It's always great to hear a serviceman's opinion on War Thunder, glad you guys are having fun! Thanks for the awesome video

@lollardismontop1026

2 жыл бұрын

No way

@videoblade2644

2 жыл бұрын

give me golden lion

@AnticitizenZero12

2 жыл бұрын

Should have asked if he ever got uptiered out in the field

@makfrags14

2 жыл бұрын

Plz add the bob semple

@revvyvenger9916

2 жыл бұрын

Nice War Thunder saw the video

You should've asked him if they sometimes go into battle without carrying parts or fire extinguishers

@rubengildenhuys8962

2 жыл бұрын

Or ammunition that is actually useful.

@asu5735

2 жыл бұрын

Clearly he gotta research them first after losing 20 battles

@an-12-as99

2 жыл бұрын

@@asu5735 lol 😂

@GrimaceTheMask

2 жыл бұрын

Where do they store the extra crew members?

@sirbachelorboredmen1314

2 жыл бұрын

@@GrimaceTheMask just some random house happen to site one trained crew. The crew, "whaddup, stranger"

War Thunder X-Ray Cam is STRAIGHT Dopamine! Lmao

@pakratmiz4487

2 жыл бұрын

Funny seeing you here

@SlipKnot7866

2 жыл бұрын

Hey Odd o/

@daisuth6563

2 жыл бұрын

agree

@inverspe9774

2 жыл бұрын

Hi oddbawz I lab you

@thanatosstorm

2 жыл бұрын

ODD??? Shhhh we don't tell them about the X-ray cam!

I do find it funny how they say the Panzer 4 was a scary tank, couldn't be pen, and they only said this after the guy mentioned fury. So they mistaken the Panzer 4 for the Panzer 6 Tiger. i like that funny mistake honestly.

@alfgart

2 жыл бұрын

What's funnier is that was a real and a very common mistake IRL. When american crews arrived at Europe they often reported encounters with Tigers, which were in fact Pz.IVs

@failtolawl

2 жыл бұрын

@@alfgart yep, more tigers were claimed to have been destroyed than were ever actually sent to the western front.

@victorsy7063

2 жыл бұрын

The t26e4 predator which is supposed to counter the king tiger reportedly claimed to destroy a king tiger and was found out that it was mere panzer

@alistairdiren5790

2 жыл бұрын

@@victorsy7063 Lol overkill much.

@KamichamaTechstarify

2 жыл бұрын

@@alfgart That's because they looked similar on range. They got mistaken as Tank IV for this often.

I'm guessing he's gonna be impressed with the game, but he also knows the playerbase and their brainpower

@schmeatgaming853

2 жыл бұрын

Brain power? You mean lack of braincells?

@aria56703

2 жыл бұрын

@@schmeatgaming853 Lack of a Brain, exactly

@abemigos9281

2 жыл бұрын

@@schmeatgaming853 AB players are the worst offenders .

@antontribelgorn3641

2 жыл бұрын

@@abemigos9281 nah it is sb players who shoot their own tank

@killertruth186

2 жыл бұрын

And the lack of funds.

Funfact: Germany builds the gun system for the Abrams. It's basically the same gun, but build for another tank. Also the circles on the Leo2 are the cooler for the engine

@randomthingsposted583

2 жыл бұрын

Designed, not built. America builds the gun under license for the Abrams

@pranukhachandrasekara5487

2 жыл бұрын

As a Strv 121 main, I thank you XD

@nukefile

2 жыл бұрын

@@randomthingsposted583 then tell me, why did Rheinmetall send a delegation to Trump to exclude them from the import-bans he proposed? The 120mm L/44 is german in design and production

@trinalgalaxy5943

2 жыл бұрын

Slight amendment, the gun was developed by Rheinmetall for the Leopard 2, and the americans liked it. However the M256 is a license build of the 120 L/44 gun from america, whereas the Leos moved on to the L/55 guns with the A6.

@sheeplord4976

2 жыл бұрын

the american version is actually modified quite a bit, though it is the same basic design

"Reverse engineered Leo 2 gun"...The Abrams uses the german Rheinmetall 120mm L/44 gun and went into service a year after the Leo 2. Both tanks were designed to allow a greater standardisation and compatibility within NATO. Also, not every "Panzer" is a Tiger. The Panzer IV did NOT have thick armor.

@TRSevenboi

2 жыл бұрын

thankfully at least someone knows that all box shaped tanks aren't Tigers

@victorsy7063

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah dude i understand if he misunderstand the different variants of panzer but seriously with tiger? That's a whole different tank

@chonkybird5189

2 жыл бұрын

le epic tank expert

@zeux6634

2 жыл бұрын

My man served in germany and doesnt know that panzer means tank

@thelordofcringe

2 жыл бұрын

50mm of armor was pretty damn thick. In 1941, at least.

"design stealing" he said as the Abrams' gun is a license build copy of the Rheinmetall 120mm

@honkhonk8009

2 жыл бұрын

To be fair, thats a good thing. I would rather the military import from capable allies, than go for the more expensive and sometimes less effective domestic solutions

@cuhgaming4943

2 жыл бұрын

And it's not just America, South Korea uses a Rheinmetall on their K-2, which is just a modernized Abrams essentially, but still

@honkhonk8009

2 жыл бұрын

@@cuhgaming4943 On a seperate note, its wild how South Korea and Japan went from the countries they were in WW2, to the countries they are now. Pacific Asia as a whole are taking Ws this century. I just hope everyone stays wary of the CCP though.

@easypeezy03

2 жыл бұрын

I knew it was inevitable that a youtube video with war thunder in its title there would be at least one person, most likely a guy, with an anime pfp

@GM-xk1nw

2 жыл бұрын

Also, the US illegally copied a lot of features from a leopard 2 they exported for testing.

As a war thunder player for more than 5k hours (mostly on japanese side) i have enjoyed the video and would like to add that the Type 5 Ho-ri has that hatch for the depression of its big cannon, and also has a ton of front armor, its specialized on sniping, and can take lots of hits from very far (or at least it used to, before they added soo many different rounds that ignores armor)

@AHappyCub

2 жыл бұрын

First time I saw the Ho-Ri it was ridiculous, and when I finally able to play it, blew my mind even more, like honestly that thing have no business being that fast for being so big, like wtf are the engineer feeding this monster

@nabukotokei

2 жыл бұрын

Ho-Ri was designed to be a defensive/bunker buster variant, inspired by the German Ferdinand, as the allies mostly used M4, or lighter M5 Stuart or M3 or the LVT, the Ho-Ri is able to puncture vehicles and even be used a naval deterrence. If it was used during 1945, it would still prove deadly to ground vehicles as the U.S mostly produced M4 short 75mm with a decent amount of the long 76mm.

