Tanker: I'm here for SCUBA certification. Instructor: You in the Navy? Tanker: No, I need to drive my M10 Wolverine across the English Channel. Instructor: ...

I absolutely love my small .22 LR. It saved my life while hiking in the woods with my wife. A bear jumped out, I took out my .22, shot once and survived. My wife, God rest her soul, was enough distraction with a shot knee for the bear, for me to get away safely.

@johnknapp952

4 жыл бұрын

And thereby preempts the wife's strategy of out running her husband.

@lycossurfer8851

4 жыл бұрын

That explains why my Mrs carries a bat and says "that's all we'll need hun" when we walk in bear country.........oh crud

@livingadreamlife1428

3 жыл бұрын

You don’t have to be fast to out run a bear. Rather, you only have to be faster than one other person.

@macs2765

3 жыл бұрын

Good man

@cleanerben9636

3 жыл бұрын

Shoot the wife, marry the bear instead.

In regards to the ineffectiveness of Bazookas in the early part of the Korean War, your assessment of the ammunition being old is only part of the problem. In the book “US Infantry Weapons in Combat: Personal Experiences from World War II and Korea” by Mark G. Goodwin, a veteran explains that a big problem with the 2.36 inch bazooka was that it was possible to load and fire it without arming the round. WWII GIs rarely made this mistake because of better and longer training afforded to them, but the largely inexperienced and poorly trained soldiers rushed to Korea early on in the conflict most certainly did as described in the book. The 3.5 inch “Super Bazooka that came later was not only firing newly made and more powerful rockets, but they were also designed that the rocket could not be inserted into the launcher without first being armed, so firing an unprimed round became impossible. The reference is a fascinating read and well worth the time. Semper Fi.

@justforever96

26 күн бұрын

I take any "facts" coming from the experiences and opinions of one guy somewhat suspiciously, even if he was there. He knows exactly what all of the recruits were doing at all times in Korea, because he was in the front lines? At best he saw that a few times, maybe heard other accounts of it, and is making assumptions. At worst he is just assuming the worst about all these "damn rookies" they kept sending over and blaming things going wrong on them, unjustly. Most likely both were factors at various times. It doesn't have to be all one thing or the other.

So the T32 would require a "significant infrastructural event" 12:30

@JNF590

4 жыл бұрын

New quote

As the owner of a pickup truck with front torsion bar suspension I find it terrifying that it improved things.

So hopefully this goes on a Future Q&A but here is my question You are the Head of Armor Branch for the Newly formed country of Elbonia. Its 1947 and you must chose of any vehicles produced at or near the time (every one is willing to give you rightrs to there vehicles) you must fill the role of Heavy, Medium, Light tanks, and APC, A supply truck and Recon vehicle. But there is a Catch your actually loyal to Ethropia The country to the south and must chose vehicles that will hinder your country more then help it what do you use?? (yes this is a retake on the question asked to Ian but this one is about Armor.

@Paul-ie1xp

4 жыл бұрын

Elbonia is screwed, it keeps getting subversives to make it's military procurement decisions.

@coreys2686

4 жыл бұрын

How does Elbonia keep getting such treasonous/lousy procurement officers? Must be the same one that chose the small arms. They must have been getting a *huge* kickback from the manufacturers.

@LasOrveloz

4 жыл бұрын

@TheRealStrikerofLife I find this a good question. and a good follow up is "Someone sabotaged the Elbonian military, What can you do to fix these sabotages, or atleast alleviate the worst of it?", same was asked of Ian aswell and he answered it in the next Q&A

@WildBillCox13

4 жыл бұрын

Hovertanks. ;-) Failing that, revamp your basic ideas to encompass the Mosquito Armor paradigm. Buy a lot of M18 Hellcat GMC. Purchase M28C Weasel light carriers in mass quantities (and a few T16 Universal Carriers). M4A2(75)Dozers, make them SkinkDozers if the Canadians will give you the turret kits. M4A2 AVRE (it was prototyped), and the obligatory M12 HMC. A bunch of L6 or Storch STOL spotter planes. Some R4 or HOS-1 helos. And invest in roadbuilding and raillaying capacity; graders, dumptrucks, unarmored bulldozers, "steam shovels" (the USA had a great standard unit mounted on a 7ton truck). Start a Barrage Balloon Corps. Road and Rail building, constructing a strategic logistical infrastructure, is key. Construct schools and churches in every large village and feed for free once a day everyone who attends the former, and hand out rope and cotton cloth on the local day of observance at the other. Convert local Wizards/Faith Healers into Chaplains. Put chiefs in charge of gathering support materials for the units raised in their region. And buy as much SPAM as is humanly possible. Mountains of SPAM, Powdered Eggs and Milk, Quinine, Medical Supplies of every stripe. Ovaltine (Ethiopia loves its chocolate), Lucky Strikes (hey-we didn't know till '63), about a million Rum Rations. And coffee. As many C and K Rations stores as possible. Texas AAA Extra Large Condoms (make great waterproof storage for perishable goods). We'll need many 4x4 Long Range Radio trucks, too, for establishing a nation wide radio network for civilian and military communications. Warning: 1) A large chunk of Ethiopia is desert. Diesel engines fare better in deserts. Sand and sand fleas get into everything. Mobile Water Bowsers will be important. 2) A large chunk of Ethiopia is mountains. 3) Sheka Forest is another important terrain obstacle/refuge. For the less hospitable areas I suggest you buy every Puppchen (a midwar German Antitank Weapon, small and light and very hard hitting) you can find. They make dandy pot-shooters against every kind of target type in almost any terrain. And mortars. You'll need Universal Carriers with the 3" Mortar, too. Additional personnel: hire 200 Mongolian or Tibetan "Code Talkers" for in-clear transmission ability in case of emergency.

@Avalanche041

4 жыл бұрын

The key is the procure vehicles that at least seem like they would be a good idea but are actually not. The first question is, what is Ethropia using? Because the exact answer may change depending. Heavy Tank: Churchill Mark VII Medium Tank: Panther Light Tank: M5 Stuart Supply Truck: Zis-6 Recon Vehicle: Panhard 178B Now, none of these vehicles are particularly bad but none are particularly good either. The Churchill was a fantastic heavy tank during the war but is now borderline obsolete in the face of newer generation medium tanks like the Pershing and Centurion. The Panther is a white elephant. Great gun, great armor, but is not very reliable and high maintenance cost will make keeping them operational expensive. The M5 while an effective scout tank lacks the armor or firepower to last in any major war. The Zis-6 is again, not a bad vehicle but in buying from the Soviets, you have now alienated your main suppliers of spare parts. For the recon vehicle, we picked a very good armored car but we picked one from the french just to complicate logistics even further. Each vehicle uses different engines, ammunition, track systems, keeping and maintaining spare parts and ammunition will be a nightmare. All the while disguised as if you were putting together an actually good armored force.

A thought on the SU-76s in Berlin. Could it be that the gun elevation was usefull in being able to engage the upper floors of buildings?

