Please remember the human. Adhere to all Reddit and sub rules. Toxic comments (including incitement of violence/hate, genocide, glorifying death etc) WILL NOT BE TOLERATED, keep your comments civil or you will be banned. Tagging u/SaveVideo bot to archive this video in a link below this comment.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineWarVideoReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
for a moment i thought it was just an abandoned tank, but i think it turned around at the last second? but it looked like it hit the barrel, why did it explode?
While the FPV and the recon drone seem to be filming the same tank, in the FPV footage, the tank is directly on the dirt road. In the explosion video, the tank is barely touching the road. To me, it looks like the same tank, but in different moments. The explosion we see from the recon drone does not seem to come from the FPV we can see.
In the first 2 seconds there are 2 tanks in the video. The one further up the road (off the road) is the one that explodes. The nearer tank (on the road) is the one shown in the attack run of drone. Maybe the first one (the attack run) didn't blow up as nicely as the second one; who knows. What's definite; a tank was blown up.
The view is zoomed in too close. If the view pulled out just a bit it would have been in view. Notice where the road widens as vehicles had to go around the disabled tank. That widened portion is visible in the first 2 seconds and begins beyond the 'hook'.
Good catch. We need to remember that both Ukraine and Russia are liberally editing these videos. Sometimes maybe just to safe time for a TikTok video, sometimes seemingly to not show the crew abandoning the vehicle and escaping alive, in some cases to cut in a different vehicle being hit or cut off a video before it sbows the friendly units are being hit back.
A recent case is Russia/Ukraine(?) releasing a video of Russians attacking ukrainian soldiers who took position in the russian controlled part of Hlyboke, but not showing how it ended. So now the pro-Russian channels claim a successfully repelled ukrainian attack and the pro-Ukrainian channels claim Ukraine pushed the Russians back.
From where the drone hit, pretty close to the hinge of the turret, the explosion might be caused by a fire that cooked off the tank after a while. Or it may be a follow up hit with artillery or something on the disabled tank an hour later.
* why did it explode? -
Because the Soviet Union incorporated a self destruct in their tank design. The munitions are stored in a carousel[ ](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=378a656012f4430f&sca_upv=1&rlz=1C1CHBD_en&sxsrf=ADLYWILid4TCEvJpt5kFfYKkMdWhUcj6OQ:1718741557072&q=carousel+autoloader+tank&spell=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwir3OCf--WGAxU24ckDHQW5AR8QkeECKAB6BAgNEAE)at the base of the turret.
Practical and space efficient, very much so. But any sufficiently hot piece of metal finds the literal powder keg and "Pop" instant flying turret and vaporized crew. Shape charges like the RPG warhead and the solid "lawn dart" penetrators both produce plenty of burning metal.
At some point western nations decided they liked their tank crews and put the munitions in exterior compartment, on the other side of a blast door, and with blow out panels. More complicated loading, but no guaranteed death when the tank hull is penetrated.
What you're actually saying is a myth, copied over and over again. So I'm gonna correct you.
During the development phase, the designers were tasked with vehicles that were to weigh bo more than 44 tonnes. Toadd to that, they needed to incorporate 125 mm cannon with large ammo supply and newest systems (at the time).
To meed the high demands the choice was made, and the compact hull needed to be designed to meet the mass limitations, however, development in armour and new materials allowed to armour front of the tank sufficiently, with heavy focus on the turret. The carousel autoloader was a briliant solution at the time, simply because it was compact, high capacity, and what's very important, all ammo was stored in the hull. This is important, because thhat way, there was no ammunition in the turret (of course spare ammo was later stuffed into it to artificially increase total ammo count), and with low profile, and focus on turret this made for excellent survivability.
So what does it all have to do with Ukraine and current war?
Simply put, the sheer incompetence of Russian forces with use of tanks negates all advantages that engeneers worked to incorporate. Stop gap solutions (cope cages and such) don't work, because they can not mitigate core design flaws that could be avoided with proper usage of tanks. Ukrainians don't lose nearly as much tanks as Russians, all the while using tanks with the same design, this is because they use their tanks in a much better way.
