My dad was a commander of an MT-12 gun around 88-89. He was stationed in Moldova, though he is from Moscow himself. I love my dad.

I was the truck driver, we used to call it Sniper, because it was so accurate at direct fire, and we called it Goat, cause that damn thing jumped as a goat every time you fired it, we tried everything,and nobody holds on to the laffete in combat conditions, as we were always on the front line. 🇭🇷But still a beautiful Soviet gun.

A 100mm cannon is always useful on the battlefield even if it's obsolete...

Is it old? Yes. Does it still work? Yes. Send it.

Quite the barrel on that gun, and the awsome recoil.

Thanks for making this, it is hard to find videos on Russian equipment that aren't heavily biased for or against them.

This gun as well as very few post-WWII AT guns(there were less of them designed then during the war. Apparently recoilless rifles took the main part of the niche) showcases how their design requirements are different from normal artillery. These guns need to be as low as possible to have small target profile, need to have a very wide horizontal traverse instead of vertical elevation and ideally should have a ranging rifle(which this one lacks). The fun part is that soviets also had 125mm one, Sprut-B if I recall right. And that both it and this one can use barrel fired ATGMs from their respective tank counterparts(yes, there is a 100mm barrel launched ATGM designed for rifled gun of T-55).

It's obselete but still gorgeous. Like a classic car or motorbike.

Fun Fact : its a 100mm T12 that partialy caused the collapse of the control tower of the Donetsk International Airport

In JNA (yugoslavia army), no one move apart from gun while firing. Head is connected with optics all the time. But, what we learned is that average anti-tank gun crew can expect life time (when battle start) in minutes :-( This is the most prioritized target on battlefield. One more thing: if you do proper set-up (2 small holes in ground) this gun do not jump back so hard like on this movie.

In the army, I was a member of the T12 crew. Its disadvantage is a crew of 5 people, and a weight of approx. 2.6 tons (as far as I remember after 40 years). Moving from one position to another without the help of a vehicle, especially on bad terrain, was a nightmare.

I had a couple of this beauties in my arty battery and strongly disagree that in indirect fire it is not effective. Actually in the ongoing war it is used as howitzer (I've never heard about MT-12 engaging armor targets). It has it's limitations - 8200 meters of max range in indirect mode with HE round, but the precision is astonishing. We were able to hit a window of a dugout from second shot, or make a direct hit on ATGM team with no problem. The main problem is that there always was a shortage of HE rounds (because they were produced in small numbers). But semi-HEATs did a great job also, but they have even a smaller range of 6000 meters in indirect fire.

I live in the city where this gun was developed. my friend's grandfather was directly involved in this. in his words, this gun is one of the most accurate guns of its time and the very first gun in the world with a smooth barrel

The gun could even be outfittet with a radar. Originally the Soviets wanted it as a tank gun but the shells were too long for handling in a tank turret. An awesome piece and pretty much the crown of at-gun design. (Oh well, you said it, lol)

The Russians know a lot about artillery.

I was a member of the MT12 crew in the Croatian army in 2005 Anti tenk division. I think that the cannon is no longer used, but we have it in reserves. We called sniper…and most od time cannon was dig into the ground…we are also trained to use the cannon in ambushes at close distances without an optical sight, using two threads on the top of the barrel…shoot and run

100mm shell & 63 calibers that is a loooong gun.

It is wrong to post a comment before I finish watching?

