole platoon of tanks single handedly. It's not the equipment it's the crew that makes the tank. Modern tech only makes good crew better. Tech doesn't make good soldiers. good soldiers makes tech work.

Saw a MOBAT at a museum with an Austin Champ wondering about that post war moment and noted one could mount the mobat in the back and still have another as a towed piece thinking how ambush fires might develop into a prepared sequence of fall back firing positions. Given that today weapons can be on simple remote mounts... the Hi-Lo mix mentioned can become very interesting

There's not a lot of tank v. tank combat going on in Ukraine. The imager allows seeing infantry who are the biggest threat.

I remember using thermals to count the points on a buck at 11 kilometers in light foliage around 2007-2008. I imagine they've only gotten better since then.

When the key to battle is being the one to shoot first, the unit that _can't see_ will always lose.

Absolutely agree 100% a thermal imager for a tank is a game changer, on on another level.

I always love watching these videos, it's a HUGE breath of fresh air. Listening to you two talk on topics like these. Instead of hearing the one sided blabbering, whining, and complaining on say War Thunder videos or a lot of other places as far as I know.

I read a thread by Mick Ryan earlier today about artillery and precision munitions that got me thinking in the same way as the Chieftain - a high/low mix. Precision munitions used to allow shaping the battlefield before the offensive and again in the first "few" hours of an offensive to allow break in/breakthrough/breakout, but most of the rest of the time just using dumb munitions with better spotting

This has been a very interesting series of discussions on real battlefield tech, tactical and strategic realities and how the on ground units effect combat. This in particular was enlightening on what the real best tech is, sensors.

Great vid! Stay warm this winter!!!

David Drake, the famous SF author who served in the Blackhorse in Vietnam, really understood this issue. His tanks, when he was writing in the 70s, had AI filtered data fusion from visual, IR and radar, plus APS. The system would highlight threats visually for the commander. And a central battery computer and radar could take control of the armament of a group of tanks for coordinated AA fire.

A tale as old as time, the one who see's the enemy first shoots first. The one who shoots first has the advantage.

As always, if you can see a target before it sees you; you have a chance of getting off the first shot. The money needs to go to producing the smallest, most cost effective sensor tools possible. Retrofitting a modern sensor suite transforms an older platform. Ask the pilot of a Block 70 F-16 equipped with state of the art AESA radar how he feels about his chances in an airframe that started service over 40 years ago.

It definitely changed my mind about Western tanks, especially the Challenger 2. It showed up on the front, got ATGM'd by Kornet, both times throwing the turret (catastrophic ammo explosion) and killing the crew and was never seen again...

I think it was the Chieftain who said in a video a while back, something to the effect of, "The vehicle that gets the first hit on target has the initiative." Thermals change the whole game.

I will say this, I worked on skids in the USMC, 05-10…even the old flir balls I first worked on, are far better than what you described Chieftain. We could tell if it was a person, and of they were holding a rifle, or rpg, things like that…at many km, once you got used to the system and picture. And once we got the newest versions of 08-10…when I was getting out, right before that….they are mind blowing, I’ll say that much. We were the first unit to test the britestar II’s, while deployed, in combat. newest flir ball in that time…they are insane, and huge step above the old ones. Great zoom and focus, lol. Among general improvements.

As a young USAF Security Policeman, I was using Thorn EMI Hand Held Thermal Imagers at Clark AB Phillipines, 1988-90. The things were approximately the size of a combat boot box, and heavy, but they worked.

9:30 the high/low tech mix is sounding a lot like 3 Shermans with a 75mm and one with a 17 pounder working together.

I think what could be really interesting would be bringing back compact light tanks but with ATGMs and high tech optics. Something small, light weight and fast with a low silhouette outfitted with TOW missiles thermal optics and maybe covered in thermal masking camo netting would be terrifying on the modern battlefield.

this is why i m very curious about how stuff like PT91 twardy will perform, given that most sources states that PT91 twardy got thermals (so, basically T72M1 with thermals and a erawa era kit) as i personally have the impression that they may perform far better than most basic/non upgraded T72s, due to thermal making them not totally blind.

More analysis from chieftain on tank usage in Ukraine would be great.

I love the crossover videos where you are asking other subject matter experts their opinions. LTC Moran is one of the people that got me into watching this channel.

Good description of the early days of thermal imaging. His explanation is exactly what I did, turn up contrast, go black hot, or white hot, then look for the difference in temp to distinguish the target.