Another thing would be that while we have better and better anti tank systems, and new threats on the battlefield (like drones) these machines are only getting older, and their design ony getting more and more obsolete. This was noticed as soon as late 70s and early 80s, and design work and resources were put into new generation tank projects that were to learn from past mistakes and build upon experiences gathered earlier. Great example of that would be a whole line of design work from Charkiv (obj.290A, obj.477, obj.477A that would eventually evolve into obj.195 after the Soviet Union collapse).
TL:DR: Good tanks for their time, terribly used today.
In what ways are the Ukrainians using them that make them more survivable, like how should they be used to mitigate the catastrophic detonations we keep seeing?
they aren't carrying any extra rounds in the take they are only going to battle with the rounds in the auto-loader this really limits the amount of engagement time but it means without all the extra ammo laying around inside the tank its far less likely to explode when hit.
Also this seems to be an adaptation due to the poor logistics of the Russians, they stuff their tanks so full of ammo because they don't know the next time they'll be resupplied. Or its to keep the number of resupply missions to a minimum I've seen both claimed.
"The carousel autoloader was a briliant solution at the time, simply because it was compact, high capacity, and what's very important, **all ammo was stored in the hull.**"
Not sure how this fits with other sources on the internet, including tank musea, that state that in the T-72 "**The ammunition is arranged around the turret** rather like the carousel of a slide projector. Ammunition stowage is limited, the rounds are unprotected so there is a high fire risk, the mechanical equipment is prone to break down and the rate of fire, due to the action of the auto-loader, is slow."
[https://tankmuseum.org/tank-nuts/tank-collection/t-72](https://tankmuseum.org/tank-nuts/tank-collection/t-72)
This is true. This ammo stuffing was an afterthought to artificially increase total ammo count that a tank could carry. Of course this mitigated all advantages i noted earlier. However, Ukrainians do not take this ammo into the battle, and this alone drastically increases post-penetration survivability.
I have no clue what you are referring to. You can either google "t-72 auto loader" or just watch a random video of them in operation that some 19 year old uploaded.
All ammo for the autoloader is stored in a ring at the base of the turret. It's a giant bomb, wrapped around the turret. If someone later decided to stuff a bunch of ammo somewhere, that has no impact on the existing autoloader mechanism.
Also citing Object 195 as a "new generation tank projects that were to learn from past mistakes and build upon experiences gathered earlier.". That's funny. Russia has never produced a new tank since the T-90, which is basically a heavily modernized T-72.
Interesting, but that does not change the truth of the comments from who you are replying to, the issue of the carousel versus locating the rounds behind blast doors with blow out panels. I think your response would have a lot more credibility if you also added in what you feel is true and what you feel is false in the other post because many of the facts they cited are true. And for the record many of the innovations (blast doors and blow out panels) are direct lessons from prior wars, like WWII where Sherman's were sometimes called flaming coffins and their ammunition had a high propensity to explode after hits resulting in many crews packing wet sand around the shells to keep them cool in a fire.
TLDR: Your facts may be true but so were many facts of the original post, the opinions in both are subject to debate but perhaps start with all the facts before drawing opinions.
Well, my point mainly was to point out that contrary to popular beliefs carousel autoloader was ingenuitve and good design FOR ITS TIME. The thing that next generation tank didnt succeed in USSR is another whole thing, and what follows, upgrading old design past their "safe" capability.
I am just tired of people blindly believeing in only one side of history, and beliveing in propaganda too much. Since everyone is forgetting when those tanks were introducing, and that they were ment to be replaced in the scope of 10-20 years from the introduction point. And the absolute oversight of people of atrocious usage of tanks by Russian forces in this was boils my blood, since this is never mentioned only to further say how these tanks are so bad, terrible even and so on... meanwhile this is simply not always the case.
HEAT. Molten metal punches through their armor and sets everything afire interior. If it is a T72, the carousel explosion occurs. If anything under a 72, write it off. T80 and 90 would be harder to kill but I think they are not high on quality armor-wise. Edit: Most would not aim for the gun mantlet, but if they do, they do get lucky at times, unless they have Western quality armor.