Russo-Ukro War, first days of the action, in Kherson City, Ukrainian Army used one of them to defend the West Bank of Dnieper river at the just exit of the Antonivka bridge, and left it abandoned when Russian forces succeed to overcome , which I spotted it at the photographs in the media

These guns are good at clearing buildings from afar. Especially if track mounted

There is a reason why large-caliber 150mm and 200mm howitzers exist and are popular, and almost no one wants to produce and use large-caliber anti-tank guns in combat. To begin with, I will say that in World War 2, the largest howitzers weighed about 5 tons, the same weight was a 105mm artillery cannon for firing from above to enemy positions. These are heavy non-anti-tank guns that are stationary in place, which people do not move around the field, but which can be transported by a massive truck with good power. In the regiment and in the battalion, they preferred to use guns much lighter. That is, at the forefront of the front, closest to 0, they tried to use guns of about 500 kilograms in weight, these are light towed 120mm mortars, 20mm anti-aircraft guns, 37mm anti-tank guns, and even light 75mm lelg mortars with a short barrel (they fired in a straight line at a short distance as guns against infantry and within the horizon of visibility a soldier at 3km like a mortar from above). These light towed guns were convenient. Did not fit into this 150mm SiG with a short barrel weighing 2 tons (it was kept only in the regiment as an infantry gun), a 105mm howitzer weighing 1,800 kg (2,500 kg) (these howitzers were listed in the artillery regiment), and a new anti-tank 75mm Pak 40 cannon weighing 1,500 kg (the American version was heavier than 2 tons). The point is that 1,500 kg of cannon is even more or less convenient for people to drag around the field and turn at an angle of 90. And guns weighing 2500kg and 3000kg are already heavy and they are almost stationary in conditions of snow and mud as 5-ton divisional products. Therefore, the Pak40 was preferred to be placed in an anti-tank division, the 105mm howitzer in an artillery regiment, and the 150mm Sig assault short gun was kept only in the regiment. In the battalions on the front line of the front, they preferred to have 500 kg of guns. If they used heavier guns, then from lack of alternative, extreme need, not because it is convenient, but because the combat situation forces them to do it. The towed paneter and firefly cannon would actually be stationary as a long 88 and it would need a panzer4 hull for mobility. The 100 mm rapira is jumping gun, it knocks down the sight and can injure a soldier by jumping. It should be heavier and rotate at 360 degrees, as it will be difficult to turn. The Americans calculated the anti-attack artillery with the help of reconnaissance aircraft and destroyed it with artillery. Or if, when moving columns of Shermans across the field, the 88th began to work on them and losses began, the tanks were quickly pulled back and artillery or aircraft worked at the place of smoke from the trunk of the ioi at the intended place from flashes or other things. A heavy weapon could not be removed quickly and therefore it was usually destroyed. It is probably understandable why there are no 150mm and 200mm anti-tank guns. A heavy anti-tank gun can be easily transported by truck and helicopter, it is cheaper and does not burn out with its land mines in the cabin body as it happens with a tank. But that's where all the advantages end. The gun is not mobile, it is difficult to turn it, and it is not suitable for shooting from closed positions at a long range from above. If detected by the enemy, it will remain in place until the arrival of an artillery shell or aircraft, or a shot from the bushes from a very long distance of an ordinary enemy tank. Tanks are more likely to be better suited for heavy 120mm and 130mm guns, a towed gun is more mobile due to trucks and helicopters, but it is difficult to predict where enemy tanks and storming infantry will go, it is difficult to disguise a gun from reconnaissance from the sky and imperceptibly and quietly move the weapon to another place. As for self-propelled anti-tank guns such as rhinoceros and slugger. That is, to have a heavy tank cannon, but bradley armor. According to statistics, in World War 2, the American military noticed that soldiers use such equipment much more often as a mobile cannon firing direct fire, that is, against houses, soldiers of fortifications, like a howitzer, but not from above but in a straight line. According to statistics, in World War 2, the American military noticed that soldiers use such equipment much more often as a mobile cannon firing direct fire, that is, against houses, soldiers of fortifications, like a howitzer, but not from above but in a straight line. Therefore, it is precisely the maximum penetrating power of armor at any cost that is not needed, balance, harmony and convenience are needed to help infantry battalions on trucks, and the convenience of interaction and communication with infantry.

Interesting family story - this gun was invented by my grandfather Victor Afanasyev. For its time it was an ingenious weapon and is still in use. But it seemed that he was not impressed by the fact. He lived a long and modest life, loved math and remembered university math classes at the age of 85 to help me with it. Didn’t help though - I didn’t inherit his math talent 🥲

Those DDR helmets are almost as good as the Fedayeen Saddam ones 😝😝

Thanks, love the Soviet artillery videos!!