@jezuznevweraz8800

2 жыл бұрын

Ah yes. A man of true pain. Nice to see there is a number of us.

@kriketo

2 жыл бұрын

@@jezuznevweraz8800 yessss, been a painfull long journey, but i love how bizarre japanese vehicles are :D

@exodyno

2 жыл бұрын

@@AHappyCub the power to be driven by anime girls in the future... :|

The MBT-70, is from 1970, its kinda in the name, it was an American/German test bed for different ideas, were produced more than prototypes but didnt really go anywhere, and with the Panzers, it was the Panzer 5, 6 and 7 that were the ones that scared allied tank crews, they are more colloquially known as Panther, Tiger and King Tiger, the later models of panzer 4 had a respectable but easily penetrated 80mm of flat armor

@vizondestroy

2 жыл бұрын

Note panzer 7 refers to the Lowe tank its was a prototype that never saw mass production

@AHappyCub

2 жыл бұрын

I would like to add that "Panzer 7" doesn't exist unless you would like to count the blueprint Lowe, since King Tiger's official name is Pzkpfw VI Ausf. B

@AHappyCub

2 жыл бұрын

@Tai lumis Panzer IV was never invulnerable to Allied guns, since the tank was ment to be for infantry support it only have 30mm of frontal armor at the start, it did get upgraded to 50mm and later 80mm once the Panzer IV started to took over Panzer III's job as the main tank

@michaelusswisconsin6002

2 жыл бұрын

MBT-70 is the prototype predecessor to the Abrams

@tiznaeshnishto2584

2 жыл бұрын

@@michaelusswisconsin6002 MBT-70 > XM-803 > XM-1 > Abrams

Wish they reacted to the Strv 103. Would love to see their face when they realise it has aim using its entire hull.

@thanatosstorm

2 жыл бұрын

Trust he knows that one. But that's about 10 years before my time, 15 for his. 103s went out roughly in the 90s. A shame because they are an interesting design.

@colehartson477

2 жыл бұрын

Depression? Nah suspension.

@maki49574

Жыл бұрын

Basically turret on tracks.

@nodorf3778

Жыл бұрын

It's funny how alot of WT players make fun of Strv103, when they have no idea about the swedish doctrine. 103 was never designed for attacking, or even urban combat, really. It was purely build for digging in, in a defensive position, waiting to ambush the pesky russians, hehe. (yes, they were our biggest threat during cold war)

@vikingerson

Жыл бұрын

@@nodorf3778 you're right, it was also made for long range shooting

15:02 *Looks at smoke grenade launchers* Both of them: "Ah yes flares"

@tommasopisapia7464

2 жыл бұрын

it can shoot flares

@v3ryp0ggers

2 жыл бұрын

it can shoot flares

@anonimusus4306

2 жыл бұрын

it can shoot flares

@adriancoric1721

2 жыл бұрын

damn didn't know it can shoot out flares... so I guess they are good against heat seeking missiles ?

@sirshotty7689

2 жыл бұрын

@@adriancoric1721 they can also launch chaff to counter radar guided missiles.

"That looks like a good idear" said the Abrams engineer while stealing the german gun 😂 Edit: It's a joke dear Americans put your guns away jesus

@ItsDaddyChill

2 жыл бұрын

RIP spelling 😪

@ExUSSailor

2 жыл бұрын

If you have a problem with it, take it up with Rheinmetall AG. They're the ones who sold the license to build the M256 to General Dynamics.

@goosegaming5171

2 жыл бұрын

@@ItsDaddyChill it’s accurate to Americans

@HighExplosiveShell

2 жыл бұрын

Idear is how british people say it

@priesty.

2 жыл бұрын

@@HighExplosiveShell Ummm, no

I have been waiting for gamology to review Warthunder for so long

@miroo7736

2 жыл бұрын

Agreed

@arnavsingh2585

2 жыл бұрын

Same I absolutely love the game.

@thijean9147

2 жыл бұрын

Same

@Electro3Strike

2 жыл бұрын

Same

@PacoGamerYT-sm1dx

2 жыл бұрын

Me too

"Oh, yes. He has a big array of flares". Bruh, those are smoke grenades🤣🤣

15:05 did he just call the smoke dischargers flares…

@V3lka

2 жыл бұрын

yep and the Ho-ri's cannon a 155mm

@unclesam5733

2 жыл бұрын

@@V3lka Getting the canon wrong isnt such a mistake as a "flare". Also Hori was a wooden mockup not real tank.

@americanmig160

2 жыл бұрын

@@unclesam5733 they are still able to pop flares

@nicolasbetancur4018

2 жыл бұрын

@@unclesam5733 That is actually a really controversial and interesting topic because the historical archives on japan are really hard to access there was actually a person u/MaiWaffentrager that helped Gajin do research on Japanese tanks and as for the production of the tank really little is known, the gun the tank has was actually built.

@Vacxt

9 күн бұрын

Ik ;-;

GHPC would be awesome to have the TC react to the crew communicating and and combat in game would be great for a review!!

@specc_s1452

2 жыл бұрын

agreed

@KyuMachi

2 жыл бұрын

They would love GHPC!

@wote2760

2 жыл бұрын

Especially the sound bites when they start freaking out

@marshalzhukov4782

2 жыл бұрын

GHPC way more realistic then suffer thunder

@abemigos9281

2 жыл бұрын

@@marshalzhukov4782 We all suffer

18:00 Russian tanks have always been lower and smaller than western tanks due to having auto-loaders instead of a forth crewman

@yeethappymeta

2 жыл бұрын

doctrine emphasizes small profile

@TheWabbitSeason

2 жыл бұрын

@@yeethappymeta I doubt that doctrine will be kept much longer wtih the Javelin and similar AT missiles flying around.

@SpearM3064

2 жыл бұрын

They didn't start using autoloaders until the T-64. Before that, they had a fourth crewman. (However, in this case you're not wrong; since this is a T-80 it would have an autoloader.)

@yeethappymeta

2 жыл бұрын

@@TheWabbitSeason doctrine in all nations in shifting towards this low profile. there isn't really a way to counter these atgms, so getting smaller and lighter is the way

@Bitt3rh0lz

2 жыл бұрын

@@TheWabbitSeasonThe doctrine of low and compact is worth it, but more emphasis needs to go into APS and similar systems to defeat projectiles.

