Ok. If a Russian Tank wants to drive over 2 cars, the cars mustn't be higher than 50cm. Maybe the get down a Lambo Gallardo if the drive over the frontside :D:D
FYI this is a early 50s tank people. why always hating? so you got a little dick but the US (and other countries) have a great tank, good for you! Too bad the tank isnt yours...haha
@TheAcurapassion Kids I do not have, (professional) responsibilites plenty, and I drive a Hyundai Accent. But w/ kids, I'd be smart enough to have one/two tops and I'd simply buy a stylish, nicely-designed roomier automobile, like people in the rest of the world. Alot of American macho BS this SUV fixtation; quite frankly, I know in Europe, you don't see too many of them because people therebuy them out of NECESSITY, and not TO PROVE HOW BIG YOU ARE (like there). And SUVs here ARE truly ugly!
See this is what happen to troops and resources when there is no war. No wonder Republicans want to keep at it. If you have to pay for something at least pay for it and keep it doing what is meant to do in the first place.
Why the fuck are people arguing about nations and wars and stuff here? On YouTube, really? And in this particular video, where they blast the hell out of a few SUV's with a tank? Shut up and enjoy the carnage.
@MultiAREE No, the winner is still undecided officially. We kicked their ass, but rendered it impossible to convert them. I think we lost the objective, but kicked their asses.
@CODtheater You are claiming that the US didn't stop supplying soldiers to the South, didn't evacuate dozens of thousands of its soldiers as the Vietcong broke through the lines of Saigon, That the Vietcong were defeated and they didn't launch an offensive against South's capital Saigon, which unified the country under Communist rule?
You are fucking stupid.
USA FAILED. Plain and simple. There is no fucking denying it. All it did was get a bloody nose, and just ditch the fucking cause
@MultiAREE I never said I didn't claim those. You need to learn your fucking history. It never officially a war, so no outcome WAS EVER FUCKING DECLARED. Second, we won every battle. Plus, we were already pulling troops out before the fall of saigon. Don't believe me? Go search your fucking history. And we weren't the ones with the bloody nose, dumbass
@CODtheater Yes, we won every battle, but we lost 300k men, and the douchebag hippies back home didn't care, and hte douchebag politicians would do anything to save their own asses.'
We lost 300k men, They lost more.
We gave up on conventional warfare, and left
They relied on Guerrilla warfare backed up by China and USSR and refused to give up, and finally conquered the rest of Vietnam.
We never came in full control of Vietnam, and just because we lost 3x less men doesn't mean we won.
@CODtheater Actually we were the ones with bloody noses in vietnam. The north viatnemese gurilla tactics tore the marines apart and the ho-chi-man trail was a tank trap for our armour cause they had landmines and RPGs coming out their ears. War was declaired when the marine troop count topped 100k. Face it we got our asses kicked. Of course nowadays we have the technological and experiance edge so it would play out diffirent. So you check your facts, and get a diffirent account name for props.
Sherman can be beautiful and a tank, but it is too high profile and it is difficult to repair in the field (with respect to T-34) had worse patency in general are not very good tank you have had, but thanks anyway for them. Without lend-lease we would have very hard for Russia if there was the whole of Europe under Gitlerom.Studebekery is a good technique 20 years ago they had met on the streets (40 years from commencement of operation) On the video T-54 tank constructed in 1946..
Silly comments to cut it all short russia only has power through throwing loads of men in the military and hiding behind nukelear weapons.
Its why they allways lose so many men when at war.
Britain is an example of Strong soldiers and adaptable technology, cobnsidering the british S.A.S taught the spetznas,green beret,forign legion, israely special forces and many more....
Russian is 1 hell of an overated country, when war comes there way they say "were not afraid to use nukes".
@JB22881 Thats not fair, Russia has a large force yes but that doesnt mean they sacrifice quality. The last major conventional war fought by Russia was WW2 so you can hardly say they always suffer major casualties. The Russian military also has some fine equipment, just as an example the T-90 remains a deadly tank and Russian infantry wield the finest assault rifle in history the AK 47. So what if Russia makes threats with nukes? why shouldnt she?
@JB22881 The other thing is you mention Britain. Yes Britain has excelent troops because they get more time and money invested in them than any other soldiers in the world, but Britain's army has always had a downside. Despite Britain's technology and skills they always had drooling incompetant morons commanding the army. Britain's army commanders always fail to show and initiative or innovation, if you want to use WW2 look at Montgommery... One of the worst commanders in the war. Btw im British
@thewalkereffect the AK-47 is a useless piece of shit, it has no accuracy and sucks for attachments...... compared to the SA80 the AK-47 is made of plastic half the time its why the taliban use it have you ever held 1?.
Britain has the most investment military in the world? FUCKING LIES......... go do your homework, they are the best because they work hard at being the best.
@thewalkereffect Also you might want to look at what russia had done in the middle east, and were to scared to go to war because of the casualties.... everyone had bad commanders at times, but britain in history also had the best! its why we beat the spanish empire and the french empire and we fucked the russians... and we took over the falklands in a matter of no time....
The middle east is purposley being held for money so dont bring that in it.
@thewalkereffect Also they hide behind nukes because they are a weak country to scared to fight with military against a country that 1 a military unlike half of eastern europe that they pick on........
Bringing nukes into it knowing if they fired 1 they would in turn die themselves is a last resort to cowardness, like brining a suicide bomb in a fist fight. they just get innocent people exterminated and destroy countries and races... cowards
@thewalkereffect same for both ww1 and ww2. even today. we are the worlds best, but the leadership is the world worst. sad thing is, it will never change. too much red tape from too many idiots who have too much control. england thru and thru.
