General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

Military History not Visualized
comments

Comments by "" (@TheArklyte) on "Military History not Visualized" channel.

"You see comrade, if you fold the crew twice and then make them choke on exhaust, you get very effective tank" "Can they perform in combat even remotely as good as they did during testing? Can the gun in such tank have the same accuracy and rate of fire as towed variant?" "Absolutely!" "Are you sure? Can you provide any..." "Trust me, bro"
250
The fun part is that EVERY Lend Lease shipment was signed by soviet side, that wasn't random items, those were things that we ourselves had requested as critical supplies needed ASAP. The only few exceptions are cases when we were told that something better were available ie we requested motorcycles with sidecar for recon and weapon crews, but americans straight up gave 4x4 jeeps. Another interesting part is that due to proliferation of licensing from US before the war(and straight up straling a lot of a time too), a LOT of soviet equipment was already produced in US. All radio components were US standard, most engines were US derived, US factories already had all the tooling for soviet ie russian imperial calibers and so on. Things like radars were arriving, renamed and then immediately reported as local produced a lot of the time.
135
@sznikers russian obsession with causing demographic catastrophes for Russia at least once every generation is awe inspiring, even if terrifying to observe. I mean, what does the biggest country in the world by empty unused territory with not enough active labor force need? Even more land and less people. Trying to cosplay Antarctica for two centuries...
57
Most people see only one characteristic - caliber. Barrel length, case length, case volume, chamber volume, rod length, barrel rigidness, ability to sustain pressure, presence of muzzle reference device and thousands other things don't exist for them.
37
Task: "Okay, we need a light enough low profile tank with autoloader, ammo hidden somewhere out of the way and with good protection in prepared position. And let's show off our industrial knowhow a bit." Soviet answer: T-64/T-72 Swedish answer:
25
@MarvinWestmaas he meant that thing that is used from times of ancient Egypt to nowadays. Though he's wrong, propaganda is government tool, not military tool.
22
@sovietheart3883 я родился в СССР, поэтому и говорю "когда нам сказали". Есть еще вопросы, школяр?
21
The interesting tank to mention here too would be IS-3 as it's basically new hull front and turret for same components as IS-2. So there is no way they would screw up engine mounting or oil pan or electric system or welds or roof of engine compartment, right? And yet post war IS-3 created with less hurry and higher budget then wartime IS-2 were infamously bad tanks that were falling apart and declared obsolete by soviets themselves in just two years with revival of IS-5 project. They also have an honor of being the only trophy tanks that IDF didn't want to use as tanks. Meanwhile captured T-55 still serve in IDF to this day as basis for several APCs and recovery vehicles. So maybe, just maybe, those things were falling apart the whole time?
21
OP was more of an excuse to make a video on the topic. If you notice his comment was completely ignored by other people. So unlikely it would have been addressed by itself if he wasn't already thinking about making a video about that.
19
As well as PoWs and civilians... or am I mixing them up with soviets now?🤔
17
@jaredrevis4594 there is begging to be a joke about how Germany should have exported Goering to Japan to fix it by helping to make airforce a third independent branch... and prevent him from further damaging german war machine by promising miracles from airforce:D
16
Weird question, but since return of T-62 into service coincided with russian arms purchases from North Korea, does the mythical "tank repair plant in Far East that specialized in repairs of specifically T-62 and was untouched by budget cuts while retaining all the skilled workforce for over 30 years of collapse" exist... or are they just purchasing Chonma parts kits and scratching the letterings off?😅
15
@Ailasher >obsolete >doesn't use Christie suspension in 1945
15
When you are threatened with receiving 5000 whippings on your back from the line of fellow soldiers until meat will fall off your back and you'd lose consciousness around 500 in and will bleed to death after 1500, order to stand in freezing water for 30 minutes to help save your own ass too from russians thirsting revenge, it kind of puts things into perspective.
15
@glubokayaoperatsiya 4 month old empty account that has russian name "deep operation" written with latin letters. Idk if there's even a point of investing time to argue and explain what you're trying to derail the conversation into and why here...
15
@Ailasher SU-122, SU-85, SU-100? The first one entered service when M3 already left it. "No, those are assault guns, it's totally different!"
13
Since you usually cover the questions from engineering standpoint, the title and thumbnail of the video kind of puzzled me before I clicked😅
11
@MarvinWestmaas I mean that propaganda needs not only scale, but time and preparation. It's kind of useless to start washing brains right when you and enemy are about to charge each other. It's not a movie, rousing speeches are hard to deliver and majority of your guys won't hear them anyway. So it's a job of a state to explain citizens when and why they'd go to war... or to come with insane excuses to do so and try to sell them to populace. Usually the side defending doesn't need much help here as people already have a general idea why they're there and what needs to be done. That's the other problem russians have, they do indeed mastered washing the brains... but for parent generation suffering from soviet nostalgia(or rather nostalgia of being young that they misplace to being connected to state), not for those whom they're mobilizing and sending off to die. Again, you don't have to explain much to civilian on defending side, they've seen and know it themselves. And third... stop calling them orks, you're ruining my favourite 40k faction with such comparisons 😭 Russia isn't awesome enough to be called that, it's more of a sad cautious tale that lasts almost 200 years already.
11
@Edv1718 Valentine? Yes. Matilda? Not so much. Plus you need to consider HOW they used them. Valentine was used by soviet as small infantry tank aka as intended and it was replacing obsolete T-26 in this role so it was doing great. M3 was viewed as medium tank armed with 75mm gun and forced to fill in gaps of T-34... which it obviously couldn't do. So here's the difference of expectations. Problem of Matilda II is that it ran out of modification reserve. Both soviets and british tried to upgun it, but to no result, there was no room, no reserve left in suspension and engines, the tank hit its limits even before it rolled out of the factory. Yes, it had armor that could match KV-1... but also low reliability to match KV-1(or Tiger B), weak niche armament and technical speed too low even for infantry tank. Meanwhile Valentine was providing armor of T-34 in light and compact package with acceptable speed and good reliability and repairability. And later on, it matched armaments of T-34-76 too. Best infantry tank of the WWII if not ever.
10
@joshuabonilla3491 "to be fair" To be fair "bad arabs, who don't know how to fight" is a myth USSR and Russia used to excuse deficiencies of their equipment. Iraqi tank crews during BOTH Desert Storm and Iraqi War performed BETTER then russians did innpast two years. Despite having worse equipment, being outnumbered and having less budget dedicated to training(as it turned out iraqis were indeed training, not only stealing funds). Especially showing are instances of where iraqi tanks were ambushed by M1A1's and were still able to score hits. Not penetrations, but hits. Some M1A1's were hit several times so likely the optics and turret ring weren't in best condition so it might be even counted as mission kill as those tanks would need to return to camp for maintenance instead of going further. And how they done it? They didn't panick, they assessed the situation, they closed the distance and they returned fire. Without modern or even adequate fire control systems, without thermals, without GPS, without pretty much everything. Meanwhile russians?😂
10
Opens General Dynamics website, nope, 120mm HE shell for NATO 120x570 is still there, like always. Maybe it's not manufacturing problem, but Pentagon problem?
9
@DIREWOLFx75 1)nice copypasta 2)pity that you're so obviously out of your field on most topics that in many cases you manage to loop around and make russian actions sound even dumber. Good job, I guess. 3)no, I didn't read it fully. Neither did you, let's admit it. But I got a good laugh and I thank you for that.