@axestal1

4 жыл бұрын

SU-76 was armed with ZiS-3 field gun capable in more than 12km indirect fire range (HE) and original role of SU-76 is infantry support, so it can be used in indirect role. During Berlin assault Red army used different artillery pieces in different situations and had significant experience in urban combat. During street fights ZiS-3 (not self propelled) were used in direct fire and the were cases of using B-4 or B-2 heavy artillery. And of cause self propelled artillery was used SU-76, SU-152. The are lots of photos of SU-76 in urban combat. Actually SU-76M which is open topped - SU-76 has a roof

@demonprinces17

4 жыл бұрын

The Russian's mobbed Berlin, everyone joined in

@Clangokkuner

3 жыл бұрын

Well it's an SPG with a good HE shell, why not use it

The pistol grip is simulated stag horn bone. Popular back in the 60s

@adm0iii

4 жыл бұрын

I've known a few simulated stags from my collage days.

@sadwingsraging3044

4 жыл бұрын

There is a possibility of those grips being factory on that fine little piece.

@Chilly_Billy

4 жыл бұрын

@@sadwingsraging3044, correct. They were an option from Ruger. The Bearcat is a terrific little plinker and tackle box gun. Very nice for those with smaller hands.

@ 11:09 T32 in Korea, The British managed to move Centurions around the countryside without too much difficulty. Ok technically not a 'heavy tank', but it did weigh in at around 51 long tons, so only 4 ton lighter than the T32 heavy tank

40:30 - The Royal Artillery had Observation Post tanks during WWII (two per artillery battery in armoured divisions and one per battery in infantry divisions). Rams, Centaurs, Cromwells, and other cruisers were fitted with additional radios and dummy guns for the purpose (example: ww2db.com/image.php?image_id=7347)

The Ruger Bearcat was the first pistol I ever fired as a youngster so many decades ago. It's a classic. It was my father's and its still in the family. Great memories.

2 things, one about your point about the different attitude between a gamer and a tanker and the other about the FLAK Panzer question: -I was trained in AAA, and we also had some simulator time. In the "Fire control Radar vehicle" we were 2 men teams, one guy operating the camera system, the other one the radar and the fire button.("" because that's my translation, it usually is a small vehicle that controls 2 twin AAA guns and is equipped with 2 radar and one camera system) We trained and were rated on the simulations too. And while training, we were allowed to use our training scenarios and rating as well as the swiss one(s). The biggest difference was the grading system. In some occasions we got pretty good grades with the swiss system and less so with the one our mil used. The difference beeing: in the swiss one if you were able to fire before getting hit yourself, and your "last" salvo did take out the enemy aircraft too, it counted as a hit. (as you neutralized this threat) In our mils grading/rating system it didn't count with the explanation "you died". No matter how often we said "yes, but he did too!" -The FLAK Panzer question: i would have expected you to say „because the us doctrine was/is to only bring in ground troops if air superiority is established.“

@justforever96

26 күн бұрын

But that wasn't doctrine in WW2. We went into that war expecting to be dealing with enemy dive bombers and fighters all over the place, thats why they put .50 call AA guns on every single vehicle they could. There was no intentional program to go in and crush the Luftwaffe before we committed any ground troops. The Luftwaffe was mostly destroyed in the bomber campaigns and in the East, so the result was air superiority, but that was not expected or planned for. After the war with the emergency of the USAF wanting to establish itself and justify itself, they created a policy of reproducing that dominance in every war.

Thanks for the comment about gamers vs real life(TM), I had the same conversation years ago with a WWII pilot. I asked about his kills and he said he 'won' every time he landed back at base. something I tried to do in the old Warbirds online game and now in DCS as well.

@justforever96

26 күн бұрын

Irritates me mildly how people can't seem to grasp the fundamental difference between a situation where a mistake or unlucky shot means actual death or horrible wounds and a game where the worst that happens is you have to start over and try it all again. And of course the difference between running around in actual mud and rubble with 80lbs of gear, where you actually can trip and fall and hurt yourself even if you aren't actually shot. These guys "run around" battlefields with six different guns they can instantly switch between, a map showing where the bad guys are, hundreds of rounds of ammo, which they can resupply instantly of the ground, where if they get hit they just lose a little of their life bar until they find a med kit. They never have trouble running up steep piles of rubble, they never twist an ankle, they never get tired, they jump down 30 feet off of buildings and blast bad guys, and think they would be pros at this in real life. If they are in a tank or aircraft, the sky is invariably filled with targets and it's all combat action the whole time and they shoot down dozens of enemy planes. In real life when you get smoked as a noob you actually get severely burned or killed or captured or die of exposure in the water, or gunned down as you try to escape the tank and make it to safety. The pinnacle of one guys military heroism might be the time he laboriously helped lug 100lbs of ammo three miles though enemy fire and mud to the front lines to his unit could hold out. That is more danger and exertion than most people ever see in regular life. A lot of guys never even see the enemy, or at best they fire at muzzle flashes, and hide as best as they can from the bullets and fragments flying. They have no idea what's happening, they shoot where everyone else is shooting. I think they figured out after WW2 that only about 25% of the troops _in combat_ actually fired at the enemy to kill, instead of just firing randomly towards them, or even intentionally missing them. That's when they started the whole thing where they train you to kill in boot camp. Most pilots never even saw an enemy plane, or only saw a couple at a distance. Maybe tried to line up a shot on one, but usually they failed to even do that. That's why getting five is actually a really significant thing, it's not that easy to actually find an enemy and get a shot on him, yet according to various video games we are surrounded by natural tank and fighter aces who just missed their opportunity in life to go and wade into she combat and start shooting down enemy fighters but the dozen. In real life it was pretty rare for two fighters to find each other, and even bombers stood a great chance of avoiding interception and avoiding enemy fire even if they were caught. Otherwise it would be essentially suicide to even try to fly one. And the flying itself was extremely hazardous, the guys flying long range patrols and ferry and transport flights had to deal with all the normal hazards of navigation and flying, but get no credit as heros because they weren't being shot at. But lots of them died. In 1939 flying a plane across the Atlantic was still considered a pretty hazardous and heroic thing, during the war it was just routine, no big deal, even though it wasn't any safer than it was before. Which just emphasizes just how dangerous it was for the guys flying 8 hours in the dark or against enemy fighters over Europe on bombing missions. A few years before that they would have been media heroes just for flying to Berlin in the dark. And don't even get me onto carrier ops. I read some good books about FAA operations recently, and they had like a 10% loss rate on _all_ sorties. Which is hard to even believe, given how few aircraft they had to start with. But that's what he said. That means every time you launch ten planes, at least one is going to be wrecked or lost, usually in landing. Combat was actually less dangerous than just flying. Partly because they had shitty planes for the job, but still amazing.

I'd always assumed the idea of having armoured AA was for in the event your targets started shooting back, giving a survivability chance greater than a lorry-mounted gun etc. would have.