It would be cool if they didnt flatten the cars out first with the dorky looking crane, kind of taking away the point of rolling them over with a tank if you ask me...Also fanboys stop arguing about ww2 Germans lost the Allies won therefor the Germans were obvioulsy not that great the end.
@worldwartwogenius Oh boy, the amount of bullshit per line is amazing! So I hope you're joking or something. But for those that know less about WW2 tanks here are some facts >>> The BT-7 (a tank from 1938 btw!) can ONLY penetrate 50mm at a RANGE OF 100METERS!!! Guess how much frontal armor the King Tiger has...180mm thats right!
And the 45mm 20K Model 1934 L/46 Main Gun from the BT-7 doesn't even have a range past 2000m, let alone 2600m!
Oh come on man. I play video games lot, the staff doesn't give a shit about your reports. You sound like an intelligent person so please don't waste your time here, in the Internet. Its a shit-hole of despair.
Your comments wont change anything, consider even thinking about replying to someone here as a waste of time. Your time is worth more, leave.
did i forgot to mention the Abrams brother in law, the challenger can also destroy the T90 no problem, take 3-4 direct shot and have the gun and crew alive
considering the T90 has old parts just upgraded interface and ammo,
soviets make things to get the job done while western countries make beutifull pieces of art with any kind of weapon,
example:
Mig-15 & F-86 sabre
equally matched
1 is ugly but gets job done the other beautiful and respected
It really isn't like that. Both the M1 and the Challenger have good armor (specially the Challenger 2) but if any of these tanks take a direct hit from the latest variants of T90 or T80 then you can kiss them goodbye. M1 main battle tanks are well-protected - mostly when facing older armor, monkey models (eg: Iraqi T72) and unadequate ammunitions like the ones used against M1 tanks during Desert Storm '91 - but they are vulnerable to other modern main battle tanks.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@MdP2 brain-dead idiot who was offended...truth hurts i guess! Fucking halfwitted moron! Keep it up! You're a trip! It's fun rattling the cage of simple organism.Keep sending us the sukis bitch
@Bibazavr The best way to deal with trolls is to ignore them, yes. But, then, I didn't waste that much time replying to that user and he was obviously "publicly" humiliated (which is good!). I would report his rude comments to YouTube staff, but they often overlook reports and "flags".
@amerikaner101 "considering the T90 has old parts just upgraded interface and ammo"
Current T90 are more upgraded than that. It's not only the ammunition or what you called "interface". Their 125mm main guns, thermal sights, armor and countermeasure systems are also significantly different from older T72 and even earlier T90 variants.
@amerikaner101 "soviets make things to get the job done while western countries make beutifull pieces of art"
So you find the M4 Sherman prettier than the T-34!?
Get it straight, kids: ANY weapon or weapon system is made to get the job done. A weapon or weapon-system always gets done to get the job done!
If you want "beautiful" and "art", go watch Fashion TV instead of watching videos depicting a live show in which construction machinery and old battered tanks wreck things just for fun...
@0Forgive (1/2) If you think Eastern European tanks are less stylish than Western European tanks then that's just your aesthetical opinion. "Style" is irrelevant in warfare. West-European MBTs tend to be well-armored and to look "stylish" but they typically have large turrets and bulky chassis which make them easier to hit than their russian counterparts (the Black Eagle project however presented a large turret). Each country builds its weapons according to its needs, not according to fashion.
@0Forgive (2/2) As for "better"... Well, that depends on how you use your MBT. The latest variants of Western and Eastern tanks are overall equivalent while the West ones might be better on some specific levels and the East ones might be better on other levels. Take this non-European example: The latest Merkawa tanks are generally considered adequate for Israel's battlegrounds but they're also considered too slow and clumsy for speed-based operations (unlike Western and Eastern European MBTs).
Russian tanks are generally designed for crews that don´t need much training, Russian tanks, for example the T-72, was easy to build and it did not take much training to control the basics. European and American tanks however, are more difficult to master, and are also more powerfull. Thanks to the modern tank technology, Russian crews still have the less training but better firepower.
“the T-72, was easy to build and it did not take much training to control the basics”
So was the Leopard 1... but, while these tanks (one soviet and one non-soviet) were simple and conventional, the T-10 heavy tank was not and yet it too was built in USSR. So, as you see, not all soviet/russian tanks were simple or designed "for" crews with little training. You'll find well-trained and badly-trained crews in both the West and the East, guarantied.
Israel probably had some of the best crews in History during the Israel-Arab campaigns and, yet, these days IDF tank crews are still caught committing terrible mistakes which lead them to either personnel loss or equipment loss. Some blame it on the fact that the numbers of women training IDF crews have been increasing, but I don’t buy it - I think it’s more related to terrain-related miscalculations and enemy-envisioning underestimations.
Not necessarily. You’ll find the M60A3, the M1 and currently used Leopard 2 tanks not as hard to operate as you may expect. They’re actually more convenient than the older variants of T64 and T72. The newer Russian variants of T80UM and T90 however are overall similar to what’s on the West.
@0Forgive (4) (CONT'D) Some electronics, comms and navigational systems are made differently but they are not tremendously different in terms of training requirements and usability. It’s just a matter of keeping your crew well-trained and using your tank wisely according to logistics, strategies, tactics and - above all - presented situations.
