Comments by "" (@TheArklyte) on "Matsimus" channel.

  1. There is a reason 14.5mm is used in NTW-20 as anti-armor round while 20mm is used as delivery for explosive shells. Too powerfull, 12.7 allows you to get infantry to carry this bad boy around.
    4
  2. As a citizen of Belarus, I fear my regime every day. Respect to it had gone to buy milk around 3 decades ago and still haven't returned. If you're going to misquote Prince, then at least read the full thing.
    4
  3. Is there any info on amount of propellant charges used, velocity, armor penetration and effectiveness of AP round of 25 pounder? That thing was used as AT gun in North Africa on few occasions so here's historical interest. It's also the earliest modern gun above the punching weight of 2 pounder that is available to british before 6 pounder and especially 17 pounder are ready. So here's althistory interest, Churchill armed with 25 pounder(no, turret ring fits, proven by aussies).
    4
  4. We really need better specification. You can't compare light handheld, heavy stationary and the ones designed for rotorcraft and yet all of them are ATGMs. Javelin is probably the best light one... as for the rest, I'm not sure where modern ATGMs end and loitering drones, AGMs and short range cruise missiles start ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯
    4
  5.  @Qbgarden  that depends on how you view SAMs. For some reason rocket artillery including MLRSs and tactical ballistic missiles are artillery, but everyone pretends that ATGMs and SAMs aren't ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯ Anyway there are even fewer AAA designed post-WWII. The only "notables" I can recall is soviet 57mm S-60 autocannon, Bofors 57mm from which soviets copied it and 75mm M51 Skysweeper. AAA needs full freedom of traverse both horizontal and vertical, very fast traverse, doesn't care much about dimensions and visibility(aka the only branch where use of muzzle brake isn't frowned upon). While it CAN benefit from both increased velocity like AT and increased caliber like normal artillery, rate of fire was the characteristic that won out in the end(if you count only AAA without counting SAMs).
    4
  6. Title: "why is there hate towards Mi-8/Mi-17?" Viewers: IS there hate against Mi-8/Mi-17?0_o P.S.: main problem of soviet/russian equipment remains Russia. Somehow in other more competent hands that are willing to put in the work, it all works great. It's as if there is a pattern emerging here \/(-_-)\/
    4
  7.  @TrangleC  1)ALL tanks are offensive weapons. The ONLY "defensive" tank ever designed was Strv103. Can you guess why it's not an offensive weapon when looking at it? 2)USSR had never hidden intentions to attack other european states first to "reclaim god given historical lands" and then to "spread revolution". Hitler likewise had never hidden intentions to attack USSR, that was his main political platform since 1934 and a part of his speeches even before that. Moreover USSR was actually in the process of negotiating joining the war on Allied side before France fell as it was obvious that war with Germany would be inevitable with such rhetoric plus it allowed them to achieved their first phase of Stalin's own ambitions. However as France fell, the negotiations fell through and USSR was left hanging not knowing what to do and not wanting to bet on UK during the peak of Battle of Britain. There's also a second problem, USSR rearmament program was planned to finish only in 1943. So while there's a degree of truth that USSR planned to attack first(hence fuel and ammo reserves moved to the border and the fact that majority of newest tanks aka T-34 and KV-1 were moved to Byalastok to serve in armored fist), the overall situation was closer to "wtf are we doing exactly again?". Soviet military was caught with their pants down for a reason, because they were trying to put two different pants on at the same time.
    4
  8. Don't let americans hear you do the same by wondering if Abrams is really an MBT if it's designed to fight tanks in full frontal, suffered from slightly underwhelming anti-infantry capabilities and is mostly modified to fix this?
    3
  9.  @alsa3ka166  jet costs enough to warrant a missile launch. This is NOT a dedicated AA vehicle, it is still an IFV. Think of it like 76mm Sherman or T-34-57 ie vehicle that was enhanced for certain task(tank destroyer in case of these example I use here or SPAAG in case of this IFV), but still retains its own designation and niche. It is there to enhance other IFVs with different armament packages(like 100+30), not to cover a niche already taken.
