Comments by "" (@TheArklyte) on "Why Puma IFV Failed its Combat Test" video.

Meanwhile, somewhere in USSR in 1941: "The front needs X." "When?" "Yesterday."
139
@No5f3r4tu atomic bomb. It turned out to be much simpler then at first anticipated ie borderline impossible.
86
@karolrawski410 maybe. But B-29 was the first truly intercontinental bomber in the world and one that was tooled up for mass production to boot. IE it would have turned japanese cities into firestorms even without nukes. Eventually. Yeah, I know it's horrific to talk about it like that, but that's a statement about unparallel performance of it during those days. For example soviets closed down two of their own superheavy bomber projects and instead pooled resources and specialists from them to copy(with minor changes like switching defense armament to autocannons) damaged B-29. And said soviet bombers were already more advanced then anything Germany had planned. B-29/Tu-4 remained unmatched until jet aviation took over... sorry, I wandered off, what were we talking about?
18
Mind you, Bradley haven't yet fully replaced M113. There are barely any vehicles on Bradley platform not to mention ones on its units ie engine, transmission, suspension. So US army is replacing a vehicle it had barely used. Again. Rather then looking for new IFV, they should saturate the roles still filled with M113 derivatives with Bradley derivatives. US army has two platforms it is afraid to use. First is Bradley, second is Abrams. They want heavier IFV then Bradley? Go restore one of those M1 hulls and strap it with autocannon and ATGMs.
3
@heinzsielmann5952 T-34-85 was good. But all that was good in it was coming from that new T-43 turret. T-34 itself? Not so much. And it certainly WASN'T fit for mass production. Bogies or torsion bars are what you'd want for suspension for mass production, like T-60/70 light tanks for example. Christie suspension is a bitch to construct and especially maintain. That's why Comet was the last tank to use it, while bogies(Hortsmann/HVSS) were still used on Chieftain and torsion bars are widespread nowadays. The other issue is angled side armor that substantially increases production cost for no real benefit. That's why T-44, T-54 and onwards don't bother with that. The bloody Panther was almost as cheap as T-34 despite being much larger and more capable. Why? Because IT was streamlined for mass production. T-34 wasn't, the production plants just sucked at their jobs and at quality control.
2
Mind you, Bradley haven't yet fully replaced M113. There are barely any vehicles on Bradley platform not to mention ones on its units ie engine, transmission, suspension. So US army is replacing a vehicle it had barely used. Again. Rather then looking for new IFV, they should saturate the roles still filled with M113 derivatives with Bradley derivatives. US army has two platforms it is afraid to use. First is Bradley, second is Abrams. They want heavier IFV then Bradley? Go restore one of those M1 hulls and strap it with autocannon and ATGMs.
2
@allangibson2408 but... 1)B-29 was first; 2)not at such distances. British bombers are renowned for their massive bomb loads, but they have to compromise a lot for them. Could they have bombed Japan? Yes. Could they have been used as a threat to USSR? Not so much.
1
@andriandrason1318 that's the difference. Germany: planned(or rather dreamed) USA(and other Allies in general): mass produced for over a year by that point.
1