9
Main weaknesses of KV-1 were: 1)Voroshilov being a moron, who almost cancelled development until appeased with the naming bribe; 2)some f//cks making T-34 use same engine and gun; 3)low load cranes on many factories; 4)overrating engine instead of derating it as well as overloading transmission. They tried to run V-2 at 600hp on KV-1, but V-2 on IS-1/2/3 ran only at 520hp. Otherwise a great tank, especially for its time. Ideally KV should have gotten sloped front, lowered side armor thickness, new transmission and derated engine. And be produced instead of T-34 as "universal" tank until 1943. Edit: another small correction, KV-1 had superior firepower to T-34 despite having de facto same gun and ammo. KV-1 had dedicated loader and the crew weren't choking on fumes. So unlike T-34, KV-1 crew could both really achieve the stated RoF of the gun AND allow commander and gunner to do their jobs unopposed. Same gun=/=same firepower.
9
@BlaBla-pf8mf the sinking of Moskva debunked that myth, sorry. Conscripts WERE sent to this conflict. Significant amount of sailors weren't trained career military professionals, forcibly conscripted and sent forward ukranian civilians weren't career military and russian conscripts fooled and forced to sign contract after the conflict started under promise that they won't be sent to Ukraine weren't career military personnel. Russian military in Ukraine is "small"(yeah, compared to mobilized country fighting for its life and in terms of infantry alone?!) solely because Russia can't control more. They're aftaid of domestic protests, they lack trained officers and NCOs(whom were never the focus of thier military training), there is a limit to how thin they can stretch chechen forces at the back line to prevent soldiers from leaving(they already failed on several occasions).
8
Except it was a formal alliance, Molotov had gone to France almost immediately after the end of polish campaign to start talks on alliance against Germany. Except, you know, soviets haven't thought that 1)France that had the biggest military industry in the world would just fold like that; 2)Hitler would be ballsy enough to go for 2 front war and still attack them. Planning rearmament to end only in 1943 was basically dropping the pants, turning around and assuming position if you'd allow such analogue and had almost ended up as irreparable disaster... and for several millions of young men, who had to fight for each kilometer of delay, it did.
8
@cttc-chintokastacticalcrap2421 weird comment about it not being APC considering those two are compared in the video and BMP is literary translated as IFV(it's where the f//cking name is coming from!). Like heck, Cap, no one claimed it wasn't IFV:D
8
Simple test to see if Ukraine is losing: 1)is Ukraine still on the map? 2)is it still February? 3)which side is closer to it's proclaimed goals? Consult point №1 and 2;)
8
@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized might not be a joke in the future considering how more and more devs use neural network to train AI to oppose and eventually beat players. In strategy, tactics, firefights, racing and so on. So far it'll all fun and games, but we'd be filtering millions of people in billions of engagements through those. Who said that we're not accidentally helping to create Skynet ourselves? Or that gamedevs and military research programms aren't aware of this possibility in the first place?:D
7
@shermanfirefly5410 japanese submarines and ASW are a topic worthy of writing a tragedy. They had great submarine designs, but never cared to use them to extent of german and american submarines thus they also failed to realise importance of ASW and dedicated destroyers and sweepers. So they completly failed to capitalise on it while suffering greatly themselves.
7
Question with a long context explanation: a decade or so ago Ukraine was developing an elongated T-72 and T-80 with a pseudo troop compartment in the back, behind turret, but in front of the engine with space for 3 people. It got an extra set of roadwheels so it was able to handle more mass and obviously was itself heavier then normal T-72 and T-80. Project was sort of cancelled since it was leading nowhere, but prototype remained. Then there was a project to install a "NATO compliant" 120mm gun into T-80 and put the autoloader into the turret bustle and equip it with blow out panels. It existed, it worked, but budget wasn't there so it was cancelled too. Seemingly unconnected stories. Until around 2017-2019 Ukraine showcased new recovery vehicle based on T-72 which for presentation was dragging around... elongated T-80 with said turret with bustle autoloader. Comments are closed under the original video, no info was given about that monstrosity outside of possible weight of 55 tons. Since bustle is above the former "dismount" hatches, those were obviously unusable and welded shut. So, what was that? Just a way to preserve two separate prototypes? Or was it a new tank development in itself? It has massive amount of unused space in the hull thanks to former crew compartment and removal of hull autoloader. And quite a hefty weight reserve if 55ton figure is true. So what was there? Attempt to install thicker frontal armor without overloading frontal roadwheels? Crew capsule experiment? Extra fuel tanks or ammo storages to avoid using external ones that everyone's trying to mount on T-80? What was that tank?
7
@phunkracy tell that to Yuri Pasholok then. And to IDF, who used IS-3 as stationary guns until ammo ran out and abandoned them unlike T-55. T-55>IS-3. Cope harder:P
7
@Luftwaffe1O1 switch in turret design was forced by Russia losing ability to cast said turrets after the soviet split as the factory wasn't in Russia(Azovstal, heard of it?). Equipping FT-17 with thermals doesn't make it stop being FT-17. T-64 was a tank designed according to doctrine, threats and views of the time. T-90M is a final step in that long bloodline... of inheriting 1960 views on battlefield and war. T-14 is radically different specifically because it's first time in decades when they stopped to think for a moment.
6
Muzzle Reference Device aka MRD. Widespread on NATO tanks since Desert Storm era. First appeared on russian tanks in 2016 on T-90M. Says a lot about how much behind someone is in Fire Control System aka FCS tech if that wasn't an important part for them until recently 😅
6
Sukhoi was <this> close to closing down primarily because despite constant government investments, export sales and military procurement, the people on top wanted mansions and premium cars. It's not a tale of prevailing over hardship, it's a tale of dragging everyone around you down due to your own corruption:D
6
That is true for all sides. First you marvel at italians or french, but in the end after reading a dozen sources you feel amazed by the whole mess.
5
@dwarow2508 @Dwarow 2 1)I have a feeling that you have no semblance of idea what military industry even means if you mentioned USA in 1938. b)said "weak" industry "supplied"(ie anything not bolted down was stolen and brought to Germany, everything else worked locally) Third Reich with tooling and production lines that allowed to radically increase tank production above laughable levels, engine production, allowed new tanks like Tiger and Panther to be introduced into production DURING total war situation without stopping production lines for existing vehicles. By same logic you can claim that Russia nowadays doesn't have military industry at all then since their economy fails to financially support full scale production constantly. So, you know, time to stop viewing Russia as a threat and dissolve NATO, right?:D 2)literary mentioned in Churchill's memoires by virtue of being THE topic he struggles with to avoid. UK hoped that Germany would attack USSR even in 1938 when Czechs were sold off. Then in 1939 when Poland was left to die without any help if not for France upholding its promises to declare war on Germany if it would happen. Phoney War showed how much France was held back by its political and economical turmoil though.
5
Which is ironic since M60 was a medium tank, just like T-62 and Centurion. It served ALONGSIDE M103, just like the latter two served alongside T-10M and Conqueror. Chieftain, T-64 and MBT-70 were first real MBTs by capabilities. Which coincided with also being doctrinal MBTs, there were no heavy or medium tanks designed to serve alongside them and previous existing heavies were de facto retired with their introduction. Problem is that MBT-70 was sabotaged and not accepted, so americans project its role to M60. M60 was no match to M103 neither in protection, nor in firepower, it's still a medium. Though you can modernize it to be MBT like Sabra or M60-2000 or other options that never happen.
