Very nice viedeo im looking forward to the 50´s and paticularly the 60´s keep up the good work! And a question did you have a typo with the meteor ? As to my Knowledge they were only used against v1 not 2 as well ... balisctic trojectory, but if you diden t could you please give me your source as this paticular story would seems quite interesting.
@charliechargles83564 күн бұрын
for the Me 163 and the Me 262, id recommend watching @HardThrasher 's videos on it as it goes into significant detail on the program
@jonmcgee69874 күн бұрын
He was recommended by the pig. I really do enjoy his videos, especially his humor.
@MCE_24 күн бұрын
die v 2 wahr eine ballistische Rakete so weit ich weis wurden davon keine gejagt sondern "nur" die V1
@woffe15994 күн бұрын
first army, now air - so next must be navy ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
@DIREWOLFx754 күн бұрын
"no wheels" This is actually completely irrelevant as it had no negative impact on the Me-163 what so ever. The plane was designed to land on its belly and it worked, not perfectly perhaps, but it was not what made it function poorly. "cheap as possible" There's actually some merit to that. In particular, the jet engine cost something like 1/2 to 1/3 of what a highend piston engine would cost(and actually required much LESS of the more important strategic raw materials), and with the engine making up by far the single biggest part of the cost of an airplane, the Me-162 if it had time to be developed more properly could have provided an almost ridiculously cheap fighter with the performance of a top-end prop-fighter. The concept was surprisingly realistic at least in theory, the tech development level was just not quite at the point where it could support such a thing. Another 2 years of development and it might very well have been a good fighter. "1st actual good" Nope, the Me-262 for all it's flaws was still superior to the Meteor. The Meteor was a vastly more FUNCTIONAL aircraft than the Me-262, that i will agree with. Put 100 on each side in an air to air fight until one side is gone and you will probably have around 30 -262s left at the end. In realworld conditions, sure, there the Meteor was better as they were easier to handle, both by pilots and by groundcrew, meaning that in any realistic situation, more Meteors would always be ready to fly and the risks during landing and the like would be clearly less. But most of that was lack of development and purely as a fighter, the -262 was a good deal better. "ground fire" Yeah sure... Excuses if there ever was one. Also, it's worth mentioning that the P-80 was a BAD PLANE overall. Against MiG-15? It's just not a viable opposition or even close to it. They might have gotten the first jet to jet airkill by getting REALLY lucky, but the records strongly suggests otherwise. While the P-80 unquestionably WAS lost when and roughly where it was claimed as a kill. The P-80 was so bad that there was talk about directly copying the Me-262 with a pair of modern engines slapped on. Or even to buy a production license for the Meteor. "didn't have their own jet program" Correction, USSR absolutely DID have their own jet program, earlier than USA in fact. But the war pretty much ruined any chance of it getting anywhere as it was effectively almost completely shut down in 1941 and not brought back to life until 1944(maaaaybe 1943?). IIRC, the original study of jet engines started in 1939(1938?) as a sidetrack from the extensive Soviet development of rocketry due to the 1930s craze about recoilless weapons. But by 1941 they had nothing finished beyond some mockups to test design layouts. Lyulka, Tumansky and Mikulin are mentioned as involved, but it's pretty much impossible to find out more. Without WWII, USSR would likely have produced a domestic jet engine in 1942 or 1943. The later Lyulka TR-1 was based on this research and there was a Tumansky/Mikulin paper only design sometime during the war. Anyone's guess how it would have performed. "copies" The Soviet version of the BMW-003 were actually improved after the 2nd iteration of them. So, no longer copies but upgrades. "positive trade with MiG-15" That is highly disputed and there's been several very extensive studies attempted on this subject. And you have to use creative accounting to get any major advantage in killratio to the Sabre(and there's been LOTS of people doing that MANY times unfortunately, the 10 to 1 you mention isn't even remotely close to the most exaggerated one, IIRC, that one claimed 38 to 1 or something). The best neutral study i've seen suggested that the killratio was somewhere between 1.1 and 1.4 to the Sabre's advantage. But the Sabres had vastly better support and generally much better trained pilots, so that is NOT really a positive trade. It's also notable that the study also showed that if only looking at experienced Soviet pilots, the killratio instantly flip-flopped over to something well over 2 to 1 in the MiG-15s advantage. Overall, this suggests that plane vs plane, the MiG-15 had a tiny little edge. But it's probably close enough that pilot skill, luck and other support was more important. "used British RR engines" Uh, no no and lolnope NO? The RD-45 was not an exact copy of the Nene because USSR did not have access to the exact materials used for it, and they also had to make several other changes to adapt the engine so that it wouldn't just fail during a normal Soviet winter or require British fuel and lubricants. And they were most definitely not BRITISH engines when they were manufactured in USSR. Later the engine was further redeveloped into the better VK-1, once USSR had developed more suitable metal alloys, but the VK-1 veered even further from the original Nene than the R-45, so it is also in absolutely no way a straight copy.