As a old Abrams tank commander myself. And a big player of war thunder. I witch those gun sights were in the game and not as a mod. Bruh the Abrams uses a ATG1500 Turbine. And it’s not Rolls-Royce. It was designed by Chrysler

@codemy666

2 жыл бұрын

Be happy you can use it as a mod :D

@WarDaddy66

2 жыл бұрын

I can’t I’m on ps

@codemy666

2 жыл бұрын

@@WarDaddy66 F

@gabrielchad447

2 жыл бұрын

There was quite a bit of misinformation in this video...the bit about the Abrams engine, saying that the Leopard's gun was "reverse engineered" from the Abrams, saying that the canisters on the turret of the Leo were flares when they were clearly smoke grenades, saying that APFSDS somehow "sucks things through a small hole"...basically all of it was wrong lol

@firewolf5605

2 жыл бұрын

@@gabrielchad447 the thing about the flares is true they can shot flares some other stuff and smoke grenades

You mentioned the Leopard 2A6 "reverse engineering" the Abrams' gun, but it's actually the opposite lol. The M256 120mm smoothbore cannon used by the Abrams is actually a license built modification of the Rheinmetall L44 which is used by the Leopard. The earlier M68 105mm rifled cannon was a license built copy of the Royal Ordnance L7.

that moment when he calls the leo 2a6 s gun a reverse engineerd gun from abramz ....

@SpearM3064

2 жыл бұрын

Hate to say it, but Tamir is right. Sorry, Chellby, but it's the other way around. The Abrams M256 is a license-built copy of the Leopard 2A6's gun.

@Bitt3rh0lz

2 жыл бұрын

@@SpearM3064 Not even the A6's A5 and upwards have the L55 lengthened barrel version of the gun, while the Abrams still uses the shorter L45

@ATankEnjoyer

2 жыл бұрын

@@Bitt3rh0lz A5 was armed with the L/44.

@SpearM3064

2 жыл бұрын

@@Bitt3rh0lz The A5 was armed with the L44, same as the Abrams. You're not wrong, though... The M256 is a license-built copy of the A5's gun, not the A6's gun. Thanks for the correction. 😊

@mr.midnight4438

2 жыл бұрын

They even teach this to lol

The 75mm was actually powerful enough to penetrate the front plate of the Pz.IV

@Bitt3rh0lz

2 жыл бұрын

He confused the Panzer IV with the Tiger.

@humanhuman5024

2 жыл бұрын

No not the front hull plate just the front turret plate

@Bitt3rh0lz

2 жыл бұрын

@@humanhuman5024 Youre confusing the Panzer IV with the tiger too. The Panzer IV could NOT survive a frontal shot from a 76mm (americans used the 76mm, germans and russians used the 75)

@spotfleri5779

2 жыл бұрын

@@Bitt3rh0lz the americans also used 75mm, i don`t know why you didn`t mention it except for the 76.

@samholdsworth420

2 жыл бұрын

@@Bitt3rh0lz the American 76mm was a 75 mm they just called it 76 to differentiate it from the 75 mm (same projectile different case)

Couple of things: -ERA (explosive reactive armor) on the T-72 is not meant to inverse the force of a high explosive round. It detonates itself on impact to trigger the round prematurely and stop it from hitting the armor plate. -APFSDS (sabot round) is not meant to create a “vacuum” to suck elements out. Is is made like that to maximize penetration of armor and minimize the ballistic curve. -The Panzer IV F2 is NOT a Tiger I. The Panzer VI Tiger was armed with an 88 milimeter gun, and the Panzer IV was armed with a 75mm gun. -The Italian Dardo has a different shape, smaller gun and missile launchers because it is not a tank. It is and Infantry Fighting Vehicle or IFV. Most IFVs are not armed with tank-caliber guns, and are meant to destroy light armored targets like APCs, armored trucks and other IFVs.

Did the tank commander just call smoke grenades flares?! Also the 120mm of the leopard is longer in length then the Abrams. Well beyond the 2A6 that is. 2a5 and a4 have the shorter l44 cannon that is similiar to the abrams

@MrDannyArcher

2 жыл бұрын

yes yes he did

@orlock20

2 жыл бұрын

They are defensive grenade launchers that could shoot flares, chaff, smoke or a combination. For instance there are radar guided missiles and so the chaff is mixed with smoke to help save the vehicle.

@PBRatLord

2 жыл бұрын

He's a tanker, not some military nerd. The guy can make mistakes, cause at the end of the day he's the one who's ACTUALLY operated a tank in combat IRL. Who cares about minor details other than other military nerds?

@senorclean3198

2 жыл бұрын

@@PBRatLord Well said kind sir who actually has common sense on the internet

@thanatosstorm

2 жыл бұрын

@@PBRatLord I'd roll Table 8s with him, nuff said.

18:04 according to a video I watched recently, Russian tanks are actually built to be lighter and smaller than Western tanks

@Psykanetic

2 жыл бұрын

its a big diffrence too. a quick google search will give you a size comparison, and western tanks are gargantuan compared to the russians

@ItsJakeTheBrake

2 жыл бұрын

@@Psykanetic The Abrams is only 20cm taller than the T-90 but it's also 20cm less wide. It is however considerably heavier.

@NathanPa-xo3zj

2 жыл бұрын

Gib Free FPE & Parts plox

@Psykanetic

2 жыл бұрын

@@ItsJakeTheBrake I did exaggerate a little bit sorry. but length wise and turret size, there is a considerable diffrence, and if you just look at each individual measurement (except the turrets) it doesnt seem that big a diffrence but again if you look at a size comparison the T-90 is smaller in literaly every way. and you only compared the 2 smallest differences

@onlyrushb6428

2 жыл бұрын

there's a T64 concept vehicle in Kubinka that they built before they had an Autoloader and the size difference is insane, its at least a meter above.

im not a tank commander, but some of things he said about other tanks gave me a aneurysm.

@Narcrate140

2 жыл бұрын

"those are actually flares on the side of the tank" during the Leo 2A4

@rebinregi1990

2 жыл бұрын

I felt like I knew more about tanks than these two

@asiangaming8409

2 жыл бұрын

@@rebinregi1990 exactly

@Bitt3rh0lz

2 жыл бұрын

@@rebinregi1990 Yeah... the amount of bullshit this supposed tank commander talked about even his own nations tank and especially things like APFSDS being a "Black hole" and shit had me questioning whether this guy ever actually saw a tank from the inside...

