Hearted Youtube comments on Ryan McBeth (@RyanMcBethProgramming) channel.
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
Quite interesting video as always coming from you, I have just some thoughts on few points you made :
2:14 : It didn't really took that long, this concept and the larger one of combined arms were already established and put to use by French and British Generals during WWI (and not by the German Army at the beginning of WWII like most people think, Dan Carlin's podcast series on WWI untitled "Blueprint for Armageddon" has really good segments on this), the first real exemple of this "exploitation" type of tank is the Whippet tank which see action in early 1918.
2:47 : I know about your experience as an AT specialist in the Army so maybe it's the case on more modern tanks. I can't say, they are not really my cup of tea.
However when talking about WWII tanks, the closer your are of a tank the safer it is, because the field of view of the crew reduces and when close enough the tank weapons won't be able to be lowered enough to be used effectively anyway (which is true for every armored vehicle even today but still).
And finally on the main subject of the video :
The war in Ukraine doesn't show us that tanks are becoming obsolete, it just show to the world once again that tanks aren't unstoppable killing machine, and that combine arms is a thing for a reason, and without infantry support the result is goin to be painful (and expensive), and the Russian Army notoriously struggle with that : WWII, the 2 wars in Chechnya and now Ukraine.
They are badly used by a poorly trained army with low moral (Russian Army in Ukraine today, but works for every army from the Middle East which even with really modern equipment, the Irakian or Afghan Armies for exemple, got wiped out by a bunch of highly motivated paramilitary groups).
I mean if you put me behind the commands of a F-35 in a War zone I will quickly "prove that planes are obsolete".
This situation is quite comparable to warplanes though : the avent of heat-seeking missiles haven't made planes obsolete, even though they are a type of fire and forget weapons.
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
I was a Navy Nuclear Propulsion Plant Operator and Radiological Controls Technician for 13 years. According to my radiation exposure records my total exposure after 13 years was exactly 1 REM. I am also a historian of sorts when it comes to Nuclear Power, Nuclear Weapons, and Radiation/Contamination exposure. This video was the "Bomb"! I mean it was really well done and very factual. There is one thing I'd like to bring up though. Nuclear weapon Yields are NOT proportional in that a 1 megaton weapon will not cause 10 times the destruction that a 100 kiloton weapon will.
First understand that a ground burst is the least efficient use of a nuclear weapon, unless you want to destroy a complex deep underground. The majority of the blast wave will be reflected up towards the atmosphere. For optimal surface destruction an airburst is needed at a particular height above the ground. What determines this height is the Incident Wave, direct blast from the explosion, and Reflective Wave, blast being reflected off the surface. There is a point were incident wave and the reflective wave meet and the combined wave causes the most damage but only for a certain distance. This is called Mach Stem. An airburst will create a ring of higher destruction where the Mach Stem was present because both waves cause a combined overpressure.
The higher the yield, the higher the altitude for the most efficient blast. The higher the altitude the thinner the atmosphere, thus minimizing thermal effects and blast, and more of the explosive yield will escape towards space. A 1 Megaton weapon is about 5-6 times the destruction of a 100 Kiloton weapon. The bigger the yield the less effective it is considering the cost in materials, energy, and money to create the weapon. Then there is the question of delivery. Megaton weapons have a HUGE amount of Uranium Tamper which is really heavy. Either a large expensive missile for one warhead or a big bomber to drop the bomb. Both threats are easier to take out than multiple independent re-entry vehicles (MIRVs). This is why there are no "Megaton" weapons in an operational (deployable) status in any countries arsenal. Literally, the bigger the bomb "Less Bang for the Buck".
I am glad you did not say there was enough Nuclear Weapons to devastate the earth several times over. That is very misleading.
If you calculate the average yield of these "deployable" weapons, weapons that have an active delivery platform available, then Russia's average yield per weapon is about 340kt and the US average yield per weapon is about 215kt. If Russia was to carpet bomb an area with all of their deployable nukes to a height that would maximize the blast destruction, then they could only devastate approximately 45,893 km². An area halfway between the size of Maryland (32,131 km²) and West Virginia(63,000 km²). If the US was to carpet bomb an area with all of their deployable nukes to a height that would maximize blast destruction , then they could only devastate approximately 30,088 km². An area smaller then the size of Maryland (32,131 km²).
Now that's not to say that life wouldn't suck hard after a full exchange. It certainly would and could bring about the full collapse of a country. Just wanted to add some clarity on certain aspects of Nuclear War.
Comments welcome.
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14