@builder396

4 жыл бұрын

Ive come to more or less the same conclusion, though initial Flakpanzer I and 38s didnt really have a turret, but rather just the field mount with the standard gun shield plopped onto a turretless hull, which means protection was rather meager, especially against strafing aircraft that may not come from the direction your shield is pointing. In later vehicles like Wirbelwind and Ostwind they did go for open top turrets and Kugelblitz and Coelian even went for fully enclosed turrets, so the trend was definitely heading towards better protection, somewhat at the expense of vision (though after radar became a thing it became a non-issue). I guess for the Germans it was just a thing of SPAAs, even early Flakpanzer Is or Halftrack based vehicles like the Sdkfz 6/2, being used generously in a infantry support role, which means having bullets fly back at you, so an increase in protection seems reasonable. It also seems to me that protection on AA vehicles never went significantly above being "bulletproof", just with every increment bulletproof from more directions, with gun shields being 7mm, Wirbelwind going to 15mm all around, Ostwind having 25mm (but with a fair slope) and Kugelblitz topping out at 30mm. Rule of thumb is 10mm works against rifle caliber, 30mm against .50s, so you see what they went for. Coelian is the only oddball going to 60mm turret armor at the front and 40mm on sides and rear. Though extra armor just makes the turret heavier and your power traverse wont make it go around as fast, so tracking or aquiring planes might be a lot harder then. Even other nations never bothered with more protection than that, if there is any AA system with significant armor, I havent heard of it.

@Colinpark

4 жыл бұрын

The Brits used the Light tank Mk VI, Crusader tank and Staghound, so not a huge impact on the armoured forces, the Crusader hull was also been used as a gun tractor and few other specialised vehicles, so no unique logistical impacts. It to bad the Skink did not get fielded, I suspect with the lack of air targets, it would be welcomed in the ground attack support role. I actually found 2 Skink turrets on a range, realized what they were and told an officer who I knew had a strong historical streak in him and he got them hauled off and to the museums.

@nindger4270

2 жыл бұрын

As far as I understand from conversations with former Gepard unit commanders, the main reason for SPAA on tank chassis is simply that you want them to stay close to your tanks and IFVs. The AA is no use if it can't go where your armored units are going.

@justforever96

26 күн бұрын

It's more about fragmentation protection than anything. A unit can expect to come under artillery fire, or be bombed even if they are shooting back. All those bombs and shells send fragments flying everywhere. Normal infantry can hit the ground, AFV crews inside are safe unless directly hit, a crew on an AA mount is out in the open and exposed to all the blast and fragments flying around, even if they aren't being directly shot at by the aircraft. That's the same reason even SPGs usually had at least light armor, and the main reason for armor on half tracks. You aren't supposed to get shot at directly if you can help it, but there is always a bunch of nasty stuff flying around, and you can't easily hit the dirt on a vehicle.

For the question about the Su-76s in the Battle for Berlin, I know that by Manchuria, a Su-76 Battalion was organic to most Rifle Divisions involved and have seen data on the Soviet 344th Rifle Division had its organic Su-76 Regiment assigned around October 1944. So many Su-76s were organic to the Rifle Divisions by this time of the war. Looking at Zaloga and Leland, 'Red Army Handbook' pg 34: "An SU-76 assault gun battalion (with sixteen vehicles) was added to the guards divisions, replacing the former towed anti-tank battalion. This was eventually applied to the standard rifle division TO&E in June 1945." So the SU-76s may have been organic to any of the Guards Divisions in the Battle for Berlin and possible attached to support other Rifle Divisions.

"When the Americans start using 1 5 5 mm artillery pieces as sniper rifles, it's time to give up." shellshocked_irl

@philipkelly7369

3 жыл бұрын

what are you quoting and what is it in reference to?

@fulcrum2951

3 жыл бұрын

31:10

@looinrims

3 жыл бұрын

@@philipkelly7369 a German colonel at Aachen

The discussion of "tankathlon" events gives me the thought of an alternate reality where Karl and Ian from InRangeTV run an event called "Armored Brutality", although I'm not sure offhand how throwing kettlebells could be worked into a live-fire tank combat simulation.

@mew357941

4 жыл бұрын

They have to tow a rota-trailer, dismount, unhitch, remount, fire, and repeat.

30:30 Regarding Andrew's question about why so few tanks and so much artillery in Berlin streets during the battle, there are a couple of reasons for it. The most immediate is that the Red Army tank divisions were grievously mauled outside the city. Thus most tank units were held back to be a reserve and get some badly needed rest and repair. The second feature is that Berlin had a lot of tall buildings. Germans frequently held the higher floors for various reasons which I won't detail here. Tanks like the T34 and IS-2 had limited elevation, whereas the SU-76 could adjust nearly to the vertical. This allowed them to put 76.2mm HE shells accurately into upper stories of tall buildings. Towed artillery similarly could help destroy strong points even if a little more awkwardly.

@matthiuskoenig3378

4 жыл бұрын

plus the soviets already had a habit of using artillery in direct fire.

As for Allied observation tanks, there was the OP version of the Canadian Ram. There were also Cromwell OP tanks and even some Shermans.

Three questions 1. How would your time overseas have been had you had a less advanced tank? Meaning, could you have accomplished the same goals in something cheaper and simpler. 2. Conventional artillery vs missles/drones? 3. Given the offroad capabilities of modern trucks, do SPGs offer much advantages in cross country mobility compared to towed artillery? The artillery vs missiles question was asked on another channel, with the presenter opining that artillery is obsolescent, an opinion I somewhat disagree with.

@TheSchultinator

3 жыл бұрын

I think who ever gave the opinion of tube arty being obsolete has not considered that arty shells are both cheaper and can be thrown downrange more quickly, thus can better saturate an area and make the enemies there have A Very Unhappy Time(copyright pending).

@ScottKenny1978

3 жыл бұрын

Well, arty shells *can* be cheaper than missiles. The M982 Excalibur gps-guided shell is $88k a round. A standard 155mm shell is something like $8k. But yes, they can be really useful due to sustained rate of fire. But with how modern combat seems to be heading (either dropping a few rounds very precisely or a single massively overwhelming barrage), missiles/rockets are more capable in those situations.

@m_fredi9549

2 жыл бұрын

Appart of saturation I agree with the rest, although a big conflicto (not insurgencies) havent happen yet on this era, so only god knows how things will go

According to some web sites the the Leo 2 has a turret ring diameter of 1980 mm while the M1Abrams is 2159 mm.

@andrewsuryali8540

4 жыл бұрын

In addition, the interior base of the Abrams turret sides sit on top of the ring itself while in the Leopard it is inside the ring.

@zepter00

3 жыл бұрын

I was inside of Leopard 2A5 and M1A2 SEP V2 during Polish Army day in Warsaw. Abrams has more space inside for sure.

@taistelusammakko5088

4 ай бұрын

@@zepter00 not for the driver, leopard 2 has objectively more space for the driver. M1 turret is the size of a living room though

15:25 - [European comes to America] "Welcome to Nevada. Enjoy your new handgun."

Good time to promote a small point. M24 and PzIII/IV were both extensively developed by attempts to create a rationalized Combat Vehicle Family. Your points about logistical support of heavy vehicles accepted, the idea was to simplify logistics by reducing the number of vehicle TYPES in certain units. Thus the M24 became an SPA with the M37 GMC, an SPAA with the M19MGMC (I still want the T77A1!), an ArCav tank (M24), and an armored High Speed Tractor/APC (T9-M39). It (the Combat Vehicle Family) was one of several possible approaches to rationalizing supply chains, with the advantageous caveat that all vehicles in an ArCav Patrol would have the same range and mobility. Far easier to plan for, especially at the tactical level. PanzerIII/IV was exactly the same idea applied by our opponents. StuG, StuH, Tank, PzJg, StuPz, and JdPz, BgPz, PiPz, (FlaK I dunno, but probably), all on the same chassis. Easier by far to train drivers and repair units. Only one tranny needs be in stock. Only one track type. Same equipment fits all. Any crewman transferred to a new type will automatically understand half the usual crew regimen. Imagine if we could reduce all armored vehicle chasses to two: light (wheeled) and heavy (tracked). Seems like we're still working toward that ideal today with the Piranha and LAV. And Rossiyah does it with the Armata developmental program.