I don’t know what you mean with “powerful” but, one way or the other, that’s relative. From WWII to early 60s soviet armor was generally more “powerful” than western armor but, in terms of quality (not quantity), things changed around the 60s when tanks like the Leopard (1) got built and when USSR gradually got “butter fingers” at keeping its armor quality superior to NATO’s armor.
@0Forgive (6) (CONT'D) Eventually, the West caught up and in the next two decades it managed to commit into service tanks which were quite capable of matching soviet armor and in some cases even beat it.
@0Forgive (7) “Russian crews still have the less training but better firepower”
Russian tankers usually have decent training programs (unlike Saddam Hussein’s tankers). If a Russian crew isn’t well-trained, then it’s not trained at all - unless you want to send it into a disaster. Take a look at this: After 1943/44 (Kursk -to- Budapest Battle) soviet tankers progressively got experienced to the point that they became the best in the world alongside with 3rd Reich’s tankers.
@0Forgive (8) (CONT'D) In 1994/95 however, the Russian armored units rushed into Chechnya were poorly-trained (and poorly supplied) - this partially resulted in heavy personnel and equipment loss and catastrophic results for Russia’s first phase of the Grozny battle (many of the Chechen separatists who defended Grozny were veterans from the 80s Afghanistan war, by the way).
I wouldn’t say “better” firepower... but “more versatile” firepower. The guided missiles sported by current Russian tanks can be quite handy, but conventional Russian MBT firepower (non-guided projectile/shell rounds) is equivalent to what you’ll find in NATO and the T90/80 ATGMs can’t completely replace the devastating effects of 120mm/125mm shells.
@0Forgive (10) (CONT'D) Russian fire-control systems, main guns and thermal sights aren’t better than western ones by any means (just overall equivalent) and the 125mm ammunitions used by nowadays T90 and T80 aren’t different from the Western 120mm ammunitions in terms of effectiveness. In simple terms: in a MBT-vs-MBT situation, the first one to detect and hit its target will most likely win.
@0Forgive (11) “Russian tanks(...)for crews that don´t need much training”
That depends on the model in question. The T34 might’ve been easier to operate than non-soviet medium tanks but if you compare 1960s T62 and M60 to the first T64 tanks you’ll see a quite different story as the T64 was more complex. The WWII IS2 heavy tank, for example, involved a reloading process which was slightly more complicated than its Panther and Tiger counterparts.
@0Forgive (12) (CONT'D) In reality, training is evolutionary just like the tanks themselves. The firing control systems and techniques incorporated into current russian T80/90 tanks and crews aren’t much different from their Western cousins.
I think I once saw the Russian authorities driving an armoured vehicle over a "mountain" of illegal CD/DVD copies (and obviously destroying the pirated material) in plain sight so that everyone knew how they deal with it, but I didn't know they do a similiar thing with entire vehicles.
The internal political crisis in USSR demanded the withdrawal between '86 and '89. The Democratic Republic of Afghanistan and USSR actually secured the cities, but territorial power in Afghanistan is not dependable on cities (it’s de-centralised, almost tribal). Un-conventional warfare is always hard for conventional forces. How come USA lost Vietnam? And how come these days the ISAF forces are still trying to secure Afghanistan?
@TheTD1991 (1/2) They didn’t train all the Afghanis. They only trained and supplied some of the mujahideen that were against the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan and against USSR. By that time, USA thought that the USSR and the government of DRA were a bigger threat than the rebels and the islamic terrorists operating between Afghanistan, Pakistan and USSR.
@TheTD1991 (2/2) However, many mujahideen (mostly persians and arabs) went on supporting the Taliban and these men were not only anti DRA and anti USSR but also anti anything that didn’t fit their religious fundamentalism and their despotic politics (they hated social/economical freedom and equality, secularism, science, etc). Osama bin Laden, a rich influential Saudi arab who was on the mujas' side during the 1980's, remained in Afganistan after the 1980's to help the Taliban regime.
Hey Giant CLAW guy!!! Leave some for the tanks.
michalslahor 2 weeks ago
...Lol, gotta love the Russians.
Ariana321 1 month ago
fucking chevrolet niva.. smash that abomination
t0xictreasure 1 month ago
Go and kiss that tank :)
TehOneKid 2 months ago
This is like Nascar for Russia haha
b4nhammer 2 months ago
277 любителей джипов поставили дислайк.
SomeOne2806 2 months ago
thats a t-55 our army uses them we have 15 of them all modernised by israel we are a god damn superpower hell yea
IWANAROCKYEEEAAAA 4 months ago
thats a t-55
IWANAROCKYEEEAAAA 4 months ago
HAAHAHA, THE JEEP GOT OWNED!
muffdriver69 5 months ago 7
I mean T-80
freindlyapache101 6 months ago
@freindlyapache101 that's either T-55 or T-62. not familiar with russian tech but i'm sure as hell it ain't T-72 or something more "modern"
realitic 6 months ago
@realitic T-72 Is not modern.......
freindlyapache101 6 months ago
@freindlyapache101 *hint* that's why i put modern between two " QUOTES "
realitic 5 months ago
Was that a T-72 with just some more modern looking stuff on or was it something else.
freindlyapache101 6 months ago
this is what happens when all they do is drink vodka that is stronger then anyone elses
D0nTmAkeMEg0Ham 6 months ago
Russian rednecks are alot more mad, and a hell of a lot more scarier then American rednecks.
