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

  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
  2.  @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
  3.  @generalmarkmilleyisbenedic8895  correct. With the amount of nationalist fervor and socialist nostalgia, russian ideology right now can be classified as national socialist.
    1
  4.  @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
  5.  @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
  6.  @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
  7.  @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
  8. ?
    1
  9.  @DOMINIK99013  ???
    1
  10.  @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
  11.  @DOMINIK99013  are you absolutely sure that it's called T-64AK?
    1
  12. 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
  13.  @bjorntorlarsson  So despite ALL the things you've mentioned, 9 months later Russia is still losing ground because... why?
    1
  14. 9 months old comment chain and going.
    1
  15.  @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
  16.  @thethirdman225  apricot
    1
  17.  @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
  18.  @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
  19.  @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
  20.  @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
  21.  @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
  22. @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
  23. 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
  24. 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
  25.  @matthabir4837  what cracks me up is going through your comment history:D 9 month and running. Come on, where is it?
    1
  26.  @matthabir4837  Matt, don't go off topic. Where is it?
    1
  27.  @matthabir4837  still no answer? Well, I guess that means... слив засчитан;)
    1
  28.  @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
  29.  @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
  30.  @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
  31.  @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
  32.  @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
  33.  @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
  34. @Buzás András the one about two metal balls in a sealed room or about the cock made out of glass?
    1
  35.  @strakhovandrri  сразу с порога лопатой на вентилятор? Смело, одобряю...
    1
  36. 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
  37.  @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
  38.  @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
  39.  @dimarusanov6107  humor me:\
    1
  40.  @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
  41.  @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
  42.  @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
  43.  @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
  44.  @Ailasher  now, please, your source on Taliban tank columns.
    1
  45.  @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
  46.  @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
  47. 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
  48. ​ @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
  49.  @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
  50.  @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