I love that the wheels speen from the recoil.

Can you review some old military toys again? I remember those videos gave me so much joy haha!

Btw this AT gun would be a cheaper alternative in static defense (like in Surovikin line) compared to literal tank. Even if it won't one shot tanks they still able to detrack them and massacre any IFV around. They can also pepper people with HE. Remember, cost of a gun+2 wheels will be cheaper than whole tank with gun,engine, armor, and tracks. (Trucks not included and even if it is, they will always be cheaper than whole tank)

USSR made a lot of these and more than plenty of ammo, stockpiled all over the place. Successor states got them, so it makes sense to use it since you already have it. After all, 100mm shell still packs a good punch. As for indirect role, with drone fire correction, it will work fine. We see Russians do it even with tanks as old as T-55 all the way to newer ones (most of their tanks have indirect fire mode, especially the older ones and while their indirect fire aiming devices aren't good enough - once again, drone will provide corrections).

At least, we know that the ara of ATGM already came at 60s. It is still wierd that russians still use those old AT Gun, although it has it's own APFSDS. (Those steel APFSDS are obsolete, their technology is same as very old 3BM15 or 3BM22 of 2A46 tank gun)

So there a Romanian variant of this, that was further modified and fitted in our TR 85 Tanks inspired by the T55. We also still have them in service, and have probably also donated some to Ukraine. But considering the 1990s modernisation of the TR85M will get a modernisation of its own (which will also apply to our unmodernised TR85s),means this gun will continue serving into thw 2030s along side the Abrams and, mostlikely, fingers crossed, K2 Black Panthers, both in towed and tank form.

It's reminds one of that deadly German Pak - 43 Anti - Tank gun from WWII, Almost same design !!! 🤔✊

1:04 ouch that hurt, poor gunner, would leave marks for weeks 😭

1. looks like an altered pak 40. 2. if it's too slow for tanks, it's still good for buildings. 3. attach to a vehicle maybe?

The British had similar wepons wombat, morbat. 120 mm rifle barrel A. To. LMG for targeting tracer round

The guns has a lot of engineering areas that need improvement, 1- its requile system is not absorbing all the energy and the gun is jumping a a lot 2- the crew is completely venerable 3- the gun is huge

It would also probably make a very good coast defense gun

True that gun is a beast.

Something I don’t think I saw you cover, is that it could actually shoot barrel launched ATGM’s.

Blimey! That muzzle brake needs some work! The displacement of the emplaced gun is incredible! Also, no ear defenders?!

Anyone that sees a T-12 doing it's little bounce and doesn't immediately want to get behind one, no matter how much of a pacifist they are, is clearly some sort of demon

Regarding your mention of the 105mm Royal Ordnance L7. The Chieftain was equipped with the 120 mm Royal Ordnance L11.

Watching the vicious recoil the gun seems to be more dangerous to its crew than to a enemy tank.

Безоткатные пушки действительно были неплохи, и используются до сих пор во всём мире. Однако по начальной скорости и бронепробиваемости всё равно уступают пт орудиям. У них преимущество это низкий вес и мобильность. При должной подготовке и сноровке, есть шанс подбить танк даже современного типа. Но только при стрельбе в борта. ПТ орудие Рапира может даже повредить современные танки, но тоже с определенными оговорками. Но зато БМП, и БТР поражаются на любой дистанции боя.

That gun is a death sentence to operate.

You can never have too much Anti tank guns

Like all of your videos, I learn a lot in terms of war doctrine, and changes in technology, thank you for keeping these videos accurate and to the point!

Seeing a lot of people assuming this things only use is anti-tank, and therefore it is completely useless in modern warfare. Apparently the concept of direct fire artillery never occurred to them.