@mbr5742

2 жыл бұрын

Germany tried along the lines in the 1960s/1970s with the Marder IFV. It was planned to build more than the two variants that we got IRL. But the long development cycle and the "does not work" killed four - KaJaPa and RaJaPa split of from the second prototype batch, Marder is from the 3rd batch, Matador AAA tank did not work on a 30to chassis (they used a lengthened Leopard 1 for Gepard) and SpH went from open gun mount to NBC proof and again, did not work (Germany got and modified M109). The gun tank (Th 301) and escort vehicle where dropped as well as the mortar version (Germany got modified M106). Argentine actually fields more Marder versions than germany (TAM for example)

I remember "Bill the Cat" who was the one M1 authorized to have personalized artwork when i got to Gelnhausen in the 1980s since the crew won CAT that year.

I always thought the idea of the anti-aircraft gun mounted on a tank chassis was so their AA assets would be guaranteed to keep up with the Panzer formations wherever they went?

@ScottKenny1978

3 жыл бұрын

That was also my understanding.

@nindger4270

2 жыл бұрын

Can't speak for WWII, but that was the main idea behind Cold War versions of the concept like Gepard and I don't see why it wouldn't apply in WWII.

@mbr5742

2 жыл бұрын

In WW2 the germans played around with a Panther chassis based AA tank, the Coelian. They did at least a demonstrator. Most likely the problems getting enough Panther into the field that kept the think out of service (Thankfully, I give it 3 month before a german tried fitting a night fighter radar to the thing)

@justforever96

26 күн бұрын

​@@mbr5742the Germans had AA tanks already, why would they not install radars onto them if they were going to? Never heard of the Wirbelwind? A night fighter radar wouldn't work anyway, not so close to the ground, and they aren't precise enough to target guns automatically anyway. And they had their own ground radar systems already.

@mbr5742

26 күн бұрын

@@justforever96 The Panzer IV based units did not have the necessary weight reserves. Even post WW2 a radar equiped AA tank in the 20-25to weight range with 30+ mm guns was not doable until the mid 1960s. The Würzburg (the only mobile unit) is too heavy/large even for a Panther chassis And you do not need fire control. Getting a decend range estimate quickly is already quite helpfull. HE rounds do the rest

luv the video. i did get to severe twice in a exchange program with our German partner unit while in Germany, did two gunneries in Leopard 2, the gunners chair and tank commanders seat were a bit tight. the drivers chair was spacey and the loader space was roomy, i liked how they had electric heaters for each station, and each could be operated individually. the turret looked more organized then the M1A1, but the M1A1 had more space for all crew members.and the ready ammo door was a bit small to my liking. at that time the tank commander had a independent sight, but was only had day light optics with it. but was nice feature over our M1A1s at that time. also at that time the German crews had gone threw training all the way from beginning together, the NCOs were the lifers , so they had tight crews. I'm not sure if that has change since later 80s, early 90s.

@J3AD

4 жыл бұрын

i would also say, most american tankers would not have much trouble hopping into the Leopard 2 and with only short amount of time/training could easily replace a fallen German tanker. i did love firing, driving and even loading on the Leopard 2. and the German tankers were a great bunch of guys to tank with and drink with, but the Brits beat them at the crazy drinking fest. hands down. combat soccer was whole other thing tho.

@J3AD

4 жыл бұрын

one final thing i remembered, was most of the German tank commanders had wished they had a M2 50 cal on their Leopard 2, a few of them had a chance to hang out with us doing our gunnery, and that was the highlight was getting to shoot the 50 cal down range.

@taistelusammakko5088

4 ай бұрын

@@J3AD as a leo crewman .50 cal would have been fun but absolute nightmare to maintain opposed to FN MAG. And yes we had FN MAGs

Has The Chieftain ever covered the T34 Calliope or the T40 Whizbang in a video? There's not a whole lot easily available about them, but a WW2 MLRS module for a tank, that is slaved to the gun for aiming and can be jettisoned is really neat, if probably ultimately impractical.

Great to hear anyone who correctly pronounces "Nuh-Va-Duh" instead the incorrect "Knee-Vah-Duh"... Bravo Chieftain!

@TheChieftainsHatch

3 жыл бұрын

After nine years in the Nevada Guard, that shouldn’t be a surprise

@justforever96

26 күн бұрын

Never heard anyone call it "nee-vada" before. Although sometimes it's closer to "Nivada". Hell, I get a lot of people who don't even know where Vermont is, they think it's in Canada. Although it might as well be. Except we can have guns here, which isn't true in Canada. And we actually call it something closer to "Vermon" with kind of an atrophied "T" at the end. Which I honestly never noticed until someone pointed it out. But then you have Arkansas, which still can't properly explain why it's not "Ar-Kansas", or why Kansas isn't "Cansaw". Got to love the English language, its never boring. Calyfornyuh or California? Mizzurry or Missouri? Colarado or Colorado? I think most of them have alternate ways of saying it. doesn't always make it wrong. "Germany" isn't a place in the German language.

10mm is your best friend in the backcountry here in the PNW. That said, while living in NE Australia I dropped a Brumby (wild horse) with a 22LR lever-action from 135m with a single shot between the eyes that folded it's front legs and dropped DRT. Shot placement, shot placement, shot placement. But yeah, I'm not going to choose a 22LR for wilderness carry.

18:00 We know what your child is getting as birthday heirloom present.

Muzzle brakes and bore evacuators seem to be fairly common together on self-propelled artillery, no? M109A6 AS-90 PzH 2000 2S19 etc.

@lavrentivs9891

4 жыл бұрын

They also have such big guns and lightly armoured hulls that they need all the help they can to reduce the recoil. And the evacuators come naturally when it's an enclosed vehicle.

The Soviets also had some really fun design experiments, my favourite are the rocket boosters. It's exactly what it sounds like.

Torsion bar suspension was patented by Porsche in 1931 and first used in series-produced cars by Citroen in the Traction Avant of 1934.

Hi, I f inally watched this episode. It was sitting in my queue for quite a while. 1) bazookas in Korea - I remember reading non-official information that early M6 or M6A1 had problems with the fuzing. Hence one reads often about "dud" bazooka rockets in WW2. Secondly, the training of many US infantry units in the late 50s to early 50s was found wanting, hence they may not have used the weapon properly. Lastly, re: on a "beobachtungs Sherman" - don't forget that there were Sherman OPs converted by Commonwealth forces, as well as the Ram OP. So artillery observer Shermans DID exist. In the US Army the armored field artillery battalion had three gun tanks for use by forward observers, but they were not modified (except radios?).

my God..youve done a vid with Ian and now your doing your own small arms thing..are you becoming one of the devout..all praise Ian,the wise prophet of firearms..

IIRC the Bearcat was marketed as a plinking/trapping pistol, more for putting trapped critters out of their misery than warding off bears. Fun little revolvers though

Concerning muzzle brakes and bore evacuators, the Rheinmetal 155mm howitzers on my M109A3GN self propelled howitzer had both. In an arty piece the length of recoil is critical at high elevation/high charge, and since you are likely to put a LOT of rounds down range fume extraction from the fighting compartment is definitely desirable.

