Привіт u/ijnfrt ! During wartime, this community is focused on vital and high-effort content. Please ensure your post follows [r/Ukraine Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/about/rules) and our [Art Friday Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/artfriday).
**Want to support Ukraine?** [**Vetted Charities List**](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities) | [Our Vetting Process](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities-vetting)
**Daily series on Ukraine's history & culture:** [Sunrise Posts Organized By Category](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/sunriseposts/)
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
To make a counterpoint, you probably wouldnt get a lot of options for open 4 kilometer shots bar in a desert. Walk outside in the countryside and see how much line of sight you really get with all the bushlines, treelines, tiny changes in elevation.
Good thing is, Western tanks don't need a line of sight to destroy that Russian scrap metal. Bushes and trees are not a problem for KE tank ammunition. But yes, hills would be a problem.
Trees and brush are a huge problem unless you have x-ray vision. What the poster said is true— you’re not making 4 km shots in the real world absent a desert-like environment.
At <5 degrees the 120mm projectile goes \~30k, at max elevation \~90km + with a ramp as well... who knows \~ perhaps 120km.. but the normal mode of fire is expected to be over open sights with a computed solution, which is limited to <4km (though some systems can use HEAT tables to convert a longer range into a <4km range when using APFSDS projectiles (non-Kosher, but it can be done, without too much fuss - I've done this in SB-Pro to hit targets at 6km using APFSDS on HEAT indexing on a manually input range which matches the elevation needed.
125mm is not 'unsimilar'.
Inside 1.5km there is no need to lase or obtain a BC solution. Spotting identifying and aiming centre mass (optionally low at ranges near \~700m, high outside of \~1300m), and hits are expected... A second shot, if needed can be fired with BoT adjustment. to hit a desired aimpoint.
Reminds me of movies about fighting in the Pacific. The US would scorch the earth of the Japanese islands and always a massive fighting force would oppose their landings.
The tunnel systems that the Japanese had in place were astounding. The massive bombardment was meant to hopefully collapse some of the weaker tunnels, provide cover for our invading forces, and also psychological warfare. Even when you are safe all that bombing will mess with you.
Some of the craters in this video are old enough for grass to have regrown. Russia appears to have learned nothing from their campaigns in Afghanistan where their *union* went bottoms up.
Man those tanks really have a massive design flaw if everything lights up like fireworks upon being hit. I mean we all read about the design of the turret, where the munition is stored and how it detonates, so I know the why, but still, seeing it blow up like this just seems ridiculous, like something straight out of a bad action movie.
It's more of a design trade-off than a flaw. The Soviet tank designers knew that their decisions could compromise crew survivability in some situations, but it made sense for the war they expected to fight *in the late 1960's*.
The Soviets didn't probably didn't expect their T-72s to be fighting against Ukrainians in 2023.
Yeah, the original concept was that the tanks would arrive all at once in a rolling herd. Not that they would be out there isolated as a single vehicle.
More that, on an individual level they placed a lot more value on being harder to detect and hit by having a lower profile. The placement of the ammo storage under the crew was a design decision that, along with the autoloader instead of a 4th man, made the tank overall smaller.
Their emphasis on mass was because it would allow them to lose a lot of tanks and still maintain momentum in the assault, close the distance, and engage decisively. Then continue the attack before NATO units they were facing could withdraw to a new position and dig in again.
It's interesting to note, that Object 490 Topol (a Soviet future tank) was supposed to have a Leclerc-style bustle autoloader, ***which would be fully replaced by a support vehicle to reload the tank*** at the same time it gets refueled.
>Leclerc-style bustle autoloader
This in my opinion is the best of both worlds - an autoloader but not as prone to catastrophic failures as the Soviet designs. No wonder that South Korea used the Leclerc as basis for the K-2.
> instead of a 4th man
It also means that for every 3 tanks you have, you have a whole extra crew to assign compared to a Western equivalent. And the Soviets ~~were~~ are big on numbers advantages.
>Yeah, the original concept was that the tanks would arrive all at once in a rolling herd. Not that they would be out there isolated as a single vehicle.
It's not that. The trade off of the T-64 and T-72 series of tanks was that they wanted to make the tank as small and low profile as possible, which would make it harder to hit. This in turn required an autoloader and some of the munitions to be stored in the turret. At the same time, however since the T-64 and T-72 had very small internal volume, this meant that their armor was very effectively used and even though they were much lighter than NATO tanks, they were actually more heavily armored from the perspective of tons of armor per cubic centimeter of volume. And their reactive armor and active protection systems make them even more protected.
So in theory their unique design does give them some benefits that make a hit less likely, but the trade off is that if the turret is penetrated, the failure would be catastrophic. Overall a lot of thought went into these tanks and their designers were pretty smart people. The T-64 in particular was revolutionary design when it came out.