5
@gabrielecavaleri7525 those upgrades exist, they were implemented a century ago and they're called proper training and maintenance. You don't see Israel panicking over T-14, do you? And 30% of population there know russian... or rather they don't panic specifically because many of them cam from our dear soviet circus, including many defense industry specialists:D
5
 @phunkracy well, at least you're being honest about doing so. Honesty is the first step to facing reality;)
5
And when you have lack of food(combined with pressure of preparing to invade USSR), you get the so called "final solution". So no, the effect was huge. Just not for germans and not positive. Incompetence kills millions once again.
5
@dgmt1 1)fair assessment if T-34, but... 2)T-44 WAS put into production. And I don't mean small series of 100-400 tanks that were made, but never used. No, I mean T-34-85 turrets here. All that was good in T-34-85 was coming from its turret, which was just T-44 turret. I'll just copy the conclusion russian speaking community has outside people with severe propaganda brain rot. Ideal soviet tank for 1941-1945 would have been simplified T-34M hull(ie same torsion bar suspension, but flat sides) with KV-1S turret(and since KV-1S isn't around for a few years yet, KV-1 turret). The production cost would have been the same, maintenance would be much simpler, not to mention possible(the fact that no russian source mentions how much of a b//tch Christie suspension is to maintain when it's inside hull side is already a statement that T-34 in general wasn't surviving long enough to face even first round of general maintenance), it would have 3 men turret without gas build up problem and with proper optics arrangement for all crew members. Moreover, 85mm gun could be installed into this same turret as proven by KV-1G. Given availability of F-30 gun back in 1940, such version can be introduced fairly early on as soviet mirror image of Firefly and later on generally replace main version. If you look closely, this approach would have been basically soviet Sherman.
5
Looks at Brits, who have mastered coordinating upwards of 1000 guns on same target within 5 minutes on the offensive
5
@JF-ee3nn Russia has equipment superiority, numbers superiority, it is supposed to have air superiority and it is the side that invaded ie it had initiative. Iraqis had none of that. Cut your bs.
5
 @Scrat335 she didn't leave after 2020?
4
@MarvinWestmaas just admit that you're afraid Romero will sue you for using that name;)
4
@dwarow2508 1)France had biggest military industrial complex in the world at the beginning of WWII. You're missing navy in your calculations. French problem was that a)they didn't have enough men to man all that equipment(they actually did, but in colonies); b)approving budget to make said industry produce anything. 2)that was my point. Nobody did. Brits hoped for that, but also didn't know:D
4
@lovepeace9727 ">1941 >PZ IV cool story bro" You do realise that PzKpfw. IV entered mass production in 1936, right? It hadn't started with F2 series, you know?:D
4
On topic of "1970's(it wasn't) design being modernized"... care to tell me how you view T-72BU-M... T-90M, I mean?
4
@Luftwaffe1O1 what point? I asked you what you think about T-90M aka modernized T-90, itself rebranded T-72BU. This whole like goes back to Object 432 and it was 1960-1962 design, not even remotely a 1970's one. And what's the answer? "It proves my point..." What point?
4
For me the main problem is the "Pz.IV(F2 onwards), T-34 and M4 are all equal" myth that results in people downplaying M4, while praising the former two to self justify that loop. Despite all these being produced at different time periods, mass, resource and workforce budget for different reasons and in many modifications. It's hard for people to realize that Pz.IV is an equivalent of T-28 with extra turrets removed(after all, both of them are grandkids of Independent through stolen blueprints and Grosstractor tested in USSR), that T-34 was a glorified BT(BT-20 to be exact) and sucked being inside of, that T-34-85(which sucked far far less, but all its advantages were in the new turret) was closer to M10 then to M4 or Panther and that M4 appeared only in 1943.
4
Question with a long context explanation: a decade or so ago Ukraine was developing an elongated T-72 and T-80 with a pseudo troop compartment in the back, behind turret, but in front of the engine with space for 3 people. It got an extra set of roadwheels so it was able to handle more mass and obviously was itself heavier then normal T-72 and T-80. Project was sort of cancelled since it was leading nowhere, but prototype remained. Then there was a project to install a "NATO compliant" 120mm gun into T-80 and put the autoloader into the turret bustle and equip it with blow out panels. It existed, it worked, but budget wasn't there so it was cancelled too. Seemingly unconnected stories. Until around 2017-2019 Ukraine showcased new recovery vehicle based on T-72 which for presentation was dragging around... elongated T-80 with said turret with bustle autoloader. Comments are closed under the original video, no info was given about that monstrosity outside of possible weight of 55 tons. Since bustle is above the former "dismount" hatches, those were obviously unusable and welded shut. So, what was that? Just a way to preserve two separate prototypes? Or was it a new tank development in itself? It has massive amount of unused space in the hull thanks to former crew compartment and removal of hull autoloader. And quite a hefty weight reserve if 55ton figure is true. So what was there? Attempt to install thicker frontal armor without overloading frontal roadwheels? Crew capsule experiment? Extra fuel tanks or ammo storages to avoid using external ones that everyone's trying to mount on T-80? What was that tank?
4
wood1155 not necessary after so many decades of Cold War propaganda on all sides? That is still ongoing? For f//cks sake, the whole "superior german technology" myth was born out of ALL Allies trying to hide their incompetense under the excuse that the other side had better everything. Japanese warcrimes is a taboo theme in western world to this day. WTF do you mean by not necessary? Most people know history of the events at "Enemy at the Gates" level! It's a damned disaster.
4
There weren't many bridges in USSR that could support 30 ton tank either, but that doesn't negatively impact the amount of rimjobs T-34 is receiving for some reason ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯
4
In such cases I usually ask - had anybody used it too or copied it? And indeed, germans used captured ones and had produced copies. So I guess when an opponent SHOOTING at them still believes it's an idea worth a merit, it says a lot.
4
@edward9674 Pz.IV. It served from through the whole war and was viewed as adequate at all its periods when different versions and modifications are taken into account. It was also basis for several dozens of other vehicles. Including Jagdpanzer IV which would have still been a bane of allied tankers even in 1945 if there were enough of them. Panther had good simplified production and economy of scale on its side, but it was too little, too late. On soviet side, by same rules I'm complied to mention T-(60/)70 as best soviet tank. It served its role well and was basis for supreme(but largely misused by soviets) SU-76. And Stuart is probably the best american one by same criteria? Sherman was awesome, but it only saw half the war. Brits? Idk, maybe Valentine?
4
@Saeronor it was a sarcastic comment about polish hypocrisity and desire to sit on three different chairs with one butt(Danzig, Vilnus, Zaolsie. Pick an odd one out;)
3
@Scrat335 и почему-то в этих историях всегда Витебск и Гомель...
3
@jeffreymcfadden9403 chinese theater, pacific theater and then manchurian theater. What was your point again?
3
Their design philosophy is outdated in the world where thermals, drones and modern fire control exists. Completely outdated. Even China realized that that can't be allowed to continue like that and fixed many issues in their ZTZ99A(aka another pretender for the name of last descendant of soviet tank design school) like transmission having no real rear gears. And with T-14 Russia tried to jump over the wall of the maze and once again fell down. They can't design a working engine-transmission group, they can't get a reliable camera view and worst of all, their unmanned turret and crew capsule are completely pointless since they still use old autoloader and NO blow out panels ie they made a giant pressure cooker. Capsule can't protect the crew if pressure has no easier way to escape. That's basics! You can't have blow out panels on the bottom as it'll make the tank very weak to mines, can't do them in the sides as it'll make sides weaker, capsule is up front, engine in the back and on top of that giant bomb called ammo is an unmanned turret without panels either. They took budget and time and made situation worse! Tbh T-14 was an improvement in one direction - it no longer tries to pointlessly minimize target profile at expense of crew comfort and overall design as if it's still 50's. It isn't, your tank would be seen and it can be hit. I'd say take T-14's hull, suspension(surprisingly no trouble there so at least something works as intended), beg chinese for help with getting a working engine/transmission unit and then go back to designing conventional turret with blow out panels for ammo and some breathing room for crew. Oh, wait, we've just reinvented Leopard II...
