Пікірлер

• 
  @Sebdoesstuff37234 минут бұрын

  I’m doing research rn as I am in cadets and thinking about joining the RACF once I get old enough to

• 
  @DeDeimos1Сағат бұрын

  The most pictures are the typical promo videos from the weapon industry. Computer generated, colorfull and impressive, the videos target clearly the people, who manage the money. But often these weapon are super expensive to purchase and maintain, looking only good on parade but not really capable on battlefield. Best examples can actually been seen in Ukraine. Western MBT's are overwhelmed with muddy Streets and burning as good as their soviet/russian counterparts, but the cost much, much higher. I think, it's the same with these ships. Raising great expectations but hardly keeping any of them.

• 
  @PBMS123Сағат бұрын

  FYI the Land Rovers were replaced by the G-Wagon. Also Steyr like St-eye-ah(r), not stay-ah(r)

• 
  @PrivateCatsvilleСағат бұрын

  They probably have millions of these mortars

• 
  @heksogen47885 сағат бұрын

  This is a cope video.

• 
  @TobyAnderson6 сағат бұрын

  I personally liked the RSA Rooivalk. Flexible in armament and manoeuvrable.

• 
  @jonfallis3058 сағат бұрын

  in 1985 if someone said the british army would be in afghanistan, within 20yrs, they would have been put in a loony bin

• 
  @user-lw8xe5sr1z10 сағат бұрын

  ВПУ как пушка танка, Грохот выстрелов, болтанка... Я как мышь в консервной банке! По которой молотком... (Песня про боевых пилотов СУ-25)

• 
  @EricGiebel-hs7uv12 сағат бұрын

  It's either millimeter or calibre. Not both. It drives me nuts to hear a millimeter calibre round

• 
  @EricGiebel-hs7uv13 сағат бұрын

  The only problem I'd have,is hot bunkin

• 
  @Matthew-ck2ue14 сағат бұрын

  The emphasis on “sveden” is totally unnecessary 😂😂😂. Love you’re videos

• 
  @Stugenthusiast18 сағат бұрын

  All tanks in this M1A1 Abrams M1A2 Abrams T-69, showing: 0:03 fireing: 1:42 Leopard 1, fireing: 2:04 M4A1 Sherman, fireing: 2:06 M18 Hellcat, firing 2:08 Challenger 2, firing: 1:54 T-72 A, firing: 1:58 T-80 U Leopard 2?, Fireing 1:56 I'll finish this later

• 
  @walteropanasets917819 сағат бұрын

  Glad to see they are using the M-1A1 eyeball

• 
  @Nikitafrom23320 сағат бұрын

  Please don't mix Russian with Soviet, it's a Soviet Machine Gun

• 
  @keithmcwilliams742420 сағат бұрын

  We dont make cars here in australia anymore but we make great armoured vehicles.

• 
  @nikitatarsov517221 сағат бұрын

  Pilots burden: Well, despite this now has been fixed by two-seaters, RU even in ther worst times had always a good education as well as many potential material for ther army. And above that we can go a bit dramaturgical and say the're still descendants of horse tribes, so they seem to have a feeling for manouver warfare on land (and almost laughably lack that on the sea ... submarines excluded). So RU air force (almost) always felt pretty safe in having top notch people at hand to shoulder as many tasks as needed. I mean as a funny and probably bit unfair comparison today we have US senat hearings about pilots being inable to understand the pretty basic phenomenon of a paralax, and reveal that they secretly ALL belived to have seen a ton of alien spaceships in ther careers due to that inability. Pretty wild, imho. (It was mostly goose they spoted, btw.) Anyway, SU and RU always have been more based, while the west invested in fancy tech solutions to cope with numerical inferiority. So western designs have been more instabile, while having an edge if ther prefered strategical niche is viable. Now they seem to go for encapsuled electronics that do ther job on ther own, putting the smallest possible burden on the pilots. Jammer, e-warfare, laser softkill and cross-data management f.e. come with pretty small numbers of buttons.

• 
  @joeis1822 сағат бұрын

  Not every weapon needs to be capable of killing the most modern MBT. Anti-vehicle is good enough in most cases.

• 
  @joeis1822 сағат бұрын

  Bruh, these minute and a half intros are killing me.