@m1a1abramstank49

2 жыл бұрын

The tank commander probably understands operating a vehicle, though when it’s in regards to history or on vehicles outside his circle he doesn’t know much about that

"one of your favorite games: war thunder" *ah yes most definitely we love , the headache, depression, and anxiety inducing game with one of the hardest grind*

@thanatosstorm

2 жыл бұрын

Sometimes you just gotta embrace the grind.

@soupidmonkey

2 жыл бұрын

I don't think he's gotten to that yet. It sounded like he didn't know what he was talking about, so I think he is still newish and low tier.

@keiyoshi5232

2 жыл бұрын

@@soupidmonkey who you talkin bout

@soupidmonkey

2 жыл бұрын

@@keiyoshi5232 The tank commander. Although I think I read your comment wrong lol

@keiyoshi5232

2 жыл бұрын

@@soupidmonkey oh, lmfao. Yeah i guess he doesn't have much time spent into WT, figures since he's not like the entire player base, he's a man who's gotten himself probably a decent life. he probably bought some tanka to start off, nothing against that.

That thing with sabot round acting like a "small black hole" and sucking everything out of the tank was complete nonsense. It doesn't suck anything due to a very insignificant pressure difference between the inside of a tank and its surroundings. What APFSDS (Armour-piercing fin-stabilized discarding sabot) actually does is punching a hole and pushing fragments of armor inside of a crew compartment. Those moving fragments of armor and APFSDS projectile due to their high speed and temperature act like shrapnel and do a significant amount of damage to the crew and tank's internal equipment. To everyone willing to know more about the physics of tank projectiles just search on YT smth like "tank shell simulation". That is a second appearance of this tank crewman on that channel, as I recall, and it's surprising how little he knows about tank physics and mechanics. I remember in a squad video he was saying smth about Abrams tank engine (which is a Gas Turbine engine) being something like a jet engine, which is just painfully wrong.

@CareraDrift

2 жыл бұрын

Thank you Mister Wikipedia General you must know better

@CreateAccountPlease

2 жыл бұрын

@@CareraDrift based on what that guy said, I do. Btw, if you can point out anything I'm wrong about and he's right, I'm happy to hear it.

@gabrielchad447

2 жыл бұрын

@@CareraDrift he's literally right though lol. APFSDS has nothing to do with pressure differential and there is a difference between a gas turbine and a turbojet engine, plus the tank commander says the engine was a Rolls Royce when it's actually a Honeywell. Almost everything he said in the video was wrong XD

@CareraDrift

2 жыл бұрын

@@CreateAccountPlease Didnt i say you must know better? cat you read? why u so pressed about it kiddo?

@CreateAccountPlease

2 жыл бұрын

@@CareraDrift wow… Remember to take your medicine and have a nice day!

The Abrams uses a Honeywell AGT 1500, which is a multifuel turbine, but isn’t a rolls Royce

@sgt1418

2 жыл бұрын

Beat me to it

@arc_4543

2 жыл бұрын

He was probably thinking about the Mustang with its Merlin engine

Ok, i‘m not mad but calling a panzer 4 well armoured is just funny.

@jaydeleon8094

2 жыл бұрын

They were. To the point that most allied munitions couldn't pen it from the front. this changed later in the war as the germans started using more and more lower quality steel. in war thunder, it's stuck with piers rather than what it would normally go up against.

@yeethappymeta

2 жыл бұрын

@@jaydeleon8094 He was talking about the specific model of the panzer iv. the f2 did not have the 80mm ufp of the g and h, it only have 50mm. Also in war thunder, the panzer ivs indeed has the worst armour compared to other vehicles in other countries of the same type

@anticlaassic

2 жыл бұрын

@@jaydeleon8094 even the french tanks with thuer 37mm guns could pen the early panzer 3s and 4s don‘t forget, the early war models were less well armoured than late war models. The panzer 3s and 4s were always medium tanks =>they were armoured just enough but not one bit too much. Speaking of them as if they were heavy tanks just feels wrong

@jaydeleon8094

2 жыл бұрын

@@anticlaassic buddy, buddy.. the F2 had the same hull armor because that is where people shot most often. the F2 existed for about 3 months, before it was upgraded to the G. Until the shermans came around, most shells could not and would not penetrate the hull at the usual ranges they had in combat. and even then, The germans had a range advantage that they knew how to use.

@AHappyCub

2 жыл бұрын

@@jaydeleon8094 Says who lmao, 75mm M3 mounted on the Sherman can reliably pen that, also the Panzer IV's armor goes from 30mm, to 50mm and later 80mm, which the 75mm can still reliably pen

i find it funny how little he knows, despite working in tanks. The APFSDS was absolute bull where he said it acts like a black hole, no it doesn't. The tanks in game dont actually have flares either they have smoke launchers.

@zits56able

2 жыл бұрын

Ik and Isreal never seems to have much military knowledge especially when it come to equipment and vehicles but the guy was SF it doesn't make sense

@ThePerfectOwnage

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah, he sounds pretty clueless for the most part lol

@thanatosstorm

2 жыл бұрын

Once again, he's simplifying the effect of the sabot. If all hatches are sealed, yes, there is a pressure difference when we're engaged. It will fuck up your body to have a penetrator rod enter a sealed compartment at Mach velocity.

@williewilson2250

2 жыл бұрын

@@thanatosstorm there was the test where goats were loaded into a Bradley and after being shot with apfsds, the inside was bloody and the other side was gutty and mush

@carlblack8574

2 жыл бұрын

@@thanatosstorm That's a myth. Your body will be fucked up because you are getting hit by the shrapnel generated by a proyectile moving at 1700 M/S. There are a LOT of videos explaining how APFSDS shells work... You don't get destroyed by a pressure difference.

15:00 those aren't flares😭😭😭 those are smoke grenades

@rarejavelin6547

2 жыл бұрын

literally paused the video to come to the comments just to make sure I wasn't hearing things

@kajmak64bit76

2 жыл бұрын

@@rarejavelin6547 i mean can't it technically fire flares? Same caliber and stuff

@orlock20

2 жыл бұрын

@@kajmak64bit76 Yes. They can also shoot chaff plus smoke against radar guided missiles and duel sensor missiles like the Brimstone.

@kajmak64bit76

2 жыл бұрын

@@orlock20 can't tell if you're serious or not... but... radar missile for ground target? That must be rare?