@Ohdamn-ci6gj4 күн бұрын
MolotovRibbentropboo, the exclusive sovboo and wheaboo collab
@markgrehan37263 күн бұрын
Curious to see how the Me-262 was superior to the Meteor, considering all its flaws as it seemed better in particular circumstances rather than as an overall package.
@DIREWOLFx753 күн бұрын
@@markgrehan3726 The superior aerodynamics made up for pretty much everything else. Well that and the firepower which is just absurd level. Try the 262 in a flightsim and you will quickly notice. Pretty much anything is destroyed with a halfsecond burst. And that is actually UNDERSTATING the effect of the -262s guns in reality. Give the -262 better engines and fix all the stuff the engineers didn't have time to fix and it would have done well against pretty much any jet up until mid 50s. Because its aerodynamics was pretty much 10-15 years ahead of its time
@markgrehan37263 күн бұрын
@@DIREWOLFx75 So if you sorted out all its numerous issues it would be pretty good, lol. the only reason its wings were the way they were was because they needed adjusting so the engines wouldn't throw off the center of gravity. It was a fast plane at a certain height but that's about it.
@dIRECTOR2595 күн бұрын
Many errors in this one.
@dylanlowers52365 күн бұрын
YOOOOOO
@kylesprengeler59655 күн бұрын
love the videos
@williammagoffin93245 күн бұрын
The FH Phantom and FJ-1 Fury also some some limited operational service prior to 1950 before being relegated to training roles.
@drhlikova5 күн бұрын
Me 163 didn't have jet engine but rocket engine.
@DIREWOLFx755 күн бұрын
Both are reaction engines, and that's usually enough for this kind of categorisation, as rocket and jet engines are both subcategories of reaction engines.
@Jacob-dl7bw5 күн бұрын
Big fan of bassoons
@catz39688 күн бұрын
I hope you decide against deleting your old academy videos, I find them entertaining
@Armageddon_7112 күн бұрын
I whould really love to participate in something like this, but my lack knowledge (and time depending on when this is run) is probably designating me as a cheerleader. Im very interested how this will go, but trying to hold 3 Armies with 2 Corps is going to be a tall order.
@m26a1pershing718 күн бұрын
I do recall reading that the early Soviets had manufactured (in extremely small quantities) a more direct copy of the FT. It was a Tank Encyclopedia article iirc.
@Cold_Warmaster18 күн бұрын
That is correct. That experience would allow the Soviets to start developing off of the FT.
@highjumpstudios238418 күн бұрын
This really fuldas my wargame
@langos844418 күн бұрын
12:57 Awww, and I hoped that I'd hear funni butchering of Czech names :DDDDD
@Contentrist18 күн бұрын
I'm quite interested but I'm not familiar with the ruleset. And judging by the fact that the rulebook pdf starts at 40€, I don't think I'll be able to prepare in time.
@dillonjames-so5cz18 күн бұрын
Great channel brother keep it up love it
@alexanderlarsen641218 күн бұрын
I am pretty good with QGIS if you need a map maker
@Headcrabman999918 күн бұрын
How will observers be kept up to date on the wargame? Will there be daily/weekly battle reports, or will there be a discord made?
@jakesomethingorother467619 күн бұрын
Hey, Armored Brigade on Steam (if I'm not mistaken on the name) uses accurate maps for the time. It covers Southern Finland, the Fulda Gap, and another section of West Germany. I'm not sure if it's an exact 1:1 because it's tile based on the tactical level, but it's pretty close.
@Tinyuvm19 күн бұрын
I tought it was going to be about Wargame Red Dragon or Warno, but I'm stoked to see the battlereports.
@ElGringo2119 күн бұрын
Could you release the full battle order for this wargame?
