Graveyard of NATO Armor: Much-Touted Systems Destroyed in Ukraine!

Graveyard of NATO Armor: Much-Touted Systems Destroyed in Ukraine! - In Ukraine’s ongoing offensive in the Kursk region, NATO-supplied weapons have faced unexpected setbacks. Despite elite troops and advanced Western arms, Ukraine’s military has suffered devastating losses, revealing vulnerabilities in some of the most celebrated systems. In this video, we’ll dive into how these powerful weapons, once seen as unbeatable, have faltered against Russian defenses. Let's take a closer look!

00:31 - The Fall of Most Celebrated Armor
02:12 - The Broader Lose
04:25 - Game-Changer or Game Over?

Subscribe Now :

[marckx]

Incredible sincere and objective assessment, no western propaganda, and for being honest in stating that no individual system of weapons is invulnerable to a specific battefield which have distinctive unique characteristics. To say that this Nato or Russian or any one is invincible, is simple sheer ignorance. My respect to the team once again.

[merkabah]

damn those shovels must be diamond tipped

[nafiznastaim]

Dont you understand? You are facing the Russian... Not Iraq.

[petermounsey]

The arms manufacturers aren't concerned one bit..the more tanks, etc get destroyed the more they have to replace, keeping the shareholders happy back home.

[m-akuttner]

NATO armour is less about being invincible and more about providing heavy cashflow to the companies building NATO armour.

[stemup]

I still remember when the war started, and Americans were saying this is an opportunity to see how their weapons work against Russia. Results are in...they don't

[lai]

Abrams, leopard, challenger, all using cope cages, and still got wrecked. Git gud NATO.

[umtatraining]

NATO had got too cocky, after easily defeating badly trained troops and obsolete armour in Iraq and Afghanisthan. All these over-hyped weapons, like Abrams / Stryker / Challenger / Leopard etc have met their match, not only because Uraine doesn't have any airforce left to provide cover, but because their vulnerabilities have been studied and countered, using drones / UAVs - the weapons of the future. Doubt if even the much touted, multi-million dollar US supercarriers will be effective in an all-out war with another advanced adversary, like China. China's PLA has been developing drones / UAVs with far superior technology than the Iranian-supplied ones that Russia is presently using. Instead of showcasing their effectiveness, the Ukraine war has high-lighted the weaknesses of Western weapons. It is not the weapon that is so important, it is the trained soldier utilising those weapons, that makes the difference between success and failure.

[andreycham]

Russians say tanks are not afraid of mud, it looks like Abrams is exception to the rule

[ABCABC-xfcr]

The Ukraine war exposed the quality and inferiority of western weapons that contributed significantly to the huge deaths of Ukrainian soldiers and the losses in the war. Western military trainings are also out of date.

[gregmartin]

It's not just weapon systems; it's tactics, training, logistics, leadership, morale, and other factors. The Russians in this theater of operations are superior in many of those areas.

[justuseyourmajicwand]

It has been known for decades the lifespan of a tank in a real battle is about 20 minutes

[SportZFanLfe]

NATO tactics don't work without "Air Superiority." And why hasn't NATO sent in a Huge Air Force? Cuz footage of F-35's and F-22's getting blown out the sky is bad for MIC business.

[marvlombard]

I see a lot of butt hurt people who defended NATO systems. This video is pointing out the weaknesses in these systems that's all😂. The problem is that a lot of people were bragging about the NATO equipment like they are invincible and the video is just pointing out that, this is not the case.

As mentioned in this videos these systems need a lot of support to make them effective.

[batuhancokmar]

Too much "NATO Apologist" tone for my taste. Abrams wasn't designed for Middle East, there was no conflict in ME in 1976. It was specifically designed to fight Soviets in exactly where they are now; eastern Europe.. So is Bradley, M113s, Challenger 2, Leopard 1/2, Marder, AMX-10, YPR-365, FV103, VAB etc. They are all operating on the territory they are designed for, fighting the exact enemy they were designed to counter: the Russians... So, please, spare us the nonsense. Also Stryker and every single MRAPs out there is supposedly designed for asymetrical warfare, that argument is flawed too.

That said, I don't think any western equipment actually "failed" in their task; they are about as effective as any other good Tank/IFV/APC out there, each with their own cons and pros.. Problem was (and still is) the ridiculous hype... "Leopard 2 is a Game Changer". Come on, its just a tank. A good tank, no one is doubting that, but still, only a tank.

[truthgambit]

War is stupid no matter how smart the weapons. All this stuff and no one seems able to put out wild fires. I have an idea. End war and start building equipment to actually do things people need. Stop doing things that cause wars, and start doing things that make our world awesome. Yuck, I hate war. I hate thinking of all the young children dying as soldiers in a war they did not need to fight. I am old, so to me these are children dying in Ukraine and Russia. It is wrong.

[jim]

This appears to be the first video showing the affects from the other side. A very well done video.

[suneshnirmalkm]

Nato armor fails because first time it comes in contact against much superior equipments

[JoeyRay-fzqe]

Western Tanks are too heavy, too complicated just too much for combat on a long scale!

[teeth]

Watching a tank destroyed by a drone makes me think of Samson and Goliath.