@orlock20

2 жыл бұрын

@@kajmak64bit76 The Hellfire has a radar guided version that works with the Apache's FCR. The Brimstone II can be radar guided along with the JAGM.

I hope they'll get David Gregor to react to the plane gameplay from War Thunder.

@Jaeger_89

2 жыл бұрын

Yes! I've been suggesting this for a long time!

The MBT-70 was a 60s prototype. It’s design choices and lessons from the prototypes were used in the Abrams and Leopard 2 if I’m not mistaken

@doomnova1946

2 жыл бұрын

Correct it was a testbed concept vehicle.

There was a lot of inconsistencies and sometimes falsehoods in this video. Calling the Panzer IV a Tiger, Saying the leopard 2A6 had "flares" when they were smoke dischargers, saying the Leopard stole their gun from the US (The Abrams gun is actually a licensed copy of the older German L/44 gun) Calling the ATGM mounts on the Italian IFV "Missile launchers" and saying that sabot rounds create "black holes" which is physically impossible. APFSDS "Sabot rounds" have a tungsten penetrator (he got that correct) but the mechanism in which it damages a tank is by "spalling" in the vehicle. The projectile begins to break apart when hitting a tanks armor, and sends metal shards throughout the crew compartment, killing the crew. This is just nitpicking now, but the Tunguska doesn't have machine guns, it has auto cannons. A caliber less than 20mm is considered a machine gun, whereas 20mm and over is a cannon. I'm sure Mr. Chelby knows how to command a tank, but knowing how to operate a car doesn't mean you're a mechanic. I have respect for these individuals but I think it's better to let military historians evaluate and discuss topics involving historical equipment as well as the functions of modern armor and their development.

@julianviefers6703

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah agreed i cringed so hard multiple times this video.

@Ropetor

2 жыл бұрын

If i remember correctly anything over 15mm is a cannon, the german ww2 mg151/15 was called a cannon

@spartanswill

2 жыл бұрын

@@Ropetor That's a good point, I forgot about the MG151

@thewhiteowl9885

2 жыл бұрын

What makes it more cringy is that he said he plays War Thunder all the time lol sure he said pz4 has a crew of 4…

@HellBrYnger

2 жыл бұрын

@@thewhiteowl9885 when you play WT you get burned out pretty cuz of the grind, atleast i do, also, i dont even count spent-hours-on-the-game anymore, i count by matches fought, which is at around 15.000 for me

All in all, quite interesting. I don't want to judge too harsh but I would expect more knowlegde from a tank commander, especially when it comes to Abrams related questions (for example the engine).

@g.williams2047

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah this is like watching two guys who flunked out of military tank school and also don’t know much about history. Kind of sucks.

@KamichamaTechstarify

2 жыл бұрын

Especially the Abrams engine is quite unique, because it is a gas turbine which sounds like an airplane if it's riding around.

@dmitrit.4862

2 жыл бұрын

@@g.williams2047 Yeah, that's what it actually sounds like. What also surprised me is that the 30mm autocannons were called "machine guns". If you are or were in the military, you don't call weapon systems with such a large calibre "machine guns". 😅

@vesa7069

2 жыл бұрын

@@KamichamaTechstarify The T-80 has a gas turbine engine as well and the production begun 5 years before Abrams.

@mc5750

Жыл бұрын

@@KamichamaTechstarify Abrams are quiet

12:23 That hood is for the breach to move so that the gun has more depression.

12:43 the hatch on the top is for the cannon breach because the breach for the tank is so massive a hatch had to be installed above the cannon breech so that the gun could depress to its full extent on the tank

When you know more about tank history and development than tank commanders

@SSDConker2

2 жыл бұрын

To be fair to most tank commanders (and tankers in general), their tank knowledge probably only covers how to operate the one they use and how to knock out the ones they might get in a fight with. Tank history and development are where the historians and nerds know more. Or you're the Chieftain himself sitting in the overlapping section of the Venn diagram of tankers and tank nerds.

@Oddball_E8

2 жыл бұрын

That's because it's not what they teach TC's. It's like saying "I know more about the history and development of trucks than a truck driver"... well yeah... the truck driver knows how to drive the truck and possibly how to fix minor issues with the engine and such.

@YTMMS-hy6mz

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah i see it now makes sense

@thanatosstorm

2 жыл бұрын

As a former tank driver and history buff, I don't even know all that much. But I know enough on how to operate the Beast and how to play and recite plenty of old battles, tactics, and strategies. First rule: Find, fix, communicate, engage, report.

@CrimSkies

2 жыл бұрын

@@SSDConker2 See also: "Yukari is my spirit animal".

I don't know of any Abrams tank using a Rolls Royce jet engines, far as I remember it was the Honeywell AGT1500

@spartanswill

2 жыл бұрын

You'd be right.

@presidentirinavladimirovna7054

2 жыл бұрын

I think he's mistakenly assuming "turbine = jet engine"

@colehartson477

2 жыл бұрын

He said he worked in every position as a tanker. Unfortunately I don't think he repaired Abrams. Or maybe he happened to be in some Frankenstein monster of a vehicle

I wonder if their gonna have a guy who launched a nuke on the channel to review games with nukes in them.

@benjaminaltube8731

2 жыл бұрын

My dudes reviving oppenheimer for some modern warfare 2 review

@Trackman71

2 жыл бұрын

@@benjaminaltube8731 I would say he would not be to pleased.

@MajorSkrewup

2 жыл бұрын

each time a mw2 player earns a nuke they'll just say its no good, not enough civilians in the blast zone.

When you mentioned the Panzer, more particularly the Panzer IV, you mentioned that it was terrifying due to it's near impenetrable armor. The Panzers were different, as separate models and designs were used, with the Tiger and Panther taking most of the spotlight, while the Panzer IV was the most produced. Initially the Panzer IIs and Is weren't much more then training vehicles, but as World War Two began and progressed they moved into larger, heavier more powerful tanks. The Panzer III took over the role as the dominating Anti-Tank vehicle of Germany, however the Panzer IV was not used as an Anti-Tank vehicle. Rather, the Panzer IV, specifically the earlier models such as the Panzerkampfwagen IV Ausf. C were more or less infantry support vehicles, carrying large, yet low velocity 75 Millimeter cannons. The Panzer III did it's job relatively well, until the Germans invaded the USSR and encountered the fabled T-34. The T-34 carried thick side and rear armor, nullifying the benefits of flanking attacks, as the Panzer III's gun, a relatively meek 50 MM cannon, was unable to penetrate the Soviet armor at ranges of 150-300 Meters. The Panzer III's small size meant it couldn't mount a larger turret, and thus a larger gun. The Panzer IV then took over the role as the primary anti-Tank weapon of the German Panzer Armee. Going from the Panzer III's 50 Millimeter Cannon and fifty millimeter armor to the Panzer IV's 75 Millimeter cannon and 50-80 MM of armor was helpful but didn't result in a superior tank to the T-34. The Tiger and Panther, the ones that the Allied Shermans, Cromwell's, and Fireflies were nervous about were rare but also deadly. The Tiger was far more menacing to fight then the Pz. IV, with over 150 MM of armor, an 88 Millimeter cannon, and often legendary crews, the Tiger was sometimes considered invincible, but the Panzer IV hardly ever earned that.