    3
  10. Vigilante and Sergeant York combined seem to have had a potential to make a good denial weapon for close range AA role. Not to mention allow troops on march to have their own land based CIWS decades earlier.
    3
  11.  @Andre_Thomasson  care to give an example that doesn't fall into previous categories, please? Заодно узнаем кто ты и откуда на основе твоих "предпочтений";)
    3
  12. Mi-12 lifts 44 tons. T-72 weights 42 tons. ... Oh. Oh no.
    3
  13. Yeah, nowadays waring sides use civilian dumpers and freezer trucks. I presume, given the location, KamAZ mostly...
    3
  14. Did you just put MiG-31 and maneuverability in the same sentence? Is that trolling? Bait?
    3
  15. Dang it, another spam bot. Did they teach neural network to create new accounts to copy the content creators or do they still do it by hand, tens of thousands per day? Either way, please report it.
    3
  16. It's not. ZSU-57-2 was a dedicated SPAAG. This thing however exists for the same purpose US is started producing 50mm version of Bushmaster - garbage variety drones cost several times less then AA missile of Tunguska or even Pantsir(system that aimed to produce simplest missile solution specifically). This is still an IFV.
    3
  17.  @olivialambert4124  "Why would anyone drop a tank from orbit? That is the most absurd statement I've ever heard." Because you chose to spin it that way. I was merely pointing out capabilities of modern technology. It all started with the fact that you've mistaken the use of transport skids with paradropping. The point of such platforms is to limit the time the plane is present in dangerous zone as well as being able to use airstrips and landing zones not fit for bigger transport aircraft either to their low quality or due to being simply too short. But it is not paradropping. The actual vehicle paradrop methods are very well practiced with BMD series of vehicles. It requires a whole system of solutions like drogue chutes, normal chutes, braking rockets, specially designed for the task suspension and landing platform to implement, but it's a working system. Nowadays it's limited to roughly 20 tons. Is there a technical limitation that stops us from landing heavier weights like 40 or even 60 tons tanks? Nope. Just budget and developement time. I've mentioned why. I've also mentioned Mi-12 and T-64 combo in case tank might require an airlift. Different problem, but still possible to do. Instead you decided to spin the context of my comment to ridicule and insult me. What should I say to that? I'd prefer to say goodb... just bye.
    3
  18. >Most talked about tank >Isn't even from WWII Nah, something tells me that on that list it's not even going to be in first dozen. Apparently T-34(classical original)>>>>T-90(pathetic imitation)😅
    3
  19. ​ @hamodycraft1345  the country with most bases in Syria is Russia, the same country that left Afghanistan with 2 million dead civilians and 30 million mines. There were only two things westerners did wrong with Saddam's Iraq - 1)help to arm it against Iran during the war just like USSR did which resulted in one of the most recent widespread uses of WMDs against civilian population; 2)didn't hang Saddam the first time.
    3
  20. I'm pretty sure that soviet/russian nuclear submarines have proven competent enough to do the job of killing themselves on their own on numerous occasions. But if they want to dedicate a helicopter to "commissar" duty to prevent Red October book/movie from becoming a prophetic scenario, it's their right to do so 👍
    3
  21. Just like M1117 feels like BRDM-2 with extra steps.
    3
  22. B-52 is let down by lack of variants on its base. Instead tankers, transports, AWACS and many other roles were filled by either older planes(B-50's and even B-29 conversions) or planes build upon base of civilian models. Meaning that there was a gap for several years when bomber fleet switched to B-52, but the utility fleet was still prop planes. And mind you, utility aircraft have much longer effective lifespan. Tanker upon B-29 base would be useful even nowadays.
    3
  23.  @viktoriyaserebryakov2755  oh, so you've gone to leave your mark in all comment threads, comrade? Quite a lot of free time, isn't it?
    3
  24. Because it highlights parade vehicles and government priorities, duh 😅
    3
  25. Saying best IFV in the world is like saying that Space Race and Cold War ended:D There is a lot of secret data, doctrinal differences and each country has different needs. It's just big enough to mount new 50mm, while Bradley would need a conversion.
    3
  26. Matsimus, congrats, you've also received the dubious honor of getting yourself a spam bot in the comments that poses as you.