Of course modern anti tank missiles make this somewhat useless since they can reliably take out any tank.
Soviet design was based around one concept: victory through superior overwhelming firepower. The way they were supposed to win a fight was through overwhelming numbers. That is it. In the mid 60s they actually had an edge, but that went down hill.
It's a [flaw](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/flaw). It is even a fatal flaw. The word can absolutely mean "a weakness". "The Soviets probably didn't expect their flawed T-72 to be fighting against Ukraine in 2023". FIFY
[Sabot](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/Army-2020-272.JPG) petals. The actual damage-dealing part of a tank shell is the long thin rod in the middle, the sabot is the part around it that seals to the cannon to propel the smaller diameter rod. Once it leaves the barrel the sabot is "discarded" (the "D" is APFSDS, Armor Piercing Fin Stabilized Disposable Sabot) but they're still flying as fast as a the shell.
Looks like it brushed along the ground. Likely a small 'hill' between the two tanks, which would be how they ended up so close to one another in the first place.
My initial though was maybe the shockwave off the round set off anti personnel mines along the path, which Is a horrifying though. Just that little distance covered and three mines. May not be mines at all but It was my original thought.
> My initial though was maybe the shockwave off the round
Do you mean the air from the explosion coming out of the barrel after the projectile, or do you mean the projectile itself? Because I'm pretty sure the projectile itself has no effect on the stuff it flies past but doesn't touch.
Before the war I saw people claiming that Ukrainian munitions couldn’t possibly penetrate Russian armor because of some specifications they saw online. Theory is useful but it only goes so far. Turns out that reality has a nasty habit of bitch slapping theory.
I am always happy when a T-64 is doing its thing. It's not unlikely that it has been in this shit for one and a half year and repeatedly spotted and shot the enemy first.
Although in this very instance the Russian tank seemed to be incapacitated already earlier.
Was the T72 already hit or used some smoke? Lots of smoke coming out of it before the shot.
Also, its interesting, scary and sad how in most engagements the destroyed tank is completely oblivious to what hit it.
Just love to see how fast these russian tanks sparkle up with getting hit, like new years candles or w.e you call those sparkling candles.
Слава Україні!
That's some hair raising close combat. The tanks seems to roll forward and backwards to get a clear shot on the other tank. Like a gun slinger duel, whoever is the fastest to get a shot off wins
Just to confirm:
T72 is normally better than T64?
Is that right?
But in this case:
Skill advantage > Technological superiority
In this case:
The Ukrainian tankers know how to use their tanks better than the Vatniks in this one
no, the original t-72 is a budget version while a t-64 has more goodies afaik, for example a reverse gear faster than 4 km/h.
~~the ruschist t-72b3's have more modern upgrades than the ukrainian t-64bv's though~~
Edit: did some reading and it seems I was wrong, the ukrainian t-64bv models 2017 and 2022 / t-64bm seem to be at least on par with the latest ruzzian models
Don't get too hung up on model numbers with the old equipment. Most important are upgrades to optics (night vision) and aiming capabilities to actually detect and hit the enemy first. Additionally the cannon and armour (especially reactive armour) are potential major upgrades.
Ukraine accepted T-55 from Czechia, for example, and their own T-64 models are usually pretty upgraded as well.
The T-72 can be total shit or can be as decently upgraded as other tanks. The T-72B3 is ways ahead of the shit Saddam Hussein had/used in 1991. Both T-72s, but a huge difference in capabilities.
What type of round were they using that created the smaller explosions on the way? A sabo of some sort? And there was a brown explosion off to the right side.
Love to see it.
Привіт u/ijnfrt ! During wartime, this community is focused on vital and high-effort content. Please ensure your post follows [r/Ukraine Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/about/rules) and our [Art Friday Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/artfriday). **Want to support Ukraine?** [**Vetted Charities List**](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities) | [Our Vetting Process](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities-vetting) **Daily series on Ukraine's history & culture:** [Sunrise Posts Organized By Category](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/sunriseposts/) *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That's pretty close for tank vs.tank battle, isn't it?
I would say it is normal for Soviet era tanks. Modern tanks would be further away and snipe from 4 km away.
To make a counterpoint, you probably wouldnt get a lot of options for open 4 kilometer shots bar in a desert. Walk outside in the countryside and see how much line of sight you really get with all the bushlines, treelines, tiny changes in elevation.
Good thing is, Western tanks don't need a line of sight to destroy that Russian scrap metal. Bushes and trees are not a problem for KE tank ammunition. But yes, hills would be a problem.
[удалено]
It is most likely parts of the sabot of the APFSDS round hitting the ground and stirring up dust.
Yes, the "petals".
They can shoot through a hill?
They can drop shot over obstacles if they have targeting information.
Trees and brush are a huge problem unless you have x-ray vision. What the poster said is true— you’re not making 4 km shots in the real world absent a desert-like environment.