@pakratmiz4487

2 жыл бұрын

Ok whearaboo

@wolkrieth2394

2 жыл бұрын

@@pakratmiz4487 1) You spelt it wrong. 2) I don't think knowing a bit about German armor In the second world war makes me a Nazi so- yeah, no.

@thesinister7676

2 жыл бұрын

@@wolkrieth2394 Go back to playing WOT kid. You know nothing!!

@thejoke69

2 жыл бұрын

@@wolkrieth2394 Ma man ;)

@thetankthatnoonereallytalk5933

Жыл бұрын

@@pakratmiz4487 wehraboo* minor spelling mistake, you lose

From what I remember, the MBT-70 is a joint project of Germany and the US in the early 70s before the Abrams. It ended up being a testbed for a lot of different designs such as using the 152mm smooth bore cannon from the Sheridan and M60A2 Starship. Other design features of the vehicle included hydraulic suspension, to tilt the tank for better gun depression, and the driver being in the turret not the hull. The driver in the turret was in his own isolated section of the turret that rotated with the hull so as to avoid confusing the driver as to where the tank was going.

Unlike standard tank design, the Merkava has the engine in the front and it acts as another layer of protection for the crew. The extra space in the rear can be used to carry more ammo, or a six man infantry squad. It has also been used to collect and transport casualties. Something reassuring about being in an "ambulance" that shoots back, am I right? I've read that the Abrams was actually designed to be used in Europe against the Soviets because they were the "big bad" at the time. Though, its use in the Middle East over the last twenty years probably has changed its development path toward that theater of operations.

Love this duo love that you guys read feedback

1. The MBT-70 program was from the 1960-70s 2. The Leo 2A6 does NOT use the same cannon as the Abrams. The 2A6 has a L/55 cannon, while the Abrams uses a L/44, being more inline with a Leo 2A5 or 2A4 3. The Abrams uses a Honeywell AGT-1500 gas turbine. It is similar, but NOT a jet engine NOR is it made by Rolls Royce. 4. The US uses depleted uranium penetrators for there APFSDS ammo, while export versions of the US's 120mm ammo and other nations use tungsten 5. The Ho-Ri uses a 105mm cannon. The top hatch opens because it allows for more gun depression. 6. The big circles on the back of the Leo are radiator fans 7. 15:02 They're not flares,. they are smoke grenades. No tank that I know of has a flare launch system.

@bobgaming6074

2 жыл бұрын

don't care+ratio

@ghostkill3086

2 жыл бұрын

@@bobgaming6074 Hes not lying though

@Eyeless_Camper

2 жыл бұрын

Thank you, with all the wrong things he said it was getting a bit annoying.

@eiv-gaming

2 жыл бұрын

Thank god someone took the time to say these things. Saves me from doing it.

@chnb517

2 жыл бұрын

@@bobgaming6074 no u

"The armor was so thick" while discussing the Pz4. Me: Chuckling while using my 50Cal to take them out from the sides.

14:30 - technically it's not the same gun! The Leo uses the improved 120mm/L55 while the Abrams still uses the "old" (= shorter) 120mm/L44

Watching this I just lost my mind when he said that the Panzer IV F2 is impenetrable. Imma say them boys are squishy af. Nearly as squishy as the Bradley in the game, but the F2 gun is hardcore pain

@Bitt3rh0lz

2 жыл бұрын

He saw a german box and thought it was a tiger...

@samholdsworth420

2 жыл бұрын

Just like in world war II he saw a p4 and said it was a tiger

@codemy666

2 жыл бұрын

@@samholdsworth420 Traditions

@nigelwigglwattle

2 жыл бұрын

Sometimes the Pz.4 can be abit trolly with the ad on track armor. Keyword sometimes

@codemy666

2 жыл бұрын

@@nigelwigglwattle Not in real life

As much as I like him talking about modern tanks, please don't ask him to do WW2 tanks again, I'd rather you get a Military Historian in, or if possible an ex-tanker from that period, someone that has experience and an understanding of those vehicles

@AHappyCub

2 жыл бұрын

Just like what the big man Nicholas "The Chieftain" Moran said, "I am a tanker, and this means nothing"

@alexvicario835

2 жыл бұрын

Trust me, i dont know how much you know about modern vehicles but this guy got almost every fact wrong lol

You have to get this guy to react to gunner heat pc. Has great vehicle and physics mechanics along with some awesome voice acting for the tank crew.

Welcome to war thunder, where you can definitely feel the repair costs if your vehicle gets destroyed

Leopard a6 has L55 120 mm main gun. Abrahms has shorter L44 120 mm Same gun but shorter a bit lower velocity.

@Bitt3rh0lz

2 жыл бұрын

And one should note that this gun was developed by the Germans (through Rheinmetall/Kraus Maffey) and then licensed by the Americans, not the other way around as these guys described it.

@connermiles7425

2 жыл бұрын

And both guns are from Rheinmetall which is in Düsseldorf,Germany.

@codemy666

2 жыл бұрын

Would also add that the Breech on the abrams is built to take higher pressures than the german equivalent L44

You might want to bring in historians instead of tank commanders to talk about WW2 tanks, and just War Thunder in general

@VikingstalMotor

2 жыл бұрын

Get The Chieftain to talk about World of Tanks.

@Anarcho-harambeism

2 жыл бұрын

@@VikingstalMotor "I am a tanker", "this means nothing"

@lesaustion

2 жыл бұрын

@@Anarcho-harambeism Exactly! I love this dude, but just because you know how to drive a car, doesn't mean you're qualified to work on it, or talk about its inner systems, history or doctrine, let alone for other vehicles or nations you aren't familiar with

@eiv-gaming

2 жыл бұрын

I completely agree. The Tank Museum channel have fantastic rundowns of tanks from all eras and countries. Well worth a view. If you live or are in the UK, the museum itself is fantastic.

