Experts say there is a design flaw in some Russian tanks that the Ukrainians have been able to exploit. Military analyst Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton explains the "jack-in-the-box" effect. #CNN #News
Military analyst explains Russian tank ‘jack-in-the-box’ flaw
After the end of World War II, the Soviet Union first operated against the forest brothers of the states that had joined its territory. When the Cold War and the like are not included, but only clear armed clashes, the Soviet Union and Russia have since waged the following wars:
* 1946 Soviet troops provide military aid in Manchuria to the Chinese Communists
* 1950 The Soviet Air Force participated in the Korean War
* 1956 The Soviet Union occupies Hungary
* 1960, 1964 and 1969 Soviet forces were active in Laos
* 1962 Soviet troops were involved in Algeria
* 1962 and 1967 Soviet troops were involved in Yemen
* 1965 Soviet troops were involved in Vietnam
* 1967-1974 Soviet troops support Egypt in wars between Arabs and Israel
* 1967 Soviet troops were in Syria
* 1967, 1975 and 1984 Soviet troops were involved in Mozambique
* 1968 Czechoslovakia is occupied by Soviet forces
* 1969 Soviet forces clash with the Chinese army on the Ussuri River
* 1970 Soviet troops were involved in Cambodia
* 1974 Soviet troops were involved in Bangladesh
* 1975-1979 Soviet troops were involved in Angola
* 1977 Soviet troops were involved in Ethiopia
* 1978 Soviet troops were involved in Nicaragua
* 1979 Soviet troops occupy Afghanistan for 10 years
* 1982 Soviet troops were involved in Syria and Lebanon
* 1987 Soviet troops were involved in Chad
* 1988 Soviet troops were involved in Karabakh
* 1989 Soviet troops kill 19 and wound 291 Georgians in Tbilisi
* 1991 Soviet troops were involved in South Ossetia
* 1991 Soviet troops kill 15 Lithuanians in Vilnius and attack protesters in other cities
* 1991 Soviet troops kill seven Latvians
* 1991 Soviet forces kill three in Moscow
* 1991 Unorganized Russian troops sent by Moscow took part in the Yugoslav war
* 1992 Russian troops are involved in Abkhazia
* 1992 Russian troops are involved in Tajikistan
* 1992 Russian troops are involved in Moldova’s Transnistria
* 1993 Russian troops kill about 150 in Moscow alone
* 1994 Russian troops start the first Chechen war
* 1999 Russian troops start the second Chechen war
* 2008 Russian troops attack Georgia
* 2014 Russian troops occupy Crimea, which annexed Russia, and occupy part of Donbass
* 2015 Russian troops took part in the war in Syria
The 1962 missile crisis in Cuba and the Moscow peacekeeping operations in Sierra Leone, Sudan, Burundi, Kosovo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Liberia, Chad and Angola are missing from the list.
My favorite was sitting on half of europe for 50 years treating the people like crap and killing anyone they liked while thinking those people really didnt need little luxuries like clothjing or food. Then suppose you were not a great fan of Russias little experiment but you did your work and kept your mouth shut and simply decided it wasnt for you and wanted to leave Russian control, well that awful crime would get you shot or sent to some Siberian holiday camp for 25 years, they didnt want you to live but they also didnt want you to leave and go to the West. Half of Europe prisoners of Russia for almost 50 years, and Russia wonders why they are all despised and everyone wants every single Russian liquidated as soon as possible.
Im the son of people who escaped Russian terror, and to my everlasting shame I thought there stories of Russian evil were exaggerated, I thought it just cant be true, it sounded just too far fetched, just pointless evil and torture that served no purpose so why do it. Here I am now thinking I owe a lot of dead relatives an appology, turns out they were right when they said all Russians must die.
RUSSIANS CREATE CONCENTRATION CAMPS IN MARIUPOL❗ FRIENDS VOLUNTEERS FROM EUROPE AND THE USA, WE HAVE TO FREE THE PEOPLE❗✊
Such a listing is only really useful when you put out all data on significant countries. Human history and the history of most ‘civilised’ nations is filled to the brim with (civil) war. And them wars tend to be about greed, not morals.
@Dawid B amen.
Good summary.
Having the inside of the turret lined with tank shells in every direction, as a result of the autoloader. It makes for basically a shape charge that efficiently pops the turret neatly off. Horrific design flaw.
TRUTHhttps://youtu.be/UMIkp3k3gJI
TRUTHhttps://youtu.be/UMIkp3k3gJI
@Peter Sedesse ….It made sense when the Soviets had the manpower advantage in Europe. But not anymore.
@Peter Sedesse no it was the best solution for the old USSR Tank Taktics strong frontprotection, low profil, space for 3 kirgisian peasants 4,92 ft tall, fast forward, firepower 125mm smooth barrel. The rest are secondary for example easy to repair, drive backwards, crew protection against shots from other sides as the front
@Peter Sedesse And they do very little in the way of R & D
It’s literally a metal box with no advanced protection for the occupants. If the steel walls are penetrated it’s basically done for and it isn’t very hard to penetrate the steel on these Russian death boxes. Only thing it’ll protect you against is small arms fire.