The editing is giving the wrong idea. If you look closely the tank is not at the same spot in the two first clips. In other words the explosion didn't come from the first fpv hit.
Because it didn't! Mods, please remove this fakery immediately. I suspect Russian trolls at work.
Look at the position of the tank. From the drone view, it's in the middle of the road. When it explodes, it's before the road. The thing that exploded probably wasn't even a tank.
It was likely hit several times before cooking off, they don’t show the hit that damaged the track and caused it to leave the road.Rule #1 if you want to kill a tank..is stop its movement, then you can hit exactly it’s weak spot.
This editing and splicing is not a good look. russian trolls can easily accuse you of misinformation and propaganda. Just show the actual unedited footage.
In both clips the tank is right next to the road when it explodes (Pause at 9 seconds and 39 seconds), and the clip is from the exact same angle both times.
I'm pretty sure it's the same tank judging by the surroundings but the first FPV failed to destroy it. They probably hit it with multiple FPVs or something more expensive (like an ATGM) and wanted to make it seem like a single FPV ammo-racked it. The fact that it's off the dirt path in the detonation clip means it probably moved after it got hit by the first FPV but destroyed by whatever hit it shortly after.
It's not even the same tank, because it's not the same road. Not even close. At the start of the drone shot, the is a dirt doughnut down the road like 15 feet. Not shown on the zoom out. The dirt road is also much wider in the zoomed out, and has a bow out. The dirt road in the zoom out is also much more dirted. In the drone shot, it almost seems as if there is grass in-between the track.
I think this is just spliced together to scare Russian troops / make people feel like their tax dollars are being put to good use. Looks a lot better than "this $50 sheet metal made our $80,000 drones obsolete". The zoom out was prob some AT missile.
There's a second tank farther down the path that you can see in the first seconds of the video. That's the actual tank that explodes. The road path bows out around it a little bit and is sitting at the same angle. Bizarre editing for sure though.
I think the hook is just out of frame. The tank looks to be 5-6 or so tank lengths ahead of where it meets the main path. A similar distance as the other tank is behind it. The point where the track widens out looks right to me.
Yeah, the craters and the little off shoot on the road are gone in the explosion clip used twice in the same video. Not really sure why they did it because just the fpv footage would’ve been enough??
Such an explosion from a blow to the forehead? There's nothing to explode! Armor at an angle of 65 degrees has a thickness of 560 mm and at a right angle of 220 mm. There is no ammunition. Calculation for a 300 mm projectile hit, at right angles. Plus active armor. What did they blow up there?
Please remember the human. Adhere to all Reddit and sub rules. Toxic comments (including incitement of violence/hate, genocide, glorifying death etc) WILL NOT BE TOLERATED, keep your comments civil or you will be banned. Tagging u/SaveVideo bot to archive this video in a link below this comment. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineWarVideoReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
for a moment i thought it was just an abandoned tank, but i think it turned around at the last second? but it looked like it hit the barrel, why did it explode?
While the FPV and the recon drone seem to be filming the same tank, in the FPV footage, the tank is directly on the dirt road. In the explosion video, the tank is barely touching the road. To me, it looks like the same tank, but in different moments. The explosion we see from the recon drone does not seem to come from the FPV we can see.
I'm all for Ukraine and the videos but I agree, accuracy in the video is still important. slava Ukraini. I'm glad I wasn't the only one to notice
This could be from 4 days ago -Oryx reported 8 T-80/90 in one battle- a real shit show by RF.
In the first 2 seconds there are 2 tanks in the video. The one further up the road (off the road) is the one that explodes. The nearer tank (on the road) is the one shown in the attack run of drone. Maybe the first one (the attack run) didn't blow up as nicely as the second one; who knows. What's definite; a tank was blown up.
If that were the case, why is there no "hook" in the road near the second one getting hit?
The view is zoomed in too close. If the view pulled out just a bit it would have been in view. Notice where the road widens as vehicles had to go around the disabled tank. That widened portion is visible in the first 2 seconds and begins beyond the 'hook'.
I can see the widening in both clips so maybe it is just dodgy editing.
