I've seen a longer version of this video. The tank stops after ramming into a tree and then there is a larger explosion. It explains by this time drones were assisting in the fight and that is what probably caused the final explosion.
To add, in that longer version, a second Bradley from the right comes in and finishes it off. Maybe it uses a TOW once it gets hung up on the tree? I’ll look for it.
I don't think it says a lot at all. I would caution against grabbing anecdotal evidence from this.
a well placed Anti-tank infantry detachment hiding in the woods off a road will obliterate any tank that comes by and doesn't see them - that doesn't mean four guys with an ATGM are invulnerable and that a T-90 is shit. - it could just be that they're lucky, that they had the defensive advantage, any number of things. for all we know, the Brads may have been in excellent hull down firing positions and the T-90 crew may be completely untrained, kind of skewing the odds. It's a weird war.
I think useful knowledge on the relative effectiveness of the Bradley in Ukraine will have to be pulled from a few hundred of these engagements post-war.
Quick edit : in this case they weren't in hull-down positions. both of them were on a flat road - that's a hell of a brave Bradley crew, some excellent artillery support (yay, combined arms) and poor gunnery on the MBT's part (but who am I to judge?)
I still think it's very hard to pull useful conclusions from footage like this, as much as I'm starving for real, actionable information I can use. If there's something to learn from Ukraine right now, I'm trying very hard to learn it too.
Fully acknowledge this is one example, an important and risky example. It demonstrated that at least at short to medium ranges 25mm tungsten sabot can render a T-90 combat ineffective in about 30 rounds, it's not a catastrophic kill but that tank was decisively engaged nonetheless.
I know a Captain Isaac Henry. Did you work at NLR. If so, good to see we both like and support Ryan. If not, my apologies and good to see we both support Ryan.
Definitely. A key point is that the turret spun uncontrollably until it hit that tree. Unclear what happened to crew because the video ended then, but I've heard they escaped from others.
I think the turret spinning was due to an electrical short... Probably from the AC gunfire... But it simply could have just happened T a bad time... Gunner or Commander panicking and broke it, lol ..
Seems like a first class ad for the Bradley. You make the point that the volume of fire kept the T-90 from using its heavy caliber weapon. Anything less well-protected than this would have gotten blown up pretty thoroughly.
Good assessment. The Bradley/Tank engagements during Gulf War 1 were with 25 mm Depleted Uranium sabot rounds, and they kill any Warsaw Pact vintage armour. Even with the reactive coverage on the newer Russian Tanks, I’ll wager the mass and velocity of a DU Sabot would defeat a T90. It would be interesting to see if the newer Russian “interceptor” type defensive systems could deflect a DU round enough to save the tank.
Anyway, I doubt very much that the US Government would ever authorize that DU ammo for sale to any other country. Perhaps some enterprising ammunition company would consider producing a 25 mm Tungsten penetrator sabot round?
PS I just checked on CAT-UXO, and the M791 25 mm round IS Tungsten. So much for my brilliant suggestion on producing ammo.🙄
I think I heard some noise somewhere about Kontact I and Kontact V having some problems with sympathetic detonations when one block was hit. unsure.
either way, after a few well placed hits, that ERA is used up and the tungsten will be digging into bare armor. I would not bet my life on a T-90 versus 8-12 rounds on the side skirts from a 25mil. do the T-90Ms have anti spalling liners, and if so, how good are they?
Love your assessments and the knowledge that you possess. I served in the Marines many years ago (Vietnam era) so a lot of the weaponry and armor you show was barely on the drawing board. Keep up the good work.
There is a slight jump between the clipped footage Ryan analyzes and the tank spinning off into a tree, so it might be spliced... or just a graphical glitch.
Ryan, because of your background, I'd be curious to hear your opinion on Kontakt-2 or similar reactive armor, which the T90 supposedly has, versus weapons like the TOW.
I'm not anti-armour infantry - I'm armoured - but there are TOW missiles in inventory that have tandem charges, meaning one blows the reactive armor and one blows into the tank. it is my impression that reactive armor's purpose is more focused towards APFSDS (Armor piercing, fin-stabilized,discarding sabot) and to a lesser extent HEAT rounds, which are the main threat from other tanks, and that a modern ATGM will not be hindered by reactive armour.
for the homies :
APFSDS rounds are essentially a very long, thin dart of very dense metal. going incredibly fast. they defeat enemy armour through sheer kinetic force - a lot of force, focused in a very small area. Reactive armor is basically a sandwich with steel plates for bread and explosives for meat. when a dart penetrates the outer steel plate, it detonates the explosive. this explosion shoves the outer plate into the dart with a considerable amount of force, disrupting the flight of the dart, and preventing it from being as effective against the main armour of the tank.