3
We have seen what happens when paratroopers(and subsequently air force) aren't independent and answer to either the navy(Rikusentai) or the army(Teishin Shudan). More specific to IJN or IJA. To put it simply, they DIDN'T fare better. As person above me already noted, air force just employed transferred army officers or those, who had finished army officer school and had combat experience of leading troops. Wtf were you thinking, that they're lead by pilots?:D There's pros and cons to having all of those, be their independent, subdivision or integrated. P.S.: and independent paratrooper corps also aren't a panacea. Consult russian VDVs that drowned near Odessa.
3
@popsey72 .
3
@Luftwaffe1O1 the thing is that western forces wouldn't have moved in so closely without full air dominance and proper logistic train. So no matter what tanks they would be using, they'd face far less ATGMs head on. Mostly due to better support and focus on keeping it alive. T-90M units so far haven't been seen without IFV support, drone cover and they are used by better crews. Something T-72B3 didn't get. So the question of how much difference remains between T-72B3 and T-90M outside of imported sight still stands. As far as I can see, 1)Russia bet on the wrong horse(T-72BU instead of T-80U) when choosing the tank that'll become the basis of their tank force in the future, but trying to cheap out decades ago; 2)tried to jump too high with T-14 and ruined the design. Yes, those answers ignore the fact that significant part of T-80U production remained in Ukraine after soviet split and russians getting themselves sanctioned many times over their wars. It's their political decisions that hardly matter in discussing design, nobody stopped them from choosing differently or thinking about consequences.
3
The weird "what if" I always wanted to see is to give an american unit that was supposed to get M36 the same number of IS-2 with all the required manuals, ammo, parts, etc and then pretend that nothing changed. And see how well IS-2 would fair if treated as dedicated tank destroyer.
3
Was mention of angling absent in US manuals because just like Panther M4 had quite vulnerable sides and had to rely on already angled front plate? Compared to earlier generation "boxy" tanks like PzKw.III, IV, KV-1 and Tiger. Even T-34 had extremely angled side armor that was eating away at its potential internal space and which didn't reappear on newer soviet medium tanks. So de facto US simply had no vehicle in service that would benefit from that>no reason to note this observation and teach crews about it. However at the same time I would have expected it to be mentioned in manuals of tank destroyer crews as it would mean a choice at where to shoot at a Tiger.
3
@Klovaneer 1)you've just mixed up T-34M, T-43 and T-44. All separate projects. To the point of T-44 being closer in design to KV as funny as it is, lol; 2)T-34 wasn't "the best tank you have". It's overpriced for its capabilities and wasn't available in sufficient numbers until after 1943. If anything that was T-70 by proxy of SU-76.
3
 @PinkieTheRatwantsworldpeace 2 week old profile posting 2 miles long copypasta about Russia "definitely not failing" to conquer a country a fraction of its size for 2 years🤣🤡👍
3
@andrewwoodhead3141 no one uses it for academic work(if they're at least serious about it and their superiors care about their reputation), the problem is that popular opinion isn't forged by academic work. Want to see the worst? Check several language versions of same articles. For example I can look up english, german, polish and russian. In theory even google translate can be used to view them. Polish version will blatantly ignore all russian sources and vice versa, germans suprisingly agree on many points with russians, but english version also ignores both, russians quote english sources, but do so in regards to translated and edited versions. And so on. I'd even go so far as to say that german versions of WWII related articles are the most objective. They're not afraid to admit what they have done and thus also have no fear of exposing/supporting others resulting in the most broad selection of sources and opinions that gets filtered instead of being dismissed simply by the nation of origin. It's an ideological battleground of Cold War(which apparently ended long ago in said public opinion:)), what have you wanted?
3
@phunkracy hey, look who came back? How are you doing? How are copium supplies? Anyway, to answer your question - against modern(for that time period) soviet tanks used by Syria, Egypt and Iraq. Same tanks that are now once again becoming modern for Russia.
3
In such cases I usually ask - had anybody used it too or copied it? And indeed, germans used captured ones and had produced copies. So I guess when an opponent SHOOTING at them still believes it's an idea worth a merit, it says a lot.
3
@roberthoward9500 no, just no. Stop giving tanks "points" based solely on their armor. Pz.III and IV were much better then Matilda II just like M48 is much better then Tiger B despite shorter gun and less armour thickness. Not in a straight fight maybe, but better as tanks overall compared to that blind and deaf immobile bunker without proper HE shells. Matilda II's reputation as "queen of the desert" is based mostly on performance against early italian tanks(which were quite far from german "medium" tanks).
3
 @jesseterrell2109 neither does T-90M anywhere except front ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯
2
@lightdarthvader777 Russia gave Syria a few dozen T-62's at best after 2000 total. Syria had over 1000 of their own T-62 that they purchased from USSR from 1973 to 1984. And almost 200 more were apparently sold by Russia from 1991 to 1995. And that was the last delivery until 2018. However in case of T-72 the situation is far more interesting and russian "adventures in Syria" are one of the main reasons Russia has such huge discrepancies between tanks on paper and tanks in actual service. On paper Russia should have between 5000 and 7000 T-72 in active service ie combat ready. Unless those tanks were lost in 2014-2022 in Ukraine, we lost in Syria, were sold on black market and cannibalised for parts for "new production" of T-90A over the years. I wonder where those tanks might be?
2
 @alphana7055 why have all Jagdtigers fighting on western front?
2
Why no war against Germany, Hungary and Poland by Allies over Czechoslovakia?;)
2
Was mention of angling absent in US manuals because just like Panther M4 had quite vulnerable sides and had to rely on already angled front plate? Compared to earlier generation "boxy" tanks like PzKw.III, IV, KV-1 and Tiger. Even T-34 had extremely angled side armor that was eating away at its potential internal space and which didn't reappear on newer soviet medium tanks. So de facto US simply had no vehicle in service that would benefit from that>no reason to note this observation and teach crews about it. However at the same time I would have expected it to be mentioned in manuals of tank destroyer crews as it would mean a choice at where to shoot at a Tiger.
2
@Charles-k9g5y modern Russia claimed that Allied bombing campaign didn't save them by reducing german production capacity to a halt and thus far less bombed soviet factories can't use that excuse. If anything, bombs apparently makes soviet factories work faster😅
2
@shermanfirefly5410 they were not only bad for ASW, they weren't enough. Japanese had around 10% of escorts the US had even back at the start when US didn't have overwhelming capital ship superiority. They not only didn't care to equip them for those roles, they outright weren't building them in numbers according to their tasks.
2
Well, at least that's not the case with "evil soviet russian commies". Internet historians told me it's all simple and easily understandable for outsider without knowledge of local languages and any familiarity to historical works and archives written in in them. I'm pretty sure they'd come to correct you soon too:D
2
@daffyduck780 it is, but unlike battlefield engineering it wasn't ironed out until the semi modern ideas.
2
@ridhosamudro2199 I'm too young to argue about generation gap, but I still have no bloody idea what you've said
2
@KameradVonTurnip "MBT-70 is basically Abrams" Never before had Abrams been insulted so heavily:D
2
The cope. Yeah, I'm sure they fought Taliban, who is renowned for their massive armored columns, with only APFSDS.
