I'm pretty sure the Russian T-90 tanks are not "losing the war in Ukraine"

why are all tanks losing the war makes more sense.Drones ISR targeting help ATGMS.looks like unmanned smaller means more effective in the future in silent swarm electric drive

If we put any other tank in place of the T-90, we would obtain the same observation. The weapon that is the tank is no longer such a decisive weapon in a contemporary conflict context where drones, anti-tank weapons and satellites are omnipresent. The only difference is that the Russians have more tanks than the others.

You can make "trendy and click bait" titles but we know the truth. The T-90 was barely deployed until recently. The T-72 was the most prominent tank at the onset. Dont give me this bs video. Challenger, leopard, abrams and all other tanks failed the same. This channel is starting to suck.

Yesterday Abrams M1 fired by T72 🤡

Recently there was a rare tank-on-tank encounter between Abrams and T-72 B3M. Old Soviet tank dispatched American marvel of technology with one shot.

Just remember our challengers didn’t fair well neither did any western equipments

Every tank can burn . No matter eastern or western . It is foolish to think they are indestructible. Low profile, good chassis or safe ammo compartment...all that is nothing if AP shell is fired . Even a single , old rpg7 can be dangerous

Did you get paid to make a 180°? What happend to u?

Let's do a little math. Today marks 744 days since the start of the war. According to this video, 57 T90s have already been lost, which gives an average of 1 tank every 13.05 days on a front of more than 1000 km. The invasion of Iraq occurred between March 20 and May 1, 2003, it lasted 44 days and they lost 31 Abrams which means 1 Abrams lost every 1, 31 days....the Iraqis did not have Javelin, no mines, no drones, they were not trained by NATO, did they have not Starlink, ect, ect, ect......🤔🤔🤔😂😂😂

In two years of war, 57 tanks is almost nothing…

Drones have become dominant. Main battle tanks and attack helicopters are becoming too costly and less relevant.

They are not losing they have the best ejecting turrets in this war doesn't anyone realize these are highly trained cosmaunauts manning these machines

PR much? What are you smoking?

Videos is just a propaganda. Abrams have been destroyed, as well as UK's Challender2, any tank can be destroyed

No matter how formidable a tank, any tank, it is easily destroyed by drones, and very often the first time.

T90s have seen more combat than any other tanks they are battle proven platforms

Losing the war is a bit exaggerated, or does the term losing in Ukrainian mean winning? that would explain a lot 😂

Could you do a video on the Agm 86 vs Kh 55

Man you forgot about Leopards and Abrams lmao

Why leopads and Abrahams also lose?

Russia is taking Ukrainian fortified positions and you say Russia is losing? You need to stop coping

The Abrams ammunition’s stowage makes it far more vulnerable to drones.

Hey, do you know what is a fab 1500 bomb?

CAN YOU SHOW US 3 DESTROYED TANK ABRAMS? OR IT IS SECRET? ...

In every battle, tanks lose their status as an effective weapon... Look at what happens in Gaza with the Israeli Merkava when it faces a primitive weapon like the “Yassin” 105... and before it in the Lebanon War and the 1973 war... I do not expect tanks to continue as a weapon. In the coming modern battles...

Wow... the title is serious BS

From an Engineers perspective, the auto loader seems the way to go. If well designed this would be quicker, more reliable and compact than a manual system. Also, despite, what this video presents, having the ammo located deep in the bowels of the machine makes it much less vulnerable to a top down attack.

Losing the war? Are you crazy

Are you living in another dimension, just the other day, Abram tank was blown by a Russian tank.

A machine is only as useful as the crew that mans it.

We should probably ask why are the Abrams tanks loosing in Ukraine?The supposed indestructible tank that has never been destroyed in combat?

3 out of 4 deployed in combat Abrams are destroyed... so 75% losss.

Ah! yes... the Challenger, Leopard and M1 Abrams have been a real game changer.. indestructible and invincible with their perfect design and top tier protection system..... while every Russian equipment is riddled with flaws and weaknesses

any tanks lose a modern war, be it American or British or some other. However, I saw footage when an old Soviet tank with an installed electronic warfare station avoided an attack by 5 drones, so it’s more likely a matter of adequate reconnaissance, support and good electronic warfare

The reactive armour of T90 is very effective. we saw that 2 Bradleys wasn't able to destroy a blinded T90 Tank. The separate compartment of Abraham for ammunition on the top is actually a weak point and its is so thin that it is not providing any protection for crew. T90 store ammunition very low and thats make it difficult to hit critically.