If my basic understanding is correct, the "High-Low" mix is essentially Soviet Cold war doctrine; a stonking mass of 'low' tanks that will just swarm an Western tank formation, with the "High" there to be the equal-or-better opposition. And the Russian's do still kind of have that in the modernised T72s that they seem to have an almost endless supply of, with fewer, far more lethal T90's to make sure if a target MUST die, it will die. For me the problem is not the equipment, it's the tactics. In the west, combined arms has been practiced to death, but that's because efficient, fully integrated combined arms operations is hard, and Russia is kind of proving that. It seems they thought all they had to do was form their Battalion Tactical Groups, put on some scripted demos, write some suggestions and hey-presto, combined arms, who's for some vodka. The truth is far different, and Russian commanders have even failed basic logistical planning, never mind complex inter-service cooperation. In fact a few times I've wondered if a Soviet-era force would actually fair better in terms of basic military planning and implementation Also, love Perun getting a shout, his analysis is every bit as good as MHV's, who is my yardstick for these kind of things.

There is also a factor that with Thermals, it will help a lot in spotting. As even T-72s outrange the Javelins IF it can spot the Javelin beforehand. With Thermals, it should do a lot of help in terms of spotting people like that and those waiting in the bushes with AT4s or Handhelds.

Chieftain giving a shoutout to my man Perun on a military history visualized video... the circle is now complete.

When I was a 19K in the 11ACR we used the thermal viewer for vehicle ID exclusively day or night.

Even if it's a "low" tank, if it's the only tank in the area it's "high" enough.

Somehow I did not realize until this point that the Chieften is an officer.

Be interesting to hear a discussion between The Chieftain and Col Douglas Macgregor

The thing with the Hi-Lo mix... you need some solid communication and coordination and it all boils down to training and how quickly you can coordinate everything. Ignore all the equipment and you still need good people that know what they're doing and can work well together. You really don't see any of that from a certain country.

...and this is why Chieftan is a Lt. Col; He knows stuff :)

The good news for the infantry on both sides is they use static lines with defenses and you can equip thermal decoys, a candle in a clay jar in a shallow hole, to flood the zone with heat and aluminum foil & metal scrap to spoof millimetric radar. In that context the advantage goes to the side with the longer range, faster cross country movement and the ability to offer the enemy good surrender terms with hot food. That favors the Ukrainians as it favored the Americans in WW2. Tanks are not obsolete but tanks without proper infantry screen and the weapon reach for that infantry is the problem. Some of the BMP have a max weapon range of 1.8 km and are facing Stugna with a range of 2 to 3 km and drone coordinated mortars and artillery with a range of 10 to 25 km. Seeing the enemy and having something to hit them with are two different matters.

The comments on these videos are always fascinating. Great community.

The Low in the high low is also a lot of targets that take up enemy attention while the high maneuvers to a solution...

No. Not at all. I spent 12 years on the Abrams series of tanks and as a tanker I can tell you that we were very well aware of the capabilities of Russian tanks and that success in a meeting engagement for the most part would be due to the crew and what was being shot .. not the tank.

8:44 is probably one of the scariest lines for a light infantryman. We rely mainly on camouflage to survive heavy armour. Now there you are, in your properly dug fighting hole, complete with a roof for artillery splinters, camouflaged and all, and that tank 2000 meters out can just lob an HE shell pretty much on your forehead because there's pretty much no way to camouflage your heat signature. Scary stuff.

I saw a number of videos on telegram of these RPGs (Javelins or NLAWS cant remember) being fired from a close distance on these modern Russian tanks. In the few times I witnessed these videos, the Russian tank chugs along like nothing hit it.

В этой войне танки не призваны воевать с танками Да и вообще не для этого они создавались Это по сути должна быть движущаяся крепость, прикрывающая пехоту Сравнивать танки сейчас так же бессмысленно Эта война показала, что побеждают не технологии, не количество, не качество войск Самое главное в современной армии это логистика, информация и связь Если артиллерию называют богами войны, то эти три столпа - материя, энергия и гравитация, что не подконтрольны богам

The issue is, we are bloody old, and the mid 80s were almost 40 years ago; the Subaru XT was a really modern car.

Great video. Loved the Perun/Peron disclaimer, too. Entirely accurate.

As an Argentinian, thanks for clarifying in 4:24 that Peron was a dictator.

Russian tanks don't work very differently from ww2 soviet tanks. They're not the best, they're okay, but there's a lot, they're everywhere, and there's more where they came from. NATO Tanks on the other hand... well, let's just say a certain ww2 country tried to beat soviet tanks with a few big, overengineered expensive tanks and it didn't go so well.