KoMmIzZaR98 6 months ago
i was expecting the tank firing a live round to the car...
another505 6 months ago
russian monstertruck show
statz2 6 months ago
@statz2 Hahaha, true!
sovjettank 6 months ago
that's what happens in Russia if you park your car somewhere your not supposed too
TheBoom1234567890 6 months ago
lol
mrvishal1000 6 months ago
your videos are way too quiet
paintballgundown8 6 months ago
T-54 world's best medium tank - it is indisputable
ARTURizTAGANA 6 months ago
I hate SUV's so thanks for that!
4fun1957 6 months ago
Ok. If a Russian Tank wants to drive over 2 cars, the cars mustn't be higher than 50cm. Maybe the get down a Lambo Gallardo if the drive over the frontside :D:D
Wiesi93 6 months ago
you can see those cars were plastic
seasidecrime 6 months ago
Кто там так орёт???
rkmit1 6 months ago
first, yous shoot icicles with snipers, then shooting artillery to mountains for avalanche, and now running over random SUV's with your tanks!?
UseUrHead503 6 months ago
cute
kingmaaxxx 6 months ago
got get it little tank. be a good boy, go get the little suv ^^
Kordobano 6 months ago
It is the claw of God!!
Northhunt 6 months ago
drive over the imperialist cars!
TheCleansingx 7 months ago
hay look at the JEEP sign at the end of he video!
THEEND123321 7 months ago
he should have aimed for justin bieber
DJCattoMatte 7 months ago
my right ear enjoyed it!
MsGucker2009 7 months ago
thats just an average drunken russian crane operator.
ChicoRiono 7 months ago
Illegally parked cars.
Mr2wings 7 months ago
Why were the SUVs being crushed?
Arabhacks 7 months ago
@Arabhacks just so you couldn't have them.
Stevennickel 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Arabhacks just so you couldn't have them
Stevennickel 7 months ago
Russia has rednecks too?!
NRA870 7 months ago 85
This has been flagged as spam show
@NRA870 You are what you have against?
redneck10ivan 7 months ago
долбоебы
antonb56 6 months ago
@NRA870 We call them "gopniks".
greatchieftain 4 months ago
@NRA870 We call them gopniks.
greatchieftain 4 months ago
@greatchieftain just like the "plancha" in uruguay lol
IWANAROCKYEEEAAAA 4 months ago
that crane operator is pretty good
planesareawsome 7 months ago
T-55 old tank
MegaPypkin 8 months ago
only in Russia
goldfalco 8 months ago
Chuck Norris was inside that car, but he survived.
Mumfin 8 months ago
@Mumfin Makes no sense.
ThatOneGuy010 7 months ago
@ThatOneGuy010 Since when does Chuck Norris have to make sense?
Mumfin 7 months ago
FYI this is a early 50s tank people. why always hating? so you got a little dick but the US (and other countries) have a great tank, good for you! Too bad the tank isnt yours...haha
tnix80 8 months ago
It had to be a T-55 =)
zerocker45 8 months ago
Че за отстой =(
Albatrossik 8 months ago
Thats just a bit fail, i think it surely could be able to crush those cars without that retarded crane making them flat before
pioneerz450 8 months ago
pimp my ride series?
captQwerty 8 months ago
Weak tank, an M60 Patton is better in obstacle crushing.
LtNomad120mm 9 months ago
@LtNomad120mm It is T-55, not T-62.
TheTFON 8 months ago
what a weak tank
jjmaxx16 9 months ago
I wish they blasted every bulky, ugly and repulsive SUV in the US, too!!! I can't stand those pieces of shit.
ursa41 9 months ago
@ursa41 Wait til you have 3 kids and responsibilities.
TheAcurapassion 7 months ago
@TheAcurapassion Kids I do not have, (professional) responsibilites plenty, and I drive a Hyundai Accent. But w/ kids, I'd be smart enough to have one/two tops and I'd simply buy a stylish, nicely-designed roomier automobile, like people in the rest of the world. Alot of American macho BS this SUV fixtation; quite frankly, I know in Europe, you don't see too many of them because people therebuy them out of NECESSITY, and not TO PROVE HOW BIG YOU ARE (like there). And SUVs here ARE truly ugly!
ursa41 7 months ago
The suspension on that suv was actually incredible. Survived all thatt damage.
daniellandgrens 9 months ago
WTF?!?!?! I could've used one of those vehicles!!! Damn assholes!
SuperZumiez 9 months ago
that was a jeep gone but already forgotten
TheArti26 9 months ago
See this is what happen to troops and resources when there is no war. No wonder Republicans want to keep at it. If you have to pay for something at least pay for it and keep it doing what is meant to do in the first place.
FehrMorales 9 months ago
Why the fuck are people arguing about nations and wars and stuff here? On YouTube, really? And in this particular video, where they blast the hell out of a few SUV's with a tank? Shut up and enjoy the carnage.
nekku19 9 months ago
Wow. Russian tank hydraulics fail?
AlabamaSoldier 9 months ago
whats worse, russia or turkey, mmmm
trancesendable 9 months ago
tank fun!
8900609 10 months ago
I wish THIS was the way America did Cash For Clunkers.
LNERMallard 10 months ago 2
i wonder if that thing can pick the tank up
JBLaOHeI 10 months ago
haha kinda like russia saying farQ usa we smash you i love it jeeps are shit boxes
TheUnDeRGRouNDHoBo 10 months ago
freak russians
stocholmuk 10 months ago
@mdP2 USA never lost nor won Vietnam. America won every battle...but to be honest, it's not really clear on who one.
CODtheater 10 months ago
@CODtheater It lost the war in Vietnam after abandoning the campaign, flying their ass out of there, and letting the Communists take over.