That Ruger is basically a Colt Single-Action Army in .22. They are fun little plinkers.

I feel like knowing the Soviets they preferred to send the more expendable stuff like the SU-76M into the urban built up areas where possible. Those places were deathtraps for tanks, full of hiding places where enemy troops can take shots at your sides and tracks. If the armor isn't actually going to make your odds that much better, you might as well use something cheaper and lighter, and an SU-76M can at least do some real damage in return if it gets off a shot in time. It might almost be better for the crew to be in the open in some ways, as they can very quickly escape the vehicle, and can spot danger more easily then guys buttoned to in a tank. You can also send the SU-76M in first followed by tanks, use the SU to draw the fire and then plaster that spot with your T-34/85s. Although most likely it's just that when you concentrate your armor for focused attacks, that means you have to remove the armor from a lot of the rest of the front lines. People didn't seem to get that, they talk about how the French dispersed their armor into infantry units while the Germans concentrated into spearheads, but then they wonder why some German units don't have tank support. Because they are all concentrated in the armored spearhead. That means everyone else gets no armor and follows where the spearhead leads.

Wish you and your family all the best, stay safe and stay healthy mate.

While one ruptured steam tube will not cause a steam boiler to explode, it will put pressurized steam into the smoke box and the fire box. The pressurized steam in the smoke box will exit out the smokestack, but the pressurized steam in the firebox will tend to blow the fire into the crew cab, especially if the fire box doors are not closed securely. I was a kid during the last days of steam locomotives in the US, and the town I lived in had a Rail Head maintenance facility for Southern Pacific RR. My Best friend's father worked as a boiler inspector, and he often stated that a failed steam tube during operation often was fatal to the locomotive cab crew. And yes, California charity raffles often include firearms. I usually transfer half a dozen or so firearms a year for raffles . In fact, there is an engraved Henry .22 rifle in my safe right now waiting out the 10 day period, that was won at a Rodeo raffle. The Charity Rodeo committee raised over $5,800.00 on a $700.00 investment.

@justforever96

26 күн бұрын

That depends on how bad the failure is. A crack isn't catastrophic always, but a completely failed tube at 200psi is bad. You have to remember that the firebox doors did have latches on them, and grates are in the bottom of the firebox, and also more or less open for steam to pass through. I guess if it's a sudden enough pressure spike it might be too much to pass though the smoke box easily and it might blow the door right open, and even entrain the fire as it passes though the firebox and into the cab. But honestly at that point that's the last of your issues to worry about. Your cab is now full of 400° steam blasting out at high speed and melting your skin off. Probably not enough to actually blow the boiler end over end through the bottom of the firebox like a failed crown sheet, but not good.

@oldgysgt

25 күн бұрын

@@justforever96; I bet you weren't even born when the last steam locomotive was retired, were you? As I already stated, I remember the final days of steam very well, and back then, a ruptured steam tube resulted in a dead or VERY badly burned engine cab crew. And yes, the firebox had doors, but those doors were no where near strong enough to contain the over 86 tons of load on a 2'x2' door at 300 psi, (the working pressure was from 200psi to 300psi, and usually closer to the latter).

The point of that pistol being .22 caliber is not to shoot the angry large predator coming after you, it's to shoot your hiking companion in the knee so they will distract said angry large predator while you get away.

@Bird_Dog00

4 жыл бұрын

That actually makes a lot of sense...

The Tauchpanzer set up for Operation Seelöwe were not meant to cross the entire English channel :) they would be dropped off at sand bars a few hundred meters offshore and then they would advance under shallow water from there.

@Bird_Dog00

4 жыл бұрын

Yea, it was a neat idea, but I'm not sure how practical it would have been. For one, they found out that, once a tank stoped, the resistance of the mud on the sea floor was so great, that the tank had little chance to get going again. Also, since there was no way for the crew to see ahead, all they could do was keep driving and hope they would not hit an obstacle. So, unless you had the chance to have some frogmen metticiuously map out the route, you would essentially roll a dice on whether the tank would get through or not.

@Panzermeister36

4 жыл бұрын

@@Bird_Dog00 It would just be a frequently-dredged shallow. The Germans had thought this much through (tauchpanzer were used for some quite major river crossings in Russia to great success). They of course didn't proceed with the invasion since they never achieved air superiority after they lost the battle of Britain, and they also never had enough landing craft.

Cannon-vs-missile: I missed part of the question so maybe this was covered. Avg cost of a tank round: $5000-$10000. Avg cost of a missile: $50000-$500000. Certainly there are outliers in both directions for both types but just typical ammunition used.

26:18 As far as I understand from conversations with former Gepard unit commanders, the main reason for SPAA on a tank chassis is simply that you want them to stay close to your tanks and IFVs. The AA is no use if it can't go where your armored units are going.

I vaguely remember reading (in This Kind of War I think) that first troops to Korea had the older model bazookas, not the 3.5 inch. Those had probabably served just fine against the Japanese.

@josephahner3031

4 жыл бұрын

They did have WW2 bazookas, but the North Koreans had WW2 armor on their T-34s so on paper should have done just fine. But if your bazooka ammo is mostly duds you're going to have a bad day shooting at a platoon of light armored cars let alone medium tanks with infantry support.

Wow, never expected to hear about Tank Biathlon in your videos. I remember watching it on TV back in 2017 and wondering what it was.

For APDS vs HEAT, circa 1980, the decision of when to use one or the other against a tank was primarily determined by which surface of the tank you were likely to hit. HEATs had been known to have finicky detonators and it was thought that a highly angled surface (or surfaces that could be a standoff) might not set it off or have an adverse effect on the jet.

@justforever96

26 күн бұрын

Isn't any projectile less likely to work against an angled surface?

@TimothySielbeck

26 күн бұрын

@@justforever96 In most circumstances, yes.

When I was in my early teens my best buddy had a Bearcat. I really liked that little pistol.

I was around in the 1960s and as a boy, I often saw the Ruger Bearcat advertised in magazines. I don't remember the marketing as a self-defense handgun for defense against bears, cougar, etc, but the Bearcat WAS marketed as a 'plinking' handgun, similar to the Colt Woodsman semi-auto. Remember this was Bill Ruger's very first firearm that started Ruger Firearms. It was also advertised as being able to 'pot' grouse, rabbits, etc for the, well cooking pot, particularly while camping. As far as defense, there were several advertisements regarding shooting the offending poisonous snakes such as rattlesnakes, cottonmouths, or copperheads. (We'll not mention most people living in the cities back then apparently thought all snakes are poisonous). I was a teenager back in the 70s and living in the suburbs of Washington, DC, it wasn't uncommon to hear neighbors or local farmers shooting rats. If this happened today, there would be full SWAT teams called out. Yes, revolvers such is the Bearcat was considered to be fine plinking pistols. Plinking was shooting targets, cans (not bottles) rocks, etc.

@justforever96

26 күн бұрын

Shooting bottles isn't considered plinking? Pretty sure it is. Just maybe not the best idea if you didn't want broken glass all over the place.

The bark texture on the revolver is supposed to be antler, or a plastic simulant. Antler in the United States is a great domestically sourced alternative to ivory

32:52 Of course they were careful with their plastic crack, that stuff is expensive.