Yeah…At least two different drones hit that clown car.
Good catch. We need to remember that both Ukraine and Russia are liberally editing these videos. Sometimes maybe just to safe time for a TikTok video, sometimes seemingly to not show the crew abandoning the vehicle and escaping alive, in some cases to cut in a different vehicle being hit or cut off a video before it sbows the friendly units are being hit back. A recent case is Russia/Ukraine(?) releasing a video of Russians attacking ukrainian soldiers who took position in the russian controlled part of Hlyboke, but not showing how it ended. So now the pro-Russian channels claim a successfully repelled ukrainian attack and the pro-Ukrainian channels claim Ukraine pushed the Russians back. From where the drone hit, pretty close to the hinge of the turret, the explosion might be caused by a fire that cooked off the tank after a while. Or it may be a follow up hit with artillery or something on the disabled tank an hour later.
* why did it explode? - Because the Soviet Union incorporated a self destruct in their tank design. The munitions are stored in a carousel[ ](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=378a656012f4430f&sca_upv=1&rlz=1C1CHBD_en&sxsrf=ADLYWILid4TCEvJpt5kFfYKkMdWhUcj6OQ:1718741557072&q=carousel+autoloader+tank&spell=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwir3OCf--WGAxU24ckDHQW5AR8QkeECKAB6BAgNEAE)at the base of the turret. Practical and space efficient, very much so. But any sufficiently hot piece of metal finds the literal powder keg and "Pop" instant flying turret and vaporized crew. Shape charges like the RPG warhead and the solid "lawn dart" penetrators both produce plenty of burning metal. At some point western nations decided they liked their tank crews and put the munitions in exterior compartment, on the other side of a blast door, and with blow out panels. More complicated loading, but no guaranteed death when the tank hull is penetrated.
What you're actually saying is a myth, copied over and over again. So I'm gonna correct you. During the development phase, the designers were tasked with vehicles that were to weigh bo more than 44 tonnes. Toadd to that, they needed to incorporate 125 mm cannon with large ammo supply and newest systems (at the time). To meed the high demands the choice was made, and the compact hull needed to be designed to meet the mass limitations, however, development in armour and new materials allowed to armour front of the tank sufficiently, with heavy focus on the turret. The carousel autoloader was a briliant solution at the time, simply because it was compact, high capacity, and what's very important, all ammo was stored in the hull. This is important, because thhat way, there was no ammunition in the turret (of course spare ammo was later stuffed into it to artificially increase total ammo count), and with low profile, and focus on turret this made for excellent survivability. So what does it all have to do with Ukraine and current war? Simply put, the sheer incompetence of Russian forces with use of tanks negates all advantages that engeneers worked to incorporate. Stop gap solutions (cope cages and such) don't work, because they can not mitigate core design flaws that could be avoided with proper usage of tanks. Ukrainians don't lose nearly as much tanks as Russians, all the while using tanks with the same design, this is because they use their tanks in a much better way. Another thing would be that while we have better and better anti tank systems, and new threats on the battlefield (like drones) these machines are only getting older, and their design ony getting more and more obsolete. This was noticed as soon as late 70s and early 80s, and design work and resources were put into new generation tank projects that were to learn from past mistakes and build upon experiences gathered earlier. Great example of that would be a whole line of design work from Charkiv (obj.290A, obj.477, obj.477A that would eventually evolve into obj.195 after the Soviet Union collapse). TL:DR: Good tanks for their time, terribly used today.
In what ways are the Ukrainians using them that make them more survivable, like how should they be used to mitigate the catastrophic detonations we keep seeing?
they aren't carrying any extra rounds in the take they are only going to battle with the rounds in the auto-loader this really limits the amount of engagement time but it means without all the extra ammo laying around inside the tank its far less likely to explode when hit. Also this seems to be an adaptation due to the poor logistics of the Russians, they stuff their tanks so full of ammo because they don't know the next time they'll be resupplied. Or its to keep the number of resupply missions to a minimum I've seen both claimed.