Why all NATO equipment losing war in UE ;)

Not going to mention how a t72 just 1 hit an Abrams? 😂😂

Isn't 15% in 2 years a low attrition rate in this type of war? I thought the Abrams had a much higher attribute rate in a much shorter timespan? They were also protected by being held back away from the front line.

They're like the old Ronson lighters add, “lights first every time.”

It’s mostly the t90A tanks that are losing but the T90m

He loses because he is the best 😆

the transmission is responsible for the slow reverse speed .

where can i buy your drones!

Because it is total warfare all tanks are just as vulnerable as each other.

Losing ??? Hahaha steadily moving forward isn’t what I call losing boys

Today photos emerged from blown-up Abrams (by Russian Kornet ATGM), another Challenger (blew off its turret) and another Leopard 2A6 (blew off its turret and completey exploded). So all tanks explode just the same when hit by Russian ammunition. There are just way more T90 tanks on the battlefield than the handful of western tanks.

29 февраля парламент ЕС принял резолюцию о развале России. «За» расчленение России, как цель политики Евросоюза, проголосовало 506 депутатов, 9 - "против" и 32 воздержались. Они решили подарок Путину сделать? Это же явная угроза существованию России, это на 100% подпадает под условие использованию ЯО и является прекрасным объяснением третьим странам, почему образовалась радиоактивная пустыня вместо Запада

Western campaign...

Why are M1A2 Abrams Tanks Losing the war in Ukraine yesterday?

It's funny that you forgot to mention a T72 recently took out an M1 in Ukraine 🤔

Ramping up production requires not just metal resources, but humans, electronics and engines. It also requires trained operators. As many of the human resources are fighting, there are fewer skilled people to produce the tank. If they are making more, they are even of lower quality than the ones they are losing on the battlefield. The troops operating them are even less experienced than the lost crews, and that's a lot of troops.

- 3 Abrams in one week... "T-90 losing"

Have you seen the burning Leopards and Abrams tanks on the battlefield? They usually get taken out hours after they show up, giving us a better idea of what is happening. After all, it is easy to see a burning tank in a war where hundreds fight every day. The trick is to figure out the percentage lost and why the tanks were destroyed. From what I have observed, Russia seems to have won this war, and there is no way for Ukraine to change the inevitable. The only question is how many brave Ukrainians will be sacrificed in a proxy war that has destroyed the EU economies and seems to be showing the fractures within NATO.

Very unconvincing "explanation". One can see from the illustrations that in the 3 Western tanks, the shells sit directly behind the heads of the men. If an anti-tank missile penetrates through the side or back of the turret, which is temptingly big and elevated, it will ignite them. How is this arrangement of the ammunition safer? And the shells are taken by hand from an open internal hatch-door. This is safe? The initial placement predetermines other non-optimal solutions - the much bigger size, the additional weight of the armor needed to envelop the enlarged volume, bigger fuel tanks for the bigger weight, shorter distances before refuelling, much higher center of gravity...

15/20% loss are not specially high for such conflict. . Leopards are destroyed too. Bradleys too.

Nice propaganda

So Russia Is Loosing By advancing forward lol

Great report love watching it

Even if we take your numbers at face value, you have to take into account the fact that A. The Russians are repairing and salvaging tanks by sending them to 'tank hospitals' near the front, or sending them back to be rebuilt. B. The Russians are building some 250 new build tanks per year. C. Their opponents do not possess either of these capabilities.

NATO says Russia is weak, but at the same time, they say Russia will take over Europe. Warmongering hypocrites! NATO meanwhile they say is strong but at the same time wants more and more allies to be secured. They say NATO is a defensive alliance but attacked Iraq, Libya and Syria unprovoked

You think the Ukraine Nazis are winning? 😂🤣😂🤣

The main problem of the russian tanks is the tourette wich is wrong designed, apart from the wrong storage of the ammo location. They should make the tank tourette to be rounded between tank base and tourette, that space between tank base and the tourete makes the explosions to brake up the tourette and affects everything inside, the upper side of the tank and the mid side should fit lean rounded, so when they get hit they resist more to the damage

dont forget to make an episode on the tin canes with a cannon...the abrams

"Losing the war"....?....;)) Really funny!! Please get informed what propaganda can do and what not....;)))))