MultiAREE 10 months ago
@MultiAREE No, the winner is still undecided officially. We kicked their ass, but rendered it impossible to convert them. I think we lost the objective, but kicked their asses.
CODtheater 10 months ago
@CODtheater You are claiming that the US didn't stop supplying soldiers to the South, didn't evacuate dozens of thousands of its soldiers as the Vietcong broke through the lines of Saigon, That the Vietcong were defeated and they didn't launch an offensive against South's capital Saigon, which unified the country under Communist rule?
You are fucking stupid.
USA FAILED. Plain and simple. There is no fucking denying it. All it did was get a bloody nose, and just ditch the fucking cause
MultiAREE 10 months ago
@MultiAREE I never said I didn't claim those. You need to learn your fucking history. It never officially a war, so no outcome WAS EVER FUCKING DECLARED. Second, we won every battle. Plus, we were already pulling troops out before the fall of saigon. Don't believe me? Go search your fucking history. And we weren't the ones with the bloody nose, dumbass
CODtheater 10 months ago
@CODtheater Yes, we won every battle, but we lost 300k men, and the douchebag hippies back home didn't care, and hte douchebag politicians would do anything to save their own asses.'
We lost 300k men, They lost more.
We gave up on conventional warfare, and left
They relied on Guerrilla warfare backed up by China and USSR and refused to give up, and finally conquered the rest of Vietnam.
We never came in full control of Vietnam, and just because we lost 3x less men doesn't mean we won.
MultiAREE 10 months ago
@CODtheater It wasn't a bad war for us, we didn't lose anything of value, but politically, it was a failure
MultiAREE 10 months ago
@MultiAREE young men are valuable, didnt they count?
MrCagekicker 9 months ago
@MrCagekicker 30k is nothing
MultiAREE 9 months ago
@CODtheater Actually we were the ones with bloody noses in vietnam. The north viatnemese gurilla tactics tore the marines apart and the ho-chi-man trail was a tank trap for our armour cause they had landmines and RPGs coming out their ears. War was declaired when the marine troop count topped 100k. Face it we got our asses kicked. Of course nowadays we have the technological and experiance edge so it would play out diffirent. So you check your facts, and get a diffirent account name for props.
Snapshot290 9 months ago
Heading should have been "Museum piece Tank drives over worthless car wreck". Just a waste of time.
BlindZenDriver 11 months ago
"Some SUV lovers"
No SUV lover would let an SUV get trashed like that - no matter how old it is , someone WORKED to make it.
Destroying for the sake of destruction is not "love".
cr4yv3n 11 months ago
that is T55 tank..... T55 tank is a good tank in the world..
samquan123 11 months ago
Sherman can be beautiful and a tank, but it is too high profile and it is difficult to repair in the field (with respect to T-34) had worse patency in general are not very good tank you have had, but thanks anyway for them. Without lend-lease we would have very hard for Russia if there was the whole of Europe under Gitlerom.Studebekery is a good technique 20 years ago they had met on the streets (40 years from commencement of operation) On the video T-54 tank constructed in 1946..
Shustrik1 1 year ago
So much for blasting. I hate this channel. They bullshit in every video title to grab your attention. Pathetic.
superhornet59 1 year ago
eih, now i know what happened with my car :P
Risiko94 1 year ago
They invent the Toyota Landcruiser Cabrio!
^^
johannes1042 1 year ago
you spin me right round baby right round like a record baby, right round round round
likeaglove123 1 year ago
That crane reminds me of Terminator Salvation...
Repenter101 1 year ago
i find the tank spining funny
ubeaste 1 year ago
Silly comments to cut it all short russia only has power through throwing loads of men in the military and hiding behind nukelear weapons.
Its why they allways lose so many men when at war.
Britain is an example of Strong soldiers and adaptable technology, cobnsidering the british S.A.S taught the spetznas,green beret,forign legion, israely special forces and many more....
Russian is 1 hell of an overated country, when war comes there way they say "were not afraid to use nukes".
JB22881 1 year ago
@JB22881 Thats not fair, Russia has a large force yes but that doesnt mean they sacrifice quality. The last major conventional war fought by Russia was WW2 so you can hardly say they always suffer major casualties. The Russian military also has some fine equipment, just as an example the T-90 remains a deadly tank and Russian infantry wield the finest assault rifle in history the AK 47. So what if Russia makes threats with nukes? why shouldnt she?
thewalkereffect 1 year ago
@JB22881 The other thing is you mention Britain. Yes Britain has excelent troops because they get more time and money invested in them than any other soldiers in the world, but Britain's army has always had a downside. Despite Britain's technology and skills they always had drooling incompetant morons commanding the army. Britain's army commanders always fail to show and initiative or innovation, if you want to use WW2 look at Montgommery... One of the worst commanders in the war. Btw im British
thewalkereffect 1 year ago
@thewalkereffect the AK-47 is a useless piece of shit, it has no accuracy and sucks for attachments...... compared to the SA80 the AK-47 is made of plastic half the time its why the taliban use it have you ever held 1?.
Britain has the most investment military in the world? FUCKING LIES......... go do your homework, they are the best because they work hard at being the best.
JB22881 1 year ago
@thewalkereffect Also you might want to look at what russia had done in the middle east, and were to scared to go to war because of the casualties.... everyone had bad commanders at times, but britain in history also had the best! its why we beat the spanish empire and the french empire and we fucked the russians... and we took over the falklands in a matter of no time....
The middle east is purposley being held for money so dont bring that in it.
JB22881 1 year ago
@thewalkereffect Also they hide behind nukes because they are a weak country to scared to fight with military against a country that 1 a military unlike half of eastern europe that they pick on........
