Comments by "whya2ndaccount" (@whya2ndaccount) on "Military History not Visualized" channel.

  1. 4:34: Apart from the physics/engineering, there is also a legal issue. It may sound daft but I as a commander am required to minimise the WH&S risks. The firing of the RPG / HEAT round is an action of the enemy. The effects of the defensive ERA type countermeasure has been legally argued as an action of friendly forces and falls into the same area as ensuring for example that friendly Infantry are not in the frontal arc of the tank when you fire APFSDS, in order to minimise the effect of the discarding sabots. There are similar legal questions about automated self defense systems such as AVEPS where exposed dismounts may be subject to effectively "friendly fire".
    86
  2. So glad I live in a time where there are just Main Battle Tanks (MBT's) and classification is no longer a big deal.
    81
  3. 12:29 "Arguing about requirements 80 years ago is as exciting as today". As someone who works in Army Headquarters, I can vouch for that. :)
    75
  4. The part at the back that “digs in” to adsorb the recall is usually called a “spade”. The part from the spade forward to the firing area is usually called the “trail”. An AT gun would usually have two trails extended from the firing part with a spade on the end of each trail.
    65
  5. The “Sagger Drill” is effective against human guided ATGM (AT-3, AT-4, TOW, etc.) but not so effective against “fire and forget” systems like Javelin which is not controlled by the operator.
    52
  6. There's a major difference between a roughly "near peer" engagement instead of one where one side has a marked over-match (COIN, etc.). Once and a while H&I fire from poorly sited rockets is far different to sustained barrages.
    48
  7. 9:26 We call that "ghosting". 2 tanks aim at the one target. Tank A fires and if it achieves a kill, tank B does nothing. However if Tank A misses, tank B is already laid on and engages.
    44
  8.  @Bird_Dog00  Well the APFSDS rounds have a pretty flat ballistic arc. Effectively out to about 1,500m and more the rounds travel flat. Anyway "Waste of Time" and "War Chunder" have absolutely minimal linkages to reality. 500m is nothing for a tank engagement. Its driven by the game's map design limitations, not reality.
    34
  9. In Australia the crews become "3 ways fit". You usually start as a Driver, then qualify as a Loader and then qualify as a Gunner. Once you have all three, you progress to the Crew Commander's course.
    25
  10. Basically you need to do terrain analysis and conduct an appreciation in a safe location (last bound) before you start moving and then move as part of a combined arms team. Then if detected, use weapons and your Multi Barreled Smoke Grenade Dischargers (MBSGD) to suppress the firer and obscure their view (if optically tracked).
    22
  11. Common to most Western tanks. English equivalent "Muzzle Reference System" (MRS). MRS fitted to M1 series, Chieftain, Challengers 1 and 2, etc. Normally "we" estimate the wind at the start of an engagement, not as part of each Fire Control Order. You estimate it, and then commence the engagements and then once you move elsewhere if things have changed, you update the estimate.
    19
  12. So the Soviets were concerned about the M60 because of its British gun (Royal Ordnance QF L7 105mm). :)
    15
  13. Very good discussion, but one very minor point if I can. Usually both "Corps" (USMC, Armoured Corps, XXX, etc.) and "Core" (apple, etc.) are both pronounced as "core" (i.e. silent "p"). :)
    15
  14. It great to talk to a veteran, but asking a Sapper to provide an overall statistical analysis seems a bit unfair since their personal experience will be very limited compared to the overall perspective.
    14
  15. Well if you drastically truncate the training due to time constraints, you should expect the level of training to be less comprehensive. No doubt Western tank crew training covers the stab issue comprehensively, whereas the training of Ukrainian Leopard crews probably glossed over it (or removed it from the syllabus) during the training.
    14
  16.  @Scorchluck  No I'm not. Different countries have different laws. This reflects through Defence as well as other places. E.g. The US is happy to use land mines, many other countries deem them illegal. If your country has deemed AVEPS or ERA illegal then your AFVs wont carry it. Pretty simple.
    12
  17. The world has moved on from solid shot. Theatre Entry Standard = TES and Challenger has Dorchester armour.
    11
  18. Pretty sure the British built the "crab" as an upgrade to the "scorpion" - another element of 79th Armoured Division.
    10
  19. For what its worth, the Australian vehicles in the videos are M113AS4, our latest version prior to be replaced by LAND400-3. The ride characteristics are different say Leopard 1. M113 slows down to negotiate ditch, Leopard 1 speeds up.