@bobjones217919 күн бұрын
I would love to see for a discord for this channel in general! Im organizing a Team Yankee event in the near future that takes place in Fulda so would love a place to get some ideas from Also a friend who served in Germany and who is a historian loaned me some German Military maps of the fulda area from i believe late 80s and early 90s. Would be happy to send pics or compare to modern maps to help with the project!
@erloriel19 күн бұрын
7:37 German formations?! In Germany? Huh, who'd have thunk. But yeah, what an awesome idea! Best of luck and much fun to all participants!
@bob-lk5et19 күн бұрын
terrific project, im just wondering why chemical weapons are not included as well since the soviets had a large stockpile of state of the art nerve agents they intended to use to block the flanks of maneuvers also it would be interesting if you could vet the command staff for people who are actually familiar with the doctrines and strategies of the respective side they represent, im really hoping this doesn't get HOI4'd but my hopes are high that the war game would represent actual history and doesn't get compromised, like if we could get some actual veterans or former officers to actual take part would be insane
@bradleyoralackthereof540919 күн бұрын
Gives very heavy WARNO vibes! I've been playing a bunch of WARNO lately, so this really hits!
@spamuraigranatabru114919 күн бұрын
I'ma try this in regiments
@marrs101319 күн бұрын
Being rubbish at wargaming, I can only wish you the very best of luck! I'm certainly looking forward to this series, and perhaps some more in-depth talk of the equipments of the era on both sides of the Curtain. Thank you! 😊
@irongiant611219 күн бұрын
less then 100 views gang.
@marrs101319 күн бұрын
It only took him 32 minutes!
@Seth980919 күн бұрын
Early gang?
@Cold_Warmaster19 күн бұрын
If interested in joining the wargame, reply here. Edit 1: The role of the Command Staff would be assisting in developing battleplans and giving orders to units on the map. The mechanical side (dice rolling and number crunching) would still be handled purely by me. Basically I take the role of the "computer" in a multiplayer game. This will not be anything close to realtime, so time zones and other such scheduling issues should not be as much of a hinderance to those outside of the US.
@christianeng714419 күн бұрын
I would like to be a part
@IG88TheRobot19 күн бұрын
Looks Fun. Would be interested with learning more about this project.
@bradleyoralackthereof540919 күн бұрын
I'd be interested in joining as NATO command, if it's open. I'd at least like to get more info
@octaviocuesta115519 күн бұрын
I am interested in joining the wargame
@ElGringo2119 күн бұрын
No idea what I'm getting myself into here but I would also like to know more and participate for NATO.
@cbroz749219 күн бұрын
My track in Germany was an M577, command track..S-2 4/35 Armor, Nov 72 - Jul 74
@darkfalc00719 күн бұрын
Twardy mentioned, automatic like
@REPOMAN2472219 күн бұрын
m-84 is in Ukraine
@phantomvmfa12225 күн бұрын
Let's not forget the M113s service in the Arab Israeli wars.
@JMiskovsky25 күн бұрын
OT-90 was made to skit regulations of "Conventional forces treaty".
@yoloman360725 күн бұрын
You know, all these supposed IFV forerunners are all armed with 20mm autocannon, the thing most of them are also specifically resistant against. Of all of these, only the BMP-1 can be credibly expected to engage these other infantry carriers at any sort of range at least on paper.
@MFitz1220 күн бұрын
Resistant to 20mm can mean many things. What it usually means is full-bore AP-T and often from a lower energy 20mm round like 20x110 or 20x103. APDS from a 20x139 is a very different animal. We saw the same trick of marketing in the 1980's with vehicles frequently marketed as "resistant to 23mm" with the hope the customer would not realize 23mm AP is a fairly poor round and exceeded by 14.5mm in many circumstances. But at any rate, the 20mm on an APC/IFV in the 1960's was much more valued for its ability to lob HE than punching small holes in BTR's. Note many of these vehicles had only the 20mm and no machine gun. Many could only feed one ammo type at a time and that was usually HE.
@lordinicus25 күн бұрын
Your russian is very good ))). Russians have short name - "Beha" (sound "e" prononce like in word "bed"), its short from "boevaia" )))
@HoBoeBpeM9l25 күн бұрын
Спасибо за видео. Привет из России)
@kentnilsson46525 күн бұрын
FYI, the main reason for chosing the 40mm gun on the CV90 was that the AP round could penetrate the T-72 in the side and we thought we would see a lot of those in a potential war
@MFitz1220 күн бұрын
And Sweden made the 40mm gun (probably the deciding factor). Sweden just ordered a replacement batch of CV9035 with 35mm guns,... because Bofors no longer make the 40mm gun.