когда я учился на военной кафедре института, из нас готовили артиллеристов против танков. Это чудо тогда в 1984-86 гг называли МТ-12))

One supposed advantage - besides being available - on today's East Front is the flat trajectory which makes anti-arty radars' job harder,

Actually, USSR already HAD the BS-3 100mm antitank gun during WWII. But it weighs almost a ton more than the T-12! And whoah boy, damn that's massive recoil! "they're doomed" Except their flanks would be covered by mines and other units. Often maneuver units that would wait for an attack to be fully engaged with the line of guns, and then conduct flanking or even outright encircling attacks. They were not left in place as expendable, they were left in place to hold, with massive support from OTHER units. And they usually had enough vehicles nearby for the crews to be able to retreat if they were getting completely overrun. So, a lot less terrifying than you think. . "not capable" Wrong. It's not that they're GOOD compared to what is available overall today, that does not make them obsolete, just less useful. Any commander given a hundred of these SHOULD very much be capable of finding effective use for them. They are entirely effective against lightly armored vehicles(and from the sides and/or rear, even against heavily armored vehicles). That alone means they have a usefulness. But they're also quite flexible overall, combine them with GPS and a decent ballistics computer(essentially what you can get on a PHONE today), and this becomes a reasonably accurate backup artillery piece. They're just barely "light" enough that you can move them to unexpected and unusual positions. Meaning they're suitable for ambushes in places where the only other option might be ATGMs that you need more elsewhere. It used to be a great AT-gun with excellent secondary capabilities, but today it has instead become a lowend jack of all trades. And yes, because it's really REALLY cheap both to buy and to use, that makes it even better.

63 calibers long barrel length. That is the exact same length as the 100mm cannon that was used on the powerful SU-100 tank destroyer in World War Two

There's some nice footage of the NVA I've not seen before.

A beastly canon for beastly nation!

I'll write what you haven't considered yet. Howitzers and cannons /howitzers for mounted shooting at long range also have great penetration. But they have separate charging. If we compare the experimental US tank rifled 105mm cannon and the 155mm howitzer/long Tom cannon, then Thomas's penetration with a CALIBER armor-piercing was greater than that of a 105mm CALIBER tank shell. 109 Paladin can also be given caliber shells against concrete or against steel. The howitzer can have both a cumulative and a uranium sub-caliber. Compare the 155mm carriage m40 and the 88 nashorn. Lighter, more shells, faster firing. Smooth guns are even better for cumulative and uranium bolts, in a howitzer they can be the same, but worse in efficiency. And one more thing. Howitzers and cannons are rarely used one at a time. This is usually a battery or a division. The modern battery has 110 soldiers, 8 self-propelled guns, 8 loading vehicles, command and transport armored vehicles together 5 units, trucks and jeeps 25 units. All this will stand idle or will be quickly destroyed. But all this also needs to be trained and equipped with shells and transport. The situation in the division is even more magnificent, there are more than 750 soldiers, about 30 armored transport vehicles of commanders and troops, 24 howitzers, 24 loading vehicles, about 180 trucks and jeeps. And they will only be trained on a 100mm rapier and receive a salary and equipment? To stand idly near the front line before being destroyed by aircraft and howitzer shells? Anti-tank large guns are rather the third specialty for 155 gunners and airborne cavalry, which will be used very rarely on the darkest day of the Titanic. In general, fuck paragraphs and fuck language rules and fuck turns of speech. Hehe.

Wow. This is that same 100mm cartridge the Russian navy mounts in an automatic gun for thier arctic patrol vessels. Impressive.