For a TOW - if it's a tandem charge like a Javelin et al, it'll cut right through as per it's design. if it's a non-tandem variant - i'm not sure what it'll do.
Depends on the TOW variant; contemporary versions fly above the gunner's LOS to the target and have charges pointing down; the intent here being the missile flies above the target and detonates the EFP-like charges into the top of the tank. Generally, some but not much of the ERA is installed on the top of armored vehicles.
I saw the longer version with the crew running off at the end too, but I think there were cuts in the video. I had an occasion as a journalist to fire a Bradly's gun at the Fort Irwin National Training Center and I remember just firing it as one of the loudest experiences of my life, so what the guy's eardrums were experiencing in the Russian tank I can't imagine.
They almost certainly would have been wearing their headsets, but with the insane decibel level it must have been, I wouldn't be surprised if they had hearing damage in spite.
i watched the video and i was like ... not sure it is destroyed and might even drive still just fine.
My bigger question with all the hits did it damage / destroy the optics making the russian tank combat inefficent and useless basically if it cant see where it fires.
Thats one of the things i always wonder with all the tanks. Sure they might be heavily armored but a well placed shot from an assault riffle could make the tank not able to shoot back if you hit the optics. Now the bradley has bigger bullets and the big question for me was if if the impacts could have caused more damage
First bit of damage is the Tanks barrel is stuck in reloading position, the few times it tries to shoot back it just fires into the air. I believe a smoke dispenser was hit causing a small fire and likely unintentional smoke deployment (there was another smoke deployment that looked intentional). Then the turret is disabled sending it into an uncontrollable spin. The driver is either unable to see or concussed so drives aimlessly before hitting the tree. The video then cuts to filming an FPV drone striking it, turret no longer spinning and positioned forward. The tank also was able to reverse a few meters away from the tree. The crew then abandons the tank after the FPV strike. Can almost guarantee the optics were destroyed from the amount of front hits.
for the record, if you shoot out an armoured fighting vehicle's optics with small arms, expect that gunner to practice his coax skills and adjust the fire by the tracers. there's a lot of rounds in a coax MG's belt - a lot of opportunity to get found by some.
M72s, AT4s, NLAWs and Carl Gs are light and cheap, and would have less odds of leaving the vehicle in a state to return the favour to you. there's also the boring option : if the vehicle hasn't spotted you, don't shoot at the vehicle, and focus on bringing more effective fire to bear down on it.
Ryan, thanks for the analysis. A question or two, you mention that the Bradley crew probably had the gun loaded up with the Sabot armor piercing rounds, would those have pierced the tank
2nd. I swear I have seen a longer version of this video where, has it starts to back up/retreat, the T90's turret begins just spin uncontrollably, and ultimately crashed into a partly destroyed house, then the video stops. I was wondering if that indicated the crew was incompacitated, or dead. Also, someone else committed at this time that the uncontrollable turret rotation would have prevented the crew from being able to escape
It would likely be the M791 25mm, it uses a tungsten penetrator and has a claimed penetration of 25mm RHA @ 60° at 1300m. So not enough to pen the front or turret, but enough to damage and pen thinner sections.
Longer video shows the tank getting hit by FPV drone and then crew bailing, all 3 crew are seen running away. It seems they had to wait until the turret stopped spinning (likely either had to shut off the engine or wait for hydraulic fluid to empty) and manually turned the turret for the driver to escape (must be in a specific position for the driver to get out in T-90M).
I would agree, side skirts or lower hull behind the wheels, as well as top and the rear are all good candidates for penetration. I'm not confident that they beefed up the hull much compared to a T-72, and I know the T72 is roughly 50mm thick on the lower hull.
I have a feeling that 60 degrees specified is going to cause some underestimation of the potency - I wouldn't be surprised if it'll penetrate those areas even if it's thicker than 25mil.
I've seen a longer version of this video. The tank stops after ramming into a tree and then there is a larger explosion. It explains by this time drones were assisting in the fight and that is what probably caused the final explosion.
To add, in that longer version, a second Bradley from the right comes in and finishes it off. Maybe it uses a TOW once it gets hung up on the tree? I’ll look for it.
That's what my assumption was. Either way, it was very apparent that the Russians lost the engagement. It says a lot for the Bradley.
I don't think it says a lot at all. I would caution against grabbing anecdotal evidence from this.
a well placed Anti-tank infantry detachment hiding in the woods off a road will obliterate any tank that comes by and doesn't see them - that doesn't mean four guys with an ATGM are invulnerable and that a T-90 is shit. - it could just be that they're lucky, that they had the defensive advantage, any number of things. for all we know, the Brads may have been in excellent hull down firing positions and the T-90 crew may be completely untrained, kind of skewing the odds. It's a weird war.
I think useful knowledge on the relative effectiveness of the Bradley in Ukraine will have to be pulled from a few hundred of these engagements post-war.