    3
  27. 50mm Bushmaster had finished trials last year exactly for the same role. You people are out of the loop.
    3
  28. Depends if they're still allowed for riot control against unarmed citizens and such other peaceful roles?
    3
  29. Kane lives!
    3
  30. 1)caliber. Mortars stopped at 160mm as being the heaviest among the useful range of calibers. It's harder to load, haul around and has less ammo capacity on same platforms, BUT those don't matter as much when you force those heavy mortars on self propelled chassis with assisted loading anyway. I guess here they stopped at lower caliber for the sake of inherent logistics of using more widespread caliber with existing supplies? 2)main advantage of mortar is how cheap and easy to use it it compared to normal gun. It's expendable and needs barely trained crew to iperate at minimum useful capacity. Here you put it on expensive IFV based hull and turn it into a vehicle with requirements for highly trained crews. Is it really better then simpler 120mm mortar with two loaders and pneumatic ammo crane inside an old APC like M113 or MT-LB? And is firing more accurate counts as more effective if you talk about expensive laser and GPS guided ammo for that, which would be better used for actual howitzers? I feel like the lack of orders is due to this system trying to "unmake" what makes mortars and invent self propelled howitzers the second time ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯
    3
  31. 7,62mm chaingun? What are you, soviet airforce in 1938? Though I guess between unreliable, but overwhelming in terms of firepower ShKAS and this thing, you can get one good rifle caliber chaingun... but why would you bother when soany good machineguns are available?
    3
  32. You know what I like the most about original Rheinmetall video? Closed comments. So that nobody would mention how drones just hang in there in a tight group which makes the whole demonstration pointless.
    3
  33. If China is arming itself to the teeth then US is a xenomorph in terms of teeth:\
    3
  34. Now if only someone combined it with a chassis of an old tank... NavWeaps says that whole mounting weights 24-25 tons. Not great, not terrible ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯
    3
  35.  @dominuslogik484  they weren't outdated in technological terms for a few more years then that, it's the engine and armor that failed them. I'll explain... Italians had several T-26 as trophies in Spain. Those tanks became a basis of italian medium and heavy tank projects. They also captured one BT-5, but apparently that thing vanished as it had no impact on italian tank development. Anyway, T-26 became basis of "temporary" M11/39 tank and mainline production M13/40, M14/41 and M15/42 medium tanks. The latter had "forked" into P75, which eventually ended up becoming P26/40 heavy tank in italian service. General layout, suspension and even MTU were still heavily T-26 derived and thus are one of the last Vickers 6 ton derivatives designed and put into service.
    3
  36. I still wonder how would it had performed nowadays with VT fuzes, laser rangefinder, FCS and radar(think of it like a mix between Object 520 proposal and ZSU-37-2, which didn't enter production). And of course with powered gun training😅 Edit: I wonder if some "third party" could have purchased ZSU-57-2 and M51 Skysweeper in bulk and smash both systems together to make a more modern solution that would be an absolute menace for helicopters?
    2
  37. This all reminds me how destroyers started as torpedo boats with guns, grew to torpedo boat destroyers, outgrew torpedo boat part of the name, grew even more with destroyer leaders being light cruisers under other name and now we have destroyers with mass of heavy cruiser, armaments of battlecruiser and pricetag of battleships. And people decided to invent torpedo boat destroyers once again as "cheaper alternative". I've seen this cycle in navy, I've seen it in tank development with MBT being too precious so we now have light and medium tanks back, we've even starting to see it with fighters as every fighter eventually is replaced by much larger multirole fighter-bomber which requires a lighter and more expendable fighters to be on second roles. So now jeeps grew up and for 50th time reinvented armored car. As a result for 50th time some guy reinvented a jeep... Tbh it would have been funny if all the people involved weren't as oblivious about going in circles.