• 
  @nikitatarsov517222 сағат бұрын

  Apache/Ka-48/52: Actually the Apache always has been that kind of design history you would expect from late soviet union corruption hellscape. And by that, all the unlimited praise felt like an assault on basic common sense. So my negative opinion about Apache might by a bit unsober, and include my hatred for general stupidity and nationalist fanboy'ism that is so often tied to it, but still ... meh. Apache is a bag full of massive tradeoffs, and not much more a flying tank which lacks propper armor to be even that. It is wild that the Hind makes a better dogfighter than Apache - and it's pretty fked up when your tank forgot his armor AND got beaten by a damn transport truck.

• 
  @hardyanpajero6922 сағат бұрын

  👍😎🍺🍩🪖🛩️🛩️

• 
  @louwvandermerwe17823 сағат бұрын

  Looks good!

• 
  @deanbusch2727Күн бұрын

  The US is looking at this, Canada should do as well, especially the anti air and motor carrier version. being able to transport by Chinook gives a huge advantage for rapid deployment.

• 
  @damongraham1398Күн бұрын

  K.I.S.S. Warships with one single mission supported by other warships during their mission. One arsenal ship for land/sea attack. One arsenal ship for the anti air mission. A ship that controls both remotely. Do not forget the ships that will be needed to rearm and refuel those three types of ships. Destroyers and frigate still have their role. Yes, I still believe in the Freedom class LCS. If the sub hunter module issues get resolved that will free up a destroyer for other missions.

• 
  @damongraham1398Күн бұрын

  What?!?!?! The LCS program has a mission. True they cannot complete all of them but they were design to replace the Avenger class and Cyclone class ships. They were never designed to replace the frigates. Yes, each class of LCS had problems. The mission modules were not completed. At all for the sub hunter mission. Only just recently for the mine hunting mission. LCS were designed from the beginning to have short legs. Paired with the Spearhead class the LCS can self deploy. They were never designed to be destroyers or frigates.

• 
  @chriswerkes8313Күн бұрын

  Great video of one of WW2's workhorses and unsung hero. Interesting that both the Lancaster and Halifax did not carry belly defensive armaments and relied solely on the tail gunner.

• 
  @damongraham1398Күн бұрын

  When I first read the article in Popular Mechanics when I was a kid. I realized they would not do it because at the time the military wanted everything to be multi role. A platform cannot do only one thing. It had to have two or more jobs. I understand now that the Defense department did not want to pay for everything that would take to keep the arsenal ship in the fight. They would have to be ships to reload them. That was not going to happen.

• 
  @charliepyle1626Күн бұрын

  That is a lot of power from a small engine, longevity may be an issue.

• 
  @joshuamccabe7729Күн бұрын

  Tell me where the spare tyre goes??? Also can you actually sit in it with combat gear on??

• 
  @HeshhionКүн бұрын

  It's junk. It doesn't even have the ability to carry a spare tyre. Useless..

• 
  @user-fb4vg9ef6rКүн бұрын

  сразу видно -наша техника..без пиздюлины не работает

• 
  @KenanTurkiyeКүн бұрын

  escape the matrix trust me (I'm sure you've heard of that many times, only once is it true) come this way you'll get it when you get it when you get it, pray for us all as all of us who get it do it for the rest hurry

• 
  @MS-wz9jmКүн бұрын

  No. The bigger drones are the easier they are to detect and shoot down. The future is smaller drones not larger ones.

• 
  @tokencivilian8507Күн бұрын

  Now that there was cool. Nothing quite like some thumping, 100 octane leaded gas engine music to my ears.

• 
  @user-ho5dm3cb6jКүн бұрын

  Я посмотрел несколько ваших видео, и мне понравилось. Может вам будет интересно посмотреть цикл старых документальных фильмов от телеканала "звезда": "из всех орудий" (про артиллерию), "Крылья России" (про самолеты), "Броня России" (про танки), "Придумано в окопах" (про инженерные войска), "На грани возможного", "Оружие холодной войны" и там еще много циклов освящающих самые разные военные темы. Цикл этих фильмов снят около 20 лет назад, тогда телеканал "Звезда" еще не был так сильно политизирован. Сейчас этот телеканал превратился в пропагандистскую помойку, но в то время телеканал таким не был (ну, немного пропаганды было, но это скорее влияние взглядов создателей фильмов). Там вы себе можете достать кучу полезной информации и видео-футажей для своих роликов. Телеканал "Звезда" после начала войны на Украине был удален с youtube, а значит он не сможет кинуть вам страйк/претензию за использование его видео-материалов. Не знаю доступен ли сейчас перевод и какого он качество, но попробуйте. Если сможете найти, то не пожалеете. UPD: важное дополнение: эти фильмы освещают советское и российское оружие, но всегда рассматривают его в историческом контексте, т.е. всегда есть сравнения с западным оружием