This thing is a monster in the video game 'Warno' set in a fictional cold war conflict in 1989. It's featured there as the Rapira, currently used by East Germans and Russians, but probably will see use by polish and Czech SSR forces when those units are added in. It's great because of its dual role as a ATGM firing piece and its ability to toss out conventional AP. When a viable penetratable target rolls within its AP range, the gun crew will target and fire AP rounds, when the target is outside that range or cannot be penetrated, they load and fire ATGM. It's good because its very cheap- about 5 or so less than a Konkurs-M infantry team, maybe only a little more than a Konkurs-M equipped BRDM, whilst also being a hard target to hit and benefitting from stealth. In Warno ATGM fire is the decisive force that all other engagements pivot on, so the soviets having cute ATGM-AT guns in their tank-tab really gives them an unexpected edge. Thing is, its AP rounds struggle with any medium/main battle tank, but sometimes the crew can figure they can 'just barely, maybe' penetrate the front armor of a nato vehicle, resulting in wasted time. It will also engage infantry with some success. Its greatest drawbacks are obviously its incredibly poor speed once deployed from an MT-LB, and its habit of struggling to follow and lead a fast-moving target. The crew needs to maintain visual on a target for several unbroken seconds; hard to do if the targets moving laterally in front of you. They're not really a replacement for a dug-in infantry set ATGM system in urban terrain, but in open ground, ideally set to cover key roads, they are a very useful little tool. Their ATGM in particular is what makes them valuable. So far PACT has a lot of AT gun ordinance, mostly old stuff like Zis-2, Zis-3, or D-44's, but they can be very nasty if deployed in concentrations with proper support. Naturally, the slow speed of things makes them total victims to tactical bombers.

Based Soviets developing based guns

I saw a ukranian unit using as an indirect howitzer like role,they where ina glen full of trees they said they loved it because although it didnt have same effect as the 120_152 cannons,in their words "its the sniper of the cannon world" they said they could quickly get coordinates via drone operators and correct it,and then rain down a lot of fire accurately,they hit an ammo dump,a bmp that was parked and shelled tf out of a trench. All on video,it definitely isnt obsolete

In fact, rustards allways had this notion of saturating their infantry divisions with as much small size/battalion type artillery as possible. One can say Its a post-napoleonic experience... Its humorous they still trying to stick to It.

Most weight of the gun presses down on the pair of tiny tires, this makes the gun bounces around like crazy and have to readjust sight everytime after shot. if this gun has front-legs like modern howitzers today that will be alot of improving 🤔

I normally think of anti-tank guns as WW2 weapons. It's incredible to think that even after ATGMs became the dominant anti-tank asset on the battlefield the Soviets (and by extension the modern post-Soviet successor states) kept an anti-tank gun in service.

Actually from what I have heard, off the record this thing caused issues for US armored troops in the Desert Storm.

i served on that antitank sniper,2800m effective range7,5 m lenght barrel,but it was modify version mt 12

Me personally i believe anti tank guns will stay due to the fact that its MUCH harder to intercept an APFSDS round than it is to intercept an ATGM thanks to their vast difference in velocities. They may be gone for now but when/if APS advances to the point of making ATGMs nigh useless i believe they will make a comeback. (Or just kinetic ATGMs like that on the LOSAT.)

2:58 I can already spot the NCO there getting pissed off at the junior enlisted for being distracted lol. Some things, from the DDR in the 70s to the US Army today never change lol

I really like the MT-12, and I think they do, in fact, still have a place on the modern battlefield. Their role and use may be different, but they still pack a powerful punch, and there's no reason to dispose of a perfectly good weapon! If you haven't, I'd love to see you cover the L2 BAT/MOBAT/ConBAT/L6 WOMBAT 120mm recoilless rifle family from the UK. It's really interesting, and represents quite a wild period in British AT history!

Приятно видеть армию ГДР с советской пушкой!

Id like to meet the infantry man that looks at that behemoth of a shell and says 'eh, obsolete'

The British L7 105mm was never mounted on the Chieftain it had a 120mm main gun

Если бы западный блок не организовал холодную войну, мы все сейчас гуляли бы по Марсу, все вместе. Но вам ведь там продолжают рассказывать, какие Мы кровожадные монстры с медведями на прогулке. И жаждем захватить весь земной шар. Хотите истину, так посмотрите и сравните карты Российской империи 1900года с картой России сегодня! Так кто теряет из века в век!?!?!! По четыре войны за век в среднем, две из которых мировые. Классно Вы нам мир и свободу несёте... И так последние 500лет...

dang thats massive recoil

In my opinion, it’s a good secondary defence option and for breaking defence positions of surrounded enemy troops.