Bringing nukes into it knowing if they fired 1 they would in turn die themselves is a last resort to cowardness, like brining a suicide bomb in a fist fight. they just get innocent people exterminated and destroy countries and races... cowards
JB22881 1 year ago
@JB22881 U are pretty stupid.
Vykuk123 1 year ago
@thewalkereffect same for both ww1 and ww2. even today. we are the worlds best, but the leadership is the world worst. sad thing is, it will never change. too much red tape from too many idiots who have too much control. england thru and thru.
tubbymarshall 1 year ago
Misleading title, should've called it 'Tanks crush SUV's after they are already destroyed by crane outside Moscow' lol
10dthompson60 1 year ago
It would be cool if they didnt flatten the cars out first with the dorky looking crane, kind of taking away the point of rolling them over with a tank if you ask me...Also fanboys stop arguing about ww2 Germans lost the Allies won therefor the Germans were obvioulsy not that great the end.
TheFragglesrocked 1 year ago
that is why i love tanks!!
edwin30v 1 year ago
The Claaaawwwww!
SuperCrazyJunk 1 year ago
lolz t-34 is stil very good
Hazafi96 1 year ago
Russian tanks are the best during World War Two!!!!
Did you know that in 1945, a frontal shot from a Russian BT-7 tank destroyed a German King Tiger tank from a range of 2600 meters?
German tanks are overrated!
worldwartwogenius 1 year ago
@worldwartwogenius Oh boy, the amount of bullshit per line is amazing! So I hope you're joking or something. But for those that know less about WW2 tanks here are some facts >>> The BT-7 (a tank from 1938 btw!) can ONLY penetrate 50mm at a RANGE OF 100METERS!!! Guess how much frontal armor the King Tiger has...180mm thats right!
And the 45mm 20K Model 1934 L/46 Main Gun from the BT-7 doesn't even have a range past 2000m, let alone 2600m!
And for a data base on WW2 tanks go to tarrif.net
7Niwde7 1 year ago
ah those drunk russian tank drivers lol
VeryVeryMeanBastard 1 year ago
insurance fraud
TheViciousPaintballa 1 year ago
lol i thought rednecks where exclusively american but ive been proven wrong
tumaieslaflaca 1 year ago
Funner than a monster truck show !
wildestbillever 1 year ago
Man it would have been cool to be there.
Drake14161337 1 year ago
Oh come on man. I play video games lot, the staff doesn't give a shit about your reports. You sound like an intelligent person so please don't waste your time here, in the Internet. Its a shit-hole of despair.
Your comments wont change anything, consider even thinking about replying to someone here as a waste of time. Your time is worth more, leave.
Bibazavr 1 year ago
from toy story...."the claaaawwww"
2jzgteSupraJZA80 1 year ago
screwed that suspension up on that suv lol
Timmy91000 1 year ago
For The Mother Land!
Omegeist 1 year ago
whyed they crush em? the tank shoulda done that :(
thecanadainredneck53 1 year ago
damnnn...you coulda given me that car..
MrDaniel199019 1 year ago
hey thats my car!
noN3RD 1 year ago
do those suv's have vin numbers ?
GeopoSki 1 year ago
Ok Idk y but I think russian tanks and anti tanks are so ugly they look cool idk how that is possible but thats my opinion
ProPorchMonkey 1 year ago
If anyone knows how to switch to russian while typing please tell me (I know russian and english)
Hah Yeah! The russian millatary Ruins that american dream shit into an amerrican HELL!
helper769 1 year ago
haha fucking negro, those are good field cars
maketzueioletaalla 1 year ago
that crane did all the work that tank didnt even try to fire its gun
xzero0100 1 year ago
good to see russians embracing the redneck american shit
lianghaochen 1 year ago
My ass is heavier than that tank.
TheGarryTheGod 1 year ago
Justifying Cold War spending right there - and i like it!
lulem400 1 year ago
do the russians really have nothing to do??
killercode01 1 year ago
0:38 T-rex...
Jubzin 1 year ago
russian methods are awsome!
boringcabbage 1 year ago
@boringcabbage lol yes russian demonstration style :-D
misterpince 1 year ago
take that you tree hugers
ToneysWorld 1 year ago
hand bender
xtra1l 1 year ago
0:30 that car has some good suspension
kilvo000 1 year ago
MY CAR!!!
dman952 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Z971
Wrong sir
did i forgot to mention the Abrams brother in law, the challenger can also destroy the T90 no problem, take 3-4 direct shot and have the gun and crew alive
considering the T90 has old parts just upgraded interface and ammo,
soviets make things to get the job done while western countries make beutifull pieces of art with any kind of weapon,
example:
Mig-15 & F-86 sabre
equally matched
1 is ugly but gets job done the other beautiful and respected
amerikaner101 1 year ago
@amerikaner101 "direct shot"
It really isn't like that. Both the M1 and the Challenger have good armor (specially the Challenger 2) but if any of these tanks take a direct hit from the latest variants of T90 or T80 then you can kiss them goodbye. M1 main battle tanks are well-protected - mostly when facing older armor, monkey models (eg: Iraqi T72) and unadequate ammunitions like the ones used against M1 tanks during Desert Storm '91 - but they are vulnerable to other modern main battle tanks.
MdP2 1 year ago 18
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@MdP2 brain-dead idiot who was offended...truth hurts i guess! Fucking halfwitted moron! Keep it up! You're a trip! It's fun rattling the cage of simple organism.Keep sending us the sukis bitch
themovingsand 1 year ago
@themovingsand Wow! Why the hell are you so mad? Chill out.