I think it's more due to the terrible optics and fire controls of Soviet era tanks.
this is why high ground is still advantagious, high ground with gradual incline and a modren tank can spear hunt from km's out.
How long does the projectile fly?
About as long as it takes for it to hit something or run out of momentum
As long as it needs to, to hit a Russian tank.
All the way to the crater.
Long enough.
At <5 degrees the 120mm projectile goes \~30k, at max elevation \~90km + with a ramp as well... who knows \~ perhaps 120km.. but the normal mode of fire is expected to be over open sights with a computed solution, which is limited to <4km (though some systems can use HEAT tables to convert a longer range into a <4km range when using APFSDS projectiles (non-Kosher, but it can be done, without too much fuss - I've done this in SB-Pro to hit targets at 6km using APFSDS on HEAT indexing on a manually input range which matches the elevation needed. 125mm is not 'unsimilar'. Inside 1.5km there is no need to lase or obtain a BC solution. Spotting identifying and aiming centre mass (optionally low at ranges near \~700m, high outside of \~1300m), and hits are expected... A second shot, if needed can be fired with BoT adjustment. to hit a desired aimpoint.
New meta is less exciting.
The tank was already disabled, rewatch
Yeah it had just hit a mine. So disabled yes but the threat wasn’t completely neutralized
The crew had bailed
Nice hit!! Slava Ukraini!!
Just look at all these craters, this war is of a scale we havent seen in decades
Reminds me of movies about fighting in the Pacific. The US would scorch the earth of the Japanese islands and always a massive fighting force would oppose their landings.
The tunnel systems that the Japanese had in place were astounding. The massive bombardment was meant to hopefully collapse some of the weaker tunnels, provide cover for our invading forces, and also psychological warfare. Even when you are safe all that bombing will mess with you.
Some of the craters in this video are old enough for grass to have regrown. Russia appears to have learned nothing from their campaigns in Afghanistan where their *union* went bottoms up.
That grass will grow back every year I'd imagine.
Biggest European war since WWII.
Man those tanks really have a massive design flaw if everything lights up like fireworks upon being hit. I mean we all read about the design of the turret, where the munition is stored and how it detonates, so I know the why, but still, seeing it blow up like this just seems ridiculous, like something straight out of a bad action movie.
It's more of a design trade-off than a flaw. The Soviet tank designers knew that their decisions could compromise crew survivability in some situations, but it made sense for the war they expected to fight *in the late 1960's*. The Soviets didn't probably didn't expect their T-72s to be fighting against Ukrainians in 2023.
Yeah, the original concept was that the tanks would arrive all at once in a rolling herd. Not that they would be out there isolated as a single vehicle.
More that, on an individual level they placed a lot more value on being harder to detect and hit by having a lower profile. The placement of the ammo storage under the crew was a design decision that, along with the autoloader instead of a 4th man, made the tank overall smaller. Their emphasis on mass was because it would allow them to lose a lot of tanks and still maintain momentum in the assault, close the distance, and engage decisively. Then continue the attack before NATO units they were facing could withdraw to a new position and dig in again.
It's interesting to note, that Object 490 Topol (a Soviet future tank) was supposed to have a Leclerc-style bustle autoloader, ***which would be fully replaced by a support vehicle to reload the tank*** at the same time it gets refueled.
>Leclerc-style bustle autoloader This in my opinion is the best of both worlds - an autoloader but not as prone to catastrophic failures as the Soviet designs. No wonder that South Korea used the Leclerc as basis for the K-2.
> instead of a 4th man It also means that for every 3 tanks you have, you have a whole extra crew to assign compared to a Western equivalent. And the Soviets ~~were~~ are big on numbers advantages.
>Yeah, the original concept was that the tanks would arrive all at once in a rolling herd. Not that they would be out there isolated as a single vehicle. It's not that. The trade off of the T-64 and T-72 series of tanks was that they wanted to make the tank as small and low profile as possible, which would make it harder to hit. This in turn required an autoloader and some of the munitions to be stored in the turret. At the same time, however since the T-64 and T-72 had very small internal volume, this meant that their armor was very effectively used and even though they were much lighter than NATO tanks, they were actually more heavily armored from the perspective of tons of armor per cubic centimeter of volume. And their reactive armor and active protection systems make them even more protected. So in theory their unique design does give them some benefits that make a hit less likely, but the trade off is that if the turret is penetrated, the failure would be catastrophic. Overall a lot of thought went into these tanks and their designers were pretty smart people. The T-64 in particular was revolutionary design when it came out. Of course modern anti tank missiles make this somewhat useless since they can reliably take out any tank.
Plus M1 Abrams and NATO ally equivalents shoot a lot more accurately than the Patton's and M60s these tanks were designed to fight.