@kentnilsson46520 күн бұрын
@@MFitz12 Not correct, the reason for choosing the 35mm gun was that the Mk III version is built for it, there has been no Mk3s built with the 40mm so if they wanted that gun they would have to “redraw” the turret. It is however also true that the 35mm has evolved and basically has the same effect and capabilities that the 40mm has, which it didn’t have 10-20 years ago and it also allows the vehicle to carry more rounds, but the main reason was the first one and they wanted the vehicles built asap
@MFitz1220 күн бұрын
@@kentnilsson465 And the 40mm production line has been cold for over 2 decades. Really, there was no 40mm option
@DonJuanIIdeAustria26 күн бұрын
According to some UN standards I saw time ago, every vehicle that transports a infantry squad and is armed with a armament of 20mm or above is a IFV.
@MrSpirit9918 күн бұрын
You can see it that way, you can also do it by tactics. APC battle taxi vs IFV actually fighting support.
@tristan123456789026 күн бұрын
2:21 1000 procent that the GMC picture is off a re enactment, no way is that pork belly historacly accurate
@robpalmer938527 күн бұрын
Canada inspired all of this in WW2 with the Kangaroo! (It even had a bow turret 30.cal)
@brealistic354227 күн бұрын
I may be mistaken here but didn't the British, Americans and most of all the Germans have open top infantry fighting vehicles far before this ?
@MFitz1220 күн бұрын
APC's. And calling them armored is being generous.
@sparkey674627 күн бұрын
Despite my knowing all of this, your presentation was highly entertaining.
@Satunnaistasotilashistoriaa27 күн бұрын
We made a test drive video about that (10:52) Austrian Saurer 4K 4FA vehicle few years ago. My opinion is that it's some kind of intermediate between tracked APC and IFV. 4K 4FA is designed in Western standards, it was comfortable and easy to drive compared to Soviet vehicles we have tested. That's why it is popular surplus vehicle in civilian markerts, it is a quite popular tourist entertaining vehicle.
@MFitz1227 күн бұрын
I hardly think the HS.30 counts. It was shit in a lot of ways, explaining its short service life and inferior to BMP-1 in almost every respect. HS.30 fit German doctrine carried over from WWII of Panzer grenadier's predominantly fighting from their vehicles. This is just as well since mounting/dismounting from the HS.30 was,..._less than ideal_ . To fight from the vehicle however, the troops had to expose themselves out the hatches. The 20mm HS-820 cannon was really just _the German fifty_ and the German's employed them much like the American's employed the Ma Deuce. Same with the Austrians and the Swede's. Note the lack of a coax MG. Interestingly German PzGr Brigades never fully re-equipped with HS.30 and much like the WW2 situation where only one or maybe 2 battalions in a regiment had the armored halftrack, usually only one battalion in the 1960's had HS.30, a second had M113 and a third rode in trucks. AMX-VCI was just better, if cramped. It was IIRC expensive though. All French armor seems designed for legless Pigmies. The 20mm turrets did not get retrofitted to some (by no means all) until the mid-late 70's IIRC (never seen a photo of one prior to that) so usually had a 7.5mm MG before that. NOT an IFV. _But_ there were firing ports for the soldiers to fire mounted and under cover,... so they were half-way there. Which is nice. Those 20mm turrets were later removed and put on 4x4 VAB's to serve as escorts for Roland SAM's. Those VAB's are still in service. What made the BMP-1 such a thing was it being designed to _fight in close cooperation with tanks on a nuclear battlefield_ - closed up. Nobody else was doing that at the time, so yeah it was novel. The 73mm Grom gun was not a "misstep", it was a close-range compliment to the Malyutka ATGW. Where the 20mm guns in use on some western vehicles were really just big shell firing heavy machine guns (note the lack of a coax rifle caliber MG on most early applications), the 73mm was a dedicated anti-armor weapon designed to cover the substantial minimum range or "dead zone" of the Malyutka missile. The 7.62mm coax was there for suppressing infantry, just like it had been on earlier machines. The BMP-2 adopted a 30mm auto cannon to meet the evolving threat and a different requirement. It was not an anti-tank weapon like Grom but intended to suppress the rapidly growing number of NATO ATGW platforms carrying new weapons like TOW, HOT and Milan. These could be launched from well outside the effective range of Grom or 7.62mm machine guns. Punching little holes in M113's and Marder's was a secondary concern. The change to the 30mm was made possible by BMP-2 moving on to more advanced ATGW options than the 1st generation Malyutka, so the minimum range issue was no longer an issue and Grom made redundant. BMP-3 adopted a 100mm low-pressure gun as a means of firing ATGW from under armor. On BMP-1/2 the gunner had to open the hatch and expose himself to reload the missile launcher, with potentially fatal consequences, especially on a nuclear battlefield. The 100mm missile firing gun allowed ATGW to be fired all day long without anyone getting out of their chairs. Firing conventional HE was a bonus, not a necessity. The roles of the 30mm and 7.62mm coax remain as before, so they are kept. On a side note: Until the advent of the current generation of fire-and-forget ATGW like Javelin and Spike, I personally was never a fan of ATGW on IFV's.