    10
  20. The Leo 2 has gone from a L44 to L55 and the new proposed 130mm / L51 suggests that the Germans are currently using both approaches, leveraging off the high velocity ammunition natures first introduced in the Leo 1's L7 105mm gun and now extending the barrel as well. Also the length may not be that much different - a 75/L70 is (75x70 = 5,250mm), a 120/L55 is (120 x 55 = 6,600mm). Thermal jackets tend to reduce the issue of barrel heat or hotspots along the barrel.
    8
  21.  @88porpoise  I'd say it was a MBT, but given the US also had the M103, perhaps they'd call is a "medium". Broadly I'd say that post the Second World War, most tanks are MBTs with only a couple of exceptions classified as heavies (M103, T-10 and Conqueror) - at least in the real world. No comment about vehicle classifications in WOT (waste of time).
    8
  22. Not quite, covered in rubber to further reduce shock.
    8
  23. Well if you put him in a Faraday Cage (or a SCIF) the streaming wouldn't happen.
    7
  24. Re employment of Multi Barrelled Smoke Grenade Dischargers (MBSGDs). Here in Australia the doctrine aligns with US usage - i.e. popping smoke is almost an immediate action for the Crew Commander when the vehicle comes under fire. Usually our MBSGDs are covered by rubber boots so at least prior to first use, the maintenance issue is not very severe. It should also be noted that MBSGDs on NATO vehicles are primarily defensive in nature, whereas those on Soviet type vehicles are more offensive in nature - due to the range they project the grenades.
    7
  25. Yes, if you've worn TOPP4 / MOPP4 (respirator, over-suit, gloves, overshoes, etc.) then a COVID mask is nothing.
    6
  26.  @marseldagistani1989  Personally I hope they are held accountable. They are both terrible "simulation" products.
    6
  27. “Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity.” Lucius Annaeus Seneca
    6
  28. Is the "Paul Hazell" co author, the same as our very own Paul J. Hazell here at ADFA in Canberra?
    6
  29. HVAC = heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
    5
  30. BMD employed by airborne forces with limitations on weight, size, etc. BMP used by Mech, can use air transport, but not designed to be air-droppable - both IFV but BMD optimized for tactical insertion by air.
    5
  31. Two Officers per tank seems bonkers. We currently run one LT per Troop (same as a Platoon) with the other crew commanders being 1 x SGT and 2 x CPLs.
    5
  32. Even with overpressure / NBC system you wear your MOPP gear. The seal is compromised every time you fire or open a hatch.
    5
  33.  @gandydancer9710  Just stop for a moment. Normally you don't wear it, you have it stowed (the suits have charcoal and other materials with a finite life). Then when you are told to put it on, you put it on. If you are lucky you are off the tank when you are told. If you are unlucky you are told whilst you are in the tank and its moving (his area of concern). Then once you have it on, it stays on until you are told over the radio to reduce your MOPP status (i.e. drop from MOPP 4 to MOPP 2). Having been at MOPP 4 for 3 weeks, in a tank, I have personal experience of wearing the kit.
    5
  34.  @rickmoreno6858  I suspect its not as simplistic as that. Javelin (or NLAW or whatever) are not wonder weapons. They need to work as part of a combined arms team / effect. In addition ground is not the “be all and end all”. If the Ukrainians are conducting a Mobile Defence then you’d expect them to trade ground for force preservation. History is repeat with examples. (some not so far from Ukraine) where forces have held ground at all costs and been encircled and destroyed. I don’t think you can attribute strategic outcomes to one weapon system (apart from perhaps August ‘45). Also you need to realise that the footage both sides are showing is what they want you to see and no doubt adverse outcomes are not published.
    5
  35.  @Scorchluck  You are entitled to an opinion. It just doesn't count compared to binding legal advice.
    3
  36.  @verrrx  Well based on the long brief I need to give grunts (everyone from the Infantry OC down to a PTE in the room) before we do live fire combined arms fire and manoeuvre. Adding ERA and AVEPS would result in yet more briefs.
    3
  37.  @MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized  Ah understood, you meant in terms of a dedicated, purpose built, AT platform as opposed to a variant of an underlying pre-existing vehicle type.
    3
  38. Some Bundeswehr simulator footage: https://youtu.be/afyQYlnWZA4 It has a "pre select" gearbox. You select the gear before you need it. The 4th person also helps with security / sentry /picquet role. Three people = not much sleep.
    3
  39. As per the "old" Swingfire / CVRT Striker model - where the missile operator could fire from a remote location with the vehicle in dead ground / reverse slope. If you can mitigate the EA threat then you could be siting in a shipping container as per the current UAS model.