Are you for real mate !... Looks like your videos are from another universe in the multiverse 🤣🤣.. Leopard tanks - Invincible but one blow from T90 and its legacy is dead... Challenger 2 tanks - NO Challenger 2 tank ever lost in action since put into service ONE blow from T90 and the Challenger2 fades from the battlefield forever .... Abraham M1 tank - Indestructible, worlds most advance tanks which has been the working horse in all American invasions with ZERO losses however ONE blow from T90 tank and the Abraham M1 gets crushed like a can 🤣🤣.. and yet according to you T90 tank is loosing in Ukraine 🤣🤣.. One has to be Biden or Zelensky to believe your narrative 🤣🤣🤣

Would like to see the sales figures

Masive numbers in production may not be the solution to their problems, the crews are forced not to think in combat areas, but to shoot at will and get the hell out of the zone to preserve their own survival and keep fighting in better circunstances or in time frame where the possibility to win presents itself under less streessing battles.

Losing the war?😂😂😂😂😂😂😂Ukraine propagand😂😂

The T 90 is like the T 34 easy and quick to build . In a month you can have 200/400 of these ! That’ leaves us in the dust !

Hi Bro! Thought that leopards, challengers and abrams were game changers.

Manned by new crew without synergised interoperability with all Arms. Standalone pillboxes are easily neutralized piecemeal.

Dude stop bullshitting, reverse speed of T-90 is 15km/h not 4.

but nato are losing the war ...... period

Says the invincible Abrams and Challengers that were supposed to reach Crimea last year.

now dont get me wronge i dont do politics but the abrams hasnt been used in a large woodland combat conflict or against drones so its hard to tell how it would fair

for me the blast door is the key feature..which it doesn't have unlike the Leaopard/Abrams have. Yes, an autoloader is faster..but..your pretty done like a kipper if you get a hit. Don't really see a swarm of Stuka Bombers having a go..all you see is something bought of Amazon, slightly modified,then dropping granades and popping the top.

Very Briefed And Summarized Ideas : the overall performance of Russian tanks are improved compared to previous wars and military conflicts... regarding the t90 platform, the most important are the t90m and t90ms, while in Ukrainian theaters of operations judging the survivability and the overall performance of the remaining versions of the t90 tanks can be compared to the latest versions of the t72b3 object 2016 and the t80bvm tanks. I think that most losses are a mixture of everything : 1- designing flaws inherited from the t64 and t72 in terms of : A- the location of the ammunition storage, worth noting most of the destruction occurs due to the explosion of the propellant ammunition and the HEAT rounds... Although, in reality, given the time period in which the t64 and t72 were designed in , all the ammunitions was distributed between the tank’s hull and its turret, while the integration of the autoloader was a technological breakthrough and forward thinking allowed the Soviet army to reduce the tanks crew to three, even though the design did not take into account the threat's presented by the anti-armor landmines, and this is clear even in some cases footage of the catastrophic destruction of the most modern t90m/ms walking over anti tank landmines... B- the side armor of the tank’s hull is devoid of reactive armor blocks, and the focus was on equipping the tank sideways with Nera armor, this is in contrast to the widely employed t72b series, which was equipped with kontakt1 armor on the sides of its hull, actually from t72av the sideways of the tank was equipped with explosive reactive armor side armor... 2- the absence of hard-kill systems from equipments list of the Russian armor fighting vehicles AFVs mainly tanks especially the elite guard formations, and this is very surprising for two reasons : A- most of the Russian armored formations entered Ukrainian territory were devoid of foot infantry to accompany those tanks, meaning there were not sufficient numbers of infantry to accompany the tanks, most ifvs were either tracked like the bmp1/2/3 or wheeled like the btr80/82 and apcs like the mltb It did not carry sufficient numbers of infantry soldiers, and the small number that were inside those afvs did not disembark from their carriers, and therefore there were no safety restrictions preventing the usage of hard-kill systems... B-the need to test the efficiency and effectiveness of combat equipment, in addition to refining the tactical and operational employment of the military hardware against a wide spectrum of various weapon's and ammunition, especially western origins anti-armor weapons systems, especially those that employing the top attack pattern... before the Russian invasion of Ukraine began or the special operation, I expected that the duels would be between the hard-killing systems equipped the high-end Russian tanks and between anti-armor weapons, especially western ones, mainly the javelin and nelo, here must rely on technology to compensate for the lack of use of traditional means such as infantry soldiers... regarding the t90a copy or model, the tank witnessed its first combat use in the syrian theaters of operations and gradually proved itself, albeit with varying rates of success, but in general, and over a period of use that extended for a few consecutive years in the front lines, the t90a as a modern main battle tank demonstrated good survivability rates, coupled with advanced day and night fighting capabilities...