@baraka62927 күн бұрын
pretty sure the BMP is considered rather light/medium hardware (at ~13 tons) rather than heavy (MBTs, SPGs, 155 howitzers, attack helicopters etc)
@geodkyt27 күн бұрын
Yup. The revolutionary aspect of the BMP was the standard, credible, antitank capability added to an IFV that transported a short rifle squad and was designed to fight through the enemy position *or* stand off and deliver supporting fire.
Пікірлер
Very nice viedeo im looking forward to the 50´s and paticularly the 60´s keep up the good work! And a question did you have a typo with the meteor ? As to my Knowledge they were only used against v1 not 2 as well ... balisctic trojectory, but if you diden t could you please give me your source as this paticular story would seems quite interesting.
for the Me 163 and the Me 262, id recommend watching @HardThrasher 's videos on it as it goes into significant detail on the program
He was recommended by the pig. I really do enjoy his videos, especially his humor.
die v 2 wahr eine ballistische Rakete so weit ich weis wurden davon keine gejagt sondern "nur" die V1
first army, now air - so next must be navy ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
"no wheels" This is actually completely irrelevant as it had no negative impact on the Me-163 what so ever. The plane was designed to land on its belly and it worked, not perfectly perhaps, but it was not what made it function poorly. "cheap as possible" There's actually some merit to that. In particular, the jet engine cost something like 1/2 to 1/3 of what a highend piston engine would cost(and actually required much LESS of the more important strategic raw materials), and with the engine making up by far the single biggest part of the cost of an airplane, the Me-162 if it had time to be developed more properly could have provided an almost ridiculously cheap fighter with the performance of a top-end prop-fighter. The concept was surprisingly realistic at least in theory, the tech development level was just not quite at the point where it could support such a thing. Another 2 years of development and it might very well have been a good fighter. "1st actual good" Nope, the Me-262 for all it's flaws was still superior to the Meteor. The Meteor was a vastly more FUNCTIONAL aircraft than the Me-262, that i will agree with. Put 100 on each side in an air to air fight until one side is gone and you will probably have around 30 -262s left at the end. In realworld conditions, sure, there the Meteor was better as they were easier to handle, both by pilots and by groundcrew, meaning that in any realistic situation, more Meteors would always be ready to fly and the risks during landing and the like would be clearly less. But most of that was lack of development and purely as a fighter, the -262 was a good deal better. "ground fire" Yeah sure... Excuses if there ever was one. Also, it's worth mentioning that the P-80 was a BAD PLANE overall. Against MiG-15? It's just not a viable opposition or even close to it. They might have gotten the first jet to jet airkill by getting REALLY lucky, but the records strongly suggests otherwise. While the P-80 unquestionably WAS lost when and roughly where it was claimed as a kill. The P-80 was so bad that there was talk about directly copying the Me-262 with a pair of modern engines slapped on. Or even to buy a production license for the Meteor. "didn't have their own jet program" Correction, USSR absolutely DID have their own jet program, earlier than USA in fact. But the war pretty much ruined any chance of it getting anywhere as it was effectively almost completely shut down in 1941 and not brought back to life until 1944(maaaaybe 1943?). IIRC, the original study of jet engines started in 1939(1938?) as a sidetrack from the extensive Soviet development of rocketry due to the 1930s craze about recoilless weapons. But by 1941 they had nothing finished beyond some mockups to test design layouts. Lyulka, Tumansky and Mikulin are mentioned as involved, but it's pretty much impossible to find out more. Without WWII, USSR would likely have produced a domestic jet engine in 1942 or 1943. The later Lyulka TR-1 was based on this research and there was a Tumansky/Mikulin paper only design sometime during the war. Anyone's guess how it would have performed. "copies" The Soviet version of the BMW-003 were actually improved after the 2nd iteration of them. So, no longer copies but upgrades. "positive trade with MiG-15" That is highly