• 
  @user-ho5dm3cb6jКүн бұрын

  Спасибо за видео. Почему вас так удивило то, что он имеет в своем арсенале ядерные снаряды? У артиллерийской системы "Пион" калибра 203 также есть ядерные снаряды. Более того, даже у, возможно, самой распространенной пушки 2A65 (МСТА-Б) калибра 152 мм есть ядерные боеприпасы. Поищите информацию про "152-мм ядерный снаряд 3бв3". Есть даже ядерный снаряд для пушки Д-20 (Этот снаряд называется РД4-01). Даже на первых этапах разработки танка Т-14 разработчики танка стремились к калибру в 152 мм, и это было, среди многих причин, мотивированно возможностью использовать танком ядерных снарядов. А вообще меня всегда удивлял уровень унификации нашей артиллерии. Советский Союз всегда стремился к максимальной унификации, чтобы было проще как производить технику и боеприпасы, так и упростить логистику и работу снабжению, но с артиллерией все иначе, и я не понимаю почему. Это касается не только ствольной артиллерии, но и РСЗО - огромное количество самых разных систем и самых разных калибров, которые не имеют никакой совместимости друг с другом.

• 
  @robinwatters572Күн бұрын

  Thumbs up from me mate. You're spot on.

• 
  @nikolabucabucaКүн бұрын

  its disained to brake bunkers in trench positions in space were you cant use bombarders cose of air deffence......it have 240kg bombs[[500+ pounds projectiles]] an 100kg[[225pounds]] rocket drive laser tracking projectiles going to 20km range[[13 miles]] an hithing what you paint with laser designator............peski vilage[[name of vilage neer avdevka an marienka]] in ukraine was leveled by this things trenches were destroyed an people in concrete bunkers buried by hits of this 500 pounds bombs[[its same strengt as small avio bombs]]

• 
  @ACTUALLYRICHКүн бұрын

  Timbits, not timmies 😂

• 
  @Buttmunch284Күн бұрын

  Naval guns rock

• 
  @vermillion.__-_.Күн бұрын

  FV510

• 
  @stanislavt6376Күн бұрын

  The hard working beautiful machine!

• 
  @WeteranCAКүн бұрын

  When I was in the army, I had the opportunity to operate such a weapon at a range shooting for air and sea targets. They were two linked guns placed on the platform of a truck. I was a KUB operator myself, but since I was a child I have always been attracted to firearms. As children in the 1980s, my friends and I would go to the local military training ground to buy ammunition. Mainly blank cartridges, of which there were plenty, but you could also find other cool things there. In the place where sappers were blowing up the found second-war ammunition and weapons, I once found, among others, a German MG.151 with a caliber of 2 cm and two MG.17s.

• 
  @josephm6058Күн бұрын

  .0_ step

• 
  @josephm6058Күн бұрын

  .o_ . 1 .1 .0

• 
  @rehnedojankekyakarloge5384Күн бұрын

  Arjun is a wastage of 40 years, even the engine is not made in India, forget other parts

• 
  @gabesphotoКүн бұрын

  OK my 2 cents. Great ship for what it was designed for. Needs allot of teething repairs and redesigning of parts and systems. Cancel stupid maintenance contracts and replace with trained personnel. Improvise Improvise and Improvise weapons systems for current and future war scenarios.

• 
  @Jasper0o0Күн бұрын

  Thanks for this video. I knew of the Halifax, but didn’t know too many details. My grandfather helped to build Lancasters in Ottawa.

• 
  @samyfay7786Күн бұрын

  Notice the oil projection on the ground after the start up. Keep in mind that most of WWII aircrafts had oil tanks worth dozens of gallons, and, had to be replenished at every sorties.

• 
  @user-xu3jp2kf8q2 күн бұрын

  I only watched first half ov the video, but what the fck? in video you are saying it was designed by Vasiliy Degtyarov, that is not true, however video description says designer was Semyon Vladimirov, which is true but why information from video description and video itself is different? I understand you have a crush on soviet/russian weapon but this thing is garbage. In 60`s/80`s this machine gun was pretty much exclusive to a soviet light armored vehicles, in modern era even russians replaced it with 30mm cannon. people use it today ONLY if they do not have heavy machine gun or autocannon avaliable. Oh and the barrel removing feature is there for maintenance, not quick change in combat

• 
  @tedcopple1012 күн бұрын

  Where I live in rural North Yorkshire there was dozens of RCAF airfields around me. Wombleton is probably the best preserved but they were every 20 miles or so. Very brave men (and women).