Comments by "Psiberzerker" (@Psiberzerker) on "Military History Visualized" channel.

@courseshk27 Oh, that's your point? because I already made that. I spoke several times about the AT role, and the Infantry Support Role. Also, you could have said that not all guns are the same from the beginning, captain obvious.
1
Wait a seccond, aren't you the one that compared a South African split-tail HOWITZER to an interwar AT gun earlier today? I'm sorry, but if anyone's confused about the differences between different kinds of todes, it's you.
1
@courseshk27 No, soldiers. Regardless of whether they're schlepping a gun, or fighting with machineguns (PaK crews didn't have MGs) dive for cover when a machinegun shoots at their position, or die.
1
@courseshk27 Uhm, which tanks could be pushed around by infantry, and why?
1
@courseshk27 Charging a tank with an AT gun. Apparently a portable one that can outmaneuver a tank, is somehow less suicidal than charging it with machineguns? (When I was talking about the machineguns on the TANK being able to fire on the move.)
1
If Hitler hated the name, then that's a good enough reason to use it, for me. Same with SturmGewehr.
1
@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Okay, I thought that I heard that they had to rename the project "MP44" to hide it from him. Not that he hated the name, but he hated the entire concept, because he insisted that they need Submachineguns. Please, correct me if I'm wrong. It's how I learn.
1
@MilitaryHistoryVisualized I'd love your take on it, but considering the case at hand. I expect you already have a video on it.
1
The Uboote turret on a Tank chassis isn't an anomaly (In the Century of successful dead-ends) either. Honestly, the Tank was invented by the National Landship Committee. The plan all along was to use Naval design, and strategy in land warfare. That's why Tanks are built like Battleships today. That's why Tank Turrets are mounted in Tank "Hulls" today. If you look at a naval turret, and a tank turret, it doesn't take long to realize that one is the child of the other. You just can't make a tank the size of a battleship. Though they sure tried. (Also, the tracks were derived from Locomotive technology, but that's a little less obvious. Still, they run on "Tracks." They just redesigned them so the Tractors could carry them with them.)
1
@MatthewBaileyBeAfraid Okay, there's a lot to unpack here. I assume you mean the F117, because the F119 is a British turbofan, not really a secret project. Secondly, my point wasn't that we let technology "Languish." War tech quickly becomes obsolete when the enemy comes up with countermeasures. So, you make a more powerful Anti-tank Rifle, and the enemy welds more Armor on their Tanks until you can't carry effective Anti-tank rifles once 20mm Lahti isn't powerful enough any more... (So, Anti-materiel rifles find a new role shooting out engine blocks, and helmets instead.) The Blackbird had a good run, until people could make missiles capable of shooting it down. So, we retired the Blackbird fleet, because it wasn't unshootdownable any more.
1
There's no use commenting on projects I don't know about any more (Or I shouldn't know about, or if I did, I wouldn't be able to talk about in the comment on U2be.) Groom Lake is closed, and has been since the 90s, when it stopped being a secret test site. IDFGK where they're testing now, but if I had to guess, I'd say offshore. There's a lot of south Pacific islands with nothing around. Enough of them that we could test nuclear weapons in secret, until the Soviets had satellites that could detect them, too. Then, we created anti-satellite missiles to shoot down their satellites... Arms races just naturally produce technological dead ends, because Experiments like Have Blue create niches that weren't there before. So, the enemy doesn't have any countermeasures until they develop countermeasures, and we go back to the drawing board again. Rinse, repeat...
1
@daveybernard1056 I can't say "Lots of" 20mms. There never were, because 20mm is just above what's practical for one man to carry, and fire, but it's still not effective against a modern Tank.
1
@daveybernard1056 SA? (Also, it's Materiel)
1
@daveybernard1056 Okay, thanks for clarifying, but shooting "Anything" with a 4 ounce round get's old real quick. That means 4 of them weighs a pound, not counting the "30lb rifle." How many rounds were you expecting to carry with that? Of course, you can knock out a jeep with it, but if you can do that with a .30 caliber, then you can have 29 of it's friends before you have to reload. Don't be stupid. They don't even field that piece unless they have to. It's still not an ATM.