2
@PaulVerhoeven2 M60 served alongside M103, still in active service at the time. MBTs don't have heavy tanks to call upon in case they need more firepower, MBTs ARE that firepower. Leopard I may blur the definition, but M60 is 100% medium tank. And by your own logic, compare weight of M60 and M103 and shut up:P
2
@ivanmonahhov2314 угу, а Т-54 значит окопы ковырять не может? Ну, а немецкие 88мм тогда вообще на танках случайно оказались? Ну, а про бесполезность "дивизионной" ЗиС-3 тогда и вообще поднимать тему не стоит.:)) А-19 оказалась на ИС-2 только по одной причине - бронепробитие. Ее туда установили из-за трофейного Ферлинанда, дульной тормоз которого кстати был поначалу скопирован. Никто не знал, что Фердинанд будет единичной машиной. Поэтому вставили самое мощное из имевшегося. В отличии от попытки повторить на ИС-3, сработало.
2
@ivanmonahhov2314 1)для поражения огневой точки хватает и 30мм гранаты из АГЛ. 76мм справляется со всем, что крупнее за глаза. Единственное где нужен более крупный калибр это фугасный рубеж 150+мм - он позволяет полностью снести кирпичное здание в 3-5 этажей(привет всем городам, которые встретили ИСУ-152). За это платят габаритами орудия и унизительно маленьким боезапасом. Настолько маленьким, что даже не смешно. 76мм был старый калибр и его использовали "по привычке" ввиду наличия запаса боеприпасов. А отказ от него еще более банален - разрывы 76мм не видны уже на 4км, то есть корректировка была не возможна. Это еще при Тухаче поняли и поэтому разработали 85мм и 95мм дивизионки, настоящие. Но т.к. Тухача и Ко надо было обвинить во всем и вся, а запасы 76мм куда-то девать, то нате вам ЗиС-3. Первая настоящая дивизионка кстати была создана французами по заказу российской императорской армии, эта та самая 105-107мм пушка Шнайдера. Двадцать лет вперед, два шага назад. 2)не была. Бронебойный для 100мм разрабатывали очень долго, она банально не была готова на момент создания ИС-2. А по пробития догнала лишь на послевоенных бронебойных. У нее кстати заряжание цельное, ее труднее уместить в погон башни, чем А-19 с раздельным заряжанием. Но за это у А-19 скорострельность гораздо ниже. 3)угу, при этом ИС-3 не получил ни дальномера(разработали два, ни один не дали), ни дульного эвакуатора, ни избавился от дульного тормоза(привет демаскирующее облако пыли и проблемы с "раскрытием" ранних ломов), ни более современные боеприпасы в боекомплект(СУ-122-54 и Т-10Б использовали ту же А-19 в виде Д-49 и Д-25ТС/ТУ, у них были ломы и современные кумулятивы. А из-за раздельного заряжания можно и невращающийся кумыс с Т-10М зарядить). Но ничего из этого не сделали. Израильтяне захваченные ИС-3 посчитали хламом, поставили на надолбы и отстреляли боекомплект(а вот Т-55 использовали долго), а сами советы одновременно с "устранением дефектов"(надо было сразу на переплавку отправить) ИС-3, возродили и даже форсировали программу ИС-5(будущего Т-10 после кучи переименований), чтобы поскорее заменить убожество коим был ИС-3. Итог: фалометрия 120мм и выше ничего за собой не имеет. Пробитие зависит от материала, структуры и ДЛИНЫ лома и его кинетической энергии, то есть в основном скорости т.к. лом ты толще делать не будешь из-за повышенного сопротивления и воздуха, и среды брони. Фугасов и так за глаза хватает, а ПТУРы из ствола можно пускать и на меньшем калибре, да только ирл их никто особо и не стал по итогу использовать. А за все это платишь насилованием габаритов танка и малюсеньким боезапасом. Все эти разговоры про 130, 140, 152 мм дилдари не более, чем глупости и распил. Калибр останется 120-122мм, будет расти скорость. В идеале будет возвращение к 100-105мм орудиям после перехода к электротермохимическим зарядам и телескопическому размещению дротиков, ради повышения возимого боекомплекта.
2
Because of "USSR Forces 1945: Already in Berlin?"
2
@cptant7610 not exactly. Tanks arrived earlier, they've catched cavalry on the retreat back to polish lines after the battle when they were mounted and thus weren't expecting someone to catch up to them and couldn't use AT rifles. They were mowed down by MGs. Reporters arrived even later.
2
@looinrims 122mm D-25 is using separate loading, 100mm D-10 is using single piece loading. Single piece loading allows to load faster, BUT results in far longer case that needs more internal space and wider turret ring(in ideal conditions).
2
@BojanPeric-kq9et you wonder why tank designed with focus on mobility over armor might have higher focus on mobility over armor? Could it be...
2
Interesting topic considering all the myths that 10.5cm K18 was considered for rearming of Henschel Tiger 1. Mind you, there are no even blueprints that support existence of such idea back then.
2
Depends on interpretation. A lot of people mistake Centurion for being a first MBT because it was universal aka both infantry and cruiser at the same time, tank. Which was made alongside also universal HEAVY tank Caernarvorn/Conqueror. Look at soviet plans for their heavy tanks like Object 777 and their T-64 MBT that came later or compare Chieftain to Conqueror. MBTs ARE heavy tanks. With price tag of superheavy ones:D That's why a lot of countries seek to purchase or develop smaller, cheaper and more expendable vehicles, be their IFVs, light and medium tanks of IFVs platform or modernizations of old last gen medium tanks like T-62, Vickers(I can't recall indian name), Olifant and M60. Because not everybody has budget for M1A2 or Leclerc. Most countries don't even have budget for T-72 and Leopard 1. And that's just for having them, not properly running, maintaining and training in them. TL:DR they're still right here, it's just that classification purists are too far up their own [Redacted] to admit it. Just like people demanding to call BAR or Fedorov Avtomat a battle rifle, a term invented in the 90's... or the opposite, saying that you can't classify thwm as that because the term is so new. IE whenever you have to argue with "classificationboos"
2
@TK421-53 Chad KV-1S >>>>>> virgin T-34:P And I guess KV-1, KV-1S, T-70, KV-85, IS-1, SU-76, IS-2, ISU-152, ISU-122, T-43, KV-13 and dozen others are all american tanks, right? Or maybe it's just T-34 that is piece of sh//t? Let's see how many post war soviet tanks had used Christie suspension? None? Let's see how many post war soviet tanks used sloped side armor? Also none? Let's see how many post war soviet tanks made commander work as loader? Some, but not really? Oh, I'm sure that T-34 was a great tank and the fact that it was supposed to be replaced by T-34M ASAP or that it costed almost exactly as much to produce as KV-1 due to the use of shared bottleneck components isn't telling a different story. Such a pity that all soviet reports and archives are still in place about pre war testing and all the attempts to replace that "tank". Otherwise some kid would have even believed you:D
2
IS-2 wasn't, T-34 was. The whole BT series in fact was. USSR really needed medium tank derived from KV-1... or by some miracle have enough time to finish T-34M project.