disputed and there's been several very extensive studies attempted on this subject. And you have to use creative accounting to get any major advantage in killratio to the Sabre(and there's been LOTS of people doing that MANY times unfortunately, the 10 to 1 you mention isn't even remotely close to the most exaggerated one, IIRC, that one claimed 38 to 1 or something). The best neutral study i've seen suggested that the killratio was somewhere between 1.1 and 1.4 to the Sabre's advantage. But the Sabres had vastly better support and generally much better trained pilots, so that is NOT really a positive trade. It's also notable that the study also showed that if only looking at experienced Soviet pilots, the killratio instantly flip-flopped over to something well over 2 to 1 in the MiG-15s advantage. Overall, this suggests that plane vs plane, the MiG-15 had a tiny little edge. But it's probably close enough that pilot skill, luck and other support was more important. "used British RR engines" Uh, no no and lolnope NO? The RD-45 was not an exact copy of the Nene because USSR did not have access to the exact materials used for it, and they also had to make several other changes to adapt the engine so that it wouldn't just fail during a normal Soviet winter or require British fuel and lubricants. And they were most definitely not BRITISH engines when they were manufactured in USSR. Later the engine was further redeveloped into the better VK-1, once USSR had developed more suitable metal alloys, but the VK-1 veered even further from the original Nene than the R-45, so it is also in absolutely no way a straight copy.
MolotovRibbentropboo, the exclusive sovboo and wheaboo collab
Curious to see how the Me-262 was superior to the Meteor, considering all its flaws as it seemed better in particular circumstances rather than as an overall package.
@@markgrehan3726 The superior aerodynamics made up for pretty much everything else. Well that and the firepower which is just absurd level. Try the 262 in a flightsim and you will quickly notice. Pretty much anything is destroyed with a halfsecond burst. And that is actually UNDERSTATING the effect of the -262s guns in reality. Give the -262 better engines and fix all the stuff the engineers didn't have time to fix and it would have done well against pretty much any jet up until mid 50s. Because its aerodynamics was pretty much 10-15 years ahead of its time
@@DIREWOLFx75 So if you sorted out all its numerous issues it would be pretty good, lol. the only reason its wings were the way they were was because they needed adjusting so the engines wouldn't throw off the center of gravity. It was a fast plane at a certain height but that's about it.
Many errors in this one.
YOOOOOO
love the videos
The FH Phantom and FJ-1 Fury also some some limited operational service prior to 1950 before being relegated to training roles.
Me 163 didn't have jet engine but rocket engine.
Both are reaction engines, and that's usually enough for this kind of categorisation, as rocket and jet engines are both subcategories of reaction engines.
Big fan of bassoons
I hope you decide against deleting your old academy videos, I find them entertaining
I whould really love to participate in something like this, but my lack knowledge (and time depending on when this is run) is probably designating me as a cheerleader. Im very interested how this will go, but trying to hold 3 Armies with 2 Corps is going to be a tall order.
I do recall reading that the early Soviets had manufactured (in extremely small quantities) a more direct copy of the FT. It was a Tank Encyclopedia article iirc.
That is correct. That experience would allow the Soviets to start developing off of the FT.
This really fuldas my wargame
12:57 Awww, and I hoped that I'd hear funni butchering of Czech names :DDDDD
I'm quite interested but I'm not familiar with the ruleset. And judging by the fact that the rulebook pdf starts at 40€, I don't think I'll be able to prepare in time.
Great channel brother keep it up love it
I am pretty good with QGIS if you need a map maker
How will observers be kept up to date on the wargame? Will there be daily/weekly battle reports, or will there be a discord made?
Hey, Armored Brigade on Steam (if I'm not mistaken on the name) uses accurate maps for the time. It covers Southern Finland, the Fulda Gap, and another section of West Germany. I'm not sure if it's an exact 1:1 because it's tile based on the tactical level, but it's pretty close.