@Tony Bright
Nothing can operate on the mud in Ukraine. The mud is too deep; the tanks would be buried hull deep.
My point was that the design of the Russian tanks once had a purpose. For all of the reasons that I mentioned, the smaller lighter tanks with a good gun were a great idea in 1972. Times change and the battlefield evolves.
NLAW with top-attack make the Russian tanks obsolete deathtraps. The Russians have too much invested in equipment and training to change their tank force to survive on the modern battlefield.
If Putin had not done that favor for the Chinese, (he waited an extra three weeks to start the invasion) they might have still had hard ground to attack across.
The Chinese are masters of the game. I think they asked for the delayto intentionally screw with Putin’s plans. The resulting war is destroying Russia’s future and China only has the US and Europe to worry about. China is buying oil from Russia at steep discounts. That will make them very competitive in the global economy. India is doing the same thing.
Opportunity lost for Putin.
@Thereal DrHankMcCoy
Agree completely. Drones are the future. We have a drone aircraft that can crank 45 G turns and wipe the sky of anything with a human pilot in it.
For the time being, it will be infantry with man-portable missiles taking out multi-million-dollar tanks and APCs.
AA systems will make piloted aircraft obsolete; drones will be able to out-rate the AA missiles for a while.
Wouldn’t it be great if governments got as excited about supporting education or sustainable infrastructure development?
@TrueFact I think U.S. even has a drone version of the A-10. Don’t know how many they actually built though I think quite a few. Supposedly it’s the largest drone in the world. Western technology has gotten crazy with drones. U.S. air force even built classified drones specifically for Ukraine. They won’t say what the drones are capable of for security reasons. But I assume it’s gonna give Russians hell. The U.S. has also given Ukraine unmanned boats. Everything Putin didn’t want to happen, is happening. Ukraine getting Western technology that’s what Putin feared yet it’s his doing.
@Thereal DrHankMcCoy
A Pentagon spokesman misspoke and said that we were designing drones for Ukraine. The erroneous comment was immediately corrected. We design weapons to counter the threat of near-peer nations that use Soviet/Russian hardware. The weapons we design are perfect for Ukraine, but they were designed for our use… not Ukraine’s.
The danger is that Russia could argue we had become directly involved in the conflict if we were designing weapons for Ukraine. We are very serious about maintaining a hard line between our assistance with weapons sales and our strict non-participation. This ensures that US assets will not be legally targeted by Russia. Please do not repeat the mistaken comment of the former Pentagon spokesperson; it is a danger to the United States.
(Yes, he got sacked.)
These tanks were not destroyed. They successfully completed a Special Exothermic Operation.
@Stanley Ruskie Cookers😂.
But at the beginning they were endothermic operations. So special
@Stanley 🤣
@Reddotfx LOL!
Entropy must always increase
Difference is our first priority is crew survivabilty. An M1 tank is pricey, but a trained crew is even more valuable.
There is an old English saying, it takes two years to build a ship, and five years to train a sailor.
Crew not so valuable in the case of Russians.
@Astro Gremlin Yeah. They figure that the crews are easy to replace. That isn’t the case with other militaries.
Very similar to the fatal problem in World War One British battleships. There, the Ammunition delivery system ( getting shells from the armory deep in the ship to the guns in the turrets) was NOT given shielding in order to speed up reloading times. This resulted in turret hit explosions traveling along the delivery systems back to the ammo storage, resulting in huge ship destroying blasts! The most famous of these occurring during the World War Two battle against the Bismarck , where a single hit destroyed the British ship , the Hood.
@Stephen Rickstrew I think you hit the nail on the head there, she was designed for a conflict twenty years prior, when things had advanced on in that time to 1940. Her armour “upgrade” in her first refit was the classic compromise of “all or nothing” to get her weight inside the (then coming) Washington Treaty limits. There were too many exposed areas where there was essentially no armour to make sure the “key” areas were protected.
And it has to be said, as you have eluded to, the superiority of welding led to the Germans arriving at a better vessel in both weight and strength.
In my personal opinion, having worked around large steam boilers, forget ammunition, if all the furnaces were in operation (which I’m sure they will have been) and the steam system was at full load, a shell into any of that would have created an explosion that’d rip the ship apart without much help. But we’ll never really know.
Wrong in almost every detail! Please report to a naval history YT channel (I reccomend that of Drachinifel) to learn wyh you were wrong, and what the actual reasons for those ships going up in explosions actually were!
This used to be a flaw in ALL tank designs, however with the development of the Leopard 2 and the M1, ammunition was shifted into an armored compartment in the rear of the turret bustle, with blow out panels and fire suppression systems.
This offered the crew protection from a penetration of the main gun round casings going up like a blowtorch.
