Comments by "David Elliott" (@davidelliott5843) on "Matsimus" channel.

  1. If you’re keen on tanks, they’ll put you in the kitchens. ;)
    5
  2. Many of these weapons are old and considered obsolete especially the wire guided versions. Battery tech has improved since then. Fitting more modern battery systems can't be "that" much of a problem. Can it?
    4
  3.  @TealJosh  But an updated design based on the same basics should be cheaper to operate and carry more ordnance.
    4
  4. 20 years ago, a retired Major told me the reverse azimuth on incoming shells could be quickly calculated. He commanded mobile units that fired a few rounds then rapidly moved before the enemy could hit their location.
    3
  5. More likely has McVitie in the glove box.
    2
  6. EU sucks up to China and leaves USA to sort out the shooting wars. Trump is pulling the plug on USA supported wars. He’s already got the Arabs and Israelis talking and signing treaties and he’s clipping the wings of CCP China.
    2
  7. In the 1980s British Rail had diesel electric locomotives with 3000bhp and two electric motors in each bogie. That’s probably four motors at 1000bhp to allow for overloads. They were a.c. with variable frequency drive electronics. Yes they did that 40 years ago. Even better they could move a train loaded with 1000 tons of coal at 0.5mph for loading and unloading. That’s near enough stalled with that big diesel going at full chat. Powering a tank should be no problem at all. And the heat signature would be very low. It has to be or the motors overheat.
    2
  8. It’s so sad the American and British Air generals were so fixated on heavy bombers. They sent thousands to their deaths when 2x as many fast twin engine bombers could have done the job. High speed beats interception, same number of engines, fewer losses, and more accurate. Types like British Mosquito showed the way but the concept was ignored.
    2
  9. The light carriers HMS Invincible and HMS Hermes served in the 1982 Falklands Conflict. They had ski ramps that allowed Sea Harrier VSTOL fighters to takeoff with full load fuel and stores. It’s not a new concept and it really does work. It’s also much less stressful to the aircraft structure and landing gear.
    2
  10. Matsimus At the least it would need an armoured bulkhead between the track drive sprockets. Hailing on new tracks would be struggle. Tight turns likely to be compromised.
    2
  11. Dropping a pair of drop tanks into a lake (or anywhere really) is a bit unfortunate if they leak.
    2
  12. Much of the noise follows the gun layer.
    2
  13. Slipping over with all that heavy metal lying about could be pretty nasty.
    2
  14. Some serious squeaking on that woodland range.
    2
  15. Many of the Exocets which took out British ships in the Falklands did not explode. The solid rocket motor keeps running until the fuel burns out doing more than enough damage.
    2
  16.  @ph11p3540  I’ve heard of Level 42.
    2
  17. Sometimes dimple gets the job done. During WW2 the British Six Pounder anti tank gun was amazingly effective and often more useful than the German 88mm. The latter was more powerful but needed a large crew and enough space to set it up. The 57mm Six Pounder had considerable success during the second battle of El Alamein The more powerful 18 and 25 pounders came later but the Six Pounder continued throughout the war.
    1
  18. Nuclear propulsion m was seriously considered. But the carrier still has to bunker jet fuel and all the other stores. Adding main engine fuel to that lot is not such a biggie. By the way U.K. does have the nuclear tech. They chose not to use it.
    1
  19. Warheads delivered by supersonic rockets are impressive. However, larger drones carrying the same type warheads could do the job. Not on the battlefield maybe, but hidden tanks could become targets from the air. They would need to be low cost and easily available but provide another means of destroying enemy vehicles.
    1
  20. The US military is moving towards using small nuclear plants to provide site power where they currently use gas turbines or diesel. If that seems inappropriate but it means much less fuel to be shipped. The new Ford Class carriers have 125 megawatts of electrical power plus the 260 MW drive to the propellers. From TWO nuke reactors. The army would have smaller kit that can be used on army field base stations.
    1
  21. These darts have a discarding case (sabot) that protects the dart during handling and flies off when fired.
    1
  22. I would love it if the USMC flew in some AV8B Harriers that we sold them when the British Ministry of Defence suddenly dropped the type and ripped out the support infrastructure.
    1
  23. beyellow 1 it means the gun won’t traverse level but with computer controls it would not really matter. And it most likely won’t rotate 360 degrees.
    1
  24. Diesel battery hybrids make sense. Electric drive does away with the dual transmission of a tank and the battery will allow a power surge without smoking the engine. Today’s ac drives are more than up to the power demand and the fine control . They are used in trains.
    1
  25. It’s all done with satellite comms so the planes have direct or near connections.
    1
  26. The A10 is today's version of the Tetse Mosquito with its 57mm armour piercing anti tank gun that sank U boats and one even knocked the engine out of a Junkers 88.
    1
  27. Commercial LIDAR drones can survey the ground surface beneath trees to expose the presence of hidden anything - including vehicles. Computer data analysis removes the trees from the image. If they are not already in use by Ukraine, they probably should be.
    1
  28.  @kokofan50  The shell case is thin metal compared to the heat sink of the gun breach. If heat extraction was really needed, they would be made of thick aluminium as its a better heat sink than brass.
    1
  29. It’s fair to say that things have moved on since Germany’s WW2 tanks, made with inferior materials due to allied bombing and blockades.
    1
  30. This (and frankly the Gulf Wars) shows that tanks’ days are numbered. It takes out the reactive armour and follows through with the main warhead. The next stage will be two Brimstones in tandem.
    1
  31. Leopard 2 is.PROJECTED to be cheaper. Yeah right. They always say that promises promises But when they have us by the beck they’ll turn the screws. U.K. has a fantastic tank which should not be thrown away.
    1
  32. The next stage will be low cost hand-launched drones to take out the other side's offensive and reconnaissance drones. Maybe a version of Switchblade? Who knows?
    1