    3
  40.  @tomhenry897  Not a good approach if you don't want something added to your brew. ;)
    3
  41. Don't forget the series of posts fitted when on operations to the front of the glacis plate to defeat incoming HEAT rounds.
    3
  42.  @reonthornton685  Well you need some accuracy. How can you tell if the round is landing 500m short or 1,500m long if you are just guessing and firing? You can't expend 40 rounds bracketing.
    3
  43. Let me guess "first return" vs "last return", etc. "Everyone" obviously means people without a clue? Good call out for Steel Beasts Pro PE. Nothing wrong with using a map or LRF to develop a Range Card.
    3
  44. All great vehicles, but I think the Leo 2A6 Crew Commander was the greatest "showman", getting the crowd to cheer his steed on to climb the slope. :)
    3
  45. Great presentation. Bonus points for calling out "Waste of Time's" use of bogus vehicles.
    3
  46. The other issue now is the turret bustle (the overhang at the back often containing ammunition, etc.). Now as a Crew Commander you are not only worried about the barrel overhanging at the front, but the bustle at the back (i.e. driving through a forest with the gun at say 10 O'Clock, there is a corresponding, although smaller overhang, at 4 O'Clock).
    3
  47. It only works with the Gunner's Auxiliary Sight (GAS) because that is aligned with the barrel. The Gunner's Primary Sight (GPS) which has the thermal channel is offset (e.g. on a M1 series its on the turret roof).
    3
  48. Modern "regulations" (if by that term you include weapon manuals, etc.) also include many topics not required in say 1940. From memory the vehicle manual for the Leopard 1 in Australian service has sections on Laser Safety, Workplace Health and Safety, Radiation hazards, Environmental considerations, etc. so while say the 120 mm mortar may have been effectively the same weapon, the current documentation probably covers things that were never considered during the Second World War.
    3
  49.  @Digiidude  Yes. It remains popular on our side of the ditch too.
    3
  50. Sorry, but before this I'd never heard of him.
    2
  51. Well the BRDM-AT variant armed with ATGM was a dedicated Soviet AT platform. As was the IT-1 the ATGM armed T-62 variant although this was not used as widely as the BRDM-AT variant.
    2
  52.  @shaider1982  Well I mentioned the "protection onion" is a different response.
    2
  53.  @LordJuan4  When we had Leopard 1 they had a great heater - good for Southern Australia. Not so good when the tanks relocated to tropical Darwin. Being inside a metal box when its 35C outside is not fun.
    2
  54. Examples of the propellant charges (the orange cylinders) stowed, but totally unprotected, above the carousel in the turret: https://youtu.be/gbZokjXgVVA?t=873
    2
  55. Also often used for specialists (e.g. engineers, etc.).
    2
  56. I fully understand. I'm in a similar position as a serving Officer as I'm not authorised to make "official comment" as a member of the Defence Force.
    2
  57. I guess another reason why to not distribute an IS2 Regt is that its is so small in terms of vehicle numbers (22) compared to 45 in a full strength schwere Panzerabteilung (of course this would include some untaskworthy vehicles) but its still roughly twice the size of the Soviet Regt. In terms of just numbers, the Soviet Regt is almost down to German Kompanie size.
    2
  58. Most modern vehicles don't have range scales, range tables, quadrant fire control or other tools to provide Indirect Fire.
    2
  59. Certainly fatiguing. For us the Dvr is the most junior person in the crew so they also have to do a lot of other jobs and in addition the vehicle needs to be maintained - The Horse, the Saddle, the Man. Track work at 0200 with no light is always "fun". As a Troop Leader and Squadron Commander though its vital to have a good driver, as you are busy commanding your unit and can not spare a lot of time to micro manage the Dvr (Left stick, Right stick, etc.).
    2
  60.  @gandydancer9710  I just provided you with a bigger picture understanding so you could realise that my comments and Chieftain's were not opposed. If you don't get that I can't help you.
    2
  61. Ho hum. Not my cup of tea. Much more a Steel Beasts type of guy.
    2
  62. I'm sorry but as an Armoured Corps LTCOL (Oberstleutnant), qualified gunner and crew commander, both War Thunder and its stable mate "Waste of Time" are horrendous. Something like Steel Beasts is much better. Here is an example of a recent Steel Beast mission for comparison. https://youtu.be/hCHxk4oSumw?si=1HT2PFtjj4kQNvn8 However I agree that Steel Beasts also has issues with barrel / bustle bin strikes.