I looked into the crusader aa and it was first used at d day I would guess that as the crusader had been taken out of frontline service in 1942 being replaced by cromwells and shermans that they designed an AA turret to fit the the crusader as they had a large amount of spare parts and left over tanks which werent being used.

Another reason to ditch muzzle brakes is that they can be hazardous to people outside of the vehicle, and can give your position away by kicking up dust and debris. Or so i am told. I can say that certain types of muzzle brakes on rifles do indeed do these things. Never stand next to a Barret .50 when it is fired, for example.

Wait, an M12 was actually used in Aachen as direct fire? I remember there was a mission in the PlayStation 2 game Call of Duty Finest Hour where you had to escort an M12 through that city, I didn't know it was (very vaguely) based on a real thing. That's cool.

@brucelee3388

4 жыл бұрын

Yes they were, also apparently fired at German tanks - they were all that was available. Significant Emotional Events.

@jantschierschky3461

4 жыл бұрын

Aachen has numerous high air raid bunkers, one has been hammered with artillery direct fire. Maybe that is the scenario you talking about

@ulissedazante5748

3 жыл бұрын

The episode is described in Stephen Ambrose's "Citizen soldier" book. The Germans dug into Aachen theater: Americans already had 155mm SPG as direct support, but this time the gun rolled in line with rifleman to pound the theater point blank.

Hello Chieftain ; You have the Bazooka story w/r to Korea almost correct. The 60mm bazooka ( 2.36' ) was used throughout WW2, but, as the war went on, and more Tigers and Panthers were encountered, it was decided to upgrade it to a 3.5" weapon. This had completed testing, but had not yet gone into service by VE Day. The 2.36" version was perfectly adequate against Japanese armour, and so the impetus had been to get them into service in Europe. Thus, none were initially shipped to the Pacific. Then came VE day, and just a few months later, WW2 was cancelled on account of Atom Bomb. This left prototypes of 3.5" Bazookas in Europe, and 2.36" Bazookas in the Pacific. The 3.5" M20 Super Bazooka finally went into production in the 1947-1948 time frame, after someone managed to convince Louis Johnson and Harry Truman that it was a good idea. But, they were all shipped to Europe, where the expected War to The Death against Stalin's Armoured Fist was assumed to be imminent. MacArthur had occupied Japan, with no resistance, and all of the equipment in Japan was essentially what the troops had on VJ Day. It sat around for five years, and then came Korea. Task Force Smith was sent to the front lines, with their 60mm Bazookas, and promptly ran into T34s. Bad news - the T34 made Japanese tanks look like the wind-up tin plated toys they were. Task Force Smith troops found out the hard way that the 60mm Bazooka wouldn't penetrate the armour on a T34, and the Bazooka crews got slaughtered. In one case, a T34 was sruck by at least nine 60mm rounds in the rear engine compartment, with no effect. It didn't help matters that the stored rounds that had been sitting for some five years had, in many cases, gone bad. resulting in failures to fire and dud impacts. The cry immediately went out for 3.5: units to be shipped to Korea, and this had to be done over the objections of Omar Bradley, who thought Korea was the wrong war, in the wrong place, against the wrong enemy. After Omar's resistance was overcome, the 3.5" Bazookas were flown to Korea on C-54s, and, in the hands of MacArthur's troops were first used on July 18th, 1950, at Daejeon. In this battle, the 24th Infantry Division destroyed eight T-34s. And that is the classic tale of America's Fighting Forces - going into battle with obsolete weapons from the last war because Congress wants to feather it's own nests with pork barrel projects.

@justforever96

26 күн бұрын

So Congress tries to be fiscally responsible and sends the most advanced weapons to where they seem most likely to be needed, and that's "Congress lining their pockets with pork barrel spending"? And if they had doubled the military budget and kept all US troops worldwide equipped with the absolute top of the line equipment, just in case, while also making sure Europe was suitably equipped for repelling Soviet invasion, only it turned out that they didn't actually need those weapons after all, I'm sure people would be praising Congress for their careful foresight and caution, and not fit extravagant military expenditures during peacetime. Right? And were we going to do that instead of rebuilding Europe, and to hell with the economy and the Communist revolution, or in addition to that, plus developing the nuclear arsenal and building the interstate system? Imagine how the war would have gone if they could have told the citizens "already everyone, just bear these taxes and drain in the budget for a few years until w we run the war. And then all we have to do is maintain the most powerful military in the world with the most and the most modern equipment for perpetuity to hold our status as most powerful in the world".

Just came up with an interesting question. When considering a 2-man turret with a gunner and a loader, one of them doubles as the commander, but which one depends on the nation (Czech let the gunner command, Soviets let the loader command). What are the advantages and disadvantages to either variant, and if that distinction can be made, which one is "better"?

Muzzle break on tank also means more effects during firing making tank more visible target. Huge dust cloud rising several meters around the cannon are not desired :)

@abas656thegodemperor9

8 ай бұрын

What if the muzzle brake pushed the gases at an angle so that it would push the gases into the ground,or is that impractical

admiral tibirius, rings a bell from drachinifels channel

Just received my Significant emotional event T-shirt a day after estimate. Geoff Thank you!

@TheChieftainsHatch

3 жыл бұрын

Not "Geoff who is now fashionable?"

@GCJT1949

3 жыл бұрын

@@TheChieftainsHatch Always questionable, never fashionable! Geoff Whose wife thinks it's odd.

Take everything back, I like this guy

Absolutely love this videos, they're one of the highlights of my month. Keep up the good work man.

A very belated note on Nammer: The IDF requirement for it was indeed situational - 1) urban combat in Gaza and Lebanon very close to the Israeli logistics rear, and 2) combat engineering work that by definition requires going hard places and sitting exposed there for a while. They traded off some range and maintenance ease for the tracks and heavy protection because, in veeeery specific circumstances, it's worth it. But for the rest of the force, they think it's not the right vehicle. As the M113 is retired, most infantry is moving instead to a wheeled APC, Eytan. The motivation is to gain precisely the easy maintenance and longer range the Nammer lacks. There's the additional benefit of easier strategic mobility - Israel fights its wars on its land borders, so a vehicle that travels on the highway system can be transferred between regional commands without using precious tank transporters, or the associated loading and unloading delays. So the infantry force structure is a bifurcated one - expensive, heavily protected, tracked vehicles for cases where infantry needs lots of armor all the way to a destination in potentially rough terrain, and everyone else mounted on wheeled vehicles that can drop infantry in the general vicinity on short notice and with good-enough protection (and maybe some fire support, if the army manages to find the budget to fund the IFV version of Eytan). Bonus: the pronunciation is Nammér, with the vowels as in Spanish or German or French and the emphasis on the second syllable.

The caliber for revolvers for the staff at the Norwegian Hydrographic survey is .357 magnum. They can choose between a revolver or a rifle. Guess why they are issued with guns?

@gwtpictgwtpict4214

4 жыл бұрын

Big furry white things with teeth?

@nirfz

4 жыл бұрын

Reminds me of the joke with the lions and the running shoes. in this case the pistol: "You don't need a gun able to kill the polar bear, you just need something to make sure you are going to be able to flee with a faster speed than the others around you" ;-)

@johnn8223

4 жыл бұрын

Defense against the Swedish menace!