2
After looking up your comment history I have to ask, do you use ChatGPT to write these comments?😂
2
@roberthoward9500 and so was Maginot Line... which has comparable mobility to Matilda II;)
2
1)do you think that tank armor should be more often inspected in ideal conditions to what it was designed for(for example behind the hill for M1 and in small tank trench for T-64) then just on a flat ground in the open where we usually are always reminded that tanks aren't invulnerable(be it from top attack, flanking or artillery)? 2)do you agree with the statement that main problem of russian equipment is russian command(who decided where and how to use) and state(who stole budget for maintenance, training and modernization) and the equipment itself is actually okay? That if NATO and CSTO were to switch equipment, Russia would lose tanks and other equipment at the same rate as it previously did just because their choices would remain the same?
2
@emperorfancypants2512 UK fought since 1939, China(and Japan too) since 1937. By 1944 allies had already capitulated Italy, broken Japan's back, basically won in mainland China and ruled the Mediterranean. Meanwhile on the soviet front, we've FINALLY learned how to use equipment (largely made with lend lease help to cover all bottlenecks such as dead soviet radio production, inability to properly heat treat cutting equipment and laughable chemical industry, that could neither refine oil into fuel properly, nor cover the demand for explosives ie filler for shells and bombs, basic propellants for ALL firearms, even mining was heavily reliant on imported explosives) instead of throwing out men and dooming our country to post war demographic collapse(though it still happened as it was too late).
2
@konosmgr I just did. They had the same armour, just of an older model. Moreover iraqi engineers had modified armor further to protect the tank from early versions of TOW. And yes, soviets removed FCS. But iraqi crews were still hitting targets. Solely due to having proper training. It's as if it's the whole point of this discussion and you came right back to it 🤣 Yes, and it did better then Russia against Ukraine.
2
@konosmgr by russian claims they've used old steel penetrators. By further russian claims they've delivered mild steel penetrators because they didn't want to break the embargo. By even further russian claims they've further sabotaged their quality on top of that. And if I'll dig even further, then there'd be a russian claim that the provided penetrator rods were made out of wood painted with chrome paint, that they were never sent and the whole situation was made up anyway. Which one are you interested in, comrade? However it doesn't change the fact that 1)iraqi tankers were scoring hits; 2)before T-90A's revised autoloader that elongated the allowance of possible penetrator length there wasn't a penetrator for 2A46 that would go through M1 turret; 3)iraqi tankers were scoring hits:P Even without your claimed good FCS that never heard of MRD until 2017, without your precious claimed good penetrators they were performing like you guys NEVER did. Both in discipline and skill. Training matters. Maintenance matters. And no matter how many times you will try to derail this convo, iraqi tankers>>>soviet tankers>>>>>russian tankers. And you can't change that :P
2
Didn't stop all those incident when someone couldn't tell apart La from Fw...
1
@PeterMuskrat6968 You know why ISU-152 was the longest serving armored vehicle in soviet arsenal and why it's tracks were modernized to be compatible with T-10M ones? Because 152mm HE round had an interesting capability to drop brick 5 storey tall building in single shell. The other story from the same time, do you know what was the shell that was used 80% of the time by US tank destroyers in Italy in WWII? It was HE shell. Meanwhile AP and APCR shells were just sitting there, making up the majority of ammo load and never being used. This one has a bit of connection to aforementioned by another commenter fact that NATO views the prime task of MBTs to hunt other MBTs, however they didn't mention that every other NATO vehicle is also tasked with carrying ATGM and hunting MBTs. And it was these ATGMs that wrecked havoc upon T-72's on multiple occasions, not APFSDS rounds that were riding in ammo storage for 40 years without use. It's also funny how for the last 20 years US was stuck in conflicts with barely any AFVs on opposing side and yet it was once again driving around APFSDS in ammo storages. The situation was comical enough that US army had ordered development and fielded a shrapnel round BEFORE it had "stooped down" to file an order for delivery of already existing HE ammo. Though you can argue that inability to get ammo matching the challenges of new urban combat environment indirectly led to lower civilian casualties. So there's at least some good in it. HE round can also be equipped with programmable fuze to work in different modes, including HESH. Which one is more effective against concrete? I'm not going to make a conclusion to these random data points I've mentioned, just let you dwell on if there is anything they have in common with the topic. P.S.: unlike APFSDS, HE ammo doesn't lose effectiveness with range. On modern battlefield with proliferation of FPV drones, tank commander can observe and lead his shot over distances far beyond normal combat ranges for tungsten and DU rods.
1
@FridgemaxxedHybridoreanLifta Since you didn't direct this comment to other users with @ I assume that it's directed to me then. So, can you repeat what exactly have I forgotten to mention, Captain Obvious?
1
@generalmarkmilleyisbenedic8895 correct. With the amount of nationalist fervor and socialist nostalgia, russian ideology right now can be classified as national socialist.
1
@okegom_228 "we are just built different" Yeah, built stupid. Опять школяры уверовавшие в ментовские сказки считают себя Ыкспертами. Ты возьми гантельку весом с гильзу одного из этих орудий и потягай десяток раз. А потом проделай это согнувшись в три погибели в противогазе. Потом пизди дальше.
1
@iMost067 "122mm long gun with 75mm short gun"? I presume by long 122mm you mean A-19. What's short 75mm? Kwk 37? Well, I hope you can quote me on comparing A-19 and Kwk 37 as direct analogues then. I'll wait, kiddo.
1
@nattygsbord France had better EVERYTHING in terms of military, maybe just in terms of planes germans could compete, not be superior, mind you. The problem is that France had allies that sold them out, a goverment that sold them out and an ability to sell out a part of population to germans while the rest could keep living their lives pretty normal. And that is how the strongest military industrial power in the world at 1940 fell. And why on the contrary Russia held Moskow, Leningrad and Stalingrad, why Germany was fighting even when soviets were approaching Berlin and why it was a mercy for all sides to use nukes to give Hirohito an excuse to capitulate instead of prolonging the mess. Funnily enough, that's exactly pre-WWI french own belief ie that superior will can win over superior tech, which was mostly proven wrong, but at the same time still shows up from time to time.
1
@nattygsbord I never said anything about military leaders(though there is also a lot of factors), I've meant strictly politicians, who ripped the country apart and sold it. As for Belgium, that goes down the side of mentioned allies. Their "accidental" uselessness raises quite a few questions.
1
?
1
@DOMINIK99013 ???
1
@DOMINIK99013 how something as precious as MDK-3(idk what else can you mean as T-64AK is a command variant of T-64A and I never heard about demining vehicle on T-64 chassis) was anywhere near russian BMP-2 8 months ago?
1
@DOMINIK99013 are you absolutely sure that it's called T-64AK?
1
KV-1 fans hate T-34, not IS-1😅 Why? Because KV-1S was better then T-34 and because "T-34 was cheap to produce" is a myth. IS-1 was superior heavy tank in all regards, especially in reliability and cross country performance
1
@bjorntorlarsson So despite ALL the things you've mentioned, 9 months later Russia is still losing ground because... why?
1
9 months old comment chain and going.
1
@synerjuice5205 "to T-34 idiotic myths" Like the one where T-34 was cheap and easy to mass produce? Or the one where it was first thing ever to have angled armor? Or the one where it's the best tank ever made? Yeah, there's a lot of those.
1
@thethirdman225 apricot
1
@synerjuice5205 oh, we're going for strawman right of the gate? Okay, let's see what we have here... ah, yes, stop watching RT. Now it's your turn. Or is it @thirdman225 's turn? Do you share it?
1
@BojanPeric-kq9et вот и сиди в Т-34. Лучший серийный советский средний танк времен ВМВ, который принимал участие в боях, это КВ-1с. Второй лучший - Т-28(хотя к сожалению этого сводного брата Пз.4 так и не модернизировали с применением Л-11 и тележек с Т-35. А ведь на броневагонах даже ЗиС-5 ему всунули). А третье место могут поделить трофеи и ленд лиз:Р Свой пирамидальный гроб облизывайте сами.
