Russian Vs. Western-Made Tanks In The Ukraine War | Balance Of Power | Insider

Video Statistics and Information

Video
Captions Word Cloud
Reddit Comments
Captions
The tank is the apex predator of ground warfare. And both Russia and Ukraine have had significant losses. It can cost millions of dollars to build replacements. So what do these losses mean for the war? And which country is ahead? We're going to break down the balance of power. I'm Sam Fellman. I'm a defense editor with Business Insider, and I'm a US Navy veteran. Tanks aren't decisive, but they're an important part of the positional warfare, and they're a critical weapon to Ukraine to try to break the Russian momentum. These are premier fighting vehicles that we're seeing in action on the battlefields of Ukraine. We're learning a lot about the tank forces and warfare against pretty pervasive threats to tanks. Russia is using its tanks primarily to support foot soldiers who are advancing, to counter Ukrainian drives, and to protect vehicle movements. Russia is one of the largest tank forces in the world, and Russia has been on attack. The other advantage Russia has is a political willingness to sacrifice hundreds of vehicles and tens of thousands of troops to try to attain battlefield victories. Russia has lost a lot of tanks by the count of open-source researchers at Oryx, they've lost 1,800 destroyed, 530 captured, and then 270 abandoned. Russia has thousands more tanks upon which it can draw, and it can make operational older or reserve tanks as the war continues. So Russia's using pretty much everything it's got. The bulk of that is the T-80s and the T-72s. Those are Cold War-era Soviet-made tanks that Russia has in really large numbers. There is some usage of the more modern T-90s, and Russia is also, to augment its numbers and replace its heavy losses, has dipped into its deep storage and is taking out T-55s and T-54s. Those are tanks that were built in the days after World War II. The T-55s and T-54s, those are essentially obsolete on a modern battlefield. Russia has not deployed its T-14 Armata tank, which is a tank that Russian media has hyped up quite a bit. It has not been involved in any meaningful combat operations in Ukraine. The T-90M is the most advanced tank that Russia has deployed to the battlefields of Ukraine. And it has thermal sites, a computerized fire control system, and jammers. It also, like many other tanks, Russian tanks and Western tanks, it has explosive reactive armor. It costs about the ruble equivalent of $4.5 million. Ukraine has received donated tanks from Western partners. So those tanks are the UK-made Challenger 2, the German-made Leopard tank, and the American M1 Abrams. Those are all very modern tanks. One issue with them is essentially that Ukraine doesn't have enough. Ukraine has only been donated about 31 M1 Abrams. The M1 Abrams is a premier tank designed to destroy Soviet- and Russian-made tanks. And my guess would be the Ukrainians wish they had more. They could certainly use them. The M1 Abrams, that is the main battle tank of the United States. It has computerized fire control software. It has depleted uranium rounds that are designed to shatter enemy armor, and it was built specifically for tank-on-tank battles. The M1 Abrams has a high top speed. It has a gas turbine engine that creates a lot of power. It is a top tank, and yet it is also facing the same threats that have bogged down Russian and other Western-made tanks. The challenges with the M1 Abrams is that it requires a lot of maintenance. Tanks are a fearsome weapon that carries a psychological effect on the defender. Ukraine has shown that the Russian tank forces are hardly the unstoppable force that many had feared before the war's outbreak. Russian tanks are less survivable than Western-made tanks. Western-made tanks are better designed to protect the crew, and when they sustain a direct hit, it's more frequent that a Western tank will be able to be towed and then repaired. You would not find me in any Russian tank. The risks of all Soviet- designed vehicles to the crew are really high. The Soviet-made tanks often become total losses and crew killers when they're hit. A good example that's indicative of this is the jack-in-the-box effect. The T-72 has a design flaw where the crew essentially sits on top of ammunition storage for the tank's shells. And that means that a blast into this space is going to potentially cook off the stored ammunition inside the tank. The top turret will basically blow off from this massive explosion of all the tank's ammunition. That will kill the crew, and that'll make the tank a total loss. The Soviet doctrine of fighting informs both the institutional approaches of the Ukrainian armed forces and the Russian armed forces. Soviet doctrine really emphasizes using mass firepower to make enemy positions untenable, and then to send forward armor and infantry to seize those positions from the remnants of defenders that held them. That's very different than maneuver warfare. Maneuver warfare is the simultaneous use of firepower from the ground and from the air, while infantry and armor are on the move. When you think about the sides, Ukraine is not willing to give up territory. It is trying to regain territory. It views the territory upon which it's fighting and upon which Russia holds as its rightful territory seized by force and marred by Russian invaders. And so the Ukrainians are not willing to cede territory for any type of maneuver warfare. And to Russians, territory matters, as well. Every inch of advance is important to the Russians. So the Russians are very intent on taking territory, whatever the damage to that territory and whatever the losses to their own forces. And the Russians are able to sustain greater losses and have a willingness to sacrifice people for those advances. Ukraine is not willing to do human wave attacks. The Russian human wave attacks have overwhelmed prepared Ukrainian defenses. They've come at a cost of tens of thousands of people, and hundreds if not thousands of fighting vehicles. So these are brute-force tactics that Ukraine and really the West are not willing to employ. Taking out tanks is a very important part of Ukraine holding its defenses. Tanks can bring mobile firepower against prepared defensive points. And so destroying a tank before it's able to really threaten foot soldiers in some of their prepared defenses, in trench lines or in buildings, is essential to holding those lines. Tanks are a weapon of maneuver warfare, and the Ukraine war is essentially positional. When