Quick edit : in this case they weren't in hull-down positions. both of them were on a flat road - that's a hell of a brave Bradley crew, some excellent artillery support (yay, combined arms) and poor gunnery on the MBT's part (but who am I to judge?)
I still think it's very hard to pull useful conclusions from footage like this, as much as I'm starving for real, actionable information I can use. If there's something to learn from Ukraine right now, I'm trying very hard to learn it too.
Here is a link to the extended video from a different perspective: https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarVideoReport/comments/1957vpk/t90m_torn_apart_by_bradley_in_close_combat/
Fully acknowledge this is one example, an important and risky example. It demonstrated that at least at short to medium ranges 25mm tungsten sabot can render a T-90 combat ineffective in about 30 rounds, it's not a catastrophic kill but that tank was decisively engaged nonetheless.
Good points.
I know a Captain Isaac Henry. Did you work at NLR. If so, good to see we both like and support Ryan. If not, my apologies and good to see we both support Ryan.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YqNE4iStYI
that video?
Wow. Big kaboom. And nice touch finishing off with drone.
Definitely. A key point is that the turret spun uncontrollably until it hit that tree. Unclear what happened to crew because the video ended then, but I've heard they escaped from others.
I've seen an extended version and 3 crew members are seen running away from it...
Agreed
I think the turret spinning was due to an electrical short... Probably from the AC gunfire... But it simply could have just happened T a bad time... Gunner or Commander panicking and broke it, lol ..
I don't have a direct source, second hand from this post: https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarVideoReport/comments/1999uqv/another_view_of_the_t90m_getting_battered_by_25mm/kiefj1r/
found one for you :
https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarVideoReport/comments/1957vpk/t90m_torn_apart_by_bradley_in_close_combat/
good looking out.
Here is the longer version: https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarVideoReport/comments/1957vpk/t90m_torn_apart_by_bradley_in_close_combat/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3
Seems like a first class ad for the Bradley. You make the point that the volume of fire kept the T-90 from using its heavy caliber weapon. Anything less well-protected than this would have gotten blown up pretty thoroughly.
And here is a full video at normal speed: https://x.com/Osinttechnical/status/1745942957486751770?s=20 - got it from my sub on Reddit. Video is 8 minutes long.
Good assessment. The Bradley/Tank engagements during Gulf War 1 were with 25 mm Depleted Uranium sabot rounds, and they kill any Warsaw Pact vintage armour. Even with the reactive coverage on the newer Russian Tanks, I’ll wager the mass and velocity of a DU Sabot would defeat a T90. It would be interesting to see if the newer Russian “interceptor” type defensive systems could deflect a DU round enough to save the tank.
Anyway, I doubt very much that the US Government would ever authorize that DU ammo for sale to any other country. Perhaps some enterprising ammunition company would consider producing a 25 mm Tungsten penetrator sabot round?
PS I just checked on CAT-UXO, and the M791 25 mm round IS Tungsten. So much for my brilliant suggestion on producing ammo.🙄
I think I heard some noise somewhere about Kontact I and Kontact V having some problems with sympathetic detonations when one block was hit. unsure.
either way, after a few well placed hits, that ERA is used up and the tungsten will be digging into bare armor. I would not bet my life on a T-90 versus 8-12 rounds on the side skirts from a 25mil. do the T-90Ms have anti spalling liners, and if so, how good are they?
The M919 25mm however is DU, just not as mass produced if I am not mistaken.
The US has sent DU 120 mm rounds. Don't know if the 25mm is DU.
Love your assessments and the knowledge that you possess. I served in the Marines many years ago (Vietnam era) so a lot of the weaponry and armor you show was barely on the drawing board. Keep up the good work.
Welcome home.
Here are is one example for longer videos: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4sB943eRENs&pp=ygUPVHdvIGJyYWRsZXkgdDkw
The channel "RedEffect" has similar.
There is a slight jump between the clipped footage Ryan analyzes and the tank spinning off into a tree, so it might be spliced... or just a graphical glitch.
Ryan, because of your background, I'd be curious to hear your opinion on Kontakt-2 or similar reactive armor, which the T90 supposedly has, versus weapons like the TOW.
I'm not anti-armour infantry - I'm armoured - but there are TOW missiles in inventory that have tandem charges, meaning one blows the reactive armor and one blows into the tank. it is my impression that reactive armor's purpose is more focused towards APFSDS (Armor piercing, fin-stabilized,discarding sabot) and to a lesser extent HEAT rounds, which are the main threat from other tanks, and that a modern ATGM will not be hindered by reactive armour.
for the homies :
APFSDS rounds are essentially a very long, thin dart of very dense metal. going incredibly fast. they defeat enemy armour through sheer kinetic force - a lot of force, focused in a very small area. Reactive armor is basically a sandwich with steel plates for bread and explosives for meat. when a dart penetrates the outer steel plate, it detonates the explosive. this explosion shoves the outer plate into the dart with a considerable amount of force, disrupting the flight of the dart, and preventing it from being as effective against the main armour of the tank.