The Soviets were more interested in expanding the amount of tank crews available by using an autoloader to replace a manual loader,
and so their crews sit either side of a carousel of 125 mm ammunition casings, ANY penetration of the turret or hull is likely to cook off the ammunition, even if that does not blow the turret off, the crew will be burnt to death by a massive blowtorch of high temperature flame shooting at high velocity out of the turret hatches.
You can see this in Syria with T72’s being hit.
It simply demonstrates the Russian priorities, more available tank crews has a higher priority to them, than , the survival of their crews.
The T14 attempts to solve this problem with an unmanned turret, however the Russians have very few of these.
No much worse in Soviet tanks because of the auto loader
The auto loading mechanism was meant to give the tank crew time to take a vodka break!
Absolutely true, it’s about their lack of value in life..
@peter jones Thanks for regurgitating basically exactly what he said. You’ve won the “keyboard expert of the week” award.
Its doesn’t matter they will built a missiles to hit the crew cabinet only!!!!
This reminds me of when Iraq bought all those T-72’s from the Russians in the early 90s, and the same thing happened. One hit to the ammunition which was kept low in the gun turret and the whole thing would light up instantly.
thats the reason russia change the name of the T-72 into T90(T72BU) nobody want buy a T72
Most of those t72s were brought from Yugoslavia Poland and China in total Iraq only brought 300 Russian t72s
Iraqi tanks didn’t show well in that war.
I would like to remind the individual that during the first Gulf war, several M1A1 tourists were launched even though the main ammo compartment is protected. There’s still ammo storage inside the turret that can cause an explosive release. Seen it first hand. We’ve got to remember the turret is just placed within the opening of the tank and the two are not connected
Are M1A1 tourists known as tankers?
This is the most honest I’ve ever heard anyone be about the cost to us of the Afghanistan “misadventure.” I mean, crazy, stupid, inhumane war. The true cost? Multiple trillions of dollars. You’ll never hear that true number until all current generations are gone and the truth can be told. Think how we could have enhanced the health care system or the education system with that money….
Brian Case, yup, every American citizen could probably have had free medical care. Priorities, priorities, priorities.🙄
Nevertheless, with the war in Afghanistan, at least I could understand WHY the US invaded, given what happened on 9/11. With the 2nd Iraq war, I just never believed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, other than perhaps a few barrels of chemicals. Nasty enough, but not the sort of weapons that would have warranted waging war at that particular point in time.
Of course such a course of action would have required the U.S to NOT RESPOND after 9/11
in any meaningful way.
LIKE TO SEE YOU MAKE THAT CASE AT THE TIME.
Best design ever!
From Russias point of view:
The whole crew evaporates after the blast. Crew is missing – No payments to their families, No medical and recovery costs, No killed solders – just missing!
It also explains why the Russian KIA is under-reported. The true KIA is probably KIA + MIA.
@Victor Chan The word on the internet is Russia just changed their records saying in short “You will know absolutely nothing about casualties”.
“Jack in a Box” is good, “Putin in a Box” is great ! “Red Runt on the Rack” is Right on.
Pop tops are designed for rapid crew escape. Unfortunately, the crew typically is ejected in small pieces. But this saves russian taxpayers the burial costs.
@mollo tuka what nato threat? Russian nonsense that would lead to nuclear destruction of Russia as well.
@mollo tuka
That’s nice son, now go take your medications.
Zellenskyy should consider awarding the ‘Hero of Ukraine’ medal to the russian tank designers responsible.
The Russian Military: Built For The Parade Grounds, Not The Battlefield
Totally…
The advantage of the autoloader is you reduce the crew from 4 to 3.
Or as the russian state media would put it, “This advanced design reduces crew deaths by 25%”
Beautiful.
Of course, you can still have an autoloader and western design set ups.
The French tank has an autoloader, with the ammo stored in an armored compartment with blow out panels.
thats the mobile crematorium we have previously heared of… its called t72 t80 and t90 tank and it instantly cremates the crew and after disgards the turret in an ceremonial firework.
“…. And the whole turret goes several meters in the air and there are dead Russian soldiers”.
Reporter’s response: “ seems like a serious vulnerability….”
new should be objective, technically she’s quite right to say it like that 😉
for instance on the 7 billion left behind, ‘seemed like a lot of money’ – but the analyst had a perspective on that.
At any rate, IED’s still seemed to do the trick on US tanks – so it’s all relative. Russia also many tanks. In WWII the sherman was pretty much inferior to German tanks – but there were a lot of them and they were cheap. It can win wars to think like that – especially all out wars.
“The world is in more peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it.” -Dr. Albert Einstein
The Russian advantage of the automatic loader is that the vertical height is lower and therefore the tank harder to hit by another tank. However, a javelin missile hits the target from the top so the lower height advantage is no longer a factor.
And they need one less crew member. But they end with much more casualties…
@Leo Gama if you been inside a tank, your vision is greatly hindered compared to infantry. Tanks perform better as a group with more eyes on the battlefield as long as there is communication. A loader who is not loading can also look out and provide better awareness of the threats.