    2
  38.  @Limescale12  yes and no. Not by "any pew pew" by a long shot. There's a reason calibers below 30mm didn't last long in the role of SPAAG on neither side of the Cold War. They just lacked the firepower needed for the role even if volume of fire was great. 20-23mm didn't cut it(even if Phalanx and VADS have it). And they needed a direct hit too. Even nowadays they need. While it's easy to have programmable ammo at 30-35mm and even at 25mm nowadays. But Sergeant York(SY from here) lowered VT fuzes to 40mm caliber. It was a real breakthrough of the time. Sadly that system itself lacked volume of fire required. Meanwhile Vigilante has less widespread caliber and unique chassis working againt its introduction. Vigilante should have had reworked to 40mm as its technical design requirement and they should have used tank chassis as SY did. Rotary cannon volume of fire combined with 40mm VT fuzed ammunition... and ability to use all other "off the shelf" 40mm ammunition made by Bofors. Including APDS with high enough penetration to ruin the day of some tanks.
    2
  39.  @nogisonoko5409  Missile also costs dozen times more and suffers a heavy CIWS allergy. Just like planes. That's why land artillery didn't go obsolete and isn't planning to.
    2
  40.  @BeingFireRetardant  Yamato and Musashi were missused, unsupported and were infamous for their lack of AAA capabilities compared to their sisters in other navies. Meanwhile the whole kamikaze tactics appeared solely because AAA of american ships was making the task of torpedo bomber pilot already suicidal and impossible to do in 99% of cases. Roma and Tirpitz are also famous for being victims of aviation, but morons forget that they were victims of STRATEGIC land based bombers. Something that can make "obsolete" even the nowaday supercarriers as none of them can fully defend itself against cruise missile carriers like B-1A/B or Tu-160.
    2
  41. +icevoid have you played above 4th era? WoT has a massive problem, but it isn't "premium" ammo, my dear slowpokes that needed 3 years to react to it and still whine about it to this day. As if it's a fresh experience still. Nope, it's f//cking invisibility. Skorpions, E25's, swedish TDs. That cancer receives massive detection range and a damned stealth field. I know that outdated corpse of a game engine is limited to 440 meters, but is it so hard to change a few numbers in text file and adjust draw distance to maximum and just separate detection and marker distance to work on previous mechanics? One test server... ugh.
    2
  42.  @crazybenny8544  which weights around the same as MG-151/20 or GSh-23.
    2
  43. No. Because hamsters will not agree that it's a battleship unless it looks like dreadnaught era battleship, is called a battleship and for some reason relies on guns \/(-_-)\/ So instead we will see "definetly not battleships" just like we've already seen for a long time.
    2
  44.  @jordanjohnson8757  and who had leadership in the field of subs to the point of being only nation producing cruiser submarines after WWII back when these ships were designed? Yep, to quote you "dead big ship" it won't a Kirov though:D
    2
  45.  @denism8494  technically it is as he's trying to misquote Machiavelli without comprehending what he said on the matter.
    2
  46.  @cnlbenmc  F-35 is multirole. It replaces NOT only ground pounders like A-10 and Harrier II
    2
  47. It's not. ZSU-57-2 was a dedicated SPAAG. This thing however exists for the same purpose US is started producing 50mm version of Bushmaster - garbage variety drones cost several times less then AA missile of Tunguska or even Pantsir(system that aimed to produce simplest missile solution specifically). This is still an IFV. Just with extended range, programmable warhead and dedicated "flak" round to counter swarms of those 400$ flying quadcopters with cameras and jury rigged with laser pointers and/or IEDs at twice the range 30-35mm autocannons could.
    2
  48. Note to novice sci-fi/space opera writers: Just grab this thing, mix it with Tu-160 and call it a fighter. Yes, a craft with 76mm autoloader in a turret, 36+ tons of missile/bomb load and crew of like a dozen people would be a fighter.
    2
  49. Wow, it's as if soviet and russian tanks with their low weight, low profile and other features were made for lowlands, steppes and floodplains with plentiful rivers, swamps and lakes ie their own homeland instead of "landing on american coast"™
    2
  50.  @PumpkinEater-dm1xx  "Recomissioning the battleship was pointless" Against Kirov? No, it was still a morale boost since everybody knew no one will actually fight, but it was a nice show off. Against countries that can't fight back like Iraq for example? Man, those battleships were just flexing on anything in the reach of their guns nonstop. It was cheaper and faster to respond then airstirkes and cruise missiles so those guns were firing a lot.
    2