Comments by "" (@tomk3732) on "Military History Visualized" channel.

  1. For intended role its a bit inferior vehicle to BMP-2 and much inferior to BMP-3. Intended role here is troop transport and support. Reason why its inferior to BMP-2 and especially BMP-3 is that it simply has not much to support troops with. The 20mm non stabilized auto cannot is tiny. Both BMP-2 and BMP-3 have a 30mm auto cannot that packs way, way more punch. In addition to auto cannon BMP-3 has 100mm gun. Upgrades to this family or new Russian BMP include even bigger 57mm auto-canon while Americans are moving to 50mm auto cannon. How can one support troops with a mini cannon this vehicle has when 30mm is seen today as too small? Sure better than nothing but not a great vehicle today - great for its time, but not today.
    2
  2. other than 3 you wrote is true. 1) yeah, like the T-34 that Germans wanted to copy but settled on the panther which performed soo poorly initially 2) Both Soviets and US employed "inferior" tanks - so inferior they were superior - i.e. T-34 and Sherman were best tanks of the war as they could be made in large numbers and were reliable - so what they could not take on Tiger easily. 3) yes 4) you got populations wrong - Germany - united - was well over 100m. German production was not split at all - allies in the west were not really involved in 1941, nor 1942 nor 1943. Soviet production was simply dwarfing German production as Soviet industry was very advanced - i.e. they had high tech for the time. Something Germany did not expect - they were not fighting a cave man - they were fighting a technological equal.
    2
  3.  @albertgijsbers6325  And this is why they are by far the best selling tanks in the world!
    2
  4. Frontally would resist even from point blank range. Side turret would resist even from point blank range. Turret rear would resist from say 500m or more. May penetrate point blank range. Hull side 30mm would penetrate from point blank range, maybe at 500m Overall, very well protected from APCs and IFVs with auto cannot around 30mm.
    2
  5.  @rogerpennel1798  There was zero need. They used MiG-29s as aggressor testers for a bit and then they given them away to Poland. So more or less they scrapped them as well. None of these T-72s were latest model or anything. They were cheap export models, M and M1. At the end of the cold war Germany had LOTS of their own tanks and no need for more tanks. It is hard to imagine that just before the end of cold war Germany (west) had over 500k troops (!!!) This was supported by over 7000 armored vehicles and well over 1000 combat aircraft. Given drop by almost a factor of 3 in size ... do you think anyone sane would keep even semi decent for the time T-72 M1 ??? LOL, no!
    2
  6.  @Rechnerstrom  Poland did not phase out T-72s. Poland started limited upgrade program for even the oldest T-72s. Out of about 350 of these less then 100 were upgraded. Poland sent some non upgraded T-72s to Ukraine.
    2
  7.  @AgentPepsi1  It was intended as such. But quickly proven itself to be far more capable. This is why today most tanks are T-72s not T-80s and T-72 models are more advanced then T-80s. T-90 is sort of a mix of T-72 and T-80, its a T-72 with welded turret.
    2
  8. Not really - one was destroyed by near miss from artillery - it side armor is as weak as IFV or weaker than some IFV.
    2
  9. It probably would not cross a 1m deep river in Ukraine as terrain is way too soft. If T tanks cannot cross there is no way anything NATO would even attempt.
    2
  10. Nothing can be added to Leo 1 armor to make it defend against modern ATGM - it simply is so paper thin.
    2
  11. There are almost no "free tanks left". So not much can be "Freed up".
    2
  12. Offensives with what - they are low on troops and low on equipment. These will be used to fill in current gaps.
    2
  13. Oh plenty - note 20 or so countries still using it. So need ammo for it. Lots of ammo. Also recently given as aid - so clearly ammo is available.
    2
  14. Pretty much any AT weapons that infantry has today would got through Leo 1 like knife through hot butter.
    2
  15.  @thunderbug8640  Sure, search youtube for "number of Russian tanks" or similar and watch the videos of the guy counting each and every tank. I proven already like 10 times Oryx is garbage, don't feel like proving it 11.