tanks have tried to pass through areas, they're hitting these pervasive threats of the prepared defenses, of enemy attack airplanes, of mines, drones, artillery, and anti-tank guided missiles. All of that is bogging them down, preventing them from what they're best at: massing fire through a combination of speed and the ability to cross nearly any type of terrain. But if they can't cross that terrain without losing their tracks or coming under sustained attack, then their power on the battlefield has been effectively checked. To really understand the artillery threat, we have to understand the battlefield the tank is facing. This is a very dangerous battlefield for any tank. Let's consider the Russian prepared defenses that a Ukrainian tank would potentially face. First, there's a minefield, a very heavily laid minefield with hidden bombs that may run kilometers in depth. Then there are anti-tank obstacles, like upturned pyramids that try to limit a tank's movement. There are vehicle ditches, which are almost like a moat through which a tank or an armored vehicle can't cross, without some type of bridging equipment or without filling in part of this moat. And then there are the defensive lines, where ground troops are both spotting movement of approaching forces, and they'll have machine gun positions. They'll have anti-tank guided missile positions. All of this then is covered by artillery and covered by potentially enemy attack helicopters. Anti-tank missiles are also an incredibly important threat that has become much more widespread in Ukraine. An anti-tank guided missile is a much more advanced system than, say, an RPG, or rocket-propelled grenade, that could threaten a tank but is guided by a firer who often is afraid for their life. An anti-tank guided missile is a fire-and-forget system. A soldier who is training on one, it doesn't take a lot of training to fire one of these. The soldier who's carrying one has to leave cover for, you know, maybe two or three seconds for the missile to acquire an enemy armor and then can fire it and can go back to hiding. And the missile's guidance system will take care of the rest. The anti-tank missiles are designed to penetrate tank armor, and there's been a proliferation of them on the battlefield. So they're more difficult to stop, they're more difficult to jam, because there's a variety of different types on the battlefield. And they're also in such volume that the tank's ability to use its explosive reactive armor becomes more limited with repeated strikes. Ukraine has a variety of anti-tank guided missiles, which have all seen combat use. So a couple systems, NLAWs, Javelin, and the Ukrainian- made Stugna-Ps. Both sides are adapting their armored vehicles for the pretty pervasive threat of drones. And so one way this is manifesting itself are these "cope cages." It's like a welded netting that goes around the tank. This is designed to make it more tricky to land an exploding drone right on the tank's shell and blast inwards. These cages, if you will, kind of look like mosquito nets that try to keep the explosion a little bit further from the tank's hull. The other side of that is that drone pilots are becoming more skilled at getting around these and attacking vulnerable points. Tanks are really expensive, hard-to-make weapons. A M1 Abrams costs in the neighborhood of $5 million. A Russian T-90 costs also around the same amount in the ruble equivalent. So these are expensive systems to lose. There's both an economic cost, there's the three to four crew killed. And then there's the psychological effect of your enemy seeing a chink in your armor. Ukraine is very dependent on Western donations for its tank force. It can repair its Russian- made tanks to some degree, and it's relying on support from the US, UK, and Germany to replace its damaged tanks in Ukraine. Other countries also have donated their weapons, but Ukraine doesn't have extensive tank production needed by this war. And so Ukraine is very dependent on its Western partners for the supports to repair tanks and for new tanks. The US has given 31 M1 Abrams tanks to Ukraine. If you factor in the ammunition and part support for the M1 Abrams, it's likely north of $200 million in support that the US has provided in the M1 Abrams tanks. US officials estimate that the war has already cost Russia at least $200 billion in military spending. And in its latest budget, Russia has signaled it's going to spend roughly 6% of its GDP on its military. That's likely the lower bound of how much real spending Russia is being forced to do on its military as the war in Ukraine continues. We are almost certainly going to see continued heavy tank losses on the part of Russia. The monthslong battle to capture the strategic city of Avdiivka is indicative of the staggering losses that Russia is sustaining. The capture came at a cost to Russian armor: 350 tanks, 750 armored vehicles, and 46,000 troops killed or injured. Russia is making every indication that it's going to continue to try to seize territory from Ukraine, and that's exposing its tanks and its armored vehicles to all these pervasive threats on the battlefield. Russia can continue to afford to lose vehicles at this heavy clip. Russia is producing more tanks, and it has extensive tank reserves that it can pull out to augment its tank losses. The experts at the International Institute of Strategic Studies believe that Russia can continue to lose tanks and armored vehicles at this rate for two to three years. The balance of power on the battlefields of Ukraine must go to the Russian tanks. Russia simply has more tanks and is using brute-force tactics that are causing them to lose their tanks in droves. But only Russia has this massive firepower it can mass, and compared to Ukraine's tanks, even with more advanced tanks, the advanced tanks face the same threats that the lesser-advanced tanks like the T-72 that both sides use face. And so this war does not play to the strengths of the tank, but tanks are useful to Russia to try to take territory using maximum force and firepower, as Russia is doing. Tanks and artillery and drones are critical to Ukraine to try to break the momentum of Russia's ground forces and the tanks that enable their forward movement.
Info
Channel: Insider
Views: 750,494
Rating: undefined out of 5
Keywords: Insider
Id: _5zUMrMstaY
Channel Id: undefined
Length: 15min 23sec (923 seconds)
Published: Wed May 15 2024
Related Videos
Note
Please note that this website is currently a work in progress! Lots of interesting data and statistics to come.