@Anarcho-harambeism

2 жыл бұрын

@@eiv-gaming yet here in Missouri, the closest tanks are an m60 at a shopping mall or breaking into a nearby national guard area

“It pulls everything out of a small hole” That’s not at all how apfsds works😂 Also all U.S. apfsds projectiles are depleted uranium, not tungsten

@gutter1

2 жыл бұрын

🤓

@trinalgalaxy5943

2 жыл бұрын

depends on the shell. Most US Abrams use the depleted uranium rounds, but tungsten ones do exist for the export market.

@gabrielchad447

2 жыл бұрын

There are Tungsten and DU shells available for the M256, although DU is definitely more economical. Also his explanation of APFSDS was pretty much 100% wrong lol

@ju8_hiugo

2 жыл бұрын

@@gutter1 weak argument to use an emoji

@toaster2049

2 жыл бұрын

@@gutter1 🤓💭

Biggest thing for me with Warthunder is the history and the amount of detail they put into this game is wild Aircraft Tanks Naval so much fun

Wasn't the M1 designed for Eastern Europe in the 70s and 80s?

@samholdsworth420

2 жыл бұрын

Yes, it was designed for European combat.

@galimskyy8948

2 жыл бұрын

Yes it was 😄

The first tank, which is the MBT-70, was a collaborative project between the United States and Germany during the Cold War. The MBT-70 utilizes a 152mm gun/launcher, designated XM150E5. The XM150E5 was capable of firing APFSDS, HEAT, and as a launcher, was capable of firing the MGM-51 missiles that the M551 Sheridan used. Alongside this, the tank also had a turret Rh202 20mm autocannon and a 7.62 MG. The KPz-70, which was the German equivalent, shared a lot of similarities, however this vehicle had a different engine in it. The MBT-70 featured a three man crew, which was a Driver, Gunner, and Commander, and had an automatic loading mechanism as opposed to a manual loader. After the program was initially cancelled, America attempted to revitalize it with the XM-803. This however went nowhere, and Germany moved on with lessons learned from their own program to create the Leopard 2, and America moved on with lessons learned to begin the XM-1 program, which would lead to the M1 Abrams.

@AHappyCub

2 жыл бұрын

Also different autoloader, and IIRC there was suppose to be a version with 120mm or something

He forgot one tanker position. The "Charming Prince" position was not mentioned anywhere. Thank you so much for this video. Always great to hear things from a Pro.

14:39 "The primary armament for production versions of the Leopard 2 is the Rheinmetall 120 mm smoothbore gun-the same gun later adapted for use on the M1 Abrams" Not the other way around! 15:05 - Those are smoke grenades. 16:27 - It is meant to take out AIRCRAFT, it IS anti-air. 17:55 - Abrams uses Honeywell AGT1500, not Rolls Royce.

Experts Play, please oh lord can we get an experts play for this. Chellby is brilliant, can't get enough of the guy.

i've been waiting for war thunder so long! Great to see some expert reacting to it.

“I’m guessing mid to late 2000s” *brother oh boy have we got news for you…*

12:45 this is pretty clever- the flap is for gun _depression_. The breech will hit the flap, move it, and thus the gun can be depressed further when pointed down. (They were talking about this concept with the merkava) It could definitely serve as ventilation too!

“Russians man, always bigger” - fun fact: russian armor tactics emphasizes not being seen or hit than having more space for the crew, so they’re usually smaller (or at least flatter) than the western equivalents. On the other hand, the Abrams is one of the biggest, most spacious MBTs, allowing better future modifications. Every time I see an American calling something bigger/ better, it makes me laugh- They literally have a much bigger or better version of it, they just don’t know yet.

I hear that the German army is the most fun to do training with because of the small arms they have. Also the panzer 4 doesn’t have thick armor, only the panzer 5 (tiger 1) and beyond had the thick armor, it focused on the early war doctrine of large numbers of reliable tanks.

@miningchip1

2 жыл бұрын

panzer 5 is the panther and panzer 6 is the tiger

@Tutel9528

Жыл бұрын

I don’t think Germany’s focus was to have larger number of tanks during the early stages of WW2.Look at how small their production rates were compared to late war levels.Almost 80% of all total 8,500-8,800 Panzer IVs were built and used in 1943-1945.Tanks and armored cars were only a small part of German military during first half of the war.I heard that AFVs only used 5% of whole German military expenditures.Though they were key elements for their success.

Very informative video, I love total recoil and hope to see more from our favorite SF and Tank Commander. I didnt know how Explosive Reactive armor worked so it was nice learning new things

So great to have an SME go over the details and strategy that the game adopts from real life, and that is also a gamer IRL. Best of both worlds.

the first tank you guys were playing is the MBT 70 or i’m pretty sure some people called it the KPZ 70 or something. It was a tank that the US and Germany made for a collaboration. Eventually the germans cancelled it because it was too expensive. But it did inspire the tanks that were the prototypes for the Leopards (Leopard 1 etc).

@firewolf5605

2 жыл бұрын

It wasn't too expensive Germany and America couldn't agree on what the tank should have at all for example I think the Germans wanted a fast tank while the Americans didn't

@flack2998

2 жыл бұрын

@@firewolf5605 oh.

Imagine warfare like this where it can be remotely controlled precisely like the game. Military would start hiring professional War Thunder players by then.

My man Bragg! One of my former Soldiers. So proud of this young man!

"That was a scary tank. It's armor was so thick." As a German Army main, my Pz. IV felt like wet tissue paper compared to most US and Russian tanks of the same BR. Even the Churchill had a big enough gun to pen.

What the Dardo was firing was a Tow-2B, or what is known as a top attack munition. Very similar to what you see with the NLAW and Javelin in Ukraine.

@elmosarmata9561

2 жыл бұрын

Javelin is a lot different bc it has a 2 warhead layout that strikes directly. In fact, the Javelin is more like a helfire since it just smashes into the top not over the top.