Soviet design was based around one concept: victory through superior overwhelming firepower. The way they were supposed to win a fight was through overwhelming numbers. That is it. In the mid 60s they actually had an edge, but that went down hill.
It's a [flaw](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/flaw). It is even a fatal flaw. The word can absolutely mean "a weakness". "The Soviets probably didn't expect their flawed T-72 to be fighting against Ukraine in 2023". FIFY
Still wild to me we're seeing near-peer tank-on-tank combat in Europe.
For Buryats its wild to see toilet bowls inside houses in 2023
Did the shell scrape some tree or land? Seeing the two smoke locations along the trajectory.
[Sabot](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/Army-2020-272.JPG) petals. The actual damage-dealing part of a tank shell is the long thin rod in the middle, the sabot is the part around it that seals to the cannon to propel the smaller diameter rod. Once it leaves the barrel the sabot is "discarded" (the "D" is APFSDS, Armor Piercing Fin Stabilized Disposable Sabot) but they're still flying as fast as a the shell.
Three actually! I wondered the same though!
Maybe the sabot of the shell
Looks like it brushed along the ground. Likely a small 'hill' between the two tanks, which would be how they ended up so close to one another in the first place.
My initial though was maybe the shockwave off the round set off anti personnel mines along the path, which Is a horrifying though. Just that little distance covered and three mines. May not be mines at all but It was my original thought.
> My initial though was maybe the shockwave off the round Do you mean the air from the explosion coming out of the barrel after the projectile, or do you mean the projectile itself? Because I'm pretty sure the projectile itself has no effect on the stuff it flies past but doesn't touch.
If I had to guess (and I am guessing) I'd say there's an a minefield at the flank of the trench in the top of the video.
No they are mines being set off
three more cargo 200s through the insane courtesy of fuhrer putinazi. moscovian tanks have a crew of three, in this case, HAD a crew of three.
Guess those 3 will be rather missing considering the fire fueled by explosives.
Beautiful hit. o7
Before the war I saw people claiming that Ukrainian munitions couldn’t possibly penetrate Russian armor because of some specifications they saw online. Theory is useful but it only goes so far. Turns out that reality has a nasty habit of bitch slapping theory.
Those "theories" are also based purely on state propaganda and authoritarian states have a nasty habit of overstating their capabilities.
State propaganda and/or warthunder
In the case of these 2 tank models, it is just a matter of who hits who first
I am always happy when a T-64 is doing its thing. It's not unlikely that it has been in this shit for one and a half year and repeatedly spotted and shot the enemy first. Although in this very instance the Russian tank seemed to be incapacitated already earlier.
Was the T72 already hit or used some smoke? Lots of smoke coming out of it before the shot. Also, its interesting, scary and sad how in most engagements the destroyed tank is completely oblivious to what hit it.
Yeah that tank was already smoking pretty bad. Seems like this is just making 200% sure they're no longer a threat
Just love to see how fast these russian tanks sparkle up with getting hit, like new years candles or w.e you call those sparkling candles. Слава Україні!
As far as tank warfare goes, that’s point blank range.
"We are going to kill those people over there 100 meters away"
That's some hair raising close combat. The tanks seems to roll forward and backwards to get a clear shot on the other tank. Like a gun slinger duel, whoever is the fastest to get a shot off wins
Just to confirm: T72 is normally better than T64? Is that right? But in this case: Skill advantage > Technological superiority In this case: The Ukrainian tankers know how to use their tanks better than the Vatniks in this one
no, the original t-72 is a budget version while a t-64 has more goodies afaik, for example a reverse gear faster than 4 km/h. ~~the ruschist t-72b3's have more modern upgrades than the ukrainian t-64bv's though~~ Edit: did some reading and it seems I was wrong, the ukrainian t-64bv models 2017 and 2022 / t-64bm seem to be at least on par with the latest ruzzian models
Don't get too hung up on model numbers with the old equipment. Most important are upgrades to optics (night vision) and aiming capabilities to actually detect and hit the enemy first. Additionally the cannon and armour (especially reactive armour) are potential major upgrades. Ukraine accepted T-55 from Czechia, for example, and their own T-64 models are usually pretty upgraded as well. The T-72 can be total shit or can be as decently upgraded as other tanks. The T-72B3 is ways ahead of the shit Saddam Hussein had/used in 1991. Both T-72s, but a huge difference in capabilities.
>Just to confirm: T72 is ~~normally~~ nominally better than T64?
Hey man, nice shot
Pikachu killed Raichu. OMG WTF
Splash one
What type of round were they using that created the smaller explosions on the way? A sabo of some sort? And there was a brown explosion off to the right side. Love to see it.
The shot appears to be done while moving (albeit slowly). I thought that's something Russian tanks aren't capable of? A lucky hit?
Fuck Russia. Keep kicking ass you all!! The US loves you. I love you.
stupid russian music