1
@BojanPeric-kq9et first tank to enter Berlin was IS-2, not T-34. Thanks for failing history and proving my point:P Пирамидальный гроб товарищей Кошкина и Котина вам в помощь.
1
@BojanPeric-kq9et you're so desperately trying to derail it into german tanks that it's even cute. However the context remains good soviet tank vs bad soviet tank. There were many greats. T-26, T-60, T-28, KV-1s, KV-85, IS-1, T-70, IS-2. But NOT T-34. Not your little pyramid coffin:P
1
@BojanPeric-kq9et we weren't, you ARE. Idk why you never heard about SU-76, SU-122 and (I)SU-152. Those were the things doing the real work. And yes, the second one is on T-34 chassis, but you can't be perfect ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯
1
@Computer Whisperer 1)if you mention Elon and his views on AI, then use full context. He did also warn about people misunderstanding what an AI is and mixing up real aIs and ones in sci-fi. Modern AI(aka Artificial Idiots) are just a data sheets and algorithms very far from any form of actual self learning and sentience despite what marketing departments of companies developing them might tell you:)) 2)and humanity is a static point in history, banned from evolving and reinventing itself?
1
T-64 was created with the same 115mm gun as T-62. T-64B is the tank you think about. Caliber is a value with no meaning as the only thing that relies on it is mass ie explosive filler in HE shells. And even that is questionable as it relies on length of shell too.
1
I have a feeling that majority of the bad reputation of M3(even if deserved one) comes from their use by soviets. And here: 1)poor thing was being compared to T-34-76 and Pzkw.IVF2; 2)it was late production M3 with welded side doors and still 7 men crew. Hence "coffin for 7 comrades" reputation. They should have sent Grants to USSR instead of Lee's, left side doors to ease escape since armor wasn't holding either way by that point and specifically mention NOT to use it as medium alongside T-34-76. Then it might have gotten a better reputation.
1
@matthabir4837 what cracks me up is going through your comment history:D 9 month and running. Come on, where is it?
1
@matthabir4837 Matt, don't go off topic. Where is it?
1
@matthabir4837 still no answer? Well, I guess that means... слив засчитан;)
1
@matthabir4837 плохо так отзываться о родном языке, ой как плохо. Зарплата меньше будет. Или ты из тех, кто работает за миску риса и кошко-жена, а?;)
1
@REgamesplayer russians weren't designing completely new tanks since then and until T-14 either, Cap. But depending on how you treat rebranding of T-72BU into T-90 after catastrophic losses in Desert Storm just to get away from T-72 name and Black Eagle mockup on T-80 chassis, they did. Because they claim both were completely new vehicles so their design choices weren't inherited from T-72 and T-80 specifically;) So by russian's own marketing materials for their weapons exports, they did exactly what you claim they didn't. Or did they lie to us? How shocking would that be!:D
1
@REgamesplayer here is the thing, you have to choose. You can't claim that T-90 is both a completely new tank and a modification of old design. Same goes for Black Eagle. I know, it must be hard for someone like you to comprehend why you can't sit on both chairs, but you should try.
1
@REgamesplayer I'd rather still stick to the og context. Maybe I should explain it to you the fourth time? nah, I'd better give you a chance to read my comments for once, lol:D
1
@REgamesplayer and yet 1)T-14 remains the first and only new MBT design in Russia since "late cold war"; 2)modernized Object 432 descendants still remain its descendants with same design philosophy and flaws inherited for decades. Meaning even T-90M is still designed with the 1960 idea of low target profile... just because deep down it's still just a glorified T-64 produced because designing completely new tank was inconvenient. If you copy an integral feature over and over and over again, it DOESN'T vanish, sorry, Cap, seems you're not much of a Cap:D
1
@a.m.armstrong8354 I'll give you the short version - stop simping for Putin just because "murica bad". Ну и второй твой коммент это просто пздц, полное незнание матчасти \/(-_-)\/
1
@Buzás András the one about two metal balls in a sealed room or about the cock made out of glass?
1
@strakhovandrri сразу с порога лопатой на вентилятор? Смело, одобряю...
1
Except that their design philosophy is outdated in the world where thermals, drones and modern fire control exists. Completely outdated. Even China realized that that can't be allowed to continue like that and fixed many issues in their ZTZ99A like transmission having no real rear gears. And with T-14 Russia tried to jump over the wall of the maze and once again fell down. They can't design a working engine-transmission group, they can't get a reliable camera view and worst of all, their unmanned turret and crew capsule are completely pointless since they still use old autoloader and NO blow out panels ie they made a giant pressure cooker. Capsule can't protect the crew if pressure has no easier way to escape. That's basics! You can't have blow out panels on the bottom as it'll make the tank very weak to mines, can't do them in the sides as it'll make sides weaker, capsule is up front, engine in the back and on top of that giant bomb called ammo is an unmanned turret without panels either. They took budget and time and made situation worse! Tbh T-14 was an improvement in one direction - it no longer tries to pointlessly minimize target profile at expense of crew comfort and overall design as if it's still 50's. It isn't, your tank would be seen and it can be hit. I'd say take T-14's hull, suspension(surprisingly no trouble there so at least something works as intended), beg chinese for help with getting a working engine/transmission unit and then go back to designing conventional turret with blow out panels for ammo and some breathing room for crew. Oh, wait, we've just reinvented Leopard II...
1
@peternystrom921 number of roadwheels and their diameter says otherwise. Stop being a mirror image of tankies and putinboos, we have a lot of info on the tank and laws of physics are equal to others so you can make a lot of conclusions just from knowing it's weight, dimensions and production processes used. Was it a mock up? Nope. Was it a failure on all stages from basic idea to final execution? Oh yes, yes it is:D
1
@phunkracy you know what? I agree that I've made up that T-14 wasn't a mock up. I was the one, who adjusted roadwheels on all the photos, adjusted the size, fooled everyone about the mass and even drew the fake production marks. Sure. Ok, I agree with that guy now, T-14 was a mock up 🤣
1
@dimarusanov6107 humor me:\
1
@phunkracy because I believe that 1)T-14 was a real tank and not a mock up; 2)laws of physics exist and are the same for everyone
1
@KameradVonTurnip then like KV-1S, it's all the good parts and no downsides;) As long as you don't treat it as heavy tank and forget that it came out a bit late. And that it was called after a complete moron, who disliked tanks just to get project approved. A smart person knows that they have to 1)do maintenance; 2)survive. For this part, I'd rather pick something that isn't using either Christie suspension or interleaved roadwheels and somethings that is SPG that should be kept away from frontline, preferably american so that I'd have lunch and friendly airforce in the skies... sorry, got carried away.
1
@KameradVonTurnip the simple takeaway is that Abrams was designed to hard counter late cold war soviet tanks before T-80U came out. It's bad in everything else as seen in Iraq and Afghanistan when it performs great in actual war, but is just a target during occupation since it's now Merkava. And it would have easily been obsolete by now 3 times over... had russians changed doctrine in past 30 years or at least mass produced tanks that were equal to modernized T-80U to be lowest common denominator in their tank force. But since majority of it is still made up by older vehicles and the thought process wasn't allowed to be changed... Abrams ends up in a world where greatest threat to it is exactly what it was designed to face. It's not ideal tank, it just happens to be very good and supposed opposition is stupid enough to face it on its terms. Tbh, knowing how many former soviet specialists found home in Israel and continued their work, I'd say there is an example one could point Russia at in terms of adapting and overcoming. But instead we'll see PRC learn and Russia decide not to.
