Comments by "Chef Chaudard" (@chefchaudard3580) on "Military History Visualized" channel.

The trade off is that all the weight, turret, gun and thick front plate, are placed on the front half of the tank, leading to a " nose heavy" tank.
35
@ivankrylov6270 not really. The hull was designed for a lighter gun and turret. Using the 122mm in a well protected big turret unbalanced the tank. The T34 85 hull front armor remained the same 45mm throughout the war for the same reason. Using a bigger gun and turret had already overweight the front.
13
@ВасяКирьянов-г3ж nothing of that will happen, unfortunately for the Russians. Usa has more than enough military gear to equip ukrainian army. There are currently 18 Himars in Ukraine... the usa have 400 of them. 400! Europe will not collapse like that. Europe has a very strong economy, and there is no way it can collapse in a matter of months. Russian production cannot replace the thousands of tanks, planes and missiles lost so far. This is simply impossible because they don't have the facilities, tools and parts. And there are crippled by sanctions. And they are already short of eauipment. They have to use ancient T-62, T-72 after all T-80 they could put their hand on were spent. Mobilized troups are short of everything, from helmets to AFVs. So, no, russian army has spent all the ussr stockpile and is unable to replace the losses, while USA and europe still have warehouses full or equipment and can outproduce russia just by using existing facilities.
8
800 tanks lost, according to Oryx. Fully documented. From about 2500 the Russian had at the start of the war. Probably more lost in reality as not all of them have been documented.
5
@bojanvavpetic3032 there is something called "universal declaration of human rights". As its name indicates, it is supposed to apply to all humans.
3
And what is a "tank kill", anyway? A tank stopped with a damaged track? Several wheels damaged? Repaired on site, in regimental workshop? Army workshop? Factory? Even severely damaged tanks could be repaired at the factory, using a mix of cannibalised and new parts. The legendary ancient hammer, which was refurbished few years ago when the head was replaced and the handle changed for a new one.🙂
2
I don't think so. Lets be optimistic. If lt gen Ben Hodges is right, Ukraine will recover most of its territories in 2023. Then after, the war will be over, simply because russian army will be wear out. It is already in bad shape.
2
And there are also old RPGs in the field that were useless against modern tanks and can be useful against old T-62s.
2
@doublehelix7880 Where I live, you need to have somethng to backup your claims. Otherwise, Hitchen's razor applies: ""what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." In other words, "trust me, Bro!" is not good enough...
2
I hope not. We save the recycling cost, that way.
2
Guess you are not living under the Talibans?
2
It is smaller and lighter than a Tesla Model 3 ! 😁😁
1
@jrd33 It also sums up the Normandy battle. Because of bombings, the Wehrmacht lacked the trains it relied upon to transport the standard infantry units to the front. It took weeks to send some infantry units. The consequence was that only the most nimble units, like Panzer Divisionen or Panzer Grenadieren divisions could do it in a relatively short time. The issue was that those divisions were designed to counterattack the Allies, not hold the ground, which was the purpose of the infantry units left behind. The Germans had no other choice than fight an attrition battle they could not win, with a tactical disadvantage.
1
@megalamanooblol No. T-62M have no ERA, as far as we can see, unless it is added later, at a cost: increasing the weight will likely overload the chassis. More wear on the power train and less mobility from a tank which is already underpowered by modern standards. A T-72 stands some chances to stop an old RPG7, not a T-62.
1
It was used sometimes, but it was not possible on the front line during the night (because of the firelight) and because the engine had to be drained, or water would have frozen and damage it. Heating the engine and fill it was done in the morning, when there were enough light and firelight was not a concern. But it took some time. Well aware of that the Red Army used to attack at dawn.
1
@doublehelix7880 and? Do you have any expertise yourself to backup your claim?
1
@j.f.fisher5318 In fact, new designs, like the T-44 and T-54 had the engine and transmission mounted perpendicular to the tank. The turret could be, and was centered. There was no need for the engine to balance the weight of the turret. Transmission ergonomic issues in the T-34 were not due to its location, but because it was of a crude design. I've read once from a French book that the gearbox was simply an upscaled version of the famous WWI FT17 one. It needs to be confirmed, though. Anyway, because of the creep in engine power during the war, transmissions had to be power assisted, if not fully automatic, so the gear for the controls are not a big issue. The T-34 hull was not uparmored during the war, but not even after the war, despite the fact that engineers put a 70mm thick front glacis on the T-44, up to 120mm on the T-54. According to Wikipedia "Ground trials by employees of NIBT Polygon in May 1943 reported that the 88 mm KwK 36 gun could pierce the T-34 frontal hull from 1,500 meters at 90 degrees and cause a disastrous burst effect inside the tank. The examined hull showed cracks, spalling, and delamination due to the poor quality of the armour. It was recommended to increase and improve the quality of welds and armour." It would have been easy to uparmour front glacis after the war, by adding applique armour, for example, but it was not.
1
@bojanvavpetic3032 it is not because bad things were done in the name of it that it is bad.
1
@bojanvavpetic3032 i say the opposite. People sometimes do bad things because thet are bad, sometimes because they try to do good things. Human rights are a good thing, what was done in their name was nor always good. Anyway, you can go to Afghanistan if you like it. I just hope you are not gay or a woman.
1
@bojanvavpetic3032 proof that all countries are bribed in the UN?
1
@bojanvavpetic3032 i knew you were a russian troll from the start. UN is an international institution which is in charge of international laws. It may not be perfect, but it is better than nothing. It clearly condemn the invasion of Ukraine, in the name of said laws. You can go into any paranoid ramblings, it will not change that fact.
1
@commisaryarreck3974 That's not true, the EU or China are sometimes negociating with the US, when they take bad decisions. War is not the best solution, if one want to break free from US leadership. Quick question : when is the last time US tried to annex a country or parts of it, like what Russia does with Ukraine?
1
@commisaryarreck3974 why don't you answer my question? Which nuclear threat? Why wouuld USA be perfect? Do you think not being perfect is enough to throw the baby with the bath? Of course usa are sometimes a bully, of course they sometimes make mistakes. It does not mean that it is not preferable to other options nor that, because they sometimes go out the limits, everybody is allowed to do what they want
1
Honneur aux morts!
1