For a TOW - if it's a tandem charge like a Javelin et al, it'll cut right through as per it's design. if it's a non-tandem variant - i'm not sure what it'll do.
Depends on the TOW variant; contemporary versions fly above the gunner's LOS to the target and have charges pointing down; the intent here being the missile flies above the target and detonates the EFP-like charges into the top of the tank. Generally, some but not much of the ERA is installed on the top of armored vehicles.
I saw the longer version with the crew running off at the end too, but I think there were cuts in the video. I had an occasion as a journalist to fire a Bradly's gun at the Fort Irwin National Training Center and I remember just firing it as one of the loudest experiences of my life, so what the guy's eardrums were experiencing in the Russian tank I can't imagine.
hope they were wearing Earpro.
The latest Apple AirPods. Noise cancelling with take care of that… 😉😂
They almost certainly would have been wearing their headsets, but with the insane decibel level it must have been, I wouldn't be surprised if they had hearing damage in spite.
https://youtu.be/es-yxUtbGmU?si=8T8hMmwBSVDWbIId
Longer version. Turret is set on a continuous rotation and tank runs into a large tree before being what like destroyed. 3 crew escape.
i watched the video and i was like ... not sure it is destroyed and might even drive still just fine.
My bigger question with all the hits did it damage / destroy the optics making the russian tank combat inefficent and useless basically if it cant see where it fires.
Thats one of the things i always wonder with all the tanks. Sure they might be heavily armored but a well placed shot from an assault riffle could make the tank not able to shoot back if you hit the optics. Now the bradley has bigger bullets and the big question for me was if if the impacts could have caused more damage
First bit of damage is the Tanks barrel is stuck in reloading position, the few times it tries to shoot back it just fires into the air. I believe a smoke dispenser was hit causing a small fire and likely unintentional smoke deployment (there was another smoke deployment that looked intentional). Then the turret is disabled sending it into an uncontrollable spin. The driver is either unable to see or concussed so drives aimlessly before hitting the tree. The video then cuts to filming an FPV drone striking it, turret no longer spinning and positioned forward. The tank also was able to reverse a few meters away from the tree. The crew then abandons the tank after the FPV strike. Can almost guarantee the optics were destroyed from the amount of front hits.
for the record, if you shoot out an armoured fighting vehicle's optics with small arms, expect that gunner to practice his coax skills and adjust the fire by the tracers. there's a lot of rounds in a coax MG's belt - a lot of opportunity to get found by some.
M72s, AT4s, NLAWs and Carl Gs are light and cheap, and would have less odds of leaving the vehicle in a state to return the favour to you. there's also the boring option : if the vehicle hasn't spotted you, don't shoot at the vehicle, and focus on bringing more effective fire to bear down on it.
the whole video is on YouTube check United24 media
Ryan, thanks for the analysis. A question or two, you mention that the Bradley crew probably had the gun loaded up with the Sabot armor piercing rounds, would those have pierced the tank
2nd. I swear I have seen a longer version of this video where, has it starts to back up/retreat, the T90's turret begins just spin uncontrollably, and ultimately crashed into a partly destroyed house, then the video stops. I was wondering if that indicated the crew was incompacitated, or dead. Also, someone else committed at this time that the uncontrollable turret rotation would have prevented the crew from being able to escape
It would likely be the M791 25mm, it uses a tungsten penetrator and has a claimed penetration of 25mm RHA @ 60° at 1300m. So not enough to pen the front or turret, but enough to damage and pen thinner sections.
Longer video shows the tank getting hit by FPV drone and then crew bailing, all 3 crew are seen running away. It seems they had to wait until the turret stopped spinning (likely either had to shut off the engine or wait for hydraulic fluid to empty) and manually turned the turret for the driver to escape (must be in a specific position for the driver to get out in T-90M).
I would agree, side skirts or lower hull behind the wheels, as well as top and the rear are all good candidates for penetration. I'm not confident that they beefed up the hull much compared to a T-72, and I know the T72 is roughly 50mm thick on the lower hull.
I have a feeling that 60 degrees specified is going to cause some underestimation of the potency - I wouldn't be surprised if it'll penetrate those areas even if it's thicker than 25mil.
Thanks for your reply 👍
I saw crew bailing out
Every time you do some armoured content, I drop everything. I love it, thanks for providing an opportunity to learn, share, and improve.
I would not want to be in that tank, the crew must have had their bell rung. I cannot imagine the noise inside that tank with the many hits
for most I expect it's a once in a lifetime experience.
Looks like everyone involved learned the meaning of "combat browns"