    2
  63. This seems very familiar.
    2
  64.  @MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized  Ah thanks for clarifying. Unfortunately, shipping to here is almost 50% of the cost of the book.
    2
  65.  @boosterh1113  Agreed, I was just trying to keep things simple, rather than reproduce a Pam on AFV manoeuvre.
    2
  66.  @thedynamiter453  Ah thanks.
    1
  67.  @tavish4699  Being an Australian (extra syllable) that explains it.
    1
  68. It also makes a great table.
    1
  69. Verdun Second World War style.
    1
  70. Yep the whole protection "onion". This type of thing: https://preview.redd.it/khd2f6hf4ry71.png?auto=webp&s=c0264474130b16cba867517675052cefa9244b84
    1
  71.  @benedictjajo  No, that's not correct.
    1
  72.  @SlaaneshiChaplain  Well that's easy. they are all AFV (Armoured Fighting Vehicles).
    1
  73. Thank you for the translation. Its a bit far from Australia but I hope it goes well.. :)
    1
  74.  @craigplatel813  Well you can't have it both ways. Either they are a "up close and personal" veteran who is personally familiar with the job (say junior NCO or Officer) or they are some sort of Operational Analysis person (Senior Officer / Contractor) sitting in Kyiv doing the stats. Also you tend not to be able to draw any meaningful conclusions while the conflict is in progress.
    1
  75.  @thingamabob3902  Operational Analysis is not a "hobby", especially if his day job was 24/7 in a pit eating hard rations. In Defence Operational Analysis, especially across the entire conflict (note the scope of the title "In Ukraine", not "in a 10km sector centred on X"), involves a staff at 3 star (Corps) or higher HQ, not at Brigade or unit or Company.
    1
  76.  @LordJuan4  Well I guess if you turn it up?
    1
  77. Seems to be a whole bunch of very similar videos on the same, not so fantastic, vehicle.
    1
  78. More reasons to play Steel Beasts Pro PE (esp. if you are multi crewing - Commander, Gunner and Driver modeled). But then again its a "simulation" as opposed to a "game" :)
    1
  79. Its not Red (that's MPs). The Paras wear a Maroon Beret. But agreed that the Brit Paras were called "Red Devils".
    1
  80. I look forward to a new MBT-70 programme, just with different flags on the vehicle.
    1
  81. I was trying to ask a question of the presenter but guess what its the Internet so idiots chime in. Lesson learned - Don't do it. Post deleted to avoid wasting other people's time.
    1
  82.  @gwtpictgwtpict4214  That wasn't the point I was trying to make - it related to the presenter's comments about the Russian's interpretation of the data. You know what forget it - just chalk it up to more Internet idiots.
    1
  83.  Mialisus  People didn't refute me. Someone seems to think that A. I'm from America and b. I'm a democrat?
    1
  84.  Mialisus  Oh and I guess someone thinks I watch 1960s sitcoms?
    1
  85.  Mialisus  If you think they are sensible comments, it s all yours.
    1
  86. Most UAS have sights that have GPS , TI, etc. so the sight will give the operator and 8 (or 10) figure and probably a data link back to the artillery battery for the PGM to be fired.
    1
  87. I think a lot of this is timeframe based. During the Second World War, weapons with relatively lower muzzle velocities and "rudimentary" ammunition, angling may well result in incoming rounds ricocheting, not penetrating, or shattering. Now with say 120mm L55 and firing say DM63A1 APFSDS-T (L55) or M829A3 APFSDS-T the APFSDS penetrator dart is less likely to be influenced by angling as the penetration overmatch is marked, although they can still shatter.
    1
  88. The Crew Commander is the crew's Father. The Loader is the crew's Mother.
    1
  89. During day we still scan / acquire with TI, engage with daysight (confirms Friend of Foe) where possible. At night TI for complete engagement.
    1
  90. His interest is on "Realistic" games but he focuses on War Thunder - interesting definition of realistic. ;)
    1
  91.  @Jaggaraz218  Point taken, but I'd submit they are both at the low end on the "realistic" scale. :)
    1
  92. I gather the bar mine (on the right) wasn't part of the discussion.
    1
  93. "shrapnel"? I've had my own vehicle antennas damaged and paint work on the tank damaged. I'd suggest that Waterloo wasn't just like vs like - e.g. Ney's cavalry attacked the British Infantry squares
    1
  94. Ah lessons learned (or not) from Isandlwana.
    1
  95. 9:30 I'm afraid they are both BRDMs (not BTRs) and both are ATGM platforms not Anti Air, just mounting different ATGMs (from the looks of it AT-3 on the left and AT-4 or AT-5 on the right)
    1
  96.  @tedarcher9120  Um nope! How do you apply elevation, etc.