1- I wasn't offended and, by the looks of it, it seems it’s you who’s offended for some reason...
2- None of my comments makes me a "brain-dead idiot". If I’m wrong, tell me which one and explain why.
3- Truth? Man... Did I deny any truth? I simply replied by logical argumentation. Which "truth" would hurt me? And why?
4- And what do you mean with "keep sending us the sukis"?
Sometimes I don’t understand you internet people...
MdP2 1 year ago 7
@MdP2 Dont feed the troll man! By not giving him anything to eat he will just die!
Next time the bitch write's a message just ignore it! Auto delete without reading!
Bibazavr 1 year ago
@Bibazavr The best way to deal with trolls is to ignore them, yes. But, then, I didn't waste that much time replying to that user and he was obviously "publicly" humiliated (which is good!). I would report his rude comments to YouTube staff, but they often overlook reports and "flags".
MdP2 1 year ago 6
@MdP2 I like blueberry pancakes too
5959512 8 months ago
@themovingsand Lololo raging Troll :D
Bibazavr 1 year ago
@amerikaner101 "considering the T90 has old parts just upgraded interface and ammo"
Current T90 are more upgraded than that. It's not only the ammunition or what you called "interface". Their 125mm main guns, thermal sights, armor and countermeasure systems are also significantly different from older T72 and even earlier T90 variants.
MdP2 1 year ago 29
@amerikaner101 "soviets make things to get the job done while western countries make beutifull pieces of art"
So you find the M4 Sherman prettier than the T-34!?
Get it straight, kids: ANY weapon or weapon system is made to get the job done. A weapon or weapon-system always gets done to get the job done!
If you want "beautiful" and "art", go watch Fashion TV instead of watching videos depicting a live show in which construction machinery and old battered tanks wreck things just for fun...
MdP2 1 year ago 50
@MdP2
Well, if you compare the Russian tanks With European tanks, European tanks are still better and more stylish ;)
0Forgive 1 year ago
Comment removed
MdP2 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@0Forgive (1/2) If you think Eastern European tanks are less stylish than Western European tanks then that's just your aesthetical opinion. "Style" is irrelevant in warfare. West-European MBTs tend to be well-armored and to look "stylish" but they typically have large turrets and bulky chassis which make them easier to hit than their russian counterparts (the Black Eagle project however presented a large turret). Each country builds its weapons according to its needs, not according to fashion.
MdP2 1 year ago 10
@0Forgive (2/2) As for "better"... Well, that depends on how you use your MBT. The latest variants of Western and Eastern tanks are overall equivalent while the West ones might be better on some specific levels and the East ones might be better on other levels. Take this non-European example: The latest Merkawa tanks are generally considered adequate for Israel's battlegrounds but they're also considered too slow and clumsy for speed-based operations (unlike Western and Eastern European MBTs).
MdP2 1 year ago 10
@MdP2
Russian tanks are generally designed for crews that don´t need much training, Russian tanks, for example the T-72, was easy to build and it did not take much training to control the basics. European and American tanks however, are more difficult to master, and are also more powerfull. Thanks to the modern tank technology, Russian crews still have the less training but better firepower.
0Forgive 1 year ago
@0Forgive
(1)
“the T-72, was easy to build and it did not take much training to control the basics”
So was the Leopard 1... but, while these tanks (one soviet and one non-soviet) were simple and conventional, the T-10 heavy tank was not and yet it too was built in USSR. So, as you see, not all soviet/russian tanks were simple or designed "for" crews with little training. You'll find well-trained and badly-trained crews in both the West and the East, guarantied.
(CONT.)
MdP2 1 year ago 7
@0Forgive (2) (CONT'D)
Israel probably had some of the best crews in History during the Israel-Arab campaigns and, yet, these days IDF tank crews are still caught committing terrible mistakes which lead them to either personnel loss or equipment loss. Some blame it on the fact that the numbers of women training IDF crews have been increasing, but I don’t buy it - I think it’s more related to terrain-related miscalculations and enemy-envisioning underestimations.
(CONT.)
MdP2 1 year ago 7
@0Forgive (3) (CONT'D) “difficult to master”
Not necessarily. You’ll find the M60A3, the M1 and currently used Leopard 2 tanks not as hard to operate as you may expect. They’re actually more convenient than the older variants of T64 and T72. The newer Russian variants of T80UM and T90 however are overall similar to what’s on the West.
MdP2 1 year ago 7
@0Forgive (4) (CONT'D) Some electronics, comms and navigational systems are made differently but they are not tremendously different in terms of training requirements and usability. It’s just a matter of keeping your crew well-trained and using your tank wisely according to logistics, strategies, tactics and - above all - presented situations.
MdP2 1 year ago 7
@0Forgive (5) “powerfull”
I don’t know what you mean with “powerful” but, one way or the other, that’s relative. From WWII to early 60s soviet armor was generally more “powerful” than western armor but, in terms of quality (not quantity), things changed around the 60s when tanks like the Leopard (1) got built and when USSR gradually got “butter fingers” at keeping its armor quality superior to NATO’s armor.
(CONT.)
MdP2 1 year ago 7
@0Forgive (6) (CONT'D) Eventually, the West caught up and in the next two decades it managed to commit into service tanks which were quite capable of matching soviet armor and in some cases even beat it.