@davidbrennan660

4 жыл бұрын

The Lapp are a little crazy.

@lavrentivs9891

4 жыл бұрын

@@davidbrennan660 *Sami, "lapp" has become a derogatory term. A bit like "redskin" for native americans.

Can't afford a patreon donation, but I hope you can answer these questions: 1. When was the cross-drive transmission available? Do you think it could have been available earlier if Ordnance hadn't been distracted by the electric drive transmission? 2. How do you think a T20 with torsion bar suspension and a cross-drive transmission would have fared in Normandy compared to the M4? 3. Was there anything in the US archives where a V12 engine was considered for the T26 prototypes instead of a V8 before 1945? 4. How would you rank a T26 with a cross-drive transmission, a V12 engine (Ford GAC,) and the 90mm T54 improved "Super Pershing" gun versus any other WW2 era tank? 5. How would a M6 heavy tank with the new T29 turret with the 105mm gun fared in the Battle of the Bulge if Ordinance had been given the OK to put the new turret on with the added armor and been available by Nov. 1944?

Agree about the size dif M1A1/Leo 2...

If your talking of strange tank projects/designs... Any thoughts on Mine Exploder t10? It was an M4 Sherman with mine clearing rollers on the bottom. For want of a better description it looks like the M4 and the Czar tank had a baby.

Funny enough, in the state of Virginia, it is illegal to hunt bear with a .22 caliber because all you’re gonna do is piss it off.

@blah007001

4 жыл бұрын

That's a law that no one can be arrested and punished for, due to bears taking the matter into their own hands, so what's the point?

@LasOrveloz

4 жыл бұрын

@@blah007001 The point is to try to dissuade people from taking a 22. to hunt or defend against bears to begin with.

@charlesadams1721

4 жыл бұрын

It is illegal to hunt any animal designated as 'Big Game' such as bear or deer, with a .22 LR. Not sure about ALL .22 caliber rounds, but there are a few centerfire .22 rounds can and do reliably perform at bullet weights sufficient to ethically kill a deer. In fact this is legal in many states.

@blah007001

4 жыл бұрын

@@LasOrveloz I'm pretty sure the bear itself is enough of a dissuasion. And if it isn't, mere ink scribbles on paper is not going to change it.

@ODST6262

4 жыл бұрын

@@LasOrveloz Improves the species. Ours. Free meal for the bear.

I have a question. What if the Bob Semple tank was not actually destroyed as government officials claim but instead somehow managed to escape captivity and still stalks the wild forests and mountains of New Zealand to this very day?

@MajesticDemonLord

4 жыл бұрын

As a New Zealander, I can't say much - except re-watch the LoTR extended editions *really* closely.

@JimmyCricket93

4 жыл бұрын

@@MajesticDemonLord the moose is driving it around fiordland

Good work as always, Cheif.

On using 155 mm as a "sniper rifle:" I read a late WW II USA pamphlet on destroying reinforced concrete bunkers with the 90 mm gun M3 in the GMC M36 and the 155 mm gun M1 "Long Tom" on the GMC M40. The USA expected facing many such bunkers in the invasion if the Home Islands & thus the need for a gun with more punch than the 75mm/76mm.

Question: hypothetically, had NATO not gotten involved with the standardization of armored vehicles, would countries like France continued to develop their tank projects such as AMX-50 and BC 25t, would they have been adopted for service or developed further but still retained most of their characteristics? Also, ELC AMX? :)

@34 minutes -heh. muzzle brakes are funny. I watched a guy shooting a Barrette .50 on the range one day... he let his buddy have a go, and while his buddy was "building his house", quietly unclamped the brake and slipped it off to set on the bench. his buddy did not appreciate this form of humor.

It's too little to late now obviously, but why didn't the army consider a work around for the transport of heavy tanks by ship. As you pointed out, the boom cranes on liberty ships were rated at 50 tons, with the T-32 rated at 60. If they really wanted a heavy tank, it strikes me that you could have designed the turret to be quickly and easily removed, which wouldn't be a bad idea anyway for tank maintenance. I'm sure with that front mantlet and the big gun the turret weighed more than 10 tons. Drive the tank under the boom, life the turret, set it in the hold, lift the hull set it in the hold, repeat. Now as you mentioned, there were other matters of battlefield logistics and doctrine requirements, but the big bottle neck of transport doesn't at all seem like that big of an issue.

@gotanon8958

4 жыл бұрын

Because its too heavy for most bridges lets not even mention the tanks reliabilty

(49:50) ... there are no blow-off-panels fir it ... and the Front-Hull-Rack is not isolated from the compartment - even a part of the driver's instruments hang on it (there was a dutch guy filing inside a leopard 2); hence a blow-off panel wouldn't help; It is still an interesting topic, why they decided to put the rack there, and not as example - like the Abrams - in the other half of the turret bustle;

lawddddddddd that tan line from your watch is unreal.

Possible problem concerning the failures of the old Bazooka rounds in Korea after working OK in Europe: Heat and humidity during storage. During WWII the US Navy discovered that the primer explosive (hit by the firing pin in those us8ing such, for example) suffered failures if stored a long time in the heat of the Mid- or South Pacific because the fulminate of mercury used by many would chemically degrade, rendering the explosive more-or-less inert. They changed over completely to lead azide as the primer, which remained viable. This may not be the exact problem, but similar things happen to weapons designed for use in one set of conditions being used in another. Thus, it may not have been poor storage, but storage not compatible to the average conditions where stored that was not known to the logistics personnel involved.

The Air Force and Navy are looking into wingman drone aircraft and I was wondering what your thoughts are on a armoured command Tank controlling a squadron/platoon of unmanned MBT?

I have a question on tank classification (like heavy, medium, light, etc.). So in the modern day there's the obviously the Main Battle Tank, heavy tanks are basically non existent anymore, but what are the differences between medium tanks and light tanks on the modern battlefield? Now I've been told that medium tanks don't really exist anymore because they have technically evolved into the Main Battle Tank, but why is it some companies market some of their light weight tanks as "Modern Medium Tank" or " Medium Main Battle Tank" both have similar armor and armament is it just a fancy name?

The Bearcat was originally marketed to take advantage of the Western TV and movie craze of the 1950s. A cheap, easy to shoot cowboy gun for kids and enthusiasts, so to speak. I really enjoy your videos...slow down if necessary; don't burn yourself out.

@ODST6262

4 жыл бұрын

Note that the Bearcat works exactly the same as a Colt 44 or 45 Peacemaker.

@dj_koen1265

22 күн бұрын

For kids 💀

As far as I know, the Ruger bearcat .22 was never marketed for self defense. I believe it’s always been sold as a target/recreational pistol.

That American Tank Competition thing sounds very US Army. I remember years ago I once compteted for the Expert Field Medical Badge, which is rules lawyery enough, but for a British Army Medic, it was in a whole different league. Just as an example: One of the tests was to preform a flawless strip down and reasembly of an M9 Pistol. Out of all of my team I was the only one who'd ever seen one (because I'd fired a 92FS on a range so at least I knew where the safety was but that was about the limit of my expertise), so we all had to learn how to do that perfectly (same for the M4/M16). Now multiply this by every challenge in a week long event and add in you have limited amout of time to train for it.... yeah, it didn't take long for us to change our focus to "meet people from other armies and compare doctrine" instead of "Compete for the EFMB"

@ashesofempires04

4 жыл бұрын

It was probably never originally intended to be inter-army, only for competition between the various US Army and Marine Corps units. Then someone decided to open it up to other countries, not really realizing or probably caring that the rest of the world doesn't use American equipment, training, or tactics.

