Did Ukraine Change your Mind about Russian Tanks? @TheChieftainsHatch

In this video I ask Nicholas "The Chieftain" Moran if the Ukraine War changed his mind about Russian and Soviet tanks.

»» GET OUR BOOKS ««

»» SUPPORT MHV ««

»» MERCHANDISE ««

» SOURCES «

our brains

#ad #tanks #sponsored

[bryangrote]

This discussion makes tons of sense.

“See first, shoot first, kill first” seems to apply regardless of the conflict or tech involved.

[yermanoffthetelly]

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

[christineshotton]

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.

[carlchong]

The High/Low principle is a funny one.

Once I played a nighttime airsoft game. The teams were quite lopsided in that one team had several NVS equipped players, a couple even had real PVS-14 units.

My team had a pile of newbs and one civillian Gen1 device. Fortunately we at least had reasonably well dialed in red dots so we could see where our guns were pointing in the dark.

We took off a visible rifle laser and handed it to our one NVS guy and he designated anyone he saw with the laser pointer.

Basically anyone creeping across the field we were covering became a pellet magnet.

OPFOR didn't figure out what we were doing but we managed to win pretty solidly because we could get all of our barrels pointed at things to be shot.

[alexdunphy]

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

[Thejudge]

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.

[peteranderson]

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.

[SoloRenegade]

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.

[ostrowulf]

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.

[Grendelmk]

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.

[AndrewJonWright]

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.

[noozilander]

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.

[michaelhorning]

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.

[Rrgr]

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.

[TormentedPenguin]

A T-62 is not a great tank for mobility warfare in modern day, but it's still a 115mm gun on tracks that is impervious to small and medium arms.

[Thaidory]

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.

[karlheinzvonkroemann]

Colonel Moran knows his business well, that's for sure. He's always worth a listen whenever he''s on Youtube. 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 :)

[wendigodrude]

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

[thegenericguy]

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.'

[frankgulla]

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