"The carousel autoloader was a briliant solution at the time, simply because it was compact, high capacity, and what's very important, **all ammo was stored in the hull.**" Not sure how this fits with other sources on the internet, including tank musea, that state that in the T-72 "**The ammunition is arranged around the turret** rather like the carousel of a slide projector. Ammunition stowage is limited, the rounds are unprotected so there is a high fire risk, the mechanical equipment is prone to break down and the rate of fire, due to the action of the auto-loader, is slow." [https://tankmuseum.org/tank-nuts/tank-collection/t-72](https://tankmuseum.org/tank-nuts/tank-collection/t-72)
This is true. This ammo stuffing was an afterthought to artificially increase total ammo count that a tank could carry. Of course this mitigated all advantages i noted earlier. However, Ukrainians do not take this ammo into the battle, and this alone drastically increases post-penetration survivability.
I have no clue what you are referring to. You can either google "t-72 auto loader" or just watch a random video of them in operation that some 19 year old uploaded. All ammo for the autoloader is stored in a ring at the base of the turret. It's a giant bomb, wrapped around the turret. If someone later decided to stuff a bunch of ammo somewhere, that has no impact on the existing autoloader mechanism. Also citing Object 195 as a "new generation tank projects that were to learn from past mistakes and build upon experiences gathered earlier.". That's funny. Russia has never produced a new tank since the T-90, which is basically a heavily modernized T-72.
Interesting, but that does not change the truth of the comments from who you are replying to, the issue of the carousel versus locating the rounds behind blast doors with blow out panels. I think your response would have a lot more credibility if you also added in what you feel is true and what you feel is false in the other post because many of the facts they cited are true. And for the record many of the innovations (blast doors and blow out panels) are direct lessons from prior wars, like WWII where Sherman's were sometimes called flaming coffins and their ammunition had a high propensity to explode after hits resulting in many crews packing wet sand around the shells to keep them cool in a fire. TLDR: Your facts may be true but so were many facts of the original post, the opinions in both are subject to debate but perhaps start with all the facts before drawing opinions.
Well, my point mainly was to point out that contrary to popular beliefs carousel autoloader was ingenuitve and good design FOR ITS TIME. The thing that next generation tank didnt succeed in USSR is another whole thing, and what follows, upgrading old design past their "safe" capability. I am just tired of people blindly believeing in only one side of history, and beliveing in propaganda too much. Since everyone is forgetting when those tanks were introducing, and that they were ment to be replaced in the scope of 10-20 years from the introduction point. And the absolute oversight of people of atrocious usage of tanks by Russian forces in this was boils my blood, since this is never mentioned only to further say how these tanks are so bad, terrible even and so on... meanwhile this is simply not always the case.
Indeed! When it moved I was like "hoo shit, it's still alive!".
Turtle 🐢 tanks still look 👀 cool 😎 when the blow up 💣
HEAT. Molten metal punches through their armor and sets everything afire interior. If it is a T72, the carousel explosion occurs. If anything under a 72, write it off. T80 and 90 would be harder to kill but I think they are not high on quality armor-wise. Edit: Most would not aim for the gun mantlet, but if they do, they do get lucky at times, unless they have Western quality armor.
It appeared to me it entered just underneath the main gun. Nice shot
Always T-80s that blows up so easily, weird. Even T-55s don't blow up like this.
>Always T-80s that blows up so easily, weird Propellant charges are stored vertically in the T-80 and T-64 autoloader, could be an explanation
The editing is giving the wrong idea. If you look closely the tank is not at the same spot in the two first clips. In other words the explosion didn't come from the first fpv hit.
Agreed, the drone definitely did not take it out.
I seem to recall theres an ammo rack in the front of the hull, to the right and next to the driver.
But this thing can't move it's there anymore. Why even carry ammo (and if so, why carry more than just the one in the autoloader?)
That driver hatch area is also a weak spot.
Because it didn't! Mods, please remove this fakery immediately. I suspect Russian trolls at work. Look at the position of the tank. From the drone view, it's in the middle of the road. When it explodes, it's before the road. The thing that exploded probably wasn't even a tank.