Actual question! There is often discussion on which modern tank is "the best" (which I hate), but I would be curious to hear your thoughts on how Challenger 2 feels compared to its contemporaries? I know you love the track tension but any thoughts on capabilities, technology,etc if you have that experience?

I think with the SU76 question also its more mobile and better suited for street fighting though yes the crew has better vision they are also more vulnerable.

One for your next Q&A: What IS your favourite vocal chord lubricant? (Mine's IPA...)

Question: Did the T-67 predate the M-24 Chaffee which also had torsion bar suspension???

got a question: has the M1028 shell (canister shell) ever been issued to tanks? or fired in combat?

@The_Chieftan - with regard to LEO 2 ammo indexing; the loader controls the ammo selection because that button doubles as the means to take the gun out of the load position, ie: gun fires, goes automatically into load position. loader loads sabot, hits sabot on the Loaders control box (LCB) reports "SABOT READY". the LCB will automatically apply the corrections to the fire control system and take the gun out of firing position. The LCBs ammo selector buttons also act as the safety for the gun itself. the gun cannot be fired unless the loader has selected "ready" on the LCB. This ensures the loader is paying attention and won't be crushed by the recoil of the gun, however gunners are trained to automatically go for the emergency fire plunger should the gun be on safe. fun fact the gun can be emergency fired in the load position should you decide to put a sabot into orbit.

@scnitzelmahn6430

4 жыл бұрын

I haven't been inside an abrams, but the idea of not having the guard there is a bit unsettling to me. The guard on the LEO 2 is very much a dividing wall that doesn't move. It has a few pins on it so you can pull it down if needed. This however is not considered to be safe for firing. Overall I find the Gunner / CC side...snug. On the plus side i don't ounce around much when going cross-country.

Ahhhh not a wasted sunday after all 😃

I have a fascination with the M36 GMC and would like to know what was the report on it's performance, crew experience and operational use?

There are stories that there were only 2.5? inch bazooka in Japan and issued to marines. The latest bazookas and tanks were reserved for Europe. Then weapons were scrounged from depots and national guard armored. This might explain the story about a bazooka man that made 25 hits without stopping a tank. (read these books very long ago)

You may be interested to know that electric drive gave the Navy problms as well. The Lexington and Saratoga inherited what turned out to be fragile electric-drive systems from their original battlecruiser design. This was not readily apparent in the Lexington, which was lost early in the war, but the Saratoga 's more fragile electric drive system was more susceptible to battle damage thn conventional power plants.

@davidmurphy8190

2 жыл бұрын

Turbo electric drive was used in some dreadnought designs in the USN. Several were damaged at Pearl Harbor but some geniuses in Navy repair efforts were able to recover the electric drive motors when others said they couldn’t.

Chieftain: folds cover behind book to start reading. Me: NOOOOOO...twitch, twitch......why.....twitch..oooowwwwww....you do that.......poor book.

@gandharvtenali7085

4 жыл бұрын

glad i wasnt the only one to feel that way when he did that

Kodiaks have been taken with .45 Auto. It's more than enough for black bear especially if you use hardcast or something like Underwood Xtreme penetrator.

What do you guys know about the camouflage schemes that where used on the Nashorn?

18:53 So, a potential real-life example of the _Independence Day/Avengers_ 'kill the mothership, and all the other attackers just stop' trope?

Great video, as always. Question! Would a 75mm shaped charge have reliably penetrated the main belts of the Panther and Tiger? If so, given the proliferation of shaped charges on all sides at the time, why did the US not develop and put into service HEAT rounds in order to deal with the Kitty Problem(tm)?

@christophercripps7639

4 жыл бұрын

IMO that depends. Best performance I've read for WW II GER 75 mm shaped charge was 11 to 11.5 cm or so. These were spun projectiles which spin vastly degrades penetration. Values often given for USA 57 RR & 75mm How. (M1/3/8) are 8.6 & ~9.4 cm. Germans went to 8 & 8.8 cm launchers firing unspun, finstabilized shaped charges (8 cm PAW/8H63 & 8.8 cm Panzershrk.) The 8H63 credited with 14 cm of penetration. Expect this would be enough to scare Tiger I frontally but if 14 normal impact pen marginal v Panther glacis. I'd expect a postwar (19060s), unspun 75 mm could penetrate 26-27 cm of RHA (normal) based upon scaling down from 90 mm M431 or DEFA 90 mm (F1/3) performance. :)

@bigd4366

4 жыл бұрын

@@christophercripps7639So, 75mm HEAT (ca. 1944) would not have provided a significant increase in performance over 75mm APCBC, much less 76mm HVAP? Shaped charges were just too far in their infancy at the time, and only effective against thinner armor that existing, more conventional rounds could already penetrate?

@bigd4366

4 жыл бұрын

And, as a follow-up, what led to the dramatic increase in shaped charge performance from 1944's 125%-150% of diameter to something much closer to the theoretical 500% maximum? Was it trial and error throughout the 1950s? Increased understanding of the physics and underlying math involved? CPU time on the early computers for modeling? And what modifications led to such improvement? Was it all about the shape of the liner, and the quality control in manufacturing it? Were there any other changes that led to HEAT becoming an all-aspect tank-killer until the introduction of composite and reactive armors designed chiefly to protect against it?

@christophercripps7639

4 жыл бұрын

@@bigd4366 For the USArmy HEAT was developed for weapons which could not fire HV projectiles. Includes 57 mm, 75 mm recoilless & howitzer, 105 mm howitzer & the bazooka. One main drawback was low initial Velocity: ~1000 ft/sec (305 m/s) for 75 & 105 how. Compare to 2030 ft/sec for 75 mm M3 M61 APCBC or 2600'/s for 76mm M62. German 7.5 cm HEAT was a bit faster 450 to 470 meters per sec versus 750-790 m/s for 7.5 cm KWK/PAK 40. For USA HEAT gave low velocity guns a chance against armour in the hopefully unlikely event of an armoured breakthrough. Against most German panzers the 75 mm AP more likely to hit. Against Tiger I & Panther most USA guns equally ineffective -- USA really needed 76 M93 HVAP or 90 mm anything.

@christophercripps7639

4 жыл бұрын

@@bigd4366 Probably of if these plus better explosives (Octogen based in missiles),, very hyper speed photography, and waveformer inserts to focus the detonation wave in the explosive.

I would suggest the t14 armata with its active protection system caused a bit of a tank panic. Everyone's now racing to add active protection to there tanks and worries about the effectiveness of atgms especially older ones. What are your thoughts on it?

@looinrims

2 жыл бұрын

APS has been a thing looked at forever, long before that overhyped thing came up, the panic isn’t in militaries it’s in weirdo neckbeards, just like when North Korea came out with their ‘new’ tank that’s probably of 70s tech

Im guessing in really humid environments with potentially a lot of rain, water would condense and pool at the bottom of the tank and could get into components.

*Sees model on the desk* So what's your opinion on the Type 89?