I tought it was going to be about Wargame Red Dragon or Warno, but I'm stoked to see the battlereports.
Could you release the full battle order for this wargame?
I would love to see for a discord for this channel in general! Im organizing a Team Yankee event in the near future that takes place in Fulda so would love a place to get some ideas from Also a friend who served in Germany and who is a historian loaned me some German Military maps of the fulda area from i believe late 80s and early 90s. Would be happy to send pics or compare to modern maps to help with the project!
7:37 German formations?! In Germany? Huh, who'd have thunk. But yeah, what an awesome idea! Best of luck and much fun to all participants!
terrific project, im just wondering why chemical weapons are not included as well since the soviets had a large stockpile of state of the art nerve agents they intended to use to block the flanks of maneuvers also it would be interesting if you could vet the command staff for people who are actually familiar with the doctrines and strategies of the respective side they represent, im really hoping this doesn't get HOI4'd but my hopes are high that the war game would represent actual history and doesn't get compromised, like if we could get some actual veterans or former officers to actual take part would be insane
Gives very heavy WARNO vibes! I've been playing a bunch of WARNO lately, so this really hits!
I'ma try this in regiments
Being rubbish at wargaming, I can only wish you the very best of luck! I'm certainly looking forward to this series, and perhaps some more in-depth talk of the equipments of the era on both sides of the Curtain. Thank you! 😊
less then 100 views gang.
It only took him 32 minutes!
Early gang?
If interested in joining the wargame, reply here. Edit 1: The role of the Command Staff would be assisting in developing battleplans and giving orders to units on the map. The mechanical side (dice rolling and number crunching) would still be handled purely by me. Basically I take the role of the "computer" in a multiplayer game. This will not be anything close to realtime, so time zones and other such scheduling issues should not be as much of a hinderance to those outside of the US.
I would like to be a part
Looks Fun. Would be interested with learning more about this project.
I'd be interested in joining as NATO command, if it's open. I'd at least like to get more info
I am interested in joining the wargame
No idea what I'm getting myself into here but I would also like to know more and participate for NATO.
My track in Germany was an M577, command track..S-2 4/35 Armor, Nov 72 - Jul 74
Twardy mentioned, automatic like
m-84 is in Ukraine
Let's not forget the M113s service in the Arab Israeli wars.
OT-90 was made to skit regulations of "Conventional forces treaty".
You know, all these supposed IFV forerunners are all armed with 20mm autocannon, the thing most of them are also specifically resistant against. Of all of these, only the BMP-1 can be credibly expected to engage these other infantry carriers at any sort of range at least on paper.
Resistant to 20mm can mean many things. What it usually means is full-bore AP-T and often from a lower energy 20mm round like 20x110 or 20x103. APDS from a 20x139 is a very different animal. We saw the same trick of marketing in the 1980's with vehicles frequently marketed as "resistant to 23mm" with the hope the customer would not realize 23mm AP is a fairly poor round and exceeded by 14.5mm in many circumstances. But at any rate, the 20mm on an APC/IFV in the 1960's was much more valued for its ability to lob HE than punching small holes in BTR's. Note many of these vehicles had only the 20mm and no machine gun. Many could only feed one ammo type at a time and that was usually HE.
Your russian is very good ))). Russians have short name - "Beha" (sound "e" prononce like in word "bed"), its short from "boevaia" )))
Спасибо за видео. Привет из России)
FYI, the main reason for chosing the 40mm gun on the CV90 was that the AP round could penetrate the T-72 in the side and we thought we would see a lot of those in a potential war
And Sweden made the 40mm gun (probably the deciding factor). Sweden just ordered a replacement batch of CV9035 with 35mm guns,... because Bofors no longer make the 40mm gun.
@@MFitz12 Not correct, the reason for choosing the 35mm gun was that the Mk III version is built for it, there has been no Mk3s built with the 40mm so if they wanted that gun they would have to “redraw” the turret. It is however also true that the 35mm has evolved and basically has the same effect and capabilities that the 40mm has, which it didn’t have 10-20 years ago and it also allows the vehicle to carry more rounds, but the main reason was the first one and they wanted the vehicles built asap
@@kentnilsson465 And the 40mm production line has been cold for over 2 decades. Really, there was no 40mm option
According to some UN standards I saw time ago, every vehicle that transports a infantry squad and is armed with a armament of 20mm or above is a IFV.