    2
  16. Not really, T-62M is far better tank in defensive role then Leo 1 in offensive role. The ammo from Leo 1 can "maybe" penetrate T-62M while paper thin armor of Leo 1 is in danger of being smoked by an APC with 30mm auto cannon even from around 1000m. Of course Ukraine is out of tanks, they take anything, not that it will mean they will not loose the war.
    2
  17. Actually no - they compared the Leo 1 to T-72 and this is why Leo 1 was made obsolete. They did rather famous tests on the tanks & went with Leo 2 - Leo 1 was moved out of front lines as it could not hold against even export level T-72.
    2
  18. Russia is making 2nd gen thermals at a rather amazing pace. Matching or exceeding western tech should not be a problem at all - see how well Soviets did in that respect. I would not worry at all if I was in charge of Russian armor. They have a very long history of shocking the west - about 100 years now. Russian manufacturing capacity - as per west - dwarfs western ability - so I would be shocked if west was able to go toe to toe with Russia in weapons making. Russia is 2nd largest arms exporter by value after US - so I feel like they do indeed have customers.
    2
  19. Nope. With the best available there is no chance to penetrate front of T-72BM3 / T80BVM. Unless you hit drivers hatch etc.
    2
  20.  @iatsd  If we count "the other spots" than M1 Abrams is weak and can be penetrated by late WWII tanks... When talking about penetration you look at turret cheeks or at the hull - otherwise tank protection discussions become a bit ... meaningless. So yeah, no chance. Also no chance penetrating M1 A2 or above from the front.
    2
  21. Soviet 100mm gun is very old. Much older then NATO L7. I doubt Soviet 115 would fit in there - also not common Soviet ammo - used only for one single type. 125mm is like 98% and is I bet not really suited - it would need to be heavily modded - its for auto loader. Not worth it. Just give the tanks away, some ammo, some fuel and by the time they break down some Russian will blow them up.
    2
  22. Freedom to Donbass from Canada!
    2
  23. Leo 1 is similar to T-55s / T-62s used by Russia. It is a second line tank. It would be a death trap in attack role - specially against determined enemy. In any tank on tank action vs. regular Russian armor it is hopeless. Certainly better than nothing - but not a miracle weapon - just last resort weapon. They will not turn the tide of the war that Russia is now clearly winning.
    2
  24. I say you are correct if both Spain and Germany sent all of their tanks.
    2
  25. These guys just plain cope.
    2
  26. War will not last years unless Ukraine just refuses to surrender at stays in state of war for years. Mission accomplished time for Moscow is approaching fast as UA army is collapsing in Donbass and running out of both men and equipment. They cannot hold on for months like this. They need to replace 1000s of men per day, admitted by Kiev.
    2
  27. LOL, why T-34/ 85 is ideal for Ukraine! What a COPE! Go home Germans - cannot take a hint. Maybe Russians need to visit Berlin again.
    2
  28.  @ENGAM  Well, a lot of Russian strategy is around... let the bastards kill each other. This is, to put it mildly, disliked in Donbass but its not like they have a choice.
    2
  29.  @tomhenry897  These are from DPR and LPR - they had total mobilization - i.e. all men of all ages, probably from 18 to 50.
    2
  30.  @GiantJanus  Where are they taking ground exactly - they just lost two towns today. They control most of Soledar and are encircling Bakhmut defended by at least 60,000 Ukrainians - or around 20 brigades per UA live map deployment.
    2
  31.  @kewlwarez  Yes, but they faced only light infantry as well. And they out numbered the enemy in the area 8 to 1. This is by far no longer the case.
    2
  32.  @orionide4032  Sure that is how you count bodies - you get the ratio of how many kills are from artillery, you get the average shots needed per kill & than you can estimate losses.
    2
  33.  @norbertscheibner8334  Turbines suck period. The issue is that its not really cost effective to get rid of it for the US - yes it was attempted. Yes, US knows about the issue. But each tank has at least 2 engines. Getting rid of at least 10,000 engines is not cheap - and may not exactly be worth the effort. Besides, suitable diesel engines have not been available for long. M1 and T-80 are from the past when diesel engines were not exactly "power".