1
@daveybernard1056 Of course it was invented as an Anti-tank heavy machinegun, in World War 1. Over a century ago. Over a century, Tank technology got better. That was the entire point of my original post: They became obsolete in their original role. Okay, we have rifles that fire the same round. That doesn't make a .22LR pistol into a Long Rifle.
1
@daveybernard1056 I'm not complaining. I'm not bitching, moaning, I don't have my panties in a twist, I just think this is interesting, so I want to discuss it. Preferably without emotional bullies showing up to call me a big crybaby. P_P
1
Let's not pretend that you're not one of those guys that just wants the biggest gun. You don't even care if there's anything to shoot with it, you just think that will somehow make your life complete, and try not to think about it too much, Munchin. The adults are talking about History, and Progress here. Look up Blacks on Blondes. That should be a little more your speed.
1
The point was some of the most successful designs make themselves obsolete. It wasn't just about ATRs, the STS was so successful it put NASA out of business. Now, we're still using Baikonor for most of our Satellite launches, while the private sector goes back to the drawing board with rocket stacks. The Space Shuttle is as much of a successful dead-end as the SR-71.
1
@daveybernard1056 Come back when you want to talk about History, and Progress. Instead of the fantasy of that guy shooting "Anything he sees" with his big 20mm, so that everyone within 2 miles knows exactly where he is when he runs out of ammo, then show up with their puny little 5.56mms, and 30 rounds per magazine. Every one of those rounds is basically equivalent to a Stick of Butter. So, how many sticks of butter do you think Rambo has on him? They don't have flash hiders on those "ATRs" and it doesn't matter how hard you miss.
1
If you want to go on a shooting spree, you might want to stick to smaller calibers, you can actually get. Just like all the other spree shooters. 20mm isn't really designed for that.
1
@daveybernard1056 LOL, nobody. It's certainly going to take more than you to get me butthurt. Let me know when you want to talk history, and progress.
1
You have to balance mutually exclusive concerns, because you can't have everything, where would you put it? This is about the safest Tank for the crew. If you have to be in battle (I don't recommend it) then this is probably where you want to be sitting. Not the biggest gun, horrendous maintenance costs on the Logistical end and there are still airlaunched missiles that will put a crater under it, Through the armor. But, if you're a Tanker, the protection this thing offers can be reassuring. (Also, it ain't real roomy in there.)
1
2 words: "Uber Ales." "EVERYONE!"
1
A lot of the Inter-war development was based on 1st generation Tank technology and Trench Warfare from the first World War. So basically, this was designed with the British "Landships" in mind, while the Germans were developing more advanced Panzers at the same time. They also had a close eye on the French inter-war development, due to resentment over the Versailles Treaty. Those were mostly small with heavy armor (For the time) and 2 man crews. A driver in the bow, and the Commander in the turret. So, he had to act as Gunner, and Loader (Basically the same 37mm guns were standard at the time) as well. Since this is an Anti-tank gun, specifically. The Tanks you expect to be shooting at are crucial for the development. The biggest gun isn't always the best gun, especially when you have to tow it to the battlefield, supply it with ammunition, dig in emplacements for it, and it's crews. Again, the dominance of Trench Warfare on the Eastern Front influenced their early weapon, and strategic development, so if given the chance, the French might dig in, with Tanks mostly for breaking the stalemate. This is why the original name indicated it was for Defense against Tanks.
1
The T34 was only used more if you count all the variants as 1 model. You're comparing the SU76M to the T34-76, all the T34-85s, including new turrets, engines, armor, suspension, and track upgrades. Just the SU76M model was the most produced, most fielded, and most successful single model of the war. By far, they still used them from WWII surplus, unmodified, for another Decade after the war.
1
It was intended as Mobile Artillery. An Assault gun, and indirect fire support guns. However, in WWII especially, it didn't really matter what it was designed for. When the Panzers rolled in, everyone stopped what they were doing, and took out as many Panzers as they could, then resumed normal operation. This included infantry with no anti-tank weapons which weren't improvised in the field (Like Molotovs) This was standard Russian doctrine at the time: Stop the half tracks, and panzers, you stop the advance of the Germans. Burn as you retreat, they'll run out of Fuel before we run out of Tiaga. The main defensive weapon of the war was the land itself, they just had to take out a track to halt the vehicle, and the support vehicles to drag it out of the mud.
1