That recoil is insane for this small caliber.

A T-12 with it’s MTLB weighs almost exactly the same as an M50 Ontos. Both were designed to kill tanks cheaply in the late 1950’s. The Ontos though is much more adapted to real combat situations, shoot and scoot. The 106mm recoiless was no slouch and modern Austrian round will penetrate 700mm. My feeling is the 106 in all of it’s guises is a better weapon. Its actually arguable that the 106 is more needed now than ever in the close support role. Blasting bunkers.

Yugoslavia had mix of AT tank guns, mostly MT-12 and AA guided rockets in artillery "divisions"(battalions), back in 1980s. But that guns would have been stationed behind large ditch, mine field, or both... Supported by AT rockets and support artillery.

Damn that gun has some serious zip

Wouldn't modern day offensive drones quickly deal with these guns when spotted ?

I really dont see this kind of weapon in a moderm battle field. Not in the drones days...

The T-12 served as the primary towed anti-tank artillery in the Soviet and Bulgarian armies from the early 1960s to the late 1980s.... And Russia calls its the best of the best....

You can also see how cumbersome the thing is. These guns are way too big for an easy front line use these days without a motorised carriage.

In an age of drones, air burst ammunition, and ultra accurate missiles I have to believe that relatively immobile crew served cannon are obsolete.

While it IS obsolete, saying this is obsolete is a bit like saying the FAL is obsolete. Supassed by basically everything in service, but still capable of putting a round of .308 through your chest if you let it.

A useful addition on a battle field that can't be easy flanked. May fool an adversary to charge you like Rommel fooled the British into charging into his 88mm guns. An army not flying drones ahead of armored columns is suicidal.

Lord all mighty , thats some sort of joke , an anti tank gun is small , thats like 8 anti tank guns in one

AT cannons like this probably still have another few decade of use in island and mountain valley areas

AT guns are still useful against older tanks and all other armored and soft mechanazied vehicles. And crew has better chance to jump aside from drone attack, unlike crews in vehicles.

70 years ago this would have been a great gun. And now this is the death of an artilleryman.

Seen more AT guns than expected in Ukraine war. Lot of direct fire, anti infantry/bunker/APC/etc. They are extremely accurate.

God forbid the target is moving. Imagine trying to aim that thing at a moving target and having to dive for cover before you fire it and the scope knocks your head off.

The Kalashnikov of AT guns. Everybody used it once.

Main flaw of the gun is high recoil. You simply cannot aim and fire multiple projectiles at the same target. Gunner, as we can see from the video, cannot even stand near the gum while it is firing. This reduces tactical usability, as you would have to retarget each time before firing new round and cannot correct your aim.

But i still love more 152Mm Gun:) That is true beast.

Pensavo che i cannoni anticarro non fossero più in servizio dagli anni 60. E oggi ce ne sono ancora?

Russia kicks ass.

2 batteries of 6 guns each one each side of a 90-degree angle covering a low area was Used in the battle Kursk to great effect. I would expect modern positions would be similar Mine fields to force maneuver into preset kill zones.

Durability and over engineered seems to describe just about every type of ground equipment that Russia has produced. Never finicky or needing high maintenance like a lot of western kit.

Даже если оружие морально, технически и как либо ещё устарело, если оно способно справлятся с поставленой задачей, если оно так же исправно убивает то что по ту сторону прицела то как минимум это хорошее оружие

I think they're still useful for fixed defense at strategic choke points. A low cost, low tech solution.

Shells of this cannon go lower artillery-search radars so its harder to find this cannon while it's shooting.

Don't say something just is. Explain why something is. Don't say you can't use any gun for artillery, explain why. Don't say something is better. Explain why it is better so that your audience can support your claims.