    2
  34. Just to put this into context, Germans had about 10 times the number of AT guns in September 1939 then Poland. Poles had 37mm Bofors about 1200 units. This was less then 1/2 of needed #s - Poles needed about 3000 AT guns. Units that were at full AT strength proven Polish 37mm gun was very effective, in a single battle a single Polish brigade destroyed or disabled roughly 100 German tanks and armored cars. Polish AT gun had better penetration than PAK 36 - 40mm at 400m at 30 degrees.
    2
  35. Maybe, but I doubt it. I think it is just different way of counting stuff - same as in WWII.
    2
  36. Tanks are so obsolete that Poland is buying every tank it can get. Just to be devils advocate - flying tank (heavy attack helicopter) can do a lot of things a tank can do.... but it can also be killed itself and costs few times more then a tank.
    2
  37. Here is BMP-2 swimming few hundred meters - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxBRb36IVkY Note the river bank is prepared and BMP-2 is certainly much newer.
    2
  38. Mobilization was of small number of people. War effort has decreased unemployment to super low levels (like less than 5%) and trade with Asia proven to be much better than with EU. Sanctions are actually helping Russian economy now. Ukraine is spent - we shall see a slow decline till they either come to their senses or last Ukrainian dies.
    2
  39.  @RCorvinus  Yeah, but they cannot get their wish - all equipment is immediately sent to the front line. You will see videos of these vehicles in action weeks after they are delivered. On the other side Russia is dealing with 1000s of vehicles being sent to the front. Russia right now has capability to out produce whole of NATO in tank production - after moving their economy into war economy direction.
    2
  40. Yeah Oryx makes numbers as they feel like - I just hope they do not go over the actual know number in existence ;)
    2
  41.  @mechano6505  Kharkiv was never annexed. Russia still holds most of Kherson. I would not be surprised that after finishing off of the main UA force they re took the city or demanded it back after end of hostilities.
    2
  42.  @mechano6505  Izium was never claimed, so its was not Russia's own. As for Kherson, why not? Russia can take it back later or it can be negotiated away. Yes, enormous copium by Ukraine whom has no step back policy of idiocy costing it huge casualties. As soon as it was inconvenient Russia simply left the area. Land is only good to hold when it brings you closer to your goal. Imagine Ukraine was so flexible.
    2
  43.  @kreathyr8270  Which is a good thing - Germany does not want to prolong the war that is lost for Ukraine. Its not good for Ukraine and not good for Germany. Germany does not care its also not good for Russia - which is main impetus of US.
    1
  44.  @volodymyr3169  There is no knife ear as no one makes it in larger #s.
    1
  45.  @Mentol_  The main problem with "human wave" is that no one has very good definition of what exactly is it.
    1
  46.  @randyraudi7725  IFV are not really there to fight tanks or other IFV. They are to move infantry and help it in attack or defense. Here bigger gun matters.
    1
  47.  @randyraudi7725  No the gun is there for infantry support - the double feed system is exact proof of that. In fact tanks main role is ALSO infantry support. Tanks usually carry only few AT rounds, almost all rounds are HE. The role of the main gun on IFV is to engage infantry in fortified positions - where MG would be of little help. The auto canon is used to remove wooden/ concrete fortifications or walls in city buildings. BTW, HE is to fight infantry - both for tanks and IFV.
    1
  48. No, I just saw Russian MTLB armored taxi swimming in mud. There is no way any tank or even IFV can pass.
    1
  49. Well, too bad they don't make it for May 9th parade. I can already see some M113 towing 155 howitzers on the red square!
    1
  50.  @Rabarbarzynca  Not really, Mariupol only has AzovStal and Russians moved further out from Izium. Its only matter of time now before Donbass forces are surrounded. And then rather long time before they are all liquidated. See how long it took to take out Nazi in Mariupol. People have strange view of wars thanks to CNN. It took US 6 weeks to take Falujah and it was defended by just 1200 poorly armed and trained fighters. 6 weeks. But no one talks about that now.
    1