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

  1. "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
  2. 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
  3. ​ @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
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6.  @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
  7.  @sovietheart3883  я родился в СССР, поэтому и говорю "когда нам сказали". Есть еще вопросы, школяр?
    21
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. As well as PoWs and civilians... or am I mixing them up with soviets now?🤔
    17
  11.  @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
  12. 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
  13.  @Ailasher  >obsolete >doesn't use Christie suspension in 1945
    15
  14. 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
  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
  16.  @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
  17. Since you usually cover the questions from engineering standpoint, the title and thumbnail of the video kind of puzzled me before I clicked😅
    11
  18.  @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
  19.  @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
  20. ​ @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
  21. 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
  22.  @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
  23. 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
  24.  @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
  25. 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
  26.  @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
  27. 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
  28.  @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
  29.  @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
  30. 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
  31.  @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
  32.  @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
  33. 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
  34. 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
  35. 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
  36.  @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
  37. 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
  38.  @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
  39. ​ @phunkracy  well, at least you're being honest about doing so. Honesty is the first step to facing reality;)
    5
  40. 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
  41. ​ @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
  42. Looks at Brits, who have mastered coordinating upwards of 1000 guns on same target within 5 minutes on the offensive
    5
  43.  @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
  44. ​ @Scrat335  she didn't leave after 2020?
    4
  45.  @MarvinWestmaas  just admit that you're afraid Romero will sue you for using that name;)
    4
  46.  @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
  47.  @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
  48. 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
  49.  @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
  50. 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