1
@Ailasher M830A1/M908 convertible dual purpose projectile is not something you heard about? Is licensed DM11 Mk.324 also not present in your alternate reality? And surely the gun no longer accepts other STANDARD 120x570mm NATO munitions that US contracts from other member states, eh?:D
1
@Ailasher now, please, your source on Taliban tank columns.
1
@ivanmonahhov2314 ты херню написал, Алеша. Если мы завтра построим 80тонный танк с двиглом на 3к лошадок и рейлганом, который будет шпулять 60мм FAPDSFS с первой космической скоростью, то ты его ОБТ не признаешь потому, что "там нету 120мм!111"? ВГ/Тундра головного мозга или фанат Пашолока?:D
1
@willw8011 did I claim that word MBT came from MBT-70? Oh please, do quote me on that, will you? I seem to have trouble finding it ʘ⁠‿⁠ʘ
1
The only downside to the video is the mistake in the name, otherwise great. But considering it was 3 years back, I doubt that there is any point to mention Kegresse armored cars of Russian Empire that took part in WWI and Russian Civil War... even if technically they're ancestors of M2/3 halftrack.
1
@thiagorodrigues5211 that's T-34. Just one more reason why it was a waste of steel. KV-1 had two problems - 1)engine wasn't properly derated to lower power output like on follow up tanks like IS-1/2/3 or T-44/54 where V-2 was giving 520 hp instead of CLAIMED 600 hp of KV-1. Which either meant very low reliability OR that power was in fact far lower then claimed; 2)early transmission wasn't up to the task of handling said engine and mass. However T-34 used the same engine and wasn't kind to it's transmission either. Moreover unlike KV-1 it had low internal space due to angled sides, welds that were prone to bursting thanks to angled sides, complicated hull welding process because of angled sides, abysmal to maintain and replace Christie suspension hidden insides hull and... yep, angled sides once again, commander had to operate as loader too and so on. Soviet would have been far better off shaving side armor of KV-1 to KV-1S level and producing that as medium tank. Or better yet put KV-1 turret on proposed T-34M hull. Instead they've produced T-34 which was a piece of fertilizer. And no, it wasn't cheap or good for mass production because it costed almost as much as KV-1. Because they used same bottleneck components! Literary the same gun and engine.
1
@phunkracy you have better sources? IS-3 is "forced marriage" of IS-2U modernization project with Kirovetz-1 turret. You have proof that it isn't? Be my guest.
1
@Kot_04 because it technically did only because it appeared earlier and both tanks de facto were in reserve until their scrapping in 1993 due to political and economical reasons not connected to their actual perfomance.T-10M suffered the same fate despite being objectively awesome and still threatening even nowadays. Thus I treated that as mostly inconsequential. I'll illustrate my reasoning. If you produce T-72B and everything seems alright, you've ironed out the kinks in production, you addressed some existing issues. Now you switch to production of T-72BU aka T-90 that uses different turret(and autoloader), but apart from a few changes the hull remained the same in basic construction process. And suddenly your hulls start causing infinite flood of quality control issues out of nowhere despite all of that and you having more time and resources to allocate to these new vehicles. Tell me, wtf am I supposed to think here? Yes, it was a bumpy road after the war, but war itself was much bumpier.
1
My dear empty 2023 profile defending Russia on every corner. You yourself had mentioned Iraqi-Iranian War in other comment section and now you call iraqi WMDs fake? You're doing 180 on yourself in record times. May I suggest you an iranian movie called Walnut Tree, my dear faker?
1
Pedro Kantor I've always wondered why IL-2, Katyusha, T-34 and IS-2 are so famous in USA and Germany too if soviets are associated only with "human waves"? Pity that it was impossible to "reverse" lend lease 50(out of around 700+ produced by then) IS-2's for D-day, having 122mm direct as an option would have solved many issues.
1
@J S because half the time he produces good videos like an example - this topic, Saint Mannstein. So people tend to expect the same from other of his videos. If he does it on purpose or not is another question.
1
@fabik805 what were they going to examine on T-90M? French thermals? Or israeli sights? T-90M is already assembled on known basis with known components and at a plant the equipment lists of which were known for decades. That's why the actual military ignored things like it or T-14 and it were armchair "experts" in media causing panic for clout or to support russian propaganda. It's not MCU, you won't assemble power armor in a cave \/(-_-)\/
1
@benigno7209 what month is on your watch?;)
1
@benigno7209 /looks at growing list of sanctions, worsening relations, separation of trade and how "the evil west"™ was allowing previous 8 years to basically slide before this/ Nah, please, take your time.
1
@simonsotopoblete1313 Ukraine loses territory - ah, Ukraine is losing!111 Russia is losing territory - pfft, have you ever heard about defense in depth and tactical retreats? Go look up how far Volgograd is from german border!111 Can you guys start being a little bit consistent? Hint: that's probably why people are tired of such "hot takes" in the last... /looks at calendar/ ...would you look at that, almost half a year.
1
Wikipedia housed several articles on fake conflicts and events just a few years ago. Nowadays it's gotten better, it's just biased and unreliable:D
1
@deven6518 let's start point by point. "caliber, when talking tanks, already accounts for diameter and barrel length." 1)I presume you have a quote somewhere here that stated otherwise? Or mentioned diameter at all? Please provide it. 2)while it's common to mention barrel length in calibers, caliber itself is in no way indication of barrel length. Simple example are L/44 and L/55 guns. So please specify what you've meant in these two as in current form they make no sense. Then we'll continue.
1
9 month old comment, "Matt";)
1
@matthabir4837 so, where is it, Matt?
1
Well, I'm also wondering why only germans? Because I don't recall only germans using them. Late WWII designs adopted it in full swing with both T-44 and IS-3("false sides") designed with use of those. Attempts to uparmor soviet tanks also used such a solution though just welding more plates was used instead(especially on early T-34 where welded plates helped to prevent front upper glacis from cracking. The problem remained even on T-34-85 of one infamous for its pigheads factory while others thankfully stopped suffering from it).There were also attempts to use them by brits and americans. Hungary, Romania and Italy HAD used armor skirts during the war if I recall right.
1
@AKUJIVALDO If mainstream would be rifles like in 1940, no German would bother with producing intermediate round rifles either. If machine guns weren't mainstream, then no one would bother with tanks. And if nobody bothered with muskets, crossbow would still be in use. But that's not how technological progress works;)
1
@AKUJIVALDO so I mistake causation and correlation why copying the logic of your answer? And that puts us where exactly?;)
1
@ginolospazzino5261 are you saying that T-90M is a step back compared to T-72B? Can I quote you on that? Thanks in advance.
1
@BojanPeric-kq9et kiddo, you're the last person who should be talking about what people are and aren't aware of, my dear empty 2023 profile. And since you had no idea that T-72M/M1 have combined turret armor array like T-72A, you've already admitted that you have no place in this discussion:D
1
@konosmgr iraqi tankers>>>soviet tankers>>>>>russian tankers Deal with it:P
1
Except 2-3 T-34 would cost as much as 2-3 KV-1 to produce and they have almost the same combat offroad speed due to faulty transmissions of both tanks. In all regards KV-1 was "bad", T-34 was even worse and it wasn't any cheaper to produce.
1
@mtnbound2764 you're right, on parades T-34 is faster :D
1