5:19 sadly you can't have a WWI tank fighting a M1 Abrams because WWI tanks do not exist in War Thunder, but there are interwar period tanks in War Thunder like the British "landbattleship" A1E1 Independent tank built either in the 1920s or in the 1930s, there is also the 1930s Russian "landbattleship" T-35, hell even the Germans get a 1933 designed tank called the Neubaufahrzeug

Lol, “Pnz 4 was a scary tank. Impenetrable.” *Laughs in Sherman Jumbo*

i love thinking that when you use your extra crew man it's like a person at the spawn point just running towards you tank in the battlefield

I already said it in the last video with this guy.. no the Abrams has no fking jet engine and especialy not the same as the one in the Apache. I dont know what they are teaching tankers in the US army but the Abrams has a gas turbine wich is a huge differnce and its especialy not a damn helicopter engine... also nice how he treats the Merkava as if its the only tanmk that can elevate its gun to a lower degree, sounds very educated.

Since when did the Us army switched the Honeywell Agt with a Rolls-Royce "jet engine"? xD

@sheeplord4976

2 жыл бұрын

I mean, it is close enough to a jet engine, but yeah, wtf

The first tank called the MBT 70 was a prototype to become the MBT for the US, but it was scrapped and then the program for M1 Abrams was actually based off the MBT 70

12:45 the back flap on the roof is to aid in gun depression. The breach at the rear of the gun can only go so high when you aim the gun downwards before hitting the roof, so the roof itself lifts up for even more range of motion. The vehicle is the Ho-Ri, which was a Japanese prototype proposal at the end of WW2

Been playing War Thunder for 10 years. It's definitely as real as it gets as far as combined arms combat in video games. I hope they add infantry someday though as it would open up all sorts of possibilities for gameplay.

@Smokey348

2 жыл бұрын

They have enlisted. They aint gonna add inf in wt because it would be trash imo

@gofred1716

Жыл бұрын

@@Smokey348 While I too think that it would be a bad idea to add infantry in War Thunder, they created enlisted to prove that they were capable of getting the infantry and vehicle mechanic together. Now I don't think that they have disclosed of if it's one of their project to bring some type of infantry other than the already existing AI infantry but it wouldn't really fit other than to "spot" people.

@f7thesilentdemon799

Жыл бұрын

Captain the game is 9 years old it turns ten this november

"flares" bro what

it's not just a tank commander, no they went all in and got a tank commander that plays war thunder, good job fr

as the Chieftain once said just because someone was a crewman in a tank doesn't mean that he knows whats best

The Panzer is not that so tough as advertised, its a pain to use because everyone will kill you even with the british 2 pounder

@AlexMappingHD

2 жыл бұрын

I think they mistaked the Panzer IV with the Panzer VI Tiger

@Tutel9528

Жыл бұрын

It’s very tough when it comes to it’s gun though.Much more powerful than 75 and 76mm mounted on Shermans and T-34s.

People who play German vehicles are people who were born to late for ww2.

Get this guy to react to “GUNNER, HEAT, PC”, I’m sure he would love it

Israel is very good at asking questions. he keeps the show rolling even though he knows most of the answers already

Something interesting I've learned from playing war thunder is you can use AA guns to combat jets helicopters and tanks would have been interesting to see some use of the AA guns Like m134 AA gun for example

"design stealing" lol, we bought the L/55 gun on the Abrams from the Germans and license build it

@AHappyCub

2 жыл бұрын

US don't use the L/55, its the L/44

@reportflap

2 жыл бұрын

@@AHappyCub still a german weapon ;D

@AHappyCub

2 жыл бұрын

@@reportflap well, the base design IS German but US use a different recoil system, idk why

@Kwisss

2 жыл бұрын

@@AHappyCub Because of the propellent of the rounds we use it needs a different breech/mechanism system to handle the higher pressures.

@Ropetor

2 жыл бұрын

@@Kwisss L/44 has the same pressure tolerance then the m256, m256 uses a simplified design that reduced to number of parts and it changed the recoil mechanism L/44a1 has better pressure tolerance.

Sorry but, the MBT-70 was a joint U.S., West German project that was supposed to find a replacement for the Leopard I and the M-60. The program was dropped after both nations decided to just make their own tanks which were the Leopard II and M1 Abrams.

Fort erwin cali is where i was born, my dad was a tanker for 8 years and stationed there for awhile, i absolutely love hearing that this dude was there🤣

@12:40 thats no artillery. its a ww2 105 tank destroyer. the roof opened to allow the breech to clear the top and get more gun depression.

@failtolawl

2 жыл бұрын

looked like he figured it out as the video went on, but to be fair not sure why they would show this vehicle since it never even existed.

@g-low6365

2 жыл бұрын

@@failtolawl I think cause they use some random footage from the official channel

@gabrielchad447

2 жыл бұрын

Pretty sure it also never left the prototype stage lol

@prvt.harumi6821

Жыл бұрын

@@gabrielchad447 The whole Design was made up around the gun

The only point they missed was show the armor values and types of rounds and penetration

Great video! Thank you both for your service!

14:38 the reason the Leo looks a lot like the Abrams is because years ago the Americans and Germans were in a project to make a new MBT but Germany dropped out from cost but that project led to the xm1 which led all the way to the M1A2 Abrams

Fun fact: When the MBT-70 was undergoing production.. there was 2 sides of the name.. the US called it the MBT-70.. and the germans called it KampfPanzer 70

@KamichamaTechstarify

2 жыл бұрын

Yea but still slightly even used different parts. So it's not only different names for the same tank. For example Both could use usual shaped charged warhead (HEAT) and APSDF (APCR) shells, but the american one could also use ATGM (Misiles) while the german one couldn't but could use pure HE. Also the german used to test one 1100 HP engine with 2 turbocharger which was still a little bit faster in acceleration and max speed. It's weird, the american used to test 2 smaller engines which actually had 1500HP- means 3000HP, it was more powerful but still slower. Dunno why is that.. Anyway, another things like tracks and other small things on the same frame were the difference.

@BL1TZY_YT

2 жыл бұрын

@@KamichamaTechstarify From what i know on the Kpfz 70 is the shells it could use were APCR (APFSDS or that round you said) HEAT/ATGM and normal HE

Wait until they witness a 105mm HE round not killing a Puma Good ol' Gaijin

The Merkava is an amazing tank, and they were smart to put the engine in the front to act as another layer of armor.

@sheeplord4976

2 жыл бұрын

to be fair, it probably doesn't help with the heat signature from the front, but it was designed before thermals were commonplace

12:44 that panel on the back of Ho-Ri is to help with gun depression. If the gun breech hit the roof it would have less gun depression so it's a panel that can move to allow the gun to have more gun depression. It may also be used for air or to vent smoke that may come from the barrel. That's just my assumption based on looking at it and how it acts