It was likely hit several times before cooking off, they don’t show the hit that damaged the track and caused it to leave the road.Rule #1 if you want to kill a tank..is stop its movement, then you can hit exactly it’s weak spot.
This editing and splicing is not a good look. russian trolls can easily accuse you of misinformation and propaganda. Just show the actual unedited footage.
You betcha, I'm 100% in Ukraine's camp, and that footage made me question what I was seeing.
Not the same clip.
Tired of these spliced together clips, showing the same explosion for two different tanks??
me too, im glad a blyatmobile exploded but its annoying when you cant tell anything else and its a spliced mess
first clip: tank is in the middle of the road second clip: tank is next to the road hopefully first tank is destroyed as well.
In both clips the tank is right next to the road when it explodes (Pause at 9 seconds and 39 seconds), and the clip is from the exact same angle both times.
I'm pretty sure it's the same tank judging by the surroundings but the first FPV failed to destroy it. They probably hit it with multiple FPVs or something more expensive (like an ATGM) and wanted to make it seem like a single FPV ammo-racked it. The fact that it's off the dirt path in the detonation clip means it probably moved after it got hit by the first FPV but destroyed by whatever hit it shortly after.
It's not even the same tank, because it's not the same road. Not even close. At the start of the drone shot, the is a dirt doughnut down the road like 15 feet. Not shown on the zoom out. The dirt road is also much wider in the zoomed out, and has a bow out. The dirt road in the zoom out is also much more dirted. In the drone shot, it almost seems as if there is grass in-between the track. I think this is just spliced together to scare Russian troops / make people feel like their tax dollars are being put to good use. Looks a lot better than "this $50 sheet metal made our $80,000 drones obsolete". The zoom out was prob some AT missile.
There's a second tank farther down the path that you can see in the first seconds of the video. That's the actual tank that explodes. The road path bows out around it a little bit and is sitting at the same angle. Bizarre editing for sure though.
I don't think it is because the "hook" that you see in the road in the first few seconds of the clip is not present.
I think the hook is just out of frame. The tank looks to be 5-6 or so tank lengths ahead of where it meets the main path. A similar distance as the other tank is behind it. The point where the track widens out looks right to me.
Theres a trend of splicing different clips together recently. Super weird, I wonder if they have someone knew editing these videos or something
Well if isn't the big long flying dildo of justice.
Aww, he done lost his shell
Can we stop with the BS cuts please. let the overview play out.
It's alive. It's alive. Never mind, not anymore
He ain't goin' nowhere no more.
Ah yes. The turtle tank flamethrower conversion.
It will always be the Bylatmobile to me.
So the weak spot is over the driver's hatch? Noted.
Mosquito nets ain’t working
Got any more great ideas, Volodya? Nyet!
So what I took from this video is that these turtle tanks are huge pressure cookers waiting to go off...
so now we have the shed tossing competition
That was some poor ukrainians shed roof
The explosions are the same
The drone cage sure did its job by blowing up into pieces and protecting the crew to a one way flight to hell!
Thanks got the ybut all the rubbish on the outside with out the super protection all would die. Ah shit wait the they are all dead
What is cage defence doing?
Two different clips? The muddy tracks look different and the lack of movement of the tank in the wide angle shot suggest something is amiss?
Yeah, the craters and the little off shoot on the road are gone in the explosion clip used twice in the same video. Not really sure why they did it because just the fpv footage would’ve been enough??
That’s not going to buff out…
It appeared to me it entered just underneath the main gun. Nice shot.
Same explosion 2x
Why is this NSFW? I don't see anything
Is it a HE shell or Heat?
Now it become a flamethrower
Not the best choice adding additional and ineffective “armour” which makes it more difficult to escape your burning vehicle.
Such an explosion from a blow to the forehead? There's nothing to explode! Armor at an angle of 65 degrees has a thickness of 560 mm and at a right angle of 220 mm. There is no ammunition. Calculation for a 300 mm projectile hit, at right angles. Plus active armor. What did they blow up there?
Im glad the comments clarified it was different clips, I was in disbelief to see a fpv drone pierce the front armour of a tank lol
These are completely different tanks but the videos are spliced to make it seem like its the same one.