You can see it that way, you can also do it by tactics. APC battle taxi vs IFV actually fighting support.
2:21 1000 procent that the GMC picture is off a re enactment, no way is that pork belly historacly accurate
Canada inspired all of this in WW2 with the Kangaroo! (It even had a bow turret 30.cal)
I may be mistaken here but didn't the British, Americans and most of all the Germans have open top infantry fighting vehicles far before this ?
APC's. And calling them armored is being generous.
Despite my knowing all of this, your presentation was highly entertaining.
We made a test drive video about that (10:52) Austrian Saurer 4K 4FA vehicle few years ago. My opinion is that it's some kind of intermediate between tracked APC and IFV. 4K 4FA is designed in Western standards, it was comfortable and easy to drive compared to Soviet vehicles we have tested. That's why it is popular surplus vehicle in civilian markerts, it is a quite popular tourist entertaining vehicle.
I hardly think the HS.30 counts. It was shit in a lot of ways, explaining its short service life and inferior to BMP-1 in almost every respect. HS.30 fit German doctrine carried over from WWII of Panzer grenadier's predominantly fighting from their vehicles. This is just as well since mounting/dismounting from the HS.30 was,..._less than ideal_ . To fight from the vehicle however, the troops had to expose themselves out the hatches. The 20mm HS-820 cannon was really just _the German fifty_ and the German's employed them much like the American's employed the Ma Deuce. Same with the Austrians and the Swede's. Note the lack of a coax MG. Interestingly German PzGr Brigades never fully re-equipped with HS.30 and much like the WW2 situation where only one or maybe 2 battalions in a regiment had the armored halftrack, usually only one battalion in the 1960's had HS.30, a second had M113 and a third rode in trucks. AMX-VCI was just better, if cramped. It was IIRC expensive though. All French armor seems designed for legless Pigmies. The 20mm turrets did not get retrofitted to some (by no means all) until the mid-late 70's IIRC (never seen a photo of one prior to that) so usually had a 7.5mm MG before that. NOT an IFV. _But_ there were firing ports for the soldiers to fire mounted and under cover,... so they were half-way there. Which is nice. Those 20mm turrets were later removed and put on 4x4 VAB's to serve as escorts for Roland SAM's. Those VAB's are still in service. What made the BMP-1 such a thing was it being designed to _fight in close cooperation with tanks on a nuclear battlefield_ - closed up. Nobody else was doing that at the time, so yeah it was novel. The 73mm Grom gun was not a "misstep", it was a close-range compliment to the Malyutka ATGW. Where the 20mm guns in use on some western vehicles were really just big shell firing heavy machine guns (note the lack of a coax rifle caliber MG on most early applications), the 73mm was a dedicated anti-armor weapon designed to cover the substantial minimum range or "dead zone" of the Malyutka missile. The 7.62mm coax was there for suppressing infantry, just like it had been on earlier machines. The BMP-2 adopted a 30mm auto cannon to meet the evolving threat and a different requirement. It was not an anti-tank weapon like Grom but intended to suppress the rapidly growing number of NATO ATGW platforms carrying new weapons like TOW, HOT and Milan. These could be launched from well outside the effective range of Grom or 7.62mm machine guns. Punching little holes in M113's and Marder's was a secondary concern. The change to the 30mm was made possible by BMP-2 moving on to more advanced ATGW options than the 1st generation Malyutka, so the minimum range issue was no longer an issue and Grom made redundant. BMP-3 adopted a 100mm low-pressure gun as a means of firing ATGW from under armor. On BMP-1/2 the gunner had to open the hatch and expose himself to reload the missile launcher, with potentially fatal consequences, especially on a nuclear battlefield. The 100mm missile firing gun allowed ATGW to be fired all day long without anyone getting out of their chairs. Firing conventional HE was a bonus, not a necessity. The roles of the 30mm and 7.62mm coax remain as before, so they are kept. On a side note: Until the advent of the current generation of fire-and-forget ATGW like Javelin and Spike, I personally was never a fan of ATGW on IFV's.
pretty sure the BMP is considered rather light/medium hardware (at ~13 tons) rather than heavy (MBTs, SPGs, 155 howitzers, attack helicopters etc)
Yup. The revolutionary aspect of the BMP was the standard, credible, antitank capability added to an IFV that transported a short rifle squad and was designed to fight through the enemy position *or* stand off and deliver supporting fire.