Thermal imagers and sighting in general is extremely valuable. Kinda makes Javelins not so outlandishly priced considering how prized just the sight for it is alone as you see guys using it by itself for sighting targets etc.

It feels like part of what the Chieftain is getting at is that marginal advantages in firepower and armor are, in and of themselves, only decisive in edge cases or incredibly "fair" fights. It seems like a military that's looking at trying to reach for marginally better tanks is probably better advised to get some representation of the cutting edge tools into your force so that you don't get completely trounced on some aspect of the battlefield where you fail to have a presence. But otherwise they might better rely on non-technological advantages(e.g. volume, replaceability, uptime, logistical availability) to try and win the day rather than sinking your resources into the middle ground of marginal improvements that remain behind the bleeding edge.

Was so surprised the discussion was so coherent and easy to follow even though I’m just a layman …..

Regarding thermal imagers the level available even to the public is pretty impressive these days, something like a raptor by hikmicro has a sensor able to pick out face details even in thermal, a laser range finder and normal colour daylight mode, 1000m range with 4x digital zoom, I’m not saying it compares to systems in top of the line FCS but imagine the additional utility even for reconnaissance that gives to something as simple as a couple guys scouting things out in a jeep or pickup truck.

Now I want to ask Chieftain about the viability of revisiting the idea of stealth tanks. Like the stealth leopard, hiding it's thermal signature and reducing dust, etc.

The problem is that this is theory, the real-life battles are much less forgiving and far more changing in nature to calculate the usefulness of the said tank(or any machine for that matter), in my opinion.

you should make a new video on this taking into account fp`v drones and possible advances on them, including the possibility of armored vehicles equipped with drone swarms, countermeasures etc

When i served in BAOR in the 80's on Chieftain, we were told if it all kicked off the kill ratio for us was 10 to 1, ten of theirs to one of ours. Good fun 😀

Another good video! Good questions with Nick providing reasonably informed answers. Also, as we have seen, even when the russians have been using T80s and T90s, their tactics limit their utility on this battlefield. All the Ukrainian forces need is to spot them with a UAS (with thermal imaging), and then the 152 and 155 arty can efficiently negate them.

My opinions on the original t72 were formed back in the '80s. I have not seen anything to date to change that opinion on the original t72. I agree 100% with the chieftain regarding technology. Depending on what you like versus what the other guy has could be a complete game changer. I would also add the quality of the vehicle, it's armaments and it's technology can be a game changer on its own. In the world of IT that I lived in for a long time, we had a saying, garbage in garbage out. With sensors regardless of whether they're radar or night imaging, thermal the quality of the optics and the hardware inside along with the imaging software will decide what you see. You could have the best software in the world driving that imaging system and lo and behold your optics are crap. Garbage in garbage out.

Thanks for the video.

I know it's an explosive topic, but I didn't realize that they were so flammable.

Nope, if you put whatever tanks in that battle, the results would be the same. No tank can withstand against ATGM, artillery, airpower superiorities. Like those Leopards are just practicing target for the Ka-52.

lol 7 months later, we changed our mind about all western tanks as well

Hopefully The Chieftan & you will get a chance to sit in several modern tanks soon to see how they work. Not that likely, but it would have been nice.

armorcast's breakdown of the t90 is what did it for me. had no idea how crappy they are

Not thermal imagers are equal, some modern 2nd gen imaging systems come with a lot of software video algorithms that enhance known target signatures and objects of interest, making the high contrast tuning from 1st generation FLIR unnecessary. The latest 3rd gen stuff with enhancement technology is definitely amazing and super portable.

The flir we had in the 80s on board ship could see jets as far you could see it was amazing

Thermal optics are one of those things are are considered to be an "Overriding advantage" If you dont have it, you lose in a vast majority of cases.

Back in the '80s when first introducing the thermal imager the US army took an M60 tank, in the winter out somewhere. Let it sit in the open for 24 hours, then buried it under snow for another 24 hours. After that they took another M60 tank equipped with a thermal imager and spotted the one in the snow without a problem. The technology has come a long way since then so yeah

The just casual "inshallah" chieftain threw in on getting in a modern tank after a decade was hilarious to me as a GWOT era Vet and long term middle east contractor

Nice video. Just a comment on @4:27: Although Peron did participated as vice president on one of the military governments, the three times he got to be elected as president was on fair democratic elections.

Modern targeting and battlefield awareness from space makes any tank a sitting duck. Its amazing that modern weapons have brought back trench war fare.