Challenger run away from the combat?

15%-30% from original 400, in 2 years isnt as bad as it seems specially if they are producing more to replace those losses. Tanks will be lost regardless if they are T-90, Abrams, Leopards or Challengers, what matter is whenever they do fulfill their role of MBT and whenever you can "tank" those losses. Russia is producing a ton more of those, and while i think 1000 new T-80 and T-90 per year is an exageration of their government its undeniable that they are quickly increasing production and most likely reach several hundreds per year already.

57 units is 15%?????? are you sure?

The flying tank? Yes, flying turrets at least.

Abrams, Bradleys, leopards, challengers are great sources of scrap metals in Ukraine 😅

From what time are that picture of destroyed tanks?TODAY,MODIFICATION?

I believe the issue does not reflect on the Tank itself. We need to look at doctrine, training, and logistical failings.

Notice almost ALL of the drone kills we see are armored vehicles without anti drone cope cages. Those cages work well for what they are. They wouldn't still be making them if they weren't effective.

now make a video about the 3 destroyed abrams in 3 days

Pretty much they've been getting there clock cleaned.

You've got the wrong name, its the Abrams thats geting hammered.

I think the drones are about to put an end to tank warfare.

I think the tank design with the shell carousel at its current location is a major flaw for the Russian tanks. I believe the T14 has moved away from this design.

Any tank caught in a bad situation is vulnerable,

They only lost 57 tanks. Thats great considering drones, missiles, patriot sytem and the abrams and german tanks do no better. Your video proves the tanks are doing their job, as well as they can in new battlefield of drone warfare, but fails to take an accurate balanced position.

At first glance, this video shows the 'Zipperhead Army' clearing an anti-tank mine with a tank. 😂

There is no lower profile on the electronic battlefield.

an objective report. But everyone should remember two things: - a tank always consists of pros and cons - During development, priorities are set and compromises always have to be made. Every country sets its own standards. This means that all Russian tanks and similar models retain the advantages of the flat design and the better HP/t ratio. To achieve this, the protection of the crew was sacrificed to a large extent compared to Western tank construction. That's exactly what was said correctly in the video.

First of all, a lot of comments are way off the mark. The tank is not outdated or obsolete in any way, shape or form. Both sides have been able to conduct successful mechanized and armored operations, in Ukraine's case on a grand scale back when they retook large swathes of territory in eastern Ukraine. However, what we have also seen is that both sides bog down and suffer heavy losses when they outrun friendly air defense systems. What we have also seen is the need for a layered anti-air system that includes both medium/long range systems as well as mobile SHORAD (short-range air defense) that is capable of keeping pace with maneuver units. This is hardly new and in fact goes back to the heyday of the tank in World War II when all sides worked very hard to develop mobile, SPAA to cover their advancing armored formations. Secondly, it is very difficult to assess the capability of any singular piece of military equipment. There are too many other factors that go into a system's battlefield performance such as crew training, logistical support, maintenance frequency, skill of maintenance crews, etc. All of these will dramatically impact a system's effectiveness or render it completely ineffective. In Russia's case, the privatization of its military logistics (done some years ago) has severely hampered logistical support and maintenance for frontline units. Similarly, the reliance on poorly trained conscripts reduces the effectiveness of any system they operate. Added to that are the outlandish claims of Russian propaganda (which insist that anything Russian is the best that ever was and will be), which further muddies the waters. Meanwhile, the NATO equipment matched up against the Russians is being used largely outside its doctrinal context. NATO doctrine, built heavily around US capabilities, emphasizes air power and methodical build-up of air assets before launching operations to gain air superiority, if not air dominance. For example, Ukraine's failed counter-offensive would likely never have happened in a NATO-led military (which is ironic given that it was NATO politicians clamoring for it). NATO commanders would almost certainly refuse a suicidal assault into a defense-in-depth where the enemy maintains air superiority (and with very good reason, said offensive was doomed before it started). Thus, even years into this conflict, it remains incredibly hard to actually gauge the effectiveness of individual systems.

This article missed the mark. The T90 is not losing anything in Ukraine. In fact its the best tank in theatre.

In a tank you need to keep your frontal armour facing the enemy, showing your rear end to the enemy will end in disaster.

LOL, censor the turret why??