    1
  97. A dedicated EMP would definitely be an example of Electronic Attack (EA).
    1
  98. Germany coming to our Talisman Sabre 23.
    1
  99. A MBT is effectively a "multi-role" tank (i.e. one vehicle, many roles). No ongoing requirement for a "heavy" (which by the way is not weight dependent). It also simplifies logistic and other support issues.
    1
  100. And all for nothing as the West abandoned the country and the good people in it. I used to be proud of my ISAF shoulder patch, but I am now ashamed and burnt it in 2021
    1
  101. If you are engaging glacis plate to glacis plate, you need a retest on your tactics. The engine is there for a reason, you manoeuvre to engage the enemy from a flank.
    1
  102. Scimitar doesn't have an auto cannon. It fires clips with 3 rounds of ammunition. Scorpion has a low velocity 76mm gun with HESH, HE, Smoke and Canister. Of course if they appeared, they'd come with yet another logistic burden.
    1
  103. For those who like it, great. I'm afraid I remain a fan of eSim's Steel Beasts for modern simulation.
    1
  104. Leo 1 is around 42 Tonne so not really "light". :) Leo 2 is around 62 Tonne.
    1
  105.  @UsoundsGermany  OK the Leo 1 A0 was 40T - agreed not 42T but still not "light".
    1
  106.  @UsoundsGermany  I never said it wasn't an MBT?? In the video its says its "light" 9:20 - 10:20 (in terms of real world weight not "waste of time" fantasy definitions), which is why I made the comment. Jez, if I known it was going to become so complex I would have let it slide since you at least weren't listening.
    1
  107. Sounds like one presenter is very keen for ramming and the other two say "your joking!" Certainly in almost 40 years on AFVs we never thought of ramming as a tactic. Bruises and scraped paint maybe. Maybe in "Total War" but not now. Nice shirt by the way. :)
    1
  108. Also "mobility" doesn't necessarily equal "manoeuvre warfare" (OODA loop, etc.)
    1
  109.  @markfryer9880  This was at Mount Bundey, NT. We burnt them.
    1
  110. Love the content but its unfortunate (in my opinion) that you need to rely on that sponsor.
    1
  111.  chris younts  Sure - probably a better tank sim too.
    1
  112.  @squashiejoshie200000  A real simulation product has maps that are say 15km x 15km (or larger) and don't use ranks / levels whatever. War Chunder's "simulation" mode, whilst better than "Waste of Time" should just be renamed "hard arcade". Things like DCS and Steel Beasts are simulations, not these two junk products.
    1
  113. @Lurking Carrier Pretty sure both WOT and WT have the word "simulation" or "realistic" on their web sites. War Thunder: "collaborate in realistic competitive battles."
    1
  114.  @gooberone  Um yes it is. Here in Australia the publisher of such documents is just as responsible / liable as the "leaker".
    1
  115.  @corneliusmcmuffin3256  I'm well aware. We train for engagements from effectively 0m (coax, canister, etc.) out to 3,500m+ with APFSDS. A 15km x 15km map however allows you to manouevre prior to the fight. Having a map that is less than 1km x 1km is less than my M1 boresights (the process used to zero the gun) at. Even our old Leopard 1A3s (which are allegedly "modeled"in both products) boresighted at 1,000m, so thinking 400m is a long range shot is nonsense (at that range its just point and shoot, no laser range finder or any aides at all). Let alone this idea of numerous hits to destroy a tank.
    1
  116.  @jamestheotherone742  Perhaps but the video refers to "galvanising the plates" (implying coating of all 6 surfaces), not just the washes / bushes / plugs, etc. Not a huge point and I'm not too concerned over it.
    1
  117. Since you are talking to an Australian, maybe "armour"? Sounds like some good stuff coming out of ADFA.
    1
  118. Unsure what a Stug's muzzle cap was made of, but HE rounds tend to arm on setback (i.e. the force of firing the round activates the fuse) so an armed HE round hitting a substantial metal muzzle cap might be "interesting" (risk of detonating the now unsafe outgoing HE round). The MX's common name was "peacekeeper" from memory.
    1
  119.  @dnfixjd  Not here it isn't - its a course. Yes you learn on the job as well, but you can't fill the seat until you are qualified. Crewman Driver Sig or Crewman Gunner Sig, etc.
    1