MdP2 1 year ago 7
@0Forgive (7) “Russian crews still have the less training but better firepower”
Russian tankers usually have decent training programs (unlike Saddam Hussein’s tankers). If a Russian crew isn’t well-trained, then it’s not trained at all - unless you want to send it into a disaster. Take a look at this: After 1943/44 (Kursk -to- Budapest Battle) soviet tankers progressively got experienced to the point that they became the best in the world alongside with 3rd Reich’s tankers.
(CONT.)
MdP2 1 year ago 6
@0Forgive (8) (CONT'D) In 1994/95 however, the Russian armored units rushed into Chechnya were poorly-trained (and poorly supplied) - this partially resulted in heavy personnel and equipment loss and catastrophic results for Russia’s first phase of the Grozny battle (many of the Chechen separatists who defended Grozny were veterans from the 80s Afghanistan war, by the way).
MdP2 1 year ago 6
@0Forgive (9) “but better firepower”
I wouldn’t say “better” firepower... but “more versatile” firepower. The guided missiles sported by current Russian tanks can be quite handy, but conventional Russian MBT firepower (non-guided projectile/shell rounds) is equivalent to what you’ll find in NATO and the T90/80 ATGMs can’t completely replace the devastating effects of 120mm/125mm shells.
(CONT.)
MdP2 1 year ago 3
@0Forgive (10) (CONT'D) Russian fire-control systems, main guns and thermal sights aren’t better than western ones by any means (just overall equivalent) and the 125mm ammunitions used by nowadays T90 and T80 aren’t different from the Western 120mm ammunitions in terms of effectiveness. In simple terms: in a MBT-vs-MBT situation, the first one to detect and hit its target will most likely win.
MdP2 1 year ago 3
@0Forgive (11) “Russian tanks(...)for crews that don´t need much training”
That depends on the model in question. The T34 might’ve been easier to operate than non-soviet medium tanks but if you compare 1960s T62 and M60 to the first T64 tanks you’ll see a quite different story as the T64 was more complex. The WWII IS2 heavy tank, for example, involved a reloading process which was slightly more complicated than its Panther and Tiger counterparts.
(CONT.)
MdP2 1 year ago 4
@0Forgive (12) (CONT'D) In reality, training is evolutionary just like the tanks themselves. The firing control systems and techniques incorporated into current russian T80/90 tanks and crews aren’t much different from their Western cousins.
MdP2 1 year ago 5
@0Forgive (13) "designed"
Soviet/Russian post-WWII medium/main battle tanks have been designed around these concepts:
» Firepower should be versatile and able to take on anything on the battlefield
- Post-50s shell-casing ejectors, autoloaders (allowing size-reduction) and guided missiles, T64-T80 remote-controlled TC AA machineguns, ballistic computers, etc.
(CONT.)
MdP2 1 year ago 4
@0Forgive (14) (CONT'D)
» Mobility should be economical and should allow for speed-based operations
- Reducing weight and mass while improving speed and fuel-consumption, max autonomy, additional fuel tanks, etc.
» Protection should be planned around the previous concepts but should also be innovative
- Reducing/compacting volume and mass, upgradeable armour sets, T64-sported angle-variable skirts, post-60s/70s composite and/or reactive armour, passive and active countermeasures, etc.
(CONT.)
MdP2 1 year ago 3
@0Forgive (15) (CONT'D)
» Communications and data-dealing should allow multi-level articulation and articulation with other types of units and weapons systems
- Radios, antennas, flags, intercoms, higher-radius equipment/antennas for command units, electronics, etc.
--------------------------------------------------------
Take care, people.
MdP2 1 year ago
@MdP2 Actually, those vehicles belonged to criminals. They do this in Russia sometimes for a bit of entertainment and to get a message across.
zetaro128 1 year ago
@zetaro128 Oh, I didn't know that. Thanks.
I think I once saw the Russian authorities driving an armoured vehicle over a "mountain" of illegal CD/DVD copies (and obviously destroying the pirated material) in plain sight so that everyone knew how they deal with it, but I didn't know they do a similiar thing with entire vehicles.
MdP2 1 year ago 4
Comment removed
themovingsand 1 year ago
@themovingsand "how come USSR desperado in a thin air..job done too?"
Please rewrite your sentence in proper English so we can understand you. Thanks.
MdP2 1 year ago 9
@themovingsand "how come Russia lost in Afghanistan?"
The internal political crisis in USSR demanded the withdrawal between '86 and '89. The Democratic Republic of Afghanistan and USSR actually secured the cities, but territorial power in Afghanistan is not dependable on cities (it’s de-centralised, almost tribal). Un-conventional warfare is always hard for conventional forces. How come USA lost Vietnam? And how come these days the ISAF forces are still trying to secure Afghanistan?
MdP2 1 year ago 36
@MdP2 How come the U.S. trained all of the Afghanistan people against USSR and now U.S. is fighting against them?
TheTD1991 11 months ago
@TheTD1991 (1/2) They didn’t train all the Afghanis. They only trained and supplied some of the mujahideen that were against the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan and against USSR. By that time, USA thought that the USSR and the government of DRA were a bigger threat than the rebels and the islamic terrorists operating between Afghanistan, Pakistan and USSR.
MdP2 11 months ago 3
@TheTD1991 (2/2) However, many mujahideen (mostly persians and arabs) went on supporting the Taliban and these men were not only anti DRA and anti USSR but also anti anything that didn’t fit their religious fundamentalism and their despotic politics (they hated social/economical freedom and equality, secularism, science, etc). Osama bin Laden, a rich influential Saudi arab who was on the mujas' side during the 1980's, remained in Afganistan after the 1980's to help the Taliban regime.
MdP2 11 months ago 3